Is it possible to fix maxim spam before GCS?

The problem with Maxim, DshK, HM38 and ZiS is durability.

The problem with Maxim, DshK, HM38 and ZiS is durability.

It is not a problem, it is their main feature. Just like armour is a main feature of KT and alpha strike is main feature of firefly. The problem with maxim is that it doesn't sacrifice enough to pay for such feature.

All it needs is dps nerf - won't make it useless but will force players into buying some actually damage dealing squads.

DShK is at the same time best hmg in game and the least used one - just becouse it is in very few doctrines. Thus, it doesn't really need a fix. The lend lease doctrine needs a fix as a whole though.

The problem with HM38 is that it needs only one men to operate (or retreat), while all the other mortars need 2, making it more durable that the other 6 men mortar (that needs a buff btw). All it needs is changing this value to 2 to make it consistent.

ZiS is an example of good soviet design - it pays for additional 2 men with significantly reduced RoF. In fact it is enough to make it die more often in face to face stand offs than in case of pak40 or 6pdr.

Becouse apart from a single gimmick (pack howitzer that is a gimmick in multiple ways in terms of design) all factions have a set number of models per every weapon team they use - both bought and recrewed. That is consistent. For example as soviets I know that if I steal MG-42 it will be 6 men, while as ost, I know that if I steal maxim its going to be 4 men. Introducing 4 men maxim would break that entirely.

So why not just lower all support weapon teams to 4 men? It's equally hard to wipe a 6 man HM-120 squad and especially so because it only requires 1 man to crew.

So why not just lower all support weapon teams to 4 men? It's equally hard to wipe a 6 man HM-120 squad and especially so because it only requires 1 man to crew.

Cause then you have to buff them to be equal to their counterpart. This means giving them turbo mortar and pak40 level of AT gun. Also if you make the maxim a 4 model weapon, then you have to spread out the formation so a rifle grenade or any other nade kills at most 2 models AND you have to give it german teleportation capabilities which are not currently implemented in the game (animation).

Finally, the 120mm on the current live version is bad. Specially when mortars get more range at vet3 (which a 120mm will barely hit vet1 and a half due to xp requirements).

Nerfs: increase reinforce cost. The problem is the concept (offensive MG, short arc, fast setup, etc) but it's too late to change it.

Cause then you have to buff them to be equal to their counterpart. This means giving them turbo mortar and pak40 level of AT gun. Also if you make the maxim a 4 model weapon, then you have to spread out the formation so a rifle grenade or any other nade kills at most 2 models AND you have to give it german teleportation capabilities which are not currently implemented in the game (animation).

Finally, the 120mm on the current live version is bad. Specially when mortars get more range at vet3 (which a 120mm will barely hit vet1 and a half due to xp requirements).

Nerfs: increase reinforce cost. The problem is the concept (offensive MG, short arc, fast setup, etc) but it's too late to change it.

I can see your arguemnt for the pak gun/zis gun. As for the "turbo mortar" I'd say making the HM-38 mortar equal to ostheer wouldn't be bad at all, including veterancy. Yes asymmetric design but more or less it would be more balanced. If by turbo mortar you mean USF mortar then we have a problem.

I don't see how the HM-120 is "bad". It comes on very powerful commanders, has a larger AoE than other stock mortars and has a longer range. Vet 3 additional range are those mortars issues, not a soviet mortar issue.

But yes other acceptable nerfs could be reinforce cost and setup/packup time.

I can see your arguemnt for the pak gun/zis gun. As for the "turbo mortar" I'd say making the HM-38 mortar equal to ostheer wouldn't be bad at all, including veterancy. Yes asymmetric design but more or less it would be more balanced. If by turbo mortar you mean USF mortar then we have a problem.

I don't see how the HM-120 is "bad". It comes on very powerful commanders, has a larger AoE than other stock mortars and has a longer range. Vet 3 additional range are those mortars issues, not a soviet mortar issue.

But yes other acceptable nerfs could be reinforce cost and setup/packup time.

HM-38 is the 120mm mortar. The UP 82mm one is PM-41.

HM-38 is the 120mm mortar. The UP 82mm one is PM-41.

I can see your arguemnt for the pak gun/zis gun. As for the "turbo mortar" I'd say making the HM-38 mortar equal to ostheer wouldn't be bad at all, including veterancy. Yes asymmetric design but more or less it would be more balanced. If by turbo mortar you mean USF mortar then we have a problem.

I don't see how the HM-120 is "bad". It comes on very powerful commanders, has a larger AoE than other stock mortars and has a longer range. Vet 3 additional range are those mortars issues, not a soviet mortar issue.

But yes other acceptable nerfs could be reinforce cost and setup/packup time.

Guess what: USF mortar on AUTO ATTACK is completely equal to OH mortar.
Show Spoiler
So no, getting your mortar stolen as OH is a pain in the ass, specially if SU get's it.

All (normal) mortars get same vet 2 and vet 3 bonuses. The thing is, 120mm has double the xp requirements. By the time it hits vet1, other mortars are at vet2 (which makes their barrage recharge faster and are more accurate), hence more damage done. At vet3 they have (currently) on AA more range than the 120mm. This will be kept on barrage after WBP. You can get 2 normal mortars to vet3 with the same amount of XP required for the 120mm to get to that level.

The reason? Well, before hand, the 120mm dealt 120dmg, had way more AoE and cost something like 400mp. So it could actually level up well for it's cost. Since the (deserved) nerfs, it's been overshadow by normal mortars IMO. It retains it's OOHM sound, visual effects and RNG hits, but other mortars are generally doing more damage (if microed or not).

The benefit of the 120mm is that it's a call in, therefore it's comes immediately and requires no tech. But it costs 330mp (?) for something which doesn't perform as "great" for that cost (normal mortar been 240mp).
RoF is bad (per min, OH lands 7.2 shots, 5.4 for SU 82mm, 4.3 for SU 120mm) and takes ages to move around. If we take into account barrage it's even worst.
The AoE is bigger indeed, but it's the same damage. AND the barrage for some reason has a worst AoE (lethal radius for normal mortars is 1.0, AA on 120mm is 1.5 but on barrage is merely 1.1).

TL;DR: if you tech T2, just get the 82mm mortar.

PD: from ALL the infantry and support weapons in the game (not counting AT guns since they fight vehicles), it has the 2nd highest XP requirement, barely behind the Pack Howitzer from USF (which cost an arm and a leg but at least has a REALLY good barrage, shame only 3 shots).

Show Spoiler

Guard Motor is sorta the issue in a lot of ways.

But you know, if Soviets had 4 man weapon teams, Merge would have a fair bit more utility.

With 6 man support teams makes it pretty hard to effectively utilize Merge, especially after an engagement.

Show Spoiler

Guess what: USF mortar on AUTO ATTACK is completely equal to OH mortar.
Show Spoiler

So no, getting your mortar stolen as OH is a pain in the ass, specially if SU get's it.

All (normal) mortars get same vet 2 and vet 3 bonuses. The thing is, 120mm has double the xp requirements. By the time it hits vet1, other mortars are at vet2 (which makes their barrage recharge faster and are more accurate), hence more damage done. At vet3 they have (currently) on AA more range than the 120mm. This will be kept on barrage after WBP. You can get 2 normal mortars to vet3 with the same amount of XP required for the 120mm to get to that level.

The reason? Well, before hand, the 120mm dealt 120dmg, had way more AoE and cost something like 400mp. So it could actually level up well for it's cost. Since the (deserved) nerfs, it's been overshadow by normal mortars IMO. It retains it's OOHM sound, visual effects and RNG hits, but other mortars are generally doing more damage (if microed or not).

The benefit of the 120mm is that it's a call in, therefore it's comes immediately and requires no tech. But it costs 330mp (?) for something which doesn't perform as "great" for that cost (normal mortar been 240mp).
RoF is bad (per min, OH lands 7.2 shots, 5.4 for SU 82mm, 4.3 for SU 120mm) and takes ages to move around. If we take into account barrage it's even worst.
The AoE is bigger indeed, but it's the same damage. AND the barrage for some reason has a worst AoE (lethal radius for normal mortars is 1.0, AA on 120mm is 1.5 but on barrage is merely 1.1).

TL;DR: if you tech T2, just get the 82mm mortar.

Interesting and good to know facts. Much obliged HM-120 is 340 manpower I believe. I don't doubt the potency of the OH mortar. I know it was regarded the best mortar until the USF mortar overshadowed it. LeIG doesn't perform great for 330 manpower but everyone knows that unit is horrid for its cost/popcap but that unit needs its own string of reworks in its own regard.

Interesting and good to know facts. Much obliged HM-120 is 340 manpower I believe. I don't doubt the potency of the OH mortar. I know it was regarded the best mortar until the USF mortar overshadowed it. LeIG doesn't perform great for 330 manpower but everyone knows that unit is horrid for its cost/popcap but that unit needs its own string of reworks in its own regard.

LeIG i'll argue is fine, but it's not performing the role OKW needs (counter garrison/dislodging static position). It's a braindead unit which is gonna slowly bleed your opponent but it doesn't "help" immediately after been built. It has one of the less thought veterancy (why the hell i want received accuracy and faster movement!)

LeIG i'll argue is fine, but it's not performing the role OKW needs (counter garrison/dislodging static position). It's a braindead unit which is gonna slowly bleed your opponent but it doesn't "help" immediately after been built. It has one of the less thought veterancy (why the hell i want received accuracy and faster movement!)

Show Spoiler

Couldn´t resist. As to the LeIG, it is fine in my opinion. It just can´t do anything against garrisons, which is a problem vs maxim spam only in my opinion. LeIG is very potent when used right, that is to support your units and cause annoying mp bleed as later it will start to get those important hits and killing multiple models.

increasing its setup time might be enough

maybe if you could change it's s**t arc of fire,I mean,make it useful as a defensive support weapon(see Vickers) as opposed to the (most ret*****) offensive Auto-Attack team weapon as it is now,you could decrease it's setup time and damage...

We asked for viable conscript in mid/late game, we got nothing
We asked for a viable Soviet T1 without going cancer partisan and guard, we got a T1 nerf

Next patch we have no choice except going boring maxim spam

Maxims really make me sad face. Probably dropping the six man squad to five would be a good start on balancing them but good luck any time ever when they can't even make a winter patch for winter.

Well its nearly winter where I am but that isn't what they meant lol.

The upcoming buffs to flak halftrack might help OKW a bit with garrisoned maxims. We'll see ...

Next patch we have no choice except going OP maxim spam

Good.

The more people spam maxims, the sooner it will be nerfed.

Actually soviet tier1 in current state is highly viable against ostheer.

Sniper got indirect buff by nerfs to ostheer sniper, PTRS penals can hold their ground against 222 or even protect sniper.

M5 is much better against ost because 222 arrives 15 fuel later ~ 40 seconds, giving M5 more room to maneuver.

Penals beat grens at most ranges early on.



The problem is that OKW is overperforming in current state, except in few places (garisons), hence that´s why maxims are so abused.

Giving OKW smoke and nerfing their infantry to vanilla faction state will be a good start.

Becouse apart from a single gimmick (pack howitzer that is a gimmick in multiple ways in terms of design) all factions have a set number of models per every weapon team they use - both bought and recrewed. That is consistent. For example as soviets I know that if I steal MG-42 it will be 6 men, while as ost, I know that if I steal maxim its going to be 4 men. Introducing 4 men maxim would break that entirely.

"break" is a strong word. It would just be a change.

The change would be to improve gameplay. Choosing to not make a change because "that's how it was planned at the start" is nonsense.

OKW was designed as fuel/muni deprived faction. That was changed to improve gameplay.


Nothing is set in stone, especially not irrelevant things like squad weapon model numbers. Don't fear the change, fear the imbalance.