"Blobbing"

I've always thought the solution to MG's was to have different firing modes. One firing mode would be for suppression, it would move to different targets as they were suppressed, but deal a very very minimal amount of damage. The second would be a dps mode, which is pretty self explanatory.

To further my clarification of this, the current firing mode is in-between these two modes, but closer to the suppression side.

Edit - In case it isn't clear, the new suppression mode would be awesome for snaring blobs of infantry

Back in the days of the MG42 bulletin and pre-nerf, it was clear you had to nerf MG42s. Still, when they had area suppression as powerful as the vCOH MG42, blobs were not a problem at all.

But why were they so powerful? One answer attack-move plus the new capping system. In vCOH you couldn't afford to cap with an MG42, at least unless you were sure the field was clear. That amount of suppression plus the ability to cap was simply too powerful.

And I still don't see a good solution to the problem. The new capping circle system has a LOT more to do with balance problems than people think.

I've always thought the solution to MG's was to have different firing modes. One firing mode would be for suppression, it would move to different targets as they were suppressed, but deal a very very minimal amount of damage. The second would be a dps mode, which is pretty self explanatory.

To further my clarification of this, the current firing mode is in-between these two modes, but closer to the suppression side.

Edit - In case it isn't clear, the new suppression mode would be awesome for snaring blobs of infantry

Good suggestion... but sadly I don't think Relic implement such mechanism. It takes them ages to tweak some small stats, let alone something like this.

Back in the days of the MG42 bulletin and pre-nerf, it was clear you had to nerf MG42s. Still, when they had area suppression as powerful as the vCOH MG42, blobs were not a problem at all.

But why were they so powerful? One answer attack-move plus the new capping system. In vCOH you couldn't afford to cap with an MG42, at least unless you were sure the field was clear. That amount of suppression plus the ability to cap was simply too powerful.

And I still don't see a good solution to the problem. The new capping circle system has a LOT more to do with balance problems than people think.

And you can just give units different capping speed.

The USF AA HT is a very good mobile suppression tool as long as it is kept at max range.

When I play USF in 4v4 I use it in combination with a Pathfinder and a HMG. The Pathfinder provide very good sight and I can use the AA HT to kite back to the HMG which will open fire on squads that is already suppressed. This way the AA HT and the HMG protects each other from schrecks and grenades, while the Pathfinder provide sight to allow them to fire at max range.

This means I have to focus on a smaller part of the map, but this is usually fine in 4v4.

If I controlled the world I would:

Add a modifier such that infantry inside a MG's cone had their DPS reduced by a large %.

I have though about other fixes but, I find the problem is that once you increase the suppression and/or damage rates too much we face MG spam. I would keep the suppression and damage output on MG's the same such that you can split squads up to counter an MG. As soon as the blobs are unable to counter an MG from the front, people will adapt and the blobs will disappear.

Fighting a blob isnt effective.

It will just return strong.

U have to kill them, either with arty. or sacrificing tanks to head to their retreat point to kill them

losing 2 shermans to kill 4 volks and 2 obers is a necessary loss.

losing 2 p4's to kill 3 sov snipers. and shocks is a necessary loss.

Back in the days of the MG42 bulletin and pre-nerf, it was clear you had to nerf MG42s. Still, when they had area suppression as powerful as the vCOH MG42, blobs were not a problem at all.

But why were they so powerful? One answer attack-move plus the new capping system. In vCOH you couldn't afford to cap with an MG42, at least unless you were sure the field was clear. That amount of suppression plus the ability to cap was simply too powerful.

And I still don't see a good solution to the problem. The new capping circle system has a LOT more to do with balance problems than people think.

I never though MG42s at their peak were OP. I rarely encountered someone spamming them, and if i did soviets always had reliable counter through oorah, molotovs, morter, clown car, shocks smoke etc. USF are also well equipped to deal with them.

BUT, its just to hard for many people and relic have simply rolled over to attract more players.

There are numerous ways relic could change mgs to make them effective but i don't think that is a direction they wish to take because even though blobbing is annoying for some it is the preferred playstyle for the many casual players that exist in this game.

it was the 10% extra suppression bulletin and the gunner could go from one side of the arc to the other in under a second that made the MG42 total bullshit at release.

MG's should be glass cannons, very deadly but easy to kill when flanked or found in bad / dumb positions. Having them be powerful but die quickly to flanks creates a reason for players to not blob and spread out. It gives the game the proper tactics rather than concentrated frontal fistfucking (blobbing) a position. If you can kill a weapon that's supposed to stop frontal assaults from the front... why would you bother to waste time with micro?

And then here is the common counter argument: what would stop mg spam? Welp, just change the cost, it's really not that hard. Make them good but not spammable but good enough that its worth having them on the field. They really should be able to stop braindead players from just taking 6 squads and controlling them like one unit. Unless I am wrong and you guys want gameplay like that...in that case never mind, let you drive the game in the direction your little hearts desire.

Before serious patching they were just very deadly
(like how ipkai stated they could re-target a new in less than a second pinning squads not even remotely close to each other very quickly, creating some pretty gimmicky play and rewarding A move with mg's and mg spam).

Here is a nice gem from post release for those who remember:
MG flank..?

the maxim will never be a glass cannon.

the maxim will never be a glass cannon.

Glad there's well thought out optimists like you. Guess I'll just put on my happy face and assume this can never change.

seriously. it's got a 6 man squad so, baring modifiers unique to it, it will always be stronger than other setup teams. it's also an assault HMG with (effective) suppression immunity and a narrow arc. it cannot function as a glass cannon in that role.

i think the maxim is very strong currently but it cannot be a glass cannon.

Maxim is the best between bad choices.

Blobbing was as apparent in vCoH, as in CoH2. Please deal with it.

really??? Did not know that lololol. I was saying blobbing is just a boring and lazy playstyle.

Yes. You are right. We need good mg's, good arty, better a.p. mines, more effective barbed wire to stop the blobs. But we dont have. So we expect Relic to do something about that.

in terms of sportmanship i dont see anything wrong with blobbing.

In terms of strategy its a risky tactic. it can be very effective, but you also risk losing eveything very quickly or risk going on a full retreat of all your squads because of an artillary barrage

It's simply a part of the game though. figuring out how close to keep your squads so they can support eachother and win engagements, but not bunching up so much that you lose map control.

I agree with this. It's a tactic like any other tactic.

Yes that theory is fine, but I think what the community is saying is that the methods for punishing blobbing are not quite as powerful as they might be, hence encouraging it more.

MGs nerfed due to previous spamming of them.
On map arty firing quite slowly.
Mines not giving suppression.


On the other hand, off maps like incendiary barrage, fear prop, stuka strafe should all be good Vs blobs, combined with other units attacking the blob ofc.

Demos could be decisive.

Yes that theory is fine, but I think what the community is saying is that the methods for punishing blobbing are not quite as powerful as they might be, hence encouraging it more.

MGs nerfed due to previous spamming of them.
On map arty firing quite slowly.
Mines not giving suppression.


On the other hand, off maps like incendiary barrage, fear prop, stuka strafe should all be good Vs blobs, combined with other units attacking the blob ofc.

Demos could be decisive.

Off maps could be good vs blobs if there were no forward retreat points. It is just isn't THAT punishing to mass retreat, because you're back into game in 30 seconds. The worst thing can happen is you lose AT gun that is left on the field, unless, of course, you playing OKW.
It is getting even worse on 4v4 maps, where path to base and then back to the frontline is exceptionaly long for vanila factions.

Yes there is blobbing in this game, that "blob" is your ARMY. and it makes perfect sense to "blob" your army together, would you rather split all your units up and lose them 1 by 1 like an idiot? i'd like to think not

Most people just throw the word around as an excuse for their incompetence, and a way to destabilize their opponent.

Someone who accuses another person of blobbing is essentially saying: "You're not playing the way I want you to play." And that is kind of the whole basis of a strategy game.

Are some units overperforming while others are underperforming? Absolutely. But that has nothing to do with the word "blobbing" and how it gets used.