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

Jump back to quoted post14 Sep 2015, 05:56 AMFiresparks

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

Jump back to quoted post14 Sep 2015, 04:22 AMSierra

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.

Jump back to quoted post14 Sep 2015, 02:37 AMJadame!

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

Vickers has really bad performance for it cost.

Jump back to quoted post14 Sep 2015, 06:19 AMdasheepeh

thanks for the history lesson, what was your point again?

Jump back to quoted post14 Sep 2015, 04:22 AMSierra

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 Browning performed poorly because it took a second to start shooting.
  
• The Maxim also had a delay, but made up for it with surprisingly quick pinning.
  
• The Vicker's problem seemed to be a long pause between bursts, which let infantry crawl.
  
• The MG 34 began firing quickly with little cooldown, it just has plain bad suppression.
  
• The MG 42 suppressed rapidly, but let infantry crawl a bit before pinning them.

Jump back to quoted post14 Sep 2015, 04:34 AMFiresparks

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

Jump back to quoted post14 Sep 2015, 11:11 AMofield

Yea but that means the vickers deals more damage, since suppressed Units are harder to hit. Makes it better vs single squads less effective vs blobs. it's a trade off.

Jump back to quoted post14 Sep 2015, 06:14 AMRasputin

The vickers got other advantages over the 42. A more consistent damage output, longer range in buildings(and oh guess what. brits can build trenches pretty much anywhere they like), pretty nice vet bonuses, the inherent faction ability to place green cover in the form of sandbags anywhere they like - something that ostheer sorely lacks.

Jump back to quoted post14 Sep 2015, 09:17 AMKubelecer

german steel> everything

Jump back to quoted post14 Sep 2015, 04:22 AMSierra

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.

Jump back to quoted post14 Sep 2015, 21:29 PMLooney

Fastest arriving hmg in the game, it's fine imo.

Remember, it has the slowest set up time of all allied hmg's, you can't A move them like a maxim and arguably the USF 50 cal.

Have to set them up first in the back, then scout with your infantry.

Jump back to quoted post14 Sep 2015, 22:43 PMHorasu

That's really not what this thread is about. It's about cost effectiveness, combat effectiveness has nothing to do with it. We all know how to use it.

Jump back to quoted post14 Sep 2015, 10:28 AMMr. Someguy

Did an MG test, Conscripts Oorah as soon as they get sight on the gun, see how far they get. Ran the test until I got consistent results 3 times, but never had to do it more than 4. Since the Cons were invincible, this was only a suppression test. Test was done on open ground with no cover.

First value is meters until suppressed, second is meters until pinned. 0 is when the MG can see them, 35 is MG position:

05 - 15 MG 42
10 - 15 Maxim
11 - 16 MG 34
10 - 20 Vickers
15 - 20 Browning

• The Browning performed poorly because it took a second to start shooting.
  
• The Maxim also had a delay, but made up for it with surprisingly quick pinning.
  
• The Vicker's problem seemed to be a long pause between bursts, which let infantry crawl.
  
• The MG 34 began firing quickly with little cooldown, it just has plain bad suppression.
  
• The MG 42 suppressed rapidly, but let infantry crawl a bit before pinning them.

Jump back to quoted post15 Sep 2015, 04:41 AMCadianGuardsman

The thing with the Vickers is that it works as intended. It is supposed to be the anchor of a gunline. The ideal thing with a Vickers is to have it behind 2 or 3 Infantry Sections in green cover and KILL THE SHIT out of Germans. The Brits play like a World War One army, it's best people remember that. They win attacks through brute force and they hold ground through killing and causing manpower bleed, the brits don't flank, they don't close, and they don't dance around cover. They sit in cover and shoot the enemy to death with the MG staying in the rear as a line backer, The MG is not supposed to be at the front, if it's getting fraged by OKW you're placing them poorly. If you're getting OSTH Rifle nades try leaving your MG's out of cover, yes it's heresy, but if you have a good 3 sections with brens infront of it, then it will survive.

Jump back to quoted post14 Sep 2015, 21:29 PMLooney

Fastest arriving hmg in the game, it's fine imo.

Remember, it has the slowest set up time of all allied hmg's, you can't A move them like a maxim and arguably the USF 50 cal.

Have to set them up first in the back, then scout with your infantry.