LMGs

My concerns: Since the patch that change infantry lethality, LMGs have been designated to long range weapons similar to SMGs excelling at close range. As the community most likely has realized these weapons can be extremely strong. These problems exist for several reasons including that long range being the most likely range for units to encounter each other in, also unlike weapons like the SMG, LMGs are still rather strong at all ranges while a weapon like the SMG are nearly useless outside of their intended range. Retreating units as well must also retreat through these units intended range if their attempts to close the distance fails, giving them another advantage in wiping retreating units.
Not to mention that this sort of balance isn't even well representative of of LMGs as a whole as these guns are hardly less efficient at closer ranges. In truth I do not believe there should be a heavy weapon excelling at long range as these weapons are simply too powerful, especially if massed.

My Suggestion: What I think would help the balance of these units is a rework of the weapons as a whole to create weaknesses and disadvantages while still maintaining a sense of lethality these weapons deserve.

LMGs should be general upgrade to normal weapons whose damage is consistent at all ranges, but in turn do less damage then other weapons to units in cover. This would solidify the LMGs role as a defensive weapon making them good for killing infantry attempting to cross large sections of land without cover, but be less useful in attacking entrenched units. It would also create a weakness for opposing forces to exploit, allowing them to use cover to overpower them and reducing their usefulness in in areas with a lot of cover. It would also be a better representation of their real life counterpart as these weapons lacked the precision to pick off enemies coming out of cover.

So what do you think of LMGs, and what do you think would help balance them?

That is certainly one way to address the LMG problem. It would also allow LMGs to punish blobbing as infantry blobs are rarely in cover.

Another suggestion I would offer would be to reduce the dps of LMGs overall all ranges but to increase their effectiveness (back up to current levels) when in cover. It would work exactly like it does for osttruppen but only effect the LMG gunner. This would result in LMGs being effective defensive weapons but not as effective offensively. It would also make the LMG squad less mobile as the squad would have to stick to cover to maximize their damage output.

Interesting idea for sure omega warrior. It even sounds sort of logical with the spray and pray type of lmgs

That is certainly one way to address the LMG problem. It would also allow LMGs to punish blobbing as infantry blobs are rarely in cover.

Another suggestion I would offer would be to reduce the dps of LMGs overall all ranges but to increase their effectiveness (back up to current levels) when in cover. It would work exactly like it does for osttruppen but only effect the LMG gunner. This would result in LMGs being effective defensive weapons but not as effective offensively. It would also make the LMG squad less mobile as the squad would have to stick to cover to maximize their damage output.

That might work as well. I feel like when relic made the adjustments to ranges they didn't quite know what to do with LMGs and just attached an optimum range to them like they did with the other weapons.I really think that LMGs deserve to have their own unique attributes that differentiate themselves from other point and shoot weapons. A bit like a counterpart to the flamer upgrades.

I support this idea. I'm all for a mix of realism and balance. I still would have prefered the old LMG being close to mid range.

Cruzz made an interesting and well received suggestion for LMGs in the Relic dedicated thread for feedback on long range infantry combat:

While there are some minor performance issues with short range firearms, the fundamental issue is just ease of use. With how the system is setup right now, you get very good performance just by selecting all your LMG armed long-range infantry, and amoving towards the enemy. By contrast trying to use short range troops generally involves much more roundabout maneuvering to setup flanks, use of smoke, and so on, yet the cost performance of these short range units is generally not THAT much better than the LMG blob.

While just reducing long range damage somewhat is an option, I do think it could be interesting if the LMG damage was made to spread damage on the entire enemy squad instead of focused on a single model. Right now a big part of the power of LMGs is that they will very quickly snipe off members from the enemy squad, forcing shorter range troops to just run away because having half a squad in melee doesn't really help them. Spread the damage out and you'll instead have a much larger though lower health squad coming into melee instead, which could actually do something. It would also make MGs a bit more efficient against LMG blobbing, because right now the gunner just gets instakilled in a row because all the fire is focused on him due to him being the most forward member of the MG squad.

http://www.coh2.org/topic/20942/action-items-balance-feedback-required/post/186930

Cruzz made an interesting and well received suggestion for LMGs in the Relic dedicated thread for feedback on long range infantry combat:


http://www.coh2.org/topic/20942/action-items-balance-feedback-required/post/186930

This suggestion is the best solution imo. The only problem with lmgs is that they "snipe" entities.

I also wouldn't say that long range engagements ar the likliest, I'd say it's

1. map dependant

2. skill dependant

Cruzz made an interesting and well received suggestion for LMGs in the Relic dedicated thread for feedback on long range infantry combat:


http://www.coh2.org/topic/20942/action-items-balance-feedback-required/post/186930

That's a pretty cool suggestion, but wonder if there is even a way for units to target a whole squad rather then a single entity.

That might work as well. I feel like when relic made the adjustments to ranges they didn't quite know what to do with LMGs and just attached an optimum range to them like they did with the other weapons.I really think that LMGs deserve to have their own unique attributes that differentiate themselves from other point and shoot weapons. A bit like a counterpart to the flamer upgrades.

That is exactly what relic did. Every weapon was given an optimal range so there would in theory be advantages and disadvantages to each and players would choose upgrades based on need. The largest issue imo is that it is just significantly easier to use LMGs at their optimal range compared to closer range weapons such as SMGs and ARs. Either LMGs need to pay a dps tax due to this ease of use or they need to have a downside that makes it harder to achieve their current optimal range dps.

That is exactly what relic did. Every weapon was given an optimal range so there would in theory be advantages and disadvantages to each and players would choose upgrades based on need. The largest issue imo is that it is just significantly easier to use LMGs at their optimal range compared to closer range weapons such as SMGs and ARs. Either LMGs need to pay a dps tax due to this ease of use or they need to have a downside that makes it harder to achieve their current optimal range dps.

Well like I said before, LMGs do better damage then a normal rifle even at the closest of ranges they just don't scale as well as they would at long range. When compared SMGs who do almost no damage at long range, their performance seems a bit ridiculous.

My concerns: Since the patch that change infantry lethality, LMGs have been designated to long range weapons similar to SMGs excelling at close range. As the community most likely has realized these weapons can be extremely strong. These problems exist for several reasons including that long range being the most likely range for units to encounter each other in, also unlike weapons like the SMG, LMGs are still rather strong at all ranges while a weapon like the SMG are nearly useless outside of their intended range. Retreating units as well must also retreat through these units intended range if their attempts to close the distance fails, giving them another advantage in wiping retreating units.
Not to mention that this sort of balance isn't even well representative of of LMGs as a whole as these guns are hardly less efficient at closer ranges. In truth I do not believe there should be a heavy weapon excelling at long range as these weapons are simply too powerful, especially if massed.

My Suggestion: What I think would help the balance of these units is a rework of the weapons as a whole to create weaknesses and disadvantages while still maintaining a sense of lethality these weapons deserve.

LMGs should be general upgrade to normal weapons whose damage is consistent at all ranges, but in turn do less damage then other weapons to units in cover. This would solidify the LMGs role as a defensive weapon making them good for killing infantry attempting to cross large sections of land without cover, but be less useful in attacking entrenched units. It would also create a weakness for opposing forces to exploit, allowing them to use cover to overpower them and reducing their usefulness in in areas with a lot of cover. It would also be a better representation of their real life counterpart as these weapons lacked the precision to pick off enemies coming out of cover.

So what do you think of LMGs, and what do you think would help balance them?

great idea dude, Thumbs Up

That's a pretty cool suggestion, but wonder if there is even a way for units to target a whole squad rather then a single entity.

MG42 has some unique code and stats (or atleast used to) which scales its DPS across an area and the models in it, to how many models are within an area (id dont know how wide), that it is firing at. Perhaps some of that can be implemented to LMGs to a similar result.

I nwver entirely understood how it was done exactlyl but I think there might be something there that can be used.

As to the part of your suggestion about reducing LMG efficiency vs units in cover, if I understand stats correctly on this, I think it is possible to adjust the weapons performance specifically vs different types of cover, so that could be done in practice.

As to the dps at different ranges as the other part of your proposal, that ofc should be quite easy to adjust.

So ypur suggestion is atleast possible to implement, as far as I understand the games mechanics.
But, whether to do so or not?

Just have to comment a bit on historical accuracy, since you mention that peripherally as part of your justification. True MGs, in all varieties, IRL, are primarily used to suppress enemies by throwing huge amounts of lead downfield. If you are standing/running in the field of fire of an MG, you are as good as dead. Having fired an MG into popup targets in both a prepared forest and espevially in an amphibious landing scenario approach, its ridiculously easy to knock them down. Perhqps you know the lyrics/meme of "Pop pop pop, watch the bodies drop"? Its like that, no kidding.

So hough I agree that perhaps their effectivness should be reduced vs units that stay in cover (especially because LMGs dont really carry a significant suppression element), I think that would however need to be counteracted with a stronger effect vs units NOT in cover. Assaulting an MG through the open, even an LMG, is suicidal IRL. It just cant be done.

From my own conscript experience in the Finnish army, and how we are taught to build a defensive line, and how to assault the enemies, this is drummed into us time and time again. MGs are a core weapon to secure a flank, the field of fire which covers the entire approach to the defense line. The thumb rule is you need atleast 3x the men, to even consider assaulting a position supported by a MG(LMG or HMG). Why? For the very cynical reason, that you need to present so many targets, from different approaches, that the one barrel cant point at them all at once, and finally someone gets close enough for lethal effect.

Historically also, there have been truly heroic assaults on MGs, but almost without exception, that has meant the obliteratiin of the entire squad/platoon, except for one lucky/insane guy who manages to get close enough close enough, while his friend get killed, to throw an explosive, or unload a full SMG clip, or even in hand-to-hand combat in some truly exceptional cases of hardassity (new word) into the position (oftentimes already fatally wounded themselves).

So that presents a problem, because if LMGs are less effective vs covered units, they then also, logically, need to be more effective vs uncovered units, which means Assault/close style units would have an even harder time approaching, necessarily often out of cover, so it sort of defeats the purpose of making Assaults more effective (which I figure was your primary desire, yes?). Mid/Long range units in cover could slowly shoot at it, but frankly most infantry just cant match mid/long range dps of LMGs, even if a cover modifier was applied, unless they ALSO are carrying an LMG.

See what I mean?

Yes Cannonade you are right, you can adjust a weapons performance vs cover. The accuracy and damage modifiers are weapon specific, with each one having his own profile vs the 4 types of cover. Most weapons share the same modifiers, with some exceptions like the IR STG44.

Yes Cannonade you are right, you can adjust a weapons performance vs cover. The accuracy and damage modifiers are weapon specific, with each one having his own profile vs the 4 types of cover. Most weapons share the same modifiers, with some exceptions like the IR STG44.

Thanks for confirmation, although I think there are actually overall more than 4 cover types.

Thanks for confirmation, although I think there are actually overall more than 4 cover types.

Yeah there are actually 18 different cover types, but there are a lot with no actual differences.
Here are the different stats for the kar98 from a grenadier for example

Show Spoiler

Yeah there are actually 18 different cover types, but there are a lot with no actual differences.
Here are the different stats for the kar98 from a grenadier for example

Show Spoiler

Yep, thanks for stats. I was figuring about 12.

I figure those can all be adjusted relatively easy, and since we dont have target tables and infantry armor was removed, is perhaps an area of the game, in relation to certain weapons, that is still open for some marginal style fine tuning of balance and also differentiation, for infantry based units, even Support Weapons/Field artillery.

LMGs certainly need some changing, but I am not sure which is the best. I guess just test all

There are many possibilities to change them. I'd keep them long range focused or at least similar at all ranges, as the short range focus of the old ones was just too lethal. Other possibilities for changes would be:
- Incremental accuracy combined with lower base accuracy
- Split damage between all entities in the target squad (so you do not drop models so fast)
- Low performance in the open, bonus performance (similar to Osttruppen) when in cover
- Increasing performance depending on how long the squad is standing still (Similar to Kubel, but might be hard due to squad reaction / cover seeking)
- Slower movement for the squad (Carry LMG + Ammo) allowing it to be evaded easier
- Lower DPS, but higher penetration to make it a better soft light vehicle counter
...

No offence, but half of those are terrible and dont fix the stated problem.

There are ofc an infinite variety of options, such as it firing a burst of flowers every 10th volley, but if they dont address the issue or are co sistent with design, they can be largely discounted and a core list of suggestions considered instead.

Cruzz made an interesting and well received suggestion for LMGs in the Relic dedicated thread for feedback on long range infantry combat:


http://www.coh2.org/topic/20942/action-items-balance-feedback-required/post/186930

If it seems good on paper, it will be a nightmare in game. You'll rush the LMG squad with your SMG one and finish with a 4 men squad alive but almost wiped out and still didn't inflict any damage, in close range and fucked up because you can't anymore retreat - not enough hp and the deadly LMG accuracy at short/mid/long range, it will just be a lose your squad Run just to get the possibility of what, killing one model of the LMG squad before being wiped out? Better having the actual gameplay, at least you are not going to intent stupid actions because you see your squad models still up during the run.

LMG maximum area of damage must be short as SMG one, one works on far range, the other works close range. Nothing less nothing more. At the moment a squad move from the area of damage, the dps dealt to it must become ridiculus as for SMG dps.

If it is not what it was in real life, at least it is balanced.