Why is the Maxim so bad?

That's absolutely untrue. The Maxim used to be so OP that it could end games before 6min mark and now it's in its "normal" place. Comparing it to the Maschinengewehr-42 is straight up retarded since the two vanilla factions have completely different scopes and tools to do so. And if we attempt to start this discussion we would end up again arguing about how asymmetrical both factions are, the fact that OST has 4 men squads while SOV can have 7 men cons, OST has ATG that only shoots vehicles whilst SOV has Zis etc.

That's the tool SOV have. Like it, not like it, it does not matter. It will never be a MG42 vol. II so let's just stop with this.

I'm sorry but I can see the point you think you are making, but honestly it comes across so poorly it you only further reinforce my belief that the Maxim is awful from a statistical aspect.

Asymmetry is fine. However, there still needs to be a baseline for unit performance. HMG's need to suppress etc The Maxim falls short.

Saying that it is able to lock down "large chunks" of the map is an overstatement.

How so? Out of my head I can remember Essen, Hill, Rzev, 2 new 4v4 maps, Steppes and General Mud. On those maps maxim is ineffective or less effective.

On pretty much any other 3v3\4v4 its either can lock down hell of a lot of space (like on Red Ball) because maps are narrow anyway or at least be quite effective depending on your starting possition (like on Lanzerath\Whiteball right side).

The only single complain about maxim I kinda agree with, is that it could have been a bit better at suppresion against yellow cover, seens it indeed feels like its suppression against units in cover is a bit lower then it should.

Imo the main issue with maxim (as with other support weapons on wheels) is the "death loop" animation.

I suggested a solution to it that would have the crew "pull" the weapon instead of trying to rotate it and "pushing" it and Sneakeye was even kind enough to implement it in a mode with some success but that there was little interest, so the attempt was abandoned.

I'm sorry but I can see the point you think you are making, but honestly it comes across so poorly it you only further reinforce my belief that the Maxim is awful from a statistical aspect.

Asymmetry is fine. However, there still needs to be a baseline for unit performance. HMG's need to suppress etc The Maxim falls short.

I am 1500% my point is very clear from what I am saying but I would be glad to make a shorter, more autistic-friendly, version:

• Wanting the same stats for every faction and weapon is not only retarded, it makes for a boring game. This would be especially true for COH2 since it only has 5 factions.
  
• If all this babbling is wanting to make Maxim 240mp, please do. I don't give the slightest fuck.
  
• SOV v OST gameplay is the most exciting and balanced one in this game and comes down purely on skill. Please do not change that.
  
• The philosophy of COH in general has always been to have low number of factions but high number of flavor. Example given by me: grens vs cons fight will most likely see grens win because of their combat specialization. However, that does not mean that Cons need buff. They have the Merge ability which is more useful than fighting in most cases. That's variation. That's nice. That's good. Don't take it from the game. Same with Maxim, smaller arc, smaller pin chance, more damage, more mobility. That's also good. Same with T70 (who, btw, OST has no ready answer for other than Pak but ok). Same with T34. That's the game design.
  

• If all this babbling is wanting to make Maxim 240mp, please do. I don't give the slightest fuck.
  

If it had passingly acceptable stats I have a feeling you would be crying bloody murder before suggesting a 20mp price reduction lol.

If it had passingly acceptable stats I have a feeling you would be crying bloody murder before suggesting a 20mp price reduction lol.

Nah I just have faith in my ability to take down the enemy on the field, not on the drawing board.

Nah I just have faith in my ability to take down the enemy on the field, not on the drawing board.

- Erwin 'Cringelarp' Rommel upon facing the maxim in China.

- Erwin 'Cringelarp' Rommel upon facing the maxim in China.

That was unironically funny you seriously made me laugh that's a first in this forum have a good one mate.

So no-one care that in teamgames, on good half of the maps maxim even with its smaller ark is able to lock large chunks of the maps.

Aswell as when backed up by early USF ambu it become practically immortal unless flanked by blob in early game. Which is meta on maps like Red\White ball.

And no-one cares, that even with "how uttery trash" maxim is, OKW still has no counter for it untill IGs\Zu Fuss hit the field, unless soviet player is retarded enouth to let himself be flanked by SP.

But sure, dropping it to 240 mp is a good idea Too bad that in 1v1\2v2 it wont be used anyway, because cons\penal oppening into 120mm\Dshk is still more effective.

Replace Maxim with MG34/42 then you have a good idea of what team games are like.

No good Soviet player opens with Maxim in Red Ball or White Ball because you lose all pushing power if you do. Its an instant-lose situation if you open with Maxim.

On the flip side, async balance aside, MG42 open is powerful because you only need 1 to lockdown a lane. Where-as you need 2 Maxims to do the same because of the small firing arc. Maxims have the same cost and setup time as an MG42 and don't instant suppress like the MG42 does. If the Soviet player needs to get 2 Maxims to lock down a lane, that means the Ost player can get 2 MG42s to lock down a lane even better. Are you starting to see the problem here?

Also not mentioning that opening Maxim needs to tech T1 so you're already down fuel and MP at the beginning stages of the game.

That's literally 1 unit being subpar out of a roster of 90+% viable units though. Unfortunately there's no way for any competitive game to cater to different skill brackets AND game modes with different player counts. As it stands Soviets are the best faction in 1v1, but they're bad in 4v4. Cons are the best mainline when it comes to high-level play, but worst when it comes to lower skill brackets. The only solution is compromise.

Regarding the maxim, Dshka doctrines would not be appealing if maxim didn't suck. And Soviets would be too strong if they had a viable 6-man, merge-able hmg that wasn't CP2 and doctrinal.

Mostly the hmg formation changes reduced key weaknesses of mg34 and mg42, which were squad clumping and gunner death loop. But they kept their former suppression stats, so they're both really good right now.

I think this correctly summarizes the problem with Maxim vs other MGs at the moment. The reload option and prevented death loops are not as deadly on the Maxim as their are on other MGs which indirectly made other MGs better than the Maxim.

Slower setup time and higher cost certainly don't help but I think the former is whats more critical in making the Maxim perform worse.

Not to mention that MG squads are able to send units farther infront of the MG which provide slightly better vision and survivability.

I think the Maxim needs an MP cost reduction and a vision buff to compensate against other MGs. MGs are an integral part of this game and one should not be as bad as the Maxim is. Soviet early game is already quite terrible in team games. It could use a buff.

I think this correctly summarizes the problem with Maxim vs other MGs at the moment. The reload option and prevented death loops are not as deadly on the Maxim as their are on other MGs which indirectly made other MGs better than the Maxim.

Slower setup time and higher cost certainly don't help but I think the former is whats more critical in making the Maxim perform worse.

Not to mention that MG squads are able to send units farther infront of the MG which provide slightly better vision and survivability.

I think the Maxim needs an MP cost reduction and a vision buff to compensate against other MGs. MGs are an integral part of this game and one should not be as bad as the Maxim is. Soviet early game is already quite terrible in team games. It could use a buff.

If you want vision for your maxim try tripwire flares they have excellent synergy.

I think the Maxim needs an MP cost reduction and a vision buff to compensate against other MGs. MGs are an integral part of this game and one should not be as bad as the Maxim is. Soviet early game is already quite terrible in team games. It could use a buff.

No, the maxim does not need vision buffs

rather an agility or cost reduction buff

. Same with T70 (who, btw, OST has no ready answer for other than Pak but ok). Same with T34. That's the game design.

...and the pak is clearly a lackluster response and pgren shreks don't basically two shot the t-70

maxim are in an odd place right now.

No good Soviet player opens with Maxim in Red Ball or White Ball because you lose all pushing power if you do. Its an instant-lose situation if you open with Maxim.

This is objectively not true. Soviet players might not open with maxim, but maxims do see a lot of action in high rank plays, even in 4v4 tourney. You just need to know where and when it should be used.

On the flip side, async balance aside, MG42 open is powerful because you only need 1 to lockdown a lane. Where-as you need 2 Maxims to do the same because of the small firing arc. Maxims have the same cost and setup time as an MG42 and don't instant suppress like the MG42 does. If the Soviet player needs to get 2 Maxims to lock down a lane, that means the Ost player can get 2 MG42s to lock down a lane even better. Are you starting to see the problem here?

Again the whole premis of the complaint is that maxim is worst then MG42 in actually being auto-firing MG. Thats the core of the problem here, but maxim has other advantages (which are being called shit for some reason).

List of them being:
1) Being able to win MG duels
2) Much more sustainable to damage
3) Easier to relocate
4) Supperior AOE suppression
5) Really strong and cheap sustain fire ability
Disadvantages are:
1) Smaller arc of fire
2) Slower to suppress
3) Even slower at suppressing yellow cover

This list alone already shows that it just cant be played exactly like an MG42, but at this matter Vekers and .50 cal cant be played like 42 aswell. Maxim has a specific role of being either supporting unit or it should be used with sustain fire ability, it isnt meant for areas lockdown, thats why it becomes super hard to deal with on maps where it actually can lockdown areas.

If you need suppression platform and you dont give a damn about other advantages, then there is DSHK for this reason. Its conter intuitive way of using MG unit (especially in comparison) but its the way it was always ment to be used. Even on release, Maxim was almost purely damaging unit, before relic buffed its suppression which gave birth to maxim spam. If it wasnt the case, then it woudnt have had 6 men crew and smaller arc of fire, and people propused this, like since release to make maxim into proper MG, but relic never did it. In other words, it is what it is. You cant just lower its cost and call it a day, you cant lower the build time and call it a day without redesigning a unit.

Soviet 120mm is the best example of it, it was meh but survivable. It was buffed, surviability was untouched and now its cancer to deal with.

tdlr: need suppression use DSHK, maxim is situational unit which wont work if you want to use it as MG42.

Also not mentioning that opening Maxim needs to tech T1 so you're already down fuel and MP at the beginning stages of the game.

Also very weak argument. Considering that all factions have roughly the same tech timings overall from T0 to T4, so building a tech early into the game, doesnt put you into any kind of disadvantage res.wise. Soviets start will less MP, because they have cheaper starting unit resulting a better starting MP income.

Its only true for the fact that MG42 hits the field faster then maxim, but at the same time cons hit the field faster then grens.

This is objectively not true. Soviet players might not open with maxim, but maxims do see a lot of action in high rank plays, even in 4v4 tourney. You just need to know where and when it should be used.

the maxim as a starting unit is completely garbage, which is why any sort of composition where the maxim is the core unit (or is spammed) completely fails on it's head and loses immediately. if you finish your infantry force, then the maxim being purchased will only strengthen your defenses. Other MGs do this better, but the maxim is better than nothing at least

Again the whole premis of the complaint is that maxim is worst then MG42 in actually being auto-firing MG. Thats the core of the problem here, but maxim has other advantages (which are being called shit for some reason).

List of them being:
1) Being able to win MG duels
2) Much more sustainable to damage
3) Easier to relocate
4) Supperior AOE suppression
5) Really strong and cheap sustain fire ability
Disadvantages are:
1) Smaller arc of fire
2) Slower to suppress
3) Even slower at suppressing yellow cover

1- this is due to it's squad size, if you take any other MG in the game, you will win similarly
2- i do not understand this point. If it means that the maxim takes more punishment, then that is not exactly true. Yes, you got 6 men, but maxims out of cover can be gunned down by lmg grens (before suppressing them), and otherwise AoE damage (mortars and what not) deal very effectively with maxims, like with any MG
3- this is not exactly true - its setup and teardown time is identical to the MG-42, and it's walking speed feels basically the same as well.
4- this is a situational advantage, particularly versus enemy cover, but the MG-42 also has aoe suppression (and enjoys faster suppressing, so you can just compensate the worse AoE with that). more at point 5
5- sustain fire is cheap and strong because it permits the maxim to actually suppress it's enemies. It turns it into a proper machine gun for 30 seconds. It's use is rather restrictive before veterancy 1, as you need to cycle a reload before firing, costing (sometimes) valuable time.

and all disadvantages are qualities that define a good machine gun.

If you need suppression platform and you dont give a damn about other advantages, then there is DSHK for this reason.

...and many people do

Soviet 120mm is the best example of it, it was meh but survivable. It was buffed, surviability was untouched and now its cancer to deal with.

i don't see what the 120mm has to do with anything, let alone the maxim.

tdlr: need suppression use DSHK, maxim is situational unit which wont work if you want to use it as MG42.

then why are you buying the maxim? it isn't more agile than its competitors, it only suppresses if you intentionally go into it and sit there, it isn't even cheaper than it's competitors. the DSHK meanwhile has suppression, agility in both vet and it's vet1 (FREE) ability, six man squad, anti LV performance.
you are NOT paying for "suppression", you are paying to have a proper machine gun in your arsenal, Gachi.



maybe the soviet player should just humbly steal an MG-42, and live his life out happily

maybe the soviet player should just humbly steal an MG-42, and live his life out happily

"Stealing Tactics Doctrine"

• 0CP: Shrecks for Cons.
  
• 0CP: Ability "Steal this comrade!": Sacrifice 2 models and 40muni for the ability to steal a weapon from the enemy squad.
  
• 2CP: Airdrop a stolen MG42 from the Rodina's airplanes. Has the same qualities as the stock MG42.
  
• 4CP: Airdrop a stolen Pak40.
  
• 4CP: Call-in "Thieves Partisans" for 140mp, shit combat abilities but can rapidly flank and kill a weapon team and crew it.
  
• 6CP: Call-in "Stolen PzIV": A broken PzIV comes to the battlefield, stolen from the Germans' camp! Repair it to gain full functionality. Cost: 250mp - 80fuel.
  
• 8CP: "Stolen blueprints for LeFH": Build a LeFH emplacement.
  
• 12CP: STOLEN TIGER????????????????
  

Fixed your game. Happy?

1- this is due to it's squad size, if you take any other MG in the game, you will win similarly
2- i do not understand this point. If it means that the maxim takes more punishment, then that is not exactly true. Yes, you got 6 men, but maxims out of cover can be gunned down by lmg grens (before suppressing them), and otherwise AoE damage (mortars and what not) deal very effectively with maxims, like with any MG
3- this is not exactly true - its setup and teardown time is identical to the MG-42, and it's walking speed feels basically the same as well.
4- this is a situational advantage, particularly versus enemy cover, but the MG-42 also has aoe suppression (and enjoys faster suppressing, so you can just compensate the worse AoE with that). more at point 5
5- sustain fire is cheap and strong because it permits the maxim to actually suppress it's enemies. It turns it into a proper machine gun for 30 seconds. It's use is rather restrictive before veterancy 1, as you need to cycle a reload before firing, costing (sometimes) valuable time.

1) Not really due to squad size, mainly because maxim has more damage and in a situations where both MGs suppressed each other Maxim will come out on top + due to sustain fire maxim always wins garrison MG duels.
2) In every imaginable scenario maxim still has better surviability over any other MGs put in the same scenario, thats the point.
3) Mind providing the stats comparison? I dont know them, but maxim even to a blind eye faster to rotate and deploy then MG42, thats for sure. Maybe its not nessesery teardown\setup but something else what makes it faster.
4) No, not even by a long shot. Maxim has almost double the amount of MG42 AOE suppression on top of having bigger AOE suppression radius. It really makes a difference in game, when even spread out units still will be suppresed. But its a fair to say that MG42 has better ROF to compinsate lack of AOE, but it doesnt change the fact that the philosophy behind MG42 and Maxim is compeltly different, therefore usage should be different.
5) Well yes, thats the whole point of sustain fire. It allows maxim to perform just like other MGs, while keeping its own advantages over other MGs. The same way USF AT gun require muni usage to perform as other AT guns while keeping its advantage of supperior range.

i don't see what the 120mm has to do with anything, let alone the maxim.

Because relic intended soviet units to be mediocre as a compinsation of being survivable. When soviet units received buffs on support weapons, it always coased a bunch of problems if the survivablility of them wasnt ajusted. Point is being, that maxim could have received general perfomance buffs, but its survivablility have to lowered aswell. You just cant throw buffs on 6 men support weapons and expect that nothing will be broken afterwards.

then why are you buying the maxim?

Pretty much to abuse it when its possible. Maxim is imo just a situational unit, sometimes its really hard to make it work and sometimes its easy, depending on the opponents and map you are playing it and teammates. You definitly should not build maxim in every single game, on every single map and expect it to work, thats a mistake a lot of sov players do.

On a side note, I myself dont like how maxim works in the game. Its either total garbage or abusable filth. I would rather have something closer to a proper MG, then this unit full of gimmicks, but what I am trying to say is that Maxim needed full overhaul, not just buffs\nerfs because its nature isnt allowing it.

...you can use the mg-42 in the exact same fashion as the maxim (an """offensive""" MG, made up term by vipper)...

Hey, hey, hey, there's nothing "made up" about the term. Cut Vipper some slack here. Maxim is very much an "offensive" MG. As in, it's so bad it's offensive to me.

Hey, hey, hey, there's nothing "made up" about the term. Cut Vipper some slack here. Maxim is very much an "offensive" MG. As in, it's so bad it's offensive to me.

Katakov is simply laying.

Doubt if I ever used the term "offensive mg" once and I certainly did not come up or made it up with it.