So if you don't have 60 range you're supposed to lose? I think mapmakers didn't get your memo.
Don't overexaggerate.
Every Allied TD is absolutely supposed to be vulnerable below range 40, either by slow ROF or not having a turret. This is fully intended.
The only difference the wind up time makes is the very first shot where about half a second delay is introduced. The only situations in which it really matters is a top speed P4 or Panther rushing you (allowing it to move 3-4 meters closer than to any other tank). And an occasional shot you won't get on a retreating enemy tank.
Any pot shots you take at the enemy and in prolonged fights, it does not matter.
That's it.
Can you explain how this makes the Jackson really suffer? It's definitely not a plus, but again: We've had years of balance patches, and the Jackson is an overall good TD. While this should be an issue obvious to everyone, you're the first person complaining about this years after the release of USF. You need to make a really strong case here.
Actually from the most usual list of tank/tank destroyers, the M36 and M10 are the only two suffering from it.
The Panther is also an example, but you need to prove how they are suffering from it.
The M36 is a good TD, increasing its ROF would not be a great idea. You can obviously have a different opinion, but then provide a reasoning for it. The wind up increasing the time for the first shot is indeed one point, but to be honest I assume that the unit has been balanced around that after 4 years of community patches. The Jackson has very good offensive power, at range 60 you'll get the first shot regardless and at lower ranges the Jackson is supposed to lose.
There surely are some cases in between where the wind up time actually makes a difference, but I don't see a reason why those should be hugely problematic.
Iirc, the balance team has also increased the reload veterancy bonus slightly to make up for the fact that a larger part of the cycle is made up by wind times after this has been pointed out to them.
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.
Linearity by itself is not an issue. LMGs also have a roughly linear DPS plot, and so do many other weapons. What is important is, that there is a noticable change in DPS at different ranges.
Anyway, the Vickers K does not suffer that problem. As we found out in another thread, it does not hold up to what was promised/intended. In the special weapons regiment there are not that many squads available to which it would offer a real benefit compared to the stock Bren.
I unfortunately don't think that there will be a patch fixing this. It is even more unfortunate that this happens to a faction that only has 9 commanders from the get to and is generally a bit lackluster to play.
LOL it's pretty funny that not only is USF a much harder faction than OKW or OST due primarily to it's idiotic tech tree, but it also suffers from equally idiotic game mechanics. The AT rifle grenade taking forever to deploy, the dumb weapon rack mechanics, and now the wind up.
Wind up/down is nothing special to USF, just saying...
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.
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.
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.
I still have to point out that BAR and Vickers probably use different reload/CD/burst duration so the idea that because something applies to BAR would apply Vickers does might not be accurate. If that site has the full stat of the weapon I would still suggest to use them calculate the theoretical DPS.
This might be the case, but the 0.25 accuracy explains what we see.
In the end it does not matter what actually causes the DPS drop. The Vickers K, at the very least when handed out by the M3 to IS, seems to work very differently from the BAR and does not work great on the move, which was the whole point of the patch.
Finally I really suggest to stop using IS for this calculation for two reasons:
1) the cover penalties are unnecessary complications
2) the mechanics of obtaining the weapon are different so the version of the raid section/officer/Heavy sapper can be different and if there is an error it might not be on the stat of Vicker's itself but the "version" of the weapon itself.
Then feel free to provide some data for other squads, just like leithianz did for IS.
If the problem lies within the version of the Vickers, than testing IS is actually essential to find that out.
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
