Perhaps MG 34 needs to be reworked?

Please read this link -- (https://coh2.win/guide/machine-guns-specifications) after viewing, answer why the German machine guns are insanely strong, and in particular, please pay attention to the MG34.

While I like this site, all of these descriptions are just a subjective opinion of the site owner.
Doesn't mean they are wrong per se, but these are by no means objective metrics and many details are lost.

I am also not sure what exactly you want to point out with the MG34.

I am also not sure what exactly you want to point out with the MG34.

Yeah I'm not sure either. Even considering that it's opinion, the author himself says he thinks it's pretty mediocre.

the em dzhi thirty four is an alright machine gun, machine guns are not supposed to do damage but to suppress enemies


it does that well, except the mg-42 does it way better. could be turned into a mg-42 clone for all i care

While I like this site, all of these descriptions are just a subjective opinion of the site owner.
Doesn't mean they are wrong per se, but these are by no means objective metrics and many details are lost.

I am also not sure what exactly you want to point out with the MG34.

What? You mean to say that the table is not objective, but you don't mean to say that it is not true?
This data is not taken from the head, but from tests, this is not an opinion. Tell me specifically which indicators are lies. In this table, everything is in fact.

Yeah I'm not sure either. Even considering that it's opinion, the author himself says he thinks it's pretty mediocre.

This is not my opinion, but a fact. I give examples of numbers, but you do not.

the em dzhi thirty four is an alright machine gun, machine guns are not supposed to do damage but to suppress enemies


it does that well, except the mg-42 does it way better. could be turned into a mg-42 clone for all i care

No, the MG 34 is the worst machine gun and the numbers confirm this. And what about the damage? You somehow very conveniently missed the fact that other machine guns bypass the MG in everything except for the arch, which is not needed in this game if you have a machine gun that is as mobile as the Americans or the Soviets. MG 34 is worse than the rest in everything. As a player for the USSR, you are lying because you are playing against the Germans. Give Maxim the characteristics of mg-34, and give the characteristics of mg-34 to Maxim and I will see how you cry.

While I like this site, all of these descriptions are just a subjective opinion of the site owner.
Doesn't mean they are wrong per se, but these are by no means objective metrics and many details are lost.

I am also not sure what exactly you want to point out with the MG34.

If the numbers are not true (not objective), then tell me what exactly is wrong. But it is "objectively" to say that everything is in order with mg34, when this is obviously not the case.
If you're not saying these numbers don't lie, then what do you mean by "objective"? I see only an attempt without arguments to prove to me that I am wrong.

If the numbers are not true (not objective), then tell me what exactly is wrong. But it is "objectively" to say that everything is in order with mg34, when this is obviously not the case.
If you're not saying these numbers don't lie, then what do you mean by "objective"? I see only an attempt without arguments to prove to me that I am wrong.

Look, I know this is probably just a case of info or intent getting lost in translation, but your opening question was:

[...] Why the German machine guns are insanely strong, and in particular, please pay attention to the MG34.

To which people responded that it isn't that insanely strong in many areas when compared to other MGs, except maybe suppression. Which is the actual point you tried to make I guess? If so, that was totally not obvious from your OP and slamming people for this is pretty much uncalled for.

As far as the info given on the site goes, how is something like ranking suppression and 'whole line damage' (?) as good, medium or bad anything else than subjective? There is no metric or explanation given how those assessments are derived (which is totally fine for a subjective ranking btw), not to mention that some info like damage per bullet means nothing at all for comparison if other values (accuracy, rate of fire, burst length, delays, etc) aren't given as well.

In short, the data presented on the site you linked is surely helpful for newer players to get a rough idea about the relative performance of the MGs listed, but I would take it with a grain of salt. Some of the data is rather questionable or based on outdated stats, other info is just plain wrong (such as the incediary rounds ability for the MG34 not providing any damage buffs, for example).

What? You mean to say that the table is not objective, but you don't mean to say that it is not true?
This data is not taken from the head, but from tests, this is not an opinion. Tell me specifically which indicators are lies. In this table, everything is in fact.

If the numbers are not true (not objective), then tell me what exactly is wrong. But it is "objectively" to say that everything is in order with mg34, when this is obviously not the case.
If you're not saying these numbers don't lie, then what do you mean by "objective"? I see only an attempt without arguments to prove to me that I am wrong.

"per se" in this context means that the table is not automatically wrong because it is subjective. You're also not showing real data nor the method used to collect it, you're mostly showing (subjective) conclusions. Data would be "After 10 tests of the Maxim shooting Volks, the Volks had 73% health left on average".

Anyway, my main concern is:
Some of this data is questionable.
Suppression of the MG34 for example is, according to the table, lower than of the MG42. From what I know and from what Sanders (balance team member) posted, the difference is until an enemy squad is suppressed is very small. I don't have any hard data on that personally, but it was mentioned in previous discussions. Suppression apparently also depends on the squad size of the targeted squad. Axis MGs mostly shoot at 5-6 model squads for most of the game. As Allies, you're rather in the range of 4-5. Additionally, higher damage weapons like the Vickers can have the issue of sniping the model before suppression, leading to a small break in shooting and enemy units sometimes traversing out of the arch. Low damage can be a good thing if you only want suppression.

Next, the single bullet damage and the "whole line damage" (here I assume you mean total damage between reloads?) don't really matter. The M2HB looks 4 times better than let's say the MG42 in the single bullet damage. Does it do 4 times the damage when you test them in game? No it does not. This metric does not give any info since MGs will almost never connect only one single bullet.
Similar is the whole line damage. You classify the M2HB as medium, the MG42 as high. What if the MG42 needs longer to cycle through the belt? This is the DPS data on all HMGs against target size 1 infantry.



M2HB, MG42, Vickers and Maxim have similar damage at max range. Yet, the M2HB is classified lower.
Also, those four MGs split at mid range. A similar difference lead to the MG34 being classified as lower damage and the Dshk as high damage. Now, do we compare at max range, slightly below max range, mid range? Options are endless. Abilities of the MGs are neglected or only quickly brushed over, and so are penetration values that can come in handy vs light vehicles, cost for the most part and population.

I fully understand that the table is there to give a quick overview and it is fully okay and even necessary to leave out information. But I would not take it at face value as the only basis for discussion, for the reasons I just described: There are too many nuances missed. Especially since no one knows how exactly the table was made and how you collected the data and came to those conclusions.


By the way you respond I assume you know the person who made the site or maybe you even made it yourself. In that case: Very good job! Kudos to you!
But please be aware that many of those classifications ("good", "poor", etc) are sometimes wrong or at the very least not shared by all others. That's why I said those are subjective.

This is not my opinion, but a fact. I give examples of numbers, but you do not.

You're giving numbers provided from an author (whom I was referring to) who considered the MG34 to be somewhat mediocre himself.

On top of that, the site is a bit outdated anyways. The description for the Maxim states that Sustained Fire is unlocked on vet 1. Even if this is updated, it shows the author lacks attention to detail.

No, the MG 34 is the worst machine gun and the numbers confirm this.

I'm just waiting for the alliedcucks to come here and pour over this little guy

You're giving numbers provided from an author (whom I was referring to) who considered the MG34 to be somewhat mediocre himself.

On top of that, the site is a bit outdated anyways. The description for the Maxim states that Sustained Fire is unlocked on vet 1. Even if this is updated, it shows the author lacks attention to detail.

It also says that MG34 is built from Support Weapon Kampaneya. Even if it's an honest mistake you just can't take someone seriously leaving stuff like this up for years on end.

I'm just waiting for the alliedcucks to come here and pour over this little guy

Give me at least one advantage of the MG-34, only the shelling arch is not taken into account, since the MG-42 and Vickers have the same arch, while the MG-34 is installed and folded at the same speed as the Vickers and MG-42. MG-34 is a Chinese copy of MG-42 only worse in every way. Give the OKW the same machine gun as the Americans, since it is so "bad" ...

You're giving numbers provided from an author (whom I was referring to) who considered the MG34 to be somewhat mediocre himself.

On top of that, the site is a bit outdated anyways. The description for the Maxim states that Sustained Fire is unlocked on vet 1. Even if this is updated, it shows the author lacks attention to detail.

Well, the opinion of the author, everything is wrong, the mg-34 is the best machine gun in the game, what is it better than the rest, what is its advantage?

Well, the opinion of the author, everything is wrong, the mg-34 is the best machine gun in the game, what is it better than the rest, what is its advantage?

No one said it was the best, they just pointed out a lot of old, wrong shit. It suppresses nearly as fast as an mg42 which is about all you want them for anyway

That's some sweet graph right here. Is this based on your True Infantry DPS calc?

That's some sweet graph right here. Is this based on your True Infantry DPS calc?

Yes. The data is as you know as old as the last mod tools update, which is ~2 years. I am not aware of changes to the MGs regarding DPS, but it is easy to miss something in the patch notes.

No one said it was the best, they just pointed out a lot of old, wrong shit. It suppresses nearly as fast as an mg42 which is about all you want them for anyway

Exactly. No one gives a fuck about an MG's DPS since it's not their job. All they are good for is suppressing -> right click -> move back -> setup -> suppress more till the infantry moves in for the kill.

Exactly. No one gives a fuck about an MG's DPS since it's not their job. All they are good for is suppressing -> right click -> move back -> setup -> suppress more till the infantry moves in for the kill.

People who want their HMG's to gain veterancy do care about DPS. Part of the reason why MG-34 got redesigned.