vickers k

and here are Tommies proving your claim false and wining the contact:

i didnt notice this from yesterday but you were using 5man a gren vs 5man section ? As you can see in my test, 5man a gren vs 4man section and 6man a gren vs 5 man section both come out with a gren on top. Given the timing of all those upgrade, you was go for a very not likely to happen in game setup, just to prove me "wrong".

If you thing that R.E. are not good fighting squads I suggest you check tight ropes video playing high level 1vs1 using mobile assault and basically having commands and R.E.R as infatry.

Just because recovery Ro.e can be used as infantry dose not automatically mean stock Ro.E is good fighting unit. These two unit may have similar base stat and vet but RRo.E have a couple of key perks that make them come out on top, namely being 0cp 5 man and have access to smoke nade as well as flamer. Ignore those difference and assuming stock Ro.e's effectiveness by taking RRo.E as example is simply delusional.

Copied from another thread since it seem to suit here better.

It is my opinion that the original concept was bad providing simply more of the same in the form of another LMG the implementation might have fault but that is another story.

Actually I had suggested a different weapons types in the bren/Vickers-k as an implantation of an early hammer/anvil choice that would make the anvil/hammer have added dept.





Yes, keep in mind that officer get 1 Vickers K stock and can upgrade to duel Vickers with the M3.


that is inaccurate they get a combat bonus at vet 1


If you thing that R.E. are not good fighting squads I suggest you check tight ropes video playing high level 1vs1 using mobile assault and basically having commands and R.E.R as infatry.



This is where we disagree.

Having unit that are good at certain ranges is good for creating rock/paper/scissors mechanics but but that does not mean that mixing weapon that "do not synergize well" will automatically lead to a weak squad.

For instance, the M1 are mid do close semi automatic rifles (carbines) and M1919 is an LMG that do not synezise "well" together. On the other hand double LMG riflemen proved to be too strong because they had all the advantages of the long range squads without being vulnerable to close combat with the 3 m1. (and there are other examples)

To sum up:

imo the design of weapon with different profiles imo is better than 2 types of LMG that are equal in cost efficiency but one cost more. The implementation is a different story.

(The changes of removing the ability to donate weapons and the easier access to unit where also good changes, since in the old implementation it was a nightmare to balance the m3)

Yeah, because it is too hard to "balance", let just remove the whole point of the doc.

Copied from another thread since it seem to suit here better.

It is my opinion that the original concept was bad providing simply more of the same in the form of another LMG the implementation might have fault but that is another story.

Actually I had suggested a different weapons types in the bren/Vickers-k as an implantation of an early hammer/anvil choice that would make the anvil/hammer have added dept.

I fully agree, two LMGs are fairly redundant. Not necessarily unbalanced, but boring and badly designed. Now we have a weapon that does not really work on your main squad, so it became pretty useless instead of boring.

that is inaccurate they get a combat bonus at vet 1

Technically true. The bonus only applies to their Stens afaik. Putting weapons on them effectively reduces the veterancy bonus. REs don't get any offensive vet combat bonus

If you thing that R.E. are not good fighting squads I suggest you check tight ropes video playing high level 1vs1 using mobile assault and basically having commands and R.E.R as infatry.

As your own post already suggests, nothing in this strategy will work for the special weapons commander, which is the one we are talking about here.

This is where we disagree.

Having unit that are good at certain ranges is good for creating rock/paper/scissors mechanics but but that does not mean that mixing weapon that "do not synergize well" will automatically lead to a weak squad.

For instance, the M1 are mid do close semi automatic rifles (carbines) and M1919 is an LMG that do not synezise "well" together. On the other hand double LMG riflemen proved to be too strong because they had all the advantages of the long range squads without being vulnerable to close combat with the 3 m1. (and there are other examples)

To sum up:

imo the design of weapon with different profiles imo is better than 2 types of LMG that are equal in cost efficiency but one cost more. The implementation is a different story.

(The changes of removing the ability to donate weapons and the easier access to unit where also good changes, since in the old implementation it was a nightmare to balance the m3)

I don't know about the reasoning back then and also the game was surely very different at the time. From what I see, the USF LMG is almost a MG42 clone. Obviously having two of them will give you horrendous firepower, especially on a 5 men squad.
But again, this is missing the point:
A weapon with supposedly high moving accuracy for assaults does not synergize with a long range squad that basically constantly gets his out of cover penalty applied when moving.

I fully agree, two LMGs are fairly redundant. Not necessarily unbalanced, but boring and badly designed. Now we have a weapon that does not really work on your main squad, so it became pretty useless instead of boring.



Technically true. The bonus only applies to their Stens afaik. Putting weapons on them effectively reduces the veterancy bonus. REs don't get any offensive vet combat bonus




As your own post already suggests, nothing in this strategy will work for the special weapons commander, which is the one we are talking about here.

I am not really sure. When I used special weapons Regiment I would primarily used it for the "Boys Tommies" that combine decent AI and decent AT. I found them quite effective especially once the grenade was unlocked for the early game.

Now that would open they using more Ro.E. in the army composition that could later be equipped with AI weapon since the AT department is already covered.

Now I have not tried this build recently but it had some success when I used it. I guess will have to wait until some top player give this build a try.

I don't know about the reasoning back then and also the game was surely very different at the time. From what I see, the USF LMG is almost a MG42 clone. Obviously having two of them will give you horrendous firepower, especially on a 5 men squad.

The problem was not only the fire power itself but the combination of high far DPS and decent close DPS.

If you like another example you can check PPsh conscripts that combine bolt action rifles and smgs that have little synergy.

I am point out this because I have read the "synergy" argument before.

But again, this is missing the point:
A weapon with supposedly high moving accuracy for assaults does not synergize with a long range squad that basically constantly gets his out of cover penalty applied when moving.

Vicker K will not turn IS into riflemen if it did there would be very little reason for raid sections to exist in the first place.

What it will do is give them better moving DPS than Bren tommies and better mid close DPS.

Now if that is worth the extra mu is another question that I need more data to offer an opinion.

At this point I would have to say that is probably situational.

Yeah, because it is too hard to "balance", let just remove the whole point of the doc.

The mechanics of transferring weapons across factions was badly designed and it good that is was removed.

The mechanics of transferring weapons across factions was badly designed and it good that is was removed.

(the UKF m3 was far from a meta strat and was barely used even in arranged teams)

they nerfed it because they thought the rework was somehow better than brens but it clearly wasn't the case in hindsight

(the UKF m3 was far from a meta strat and was barely used even in arranged teams)

That is simply false, in the original version it was used a lot, it was even meta for sometime.

In an attempt to fix this they reduced the conscripts slot 1 since dual Vickers K conscripts where unstoppable and they even had the nerf it further by requiring the rack unlock in order to drop weapons

they nerfed it because they thought the rework was somehow better than brens but it clearly wasn't the case in hindsight

Again that is false they actually buffed the M3 by making available earlier and removing the rack unlock.

The thing that open the way to these buff was actually removing the transfer weapon mechanism.

"M3 Resupply Halftrack

The M3 Halftrack is having its CP requirement reduced to better match its performance and timing. The weapon rack restriction has also been removed to incentivize the use of the half-track. Furthermore, with the recent change to the weapons that the M3 can drop, we are changing it so only the owning player's units can receive weapon upgrades.

Armor from 8.4 to 11
Weapon drop delay from 3 to 1.5
Weapon Drop abilities no longer requires weapon racks
Weapon drops can now only be targeted on squads owned by the player. Gives weapons directly to the squad rather than dropping them on the ground.
CP requirement from 4 to 3"

The M3 was actually buffed not nerfed and the changes to Vickers K had to do with Raid sections and not the M3.

Now does that have anything to do with fact the weapon transfer mechanic was badly designed?

Is there any reason why you are quoting my posts (and posting something irrelevant and false) once more and only to rant about allies got the sort end of the stick?

I am not really sure. When I used special weapons Regiment I would primarily used it for the "Boys Tommies" that combine decent AI and decent AT. I found them quite effective especially once the grenade was unlocked for the early game.

Now that would open they using more Ro.E. in the army composition that could later be equipped with AI weapon since the AT department is already covered.

Now I have not tried this build recently but it had some success when I used it. I guess will have to wait until some top player give this build a try.

He uses two Bren commandos as main AI and does not even clearly favour anvil. Clearly the AI in this build mainly comes from other sources than REs for the most part of the game.
Also don't forget he is not talking about REs, but RERs, which come with 5 men from the start of the game and a potential flamer unlock.

In summary, the builds are very different and you can't directly assume that REs can work because RERs potentially work in a completely different build.

The problem was not only the fire power itself but the combination of high far DPS and decent close DPS.

If you like another example you can check PPsh conscripts that combine bolt action rifles and smgs that have little synergy.

I am point out this because I have read the "synergy" argument before.

Conscripts fight best against Axis infantry in close range, that's their best chance to win early on. Anyway, this comparison is apples and oranges. The PPSh upgrade gives you 4 PPShs, leaving you with only two Mosins, that, remember, still have a rather short range focus compared to all other Rifles. Do you really want to compare this setup with a weapon setup of 3 dedicated long range Rifles, 1 long range LMG and one short/mid range LMG? This does not make sense. Also all of this is neglecting that Conscripts have ourah to close in the distance, like many other squads with shorter range focus.

Vicker K will not turn IS into riflemen. What it will do is give them better moving DPS than Bren tommies and better mid close DPS.

Now if that is worth the extra mu is another question that I need more data to offer an opinion.

At this point I would have to say that is probably situational.

If the 0.25 accuracy multiplier is true - which seems to be the case at the moment - the moving DPS is not a reason at all. You'll do way more damage just staying still and using the Bren and thereby actually both Brens and all Rifles to the fullest instead of using the Vickers and three Rifles on the move. Even the normal Enfield will give you better moving DPS for almost all ranges.

Better close to mid definitely, but probably not worth it for IS. You need long range DPS for defensive play, especially if your opponent has long range specialists by default. Otherwise you'll just be out-traded every time.

He uses two Bren commandos as main AI and does not even clearly favour anvil. Clearly the AI in this build mainly comes from other sources than REs for the most part of the game.
Also don't forget he is not talking about REs, but RERs, which come with 5 men from the start of the game and a potential flamer unlock.

In summary, the builds are very different and you can't directly assume that REs can work because RERs potentially work in a completely different build.

I have explained how I used Ro.E. with special weapon regiment in my games.

If you want to debate if Ro.E. can fight or not I suggest we start another thread but one can use a mix of normal Ro.E and commandos on other commander also.

Conscripts fight best against Axis infantry in close range, that's their best chance to win early on. Anyway, this comparison is apples and oranges. The PPSh upgrade gives you 4 PPShs, leaving you with only two Mosins, that, remember, still have a rather short range focus compared to all other Rifles. Do you really want to compare this setup with a weapon setup of 3 dedicated long range Rifles, 1 long range LMG and one short/mid range LMG? This does not make sense. Also all of this is neglecting that Conscripts have ourah to close in the distance, like many other squads with shorter range focus.

Once more my point is that generally argument that squad with weapons that do not "mix well" are weak does always apply. I can provide you with a number of examples.

If the 0.25 accuracy multiplier is true - which seems to be the case at the moment - the moving DPS is not a reason at all. You'll do way more damage just staying still and using the Bren and thereby actually both Brens and all Rifles to the fullest instead of using the Vickers and three Rifles on the move. Even the normal Enfield will give you better moving DPS for almost all ranges.

Better close to mid definitely, but probably not worth it for IS. You need long range DPS for defensive play, especially if your opponent has long range specialists by default. Otherwise you'll just be out-traded every time.

As I said situational.

I have explained how I used Ro.E. with special weapon regiment in my games.

If you want to debate if Ro.E. can fight or not I suggest we start another thread but one can use a mix of normal Ro.E and commandos on other commander also.


Once more my point is that generally argument that squad with weapons that do not "mix well" are weak does always apply. I can provide you with a number of examples.


As I said situational.

You can play whatever strat suits you best. It might be fun, but competitively it is surely not the most efficient use of resources. REs have already been debated multiple times, I have made my points there.

Mixing weapons is generally a bad idea. There might be exceptions, but most units are designed straight forward to have a clear strength and weakness, as it is also best for the whole design of the game. Top level players however have specifically pointed out that IS with 1Bren/1Vickers is a subpar choice. I think we can leave it at that.


The Vickers K is decent on all squads it is directly intended to work, like the officer and raid section. On everything else: Not that great and you're probably better off investing elsewhere.

The Vickers K is decent on all squads it is directly intended to work, like the officer and raid section. On everything else: Not that great and you're probably better off investing elsewhere.

If the 0.25 moving acc is true, vicker K on assault officer basically go from a sidegrade to a downgrade given the unit intended role.

You can play whatever strat suits you best. It might be fun, but competitively it is surely not the most efficient use of resources. REs have already been debated multiple times, I have made my points there.

Mixing weapons is generally a bad idea. There might be exceptions, but most units are designed straight forward to have a clear strength and weakness, as it is also best for the whole design of the game. Top level players however have specifically pointed out that IS with 1Bren/1Vickers is a subpar choice. I think we can leave it at that.


The Vickers K is decent on all squads it is directly intended to work, like the officer and raid section. On everything else: Not that great and you're probably better off investing elsewhere.

Mixing different weapons type is bad from a design point of view because it nullifies the effects relative positioning and so is making weapon with linear DPS like Penal's SVT and I have pointing out that for year so I am glad that you agree.

On that other hand that does not make such unit ineffective since in many cases they can beat more types of enemy infatry specialized in specific range by choosing a range that suit them the best.

Mixing different weapons type is bad from a design point of view because it nullifies the effects relative positioning and so is making weapon with linear DPS like Penal's SVT and I have pointing out that for year so I am glad that you agree.

On that other hand that does not make such unit ineffective since in many cases they can beat more types of enemy infatry specialized in specific range by choosing a range that suit them the best.

It does not really nullify relative positioning, it however nullifies most decision making for the player owning the "linear DPS squad", as his best choice is always to stay where he is, since he does not benefit from movement apart from retreating once the enemy squad reaches a better relative position.
Penal's SVT DPS is not really linear, neither in the sense of "same DPS at all ranges" like early CoH2, nor in the sense of a linear DPS drop off per distance. If you want linear DPS drop off, you have to look for the Enfield and Kar98s on both Grens and Volks. On a squad level with upgrades, vetted Penals have a somewhat linear DPS drop due to "to the last man", however Bren IS and LMG42 Grenadiers are by far the worst offenders.

The point is that top level players deemed mixing Bren and Vickers on IS as a waste of resources, and given what we see how the Vickers works and a theoretical debate, this is probably true.

It does not really nullify relative positioning, it however nullifies most decision making for the player owning the "linear DPS squad", as his best choice is always to stay where he is, since he does not benefit from movement apart from retreating once the enemy squad reaches a better relative position.
Penal's SVT DPS is not really linear, neither in the sense of "same DPS at all ranges" like early CoH2, nor in the sense of a linear DPS drop off per distance. If you want linear DPS drop off, you have to look for the Enfield and Kar98s on both Grens and Volks. On a squad level with upgrades, vetted Penals have a somewhat linear DPS drop due to "to the last man", however Bren IS and LMG42 Grenadiers are by far the worst offenders.

The point is that top level players deemed mixing Bren and Vickers on IS as a waste of resources, and given what we see how the Vickers works and a theoretical debate, this is probably true.

Penal's SVT is almost linear drop off per distance from range 6 to 35 and does not follow the Riflemen's carbine profile.

Penal's SVT is almost linear drop off per distance from range 6 to 35 and does not follow the Riflemen's carbine profile.

I never claimed the SVT followed a carbine profile.
I said it is not really linear. Which is proven by the fact that the SVT shows a close range plateau up to range 6, thereby having a close range emphasis. The drop off after that is as you say almost linear. As I pointed out K98s and Enfields are worse offenders in that regard with basically linear similar drop offs and no close range emphasis. On a squad level in the late game this is even worse, with double Bren IS literally having almost the same DPS at all ranges and LMG Grenadiers not losing relatively little with higher range compared to other main lines.


Anyway, this thread is about the Vickers K on IS, so SVTs have not much to do here.

I never claimed the SVT followed a carbine profile.
I said it is not really linear.

Not really interest in I said you said game and I am trying to avoid them when I can

Which is proven by the fact that the SVT shows a close range plateau up to range 6, thereby having a close range emphasis. The drop off after that is as you say almost linear. As I pointed out K98s and Enfields are worse offenders in that regard with basically linear similar drop offs and no close range emphasis. On a squad level in the late game this is even worse, with double Bren IS literally having almost the same DPS at all ranges and LMG Grenadiers not losing relatively little with higher range compared to other main lines.


Anyway, this thread is about the Vickers K on IS, so SVTs have not much to do here.

Since we agree that it is linear SVT are linear from 6 to 35 and we also agree that weapon that are good at all ranges are not good game design we can move on.

snipped

there is nothing to debate with, you are wasting words on people here

That is simply false, in the original version it was used a lot, it was even meta for sometime.

Used by who? meta on who? I played hundreds of matches of this god forsaken game and i can count the amount of vickers drop strats done in one hand. must have been so overpowered that only dedicated niche arranged teams used it to limited effect, because UKF cant shit out 600 munitions for LMG upgrades

Weapon drops can now only be targeted on squads owned by the player. Gives weapons directly to the squad rather than dropping them on the ground.

they can make the vickers guns free and maybe then will they use it, you don't even get raid sections with the darn doctrine, the only infantry that can make use of the vickers effectively



maybe there was some meta in 2013 but this isn't fucking 2013 no more, every fucking thread is being shat on with this "but akhully this unit was good 7 fucking years ago, which is why it fires blank rounds now and we wont elaborate!"

Used by who? meta on who? I played hundreds of matches of this god forsaken game and i can count the amount of vickers drop strats done in one hand. must have been so overpowered that only dedicated niche arranged teams used it to limited effect, because UKF cant shit out 600 munitions for LMG upgrades

You are entitled to believe that M3 was always useless but Relic still decided that make it even more useless by nerfing and have in it require rack unlock before it could deliver weapons.

they can make the vickers guns free and maybe then will they use it, you don't even get raid sections with the darn doctrine, the only infantry that can make use of the vickers effectively



maybe there was some meta in 2013 but this isn't fucking 2013 no more, every fucking thread is being shat on with this "but akhully this unit was good 7 fucking years ago, which is why it fires blank rounds now and we wont elaborate!"

Before the patch Vicker K used be an LMG almost identical to 60 munition Bren

You are entitled to believe that Vicker k/60 MU Bren "fires blank rounds" and again Relic decide to tone the Bren and make it even more useless.

The patch was aimed at making Vicker K a BAR equivalent but due to a bug it has much inferior DPS on the move. You are entitled to believe that BAR and Vickers K "fires blanks rounds".

Vicker K has very low DPS on the move but that is due to a bug and not design.

You are even entitled to believe that earth is flat but I have very little interest explaining things to people who are hostile.