mg34 needs a price increase or a small nerf

I don't know why people keep talking up the MG42 like it was god's gift to machine guns. It had a completely unnecessary rate of fire that ate up ammo and was inaccurate compared to the 34.

Everything is backwards here. The MG42 was designed to be easier to produce, but the MG34 is 30mp cheaper. The 42 was a little lighter than the 34, but has a full second longer setup time. The 34 has slower rate of fire, but suppresses better.

IMO, the 34 should not suppress as effectively as the 42, in both splash or individual units, and the 42 should deal more damage at close range. The 34 should have more dps at mid-long range though, and should have a little longer burst when firing.

I don't know why people keep talking up the MG42 like it was god's gift to machine guns. It had a completely unnecessary rate of fire that ate up ammo and was inaccurate compared to the 34.

Everything is backwards here. The MG42 was designed to be easier to produce, but the MG34 is 30mp cheaper. The 42 was a little lighter than the 34, but has a full second longer setup time. The 34 has slower rate of fire, but suppresses better.

IMO, the 34 should not suppress as effectively as the 42, in both splash or individual units, and the 42 should deal more damage at close range. The 34 should have more dps at mid-long range though, and should have a little longer burst when firing.

You seem to miss the point of a Heavy Machine Gun; the tripod, or even bipod for a machine gun almost completely negates the issue of fire rate in terms of accuracy, thus allowing accurate (by automatic firearm standards) fire at medium to long ranges, regardless of the actual fire rate. Fire rate is actually a boon (disregarding the issue of ammo, which for HMG's usually isn't an issue) because the stability of the firing platform itself almost completely negates the issue of recoil. If you've ever fired from a tripod or even bipod, you would understand that. The MG42 was cheaper and better, and could be produced more quickly as well.

I don't know why people keep talking up the MG42 like it was god's gift to machine guns. It had a completely unnecessary rate of fire that ate up ammo and was inaccurate compared to the 34.

Everything is backwards here. The MG42 was designed to be easier to produce, but the MG34 is 30mp cheaper. The 42 was a little lighter than the 34, but has a full second longer setup time. The 34 has slower rate of fire, but suppresses better.

IMO, the 34 should not suppress as effectively as the 42, in both splash or individual units, and the 42 should deal more damage at close range. The 34 should have more dps at mid-long range though, and should have a little longer burst when firing.

Ever fired either of the two?
"Unnecessary" ROF is well, just like your opinion man. One core German experience was that in contemporary infantry combat a competent opponent would only ever expose himself very briefly thus making a high ROF imperative. Of course, to fully tap the guns potential required a skilled gunner, but no design decision comes without a trade-off. Despite the high ROF squeezing off single shots with the 42 is quite doable btw, in the Bundeswehr this is still widely practised with the MG 3. (ROF slightly slower at 1000 RPM+)
The tripod for the 42 regulated the ROF to 600 RPM and included a 4 power scope, effectively allowing for all advanced HMG shenanigans, plunging fires, beaten zones, dead gun, etc.
As for accuracy, the factory accurary requirement for the 42 was just the same as for the 34 at 4 MOA. (thats about 10cms at 100 meters) Which btw is about the ballpark requirement for most modern assault rifles including ie. the AR 15 derivatives in US service.

A scope on an MG doesn't sound like a good idea. I don't see how that oould be used without breaking your own face.

Nah.
The scope is mounted on the tripod - you dont fire with a conventional cheekweld like you would operate a rifle, in fact you have no direct contact with the gun whatsoever, so your face is not in danger. It works just fine, still in use with several armies around the globe.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dD4OH-qlRcY
For illustration. Ahhh....machineguns, and donuts!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rheinmetall_MG_3#mediaviewer/File:IL%C3%9C_2012_-_MG3.jpg

Except modern MGs all have a rate of fire similar to the MG34 for a reason. The US actually reduced the rate of fire of their machineguns because empirical studies showed that higher rates of fire simply wasted ammunition past a certain point. A burst from a 600 rpm machinegun was just as effective as a 900 or 1500 rpm burst in ground combat.

Accuracy =! recoil, a weapon can still be inaccurate on a tripod. The MG-42 had lots of vibration due to the high rate of fire so it had considerable dispersion, which was actually helpful in a defensive situation since you're fighting large groups of advancing infantry, you don't need to be pinpoint.

It was a good defensive weapon, but it had several downsides and wasn't the Greatest Weapon Ever Made™ like a lot of people seem to believe.

Except modern MGs all have a rate of fire similar to the MG34 for a reason. The US actually reduced the rate of fire of their machineguns because empirical studies showed that higher rates of fire simply wasted ammunition past a certain point. A burst from a 600 rpm machinegun was just as effective as a 900 or 1500 rpm burst in ground combat.

Accuracy =! recoil, a weapon can still be inaccurate on a tripod. The MG-42 had lots of vibration due to the high rate of fire so it had considerable dispersion, which was actually helpful in a defensive situation since you're fighting large groups of advancing infantry, you don't need to be pinpoint.

It was a good defensive weapon, but it had several downsides and wasn't the Greatest Weapon Ever Made™ like a lot of people seem to believe.

When speaking of technical properties, accuracy has nothing whatsoever to do with recoil. As far as dispersion pattern go, there is some truth to that from the bipod, to a point. When it comes to practical accuracy, hitting a man sized target with the tripod is eminently doable in excess of a 1000 meters. In fact I would not quite feel safe at 2 kms - as long as the gunner can actually see/identify you. The beauty of the 34/42 family is just that: It is not inferior to a watercooled MG in the HMG role as longs as you have spare barrels, neither in accuracy nor in terms of sustained fire.
"Greatest Weapon Ever Made"? Didnt see anyone making that claim, however:
By contemporary standards, the 42 was far and away the most advanced and practical design among its peers and it continues to be viable today. As for the studies you quoted, can you provide them? I would certainly find them interesting, and I could see if I could dig up the German material that prompted the high ROF as a design requirement of the 42.

No mg will ever get a squad wipe of unless your opponent is an idiot. suppressed units gain a defensive bonus and even with incendiary ammo will take some time.

To be honest i find the mg34 not over performing but the mg42 underperforming.

this is part of the reason the maxim is so powerful. if it gets suppressed it now has a defensive bonus AND fires normally. if it then gets pinned it now has the bonus again AND it still fires normally. the only way to force off a maxim is to threaten to quickly wipe it.

Except modern MGs all have a rate of fire similar to the MG34 for a reason. The US actually reduced the rate of fire of their machineguns because empirical studies showed that higher rates of fire simply wasted ammunition past a certain point. A burst from a 600 rpm machinegun was just as effective as a 900 or 1500 rpm burst in ground combat.

Accuracy =! recoil, a weapon can still be inaccurate on a tripod. The MG-42 had lots of vibration due to the high rate of fire so it had considerable dispersion, which was actually helpful in a defensive situation since you're fighting large groups of advancing infantry, you don't need to be pinpoint.

It was a good defensive weapon, but it had several downsides and wasn't the Greatest Weapon Ever Made™ like a lot of people seem to believe.

You do remember that this is a machine gun we're talking about, right? The entire purpose is to provide heavy amounts of sustained fire in order to suppress enemy positions. By comparison to its contemporaries, the MG42 outperformed in basically every aspect. When the war ended, Germany searched the world for a better MG, and when they didn't find one, they just improved the MG42 and turned it first into the MG42/59, followed by the MG3, still one of the best machine guns in existence.
What is "The Greatest Weapon Ever Made" anyway? Of course the weapon had weaknesses, but basically every weapon does; list any weapon, and it'll have flaws. The MG42 performed exceptionally in its role and was far ahead of any other WW2 machine gun for the infantry support role.

I still maintain what I said earlier about the in-game MG34. I agree with the OP that in terms of team placement that it's doing too well.

Undoubtedly it was really good, but does its superiority translate into a significant difference on the battlefield or is it just over engineered...?

Undoubtedly it was really good, but does its superiority translate into a significant difference on the battlefield or is it just over engineered...?

Oh it did. While the mg's of other nations where basically just support for the infantry the mg42/34 where the centerpiece of a infantry squad. if you compare the mg42 to the maxim , 50 cal or vickers the mg42/34 series did not only produce much more firepower but also was half the weight of the allied mg's. this made mg 42/34 much more mobile and able to support the german infantry.

Undoubtedly it was really good, but does its superiority translate into a significant difference on the battlefield or is it just over engineered...?

You might argue that in a modern war between peer, industrialised nations the quality of small arms is not a decisive factor and there is some validity to that. The big killer on 20th century battlefields has generally been the artillery. Still, not so far back in military history, advantages in small arms confered a very tangible and often decisive boon. Think the Boer war, or the Russo-Turkish war 1877-1878, or the Franco-German war where the superiority of the Chassepot over the Dreyse needlefire often had a telling impact indeed. Operations, and battles, after all, start, and end, at the tactical level. Of course all this is hard to quantify but it most certainly is not an insignificant factor.
A famous quote for increased smartassery: Whatever happens, we have got: The Maxim gun, and they have not.

Oh it did. While the mg's of other nations where basically just support for the infantry the mg42/34 where the centerpiece of a infantry squad. if you compare the mg42 to the maxim , 50 cal or vickers the mg42/34 series did not only produce much more firepower but also was half the weight of the allied mg's. this made mg 42/34 much more mobile and able to support the german infantry.

To be all technical, thats not really a fitting comparison, as neither the Maxim nor the Vickers or 50 cals were used as squad-level mgs but usually as Company/Bataillon assets in weapons platoons and their equivalent were the 34/42s on tripod. On the squad level the Soviets utilised the DP, and the Brits of course the Bren while the US possessed no real analogue for sustained fire.

I think the point of this discussion is, when you're having 1200 rounds being shoved into your face, it's probably going to be a lot more persuading than having "just" 800 RPM.

The MG-34 has to be innately less effective than the MG42 due to it's cost and the description of the call-in. And when it has much, much better suppression compared to the MG42, which is the point of ALL HMGs in this game, there's a problem.

I think the point of this discussion is, when you're having 1200 rounds being shoved into your face, it's probably going to be a lot more persuading than having "just" 800 RPM.

The MG-34 has to be innately less effective than the MG42 due to it's cost and the description of the call-in. And when it has much, much better suppression compared to the MG42, which is the point of ALL HMGs in this game, there's a problem.

MGs with a medium level of RPM suppressing better than high and low RPM HMG is proper.

the extra suppression the 34 have is so good I think I rather have .9 suppression over 14dps anyday