Login

russian armor

USF: 5 Man Vehicle Crews

11 Oct 2015, 07:04 AM
#1
avatar of turbotortoise

Posts: 1283 | Subs: 4

Do you think five man vehicle crews would be an interesting addition? It just sort of struck me after my last game playing as the USF. I apologize if this has been brought up before, but I think it would more accurately represent the composition of vehicle crews, possibly give more utility to the Thompson upgrade, as well as give a slighter window of forgiveness in case you disembark in not quite the ideal spot to repair/fallschrimjagers/jaegers/storms/etc decide to spoil your repair party.

What do you think?
11 Oct 2015, 07:06 AM
#2
avatar of Omega_Warrior

Posts: 2561

Vehicle crews are vulnerable for a reason. I don't see much reason for this, other then to subvert that.

And I think there are plenty of better options to fixing advanced vehicle crews. Vehicle crews shouldn't be fighting in the first place. An extra man wont change that.
nee
11 Oct 2015, 10:55 AM
#3
avatar of nee

Posts: 1216

I don't see how this would be more realistic, OR give Thompson upgrade more utility. On top of that, asking for a window of forgiveness for using the worse unit to fight with is asking for a noncombat unit to be great at combat.

If you get raped disembarking vehicles for repair, then that's honestly a L2P issue, isn't it? Vehicle Crews aren't even fast at repairing, I barely bother disembarking due to risk of getting attacked.

A bit of OT, but a thought popped into my head about using Vehicle Crews to replenish depleted squads, just like Conscripts. Would be a nice alternative role for them that's not a big deal, and gives vehicle crews that lost their vehicle a cheap meat shield role without just suiciding them. They can be used to supplement your other units' losses and keep those AT guns and howitzers rolling.
11 Oct 2015, 18:39 PM
#4
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned
I'd rather see thompsons for vehicle crews be passive and come automatically. Weapon crew thompsons got buffed because they are linked to paratrooper thompsons.
11 Oct 2015, 20:12 PM
#5
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Oct 2015, 10:55 AMnee
I don't see how this would be more realistic, OR give Thompson upgrade more utility. On top of that, asking for a window of forgiveness for using the worse unit to fight with is asking for a noncombat unit to be great at combat.

It depends, it would be more realistic for Sherman crews because Sherman Tanks were manned by 5 men (driver, hull mg, gunner, loader, commander), but less realistic for basically everything else. Especially the light vehicles that clearly show 2 men, but have suddenly 4 when they get out.


jump backJump back to quoted post11 Oct 2015, 10:55 AMnee
A bit of OT, but a thought popped into my head about using Vehicle Crews to replenish depleted squads, just like Conscripts. Would be a nice alternative role for them that's not a big deal, and gives vehicle crews that lost their vehicle a cheap meat shield role without just suiciding them. They can be used to supplement your other units' losses and keep those AT guns and howitzers rolling.

I feel like this would better fit Rear Echelons due to them being rushed to the front lines to support the exhausted troops during the offensive.
11 Oct 2015, 20:20 PM
#6
avatar of Rollo

Posts: 738

Crews need a rework, superglue is dumb and the thompson upgrade is pointless.
11 Oct 2015, 20:26 PM
#7
avatar of pigsoup
Patrion 14

Posts: 4301 | Subs: 2

it would be nice for the thompson upgrade.

it is a great upgrade but as with the fact that vehicle crews are 4 men and that they have smgs, it is hard to use them.
11 Oct 2015, 23:05 PM
#8
avatar of turbotortoise

Posts: 1283 | Subs: 4

Vehicle crews are vulnerable for a reason. I don't see much reason for this, other then to subvert that.

And I think there are plenty of better options to fixing advanced vehicle crews. Vehicle crews shouldn't be fighting in the first place. An extra man wont change that.


jump backJump back to quoted post11 Oct 2015, 10:55 AMnee
OR give Thompson upgrade more utility. On top of that, asking for a window of forgiveness for using the worse unit to fight with is asking for a noncombat unit to be great at combat.

If you get raped disembarking vehicles for repair, then that's honestly a L2P issue, isn't it? Vehicle Crews aren't even fast at repairing, I barely bother disembarking due to risk of getting attacked.


In my mind I don't see a difference between a vehicle crew and say, Pios, CE's or RE's, which we equip with weapons all the time, in fact the M20 bazooka/Thompson seems to suggest their original intended role included some degree of combat equity which they really don't actualize in their current state. An extra man would give them a little bit more survivability, and hopefully a window to actually have some staying power in a firefight. I agree, the disembark + repair is a risk reward proposition, but it's also supposed to be a unique feature which gives the USF an edge, not counting super glue... so, it would be nice to see such a design choice have a little more flexibility and use.
11 Oct 2015, 23:23 PM
#9
avatar of CookiezNcreem
Senior Strategist Badge
Donator 11

Posts: 3052 | Subs: 15

sherman crews should be 5 mang, aaht 3 mans ,M20 2 meinz,Stuart 4 man, E T C.

12 Oct 2015, 00:16 AM
#10
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

sherman crews should be 5 mang, aaht 3 mans ,M20 2 meinz,Stuart 4 man, E T C.


I'd like this because it's more realistic, although I'd keep AAHT and M20 at 3 so they can lose a man and still recrew like other crews can.
12 Oct 2015, 00:47 AM
#11
avatar of Appleseed

Posts: 622

no just no. because if USF vehicle crews gets default Thompson all USF player will just hop out the crew and use like weaker version of assault engineer and let a RE get in to the vehicle to be the crew. we already sees M20 crews hop out act as a AT infantry and RE hop in m20, we don't need to make it to every case of USF tanks too
12 Oct 2015, 00:56 AM
#12
avatar of turbotortoise

Posts: 1283 | Subs: 4

Yeah, I'm not sure I'm too keen on the idea of default Thompson's.
12 Oct 2015, 01:19 AM
#13
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned
The thing is drop it down to like 2 thompsons and 5 men. Doesn't make sense that all weapon crew members get expensive weapons like thompsons. Like 2 by default and 5 men for tank crews would be my answer IMO. But thats just me.
12 Oct 2015, 01:34 AM
#14
avatar of Appleseed

Posts: 622

The thing is drop it down to like 2 thompsons and 5 men. Doesn't make sense that all weapon crew members get expensive weapons like thompsons. Like 2 by default and 5 men for tank crews would be my answer IMO. But thats just me.


problem is the crew is stronger than RE, which shouldn't be the case, because if Crew is stronger than RE, most time they will swap RE with crew where crew take the infantry combat roll instead of being the crew.
12 Oct 2015, 13:27 PM
#15
avatar of hannibalbarcajr

Posts: 503

jump backJump back to quoted post11 Oct 2015, 10:55 AMnee
I don't see how this would be more realistic, OR give Thompson upgrade more utility. On top of that, asking for a window of forgiveness for using the worse unit to fight with is asking for a noncombat unit to be great at combat.

If you get raped disembarking vehicles for repair, then that's honestly a L2P issue, isn't it? Vehicle Crews aren't even fast at repairing, I barely bother disembarking due to risk of getting attacked.

A bit of OT, but a thought popped into my head about using Vehicle Crews to replenish depleted squads, just like Conscripts. Would be a nice alternative role for them that's not a big deal, and gives vehicle crews that lost their vehicle a cheap meat shield role without just suiciding them. They can be used to supplement your other units' losses and keep those AT guns and howitzers rolling.


If you watch DEVM play he will get an engine critical and pop out and do critical repair so fast you would literally have to fire a rifle grenade on his crew the moment they pop out to even have a chance of hitting them before they pop right back in and drive off for full repairs.
12 Oct 2015, 14:19 PM
#16
avatar of AngryKitten465

Posts: 473

Permanently Banned
Should just get rid of the vehicle crews all together, or only remove the emergency critical repair, the ability pretty much negates teller mines.
12 Oct 2015, 20:13 PM
#17
avatar of WingZero

Posts: 1484

What is the reinforcement cost for the vehicle crew, is it cheaper than RE?
12 Oct 2015, 20:35 PM
#18
avatar of Mr. Someguy

Posts: 4928

What is the reinforcement cost for the vehicle crew, is it cheaper than RE?


No it's 30.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

443 users are online: 1 member and 442 guests
NorthWeapon
2 posts in the last 24h
39 posts in the last week
128 posts in the last month
Registered members: 45117
Welcome our newest member, twicsyarbil
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM