Profile of SeductiveCardbordBox

?

Proper answer.

British Trench
* Now counts as neutral when abandoned; can be captured
* Cost from 50 to 0
* Requires unit to be in friendly territory to be constructed

My bad for incredibly misleading phrasing.


Squad Downtime building, not literal manpower as in the resource.

The point remains that the trench building does not allow an MG to reposition between engagements (as a decent MG play would demand) unless you have trenches all over the shop. If you only build one or two they'll always know where it's going to be hiding, unless you pop it out of the trench and waste your vet bonus.

I maintain - The vet is a worthless gimmick and should be replaced.


And all of this is a tangent to the point that the Mg42 is fine, so far as the expectations of MG's in CoH2 go.

To ignore Dostrofio's self aggrendising posturing for a moment:

The ostruppen comparison is a very valid point. Late game vet 3 ostruppen, an even cheaper unit with an at snare, already scale better than conscripts. They were always intended to be a cheap, fodder like meatshield unit with utility. Just like conscripts.

Sure, cons do a little more than Ostruppen in the utility game. But they also fight worse in the long run and cost more.

There really is no argument for anything besides letting Cons have an actual late game upgrade. Whatever they are CALLED they are the core infantry unit of the soviet army and there is zero reason for only one nation to have a core infantry choice that arbitrarily is useless in the late game.

Every other core infantry can weapon upgrade one way or another. Even if the only change is an SVT upgrade package available from T4, they need something

Infantry Section can build trench, so Vicker’s vet is useful for Brits.

I sure love having to spend time and manpower on dozens of neutral trenches that mess with my pathing in order to have an effective machine gun.

Oh wait no I don't.

Not to mention that a vickers is a trench is basically a 100% wipe chance for a Stuka because you can only pop out of the ends.


Tying the vet to a gimmick is bad and should not be encouraged. British vet is bad across the board but its the one big letdown for the otherwise pretty decent Vickers.

The MG42 is, more or less, fine. Its every other machine gun that is just not up to scratch.

The .50 and Vickers are both acceptable. That said, two issues:
1) The AP rounds on the MG42 way over preform compared to the heavy MGs (more on the soviet one later). I would sooner see a small reduction to the Ost AP and a small buff to the Soviet and American.

2) The Vickers (like so many brit units) has some of its vet tied to a stupid worthless gimmick. Better in buildings? Waste of vet. And therefore it scales poorly, especially in team games where indirect starts to become king and buildings are a deathtrap.


MG34 is fine and cheap and can vet up long term to compensate for scaling.

The Maxim is awful. Deathloops. No suppression worth a damn. Same price as the MG42. Required tech, unlike the Vickers and MG42. It is bad and it should feel bad. Even sustained fire is a poor comparison to the AP on the Ost MG.

And then here is the DshK. All the problems of the maxim, now with a tiny cone of fire, and stupidly expensive.



The MG42 is in a decent spot. Everything else is just not up to scratch, by varying degrees.