lmgs are to efficient
22 Jun 2015, 18:25 PM
#1
Posts: 760
You read the title folks lmgs are to cost effective. They require no micro on the players part and you can a move any where and stomp any opposition.they are effective at all ranges and scale incredibly well, units like agrens and ppsh cons requires you to micro your units effectivly while your opponent just a move lmg grens or bar/.30 cal rifles at you. Buffing mgs so they can handle blobs better is a step in the right direction, but there needs to be a more profound disadvantage for choosing lmgs over rifles or more short range weapons.
22 Jun 2015, 18:50 PM
#2
Posts: 670
Okay I think we state obvious in this thread so
I like Soviets
I like Soviets
I myself bought 14 OKW factions during a Steam sale last year for alt accounts
22 Jun 2015, 18:53 PM
#3
Posts: 21
I dont really think that it's that big of a deal. It's just situational. It wont work that well on close range against AGrens or Shock Troops and it certainly wont win long-range against G43s. They work when they need to and they're not overpowered for the cost.
22 Jun 2015, 19:11 PM
#4
1 
Posts: 640
maybe they are too cheap? or they should edit the dmg.. the browning is just... ridiculous.
 | Playercard of SwonVIP | |||||||||||||||
|
22 Jun 2015, 19:23 PM
#5
Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1
Permanently BannedLets keep nerfing them until they are useless.
1337 h4X0R, dank memes
axis
22 Jun 2015, 19:24 PM
#6
Posts: 120
Permanently BannedExactly what the soviets need, their infantry performing better vs the axis infantry, next to their mediums and heavies.
However the USF lgm blobs of doom are way to much, they should get some nerf and the DP should get some love. The thing is pretty much worthless, I never get it.
However the USF lgm blobs of doom are way to much, they should get some nerf and the DP should get some love. The thing is pretty much worthless, I never get it.
Marshall, sounds like an SOS...
Holy wack, unlyrical lyrics Andre, you're fuckin' right...
To the rapmobile, let's go...
Holy wack, unlyrical lyrics Andre, you're fuckin' right...
To the rapmobile, let's go...
22 Jun 2015, 19:40 PM
#7
1 Posts: 3052 | Subs: 15
you shouldnt be able to put double M1919 on a rifle squad. Dat shit is broken.
but otherwise Gren LMG blobbing/spam is rock hard countered by allied artillery of all kinds,Ober LMG same story. but WORSE since the squad is expensive as all hell...and DP's arent even needed with PTRS being as good as it is.
m1919 paras should only have 1 LMG too,with the option of getting another BAR or a bazooka from base like the Recon support version.
but otherwise Gren LMG blobbing/spam is rock hard countered by allied artillery of all kinds,Ober LMG same story. but WORSE since the squad is expensive as all hell...and DP's arent even needed with PTRS being as good as it is.
m1919 paras should only have 1 LMG too,with the option of getting another BAR or a bazooka from base like the Recon support version.
22 Jun 2015, 20:12 PM
#8
Posts: 680
Imo different factions should have different strengths, fine as it is.
22 Jun 2015, 23:21 PM
#9
Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2
Permanently Bannedyou shouldnt be able to put double M1919 on a rifle squad. Dat shit is broken.
but otherwise Gren LMG blobbing/spam is rock hard countered by allied artillery of all kinds,Ober LMG same story. but WORSE since the squad is expensive as all hell...and DP's arent even needed with PTRS being as good as it is.
m1919 paras should only have 1 LMG too,with the option of getting another BAR or a bazooka from base like the Recon support version.
they costs 70muni
Op is right for the most part. lmgs are too effective for their cost.
Every lmg needs nurfing besides the dp-28 and BAR
There is no recording in all WW2 history of a piat actually knocking off a vehicle. Yes, it was THAT bad.
22 Jun 2015, 23:41 PM
#10
Posts: 760
Its not so much that lmgs need a nerf its more of there counterparts are lack luster, i mean you rarely see thompson paras or g43 grens because its easier and more effective to use lmgs, and not to mention ppsh cons are just extinct. The infantry meta is stale and has been since the march deployment last year, spam as much lmgs as you can and stick to cover.
22 Jun 2015, 23:42 PM
#11
Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1
Permanently BannedNah, just slightly buff those weapons. Lmgs are in a good spot.
1337 h4X0R, dank memes
axis
23 Jun 2015, 00:19 AM
#12
Posts: 589
I agree with the OP. They are far too cheap, and far too effective. It makes getting them a no brainer.
They should either be more expensive, or they should have a higher penalty at close range.
smg troops > excellent cqc, shit at long range.
Riflemen troops > ok at long and short range.
lmg troops > excellent at long range, good at short.
Telling really.
They should either be more expensive, or they should have a higher penalty at close range.
smg troops > excellent cqc, shit at long range.
Riflemen troops > ok at long and short range.
lmg troops > excellent at long range, good at short.
Telling really.
23 Jun 2015, 00:45 AM
#13
5 Posts: 1157 | Subs: 2
but otherwise Gren LMG blobbing/spam is rock hard countered by allied artillery of all kinds
Unless you're playing CAS, in which case you can afford to grab mass LMGs and point and click hard counter any field artillery piece and still have enough munis left over to spam s-mines everywhere.
23 Jun 2015, 02:02 AM
#14
Posts: 622
LMG42 is just right atm, M1919 and BAR is not, the fact they can fire while moving and each sq can carry two is broken too many time my unit run into USF lmg blob my infantry sq got wipe under 3-5secs as they chase my unit with bulletstorm even i hit retreat the sec saw the blob
23 Jun 2015, 02:07 AM
#15
Posts: 95
too*
23 Jun 2015, 02:31 AM
#16
Posts: 19
I feel like infantry upgrades like BARs and LMGs might just need to have some sort of fuel cost or tech gate past what they already have in order to make them less spammable... I guess just increasing their munitions cost would work in theory but it'd be nice if there was a more significant trade off for the anti-infantry power you get when you mass them. lmg 42s and 1919s need some sort of fuel cost to unlock them, independent of their existing tech/CP cost, and i think bars need to have their unlock's fuel cost increased. cuz right now i feel like it's way too easy to create deathstar blobs still. also buffing conscript PPsH, vehicle crew thompsons and (possibly) airborne thompsons needs to happen so that they're at least situationally competitive with their LMG counterparts.
SteamId is set to private for user id Illenia. Set it to public if you want to link to your playercard via your user id.
23 Jun 2015, 02:58 AM
#17
Posts: 954
Cons should get non-doc DP28 2 years ago
First off all. Tripwire so gud, 10 ammo for a whole dead squad ? + sight.
Vehicle capture point can win games, blitzkrieg save a tank. Fair Deal i think
23 Jun 2015, 03:16 AM
#18
Posts: 2561
LMG42 is just right atm, M1919 and BAR is not, the fact they can fire while moving and each sq can carry two is broken too many time my unit run into USF lmg blob my infantry sq got wipe under 3-5secs as they chase my unit with bulletstorm even i hit retreat the sec saw the blobThe bar isn't an LMG. It has the assault rifle profile.
23 Jun 2015, 03:17 AM
#19
Posts: 1705
- Let's see what the MG incremental accuracy change does to LMG blobbing,then we should proceed with this discussion in earnest.
23 Jun 2015, 04:07 AM
#20
Posts: 1144 | Subs: 7
i think it would be cool if all lmgs got a flat -20% accuracy out of cover and regain that 20% when in cover
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
86 | ||
 |
|
|
38 | ||
|
|
|
|
29 | ||
 |
|
|
148 | ||
|
|
|
|
25 | ||
|
|
|
|
14 | ||
 |
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.600215.736+15
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1107614.643+8
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.273108.717+24
- 8.722440.621+4
- 9.1041674.607-2
- 10.17146.788+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1235
Board Info
916 users are online:
916 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49104
Welcome our newest member, zhcnwps
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, zhcnwps
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM