Picked up Weapons?

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[ComradeMirror]

I don't think I've seen this said in the posts. But will picked up weapons stay on your men. Like if you pick up BARs with your volks or a bazooka does it transfer onto your next battle if you keep it?

[fldash]

No, perhaps in the future, but right now it can't.

[Soulis6]

Makes sense this way realisticaly as well. If you picked up an enemy weapon you might be able to use it for a
short while but most likely wouldnt have the ammunition or technical knowledge to maintain it.

[Lai]

My suggestion is to give the player who picked up the weapon a compensation in munitions for not being able to keep the weapon. For example an allied player receives 62 munitions for a picked up panzershreck after the battle (50% of the munitions cost).

[Unkn0wn]

Problem is though I don't think the system can even keep track of the picked up weapons, so it might be too hard for picked up weapons to be refunded.

And as Soulis6 stated aswell, when soldiers picked up enemy weapons in reality, for whatever reason they might have, they usually didn't hold on to it for a very long time. (When they got the chance to switch again I image most of them did anyway.)

Ofcourse rest was kept as souvenir .

[SturmHaubitze]

In reality, it varied from weapon to weapon. Getting ammunition for your newly acquired weapon is one concern, but also it might need special parts or maintenance that you either can't provide, or don't know how to provide. There's also the concern that firing it will make you sound like an enemy, so friendly fire becomes a problem. Your superior might also dislike you having it, and order you to dump it at the first opportunity.

Field guns and vehicles were a different story, especially tanks. Germany and Russia often fielded looted tanks when things got desperate, and the Red Army laid out specific instructions on what German tanks should be kept and cared for. They even translated the field manuals so that their crews could maintain them properly. Panzer III's and IV's were often kept and maintained, while Panthers and Tigers were only used until they broke down, as they found them too bothersome to keep running. A few types of Russian field gun were captured in such large quantities that they ended up with a German PaK designation and used on tankhunters and in antitank platoons.

Oh yeah... back on topic...

I think you shouldn't keep picked up weapons, and that it's fine that you receive nothing for them. You already gained an advantage by stealing them and using them against your opponent, so compounding that advantage by making it permanent seems a bit too punishing to the losing player.

[Bloodbank/Axis]

i agree

[acker]

I think companies should be rewarded for bothering to save all that junk (BARs, MG42s, AT guns).

I can think of two good ways to do this.

1: Do Not pernamently attach the weapon to the squad that captured the weapon. Instead, make the weapon part of the "force pool" (where you get upgrades), and make it attachable to a squad free (or with a small munitions penalty to represent weapon maintenance). In the case of AT guns/other field guns, the capping system should not be free, but the weapon should be availiable to the squad at 75%-50% the cost.

2: As someone posted above, give 1/2 of the cost of the weapon to the player after the match (applies to AT guns/nebels, too). Or the moolah could be given directly to the general.

[Harry Palms]

sounds fair enough

[Unkn0wn]

At this point though, I think it's just a little too harsh for fl- to code into the game.
And ofcourse in reality, as mentioned before, they hardly ever kept those captured weapons.
(Aside from captured tanks that were extensively used at the end of the war.)

However, I understand your point of view as it makes sense that you would get to keep them or get a reward for them one way or another.

[Forefall]

I don't think it does make sense.  A BAR without appropriate ammo or parts is useless to the axis, much like a panzerfaust would be to the allies.  In my opinion it is quite reasonable to receive no benefit other than the temporary in game use of such a weapon.

[Harry Palms]

very true, indeed. I concur.

[Raddish]

it could be that they get to use the weapon for 1 battle before losing it from the ammo scavanged after the battle.

[Jaden]

I would prefer it that you at least get the men that feilded the weapon back in their squad, after all first things first you need those riflemen

Secondly, I don't agree with giving rewards to people who capture weapons. It dosn't make sense, they got the advantage in the battle when they captured that AT gun and killed the enemies Tanks. In a sense, thats a huge lose for the loser. Why deepen the gap?

[acker]

Actually, it does make sense. It forces people to stop throwing away munitions/fuel without thought to thier actions. Might actually make commanders think when they give that nebel to a hopelessly outmatched company. And I can think of hilarious strategies (but I can't play the game very well) where someone
 deliberately doesn't spend munitions on LMG42s because he can capture enemy BARs. Risky, but if it works, he saves a lot of resources (enough to throw one bundled grenade *lol*).

Also, I have a question. If the team that capped weapons wins the battle, doesn't that mean that they captured the enemy companies' supplies, allowing them to field the enemies' weapons (see Vietnam. American troops tended to use captured AK-47s)(or the various partisan groups of WWII. They managed to field capped weapons without running out of ammo.)? However, if enemies retreat, they typically spike thier remaining field guns and blow up thier ammo, rendering captured firearms useless (not field guns that were already captured). And if one is forced to retreat, one generally ditches all heavy weaponary.
In other words...

1: Enemy is annihilated/retreats (80% casualties). Keep capped weapons.

2: Enemy retreats/takes losses (50% casualties). Lose capped weapons.

[Raddish]

i dont think there is an easy way for them to make the squad keep the weapons they have picked up and carry them over to the next battle because they are added half way through a battle as a pickup and not as an upgrade or to start with.

[acker]

There is no doubt that this particular idea will be hard to implement. Question is, is it worth implementing.

[ECFOTHERINGILL]

I have administered tailor made campaigns in the Cossacks series of games a few years ago. The rules were pretty similar to what I have read here.

I do, however, suggest that there must be a balance between what is on the "wish list" for particpants and the "work list" for those implementing the campaign. I can assume that what is wished for in the picked up and keep weapons will be an absolute horror for the programmers to do as far as either reading code, etc. and then having those weapons stay with the unit in its next battle in the campaign.

The easier it is for the implementers to implement, the more playable the concept will be for the population at large.

[acker]

This has very little to do with the ressurected topic, but is relevant nontheless.

If a weapons team dies in battle and the weapon is remanned, will the weapons team pass over to the next battle?

Besides this, I like the idea on the previous post; a long-term wishlist (as in implemented after EIR is completely done, most likely just in time for the Brits) should be created.

[Draygon]

What about the idea of swapping units?  Say you have a rifle squad and they pick up a check or a bazooka in your battle.  Instead of having to code them keeping that into the MOD how about just swapping them out with a ranger squad.  It would be the simplest form of "weapon keeping" that I can think of.  If you get a machine gun picked up, add a HMG unit to the company.  It is keeping the weapon, but in a different form.