Profile of Imagelessbean

You sir, are wrong. Here is why:

Maxim Weight: 27kg
MG42 Weight: 12kg

Additionally, if you look at the articles above, the MG42 had a 3 man crew, whereas the Maxim had a 4 man crew.

I feel slightly obligated to defend my quote. First I never said the Maxim was lighter, a water cooled MG is almost by default heavier than an air cooled gun. In fact I noted that the maxim was heavy. However, a 12kg gun is still quite heavy. You also should note that Germans used metal linkers in their MG belts, significantly adding to the operating weight of the gun and the amount of weight required to be carried. This had the benefit of limiting gun jams however. In contrast, the maxim relied on cloth belts, which can jam more easily, but are very light. Just looking at the raw weight of the gun is also misleading because the RoF of the MG42 required more rounds to be carried (again more weight). Therefore, in battle situations the weight of both guns is actually not as far off as you might think.

My comment that Maxims can fire near constantly was written to mean that given enough ammo a maxim can fire a whole belt, sorry if that wasn't clear. Feel free to watch videos online of this exact thing, it does not mean that if you attached an infinite belt you could fire forever. Certainly the gun would jam at some point, in fact gun jams are fairly common. The maxim really was made to hold the trigger down and sweep across an arc. However, firing 200 or 300 rounds is quite different from the MG42 which was fired by tapping the trigger occasionally. Even with a tap you would still fire 10's of bullets at a time.

In addition to this, the word outdated makes little sense. The maxim performed its job extremely efficiently. While it was not able to function in the role of the MG42, it had another role. It was also very easy to produce since it was already mass produced. Whether it was from a prior age or not, the maxim proved effective throughout the war. Soviet doctrine almost required a weapon be effective or its production would be halted and shifted to more important projects (aka T70 and KV series). If just the time of development was important, than the 88mm was outdated; it was designed and built long before the war began. If you are talking about technological leaps, maybe, but who cares? In war if something functions then use it. If you want to talk about dated, look at the Kar98. Where do you think the 98 comes from? It is from the predecessor to this rifle, and very very similar, developed in 1898.

For 30 munitions you might kill models and you might damage a tank engine, but you definitely prevent your enemy from moving around the battlefield as they wish. This has huge ramifications, it means they cannot afford to push without sweepers. It means they have to carefully micro tanks around roads and obvious mine areas.

30 munitions is a fair price for these powerful tools.

So as lead strategist you'd vet this being used in tournaments? This issue is apparently not well known to those writting WBP as when mentioned one member was completely unaware this is possible.

For this units ability to instantly kill so much from fog of war, its more than worth to shift click 3 mines at 15 min+ and just wait til 11cp retreat anything that can detonate the mine and leave again with two sturms. For 160 fuel a piece its hilarious.

Ive been aware of the exploit since OKW release and you may not see it so but COH.org staff label doesn't mean you fan just say its ok and its gone. Its an issue, easy to do and should get a fix.

Yes I would vet balance through tournaments. I really don't care if you can get 5 ST's in a 3v3 or 4v4 searching against randoms. I do care if I see a bug or exploit that causes games to be thrown in a tournament setting.

For 160 fuel it is not hilarious, it is risky. If a player manages to stockpile 320 fuel against you, you have a problem. And that problem is either a KT or a JT or a ST. If that player can also afford to sit it out and give up effectively 4 squads of volks or 2 squads of obers for 5 minutes while you pull off this stunt, then congrats, you gave them the game.

I find it hard to believe the WBP team did not realize you could decrew a ST by exploding a mine. While I cannot demonstrate this, a passing comment of, "Oh well we didn't realize you could force the decrew with double mines and a shrek shot" is far from being unaware of ST decrew. You also showed in your video how difficult this actually was since it took multiple shots many times.

You really haven't demonstrated to me why this particular mechanic is not working as intended. You have submitted no games that were thrown because of this, you cannot cite a tournament play in which this happened, and you yourself demonstrated it in the context of cheat mod. Your assertion that this unit never reloads close to the frontline is the result of being vulnerable to decrew. People don't reload it close to the line or they may give up a huge tank. Removing this vulnerability would mean it would reload far too quickly because the developers consider time to move as part of the "cooldown" on the shots. I don't make law here, but I do call for a little more from posters before they claim "bug".

The stupid idea behind the ST is that it wipes squads as its role, and this in a game about unit preservation. I don't see many ways to solve this, and if it was up to me the unit would be removed from the game. I feel similarly about the AVRE, although at least this unit can be avoided by infantry to a degree.

Ok again, this is not a bug or exploit. Words matter.

This is a weakness, and if you can aford to spend the mirco, I guess a way to summon 2 ST's at a time. Again, this really doesn't happen in any serious game though. No one can float enough MP and fuel to double their ST's.

What you are asking for is a buff to the ST, remove threat of abandon while reloading, which would be extremely problematic, since it could reload very close to the front line.

I don't mind taking about the ST, I think it is one of the stupidest unit concepts ever produced for the COH series, Roo's you still hold top spot, but this is silly. You have a view which you are trying to push and you won't take any insight into why your complaint is not valid as written.

Great, an ancient piece of shit beats something that's clearly superior and made 30 years later.

The potato masher beats Hitler's buzzsaw, it's like communist heaven.

Disregarding that this is indeed a game, the MG42 had significant weaknesses in areas where the maxim had strengths and vice versa.

While the MG42 had a RoF that was literally stunning, it could not fire continuously. It also required barrel reloads and a large heavy gun. This was further compounded by the need for numerous team members to operate the gun. It was however superb at its job, suppression.

The maxim, while heavy, was able to fire almost constantly as long as ammo was available. It was therefore far more effective as an automatic rifle, able to lay fairly accurate rounds on target for long periods. It was designed to sweep back and forth, effectively forever so it could mow down advancing waves of humans, aka WWI battles. It was generally reliable and easy to make so it was useful.

While these two guns are technically MG's they function in very different roles in the battlefield. The 42 is technologically a jump from the Maxim, but both guns have very potent impact when used correctly. After WWII the introduction of large scale semi automatic and automatic rifles make the maxim redundant.