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.