It's not that regular infantry needs suppression. It's that machine guns need ACTUAL suppression for their ENTIRE cone INSTANTLY, the way they do in Dawn of War II.do u want maxim spam again?
As long as you can send three squads directly into an MG's cone of fire and only have one get suppressed while the machine gunner fidgets and the player has to manually right-click all three, machine gun teams will remain a liability.
As for combined arms in general, it's perfectly viable for Allies because of their powerful per-squad infantry. Ostheer squads have no survivability and thus get chased away even when employing combined arms, while OKW have no damage output and thus get outlasted.
This all stems from the idiotic math employed in regards to unit costs, even though that shouldn't be at all how it's done because at any given moment, in any given engagement, any one unit only deals damage to a single enemy unit, so on a granular level any faction that has more powerful forces on a per-squad basis is going to be more powerful regardless of manpower or any other costs.
Making combined arms viable
Posts: 4474
Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1
But tinkering with suppression proved extremely dangerous in the past.
Make it too low, HMG will be useless.
Make it too high, HMG spam meta.
Adjust incremental one, single squads aren't suppressed.
Adjust it other way, everything is instantly pinned.
Whatever can be done to HMG, its a loss for balance team.
IMO the problem is, as always, on the edge. On Coh1, suppression works differently, pinning a squad doesn't make it incontrolable, just force the player to 1- retreat, 2- crawl back to cover, the squad cannot fire and receive increased debuff over time but the player can always control it. Which make, from the start and for every single player, cristal clear that HMGs are support tools and cannot completely shut down your opponent. That's a important statement because it forces players to think differently.
So in fact we can make HMGs suppressing faster/more but it also mean reducing what does suppression. I think we can make HMGs suppress twice as fast as today if we remove the pinning and reduce debuff provided by the suppression effect.
What result would we have is:
1- Blobb always being slow down by HMGs
2- HMGs cannot anymore stop and force retreat any squad by pinning him.
3- A much more dynamic game forcing player to flank because of the faster suppression but at the moment there is two squads vs 1 HMG and one is flanking you cannot hope to control both of them with a single HMG.
Posts: 14
So a 251 when it first comes out is mostly useful for reinforcing and chipping away at enemy squads, but once it reaches vet 2 or 3 it gains some suppression. Not as much as an HMG, but enough that say 3 bursts will suppress a squad, so a kiting 251 can easily suppress lazily micro'd infantry trying to charge it will At grenades.
This way, Light vehicles remain useful as a way to pin down late game infantry, something heavy vehicles like tanks can't do.
This could also revitalize vehicles like the 221. maybe give these vehicles a vet ability like "suppressing fire" where they lose damage but gain suppression.
This would also make suppression a more widespread mechanic, instead of being consigned almost entirely to HMGs.
Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1
snip
Actually I'd really like the mortar change. Auto fire should act more of an area denial/cover denial than what they are now doing by wiping models. This would make no brainer auto fire weaker while still being able to provide support to infantry by denying cover.
The mg change would need testing I think so I'm not sure on that one as much.
Posts: 728
In general to me support weapons are more important than ever before this patch. One becuase of no early fwd retreats so forcing retreats on pinned squads is huge. 2 the nerfs to rocket arty allows them to survive longer and vet and preform better with out being autowiped soon as the first rocket arty hits the field. So overall I feel combined arms works better than it ever has before and there is no need to change anything.
Posts: 2143 | Subs: 2
In reality squads should be suppressed very fast and then gradually become less suppressed. IRL blob hears MG fire and hits the dirt. Gradually they see the nest and begin to attack it. This would allow your riflemen a short period to inflict maximum damage while the bad guys are suppressed. So flip what I asked for earlier
Posts: 246
How would it be if MGs were more like the Brit MG. Where it inflicts damage but does not suppress right away
Since when does the British MG or any MG not suppress right away? Or according to what source, the patch notes? Because in practice, all MG setup squads suppress the same, regardless of suppression output stats or anything else, as evidenced by how impossible it is to walk a unit out of the cone once it's in there even on the edge.
In fact, that's the one thing that doesn't make sense about HMG squads: they all suppress in the same amount of time, but some get to deal heavy damage to the point of being hardcore garrison counters, while others barely deal damage to units on the ground and out of cover.
I don't understand how that's supposed to be balanced, but since all HMGs are really used for in the end is suppression, it isn't as huge of an issue as some others. Still, having an MG42 team in a building, then watching a British HMG garrison a nearby building, get shot at while setting up, and easily win the engagement with the MG42 team is just BS, and everyone knows it.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Since when does the British MG or any MG not suppress right away? Or according to what source, the patch notes? Because in practice, all MG setup squads suppress the same, regardless of suppression output stats or anything else, as evidenced by how impossible it is to walk a unit out of the cone once it's in there even on the edge.
Actually, its perfectly possible to move out of cone and be unsuppressed when facing brit HMG or maxim or DSHK as all of them have pretty low suppression.
Maxim and DSHK had suppression gutted royally and vickers was never good at it in the first place to the point where people asked for lower DPS, but higher suppression. All 3 of these HMGs are fully capable of killing a model before suppressing the squad.
You are also literally trying to argue the suppression stats do not matter, which is beyond hilarious.
In fact, that's the one thing that doesn't make sense about HMG squads: they all suppress in the same amount of time, but some get to deal heavy damage to the point of being hardcore garrison counters, while others barely deal damage to units on the ground and out of cover.
They don't.
Stop pretending otherwise.
I don't understand how that's supposed to be balanced, but since all HMGs are really used for in the end is suppression, it isn't as huge of an issue as some others. Still, having an MG42 team in a building, then watching a British HMG garrison a nearby building, get shot at while setting up, and easily win the engagement with the MG42 team is just BS, and everyone knows it.
Why? HMG42 got lower cost, lower DPS and higher suppression, while vickers is more expensivce and have higher DPS at all but max range, if it got at least vet1, it will out DPS HMG42 at ALL ranges, unless you use incendiary rounds, in which case HMG42 will always win under any circumstances on otherwise equal terms.
Posts: 2143 | Subs: 2
In fact, that's the one thing that doesn't make sense about HMG squads: they all suppress in the same amount of time, but some get to deal heavy damage to the point of being hardcore garrison counters, while others barely deal damage to units on the ground and out of cover.
I think Katitof was trying to say:
But I don't read patch notes much, so I would have believed you. But the question was how would the game be with less suppression and way more damage (DPS)? Would there be less blobbing if they were getting chopped up instead of suppressed?
Posts: 571
Posts: 1044 | Subs: 1
I generally find vickers to have really crappy suppression not because it "doesnt suppress", but rather because it "kills" a model right off the bat, takes time to re-aim, then fire and "suppress" the squad it is shooting at.
This
A lot of times the model its shooting at dies which in turn causes the suppression to be null
Posts: 607
Posts: 246
Yet at the same time, HMGs in CoH2 don't behave properly, like they did in Dawn of War II. Instead of the machine gunner waving the MG throughout the entire cone and laying down suppressing fire throughout the cone, he just fires at a single squad at a time, so unless the squads are right on top of each other, they don't get hit/suppressed.
HMGs in general are a terrible unit that's both unbalanced (in favor of Allies due to more DPS) and unviable (in favor of no one, since not being able to stop a blob of infantry makes everyone who uses HMGs equally screwed against such mindless "tactics").
Posts: 728
They do though. In practice. The numbers, the unit stats don't matter, at all. Every single time an infantry unit walks into an HMG cone and gets fired on, it WILL get suppressed, even if it just grazed the cone, because one burst from every HMG causes suppression.
Yet at the same time, HMGs in CoH2 don't behave properly, like they did in Dawn of War II. Instead of the machine gunner waving the MG throughout the entire cone and laying down suppressing fire throughout the cone, he just fires at a single squad at a time, so unless the squads are right on top of each other, they don't get hit/suppressed.
HMGs in general are a terrible unit that's both unbalanced (in favor of Allies due to more DPS) and unviable (in favor of no one, since not being able to stop a blob of infantry makes everyone who uses HMGs equally screwed against such mindless "tactics").
lmao unbalanced I would MUCH rather have mg42 suppression on a vickers than its damage. This is why every single time I get a chance as allied to steal a mg42 or 34 I will any allied player with a brain will. Plus it is hilarious when they try to volk blob or gren blob it and it actaully suppressed them all before they can just rifle nade it or incendiary burn it like they do to every other allied mg (-minus 50 cal that is a late tier MG)
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
I generally find vickers to have really crappy suppression not because it "doesnt suppress", but rather because it "kills" a model right off the bat, takes time to re-aim, then fire and "suppress" the squad it is shooting at.
I'll add: while all MGs suffer from mid/late game plenty of yellow cover available, this makes the vicker a joke in comparison.
I think this will be my plea for CoH3. Make a new category for yellow cover. ON MAP pre generated light cover remains the same, but player created light cover through small ordnance such as ballistic and indirect fire, should not grant suppression benefits. At most, leave that to REALLY heavy offmap or maybe onmap Howitzers.
Posts: 1484
Posts: 783
They do though. In practice. The numbers, the unit stats don't matter, at all. Every single time an infantry unit walks into an HMG cone and gets fired on, it WILL get suppressed, even if it just grazed the cone, because one burst from every HMG causes suppression.
Dunno if serious... Even if we go on your assumption that as long as an infantry unit takes a full burst from an MG, it gets suppressed, it ignores the possibility that an infantry unit can leave the range of the MG before a burst is finished.
It also ignores the fact that different MGs have different burst durations.
It is also false to boot. A test you can perform yourself is how long it takes to suppress infantry with an MG at close range vs long range. You will find that the rate of suppression changes regardless of burst length.
Posts: 2243
Combined arms is amazing this patch. If you play against very good player, combined arms just wreaks blobers and maxim spammers. For blobs, get MG for crowd control & infantry to for nades; snipers/Stuka for support weapon spam!
blobbers =/= spammers
spam strong infantery and use them clever...so you can flank mgs easily and have good chance to wipe them...so no..MGs are no good spammer counter
Posts: 1484
blobbers =/= spammers
spam strong infantery and use them clever...so you can flank mgs easily and have good chance to wipe them...so no..MGs are no good spammer counter
You need at least two MGs for crowd control and sniper for MP drain. Plus, if the Allied player is spamming infantry than you know he is in a MP drain thus late AT gun/teching/ map control.
Livestreams
14 | |||||
2 | |||||
1 | |||||
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.830222.789+36
- 2.561204.733+3
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.916404.694-1
- 5.280162.633+8
- 6.305114.728+1
- 7.721440.621+3
- 8.14758.717+1
- 9.17046.787-1
- 10.1019662.606+4
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
6 posts in the last week
36 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Freddci06
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM