Buffing cons with dps is a very bad idea as it will lead to con spam. and ignore what katitof is saying because the cons are the most flexible unit in the game having a ton of useful abilities that makes them useful during the entire game.
Merge. This is one single thing that grenadiers can't do better.
Nades? Grens can safely launch theirs from the safety of the cover and without side costs.
AT? Grens are superior here with pfaust haveing much greater penetration and again, with a total side costs of zero.
Oorah you say? Tactical maneuvers I will reply and there is a commander on the way with sprint for all german inf, MGs and mortars including.
Weapon upgrades? Hands down grens win on variety and flexibility here.
And now, as the cherry on the cake, grens can have stun nades and ambush camo.
What can cons do? Repair sometimes. But grens can build themselves defensive/forward reinforcement post.
Sorry, but when it comes to being most flexible, grens outperform cons in that with everything.
Merge is no excuse for anything as merging still forces the squad off the field.
the first issue for the soviets are the weapons profiles. in my opinion lmg's are not over performing its the smg's and assault rifles that are underperforming. both weapon profiles need to be increased to 100 % fotm. this makes shocks and ppsh scripts a lot more viable.
if their is to be a lmg upgrade then it should be the penals that receive them. this prevents spam as penals are not as flexible as the scripts
The only assault rifles are StG44 on axis side and they are far from underperforming given they are still effective at maximum range(more effective then cons mosins by almost 1 DPS given all squad members fire).
Thats like your opinion and as usually you behave like a totally biased ignoramus so im not going to bother replying to it. |
|
Buffing cons with dps is a very bad idea as it will lead to con spam. and ignore what katitof is saying because the cons are the most flexible unit in the game having a ton of useful abilities that makes them useful during the entire game.
the first issue for the soviets are the weapons profiles. in my opinion lmg's are not over performing its the smg's and assault rifles that are underperforming. both weapon profiles need to be increased to 100 % fotm. this makes shocks and ppsh scripts a lot more viable.
if their is to be a lmg upgrade then it should be the penals that receive them. this prevents spam as penals are not as flexible as the scripts |
Sry mate, but I'm gonna have to agree with Kat with this. The OKW panther is better in that it arrives faster and has better stats than its ost counterpart which is a tryhard tank hunter.
Its more accurate no doubt about it. but it doesn't change the fact that this unit is severely overpriced for what it is doing and needs a fuel reduction back to 135 fuel. currently its a only suited as a supbar meat shield but i rather use the sturmtiger for that. |
It's actually the least durable MG in the game due to the fact that all axis units have proportionally higher DPS, to balance againts the higher 6 man squad sizes of soviets.
It's around the durability of a 2.66 man axis team weapon
Nonsense. the highest dps for popcap units in the game are currently the rifleman when fully upgraded. yet the mg's function perfectly against them. if mg's works against upgraded rifleman then 50 cals work against german infantry.
l2p is the only thing i can say about this. If your mg crew is getting shot at it means you have put the mg in a position it should not be. |
Back when they had 25% accuracy buff instead of a 25% recieved accuracy penalty, it was a fine unit. One of the better MGs. But it wasn't a balance issue, or OP. Now it's quite weak.
In what way is it weak? it has the highest burst damage of any of the mg's and you are basically guaranteed a model loss if the 50 call starts firing. is it weak in suppression? nope its the highest suppressor in the game with the largest aoe. mobility ? fuck that its even more mobile then then the maxim. durability? same as the mg 42 or 34 and their is talk to nerf the maxim to 4 man.
the 50 cal is superior to the mg42 or mg34 by a mile. anybody saying this unit is weak is simply nuts. |
Third, MGs are not supposed get hit, ok so I imagine you would be totally fine if rifles or guards could stand in an MG42's field of fire and decrew it faster than they are being suppressed? I did it several times with Obers and Pfusiliers. Your Mgs will get hit so long as your opponent is not comatose. While the Maxim may be too durable, the M2 crew just dies too fast.
You think rifles cannot do that? because they do. and once again your mg's are not supposed to get hit. second part 50 cals performs way better in buildings then the german mg's at its not a liability to put a mg inside a building. |
1- Don´t all support weapons (except AT guns) get increase received accuracy?
2-@Jaigen performance of Rifles shouldn´t be an excuse for performance of HMG. I would rather have people trying other builds rather than 4rifles LT light vehicle.
The standard lt build is going to leave you in serious problem against the puma .the 50 cal is without a doubt the best mg in the game with very high suppression fire power and mobility but it comes at a time where infantry dps increases and it comes without 6 man . so its as frail as any other mg squad. very simply put if the mg42 and 34 functions against the ami's then the 50 cal will also function against the germans.
|
It's a good weapon, but a bit overpriced (280 MP for an MG that comes from T2?) and the crew is just way too fragile. Against Axis superior weapon damage, 4 men with received accuracy penalty just melts. It stops Volks and close-range infantry, but LMG42 grens and anything bigger can usually just outsnipe it.
The MG34 is not a great comparison point since I think it's a bit overpowered. At the very least it needs a price increase.
this is a classic l2p . do you think that the germans have it any easier with the high dps of riflesquads? mg are not supposed to get hit period. |
Yes and thats the rub. Look at this logically though Oz.
A jackson as GREAT as the DPS is isnt as good as a Pak40s.
A Pak 40 can follow a Tiger. It would have even a better effect. Sure it doesnt have the front loaded damage and isnt as fast but the DPS is better.
Jacksons are a HUGE economical risk to follow a Tank but a Pak really isnt.
This is not logical at all. You employ strategies that more are suited to the heavy tank destroyers . m36 are reactionary units behind a wall of rifleman. every time an enemy tank shows up jacksons push them back or destroy them if overextended. you do not ever pursue with a jackson.
The jackson is one of the best TD's in the game. after having plenty of practice with the puma who work along the same line you really need to understand what the jackson can and cannot due because fuck ups are not tolerated. |
This is a fairly good illustration of why the Puma is too good though.
It comes before all enemy tech and handles everything that the allies tend to tech towards.
Soviet Tier 3: Counters the M5 Halftrack, counters the T-70, soft-counters the T-34.
Soviet Tier 4: Hard counters the SU-76. One of the most ideal units to pick off a Katyusha due to speed, smoke, vision range and accuracy. One of the best flankers against an SU-85.
For the US Forces it's much the same. It hard counters everything in LT tech, has a hefty advantage over the Stuart and soft-counters all of Major tech. Even something such as the Jackson vs the Puma can come down to a coinflip of accuracy and flanking.
It always will appear before any armor that does show up and it's veterancy scales it up to a ridiculous degree.
There's no reason to not rush out a Puma. That's problematic.
So you are saying that a tank destroying is not supposed to destroy tanks? |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
