Ostheer MG/Early

I dont think the mg42 needs a nerf really, maybe incen rounds damage against infantry but even that doesn't seem that necessary. IMO the 2 machine guns that actually do their job are the mg42 and 50 cal. The vickers and mg34 are serviceable and the maxim is garbage. Id rather see the less effective mgs buffed so they do their job properly.

If 20 MP is not that important, then why bother asking for such nerf? Leave as it is.

Because I want all MGs to have their price increased and performance improved. Except the 42. It's already really good, so just a price increase is needed.

The rest of your post quotes somebody else and attributes it to me so I can't speak to that.

Because I want all MGs to have their price increased and performance improved. Except the 42. It's already really good, so just a price increase is needed.

The rest of your post quotes somebody else and attributes it to me so I can't speak to that.

I can see why u think 42 needs a price increase, but i dont see any reason to buff the performance of the other MG's. You cant buff other MG's solely on the comparison with the mg42 ( best MG in the game). Thats like calling for a buff to the stug as it sucks if compared to the jackson. U have to look at other parts of the faction like e.g. performance of the main line infantry.

I reckon all Mg's perform as they should right now.

I can see why u think 42 needs a price increase, but i dont see any reason to buff the performance of the other MG's. You cant buff other MG's solely on the comparison with the mg42 ( best MG in the game). Thats like calling for a buff to the stug as it sucks if compared to the jackson. U have to look at other parts of the faction like e.g. performance of the main line infantry.

I reckon all Mg's perform as they should right now.

Reckon you are very wrong then. Mgs should be able to stop enemy infantry via Supression, of the 3 factions there's is only one that can do that on occasion (the 50 cal) and even that one is buggy. The vickers bursts down models which forces it to reaim thus stopping applying Supression, will likely eat a flame nade. The maxim doesn't deal Supression... Or damage and will likley rat a flame nade, followed by a deathloop. All mgs should be stopping infantry that charges front long into them and the mg34 and 42 both manage to do that. Yuu don't get mgs to deal damage you get then to control infantry if they can't control infantry there is little point in getting them.

... The vickers bursts down models which forces it to reaim thus stopping applying Supression, will likely eat a flame nade. The maxim doesn't deal Supression... Or damage and will likley rat a flame nade, followed by a deathloop. ..

That has more to do with V.G. and their grenade because allied mg can usually stop grenadiers.

Let's not bash other people.

Keep ad hominem out of this thread.

Carry on.

Reckon you are very wrong then. Mgs should be able to stop enemy infantry via Supression, of the 3 factions there's is only one that can do that on occasion (the 50 cal) and even that one is buggy. The vickers bursts down models which forces it to reaim thus stopping applying Supression, will likely eat a flame nade. The maxim doesn't deal Supression... Or damage and will likley rat a flame nade, followed by a deathloop. All mgs should be stopping infantry that charges front long into them and the mg34 and 42 both manage to do that. Yuu don't get mgs to deal damage you get then to control infantry if they can't control infantry there is little point in getting them.

idk what game you play, but your acting like vickers dont suppress, please dont over exaggerate. Yes it doesn't suppress as quick as a 42 but in return in deals more damage, especially when units are not pinned and in green cover it dashes out very high damage to them. Maxim also suppresses fine, only issue with it is the death loop and .50 cal suppresses fast and does high damage too. All those MG's do stop infantry, you acting like they dont and are useless which is simply not true.

So what is your solution? give those MG's performance on the lvel of the 42? if thats the case, you guna start buffing grenadiers too based on ther performance against other main line infantry?

OST are far more reliant on the 42's suppression then any other faction

idk what game you play, but your acting like vickers dont suppress, please dont over exaggerate. Yes it doesn't suppress as quick as a 42 but in return in deals more damage, especially when units are not pinned and in green cover it dashes out very high damage to them. Maxim also suppresses fine, only issue with it is the death loop and .50 cal suppresses fast and does high damage too. All those MG's do stop infantry, you acting like they dont and are useless which is simply not true.

So what is your solution? give those MG's performance on the lvel of the 42? if thats the case, you guna start buffing grenadiers too based on ther performance against other main line infantry?

OST are far more reliant on the 42's suppression then any other faction

240mp Grens already overshadow 240mp conscripts. They also fare pretty well against Rifle sections and Infantry sections so long as they make use of their range and find cover.




A 260mp MG42 is a country mile beter than the 260mp Maxim. The maxim absolutely does not 'suppress fine' and is a terrible heavy machine gun. Better than zero heavy MG, but not good. If they don't have vet late game they are next to worthless, quite unlike even an unvetted MG42.

The 260mp Vickers is comprable but extra damage at the cost of suppression is not helpful in most situations. In the few that it is, a vet MG42 can also rule the roost, because it can toggle AP rounds. While they begin on similar footing the Vickers veterancy is also very lackluster.

The .50 cal is more expensive and arrives later, but it only about as good as the 42. Slowest target tracking, smaller cone, and the AP rounds are strictly inferior.



It's not like evwrybody else having a simlar return on investment for their machine guns is going to make Ost suddenly less powerful.

...
It's not like evwrybody else having a simlar return on investment for their machine guns is going to make Ost suddenly less powerful...

Actually that would be lead to carbon faction.

Ostheer where design to have inferior infantry and superior support weapons. They already have suffer the most with nerfs to mortars and the buff to USF support weapons (easier access). If the Ostheer lose more of the advantage to support weapons they will simply need to be redesigned and there is little reason for that.

240mp Grens already overshadow 240mp conscripts. They also fare pretty well against Rifle sections and Infantry sections so long as they make use of their range and find cover.




A 260mp MG42 is a country mile beter than the 260mp Maxim. The maxim absolutely does not 'suppress fine' and is a terrible heavy machine gun. Better than zero heavy MG, but not good. If they don't have vet late game they are next to worthless, quite unlike even an unvetted MG42.

The 260mp Vickers is comprable but extra damage at the cost of suppression is not helpful in most situations. In the few that it is, a vet MG42 can also rule the roost, because it can toggle AP rounds. While they begin on similar footing the Vickers veterancy is also very lackluster.

The .50 cal is more expensive and arrives later, but it only about as good as the 42. Slowest target tracking, smaller cone, and the AP rounds are strictly inferior.



It's not like evwrybody else having a simlar return on investment for their machine guns is going to make Ost suddenly less powerful.

Yeah u compared grens to cons, but didnt bother comparing them to penals (and you know why). Both riflemen and IS are superior to grens. And please expalin how u would buff those MG's without breaking balance?

And ive noticed ther is little mention about the mg34 which is the worst out them all, i wonder why?

Actually that would be lead to carbon faction.

Ostheer where design to have inferior infantry and superior support weapons. They already have suffer the most with nerfs to mortars and the buff to USF support weapons (easier access). If the Ostheer lose more of the advantage to support weapons they will simply need to be redesigned and there is little reason for that.

Asymmetrical balance is not a reason for units to have wildly different cost efficiencies.

It is fine for nations to have stronger units in one way or another. Volks are better than conscripts... but they also cost more.

Unit cose efficienxy is a core part of every army and it absolutely needs to be adhered to. If you want the best of something, fine! You can pay for it.

The NG34 is an inferior MG to the MG42 and it is, lo and behold, cheaper. That's what a unit'a cost is for.

The main two allied MGs cost the same as the MG42. You want it to keep being at4ictly better? Fine! Make it more expensuve or cheapen the Maxim by a lot and the vickers by a little bit.



This also addresses the nonsense 'but penals are better'above. Of course they are. They are much more expensive.

...
Asymmetrical balance is not a reason for units to have wildly different cost efficiencies.
...

Yes it is.

In order for a faction to have an advantage one can either have units that are about equally cost efficient but stronger or units that are simply more cost efficient.

Ostheer are struggling there is not need to become weaker. If allied HMG can not deal with volks than it is volks who need a nerf.

The benchmark was and should be again Ostheer.

Ost is struggling only if you try to play meme shit like grenspam.

If both sides have invested ~1200 mp in infantry early game that supports that factions design(which is pretty much spam for soviets and grens+supporting inf for ost for example), then both sides should and DO have equal chance which boils down to micro and positioning.

Ost doesn't struggle against anyone, sorry to burst your bubble here, you are going to struggle only if you ignore HMG/sniper and try to play them like its still march deployment patch.

Yeah u compared grens to cons, but didnt bother comparing them to penals (and you know why).

Probably because of the 60mp per squad difference o top of the 80mp in teching difference. Funny enough the maxim also has 160mp in teching over the mg42, and is inferior despite the same per unit cost...

both riflemen and IS are superior to grens.

Again, looking AT COST you might be able to figure this one out... Once you have figured that out, triple the cost difference and maybe you can deduce why penals might be superior troops....

and please expalin how u would buff those MG's without breaking balance?

Off the top of my head? The maxim comes after 160mp in teching and could maintain a smaller than average arc. I'd bump its cost too to try and prevent spam. Functioning at least as well as an MG34 should be acceptable, costing more but more durable with less arc. Seems reasonable.
The. 50 comes later than all other mgs and works fine when it works, but is inconsistent, so fixing the traverse might be enough.
The Vicky, I'll admit I'm not sure. An MG34 with more damage perhaps?
But tbh were actually here specifically to do what you are asking, so maybe sit back and let those that actually understand the various factors included in balancing a unit discuss? You might pick something up, like how cost relates to performance for example.

And ive noticed ther is little mention about the mg34 which is the worst out them all, i wonder why?

The mg34 works fine. It does its job. It shoots at the enemy and they get suppressed. That's really all you want in an MG, everything else is gravy and as the cheapest MG doing the bare minimum is plenty acceptable. The issue with the mgs that ARE mentioned is that they are more expensive by a fair margin and fail to do that basic role remember from earlier where you discovered that the more expensive unit is supposed to be more effective? It's exactly like that! Arnt you glad you were able to figure out that super basic factor of balance? The sky is the limit now!