The Metagame: HMG Spam

The biggest issue I've not seen addressed between CoH1 and CoH2 in terms of HMGs isn't really their survivability. It's that going HMG spam in CoH1 = extremely bad territory capping, or at least very risky. In CoH2 with the ability for HMGs to just set up while capping, that doesn't hold true anymore.

My suggestion, besides fixing small arms damage, would be to have support teams cap at 25% speed.

@Shazz, that is a good suggestion and great point. This is still something we're playing with internally, we do hope we can improve their roles a bit more in the coming patches.

Yeah, the multiplication of possible capping units, in addition to the reduced number of points to cap, result in massive swings of the map in short order. I don't think that support units should be able to cap when they are set up.

The problem stems from a number of notable issues. I should note that I'm noticing MG42 spam way more than Maxim spam. But that's more than likely because I'm playing more Soviet than German lately so it's just more likely for me to face it due to higher number of games.

No, that is more to do with the Maxim being fairly rubbish at actually performing the role of a HMG. While the MG42 can be spammed and hit the field much faster/earlier and will instantly pin (aka make units completely useless) multiple squads with little to no micro required. Combined with their arc, they are virtually un-flankable early game by infantry, which is not the case with Maxim's at all.

i honestly disagree. maxims are still very useful even with the nerf, you can't just run around and kill everything with them. you don't use them the same way you use an mg42.

i honestly disagree. maxims are still very useful even with the nerf, you can't just run around and kill everything with them. you don't use them the same way you use an mg42.

So please elaborate and tell us how the Maxim should be used differently then. It has no advantages I can think of other than 2 men more in survivability. I'd choose an MG42 every time over a Maxim. It used to have some advantages but received too many nerfs, some of which were unnecessary (like the damage nerf) once the change was made that pinned HMGs can no longer fire (which was a great change and all that was needed really).

Whatever the case is, I don't think anyone complained about 30cal being useless with Americans, and that's because flanking options actually exist.

Whatever the case is, I don't think anyone complained about 30cal being useless with Americans, and that's because flanking options actually exist.

weapon support centers were kinda uncommon, and the maxim's aren't

Just a few quick points, we are aware that HMG are fairly dominant in the current meta game, partly as a result of their durability. It is something we are hoping to resolve in the future.

Keep in mind though, a simple health decrease will only resolve that issue so long as the original crew retains the weapon. Once you recrew it with another squad, the weapon team will take on the new durability values of the crewing entities.

edit: perhaps a received damage modifier would be a better suggestion

i've said it before and i'll say it again... i don't see how increasing the weapon team crews to squad size was a good idea in the first place. even if an MG gets flanked, the unit still has decent fighting power and lots of survivability. in coh1 a successful flank on an MG meant that the MG either had to retreat, or risk giving up the weapon to the enemy. in coh2 a successful flank means that you still have to micro around the MG for at least 30-40 seconds before you have done enough damage so he might think about retreating his MG. in coh1, leaving an MG unsupported basically meant you had 1 less unit on the field (since it was useless) and in a worst case scenario meant that the enemy might capture the MG. in coh2, fighting just with MGs is not only viable, it is even encouraged to some extent with the way buildings work (as in units in buildings just won't die), since an MG in a centralised building is pretty much unkillable without indirect fire units or flamers (and flamers in my experience are extremely unreliable in flushing units out of buildings). this reminds me a lot of a problem coh1 used to have, where an MG42 in a house was pretty much unflankable (because of being able to switch targets pretty much instantly).

the problem with MGs is not the damage they take or the health they have (and as you pointed out, captured weapon teams would regain the old durability... just think of vet 3 KCHs capturing a MG42... talk about MGs flanking you ;-)), but it is much more fundamental. MGs in coh2 are not a support weapon, but a front line fighting unit (a maxim rolling into the firing arc of an MG42, setting up, and outright killing the MG42 crew is NOT a support unit).

i'm not entirely sure where exactly everything went wrong, but if i was a developer, i would ask myself a few questions:

what is the purpose of the unit in question?
what do the players think the purpose of the unit in question is (or what do they use it for) and what do they think it should be?
does getting the unit feel rewarding to the player? ("i'm not getting the croc/brummbär because i think it's a good unit, but because i'm so far ahead that i actually CAN without falling behind. AKA adding insult to injury.")
is the counterplay for the unit "fun"? (countersniping in 2.602 anyone?)

those are just a few question i could think of off of the top of my head.
if you ask those question in regard to HMG teams, you will see a huge disparity as for the intended purpose and the in-game usage (which, imho, can be related to the weapon teams being squad sized).

So please elaborate and tell us how the Maxim should be used differently then. It has no advantages I can think of other than 2 men more in survivability. I'd choose an MG42 every time over a Maxim. It used to have some advantages but received too many nerfs, some of which were unnecessary (like the damage nerf) once the change was made that pinned HMGs can no longer fire (which was a great change and all that was needed really).

Weapons teams need to be normalized to 4 or 3 man squads with the same weapon arc. Maxim does more damage and MG42 does more suppression.

Apply minimum range.

/Thread.

Apply minimum range.

/Thread.

Of all the ideas here, that's actually the silliest one.

No unit in this game has minimum range. Putting it on a direct fire unit is just silly IMO and does nothing to solve it.

HMG spam isn't really a huge problem as the Soviets. Get a rifle command and you'll flatten it with essentially no difficulty. It's quite dull to play against but other than that it's OK. As the Ostheer, I think now that MG-42s can stop maxims from charging them, there are definitely decent options for it.

I like the idea of reducing the MGs capping capability as a way of limiting the unit's effectiveness.

Lmao, and ppl thought playing against SSSSS was bad MVGame

Just a few quick points, we are aware that HMG are fairly dominant in the current meta game, partly as a result of their durability. It is something we are hoping to resolve in the future.

Keep in mind though, a simple health decrease will only resolve that issue so long as the original crew retains the weapon. Once you recrew it with another squad, the weapon team will take on the new durability values of the crewing entities.

edit: perhaps a received damage modifier would be a better suggestion

Yeah like 200% more damage if shot from rear or from outside the cone of fire =)

The biggest issue I've not seen addressed between CoH1 and CoH2 in terms of HMGs isn't really their survivability. It's that going HMG spam in CoH1 = extremely bad territory capping, or at least very risky. In CoH2 with the ability for HMGs to just set up while capping, that doesn't hold true anymore.

My suggestion, besides fixing small arms damage, would be to have support teams cap at 25% speed.

Why not just disable capping for support teams if they setup?

Why not just disable capping for support teams if they setup?

Because of how fast things set up (in particular the maxim), this doesn't end up having any effect really. I'll just have to be slightly more careful / aware but otherwise the same business continues on.

Making it a flat big reduction in the cap speed would hopefully encourage people to use regular infantry and combined arms more. Regular infantry to take territory, MGs to support and hold it.

EDIT: That is to say, you could do both when deployed = no cap and when undeployed = 25% cap, that might not be bad too.

How about MG's can only cap when clicking on the cap itself and not in the cap area.

Of all the ideas here, that's actually the silliest one.

No unit in this game has minimum range. Putting it on a direct fire unit is just silly IMO and does nothing to solve it.

Makes flanking and even direct assault effective from behind cover if you can close within the minimum range, thereby making HMGS ineffective at simply turning (while withstanding fire) and continuing fire.

You don't yet appreciate the genius of this solution.

And there is a precedent on RNades having minimum range.
I know it breaks the vCoH precedent, but I think this solution is tactically, statwise, and economically overall the soundest.

Think about it for a minute. Just one minute. Thats all I ask.