Profile of ilGetUSomDay

Hi and welcome to the club.

I agree on point that 4 players have higher chances against forward HQ, but in your theory you're putting 4 coordinated players on allied side and 4 autistic players as axis.

For example here's what I see as result in your scenarios:

You've left your allies outnumbered. They got defeated and had to stop their push and retreat. Then enemy came for you, and you had to retreat all the way through their lines, losing couple of squads. Instead of coordination you let your enemy to beat you part by part.


Again, if allies is so coordinated (say, they playing as arranged team) then why you assume that axis can't react in same coordinated manner? I know, it is somewhat map dependent, because, for example, on Vielsam indeed it is hard throw your army from one side of map to another.
But here also comes another problem. If I play vanila faction I have to retreat to my HQ in base sector. If I'm trying to fight on flank that is far from my HQ, my army will spend 90% of game time walking rather than fighting.


Encircle how? He has healing+retreat point nearby. He will attack you constantly and get back for healing and reinforcing, while your army will go thin.
I play mostly soviet. As a soviet player I have no handheld AT and have quite crappy stock vehicles which I won't use unless I'm already ahead. So I'm very dependant on my AT guns in order to fend off Luchs or Flak HT, untill I will able to use my call-ins. Meanwhile my enemy have retreat+healing nearby and don't have to rely on team weapons with setup time and restricted arc of fire. Tell me how you call me more moblile with these AT guns?


This contradicts your scenario #1 where you was attacking their base sector.
Again. If allied players so smart that they focus 3v1 on one side, then what the hell other 2 axis players doing?

Generally, I agree with you. You have to be coordinated as Allies in order to win.
But that's just means that 4v4 format is more demanding in terms of skill for Allies. The fact that 4v4 AT is somewhat balanced is another confirmation of that.

I've used that graph in another thread, but it fits here too, I guess:

Do you mind elaborating on your graph a bit for me?

You have a bell curve with a y axis of number of players vs skill. How exactly are you measuring skill? Furthermore Gaussians represent probability so I'm not sure what your y axis is supposed to mean. Then you have a CDF over the top of which does represent a probability being chance of winning but that makes no sense at least from your CDF perspective.

I'm really lost in your statistical analysis, Some sight on your process and data would be helpful

My ideal future is a game where the factions get redesigned so every faction has good long ranged infantry, short ranged infantry, elite infantry, early game advantages, and late game advantages. US is able to swarm Axis tanks (I mean come on, there are many reported incidents of a Tiger laughing off many Shermans, why the hell can you get a Tiger or panther at the cost of getting only two'ish T34s or Shermans? That would of never been a fair fight in history)

Pretty much the ideals SCII strives for to make every faction impact-full and multi dimensional at every stage of the game. No more of this allies get early game advantage for 11 minutes and 11- whenever the game ends the axis have the upper hand.

That and if everyone has all range infantry supported and elite infantry, Maps will actually be able to be balanced. Currently its impossible to make a balanced map because there will always be more areas where one range is supported better than the other.

You can oohra for the same price as a squad wipe

You can play ignorant for as long as you want, it is the second worst MG in this game after the Dishk gun. There were times it was considered OP like when instant pinning mg42s were nerfed and maxims could set up in front of them and kill off the crew. Those times have been extinct for some time.

Here are some facts:

it is the fastest setting up mg, 6 man crew, and can be merged into.

However:

Maxims have awful DPS and suppression, very narrow cone, and a vet ability that pales in comparison to the axis mgs. while sprint is not a bad ability, Maxims do not have the super human power of teleporting the gun to the next member when the guy gets killed. In many of the situations you would like to use the sprint ability to get away from danger and re set up, much of the time it gets stuck in the common "oops I dropped it" loop until it dies or at that point, is trying to retreat rather than re-position. Not only that, the maxim has to face better long ranged fire than other mgs. Nuclear rifle nades fallowed by lmg decrews them pretty easily. against OKW Stuka's are the utter bane of weapon teams and it is fully accurate. Not only that, when a shell lands on the maxim (probably de crewing it) the gun is at half health. That is a pretty big feat to get a Katushya to do that (with the exception of precision shot).

Mg34 and MG32 have not exactly amazing dps but it is nothing to laugh at. Very wide cones allow for more flexible deployment, and better suppression. the vet ability is flat out great, and both mgs have better veterancy bonus's. When running away, they pass on the gun allowing the mg to get away.

50 cal also has a wide arc, decent suppression, and really high dps. If it were not for our current meta, you would probably see these a lot.

I want to elaborate the wide vs narrow cone issue to point out something big. in the majority of situations where the maxim needs to re set up and turn, an mg42/34 and 50 cal would not even have to bother because their arcs are good. there are too many areas this is the case, it would in fact be easier to point out on maps where the maxim would be just as useful because there are so few. Basically, the only time a maxim could be better is if your mg gets flanked in epic proportions such as a conscript squad coming from behind.

In the end the reason you probably believe they are OP is because how fragile mgs are. In general it is not very difficult to neutralize an MG with any thing leaving players in frustration. Infantry blobs can for whatever reason charge into a machine gun and kill it off with little difficulty. Rifles have a built in counter to mgs after grenades are unlocked just like Grenadiers do. These external reasons however does not mean the maxim is good just because it can live slightly longer from having 6 men.

In a 1v1 situation it covers too much of the map. Even when placed at a far back position it still makes harassment of key areas impossible unless you send quite a bit over there to remove the truck. This is a high risk high reward situation that is almost forced because if the flack hq is down on one side defending your cutoff / fuel, your units are free to constantly assault your opponents important territory (even easier if the med hq is near their area).

It has to high of a pen value for certain, if it is any more unfair that is hard to judge. I personally think it has too long of range. With its vast area denial in a one vs one you can have it still hiding in the "back" of the map covered by terrain and still it is covering something important.

an example of this is on Road to Kharkov. At either spawn your flack track can be put back close to home either by the cut off or by the fuel and that area is no longer harrassable until you remove it.

Moving around the map and de capping your opponent is a key part of this game that OKW can really clamp giving them a vast advantage. I think it is due to the schwere hq's range and penetration.