Profile of The_Courier

I see the asymmetric alignment as the following:
-Ost wider arc but slower setup vs Sov narrow arc but faster setup
(O these two I immensly prefer setup time, because a suppressed unit stays suppressed. Its a simple matter of micro to reposition and cover another angle therafter)
-Ost sligbtly faster supress vs Sov slithly better dps
(Again, I immensly prefer the Sov solution. More DPS means MP drain and reduced onfield time due to health. Faster suppression just means it takes a little longer to crawl out of arc).

This leaves one asymmetric factor:
- MG42 4man vs Maxim 6 man

People consistently and conveniently "forget" this one. An MG42 has only 2/3 the survival of a Maxim. Thats a huge difference..
It also means Ost pays more per reinforce for an equally shit model, nor can he simply merge it for cost efficiency and onfield time.

I think it may finally be time to increase Mg42 crew to Maxim equivalency.

A flanked MG42 is utterly fucked, despite its positioning requirements, whereas a flanked Maxim can soak for 33.33% more AND effectively reposition.

This is also one of the asymmetric arrangements that is making MG42 far more vuknerable to Molotovs in buildings.

They simply lack the men to soak it, wheras, seriously, no Sov unit in a building gives a shit about an RNade (except for the soon to be corrected building collapse AoE cascade), instead he laughs at the waste of Muni and usually doesnt even bother to try and dodge it.

Unless it's flanked by Shocks or eats a molotov with an unlucky RNG, a flanked MG42 is very much not fucked. Concript DPS on the move is so laughable the MG can pack up and walk away being fired at like in a friggin Benny Hill sketch. If you have grenadiers anywhere nearby (as you should have; again, leaving your MG without support is a player error), you can then easily defeat the flank. If you think MGs in this game are vulnerable, then damn, you haven't played vs Americans in COH1. Your MG lasted thrice times less because of the higher weapon damage in that game, and people still managed.

If anything, the Maxim's crew should be decreased (and even then, to 5 no to 4). MGs should never, ever be able to soak up fire. It's just not their purpose. I sure as hell don't want MG42s to basically become invulnerable in the first few minutes of the game; Maxims are more manageable because of riflenades and the fact they come later unless the Soviet player basically gives up all his map control at the beginning.

Boom - just schooled the whole forum. I have played vcoh since the day it has come out, watched every single shoutcast from ATR, dane, frontline network, and RNP. Basically have hundreds of hours clocked on both games, so I notice these things.

You can think im some sort of noob but the truth is I probably have more man hours invested in the games and see a lot of this stuff. Its all well and good to be dismissive of my points but weather you like it or not I'm right even if you dont want to admit it.

On the contrary, I'm increasingly convinced you don't know a damn about the game and try to get your faction buffed by making ridiculous claims. You remind me of some people on the offical forums.

If the 2nd most durable infantry in the game (bar a doctrinal, ultra-specialized, 440 mp one) is not durable enough for you, well sorry I don't know what to say. These ubersoldat walk over anything that's not shock troop and maybe flame penals. Conscripts melt when they merely hear their name. If you flank them as you should, weapons teams die in seconds. With shrecks, they pose a threat to most vehicles bar end-game superheavies, and the damn things can even gib infantry semi-reliably, and form the best AT infantry in the game. All that, non-doctrinally, available in tier 2. It seems the complaint in this thread is that PGrens can't solo everything the Soviets have. Well, sorry then?

Only reason we don't see more PGrens is that standard grenadiers are so powerful there's rarely a real impetus to build them. I see absolutely no reason to make their reinforce cost as cheap as grenadier's because some people are not good at the game or want a superunit.

Except for the maxim.. its a squad in its own right and needs no support. I said molatov has a decent chance of it, ie if the mg gunner dies, the next man runs in burns and dies, nect one runs in.. even if u hit retreat.

It needs no support if you act like the guy in the video and do the braindead equivalent of the Persians in 300. A modicum of tactics (IE flanking) renders the Maxim useless if its unsupported. It's also worthless against any vehicle, which can get build in T2, 5 minutes into the game.

Sorry. But anyone who complains of the Maxim being OP, or (heavens forbid) loses to Maximspam, needs to get better at the game. Simple as that.

Maxims are fine, L2P. That's the only possible response I can have to that video. 2 riflenades force it to retreat, and it cant pin 2 flankers at once. Add in FHTs, ACs, snipers, mortars and rampaging PGrens and T1-2 has every counter you could possibly need.

MG42s could use a small suppression boost, they take too long to make conscripts drop as it is. But they sure as hell don't need to go back to the instant pin machine of yore. Porting the VCOH values (if it can be done) could work, but let's remember that game doesn't have Ooorah.

I also think any buffing of german tier 1 needs a slight nerf to grenadiers to compensate. But that's another topic.

T-34 as it is now is fine, IMO. It can fight P4s head-on; it wont win, but it can at least damage them. It's also better against infantry, for a much lesser price (240/85 is relatively cheap). I would like a (costly) upgun option to get T-34/85s in order to give T3 some much needed anti-tank punch, but as it is the tank itself is well balanced. You do need to get T2 if you go T3, as without AT gun support you will lose to panzer 4's, which hurts Soviet flexibility a lot. But that's a larger problem.