[Axis] StG44 and MP40 representation in this game

2»

Comments

  • #32
    1 year ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,662
    edited March 2017

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @Vipper said:
    If you want to to compare the conscript PPsh and Thompson you have to keep in mind that the Thompson is about X1,8 better than PPsh at range up to 10 and about X6 times better at range 20.

    I'm comparing their cost-effectiveness, not their overall performance. Ppsh cons can be easily spammed and its a solid upgrade that's easy t get. It also comes on a squad that can sprint.

    Then you should be comparing area of dps curve of the original weapon to the area of the upgrade weapon.

    Smgs Paras is very strong unit the only reason you do not see more of them is that riflemen are op.

  • #33
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… At TenagraPosts: 2,063
    edited March 2017

    @Vipper said:
    Smgs Paras is very strong unit the only reason you do not seem more of them is that riflemen are op.

    Speak for yourself, Airborne is my most used commander. Getting a little tired of everyone just blanket-stating that things don't appear in game because they don't see them. Not everyone who plays USF spams rifles.

  • #34
    1 year ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    I can say wholeheartedly I don't spam rifles, I just love the 50.cal far too much not to include a couple in my forces.

    However that doesn't mean to say that I don't recognise that rifles are Op in the sense that they are far more cost-effective that any of the USF elites, being able to easily do their jobs to almost the same efficiency but in a far more reliable way due to access to both a snare and smoke, whilst being far cheaper, lower bleed and upkeep whilst being more numerous.

    Why would any player really rely on paratroopers? Rifles have much better vet rewards, far more flexible as the smoke and snare allows them to handle anything from light vehicles and mgs all the way to tanks with a couple zooks.

    Don't get me wrong paratroopers are a great unit, durable, excellent weapon upgrades and free grenades. But they are overall overshadowed by rifles.

    As for the thompsons, just a slight range nerf would probably be enough, seeing them engage at assualt rifle range and deal consistent damage when units like ass-grens and shocks have to basically be on top of their enemies to do anything more than tickle them is kinda disheartening, pushing them back in line with other cqc troops would be a better idea. Its that or a flat damage reduction so that thompsons fall somewhere between smg and assualt rifle, more consistent damage at range but not as potent up close.

  • #35
    1 year ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,662
    edited March 2017

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @Vipper said:
    Smgs Paras is very strong unit the only reason you do not seem more of them is that riflemen are op.

    Speak for yourself, Airborne is my most used commander. Getting a little tired of everyone just blanket-stating that things don't appear in game because they don't see them. Not everyone who plays USF spams rifles.

    Most used commanders are Calliope and heavy cavalry. Is any of this relevant to the topic at hand which is about St44 and MP40?

  • #36
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… At TenagraPosts: 2,063

    @Vipper said:
    Most used commanders are Calliope and heavy cavalry. Is any of this relevant to the topic at hand which is about St44 and MP40?

    You said no one sees paras. I call them in all the time, it's my most used commander. How can you say no one uses them but that they are OP?

    Also where is this rule of SMGs cant behave like assault rifles coming from? That sounds like a realism based argument, because as far as coh2 Thompsons are concerned, they cost more to upgrade to than STGs on Obers OR Volks, and the squad is only 20mp less than the former, 130mp more than the latter.

  • #37
    1 year ago

    Leave airborne alone. Its strafes are a bit lacking right now so they deserve some excellent infantry. I have nothing against it. Heavy Cav should take a nerf. Totally agree that rangers should be scraped or nerfed.

  • #38
    1 year ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,662
    edited March 2017

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @Vipper said:
    Most used commanders are Calliope and heavy cavalry. Is any of this relevant to the topic at hand which is about St44 and MP40?

    You said no one sees paras. I call them in all the time, it's my most used commander. How can you say no one uses them but that they are OP?

    Also where is this rule of SMGs cant behave like assault rifles coming from? That sounds like a realism based argument, because as far as coh2 Thompsons are concerned, they cost more to upgrade to than STGs on Obers OR Volks, and the squad is only 20mp less than the former, 130mp more than the latter.

    I said Paras are strong (not OP) but they are not used too much because Riflemen are OP.

    When relic created the weapon profiles Smgs profile was designed to have close range DPS and low mid far DPs, it is not rule it is a design decision that come with patch after the March 2014 patch.

    This thread is still about Mp40 and Mp44.

  • #39
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… At TenagraPosts: 2,063
    edited March 2017

    @Vipper said:
    When relic created the weapon profiles Smgs profile was designed to have close range DPS and low mid far DPs, it is not rule it is a design decision that come with patch after the March 2014 patch.

    Oh you mean the patch before they even added WFA and the Brits, when we had less than half of the weapon profiles we now do. Gotcha.

  • #40
    1 year ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,662
    edited March 2017

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @Vipper said:
    When relic created the weapon profiles Smgs profile was designed to have close range DPS and low mid far DPs, it is not rule it is a design decision that come with patch after the March 2014 patch.

    Oh you mean the patch before they even added WFA and the Brits, when we had less than half of the weapon profiles we now do. Gotcha.

    We have the same weapon profiles now that we have then:
    That would be:
    Lmgs
    Bolt action rifles
    carbine rifles (semi auto)
    assault rifles
    smgs
    Pistols

    USF OKW and UKF mainline infantry follow the basic rules of these weapons profiles. USF, OKW units especially have been balanced with weapon profiles and relative positioning in mind. (exception being the VG ST44 that have been added allot later)

  • #41
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… At TenagraPosts: 2,063
    edited March 2017

    @Vipper said:
    We have the same weapon profiles now that we have then:
    That would be:
    Lmgs
    Bolt action rifles
    carbine rifles (semi auto)
    assault rifles
    smgs
    Pistols

    Yes, we do have the same "types of guns". My point is that what's wrong with an SMG swinging above its profile if it is on a more expensive squad that requires an upgrade (comparing to pgrens)? The profile changes were introduced when their were far fewer units on the field to balance around, things have changed quite a bit since then.

    If tommy upgrade needs to be nerfed, it's among several other weapon upgrades that need to go down. It's one of the most expensive, and it's on a 380mp squad that is the pinnacle of it's doctrine. Rangers are just another topping on the absurd pizza that is heavy cav. They wouldn't be missed by anyone who actually plays US for more than the Pershing.

  • #42
    1 year ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,662
    edited March 2017

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    Yes, we do have the same "types of guns". My point is that what's wrong with an SMG swinging above its profile if it is on a more expensive squad that requires an upgrade (comparing to pgrens)? The profile changes were introduced when their were far fewer units on the field to balance around, things have changed quite a bit since then.

    If tommy upgrade needs to be nerfed, it's among several other weapon upgrades that need to go down. It's one of the most expensive, and it's on a 380mp squad that is the pinnacle of it's doctrine. Rangers are just another topping on the absurd pizza that is heavy cav. They wouldn't be missed by anyone who actually plays US for more than the Pershing.

    Its not "types of guns" its "weapons profiles". And weapon profiles is there so that someone can estimate the best range to use his weapons against another squad without having to memorize all DPS curves.

    There are 2 issues with SMGs "swinging above its profile".
    DPS curve and relative positioning. I suggested you read the September patch for getting a better idea why Relic introduced weapon profiles and relative positioning. There is also a chart (that is actually missing from the notes) that could prove helpful

  • #43
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,430
    Well, everything relic says IS set in stone right? Now lets talk more about that pershing commander....
  • #44
    1 year ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,662
    edited March 2017

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    Well, everything relic says IS set in stone right? Now lets talk more about that pershing commander....

    No it is not set in stone, but weapons profiles and relatives positioning are some of the best concepts introduced by Relic that improve light arms fight and should be followed when possible.

    And I am simply responding to question addressed to me.

    Finally this thread is not actually about the Pershing commander it is about axis weapons (MP40&MP44) and we should go back on topic instead of talking about Thompson and Rangers.

  • #45
    1 year ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,430
    edited March 2017
    @vipper it was a great idea, but even in implementation initially it was half assed because of high rec acc. This is the problem with grens, doesnt matter if yoy are in green cover and up gunned there are allied units that can pretend your weapon profiles are nonexistant and press theirs. In order for weapon profiles to ACTUALLY work the cover system and vets need reworked. If o can walk across an open field reliably to get to close range where you are disadvantaged where was your advantage?

    And my comment about the pershing was to highlight that even when relic is firm on something it doesnt mean anything.(granted im sure they intended to release a pershing commander anyways but as a "wooo check it out!" But forum whining coupled with their hard no makes them look like knobs)
  • #46
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… At TenagraPosts: 2,063
    edited March 2017

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    And my comment about the pershing was to highlight that even when relic is firm on something it doesnt mean anything.(granted im sure they intended to release a pershing commander anyways but as a "wooo check it out!" But forum whining coupled with their hard no makes them look like knobs)

    @Vipper this. Not everything is off-topic just because it references other elements of the game. And for the love of God stop getting hung up on my word choice. Also, we are discussing thompsons to compare them to STGs. Rangers have thompsons. It's not off-topic.

  • #47
    1 year ago
    le12role12ro Posts: 2,257 mod

    [Moderator Input] No need for moderation here, mentioning Pershings isn't bringing a discussion topic off the track.

  • #48
    1 year ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,662
    edited March 2017

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    @vipper it was a great idea, but even in implementation initially it was half assed because of high rec acc. This is the problem with grens, doesnt matter if yoy are in green cover and up gunned there are allied units that can pretend your weapon profiles are nonexistant and press theirs. In order for weapon profiles to ACTUALLY work the cover system and vets need reworked. If o can walk across an open field reliably to get to close range where you are disadvantaged where was your advantage?

    And my comment about the pershing was to highlight that even when relic is firm on something it doesnt mean anything.(granted im sure they intended to release a pershing commander anyways but as a "wooo check it out!" But forum whining coupled with their hard no makes them look like knobs)

    The implementation was correct and that is why most units are still balanced although they have not been touched since.

    Most units that are not fine are the one that where touched afterward like Penal receiving a X2 DPS at long range or VG getting MP44. The other issues where mostly doctrinal like being able to double equip LMG.

    Vetting bonus and vet abilities is different chapter that needs to be looked at urgently and rather irrelevant to weapon profiles and relative positioning.

    [removed]

  • #49
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… At TenagraPosts: 2,063
    edited March 2017

    [removed]

    I've read all the patch notes. Without just saying profiles, give me a gameplay reason there's a problem with a 380mp 90muni squad doing much better at close range and a bit better at medium than a 340mp squad with no upgrade cost for that role.

  • #50
    1 year ago
    VipperVipper Posts: 3,662

    This is another case where WFA weapon need to be toned down to EFA levels and not the other way round.

  • #51
    1 year ago
    ImperialDaneImperialD… Posts: 2,785 mod

    I dunno, the problem is that none of the MP40s are upgrades which rather makes them trickier to balance, also factor in that Assault Grenadiers are kinda good, and will be better with the balance update. Pioneers are in a tricky spot. Some sort of Assault Pioneer Upgrade that buffs their accuracy and gives them grenades but they then lose the ability to repair maybe.

    Similarly Panzergrenadiers are pretty solid and Stormtroopers with Tactical Advance are godlike.

    So for the Wehrmacht, it's less straightforward and i overall don't think there is much to change there.

    For the OKW the Sturmpioneers with their STG44s are definately trickier to define. I'd probably remove their assault rifles, give them Assault Grenadier class MP40s or slightly better. Then Have the STG44 as an upgrade that then has a better performance than what they get currently. That way it should be more manageable in terms of balancing

  • #52
    1 year ago

    You have to ask why in this game the BAR (from 1918) is like an assault rifle with the on-the-move accuracy it has :s When it was actually used as a 'portable' light machine gun similar to LMG42. Though it was incredibly heavy, cumbersome, inaccurate - most would ditch the bipod to save weight.

    Average lifespan of a BAR user was 30 minutes apparantly. Relic should also implement this balance feature into the game. Jokes.

  • #53
    1 year ago

    @SquishyMuffin said:
    You have to ask why in this game the BAR (from 1918) is like an assault rifle with the on-the-move accuracy it has :s When it was actually used as a 'portable' light machine gun similar to LMG42. Though it was incredibly heavy, cumbersome, inaccurate - most would ditch the bipod to save weight.

    Average lifespan of a BAR user was 30 minutes apparantly. Relic should also implement this balance feature into the game. Jokes.

    This is exactly the point I use to refute the claim that BAR is worse than LMG42. BARs can be fired on the move with decent accuracy, while the 42 obviously cannot.

  • #54
    1 year ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… At TenagraPosts: 2,063

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    This is exactly the point I use to refute the claim that BAR is worse than LMG42. BARs can be fired on the move with decent accuracy, while the 42 obviously cannot.

    Only thing making the BAR better is that you can put 2 of them on a squad. LMG42 is a great upgrade, it's only overshadowed by double lmg upgrades on the allies, which yes were OP in the case of m1919s, but you did need to spend 140 muni to get that.

    Difference in squad survivability between east-west is the primary reason for any of those disparities. Grens don't get any received accuracy until vet 3, so they're more vulnerable whereas rifles get some a vet 2 and 3.

  • #55
    1 year ago

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    @1ncendiary_Rounds said:
    This is exactly the point I use to refute the claim that BAR is worse than LMG42. BARs can be fired on the move with decent accuracy, while the 42 obviously cannot.

    Only thing making the BAR better is that you can put 2 of them on a squad. LMG42 is a great upgrade, it's only overshadowed by double lmg upgrades on the allies, which yes were OP in the case of m1919s, but you did need to spend 140 muni to get that.

    Difference in squad survivability between east-west is the primary reason for any of those disparities. Grens don't get any received accuracy until vet 3, so they're more vulnerable whereas rifles get some a vet 2 and 3.

    On paper, the 42 is better but when the USF infantry spends quite a bit of time closing in on targets, on the move damage is very important and very underrated in the eyes of everyone. It also allows for riflemen to run down low health retreating squads better than lmg grens.

2»
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.