Why Vicker HMG is so bad for its price?!!

The Vicker HMG is such an expensive unit, and for 280 mp it is underperforming.

It cost 20 mp less than the mg42, however the mg42 works much better with suppression.

The main problem I've experienced with the Vicker HMG is how units can crawl into it and nade or kill it.
It really needs more suppression for 280 mp (it should at least works as good as mg42).

Also it doesn't get any ability for it's vet1.

Honestly, I don't see any reason why I should not pick a mg42 any day over Vicker even though it costs 20 mp less.

Relic, please fix this unit, it is underperforming for its price.

They're virtually identical:

MG42 has .012 suppression vs Vickers .0078

but MG42's burst length is 1.625 vs Vickers 2.75.

it deals alot of damage

it deals alot of damage

HMG42 in building kills Vickers in building even without incendiary rounds.

Vickers has really bad performance for it cost.

The one way to make vickers stand up for its cost, is to abuse its vet 1 bug to give it the extra range and an wider fire arc it should only have in buildings. Otherwise, the gun itself is shite until it reaches vet 3.

Its damage is good but as a suppression piece yeeeeah it leaves something to be desired if its not in a building. Definitely not something you can leave on its own to watch a VP point or something along those lines. Slight decrease to 260 MP would be nice or a slight suppression buff otherwise its pretty good.

it deals alot of damage

I expect my HMG to provide me suppression not damage. Damage is bonus, but the actual purpose of any HMG is to privde suppression.

With the recent buff to the mg42 it's now a reliable suppression platform for suppress anything more than one squad, plus it always suppress in first burst. Not to mention its vet 1 AP rounds ability gives you even more adventage to the HMG of that cost and is certainly very reliable.

However, the Vicker HMG, even though it provides good damage, it definitely underperforms for its cost in suppression. Have it shooting one squad, and another squad can simply walk into it face to face and kill it. I don't expect it to be able to suppress like 4 squads at the same time, but at least something like the mg42 performance.

Mg42 is cheaper but is better for its suppression AND the its vet 1 AP rounds ability by far, in comparison with the Vicker HMG.

And yes mg42 still kills it in.building

HMG42 in building kills Vickers in building even without incendiary rounds.

Vickers has really bad performance for it cost.

I'm amused. The MG 42 gets roasted by maxims so let's not even go there.


Besides both the Maxim and Vickers were built in World War One. The technologically more recent MG-34 and MG-42 would of course out perform both of those ancient and much heavier weapons by a wide margin with their much higher rate of fire and reliability.

The MG-34 was only considered lesser than the MG-42 due to being a bit more complex and over engineered in design compared to the simpler and lighter weight MG-42, though both were relatively more lightweight.


The MG-42 however was light enough to be carried around, man portable and fired without even needing a tripod, the entire assembly was about 30 or 40lbs which was lightweight for that class of weapon.

The point being that if we weren't going for "game balance" over realism, the MG-42 would be far more frightening than it is now.




As for the argument that an MG is supposed to provide suppression instead of damage. I get that from a gameplay perspective you need the suppression, but the only reason it suppresses in reality is because every bullet out of that screaming bullet hose is lethal and can and will end your life before you knew it hit you.

They're virtually identical:

MG42 has .012 suppression vs Vickers .0078

but MG42's burst length is 1.625 vs Vickers 2.75.

which still means the vicker take longer to suppress than the mg42.

snip

Because historical accuracy is such a good idea for balance, right?

Please leave history out of this, there's a pinned topic in the official balance forums from Relic asking not to do it.

Brits also get trenches, sandbags, and other emplacements to garrison.

Not to mention their vet bonuses are different, extra range in garrisons (which brits can more readily and effectively place) vs. raw damage for muni with incendiary.

Sure I think the Wehr MG is better since it is more versatile, but they are simply different.

Unless I'm crazy and this unit is so useless that no one is using it any more in 1v1; though the last replay I watched, the brit player opened with 2 Vickers iirc.

Please leave history out of this, there's a pinned topic in the official balance forums from Relic asking not to do it.

No there isn't.

You gotta be kidding. Whenever I see a brit player drop one, I go and pick it up asap. They might take a second longer to suppress, but they seem to deal more consistent damage vs infantry. Whenever I grab a Vickers from someone and use it against them, it racks up 2 digit kills within a minute or two. Try that with an mg42 and youll be sorely disappointed.

As for the suppression taking a second(if even) longer than the mg42 - remember those days when the mg42 didnt suppress shit even after 2 full bursts against a unit in negative cover? All the ppl that are complaining now were totally fine with it and oh god pls dont buff the mg42. Wonder whats the issue now...

Oh and dont even go to "hurr durr my vickers gets the shit kicked out of it by mg42s". The maxim flat out destroyed the 42 for how long now? a year? maybe 2? And yes, the vickers is more expensive than the 42 but so is the 42 compared to the maxim, so we can keep that comparison standing.

Unless you want the same mg reskinned for all 5 factions, youll have to deal with the fact that some mgs perform better than others, just like most german players have accepted the fact that the maxim beats the 42 and most soviet players resigned to the fact the maxim doesnt suppress as well as the 42 does(though it did get better than it used to be). Just deal with it.

Because historical accuracy is such a good idea for balance, right?

Please leave history out of this, there's a pinned topic in the official balance forums from Relic asking not to do it.

No, I don't want to play Company of Placeholders. Especially if its marketed as a WW2 game.

I've definitely noticed the Vickers putting out an impressive damage output, especially at max range. I don't understand the argument here, I think it performs very consistently well for its price right now, especially on the new brit expansion maps where there are plenty of buildings available to garrison them in.

I honestly think all the mgs are in a pretty decent place right now, aside from maybe the .50 cal which still feels useless.

I've routinely seen my mg42s lose in a duel with a vickers in my matches. When I'm playing germans I always will try to cap a downed vickers if it's available.

Brits also get trenches, sandbags, and other emplacements to garrison.

Not to mention their vet bonuses are different, extra range in garrisons (which brits can more readily and effectively place) vs. raw damage for muni with incendiary.

Sure I think the Wehr MG is better since it is more versatile, but they are simply different.

Unless I'm crazy and this unit is so useless that no one is using it any more in 1v1; though the last replay I watched, the brit player opened with 2 Vickers iirc.

the vickers cost 280 compared to the mg42's 260mp. If it's more expensive then it should be better.

It's a good unit

The MG 42 is getting his damage reduced in the next patch.

The MG 42 is getting his damage reduced in the next patch.

not anymore. they removed the nerfed.

the vickers cost 280 compared to the mg42's 260mp. If it's more expensive then it should be better.

Uh... Let me reiterate I guess.

My opinion is that the MG42 is better, meaning I'd rather have one than a Vickers. My opinions may not reflect reality though.

They are different so it isn't a matter of one objectively being better than the other. They are similarly priced and they have different strengths and weaknesses, not better or worse.