Recrew/Decrew Weapons

[MrTittles]

Hey Everyone; it'll be a short one this time around, promise.

The more I've been playing these days, the more I find myself irked and annoyed by the needlessly redundant crew/decrew weapon feature that CoH has...

Right now, when a weapon that takes a team to operate is dropped, (As in, an MG42 or Mortar), you can recrew it with regular soldiers from any of the factions. I think this is brilliant and should remain unchanged.

The problem comes in when you want the troops that are now crewing the weapon to STOP crewing the weapon and start being normal soldiers again... Especially when you may need the services of a mortar, but don't want to sacrifice half a squad for a few mortar rounds (considering how useless mortars can get).

Here's what I propose: When you order regular infantry to go recrew a weapon, (Any weapon- MGs, Mortars, Arty, Flak cannons, etc.), they break away from the squad they're in, and go man the weapon (nothing new here yet).

Once they are part of the weapon team, their stats should change slightly to represent their new role as a weapon squad (certain german teams get Ludgers, american teams get carbines, etc).

Once they have become part of the weapon team, you can tell them to drop and abandon their weapon at ANY TIME, at which point they will leave the weapon behind and become a free-floating 'weapon team squad' with no weapon. Their stats are lower than those of normal infantry, and they can only re-enforce to a maximum of three members. (That way, you can't create an unlimited number of cheap squads by simply splitting squads and re-enforcing them) If a normal squad of infantry is around that has taken enough casualties to absorb the weapon team into their ranks, without going over the maximum allowable number of men in a squad, then the two can join together to form a larger squad of regular infantry, and the weapon team will instantly receive their old weapons and stats back again.

This would also apply to weapon squads who had just been built, too- MG teams that are in danger of being overrun can simply abandon their weapon and run to safety, in the hopes of returning to their weapon once it's safe. (assuming it dosen't get jacked)

Now, a concern that many have with recrewing/uncrewing weapons (besides the squad-splitting issue, which I believe I solved above) is the fact that some weapons themselves have pop-cap associated with them. For instance, if one is able to uncrew recently built weapons, one could build a Flak 88, then uncrew the weapon to free up more popcap, build something that maxes out the popcap allowance again, and then recrew the Flak with no penalty.

I believe this issue can also be fixed relatively easily by disallowing popcap modifiers to be abused. Simply put, you cannot recrew a weapon if you don't have enough popcap to do so. The reason could be that there aren't any bullets for it, or it's out of repair or spare parts or whatever reason you want to make up for it, but the point stands that if you HAVE to have enough popcap to recrew a weapon without going over, it would prevent people from abusing popcap limits.

This change to gameplay would be simple to implement, as the button to decrew a weapon already exists in the game's code (the American paratrooper mission that involves assaulting the V2 launch pad), and the remaining code changes (troops changing permanently into weapon teams, weapon teams with no weapon) would be relatively easy to program in.

I seriously think that relic should consider this in the short term, as it would add another layer of dynamism and tactics that would reward prudent players for effective, fluid play.

As always, questions, comments, changes, and even the occasional flame is welcome!

[Apogee]

Honestly, if I see a dropped heavy weapon on the battlefield, I'll generally take it and retreat the rest of the squad. The reinforce cost is peanuts, and they lose whatever the weapon was (and the crew). I call that a win.

As for decrewing, what would the crew be? Engineers? Rifles? Volks? Pios?

Also, consider: you steal a weapon. Retreat both squads. Drop the weapon at base. Now you have *two* squads, AND a free weapon. You could then recrew, decrew, and repeat ad infinitum. Infinite squads.

[MrTittles]

Hey Apogee, thanks for the feedback, but I think you totally missed the point here.

If you look in my post, I already said that the regular infantry that recrews a heavy weapon would change into the crew that usually mans that heavy weapon. Take a grenadier squad manning a Pak AT gun... Two of them pushing it lose their weapon entirely (But for argument's sake, pretend it gets changed into a pio MP40), and the third guy gets a luger. They woudln't be engineers, volks, pios or rifles, they'd turn into a "weapons team" with stats that don't match any other troop type but "Weapons Team."

Also the entire POINT of my post was to adress the issue of the infinite squad replication. If you note what happens when you take one squad of infantry, and split them into two (by manning a dropped weapon with a squad that has more than three men in it), three of them go to the weapon, and the remainder stay behind as normal infantry.

In my post, I say that the part of the squad that becomes the weapons team, turns into a seperate squad with shitter stats and the ability to only reinforce to 3 members. Here's the exact quote from my post:

"Once they have become part of the weapon team, you can tell them to drop and abandon their weapon at ANY TIME, at which point they will leave the weapon behind and become a free-floating 'weapon team squad' with no weapon. Their stats are lower than those of normal infantry, and they can only re-enforce to a maximum of three members."

This would prevent infinite squad splitting. The minimum number of men a heavy weapon takes up is three. Of course, you can reinforce the original squad you manned it with, but you wind up with a gimpy little 3-man squad that has crappy weapons and no abilities. The reinforcement cost alone would be more than that crappy little three man squad would be worth. Imagine paying 70 (at absolute minimum) manpower for a squad of three men with ludgers that can't cap, throw grenades, build anything, or pick up handheld weapons like pshrecks and the like. They also are rediculously expensive to reinforce (like, 42 mp per man).

[Arkandea]

I like your idea, Tittles. It would eliminate that feeling of the weapon crew being "tied" to the weapon itself, and make the overall game feel more dynamic.

I imagine situations where it would be gold, for example a mortar team is ambushed. They drop their weapon and garrison the nearby building, providing considerable resistance to the enemy infantry until reinforcements can arrive.

Perhaps normal soldiers crewing weapons they're not familiar with suffer small accuracy or rate-of-fire penalties, and weapon teams can utilize any weapon to it's full potential. That would remove the feeling of "elite riflemen" who can pick up an AT gun and immediately use it as well as a trained German crew can.

[cf_nz]

Seems a rather over-complicated system for the sake of allowing team weapons to be manually abandoned. Personally I've never had a team weapon I wanted to swap for infantry (certainly not a sub-standard squad of 3), rather it's the pop-cap I want back.

[[TigerHunter]]

i agree with above. if i dont need a mortar late game, i simply try to put it to use and get it killed, or have it killed by charging the enemy as the ai does. kamikaze style. in other words, the need to un-man and re-man a a support weapon is not great.

also, whats the use of having a shitty infantry squad? i mean, you already have engies/pios/rifles/volks for a relativly low mp cost, why would u care about babysitting ur weapon squad to be able to un-man it later on to only get a shittier infantry unit u prolly wont use?

also theyd have to create a brand new unit (even if its similar to units already available) which i dont think can be done in this stage of coh`s life. (we all know how long it takes to make patches that dont even incorporate new units)

its a great suggestion though. i like seeing innovative players trying to contribute to a game they love. i see it working well, although i dont see a demand. good work!

[stalkerblaze]

I would rather have an alternative option about crewing weapons, which could be initiated by additional button. Whole squad would crew the weapon and any other squad members would just follow the "weapon crew" and would use their original weapons. Only by crewing weapons in that way you could use the decrew button. PE would benefit the most from that additional option.

[MrTittles]

Yeah, I understand the fact that there's a lack of interest for the most part... But for me, I would personally be interested in this system so that if an AT gun of mine is about to be overrun by a blob of assault weapons (rangers, KCH, etc), i'd love for them to be able to quickly abandon the weapon, run to some bushes, and wait for some backup to arrive, so my AT gun doesn't lose veterancy, and I don't have to sacrifice half of one of my squads to reman the thing.

To risk losing it to the enemies taking it is a risk I'd like to have the option to take, personally. I also totally agree with Arkandea- that normal riflemen, for instance, shouldn't be as proficient with, say, an MG42 as a fully trained german squad would be. Perhaps once they return to the home HQ sector, they would be? (Receiving supplementary training or something?)

Also, for those that are saying that killing off weapons teams later on in the game should be the way to go, I totally think this system would change that around. If you note, in my suggestions, decrewed weapon teams that have shitty stats can be incorporated into an existing squad, at which point they'll gain normal weapons again (even if they were built as a weapon squad and never had them in the first place) and have their stats returned to normal. That way, you can never create more standard squads, but you can reinforce your damaged regular squads on the fly by amalgamating the weaponless team and a regular inf squad that has the room for them. Note that this should only work for REGULAR infantry (I.E Volks, Rifles, Tommies, PGrens) and infantry that are worse than regular infantry (I.E. Engies, Pios, Sappers, Luftwaffe Squads) and NOT superior infantry (I.E. Rangers, Airborne, KCH, Grens, Fallschirmjagers, Commandos).

I believe it would be an easy way add a level of dynamism to weapons teams that makes them less risky to build and recrew, without greatly changing the game's dynamics or adding exploitable features.

[Zwebbie]

Recrewing something is pretty much the best 100MP you'll ever spend. It's a valuable weapon at a third of the original cost. Why you'd ever want a three-men BAR-less Riflemen squad over a Mortar is beyond me, since the latter is worth way more in all but one percent of situations. And if you'd rather not have a Mortar, boo-hoo, you lost a measly 100MP.

Risk is part of the game. If I get a squad of vulnerable 390MP Knight's Cross Holders right up to your AT Gun, killing your dudes is the least I'd expect in return. That's the thing about heavy weapons; they dish out the damage, but they're vulnerable. You don't back them up once they're under attack, you try to make sure the enemy never makes it to them.

[sighman]

Their stats are lower than those of normal infantry, and they can only re-enforce to a maximum of three members. (That way, you can't create an unlimited number of cheap squads by simply splitting squads and re-enforcing them) If a normal squad of infantry is around that has taken enough casualties to absorb the weapon team into their ranks, without going over the maximum allowable number of men in a squad, then the two can join together to form a larger squad of regular infantry, and the weapon team will instantly receive their old weapons and stats back again.

That still doesn't stop this system from being abused. Let me show you a hypothetical example: A volks squad recrews the MG, and runs back to the base to reinforce. It comes back, and the weapons team abandons the weapons team, and then the reinforced volks recapture the MG. Now all of a sudden, you have 3 squads originally from 1 volks squad, which means a massive capping force for minimal cost in reinforcements. This can be repeated for a very strong early capping force, cheaper then pios even.

[MrTittles]

@ Sighman: I understand that it's possible to create tonnes of these little squads for very little in the way of MP, but I think I already stated that their weaponry would be worse than Pios/engies, and that they CANNOT CAP. The decrewed weapons teams would have NO abilities, save for the ability to recrew a weapon, or amaglamate with a normal squad.

@ Zwebbie: I understand that it's a relatively small cost-risk ratio, and has a huge amount of payoff, but that's still not the point. The game mechanic I'm describing here isn't comprehensive in it's use; the point is NOT to gain little crappy 3 man squads to run around and be useless, it's to add dymanism to the crewing/decrewing mechanic in the game.

Here are the two hypothetical outcomes that I'm trying to promote here:

1. Weapons teams can abandon their weapons and get away until danger passes. I'd much rather be able to get my weapons team away without the teardown time, and wait until my regular infantry has cleared the area, and then recrew the weapon and keep pounding. If I had to let my weapon squad die, then i'd have to reduce the strength of one of my infantry squads by AT LEAST half to bring it back to operationality. Being able to run the team away to take cover until the danger has passed would allow the offensive to continue without getting bogged down by needless wastes of life or time. Those of you that don't have to use it don't have to.

2. Scenario #2 involves a situation where it's advantageous to man a weapon for a small amount of time, and then abandon it. Imagine you have a volks squad with MP40s, and there's an uncrewed mortar next to your troops. your offensive is being held up by a single american MG nest up ahead, but that's the only stationary emplacement the american has. Ideally, (and under my proposed system) you'd be able to man the mortar, take out the nest, then abandon the mortar and re-amalgamate the shitty weapon team with your 2 remaining volks, all without any loss of operational ability to an otherwise useless mortar, and no retreating either!

I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.

Also, I disagree with the fact that just because KCH were able to get next to an extremely slow AT gun, they 'deserve' to kill off the crew. That's like saying that it's unfair to retreat an MG squad because you got a tank (it's natural hard counter) next to it.

You expect to be able to abandon your position, and come back to fight another day, and I see no reason why it should be any different with AT guns. If I got assault weapons next to an AT gun, I'd expect to not have to worry about it TEMPORARILY, unless I took it, destroyed it, or made sure that my enemy didn't retake the gun. Otherwise, I think that he should have every right to take the forces that abandoned the gun and ran away to come back and start dishing out the damage again.

AT guns are risky, I agree, but crazy-gluing the at gun crew's hands to the gun itself seems like a strange policy to enact in the army.

I think it also goes without saying that under my proposed system, the last man manning a mortar or an AT gun wouldn't commit suicide when his buddies got shot- he could retreat to fight another day... Again, I think that these changes are logical, barely change the game, and simply reward players that are prudent and forsightful.

[Arkandea]

I think that these changes are logical, barely change the game, and simply reward players that are prudent and forsightful.

But Relic doesn't swing that way, they prefer balance changes such as nerfing the already under-performing Churchill and boosting the most competent faction in the game (Wehr)

You need to make sure the logic behind your change is unclear, else this will not be implemented

[Zwebbie]

They're more of a get-out-of-shit free card. Didn't bother to support your heavy weapons? No problem, you'll lose absolutely nothing. Assault infantry are supposed to murder heavy weapons up close. You can't argue that they deserve a chance to wait until danger passes, because you've already made a mistake if you have them in danger. Protect your heavy weapons. If you fail to, it's your own fault that your guys die, and having them retreat unscathed after that is completely unfair to the assaulting guy.

Heavy weapons are not underpowered and captured heavy weapons are downright awesome for cost. They just have one weakness - they die quickly once the enemy has defeated/got by your defences. Please don't take away their weakness.

CoH has tough decisions. Where do I place my heavy weapons to keep them safe, how close do I keep other units to protect them, do I want to keep my infantry squad intact or do I want a free Mortar? Having a cake and eating it is dynamic, but decreases the value of the choice.

[MrTittles]

I just suppose we're going to have to agree to disagree at this point, Zwebbie. Personally, I'm against assault weaponry being as powerful as it is in the game, but again, i believe that's a preferential view rather than an objective one.

I still think your logic is flawed, though. Let's look at what's going on here. At one point, you say: "You can't argue that they deserve a chance to wait until danger passes, because you've already made a mistake if you have them in danger. Protect your heavy weapons." Then, you go onto say "They just have one weakness - they die quickly once the enemy has defeated/got by your defences. Please don't take away their weakness."

Even without the incredibly imba matchups this game can provide, your logic is flawed. Essentially what you're telling is that I MUST support my heavy weapons, or else I deserve to have them die. You're also saying that even if I support my heavy weapons, and for some reason the enemy can break through my defensive barrier, then I also diserve to have them die. So, essentially you're espousing either a simcity or support weapon spams.

Now, I'm making a small assumption here, but I'm ASSUMING that you don't enjoy the fact that Rangers, for instance, have the ability to ignore supression and run up to anything they choose, at lightning fast speeds, and slaughter them with thomsons. So, if I were to do that to, say 2 mgs of yours, a mortar, and a AT gun, you consider it fair? Do I deserve to kill all of those things despite the fact that all I had to do to get past the MG's fire arcs was press one "IWIN" button and either spam nades or rely on thomsons? Does a 400MP 100Muni investment seem like a fair trade for a well setup, well supported defensive combine costing a grand total of 1100 MP?! I think not!

There are examples of these kinds of things that happen to every side (except PE, and to a lesser extent, brits) but every side has the capability to inflict such damage. Assault nades are a horribly overpowered way of clearing out MGs. You're saying that one 50 muni ability should allow a 280, 50 muni squad to roll over every at gun and mortar behind it?

Early on, hafltracks DISERVE to kill support weapons simply because they get rifle resistance faster than any other side?

Of course the problems only get WORSE when nascar-fast ACs hit the field, and artillery is always a bane for heavy team weapons.

The simple fact of the matter is that enough mechanics exist in this game that allow any player to easily invalidate even the most well-thought out defensive positions. Thus, no amount of support (Save for another blob with automatic weaponry- and I hope you're not promoting blobbing) is going to be capable of stopping a concerted assault of troops weilding automatic weaponry and and one special ability.

Besides, the system of de-crewing that I propose wouldn't REMOVE the weakness of heavy weapons, it would simply dilute it slightly. Bear in mind that even if a whole bunch of heavy weapons teams can simply run away when they see danger coming, it's still the attacking player that gains the ground, and if he choses, to take those heavy weapons himself, or destroy them! Either way, a prudent attacker gains quite a bit out of this situation! No less, in fact, than he should!

This system is designed not to deprive attackers of any palpable advantage, but rather to decrease the effect of one-off artillery strikes and overpowered assault infantry that are immune or resistant to suppression.

[Rotlung]

Apart from AT guns, as well as emplacements (brit emplacements, 88s, etc.), the rest can repack the weapon and then retreat. Considering the duration taken to repack the weapon, versus the cost of reinforcing the squad that manned the weapon... I don't see how it becomes much of a problem.

Would it be fair to say that the price you pay for the heavy weapon team itself isn't for the 3 soldiers, but more of the weapon itself?

[zig83]

I agree with Zwebbie.

It seems like a sound suggestion to getting COH more realistic, but definitely isn't a necessary change to the gameplay mechanics. The proposal doesn't address any real problems in CoH gameplay.

Maybe in COH 2. When the mechanics are fundamentally revised to support such a dramatic change, then it could work.

It would be an interesting change, but not a very appropriate one given the state of the current game.

[Arkandea]

If a weapon crew happens to run into a Rifle squad or something, they'll drop the weapon and run to cover. This gives the option of the Rifles simply picking up the weapon and running home with it on their shoulders, while the weapon crew sprays and prays in their general direction.

This change wouldn't really undermine the counter system, I for one wouldn't mind getting a free MG42 because my opponent dropped it out of fear

[Zwebbie]

MrTittles - I fail to see how buffing heavy weapons is a solution to overbuffed assault infantry. At its heart, CoH is - or was at one point and should be - about flanking. The sooner we get back to "hey, attacking MGs from the front is a terrible idea", the better. The solution would be nerfing Assault Nades/Fire Up!/Heroic Charge/PG suppression resistance/etc, because two wrongs don't make a right.

I'll admit that running up some troops with Fire Up! doesn't take a whole lot of skill, but let's dismiss that as a ridiculous ability and pretend that it'll get patched away at some point. Then, we're left with a situation where the only option to get to well-defended heavy weapons is a flanking manoeuvre. An assault team will have to bypass or defeat defences, go behind enemy lines and kill a heavy weapons team - if they lose two or three men, they've already lost more manpower than the defender who has to recrew something! That's an impressive, risky feat and certainly the entire point of the game. Shouldn't it be rewarded?

From my point of view, you're trying to equalise the battle between assault troops and heavy weapons by buffing the heavy weapons, where I think that nerfing assault infantry would be better for gameplay. An IDONTLOSE button isn't going to solve the problems that an IWIN button brings.

[Arkandea]

The weapons teams aren't good fighters, I don't see how they could possibly pose a threat to assualt infantry. They'd drop like flies and are expensive to reinforce, so it wouldn't be cost effective to fight using them unless they were in a big building.

That said, entering the building has the downfall of losing the weapon. If you just wiped out the hostile infantry defending it, how hard is it to kill the mediocre weapon crew hiding in the barn? It's not even necessary to kill the crew; just grab the weapon and retreat.

The weapon crews would pose a negligible threat to any infantry stronger then Engineers, I don't see why you're referring to them like they have any sort of combat potential.

[MrTittles]

Thanks, Arkandrea- I'm glad someone sees things my way: was beginning to feel a little bit alone here.

Zwebbie, I agree with you on practically every point of your argument with a very pointed exception of two. You keep coming back to this point of "Shouldn't it be REWARDED?"

I think the answer is No! I understand that daring flanking manouvres are risky, and deserve to be rewarded in some way, but even if weapons teams were given an instant chance to abandon their weapons (and not lose a third member after losing the first two) It'd STILL be a shooting gallery, and you'd still get rewarded! Just not with the chance to mercilessly slaughter every stranded weapon team.

The point of this game is to be tactically sound, and strategy is supposed to play a backseat role. This kind of reward you propose is one of an attritional nature, as in, you win battles by killing as many enemies as you can. I guess that's where you and I differ- I believe this game is won by a series of brilliant tactical manouvres that allow you to gain ground, points, and tatcially superior locations. I don't expect to kill enemies as rewards, I expect to gain the location they held, and be rewarded with a higher income garnered from taking the points. If my system were to be implemented, then I'd also expect to gain the decrewed heavy weapons that they dropped in a rush to get out of my brilliant flanking move. If that isn't reward enough, then I'm not sure what is.

Now, I do agree with you that assault weaponry should be heavily nerfed (See my thread on fire superiority- that got alot of support), but that doesn't account for artillery strikes or fast tanks or vehicles that can simply drive straight up to AT guns with barely a scratch. Allowing the weapon crews to simply take their hands off of their weapons (by removing this mysterious duct tape that seems to bond all teams to their weapons, permanently) is NOT an "Idon'tlose" button, it's a "preserve-the-vet-and-manpower-I-would-lose-if-I-wasn't-as-aware-of-my-squads" button. If you think that saving manpower by an otherwise harmless ability is "buffing" heavy weapon squads, then you, sir, have to take a LONG HARD LOOK at medic bunkers. (Medic bunkers do everything you seem to think is wrong with my idea, but they do it for cheaper and turn out better infantry than died to make them).

Besides, you yourself outlined the various abilities that makes this Assault/Unsupressable infantry dynamic unbalanced with weapons teams, as is. But you're calling MY suggestions unrealistic, when what you've essentially proposed is that we shouldn't worry about increasing the surivability of weapons teams because "Fire Up! (and assault nades, and PG suppression resistance, and heroic charge, and commando smoke) doesn't take a whole lot of skill, but let's dismiss (Them) as a ridiculous ability and pretend that it'll get patched away at some point." It would be a happy day for everyone if all of those abilities were to suddenly dissapear, but what are the chances of that happening?

You, sir, may pretend all you like, but I'd rather keep this discussion to realistic proposals that have a chance of making it into gameplay.