Login

russian armor

USF didn't need a mortar.

PAGES (11)down
24 Jun 2016, 16:44 PM
#21
avatar of miragefla
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13



More accurate? It already pin point wipes grens in cover. When I hear a mortar shell being fired when against USF I immediately move my grens cuz a second later a shell lands right where they just were.


Did you not see higher drop-off? The mortar in CE only kills people at around 0.5m . Furthermore its scatter is the same as the current mortar, but it also has less range so its affected more by distance.
24 Jun 2016, 16:47 PM
#22
avatar of Crystal

Posts: 97

Yeah i agree with that. The M1 Howitzer was good enough ( Maybe a little too good to be honest ) and Riflemen got Smoke to counter Mg so ...
24 Jun 2016, 16:51 PM
#23
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17

I am also of the opinion that we should trial USF T0 mortars. Obviously, the stats need to change, because they are ridiculous.

If we run out of ideas about what should change, I also propose the following idea:
- Give the mortar pinpoint accuracy, but
- Dramatically increase the mortar shell travel time
- (this is in addition to the other nerfs already proposed)

The idea is that the mortar forces you to move. The mortar will be incredibly strong if you don't want to move your units (e.g., spamming lmgs), but:

As long as you keep moving, the mortar will be trivial to dodge (you can already predict where it hits). This is sort of like the Walking Stuka Barrage; its biggest strength (pinpoint accuracy) is also that unit's greatest weakness.
24 Jun 2016, 16:51 PM
#24
avatar of Kamzil118

Posts: 455

Yeah, it seems to be a bit too strong. I suggest its damage gets toned down or a price increase.
24 Jun 2016, 16:54 PM
#25
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

USF needed a mortar. What they didn't need is a turbo mortar 2.0
24 Jun 2016, 17:01 PM
#26
avatar of GenObi

Posts: 556

I concur, a smaller 60 mm moarter would be fine or some nerfs to damage.

Iam gonna be honest, this is text book example of bad design. Units like the WC50 and Combat Engineers shouldnt be in a doc but come in as standard units in tier 0.

For Wc 51 unit give them rangers in that doc. For the combat engiees76 mm sherman.

Your units choices from the start would be Rears Comb Engiees, Rifles and Truck. Think of the openings! Need close quarter combat with flamer get a engiee, have a open area ? Get a truck. The flexibility that is suppose to be there would be represented by the unit choices to tackle different scenarios.

Combat engiees and trucks wouldnt change the dynamic of the match much other then adding options then just rifles.
24 Jun 2016, 17:05 PM
#27
avatar of PanzerGeneralForever

Posts: 1072



Did you not see higher drop-off? The mortar in CE only kills people at around 0.5m . Furthermore its scatter is the same as the current mortar, but it also has less range so its affected more by distance.


all i can think about is how much grens like to hug each other behind yellow cover. That 0.5m would be enough to wipe a gren squad. Otherwise I do like your idea of more accuracy less dmg. I guess the issue isnt really the USFs mortar but squads clumping up in general.
24 Jun 2016, 17:08 PM
#28
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 2742

It's almost as if having 3 tech buildings instead of 4 makes it hard to pace units. Team weapons, infantry, vehicles, tanks, artillery, and support units all crammed into 4 base buildings total.

I think USF needed a mortar, maybe not THIS mortar, but a mortar crew nonetheless. But I don't understand why it was made t0 whereas the OKW MG34 was put behind a tier building.

But as far as I'm concerned, mortar teams, MG crews, AT guns, and infantry squads are game mechanics, not individual units. Every faction should have access to them to make the early/infantry game fluid and dynamic.

Call me craaazy, but I find there to be plenty of room for asymmetry even when factions all have the same core mechanics.
24 Jun 2016, 17:11 PM
#29
avatar of |GB| The Hooligan486
Senior Referee Badge

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

They should have made the mortar more accurate, less damaging that only kills with direct-hits with higher drop-off with more ROF and less range. This way this would differentiate itself from the pack howitzer by being meant to displace units and being light support while the pack howitzer is what you want to break fortifications and actually kill units.

Please somebody tell Relic that this man has to make all the balance patches from now on. At least he knows what he is talking about lol ^_^
24 Jun 2016, 17:13 PM
#30
avatar of Click

Posts: 139

I agree. Either nerf it or remove it. But relic won't do it, so everyone should play allies. xD
24 Jun 2016, 17:16 PM
#31
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

Mortar WAS needed becasue USF can strugge very, very much without indirect fire, while the only option was hidden behind Cpt with enormous MP cost.

Not that great mortart like currently, but they needed it.
24 Jun 2016, 17:26 PM
#32
avatar of Breaking Brad

Posts: 20 | Subs: 11

rooooooooooooooffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffflllllllllllllllllllllll
24 Jun 2016, 17:29 PM
#33
avatar of Iron Emperor

Posts: 1653

The mortar is just too strong, too accurate and too fast in firing. It's a pre-nerf Ostheer mortar on steroids. Nerf that thing!
24 Jun 2016, 17:51 PM
#34
avatar of mycalliope

Posts: 721

well relic will find more ways to buff usf and brit and more way to nerf soviets,okw,ost
24 Jun 2016, 17:56 PM
#35
avatar of Unknown Legend
Donator 11

Posts: 418 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Jun 2016, 17:01 PMGenObi
I concur, a smaller 60 mm moarter would be fine or some nerfs to damage.

Iam gonna be honest, this is text book example of bad design. Units like the WC50 and Combat Engineers shouldnt be in a doc but come in as standard units in tier 0.

For Wc 51 unit give them rangers in that doc. For the combat engiees76 mm sherman.

Your units choices from the start would be Rears Comb Engiees, Rifles and Truck. Think of the openings! Need close quarter combat with flamer get a engiee, have a open area ? Get a truck. The flexibility that is suppose to be there would be represented by the unit choices to tackle different scenarios.

Combat engiees and trucks wouldnt change the dynamic of the match much other then adding options then just rifles.


+1
24 Jun 2016, 18:03 PM
#36
avatar of Highfiveeeee

Posts: 1740

I haven't played the game with the new patch, so what exactly is so broken about the USF mortar? (No kidding, honest question)
24 Jun 2016, 18:07 PM
#37
avatar of JohnnyShaun

Posts: 144

And again, nobody talking about risk + reward. If you try an opening with 2 mortars and get flanked, it's 520 MP right in oblivion. Otherwise, you can see that OKW have now HUGE AI low + midrange and don't even let you retreat safely, which is good for ambush.

Like Ketetof said, Adapt or die. :hansREKT:
24 Jun 2016, 18:09 PM
#38
avatar of miragefla
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

And again, nobody talking about risk + reward. If you try an opening with 2 mortars and get flanked, it's 520 MP right in oblivion. Otherwise, you can see that OKW have now HUGE AI low + midrange and don't even let you retreat safely, which is good for ambush.

Like Ketetof said, Adapt or die. :hansREKT:


Ostheer Mortar Reload: 4
USF Mortar Reload: 2.4

Also the USF mortar as the least scatter at:
angle_scatter: 6f
distance_scatter_max: 5f

Ostheer:
angle_scatter: 10f
distance_scatter_max: 8f

On top of this, the USF mortar gets scatter bonuses.


24 Jun 2016, 18:21 PM
#39
avatar of Alphrum

Posts: 808



Ostheer Mortar Reload: 4
USF Mortar Reload: 2.4

Also the USF mortar as the least scatter at:
angle_scatter: 6f
distance_scatter_max: 5f

Ostheer:
angle_scatter: 10f
distance_scatter_max: 8f

On top of this, the USF mortar gets scatter bonuses.




man dont you get it?

Its an allied mortar so its fine.
24 Jun 2016, 18:34 PM
#40
avatar of RealName

Posts: 276

Mortar allows for less bleed by taking out mgs from range (you won't need to send a unit to distract mg). Also, free smokes. IMO a breath of relief for USF boys.

Like others have said, a good rebalance would be:

- slightly less range

- faster setup time

- slightly less damage

- slower RoF than ost mortar

An aggressive mortar for an aggressive faction.

jump backJump back to quoted post24 Jun 2016, 18:21 PMAlphrum


man dont you get it?

Its an allied mortar so its fine.


This man gets it.

PAGES (11)down
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

476 users are online: 476 guests
0 post in the last 24h
30 posts in the last week
142 posts in the last month
Registered members: 44954
Welcome our newest member, Mtbgbans
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM