M2 60mm Mortar - new shell types?

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[TheVolskinator]

After playing against the current axis metagame (heavy support spam with heavy armor), it's come to my attention that the U.S. has no ability to 'break' a heavy defensive line without sacrificing an unacceptable amount of their company, or without doctrinal on-map artillery or off maps (with only the Howie, Callie, and 105mm Off-map falling into that category). There are those who would tell me to l2p and flank the defensive line, but lets not kid outselves--the vast majority of players in EiR are *very* compitent and rarely leave an open flank. These same players are also readily able to simply adjust their lines to bend or trap the attacking units, and their forces on map tend to stretch from end to end. By saying support spam, I meant multiple mgs and paks (not to mention snipers) from each player, in addition to a large number of armored units. The stereotypical 24-riflemen-and-7-tank-destroyer U.S. companies are utterly demolished against the current metagame, and because U.S. support weapons are inferior (in general terms) to their axis counterparts, you end up banking your entire game on flimsy snipers that are easily mortar'd or rushed (not to mention countersniped, a common occurance in the current meta) and vulnerable on-map artillery which are easily rushed and destroyed in most cases.

And so the task of attacking axis defensive walls falls to the M2 60mm mortar. Historically noted for its superb accuracy and lack of notable effect on buildings or other dug-in positions, the M2 was a highly regarded weapon deployed in mortar platoons of four tubes, one per company. In EiR the M2 is marginally less common then its Wehrmacht and PE counterparts, mostly because of its vulnerability and more situational use against the more armor-oriented axis forces. Its rarity is also partly attributed to its similar cost to the Gr 34 81mm mortar, and comparably weaker effect. Without suppression vs infantry that are hit by its shells, and with less range and accuracy then the Gr 34, the M2 is underwhelming in *most* circumstances. (The 81mm is facing infantry centric factions with low HP and low suppression thresholds, that relies on its atgs for a primary AT source. Shells can easily wipe out a players infantry and AT in a short amount of time, even vaporize an entire rifleman squad in a single shell.)

And so I make the following suggestions:
 - The M2's shells might be able to suppress targets that they manage to hit.
 - The M2's barrage might have a tighter shell grouping, or have a prescision shell ability that would fire a single, absolutely accurate shell at the intended barrage area.
 - The M2 is able (for a fee) to purchase new shell types for use in barrages, on a shared cooldown.
   - Incendiary Shells (40 MU): Drops standard 60mm shells with PE incendiary grenade burn pools in their wake. This shell type might also be named White Phosphorous, and be smoke shells with PE incind grenade burn pools.
   - Air-Burst Fragmentation Rounds (50 MU): The mortar crew would load and fire toned down british airburst rounds (smaller radius, less damage, wouldnt gib units most of the time).
   - Starburst Flare Shells (25 MU): The mortar would drop flares (similar to offmap flares, but that would hang in the air over the intended target, traveling much slower then normal shells), revealing an approx 15-20m area of the FoW.

The numbers are not absolute, and are of course open to discussion. But the inability to break defensive groupings outside of doctrinal unlocks and/or units is a detriment to the U.S. faction in support weapon centric games.

[hans]

u might be right

[Poppi]

Im not sure what it is about the US mortar team... but it sucks. I had a few other people agree with me in game and yelled at via vent for actually choosing them. I tried roughly running them 70 games 40 of which i had LnL which should make it lethal or way better. But for the life of me its crap.

Too many situations this happens.
If i have jeep spotting a WM mortar i can usually get in 2-3 shots with the US mortar team in before the WM mortar turns and starts launching. My rounds dont do crap to him and i get outdone and lose my mortar team to the WM mortars.

or launching mortar rounds into a blob of pinned or suppressed units... maybe 1 kill after the 5th round.

Maybe its b/c axis have smaller amount of units with higher hp each so it makes direct contact harder and when it does make direct hit it just damages them instead of inflicting casualties.

There were times ya i  get 3-5 kills with a team, but those are mostly freak incidents. Kind of like blowing up a enemy sniper with a shrek.

[Spartan_Marine88]

I promote airburst shells, just because they look cool

[Hicks58]

US Mortar has always been a bit pitiful tbh, but it's the only real non doctrinal option you have for getting rid of Pak's without direct LoS. It could use some love, but not in a way that mirrors the 81mm of the Axis.

On another note, I find it funny that the 2 inch mortar has pants range, but by god that thing will leave a mark when it gets there.

[skaffa]

Its good against volks and mg42s, like in vcoh early game, in EIR however, I never bother with them, perhaps you could make the comparison to vcoh late game where the us mortar is pretty useless as well most of the time.

[Tymathee]

 i seem to do fine with them...i think the real issue is more the counter to it rather than the unit itself. the axis mortar can so easily rape teh 60mm, but the 60mm is a bit better than the axis mortar at killing support units because it gets double dmg if it hits, but i think the 80mm gets a larger spread so meh.

[Contaminator]

Love the overall idea! Even as an allied player I am not sure how I feel about all the munition options. Though they are cool ideas I feel that Axis will *cry cry* that US gets so many options!

Maybe its b/c axis have smaller amount of units with higher hp each so it makes direct contact harder and when it does make direct hit it just damages them instead of inflicting casualties.

I can understand that with mainline infantry Germans are more resilient but axis mortar costs both MINIMALLY more manpower and munitions to field with significantly higher benefits than the US counterpart.

Though I like the munitions idea might i suggest a change:
Another mortar other than the M2 60mm was developed and used by the US army, and extensively I might add, was the "M2 4.2 inch" mortar. This mortar was more powerful and had greater range than the "M2 60mm."

My suggestion is that we leave the lack of suppression by US mortars maybe add the white phosphorus rounds, but replace the "M2 60mm" with the "M2 4.2 inch." The "M2 60mm" should still be a doctrine unlock with the Airborne because 1. historically due to its weight and smaller size airborne units employed it much more heavily (not that historical accuracy is particularly important I just there being some kind of justification). and 2. because of its lack of range and damage it would be better for the airborne companies that might use it for behind the lines activity. I know I do.

I wont pretend to know how to balance the "M2 4.2 inch" but here are some suggestions: no suppression on hit squad unless massive casualties are received (half squad or more killed or something like that), long range rounds that do less damage, slower set up, tear down, and move speed (like the brit 17pdr AT) maybe a slower rate of fire, fewer shells in a barrage. A lot will depend on how much of bang each round will make.

I think this would really help (but not solve) the lack of non-doctrinal US support weapons.

[marda145]

Love the overall idea! Even as an allied player I am not sure how I feel about all the munition options. Though they are cool ideas I feel that Axis will *cry cry* that US gets so many options!

I can understand that with mainline infantry Germans are more resilient but axis mortar costs both MINIMALLY more manpower and munitions to field with significantly higher benefits than the US counterpart.

Though I like the munitions idea might i suggest a change:
Another mortar other than the M2 60mm was developed and used by the US army, and extensively I might add, was the "M2 4.2 inch" mortar. This mortar was more powerful and had greater range than the "M2 60mm."

My suggestion is that we leave the lack of suppression by US mortars maybe add the white phosphorus rounds, but replace the "M2 60mm" with the "M2 4.2 inch." The "M2 60mm" should still be a doctrine unlock with the Airborne because 1. historically due to its weight and smaller size airborne units employed it much more heavily (not that historical accuracy is particularly important I just there being some kind of justification). and 2. because of its lack of range and damage it would be better for the airborne companies that might use it for behind the lines activity. I know I do.

I wont pretend to know how to balance the "M2 4.2 inch" but here are some suggestions: no suppression on hit squad unless massive casualties are received (half squad or more killed or something like that), long range rounds that do less damage, slower set up, tear down, and move speed (like the brit 17pdr AT) maybe a slower rate of fire, fewer shells in a barrage. A lot will depend on how much of bang each round will make.

I think this would really help (but not solve) the lack of non-doctrinal US support weapons.

Are you for real?

Or are you just trolling with your all of posts?

[PonySlaystation]

The US mortars are kind of lackluster, some ability would be nice.

I mean they're so expensive and they never kill anything because they have so short range and there are no doctrine abilities for it. It's just meh.

[Contaminator]

Are you for real?

Or are you just trolling with your all of posts?

Not trolling...
and if your just going to more or less say "thats stupid" dont post at all.

[marda145]

Not trolling...
and if your just going to more or less say "thats stupid" dont post at all.

I was just wondering, because all of your posts contain strange stuff...

[TheVolskinator]

Marda went a wee bit over the line with his response, but I sadly agree. The unit you suggested isnt needed and should have been suggested with a bit more forsight in mind. The allies dont need a heavy mortar running around raping everything in its path. Its just pointless.

[Malgoroth]

- Starburst Flare Shells (25 MU): The mortar would drop flares (similar to offmap flares, but that would hang in the air over the intended target, traveling much slower then normal shells), revealing an approx 15-20m area of the FoW.

The only idea I actually really do like. Quite a bit actually. Though, I would limit it to a doctrine. AB or armor. Either one makes sense. It'd be silly to give something that can provide map awareness such as that to an entire faction.

As for support spam - regardless of faction or doctrine, if you don't have enough indirect to deal with it then it's going to hurt. If your a wehr player and all you have is 2 mortars for your indirect, then allied support spam is going to be vicious.

Snipers though... if you let your sniper get mortared then it's your own fault.

[RikiRude]

i agree with this. allied mortar blows.


allied mortar vs axis mortar, allied mortar actually hits, axis mortar yawns and uses medpack
allied mortar vs grens, same.

the only people ive seen use allied mortars to good effect, are people who are very good players.

i personally never use allied mortars, waste of time, but i ALWAYS used axis mortar.

allied mortar needs faster pack up time, that way the set up, mortar, move, repeat function is more useful.

[Poppi]

i agree with this. allied mortar blows.


allied mortar vs axis mortar, allied mortar actually hits, axis mortar yawns and uses medpack
allied mortar vs grens, same.

the only people ive seen use allied mortars to good effect, are people who are very good players.

i personally never use allied mortars, waste of time, but i ALWAYS used axis mortar.

allied mortar needs faster pack up time, that way the set up, mortar, move, repeat function is more useful.

by allied you mean Brits as well?
I think Brit mortars are fine. I dont know i havent messed with them, but i see them field a lot more. And no complaints.

i had a wm mortar team in sight take out 2 of my mortar teams targeting it, my mortars being separated and me having LnL which added good amount of health and acc. Yet got no results.

Shells should perhaps be a doc related.  But vanilla US mortars should get more of a buff otherwise vanilla will still be crap. 

Maybe way to roll is 2-3 mortars at once. Anything less being useless. But man thats expensive.

[Contaminator]

Ok I can accept if you didnt like my idea. I admitted in my post that I would know how a US heavy mortar would work. If it isnt taken... fine. it was just a suggestion. Im just trying to provide ideas.

[NightRain]

the only people ive seen use allied mortars to good effect, are people who are very good players.

Without saying anything or adding anything, this already tells everything

l2p issue.

[Hicks58]

Without saying anything or adding anything, this already tells everything

l2p issue.

I've seen very good players make Puma's do something useful. Perhaps the near double digit thread's saying that Puma's require a buff should STFU and learn to play?

[Demon767]

When old blitz doctrine was changed, i had to learn to use Pumas (3.5cm is it?) in replacement of P4s. And they can work good enough, against those who are not expecting a Puma can become devestating, as some players have reported to me. 50mm is dunno in my opinion.