Maxim HMG - Unreasonably overnerfed

In general my idea - more men doesn't equial to more survivable. It may work so for line infantry, but doesn't work with support weapons.
[...]And be sure - 4 or 6 men is not such big difference

You're just ignoring replies again to spread what you think is true because of your quote experience quote, completely ignoring in-game mechanism. Let me quote the relevant posts again for you:

No it doesn't, the mgs all have identical received accuracy at 1.25. Stop spreading lies.

ALL MGs have the exact identical recieved accuracy of 1.25.

Furthermore, two additional members DO make a difference. Go ask any USF player what they think of the crewsize of the Pack Howitzer. You keep creating solutions for problems that do not even exist. This is just a re-hash of your previous thread on USSR Bunkers and Maxims and Conscripts and Maxims, whilst completely stampeding on any replies that do not fit your views.

You're just ignoring replies again to spread what you think is true because of your quote experience quote, completely ignoring in-game mechanism. Let me quote the relevant posts again for you:




Furthermore, two additional members DO make a difference. Go ask any USF player what they think of the crewsize of the Pack Howitzer. You keep creating solutions for problems that do not even exist. This is just a re-hash of your previous thread on USSR Bunkers and Maxims , whilst completely stampeding on any replies that do not fit your views.

And what difference it makes, when we talk about suppport guns? Again I said - for core combat infantry + 2 in squad may be useful, but how it can be useful for unit, which job is provide all possible firepower support? Don't see any connections here. Recrewing is issue for those core infantry, not for support teams, cos they obviuously can't recrew.

And if we talking about PHowie - it has 6 men crew, LeIG 4. But I wouldn't say, that it is harder to shut Howie, than LeIG - their survivability is pretty equial. And same shit goes with all support crews - from HMGs to AT guns.

And yea, I keep creating problem which don't exist. I thought, that absence of crowd control platform in OKW is not problem, since you could doctrinally get MG-34 or use FlakHQ for that. But, people "created" that problem, and voila - they have MG-34 in stock. Now it's time to do same with USSR.

Absence of normal defensive AI-crowd control platforms in USSR is REAL problem. It makes USSR unbalanced inside itself, it has too much weaknesses, which are not equially compensated with bonuses and benefits. 6 men squad and faster setup are not equial compensation for small arc of fire and small areal supresison for unit, which job is to control area and keep enemy infantry groups under fire supression. Those "buffs" doesn't affect real purpouse effectiveness of Maxim, it adds some "side bonuses", which maybe good, but not relevant for that kind of unit.

I would compare it with abstract TD tank unit (for example Jackson), which would have small AP and damage stat, but instead would have very good speed and a lot of HP. And when you saying "that TD unit is ineffecitve, cos it doesn't have those stats, which could make it effective TD (AP, damage)", people answering you "but you know, it's fast, it's survivable, you may use it as meatshield or recon...", when it is originally TD. Hope you will understand that example.

Jackson and Maxims have nothing in common.

And if we talking about PHowie - it has 6 men crew, LeIG 4. Btheir survivability is pretty equial. And same shit goes with all support crews - from HMGs to AT guns.

The survive chances of Howie and LeIG are not the same; for instance LeIG provides green cover for the crew, whilst Howie does not. Crew sizes for abandon mechanism are not the same either. Nor even cold protection, for people who still play custom. I could go on, but you do not seem to understand, not even appear to accept the game mechanics.

But eh, you just want to hear anything that fulfills your experience whilst ignoring everything else.

Jackson and Maxims have nothing in common.


The survive chances of Howie and LeIG are not the same; for instance LeIG provides green cover for the crew, whilst Howie does not. Crew sizes for abandon mechanism are not the same either. Nor even cold protection, for people who still play custom. I could go on, but you do not seem to understand, not even appear to accept the game mechanics.

But eh, you just want to hear anything that fulfills your experience whilst ignoring everything else.

Of course, they have nothing in common, but I just tried to show you that logic: "We have unit for one purpouse, giving stats for another and call that unit good because... it has good stats! Who cares, that stats are not making that unit work good for it's original purpouse". It's just wierd.

I would compare it with abstract TD tank unit (for example Jackson), which would have small AP and damage stat, but instead would have very good speed and a lot of HP. And when you saying "that TD unit is ineffecitve, cos it doesn't have those stats, which could make it effective TD (AP, damage)", people answering you "but you know, it's fast, it's survivable, you may use it as meatshield or recon...", when it is originally TD. Hope you will understand that example.

So basically the m10? One of the best in the game?

Not every unit has to be identical, stop trying to make them the same.
You are literally the only person complaining about the Maxim.

Maxims just got a triple buff:

-Deathloop fixed
-Buildtime nerf negated by spamming out of building
-33% nade range while supressed

No the maxim doesnt need a buff.

No deathloop was not fixed. it only prevents noobs who don't click on the squad from killing the gunner... over and over again. If you just right click the squad with your infantry, it will target the gunner. If a flame or rifle nade hits the whole squad, they're all low on health and will die to a flanking/chasing squad.

you cannot really spam it out of the building because of mp increase. you can probably get 2 squads at most at the beginning of the game if you build nothing else.

as others have stated, the grenade affects all mgs and i prefer mgs like mg42 that have high suppression and a wide arc.

So - we either redesign Maxim for to make it defensive as all HMGs (DsHK may still be same offensive, it would add some diversity), or making for USSR defensive alternative - bunkers, new defensive stock HMG, whatever else... What we have today in USSR for to purpouses of crowd control is absolutely ineffective, it doesn't work right and doesn't do job... even bad. It must be fixed.

Redesigning the Maxim? The only person who complains about it is yourself. The Maxim was doing its job correctly. Yes, it had a limited field of view, but it made up for that with easy suppression.

While the MG42 holds a better arc, it can't cover them all since it is a single machine gun. Especially when there is three squads coming from different directions. This is where the Maxim can easily suppress units in its arc since it is focusing all of its firepower in a limited field of view.

The Maxim has something which the Axis doesn't have, sprint. To you it may seem useless, but it will help bring presence on the battlefield. As for your mention of not being a defensive tool, I must disagree. You put the Maxim in a building and it has an arc equal to the MG42.

Now you also suggest a new MG for them to use. Where the hell are you going to get that? The Maxim and the DsHK are the only two HMGs they got.

Without including you in the Soviet playerbase, no one has complained about the need for bunkers. If they did, it was probably at the beginning of CoH2 release and they easily adjusted to the difference between factions. The only who complained about the subject is once again, you.

Redesigning the Maxim? The only person who complains about it is yourself. The Maxim was doing its job correctly. Yes, it had a limited field of view, but it made up for that with easy suppression.

While the MG42 holds a better arc, it can't cover them all since it is a single machine gun. Especially when there is three squads coming from different directions. This is where the Maxim can easily suppress units in its arc since it is focusing all of its firepower in a limited field of view.

The Maxim has something which the Axis doesn't have, sprint. To you it may seem useless, but it will help bring presence on the battlefield. As for your mention of not being a defensive tool, I must disagree. You put the Maxim in a building and it has an arc equal to the MG42.

Now you also suggest a new MG for them to use. Where the hell are you going to get that? The Maxim and the DsHK are the only two HMGs they got.

Without including you in the Soviet playerbase, no one has complained about the need for bunkers. If they did, it was probably at the beginning of CoH2 release and they easily adjusted to the difference between factions. The only who complained about the subject is once again, you.

I'm just quoting you because you said something hilarious to me.

"While the MG42 holds a better arc, it can't cover them all since it is a single machine gun. Especially when there is three squads coming from different directions. This is where the Maxim can easily suppress units in its arc since it is focusing all of its firepower in a limited field of view."

So when a player faces an mg he has to have 3 squads from different positions. Yet, when you go to the maxim you assume all 3 squads are in the area? Is this an implication that Axis players don't micro? The mg42 usually suppresses in one burst. Then, you can click on the other squad and it'll suppress that one. The maxim has to spin in a circle to do that lol.

The Maxim has something which the Axis doesn't have, sprint. To you it may seem useless, but it will help bring presence on the battlefield. As for your mention of not being a defensive tool, I must disagree. You put the Maxim in a building and it has an arc equal to the MG42.

This. By putting a Maxim in a garrison you negate its primary disadvantage of having a smaller arc and give it a better defensive purpose. (Especially when you consider that most maps have garrisons covering key points). Throw in M5 with its 360 degree fire that can face-melt squads at close range and wipe them on retreat and what more crowd control do you need? Nevermind the fact that Soviets are supposed to be an aggressive faction so heavy defensive tools don't really fit them.

PLUS Maxims higher damage AND 6 man crew means that it can easily 1v1 MG42s in or out of garrisons, which often correlates to map control in your favor by forcing off the other player's suppression platform. If you want to turtle then play Brits

This. By putting a Maxim in a garrison you negate its primary disadvantage of having a smaller arc and give it a better defensive purpose. (Especially when you consider that most maps have garrisons covering key points). Throw in M5 with its 360 degree fire that can face-melt squads at close range and wipe them on retreat and what more crowd control do you need? Nevermind the fact that Soviets are supposed to be an aggressive faction so heavy defensive tools don't really fit them.

PLUS Maxims higher damage AND 6 man crew means that it can easily 1v1 MG42s in or out of garrisons, which often correlates to map control in your favor by forcing off the other player's suppression platform. If you want to turtle then play Brits

This is completely negated by the fact that...

mg42 comes out first so they should always get the key garrison first. mg42 has an arc whether inside a garrison or not. garrisons are/should be gone late game so that wider-arc equality (not advantage) doesn't exist.

I believe the 1v1 only applies if somehow both are beginning to attack at the same time unless i'm wrong. I feel like the first one to suppress will be the winner.

For cost, mg42 went from 240 to 260 because it was put into T0. Maxim went from... T2 to T2, 240 to 260. I don't feel like maxim is equal to mg42. I would personally take an mg42 over maxim 90% of the time.

This. By putting a Maxim in a garrison you negate its primary disadvantage of having a smaller arc and give it a better defensive purpose. (Especially when you consider that most maps have garrisons covering key points). Throw in M5 with its 360 degree fire that can face-melt squads at close range and wipe them on retreat and what more crowd control do you need? Nevermind the fact that Soviets are supposed to be an aggressive faction so heavy defensive tools don't really fit them.

PLUS Maxims higher damage AND 6 man crew means that it can easily 1v1 MG42s in or out of garrisons, which often correlates to map control in your favor by forcing off the other player's suppression platform. If you want to turtle then play Brits

Yea, but buildings are fast removable from map, USSR can't build trenches for HMGs, like UKF so - defensive options for Maxim can be closed very fast. And even putted in building - areal supression still doesn't exist. It means, that it still will be ineffective, compared with MG-42 or Vikkers, which pins everyone in large area around fireing target.

Maxims higher damage is not that really higher. I think, their DPS is equial, since Maxims rate of fire a bit lower (not sure about it, but when I use Maxim I can't say, that it deals much more damage to infantry, than MG-42 does). At least, it is not enough higher for to compensate low areal supression, DsHKs damage is fine for that, but it is killer-HMG at all. Maybe Maxim should perform just like DsHK for to be real offensive HMG...

Maxim kills MG-42 1v1. Yea, true, but it doesn't mean that Maxim is better. Again - support weapon teams don't fight 1v1, they don't fight alone, they SUPPORT to your main army troops. MG-42 may provide that support both in back and on frontline, cos it covers large area and supress in large area - better fire support. Maxim don't do it well, at least if you don't have 2 or 3 of them.

And I don't want turtle. I want balance. Balacne between factions, and even more important - balance inside faction itself. USSR may be balanced between other factions now (not sure), but definitely has no balance inside itself. And I ask for defensive AI-crowd control tools for USSR not because I want to make USSR into turtle faction, but because you just CAN'T play without such tools, it's part of CoH game mechanic - map control. Of course, USSR may be powerful in offensive, they may be powerful rushers (and even that is not true, since all of their units are weaklings), but when you capture map control - you must hold it somehow. And you can't hold map with offensive-designed units. So it means, that you will capture needed for you points (fuel, ammo, VPs) and... pretty soon lose, cos you just can't protect them. Such thing happens pretty often with USSR, adding to them defensive AI-crowd control unit/building would help them with that really.

If also they would add BS-3 heavy AT gun instead of M-42 in doctrines, that would really make soviet defensive gameplay more effective and less painful.

If you want to play a defensive faction, go play British or OST, but there is no need to change an full faction to fulfill a solution to a problem that only you has created.

Dont Feed him pls

If you want to play a defensive faction, go play British or OST, but there is no need to change an full faction to fulfill a solution to a problem that only you has created.

Yea, OK. But problem is - British and OST are BOTH defensive and offensive. USSR in meantime is only offensive, and it is definitely not best offensive faction in game. Don't you think, that it makes USSR... unbalanced?

No, this does not make it in any way unbalanced. People in this forum, as underlined in this thread and the countless ones about USSR that you created, have already gathered countless times that you will just refuse to play with other factions that would just be better adapted to your game-play.

Again, go play OST or UKF if you want to play the way you describe it here. USSR is a mobile flanking army that focuses on aggressive and quick gameplay with perhaps the strongest callin and commander abilities. It is not meant to be a defensive one - and there is absolutely no need to make it a defensive army.

No, this does not make it in any way unbalanced. People in this forum, as underlined in this thread and the countless ones about USSR that you created, have already gathered countless times that you will just refuse to play with other factions that would just be better adapted to your game-play.

Again, go play OST or UKF if you want to play the way you describe it here. USSR is a mobile flanking army, not a defensive one!

Yea, mobile flanking army, sweet. And USF is not "mobile flanking army"? And OKW?

Again - all factions are absolutely easy able to play in "mobile flanking army" mode, even Ostheer. But in same time with that - they have at least some kind of defensive game play. Why? Because it is impossible to play without it. It's not about faction desing, or "faction adapting". It is game mechanic of both CoHs, factions must have both defensive and offensive gameplay. If we gonna make offensive only faction it should hardly dominate over all other "balanced within" factions in everything, that means rushing, attack...

But USSR is also not most powerful faction in attack. Units are weak, all worthy stock tanks are long-range TDs with melted guns, which means, that they won't be effective in attack + hard doctrinal addiction, which cripples USSR in general very hard. Damn, even UKF is more powerful, as offensive faction, just because of strong and survivable infantry, which you can also equip with guns and because of wide choise of all-purpouse tanks in really good performance. Best meatshield, best TD of allies, best medium tank... Seriously, if UKF suppoused to be defensive faction - they got too much offensive units. And USSR has serious lack of such units.

All of that shows, that in faction design we have a lot of problems. USSR should be either OP in offensive, or should have same "balanced within" faction, for to be balanced with all factions at all in game, cos right now it is underpowered by design.

all factions are absolutely easy able to play in "mobile flanking army" mode, even Ostheer.

You clearly never played OST in higher level if you consider them as an easy mobile flanking army mode, even Ostheer. They are always on the backfoot, always having to react to their opponent. Considering your stats, you cannot argue that you have any good experience with Axis anyway. I highly recommend to play more OST if you really want to enjoy a defensive type army that is based on reaction than action.

USSR is NOT aimed to be a defensive army, it doesn't matter how badly worded you put it across. Take it as a strong recommendation, go play with other factions instead of labouring random blabber on how bad USSR doesn't fit your playstyle.

I'm just quoting you because you said something hilarious to me.

"While the MG42 holds a better arc, it can't cover them all since it is a single machine gun. Especially when there is three squads coming from different directions. This is where the Maxim can easily suppress units in its arc since it is focusing all of its firepower in a limited field of view."

So when a player faces an mg he has to have 3 squads from different positions. Yet, when you go to the maxim you assume all 3 squads are in the area? Is this an implication that Axis players don't micro? The mg42 usually suppresses in one burst. Then, you can click on the other squad and it'll suppress that one. The maxim has to spin in a circle to do that lol.

Well, I'm trying to say that if three units are caught in the arc of an mg, those in the range of the MG42 or Vickers have a better chance of leaving the arc. This is the case if those three units are not bunched together.

I'm making a case where both the attacker and the defender have micro.

You clearly never played OST in higher level if you consider them as a mobile flanking army mode, even Ostheer. They are always on the backfoot, always having to react to their opponent.

USSR is NOT aimed to be a defensive army, it doesn't matter how badly worded you put it across.

I played as OST pretty much time. I can say, that they obviously are not that mobile, as USF, but in general - they have units and powers for to be good in offense. Their vechile park is obviously good for offensive playstyle, infantry is less adapted for that, but... PzGrens in right hands may be very dangerous soldiers, specially combined with artyofficier, which turns all ostheer infantry in terminators.

USSR is not aimed to be defensive, such as USF. But USF have normal HMG and more or less normal HMG position, and USSR don't. Logic? No matter what faction desgined to be - offensive or defensive - it should have both playstyles able anyway. Again - not because I want it, or something else, but because 1-side faction in game mechanic, which both CoHs have will obviously be harder to play as, than unversals.

We may look at experience of vCoH. USF was also pretty agressive faction, USSR has a lot of common with that in CoH 2, but even they had defensive bunkers and defensive designed HMGs. And one interesting thing - all USF squads were also 6-men equiped... except support weapons. Why? Because game designers were smarter those days and understood, that making +2 men to support gun won't make it more effective for it's original purpouse, but it will obviously help to combat infantry. So - they made it nice, balanced and multi-purpoused.

So - I don't think, that something will go wrong, if USSR will get at least bit of defensive gameplay.

Ostheer: Their vechile park is obviously good for offensive playstyle, infantry is less adapted for that, but... PzGrens in right hands may be very dangerous soldiers, all ostheer infantry in terminators.

PGrens are terminators? Ostheer vehicles you quoted as obviously good for everything? P4 great for offensive playstyle? Panther awesome for offensive flanking? Excuse me, but you clearly are trolling every OST player in this forum right now.




Really, go play either vCoH since you prefer it, or play with another faction than USSR.