Sick/bored of MG42 -.-

Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2013, 02:49 AMwooof

in your attempt to be clever (like your thread, Patch is problematic. Relic, wtf!!!!) you ended up making no sense. if youre going to say you know math and be condescending you should atleast make your "math" correct. x>y so x*c>y*c.

Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2013, 03:17 AMBabaRoga

My maths is correct

Value of C = 0

Even tho value of X is greater than value of Y, multiply those values by factor C (in this case zero) and you end up with A (x*c) = B (y*c)

Simple math rule, 5 grade stuff

Meaning of this, you are always right with your presentation on code values, sure. Yet using simple subtracting and adding to prove complex thing such as COH2, while dismissing other factors as separate issue and focusing solely on one point, pfff.

Unless you come here with complex equation that takes into account all variables, don't be so sure you have proven anything conclusively and water tight.

BTW, this was directed @ Nullist. You Woof presenting numbers I have no issue with..

Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2013, 03:33 AMwooof

i agree with you though. taking a few stats and trying to prove things with them is silly unless you understand the mechanics behind it.

Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2013, 03:46 AMwooof

ive never denied that. but did you see my post in another thread? of course the mg42 has always had 2/3 the hp of the maxim. it still has 2/3 the effective hp after the change.

Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2013, 03:58 AMakula

the survivability of the MG42 seems fair now

Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2013, 03:52 AMNullist

Why is MG42 squishier?

Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2013, 04:00 AMakula

because the MG42 has a wider firing arc I presume

Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2013, 04:05 AMwooof

mg42:
better close range dps
faster at suppressing at short range
much faster pinning (less difference at long range)
large arc
slower traverse
slow setup
more maneuverable


maxim:
better long range dps
faster at suppressing at long range
much slower pinning
smaller arc
faster traverse
about half the setup time
less maneuverable

Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2013, 04:11 AMNullist

The factors you list can be considered "equal" and mirrors of each other.
But as balanced as those are against each other, none of them explain the 2/3 survival difference.

The problem is, these support weapons (and indeed all units in both armies) face different circumstances and different counters, while appearing at different times from different buildings to fufill not-necessarily identical tasks. You can't just compare them directly.

For example there's the Pak and the Zis. The Pak appears in a tier almost all german players go for, but has to face hard-to-hit T70s, is vulnerable to snipers only if the soviet goes T1, not very useful against Soviet M3s due to snipers in the same tier, fires faster, but has to deal with soviet mortar precision barrage and KV8s, not very useful against Soviet T4 due to long range of SU76/SU85, etc etc. The Zis appears in a tier only some soviet players go for, has a barrage ability, is more survivable, has to face mortar halftracks, has to deal with blitzkrieging Ostwinds, not that vulnerable to Snipers but poor against heavier vehicles, works well with ram/button from Guards/T34s, etc etc.

There are so many factors to consider when looking at the effectiveness of the unit in each role that a simple 6 man versus 4 man survivability question isn't appropriate. It's whether the unit fits into the faction arsenal as a whole.

Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2013, 04:26 AMStrummingbird

Tl:dr- No point comparing the two- compare them in their roles. Survivability differences are there to balance their effectiveness relative to opposing factions, not to grant attribute equality to both sides.

Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2013, 03:40 AMNullist

I take great pains to roll through as many actual, game related variables as possible in my posts.

Claims that "i dont consider the larger picture, the actual ingame situation or variable x, y or z" are misplaced.

I do. I just dont let them trump hard stats, nor derail the topic when they start being contrived.

MG42 is, categorically, squishier, than Maxim.

This is the cold hard status quo atm.

I dont understand why people tie their colons in a knot over "admitting" that, and constantly try to extend somekind of extenuating explanations ontop of that to somehow "justify" it.

MG42s are, categorically, squishier, than Maxims.
If people cant "admit" even that much, what fucking hope is there for balance.

Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2013, 04:33 AMNullist

It is not reasonable to state that comparison of the differential in Support weapon crew sizes, is somehow not a valid balance concern or element. It "exists" and is part of the game, and as such is up for and subject to scrutiny as an element of that complex interweb of balance you refer to above, in the same way as is everything else.

You can't just write off the difference.

Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2013, 05:06 AMNullist

Regardless, it leaves the universal situation, that Ost Support Teams are all significantly squishier than their counterparts.

That, in and of itself, is certainly something that needs to be taken into serious account when considering balance of Support units, and their performance of their roles.

Mg42, 81mm and PaK, are all only 2/3 as durable as their Sov counterparts. They are all squishier.

Jump back to quoted post12 Sep 2013, 05:11 AMStrummingbird

Indeed they are. And as long as they aren't under-performing in their roles due to this fact ... , there is no cause for concern.