Login

russian armor

Suggested buff for MG-42

24 Jan 2015, 08:46 AM
#1
avatar of Enkidu

Posts: 351

Hey guys. In this current patch, a lot of people feel as though Ost is underperforming in 1v1 and while there are varying theories on why that is and what to do about it, one of the things I see brought up often is that the MG-42 is not doing it's job well. I agree, and while I used to be of the mindset that a suppression buff was in order, I no longer think that.

Trying to look at this from both sides of the coin, a unit that can suppress in one burst at long range is not fun to play against and while buffing the suppression alone might make the MG-42 perform better in some regards, I don't think it would entirely solve the current issue of it having a hard time doing it's job.

I've been watching a lot of games lately using obs mode, and I've had time to more closely observe things that I may normally miss when playing due to micro demands. In specifically watching MG-42 usage in high level games, I've noticed that when the MG-42 isn't being shot at, it does just fine.

It takes a few bursts at max range to suppress, giving the player being shot a little time to react, but at far/mid and closer, squads are suppressed fairly quickly with an acceptable aoe radius. The real problem arises when the MG itself starts being shot back at from mid range or closer.

Time and time again I saw Con or rifle squads that had only managed a partial flank on an MG-42 open up with a volley from mid range and decrew the gunner, causing the MG to stop firing and obviously stop building it's suppression on the squads it was shooting at. Regardless of gren support and positioning, it is simply too easy to damage the MG-42 crew from mid range and force it to retreat or risk it's loss. This is because of the received accuracy penalty that all weapon teams share.

Many patches ago, all weapon teams got a 25% received accuracy penalty to reward flanking them. Since that time, a lot of things have changed and the dps in the game in general has gone up with the weapon profile changes and the addition of the WFA armies. The MG-42's suppression has also gone down and the days of the 10% suppression bulletin insta pin nonsense are long behind us. I'm fine with the current suppression levels on the MG-42, but as the unit is more of a direct combat unit than other support teams like AT guns and mortars (which can generally sit farther back from direct engagements), I think it's time that the received accuracy penalty for the 4 man MG crews be removed.

A small arms durability buff to the 4 man MG crews would go a long way in allowing them to remain on the field long enough to do their job without having to buff suppression and return us to a frustrating infantry experience for allied players. They would still be vulnerable to indirect fire, nades, proper flanks with close range weapons etc, but would be much less of a liability to build for the axis (and US) players.

TL;DR: Remove the received accuracy penalty from 4 man MG crews instead of buffing suppression.
24 Jan 2015, 10:24 AM
#2
avatar of Jaigen

Posts: 1130

No i dont agree. what you describe is simply bad gameplay on part of the mg user. You should have a wall of infantry providing protection so they dont get shot down.

The entire point of the mg42 is a force multiplier that fails to deliver as blob can still walk right over you mg and supporting units.

What the mg42 and mg34 need is significantly better suppression against (and im talking 25%) units in the open (not against the ones in yellow or green cover)

This way full frontal blob assaults get mercilessly shot down.
24 Jan 2015, 11:33 AM
#3
avatar of RMMLz

Posts: 1802 | Subs: 1

I agree that the problem is the durability of the MGs, all of them not only HMG42. A couple of double bar rifles easily perform a frontal assault and wipe your MG.

The major problem I think is grenade range. USF has smoke which completely hard counters MGs, and shock troops can crawl towards the MG while suppressed, throw a smoke and then throw another grenade and thanks to the new cover system wipe your MG. We need grenade range reduced while suppressed. This is also a problem with Grens rifle grenade.

Blob debuff is also an option. If you have like 3 squads or more close to each other, they receive more suppression (like 30% more).
24 Jan 2015, 11:38 AM
#4
avatar of TNrg

Posts: 640

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Jan 2015, 08:46 AMEnkidu


Many patches ago, all weapon teams got a 25% received accuracy penalty to reward flanking them.


Well, it kind of rewards flanking but it also rewards just running head-on and killing it. Which is of course bad play.
24 Jan 2015, 12:13 PM
#5
avatar of Herzy

Posts: 16

Heavy machine guns should shred infantry at medium-close range. Heavy machine guns should penetrate light vehicles reliably. Machine guns should be something more than suppression units, they should work as AA half trucks, both suppressing and shredding. Of course not as good as them. Light machine guns are so much better at killing infantry, which are just the weapons without the tripods.

Actually you know what? Machine guns should have two fire options, suppression fire and one precision fire. Suppression fire should be as we know, and precision fire should be like how lmgs work; where they use separated bursts to do damage but no suppression. So a single unit can't run to the mg, throw molotov or grenade and successfully defeat a HMG. Sometimes Obers just stand in front of MG in no cover and gun down every single one of the crew.

Also about the blob thing, let suppression delayed for the soldiers behind the first line. MG should not fire at them but fire through them, giving a lot of damage to non-suppressed squads.
24 Jan 2015, 12:29 PM
#6
avatar of Kitahara

Posts: 96

The Problem is in my opinion with cover created over the course of the game by the various explosions. Making especially contested areas to zones where the supression platforms cant perform their duty. combined with vetted squats they just dont do shit anymore like they should.

So fixing the problem has to have something to do with yellow cover and how suppression is delivered. You should be able to shodown with an a mg if your squat is in green cover. You should not be allowed to walk unsupressed over fields of craters into grenade range when not supressed, downing the gunner on the way.

24 Jan 2015, 12:33 PM
#7
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

It's nice to see someone admit that the problem with the MG42 isn't it's suppression. The thing suppresses right at the beginning of it's second burst with a huge suppression AOE. Any more and allies wouldn't have time to even try and do anything. Besides there are many other stats that can be changed.
24 Jan 2015, 13:04 PM
#8
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

1-We use to live in a world where LMG grens and DP guards were the highest DP units at long range. We now have Obers and 1919s...

2-I suggest long time ago that ability range should be reduced when suppressed (if possible engine wise). It's logical that when you are crawling that you won't throw things far away.

3-@Kitahara is right. Lategame yellow cover makes MG duty really hard. I'm not sure if suppresion modifiers should be change, since by this point of the game, veterancy should be enough to make your mgs works. This leads to my last point.

4-Can we spread out just a bit the formations of support weapons?
24 Jan 2015, 13:09 PM
#9
avatar of Stafkeh
Patrion 14

Posts: 1006

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Jan 2015, 11:33 AMRMMLz
and shock troops can crawl towards the MG while suppressed, throw a smoke and then throw another grenade and thanks to the new cover system wipe your MG.


I think this should have been fixed after one month in the release. Shocks shouldnt be allowed to trow a smoke grenade and after that a normal grenade.

It should be, when you trow a grenade, you get a cooldown timer on the grenade, but also on the smoke.
Same with molotovs and AT nades, same with with fausts and riflenades for example. They should do this for all grenades and smoke.

Would make the game more interesting to. You have to make a decision when there is infantry and armor on the field. Do I go for the infantry by trowing a grenade, or do I go for the armor by using an AT nade?
24 Jan 2015, 13:53 PM
#10
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

also disabling grenades and other throwables when suppressed would help a lot too
24 Jan 2015, 14:43 PM
#11
avatar of ElSlayer

Posts: 1605 | Subs: 1

So a 240 manpower unit should counter a blob (3 units? 4 units?) of infantry with munition upgrades (BARs? LMGs?)
24 Jan 2015, 14:50 PM
#12
avatar of Chiro
Donator 11

Posts: 90

Yes, unless you try to attack from 3 sides it definitly should supress them all.
The killing should be done by other inf squads
24 Jan 2015, 15:05 PM
#13
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

So a 240 manpower unit should counter a blob (3 units? 4 units?) of infantry with munition upgrades (BARs? LMGs?)


Yes because it's designed to do that.

You may ask as well, for example, what about T70 and 3-4 Obers squads. T70 is a way cheaper but it's disgned to counter AI infantry.

Not to mention that HMG with tripod should counter LMG without any problems...
24 Jan 2015, 15:14 PM
#14
avatar of WhySooSerious

Posts: 1248

Yeah but at the top of my mind I still want the mg42 to get suppression buff but at mid range, an increase in AoE suppression at mid range should satisfy me. :D
24 Jan 2015, 15:23 PM
#15
avatar of CasTroy

Posts: 559

So a 240 manpower unit should counter a blob (3 units? 4 units?) of infantry with munition upgrades (BARs? LMGs?)


It should do so if you are not willing to flank it. What do you think is the purpose of a heavy machine guns? Wasting Manpower?
24 Jan 2015, 15:32 PM
#16
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Jan 2015, 14:50 PMChiro
Yes, unless you try to attack from 3 sides it definitly should supress them all.
The killing should be done by other inf squads

Thats like asking for a single AT gun to counter 2-3 tanks driving frontally.
24 Jan 2015, 16:09 PM
#17
avatar of GuyFromTheSky

Posts: 229

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Jan 2015, 15:32 PMKatitof

Thats like asking for a single AT gun to counter 2-3 tanks driving frontally.


That's not at all the same thing. The MG's are area denial weapons to deny infantry the freedom to roam certain sectors of the map. The AT guns are meant to deal a lot of pinpoint damage to an armored target.
24 Jan 2015, 16:34 PM
#18
avatar of austerlitz

Posts: 1705

They can increase price if they want,but it needs to be effective.Otherwise ost earlygame vs conspam and rifles will remain shit.Of the 6 truly deadly and iconic weapon systems in the ostheer roster relic messed up 2.
Panther went from OP to flop to balance atleast.
Tiger was well done.
S-mine,probably the most feared of the german weapons and certainly the best AI mine was superflop.
Mg42 flop.
88 mm-not in game.But pak43 good.
81 mm mortar -good.
24 Jan 2015, 17:33 PM
#19
avatar of voltardark

Posts: 976

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Jan 2015, 08:46 AMEnkidu
Hey guys. In this current patch, a lot of people feel as though Ost is underperforming in 1v1 and while there are varying theories on why that is and what to do about it, one of the things I see brought up often is that the MG-42 is not doing it's job well. I agree, and while I used to be of the mindset that a suppression buff was in order, I no longer think that.

Trying to look at this from both sides of the coin, a unit that can suppress in one burst at long range is not fun to play against and while buffing the suppression alone might make the MG-42 perform better in some regards, I don't think it would entirely solve the current issue of it having a hard time doing it's job.

I've been watching a lot of games lately using obs mode, and I've had time to more closely observe things that I may normally miss when playing due to micro demands. In specifically watching MG-42 usage in high level games, I've noticed that when the MG-42 isn't being shot at, it does just fine.

It takes a few bursts at max range to suppress, giving the player being shot a little time to react, but at far/mid and closer, squads are suppressed fairly quickly with an acceptable aoe radius. The real problem arises when the MG itself starts being shot back at from mid range or closer.

Time and time again I saw Con or rifle squads that had only managed a partial flank on an MG-42 open up with a volley from mid range and decrew the gunner, causing the MG to stop firing and obviously stop building it's suppression on the squads it was shooting at. Regardless of gren support and positioning, it is simply too easy to damage the MG-42 crew from mid range and force it to retreat or risk it's loss. This is because of the received accuracy penalty that all weapon teams share.

Many patches ago, all weapon teams got a 25% received accuracy penalty to reward flanking them. Since that time, a lot of things have changed and the dps in the game in general has gone up with the weapon profile changes and the addition of the WFA armies. The MG-42's suppression has also gone down and the days of the 10% suppression bulletin insta pin nonsense are long behind us. I'm fine with the current suppression levels on the MG-42, but as the unit is more of a direct combat unit than other support teams like AT guns and mortars (which can generally sit farther back from direct engagements), I think it's time that the received accuracy penalty for the 4 man MG crews be removed.

A small arms durability buff to the 4 man MG crews would go a long way in allowing them to remain on the field long enough to do their job without having to buff suppression and return us to a frustrating infantry experience for allied players. They would still be vulnerable to indirect fire, nades, proper flanks with close range weapons etc, but would be much less of a liability to build for the axis (and US) players.

TL;DR: Remove the received accuracy penalty from 4 man MG crews instead of buffing suppression.


I support that idea and would like to improved on it with an 15% increase suppression speed for the mg42, and both the soviet's HMG at all ranges. Blobbing is still too rewarded...

Thanks !
24 Jan 2015, 18:47 PM
#20
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



That's not at all the same thing. The MG's are area denial weapons to deny infantry the freedom to roam certain sectors of the map. The AT guns are meant to deal a lot of pinpoint damage to an armored target.


Still can't expect a single unit to stop 5x worth of resources investment at least(multiple double BARed rifles like in the example mentioned before), if it could, it would be a textbook definition of imbalance.
2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

398 users are online: 1 member and 397 guests
Brick Top
8 posts in the last 24h
14 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48841
Welcome our newest member, Gemwin Dance
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM