Improving stationary support weapons

Stationary support weapons are kinda underused. Not only are they easily countered by off-map strikes and - if that wasn't enough - pretty expensive in terms of MP, the commanders aren't that great either.

So, how could relic improve their viability without actually buffing them?

Here's my idea:

Once you reach the needed CPs, your Pios/Engineers can build them WITHOUT crew for the MP cost of only the actual gun. That would be 360MP for one LeFH, for example.

The crew needs to be built at the HQ FIRST for the rest of the MP cost - 240MP in case of the ML-20/leFH. You can only have as many PAK43s/LeFHs/ML-20s as you have crews.

The crew can then operate the gun OR abandon it whenever you want (in case of an arty strike for example). The mechanic already exists ( see USF). You can't just re-crew them with, for example, Grens to abandon them again to get a free Gren squad. Only the buildable crew can re-crew those guns.

Stationary weapons could still be destroyed by Stuka Dive Bombs or Il-2 bombing runs instantly BUT (in case you saved the crew) your next howitzer will cost way less than they do ATM. And you keep the veterancy.

Whatcha think?

I like this plan, as long as the population cap is split between the crews and the weapons.

Cool idea but since you give crew a cost of 240mp wouldnt it be better if it was exact copy of how usf vehicles work? I mean the gun would be build with the crew for 600mp but the crew would be able to abandon it. If the crew gets killed you would be able to crew the gun with, for example grens but you will loose the squad for the time it is on the gun. Once they stop using the gun they come back as a squad they were before just like usf rifleman hopping out of captured p4. Right now with the changes to REs no army has a squad that is much cheaper than 240mp. Also the crew could get a bonus to reinforcement cost just like all current team weapons crew do to avoid exchanging immidiately for pioneers for example.

I think that solution is simplier and easier to understand. It also helps that it is almost equal to existing mechanic.

Cool idea but since you give crew a cost of 240mp wouldnt it be better if it was exact copy of how usf vehicles work? I mean the gun would be build with the crew for 600mp but the crew would be able to abandon it. If the crew gets killed you would be able to crew the gun with, for example grens but you will loose the squad for the time it is on the gun. Once they stop using the gun they come back as a squad they were before just like usf rifleman hopping out of captured p4. Right now with the changes to REs no army has a squad that is much cheaper than 240mp. Also the crew could get a bonus to reinforcement cost just like all current team weapons crew do.

Well, I wanted to separate crew and gun to make rebuilding howitzers less expensive. You pay a high amount of MP and it gets deleted by one click

You could make them better by nerfing the 3 units that completely negate crew-weapons.

Pwerfer
Walkingstuka
Calliope

Well, I wanted to separate crew and gun to make rebuilding howitzers less expensive. You pay a high amount of MP and it gets deleted by one click

I think ferwiner means the gun should just come with the crew to keep it simple and the crew should work just like USF's, but you of course believe the crew should be the only units capable of crewing the guns. I'd say to do both - make the crew come with the gun, make the crews the only ones capable of using the guns, make the crews able to build an unmanned gun (and only them) so their survival is paramount to recovering costs from destroyed guns.

You could make them better by nerfing the 3 units that completely negate crew-weapons.

Pwerfer
Walkingstuka
Calliope

Off-map arty is a significant factor to their current lack of usefulness as well.

I would suggest giving Pak43 and howitzers brace, like british emplacements. The howitzers I would suggest having a weaker form of it, since they're usually in the heavy backlines.

Brace is important for countering one off barrages, but doesn't help against a persistent assault.

it actually buffs arty without increasing his effectiveness, i like this idea

I think ferwiner means the gun should just come with the crew to keep it simple and the crew should work just like USF's, but you of course believe the crew should be the only units capable of crewing the guns. I'd say to do both - make the crew come with the gun, make the crews the only ones capable of using the guns, make the crews able to build an unmanned gun (and only them) so their survival is paramount to recovering costs from destroyed guns.

Ah that makes sense. I like this too!

I would suggest giving Pak43 and howitzers brace, like british emplacements. The howitzers I would suggest having a weaker form of it, since they're usually in the heavy backlines.

I think muni abilities should have some impact...just not as much as they currently have. Removing vet and MP without any counterplay involved is kinda lame.

Rendering a unit invulnerable to a muni investment (or a MP + fuel investment in case of rocket artillery) by just clicking one button is kinda lame too tho

Yeah, so the crew should be able to rebuild the gun for 360mp if it gets destroyed but the only way to get the crew should be building the gun with pios in my opinion. That way there is no need to mess with cp requirements for example.

Also I think it is important that whole squad of combat infantry should be able to crew the gun for two reasons. Firstly it makes no sense that you will need to have special squad to capture enemy gun, especially as many doctrines or even factions wouldn't be able to build crews. Secondly that way captured gun is worth a bit less than your own becouse if it gets attacked by off map you can save the squad but cant rebuild the gun.

Rendering a unit invulnerable to a muni investment (or a MP + fuel investment in case of rocket artillery) by just clicking one button is kinda lame too tho

You could put a muni cost on it for non-brit.

Also I think it is important that whole squad of combat infantry should be able to crew the gun for two reasons. Firstly it makes no sense that you will need to have special squad to capture enemy gun, especially as many doctrines or even factions wouldn't be able to build crews. Secondly that way captured gun is worth a bit less than your own becouse if it gets attacked by off map you can save the squad but cant rebuild the gun.

1. It kinda makes sense in a way. I'm pretty sure you have to be specially trained to be able to operate heavy artillery pieces and supersized PaKs. Well, IRL at least

2. Would that matter tho? In most cases you won't be able to actually re-crew artillery pieces / PaK43s. And even if you did, those would be so close to the enemy that you'd lose them anyway.

3. Again, if you manage to capture a LeFH/ML-20/PaK43 you will lose it regardless of what you do.

Being unable to capture those as UKF, USF and OKW doesn't seem to be a huge loss IMO.

For people reading the thread: I generally agree with the idea, just discussing some details

1. It kinda makes sense in a way. I'm pretty sure you have to be specially trained to be able to operate heavy artillery pieces and supersized PaKs. Well, IRL at least

Same goes with a mortar or ISG. We should be consistent about that. There is not much difference between using 120mm howitzer and 120mm mortar. As for pak43, it is used just like any other AT gun, and standard soldiers can capture tanks with 88mm and bigger guns.

2. Would that matter tho? In most cases you won't be able to actually re-crew artillery pieces / PaK43s. And even if you did, those would be so close to the enemy that you'd lose them anyway.

3. Again, if you manage to capture a LeFH/ML-20/PaK43 you will lose it regardless of what you do.

Being unable to capture those as UKF, USF and OKW doesn't seem to be a huge loss IMO.

In game on big maps there are some in the middle line of map where it makes sense to build artillery pieces or pak43 for both sides. Also usually it would make sense that infantry would at least fire into enemy positions before blowing up the guns.

If we would go with crews only though it may make sense to allow all engineer unit to scavange heavy artillery pieces for half of the cost (180mp). That way not only player can get something from capturing guns even if he wont be able to fire, instead of having to blow them up, but also you will be able to change positions of your own artillery without having to decrew and demo your own ML20. This also solves the problem of some factions not being able to get anything from the guns.

I like idea of getting 240MP howie crew at HQ which can build howie for 360MP and can always retreat to base leaving howie alone.

I made a thread on this a few weeks ago.

But I like your idea the more.

Same goes with a mortar or ISG. We should be consistent about that.

True

If we would go with crews only it may make sense to allow all engineer unit to scavange heavy artillery pieces for half of the cost (180mp). That way not only player can get something from capturing guns even if he wont be able to fire, instead of having to blow them up, but also you will be able to change positions of your own artillery without having to decrew and demo your own ML20. This also solves the problem of some factions not being able to get anything from the guns.

I like the idea of engineer units being able to sabotage un-crewed PaKs/howitzers to add some more counterplay options, though it shouldn't grant MP IMO.

I just doubt that it would be possible to implement such a mechanic since engineers would theoretically be able to salvage all other un-crewed weapons then, too :/

Just some random thought: If I retreat my crew and thus leave my howitzer un-crewed, wouldn't that give my opponent enough counterplay options? Like using demos or ATGs or any vehicle that can destroy it?

If that fails, there are still all those off-maps... Do we need a new mechanic as counterplay to abandoned howitzers/PaKs? I'm not sure TBH...

Just some random thought: If I retreat my crew and thus leave my howitzer un-crewed, wouldn't that give my opponent enough counterplay options? Like using demos or ATGs or any vehicle that can destroy it?

If that fails, there are still all those off-maps... Do we need a new mechanic as counterplay to abandoned howitzers/PaKs? I'm not sure TBH...

I just think that it should be rewarded that someone makes an efford to assault and capture the guns instead of just one click killing it with off-map. Right now there is in a way that you can use it after capture, if the machanic is going to be replaced it should also give something to promote interesting play. Also almost any army would rather capture enemy guns if possible than just destroy them, for example wehrmacht widely used soviet 120mm mortars and even lounched production of german shells for them.

In reality, gun teams would dig foxholes and trenches near their gun and hide out there, and this wasn't just for the immobile guns that needed transports to tow them.

This would lend itself well to an ability that acted like Brace, where the gun ceases to fire but the crew becomes garrisoned in their foxholes and are only vulnerable to grenades, flamethrowers, and other means of ousting troops from cover. The gun could still be destroyed during this time, but if it survives the attack then you retain the crew.

If the crew is wiped out (due to infantry assault or because they didn't hide), you can recrew the gun as normal, which rewards an opponent who is able to capture a gun position and turn the gun around on their enemy.

I just think that it should be rewarded that someone makes an efford to assault and capture the guns instead of just one click killing it with off-map. Right now there is in a way that you can use it after capture, if the machanic is going to be replaced it should also give something to promote interesting play. Also almost any army would rather capture enemy guns if possible than just destroy them, for example wehrmacht widely used soviet 120mm mortars and even lounched production of german shells for them.

Why should there be an extra mechanic that rewards attacking howitzers? Currently, you either use arty or you simply go and destroy howitzers/PaKs directly.

That wouldn't change even if you weren't able to re-crew the gun afterwards. Re-crewing those things doesn't give you a huge benefit anyway. Even on large maps where howitzers/PaKs are kinda close to the front you won't be able to do any serious damage by re-crewing them.

That's why I don't think a new mechanic is needed to reward players that fight howitzers directly. The reward is: you can destroy the gun. Whether you use arty or not is up to you.

I just don't like that you can just use arty and instantly remove that MP huge MP invest + all the vet without counterplay. The player that abandons his gun to save the crew should get rewarded by not losing all the spent MP and gained vet.

In reality, gun teams would dig foxholes and trenches near their gun and hide out there, and this wasn't just for the immobile guns that needed transports to tow them.

This would lend itself well to an ability that acted like Brace, where the gun ceases to fire but the crew becomes garrisoned in their foxholes and are only vulnerable to grenades, flamethrowers, and other means of ousting troops from cover. The gun could still be destroyed during this time, but if it survives the attack then you retain the crew.

If the crew is wiped out (due to infantry assault or because they didn't hide), you can recrew the gun as normal, which rewards an opponent who is able to capture a gun position and turn the gun around on their enemy.

I like this idea because it would differentiate between brace on UFK but in saying that we would need to reduce the damage of the 1 click call ins to completely destroy the Artillery. It is annoying spending so much MP to not only have the weapon de-crewed but to have it completely destroyed with a single call in. 50kg bomb for example.