Ostheer HMG too strong now

Seriously though, wasn't the arc of fire smaller in vCoH? And didn't MG play feel kinda right there? I am by no means an expert, but I think this would be preferable gamedesign ( a slightly smaller arc, that is). I don't want it to be ridiculously narrow as the allied HMGs have it, rather like in CoH 1.

Like, it should have punch, but the whole flanking mechanic and arc of fire thing, which is so unique to CoH, is way too interesting to give it an arc of almost 180°.

100% agree.

Is there any way of determining the angle of the arc so that an accurate comparison of the two can be made.

I know there are many differences between the two games but it would be interesting to know exact differences.

Just played a 1v1 as USF. Guy had MG in church on Semois. I flanked it with 4 riflemen and killed it with nades, then stole it. If that MG was any more broken though I probably would have lost the game right there.

I guess this is sarcasm but do you really think it should require 4 squads, each costing more than the mg itself, plus the additional ammo cost for grenades to counter this one cheap starter unit for ostheer? If he had a 2nd mg backing up the first one on that map your flank would probably have just been shut down immediately. Anything can work vs bad players but balance is not determined by the theoretical possibility that countering a unit is possible. Balance is achieved when the effort in countering a unit is comparable to the effort required to use a unit.

Its easy to try making this a L2P, try flanking issue but the fact is that good players anticipate a flank and focus on choke points, plant mines, and have secondary units available to break up a flank, or rely on off-map abilities like strafe. If flank execution is much more difficult and requires much more micro than preventing a flank does then balance is off.

You can also potentially keep circling a building with an mg garrison to prevent it from ever setting up. It really cuts down on it's suppressive capabilities when it never gets to shoot.

"Speed is no different then it ever really was" is exactly my point - there has to be some balance to the unit. If you are going to make it significantly better at suppressing infantry and also deal more damage and at greater distances, then increase the deploy/redeploy timers so that getting flanked actually has real consequences and you actually do have to worry about a molotov instead of just picking up and moving faster then a molotov can even break and cause damage to the unit.

They've tried extremely punishing mechanics like that with the OKW's FlaK-Halftrack prior. The unit ended up becoming useless and without value.

The solution is simple. Wait until the US gets a 60mm mortar. Then if it continues to be a very significant issue, Relic can move from there.

Patience is key, and the next patch is scheduled for July 4th 2015, so none of us have to wait that long. Brits are coming, US will have mortars. Nothing wrong with an MG that actually does its job.

I guess this is sarcasm but do you really think it should require 4 squads, each costing more than the mg itself, plus the additional ammo cost for grenades to counter this one cheap starter unit for ostheer? If he had a 2nd mg backing up the first one on that map your flank would probably have just been shut down immediately. Anything can work vs bad players but balance is not determined by the theoretical possibility that countering a unit is possible. Balance is achieved when the effort in countering a unit is comparable to the effort required to use a unit.

Its easy to try making this a L2P, try flanking issue but the fact is that good players anticipate a flank and focus on choke points, plant mines, and have secondary units available to break up a flank, or rely on off-map abilities like strafe. If flank execution is much more difficult and requires much more micro than preventing a flank does then balance is off.

Yeah which is why most people are just calling for a moderate price increase. Ostheer lacks for MP/early game power pretty hard so the MG42 being good is essentially to stop Ost from being overwhelmed by Rifle/Con spam early in the game especially on close range maps were grens can get forced into CQC and die.

260-280 MP would put it in a good spot. I would also combine this change with cheaper Pioneers tho as them costing 200 MP still is kinda silly and it would be a nice trade off, more expensive MG but less expensive builder unit.

I would also combine this change with cheaper Pioneers tho as them costing 200 MP still is kinda silly and it would be a nice trade off, more expensive MG but less expensive builder unit.

I would have said the same before myself a while ago, but I think Pioneers now having a baller-ass increased sight range makes the extra cost worthwhile.

I would have said the same before myself a while ago, but I think Pioneers now having a baller-ass increased sight range makes the extra cost worthwhile.

Except on most maps now in 2's or 1's the map doesn't really have a lot of placers were they can use the extended sight. Reducing their cost to 170 wouldn't really hurt to match and make Pioneer heavy starts more viable.

do you really think it should require 4 squads, each costing more than the mg itself, plus the additional ammo cost for grenades to counter this one cheap starter unit for ostheer? If he had a 2nd mg backing up the first one on that map your flank would probably have just been shut down immediately.

Its easy to try making this a L2P, try flanking issue but the fact is that good players anticipate a flank and focus on choke points, plant mines, and have secondary units available to break up a flank, or rely on off-map abilities like strafe. If flank execution is much more difficult and requires much more micro than preventing a flank does then balance is off.

Yes, MGs + Grens should beat riflemen when used properly. USF has access to bars/nades/M20 in order to tip the balance in their favour. If americans could win the early game relying completely on vanilla rifles that would be really unfortunate for ostheer. And if he had the second MG I would have just shot smoke at it. The riflemen were positioned so only 1 could get suppressed by 1 Mg, not two. There would still been 2 free squads running around tossing nades if there were 2 mgs supressing.

I guess this is sarcasm but do you really think it should require 4 squads, each costing more than the mg itself, plus the additional ammo cost for grenades to counter this one cheap starter unit for ostheer? If he had a 2nd mg backing up the first one on that map your flank would probably have just been shut down immediately. Anything can work vs bad players but balance is not determined by the theoretical possibility that countering a unit is possible. Balance is achieved when the effort in countering a unit is comparable to the effort required to use a unit.

Its easy to try making this a L2P, try flanking issue but the fact is that good players anticipate a flank and focus on choke points, plant mines, and have secondary units available to break up a flank, or rely on off-map abilities like strafe. If flank execution is much more difficult and requires much more micro than preventing a flank does then balance is off.

You are correct to some extent but abilities like smoke and oraah level the playing field. The trick is to spread out your units and to activate smoke/oraah on second squad to advance behind the mg. Once you are behind it it has to retreat on most occasions. Where it becomes complicated is when mgs are spammed which is why most people in this thread are advocating changes that limit a player ability to build multiple mgs. The downside to multiple mgs is they are vunerable to vehicles and lack mid to lategame punch, there will also be less grens or less vetted grens.

In regard to your point about increasing the packup time,that will simply result in grenades being the primary counter and we will be back to no skill gameplay. Molotovs are a soft counter to the mg forcing it move where it is then extremely vulnerable to flanking squads.

Choke points and deep snow are map issues and should be addressed separately. Maps like Semosky can be hard if you are passive and allow mgs to get a foothold but coh1 was no different. If Ost takes the centre and places 3mgs there, usf should have no problem securing both fuels and without that early fuel Ost is screwed.

Except on most maps now in 2's or 1's the map doesn't really have a lot of placers were they can use the extended sight. Reducing their cost to 170 wouldn't really hurt to match and make Pioneer heavy starts more viable.

That sounds more like maps Wehr should be banning to me.

Increasing mg and reducing pio cost would provide no solution to the current problem. Also Ost manpower issue is a bit of a myth that if altered would swing the balance towards Ost early game when they are meant to be weakest.

flank execution isn't always possible, especially by the late to mid game.

This is why the allies have artillery. Admittedly the USF have really weak artillery but let buff their artillery instead of nerfing the mg42.

Where it becomes complicated is when mgs are spammed which is why most people in this thread are advocating changes that limit a player ability to build multiple mgs.

This.

The downside to multiple mgs is they are vunerable to vehicles and lack mid to lategame punch, there will also be less grens or less vetted grens.

Unless you have reached vet1 which allows you to shred both light vehicles and infantry alike.

Choke points and deep snow are map issues and should be addressed separately. Maps like Semosky can be hard if you are passive and allow mgs to get a foothold but coh1 was no different. If Ost takes the centre and places 3mgs there, usf should have no problem securing both fuels and without that early fuel Ost is screwed.

I don't know if you play larger formats, but believe me - things get really ugly on most of 4v4 maps. If I play Soviets I feel like I'm forced to go T1 in order to get M3A1 against Kubels and double sniper team (if map allows to use them) against MGs.

Yes, MGs + Grens should beat riflemen when used properly. USF has access to bars/nades/M20 in order to tip the balance in their favour. If americans could win the early game relying completely on vanilla rifles that would be really unfortunate for ostheer. And if he had the second MG I would have just shot smoke at it. The riflemen were positioned so only 1 could get suppressed by 1 Mg, not two. There would still been 2 free squads running around tossing nades if there were 2 mgs supressing.

I'm glad to read 4 280mp cost vanilla unit should always been beaten by 240mp HMG and 240mp grenadiers.
Now everything is cristal clear, Ostheer is designed to be the strongest faction early game while having cheapest dedicated units.

1270mp + 25fu invested, probably 30 or 60 ammo used to counter a 240mp unit in a building. And the best, the 240mp unit wasn't even supported.

Made my day

I'm glad to read 4 280mp cost vanilla unit should always been beaten by 240mp HMG and 240mp grenadiers.
Now everything is cristal clear, Ostheer is designed to be the strongest faction early game while having cheapest dedicated units.

1270mp + 25fu invested, probably 30 or 60 ammo used to counter a 240mp unit in a building. And the best, the 240mp unit wasn't even supported.

Made my day

If you let 4 riflemen get crushed by 1 HMG and 1 Gren, you must be a noobie blobber.
I've played 6 1v1s in this patch, 1 of them versus top 100 usf player, and he still totally dominated me in early game althrough i had 2 HMG42s. He always found a way to flank or use the environment or just nades. Infact all usf players, except for that one blob king, still dominated me in early game as Wehrmacht.

The new MG finally does what it's meant to do.
Before there was a critical point the enemy had to reach to simply overrun your MG with little to none drawbacks.

Now they have to flank/smoke in order to fullfil a successful attack.
IMO you can lower the MG's damage to almost none because that is not it's purpose. It shall put the enemy on the ground while other units deal the damage.

In short: I love the new MGs and I am amused to see more and more Maxims these days thought they did not receive any buff at all.

That might be because vast majority of op stuff ends up being on axis side and the op allies stuff is obvious enough to go without saying and the sheer amount of apologists on axis side just screams to say a word on two on the matter. Not like there is anything OP atm on allied side that isn't direct result of lack of intended changed anyway.

Plus I'm using actual stats to prove my points, which pisses off fanboys who can't argue them(except alex, he got his own coh2 with his own stats that no one else gets and he argues based on that).

There is this simple concept of cost effectiveness.

If a 240mp unit performs like 280-300mp units and have similar or greater stats, it means its stats are too high or cost is too low.
You can't argue that really.

I agree with you, you do mostly prove your points. But I meant it, keep it up, you are very entertaining when you keep slamming the fanboys xd

Except on most maps now in 2's or 1's the map doesn't really have a lot of placers were they can use the extended sight. Reducing their cost to 170 wouldn't really hurt to match and make Pioneer heavy starts more viable.

Pios are fine for 200.
They wreck RE troops and Combat Engineers and have extended sight.

Pios are fine for 200.
They wreck RE troops and Combat Engineers and have extended sight.

TBH I had a lot of encounters the last times I played where my pios in fact got wrecked by Echelons.
But on the other hand it could be because I am a noob

TBH I had a lot of encounters the last times I played where my pios in fact got wrecked by Echelons.
But on the other hand it could be because I am a noob

Did they have 2x BARS?

Otherwise the only real way for RE troops to beat Pios is when the RE troops use volley fire and the Pios close in without seeking cover.