SAS Weapons

Talk about CoH1 or BKMOD1 in general.
Post Reply
berse2212
Posts: 36
Joined: 03 Jun 2020, 16:47

SAS Weapons

Post by berse2212 »

Heyo,

for personal reasons me and my buddy didn't manage to play the game for a few months. Now we are back and my friend complained that he no longer can put weapons on the SAS. I tried looking through the changelogs but didn't quite find anything explaining this. I didn't play Brits myself yet so I have no clue how it looks now. Are the weapon upgrades hidden behind something he did not find? Or did you guys remove the weapon upgrades altogether? Are there any alternatives especially for getting Zooks now as RAF?

Thanks for any answers!

p.s. he manly complained about the Zooks being removed, so maybe it's just them.

User avatar
MarKr
Team Member
Posts: 4073
Joined: 23 Nov 2014, 19:17
Location: Czech Republic

Re: SAS Weapons

Post by MarKr »

It was removed because with the weapon packages the main strategy was in 99% of games "rush SAS and kill everything with them".

The problem was that SAS with SMGs was better in every way than Sten Commandos and so it made Sten Commandos obsolete. SAS with Enfield and Brens was in every way better than Enfield Commandos and so made them obsolete. SAS with AT weapons were in every way better than AT Commands and so made them obsolete. It was a pretty bad design to have 1 squad that made majority of your doctrine-specific infantry obsolete.

SAS are now "sabotage/infiltration" unit. They only have SMGs, but can use the Crawl ability and still can paradrop anywhere. Their purpose is to harras enemy behind lines. Sten Commandos are for assaults and short range combat, Enfield Commandos for mid-to-long range combat and the AT commandos no longer use just PIATs but they have a PIAT and a bazooka from start, with an option to get one more bazooka through an upgrade.
This way units don't overlap in their purpose and don't make each other obsolete.
Image

berse2212
Posts: 36
Joined: 03 Jun 2020, 16:47

Re: SAS Weapons

Post by berse2212 »

Thanks for the detailed explanation! The reasoning made total sense!

Post Reply