Profile of Cannonade

Many ways to differentiate the varying LMGs asymmetrically for an interedting variety:
-Range efficiency
-Raw DPS in burst or sustained
-Cover modifiers
-Cost
-Tier requirements
-Internal Setup timers

But all of these are rather moot, unless the single model focus of LMGs is done away with first. Without Cruzzs generalised dmg suggestion, all the above diversification just provides a superficial paintjob ontop of a core problem.

I understand somewhat the concern of vCOh players referring to a similar implementation in that earlier game, but CoH2 has a different infantry small arms balance and associated mechanics. I dont foresee the same kind of "one volley wipe of depleted hp unit" thing happening in CoH2 as a result of Cruzzs suggestion.

What it would essentially result in, is that you cant just hang around waiting to assault an LMG position. You need to do it NOW. The force differential swings in such a way, that an immediate assault by a full hp unit suffers far less on the approach, as compared to now. This is good. The counterpoint is it means you cant just sit there out of optimum with a unit in cover that shouldnt be sitting there out of optimum in the first place. Its a null point. That unit is "doing it wrong". Why is it sitting in cover out of its optimum somehow magically expecting to have significant effect? Yes, it can perform a holding action, but in so far as hoping for an equivalent attrition rate while out of its optimum, well, thats just an irrational fantasy. This is already the status quo, except now, as opposed to Cruzzs suggestion, you will infact lose models FASTER NOW, even out of optimum, and in cover, than you would in Cruzzs suggestion. Cruzzs suggestion aids both approaches, by the simple fact that you will lose less models immediately, and hence lose weapons, and hence actual onfield efficiency, than you do at this point.

Its an enormous net buff for action against LMG units, but reciprocates it to the LMG units if they can maintain distance and position for long enough to decimate the opponents unit to the point where an assault becomes very dangerous due to a univerasally hp depleted ovrrall unit (but still, with all its weapons intact).

TLDR: Cruzzs suggestion means you can hang around, at any range, for longer, than now. But the longer you do it, the more advantage the LMG unit has. I think this is marvelously equitable for both sides in that engagement.

I see it as a mediator on the immediate model losses from engaging an LMG, in favor of a slowish general hp depletion, to the result that a unit can approach with its weapon bearing models still relevant, to the range at which their wrapons are relevant, if they do so in a timely fashion. Also, mid to long range optimised small arms can remain at that range longer, due to a generalised dmg from LMGs, without losing crucial models and the weapons they carry for reciprocative DPS.

I understand its difficult to mentally envision, but it boils down to this:
-Its better to have a generally hp depleted 4-6man unit, than it is to have a proportionately as hp rich amount of less models, but with less remaining weapons to fire back with.

Its a fundemantal difference that cannot be stressed enough.
Unless this difference is understood, there can be no progress on the discussion.
Currently LMGs pump enormous DPS into a single model, killing it, and removing the weapon, thereby crucially crippling the efficacy of the engaging unit, because they NO LONGER HAVE SUFFICIENT DPS in the form of weapon bearing models to cincentrate sufficient force on the LMG unit to make a worthwhile difference once they are at their optimum.

As it is now, ANY unit without an LMG, will invariably lose to an LMG unit, at any range, regardless of their optimum, and regardless of the LMGs optimum. Why? Because the LMG will shred model after model, in sequence, invariably leaving you with less reciprocative DPS in the form of weapon bearing units. For each model that you lose, you suffer a quadratic loss in dps efficiency, vs the LMG besring unit. This is one of the reasons DP is so shit in comparisin to Ost LMG, because the value is split between 2 DPs, leading to a split DPS, that enacts the total damage, over two models, and hence takes longer to kill it, and hence remove the reciprocating weapon bearing model.

Ir incally, DPs provide a precedent. Its 2 LMGs firing at different models, with half the DPS (not quite, but close) and hence doing a far more generalised damage, and not ripping individual units as fast. The result? DPs look shit awful conpared to Ost LMG. Why? Because they arent ripping one model to pieces at a time. The dmg is "generalised" over 2 models (mostly), leading to the weapon bearing models surviving long enough to return fire, and make Guards look bad in comparison, because they are still taking DPS from those models until they finally die (at roughly half the rate).

Dead models dont shoot!

Until LMG DPS is generalised over several models, it doesnt matter how much you change the range modifiers, or the cover modifiers (both of which are the best, imo, secondary differentiatiins between LMGs of different units).

Why? Because of the current single model DPS of LMGs, it necessarily must have enough DPS to brute force it through range and cover modifiers. If it doesnt, it would make the LMG useless. Whats the point of a single target LMG, if it cant operate at ranges and against cover? It becomes an obsolete weapon compared to the vanilla small arms.

See what I mean?

This issue is so crucial, that if someone wants a voice discussion on it to clarify it in real time, I am open to that. PM me, we will arrange a meeting and I will try to help understand in voice this perspective, and ofc listen to yours too.

I think the primary problem with Ost T4, is the timing and costs of getting there.
The costs and relative efficiency of the units actually from T4, are secondary to that.

The tier structure, costs and timings are the primary hurdle. Its making it so that "tier-skip" meta builds are not viable for Ost.

To demonstrate this by means of comparison, consider the following (admittedly improbable) "what if" alternatives:
-What if Ost T3/T4 was changed to a Sov T3/T4 style split. So that after BP1, you could go straight to BP3. Suddenly a new meta is opened, and the cost and stat requirements of T4 units can be "less", but still reasonable to the tier costs.
-Or, removing the T4 building altogether, and making BP3 an upgrade to the T3 building, so you build T4 units feom the T3 building instead.

The problem, is that with the linear Ost tier structure, T4 units are sort of doomed to be caught in a very difficult paradox of having to be very good at what they do AND and also quite expensive. Especially when compared to Callins, which especially for Ost, are extremely cost and stat efficient, when compared to T4.

Because of the forced linear tier costs and timings, ideally Ost T4 units should be BETTER than the callins!
Do you guys see what I mean? Unfortunately, this was not the design line Relic took.

Instead there is an impossible case of how to make T4 competetive with callins, without making them prohibitively expensive, or efficient performers at their job.

Callins completely outclass T4, in cost, timings, and performance, leaving Ost T4 a lame duck that you cant improve without making the t4 units either ridiculously cheap, or ridiculously powerful.

elchino7: No.
#2 is also true.

I really like the wehrmacht from CoH1: strong units, defensive, etc. My micro sucks and I did not like PE for that reason. Is there anything that comes close to the old wehrmacht in Coh2 that is still viable in 1 vs 1? I only play 1 vs 1.

Since you want strong and defensive units, I recommend OKW with Ost as a close second.

No offence, but half of those are terrible and dont fix the stated problem.

There are ofc an infinite variety of options, such as it firing a burst of flowers every 10th volley, but if they dont address the issue or are co sistent with design, they can be largely discounted and a core list of suggestions considered instead.