|
If I had the choice, I always went for accuracy since I almost always go for the head shot and I figured the tighter the circle, the more bullets will hit, equals more damage on average.
For machineguns, to offset the poor accuracy I went for damage. Assuming you could get close enough to put the muzzle practically on the enemy, then accuracy is a non-factor. But I found that generally, if I can hit with all or most of the shots of the more damaging MGs, I'd still comfortably kill most of the enemies I faced with bullets to spare by doing more damage per hit. Especially if I went for headshots. The other times where higher damage was better were when I faced enemies behind sandbags (although a grenade usually fixes that), or if they were in a base (with the resultant defense boost). I should go and do some controlled in-game tests.
Ultimately, using royal weapons gives you the best of both worlds - better accuracy and higher damage (although you don't get the bigger clip with the MG).
Sniper rifles, like practically everyone else, accuracy since you should only need one headshot to take out a non-crouching enemy (with a few exceptions).
Lancers, anti-tank. I never used the mortar lance, but many people in the latter part gave one to Largo since he gets overshadowed in the anti-tank role after a few of the other lancers get their final potentials.
Flamethrowers, I also went for damage.
I never used the effect-type weapons since they felt gimmicky, and my goal was to kill the target in one turn (or one action), so ultimately, the effect would be wasted.
|