M2 HMG .50 Cal

As much as I'd like to complain about the .50 cal, it's the best Allied HMG, it's just a bit fragile because Americans have big hitboxes for some reason.

With such low penetration that cannot penetrate a luchs.
It would be ok if it was an anti-infantry tank, but it's not. Sherman just got good anti infantry ability and low armor and penetration. Also it takes 6 sec to change between AT and AI and p4 can do both without switching, lol.

Sherman chance to pen p4 at max range: 56%
P4 chance to pen sherman at max range: 69%

Sherman chance to pen p4 at mid range: 67%
P4 chance to pen sherman at mid range: 72%

Sherman chance to pen p4 at close range: 78%
P4 chance to pen sherman at close range: 78%

Also, the sherman's regular rounds have roughly the same AI performance as the p4 (lower aoe, but also lower scatter). You've actually managed to act like the OPTION to switch to specialized anti infantry rounds is a downside.

As much as I'd like to complain about the .50 cal, it's the best Allied HMG

That's not saying much. It's not that hard to figure out why USF sucks so much when you've got inferior units that cost more. I've never seen any other RTS game that has done something like that.

If you think about it, every single unit in the LT teir is over priced and does not preform for it's cost except the LT unit itself which you get for free.

Interesting point...

The AA HT is not overpriced. Anyone who is decent at the game and has used it will tell you that. In fact, most other high level players I've talked to say it's probably too strong.

Write up for the .50:
(The maxim costs 240. The dshk costs 300, also its doctrinal. The vickers is 280, and the mg34 is 250. The .50 is 280. Finally, the mg42 is 260.

Pricing is: dshk > .50 = vickers > mg42 > mg34 > maxim

Performance is basically: mg42 > dshk > .50 > vickers > mg34 > maxim (some would say mg34 over vickers though, and with the .50s AP rounds and wider arc, its probably better than the dshk).

If anything, it looks like the .50 overperforms compared to all of the other HMGs for its cost, but you could rationalize that by it coming later.

My take on this is that you've decided to compare the .50 to the best, most cost efficient HMG and ignored how it stacks up against literally every other HMG. Claiming that a given unit is worse than the best unit available is... an interesting way to tackle things. Just because a unit is worse than the best unit in its class doesn't necessarily mean its bad or overpriced, it just means it's, well... worse than the best unit...? Sorry, the approach just baffles me.)

Anyway, that said, the .50 looks like a good HMG as long as you don't expect it to be the literal best HMG (shocker there). Not really overpriced.

Back to the LT overview, the M20. Yes, its overpriced.

As you said, the LT officer unit itself isn't overpriced.

So then 1/4 units in the tier are overpriced? Not sure how you even came to your initial conclusion honestly.

Also, the sherman's regular rounds have roughly the same AI performance as the p4 (lower aoe, but also lower scatter). You've actually managed to act like the OPTION to switch to specialized anti infantry rounds is a downside.

Considering how much babysitting of USF units you have to do just to keep them alive it is a downside, especially since the HE isn't even that good. It's so inconsistent half the time it barely does any damage.

Considering how much babysitting of USF units you have to do just to keep them alive it is a downside, especially since the HE isn't even that good. It's so inconsistent half the time it barely does any damage.

Then don't ever switch to HE, and you'll have a tank with similar AI to the p4. As I said (I even capitalized it), its an option that makes a tank thats otherwise equal to the p4 come out noticeably ahead in overall performance.

USF units are not specifically fragile (squad sizes are moderate to high, RA is moderate; hp pools for tanks are standard). HE is the best anti infantry shell available to medium tanks of similar timing (better scatter and AOE than the ost p4, the only really relevant stats).

Uh. You get higher damage and a quicker setup time.

MG42 does more damage

I'm sorry I suck.

But also lmao I'd assume a .50 cal round has more damage than whatever the MG42 used (the same standard rifle round as the 98k?). But, again, this is a game so you never know how things actually work without looking at the stats.

But also lmao I'd assume a .50 cal round has more damage than whatever the MG42 used (the same standard rifle round as the 98k?). But, again, this is a game so you never know how things actually work without looking at the stats.

The .50 cal has more damage (per bullet): 16 vs 4.
The MG42 has higher damage (per second).

So in a literal sense, yes, the .50 cal has more damage. People usually mean DPS when they say damage though because DPS is far more relevant than damage per bullet.

The vickers is 280260

fohkin kebab

Considering how much babysitting of USF units you have to do just to keep them alive it is a downside, especially since the HE isn't even that good. It's so inconsistent half the time it barely does any damage.

What numerical stat makes it bad/not good? You dont get to say the word "inconsistent" as its just biased opinion. Its like saying the Stuka is bad and inconsistent because every once and awhile it misses.

Sherman chance to pen p4 at max range: 56%
P4 chance to pen sherman at max range: 69%

Sherman chance to pen p4 at mid range: 67%
P4 chance to pen sherman at mid range: 72%

Sherman chance to pen p4 at close range: 78%
P4 chance to pen sherman at close range: 78%

Also, the sherman's regular rounds have roughly the same AI performance as the p4 (lower aoe, but also lower scatter). You've actually managed to act like the OPTION to switch to specialized anti infantry rounds is a downside.

OK, I think you're right in this.
anyway, what does damage all in hold means? does damage all in AOE radius?

OK, I think you're right in this.
anyway, what does damage all in hold means? does damage all in AOE radius?

Would probably need a cruzz to confirm, but I believe it makes the weapon apply part of its damage to all the occupants of a building (mortars, flamers, tank cannons).

Interesting point...

The AA HT is not overpriced. Anyone who is decent at the game and has used it will tell you that. In fact, most other high level players I've talked to say it's probably too strong.

Write up for the .50:
(The maxim costs 240. The dshk costs 300, also its doctrinal. The vickers is 280, and the mg34 is 250. The .50 is 280. Finally, the mg42 is 260.

Pricing is: dshk > .50 = vickers > mg42 > mg34 > maxim

Performance is basically: mg42 > dshk > .50 > vickers > mg34 > maxim (some would say mg34 over vickers though, and with the .50s AP rounds and wider arc, its probably better than the dshk).

If anything, it looks like the .50 overperforms compared to all of the other HMGs for its cost, but you could rationalize that by it coming later.

My take on this is that you've decided to compare the .50 to the best, most cost efficient HMG and ignored how it stacks up against literally every other HMG. Claiming that a given unit is worse than the best unit available is... an interesting way to tackle things. Just because a unit is worse than the best unit in its class doesn't necessarily mean its bad or overpriced, it just means it's, well... worse than the best unit...? Sorry, the approach just baffles me.)

Anyway, that said, the .50 looks like a good HMG as long as you don't expect it to be the literal best HMG (shocker there). Not really overpriced.

Back to the LT overview, the M20. Yes, its overpriced.

As you said, the LT officer unit itself isn't overpriced.

So then 1/4 units in the tier are overpriced? Not sure how you even came to your initial conclusion honestly.

You also have to consider what you're giving up in exchange of the unit. Saying the HMG.50 is always available is not true unlike the HGM.42, vicker or DHSK (if you select the commander). Only the Maxim is really worst in comparison since you also need to give up T1 to access it, but that's also something everyone knows.

Of course I expect the HMG.50 to be one of the best HMG since to get it I need to give up AT, light artillery and Stuart's mobility. Last patch hardly nerfed it removing the sprint ability and reducing vet0 suppression with no compensation.

In my opinion all those debates around damage are nonsense, I don't want the HMG.5 to deal damage but suppression which has been nerfed. When I see that if your HMG isn't vet3 it lose vs a single squad of Obers vet2 because it is unable to suppress it in time there a problem somewhere.

As much as I'd like to complain about the .50 cal, it's the best Allied HMG, it's just a bit fragile because Americans have big hitboxes for some reason.

Hit box has to do with vehicles, not with infantry/crews.

....
anyway, what does damage all in hold means? does damage all in AOE radius?

The weapon will damage all entities in garrison or passengers in half-trucks.

Hmmm, I remember SneakEye putting an M1919A4 .30 cal on the WC51 in his "All Units mod", maybe the .50 could be replaced on the tripod with the .30 when being setup because it has no animations, so it could be put in T0 alongside the mortar or replacing it, given a smaller cost and there you go.

In my opinion all those debates around damage are nonsense, I don't want the HMG.5 to deal damage but suppression which has been nerfed. When I see that if your HMG isn't vet3 it lose vs a single squad of Obers vet2 because it is unable to suppress it in time there a problem somewhere.

The .50 cal has 4-5 times more suppression than the MG 42. I wouldn't call suppression a problem for the M2.

The .50 cal has 4-5 times more suppression than the MG 42. I wouldn't call suppression a problem for the M2.

No it doesn´t...not sure where you got this completly wrong stat from. If you just look at suppression per bullet then it´s probably true because the .50 cal does more damage and suppression per bullet but then you also need to keep in mind the crazy ROF the MG42 has.

The .50 cal has 4-5 times more suppression than the MG 42. I wouldn't call suppression a problem for the M2.

No need to enter into theorycraft debate to see that a HMG42 deal faster suppression than HMG.50

I meant per bullet yes, as the stats suggest. This gives the .50 pretty much identical suppression performance to the MG 42 so once more I wouldn't call suppression on it a problem.

In fact, if the formula is still the same, the M2 suppresses faster at all ranges. 0.74 seconds at mid range versus 1.04 seconds for the MG 42 for example (Maxim needs 2.6 seconds for perspective).

The maxim costs 240

How's the living in 2016?

There were countless HMG threads so I only say now my observation that m2hb sometimes doesn't shoot for >3 seconds. Maybe there's a reload animation and when unit is in building i don't see it, but feels like no other HMG ignores charges into it so often.