Sick/bored of MG42 -.-

The HMGs don't have to be reinvented by things like minimum range etc.
Just use what has proven to work in CoH1.
HMGs should not be able to look as far as they can shoot. They are support weapons and thus should need a spotter (like in CoH1). And the supression is way too high right now for the MG42 with bulletin.

Especially the reduced line of sight would support flanking, casue the MG could not supress chasing units on max range anymore by itself. Flanking squads can come closer, increasing its change to get into grenade range and increasing the chance for at least one of two squads being able to get behind the MG. Right now you can comfortably supress one squad change target and also supress the second one.

Thank god for people with a brain in this topic. Totally agree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq0NIfofQeE
Pretty much sums it up for me.

Thought he went up losing the fight to the small arms fire of that mg. Video's like this really make you wonder what Relic was thinking when they balanced this.

Reducing its sight range was also one of my suggestions in the other HMG thread. However, on its own it does not work. Conscripts can shoot as far as they can see. This means that they will instantly reveal themselves and the HMG will suppress them.

Looking for proof of my hunch that Nullist plays Germans exclusively I went to look in the KV8 topic for a post of his thinking he would probably want it nerfed "for balance" since he only plays Germans.

Lo and behold:

Nerf it.

It will be nerfed.
You will cry.
I will laugh.
Balance will be returned.

My god what a kid you are... I'll never take any of your posts serious again and will never reply to anything you post ever again. You, sir, are a waste of time.
Edit: Unfortunately I couldn't resist still replying to him

The worst thing with people like you that just want one faction buffed as much as possible, and the other to be nerfed into hell so you can ROFLPWN all the noobs, is that Relic devs actually read your messages as well and might get the wrong idea.
It must be hard for them to differentiate between people that really want to contribute to balance, and people that just play one faction and want buffs.

Nullist, you made my day

@Stoffa:
So. You think KV8 retreat flame dmg is ok?
Nobody objective thinks that.
Maybe you haven't seen the facts?
http://www.coh2.org/topic/7638/give-me-a-reason-why-kv8-is-op/post/73079
http://youtu.be/TeKfFG7tQpE?t=40m57s specifically

Your personal accusations are completely groundless.

I want a balanced game. Everything I post is for that purpose.

Makes no difference to me if the required changes are either Sov or Ost, or both.

As far as what I've posted, I post more factual, accurate and constructive stuff towards balance in a single day than you have in your entire 80 posts here.

You can keep trying to character assassinate with your ragemode whining and false implications. Makes no difference to me. You arent anything to me. Just some random ranter with a bad attitude.

Numerous people agree with my posts, and whats more, they are more often than not, rational, reasonable, calm and objective people. Not some foaming at the mouth "HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST MY FACTION IS OP NERF YOURS IM AFRAID DEVS WILL GET WRONG IMPRESSION RAAWR" bullshit.

The purpose of these forums, from my perspective, is to rationally and objectively as possible discuss the game, in a civilised manner.

You are simply flat out wrong about me. Probably because you are one of those "emotional" readers who thinks the internet gives two flying fucks about your anger or "feels". It doesn't, and neither do I. Even if you suddenly dropped dead tomorrow, or something equally dramatic for you, I really, seriously, would not care one single whit. If its not about the game, I dont care, and I don't want to hear it.

If you want to discuss the game objectively, and with the games best interest in-mind, then I'm all for it. If you come at me as you have, its not really an option on the table.

@Stoffa:
So. You think KV8 retreat flame dmg is ok?
Nobody objective thinks that.
Maybe you haven't seen the facts?
http://www.coh2.org/topic/7638/give-me-a-reason-why-kv8-is-op/post/73079
http://youtu.be/TeKfFG7tQpE?t=40m57s specifically

Your personal accusations are completely groundless.

I want a balanced game. Everything I post is for that purpose.

Makes no difference to me if the required changes are either Sov or Ost, or both.

As far as what I've posted, I post more factual, accurate and constructive stuff towards balance in a single day than you have in your entire 80 posts here.

You can keep trying to character assassinate with your ragemode whining and false implications. Makes no difference to me. You arent anything to me. Just some random ranter with a bad attitude.

Numerous people agree with my posts, and whats more, they are more often than not, rational, reasonable, calm and objective people. Not some foaming at the mouth "HOW DARE YOU SUGGEST MY FACTION IS OP NERF YOURS IM AFRAID DEVS WILL GET WRONG IMPRESSION RAAWR" bullshit.

The purpose of these forums, from my perspective, is to rationally and objectively as possible discuss the game, in a civilised manner.

You are simply flat out wrong about me. Probably because you are one of those "emotional" readers who thinks the internet gives two flying fucks about your anger or "feels". It doesn't, and neither do I. Even if you suddenly dropped dead tomorrow, or something equally dramatic for you, I really, seriously, would not care one single whit. If its not about the game, I dont care, and I don't want to hear it.

If you want to discuss the game objectively, and with the games best interest in-mind, then I'm all for it. If you come at me as you have, its not really an option on the table.

says the guy who uses the word "fuck" non-stop in his postings, I hardly ever drop f-bombs, you drop 'em like it's your job... And you wanna say ________ has a bad attitude... HaHaHa...

Deal with it.

Nice Attitude, what does unequivocably mean?

Dear Nullist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpndHtdl9A

On the actual topic though,
I fail to see how a comparison between the "sov fanbois" HMG vs the Ostheer HMG would actually bring anything useful to the table. There seem to be alot of those comparisons.

The actual matter is normal infantry against the HMG. I'd like to see the molotov being changed to have a punch when it lands and possibly just have the fire as "cosmetics".

You could also make the molotov have higher damage when it lands, not alot but some and make the fire effect a bit stronger. That would give HMG's the ability to get out of houses or move wihout being turned into a pile of meat.

Nice Attitude, what does unequivocably mean?

Just to clear it up unequivocably is a home-made version of UNEQUIVOCALLY which is another definition of UNEQUIVOCAL which basically means without a doubt

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unequivocal

Dear Nullist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzpndHtdl9A

Cos people come at you with something not related to the game at all, and certainly not to constructively discussing how to improve it or how it is now.

On Molotov, I think its fine.

It causes an initial "burst" on impact, rather than waiting for the first DoT tick.
It has 15%(?) chance to roast each model in the AoE per tick.
It forces the unit it hits to move.

Problem in relation to MG42s, is that the MG42 simply moves, and reopens fire, not that the Molotov doesn't roast them hard enough if they stand in it. Overall I think (cant confirm) it does about the same damage over time as a well placed Rifle Grenade hitting a Maxim, with the possible crits as an added bonus.

Cos people come at you with something not related to the game at all, and certainly not to constructively discussing how to improve it or how it is now.

What does unequivocably mean?

Cos people come at you with something not related to the game at all, and certainly not to constructively discussing how to improve it or how it is now.

On Molotov, I think its fine.

It causes an initial "burst" on impact, rather than waiting for the first DoT tick.
It has 15%(?) chance to roast each model in the AoE per tick.
It forces the unit it hits to move.

Problem in relation to MG42s, is that the MG42 simply moves, and reopens fire, not that the Molotov doesn't roast them hard enough if they stand in it. Overall I think it does about the same damage over time as a well placed Rifle Grenade hitting a Maxim.

Sorry Nullist,today threw 3 molotovs at a MG...every time packed and repacked,it just changed locations and lost just one man

It causes an initial "burst" on impact, rather than waiting for the first DoT tick.
It has 15%(?) chance to roast each model in the AoE per tick.
It forces the unit it hits to move.

Problem in relation to MG42s, is that the MG42 simply moves, and reopens fire, not that the Molotov doesn't roast them hard enough if they stand in it. Overall I think it does about the same damage over time as a well placed Rifle Grenade hitting a Maxim.

Its possible that it does the same damage as a rifle nade, but the rifle nade hits once.

Where did you get the possible facts about 15% chance to roast models?

Another thing could be let the HMG have less supression which could many times let you pass through the edge of the arc. Right now you are boned as soon as he opens fire.

*Edit* for terrible grammar

Just to clear it up unequivocably is a home-made version of UNEQUIVOCALLY which is another definition of UNEQUIVOCAL which basically means without a doubt

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unequivocal

Oh Thanks! Much Appreciated...

Sorry Nullist,today threw 3 molotovs at a MG...every time packed and repacked,it just changed locations and lost just one man

Thats what I said.

Its supposed to make them move. Not nuke them.
Its not a Grenade. Its an AoE DoT.

The problem is not with the damage it does if the unit stays in it, that is fine.
Problem is with MG42s simply relocating and re-suppressing.

Oh Thanks! Much Appreciated...

No probs man, I got your back to help solve the mysteries of random words.

Thats what I said.

Its supposed to make them move. Not nuke them.
Its not a Grenade. Its an AoE DoT.

The problem is not with the damage it does if the unit stays in it, that is fine.
Problem is with MG42s simply relocating and re-suppressing.

I think the point is that they can just move, if it was a rifle nade they might be forced off quicker. I wouldn't want to keep a low hp 2 man HMG around, when you smash retreat it's a few seconds before they even start running. So if the initial damage was slightly higher then perhaps that could help to force HMG's away.
I do agree that Molotov sometimes seems quite strong as it wacks a model when it lands. But more than often it's just BBQ fireplace.

Blows my mind that you think I give a shit about your opinion on me, as you are to me some random nobody who likes to get personal instead of discussing the topic.

Hell, even in the thread I started to discuss, rationally and constructively SPECIFICALLY on HMGs, you where the only jackass who refused to follow the requested format though everyone else did.

http://www.coh2.org/topic/7356/the-hmg-thread

You can read mine and many others CONSTRUCTIVE perspectives on problems and suggested solutions there.

READ IT. And see if you can't, for once in your life, be as rational and reasonable.

I am being perfectly rational and reasonable - you just don't like the truth, which is that your opinions on the topic are skewed and lack insight because you do not actually have much experience playing. And so you throw out a bunch of ad hominems. You like to theorycraft based on statistics. Statistics are good, but are not a substitute for actually playing the game. Your position (unless it has changed) is that any changes to the MG42 must be mirrored with changes to the Maxim. This is why you keep referring to "HMG" changes. Other people are trying to point out to you that they are not in any way equal. Which you would know, if you actually had experience playing rather than just harping on about 6 man "survivability". The MG42 has received nothing but buffs and the Maxim nothing but nerfs. In addition the M3 has been nerfed, Oorah has had a cost increase, and the 222 scout car has been buffed (or the MG made more than just cosmetic after its upgrade, however you want to look at it). This is the context people are viewing the MG42 specifically within - not "HMGs" (or the Maxim) on the whole.

I am being perfectly rational and reasonable - you just don't like the truth, which is that your opinions on the topic are skewed and lack insight because you do not actually have much experience playing. And so you throw out a bunch of ad hominems. You like to theorycraft based on statistics. Statistics are good, but are not a substitute for actually playing the game. Your position (unless it has changed) is that any changes to the MG42 must be mirrored with changes to the Maxim. This is why you keep referring to "HMG" changes. Other people are trying to point out to you that they are not in any way equal. Which you would know, if you actually had experience playing rather than just harping on about 6 man "survivability". The MG42 has received nothing but buffs and the Maxim nothing but nerfs. In addition the M3 has been nerfed, Oorah has had a cost increase, and the 222 scout car has been buffed (or the MG made more than just cosmetic after its upgrade, however you want to look at it). This is the context people are viewing the MG42 specifically within - not "HMGs" (or the Maxim) on the whole.

This!

You are making false implications about what I think.

"Your position (unless it has changed) is that any changes to the MG42 must be mirrored with changes to the Maxim."

False. Never was my position, nor is it now. Wrong.
Not that you are going to take back that false assertion when I clearly state that is false, are you.

That was the first false implication. If you take it back now that I state it is false, I will outline the rest of the false implications in your post for you to do likewise with.

You are trying to present my position as something it is not, and which exists only in your own head.

As a fact, however, in the thread I linked, which is almost in its entirey objective, constructive and well formulated by the posters that took their and effort time to follow its guidelines, you where the only one who thought he was too special to do so. Everyone else complied to mutual communication, except you.

You are making false implications about what I think.

"Your position (unless it has changed) is that any changes to the MG42 must be mirrored with changes to the Maxim."

False. Never was my position, nor is it now. Wrong.
Not that you are going to take back that false assertion when I clearly state that is false, are you.

That was the first false implication. If you take it back now that I state it is false, I will outline the rest of the false implications in your post for you to do likewise with.

You are trying to present my position as something it is not, and which exists only in your own head.

False