PAK-43, static Howitzers, and Emplacements rework.

TL: DR: Make all static weapons (Howitzers, PAK-43, Brit Emplacements) buildings, like the current Brit emplacements, but allow all of them to scuttle themselves and become an infantry squad that can go build a replacement somewhere else (Consuming the squad)





It has long been considered that the PAK-43 and the various static howitzers that the Soviets and Axis factions get access to are rather polarising. On the one hand, without your enemy having a suitable offmap, or the ability to get in-range to strike with Rocket artillery (For those factions with access to such things) these units "can" be extremely effective, and even oppressive in limited circumstances.

Their immobility, however, means that a wide swathe of offmap artillery barrages are able to simply delete these units after they are initially spotted, with very little in the way of counterplay (Or, rather, no counterplay, in some circumstances. Spec ops flares + several OKW or OST offmap combos, for example, or certain allied recon planes (that cannot be reasonably expected to have been shot down before glimpsing the static gun)), leading to them being effectively pointless in many games.

This is not to mention the Axis LEFH access to Counterbarrage, which provides Axis with a micro-free counter to opposing indirect fire, particularly to static howitzers and to light rocket artillery (All except the Calliope). This can further invalidate allied howitzers due to their being deleted soon after firing, and also invalidate allied rocket artillery (Again, barring the Calliope, but particularly hardcountering the Land Mattress).

Similar units are the UKF emplacements, that can be broadly compared to these static pieces, the 17 pounder being fairly analogous to the PAK-43 (Though with the benefit of not being able to be decrewed, and a general increase in survivability, in part thanks to Brace... while losing the PAK's ability to fire through shotblockers), and the Mortar Pit, which (poorly) fulfils a similar role to a Howitzer with the new "Heavy barrage" ability, but is ultimately just two mortars stuck inside a building.

Compare this with the UKF and USF mobile artillery pieces, the Sexton and the Priest, which are significantly less vulnerable, and so much more versatile than the Soviet and Axis howitzers thanks to their mobility.

All of this combined means that Howitzers in particular (And less so weapons such as the PAK-43, which is merely not very good in most games) swing wildly between incredibly oppressive and practically worthless, dependent on the faction/doctrine you are facing.


I believe this has been suggested before, but have the Balance team considered allowing all Artillery pieces, emplacements, and other static guns (Pak-43) to "Scuttle" themselves, as the PAK-43 currently can? I would suggest that such scuttling doesn't merely destroy the piece, but instead destroys the gun/emplacement, and leaves behind a squad consisting of the infantry that were manning the weapon.

This squad ("X" crew, with "X" being the type of gun they originally manned) would have negligible combat statistics, high vulnerability to small arms through increased RA, the same population impact as the original weapon, and retain their veterancy from their time as a crewman. The squad would have health equal to the percentage health left on the emplacement when it was scuttled, making late scuttling -> crew retreats not necessarily a free "save".

This squad would have precisely one unique aspect: The ability to build a new instance of the weapon they had originally crewed, for either a heavily discounted price (Reduced to a nominal fuel cost), or even for free. The weapon will be constructed more quickly than the original, acting less as the construction of a new unit, but instead acting as the original unit repositioning. Upon completion the squad will be consumed in order to crew the new weapon. Alternately, they are simply able to build the weapon, and subsequently can be ordered to crew it. In either case, the ability for them to build /another/ weapon is disabled until they scuttle the one they have constructed. The new weapon will have initial health set to a lower value than max, requiring further tending to by engineers to bring the building back up to full health.

Further changes that can be made thanks to this:
Show Spoiler


This will have several effects:
Show Spoiler




Addendum: The optimal implementation of this would not be to scuttle and then rebuild the emplacement/weapon, of course, but instead to be able to simply pack the weapon up and move it as a "large" team weapon. There exists no animation for this, and no way to implement it, sadly, so this is kind of the only real way I can think you'd do this, other than packing the weapons up into an Opel Blitz or other truck, i guess... which also has no animation.

Thank you for reading this essay, I am not very good at writing concisely. Criticisms welcome, I am aware this is almost certainly not going to be implemented, and likely not even considered, but I think it's an interesting topic to cover, and even if its' beyond CoH2, perhaps Lelic might do something similar in CoH3.

would it lose the vet as well?

would it lose the vet as well?

Ideally no, the idea being that you're moving an existing unit.

Ideally no, the idea being that you're moving an existing unit.

im not sure then... since arty gets extra range at vet 3 you could have it up closer to vet up then move it back to make better use of the range.

its too bad they didnt follow through with the idea of towing arty with vehicles, that woulda been choice

Ideally no, the idea being that you're moving an existing unit.

It is possible to create a crew with veterancy level equal to the scuttled howitzer and have them rebuild a gun with veterancy equal to theirs. However, I'm unsure whether any "between-the-levels" experience could be retained this way.

These units are strong (in limited circumstances), because they are static, thats their trade off.

You are supposed to pick commanders that counter what your opponent is doing. So its about picking these static units when you know the enemy will have a harder time countering them, i.e. they have gone for commanders without off map bomb etc.

Also pak43 for example, would be way OP if you could move it forward as you gain ground, just pushing the enemy further and further back.

These units are strong (in limited circumstances), because they are static, thats their trade off.

You are supposed to pick commanders that counter what your opponent is doing. So its about picking these static units when you know the enemy will have a harder time countering them, i.e. they have gone for commanders without off map bomb etc.

Also pak43 for example, would be way OP if you could move it forward as you gain ground, just pushing the enemy further and further back.

You aren't necessarily supposed to pick commanders to counter your opponent. Many commanders are picked proactively, and there's little reason a doctrinal unit should become completely worthless because an opponent "countered" it by picking one of the tens of commanders with any sort of artillery ability. Further: The Brits already have a nondoctrinal equivalent to the PAK-43 in the 17-pounder, It's hardly good design to have a faction's nondoctrinal units be completely invalidated by doctrinal abilities.

I go over the fact that these units would be able to be rebalanced if they had the ability to be repositioned. As it stands static units either need to be overpowered to be usable, or are otherwise effectively memes due to their vulnerability and complete inability to adapt to changing battlefield conditions. All signs point to complete immobility not being something fitting of CoH2's gameplay loop.

What makes the PAK-43 especially OP if it were able to be moved? Is its 10 additional range enough to force it to be entirely immobile relative to the armoured Elefant, Jagdtiger, and ISU (The ISU even having the ability to engage both heavy armour and infantry extremely effectively)? The PAK and 17 pounder may not even need 80 range if they were able to be repositioned, as especially the PAK would not need to be placed behind shotblockers/in the far back lines.

im not sure then... since arty gets extra range at vet 3 you could have it up closer to vet up then move it back to make better use of the range.

its too bad they didnt follow through with the idea of towing arty with vehicles, that woulda been choice

Veterancy would of course be rebalanced, definitely removing things like range increases, and the units simply wouldn't "need" them. Towing artillery and other units would have been a nice feature, but sadly lelic never bothered. Admittedly the scale of maps might make such things a little obsolete, there's a reason people don't generally use "transport" vehicles to simply transport units, after all, distances are too small.

It is possible to create a crew with veterancy level equal to the scuttled howitzer and have them rebuild a gun with veterancy equal to theirs. However, I'm unsure whether any "between-the-levels" experience could be retained this way.

Is it impossible for scuttling to simply eject a "Vehicle crew" and then destroy itself? (And subsequently have said crew "enter" the newly built weapon?) I suppose i can forsee bugs with the "forcing the unit to enter the 'vehicle' once built" part of the equation.

I don't mind replacing Counter Barrage on the LeFH18 but for the opposite reason, because it's really bad. I don't know what everyone is complaining about. It uses regular scatter and fires into the FOW (1.75 scatter penalty iirc) so the chance to hit anything it's actually aiming at is very small, and enemy arty is usually not near many other units either. Maybe it'll get a lucky hit on a squad passing by at best. In testing it took me over 5 counter barrage runs to kill a Katyusha and I ultimately had to bring the Katyusha really close to the LeFH for it to finally score a hit. If an enemy player relocates their rocket artillery immediately after firing, counter barrage is too slow to score a hit in the first place. You're way better off using the regular barrage instead.

I know some commanders are picked pro activley, but then its upto you to force that battle plan to work, and upto the opponent to shrug it off and look for the weaknesses. (obvious example being getting light vehicles vs someone spamming assault grens).

Brit having emplacements is an exception, because they have brace to help them deal with being immobile. So an off map on its own will never counter brits, but combined with several other things yeah it can help.

IF, theoretically you were to have these units mobile, would probably be better if the inf pushed the gun at the speed of cloaked AT gun, so you cant just magic your really powerful static unit out of danger, even worse being able to retreat the squad! You would have units with high reward (they are powerful), and low risk.

I don't mind replacing Counter Barrage on the LeFH18 but for the opposite reason, because it's really bad. I don't know what everyone is complaining about. It uses regular scatter and fires into the FOW so the chance to hit anything it's actually aiming at (and arty is usually not near other units either) is very small. Maybe it'll get a lucky hit on a squad passing by at best. In testing it took me over 5 counter barrage runs to kill a Katyusha and I ultimately had to bring the Katyusha really close to the LeFH for it to finally score a hit. You're way better off using the regular barrage instead.

That's strange, my experience of using it has been quite the opposite, honestly. When I build an LEFH (Which I only ever do to counter soviet howitzers/Katyusha, and the Land Mattress) it normally does really quite a good job of deleting Mortars and the Land Mattress (And ZIS). The Katyusha being killed is less guaranteed, but its an ever-present threat, and it happens with fairly good regularity. Had a game yesterday where my LEFH killed five vehicles (Several of those were likely to be the Land Mattress the enemy had being decrewed, but some were Katyusha) and reached veterancy five. Still lost that game, but that was due to restrictive popcaps preventing me from getting some of the units i desperately needed, and my teammate's insistence of walking blobs into Katyusha fire.

The main benefit of it, though, is that it's automatic. I can just leave my LEFH to its own devices at veterancy one, and focus my attention on the rest of my army (which is unfortunately a little gimped, OKW has some population issues as it is, and the LEFH is rather expensive. This is less an issue for OST, but still pronounced)

Has the Balance team considered making these units "movable" in this fashion, by the way? I realise it's a VERY big project, but I'm interested to know where you guys stand on this sort of issue. That was really the main part of this post, giving an excuse to get rid of Counter-battery on the LEFH (And absolutely on Brits) is a side-effect.

I know some commanders are picked pro activley, but then its upto you to force that battle plan to work, and upto the opponent to shrug it off and look for the weaknesses. (obvious example being getting light vehicles vs someone spamming assault grens).

I don't agree that someone "spamming" assault grenadiers being countered by a light vehicle is quite the same situation. The assault grenadiers in such a case are still entirely usable, the vehicle cannot be everywhere at once, after all, and other units can be used to support them (Such as the PAK, or simply having built one or two grenadiers for Fausts). They also still have their window of optimum use before such light vehicles arrive.

In the case of something like the Pak-43 though, one offmap or a fortunate Katyusha (or Stuka, in the case of Soviet weapons) means the end of the weapon, with effectively nothing you can reasonably be expected to do about it. I simply don't think an unit has any business being completely invalidated like this.

Brit having emplacements is an exception, because they have brace to help them deal with being immobile. So an off map on its own will never counter brits, but combined with several other things yeah it can help.

Zeroing artillery would be inclined to disagree with you.

IF, theoretically you were to have these units mobile, would probably be better if the inf pushed the gun at the speed of cloaked AT gun, so you cant just magic your really powerful static unit out of danger, even worse being able to retreat the squad! You would have units with high reward (they are powerful), and low risk.

This would, of course, be the absolute ideal scenario, yes, and I mentioned this in my OP post. The issue is that there isnt any functionality in the game to allow these units to move like a PAK-40 or other team weapon, especially not the Bofors. They simply aren't set up for that.

I'd agree that having the resultant squad move like a (non-retreatable) team weapon rather than an infantry squad would be idea, though. I don't know if there are any "non-combat" team weapons in the game that could be used as a proxy. A handcart with boxes, for example. Failing that, there's not much of a way around it other than simply disallowing retreat on that particular squad, but I don't know if that's necessary. Sufficient RA penalties would be enough to make such things quite risky, and the reasonably lengthy "pack up" and "deploy" times of these units would mean they cannot simply leave at a moment's notice, particularly if there is a nominal cost involved in them setting back up.

Again, look to the ISU/Elefant/Jagdtiger and the Sexton/Priest, they are effectively mobile versions of the PAK-43 and Howitzers, respectively. Even in the rework I'm describing, the "static" units are still much more vulnerable and immobile when compared to either of those two categories of unit.

Standard leFH info dump: CB is 200 damage, 1.25 FoW scatter vs normally 160 damage 1.75 FoW scatter.

I don't mind replacing Counter Barrage on the LeFH18 but for the opposite reason, because it's really bad. I don't know what everyone is complaining about. It uses regular scatter and fires into the FOW (1.75 scatter penalty iirc) so the chance to hit anything it's actually aiming at is very small, and enemy arty is usually not near many other units either. Maybe it'll get a lucky hit on a squad passing by at best. In testing it took me over 5 counter barrage runs to kill a Katyusha and I ultimately had to bring the Katyusha really close to the LeFH for it to finally score a hit. You're way better off using the regular barrage instead.

the strength in counter barrage is that the enemy katy has a chance to self destruct with no input from you. or their mortar, or their zis or anything that harrages. the issue is the no input and the nature of RNG meaning it can be quite devastating, again, with 0 input. the gun even rotates to face the threat so you dont even need to guess where the enemy fire is going to come from...

They are all fine how they are. Self-propelled arty costs fuel anyways, ofcourse they are mobile and static arty shouldn't be

the strength in counter barrage is that the enemy katy has a chance to self destruct with no input from you. or their mortar, or their zis or anything that harrages. the issue is the no input and the nature of RNG meaning it can be quite devastating, again, with 0 input.

That's hardly a strength when it comes at the cost of sacrificing the regular barrage that can/will generally be more impactful. It's not like targeting a regular barrage is the epitome of effort either.

They are all fine how they are. Self-propelled arty costs fuel anyways, ofcourse they are mobile and static arty shouldn't be

Unless you haven't played the game for at least a couple of years now, static pieces require fuel as well.

I'm also interested in what happened to your CoH clone, are you keeping faithful to Relic's original ideas like you're preaching on these forums as well or...?

As far as the OP is concerned, I think that this is a brilliant idea, the same as the mobile OKW trucks that several mods have implemented now too, which will never unfortunately see the light of day.

CoH's concept is a war of movement and that's why the British largely suffer through both of the games but according to some "pros" and the people in charge of development that's fine because it's different and unique even if it's also broken or ineffective at the same time.

that's a really nicely thought out and well presented proposal, but i voted no still because i think being static is simply the defining trait of emplacements and they're balanced around this (e.g. have higher range and damage output). the ability to scuttle them once obsolete or in a bad position (maybe even with a small return of the initial investment) is as far as i'd go.

PAK-43? What is that? Havent seen one in years

I recall being able to move the PaK-43 very slowly in the campaign.

Being able to slightly move any of the 'static' weapons is absolutely necessary for any of them to be even slightly useful in a competitive sense and it'd be disappointing to know they don't actually have animations for that.

That's hardly a strength when it comes at the cost of sacrificing the regular barrage that can/will generally be more impactful. It's not like targeting a regular barrage is the epitome of effort either.

surely you are aware that micro is a resource as well yes? anything that requires none (and i mean NONE) is by default an issue in a strategy game. its not hard to target a barrage, but its infinitely less effort to have the game do it all by itself.

also you can turn off counter battery with the same amount of effort it requires to use it (that being exactly 1 click)

ideally you dont leave it on, but when the enemy gets something that is displacing you you pop it and can turn your attention to making sure that thing doesnt erase your infantry.

surely you are aware that micro is a resource as well yes?

3 easy clicks to put down a barrage, what a waste of resources indeed. Not to mention diminishing returns on your big micro saving investment turning on counter barrage when it fails to hit anything when you could've regular barraged a much more target rich environment instead.

It's a meh ability and generally a bad investment compared to a regular barrage. Easy micro barraging a target rich environment > no micro shooting at a lone artillery piece with a tiny chance of hitting it.