Should tank crews be better armed?

Aeraaa · #1 January 3rd, 2012, 07:34 AM

Since tank crewmen usually have something better than just pistols (smgs, carbines), do you think they should be better equipped than they are now? Not to mention Crews from abandoned guns and bunkers should be fully equipped infantry squads (obviously with less personnel strength...)

scJazz · #2 January 3rd, 2012, 10:52 AM

Long standing question... the short answer is no. If they were better armed they would be units with a Cost > 0. You would have players abandoning Mortars and using the crews as weapons. You would end up in situations where the value of things killed is higher than it should be. Etc etc etc

Suhiir · #3 January 3rd, 2012, 02:19 PM

As scJazz said this issue has been discussed more times then most people can count and the answer has always been no.
Crews are in the game to allow a player to (hopefully) save an experienced crew when their weapon/tank is knocked out of action. If they were better armed people might try to use them as combat units.

DRG · #4 January 3rd, 2012, 06:07 PM

...not MIGHT try to use them as combat units......WOULD use them as combat units.

Don

Aeraaa · #5 January 3rd, 2012, 06:45 PM

And why is that taboo? Like I said, they are a very small team (4 men max if you exclude bunker crews), they are armed only with smgs or carbines (not exactly long range weapons) and they're worth more alive than dead, especially in a campaign. It's just annoying that right now even Strela teams can defeat them, unless they're into an adjacent hex...

Suhiir · #6 January 3rd, 2012, 07:42 PM

Feel free to modify your OOBs is this bothers you (I did

).
But the Official OOBs won't be changing I assure you.

scJazz · #7 January 3rd, 2012, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aeraaa

And why is that taboo? Like I said, they are a very small team (4 men max if you exclude bunker crews), they are armed only with smgs or carbines (not exactly long range weapons) and they're worth more alive than dead, especially in a campaign. It's just annoying that right now even Strela teams can defeat them, unless they're into an adjacent hex...

I believe the generally agreed on usage of Crews is to pop smoke and run away. Seriously, this issue is dead dead dead dead du------dead. 15 years and counting. Not changing.

Palle · #8 January 4th, 2012, 08:59 AM

And since crews are very inferior in their infantry role (their primary training being as crew). That is as it should be.

Marcello · #9 January 4th, 2012, 09:50 AM

A problem I see with arming crews is that while currently a single crew in the OOB is sufficient, as pistol an hand grenades are generic and thus suffice for the 1946-2020 timeframe, an additional weapon would not be. So you would need at least two and possibly more crew units in the OOB. In several OOBs units slots are scarce and better used for something else.

Mobhack · #10 January 4th, 2012, 01:30 PM

Crews are simply a marker. They are not Ramboesque killer combat units.

All they exist for is to provide a mechanism in campaigns for your experienced guys to survive being blown up, or perhaps to re-crew the disabled vehicle later on to fire a few pot-shots if they feel brave enough. And if you feel like scouting with a dismount - your armoured car crew can take their chances with mortar bombs etc. by getting out of the tin can and having a look.

As for me - they would have no armament whatsoever.
And since bunkers do not exist in cores - they should not spit out crews at all. Bunker crew should remain cowering inside even if in "rout" status, since they are irrelevant. That puts a stop to any twit who comes along wanting bunker crews to be Ramboised.

Bottom line - Rambo crews will never ever be implemented.

Andy