[Winter Balance Update] UKF Feedback

Ostheer have a sniper that comes much sooner than UKF's. UKF's sniper comes around the time Ostheer would be building their 222, giving it rather a short window to "deal with an MG" (Even shorter if it's immediately countersniped by the Osther sniper)

The UC is... OK as an MG counter, but it's quite vulnerable to being zoned or even outright killed by Grenadiers's fausts, and even by the MG if it enters its arc (Especially if said MG is veterancy one and pops Incendiary rounds). It also ceases to be a threat to your MG when the 222 or PAK hits the field.

UKF also only have a single light vehicle, in the AEC... which kind of isnt an "AI" unit, and isnt really able to "deal with" an MG before itself is dealt with/zoned by a PAK gun, or grenadiers.

None of this, barring the UC (Which is sub-par as has been stated) is useful in the first few minutes, which is when UKF want to be really dealing with an MG, as they desperately want to push off their enemy and dig in quickly. What are YOU smoking?

Ostheer, in comparison, have their own sniper, which can be built from the beginning of the game (Tier 1 is not a real delay), along with a mortar, which can similarly be built from minute one... they also have the vision afforded by their Pioneers, which outranges the opposing MG's vision, allowing them to far more easily bypass an opponent's MG, and prevent their own from being circumvented through Flanking manoeuvres. "Flank it" is not an unique concept to UKF, and honestly they don't do it as well as other armies due to needing to stick to cover.

I had no problems whatsover vs MG and in this game all are countered by each other. It is been this way for so longggg literally years why would this problem only starts now?

I had no problems whatsover vs MG and in this game all are countered by each other. It is been this way for so longggg literally years why would this problem only starts now?

Your anecdotal experience isnt really what balance is based off of, though, is it? UKF have fewer and worse tools to deal with MGs (And opposing indirect) than other factions, this is just a fact.

If the UKF had cheap mortar, the ostheer grenadiers might as well be able to build sandbags

There is little reason for an HMG to have 52 range and to experiment with something it has the potential to create more problem than it will solve.

Asking you to provide reasons for your argument is not picking a fight. It's holding you to the same standard that everybody on this forum is

"Has the potential to create more problem" is the most specific you've gotten about how this ability is going to be unfair. If they just remove the pen bonus from it, then none of things that you would use to force off the Vickers are effected by the ability, and it should be fine

If the UKF had cheap mortar, the ostheer grenadiers might as well be able to build sandbags

What do either of these two things have to do with one another, exactly?

If the UKF had cheap mortar, the ostheer grenadiers might as well be able to build sandbags

And then IS might as well has HEAT grenade to snare too if u re at it

It is not a waste of your time.
Show Spoiler

The decision change the ability from passive to active is weird. Vickers in live is a defensive tool that fits the faction design.

In my book active >>> passive abilities from a game design perspective. The old passive ability was either useless (never used) or was borderline toxic depending on the map/garrison in question. It was kind of cool to synergize them with trenches but more difficult to pull off versus good players. The active ability limits the duration so you can't just chuck the vickers somewhere and have the extra range always on with no micro. Much better.

Your scenario of the extra range being problematic takes a lot of effort. You have to set up a vickers *just* out of range of other HMGs. Then activate the ability/spend munitions and then hope your max range DPS/suppression is enough to turn an engagement in your favor in the time frame of the ability. Out of sheer micro limitations it's more likely players either aren't going to use the ability (looking at you Maxim Vet 1) or will use it defensively when they have sight on an approaching blob/ light vehicle similar to how people use incendiary rounds more often than not. Never mind the fact that if you're spending resources then you would expect to have some sort of advantage for using the ability.

In my book active >>> passive abilities from a game design perspective. The old passive ability was either useless (never used) or was borderline toxic depending on the map/garrison in question. It was kind of cool to synergize them with trenches but more difficult to pull off versus good players. The active ability limits the duration so you can't just chuck the vickers somewhere and have the extra range always on with no micro. Much better.

The bonuses of the passive created little issues exactly because of the limitations of garrison.

Just because there little issues when the limitation where in place does not mean that there will not be issues once these limitation are removed.

The maxim ability works fine and is "historically" correct for a water cooled HMG as vickers is, and something similar can be easily implemented if adjusted to specific weapon so that ability so that Vicker has an active ability instead of passive one.

Your scenario of the extra range being problematic takes a lot of effort. You have to set up a vickers *just* out of range of other HMGs. Then activate the ability/spend munitions and then hope your max range DPS/suppression is enough to turn an engagement in your favor in the time frame of the ability. Out of sheer micro limitations it's more likely players either aren't going to use the ability (looking at you Maxim Vet 1) or will use it defensively when they have sight on an approaching blob/ light vehicle similar to how people use incendiary rounds more often than not. Never mind the fact that if you're spending resources then you would expect to have some sort of advantage for using the ability.

No it does not take allot of effort, one simply uses a unit to spot for the HMG and pushes a button and then is able to cover more area than other HMGs and fire at longer range (7 extra range is not "just" outside of range it significant distance in game). The ability makes the HMG bother better being used both in defense and in even in attack.

The extra no other HMG gets and there is no actual reason given to explain why it is given. The extra range is an experimental change that does not "fix" anything and is there for no apparent reason. There are tested solution that work and no real reason to implement this one.

No it does not take allot of effort, one simply uses a unit to spot for the HMG and pushes a button and then is able to cover more area than other HMGs and fire at longer range (7 extra range is not "just" outside of range it significant distance in game). The ability makes the HMG bother better being used both in defense and in even in attack.

It doesn't take much effort to stop this, especially with mortar smoke finally being fixed

The extra no other HMG gets

Because they get something else...?

and there is no actual reason given to explain why it is given.

"The passive bonus of the Vickers is being changed into a timed ability. This should allow the Vickers's veterancy 1 ability be more useful in the majority of situation."

Vet 1 bonus was too limited, so they changed it

It doesn't take much effort to stop this, especially with mortar smoke finally being fixed


Because they get something else...?


"The passive bonus of the Vickers is being changed into a timed ability. This should allow the Vickers's veterancy 1 ability be more useful in the majority of situation."

Vet 1 bonus was too limited, so they changed it

Changing the vet 1 ability from passive to active fine (not necessary imo but fine) and the extra damage and penetration are already good bonuses.

Having a +7 range bonus is simply uncalled for and no justification is provide for it. It seems more of leftover of the passive than a well though decision that serves a purpose.

There are several other bonuses provided to HMG by active abilities that have been tested and work. There is nothing to justify this experimental extra range bonus that has the potential to cause several issues like making vicker harder to flank and able to fire on other hmg and even bunkers with impunity, while out ranging light vehicles like the 222 and FHT by large margin.

The maxim ability works fine and is "historically" correct for a water cooled HMG as vickers is, and something similar can be easily implemented if adjusted to specific weapon so that ability so that Vicker has an active ability instead of passive one.

historicaly, the British was using vicker for long range indirect fire all the time from evnt ww1 and thet event become the main role of the gun later on in the ww2 when they perfected the method. So, a vet ability allow the vicker to fire with longer range is totally historical accurate and unique more than ever as the brits are the only one doing that sort of thing.

What i will prefer is a toggle second firing mode with increase range but narrower arc and reduce suppression/dmg if needed, so the vicker can be use as a makeshift anti garrison/mg. With both axis faction have easily access to indirect, the vicker can be easily dealed with and smaller ark make it event easier to flank.

Changing the vet 1 ability from passive to active fine (not necessary imo but fine) and the extra damage and penetration are already good bonuses.

Having a +7 range bonus is simply uncalled for and no justification is provide for it. It seems more of leftover of the passive than a well though decision that serves a purpose.

There are several other bonuses provided to HMG by active abilities that have been tested and work. There is nothing to justify this experimental extra range bonus that has the potential to cause several issues like making vicker harder to flank and able to fire on other hmg and even bunkers with impunity, while out ranging light vehicles like the 222 and FHT by large margin.

So it really seems like the only thing we disagree on is which bonus needs to go? Cause I think the pen bonus is what doesn't make sense. Many other MGs with pen bonus abilities have that as the defining trait of the ability, not as an extra which is what this feels like

"Take-aim" doesn't seem to have anything to do with vehicles, and the vet 1 bonus was never about that either. If they remove it I just feel that the options for dealing with a Vickers are good enough even with it's new ability

Mortar smoke improving, indirect accessibility improving for okw. Those + remove the soft AT component of the ability and I think it's fine

historicaly, the British was using vicker for long range indirect fire all the time from evnt ww1 and thet event become the main role of the gun later on in the ww2 when they perfected the method. So, a vet ability allow the vicker to fire with longer range is totally historical accurate and unique more than ever as the brits are the only one doing that sort of thing.

What i will prefer is a toggle second firing mode with increase range but narrower arc and reduce suppression/dmg if needed, so the vicker can be use as a makeshift anti garrison/mg. With both axis faction have easily access to indirect, the vicker can be easily dealed with and smaller ark make it event easier to flank.

Actually, you know what might be better than this active ability, then?

If the Vickers instead got an active "Artillery" AOE ability, with approximately the same functionality as the Bofors' Suppressive Fire volley. This would allow them to suppress an area at range, but avoid any of these supposed "issues" with having a temporary range increase.

It would more closely matching with the "historical" use of the Vickers, and could conceivably be allowed to fire further, and perhaps even through/over shot blockers (Though this would obviously be subject to scrutiny). It also echoes the function of another British unit, the previously mentioned Bofors, but is otherwise very unique among HMGs.

Does the Vickers have an animation/blend that allows it to point "upwards"?

historicaly, the British was using vicker for long range indirect fire all the time from evnt ww1 and thet event become the main role of the gun later on in the ww2 when they perfected the method. So, a vet ability allow the vicker to fire with longer range is totally historical accurate and unique more than ever as the brits are the only one doing that sort of thing.

What i will prefer is a toggle second firing mode with increase range but narrower arc and reduce suppression/dmg if needed, so the vicker can be use as a makeshift anti garrison/mg. With both axis faction have easily access to indirect, the vicker can be easily dealed with and smaller ark make it event easier to flank.

Water cooled HMG able to fire for longer times is also "historically" correct.

So it really seems like the only thing we disagree on is which bonus needs to go?

It seems and so far the only thing I have objected is the extra range.

Cause I think the pen bonus is what doesn't make sense. Many other MGs with pen bonus abilities have that as the defining trait of the ability, not as an extra which is what this feels like

"Take-aim" doesn't seem to have anything to do with vehicles, and the vet 1 bonus was never about that either. If they remove it I just feel that the options for dealing with a Vickers are good enough even with it's new ability

Mortar smoke improving, indirect accessibility improving for okw. Those + remove the soft AT component of the ability and I think it's fine

If you have problem with penetration it is actually indifferent to me.

It seems and so far the only thing I have objected is the extra range.

The range fits the ability and it's just a better but temporary version of what it already has live. Which is the point

If you have problem with penetration it is actually indifferent to me.

Why? That's the part of the ability that is totally unrelated to the original vet 1 bonus. AND it's the part that is actually without explanation

The range fits the ability and it's just a better but temporary version of what it already has live. Which is the point


Why? That's the part of the ability that is totally unrelated to the original vet 1 bonus. AND it's the part that is actually without explanation

The passive bonuses are defensive oriented only extra sight and range.

The active abilities bonuses are both defensive and offensive oriented.

Patch notes explains why they decided to change a passive bonus to active ability, it does not however explain why the specific bonuses where selected.

The passive ability is defensive oriented only.

The active is both defensive and offensive oriented.

And what is wrong with it?
Any other HMG ability can be used offensively and defensively, except for maxim, maxim is eating glue in a corner.