Login

russian armor

Ostheer - MG42

PAGES (29)down
15 Apr 2015, 13:47 PM
#521
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

Wow buff to MG34 are you guys nuts?

Unit has no tech cost, is cheap, can be built instantly at 1 cp, has 5 (!) levels of vet, and gets incendiary rounds at vet 1. It is also in a faction that generally does not concern itself with suppression tools. If you think the MG34 is bad I assume it is settled that the DSHK (and probably the maxim) needs a serious buff.
15 Apr 2015, 16:45 PM
#522
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Apr 2015, 04:57 AMLow0dds


Who said anything about holding off units? I am talking about suppressing them so that supporting units can handle the killing.

And they can, in two bursts, just like a vet 0 HMG42 at max range. And unlike a Maxim, its AoE suppression is still good so it can handle blobs as long as it shoots at them before the blob hits them. So you keep it behind your other units just like an HMG42 and it will do fine, which should be far easier as OKW than Ostheer because you'll actually have manpower for multiple HMG34s/more frontliners.
15 Apr 2015, 16:57 PM
#523
avatar of Remi

Posts: 17

Wow buff to MG34 are you guys nuts?

Unit has no tech cost, is cheap, can be built instantly at 1 cp, has 5 (!) levels of vet, and gets incendiary rounds at vet 1. If you think the MG34 is bad I assume it is settled that the DSHK (and probably the maxim) needs a serious buff.


It also fails to do its job (Actually suppressing units). The amount of times I've had a rifle squad just crawl up through it's bursts and squad wipe the gun with the slither of vet it has with a single grenade is a joke.

Being 30mp cheaper does not justify the gun being complete shit in comparison to the MG42. (And even the latter still gets killed frontally from m1919's).
15 Apr 2015, 17:05 PM
#524
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Apr 2015, 16:57 PMRemi


It also fails to do its job (Actually suppressing units). The amount of times I've had a rifle squad just crawl up through it's bursts and squad wipe the gun with the slither of vet it has with a single grenade is a joke.

Being 30mp cheaper does not justify the gun being complete shit in comparison to the MG42. (And even the latter still gets killed frontally from m1919's).

Yes it does, because you can easily get more of them.

And with how I always hear about how the HMG42 doesn't suppress good enough, I can't see why people wouldn't like a cheaper version that's less effective at single-target suppressing when they already didn't expect it to do so at a level they consider sufficient. When you have more, that's innately much easier to deal with and being cheaper makes it easier to have more.

Now if we want to talk about a unit that's still pretty fucking useless in bulk, we can go to an SU-76 thread.
15 Apr 2015, 17:15 PM
#525
avatar of herr anfsim

Posts: 247

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Apr 2015, 01:03 AMacosn



I got bad news- horrible news- the MG42 wasn't that special.


Yes, to be blunt, it was good. It was inexpensive to produce and light, but that's about where it's perks end. It's fanatical rate of fire lead to issues where it would literally eat itself alive. There's fundamentally no good way to engineer a gun firing 1500 rounds a minute to properly seat each round. Sometimes it missfires and destroys the barrel, sometimes it missfires and it's junked. And that rate of fire? Irrelevant. 600 rounds per minute firing at you, 1500 rounds per minute firing at you. You know as well as I do that the difference is irrelevant, you're hitting the dirt regardless.



Since we are talking real world, not game stats, I have to disagree. The MG-42 was a really good machinegun, so good that its still used with only minor changes (MG-3) with a lot of todays armies. And I dont agree that the difference in rounds per minute is irrelevant. You really do feel the difference, and in an exchange of fire the superior volum of fire can be a huge advantage.

Still, I guess its a matter of oppinion and tactics. I think soldiers in the US have a verry different view on this subject compared to a lot of theire european counterparts.
15 Apr 2015, 17:26 PM
#526
avatar of Remi

Posts: 17

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Apr 2015, 17:05 PMVuther

I can't see why people wouldn't like a cheaper version that's less effective at single-target suppressing when they already didn't expect it to do so at a level they consider sufficient.


Because it's the worst MG in the game and is not worth the MP, maybe if the gun costed 160MP your argument would hold water but it doesn't.

The current patch MG34 is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard when it comes to countering con/rifle blobs.
15 Apr 2015, 17:27 PM
#527
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

Since we are talking real world, not game stats, I have to disagree. The MG-42 was a really good machinegun, so good that its still used with only minor changes (MG-3) with a lot of todays armies.

It would certainly seem like that, but I'd be hardly surprised if the decisive unpopularity of basically all matters military in Germany wouldn't have affected the decision (they're real touchy over the whole Nazi invasion things). Probably a lot cheaper keeping basically the same machine-gun with minor changes than making a new one (though they have now adopted the MG4 in the SAW role).

'Course, so have the 'Muricans with still using the M2HB for about a few decades short of a century, but they did attempt to develop replacements that were later canceled.

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Apr 2015, 17:26 PMRemi


Because it's the worst MG in the game and is not worth the MP, maybe if the gun costed 160MP your argument would hold water but it doesn't.

The current patch MG34 is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard when it comes to countering con/rifle blobs.

It's an HMG42 with less single-target suppression, almost no difference in AoE suppression, less DPS, and the potential for vet 5. If it needs to be any cheaper, it's not going to be by much.
15 Apr 2015, 17:43 PM
#528
avatar of Low0dds

Posts: 151

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Apr 2015, 16:45 PMVuther

And they can, in two bursts, just like a vet 0 HMG42 at max range. And unlike a Maxim, its AoE suppression is still good so it can handle blobs as long as it shoots at them before the blob hits them. So you keep it behind your other units just like an HMG42 and it will do fine, which should be far easier as OKW than Ostheer because you'll actually have manpower for multiple HMG34s/more frontliners.


More like 3 bursts, if you are lucky.. This leaves time for the blob to break off into the flanks and over run it. I usually have to backup 2 front line MG34s with an emplacement to hold ground. That gives them a line of defense to fall back to when the smoke starts flying. This gives my supporting units time to react. All of this makes my stance pretty much defensive in nature. Forget about taking an MG34 or even a pair of them on a raid to a tactical cutoff. They will get ripped to shreds and will be unable to retreat without being taken.

Essentially all I was asking for was a small buff to suppression. I don't expect the MG to be a battle winner like in vCoH lol. I tend not to use it much anymore. I consider the OKW to be the Panzer Elite of CoH 2. No MG for you! Come back 1 year!
15 Apr 2015, 17:59 PM
#529
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Apr 2015, 17:43 PMLow0dds


More like 3 bursts, if you are lucky.. This leaves time for the blob to break off into the flanks and over run it. I usually have to backup 2 front line MG34s with an emplacement to hold ground. That gives them a line of defense to fall back to when the smoke starts flying. This gives my supporting units time to react. All of this makes my stance pretty much defensive in nature. Forget about taking an MG34 or even a pair of them on a raid to a tactical cutoff. They will get ripped to shreds and will be unable to retreat without being taken.

Only if they're in cover. I have never seen a blob moving around into the open not get suppressed in two bursts, and having spotters will easily allow them to fire off those two bursts before a blob can get in range. And if they quickly break off to flank the HMG34s, good for them, they actually deserve the fight because they aren't blobbing anymore and are now microing. And I'd still greatly prefer microing HMG34s in an attack over HMG42s because of how they're cheaper means having them doesn't mean my sight-lines and frontline forces are going to be scant.

Oh word of advice - don't build flak emplacements, they're awful and get decrewed from grenades. I'd take another HMG34 over it any day.
15 Apr 2015, 18:35 PM
#530
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

My grievance with the MG34 is that there is nothing unique to it as a unit and it quite literally just a MG42 with worse stats. I wouldn't mind if they kept the suppression the same but made it much better at turning and firing or gave it a faster settup time.

At least all the other HMG's are unique in some way.
15 Apr 2015, 19:16 PM
#531
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

Again, you cannot expect the MG34 to stop a blob. If you are dealing with a blob don't rely on the cheapest MG to stop it. Use your own units and use the MG well behind to make sure you win the encounter. If you engage him with your own units and his are taking damage and suddenly getting suppressed no amount of rifles is going to save him. He is going to lose to sturms and volks.

The MG34 is unique, it is the only MG in a faction without MG's, AND IT GETS VET 5! Try getting some vet on that thing and be impressed. Vet is easy to get as soon as you get vet 1. Pop the rounds every time you enter combat. Won't cost you much, will double the stats on the gun. Suddenly looking pretty good.

If I find an MG34 early enough in the game (before the 15 minute mark) I always pick it up. Great to have, easy to use.

If you think one MG should stop blobs, then you must really think the maxim is useless.
15 Apr 2015, 20:01 PM
#532
avatar of Low0dds

Posts: 151

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Apr 2015, 17:59 PMVuther

Only if they're in cover. I have never seen a blob moving around into the open not get suppressed in two bursts, and having spotters will easily allow them to fire off those two bursts before a blob can get in range. And if they quickly break off to flank the HMG34s, good for them, they actually deserve the fight because they aren't blobbing anymore and are now microing. And I'd still greatly prefer microing HMG34s in an attack over HMG42s because of how they're cheaper means having them doesn't mean my sight-lines and frontline forces are going to be scant.

Oh word of advice - don't build flak emplacements, they're awful and get decrewed from grenades. I'd take another HMG34 over it any day.


I would have to show a replay of 3-4 bursts not even suppressing a single unit to prove you wrong, but take my word on it considering how many OKW games I have played lol. I don't think I have actually ever built a flak emplacement. That is pretty common knowledge that they are worthless. I am talking about an MG emplacement. I am pretty sure you knew that though.

If they are given an increase in suppression, I would gladly pay more MP for them. It's not like OKW have a MP shortage lol. They are also call-ins, so it isn't like I need resources for a building either.
15 Apr 2015, 20:19 PM
#533
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Apr 2015, 20:01 PMLow0dds


I would have to show a replay of 3-4 bursts not even suppressing a single unit to prove you wrong, but take my word on it considering how many OKW games I have played lol. I don't think I have actually ever built a flak emplacement. That is pretty common knowledge that they are worthless. I am talking about an MG emplacement. I am pretty sure you knew that though.

If they are given an increase in suppression, I would gladly pay more MP for them. It's not like OKW have a MP shortage lol. They are also call-ins, so it isn't like I need resources for a building either.

I'd like to see those replays for myself, I just tested my own feelings by going into CheatCommands mod to see it and it worked like I expected - max range, target out of cover, always suppresses with the second burst. I actually saw it suppress once on the first burst to my surprise since I had the sense before HMG34s really couldn't no matter the range they were firing at.

Ah, people usually call them bunkers.
15 Apr 2015, 23:27 PM
#534
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Apr 2015, 20:19 PMVuther

I'd like to see those replays for myself, I just tested my own feelings by going into CheatCommands mod to see it and it worked like I expected - max range, target out of cover, always suppresses with the second burst. I actually saw it suppress once on the first burst to my surprise since I had the sense before HMG34s really couldn't no matter the range they were firing at.

Ah, people usually call them bunkers.


The issue with the MG34 is that it's fine because it's cheap in a faction with a lot of MP, but that's it. It has nothing special about it, the 1-3 veteran abilities are literally copy pasted from the MG42. And it's extremely low survivability makes getting to those levels extremely hard.

The maxim is unique in that it has a 6 man crew, and does reliable suppression to one squad and with a bit of micro can even take on largish blobs. It also gets a bonus to being in buildings.

The .50 cal does the suppression of a MG42 while having a MUCH faster set up time, allowing to act as a good support weapon behind your rifle blob suppressing elite infantry so they can't kill your rifles.

The MG34, much like the Dshk, is just a piece of shit because it's a copy of a unit. The Dhsk is more expensive but more fragile than the maxim, and the MG34 is cheaper than the 42 but has worse stats/the same stats in every category. If you want to raise the cost that's fine, but it should have it's own defined roll instead fulfilling the roll of a unit that already exists in the same faction alignment.
16 Apr 2015, 00:47 AM
#535
avatar of wongtp

Posts: 647

so far for any mg, if you let them shoot at the crew, you are doing it wrong.

they have immense range but shitty sight. get pios and grens to screen them and deploy them behind your own lines. they should be firing before the blob spots them and have ur supporting units focus on squads that manages to slip away.

the mg42 is a great machine gun but its a force multiplier, not a combat on its own. i've seen great use of it supporting infantry fights, i've seen people spamming them and failing so hard while constantly getting flanked.

also, it does its job firing on blob and suppressing them. better players will have a form a route of advance on it, coming from different angles vcoh style. in that case, dont rely on the mg to stop the whole force.
16 Apr 2015, 00:50 AM
#536
avatar of Low0dds

Posts: 151

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Apr 2015, 00:47 AMwongtp
so far for any mg, if you let them shoot at the crew, you are doing it wrong.

they have immense range but shitty sight. get pios and grens to screen them and deploy them behind your own lines. they should be firing before the blob spots them and have ur supporting units focus on squads that manages to slip away.

the mg42 is a great machine gun but its a force multiplier, not a combat on its own. i've seen great use of it supporting infantry fights, i've seen people spamming them and failing so hard while constantly getting flanked.

also, it does its job firing on blob and suppressing them. better players will have a form a route of advance on it, coming from different angles vcoh style. in that case, dont rely on the mg to stop the whole force.


You are pretty much stating what everyone has already agreed upon. Now the suppressing the blob part is where we dont agree.
16 Apr 2015, 01:37 AM
#537
avatar of wongtp

Posts: 647

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Apr 2015, 00:50 AMLow0dds


You are pretty much stating what everyone has already agreed upon. Now the suppressing the blob part is where we dont agree.


it will suppress a good chunk of it, if you are suppressing from range, you are doing it right. clean up with infantry. i dont see why mg42 is a bad weapon.

its decent, could be slightly better but definitely worth its 240mp price tag. its not a pea shooter like some suggested.
16 Apr 2015, 01:47 AM
#538
avatar of Low0dds

Posts: 151

I really only have a bone to pick with the MG34. The MG42 kicks much arse now imo.
16 Apr 2015, 01:53 AM
#539
avatar of acosn

Posts: 108 | Subs: 1



Since we are talking real world, not game stats, I have to disagree. The MG-42 was a really good machinegun, so good that its still used with only minor changes (MG-3) with a lot of todays armies. And I don't agree that the difference in rounds per minute is irrelevant. You really do feel the difference, and in an exchange of fire the superior volume of fire can be a huge advantage.

Still, I guess its a matter of opinion and tactics. I think soldiers in the US have a very different view on this subject compared to a lot of their European counterparts.



Any changes made to the MG-42 to make it not eat itself alive makes it not an MG-42. At least you didn't jump off the deep end and call the MG-3 a literal clone of the MG-42, as I've seen some wehraboos do.


The issue with the rate of fire is that past maybe 600 rounds a minute the ability to fire faster isn't really that useful. You're already not hitting the same spot twice- because automatic weapon- and the people you were firing at were going to hit the ground if it was 600 rounds a minute or 6,000.


jump backJump back to quoted post15 Apr 2015, 08:39 AMiceman


Still the best MG in WW2 hands down, and still doesn't change a thing what I stated.



That's simply not the case. If it were so good why were so many other machine guns used by Germany?





Because its cheap and strong and is intended to be used defensively. It might be too good if you could position them offensivley easily (like used to be the case).

The timer last longer than the bursts. Your supposed to scout for when danger is coming and activate it with plenty of time.



Point being that abilities that apply damage modifiers- Incendiary rounds, HE rounds, what have you- should be loading a fixed resource to the unit.
16 Apr 2015, 01:57 AM
#540
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Apr 2015, 01:53 AMacosn
That's simply not the case. If it were so good why were so many other machine guns used by Germany?

Well, one could easily blame simple logistics for that and regard that as a matter outside of what makes it good, though I would indeed consider logistical implications to be very important to weapons of war.
PAGES (29)down
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

357 users are online: 357 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
36 posts in the last month
Registered members: 50167
Welcome our newest member, Hobbites
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM