April 20th Update

You see,

When something is UNDER-PERFORMING,(i.e. old 222) you BUFF it, either by INCREASING its potency or DECREASING its cost.

When something is OVER-PERFORMING,(i.e. current maxim) you NERF it, either by DECREASING its potency or INCREASING its cost.

If you were to increase its cost but at the same time buff its fire arc or suppression it would defeat the purpose of making the change, which is to balance.

Capisci?

Given you username, however, I can understand your dismay.

The proper way is to adjust performance if it is too weak/too strong and cost if it's too early/too late.

For example, Valentine and Sexton would be a lot more viable if they were 4 cp units. (Although valentine still needs a damage buff on its main gun.)

what is the setup time of axis mgs?

regardless of patches i dont like their gameplay. Lost interest/. Gameplay looks so silly, no micro. All game axis abuse the only way to play is to counter with abuse of your own

The proper way is to adjust performance if it is too weak/too strong and cost if it's too early/too late.

For example, Valentine and Sexton would be a lot more viable if they were 4 cp units. (Although valentine still needs a damage buff on its main gun.)

Yes, that is one facet of balancing. It is one tool at the disposal of the balance dev(s) among many. It's up to them to pick the right one for each individual case.

Why do people think they can just simplify this when balancing an RTS as diverse as COH2 is clearly not a simple task. You make one change here to fix a problem, that change affects the interaction of the unit in question with others, and creates a chain reaction, causing new balance issues to pop up as a result. You don't want one superior meta-strategy to emerge, so it's an ongoing battle to get things just right.

There's a reason skilled players will consider spamming maxims but not mg42s.

True, there is. Let's refuse from idea of "offencive" HMG, which really causes Maxim spams, turn Maxim into normal support-MG and we will see, that nobody spamming Maxims.

Because you don't spam support units, they can't be your main power. That's why people don't spam MG-42s, Vikkerses... But Maxim isn't suppoused to be support gun. Relic designed it as "frontline assault HMG", which should be able to fight on equial against Axis infantry. So, people use it, like Relic designed.

And now Relic comes and say: "OK, our offencive HMG is too effective in offencive, just as it suppoused to be actually, so we will nerf it, for to make offencive HMG less effective in offensive". Where is logic?! They nerfing it against it's original design!

Just say "NO!" to that shitty idea of "offencive HMGs" for USSR, it sux, Relic. Really sux, you fucked up. Everyone hates it. Axis players hate it, cos it causing so much hatred HMG spam, USSR players hate it, cos Maxims making my core infantry look like useless trash... stop, they are useless trash. Even if it will be "nerf" for so OP Maxim - nerf it to level of MG-42. Really, nerf it!

Just give to Maxim wide arc of fire, wide AoE supression and long set-up time, like all normal support-HMGs in game have. And everything will be OK. Spam will stop, people will start to use Cons as mainline and Maxims as support/pointhold tool. That's what all of us want!

Good changes, stop complaining

But Maxim isn't suppoused to be support gun. Relic designed it as "frontline assault HMG", which should be able to fight on equial against Axis infantry. So, people use it, like Relic designed.

They did not design the maxim to be used as frontline infantry.

They designed it to work well with the extremely mobile Conscript force. While the MG42 better complements the long range grenadiers.

They did not design the maxim to be used as frontline infantry.

They designed it to work well with the extremely mobile Conscript force. While the MG42 better complements the long range grenadiers.

So, you think people will stop spamming Maxims after that nerf? It will continue, because even such nerfed, Maxim is still more effective than all soviet stock infantry.

Relic just missing one obvious point, which lays on ground - all factions with "support-deffensive HMGs" don't spam them at all, and only one, with uniqe, specific and "assymetrcal" HMG people spam more and more - Maxim. Isn't that obvious, that remaking Maxim into same deffensive HMG will stop it spam and will make soviet gameplay more adequate. Infantry - in assault, HMGs - support and cover. Just as it suppoused to be, just as it is work with all other factions and nobody crying about it.

True, there is. Let's refuse from idea of "offencive" HMG, which really causes Maxim spams, turn Maxim into normal support-MG and we will see, that nobody spamming Maxims.

Because you don't spam support units, they can't be your main power. That's why people don't spam MG-42s, Vikkerses... But Maxim isn't suppoused to be support gun. Relic designed it as "frontline assault HMG", which should be able to fight on equial against Axis infantry. So, people use it, like Relic designed.

And now Relic comes and say: "OK, our offencive HMG is too effective in offencive, just as it suppoused to be actually, so we will nerf it, for to make offencive HMG less effective in offensive". Where is logic?!

Just say "NO!" to that shitty idea of "offencive HMGs" for USSR, it sux, Relic. Really sux, you fucked up. Everyone hates it. Axis players hate it, cos it causing so much hatred HMG spam, USSR players hate it, cos Maxims making my core infantry look like useless trash... stop, they are useless trash. Even if it will be "nerf" for so OP Maxim - nerf it to level of MG-42. Really, nerf it!

Just give to Maxim wide arc of fire, wide AoE supression and long set-up time, like all normal support-HMGs in game have. And everything will be OK. Spam will stop, people will start to use Cons as mainline and Maxims as support/pointhold tool. That's what all of us want!

I don't think you can say the maxim was meant to fight on equal footing with axis infantry given the supression mechanics in this game. It is most definitely a support weapon, it's only so different from the mg42 because relic wants to create diversity between factions and this was their solution to that. This is in fact the reason for a lot of stuff that otherwise wouldn't make much sense, and it kind of gets on my nerves too sometimes. (E.G. OKW has no non doctrinal MG, USF has no mortar or sniper, Oth has no light tanks, etc)

MG42 and maxim are very different, and you can't "nerf the maxim to the level of the mg42" because in some ways the mg42 is better, but in other ways it is not. The mg42, however, was not overperforming, and so they didn't nerf it. The maxim clearly was, and this is a small enough nerf that even though the idea behind it was to discourage its use above all other units and encourage combined arms strategies, you will probably still encounter maxim spammers from time to time.

I don't think you can say the maxim was meant to fight on equal footing with axis infantry given the supression mechanics in this game. It is most definitely a support weapon, it's only so different from the mg42 because relic wants to create diversity between factions and this was their solution to that. This is in fact the reason for a lot of stuff that otherwise wouldn't make much sense, and it kind of gets on my nerves too sometimes. (E.G. OKW has no non doctrinal MG, USF has no mortar or sniper, Oth has no light tanks, etc)

MG42 and maxim are very different, and you can't "nerf the maxim to the level of the mg42" because in some ways the mg42 is better, but in other ways it is not. The mg42, however, was not overperforming, and so they didn't nerf it. The maxim clearly was, and this is a small enough nerf that even though the idea behind it was to discourage its use above all other units and encourage combined arms strategies, you will probably still encounter maxim spammers from time to time.

Diversity between factions is good, but balance is more important.

I keep using that example - in vCoH all HMGs were pretty similar in their mechanics. Wide arcs of fire, AoE supression, long set-up time. Only different were abilities, damage and other important poitns, not so hardly connected with core design. I don't understand, why not to make it same here - all HMGs have same arc of fire and setup/packup time, as MG-42/Vikkers, maybe little different AoE supression, dependend on damage dealing and make diversity in their abilities and other stuff. But not in general design. Let them be all "in general" like MG-42s, change other parametrs, damage, supression per shot, penetration, maybe add some abilities...

I've literally posted replays where I do that. I regularly use them.

Long time waiting for replays featuring t34-76 to good use....


Have you some more replays using t34-76 againts top players????

Diversity between factions is good, but balance is more important.

I keep using that example - in vCoH all HMGs were pretty similar in their mechanics. Wide arcs of fire, AoE supression, long set-up time. Only different were abilities, damage and other important poitns, not so hardly connected with core design. I don't understand, why not to make it same here - all HMGs have same arc of fire and setup/packup time, as MG-42/Vikkers, maybe little different AoE supression, dependend on damage dealing and make diversity in their abilities and other stuff. But not in general design. Let them be all "in general" like MG-42s, change other parametrs, damage, supression per shot, penetration, maybe add some abilities...

You are wrong about vCoH.
The US .30 M1919 has rather slow RoF and low suppression but deals more damage compared to Mg42, but they are cheaper. PE has no infantry MG but they have mobile MG HT 250/2. Commonwealth only has doctrinal Commando MG but they can build MG nest to suit their rather defensive early game.
MGs in vCoH are very different

Good Job Dullahan

Good to see someone has proved Soviet Stronk with some real proofs

Despite those who constantly crying Soviet need buff, it's still has good 1on1 win ratio among top players

Soviets are strong and don't need general buffs.

Its literally about 3-4 units that either dropped out of meta because of direct and indirect buffs and nerfs(cons, 34/76-argue all you want, unless you go for roadkills, this thing does not perform well) or never even had a chance to be it(penals, m-42).

Similarly to ost, just because the army in general is fine and does well, does not mean we shouldn't do anything to brummbar.

You are wrong about vCoH.
The US .30 M1919 has rather slow RoF and low suppression but deals more damage compared to Mg42, but they are cheaper. PE has no infantry MG but they have mobile MG HT 250/2. Commonwealth only has doctrinal Commando MG but they can build MG nest to suit their rather defensive early game.
MGs in vCoH are very different

They are not much different in core desgin, if we talking about HMG teams, not emplacements or trucks. They all are deffensive HMGs, they performing pretty same, their core desing is pretty similar.

You said yourself, that only differense between MG-42 and 0.30, that 0.30 deals more damage, in exchange too slow RoF and supression. And you know what - this is great! Let's make MG diversity in CoH 2 in same way. Similar core design, similar foundation - different stats.

I just really belive, that that "uniqe and original" design of Maxims/DShKs is great fail. Fixing it will fix all other problems, conected with Maxims.

No door mine fix

what is the setup time of axis mgs?

regardless of patches i dont like their gameplay. Lost interest/. Gameplay looks so silly, no micro. All game axis abuse the only way to play is to counter with abuse of your own

Are you finally going to leave the game and this forum ?

They are not much different in core desgin, if we talking about HMG teams, not emplacements or trucks. They all are deffensive HMGs, they performing pretty same, their core desing is pretty similar.

You said yourself, that only differense between MG-42 and 0.30, that 0.30 deals more damage, in exchange too slow RoF and supression. And you know what - this is great! Let's make MG diversity in CoH 2 in same way. Similar core design, similar foundation - different stats.

I just really belive, that that "uniqe and original" design of Maxims/DShKs is great fail. Fixing it will fix all other problems, conected with Maxims.

In games units/items/abilities are not always what devs want them to be.

Maxim is designed to be used at offensive so it has more crews, faster set up but limited firing arc, like what it is now, that what devs want it to be in the first place.

But something went wrong in between Maxim has assumed the role of core infantry rather than support weapon in this version (and many times in history versions). It's not because Cons are worthless (which they are not), it's just Maxims are just great. Once upon a time Maxim squad equals to a 6-men con armed with Maxims HMG with same price as Cons, no wonder players don't need cons. For example u can build a Panzerabwehr volk squad with 1 schreck for 255 mp will you still build vanilla volks? Of coz not.

But I DO agree this nerf is a bit too much, the cost increase is entirely not needed.

A bit of diversity is fun, we can always introduce a new MG for Soviet, one which is similar to Mg42.

In games units/items/abilities are not always what devs want them to be.

Maxim is designed to be used at offensive so it has more crews, faster set up but limited firing arc, like what it is now, that what devs want it to be in the first place.

But something went wrong in between Maxim has assumed the role of core infantry rather than support weapon in this version (and many times in history versions). It's not because Cons are worthless (which they are not), it's just Maxims are just great. Once upon a time Maxim squad equals to a 6-men con armed with Maxims HMG with same price as Cons, no wonder players don't need cons. For example u can build a Panzerabwehr volk squad with 1 schreck for 255 mp will you still build vanilla volks? Of coz not.

But I DO agree this nerf is a bit too much, the cost increase is entirely not needed.

You are wrong in few points:

1. Cons are really worthless. They are maybe mobile or survivable, but they have pretty small firepower. Mosins shoot veeery slow and innacurate. And there is no non-doctrinal way to scale your "suppoused to be" mainline infantry. Exclusive only for USSR - other factions have non-doctrinal scale tools. No addition weapons, no additional firepower. Let them had at least SVT-40 upgreads or DP-28s... Just something, that will increase not only their ability "to take damage" - they are great in that, but also in dealing damage.

2. Maxim desgnied to be offencive MG, while all other HMGs (except 0.50 maybe) are deffensive. Maxim is spammed - all others don't. Why Relic just can't make Maxim same deffensive-suppourt? Yes, it is against of idea of "assymetrical" balance, but not all units in game should be balanced assymetricaly. Imagine, that we would have deffensive and offensive mortars. Or deffensive and offensive AT-guns. All support weapons MUST be only deffensive, becuase that's how people use them IRL, that's how it would be right to use in CoH 2.

3. Maxim is great. Not sure about it, I don't agree. But I really agree with making it less "great" and more similar to MGs like MG-42 or Vikkkers. Let it be not great, but effective.

But something went wrong in between Maxim has assumed the role of core infantry rather than support weapon in this version (and many times in history versions). It's not because Cons are worthless (which they are not), it's just Maxims are just great. Once upon a time Maxim squad equals to a 6-men con armed with Maxims HMG with same price as Cons, no wonder players don't need cons. For example u can build a Panzerabwehr volk squad with 1 schreck for 255 mp will you still build vanilla volks? Of coz not.

Actually, reasons for maxim meta are multiple and maxim itself is just one of them.
As I've said, direct and indirect nerfs to cons made them unusable, despite rec acc buff anything still rolled over them is one reason. You're still doctrine dependent if you want to use cons at all for anything else then cappers, AT nades and opponent vet source.

Another is, people got fed up of playing same 2 doctrines over and over and over and over again for YEARS, because you need shocks and IS-2 or guards and 34/85. Come gardening on! Each time non guard motor/shock rifle doc was valid, it got nerf butchered next patch. Tank hunters penta nerfs(direct and indirect) anyone?

3rd reason is, T1 should be AI focused alternative to all-around T2, but due to penal state, snipers losing effectiveness from patch to patch, M3 being garbage and huge doctrinal dependency, increased viability and potency of axis light vehicles the whole early game tier got pretty much removed from the game.

All of that added up to people using maxims as mainline infantry, we can't play same guard motor doc for 4 years without going insanse(see cpt molo).

We will feel this nerf, but meta will remain unchanged.

People will still spam maxims, because there is no other valid option.
The nerf is lazy band-aid fix on a more severe issue.

"Normalized pop-cap on 120 mortar team."

"Fixed an issue with the comet tank projectiles."

Thank god for that, very under rated changes.

Actually, reasons for maxim meta are multiple and maxim itself is just one of them.
As I've said, direct and indirect nerfs to cons made them unusable, despite rec acc buff anything still rolled over them is one reason. You're still doctrine dependent if you want to use cons at all for anything else then cappers, AT nades and opponent vet source.

Another is, people got fed up of playing same 2 doctrines over and over and over and over again for YEARS, because you need shocks and IS-2 or guards and 34/85.

3rd reason is, T1 should be AI focused alternative to all-around T2, but due to penal state, snipers losing effectiveness from patch to patch, M3 being garbage and huge doctrinal dependency, increased viability and potency of axis light vehicles the whole early game tier got pretty much removed from the game.

All of that added up to people using maxims as mainline infantry, we can't play same guard motor doc for 4 years without going insanse(see cpt molo).

We will feel this nerf, but meta will remain unchanged.

People will still spam maxims, because there is no other valid option.
The nerf is lazy band-aid fix on a more severe issue.

Soviet T1 had their good-old days

I once recall Paulad and Sib can use 2 snipers with dual tech ZIS to completely ruin the day of Axis players.

`Sniper-car removed~

`Sniper can no longer sprint

`M3A1 dps nerf

`T-34/85 cant call-in

After all these nerf, T1 is basically doomed. Penal? I wont build them even if they are 240 mp.