Login

russian armor

British mortar pit suggestion for GCS patch.

21 Apr 2017, 11:34 AM
#1
avatar of A. Soldier

Posts: 964 | Subs: 2

Banned
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=679152285

There is very little I can say here, just test Planet Smasher and Mr. Smith's mod, it's largely based off of Svanh's mod and idea, I am not sure if I had my idea before Svanh or not but the 3 of us can all agree that this is the best solution to the problem of both sides:

Those being, the need for the British Army to be more mobile and less static, there are very few players that love turtling with the Brits, and they would still be able to do that with this mod, just not as effectively as before, and the bane of the Axis for having to deal with annoying Advanced Emplacement Regiment Sim Cities and in general just the mortar pit itself in a well defended place.

An additional suggestion would be that perhaps for added micro the switchable mortar pit abilities from the UKF Alpha could be brought back for the British 3-inch mortars when they're garrisoned in a pit, at Vet 1 for example.

The mortars garrisoned in the mortar pit WILL NOT BE as durable as the current mortar pit, it would just add protection for the mortars and still use the assets and keep the uniqueness of the British Army for being a bit more defensive and using a bit more static positioning than other Armies.

But just locking the British indirect fire capabilities of the British with the mortar pit is a big no no for most people, plus they ruin the fun for their opponents in smaller 1v1 and 2v2 maps where they cover huge portions of the map.

Note: Yes, the Mortars do get a range increase when garrisoned, however Planet Smasher has made sure it isn't as OP or a big of a pain in the ass as the current mortar pit.

Me and probably most Axis and British players (again, those who wish to be more mobile instead of being bogged down in static warfare) plead the mod team to fit this mortar pit change in the mod for testing in a version before passing the final judgement upon the matter.

That is all, have a nice day.
21 Apr 2017, 11:52 AM
#2
avatar of capiqua
Senior Mapmaker Badge

Posts: 725 | Subs: 3

The release GCS balance path is this Tuesday. My vote for this suggestion in the next patch.

Edit:
21 Apr 2017, 12:36 PM
#3
avatar of Nubb3r

Posts: 99

This idea has been mentioned quite often, good to see it in reality. Maybe brits can be a normal faction some day. This mortar would certainly help!
21 Apr 2017, 12:57 PM
#4
avatar of Nano

Posts: 105

I am all for the continued improvement of this game 100%

But it seems that slowly every faction is just becoming every other faction and they are losing their uniqueness, which has a direct impact on how much this game is to play.
21 Apr 2017, 14:24 PM
#5
avatar of A. Soldier

Posts: 964 | Subs: 2

Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post21 Apr 2017, 12:57 PMNano
I am all for the continued improvement of this game 100%

But it seems that slowly every faction is just becoming every other faction and they are losing their uniqueness, which has a direct impact on how much this game is to play.


The British 3 inch mortar would still have unique stats and the Brits would still have access to the mortar pit emplacement.

So their uniqueness and gameplay assets will be kept and not altered, difference here will be that it will be mobile and easier to balance than the current mortar pit.

But if we're honest, assymetrical balance has never worked and never will, if you want balance you will need compromise on asymmetry, plus this is WW2, not StarCraft where you have different races and such.

Doesn't matter if the Armies here are different, in order for them to be balanced they need to have the fundamental tools for an Army, why do you think the MG34 got added to the OKW by default while the USF received the mortar?
21 Apr 2017, 14:58 PM
#6
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 902

Looks pretty neat to me - personally the lack of mobile indirect fire has always been a pretty big flaw in Brits design IMO (Arty Flares don't count since the AoE on them is utter trash and they are only good for area denial).

Aside from the building trench idea I'd also be fine with a mobile mortar that has the option for both a standard and an extra long deploy time which would set up the less durable mortar pit. Or something like Sappers being able to "Hull Down" Mortars similar to the OST ability.
21 Apr 2017, 17:26 PM
#7
avatar of Doggo

Posts: 147

This looks like a nerf to me. I don't want to see the British faction become the same as the US, Soviets or OKW. I like the defensive focus. With this change, Advanced Emplacement Regiment won't do anything.

It really depends on just how protected they are in this generic emplacement and how much a functionless emplacement costs.
21 Apr 2017, 18:18 PM
#8
avatar of Judge Fred

Posts: 5

This is a prime example of "I want to have my cake and eat it too". Why would anyone want to nerf the only vulnerability of the mortar pit, its immobility?



Even looking at this gives me the shivers.



Interesting mod, definitely worth a try. But it isn't gonna solve any balance issue.
21 Apr 2017, 18:52 PM
#9
avatar of A. Soldier

Posts: 964 | Subs: 2

Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post21 Apr 2017, 17:26 PMDoggo
This looks like a nerf to me. I don't want to see the British faction become the same as the US, Soviets or OKW. I like the defensive focus. With this change, Advanced Emplacement Regiment won't do anything.

It really depends on just how protected they are in this generic emplacement and how much a functionless emplacement costs.


You won't because they won't, plus the OKW doesn't have a mortar, so...

And yes, that's the point, Sim Citying and turtling with emplacements won't be as effective as it is now without it's main ingredient, the dreaded mortar pit.

Plus mobility will NEVER be a nerf in a pseudo-tactical game such as this, ever.
21 Apr 2017, 18:57 PM
#10
avatar of A. Soldier

Posts: 964 | Subs: 2

Banned
This is a prime example of "I want to have my cake and eat it too". Why would anyone want to nerf the only vulnerability of the mortar pit, its immobility?





Even looking at this gives me the shivers.


Interesting mod, definitely worth a try. But it isn't gonna solve any balance issue.


Because both the OKW and USF got their cake and ate it as well, why did they add the MG34 and USF mortar then?

Plus it does fix 2 issues, the imbalance issue with the mortar pit, which is primarily an Axis worry, and the prevention of effectively Sim Citying and turtling with emplacements.

Plus like I said, many Brit players that would rather be more mobile will very much appreciate the change.

I suggest you try the mod first, before you knock it because "it's a nerf" or "it won't change anything".

Having mobility on the field should not be underestimated.
22 Apr 2017, 02:49 AM
#11
avatar of ZombiFrancis

Posts: 1625

I like this idea. I remember Svanh's mod utilizing this concept, though I think it's an idea that's come up many a time by various people since, well even Opposing Fronts. Cool to see it in action, wherever credit is due for the idea originally.

Although really, I don't know why the mortar pit can't just be one mortar. The other mortar, if it should exist at all, should be uncrewed and only crewed when an IS or RE are garrisoned. Slash the price in the process.

That, or the emplacements should be really cheap, stealable, and built without crews, with garrisoned units crewing the emplacement weapon.
22 Apr 2017, 03:57 AM
#12
avatar of DanielD

Posts: 669



Although really, I don't know why the mortar pit can't just be one mortar. The other mortar, if it should exist at all, should be uncrewed and only crewed when an IS or RE are garrisoned. Slash the price in the process.

That, or the emplacements should be really cheap, stealable, and built without crews, with garrisoned units crewing the emplacement weapon.


Both of these suggestions are really good. I like finding ways to make it cheaper/less of an all in, it feels at the moment like you live or die by your mortar pit once you build it and it removes options for both players in that regard.
22 Apr 2017, 05:23 AM
#13
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 304

I like this idea. I remember Svanh's mod utilizing this concept, though I think it's an idea that's come up many a time by various people since, well even Opposing Fronts. Cool to see it in action, wherever credit is due for the idea originally.

Although really, I don't know why the mortar pit can't just be one mortar. The other mortar, if it should exist at all, should be uncrewed and only crewed when an IS or RE are garrisoned. Slash the price in the process.

That, or the emplacements should be really cheap, stealable, and built without crews, with garrisoned units crewing the emplacement weapon.

That would actually be really cool. I especially like the last idea, very unique and different from the stupid emplacements we have now. I personally think the pit should just have one mortar and be decreased to like 240-230mp (or further if the other idea is implemented).
22 Apr 2017, 12:40 PM
#14
avatar of Nano

Posts: 105



The British 3 inch mortar would still have unique stats and the Brits would still have access to the mortar pit emplacement.

So their uniqueness and gameplay assets will be kept and not altered, difference here will be that it will be mobile and easier to balance than the current mortar pit.

But if we're honest, assymetrical balance has never worked and never will, if you want balance you will need compromise on asymmetry, plus this is WW2, not StarCraft where you have different races and such.

Doesn't matter if the Armies here are different, in order for them to be balanced they need to have the fundamental tools for an Army, why do you think the MG34 got added to the OKW by default while the USF received the mortar?


You mean how the USF got laser accurate pin point nuclear launching mortars and how OKW got the worst MG to ever exist to match? How long did it take to fix that nonsense? Seems like their wanting to round out the differences broke the game for a very long time even more than it already was.

The developers originally made the factions different, I think they did that to add fun to the game. Slowly slowly the game just becomes rounded and all the factions become the same.

Don't get me wrong I am all for the efforts of the community and the teams making the patches, but I prefer we focus hard trying to balance things best we can rather than out right altering things over and over until the game becomes just bland team vs bland team. I love switching form USF to Brit to OKW. Lots of great variety to be had.
22 Apr 2017, 13:14 PM
#15
avatar of A. Soldier

Posts: 964 | Subs: 2

Banned
jump backJump back to quoted post22 Apr 2017, 12:40 PMNano


You mean how the USF got laser accurate pin point nuclear launching mortars and how OKW got the worst MG to ever exist to match? How long did it take to fix that nonsense? Seems like their wanting to round out the differences broke the game for a very long time even more than it already was.

The developers originally made the factions different, I think they did that to add fun to the game. Slowly slowly the game just becomes rounded and all the factions become the same.

Don't get me wrong I am all for the efforts of the community and the teams making the patches, but I prefer we focus hard trying to balance things best we can rather than out right altering things over and over until the game becomes just bland team vs bland team. I love switching form USF to Brit to OKW. Lots of great variety to be had.


So by your logic we shouldn't ever touch balance again, out of fear of breaking something?

The MG34's performance didn't change much since the beginning but it was always there, even if it was at first doctrinal but still remains better than the Maxim if you ask me.

You said it yourself, even with the "rounded" changes, they still offer great variety.

Just because each has the basic support weapon tools doesn't mean they're all the same.

I mean, why not have an Army that lacks mainline infantry or engineer units for example, or support elite units, or something else that we're so used to playing with then?

The only Army that ever did that was the PE, and Relic stopped that with them, because them and the Brits had very obvious draw backs and didn't work quite as well as the original 2 Armies.

I still believe that even if the basic tools that are the support weapons of each Army, they could still be very much unique and different, and not "team vs team" as you said, and that is shown gameplay wise.

Making this change to the Brits would not hurt balance but actually improve it, as I've noticed from my own playtime and experience with it.

You should try it yourself before you further comment on how it will break balance or how useless it will be, it might change your mind.
22 Apr 2017, 13:23 PM
#16
avatar of Nano

Posts: 105

So by your logic we shouldn't ever touch balance again, out of fear of breaking something?


What are you talking about? No where did I say it will break balance or be useless. The example of the USF mortar that you used did break balance though, badly; Like they had to hot fix it bad.

You should try it yourself before you further comment on how it will break balance or how useless it will be, it might change your mind.


I clearly wasn't making the point that nothing should be changed, what ever logic you are coming up with is alcohol induced I think (the best kind amirite). What I am trying to say is that very slowly, patch by patch every team is just becoming every other team. I don't think totally overhauling units is the answer, I think maybe trying to balance the units as best we can might be a better one.
22 Apr 2017, 14:15 PM
#17
avatar of Doggo

Posts: 147

How would we make each faction feel different? I don't think varying the prices for things really makes factions feel different.
22 Apr 2017, 15:30 PM
#18
avatar of Planet Smasher
Modmaker Badge

Posts: 313

Thanks for the advertisement! And I really appreciate the positive responses from many of you.

Firstly, I would like to clear up Mr. Smith's role in creating this mod. While I got the idea from him and we both worked on the original implementation (long before he released his QoL mod), the current version of the mod is entirely made by myself and is not connected to the Community Balance Team in any way.

Whether the mod buffs or nerfs the Mortar Pit can be debated. The new "Artillery Pit" gives only two things for garrisoned units: Cover and a 15% range increase only for barrage abilities. It does NOT add auto-attack capabilities for units such as the Land Mattress. Getting a pit with two mortars is now considerably more expensive and it can be captured by the enemy, as can the mortars if they are decrewed while garrisoned.

But I believe that giving Brits a mobile mortar squad opens up many new strategies for them, especially some more aggressive ones. Non-doctrinal, mobile indirect fire is something they were really lacking.
22 Apr 2017, 15:33 PM
#19
avatar of Dyzfunction

Posts: 34

I think Mortar pits and bofors guns should be able to be decrewed before they are destroyed like German Flak emplacements. This will start a slight manpower bleed if the positions are decrewed but the area is still defended, and in certain scenarios where a position is overrun the enemy can actually capture and use Bofors guns or mortar emplacements. And they can be re-captured, etc.

Either that or prevent Flak emplacements from being decrewed.
22 Apr 2017, 17:41 PM
#20
avatar of A. Soldier

Posts: 964 | Subs: 2

Banned
I think Mortar pits and bofors guns should be able to be decrewed before they are destroyed like German Flak emplacements. This will start a slight manpower bleed if the positions are decrewed but the area is still defended, and in certain scenarios where a position is overrun the enemy can actually capture and use Bofors guns or mortar emplacements. And they can be re-captured, etc.

Either that or prevent Flak emplacements from being decrewed.


This was the case during and a little bit after the UKF Alpha and release of the Brits.

I have no idea why they changed it.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 231
Korea, Republic Of 52
unknown 4
unknown 169
Germany 11
unknown 10
Japan 6
United States 3

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • Soviets flag Andres-TC
  • Oberkommando West flag Tobis
uploaded by Tobis

Board Info

196 posts in the last 24h
1513 posts in the last week
7268 posts in the last month
Registered members: 18313
Welcome our newest member, Captain Telion
Most online: 775 users on 26 Oct 2014, 01:01 AM