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.
*dies from cringe*
Posts: 1197
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.
Posts: 1379
*dies from cringe*
Posts: 1379
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.
Posts: 359
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.
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 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.
Posts: 1379
I lost some brain cells reading this
Posts: 359
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.
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.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
1) MG Duels in equal cover are incredibly rare. The one who wins is usually the one that is setup first and/or suppresses first which is almost always MG34/42 unless they are setting up second.
...
Posts: 658
Imo the main issue with maxim (as with other support weapons on wheels) is the "death loop" animation.
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
I agree with this however one thing that isn't talked about in regards to the Death Loop animation is LMGs or All Range type weapons like the FG-42.
....
Posts: 472
Posts: 1289
This (and another post about RE too) is because they had to nerf the unit due to excessive use of unit spam.
There once was RE spam & maxim spam. So they had to nerf it down.
maxim itself does have the worst stat. But in return u get 6-man crews & commander specific dushica.
Posts: 472
That isent the point atm. Its preformance is decent enough. We have arrived mostly at is it fair that it costs more then the mg34 and the same as the mg 42? both of wich are much much better.
The 6 man crew is nothing special it doesnt help the maxim in the slighest, the bad stuff such as deathloop, small arc, lower to lowest supression makes sure of that.
Back in the day maxim spam got to where it got because cons penals and gaurds even where not good enough.
Posts: 1289
Still we have to include 6-man mp cost into the unit cost.
If it gets decreased into 4 man. Ofc we should lower the cost.
I do agree that it is the worst mg in spec. But that doesn't mean we have to lower the price(to take 6 man into account).
Especially because Soviet is ATM the best faction.
Posts: 472
Soviets are very solid indeed, but the 6 men provides a very minimal to no advatidge. Making it a 4 men mg is no even an option. It gets wiped as often or more as a six man mg then most 4 men mg's already.
20mp price reduction isent much. but it shows more clearly that its a less effective mg. Its not ginna bring the spam back in the slightest.
Posts: 1289
What I'm saying is - tha maxium would have been 220mp if it was 4-man crew.
But since it has +2 crews, it is added to the squad production cost - thus making it 260 mp.
Same thing goes for UKF. Normal sapper (with 4 men) costs 210 mp. But Sapper Recovery Squad costs 230 mp because it is 5-man squad.
If you consistently gonna say 6 men provides a minimal to no advantage, why not just remove it from Sov's team weapon mechanism? Then we can talk about reducing mp cost for team weapons.
6 men crew + crew merge system makes any - including maxim - team weapon for Soviet extremly difficult to wipe out or at least make it leave the battlefield. Any other faction mg have to reatreat to the base after 1~2 model down, but Sov can just merge cons to the team weapon. So they don't provide window of opportunity to the opposing team,
Posts: 1197
Still we have to include 6-man mp cost into the unit cost.
If it gets decreased into 4 man. Ofc we should lower the cost.
I do agree that it is the worst mg in spec. But that doesn't mean we have to lower the price(to take 6 man into account).
Especially because Soviet is ATM the best faction.
Posts: 472
I understand what you are saying. They deviated from the normal cost en reinforce formula in the past though. 6 men for soviet team weapons need to stay its a core design feuture.
The number of models are not the only factor to decide a sqauds costs imo. Again maxim takes to long to supress has a small arc and can be deathlooped. It recieves more damage this way then an other mg wich can supress on time. Reducing the 160 hp bonus to almost 0. Hence imo 240 mp is the correct price for the maxim.
4 men captured maxims are ok vs soviets cuz soviets lack long range inf with ai upgrades mostly, and dont have much nades if it all to lob at it (frontaly) okw but esp ost has little trouble dealing with maxims once nades and ai upgrades are unlocked.
Merge is very usefull indeed. You do need another unit to give the maxim or any soviet team weapon or squad such survivability though. Thats a minimum of 500mp that you need to give the maxim that level of staying power.
Thats a minimum of 500mp that you need to give the maxim that level of staying power.
Posts: 1289
You can't simply say 6-man is core feature so we can't remove it - yet I want to have same cost as other mgs.
I do understand deathlooped is painful to watch, but it also happens to other 4-man mgs. Yes it does take a bit more time - but that doesn't really matter. Deathloop happens when opponent have enormous raw AI power, and it is likely to happen to any other mg on same situation. And other then that certain situation, +2 men do help survivability.
I find this quite funny. As if Sov pays for cons just to merge the unit right?
They not only give more surviavability and more time on field, but also the cost of reinforce is reduced. (20 -> 18 if 7-man upgraded)
Posts: 472
Other mg's dont get deathloped when retreating after pick up. Its just teleports to the next running model. The maxim can keep getting deathloped even then.
You need a 260mp and a 240 mp unit at the same location. You cant split squads in two. When the cons merge they cant be far away.
Posts: 80
3 | |||||
1 | |||||
522 |