Profile of ferwiner

it's nearly done? ain't you just started patching? ohh well, time to uninstall then

They said that there are going to be different patches with different scopes in the future. But this patch, within this scope is really good to the point there is not much more to be done.

1-No brainer change. Replace vet2 +25% damage

2-Increase by say 0.1 cd between each shot, thus increasing overall time to unload barrage by 3s. Even better if possible would be to have it start a bit slower and then ramp to get an equivalent overall result.

+1 This sounds reasonable.

I think we should take another approach. Generally in programming root of most big problems is that the design of implementation is too far from how the modelled part of reality really works. This is error prone and means that in order to keep the illusion source code becomes more and more complicated.

This is exactly the case here - someone thought it is a good idea to design small arms in a way that the bullet either hits the target or hits nothing - this is done to simplify the calculations generally. And it works really well when there is not many models to shoot at or the models are spaced out.

What happens if they are clumbed up? Player would expect that missed shot will hit somebody else, or to visualise it better, if you shoot at a ball of 30 conscripts clumbed together one would expect they are bigger of a target than a lone model. But actually, for small arms they are not. Sadly, it also applies for mgs.

What I would suggest is changing all hmgs so that they always shoot in a way mg42 piercing round shoot, so that they can have AoE and hit the ground, but with a different AoE profile. The profile should be such that when counting only direct hitting shots, in case of units staying in a line, like they typically do in cover, the whole squad takes the same amount of damage it takes now, but dispersed between the model that is shot at and two models that are near it. If the model that is shot at is last, the squad takes less damage, but it accounts for shots that tacle them when hitting the ground.

In such case, lone or spread units out on the field will take less damage from mgs, but still same amount of suppression and still same amount of damage from other sources. On the other hand the real blobs, that feature models standing on top of each other becouse they got only a single command are going to be punished really hard becouse there always are going to be a few models around the targeted one and they are going to be hit by missed shot very often, too.

That way we can actually counter blobs that are just mindless mass, but we dont hit managed blobs that move together just to split into cover on sight of enemy, or defencive positions on corridor types of maps.

The cost of it is more cpu calculation but when you think of it, it can't be that much of a difference. I never heard anybody complaining about drops in performance when mg-42 uses its vet1 ability.

The only potential debuff I've talked about in this thread concerns RA while suppressed by an HMG. That takes care of much, if not all, of the generally legitimate issue you've raised.

What about this common scenario: a player positions his troops alongside long heavy cover, like a wall or sandbag wall, possibly in taking advantage of other kinds of nearby heavy cover to squeeze additional firepower on the defencive line. Such situation is a bread and butter for everybody who ever played any kind of semoisky.

Sometimes it happens that you get supressed even in cover, the suppression may rain upon you from the skies in form of panzerwerfer, you get flanked by mg or simply one stray soldiers stays out. Is it justified to punish RA of well designed defencive strong point just becouse part of it gets supression? I think it's horribly wrong.

Yeah, relic actually incrementally included multiple debuffs to combat blobs or even nerfed most blobby units like volks. Now its only up to a player whether he is going to punish his opponent for extensive blobing or not.