I know why MG42 is underperforming much

Dps is important and conveniently overlook over suppression. Dropping models, reducing dps against it, forcing retreat earlier, draining mp. Imo is more game changing than that few seconds of suppression.

Suppressing the squad also reduces DPS against the MG and prevents it from being flanked.
For a long time, the Maxim had decent DPS and very good pack up/set down times, but a small arc and shit suppression. It basically fulfills your criteria for a good MG. However, it was and despite a few buffs still is considered the worst MG in the game. Especially since Volksgrenadiere could just frontally assault it and throw an incendiary nade. How does that fit into your model of good performance?

Fyi axis hmgs vs 5 6 7 man squads will fare better than allied mgs vs 4 man squads because MGS SUPPRESS REGARDLESS OF SQUAD SIZE

Also I just saw that according to the Coh2DB page the DPS of the 50 cal and MG42 are basically the same with the MG42 being slightly better. Vs Maxim there is a range dependency and vs Vickers the DPS is lower.
So just the MG34 has a way lower damage output. Not sure if this is outdated though

Fyi axis hmgs vs 5 6 7 man squads will fare better than allied mgs vs 4 man squads because MGS SUPPRESS REGARDLESS OF SQUAD SIZE

Actually, just to add a bit more fuel to this particular fire, MG tests have shown that bigger squads get suppressed easier (at least in cover).

Question to mrgame2 and achpawel:
Which modes do you play? The Axis MGs with their bigger arc usually perform better in smaller modes. Main reasons for that is the lower abundance of arty, the larger territory that needs to be covered to prevent flanks and vehicles generally come later.

Apart from that:
OST has been voted to be the most balanced faction by after all 27 votes. OST units underperforming is simply untrue stat wise which is supported by the general feeling of the community.

Now to the MG part:
Comparing MG vs MG to deduce efficiency is honestly quite foolish. You compare units based on how they fulfill tasks they are not designed for. We also don't compare how quickly Ostwind and Centaur kill each other to deduce which unit is more cost efficient.
The main task of MGs is infantry suppression and this has NOT changed over the lifetime of the game, no matter how often you want to call that "old mindset".
A suppressed infantry squad is basically taken out of the fight because it almost can't move, abilities are next to unusable and DPS is heavily reduced. I honestly can't believe that someone tried to make the point that Allied MGs are better by backing it up with the argument that they pin a unit later so they can deal more damage. With all respect, but that is just a plain stupid argument.
It's not that Axis MGs are better in every single stat. Usually Allies MGs deal more damage, but when it comes to the main task, area control and suppression, Axis MGs generally do a better job. If you want a damage dealer, you should get another main line infantry squad.

Don't call people stupid that exasily - it's not nice. I play allies a lot and know well what I'm writing about. I only reply to anti ost threads because most players love to boost allies and pretend not to see that. Ost players just don't defend themselves and allies will soon turn ostheer into a faction that nobody will play with in 1v1.

Don't call people stupid that exasily - it's not nice. I play allies a lot and know well what I'm writing about. I only reply to anti ost threads because most players love to boost allies and pretend not to see that. Ost players just don't defend themselves and allies will soon turn ostheer into a faction that nobody will play with in 1v1.

I always pay attention to never direct something like this towards the person itself and I criticized the argument. I also rarely use words like "stupid", but in this case the argument is pretty much objectively wrong and unreasonable. Everyone says wrong stuff from time to time, but nevertheless one should think critically about his own argument as well. If people don't do that, they must be called out on that.

I also differ from your mindset that the community is generally divided into Axis and Allies that blindly want to buff only their faction without second thought. OST got decent and well needed buffs in the last patches which where supported by the community. The faction is in a very good spot right now, both balance wise and considering the amount of different play styles that are viable. There are always some units that could need slight changes, but all in all the OST rooster has now become one of the best ones in the sense that every stock unit is usable and most of them in all game modes. We currently can't say that about any other faction in the game.

I play 2v2 wehr randoms rank 1200.
So i got a lot of times in wehr since the start. Yes 2v2 gets to fight more squads and weakens mg42 more.

My comment is mg42 needs a vet buff, to bring inline with allies infantry scaling. As highlighted, early game, yes it does it job to suppress 1-2 squads.

But as game continues, allies infantry comes back with vet with upgrades, and even if mg42 vet up, it does not do the job inline. Its suppression gets less useful, its vet bonus is not enough.

Besides imo suppression to pin and suppression to recovery, i feel, it has changed over time to favor recovery. So yes mg42 can pin but not fast enough to matters.

Yes i agree wehr got the needed buff recently. I can use ostwind in place of mg42 now. There is still 2 main things wehr needs to say it is best spot.

1. wehr is still weak, especially late games, if infantry vs infantry. I raised the 7men cons and now i raise the mg42. So it is either to look at mg42 or look at grens.

2. panther or their final armor push, is still handicapped against 60td and cheaper faster more accurate heavier armor allies tanks. Because it either too open to stray 'rear' armor shots, or its slow turret and inaccruacy makes it less than ideal for a tank hunter.

Both points imo, is not correct to common allies convention to wave it off. Same mindset that pak40 is best or mortar is best.

I always pay attention to never direct something like this towards the person itself and I criticized the argument. I also rarely use words like "stupid", but in this case the argument is pretty much objectively wrong and unreasonable. Everyone says wrong stuff from time to time, but nevertheless one should think critically about his own argument as well. If people don't do that, they must be called out on that.

I also differ from your mindset that the community is generally divided into Axis and Allies that blindly want to buff only their faction without second thought. OST got decent and well needed buffs in the last patches which where supported by the community. The faction is in a very good spot right now, both balance wise and considering the amount of different play styles that are viable. There are always some units that could need slight changes, but all in all the OST rooster has now become one of the best ones in the sense that every stock unit is usable and most of them in all game modes. We currently can't say that about any other faction in the game.

I like this post so much better

I completely agree with you on the fact that ost has been recently buffed in a good direction and is a much more ok to play with, compared to even a few weeks ago.

I also agree that all ost units are usable (I still think grens should build sandbags, though, or all all infantry shouldn't - it should be generally done by engineer units).

Still, my mindset is that many forum members just write things that are not too objective and clearly favour their own favourite faction. This is sth I can completely understand as it is sort of natural (especially if they don't really play other factions much or not at all - grass seems greener on the other side). However, I feel that sometimes you just have to respond to some really too often repeated inaccuracies. One is that mg42 is the best. It is not - it is just another mg. Not some super powerful mighty weapon. Allies have generally better mgs - especially when you realise that they shoot at 4 men ost squads. The casualties they generally inflict to them are higher compared to what mg42 does to allied larger squads. My mindset (that you believe to know) i sthat some allied players simply should devote similar amount of skill and attention to repositioning and mg babysitting as ost players to mg42. Once they do that they will achieve better results with their mgs than ost achieves with mg42. Setup/packup times, better damage and/or larger squads controlling those mgs, and the fact that they will shoot at 4 men units will give them edge. SImple and logical, yet difficult to see for some...

(I don't event want to comment how uncool was how mrgame2 was treated in this thread - he really devoted time and effort to check something and was objective)

Mg42 underperforms only in the early game of 1v1s where you are forced to use it too aggressively to even the odds. After the early game when you have other options and you can start using it more defensively the mg42 becomes the best mg in the game due to wide arc and best supression.

Best way to "fix" mg42 would be to switch mg42s and grens place so you are not stucked with this flank magnet from the beginning if you don't want to. Just put mortar, pak and mg in t1, gren to t0 and move sniper to t2.

Mg42 underperforms only in the early game of 1v1s where you are forced to use it too aggressively to even the odds. After the early game when you have other options and you can start using it more defensively the mg42 becomes the best mg in the game due to wide arc and best supression.

Best way to "fix" mg42 would be to switch mg42s and grens place so you are not stucked with this flank magnet from the beginning if you don't want to. Just put mortar, pak and mg in t1, gren to t0 and move sniper to t2.

But then 4 men squad unable to fight on the move might lose too easily to larger squads. However, I think it would still be better than artificial mg+pio combo when capping and capturing territory is essential. Or make them all avaliable from t0 or maybe it is too much idk (Uk has it all but sappers)

Mg42 underperforms only in the early game of 1v1s where you are forced to use it too aggressively to even the odds. After the early game when you have other options and you can start using it more defensively the mg42 becomes the best mg in the game due to wide arc and best supression.

Best way to "fix" mg42 would be to switch mg42s and grens place so you are not stucked with this flank magnet from the beginning if you don't want to. Just put mortar, pak and mg in t1, gren to t0 and move sniper to t2.

I don't think that this would fix much since OST early game needs the MG42 to support Grenadiere. It would also be a nerf to some OST strats that can skip T1 (Assault Grenadiere and Osttruppen)

Still, my mindset is that many forum members just write things that are not too objective and clearly favour their own favourite faction. This is sth I can completely understand as it is sort of natural (especially if they don't really play other factions much or not at all - grass seems greener on the other side). However, I feel that sometimes you just have to respond to some really too often repeated inaccuracies. One is that mg42 is the best. It is not - it is just another mg. Not some super powerful mighty weapon. Allies have generally better mgs - especially when you realise that they shoot at 4 men ost squads. The casualties they generally inflict to them are higher compared to what mg42 does to allied larger squads. My mindset (that you believe to know) i sthat some allied players simply should devote similar amount of skill and attention to repositioning and mg babysitting as ost players to mg42. Once they do that they will achieve better results with their mgs than ost achieves with mg42. Setup/packup times, better damage and/or larger squads controlling those mgs, and the fact that they will shoot at 4 men units will give them edge. SImple and logical, yet difficult to see for some...

(I don't event want to comment how uncool was how mrgame2 was treated in this thread - he really devoted time and effort to check something and was objective)

Just because something is oft quoted does not make it wrong, and the argument or implication here that the issue is people are biased toward their main faction assumes that anyone or most who disagree here are only doing so because of bias and not because they have good arguments. It also assumes the OP isnt bias and hasnt skewed the data just to support a biased viewpoint.

I do agree there are some asshats on the forums who quickly resort to ad hominem, name calling and insults. I do not think those are the majority of the people who have disagreed here.


Now the issue seems to stem from the OPs assumption that damage dealing is the primary or close secondary role of the MG. This fundamentally goes against one of the most basic concepts in the game, that of combined arms. The key to using MGs properly has always been a hammer and anvil approach, the anvil of the machine gun and the hammer of the infantry(or mortar).
The machine guns job is to hold the enemy infantry in place to make them easier targets for your other units. The better it does that job, the easier it is for your other troops, the better the MG is. The damage does not need to come from your MG, though it doesnt hurt to have it. But even so, the damage output of an MG should not be testex by shooting its contemporaries. The majority of the time, MGs will be shooting at standard infantry and if any damage tests at all should be done, it should be comparing damage against THOSE units and not against other mgs.

Fyi axis hmgs vs 5 6 7 man squads will fare better than allied mgs vs 4 man squads because MGS SUPPRESS REGARDLESS OF SQUAD SIZE

MGs also suppress squads with more men faster if there is more then 1 being fired at.

The Mg42 could really do with faster target acquisition and a slight damage buff with a cost increase to 270 manpower. This should help compensate for the ultra lacklustre grenadiers. The Mg42 should be hands down the best stock MG in the game by a considerable margin but its not.

Unpack bonus at vet 3 would be about all I could imagine. If that's even possible.

Yes i can live with either of the above 2 suggested buffs.
mg42 should be the outright best mg, but it is not now.
Allies infantry still outperform it the later the game run.

Just because something is oft quoted does not make it wrong, and the argument or implication here that the issue is people are biased toward their main faction assumes that anyone or most who disagree here are only doing so because of bias and not because they have good arguments. It also assumes the OP isnt bias and hasnt skewed the data just to support a biased viewpoint.

I do agree there are some asshats on the forums who quickly resort to ad hominem, name calling and insults. I do not think those are the majority of the people who have disagreed here.

Agreed. Not much to add really. Spot on.

Now the issue seems to stem from the OPs assumption that damage dealing is the primary or close secondary role of the MG. This fundamentally goes against one of the most basic concepts in the game, that of combined arms. The key to using MGs properly has always been a hammer and anvil approach, the anvil of the machine gun and the hammer of the infantry(or mortar).
The machine guns job is to hold the enemy infantry in place to make them easier targets for your other units. The better it does that job, the easier it is for your other troops, the better the MG is. The damage does not need to come from your MG, though it doesnt hurt to have it. But even so, the damage output of an MG should not be testex by shooting its contemporaries. The majority of the time, MGs will be shooting at standard infantry and if any damage tests at all should be done, it should be comparing damage against THOSE units and not against other mgs.

All true. Agreed again. These were/are fundamental concepts. I'd add another fundamental concept - allies were supposed to have better infantry and dominate early and axis were supposed to struggle early and dominate later.

These concepts, however, eroded a lot and some of them were simply impossible to balance. So now we have armour that is more or less similar (especially after the arrival of UK) and infantry that is not. Also allies are balanced around the concept of fighting OKW (sturpmios, for example, changed the fundamental concept too much, but also volks that were supposed to be self-suffiecient retained all toys for that plus got an mg to support them). OKW was a big buff for axis and allies got buffed to fight them. Ost is lagging behind, especially with grens imo.

Mgs don't have to deal damage - but if ostheer infantry gets constantly more damaged by alled mgs sth could be done to make those 4 men squads get pinned more instantly or simply damaged less, so that they can sit in the arc of allied mgs longer without sacrificing manpower that much. Or allied infantry should bleed similarly when under mg fire. The point is that it should be similar allowing similar amount of time for flanking with similar manpower loses. Now we have allied players complaining abut the power of mg42 who get only retreated after relatively long time (especially when caught at the end of mg range) and forgetting that they have a more effective tool to deal with those 4 men squads by both pinning them effectively enough and creating higher manpower bleed at the same time. They are also forced to retreat earlier from allied mgs arc. It is a tactical and economic advantage to allies.