Well, IMO the cost is not a reflection of performance only. Like real economics, costs have a lot of intended and unintended consquences. In order to keep my density at a minimun i will lay down a list of " worthy units stats™ " that are simple yet coherent aspects of the unit, relative to other similar units. They are all based on my experience but include the forums overall view (hopefully).
5 points mean ideal - 1 its awful.
Tech tree: 4/5 {Mg42 and vickers are 5 because its T0} (T1 cons build is viable now)
Damage Output: 3/5 {Vickers is 5, .50 cal is 4}
Time to suppress: 3/5 at vet0 (Vet1 enhances it, its the thread OP) {Mg42 is 5}
Firing arc: 3/5 (There are worse, but its bad anyways, very focalized)
survivability vs inf: 2/5 (i cant put it 1 because of 6 man crews, but yes, deathloop)
survivability vs AoE: 6/6 (6 man crews)
garrisoned power: 4/5 (can fight off Mg42s in garrison) {vickers is 5}
set up/tear down time: 3/5 {mg42 is 2}
*BONUS PERKS (only for SU maxims)
-Can have conscripts merge to it to avoid reposition it (its situational, but its there)
-Only SU can make it worth at vet0 (other factions are reluctant to steal it)
*CONSIDERABLE CONS
-Its literally the worst HMG SU can have. (But Dshka and stealing is still an option)
-Deathloop (it is really an offensive overflow, other factions cheat having teleportin MG)
Final veredict. If you only pay for suppression its a bad HMG. SU faction perk its the true positive side of maxim. But at least you can have maxims in a reasonably early time. USF cant have this luxury and thir HMG is 4 man. OST relies on 251 to keep HMGs and TW online. it is a FU dependent solution, merge is underrated and costs MP + micro, M5 can do as 251 if needed. Maxims are relatively as pricey as Mg42 but trades better and can survive longer if managed well. Merge is underrated but also clunky AF, could use some love.
It is not a lategame HMG though, but SU have other units cover that area very well, from DshKa to rocket arty.
I agree on most points really clear and thought out. But do not fully agree on aoe survivability. It gets naded and wiped more often then 4 men mg,s. The deathloop and mediocre supression without vet and the ability are the cause. Clearly soviet faction perks dont compensate this. The most survivable mg gets wiped the most...
Some stats such as suprresion or damage matter more then hp or setup. Having good supression means taking far less damage from inf then the other way around.
Not saying maxim should get mg42 suprresion, we know how that turned out while keeping its hp and mobility. Its just it should not be able to get naded frontaly as frequently as it does, the deathloop triggers pretty easely after this. |
Yeah I agree with all of this exactly. But I think you can leave the mg42 as is if the Maxim got that change
The ability still forces a reload. Its not like we're just making the Maxim have that performance as standard fire
Make sustained fire more expensive and could even increase it's cooldown a little if necessary, to prevent spam. There are plenty of ways to make this change work without breaking the Maxim
I only intended to show how odd it is both cost 260 mp while one (the maxim) nowhere near as effevtive without a vet ability costing muni.
But i do agree that the cooldown probably needs adjusting if it becomes vet 0.
And looking at the faction. Zis mortar su76 t34 have vet 0 abilities to help them early on overcoming low preformance or scaling without being op. So vet0 sustained fire fits the faction nicely. |
Vet0 buff to maxims is itself a buff through the roof. It's like buffing ost mortars vet ability to vet0, simply because you don't want the unit peak performance to be unlocked so early and easily.
Vet0 maxim is bad COMPARED to other HMGs at SUPPRESSING but as a logical statements, it says nothing about wether maxim is able to suppress (it can) and it says nothing about the faction design (versatility over excellence) so maxims in the end perform as intended. It is intended that no other faction can get them to work as well as SU (that's a positive perk) and more so sU handles team weapons better than any other faction (they just can't build them) the same happened with conscripts and lmg42.
Other than that and a desperate wish to defile factions designs, I find no reason to vet0 ability maxims, that is my though about it.
And your thoughts about its cost. Does its cost properly reflect its performance? |
|
The maxim is quite mediocre at vet 0.
Its ability to do its job properly is behind vet and muni.
Its survivabiliy is overrated, its less then other mg,s despite bigger crew. Because of the deathloop and lower supression.
Mg42 wich is a lot better is quicker to get as its t0. Grens are cheaper to get fully kitted out then cons.
What needs to happen if its to remain meh at vet 0 price it accordingly, dropt it 240 mp to better reflect it preformance. Or if it remains 260 mp make sustained fire vet 0 with price increase to 30 muni and cheaper at vet1.
Either the maxim is to expensive or the mg42 is to cheap. How these both cost 260 mp is beyond me. To me the former is the obvious thruth. |
Not entirely. There's almost no way to punish it in a lot of lane maps where flanking it is next to impossible. It's a good concept but the risk barely applies in a lot of maps. It also makes the SU-85 exceptionally good against units like the Tiger II or Brummbar because they obviously can't flank it. I think on average the reward definitely outweighs the potential risk and that's where the ability arguably is too good. Not to mention it goes against the whole combined arms approach of the rest of the game.
Isent it more viable to get some new maps for bigger modes that are not 4 or 3 mini 1v1's or 2v2's, instead of nerfing a ability wich is fine in 1v1 and 2v2?
Imo the focus sight is fine. Vision is directed in a cone no side vision, a speed decrease a cooldown to prevent abuse. It cant chase like this, it needs support to have vision outside of the cone. It also has no ai. The su85 needs support vs manned at. So a properly supported brum or kt has shrecks or at guns supporting them. Severaly hampering or even threatening a su85.
Just a though i have now. I would look to lessen the chance of penning at max range somewhat. Dont know the percentages but i believe its rather close to 95% on most axis heavy armour. Now focus sight and max range pen is what makes focus sight so good. |
Well for the past few months the best Panther idea in my view is to buff the veterancy requirements and I've been repeating it every time the Pather came up in discussion. There are other good ideas as well, amongst a lot of poor ones, so I'm sure the balance team has ideas in mind.
The lower vet requirement is a good one indeed. I do think its slightly to expensive for 1v1 but if the price is buffed it would make it a bigger problem in team games.
The panther is the maxim of tanks imo. Because it durable, mobile and fast any buff to dps will have very big effects.
The balance team had some suprising chances that made a lot of units viable. I am interested what they come up with for the panther if its within the scope. |
The only thing Grenadiers need imo is faster (I recommended 25% faster) veterancy gain after T4 (or maybe even BP3) to allow them to recover veterancy after wipes faster (what I recommended instead of this capture rate buff...) and possibly better veterancy; I would be in favor of Grenadiers getting their 25% rifle grenade attack range veterancy back (or a reduced version of it), and making the recharge time buffs apply to all their abilities and not just the panzerfaust. They absolutely don't need any more defensive or main weapon veterancy bonuses though.
In the late game, Ostheer has non-doc elite infantry (PzGrens) to do most of the things Grenadiers can't combat-wise, like short-mid and mobile engagements. 240mp+60 mun Grenadiers themselves losing versus 280mp+120muni or 270+90muni infantry does not really seem like a problem to me.
I honestly think Pioniers are the only Ostheer infantry that need a hard looking into, and legitimately might work well with a stock 5-man upgrade, since that'd help them recrew weapons and get in close with their MP-40s.
I fully agree and esp with the last 2 sections. The bonus sight needs to go if go 5 men or have the stock ability to do so, having every team weapon crewed with pio's and bonus sight would be op. |
It’s not about being a pro, double StuGG is better than a single Panther. You do have to micro a bit more but the upside is significant.
There’s a reason people keep making “buff Panther” threads.
If those buff panther threads came with some sensable buff and accomidating nerf it would be something workable. Its just wanting no brainer buffs without looking at the strengths of the panther. And it does have more strenghts then weaknesses.
People mostly want all the good stuff buffed with the usf 0.75 moving acc. Or the sherman HE/pz4 shells.
Some of the good stuff the panther has needs to give somewhat. It will become broken op otherwise imho. |
Speaking of muni spamming, Zis barrage for 35 is ridiculously cheap for what it does. Each damn shell is like a bundle grenade but there's no timer, little warning and at gun barrages from afar which won't risk it's crew. The scatter is very tight as well. Damn thing regularly wipes support weapons like nobody's business due to lack of warning.
It used to cost 45 FOR GOOD REASON.
It hardy wipes team weapons at longe range as often as you claim. Now with its heavy cover modifier set to 0.5 it will do that less often.
Soviets do use a lot more muni on upgrades then ever before. Conscripts are used far more often then before and they eat muni and micro to preform. So i can understand why they made it cheaper.
|
And as the only allied faction with four man squads what options do brits have vs Wehr sniper and ost doctrinal inf?
No doubt bolster is effective, but its pretty much mandatory vs Wehr sniper play to prevent early retreats. We saw how strong 5man gren into sniper was last tournament as Tommy spam was punished.
Now imagine how quick those games would have finished in Ost wins with four man squads. It's all good saying brits can rely on weapon upgrades that can up their DPS instead, but vs sniper play you need staying power in engagements and Brens can't help you there. Any rework with bolster with changing Tommy power level needs to have them at five man for this reason. We already had a year of Ostheer sniper dominance vs Brits when bolster was more expensive and fielded later. But it was changed to come earlier to give a chance vs sniper cheese.
The issue with the ost sniper is its geared for 6 men squads. And bolster seems to come much to soon as sections do to well now.
The recon section from coh 1 with 40 or 60 ammo sniper shot to give a counter snipe potential. I woudnt make it a 100% hit chance though. |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
