Ostheer MG/Early

Dear god you're insufferable.

IR in this context is a shorthand way of referring to IncendiaryRounds, the other person in this ongoing tooth pulling of a discussion. The slightest amount of competence would have made that self evident.

Don't get so smug about your own lack of reading comprehension, it's embarrasing

And again the problem is you insane need to put excuses to anything but what you want to talk, any point i proved you wrong is ommited, and now even those you bring yourself now are indeed flawed.
I would suggest you to read for once and learn to shut your mouth for ever.

All of which is little impact on the fundementals:

A) The MG42 imo is in a good spot
B) Every other MG falls short of the MG42
C) Either the others need to be made more cost effective or the MG42 needs to bump in price
D) Grenadiers are not a reason to not implement this change

And yet you understand nothing about the game mechanics and your opinions fall short on the words of other people that do know the game. You are not even suggesting or raising a new idea, you are just a speaker of the same BS every L2P alliefanboi says.

This sentence:
"C) Either the others need to be made more cost effective or the MG42 needs to bump in price"
Killed your last neuron, and the next one:
"D) Grenadiers are not a reason to not implement this change"
Shows you never played OST.

The faction has to be balance within itself and with others. So both arguments are wrong.

EDIT: What people nowdays say "Its a bad design" means the faction isnt balanced in itslef, and when ppl rant about "(Instert faction) is OP/UP" its the inbetween factions balance. Gosh i need to explain to this level

And I'm talking about stock grens vs stock rifles. And riflemen easily beat grens at midrange. You don't even need to close in all the way to beat them unless the grens are using sandbags.

And you're talking about it why? You keep getting away from the mg42 and your excuse is that grens are weaker than rifleman, which are much more expensive both initially and with upgrades.

Well the MG your defending is the best in the game, it's in the HQ, and it's the same price as the worst MG in the game (maxim). And I'm not even saying nerf the 42 performance. Just make it more expensive than the worst MG in the game....

Invised posts for being offtopic.

Maybe they're thinking along the lines that if an OST player was to pump nothing out but grens, and a USF player was to pump out nothing but riflemen, then the tilt is probably going to go towards USF. The only thing stopping that is an MG, and that one unit should be nerfed.

I'm no pro. It could swing either way. But it'd be a slight buff across the board for USF on every early game level.

...
Well the MG your defending is the best in the game, it's in the HQ, and it's the same price as the worst MG in the game (maxim). And I'm not even saying nerf the 42 performance. Just make it more expensive than the worst MG in the game....

But did you forget why the maxim become literally the worst mg ingame? It got nerfed to oblivion, and clearly it was not taking care after that. Its a really bad comparison between an iconic and T0 unit for OST to a meganerfed standard MG of T1 SU.

MGs are already micro intensive to use, and also allied factions (all of them) have a good spotting unit, unless SU go T1, but if thats the case mortars could take care of the MG42, displace it or kill it. USF has pathfinders to begin with and mechanised has the cheap jeep, UKF can use UC and pyro IS. In any case the tools are there, if some players refuse to use them i would rather call for their mistakes.

Maybe they're thinking along the lines that if an OST player was to pump nothing out but grens, and a USF player was to pump out nothing but riflemen, then the tilt is probably going to go towards USF. The only thing stopping that is an MG, and that one unit should be nerfed.

I'm no pro. It could swing either way. But it'd be a slight buff across the board for USF on every early game level.

You aren't a pro but u understand EXACTLY what I'm saying. If Ost was to spam grens and USF was to just get riflemen, USF would OWN Ost in terms of cost efficiency. The MG42 is what Ost uses as a force multiplier to try to compete with or try to negate USF's more cost efficient riflemen.

And still people like SkysTheLimit can't wrap their heads around simple math: riflemen are ONLY 17% more expensive than grens YET have DOUBLE the dps at close range. At midrange, riflemen have at least 90% chance of beating grens. Somehow he believes that riflemen's cost efficiency is on the same level as grens. Hence it's only fair that the MG42 punches above its weight and is more cost effective than other mgs.

We really cannot even begin to go into more detail than we already have about how grens are not as handicaoped as you wish to believe. Double damage at 0 range is great but counts for not so much when you have to drop models getting there.

Know what else has over double the damage of grens up close? More than, even? Ppsh cons. And they are still not a good unit. You can keep hammering on about them but the numbers just don't stack up and any sort of sensible grenadier play has them preform absolutely fine for their cost.

And you know why you cannot just use Rifles as your counterpoint? Because SOV and UKF exist. If you want a nerf rifles thread please go make it somehwere else and make your argument there.

The MG42 still preforms better than every other equally priced MG and that is the issue at hand in this thread.

OP wanted a price increase on it. I'm still more in favour of putting some much needed polish onto the soviet MG and some sensible vet on the vickers.

That and a rebalance of the various AP rounds in the game.

We really cannot even begin to go into more detail than we already have about how grens are not as handicaoped as you wish to believe. Double damage at 0 range is great but counts for not so much when you have to drop models getting there.

Know what else has over double the damage of grens up close? More than, even? Ppsh cons. And they are still not a good unit. You can keep hammering on about them but the numbers just don't stack up and any sort of sensible grenadier play has them preform absolutely fine for their cost.

And you know why you cannot just use Rifles as your counterpoint? Because SOV and UKF exist. If you want a nerf rifles thread please go make it somehwere else and make your argument there.

The MG42 still preforms better than every other equally priced MG and that is the issue at hand in this thread.

OP wanted a price increase on it. I'm still more in favour of putting some much needed polish onto the soviet MG and some sensible vet on the vickers.

That and a rebalance of the various AP rounds in the game.

Comparing unit A to unit B is only half the balance. You need to see USF and ost matchups as a whole. And the USF without a doubt have the advantage. one screw up early game and you likely be driven back to your base thx to the m20 or quad.

So i see no need to change the mg42

But did you forget why the maxim become literally the worst mg ingame? It got nerfed to oblivion, and clearly it was not taking care after that. Its a really bad comparison between an iconic and T0 unit for OST to a meganerfed standard MG of T1 SU.

MGs are already micro intensive to use, and also allied factions (all of them) have a good spotting unit, unless SU go T1, but if thats the case mortars could take care of the MG42, displace it or kill it. USF has pathfinders to begin with and mechanised has the cheap jeep, UKF can use UC and pyro IS. In any case the tools are there, if some players refuse to use them i would rather call for their mistakes.

I'm asking for a 20 manpower cost increase.....

Stop going on endless rants about how I don't understand the game. I'm well aware of how to spot for MGs. I'm well aware of what units everyone has. If you can actually explain why 280 is too much for the mg42, go ahead. But that's well worth it in my book

I'm asking for a 20 manpower cost increase.....

Stop going on endless rants about how I don't understand the game. I'm well aware of how to spot for MGs. I'm well aware of what units everyone has. If you can actually explain why 280 is too much for the mg42, go ahead. But that's well worth it in my book

As long as you dont play by your own rules why would i? You cant explain why it should cost 280 then why would i prove the opposite?

You cant explain why it should cost 280 then why would i prove the opposite?

I already have multiple times. It is easily the best MG in the game, and has no requirements. In no world should it be the same price as the maxim. Now instead of lecturing me on the differences between the armies that I'm already aware of, specifically explain exactly why 280mp is too much for the mg42.

I already have multiple times. It is easily the best MG in the game, and has no requirements. In no world should it be the same price as the maxim. Now instead of lecturing me on the differences between the armies that I'm already aware of, specifically explain exactly why 280mp is too much for the mg42.

First and foremost as long as the game has an assymetrycal balance (not many people like that term) its not only hard to justify the difference, its undeniable some troops will be better than others, an this accusation (MG42 being the best one) is just a cold hard fact, not an unbalace situation. Still assuming we can ""FIX"" that (even though is not broken or somethin) we can suppose the next:

280 Mp means almost 10% price nerfing (cost more), because you specify its overperformance as something bad.
10% is not that much, if that is your point. But it converts into a +8% time delayed to land an MG42, unless you build it as first troop. That will force OST players to risk its inversion (280) or to rely on their grens early on to defend and hold points. SU players and USF can exploit this to force grens off, since they rely on long range engagements, and if you consider maps that facilitate flanking options. Also UKF can defend far better than OST its already held ground. vickers are a real issue to grens since they do a lot of DPS before suppression takes place. On the other ide MG42 only stops a single squad in early, and it must move after that. Its not that usefull in early game 1v1. Only cuts flanking options for allied.

My point is You are weakening the only tool OST has to "control" its secured points and flanking, as OST doesnt shine earlygame it relies on defense. Assgrens are doctrinal and can give a certain boost in offensive power, but they diminish rapidly too.

If you consider OST gets too much map control in the early game, then you have the only valid point to properly nerf HMG42. Otherwise is not only unfair but unnecesary to nerf it. It wont solve any of your problems against OST. And will bring a tougher situation for OST players to safely micro their MG42s and keep up with the manpower bleed of grens. Not an ideal situation. Also static gameplay ensures a loss in the current metagame. Comeback mechanics are in auge, so its not worth to set up an ambush and force a counterattack

Edit:
Being said that. Its a lot of detailed crap out there just to nerf 20MP an HMG, its more of an annoyance rather than a proper fix. Performance between same category troops sould be considered for their relative use to the faction itself, not between factions. If you really wanted to nerf its performance the focus on suppression values, accuracy rather its costs...
You nerf map control instead of "Performance"

2edit:
I already told you not to compare maxims to HMG42, one is broken nerfed and the other is still standing due to some gods grace. Its not fair to do that in any way. Like comparing OST ostwind to centaurs. I still played nice for the sake of conversation, but you dont respect my points neither.

Making the MG42 280 MP would change very little.

OST builds rarely use more than two unless they're spam strats, so you're making a difference of a whole 40 manpower at most. You'll delay the first Grenadier squad slightly, but it really wouldn't be that impactful.

The same goes for the Maxim: reducing its cost is a boon to Maxim Spam but makes little difference to normal builds that deploy one or two. The Maxim needs to be a better MG, not a cheaper one.

Making the MG42 280 MP would change very little. OST builds rarely use more than two unless they're spam strats, so you're making a difference of a whole 40 manpower at most. You'll delay the first Grenadier squad slightly, but it really wouldn't be that impactful.

The same goes for the Maxim: reducing its cost is a boon to Maxim Spam but makes little difference to normal builds that deploy one or two. The Maxim needs to be a better MG, not a cheaper one.

I am not assuming a thing here, but you do.
I dont know how ""Impactful"" is to nerf HMG, im showing that its not the point OP wanted in the first place.
I dont think assumptions should be made if we are talking about balance. Feels dont show reality, only a part of it.

Edit: You just said, MG42 are not being spammed, unless it being low level players and a definitely bad opening (you sacrifice map control for points held) So nerfing hmg cost is not the optimal way to proceed

I am not assuming a thing here, but you do.
I dont know how ""Impactful"" is to nerf HMG, im showing that its not the point OP wanted in the first place.
I dont think assumptions should be made if we are talking about balance. Feels dont show reality, only a part of it.

Given Ostheer's tech structure, a 280 MP MG42 is effectively a 20 MP reduction to Ostheer's starting manpower. That's not even a Grenadier model's worth.

It'd be like making Conscripts cost 235 MP. You're changing so little it's really not worth it.