Humber mk3 need a cost decrease

[IronHat]

the removal of the AP from 15mm was "fair" since it was just a hmg, but now the humber mk3 is way too expensive for its cost.

more to the point, the 222 is significantly stronger and yet it's 5 pt cheaper. the 20mm and mg42 is an amazing combination in the early game. I'm almost convinced the 222 needs to be more expensive, but the german early game need them.

the humber should really cost around 30pt

 

[local-festival]

Yes, the Humber was very seriously nerfed and the price is not justified in the slightest. I'm not going to compare units between different divisions, but as a frequent 15th Inf. player I strongly feel this unit is not longer worth its price tag.

 

[Max_Damage]

Umm no it costs the same as an american equivalent m20 transport (2nd inf). It has serious HE machineguns which do a lot of damage and supression. Armor 3 means that it is more resistant to damage and supression of other halftrack mgs.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

yeah, but the m20 is overcosted compared to the 222 as well.

 

[mitchverr]

Just an HMG with 30mm of pen at 100m, only 10mm less then a 20mm has. And it only ever from what I gather fired its AP ammunition, no ball for this gun.

The humber should have its AP put back on it in my view, not get a price buff and kept as is, the whole damn point of the 15mm was for its anti armour duties, otherwise they would have replaced it with another MG due to it simply being a death weapon for its own user (besides being a pain and locking up, it would spout gas out of it at a rate that it could very well knock its own crew out according to the first hand accounts of recon crews I have seen).

It simply isnt worth its cost, in the same deck you can take the Stuart Recce for less, sure its guns are slightly weaker, but it gets 5 AV on its front, which is very very much a useful asset for such a vehicle and again is CHEAPER.

As for "but better than M20", the M20 is also overpriced.

 

[CyberianK]

So the 222 is a good unit and kind of one of the few strong things in phase A Axis Divs have. Other ACs might not be as good. Imho theres no need to buff all ACs to its level or compared to them especially not for allied Divs that are already insanely strong.
Theres a few "exclusive" good cards around. You don't buff all recon compared to Bazooka scouts or buff all Inf compared to Rangers/Rifles or buff all light tanks compared to Command Stuart.

Disclaimer: I am not an exclusive Axis player played more Allies yesterday for example but mainly due to them winning in A and most matches being over in 7-15 min you can play more matches. I like to play both equally.

 

[mitchverr]

So the 222 is a good unit and kind of one of the few strong things in phase A Axis Divs have. Other ACs might not be as good. Imho theres no need to buff all ACs to its level or compared to them especially not for allied Divs that are already insanely strong.
Theres a few "exclusive" good cards around. You don't buff all recon compared to Bazooka scouts or buff all Inf compared to Rangers/Rifles or buff all light tanks compared to Command Stuart.

Disclaimer: I am not an exclusive Axis player played more Allies yesterday for example but mainly due to them winning in A and most matches being over in 7-15 min.

So we shouldnt balance units so they are no longer not viable simply because the other side is weaker? That makes no sense, its like saying "dont make axis SPGs in support tab good because AVRE is a niche unit that should be only good 1" to me lol.

And again, realism wise, this was an anti armour MG, it was the british equiv of the german 20mm and is only on like, 1 hull in the entire british side of the game, making it do its real job isnt that much an ask lol.

 

[Grosnours]

I'd say we should balance units compared to their division first, then (with a lower priority) compared to the other units of the same faction and finally (with an even lower priority) compared to the other units in the opposite faction.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but perhaps the thought was "hmm, the scottish are still very strong, how could we slightly nerf them ?". One big offender in phase A was the Humber Mk3. It outshone the unit it was transporting by performing rapid penetration behind the enemy lines (preferably for S&D missions) or by it's excellent support capacity, being able to go toe to toe with much more expensive units. The transporting Bren and their super powerful machine gun having also been nerfed, this might explain the nerf of the Humber Mk3.

 

[mitchverr]

Then they could just make it cost a little more, or hit its accuracy perhaps. Outright removing its intended role is rather... bad in my view, (btw, the humber MK3 was an actual scout car, so if it is scout and destroying, its doing its actual job lol).

 

[Grosnours]

I'm not saying the nerf the Humber Mk3 received was totally correct and shouldn't be changed mind, I'm just stating that it was a little bit too good to be true as a unit before.

I'd say let's see how it turns out, get a lot more matches going and if it appears this unit has been neutered into uselessness then the nerf should be reverted and as you mention some other modifications should happen.

 

[Fussel]

I always saw the Humber and the Bren Carrier option in the recon tab as almost equal with some tradeoffs like mobility and such so its not a huge loss for the deck in general since you just take Bren Carriers. But it is another case of just making a unit completely redundant.

 

[mitchverr]

But it is another case of just making a unit completely redundant.

Bland and generic is more the word I would go for. The recon tab already has these MG carriers

Bren carrier (universal carrier)
MMG carrier
Stuart Recce
Willies MMG
And now the humber MK 3

all this does is give them "oh another MG carrying vehicle" to me, As for if you want armour, the universals have a little, but the stuart recce has 5 and is cheaper. So you already had the 3 tiers needed for that, cheap as chips spam jeep, the medium carrier with 2 mmgs and the "heavy carrier" with 2 mmgs but more armour.


I mean, theres plenty of other fast firing/autocannon recon in phase A with AP, some of which is cheaper lol.

 

[CyberianK]

Bland and generic is more the word I would go for. The recon tab already has these MG carriers

Bren carrier (universal carrier)
MMG carrier
Stuart Recce
Willies MMG
And now the humber MK 3

all this does is give them "oh another MG carrying vehicle" to me, As for if you want armour, the universals have a little, but the stuart recce has 5 and is cheaper. So you already had the 3 tiers needed for that, cheap as chips spam jeep, the medium carrier with 2 mmgs and the "heavy carrier" with 2 mmgs but more armour.


I mean, theres plenty of other fast firing/autocannon recon in phase A with AP, some of which is cheaper lol.

Your right the Scots already have way to many options there.

So obviously the solution is removing the unit altogether then everyone is happy.

 

[IronHat]

I'd say we should balance units compared to their division first, then (with a lower priority) compared to the other units of the same faction and finally (with an even lower priority) compared to the other units in the opposite faction.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, but perhaps the thought was "hmm, the scottish are still very strong, how could we slightly nerf them ?". One big offender in phase A was the Humber Mk3. It outshone the unit it was transporting by performing rapid penetration behind the enemy lines (preferably for S&D missions) or by it's excellent support capacity, being able to go toe to toe with much more expensive units. The transporting Bren and their super powerful machine gun having also been nerfed, this might explain the nerf of the Humber Mk3.

unit don't fight unit in its own division, they fight against enemy unit. "balancing units according to other units in own division" is idiotic because it just introduce redundant standard of measure.

I'm not even arguing to give back the 15mm AP, just a lower cost to reflect the nerf.

 

[Grosnours]

unit don't fight unit in its own division, they fight against enemy unit. "balancing units according to other units in own division" is idiotic because it just introduce redundant standard of measure.

Units precisely fight in their own division. They fight in an environment of other units, never in a vacuum like the amateurs of side by side card comparison tend to believe. We can go further by saying that contrary to what happened in the Wargames, units don't even exist outside of their division. Divisions don't share units, they each have their own version of a common template, and this version can be quite unique.

I don't see in any shape or form how it's idiotic. It's a very smart rule Eugen came up with to be honest. What is idiotic is trying to balance all the units together. Three Wargames should have been enough examples of exercise in futility to understand it's not feasible to balance several hundred of units this way.

 

[IronHat]

Units precisely fight in their own division. They fight in an environment of other units, never in a vacuum like the amateurs of side by side card comparison tend to believe. We can go further by saying that contrary to what happened in the Wargames, units don't even exist outside of their division. Divisions don't share units, they each have their own version of a common template, and this version can be quite unique.

I don't see in any shape or form how it's idiotic. It's a very smart rule Eugen came up with to be honest. What is idiotic is trying to balance all the units together. Three Wargames should have been enough examples of exercise in futility to understand it's not feasible to balance several hundred of units this way.

It's called having a common standard of measure. Balancing unit against unit in its own division is going to lead to entire division being too expensive or too cheap, at which point you have to wholesale change everything. It's an unnecessary step.

 

[Grosnours]

How can a division be too expensive or too cheap when you also can balance its income in the first place ?
Besides divisions are directly balanced against each other. More in the context of teamplay to promote synergies than pure 1v1, but still.

Silver lining: if you're still convinced that side by side unit comparison is the way to go, you'll be able to mod it in. Have fun doing so with hundreds of units, it's a Sisyphean task.

 

[IronHat]

How can a division be too expensive or too cheap when you also can balance its income in the first place ?
Besides divisions are directly balanced against each other. More in the context of teamplay to promote synergies than pure 1v1, but still.

Silver lining: if you're still convinced that side by side unit comparison is the way to go, you'll be able to mod it in. Have fun doing so with hundreds of units, it's a Sisyphean task.

really, you're just asking to layer complexity on top of complexity. Every individual division have its own pricing for identical unit and different income to top it off?

 

[Grosnours]

It's not complexity, it's simplicity. You free yourself from the shackles of having everything level across the board, down to the T.
If you don't see that I can only recommend playing WRD and trying to balance it. That should vaccinate anyone for life against unit to unit balancing...

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

maybe you dont care for point balance in a point-resource game, but its ridiculous to claim its *more* complicated than trying to do holistic per-division balancing with varying income levels. Especially when everyone starts with identical point values, which itself somewhat invalidates the approach.

relying on per-division balancing would be a highly sensible argument if you use a unit-callin system utilizing TOEs/platoons/companies etc. rather than point values. but that's not the approach being used. The inherent conceit of point values is that things are balance for equivalent point costs, it is highly dangerous moving outside that metric.

the game is replete with units that are just badly balanced for point cost, anyway. Eugen has always had the habit of overnerfing things and rarely bringing underperforming units up to par. .50 cal jeep, anyone...?