Profile of GachiGasm

Fist of all stop looking at maxim like its a MG42, it really helps, because its clearly not an MG42 and you SHOULD NOT use it like MG42.

Maxim shines in 3 situations:
1) When it garrisoned, without inderect fire or flame weapons its very hard to force it out of the buildings especially early on.
2) When it follows your inf, supporting your cons in the engamements they cant win by their own or when enemy is trying to push you.
3) When you scout a bit ahead and see whats coming.

Sustained Fire should be always used, it costs 15 muni but turns maxim into a minigun. But it wont work if you pop it when enemy is already near, you need to use it before enemy is in range

Also speaking of "overrated AOE", its not overrated. Its really stupid sometimes, when it can suppress even spreaded inf.

I woudnt suggest using attack ground with it also, since because of the nature of attack ground, all 5 models will be infront of the maxim. While it can provide additional vision range, when you face enemy squads which are in cover (and especially if they have LMGs) you will end up with almost instant crew wipe.

Not to mention that building to building maxim will always beat MG42, especially with Sustained Fire. If its Maxim vs MG42 duel, with both of them starting firing relatively at the same time and in equal cover, maxim will always pin MG42 faster.

As it is MG42 is easier to use, since its just needs proper facing. Maxim requares a bit more understanding of its weaknesses\strengths but with proper execution\ability use its really good.

I'm okay with butchering any of those units performance, the game is very tame, caused by of lots of iterations of nerfs, but such units just bust through everything. ST and AVRE same with B4

Thats the whole point. We either should butcher all of them because, dispite them being different, whole idea behind them is the same. Or they should recieve soft nerfs via some resonable disadvantages, but they will still remain strong.

But I'm not sure if balance team is fine with "meme" units, but they are clearly uncappable of "rethinking" meme units into a proper ones. Since they made B4 into a cancer unit on its own, but the same people who want to nerf ST in a different thread will be saying that B4 is completly fine because Axis have a ST.

And balance team would say "Welp, we are playing top 100 teamgames, maybe even pre-mades, and there is always a guy with an off-map, thats why everything is fine."

1. It is better to have turret, but AVRE's turret rotation speed is 25 while ST has rotation speed of 22. You can always "rotate" no need to move in"straight line".
Both unit requires to face the unit at front to shot as soon as spotted. Especially because range 35 means when you spot enemy, enemy also spotted you.

Thats true, and what if you actually cant retreat from the possition ST is rotated to? With ARVE you always can fire and retreat using the same route. Lets say ST needs 25 degree rotation to fire. You rotate, you fire, you rotate again, you back off. How much time it will take + again considering the fact that enemy TD units have no problem penetrating you frontally. On top of the fact that ST takes longer time to shoot.
And I was saying, with a bit of micro you can get AVRE to possition its turret closer to the target you want to fire to.

2. I don't see any problem with this. One has better max speed while other has better acceleraration. Faster max-speed is better in terms of running away from tanks.

Yes and allies dont need to run for the targets, the longer target is stationarry or the longer it takes to start moving - the best for Allied TD. On top of the point #1 btw.

3. I really really hate when Axis player something similar to this. What happened to the JP4? WM at? Why keep making Panther out of the option? Do you know 2 vet1 at can kill avre without any help? Just use the target weak skill to shock AVRE twice in a row and it's dead.

Because both StuG and JP4 are medium tanks TDs. They have supperior fire-rate then Allied TDs, but much infirrior penetration. 10 seconds exposed to the Axis TD for AVRE is not the same as 10 seconds for ST to be exposed to allied TDs.

Target weak point is cool, as long as you have lucky RNG rolls to make your regular shots actually penetrate AVRE frontally, and both AT guns\StuGs\JP4 cant reliably even force to retreat AVRE if you are not lucky with them.

Even more, at least ST can be penetrated by most mediums if they actually somehow flanked it. AVRE with its rediculous 180 rear armor is almost immune to medium flank attacks aswell.

I think the point was that maybe ST should be fragile enough to have decent chance to be penetrated by medium tanks. Nobody said that P4J should have lower armor etc, because at 8CPs, more often then not, you can afford a ST and just indefinitely bully your opponent without fear or repercussions.

To be frank here all early heavily armored tanks have this problem. Any heavy tanks (even KV-1 with its meh penetration) can bully medium tanks without much of a fear early into the game.

But its not the point. When we take ST suviability into a considiration, its indeed is very sustainable to damage, but lets be fair here AVRE is not different in this regard.

I mean, if the insane survivability is a problem on ST its sure is the problem of AVRE aswell.

My point is, there should be a clear definition. Are we complain exclusively about ST without even looking at simular problematic behavior of AVRE, in other words: very high armor, relatively high mobility, very high HP and the nature of the unit.

Or we are complaining only about ST because it has more range and bigger explosion, therefore all of what I've mention before is a problem for ST alone, but completly fine on AVRE dispite AVRE having its own advantages over ST.

My possition is - I hate both ST and AVRE, but I think its a double standart to complain only about ST, since at least half of the problems ppl mention here apply to AVRE aswell. We objectively dont see AVRE that much only because other UKF commanders are usually much better to pick, while ST commander is not situational. Even in 1v1 221 alone provide OKW with really good AI unit to support Volks and in teamgames its the only way to boost resource income if you dont have Ost as a teammate.

"Campaign?" It was like 20-30 minutes of gameplay where you get to control one of the most famous tanks in the war. And like you alluded to, the rest of the campaign sucked so bad that people got attached to the one story that didn't have all of EAs agenda stapled to it

I'm not sure what you're even saying the rest of the post. You guys can really stop venting now. I want German campaigns too, I'm just telling you why larger American companies don't make them that often

Well you can call it "chapter", doesn't matter. I was saying that when the companies tend to make people think that its a bad manner to make german campaigns\story arcs and a lot of the people think that its wont get financially successful.

While in the reality it all comes to the fact that it forces game devs to think out of the box in order to create a story. Since if for allies you can always slap a generic "heroic" story line, where the main difference between game would be the locations it takes place and for soviets you can slap "enemy of the gate" clone story wise, for german side its much harder.

You cant make a game with the "play as heroic germans shooting dump allies", it would be a bad taste. You cant make a game with "play as germans and commit warcrimes" because it would be even worst taste (but for soviets its acceptable for some reason).

Therefore devs actually have to create something half-decent in a story department, which more of often then not players will actually really like. But it takes at least some efford and if executed poorly you can end up in a shit storm like soviets in coh2 did.

In other words we dont see playble germans in the games more often exclusively because whole SP contenten became a gimmic. Its not like it costs more or some might no like it or be offended, its just the fact that game companies dont have any reasoning behind creating something decent story-wise, since games are sold for MP most of the times these days. They just slap generic campaigns, say that their games have SP content in them and they are good to go.

And back in days of first MoH and CoDs this whole concept of "heroic ww2 action movie", wasnt overused and it was alright, but decades later game companies just continue to use this formula which is not working since we saw it 10000 times over.