Profile of Cannonade

As to the part of your suggestion about reducing LMG efficiency vs units in cover, if I understand stats correctly on this, I think it is possible to adjust the weapons performance specifically vs different types of cover, so that could be done in practice.

As to the dps at different ranges as the other part of your proposal, that ofc should be quite easy to adjust.

So ypur suggestion is atleast possible to implement, as far as I understand the games mechanics.
But, whether to do so or not?

Just have to comment a bit on historical accuracy, since you mention that peripherally as part of your justification. True MGs, in all varieties, IRL, are primarily used to suppress enemies by throwing huge amounts of lead downfield. If you are standing/running in the field of fire of an MG, you are as good as dead. Having fired an MG into popup targets in both a prepared forest and espevially in an amphibious landing scenario approach, its ridiculously easy to knock them down. Perhqps you know the lyrics/meme of "Pop pop pop, watch the bodies drop"? Its like that, no kidding.

So hough I agree that perhaps their effectivness should be reduced vs units that stay in cover (especially because LMGs dont really carry a significant suppression element), I think that would however need to be counteracted with a stronger effect vs units NOT in cover. Assaulting an MG through the open, even an LMG, is suicidal IRL. It just cant be done.

From my own conscript experience in the Finnish army, and how we are taught to build a defensive line, and how to assault the enemies, this is drummed into us time and time again. MGs are a core weapon to secure a flank, the field of fire which covers the entire approach to the defense line. The thumb rule is you need atleast 3x the men, to even consider assaulting a position supported by a MG(LMG or HMG). Why? For the very cynical reason, that you need to present so many targets, from different approaches, that the one barrel cant point at them all at once, and finally someone gets close enough for lethal effect.

Historically also, there have been truly heroic assaults on MGs, but almost without exception, that has meant the obliteratiin of the entire squad/platoon, except for one lucky/insane guy who manages to get close enough close enough, while his friend get killed, to throw an explosive, or unload a full SMG clip, or even in hand-to-hand combat in some truly exceptional cases of hardassity (new word) into the position (oftentimes already fatally wounded themselves).

So that presents a problem, because if LMGs are less effective vs covered units, they then also, logically, need to be more effective vs uncovered units, which means Assault/close style units would have an even harder time approaching, necessarily often out of cover, so it sort of defeats the purpose of making Assaults more effective (which I figure was your primary desire, yes?). Mid/Long range units in cover could slowly shoot at it, but frankly most infantry just cant match mid/long range dps of LMGs, even if a cover modifier was applied, unless they ALSO are carrying an LMG.

See what I mean?

Cruzz made an interesting and well received suggestion for LMGs in the Relic dedicated thread for feedback on long range infantry combat:

While there are some minor performance issues with short range firearms, the fundamental issue is just ease of use. With how the system is setup right now, you get very good performance just by selecting all your LMG armed long-range infantry, and amoving towards the enemy. By contrast trying to use short range troops generally involves much more roundabout maneuvering to setup flanks, use of smoke, and so on, yet the cost performance of these short range units is generally not THAT much better than the LMG blob.

While just reducing long range damage somewhat is an option, I do think it could be interesting if the LMG damage was made to spread damage on the entire enemy squad instead of focused on a single model. Right now a big part of the power of LMGs is that they will very quickly snipe off members from the enemy squad, forcing shorter range troops to just run away because having half a squad in melee doesn't really help them. Spread the damage out and you'll instead have a much larger though lower health squad coming into melee instead, which could actually do something. It would also make MGs a bit more efficient against LMG blobbing, because right now the gunner just gets instakilled in a row because all the fire is focused on him due to him being the most forward member of the MG squad.

http://www.coh2.org/topic/20942/action-items-balance-feedback-required/post/186930

Well, Cruzz actually can.

You and I look at the game, and we see a tree.

Cruzz looks at the game, and he sees a whole forest and every leaf in it.

Thing about this list, and Cruzz, is that it is a complete package.

You can pick the corn and peanuts out of it all you want, but it doesnt change that this is a "fantasy" patch, as he says. And cos Cruzz really CAN simultaneously figure many balance trajectories, his patch suggestion is more or less "complete", as a full indivisible package.

If you start removing one element, there is a cascade effect of changes on the others.
He has hairline thin adjustments in some entries, because thats how Cruzz thinks, and this guy knows his unit stats, that are there to counterbalance other changes, even if only ever so slightly. As you can see from his replies, most times, he has already considered mentioned concerns into his vision.

Its one mans (who knows his stuff) vision for a better game. Take it as is, and hopefully Relic also takes heed, and hopefullynsome of it matches their vision for the game too.

...

You are missing the point.

Cardboard Tank had already listed exactly the same counters Katitof listed in his subsequent post.
Apparently he overlooked them by reading the post too fast. I bolded, underlined and redded the text for emphasis of where he had already listed exactly the same counters Katitof thereafter did.

If you disagree with Katitofs or Cardboard Tanks posts or points, take it up with them.

My only involvement was to point out that Cardboard Tank had indeed already listed exactly the JT and Ele in the previous post (as you can see highlighted in red).