Login

russian armor

50 cal should be a vehicle killer

14 Mar 2016, 23:50 PM
#21
avatar of JoeH

Posts: 88

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Mar 2016, 23:47 PMGumboot


The OP wants the 50 cal to be able to deter LV's because a certain tier at the moment has no AT options. Deter being the key word here. Your suggestion makes no sense of taking away the AT nades from riflemen, it would be the same as take away the faust from the OH grenadiers because the MG42 has the AT rounds at Vet1 but worse because you also have mines without the need for picking a commander.


Yeah no, the title says "50 cal should be a vehicle killer". Also I did not suggest taking away Rifles AT nates because I think the current 50 cal is fine. So you are the one making no sense here.
15 Mar 2016, 00:00 AM
#22
avatar of Gumboot

Posts: 199

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Mar 2016, 23:50 PMJoeH


Yeah no, the title says "50 cal should be a vehicle killer". Also I did not suggest taking away Rifles AT nates because I think the current 50 cal is fine. So you are the one making no sense here.


Read the entire original post.

The 50 cal should be a semi-hard counter to 222s and luchs. This solves the LT balance problem. It shouldn't be devastating either, of course

You wrote: The Op wants the 50Cal to deny parts of the map to light infantry when the original post makes no mention in regards to its performance against AI only stating its lack of performance in AT.

You also wrote: If USF wants better support weapons the only choice is to make terminators less good. So take away Rifles AT nate and we can talk about a vehicle "killer" mg and followed it up in your most recent post by saying: Also I did not suggest taking away Rifles AT nates because I think the current 50 cal is fine.

I cannot follow all the contradictions.
15 Mar 2016, 00:07 AM
#23
avatar of CookiezNcreem
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 3052 | Subs: 15

50 cal should insta gib squads retarded enough to charge it frontally. It should annhilate wooden garrisons, and mutilate light vehicles that dont flank. Otherwise, they shouldnt have even addded the 50 cal to the game because its a disgrace to american engineering.

Relic screwed up alot of things historically, obviously in this game, but making the 50 cal a whimpy little shit flinger is probably my biggest pet peeve/trigger in coh2. Why the fuck does mG42 have incendiary rounds and shit, but 50 cal is basically ignorable unless youre charge across red cover?? Honestly in that scenario i wouldnt be surprised if 50 cal got its gunner sniped and then got wiped.

AND NERF THE DEATH LOOP already.

Also the gun sound is pathetic. Barely audible.
15 Mar 2016, 00:12 AM
#24
avatar of JoeH

Posts: 88

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Mar 2016, 00:00 AMGumboot


Read the entire original post.

The 50 cal should be a semi-hard counter to 222s and luchs. This solves the LT balance problem. It shouldn't be devastating either, of course

You wrote: The Op wants the 50Cal to deny parts of the map to light infantry when the original post makes no mention in regards to its performance against AI only stating its lack of performance in AT.

You also wrote: If USF wants better support weapons the only choice is to make terminators less good. So take away Rifles AT nate and we can talk about a vehicle "killer" mg and followed it up in your most recent post by saying: Also I did not suggest taking away Rifles AT nates because I think the current 50 cal is fine.

I cannot follow all the contradictions.


The 50 cal should be a semi-hard counter to 222s and luchs. (From the OP)

Yeah semi-hard counters only "deter" (to put it into your words) their intended counters. You read the deter part into the OP because you wanted to but the OP post can be understood quite differently.

Me suggesting to take away terminators AT nates is just to make people aware that USF already has AT options even if they go Lt so it is by NO means a contradiction and also I dont want to change the 50Cal and therefor I dont WANT to take away terminators AT nates (you have a hard time wraping your mind around that idea). I am just saying IF it gets changed then you have to account for the ripple effects of that change.
15 Mar 2016, 03:33 AM
#25
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

You guys are looking at this wrong
The 50cal kills the UNarmoured bucket car TWICE as fast as any other mg! (except of course the Wehr, who truely lack AT.. I mean rifles get their snare just by fighting!! Wehr have to go out of their way and progress naturally through the game to get thier vastly superior snare)
15 Mar 2016, 03:41 AM
#26
avatar of Mindtraveller

Posts: 34

Permanently Banned
With the 222 now being 320 HP it would make sense to give USF a better LT.-tier counter to it. I think a straight-up penetration buff would be most sensible, so a larger portion of it's shots cause damage to things like 222/251, maybe even make it possible to pen Luch sometimes, while not making it more effective that it already is vs. infantry.
15 Mar 2016, 03:43 AM
#27
avatar of Mindtraveller

Posts: 34

Permanently Banned
sorry for double post but LOL at people calling riflemen "terminators". That's fucking laughable.
15 Mar 2016, 03:44 AM
#28
avatar of Hans G. Schultz

Posts: 875 | Subs: 2

Give the .50 cal 30 second AP round ability, like the MG-42s (except more powerful because it's a f*cking .50 cal), or make it's base damage higher (same goes with the DShk).

Edit: Also add a pen buff.
15 Mar 2016, 03:47 AM
#29
avatar of ThoseDeafMutes

Posts: 1026

No AP rounds or silliness, just give us a pen buff.

Currently Pen of 2 at mid range, versus 222's 9 armor (1 in 4.5 shots penetrates) and PzII's 55 armor (1 in 27.5 shots penetrates, although I'm not sure what the threshold for rounding down to 0 is...)

Buff to 5 pen. Would mean 1 in 10 shots hits the Luchs, not a great ratio but not terrible either. The 222 would be seriously threatened with 1 in 2 shots penetrating.
15 Mar 2016, 04:01 AM
#30
avatar of Gumboot

Posts: 199

Can anyone advise if the bug applying to the American Crews with even more then the 25% increased accuracy applies to the 50cal or did it get fixed with everything?
15 Mar 2016, 04:14 AM
#31
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

No AP rounds or silliness, just give us a pen buff.

Currently Pen of 2 at mid range, versus 222's 9 armor (1 in 4.5 shots penetrates) and PzII's 55 armor (1 in 27.5 shots penetrates, although I'm not sure what the threshold for rounding down to 0 is...)

Buff to 5 pen. Would mean 1 in 10 shots hits the Luchs, not a great ratio but not terrible either. The 222 would be seriously threatened with 1 in 2 shots penetrating.

this is a nice way to go
being the latest coming mg (if at all) it should be above and beyond the rest

increase the tear down/set up time drastically (like more than the mg42 even)
big pen buff
keep damage the same- the extra pen would be more than enough to deter light vehicles
maybe (probably) a price increase

i know this goes against the "mobility" of the usf but a late arriving "heavy" machine gun in a low AT tier already has problems

it providing light AT would help LT be more useful for more than m20 rush (giving the tier a little holding power)
15 Mar 2016, 04:35 AM
#32
avatar of SturmTigerVorgo

Posts: 307

Make a mortar and you should win the game.
15 Mar 2016, 12:23 PM
#33
avatar of Vamp

Posts: 40

My suggestion:
-buff pen to 6-7
-make it ignore yellow cover (possible at vet 2-3)
15 Mar 2016, 16:22 PM
#34
avatar of Mirdarion

Posts: 283

50 cal should insta gib squads retarded enough to charge it frontally. It should annhilate wooden garrisons, and mutilate light vehicles that dont flank. Otherwise, they shouldnt have even addded the 50 cal to the game because its a disgrace to american engineering.

Relic screwed up alot of things historically, obviously in this game, but making the 50 cal a whimpy little shit flinger is probably my biggest pet peeve/trigger in coh2. Why the fuck does mG42 have incendiary rounds and shit, but 50 cal is basically ignorable unless youre charge across red cover?? Honestly in that scenario i wouldnt be surprised if 50 cal got its gunner sniped and then got wiped.



You are not the brightest candle on the cake, eh? The .50 cal trumps the MG 42 at vet0 in every category except cooldown rate and rate of fire.
The .50 cal deals more suppression/fire (the effect is lessened by the lower rate of fire, but the result comes out almost equal), more damage, is more mobile (less set-up time than a Maxim, like WTF?! That Thing shouldn't be able to be carried around by single man if we took you "realism" into the game) and reloads faster.

And you know what's really funny? Flanking the .50 cal doesn't even really work, because the crew has 6.6 rear armour. Why? Nobody knows, but it seems they carry their helmets on their backs.
------------------------------------

Now, what could be done to make the .50 cal more appropriate for the time it comes out at?

1.:Improve the damage a bit. It should still fit the game, and having an MG deal ridiculous amounts of damage by default is just plain stupid, especially if that MG is already the one dealing the most damage out of all HMGs.

2.: Improve penetration. That will give it more reliable damage output against light vehicles, yet at the same time it shouldn't be too much, because the .50 cal is used against factions that already have shitty light vehicles. The balance must be found within "Works good against the Luchs, but doesn't completely fuck over the 222.", unless the 222 will finally have its health reverted and instead receive the armour that it actually needs to be good.

3.: Make it fucking less mobile. It is more mobile than the Maxim right now, that's just ridiculous. You can't have the strongest HMG in the game and have it be the most mobile. That's like giving the Pershing 400 frontal armour.

4.: A proper veterancy ability, timed and munitions expensive. Enables it able to shoot through shot blockers for a time (similar to how the PaK 43 works), but with reduced damage and no suppression. Yes, we're talking about buildings here, and yes it is absolutely unrealistic. But it is something actually useful that (with the nerf to damage during that time) wouldn't be too OP.

P.S.: And to not make it even more useless than it already is: Finally bump up the 251 to the level of the M5 (they cost the same, yet one is basically useless, while the other can take care of even two 222s), that way it could survive the .50 cal even in its current condition for longer than a split second...
15 Mar 2016, 16:31 PM
#35
avatar of NEVEC

Posts: 708 | Subs: 1

50 cal. is underperfoming for it price and timing. AP rounds or crew durability or arc buff no matter what but make it valid option at time when it appears.
Because at time when you can buy first 50 cal. you already have 3 riflemans, leutienant and first light vechile, why you need hmg that can be easily flanked and killed, forced to retreat by flame nades and cost 280 manpower? British vickers for this price is 2 times better.
15 Mar 2016, 16:33 PM
#36
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

And you know what's really funny? Flanking the .50 cal doesn't even really work, because the crew has 6.6 rear armour. Why? Nobody knows, but it seems they carry their helmets on their backs.

I'm pretty sure that's a bug with www.stat.coh2.hu at best.

At worst, that's a fucking hilarious bug in-game since people have been complaining the USF weapon teams are squishy since they've been released.
15 Mar 2016, 18:36 PM
#37
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post15 Mar 2016, 16:33 PMVuther

I'm pretty sure that's a bug with www.stat.coh2.hu at best.

At worst, that's a fucking hilarious bug in-game since people have been complaining the USF weapon teams are squishy since they've been released.


Does even rear armor work for infantry at all ?

New meta: flank shocktroops to ignore their armor :P
15 Mar 2016, 19:20 PM
#38
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1



Does even rear armor work for infantry at all ?

New meta: flank shocktroops to ignore their armor :P

No clue, should probably test.
15 Mar 2016, 19:36 PM
#39
avatar of CookiezNcreem
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 3052 | Subs: 15




And you know what's really funny? Flanking the .50 cal doesn't even really work, because the crew has 6.6 rear armour. Why? Nobody knows, but it seems they carry their helmets on their backs.


you're either

A. very bad troll

B. Mentally retarded.

6.6 rear armor....Teach me more stats coh2.hu hero.

What a horrible first post. do me a favor and make it your last.
15 Mar 2016, 19:46 PM
#40
avatar of Cabreza

Posts: 656

No AP rounds or silliness, just give us a pen buff.

Currently Pen of 2 at mid range, versus 222's 9 armor (1 in 4.5 shots penetrates) and PzII's 55 armor (1 in 27.5 shots penetrates, although I'm not sure what the threshold for rounding down to 0 is...)

Buff to 5 pen. Would mean 1 in 10 shots hits the Luchs, not a great ratio but not terrible either. The 222 would be seriously threatened with 1 in 2 shots penetrating.


Nice job crunching the numbers.
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

729 users are online: 729 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49152
Welcome our newest member, Cummings
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM