Sick/bored of MG42 -.-

The mg42 is fine now and the 10% supression makes more sense. played a game a couple of minutes ago. But be careful if you get flanked

Perhaps wooof, but its survival is still far less than Maxim, and its more vulnerable, due to slower de-setup, meaning it has to soak more damage for longer before it can gtfo.

So whats the relative suppression rate now?

How fast does a Maxim suppress a Gren, vs how fast does a MG42 suppress a Con?

well the changes hit the maxim and mg42 equally. compared to each other, the are still the same. youre right it will soak up more damage before being able to run though. if you pay attention, i think you can still keep them alive without too much trouble though. i have to do a little bit of testing to verify these numbers, but i think this table is accurate. if its not, dont blame me, milkacow made it im trusting his work.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApmrrrPr20ncdEpuSHcxNko1VGVFYjczYXpFZWhqOHc#gid=6

oh and by the way, its actually 4/5 the survival. 1/1.25 =80%

So, whats the verdict.

Is MG42 a piece of shit now due to slow setup time and 3/4 survival?

No. It's still a very powerful crowd control unit if used correctly. It's a support weapon now so it shouldn't lead the charge like it was doing before. You can't just dig in in one spot and deny access anymore as you will get punished for that. You have to be more mobile. Use it together with your army not as stand alone defense unit.
It doesn't insta pin 3 squads in three bursts of gunfire now.

so, has anyone tried to charge it heads on with two squads on opposite sides of the arc?

Flanking is rewarded at last,destroyed 4 MG squads on Langreskaya Winter ...also tanks and tank destroyers seem to do a lot more damage to infantry,SU 85 destroyed a full PGren squad and a Panzer almost oneshot 5 Conscripts,barely escaped )
Oh and SU 85 seems to have more range...just my opinion will try more of this..later

You know, up until I saw the many videos being posted about MG shenanigans echoing my own experiences, I thought that I was just way too out of practice.

Now I see that the MG42 was just ridiculous. The tools that were supposed to work against it were ineffective. I flanked so many MG42s in games before this patch only to see it get away or reposition and continue pinning everything (if the German player had at least a moderate level of skill).

It is a bit of a relief to know that it wasn't just me experiencing such frustration over this. I'm only an intermediate player, but I can manage flanking. I was pretty much ready to quit CoH2 due to the longer term effects of the MG42 until they made these changes.

The effect was so much worse in team games where there were a lot more MG42s around since every German player on the enemy team built them, along with bunkers, to secure the fuel points then rush into tanks.

L2P without instant pin,MG is like the Maxim now,why cry,they are balanced?...
Or did you like it otherwise,maybe?

Who the are you talking to.

@OZtheWiZARD

You didnt answer my question, or consider MG42s 3/4 survival, and long de-setuptime which makes it have to stand still and soak fire while packing up.

Please, read more carefully in future, instead of answering with glib generalisations and cliche, instead of objective analysis.

Put the MG42s in cover like you're supposed to.

So many MG42s deployed out of cover in the last patch, people got too used to using them that way since they just pinned everything on sight and survived long enough to redeploy, or drag whatever was chasing them into other units.

If in cover, and with infantry in front providing LoS, you should have more than enough time to unpack if in trouble.

Most analysis is subjective when on a game forum.

Put the MG42s in cover like you're supposed to. So many MG42s deployed out of cover in the last patch, people got too used to using them that way since they just pinned everything on sight and survived long enough to redeploy, or drag whatever was chasing them into other units. If in cover, and with infantry in front providing LoS, you should have more than enough time to unpack if in trouble. Most analysis is subjective when on a game forum.

Objectively, MG42 is still at only 4/6 survival of a Maxim, and now with the 25% survival reduction amd the longer desetup time, is quadratically more vulnerable than before, since it to soak dmg while desetting with its 4/6 survival. This also means quadratically more effective Molotov damage.

MG42 is now MUCH more vulnerable to flanking, than Maxims are.

That is the objective conclusion.
No onfield Merging either to compensate.

Still subjective, especially so if you're throwing incomplete math at it.

For a Maxim, on field merging basically takes a conscript squad out of the fight, even if it brings the HMG up to full. Either way, a squad goes away, and if it's under fire, you risk losing the conscripts.

MG42
• Damage from 4.4 to 5
• Far accuracy from 0.1375 to 0.11
• Far cooldown from 0.8 to 0.85
• Suppression from 0.00159 to 0.00085
• Rate of fire near from 1.2 to 1.1
• Rate of fire far from 1.1 to 0.9
• Weapon horizontal traverse speed from 60 to 25
• Suppression modifier applied to suppressed targets from 0.5 to 1

+ 25% damage taken

There is no mention at all of an increase in desetup time. It has remained the same since last patch. It has a longer desetup than the Maxim, but that's just part of how it works.

MG42 still has a much wider arc, and a single burst still suppresses. Have units to protect it on the flank, or keep it farther back and in cover so that enemies have to run through a lot of fire from the units its supporting to get at it.

The MG42 is still just as vulnerable to being flanked as it was before it was buffed. However, now it will actually feel the effects of a proper flank if unsupported, instead of just unpacking (which again, has not changed) and moving a bit and resetting up while under fire to instantly suppress/pin something else.

And you know what, I'll even acknowledge that maybe this will hurt the MG42 more than intended. But even then I'll still agree these changes are in the right direction because if CoH2 had continued for any longer with the current balance scheme, the CoH2 community would not have survived. People are already leaving for many different reasons, and the MG42 balance and its ripple effect through all modes was one of them.

MG42 has only 4/6 survival, and now has to soak dmg for 25% dmg more, for longer than Maxim, due to setup time. Cannot be Merged to reinforce. Result is that MG42 is far easier to kill than Maxim, not only in flanking actions, but also by shell weaponry.

Their dmg is comparable now, and so is their suppression.

Yet the 25% dmg increase is quadratically more effective on MG42s, due to its already initially lower HP pool, as well as having to soak longer due to setup time.

That is the result. MG42 is now far less survivable that Maxim. Evenmoreso than before. That is a fact, not subjective.

Repeating the same bunk math doesn't make it any better.

Nor does it make the prior situation of MG42s any less boring or detrimental to the community.

Far less survivable overall? Sure. I'll bite. Far less survivable if used with actual skill, with a more rear placement, and protecting infantry? Probably mitigates most of its issues with survivability.

Too much MG42 use so far have been unsupported guns up front suppressing and pinning anything coming at it, regardless of flanking. Sure, guns seemed to take a beating then, but you were only able to use them as such because they were buffed previously, and that buff hurt the overall game much worse than this.

If anything, check your privilege with the MG42.

Although in the future I foresee that damage modifier being made to only affect damage from basic gunfire, and not explosives and such.

MG42 has only 4/6 survival, and now has to soak dmg for 25% dmg more, for longer than Maxim, due to setup time. Cannot be Merged to reinforce. Result is that MG42 is far easier to kill than Maxim, not only in flanking actions, but also by shell weaponry.

Their dmg is comparable now, and so is their suppression.

Yet the 25% dmg increase is quadratically more effective on MG42s, due to its already initially lower HP pool, as well as having to soak longer due to setup time.

That is the result. MG42 is now far less survivable that Maxim. Evenmoreso than before. That is a fact, not subjective.

Nullist give it some time. I think your also forgetting the fact that Grenadiers technically don't have to flank as well as a Soviet due to the longer range of the rifle nade and small cone of fire of the Maxim. Good rifle nade + frontal push can win you the engagement. This is a fair trade in my opinion but obviously testing time is important.

A key focus in HMG engagements for the flanker is killing that soldier manning the gun, and a rifle nade basically always does that. This buys you 2-3 seconds to get your first gren or secondary gren forward. Maxim need more survivablity.

If you look solely at stats, yes there appears to be a bit of an issue but if you put it into the actual gameplay context of the game you will see it is not as bad as it seems!

Very interesting changes. Let's see how they play, the meta will surely shift quite a bit.

However, I hope the 25% more received damage does not revert the game back to M3 domination. Though the better SdKfz 222 and higher Panzerfaust damage might be enough to prevent that...

we'll see

M3s with flamethrowers are still powerful, but costly early on to sacrifice 20 fuel with the new fuel costs from a few patches ago.

Flame is another thing that shouldn't get the +25% damage, they still work wonders on weapons teams.

Repeating the same bunk math doesn't make it any better. .

Excuse me, whay is this kind of accusation?

In what system of math is 4/6 not less than 6/6?
In what system of math is a 25% reduction not proportionally larger when applied to 4/6 over 6/6?
In what sysem of mathnis that 25% modifier not moremsignificant when applied to a 4/6 faxtor for LONGER than to the 6/6 factor?

No bunk maths on my side, buddy.

Nor does it make the prior situation of MG42s any less boring or detrimental to the community.

Implying I have EVER stated so. Where do you get off making false implications?

Far less survivable overall? Sure. I'll bite. Far less survivable if used with actual skill, with a more rear placement, and protecting infantry? Probably mitigates most of its issues with survivability.

These placement, support and skill factors exist on Maxim as well.
Or are you suggesting that MG42 needs better placement, support and skill?

If anything, check your privilege with the MG42.

What do you mean "your" priviledge? Some sort of ad hominem barb?
And what priviledge exactly would that be exactly?

Although in the future I foresee that damage modifier being made to only affect damage from basic gunfire, and not explosives and such.

I see. So you think you can see the future, and your prognostication somehow justifies the current status quo, due to some future mitigating change that you claim to know.

You are not being objective, dude. Drop the hyperbole, personal barbs and other irrelevancy if you want to seem that way.

The current status quo, objectively, on MG42s, is that they are far more vulnerable to dmg from flanks (due to 4/6 survival and setup time, multiplied by the 25% modifier), than Maxims are.

This is an incontrivertible observation. MG42s are now far less survivable than Maxims.
I understand it may take you some time to get around to understanding, appreciating and rationalising that, but it is nonetheless the current situation.

@Stephen: A successful flank on a MG42, is now more deadly than one on a Maxim, for the following reasons:
-4/6 hp pool
-25% dmg applied to that smaller hp pool, ismproportionally more effective than when applied to a 6/6 pool
-The existing setup time exacerbates that 25% dmg, and the smaller hp pool, because the unit has to soak that increased dmg for LONGER while sustaining it with a smaller hp pool.
-Molotovs will wreck MG42s now. Maxims can soak the 25%dmg from their 6/6 hp pool, MG42s have to soak it from a 4/6 pool while standing in it LONGER, due to setup time.

Sum conclusion: MG42 is now far less survivable than Maxim.

Whether Arc is sufficient to practically offset this, remains to be seen, but it doesnt seem likely.
The Arc is asymmetrically bqlanced vs Maxims setup time.
However the arc doesnt mitigate dmg, whereas a longermsetup time makes the unit subjected to that dmg for longer.

Its just how it is now, and it needs to be commonly understood and accepted as a result of this patch.

MG42s are, quite simply, now far squishier than Maxims. Theres really no way around that.

I understand it will take many people time to understand this for themselves.

MG42 supprssion was a problem. This is now corrected (atleast superficially, though I think people genuinely forgot that even Maxim levels of suppression, before the patch, WILL fuck up a frontal assault. I tWILL force infantry to ground).

HMG survival vs flanks overall was a problem too, and that also has now been correctedmwith the 25% dmg increase.

Thats all well and fine.

But people are overlooking that there was an additional existing imbalance lurking beneath those problems, and that was MG42s 4/6 hp pool. They conveniently forget that. This patch will raise that already existing imbalance to light in a whole new way. Especially multiplied by the longer setuptime, which in pracrical terms, means soaking dmg for longer, on a unit which already only had 4/6 hp, and which now takes an additional 25% to that smaller pool, for longer.

Judging by pure stats, I'd say that MG42 is the UP one, between the HMG squads.

But it's far too early to judge the effects of this changes just yet.

Judging by pure stats, I'd say that MG42 is the UP one, between the HMG squads.

But it's far too early to judge the effects of this changes just yet.

The suppression element is crucial and central to this.

The change, in stats, was very small, but i dont understand how much that little may affect things, tbh.

Frankly, I think Maxim suppression was understated and misunderstood by much of the community, not because of a real discrepancy in Suppression, due to the arcs pragmatic benefits related to map design, and people frankly just "giving up" on thr Maxim in the last meta. They have forgotten what Maxim is actually capable of.

(note: not pin. And frankly, the difference between being pinned and suppressed counts for very little. Youll still be on your belky when suppressed, your Molotov/RNade will still take forever to launch, and your DPS is outright fucking pathetic).

I think what really was the problem, was the arc covering the entire frontal line of sight of the MG42, meaning due to map design and chokepoints, there simply was no way to reasonably advance vs an MG42, without having to take ludicrous detours.

In retrospect, I should have more supported an arc reduction on MG42s, above others options.
Now, I fear we may return to Maxim spam...

oh and by the way, its actually 4/5 the survival. 1/1.25 =80%

Sorry bro, missed your post.

Sov has 6/6.
Ost has 4/6.

Im not sure what you mean. You are referring to the survival decrease ratio from the 25% in the patch?

A 4/6 unit will reach zero, faster, in proportion, than a 6/6 u it will, with the 25% modifier.
The change in dmg received hit the MG42 harder, not only as a factor of the smaller crew, but also as a multiplying effect on the longer setup times, during which they have to soak that 25%dmg vs a smaller crew, for longer.

The 25% received damage essentially stacks with the smaller crew size, and the longer soak during setup, to a far greater extent to the detriment of the MG42s, than it does on Maxims.

Who the are you talking to.

So, whats the verdict.

Is MG42 a piece of shit now due to slow setup time and 3/4 survival?

Please don't act dumb because you aren't from what I know
My answer is still the same,things are balanced now so L2P