[WM] MG42

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[smurfORnot]

(P.S. had dozens of vet 2 and vet 3 MG42s in my Heavy support coy back in the day).

those were the days,hoppe they get it back! mg with elite armor,focus fire,mp44 and better medikit <3 <3 <3

[TheIcelandicManiac]

those were the days,hoppe they get it back! mg with elite armor,focus fire,mp44 and better medikit <3 <3 <3

man i hated focus fire, allmost nobody i met used it but when they made a burst of suppress rounds and then instant kill rounds it was just crule.

[skaffa]

Essentially what I see skaffa's problem to be is that MG42s are hard to vetwhore.

Well... So are Flamer Engies. Doesn't mean they're a shit unit either.

Who said they were a shit unit. Fail flame bait.

[TheIcelandicManiac]

Who said they were a shit unit? Fail flame bait.

fixed

[Mysthalin]

Well if you don't find them shit.. Then why the thread? What do you even SUGGEST to do with the HMG42? It's already cheap as nails.

[skaffa]

Well if you don't find them shit.. Then why the thread?

I didnt make the thread to constantly argue with you.

[NightRain]

Well if you don't find them shit.. Then why the thread? What do you even SUGGEST to do with the HMG42? It's already cheap as nails.

Why the thread...I begun to wonder myself if mg42 is perfectly fine.

[skaffa]

Why the thread...I begun to wonder myself if mg42 is perfectly fine.

Who said it was perfectly fine, I didnt.
I'll say what I think to make it clear. I think the MG itself is fine, but that it should be able to survive out on the battlefield a bit longer. I think that microing it good should be rewarded better, but a 3 man squad is easily picked off by many things. I think most people do agree on this, but if not we can also fully discuss that. (getting vet 3 on a MG is only mentioned by me as an illustration, and yes I have also had vetted MGs, but they are also easy to lose)

I made the thread to 1) discuss the MG, 2) see what other peoples views are, 3) to see if other people recognise what Im saying (some do, some dont). A open free discussion without people hating or flaming etc. or only wanting to see their own view, but post like this 'I will forever laugh at anyone that claims HMGs(any) are in any way underpowered.' are not really helpfull to the discussion, imo, but ye thats up to that person. I would like to know what other people think and read other views apart from my own. Maybe I read interesting things that change my view. Thats the reason(s) why I post a/this thread. I like to do that first before I come to a conclusion, if it should be changed at all or not. Thats the first step.
After that, if Im not the only one feeling this way, we can go on to discussing potential changes, and then I would post some ideas I might have. I dont know yet if I fully agree with the things Im thinking about either, so I dont have a set change Im 100% sure of that I would like to see. If I post a specific change suggestion chances are also high people will totally focus on that and ignore the reasoning behind it. They respond to the idea/change being bad or good instead of the views behind it. For example some people focus on the veterancy illustration which is just a small aspect off what my point is. Maybe another example will present itself by the way some people might reply to this post.

[cloud234]

I made the thread to 1) discuss the MG, 2) see what other peoples views are, 3) to see if other people recognise what Im saying (some do, some dont). A open free discussion without people hating or flaming etc. or only wanting to see their own view, but post like this 'I will forever laugh at anyone that claims HMGs(any) are in any way underpowered.' are not really helpfull to the discussion, imo, but ye thats up to that person. I would like to know what other people think and read other views apart from my own. Maybe I read interesting things that change my view. Thats the reason(s) why I post a/this thread. I like to do that first before I come to a conclusion, if it should be changed at all or not. Thats the first step.

You actually started off the thread saying they aren't cost efficient and this thread is in the balance forum. People would be led to think they are UP you know...

If you post it in the Suggestions part I'm sure you'll yield a different reply because I think this is more along the lines of redesigning gameplay.

I'll say what I think to make it clear. I think the MG itself is fine, but that it should be able to survive out on the battlefield a bit longer.

A little bit hard... Everyone wants to kill support weapons lol. Sniper, arty and what nots. They are public enemy number 1.

[skaffa]

I said I feel that other units are more cost effective, followed by a reason which is they are hard to keep alive.

Maybe I should post it somewhere else or perhaps its just me and am I used to other methods from other forums. Maybe I was expecting too much.

Either way I think I explained my point and everything extra pretty clearly now, maybe its time to get back on topic or maybe this just isnt really leading anywhere at all.

[sgMisten]

The strengths of the MG42 - or any other support weapon for that matter are 2:

[1] They have much greater firepower / effectiveness than infantry based ones to make up for their directional focus.

MGs vs LMG42 (slower) / BARs (cooldown, more expensive)
Mortars vs Grenades (range, number of uses)
ATGs vs Handheld AT, Tanks (faster RoF, higher range)

[2] They can be recrewed multiple times by a smart player, which increases the cost effectiveness of the support weapon and the basic infantry squad used to recrew it for the fraction of the cost.

It's always been this way and worked even better with the decrew button. If you want to save vet or make the weapon back to full strength, you can just decrew the gun and send fresh meat to recrew it.

In short, I don't agree with Skaffa that the MG42 not worth its cost. However, I can accept that the MG42 could not be cost effective in Skaffa's Point of View because of his playstyle, which seems to favour more fluid combat and hence more mobile weaponry would be better.

[kwiatekkek]

yeah the decrew button could be an awesome addition.

[EliteGren]

Could?

[kwiatekkek]

i duno  it  prolly could.
it certainly would  help  with  keepin  the  veterancy on hmg for instance

[EliteGren]

You mean is. There has been a decrew button on every support weapon for 2 years now.

[kwiatekkek]

lol
forgive my noobness

i didnt get to play too much  with support  weapons anyway
:E

[Heartmann]

why? it's a collapsible hmg speaking irl terms, it should die to one hit by any explosive tbh i think they're all about 150 health. (mortar, hmg's) and its hard to hit them.

Erm Tym I dont know how much experience you have with LMG and HMGs but they are massive weapons, spec during the world war when they where of metal, do you know how much power you need to bend or brake one of those???

[lionel23]

And being hit by a 75mm tank shell I think would snap them... no?  

[3rdCondor]

mg42 is fine as it is

[RoyalHants]

You mean is. There has been a decrew button on every support weapon for 2 years now.

derp