Ostheer MG/Early

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...



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....



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.



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!

SO now you've moved from performance to cost you keep changing ur narrative, initially your issue with MG's was they struggled with performance, nothing about its cost. You keep making claims that the allied MG's cant do the basics (while u claim the mg34 does, even though it the worst from the lot, this is a clear contradiction on your part), and that statement is simply untrue. if cost alone is the issue for you then fine reduce the costs.

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.

dear kat would u please tell this to the OP he stared this saying OST was op

SO now you've moved from performance to cost you keep changing ur narrative, initially your issue with MG's was they struggled with performance, nothing about its cost. You keep making claims that the allied MG's cant do the basics (while u claim the mg34 does, even though it the worst from the lot, this is a clear contradiction on your part), and that statement is simply untrue. if cost alone is the issue for you then fine reduce the costs.

Allow me to try and explain the conceot of Cost Efficiency to you. It is the method by which price and efficiency are interlinked.

A unit which costs more... does better. That's it! It can be made more nuanced (long vs short range, utility, durability vs damage, cap speed, line of sight). But the core of it is that you get what you pay for, nice and easy.

The MG34 is worse than the MG42. It is also cheaper.

The maxim is worse than the MG42. It costs the same.

The maxim is worse than the MG34. It is more expensive. And don't 'bias'me on this, it is a worse suppression platform.

Specifically, the maxim is so bad that is no longer properly functions as a suplression platform, which is the one thing people actually byy nachine guns for! That's bad.



We don't want 230mp terr8ble machine guns. That just promotes spam. We want the machine guns we have to simply be woeth their cost.




Cost efficiency also applies to MG AP rounds. The DshK and .50 are both more expensive than the MG42 and are supposed to be soft counters to light vehicles. However, the MG42 gets superior AP and does that job better... as well as suppressing better, and being cheaper.

Allow me to try and explain the conceot of Cost Efficiency to you. It is the method by which price and efficiency are interlinked.

A unit which costs more... does better. That's it! It can be made more nuanced (long vs short range, utility, durability vs damage, cap speed, line of sight). But the core of it is that you get what you pay for, nice and easy.

The MG34 is worse than the MG42. It is also cheaper.

The maxim is worse than the MG42. It costs the same.

The maxim is worse than the MG34. It is more expensive. And don't 'bias'me on this, it is a worse suppression platform.

Allow me to try and explain the conceot of Cost Efficiency to you. It is the method by which price and efficiency are interlinked. IT ALSO ACCOUNTS FOR THE PLAYSTYLE OF EACH FACTION AND AMOUNT OF RELIANCE ON A PARTICULAR UNIT.

It also seems your definition doesn't apply to riflemen. Or volks. Both of which are far more cost efficient than grens. Hm, I wonder what Ostheer players do to alleviate the noticeable difference in cost efficiency of mainlines. They get a unit that was DESIGNED TO PUNCH ABOVE ITS WEIGHT. In other words, be more cost effective than its counterparts on other factions.

Apparently you believe that rifles which win 100% of engagements at close range, at least 90% at mid and 40% of engagements at max range while being able to close into midrange without losing a model and only costing 17% more is just as cost efficient as grens. By your logic, "well, rifles are more expensive than grens, so it's fair." Might as well make riflemen cost 241mp and use the same argument.

...
Cost efficiency also applies to MG AP rounds. The DshK and .50 are both more expensive than the MG42 and are supposed to be soft counters to light vehicles. However, the MG42 gets superior AP and does that job better... as well as suppressing better, and being cheaper.

This comparison is simply misleading:
1) Dhsk/0.50 AP round are VET 0, HMG-34 HMG-42 are VET 1.
2) Dhsk/0.50 AP round can counter the the Luch light tank and shred 221,222, 250,251. The HMG-34/HMG-42 can not counter the Stuart/T-70 light tanks.

AP round is a superior ability but that does not make HMG-42 better at countering light vehicles especially since allied light are generally more durable, so no I do not agree that MG42 is better at countering light vehicles.

This comparison is simply misleading:
1) Dhsk/0.50 AP round are VET 0, HMG-34 HMG-42 are VET 1.
2) Dhsk/0.50 AP round can counter the the Luch light tank and shred 221,222, 250,251. The HMG-34/HMG-42 can not counter the Stuart/T-70 light tanks.

AP round is a superior ability but that does not make HMG-42 better at countering light vehicles especially since allied light are generally more durable, so no I do not agree that MG42 is better at countering light vehicles.

0.50 doesn't counter Luch or you have to be afk. I'll call it soft counter at the maximum. Then you're bullshitting hard here since .50 and dhsk are hitting the field not really sooner than LVs, having their ability tied to vet1 would simple make it obsolete.

240mp Grens already overshadow 240mp conscripts.
...
A 260mp MG42 is a country mile beter than the 260mp Maxim.
...
It's not like evwrybody else having a simlar return on investment for their machine guns is going to make Ost suddenly less powerful.

So, lets compare ok units to CLEARLY BROKEN ONES, mg to maxims, and grens with cons. The two last month threads were cons and maxims needing buffs. But you prefer to compare them to pretend you are right in your reasoning. No you are not. As long as maxims and cons dont get proper attention do not even use them as a comparison tool.
Also im going to point out you overrate suppression of the mg42 because you want to. As long as vickers and M2B do good amounts of damage, they still have use. Suppression is a utility novelty not the only thing needed on HMGs

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

It is, and thats why you get different returns in investments. If you dont like an assymetrycal game go play AoE.
Also by this sole reasoning, grens should be cost efficient, wha they are not, at all ranges they have to face allied inf, again they are not. And if a fight is not in your favour in cost efficient terms you either DISENGAGE (wow new strategy for you i guess) or sacrifice some resources in exange something you need. Its called difficulty, but hey, i wont judge.

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

Again, comparing axis inf to the worst inf ingame, for no reason or whatsoever

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.

As long as each faction has 1 inf varierty to perform its intended role, you just cant "PAY" for it, you use what you have, as long as volks remain the only early inf they need to be effective and grens need to hold its grownd. Docrtinal units help to even this out but you just can use that as a thumb rule. You better start thiking before writing as long as this game is not the game you pretend to be.

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.

Only ostruppen commander can have both, no other faction can choose its hmg. but you dont really care.

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.

Again maxim comparison and stupid balance demand.

Allow me to try and explain the conceot of Cost Efficiency to you. It is the method by which price and efficiency are interlinked.

A unit which costs more... does better. That's it! It can be made more nuanced (long vs short range, utility, durability vs damage, cap speed, line of sight). But the core of it is that you get what you pay for, nice and easy.

A unit that cost more cost more. An antitank is cheaper than a tank and its the most cost efficient way to bring those down. You dont understand cost efficiency.
Cost balances within each faction not between them!
And counters are the only cost efficient way to balance things out. A simple clash of mainlines inf and their costs means so little cost benefit is not even worth to argue at this level.

The MG34 is worse than the MG42. It is also cheaper.

The maxim is worse than the MG42. It costs the same.

The maxim is worse than the MG34. It is more expensive. And don't 'bias'me on this, it is a worse suppression platform.

2 maxim comparisons again. But hey if you used Vickers and M2B your argumen will fall short. What a surprise!

Specifically, the maxim is so bad that is no longer properly functions as a suplression platform, which is the one thing people actually byy nachine guns for! That's bad.




We don't want 230mp terr8ble machine guns. That just promotes spam. We want the machine guns we have to simply be woeth their cost.

This is about HMG42, remember? Dont derail this thread anymore, tnx

Final words, dont try yo lecture anyone if you dont know before your stuff.

Suppression is a utility novelty not the only thing needed on HMGs

Gonna print this out and send it to an art gallery.

It's also the only thing I will address directly. If you believe a HMG is foremost a damage tool, there is literally no point dicussing HMG balance with you. There is literally no overlap between what we believe.

I'll be on the side of the fence where all the MG tooltips helpfully inform us about how helpful they are for suporessing infantry.

Gonna print this out and send it to an art gallery.

It's also the only thing I will address directly. If you believe a HMG is foremost a damage tool, there is literally no point dicussing HMG balance with you. There is literally no overlap between what we believe.

I'll be on the side of the fence where all the MG tooltips helofully inform us about how helpful they are for suporessing infantry.

Let me illuminate you son, suppression is the utility part of an HMG, since it gives it a tool use. In other words for peasants to understand, it stop that person from running freely, it will still though retreat and find new ways to push, you just blocked a punch but didnt break it in the proccess. The damage part becomes important when the thing you shoot at has wheels, its behind cover or inside a building. Wow what a impressive information! No concensus needed, because those are facts.
I am not discussing with you, you do it with yourself since you are the only one changing reference frames, arguments and solutions. Cheers mate! Have a wonderful day now

0.50 doesn't counter Luch or you have to be afk. I'll call it soft counter at the maximum.

I suggest you read more careful and learn the difference from "can counter" which I wrote and "counters" that you wrote.

You can call it what ever you like but unless in your opinion HMG-42 is better at countering T-70/Stuarts then DShk/0.50 is countering luch the point stands.

Then you're bullshitting hard here since .50 and dhsk are hitting the field not really sooner than LVs, having their ability tied to vet1 would simple make it obsolete.

Pls read more carefully and pls do not put words in my mouth, I did not suggest that they should have the ability move to vet 1 and even it was moved to vet 1 would make this weapons obsolete because their role is not only to counter LV. 0.5 is great HMG and Dhsk allow HMG access with out the T2 building.

In addition the 0.5 does come earlier than Luch and it has enough penetration to damage anything bellow the Luch.

HMG-42 faces armored cars in the form of m3/UC (and WC) and it does not have AP round to counter. Unless you are having trouble dealing with kubels again my point stand.

Now if in your opinion the HMG-42 is better at dealing with light while it has less penetration than 0.5/Dhsk pls elaborate which LV you are referring to.

You can call it what ever you like but unless in your opinion HMG-42 is better at countering T-70/Stuarts then DShk/0.50 is countering luch the point stands.

They're all very poor counters to those units. The only light vehicle that's really countered by MGs is the 251 Flak Half-track because it has to set up.

HMG-42 faces armored cars in the form of m3/UC (and WC) and it does not have AP round to counter.

Does it need them against those? They're vulnerable to small arms.

They're all very poor counters to those units. The only light vehicle that's really countered by MGs is the 251 Flak Half-track because it has to set up.

Yes they are poor counter and I did not suggest as counters. I was simply responding to a claim that HMG-42 is better vs LV then Dshk or 0.50.

Does it need them against those? They're vulnerable to small arms.

Depends, if the m3 caries flamer or if they WC has a flamer than it does need them AP rounds.

Without AP rounds Dshk and 0.5 have more penetration than HMG-42 while generally facing cars that are less durable, so HMG-42 is not actually better.

The only point I made was that although AP rounds is a superior ability that does not make HMG-42 better at dealing with Allied light than Dshk/0.50.

Fair points. I think they're all pretty terrible versus any light vehicle that can fire on the move.



On the subject of the thread itself:


If all the HMGs were available to you, you'd pretty much always go for the HMG42 or the HMG34: huge arcs, good suppression, efficient pricing.

But they're not. There is no faction in the game that has to choose between the Maxim and the HMG42.

The price and performance of the Maxim matters relative to the other Soviet units, because those are what it's competing for manpower with. Right now, it's not doing great. It's not a very good MG, and T2 builds aren't very strong.

The HMG42 has nothing to do with that.

Let me illuminate you son, suppression is the utility part of an HMG, since it gives it a tool use. In other words for peasants to understand, it stop that person from running freely, it will still though retreat and find new ways to push, you just blocked a punch but didnt break it in the proccess. The damage part becomes important when the thing you shoot at has wheels, its behind cover or inside a building. Wow what a impressive information! No concensus needed, because those are facts.
I am not discussing with you, you do it with yourself since you are the only one changing reference frames, arguments and solutions. Cheers mate! Have a wonderful day now

You do g get an MG to counter things in buildings or wheels, there are units specifically for that. You get them to counter things with legs. When you see a 222 you don't go "oh shit, where is my vickers!?!" and when you see a garrison you don't think "fools! In just 8 minutes my maxim will dog you right out of there!"

Yuu have it mixed up. Supression is the units primary role. Being able to damage garrisons or lights is the flavor, the possible bonus, the things that make the units unique. But first and foremost it needs to suppress.

if 20 extra manpower increase to the MG-42 is all thats needed for all MGs (except the maxim) to be balance than thats fine. but when people want that and other MG buffs i dont know if the wehrmacht will have the MG advantage anymore.

if 20 extra manpower increase to the MG-42 is all thats needed for all MGs (except the maxim) to be balance than thats fine. but when people want that and other MG buffs i dont know if the wehrmacht will have the MG advantage anymore.

Best arc, best vet, best Supression, best aoe Supression, best ROF. Having other mgs suppress wouldn't change the 42 being the best.

MG42 already breaks all the common rules in regard to unit balancing, I mean it's the 2nd cheapest MG (matching the Maxim), requires no tech(M2), is non-doctrinal (DShK), and it doesn't lock you out/delay any tech for you (M2, Maxim) and yet it performs best of them all, and that's absolutely fine, just make the other MG's do their main job aswell.

Best arc, best vet, best Supression, best aoe Supression, best ROF. Having other mgs suppress wouldn't change the 42 being the best.

cal. 50

We're still comparing MGs across faction boundaries here, so I'll swing this another way.

What would nerfing the HMG42 actually achieve?

• If it's a super minor nerf (like 20 MP increase), pretty much nothing.
  
• If it's a significant nerf, expect more Grenspam builds. You'll still see the HMG42 because it's the only suppression platform Ostheer has, but Ostheer will lean more heavily into pure infantry spam rather than combined infantry-HMG builds.
  
• Either way, you make Ostheer a weaker faction.

Are any of these outcomes desirable?

I used to think the MG42 was just far too good. But throw a few hundred, or thousand hours into the game and you realize that half the time your MG42 isn't even that useful unless you micro it like a bastard. Allies can flank the shit out of everything with their infantry, and unless you're on the ball the MG42 will be in the soviets hands, which can spell a really bad time for you.

MG42 is fine, the maxim alright, keep in mind it's really hard to take out given the 6 man crew. When the maxim was a pinning machine, it was next to impossible to dislodge it. Cons can always reinforce you, while the MG42 has to run the moment it's flanked or a molotov hits it, nades 1 shot it.. yeah..

MG42 is fine. This is more of a test of your micro skills, and MG's are always better in pairs.