Login

russian armor

Mortar Pit Split

12 Nov 2019, 20:15 PM
#21
avatar of CODGUY

Posts: 575

A better idea would be to split teching between emplacements and mobile units. So give UKF the option to go with a mobile 81mm mortar and AEC with one option or with the other the Bofors and Mortar Pit. Call the tech trees "Static Defense" and "Mobile Assault" or something like that.
12 Nov 2019, 20:34 PM
#22
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 6319 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Nov 2019, 15:56 PMVipper

That price is dirty cheap and building a second mortar would a far superior option than upgrading.

The price should be more like 200+150 in order to make sense.


If OP ideas was to be followed, i would agree with this.

I also think that half HP would be too low.

My concern is that the idea doesn't fix many of the intrinsicates problems with emplacements.

I'd keep it at say 280-300 and make the 2nd one fire as long as it's garrisoned. Adjust performance and popcap accordingly. Garrison bonuses are such an under rated element to balancing emplacements. Either they are trashy like now or fully autonomous and cancer like before. There has to be a middle ground and I think the extra resources of having to garrison is that middle ground.


Numbers aside, i agree. Having a unit inside, would add the man power bleed factor to a unit which is binary as vehicles.
12 Nov 2019, 21:08 PM
#23
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 3253 | Subs: 1


I actually like this one the most, but what about wasting the ManPower into units that have to be inside of it? The fact that it can be built pretty close to the frontline isn't going to change anything, as it has to be in the back like any normal artillery not to be easily destroyed. The player would still have to waste a squad to sit inside of the emplacement for it to have full firing capability, so rather than wasting 350 the player would, considering we use same Royals, for example, from 280 to 490 MP and from 300 to 510 ManPower lost, and if the player just places a squad he already had to get inside, he would lose fighting/repairing/building/etc. capabilities. So still pretty bad...


You don't have to ( and shouldn't) leave your unit within unless you feel it's worth it to do so. That's the beauty of it imo. It opens up another tactical layer. Is this sappers quad worth more as mobile infantry or super charging my emplacement? Additionally, assuming the emplacements are rebalance to account for this direction of change, thet won't be eating as much pop cap as they are now so they become a part of your army that you can fall back to and fight from but still maintain an army. They are defensive structures that would improve when manned.

Basicly a lower cost than now but most of the cost being its durability, the bolstered cost via manning would in theory be temporary and the emplacements themselves would act more as force multipliers than independent line holders on their own.
12 Nov 2019, 22:21 PM
#24
avatar of Serrith

Posts: 269

I'd keep it at say 280-300 and make the 2nd one fire as long as it's garrisoned. Adjust performance and popcap accordingly. Garrison bonuses are such an under rated element to balancing emplacements. Either they are trashy like now or fully autonomous and cancer like before. There has to be a middle ground and I think the extra resources of having to garrison is that middle ground.



I like this approach. I would have it be 260-280mp though to make its "base cost" be more like a slightly expensive standard mortar with longer range.

I also have to say regarding the OPs suggestion that 175mp for a single mortar is way way way too cheap for the utility it would provide if you want to go that route.
12 Nov 2019, 22:24 PM
#25
avatar of Lago

Posts: 2730

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Nov 2019, 22:21 PMSerrith
I like this approach. I would have it be 260-280mp though to make its "base cost" be more like a slightly expensive standard mortar with longer range.

I also have to say regarding the OPs suggestion that 175mp for a single mortar is way way way too cheap for the utility it would provide if you want to go that route.


It shouldn't be more expensive than a standard mortar when it's flat out worse.
12 Nov 2019, 23:47 PM
#26
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 3253 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Nov 2019, 22:24 PMLago


It shouldn't be more expensive than a standard mortar when it's flat out worse.

But it wouldn't be. It's not mobile that much is true, but it's got a boat load of health and a longer range barrage so even at 260 it would definitely trade well with enemy mortars as it would be possible to bleed them and force them off long before its large health pool is depleted. If the enemy builds 2and you lose it you are not out nearly as much mp as now and trading 260mp to take a proper squad off the field could be a good trade on the brit. Think sort of like a fighting pit on steroids. It would do its job alone but be undeniably better garrisoned.

Something similar could be done for the bofors too. Faster rotation and reload rates when garrisoned or some thing. Same with the 17lb

Added. As I said the performance of the pit would be adjusted so that even as a single mortar it would perform well. It would be a single immobile mortar for all intents and purposes until garrisoned at which point it would become 2
13 Nov 2019, 03:46 AM
#27
avatar of Clarity

Posts: 246

I honestly would be fine if they tied the 81mm Mortar in Lend Lease to either Tier 2 or the AEC sidetech.
13 Nov 2019, 13:45 PM
#28
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 663

jump backJump back to quoted post13 Nov 2019, 03:46 AMClarity
I honestly would be fine if they tied the 81mm Mortar in Lend Lease to either Tier 2 or the AEC sidetech.


Good idea although pushes UKF a bit much into being too similar to other allied armies.
13 Nov 2019, 15:22 PM
#29
avatar of Felinewolfie

Posts: 782 | Subs: 4

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Nov 2019, 18:17 PMKatitof
Wasn't single mortar pit categorically prohibited by relic?


Yea. Miragefla and cie offered it as a tryout balance mod.

It was a 1 mortar emplacement for 200+150. Using same model as 2 mortar emp.
But only had 1 mortar in it. Paying the 150 upgraded it to 2.

I don't know what happened to it.

But I just want everyone here that the idea isn't new.
It's feasible.
It's been done.

It wasn't kept for some reason. How about finding out why?

It's been nerfed in other ways now, so perhaps it's be worth revisiting.
13 Nov 2019, 15:22 PM
#30
avatar of Felinewolfie

Posts: 782 | Subs: 4



Good idea although pushes UKF a bit much into being too similar to other allied armies.


I keep saying mirror stat armies should be what's used in tournaments ;)
No differences to exploit!
13 Nov 2019, 16:44 PM
#31
avatar of Hon3ynuts

Posts: 816



I keep saying mirror stat armies should be what's used in tournaments ;)
No differences to exploit!


In best of 1 series, mirror matches are allowed :snfAmi:
13 Nov 2019, 16:56 PM
#32
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 663



I keep saying mirror stat armies should be what's used in tournaments ;)
No differences to exploit!


But then You could always play two identical armies :) maybe one match in the final should be like that?
14 Nov 2019, 00:24 AM
#33
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 3253 | Subs: 1

Anyone know why the changeable shells got removed from the beta?
14 Nov 2019, 05:25 AM
#34
avatar of Toxicfirebal

Posts: 30

jump backJump back to quoted post12 Nov 2019, 20:15 PMCODGUY
A better idea would be to split teching between emplacements and mobile units. So give UKF the option to go with a mobile 81mm mortar and AEC with one option or with the other the Bofors and Mortar Pit. Call the tech trees "Static Defense" and "Mobile Assault" or something like that.


Im pretty sure no one would tech bofors+ motar pit and all would go 81mm motar and AEC
14 Nov 2019, 07:59 AM
#35
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 13786 | Subs: 7

Anyone know why the changeable shells got removed from the beta?


Something about heavy shells being OP due to AoE and light shells being OP due to range and RoF.
14 Nov 2019, 08:43 AM
#36
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 702

I guess dislike with mortar/bofor is they are static waste.

Perhaps we have an ability called relocate on engies.

Take your engie, click relocate select your bofor/mortar. They will start teardown, once done, you can relocate the emplacement within a defined area, and they will rebuild. The total teardown and rebuild times will be same as a new build, split 50% each. And during this teardown and rebuild timing, it is twice as vulnerable to damage.

Rebuilt health will be same as when it was tear down, provided no damage taken during rebuild.

I guess this will prevent super creeping emplacement since we can define the area distance
14 Nov 2019, 08:46 AM
#37
avatar of achpawel

Posts: 663

Or just refund say 70%of resources. The ability already exists.
14 Nov 2019, 08:55 AM
#38
avatar of mrgame2

Posts: 702

Refund is too good. Should we refund bunkers too?

But if we limit rebuild within a circle and immediate need to redeploy, it seems fairer
14 Nov 2019, 09:23 AM
#39
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 3253 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post14 Nov 2019, 07:59 AMKatitof


Something about heavy shells being OP due to AoE and light shells being OP due to range and RoF.

hmmm
if we keep it to tried and tested metrics i think it could work. something wide like the 120mm aoe for heavy shells and something more like the leig for the light shells. make them barrage types perhaps to make them more micro/ counterplay balanced
14 Nov 2019, 19:07 PM
#40
avatar of CODGUY

Posts: 575



Im pretty sure no one would tech bofors+ motar pit and all would go 81mm motar and AEC


They're pretty much doing that anyways in 1v1.
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
  • Oberkommando West flag N1cko
  • Oberkommando West flag Scotch1
  • Soviets flag Frosty
  • Soviets flag Beatricks Swire
uploaded by Frost

Board Info

98 users are online: 6 members and 92 guests
SeductiveCardbordBox, fjskjtrmsdw, Milky, TheRestaurant, Stormjäger, itygyqu
158 posts in the last 24h
1212 posts in the last week
5157 posts in the last month
Registered members: 68978
Welcome our newest member, itygyqu
Most online: 918 users on 27 Oct 2019, 01:03 AM