give the okw a sniper

...

...

Carmine is correct. Suppression is dealt on a per bullet basis. However, one thing he does get wrong is the maxim's suppression, the maxim actually has worse suppression per bullet then the MG42. I dont know the exact amount required to suppress a squad but that isn't really relevant for the following numbers.

The maxim has a long range rate of fire of 7.2 shots per second and deals 0.0065 suppression per bullet for a total of 0.0468 suppression per second.

The vickers has a long range rate of fire of 14.4 shots per second and deals 0.00805 suppression per bullet for a total of 0.11592 suppression per second.

The MG42 has a long range rate of fire of 14.4 shots per second and deals 0.012 suppression per bullet for a total of 0.1728 suppression per second.


The Mg42 has 300% more suppression per second then the maxim and 50% more than suppression of vickers. The only advantage the maxim has is that its bursts last about 175% longer at long range which lets them fire more bullets before needing to cooldown. This however does not compensate for the lack of suppression per bullet and low rate of fire.

I dont know the exact amount required to suppress a squad but that isn't really relevant for the following numbers.

The suppression threshold in neutral cover is 0.2, the pin threshold is 0.6. Medium and heavy cover give a 0.5 and 0.1 received suppression modifier respectively.

The suppression threshold in neutral cover is 0.2, the pin threshold is 0.6. Medium and heavy cover give a 0.5 and 0.1 received suppression modifier respectively.

Gotcha. Thanks!

[...]

I dont have video but the stats show that the maxim and vickers are worse off in supressing.

Carmine is correct. [...]

This is all true and good and well. However, this doesn't address my objection to the point originally raised, which was that the Maxim and the Vickers are just "garbage" and can easily be frontally flame-naded. I objected that such an undertaking is everything but easy, especially in the early game.

They are worse than the MG42 in terms of suppression, that is true. But that doesn't mean much, because the MG42 is a high benchmark: Just because they are below that high benchmark doesn't make them "garbage". Stopping frontally charging squads is well within their capabilities.

Well, at least that is what I am firmly convinced of until I see video evidence to the contrary...

This is all true and good and well. However, this doesn't address my objection to the point originally raised, which was that the Maxim and the Vickers are just "garbage" and can easily be frontally flame-naded. I objected that such an undertaking is everything but easy, especially in the early game.

They are worse than the MG42 in terms of suppression, that is true. But that doesn't mean much, because the MG42 is a high benchmark: Just because they are below that high benchmark doesn't make them "garbage". Stopping frontally charging squads is well within their capabilities.

Well, at least that is what I am firmly convinced of until I see video evidence to the contrary...

By the numbers given the Maxim takes about 4 seconds to suppress and the vickers 2 seconds in no cover, double those figures if there is yellow cover and this doesn't take aiming nor traverse into account. Are you saying it's unlikely for a volks squad to walk up into range in 4-8 seconds under fire from a maxim or 2-4 seconds for a vickers and throw a flame nade? Even if you personally have not seen it many of us have very often and the numbers very much support the claim. The low suppression rate combined with the fast throw speed and long range of the lava nade make it more likely that not, especially if there happens to be some yellow cover in place

This is all true and good and well. However, this doesn't address my objection to the point originally raised, which was that the Maxim and the Vickers are just "garbage" and can easily be frontally flame-naded. I objected that such an undertaking is everything but easy, especially in the early game.

They are worse than the MG42 in terms of suppression, that is true. But that doesn't mean much, because the MG42 is a high benchmark: Just because they are below that high benchmark doesn't make them "garbage". Stopping frontally charging squads is well within their capabilities.

Well, at least that is what I am firmly convinced of until I see video evidence to the contrary...

https://www.coh2.org/replay/106387/maxim-and-vickers-suppression-test-or-something

Here you go. Details on the replay page.

Keep in mind that most of these tests were kept as braindead as possible to test purely the suppression values in action. The last two were the ones where we actually micro'd a bit.

Can you update your Post with the Mg34 suppression


Topic:

I don´t think a sniper is necessary but doctrinal it would be an interesting idea. I don´t think there would be any change like that anymore though

If OKW *were* to get a Sniper, I would do it in a different way.

OKW - Battlegroup HQ

Sniper - 380 Munitions

1 man unit.

Rather than dropping units, its more of an HP vampire, with vetting it has suppression capability similar to RE troops.

Vet 0

Vet 1 - Wounding Shot - 20 munitions
Sniper attacks target of oppurtunity, going for wounding shot and forcing squad to be slowed (yellow suppression)

Vet 2 - Movement Bonus

Vet 3 - Faster shots

Vet 4 - Wounding shot now causes targeted squad to be pinned (red)

Vet 5 - Self heal when out of combat

...But as stated earlier, OKW really doesn't need a sniper. Honestly in 1v1, what their problem is is timing, maybe a light buff to Volks.

Watch what USF does against ost.
Might give you an idea or two.

nice idea. Where can get OKW get a mortar from t0? Or smoke from nondoc unit early?

If OKW *were* to get a Sniper, I would do it in a different way.

OKW - Battlegroup HQ

Sniper - 380 Munitions

1 man unit.

Rather than dropping units, its more of an HP vampire, with vetting it has suppression capability similar to RE troops.

Vet 0

Vet 1 - Wounding Shot - 20 munitions
Sniper attacks target of oppurtunity, going for wounding shot and forcing squad to be slowed (yellow suppression)

Vet 2 - Movement Bonus

Vet 3 - Faster shots

Vet 4 - Wounding shot now causes targeted squad to be pinned (red)

Vet 5 - Self heal when out of combat

...But as stated earlier, OKW really doesn't need a sniper. Honestly in 1v1, what their problem is is timing, maybe a light buff to Volks.

To be honest no sniper should get a movement bonus. It is already annoying as fuck that they can kite you indefinitely on long range and are actually quite mobile. They should not be able to "sprint" in any form apart from retreating.
And although I find the idea of a wounding shot neat, I think giving it suppression would cause a lot of issues. Since suppression only slowly lower when the squad is in combat, this ability would take out a complete squad for the rest of the fight (unless there are some of those magic recoveries that sometimes happen despite being under fire). Rather give it Ostheer's stun shot.

nice idea. Where can get OKW get a mortar from t0? Or smoke from nondoc unit early?

building mortar and selling it as counter to sniper is such a joke. Building mortar as usf actually activly looses you the game vs a decent opponent, want indirect as USF? go pak howi. The thing you wanna do as usf is double down on m20 and stuart ASAP with as many boots on the ground as possible. Which is the exact same thing okw does, but the difference is that T1 as soviets actually sacrifices AT options while OH doesnt

Only thing that OKW might need is smoke on sturmpios with low range but fast throw (as compared to longer range, slower shot on USF). Sniper they definitely do not need, neither does USF.

And agreed with Fire and Terror. Pak howi is the one true indirect for USF. It's smarter to play 3 rifles into captain for AA (suppression) and pak howi (or AT if you don't have rangers/rack). Every time I went for a fast mortar it either got killed by OST mortar or it failed to force the MG off. Just spread out and don't blob and wait for Pak and AAHT. Don't waste manpower/population on USF mortars.

https://www.coh2.org/replay/106387/maxim-and-vickers-suppression-test-or-something

Here you go. Details on the replay page.

Believe it or not, but I just spent more than an hour to write a comprehensive reply, saying how I cannot load your reply, and commenting instead on this tournament cast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K9tZVjh7MM, where the Vickers's are the bane of Volks, and OKW had to get two ISGs to get rid of those pesky Vickers's, but then I accidently clicked the "go-back button"................

So, as I said, I can't see your tests (thank you for effort nonetheless). I'm sorry.
But from the video material that I did see (the tournament cast), the Vickers's seemed to be doing their job, as they kept on suppressing the Volks at far range with one burst or sometimes two max.

Believe it or not, but I just spent more than an hour to write a comprehensive reply, saying how I cannot load your reply, and commenting instead on this tournament cast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K9tZVjh7MM, where the Vickers's are the bane of Volks, and OKW had to get two ISGs to get rid of those pesky Vickers's, but then I accidently clicked the "go-back button"................

So, as I said, I can't see your tests (thank you for effort nonetheless). I'm sorry.
But from the video material that I did see (the tournament cast), the Vickers's seemed to be doing their job, as they kept on suppressing the Volks at far range with one burst or sometimes two max.

Well I guess one example of it working properly in a game ridden with RNG is definitely more solid than a purpose made test (combined with detailed write up in the description of you can't watch it) and many respcted players saying otherwise. In sure everyone is making up the claim anyways.

Well I guess one example of it working properly in a game ridden with RNG is definitely more solid than a purpose made test

No, it isn't, and you can leave out the sarcasm, even if it's a stylistic device that's unfortunately used abudently on this forum. Life's too short for antagonizing discussions on the internet.

Furthermore, the test may have been purpose-made, but the sample size was nevertheless small. So the evidential quality of the test is hardly superior.

And thirdly, judging from the write-up, frontal nading often failed, and even when it was successful, it seems to have been pyrrhic.

many respcted players saying otherwise.

One respected player that's playing to win (i.e. tournament participant) apparently thought highly enough of the Vickers to build not one, but two of them. His opponent (for whom the same can be said) seems to share this appraisal, as he invested into two ISGs to get rid of the Vickers's, and then proceeded to steal both of them, even though he already had an MG of his own.

In sure everyone is making up the claim anyways.

I know you are being sarcastic, but it really seems to me that their weakness is being exaggerated.

Let's be honest, MG34 and 42 are not the weak points of axis. Maxim is pretty pretty weak compared to them. Vickers in building is pretty pretty good, outside, not as much but it can still hold it's ground. Maxim is the worst MG in the game. Period. Does that mean it's useless? No, not at all. Supporting conscripts or penals or guards is still pretty pretty good due to the good setup. Team weapons are a forte of OST. MG42 works nicely with werfer to counter pushes and Pak is more than enough to deal with soviet and USF tanks (less so vs comet or churchill but still dominates if supported).

And I agree with Nacht. Weakness of Vickers is exaggerated. It's great in buildings and trenches and when the enemy has stukas or werfers or leigs, then you place Vickers defensively to stop sneaky pushes. Maxim, even though the worst and often enough, non suppressing, can be offensive all game (6 man + setup).

You win some, you lose some. The whole point of COH2 is to abuse weaknesses and play to faction's strengths.

Let's be honest, MG34 and 42 are not the weak points of axis. Maxim is pretty pretty weak compared to them. [...] Maxim is the worst MG in the game. Period.

And yet MG 34 is the one of the three which is basically never seen ... unlike maxim.

I don't really get why so many claim that maxim is weak or bad. Imo it is a decent MG ( apparently it even has a better supression on longer ranges than Mg 34 too ( Maxim suppression per burst increases from range 10 on, while Mg 34 drops by range 12 )( also mind the 6 men crew ) )

Believe it or not, but I just spent more than an hour to write a comprehensive reply, saying how I cannot load your reply, and commenting instead on this tournament cast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K9tZVjh7MM, where the Vickers's are the bane of Volks, and OKW had to get two ISGs to get rid of those pesky Vickers's, but then I accidently clicked the "go-back button"................

So, as I said, I can't see your tests (thank you for effort nonetheless). I'm sorry.
But from the video material that I did see (the tournament cast), the Vickers's seemed to be doing their job, as they kept on suppressing the Volks at far range with one burst or sometimes two max.

You're welcome. Shame that you can't watch the replay, but at least you can see my typed summary, and that pretty much sums it all up anyway.

No, it isn't, and you can leave out the sarcasm, even if it's a stylistic device that's unfortunately used abudently on this forum. Life's too short for antagonizing discussions on the internet.

Furthermore, the test may have been purpose-made, but the sample size was nevertheless small. So the evidential quality of the test is hardly superior.

And thirdly, judging from the write-up, frontal nading often failed, and even when it was successful, it seems to have been pyrrhic.



One respected player that's playing to win (i.e. tournament participant) apparently thought highly enough of the Vickers to build not one, but two of them. His opponent (for whom the same can be said) seems to share this appraisal, as he invested into two ISGs to get rid of the Vickers's, and then proceeded to steal both of them, even though he already had an MG of his own.



I know you are being sarcastic, but it really seems to me that their weakness is being exaggerated.

They were pyrrhic because, like I said in the replay thread, I purposely put as little effort into those attacks as possible to test purely the suppression values for most of the tests. The last two where we both actually micro'd I was able to get around both the maxim and the vickers pretty easily and beat the lone infantry squad protecting them. Keep in mind that I didn't even flank, I made sure to come in within the arc both times. They simply don't suppress fast enough to hold their ground sometimes because the volks are able to gain too much ground on them before they get suppressed, and then literally just crawl to the flanks. Switching targets means the MGs don't deal enough damage to let the infantry squad win the 2v1. It's not impossible to stop 2 infantry squads obviously, and I specifically told my partner not to move his MGs until they got flamenaded, but it's also not impossible to frontally charge those two machineguns and win because of their subpar suppression. You can take that for what it is, all I'm saying is that it happens.

Also yeah, OP was asking about MG counter as OKW and I literally said Leig on page one. Especially against brits since they have absolutely no counter to Leigs.

No, it isn't, and you can leave out the sarcasm, even if it's a stylistic device that's unfortunately used abudently on this forum. Life's too short for antagonizing discussions on the internet.

Furthermore, the test may have been purpose-made, but the sample size was nevertheless small. So the evidential quality of the test is hardly superior.

And thirdly, judging from the write-up, frontal nading often failed, and even when it was successful, it seems to have been pyrrhic.

the small sample size was simply a proof of concept of what others are already saying. and regardless of the state in which the low micro efforts succeeded, under NO circumstance should a frontal assault against an MG be successful. their entire purpose is to prevent frontal assaults and a single squad being able to run up to them and force them away with no micro EVER is a failure in its role.

One respected player that's playing to win (i.e. tournament participant) apparently thought highly enough of the Vickers to build not one, but two of them. His opponent (for whom the same can be said) seems to share this appraisal, as he invested into two ISGs to get rid of the Vickers's, and then proceeded to steal both of them, even though he already had an MG of his own.

and people used to build 5 maxims, doesn't mean they were not bad, just that there is no alternative. can they be good? yes, can they be overrun with minimal effort from your opponent? also yes.
the vickers certainly has its merits, there is no denying that. in a building they are quite good- because they deal great damage and the extra range gives them enough room to actually do their job of suppressing infantry.

I know you are being sarcastic, but it really seems to me that their weakness is being exaggerated.

exagegerated? maybe, but based in truth? most definitely.

Let's be honest, MG34 and 42 are not the weak points of axis. Maxim is pretty pretty weak compared to them. Vickers in building is pretty pretty good, outside, not as much but it can still hold it's ground. Maxim is the worst MG in the game. Period. Does that mean it's useless? No, not at all. Supporting conscripts or penals or guards is still pretty pretty good due to the good setup. Team weapons are a forte of OST. MG42 works nicely with werfer to counter pushes and Pak is more than enough to deal with soviet and USF tanks (less so vs comet or churchill but still dominates if supported).

And I agree with Nacht. Weakness of Vickers is exaggerated. It's great in buildings and trenches and when the enemy has stukas or werfers or leigs, then you place Vickers defensively to stop sneaky pushes. Maxim, even though the worst and often enough, non suppressing, can be offensive all game (6 man + setup).

You win some, you lose some. The whole point of COH2 is to abuse weaknesses and play to faction's strengths.

the thing is though, the machine guns should absolutely force the enemy to take a different route. that its ever even possible to without even trying to utilize cover frontally fore them off means they are failing at their role. the claim that these mgs are not a codguy esq claim of elefants doing too much AI damage, this one is actually rooted in reality. the weakness of a faction should never be that its essentail tools (so essential that okw was given a non doc one and usf's was made easier to access) doesnt do its job sometimes.

...
They simply don't suppress fast enough to hold their ground sometimes because the volks are able to gain too much ground on them before they get suppressed, and then literally just crawl to the flanks...

Imo that is an issue of the incendiary grenades and not MGs themselves.

One can fixi it by either reducing the range slightly or by moving the incendiary grenades to ST.