MG42 / Browning balancing suggestions.

[Warhawks97]

Does no one here understand the point of a Control Test? No one? I was just proving that one in 3 rounds will penetrate a tiger frontally from max range.

And Warhawks, go stick it, your a tosser and I hate reading your cringeworthy posts, I don't care what pour out of you next, your uncivilized and you have a confirmation bias.

The fact I even wasted my time on you, shows I had nothing better to do, but not anymore, I could just disregard everything you say instead of reading your pollution.

i really dont get your point. I dont know what you are doing here. Srsly you just came to forum to rage but you NEVER every give any consturctive suggestions or anything. In every post you just rage, insult etc. I am just saying my opinion and others give theirs to the subject. Just you make a pointless post under each of my saying how much you hate me. I am glad that the are people out there which hate me. I forgot that feeling But keep going. I enjoy:D And what are you talking about attitude problems? ... nvm. Maybe do some sport and enjoy the sun. It helps to get happy. At least i enjoy the sunny days after that long nasty winter we had here. Its really interesting how much anger and hate people can bring into forums like this one. Just stop it here and try to write some stuff about the game here. Your test thing is simply something that never happens. I mean in normal pvp conditions is stuff arround like schrecks/zooks, paks, reccons, and view range, and lots of other stuff. Thats why this test thing you did isnt realistic. Dont forget that tiger gets flank speed with vet 1 which enables them to act a bit like a tank hunter making shots and escape quickly.

It's very well known that the 76 is damn weird, the most fking random gun in performance over the whole game currently! Sometimes they can just one shot one kill Pz4s and even Tigers.. while other times they struggle penetrating Stugs... This is something we all are used to see and not a surprising thing anymore

That points it out. But lottery guns is nothing a general (in this case player as commander of the army in game) wants in his army.

[V13dweller]

Exactly!? What am I doing here? You have won, that's it! I am FINALLY LEAVING! You happy now? Good bye, as of now, I am leaving this forum.

And if you had read all of my posts on this forum and the previous one, you'd know I have created enough constructive critism, and by what you just said, proves your maturity.

If Wolf ever reads this, you can de-activate my account, and add my name back to the pool.

Final Statement: If anyone wants to hear from me, find me on the http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php here, are forum in which other like minded people such as myself congregate, and from there you can find my steam account.
And if you play Silent Hunter 5 you will be able to find the mods I have created.

Good day.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I don't know really what is ur problem! And btw u have said that u r leaving these forums like 100 times now already But u always came back then again and again!! LOL. I am not defending Hawks points, but just need to know if there are any possible suggestions maybe considering any subject?! xD

[Tony_Frost]

Well, the MG42 had a higher rate of fire than the Allies HMGs in real life as it's probably regarded to be one of the best Machine guns ever built... And btw, both the US 30.cal and the Brits Vickers 'suppression' seem to be much buffed since 486! But hey Tony.. ur claim about that all US units are crap here is surely just a mislead.

I should admit that last two patches made AB and Tank US docs more playable then before, thanks to developers. But the main reason of my (and others) "Crappy US units" messages is -

The justification is that axis cost more than allis (US 270 mp/15 ammo and brits 300/15 and axis 350/30). Its approx 30% more expensive but more than twice as deadly.

Indeed, US positioned like spam fraction, with bad but cheap units. But, just like warhawks said, US unit cost not reflect their true effectiveness, and US MG and 60mm Mortar - clear example of that discrepancy.

[Wake]

Indeed, US positioned like spam fraction, with bad but cheap units. But, just like warhawks said, US unit cost not reflect their true effectiveness, and US MG and 60mm Mortar - clear example of that discrepancy.

Another issue is that a key part of this game is veterancy. Axis units are so strong that they are able to get veterancy quite quickly. But allied units with veterancy are less common, simply because they are weaker. How many times has a squad of retreating riflemen or 101st been killed? All the time.

Let's say for example a ranger squad with 3 men throws a grenade at the enemy then retreats. The grenade kills some some axis units, giving the rangers vet 1. But the ranger squad has to retreat through an MG42! Goodbye, vet 1 ranger squad. They are not making it back to base alive.

Now let's put a PE panzergrenadier squad in the same situation. With 3 men, they throw their grenade and retreat and get vet 1. But their retreat path crosses through a US 30 cal MG! This is no problem - the panzergrenadier squad might lose 1 man from the MG but it will surely be back at base again and come back deadlier than before because of their veterancy.

The most glaring example used to be with Knights Cross before they were removed. Because those guys did not die, and it was nearly impossible to kill the entire squad, you would see vet 3 and vet 4 KCH all the time, even if you were killing lots of the individual soldiers. It was because the KCH would always survive the retreat back to base with their veterancy.

In summary, axis units are more likely to stay alive longer, which gives them veterancy, compared to allied units, who will lack vet because they are dying all the time. There is even another impact to this, in that the allies would have to keep buying weapons for their squads, such as thompsons for new rangers, because the old ranger squad died.

[Warhawks97]

Indeed, US positioned like spam fraction, with bad but cheap units. But, just like warhawks said, US unit cost not reflect their true effectiveness, and US MG and 60mm Mortar - clear example of that discrepancy.

Another issue is that a key part of this game is veterancy. Axis units are so strong that they are able to get veterancy quite quickly. But allied units with veterancy are less common, simply because they are weaker. How many times has a squad of retreating riflemen or 101st been killed? All the time.

Let's say for example a ranger squad with 3 men throws a grenade at the enemy then retreats. The grenade kills some some axis units, giving the rangers vet 1. But the ranger squad has to retreat through an MG42! Goodbye, vet 1 ranger squad. They are not making it back to base alive.

Now let's put a PE panzergrenadier squad in the same situation. With 3 men, they throw their grenade and retreat and get vet 1. But their retreat path crosses through a US 30 cal MG! This is no problem - the panzergrenadier squad might lose 1 man from the MG but it will surely be back at base again and come back deadlier than before because of their veterancy.

The most glaring example used to be with Knights Cross before they were removed. Because those guys did not die, and it was nearly impossible to kill the entire squad, you would see vet 3 and vet 4 KCH all the time, even if you were killing lots of the individual soldiers. It was because the KCH would always survive the retreat back to base with their veterancy.

In summary, axis units are more likely to stay alive longer, which gives them veterancy, compared to allied units, who will lack vet because they are dying all the time. There is even another impact to this, in that the allies would have to keep buying weapons for their squads, such as thompsons for new rangers, because the old ranger squad died.

In late game i do see airborne on vets. But thats due to the fact that in late game the vet 1 upgrade boosts double. it first boosts each AB squad and then the HQ squad which then gives better leader bonus by default. Same goes for Stormtoopers of BK doc. Vet 1 upgrade boosts double when using leader squad. Ive never ever had a vet 5 ranger squad (sometimes vet 5 rifles due to extensive use of rifle nade+captain). In my games with stomtrooper its almost sure to have at least one squad vet 5 (and usually the leader squad as well). In a single game i somtimes get 3 times a leader squad (losing some to lucky one hit arty strikes) on vet 5. But as you talk about vet i also get my volks vet 3 once i give them a single MG34 usually.

But yeah, currently i see almost only AB ranger as allied unit receiving vet 5 but even that is a rare thing. Does anyone know why inf doc ranger get not vet 1 after vet upgrade? and which buffs they get except new abilities... I am just curious now. Coz all other docs and factions have their inf on vet 1 after vet upgrade (Bk doc, luft, AB, RE combat sappers, PE Th doc AT squads just inf not for rangers. Not even for the very expensive infiltration rangers).