1) Not really due to squad size, mainly because maxim has more damage and in a situations where both MGs suppressed each other Maxim will come out on top + due to sustain fire maxim always wins garrison MG duels.
2) In every imaginable scenario maxim still has better surviability over any other MGs put in the same scenario, thats the point.
3) Mind providing the stats comparison? I dont know them, but maxim even to a blind eye faster to rotate and deploy then MG42, thats for sure. Maybe its not nessesery teardown\setup but something else what makes it faster.
4) No, not even by a long shot. Maxim has almost double the amount of MG42 AOE suppression on top of having bigger AOE suppression radius. It really makes a difference in game, when even spread out units still will be suppresed. But its a fair to say that MG42 has better ROF to compinsate lack of AOE, but it doesnt change the fact that the philosophy behind MG42 and Maxim is compeltly different, therefore usage should be different.
5) Well yes, thats the whole point of sustain fire. It allows maxim to perform just like other MGs, while keeping its own advantages over other MGs. The same way USF AT gun require muni usage to perform as other AT guns while keeping its advantage of supperior range.
1) MG Duels in equal cover are incredibly rare. The one who wins is usually the one that is setup first and/or suppresses first which is almost always MG34/42 unless they are setting up second.
2) Survivability equates to more bleed when you are considering indirect fire. More grouped up models = more bleed and more MP loss compared to similar machine guns. Not being able to be suppressed effectively means the Maxim gets shot at more often, bleeding even more models. Its not really a benefit. 6 man MG42 is a great benefit though because thats 2 extra men. When the MG is garbage quality, 6 men dont help it all that much. Same with Pack Howie.
3) You can test this yourself
4) Its clear which one is better
5) Sustain fire isn't even all that great considering the small arc and every squad that can walk out of it before they get suppressed. Not to mention the MG is not great early game because of the increased cost and not good late game when there is plenty of yellow cover.
On a side note, I myself dont like how maxim works in the game. Its either total garbage or abusable filth. I would rather have something closer to a proper MG, then this unit full of gimmicks, but what I am trying to say is that Maxim needed full overhaul, not just buffs\nerfs because its nature isnt allowing it.
You just described why Maxim is a bad MG and everyone hates it
This is objectively not true. Soviet players might not open with maxim, but maxims do see a lot of action in high rank plays, even in 4v4 tourney. You just need to know where and when it should be used.
Again the whole premis of the complaint is that maxim is worst then MG42 in actually being auto-firing MG. Thats the core of the problem here, but maxim has other advantages (which are being called shit for some reason).
List of them being:
1) Being able to win MG duels
2) Much more sustainable to damage
3) Easier to relocate
4) Supperior AOE suppression
5) Really strong and cheap sustain fire ability
Disadvantages are:
1) Smaller arc of fire
2) Slower to suppress
3) Even slower at suppressing yellow cover
This list alone already shows that it just cant be played exactly like an MG42, but at this matter Vekers and .50 cal cant be played like 42 aswell. Maxim has a specific role of being either supporting unit or it should be used with sustain fire ability, it isnt meant for areas lockdown, thats why it becomes super hard to deal with on maps where it actually can lockdown areas.
If you need suppression platform and you dont give a damn about other advantages, then there is DSHK for this reason. Its conter intuitive way of using MG unit (especially in comparison) but its the way it was always ment to be used. Even on release, Maxim was almost purely damaging unit, before relic buffed its suppression which gave birth to maxim spam. If it wasnt the case, then it woudnt have had 6 men crew and smaller arc of fire, and people propused this, like since release to make maxim into proper MG, but relic never did it. In other words, it is what it is. You cant just lower its cost and call it a day, you cant lower the build time and call it a day without redesigning a unit.
Soviet 120mm is the best example of it, it was meh but survivable. It was buffed, surviability was untouched and now its cancer to deal with.
tdlr: need suppression use DSHK, maxim is situational unit which wont work if you want to use it as MG42.
Also very weak argument. Considering that all factions have roughly the same tech timings overall from T0 to T4, so building a tech early into the game, doesnt put you into any kind of disadvantage res.wise. Soviets start will less MP, because they have cheaper starting unit resulting a better starting MP income.
Its only true for the fact that MG42 hits the field faster then maxim, but at the same time cons hit the field faster then grens.
That's literally 1 unit being subpar out of a roster of 90+% viable units though. Unfortunately there's no way for any competitive game to cater to different skill brackets AND game modes with different player counts. As it stands Soviets are the best faction in 1v1, but they're bad in 4v4. Cons are the best mainline when it comes to high-level play, but worst when it comes to lower skill brackets. The only solution is compromise.
Regarding the maxim, Dshka doctrines would not be appealing if maxim didn't suck. And Soviets would be too strong if they had a viable 6-man, merge-able hmg that wasn't CP2 and doctrinal.
Mostly the hmg formation changes reduced key weaknesses of mg34 and mg42, which were squad clumping and gunner death loop. But they kept their former suppression stats, so they're both really good right now.
I think this correctly summarizes the problem with Maxim vs other MGs at the moment. The reload option and prevented death loops are not as deadly on the Maxim as their are on other MGs which indirectly made other MGs better than the Maxim.
Slower setup time and higher cost certainly don't help but I think the former is whats more critical in making the Maxim perform worse.
Not to mention that MG squads are able to send units farther infront of the MG which provide slightly better vision and survivability.
I think the Maxim needs an MP cost reduction and a vision buff to compensate against other MGs. MGs are an integral part of this game and one should not be as bad as the Maxim is. Soviet early game is already quite terrible in team games. It could use a buff.
So no-one care that in teamgames, on good half of the maps maxim even with its smaller ark is able to lock large chunks of the maps.
Aswell as when backed up by early USF ambu it become practically immortal unless flanked by blob in early game. Which is meta on maps like Red\White ball.
And no-one cares, that even with "how uttery trash" maxim is, OKW still has no counter for it untill IGs\Zu Fuss hit the field, unless soviet player is retarded enouth to let himself be flanked by SP.
But sure, dropping it to 240 mp is a good idea Too bad that in 1v1\2v2 it wont be used anyway, because cons\penal oppening into 120mm\Dshk is still more effective.
Replace Maxim with MG34/42 then you have a good idea of what team games are like.
No good Soviet player opens with Maxim in Red Ball or White Ball because you lose all pushing power if you do. Its an instant-lose situation if you open with Maxim.
On the flip side, async balance aside, MG42 open is powerful because you only need 1 to lockdown a lane. Where-as you need 2 Maxims to do the same because of the small firing arc. Maxims have the same cost and setup time as an MG42 and don't instant suppress like the MG42 does. If the Soviet player needs to get 2 Maxims to lock down a lane, that means the Ost player can get 2 MG42s to lock down a lane even better. Are you starting to see the problem here?
Also not mentioning that opening Maxim needs to tech T1 so you're already down fuel and MP at the beginning stages of the game.
I'm sure its been explained somewhere before but I would like to know why the justification for Maxim being bad.
Same cost as MG42 but requires a tech building.
I am primary a team games player and I understand the balancing for Maxim is made around 1v1s. Am I correct in thinking that conscripts trading/value wise in 1v1s, the Maxim had to be toned down for it to be 'balanced'? If this is the case, unforunately conscripts are bad in team games which makes both Maxim and Cons being equally as bad in team games. A faction that has been ruined by the latest patches.
In team games, OST easy access to T1 Maxim, while Soviets have to build a T1 building for Maxim makes it so bad. Going Maxim first means you will always lose to MG42 first from Ost because they will have resource advantage and time advantage (because you teched to get Maxim). Not including that both have the same cost while Maxim has a smaller arc and can't suppress in one burst like the MG42 can. One is clearly better than the other and I don't see how the supporting units make up for this loss in power.
I know we're not getting any more patches but I feel like balance team really dropped the ball on this one. Soviets have really bad early game compared to OST and OKW. I remember Maxim costing 240mp before and having a faster setup time instead of what we have now.
Simple solution: Play in a premade for good games.
Hard to organise games of 4 players but those games area infinitely better than queuing random.
I'm also a braindead random queuer. I think there needs to be at least 1 Soviet in the team because playing without any rocket arty in 4s is death. As allies: Always choose artillery counter because a game without arty counter is annoying and possibly also death. Unfortunately that restricts commander choices by a lot.
My other recommendation is always get MG. MGs are the easiest value multipliers especially in team games where you have more squads to suppress which unironically is why Axis are so strong especially on maps like Red Ball and White Ball. Even if the MG only suppress 1 squad, thats value. 2 squads is more value. 3 squads you've won the game. Its really easy to suppress 2+ squads if you're microing the MG squad.
Tried out the IS-2 today. Its actually pretty decent considering it can take damage for whatever units you put behind it (think Churchill). The HE ability is quite strong too. It feels stronger than ISU-152's normal HE shell at the cost of vet and some muni. Near pinpoint accuracy which is very nice when fighting team weapons not in green cover like AT guns or MGs.
By the time you get an IS-2 out, you should have an AT gun or two. Fighting Panthers and other big cats is really a non-issue because you will almost never go up against them alone. Soviets are a combined arms army after all.
dont't forget the general aesthetics and sound design of that game.
My problem with it something few people will understand: there are so many special abilities that every single unit glows and shines somehow with a magic mist surrounding it which is an absolute turnoff for me
If I were to guess, the bad design was probably due to the heavy handed producers and top-level management for DoW3. Actually I don't even have to guess because the glassdoor reviews after Dow3 launch were really telling with what happened with Dow3.
If you look on the credits of DoW3, you can see that the main producer is now at another company while the director is back to a narrative lead.
Who would have thought that people who don't play video games make bad video games.
Dow3 Director: Philippe Boulle
Now: Narrative lead for AoE4
Dow3 Senior Producer: Lee McKinnon Pederson
Now: Senior/Executive Producer at Blackbird Entertainment
Teardown should be instant on the KV-2. Another case of Axis getting prototyping changes first (less restricting hull down) and then equal Allied units not getting the same buff.
Although I can overlook this one since its a really obscure example. Halftrack healing and Sturmtiger buff were much worse.
Too bad that in 1v1\2v2 it wont be used anyway, because cons\penal oppening into 120mm\Dshk is still more effective.
Relic Entertainment
