paper and reality are different things:
- IS-2 on paper the best tank in the game, in fact the worst
- 82-mm on paper is better than 120-mm, in fact worse.
all that makes 82-mm is to scratch units, if he killed more than 15 people for the whole game - you are a lucky man, the Wehrmacht mortar does not make less than 30 kills per game (this mortar - op, it wipes out a full squad of 5/6 people), 120-mm make about 20 kills and yesterday he helped me by hitting on Pz-4, destroyed his main gun.
We are talking about computer games, the stats that elchino is talking about is all that rule that game so actually "the paper" is the reality. But it does not have to equal with user experience for multiple reasons such as:
1. Bias - its often seen that players tend to see same unit as bad when they build it and good when opponent is using it.
2. Graphical effects - it is easy to see in the case of 120mm mortar. It has such a huge and realistic graphical and sound effect that people tend to think its better than it actually is.
3. Using bad measures of effectivness - in the case of mortar, kill count is not exactly the right measure becouse its mainly a damage dealer, not a model killer. Its very easy to steal kills from the mortar and the kill count is very dependant on how well your opponent manages healing. The AoE and scatter character of the weapon also means that it is always going to perform much better (in terms of model kills) against allies, just becouse of bigger squad size.
Even if that metric was a good one, why exactly do you think that a mortar that deals 33% more damage (15-20) is worth 42% higher cost (240-340)?