Sick/bored of MG42 -.-

My answer is still the same,things are balanced now so L2P

Explain to me, how 4/6 Ost Support crews is balanced vs 6/6 Sov Support crews?

Imagine if Ost had 6/6 crews, and Sov only 4/6. You dont think that would be a problem, eh?

I don't even use Maxims dude but they were shit before,got to try them out....Let's say Maxims always appeared as my Meat shield after every game I used one
Anyway's,what would your solution be?

I didnt spam MG42s either. 1 max per game, if even that.
I prefer Gren micro.

My solution is either:
-Sov Support to 4man.
-Ost Support to 1.5 armor.

Excited to test the changes. To me, it seems a bit to harsh. I always wanted the MG to be voulnerable when outflanked, but the res im not sure about. Wish they reduced the Soviet crews as well though, outflanking Soviet supportweapons will still be pretty useless.

Explain to me, how 4/6 Ost Support crews is balanced vs 6/6 Sov Support crews?

Imagine if Ost had 6/6 crews, and Sov only 4/6. You dont think that would be a problem, eh?

Yes it would be a problem then, because MG42 are harder to flank and on top of that it would have greater survivability.

MG42 = Lower survivablity, wider arc leads to greater flank defense. Molotovs must get close.
Maxim = Higher survivability, low arc leads to decreased flank defense. Rifle nade hits from range.

It is pretty clear that it is easier for Ostheer to take out an HMG position on open field, do not take buildings into account for this. I understand you reasoning Nullist, but your missing context of gameplay and solely focused on stats. You have to look at possible counters from opponent in the early game and not directly compare two similar units. They fill the roles completely differently.

If they boost MG42 armour to 1.5 I will stop playing this game, the flanking game in every previous patch is a disgrace to CoH1. Soviet Support Maxim support to 4 man will lead to utter uselessness because 1 rifle nade is a guarateed force retreat unless you want to lose your Maxim. It is incredibly easy for Ostheer to flank or brute force their way over Maxim with the helpful use of rifle nades. You are completely ignoring this.

Yes it would be a problem then, because MG42 are harder to flank and on top of that it would have greater survivability.

MG42 = Lower survivablity, wider arc leads to greater flank defense. Molotovs must get close.
Maxim = Higher survivability, low arc leads to decreased flank defense. Rifle nade hits from range.

It is pretty clear that it is easier for Ostheer to take out an HMG position on open field, do not take buildings into account for this. I understand you reasoning Nullist, but your missing context of gameplay and solely focused on stats. You have to look at possible counters from opponent in the early game and not directly compare two similar units. They fill the roles completely differently.

If they boost MG42 armour to 1.5 I will stop playing this game, the flanking game in every previous patch is a disgrace to CoH1. Soviet Support Maxim support to 4 man will lead to utter uselessness because 1 rifle nade is a guarateed force retreat unless you want to lose your Maxim. It is incredibly easy for Ostheer to flank or brute force their way over Maxim with the helpful use of rifle nades. You are completely ignoring this.

+1

Why is the Maxim even being compared to a MG42 in a vacuum?

I didnt spam MG42s either. 1 max per game, if even that.

-Ost Support to 1.5 armor.

That would bring us back to pre-patch

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?

yes im referring to the increase in damage. you were saying they have 3/4 the survivability which is slightly off. 25% more damage doesnt turn into 25% less survivability. 25% more damage leads to 20% less survivability. for my numbers, the numberator represents hp and the denominator is incoming damage.

before the patch: 1/1 = 1
after the patch: 1/1.25=.8

i know this doesnt change the relative survivability of mg42 and maxim, it applies to them equally, but other people have covered that topic.

@Stephen: But you left out one factor.

Setup time.

@Wooof: At 4/6, compared to 6/6, its 2/3 survival. Sorry, you are right.
So 1/3 less.

Im a little surprised you misunderstood that, but its pretty prevalent overall in people overlooking the fact that MG42s are already systemically less survivable due to model count.

Ive had to run numerous gauntlets of flame and troll in other threads simpky to point out that simoke fact to people who keep sidelining it, as if it "didnt matter", which it most certqinly does.

What I don't understand is why all these percentages and stats down to the nearest third decimal are being bandied around. What matters is how these units (the MG42 and Maxim, in this case) fit into their respective armies and how they cope with counters (such as flanking, mortars, and flamer cars), not direct counterparts (the opposing faction HMG).

The Maxim comes from a different tier and a different tech system compared to the MG42, and as Stephenn pointed out faces different counters and different units at different times. Whether the units are balanced isn't because one is 20% better or 25% more survivable or has a 15% bigger arc or sets up 35.43% faster, it's how they fit into the grand scheme of things.

I don't even know what the set-up times are. I know the Maxim sets up faster if pointed in the right direction, but otherwise it also wastes a lot of time spinning around. To be honest though, if you support your HMG and have a good leading scout or map vision, set up time is one of attributes that is easiest to nullify.

The setup time is almost double on MG42.

Thqt means desetup too, which means more time in the fire, literally, in some cases.

Nullifying that with spotters is unilateral, because that means Maxims can also resetup with proper arc, faster, if spotted for. I consider the spotting element to be equal in that regard.

It still meqns that a flanked MgpG42 will have to soak more due to longer desetup, in addition to being o ly 4/6 to begin with,

Not an equitable outcome in comparisonl

@Wooof: At 4/6, compared to 6/6, its 2/3 survival. Sorry, you are right.
So 1/3 less.

Im a little surprised you misunderstood that, but its pretty prevalent overall in people overlooking the fact that MG42s are already systemically less survivable due to model count.

i understand what youre saying, i think you may be misunderstanding me. im not referring to squad sizes at all. im talking about the increased incoming damage for weapon teams. if they take 25% more damage, they have 80% less survivability.

I don't even know what the set-up times are. I know the Maxim sets up faster if pointed in the right direction, but otherwise it also wastes a lot of time spinning around. To be honest though, if you support your HMG and have a good leading scout or map vision, set up time is one of attributes that is easiest to nullify.

mg42 sets up in 3 seconds. maxim in 1.5125. but you have a point about spotting and the maxims motorcycle turn time.

Ive never understood the discrepancy in Support unit size between the factions.

Infact, looking back, its pretty incredible that Ost managed at all with 3 man crews.

Seems to me, that having such a sigificant difference in survival, would somehow have to be reciprocated by a greater unit efficiency, but is that really happening or apparent?

Woulsnt it be simpler to balance the other units function related stats, once the model count is harmonised, ESPECIALLY since Ost Support teams dont have 1.5 armor, as seems to be the perpetual false myth and sort of underlying misconception?

I mean, seriously, Ost crew members are basically Cons, in a different uniform.
What reconciles 4/6 crews? Is their onfield efficiency really offset by that?

On Mortars, the 81mm RoF is offset by 82mm greater AoE.
On ATGs, the PaK RoF is offset by ZiS Barrage.
On HMGs, the MG42 Arc is offset by Maxim setup time.

None of these asymmetric arrangements account for the support team crew count discrepancy, especially not when considered against Merge, and weapon capture potential overall.

I dont get it...

On Mortars, the 81mm RoF is offset by 82mm greater AoE.
On ATGs, the PaK RoF is offset by ZiS Barrage.
On HMGs, the MG42 Arc is offset by Maxim setup time.

None of these asymmetric arrangements account for the support team crew count discrepancy, especially not when considered against Merge, and weapon capture potential overall.

I dont get it...

And yet in all of these cases I'd rather be able to build 4-man squads with the german weapon than the soviet one. Why? Because they're better at the roles I actually want them for!

The german mortar actually hits stuff (weird though, because the stats for the 82mm and 81mm are EXACTLY the same except the german one has 40% faster firing) without having to have it on vet1 (the vet1 ability on the 82mm is fantastic though...just getting it is so hard often enough)

The MG42 actually functions as an HMG, unlike the maxim. The new patch did do a lot to reduce the MG42's ridiculous effectiveness but the maxim still has hilariously small cone and no real benefit for it.

The PaK is a far superior antivehicle unit (you know, what you're building antitank guns for), if I want artillery with bad accuracy I'll make mortars with which I don't have to pay 60 munitions every time I want to try hit something.

I too wish they'd remove the extra weapon crew members for the soviets. Not because I consider them an actual balance issue, but because it would remove an excuse for keeping the soviet weapons weaker than the german ones.

On Mortars, the 81mm RoF is offset by 82mm greater AoE.
On ATGs, the PaK RoF is offset by ZiS Barrage.
On HMGs, the MG42 Arc is offset by Maxim setup time.

None of these asymmetric arrangements account for the support team crew count discrepancy, especially not when considered against Merge, and weapon capture potential overall.

The problem is, these support weapons (and indeed all units in both armies) face different circumstances and different counters, while appearing at different times from different buildings to fufill not-necessarily identical tasks. You can't just compare them directly.

For example, the 81mm has higher ROF but a lower AOE than the 82mm. But the 81mm comes from a tier no player would skip in a 1v1, and is thus available earlier and cheaper to an extent, is used primarily to get conscripts and infantry out of houses, has a very mediocre counter-barrage, lower crew size, etc etc. The 82mm has an awesome vet 1 ability, but is horribly slow firing, comes from a different tier that not all players choose to go for, primarily used to counter support weapons like Paks, doesn't have to face 120mm mortars as a counter but has to face Mortar Halftracks and their flame barrage, so on and so forth.

Then there's the Pak and the Zis. The Pak appears in a tier almost all german players go for, but has to face hard-to-hit T70s, is vulnerable to snipers only if the soviet goes T1, not very useful against Soviet M3s due to snipers in the same tier, fires faster, but has to deal with soviet mortar precision barrage and KV8s, not very useful against Soviet T4 due to long range of SU76/SU85, etc etc. The Zis appears in a tier only some soviet players go for, has a barrage ability, is more survivable, has to face mortar halftracks, has to deal with blitzkrieging Ostwinds, not that vulnerable to Snipers but poor against heavier vehicles, works well with ram/button from Guards/T34s, etc etc.

There are so many factors to consider when looking at the effectiveness of the unit in each role that a simple 6 man versus 4 man survivability question isn't appropriate. It's whether the unit fits into the faction arsenal as a whole.

So we agree.

Equalise the support crew sizes, and differentiate them asymmetricaly, according to their intended function, by other means.

Hey guys! I don't do this very often (post) but I got some serious time to kill - so here goes.

In my opinion, the patch for the MG is good. Pre patch I literally only built mg42s and won many matches with them. Literally my build order was MG, MG, MG, MG, Scout cars..etc.. I think that a build order like this should not be easily viable, and if it is, it shows that the MG may need to be nerfed. (which they did, thx relic )

At first it was a troll strat. I was bored one day and tired of hearing "GRENADIIIIIIIIIIERS" so I only smashed "F2/H" narrowly avoiding the "G." (Seriously can we please get custom hotkeys xD) Then I realized...hey wait a second...why get grenadiers when you can just get........... more MGS? MVGame (insert Austin Power gif here )

I literally spammed games with this strategy because you could end a match super fast on some maps. I had a 22 win streak with it, then I lost and stopped playing for a while lol. Basically the point is, I thought it was broken and it was a fast way to spam games. Its kinda like in Starcraft where you cheese someone, and if you fail you type gg, leave, and re q.

Anyway, it has occurred to me that statistics for this game is apparently like the Bible. Can I get a link please?

Furthermore, I want to make a point.
If you asked someone what they thought the sun was, what do you think they'd say? Would it be the same as what you think the sun is? To one person the sun is the source of life, to another its a fuckin nuclear furnace, to another its their god, to another it can be simplified into an equation. And that's all the beautiful sun is to them. An equation.
~The observer and the observed are simply the same thing.~

My point? I don't know, something about not being super serious, and anal about people's opinions. Whenever I'm calculating something using π (pi) sometimes I just use 3 ....don't always use EXACTLY 3.14159265359 to get the right answer.

In other news, I projectile vomited all over my setup when trying the patch yesterday (not because of the patch). It was pretty sweet.

So we agree.

Equalise the support crew sizes, and differentiate them asymmetricaly, according to their intended function, by other means.

How can you equal squad size when MG42 not only as a better arc but also suppresses better.

Why do you guys care so much about having the same crew sizes? Grens /PGS has 4 man squads, vs 6 man conscript/guard/shock and no one really complains about them. (to my extremely limited knowledge).

Am I missing something here? Are maxims OP or something?