Weapons Teams & Reinforcement Costs

First, a quick disclaimer so you know where I stand - I'm a mid-level, mostly Ostheer player and I play 1v1 and 2v2 games. Anyways, I'm finding myself up against Maxim spam in probably 75% of my games against Soviet players these days. I really, really dislike having to play against this strategy. It's not that I think it's too strong, but I find it rather boring to play against and dislike how a "support" weapon often makes up the bulk of the enemy force.

Even more than that, I'm often left feeling that even when I roll out the intended counters to the Maxims - mortars and snipers, for example - I'm not punishing the enemy player enough. Killing several Maxim team members never seems to really put much of a dent into the enemy player's economy.

So I did some math.

In both CoH1 and CoH2, the general rule for infantry reinforcement costs has been:

Squad cost / number of squad members / 2

This is not always true, but I believe it's the default rule, and it often holds true. For example, Conscripts cost 20MP to reinforce because 240MP / 6 / 2 = 20MP. Likewise, Grenadiers cost 30MP to reinforce because 240MP / 4 / 2 = 30MP.

Then we get to weapons teams. If we follow the rule above, Maxim teams should cost 20MP to reinforce. However, they actually cost just 15MP to reinforce. Likewise, the Soviet mortar should cost 20MP to reinforce, but it also costs just 15MP to reinforce.

Before I get accused of Axis bias, I checked the Ostheer weapon teams as well. The MG42's reinforcement cost, for example, should be 32.5MP (260MP / 4 / 2), but is actually a bargain 22MP to reinforce. The same thing goes for the Ostheer mortar, which should have a 30MP reinforce cost instead of a 22MP one.

What this does is create a situation where support weapons teams are more viable - at least in economic terms - than regular infantry units. As a result, we're seeing a lot of weapon team spam - as well as, in my opinion, some rather boring gameplay. Even more important, weapon team spammers aren't getting punished enough when their units die because crewmember reinforcement costs are lower than they should be.

So my balance solution is pretty simple: adjust squad reinforcement costs - for all factions - so that the rule listed above (squad cost / number of squad members / 2) holds true in most, if not all, circumstances. Obviously this wouldn't represent a monumental change, but I think it would be a move for the better and would push support weapons teams back into their intended support role.

I think it is something like
(Squad cost - Team weapon cost) / number of squad members / 2

So for Maxim it is
(240 - 60) / 6 / 2 = 15

And for .50 cal MG
(280 - 0) / 4 / 2 = 35

This is not always true, but I believe it's the default rule, and it often holds true. For example, Conscripts cost 20MP to reinforce because 240MP / 6 / 2 = 20MP. Likewise, Grenadiers cost 30MP to reinforce because 240MP / 4 / 2 = 30MP.

Then we get to weapons teams. If we follow the rule above, Maxim teams should cost 20MP to reinforce. However, they actually cost just 15MP to reinforce. Likewise, the Soviet mortar should cost 20MP to reinforce, but it also costs just 15MP.

Before I get accused of Axis bias, I checked the Ostheer weapon teams as well. The MG42, for example, should cost 32.5MP to reinforce (260MP / 4 / 2), but it actually costs a bargain 22MP to reinforce. The same thing goes for the Ostheer mortar, which should cost 30MP to reinforce but actually costs just 22MP.

So my balance solution is pretty simple: adjust squad reinforcement costs - for all factions - so that the rule listed above (squad cost / number of squad members / 2) holds true in most, if not all, circumstances. Obviously this wouldn't represent a monumental change, but I think it would be a move for the better and would push support weapons teams back into their intended support role.

Actually the formula does hold true, you're just missing a key piece of it: the weapon itself. The crew of a Maxim Machine Gun costs 180 Manpower, and the Maxim itself costs 60 Manpower, for a total of 240 Manpower. That also means that 180 / 6 / 2 = 15. Same goes for the Mortar which is also 60MP, or the ZiS-3 Anti-Tank Gun which is 140MP.

The truth is simply that Weapon Crews are just cheap, their rifles or submachine guns are near-useless, so they exist to use a weapon and they are relatively disposable. They have 25% received accuracy which means they die much faster than regular Infantry, so they need to be cheaply replaced.

Maxim spam is silly and unfun, but the formula you mentioned is definitely in use. Maxim Spam is mostly the result of Conscripts being the worst scaling core infantry in the game. Grenadiers get MG 42's, Volksgrenadiers get Panzerschrecks, Riflemen get 4 weapon options, Conscripts get nothing.

Maxim spam is silly and unfun, but the formula you mentioned is definitely in use. Maxim Spam is mostly the result of Conscripts being the worst scaling core infantry in the game. Grenadiers get MG 42's, Volksgrenadiers get Panzerschrecks, Riflemen get 4 weapon options, Conscripts get nothing.

If you counted in doctrinal options for Riflemen (Flamer, LMG) you should do so for Conscripts as well.
So, Conscripts get 2 weapon options, Grens get 2 options too.

If you counted in doctrinal options for Riflemen (Flamer, LMG) you should do so for Conscripts as well.
So, Conscripts get 2 weapon options, Grens get 2 options too.

True, I forgot about the PTRS because I don't have that commander, and the PPSh because it's bad. I say bad because the PPSh is the only infantry upgrade (besides the PzGr G43 which also needs fixed) to lower DPS at some ranges, every other upgrade (BAR, G43, LMG's) increase it at all ranges.

The reason your experiencing this weapon team spam is simply your skill level. Not having a jab at you for your rank or anything like that. I remember that I myself would favour maxims over Cons as Sov, and would play vs Maxim spam all the time.

Its just something that less experienced player do because it is slightly easier to A-move them around.

And your points about reinforcement are valid for sure

And for .50 cal MG
(280 - 0) / 4 / 2 = 35

This single fact is proof enough that Relic really doesn't "care" about their game.


This isn't just quality assurance or the bug testers, this is a company systematically and intentionally ignoring a simple, tiny fix that would take 10 seconds to implement because it would make them 0 money.

(BTW: HMG for Imperial Guard hasn't had side arms for 3+ years, so it's not SEGA's fault. It's 100% relic)


/off topic

[on topic]
I don't think this is a terrible problem, because of the 25% received accuracy modifier for weapons teams. 25% received accuracy is roughly equivalent to the same as 75% health (it's not quite, because a weapon does 0 or max dmg which can cause "overkill" in models) which is 3/4 health, so they die 33% more quickly (4/3). 4/3 of 15 happens to be 20 which, by the way, is exactly the same as what the original formlau said the maxim reinforce cost should be.

On a more serious note, if maxims/82mm mortars count as 60mp, 81mm mortars count as 64mp, and MG42s count as 84mp (cheers for the cost increase not affecting model cost) then what would an appropriate cost be for the USF .50? If we are to follow weapon crew pricing and especially the price of the MG42 as a guideline then it's safe to assume a 280mp squad has the single most expensive mg in the game.

Whoops, double post.

[on topic]
I don't think this is a terrible problem, because of the 25% received accuracy modifier for weapons teams. 25% received accuracy is roughly equivalent to the same as 75% health (it's not quite, because a weapon does 0 or max dmg which can cause "overkill" in models) which is 3/4 health, so they die 33% more quickly (4/3). 4/3 of 15 happens to be 20 which, by the way, is exactly the same as what the original formlau said the maxim reinforce cost should be.

Eh it depends on the degree of the spam, which can be pretty brutal against OKW. Last night I had a game where someeone had 3-4 maxims all in the same vicinity and the end result is that even spread out I was having multiple squads suppressed before they could get many shots off. I end up burning through all of my munitions throwing the worthless OKW grenades that at most would take 3-4 models before I was pinned. The MP bleed simply didn't hurt that playstyle enough compared to the Muni sink I was forced to endure that resulted in no shreks to deal with T-70s and the like. And God forbid the maxim is in a strong stone building -.-

Maxim should be 4 man team. Fixed.

Maxim should be 4 man team. Fixed.

No if rifle nade exists.

Maxim is fine

Actually the formula does hold true, you're just missing a key piece of it: the weapon itself. The crew of a Maxim Machine Gun costs 180 Manpower, and the Maxim itself costs 60 Manpower, for a total of 240 Manpower. That also means that 180 / 6 / 2 = 15. Same goes for the Mortar which is also 60MP, or the ZiS-3 Anti-Tank Gun which is 140MP.

The truth is simply that Weapon Crews are just cheap, their rifles or submachine guns are near-useless, so they exist to use a weapon and they are relatively disposable. They have 25% received accuracy which means they die much faster than regular Infantry, so they need to be cheaply replaced.

/thread

I'll add that the "overlook" of making recrew weapons lost their +25% RA is accounted for the difference in reinforce cost.

If I may argue a bit further, although I admit that I misunderstood how reinforcement costs are calculated, I don't really get why the weapon cost is subtracted from the squad cost. It doesn't seem necessary or even particularly logical to me (especially if US team weapons don't have the weapon cost subtracted from their total cost, as ElSlayer pointed out).

And although I get that weapon team members are fairly expendable, I'm not sure if having higher received accuracy means that they should have lower reinforcement costs. Don't the weapon crews have higher received accuracy because - unlike regular infantry - they're not really supposed to be taking much punishment to begin with? Mortar crews, for instance, clearly aren't supposed to be getting shot at very much. Their main form of defense is positioning.

Not trying to be argumentative, just want to make a few counter-points.

The reason your experiencing this weapon team spam is simply your skill level. Not having a jab at you for your rank or anything like that. I remember that I myself would favour maxims over Cons as Sov, and would play vs Maxim spam all the time.

Its just something that less experienced player do because it is slightly easier to A-move them around.

And your points about reinforcement are valid for sure

Much fail, I sense in you

First, a quick disclaimer so you know where I stand - I'm a mid-level, mostly Ostheer player and I play 1v1 and 2v2 games. Anyways, I'm finding myself up against Maxim spam in probably 75% of my games against Soviet players these days. I really, really dislike having to play against this strategy. It's not that I think it's too strong, but I find it rather boring to play against and dislike how a "support" weapon often makes up the bulk of the enemy force.

Even more than that, I'm often left feeling that even when I roll out the intended counters to the Maxims - mortars and snipers, for example - I'm not punishing the enemy player enough. Killing several Maxim team members never seems to really put much of a dent into the enemy player's economy.

So I did some math.

In both CoH1 and CoH2, the general rule for infantry reinforcement costs has been:

Squad cost / number of squad members / 2

This is not always true, but I believe it's the default rule, and it often holds true. For example, Conscripts cost 20MP to reinforce because 240MP / 6 / 2 = 20MP. Likewise, Grenadiers cost 30MP to reinforce because 240MP / 4 / 2 = 30MP.

Then we get to weapons teams. If we follow the rule above, Maxim teams should cost 20MP to reinforce. However, they actually cost just 15MP to reinforce. Likewise, the Soviet mortar should cost 20MP to reinforce, but it also costs just 15MP to reinforce.

Before I get accused of Axis bias, I checked the Ostheer weapon teams as well. The MG42's reinforcement cost, for example, should be 32.5MP (260MP / 4 / 2), but is actually a bargain 22MP to reinforce. The same thing goes for the Ostheer mortar, which should have a 30MP reinforce cost instead of a 22MP one.

What this does is create a situation where support weapons teams are more viable - at least in economic terms - than regular infantry units. As a result, we're seeing a lot of weapon team spam - as well as, in my opinion, some rather boring gameplay. Even more important, weapon team spammers aren't getting punished enough when their units die because crewmember reinforcement costs are lower than they should be.

So my balance solution is pretty simple: adjust squad reinforcement costs - for all factions - so that the rule listed above (squad cost / number of squad members / 2) holds true in most, if not all, circumstances. Obviously this wouldn't represent a monumental change, but I think it would be a move for the better and would push support weapons teams back into their intended support role.

All u say make a lot of sense to me, but there are more variable in this game, such vulnereable and time to reinfornce.
And i agree with you. I'm seeing more weapon team now, plus with ostheer.

Sorry for my english, i'm pretty rusty.
Nice post.
Cya