Does loss of crew members reduced the rate of fire for crewed weapons?

[winterflaw]

If I have a three man mortar team, or HMG/42 team, or a five man AT weapon, an 88 emplacement, a HMG bunker and so on, if these units lose crew members (but stay operational), is their performance affected?

[The New BK Champion]

Noperoni.

[Panzerblitz1]

Nope, losing crew members doesn’t affect the rate of fire.

[winterflaw]

That's a bit crap

[Panzerblitz1]

That's a bit crap

thats a bit of the engine... 2008.

[winterflaw]

That's a bit crap

thats a bit of the engine... 2008.

In fact, thinking about it, I think when inf squads build something, like a mine or a trench, the time taken increases as the squad loses men.

My dream is an open source COH.

I'd like realistic sized maps, too, so all the ranges can be right.

[MarKr]

It is possible to make the teams less efficient with losses but I would say it is not needed. HMG teams can work with one man but mortars and AT guns need at least two soldiers to work, once there is just one soldier left he goes full harakirri on himself. The mortars and AT guns are operated by 2 men and the extra is/are just sort of a "guard" or a replacement in case one of the weapon operators dies. If you have less than 2 soldiers you lose the weapon anyway and at the same time 2 soldiers are needed to operate the weapon efficiently - I don't see a problem there.

In fact, thinking about it, I think when inf squads build something, like a mine or a trench, the time taken increases as the squad loses men.

I think it is not the case.

I'd like realistic sized maps, too, so all the ranges can be right.

CoH does not have "true sight" so "realistic" ranges would not be very useful - Axis tanks woul have guns able to shoot over extreme distances but they would not be able to use them because of FoW - the tank would need to have same vision as the gun range and in such case one Axis tank would reveal entire map, or they would have lower view than their gun range but then you would need to have some unit spot the targets. Even then it would take ages for infantry to get anywhere on foot and most of the fights would be like:
- 10 minutes to get troops to the front line
- 20 seconds of fighting
- hitting Retreat button
- waiting 5 minutes for them to sprint to HQ
- wait for reinforcing the squad
- 10 minutes to get troops to the front line
(...)
CoH is simply not built for combat on such scale.

[winterflaw]

It is possible to make the teams less efficient with losses but I would say it is not needed. HMG teams can work with one man but mortars and AT guns need at least two soldiers to work, once there is just one soldier left he goes full harakirri on himself. The mortars and AT guns are operated by 2 men and the extra is/are just sort of a "guard" or a replacement in case one of the weapon operators dies. If you have less than 2 soldiers you lose the weapon anyway and at the same time 2 soldiers are needed to operate the weapon efficiently - I don't see a problem there.

Yes, that all makes good sense.

The AT guns, though... I read differing information on PAK crews (I know about German AT than allied, I guess because the Germans needed them more!). The 50mm accordingly to the wikipedia has a five man crew, another operating manual I read says eight. Most of them are not directly involved in operating the gun - there's a gunner who aims, and a loader, and then everyone else more or less helps with ammo - the sustained rate of fire from these guys is pretty high, like a round every few seconds, and if you're doing that you'll need a bunch of people on hand to be uncrating new ammo boxes and so on, and I guess fill in if someone else dies.

A one man AT piece obviously will be affected, since one guy has to load and aim.

Two man would be okay as long as the gunner can aim enough just moving the barrel. If they have to move the gun, well, with a 50mm it's okay, but a 75mm is a pretty big device.

I'd like realistic sized maps, too, so all the ranges can be right.

Quote is out of context - I was talking about a replacement COH, so there would be a new engine.

Even then it would take ages for infantry to get anywhere on foot and most of the fights would be like:
- 10 minutes to get troops to the front line
- 20 seconds of fighting
- hitting Retreat button
- waiting 5 minutes for them to sprint to HQ
- wait for reinforcing the squad
- 10 minutes to get troops to the front line
(...)
CoH is simply not built for combat on such scale.

I may be wrong, but I think you're doing what humans normally do when faced with the new - applying the single new concept to the existing situation *without any other changes to the existing situation*, and of course then it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Well done, you're human

Infantry would need to be in transports, like lorried British infantry.

The retreat mechanism would obviously need to change.

Maybe there are multiple base-like locations, like battalion HQs.

Thinking about a map which is say 10km square, a lorry doing say 30kmph will cover 1km in two minutes I think it is? takes longer than that for a Jagdtiger to get from one side of Rhine to the other.

I get the feeling in COH vehicle movement rates are "compressed" - most things seem to go at about the same speed. If that's true, the value of movement is suppressed.

[kwok]

So an experiment I’ve done for a couple players is I made a coh2 mod that made things “realistic ranges” just to prove that exactly what they say isn’t exactly what they wanted. So I think you’re right and agree with me when I say there’s a balance (and balance I mean sacrifice) in UI, game mechanics, feature, etc that come with scale.

You should try steel division: Normandy 44. Great game. Pretty much what you’re asking for but done in a manageable way. Because coh at “realistic ranges” is way too much micro for the scale.


About the gun teams with penalties when men take losses. I think there’s something about wonky AI crashing the game if the teams exceed more than 3 people?

[Kr0noZ]

In fact, thinking about it, I think when inf squads build something, like a mine or a trench, the time taken increases as the squad loses men.

I think it is not the case.

It's actually true for building, as the build time gets divided byeach squad member contributing build time (which is treated as a resource in the engine); that's also true for repairing btw.

[MarKr]

We played a game with kwok some time ago and he noticed there building or repairing (I am not sure which one) takes the same time no matter how many engineer squads you send to do it. I think it was building though, he was measuring time to build MG nests iirc.

[The New BK Champion]

We played a game with kwok some time ago and he noticed there building or repairing (I am not sure which one) takes the same time no matter how many engineer squads you send to do it. I think it was building though, he was measuring time to build MG nests iirc.

Nope. Repairing takes the same time for 1 guy and 6 guys. Building is divided by squad members, so 1 guy takes 6x more time to build. Kronoz is right.

[MarKr]

OK, so it is unchanged for repairs, I said I wasn't sure