Overpowered Maxim Video Evidence

As far as I can tell, a Maxim can still setup and kill an already setup MG42,or alteast very nearly.

Ill see if I can find someone to test this with me to provide evidence.

Overall I dont think Mg42 are performing well enough in their defensive role.

Nope. Whoever fires first will pin the other MG and win. A maxim walking into an MG42's arc will get pinned faster unless it's vet 3.

The only time a maxim can beat an mg42 is when the mg is already firing at something else first. Otherwise the mg42 should win due to its faster pinning.

the mg42 pins between .7-1 second faster. however, the maxim suppresses .6-1.4 seconds faster. the mg42 will be suppressed first, which then slows its rate of pinning the maxim by a large amount. i dont feel like doing the math, but im fairly certain that maxim will pin faster.

the courier is right though, the maxim cant walk into the mg42s arc to kill and suppress it like it used to. if they start firing at the same time, maxim wins.

the mg42 pins between .7-1 second faster. however, the maxim suppresses .6-1.4 seconds faster. the mg42 will be suppressed first, which then slows its rate of pinning the maxim by a large amount. i dont feel like doing the math, but im fairly certain that maxim will pin faster.

the courier is right though, the maxim cant walk into the mg42s arc to kill and suppress it like it used to. if they start firing at the same time, maxim wins.

Unless You know something the patchnotes never told us, there is no modifiers added to HMGs when suppressed except the movement decrease. The modifiers don't take place until a squad gets pinned.

The only benefit I can see the maxim having is that it's quick set up might allow it to go into the arc and start firing before the mg42 finishes turning to fire back.

Unless You know something the patchnotes never told us, there is no modifiers added to HMGs when suppressed except the movement decrease. The modifiers don't take place until a squad gets pinned.

The only benefit I can see the maxim having is that it's quick set up might allow it to go into the arc and start firing before the mg42 finishes turning to fire back.

all infantry recieve modifiers when theyre suppressed. that includes mg teams. suppressed infantry have -2 posture speed, 4x the cooldown, 4x the reload, and 1/4 of the accuracy. thats why the time it takes to suppress and pin goes up when an mg get suppressed.

all infantry recieve modifiers when theyre suppressed. that includes mg teams. suppressed infantry have -2 posture speed, 4x the cooldown, 4x the reload, and 1/4 of the accuracy. thats why the time it takes to suppress and pin goes up when an mg get suppressed.

Well i guess i didn't know that. I always assumed they shot so slow because they kept crawling around like idiots instead of firing.

I dont think M42 needs to trade effectiveness.

It just need to be more effective in its primary role as a defensive unit that requires premptive setup, and which is punished hard for failing that.

I meant it needs to trade effectiveness in the entire faction balance scheme.

You can't have things like the LMG or PGrens staying as they are and also have the MG42 still able suppress and pin as it used to.

All those things combined lead to a very narrow breakthrough window before tanks also show up.

Those tradeoffs are already fine.

What is lacking is the MG42 effectiveness as a defensive backline unit. It doesnt perform that well enough as compared to its setup time and placement dependancy.

I see the asymmetric alignment as the following:
-Ost wider arc but slower setup vs Sov narrow arc but faster setup
(O these two I immensly prefer setup time, because a suppressed unit stays suppressed. Its a simple matter of micro to reposition and cover another angle therafter)
-Ost sligbtly faster supress vs Sov slithly better dps
(Again, I immensly prefer the Sov solution. More DPS means MP drain and reduced onfield time due to health. Faster suppression just means it takes a little longer to crawl out of arc).

This leaves one asymmetric factor:
- MG42 4man vs Maxim 6 man

People consistently and conveniently "forget" this one. An MG42 has only 2/3 the survival of a Maxim. Thats a huge difference..
It also means Ost pays more per reinforce for an equally shit model, nor can he simply merge it for cost efficiency and onfield time.

I think it may finally be time to increase Mg42 crew to Maxim equivalency.

A flanked MG42 is utterly fucked, despite its positioning requirements, whereas a flanked Maxim can soak for 33.33% more AND effectively reposition.

This is also one of the asymmetric arrangements that is making MG42 far more vuknerable to Molotovs in buildings.

They simply lack the men to soak it, wheras, seriously, no Sov unit in a building gives a shit about an RNade (except for the soon to be corrected building collapse AoE cascade), instead he laughs at the waste of Muni and usually doesnt even bother to try and dodge it.

I think it may finally be time to increase Mg42 crew to Maxim equivalency.

That would be the biggest mistake of this game up till now...
I think there are more important problems regarding balance in this game than a MG surivability buff...

-Ost wider arc but slower setup vs Sov narrow arc but faster setup
(O these two I immensly prefer setup time, because a suppressed unit stays suppressed. Its a simple matter of micro to reposition and cover another angle therafter)
-Ost sligbtly faster supress vs Sov slithly better dps
(Again, I immensly prefer the Sov solution. More DPS means MP drain and reduced onfield time due to health. Faster suppression just means it takes a little longer to crawl out of arc).

Also if you say you prefer what the Soviet faction has to offer why not just play as Soviets??

No actual arguments there.

I see the asymmetric alignment as the following:
-Ost wider arc but slower setup vs Sov narrow arc but faster setup
(O these two I immensly prefer setup time, because a suppressed unit stays suppressed. Its a simple matter of micro to reposition and cover another angle therafter)
-Ost sligbtly faster supress vs Sov slithly better dps
(Again, I immensly prefer the Sov solution. More DPS means MP drain and reduced onfield time due to health. Faster suppression just means it takes a little longer to crawl out of arc).

This leaves one asymmetric factor:
- MG42 4man vs Maxim 6 man

People consistently and conveniently "forget" this one. An MG42 has only 2/3 the survival of a Maxim. Thats a huge difference..
It also means Ost pays more per reinforce for an equally shit model, nor can he simply merge it for cost efficiency and onfield time.

I think it may finally be time to increase Mg42 crew to Maxim equivalency.

A flanked MG42 is utterly fucked, despite its positioning requirements, whereas a flanked Maxim can soak for 33.33% more AND effectively reposition.

This is also one of the asymmetric arrangements that is making MG42 far more vuknerable to Molotovs in buildings.

They simply lack the men to soak it, wheras, seriously, no Sov unit in a building gives a shit about an RNade (except for the soon to be corrected building collapse AoE cascade), instead he laughs at the waste of Muni and usually doesnt even bother to try and dodge it.

Unless it's flanked by Shocks or eats a molotov with an unlucky RNG, a flanked MG42 is very much not fucked. Concript DPS on the move is so laughable the MG can pack up and walk away being fired at like in a friggin Benny Hill sketch. If you have grenadiers anywhere nearby (as you should have; again, leaving your MG without support is a player error), you can then easily defeat the flank. If you think MGs in this game are vulnerable, then damn, you haven't played vs Americans in COH1. Your MG lasted thrice times less because of the higher weapon damage in that game, and people still managed.

If anything, the Maxim's crew should be decreased (and even then, to 5 no to 4). MGs should never, ever be able to soak up fire. It's just not their purpose. I sure as hell don't want MG42s to basically become invulnerable in the first few minutes of the game; Maxims are more manageable because of riflenades and the fact they come later unless the Soviet player basically gives up all his map control at the beginning.

MG42 dies faster to a Con flank, than a Maxim to a Gren flank, not including the obvious Molotov and RNG flame crits.
Not only does it die faster, but it cant kite either due to the longer setup and its 4 models getting shot in the ass.

You do know that Ost Support crews only have 1 armor, right?
Imagine the survival on a 4 man maxim, and you get the picture.

I see no reason why that should be so, especially considering how important positioning is on MG42, whereas Maxim can simply fall back and re-setup.

Making it the same survival as Maxim in no way makes it invulnerable, as you claim, just makes it exactly as vulnerable as the Maxim.

Your post somehow tries to make out that MG42s are MORE durable than Maxims, which is just flat out false.
Its exactly the opposite.

I think it may finally be time to increase Mg42 crew to Maxim equivalency.

I really hope they never do that. MG42 should be a beast confronted head on, and weak when outflanked. I would rather see the Maxim turned into a HMG, in stead of an assaultunit.

I think the problem is that the "new" Relic didnt care much for the vCOH infantryplay, but had to keep some of the elements in order to please the fans. Thus we noe have small extremely weak small arms damage, making cower, flanking and positioning less important.

This is verry aparent when you look at the way they have handled the MG through development and balancing, initially making it extremely resiliant, and later simply less relevant. I dont think this team is comfortable with the MG and certain about what it should be. To me, it looks like its been designed by a team more comfortable with Pazer elite and Brits.

Its not a beast when confronted head on though. At all.

MG42 dies 33% faster to a Con flank, than a Maxim to a Gren flank, not including the obvious Molotov and RNG flame crits.

I see no reason why that should be so, especially considering how important positioning is on MG42, whereas Maxim can simply fall back and re-setup.

Making it the same survival as Maxim in no way makes it invulnerable, as you claim, just makes it exactly as vulnerable as the Maxim.

Do you remember the MG42 before nerfing?
A flanking squad of Conscripts had to run after the MG packed up like 50 km to take the squad to half it's health...thank you but no thank you
As for the Maxim,I don't even use it anymore,it was always appearing as Meat Shield of the game even when I was winning games

Its not a beast when confronted head on though. At all.

Excactly, and thats what should be improved, not survivability.

A flanking squad of Conscripts had to run after the MG packed up like 50 km to take the squad to half it's health...

A flanking squad of Grens had to (and still to) run after the faster packed up Maxim like 75km to take the squad to half its health.

Not that that will happen. Cos the Maxim can either just soak it on the spot, or resetup once it gets out of LoS.

If you don't think MG42 should have more than 4 men cos of that, then how the hell do you justify Maxim having 6 cos of that?

Sorry, but your premise is just flawed. Successfully dmging a flanked Maxim squad is EVEN harder.

A flanking squad of Grens had to (and still to) run after the faster packed up Maxim like 75km to take the squad to half its health.

This is asymmetrical balance my friend,and they are not going to change it...
If you want 6 squad members on your MG,play as Sov and decrew a MG,simple as that...
And,I don't know where you got this idea that Maxim is OP or too survivable,but two rifle nades and the crew is down to 1 or 2 people so you don't even need to flank it

MG42 dies faster to a Con flank, than a Maxim to a Gren flank, not including the obvious Molotov and RNG flame crits.
Not only does it die faster, but it cant kite either due to the longer setup and its 4 models getting shot in the ass.

You do know that Ost Support crews only have 1 armor, right?
Imagine the survival on a 4 man maxim, and you get the picture.

I see no reason why that should be so, especially considering how important positioning is on MG42, whereas Maxim can simply fall back and re-setup.

Making it the same survival as Maxim in no way makes it invulnerable, as you claim, just makes it exactly as vulnerable as the Maxim.

Your post somehow tries to make out that MG42s are MORE durable than Maxims, which is just flat out false.
Its exactly the opposite.

It's much tougher than MGs in COH1, and people in that game still managed to use them effectively, is what I mean. Of course the MG42 is more fragile than the Maxim, but again, the Maxim comes out later than the '42 unless Soviets give away all their map control. Assymetric balance is not just a question of unit stats, timing is also an important factor.

Look, I will just get my point across concisely: If your MG gets flanked and you don't react properly, you deserve to lose it, no ifs and no buts. It's not like that for the Maxim, and it's not like that for the MG42, which is a problem with COH2 in general. I've said it before, the MG42 could use a small suppression buff. But weapons teams in this game need to be less survivable, not more. That's primarily a Soviet problem, but you won't fix the problem by making the MG42 just as ridiculously tough.

I dont think the Maxim is overpowered.

However I feel the MG42 is underperforming.

Two bursts should supress a unit even if in yellow cover.

In many many replays you can see conscripts rushing through the yellow defense of craters created during the match and getting suppressed in a full of 3 bursts.

That is clearly too much.


I find it ok that the mg42 dies fast but on the other hand it should suppress at least as good as the Maxim.