Sick/bored of MG42 -.-

You can't argue with him,arguing with him is like talking to your dog

congrats on the 100th post .... one of the few notable achievements of your otherwise shitty life trying to suck russian d!ck

Seriously, what the hell is with these ridiculous freaking posts. Quit it, it's annoying as hell and pollutes the forum

congrats on the 100th post .... one of the few notable achievements of your otherwise shitty life trying to suck russian d!ck

I won't argue with you anymore Schnitzel,you've proven your intelligence...Even if you were twice as smart, you'd still be retarded

It's not that hard to flank an MG42,

On some maps it is excessively hard to flank MG42s, and 360 degree cover fire inside buildings, coupled with near immunity to everything that hasn't the word "flame" in it and instant supression makes flanking very hard to pull of against anyone who has played more than 10 games with germans.

So no, flanking an MG42 is a problem. I am a bit amazed how you arrived at your conclusion, it is like you don't even play the game. I have given up on playing the game until the MG42 situation resolved, because it is quite simply more frustrating than fun to play the game right now. I have met several people on ladder that quit instantly vs. me when they saw my first MG42 marching up. I asked them why they quit afterwards: "No sense playing vs. MG42" is what they told me.

I like the idea of reducing the MG42 to a maxim with slightly broader arc. Well, I made that suggestion a couple of weeks ago, so this isn't exactly suprising.

Some people defintly should have a break in these forums. I know this site is quite liberal about member postings but the personal insulting starts to be damaging to this community.

@anfsim
I never said ecffective flanking makes ifantry spammable. but if basic infantry is a cost effective way to fight anything that enforces spamming. coh1 was be design different here. it worked fine. e.g. rifles or grens were much more combat efficient by default. in coh2 cons and grens only provide moderare damage (and lets not talk about the lmg42 now). their focus is as I much more about movability, field presence, more utility rather than damage. if you wanna execute a hurting infantry flank do it with the right tools. Pgrens, Shocks, Penals (at best supported by basic infantry) should do for a punishing execution. Problem is they don't work very effienct neither. and neither does things like mortars or scout cars. and that's the main issuse in my eyes.

maybe durability of weapon teams in general is to high. As suggestion: back to 3 men for german teams, but also down to 4 men for soviet teams. but i don't know if that would be the solution. needs testing. we gonna see what relics feels is fitting.

I just wanna underline you won't be able to flank with basic infantry in coh2 like it used to be with coh1 rifle squads. And I prefer the coh2 design approach for said reason -> more deversified weapons. i mean those weapons were used in war for a reason. and remember the first coh2 tournaments? the mass cons/grens gameplay was boring as hell!

if you dont like it i am afraid you better stick with coh1.

regards
ace

Frankly, it's all about the small arms damage. It's not that hard to flank an MG42, the problem is it doesn't actually die or even need to retreat whenever you do (which is just retarded). Just a buff to this would be fine.

This could lead to a problem with penal battalions in cars though.

Maybe I am doing it all wrong, but I find it quite difficult. Someone having couple of HMG bulletins and add snow map to it, it becomes ridiculously hard....

It takes 9 minutes to get through the snow and some maps are hard to flank anyway, because of the design.

Some people defintly should have a break in these forums. I know this site is quite liberal about member postings but the personal insulting starts to be damaging to this community.

@anfsim
I never said ecffective flanking makes ifantry spammable. but if basic infantry is a cost effective way to fight anything that enforces spamming. coh1 was be design different here. it worked fine. e.g. rifles or grens were much more combat efficient by default. in coh2 cons and grens only provide moderare damage (and lets not talk about the lmg42 now). their focus is as I much more about movability, field presence, more utility rather than damage. if you wanna execute a hurting infantry flank do it with the right tools. Pgrens, Shocks, Penals (at best supported by basic infantry) should do for a punishing execution. Problem is they don't work very effienct neither. and neither does things like mortars or scout cars. and that's the main issuse in my eyes.

maybe durability of weapon teams in general is to high. As suggestion: back to 3 men for german teams, but also down to 4 men for soviet teams. but i don't know if that would be the solution. needs testing. we gonna see what relics feels is fitting.

I just wanna underline you won't be able to flank with basic infantry in coh2 like it used to be with coh1 rifle squads. And I prefer the coh2 design approach for said reason -> more deversified weapons. i mean those weapons were used in war for a reason. and remember the first coh2 tournaments? the mass cons/grens gameplay was boring as hell!

if you dont like it i am afraid you better stick with coh1.

regards
ace

Infantry would never be a costeffective counter to MGs or well prepared defenses with mutual support and overlapping sectors. A well prepared enemy is where you should need to bring mortars, cannons etc. That would not change if regulair infantry managed to kill of outflanked supportweapons more easily. As you say, theres a reason that they used such weapons in the war, yet there is several reasons why they did, and still do, fixing and flanking attacks whenever possible.

What would change is the spamming of MGs and mortars, the way they are being used now. You would actually risk something if you sent a couple MGs as your first units, because attacking with a mainly defensive unit should, and would, be risky. You would actually risk a lot more if you left mortars and MGs unsupported or in a bad spot. I dont see this making the armies less diverse at all, as mortars would still be needed, along with every other weapons type. As I said, I think the flanking was great in vCOH, only problem was units "supersprinting". Regulair infantry wasnt an effective counter to MGs unless manouvered effectively, and flanks were left open. I hope that they end upp taking COH2 closer to vCOH when it comes to flanking damage, because its obviously alows for more diverse tactics, and ensures the importance of positioning and support for heavy weapons.

Agree with Ace completely, and he highlights what is an essential apparent design difference between vCoh and CoH2, as they stand at this time.

I think Support team model count is key to this, since I think disrupting the Cons vs Grens baselinenis too crucial ro rhe games structure. I agree with 3man Ost teams and 4 man Sov teams. BUT the understated NEW dunction of the last man running off, is a real design probl3m, because even though micro could handle that in relatively slow infantry engagements, when ordnancemsuch as mortars and vehicles hit the field, thatnlast "runner" is really needed for sufficient time and effect to react.

Infantey combat is brutal and immediate in vCoH. Its pop,pop pop, watch the models drop.
Soft retreat, cover efficiency and the base dps of the weapons is so much more efficient there.

In CoH2, this immediacy in infantry engagements has been mitigated in favor of more extended engagements (ie: easier and less micro intensive) and weight on Support.

Whether that is better or not, is a matter of personal preference, it is nonetheless the apparent design intent. I think Merge in particular, evidences that the design process went through a number of internal stages. I deduce that originally Cons where a lot cheaper andcmbat efficient than they are now, with Merge intended as a lateral Sov strength to maintaining field presence vs numerically inferior, but stronger and notably more ezpensive Grens

Cons vs Grens, nonetheless, in its current form, is "balanced" for dps, survival and cost.
They form the baseline of the entire games asymmetric design.

LMGs will invariably need harmonisation. They scale too hard with Vet, causing an inherent MP bleed on Sov side that I think originally was supposed to be countered by a more cost efficient Merge. Guard and Shock carry their function alright, its Penals that are lacking in the meta, presumably because they where initially intended as an advanced infantry choice for doctrines that didnt replace them with a more specialised unit.

Penals=G43 Grens. This is not to be understated, but Sov tech is such a complicated and split affair, that its not doing justice in the actual meta.

Which leads to the second fundamental difference between the two CoH games.
Teching vs Vet.
In CoH2, the entire paradigm of unit preservation vs purchased veterancy has been completely abandoned. This is a real shame, since I think that is where vCoH in the US vs Wehr balance was really a pinnacle achievement. That was a real vCoH trademark and progression of the RTS genre, and its a shame they didnt build upon that strength in CoH2, though I dont blame Relic for trying "something new".

CoH2 is more generalised, presumably to break the concreted and fixed format of builds that vCoH (un)fortunately evolved into at its peak. This makes sense, in the way that a more generalised balance should, in theory, provide a more dynamic and diverse meta potential. Hopefully, it still will.

Patching has been solid, progressive and deliberate so far. In time, I think CoH2 can develop into a more diverse RTS than vCOh was in its concreted final period. The fundamental structure of CoH2 is more amiable to that, than vCoH was.

In CoH2, the entire paradigm of unit preservation vs purchased veterancy has been completely abandoned. This is a real shame, since I think that is where vCoH in the US vs Wehr balance was really a pinnacle achievement. That was a real vCoH trademark and progression of the RTS genre, and its a shame they didnt build upon that strength in CoH2, though I dont blame Relic for trying "something new".

I think purchasable veterancy doesn´t work with Coh2. Imagine you could purchase vet 1 for every tank and every tank would have blitzkrieg. That would be way to much. Also it´s much more fun and rewarding to vet up your units by skill. I really feel like I achieved something when my Panther reaches vet2. In Coh1 this was just a matter of time. Although I dislike the fact that the vet0 Panther is pretty weak armored. You could avoid that in Coh1 as you could buy the vet and then all your Panthers had decent armor with vet1.

Cant blame Relic for trying to develop.
I think this system is more conducive to an eventually more dynamic meta.

But, it is ofc hard, as Im sure it was for the Dev team, to abandon a concrete (but stagnant) system of balance that "worked"., in favor of one that tries to open up RTS to wider strategies.

We hwve yet to go through Vet ability and Doctrine patches. We are still in the process of correcting beta imbalances. The real meat and flavor, is yet to come (not that vCoHs Doctrine system wasnt really quite awesome as well).

Great changes to the weapon teams in the patch.

yeah and thanks god no arc reducing

Really good work balancing weapon teams this patch.
Finally MG42 is a support unit rather than instant pin OP madness. Maxim is useful again and flanking is deadly now.
I feel sorry for all these Germans that relied heavily on MG42 before. From the couples of games I've played I can see they will have hard time adopting to the changes.
I have noticed increased number of Soviet players searching for game as well.

With the maxim buff you will see a return to the beta when maxims were used as frontline units spearheading assaults.

MG42's supression was mega nerfed which means now it may be possible again to setup maxims in front of an mg42 and kill it with its buffed dps.

Honestly the only thing required was to reward flanking an MG42 better (which they did with the 25% increased dmg), I dont see a need why they made supression of the 42 equal to the maxim especially when mg42 does not deal as much damage and is SUPPOSED to be a supression weapon.

With the maxim buff you will see a return to the beta when maxims were used as frontline units spearheading assaults.

MG42's supression was mega nerfed which means now it may be possible again to setup maxims in front of an mg42 and kill it with its buffed dps.

Honestly the only thing required was to reward flanking an MG42 better (which they did with the 25% increased dmg), I dont see a need why they made supression of the 42 equal to the maxim especially when mg42 does not deal as much damage and is SUPPOSED to be a supression weapon.

Maxim was trash before the last patch. And I'm glad that the MG42 (presumably) isn't some kind of insta-suppression "I win" button from before. I don't really care what any of you say, I'm just excited to finally be able to enjoy this game again.

Seems unlikely that this is the case. The maxim buff still leaves it way weaker than in the beta. The main point of the maxim changes was that maxim close range suppression is faster (I think it's a nice improvement) which doesn't really impact MG on MG action. The damage on the 2 HMGs, as you've been told repeatedly, is actually basically even, and prior to the patch the MG-42 actually had more DPS at close range. I don't know whether it does now, but the numbers will be very close.

So, whats the verdict.

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

no its not shit. nowhere near as godly as before. still very useable though. just have to pay more attention. id say the traverse is one of the bigger changes that happened

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?

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