Profile of Katitof

I keep on hoping someone will spot a recent ninja so that we know the game is still supported....

There is war spoils alpha ongoing and there is balance patch on the way.... we're having ESL and 10k active players daily with 5k peak time.

That is couple of times MORE then some MMOs.

CoH2 playerbase is BIGGER then Planetside 2 playerbase on PC.

There is not a single thing indicating any logical reason to stop or even slow the support for CoH.

We might not see another faction or big expansion, but that isn't exactly a bad thing.

HELL, friggin DoW2 just got 2 DLCs recently, one cosmetic and one playable and how old that game is?

Stop being naive and succumbing to rumors.

Tank hunter commander, get 6 cons with all PTRS

Blob said conscripts


Problem solved


But in all seriousness despite the nerf to conscript PTRSs a while back, they're still useful in my opinion.

If only
Sadly, relic dropped nerf B-17 on it some time ago and that PTRS is not good for anything, basically, its AI efficiency is similar to dual zooks. 15% long range accuracy before all the rec acc modifiers which ALL axis infantry gets means its useless weapon for long range and because of its one year aim time, its useless in med to short range as well with current accuracy values.

It was nerfed mainly because it made cons viable and it destroyed team weapons, but that no longer is a case and upgrade, just like pretty much ALL older eastern armies "once good, nowadays useless" abilities, it was forgotten.

I did tried using them somewhere in January, it went beyond horrible, the upgrade is utterly useless now.
Vet3 rec acc though makes ppsh barely usable, so there is that.

Absurd.

Do you have any idea that soviet early game pretty much revolves around the maxim?

Cons have no non-doctrinal weapons, and will get slaughtered by grenadiers with MG42s.

Also, MG42 is already better than the maxim. It has the best MG special ability while maxim gets a useless sprint.

And in case you didn't notice, MG42 has a much higher fire rate, and german mortars are now absurdly more accurate compared to soviet one.

Relic is aware and from what they said, they won't nerfing maxims without buffing something in return.

Relic always intended maxim to be soviet LMG squad with suppression, this is how it ends up.

The only single thing it would achieve is to periodically make scrubs play against pros, nothing more.

just calculate Bofors and pit vs 3isg and a med you see the problem?

OK.
[math]
400mp pit+100/15+280/30 bofors (18 popcap) vs 3x(no idea why you want 3 when 2 are enough, but whatever) 330mp and 200/40 as the first truck is basically free due to starting fuel and bonus menpower.

We have here 780mp and 45 fuel vs, 990mp(which again, I don't know why you insist so hard on 3 ISGs) and 200/40 med truck, but med truck is a tech building and NOT a side cost expansion, so I either need to subtract its cost completely from the comparison or add UKF T2 cost.

Lets ignore mandatory tech cost as neither med truck nor UKF T2 are optional and we'll see them every single game regardless of choices.

As shown by the supply drops, 50 fuel is worth pretty much 200 menpower so 45 will be 180mp.

This leaves us at 780/45 vs 990, which translates to 960 vs 990 mp and that 990 mp is pretty much guaranteed to hardcounter brit investment.

Now, I could recalculate everything with inclusion of tech structures AND UKF engineers(because you can't build emplacements without engies unless you go for one specific doctrine).

Either way, whether you like it or not, brits emplacements will be cleared and OKW will have considerable indirect fire force for the rest of the game. Investment in infantry force will be similar.
[/math]

Conclusion:
You've hardcountered emplacements without investing more then brit had invested in the emplacements.
The only arguable thing left is pop cap comparison, but you'll have 3 mobile light arty pieces and brit will have nothing after that.
Happy now?

Not saying emplacements are healthy or not or discussing their balance, just saying you're wrong.