"Eternal crusade" or MG-42 vs M1910 Maxim

Thing with Maxims is you get out a lot more out of them with more micro having them constantly shifting and switching targets to support Conscripts and your elite infantry. Sounds like OP just wants Maxims to be "set and forget" defensive pieces when they aren't designed to work that way (or at least effectively work that way). They work perfectly fine as offensive HMG - you just need to practice using them away.

tl:dr Don't use Maxims like MG42s and you won't be disappointed.

Ok, let's go on points:

1. Maxim is effetive when spammed. I should say, that MG-42 is quiet effective when it spammed too.

Maxim gets more effective when spammed, mg42 spam leaves you wide open to hard counters.

Seems like you didn't actually read what i wrote.
To eloborate: light vehicle's of any kind will rape mg42 spam (yes that includes the m3) but my personal favorite way of beating mg42 spam is with maxims.
Maximspam? in my 3 years of playing coh2, i have yet to find a true hardcounter to an all maxim opening.
And ofc, the maxim is good enough on it's own, its just that spamming them increases effectiveness by about 300% while decreasing the micro requirement by an equal amount (a-move maximspam best spam).

2. Maxims are good in buildings. Of course, and that's only way to use Maxim as deffensive weapon.

Hint: maxim is not a defensive unit and maxim is as good as m42 in house, and better in the open.
But sure, keep using the maxim as a defensive unit and fail with it.

3. Maxim cheaper than MG-42. Yea, don't forget, that you have to pay (and say goodbye to snipers and penals) for building T2 for to get those "cheaper" maxims. MG-42 costs more just because they are now in T0, before that they both had equial 240 MP cost. So, prices here is not a balancing feature.

Giving up penals? You must be the very first person ever to feel sorry to give up penals for maxims.
Not to mention the fact the atgun comes in t2 aswell and sov has enough resources to begin building it right away.
And you know, you could even go t1 after building t2, but only pro's can pull that off...

USSR is pretty poor in defensive game right now. No bunkers, no fireing positions, no emplacements... And even HMG is not suppoused to be deffensive. It makes disbalance in inner mechanic of USSR - too much offensive, to low defensive. All other factions are balanced in that way, more or less.

If you don't want to make Maxim defensive MG, then give to USSR alternative - HMG emplacements.

Another hint: sov is not a defensive faction.
If you want a defensive faction, play ostheer or brits which (surprise surprise!) have defensive HMG's.
It's almost like it was balanced this way...

Anyways im sure you will disagree with everything i wrote and keep disagreeing with everyone just becuase you want a sov mg42.
Luckily, that will never happen.


EDIT:

tl:dr Don't use Maxims like MG42s and you won't be disappointed.

Qft but with the addition that spamming maxims with a-move actually become something akin to "order and forget" units.
It always brings a smile to a my face to see a maxim of mine turn around and set-up on it's own to stop an incoming attack.

Ok, Maxim is not defensive MG, and I shouldn't use it in that way. More than that - entire USSR faction is not defensive, I could agree.

But, look at OKW - it's both defensive and offensive faction at once! Same for wehrmacht with bunkers, 42s and other stuff, but also with Panthers, Tigers and not last in game medium tanks. UKF is same both defensive and offensive, combine powerfull tanks like Comet with bunch of emplacements, USA is offensive mostly, but still have a lot of options to be good in defense. At least they have fireing postitions with MGs and good MGs at all.

But only USSR is very poor in defense play with not much benefits in offensive. All best offensive tanks they gave to Axis, and non-doctrinal infantry of USSR is not reliable in attack or defense.

USSR is one-role faction which is also hardly addicted to doctrines. There is not such faction, which depends so much on doctrines they choose. USSR should be fully reworked, because right now they don't have enough to be equial in powers (not straightly equial, don't mess it please) with all other factions. Make it less dependeble of doctrines with giving them more usefull non-doctrinal units and fix their lackness in defense game.

Or make Wehrmacht, OKW and UKF offensive units same bad in "offense", like they made Maxim in "defense". At least, it will be fair "assymetrical balance".

*snips*
USSR is one-role faction
*snips*

SOV has been demonstrated countless times to be the most resourceful, and the least predictable army of the game, mostly due to its open techtree, and most divers commanders. Sure, it does have a few bits that lack (T4 in general), but it is far away from being a one-role faction. But you said you don't care about ESL strategies and counterplay, as you called them "bunch of nerd tournament".

Stop throwing random keywords around. "Fair assymetrical balance"? Perhaps it does sound fancy to you, but that's it.

SOV has been demonstrated countless times to be the most resourceful, and the least predictable army of the game, mostly due to its open techtree, and most divers commanders. Sure, it does have a few bits that lack (T4 in general), but it is far away from being a one-role faction.

Stop throwing random keywords around. "Fair assymetrical balance"? Perhaps it does sound fancy to you, but that's it.

Hard to call USSR "most resoursfull", since everyone thinks, that it is right to play in "spam", which steals a lot of resourses from you. Spam of Maxims is not cheap actually, spam of conscripts is less cheaper, spam of T-34... of everything.

And how it suppoused to be less predicteble, when soviets right now, mostly, have only 1 pattern of gaming. T2-T3-T4. T1 is useless, since nobody cares about M3 and penals. M3 will die after first meet of panzerfaust and penals are not much better than usuall conscripts with explosives and flamers. And with T1 you will have NO AT at all, untill T3 with SU-76. So, USSR now is even more predictible, than OKW, which can decide what to build - T1 right now or w8 little and get T2 with Puma, Luchs and Stuka.

And that was not my idea of "assymetrical balance" in a first place. I have nothing against balancing by equialing. That's what I suggest for Maxims. But everyone thinks, that "assymetrical balance" is kinda Holy Grale of CoH 2. It could be, if it would be balanced. But it is not. Care more about balance, not about similarity of factions.

Who are all these everyone that you keep referring to? Countless people in this forum disagrees with your threads and you refuse to accept ESL, and high level game-play, due to you calling these people a bunch of nerds. With that in mind there's no everyone that you are able to speak of. Just because you seem to wish to cannonball your opinion onto others, doesn't mean that everyone has to strictly adhere to your preferred type of play.

Anway, in addition, you just seem to ignore what people write and twist responses to the way that it sounds best to your ears, like you just did. Sigh.

Who are all these "everyone else" that you keep referring to? Countless people in this forum disagrees with your threads and you refuse to accept ESL and high level gameplay due to people being "nerds" - there's no "everyone else" that you are able to speak of. Sovs got countless more patterns of gaming than the one you seem to strictly stick to because they do not fit your preferred type of play.

Anway, in addition, you just seem to ignore what people write and twist responses to the way that it sounds best to your ears, like you just did. Sigh.

I listened only one person here, who reasonably explained me his vision of "why Maxim is not so trashy as you think". Well, Im not agree with him and write my answers to his arguments. He wrote me back, I wrote my back... That's how normal discussion goes.

All others just write something, without even trying to discuss, explain their vision of situiatuion. Why and how should I listen to them? What should I answer to "Maxim is fine, OP is troll". Is it reasonable way of discussion?

Sovs got countless more patterns? Maybe, but problem is not about "how much patterns USSR has". Problem is - USSR can't into effective defensive playstyle, only in offense, while all other factions can combine or, at least, choose between 2 of those. Isn't that showing you weakness of USSR?

All others just write something, without even trying to discuss, explain their vision of situiatuion. Why and how should I listen to them? What should I answer to "Maxim is fine, OP is troll". Is it reasonable way of discussion?

I listened only one person here, who reasonably explained me his vision of "why Maxim is not so trashy as you think". Well, Im not agree with him and write my answers to his arguments. He wrote me back, I wrote my back... That's how normal discussion goes.

No, even people who disagree with you are part of a conversation. You cannot just accept the views that relate to yours without taking into consideration other people's point of view - especially in discussions forums.

Sovs got countless more patterns? Maybe, but problem is not about "how much patterns USSR has". Problem is - USSR can't into effective defensive playstyle, only in offense, while all other factions can combine or, at least, choose between 2 of those. Isn't that showing you weakness of USSR?

You brought the idea of Soviets being a one role-faction, so yes, if you say that USSR has no patterns of play, you cannot just suddenly switch the topic again if I disagree with you.

Soviets are not defensive, I heartily agree; every faction has clear strengths, and clear disadvantages, even if the most recent 222 changes may have blurred that away slightly. Soviets have no need for defense though, it is not their design intention; The game even promotes them being aggressive over defensive.

If you want a defensive Ally faction, go play Brits. Or go play OST, which has to think one step ahead of Americans (who are even more easy to predict, due to their LT/CPT/MJ on the field, clearly visible to opponents)

MissCommissar: ESL games shows nothing but skills of players, who spends most of their time in making their skill in 1 game better and better. I don't care about "how pro's playing". Pro's are not majority in CoH 2 and never should be.

*facepalm*

No, even people who disagree with you are part of a conversation. You cannot just accept the views that relate to yours without taking into consideration other people's point of view - especially in discussions forums.

You brought the idea of Soviets being a one role-faction, so yes, if you say that USSR has no patterns of play, you cannot just suddenly switch the topic again if I disagree with you.

Soviets are not defensive, I heartily agree; every faction has clear strengths, and clear disadvantages, even if the most recent 222 changes may have blurred that away slightly. Soviets have no need for defense though, it is not their design intention; The game even promotes them being aggressive over defensive.

If you want a defensive Ally faction, go play Brits.

Views of Zarok47 are more preferable to me, because he explained his position and showed, that he deserves to be part of normal discussion. I don't agree with him, but I can accept some of his arguments. Meanwhile, all others have no arguments at all, just their ponit of view, which based on unexplained something. I can't discuss with them, since I saw no arguments in their repiles.

Sovs don't have patterns of game, in your first understanding of word "patterns", like unpredictible choising of Tiers. There are only one reasonable pattern with Tiers for USSR right now: 2-3-4 without 1. Inside of that tree of tiers can be patterns, but that's not what I meant in a first place.

At least you agreed that soviet are not defensive. Maybe, you will also agree, that British, which you suggested me as defensive, are also good in ofensive playstyle? And not only British, but also all other factions. And only USSR is that "one-role faction". UK have emplacements, but also have Comets, Cromwells and Churchills. Ostheers have PaKs (43 i mean), bunkers and MG-42s, but also have Tigers, Panthers. And same for all other factions.

We can find a lot of perfect ofensive units in USSR, maybe even better than their analogs in other factions. But we won't find any good defensive unit, at least no defensive MG's. And HMGs in CoH 2 plays a major role, as holders of infantry attacks, which can be more dangerous sometime, than even tanks.

Please just stop replying to this guy. Maybe he will stop making new threads about the same thing everyday after people shout him down.

Please just stop replying to this guy. Maybe he will stop making new threads about the same thing everyday after people shout him down.

Typical "reasonable" person to discuss with...

Please just stop replying to this guy. Maybe he will stop making new threads about the same thing everyday after people shout him down.

I kind of agree with that, I tried, but no value of discussion but her attempting to steamroll her opinion on me was achieved.

Anyway, she just used the shoutbox to call Axis players 'self-disrespecting cheaters', and anyone good at this game 'nerd'. I doubt there's any need for any further talks here.

Please just stop replying to this guy. Maybe he will stop making new threads about the same thing everyday after people shout him down.

Or you know Mods could just lock down his/her/it threads due lack of discussion Potential/flame war bait/spam

I listened only one person here..

Stopped reading right about here. There is a reason why maxim spam is a thing.

Maxim weak on it's own, good in groups.

MG42 on is stronger

Can you post a replay at least to support your "arguments". I have a strong feeling that you're the type of player who have less than 700 hours of gameplay and cant micro properly...

I have only one thing to relate to this topic. Pls spend the next 27 seconds reflecting...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0