Siezing an enemy weapon as Axis is too hard

Hi.

The reason I think it's too hard is because more often than not one unit is missing in a squad, no matter if it's a pioneer squad, grenadier squad or PZ Grenadier squad.

Too often I find a mortar or maxim on the field after defeating some enemy units but I'm unable to steal it because that would cause me to lose my unit.

This means you will have to sacrifice a whole squad to capture a maxim MG or mortar which makes it pointless because if you're going to sacrifice a whole squad you might aswell just build a german MG or mortar.

Lategame makes it even worse because that means sacrificing a PZ grenadier squad ( 360 mp ).

My solution to this is to change it so that the game only puts 2 units in a siezed weapon so even if your -insert.infantry.unit.here- only has 3 guys left in the squad you should still be able to capture an enemy weapon without having to sacrifice a whole squad.

Soviets don't suffer from this because of their 6 man squads which means that even if they lose 2 guys they can still capture an enemy weapon without losing the whole unit.

The current situation also sucks because Soviets don't have to worry too much about their equipment being stolen because the enemy faction has to field an unharmed squad to steal it.

Build Halftrack, 1 squad of Pios. Problem solved.

Build Halftrack, 1 squad of Pios. Problem solved.

So to capture an enemy weapon an Axis player needs to get tier 2, build a certain building and then build a certain vehicle in order to safely capture an enemy weapon when the enemy can build a 6 man squad from their main building and steal it right away?

Not to mention that it requires 80 fuel to do so.

I'm fine with the "3 men is converted" if you capture a weapon with the soviets but it should only be 2 with the Axis because of the smaller squads.

Agreed, crewing with 2 people should be it for Germans.

I don't see the reason for doing this as German support teams are better value in general bu I do agree that it should be a 2 squad members rather than 3 for Germans.

I think it'd be better if it was 4 with Soviets. Not really a big deal imo, but kinda annoying.

So to capture an enemy weapon an Axis player needs to get tier 2, build a certain building and then build a certain vehicle in order to safely capture an enemy weapon when the enemy can build a 6 man squad from their main building and steal it right away?

Not to mention that it requires 80 fuel to do so.

I'm fine with the "3 men is converted" if you capture a weapon with the soviets but it should only be 2 with the Axis because of the smaller squads.

Say what?...are you saying you actually don't build a FlameHalftrack anyways?

Cover an abandoned heavy weapon with a sniper as soviet. It's hilarious.

So to capture an enemy weapon an Axis player needs to get tier 2, build a certain building and then build a certain vehicle in order to safely capture an enemy weapon when the enemy can build a 6 man squad from their main building and steal it right away?

Not to mention that it requires 80 fuel to do so.

I'm fine with the "3 men is converted" if you capture a weapon with the soviets but it should only be 2 with the Axis because of the smaller squads.

Not. I'm not saying an Axis player needs to do anything. Hell, you could flank an MG with your first squad of pios before you've even gone into T2 and crew that. Or not. But what I am saying is that an Axis player needs to consider the implications of crewing a weapon if they so choose. There has to be some disadvantage to crewing a weapon for the Ostheer - which in this case is that it effectively removes the original squad from the field until it is reinforced unless you have a HT.

Personally I think the number of units it costs Ostheer units is fine. It adds an element of asymmetry to the factions that I like. When playing as the Soviets it's so much fun to just steal everyone's shit and use it against them. I don't believe symmetry in this case is necessary for balance.

Crewing weapons means you are willing (or sometimes forced) to transform a mobile force into a stationary one, and this comes with it's own set of advantages and disadvantages. What you have to remember is that you are crewing enemy weapons (which unless you had some shit hot planning) did not factor into your original strat and if you want to annex these into your force then you must be willing to make the sacrifice in order to do so. And the price is 3 infantry units!

Not. I'm not saying an Axis player needs to do anything. Hell, you could flank an MG with your first squad of pios before you've even gone into T2 and crew that. Or not. But what I am saying is that an Axis player needs to consider the implications of crewing a weapon if they so choose. There has to be some disadvantage to crewing a weapon for the Ostheer - which in this case is that it effectively removes the original squad from the field until it is reinforced unless you have a HT.

Personally I think the number of units it costs Ostheer units is fine. It adds an element of asymmetry to the factions that I like. When playing as the Soviets it's so much fun to just steal everyone's shit and use it against them. I don't believe symmetry in this case is necessary for balance.

Crewing weapons means you are willing (or sometimes forced) to transform a mobile force into a stationary one, and this comes with it's own set of advantages and disadvantages. What you have to remember is that you are crewing enemy weapons (which unless you had some shit hot planning) did not factor into your original strat and if you want to annex these into your force then you must be willing to make the sacrifice in order to do so. And the price is 3 infantry units!

Don't mistake symmetry for balance.

If one faction often needs to lose 240 mp to capture an enemy weapon while the other faction often can do the same for a mere 60 ish mp and still keep the original squad then there's a huge balance issue because this action is something that both sides can do no matter if they are crewing a German mg or a Soviet mg.

Please do explain why it HAS to be a disadvantage to crew a lost weapon on the field.

You mad bro?

i agree some weapons can be with 2 to cap(HMG, 120MM, but for russian AT should stay at 3 and mortar(i don't think any german want russian 81mm mortar) since those weapon require minimum 2 men to crew so if u only need 2 to sizing it and 1 of them got killed you just lost 2 men

i am kind of ok with this difference. German weapons are really superior to the Russian counterpart. so i think Russians should have an easier time crewing. what Germans SHOULD HAVE its a way to destroy this drops easily. so you could deny them to an enemy without making a huge investment.

Don't mistake symmetry for balance.

If one faction often needs to lose 240 mp to capture an enemy weapon while the other faction often can do the same for a mere 60 ish mp and still keep the original squad then there's a huge balance issue because this action is something that both sides can do no matter if they are crewing a German mg or a Soviet mg.

Please do explain why it HAS to be a disadvantage to crew a lost weapon on the field.

I didn't say it had to BE a disadvantage I argued that disadvantages should be part of the decision whether to crew or not.

by crewing the weapon I gain it on the field instantly. If I use a full squad to crew I also retain my original unit (it has to be reinforced, but if I have a HT nearby this is not a huge problem) therefore I now have two units; let's say a Gren squad as well as an MG - without having to build the MG and then wait until it gets into position.
To counter this advantage I propose that there must be at least some tactical disadvantage that comes with making the decision to crew weapons on the field which, in this case, is the need to retreat your original unit back to base if needs be + the cost to reinforce.

As an Ostheer player I would only ever crew with Pios (cost: 200 Mp, dunno the cost to reinforce per man) and as soviets you mainly recrew with combat engis or Conscript (240 Mp each, again cost per man to reinforce?) so I'm not sure if the gulf between the two factions is as big a problem as is implied. If you can illustrate using figures a scenario that proves otherwise then I'm all ears.

You mad bro?

^ I'm all for having a constructive discussion but please. let's not have any more of this type of unnecessary bullshit.

i am kind of ok with this difference. German weapons are really superior to the Russian counterpart. so i think Russians should have an easier time crewing. what Germans SHOULD HAVE its a way to destroy this drops easily. so you could deny them to an enemy without making a huge investment.

Good point (except the part about german weapons being superior, see other thread). Thermite grenades on pios would be cool imo.

A redesign of the useless Ostruppen would help with this problem.

I didn't say it had to BE a disadvantage I argued that disadvantages should be part of the decision whether to crew or not.

by crewing the weapon I gain it on the field instantly. If I use a full squad to crew I also retain my original unit (it has to be reinforced, but if I have a HT nearby this is not a huge problem) therefore I now have two units; let's say a Gren squad as well as an MG - without having to build the MG and then wait until it gets into position.
To counter this advantage I propose that there must be at least some tactical disadvantage that comes with making the decision to crew weapons on the field which, in this case, is the need to retreat your original unit back to base if needs be + the cost to reinforce.

As an Ostheer player I would only ever crew with Pios (cost: 200 Mp, dunno the cost to reinforce per man) and as soviets you mainly recrew with combat engis or Conscript (240 Mp each, again cost per man to reinforce?) so I'm not sure if the gulf between the two factions is as big a problem as is implied. If you can illustrate using figures a scenario that proves otherwise then I'm all ears.



^ I'm all for having a constructive discussion but please. let's not have any more of this type of unnecessary bullshit.

So first you said: "There has to be some disadvantage to crewing a weapon for the Ostheer"

And later you decide that "I didn't say it had to BE a disadvantage".

Oh he mad.

Anyway, posting contradicting stuff like that makes it hard to discuss the matter with you because it makes it very unclear what you actually think about it. I have about 3000 games in COH1 and COH2 so make no mistake, I recognize a mad person when I see one.

Do you play Soviets alot or whats up? Can't see the problem with losing an entire unit while the opposing force often dont need to lose theirs? Alot about winning in COH is focused on NOT losing your units and stealing MP from the other faction, if one faction is able to do this and one isn't there's a disturbance in the force so to speak.

Also, what's this bs about Axis weapons being so OP? The maxim supresses faster than the MG plus I'd say their mortar is far more accurate than the Axis. Sure, the MG has a great radius but it got nerfed back to the stoneage last patch. Three bursts to supress one conscript squad isn't really OP, far from it actually.

Build Halftrack, one squad of Pios. Problem solved.

Build Halftrack, one squad of Pios. Problem solved.

Try playing Ostheer for once? Problem solved.

Try playing Ostheer for once? Problem solved.

i do and i feel naked without a ht with axis.

I miss the 5 man volk squads of a bygone era.

I always thought the 5 v 6 dynamic was a good balance and very much felt that 4 man squads were always so prone to insta-gibbing or insta-becoming-way-too-underpowered-to-field, be it from recrewing to mortars, artillery, snipers, or tank shells.

At the very least, something like the Germans recrewing 2 squad members at a time would be a good change. Especially when considering it's so easy to lose a single squad member.