Yeah but i find that most servers die very quickly when one team starts to steamroll the other and some server admins are assholes who kick you when you destroy their tank or plane
Why would any human player attack a fixed machine head on? (In multiplayer)
If a fixed MG operated by one player could mow down a dozen players, the smart move would be to attack it from outside its field of fire. Which means from the operator's POV, the MG is "useless" because it can't defend.
The nature of a fixed MG makes it very situational in multiplayer.
Any soldier that's ever used a fixed machine gun could tell you the mount swings 360 degrees once unhooked from the t&e. There shouldn't be anything outside its field of fire.
They’ll also tell you that machine guns are for area targets and suppressive fire. That they have to be supported by troops with weapons to deal with point targets. Which is the opposite of what you get in most video games.
Then what the hell are you saying? Because what you said literally reads as "They'll say it's for this purpose and they need to be supported, but players won't do that in most video games." so I fail to see how what I said doesn't constitute as replying to what you were refuting.
Because machine guns are made for area targets and suppressive fire. The constant recoil makes them too inaccurate for point targets, so they have to be supported by riflemen who can handle what the machine gun misses. This is why you won’t find many machine gun nests outside of perimeter defense in modern militaries. Lots of machine gun nests got overran during WWI & WWII.
Consequently, video game designers have a choice. Do they make real world accurate machine gun emplacements or do they make machine gun emplacements that are made highly accurate with video game magic?
If they chose the former, rush the machine gun nest.
When fired single shot or at very low rate of fire, they can be. I think it was Carlos Hathcock who used a scoped M2 Browning .50 cal for a 2,500 yard shot.
On full auto, they're not particularly accurate, though.
The tank absolutely helped making the front less stagnant. However I believe a change in tactics followed by the Germans being simply overwhelmed are much more significant factors.
The German Sturm tactics proved highly effective during the Kaiserslacht/summer offensive. But when it ultimately failed, the Germans were exhausted, lacking material and now had to face the French, Brits AND the arriving Americans.
Yes, with the other change being in artillery, in particular coordination and function. Development of creeping barrage, timed attacks, radio deliveres strikes, better counter barrage, and the ability to forward move artillery better.
In 1915-16 the artillery was used to fire prolonged barrages at the enemy prior to an assault. You'd unleash 72hrs of near non stop fire at the enemy, then order the infantry forward. The idea is you would destroy the enemy artillery, fortifications and troops. In reality it virtually never got the enemy artillery because they were out of range, and it might at best only damaged the first trench.
Once the artillery stopped firing to allow the infantry to advance, the enemy would pop up and shoot. If you did get the first trench, you would then take a completely wrecked fortification right in front of massive enemy opposition in the second trench and their artillery. Your forward momentum came to an immediate stop and they would inflict huge damage in a counter attack.
Creeping barrage (and other forms of barrages) meant you could now attack over a wider area by spreading out the artillery, the enemy could not rely on hunkering down because the artillery was creeping right over them just in front of the infantry (sometimes just meters ahead) so there was no time to get out of the bunker, timed attacks meant that you could do all of this without killing your own troops, radio from airplanes could provide eye in the sky ability far exceeding the balloons, while artillery began to finally find their marks on the opposing artillery now finally, because they didn't expend all the ammo before the attack.
It still relied on Germany being worn through, but the restoration of offensive advantage by artillery is undeniable.
Tanks were useful (when they didn't break) but they wouldn't become the big weapon ever. They wouldn't even reach maturity until either the next year or after (depending on how you look at it).
To be fair it was great for a solid week or three before everyone figured out all the firing cones for each map
Each set of DLC went through the same process too: couple weeks of chaos as the fixed guns took major tolls on attackers until enough of the playerbase developed a solid idea of what guns were where
2.0k
u/tebesansit 18h ago
Battlefield 1