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

[RikiRude]

Without saying anything or adding anything, this already tells everything

l2p issue.

so you're saying that every US player needs to L2P? That if we all learn how to play that allied mortars will magically be better? get your head out of your ass with that comment. that must mean every axis player is terrible with pumas since they let them get killed by m8s and since ive seen some people use pumas to great effect.

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.

i meant US mortars, i think CW ones are fine, but i still don't use them.

[Malgoroth]

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

I could support this idea. A slight buff to pack up time would certainly help it against the Wehrmacht mortars range advantage.

[Hicks58]

Pretty sure that the US mortar already has a faster pack up and set up than vCoH.

Yup, setup of 1.5, teardown of 1.9 compared to the WM 2.4 setup and 2.8 teardown.

Make it go any faster, and it'll be packed up before the animation can finish.

The problem with the US mortar aint it's setting up or packing up time, it's the unit's combat performance.

[Smokaz]

When I construct a serious american company, which I haven't done in a while I tended to end up with some very irreplacable & specialized callins. This was back when doomforting was a prevalent strategy, people were skilled at it and triple level 9 wehrmacht was something you knew was going to be hard.

I would for instance almost always field a sniper. I suppose this time period was some time before the "waiting room" for vet. I almost always felt like I needed a 60mm as well. NOT FOR KILLING, just for mortar smoke! I often would have a demo charge engineer or two. In a lot of games these would not get used, but when you had them and game called for it, it felt like being the offensive equivalent of a world-class surgeon. It didn't feel like a big investment at all, it was like a insurance. Right tool for the job, brains over brawns. My Infantry coys would ALWAYS have a howie with any doctrine build because the 105 is GREAT at taking out paks in 1 shot. AB would have satchel-only squads in the support tab.

You see back in the day the average wehr player was very good at negating the american armor while their inf would often outclass american inf for POP. They would often have a 88, overlapping mg42s and moving paks. It was quite hellish. No american officer smoke or regular smoke offmaps existed. Good old 60mm deploying smoke could often negate their entire strategy. Most sherman centric strategies were hard to pull off, and american crocs were almost unheard of outside of AB spam companies fighting KCH spam because doctrines offered no good buffs.

While engineer demo charges itself still aren't popular it was considered intelligent to have some AB with satchels only; fireupping into the 88 wasn't always easy but even super good wehrmacht players would usually not have two blocking vehicles. A doomfort w/goliaths had its own weaknesses, though admittely this strategy has always been super strong against anyone not really comfortable with gauging how much the goliath will kill of a squad based on its position. Often a goliath would not kill a entire ab squad with the result being the "last second" satchel throw.

Allies have more smoke-effective weapons than axis still even after its been made more even with SE/Luft. This is the key to the 60mm, its smoke production.  

Finally: The majority of the axis infantry on standoffs with cover to do good. Grens prefer staying still most of the time, medikits slow them down, their lmg, kars, g43s, scoped mp44s, mp40s, leader rifle hit less when fired on the move. 57mms seem to miss axis tanks through smoke far less often, I believe this is the scatter difference. 

 This means that once mortar dominion has been established, it hurts wehr a lot. They have to relocate mg's, can't camp cover etc. This stuff is more important for them than for allies. Allies can't expect wehr to rush into close range with them because thats the allied superior range in a lot of matchups.

And I do feel like the current game, with the current focus on dismantling core support like triages, 88s, suciding units to kill of big doctrine bonuses (officers, arty), people must be aware of how removing them can immensily help the team. Some allied players for instance would consider it heresy to not get the triage or the airborne medics, while not properely prioritizing the destruction of howies, callies, snipers, medics and triages is equally abhorrent to a axis team. In a similar way, its considered heresy to not start with anti-tank, to not have any vet 2 stickies vs heavy tank companies, to not have a sniper or flamers vs specific axis infantry spam companies.

Some things have remained constant, almost dogmatic. Not running bikes or recrew infantry is frowned upon by a lot of old-school players.

To me the combat function of the 60mm is largely irrelevant simply because smoke is so useful vs axis. Similarily the smoke isn't that important. It's still better than it USED to be because it really hurts PE inf now.

The problem is perhaps not a balance problem, but a knowledge problem. American players expect the 60mm to work like the 81mm, when it's strength are not barraging the enemy directly. It's not a unit vs unit thing, it's entire americans vs entire axis and in that comparison the 60mm is a exellent unit.

[Malgoroth]

Smokaz illustrates my "no unit in EiR exists alone in a vacuum" argument quite artfully.

When discussing unit balance, supporting units and the faction as a whole must be considered.

Norwegians are apparently good for more than just a-ha and black metal.

[Poppi]

Smokaz illustrates my "no unit in EiR exists alone in a vacuum" argument quite artfully.

When discussing unit balance, supporting units and the faction as a whole must be considered.

Norwegians are apparently good for more than just a-ha and black metal.

but isnt smokaz just saying ya 60mm  rocks when you arent aiming at people or trying to kill them?

[Smokaz]

Derppp

[PonySlaystation]

Smokaz illustrates my "no unit in EiR exists alone in a vacuum" argument quite artfully.

You are putting way to much emphasis on other units in equations where that shouldn't matter. It's a bad argument and you keep bringing it up everywhere like some kind of messiah know it all.

If we were to consider the factions as a whole including doctrines then that would mean that the allied mortar needs a buff even more since it unlike the axis mortar is not represented in the doctrines.

The axis and allied HMGs have their plus and downsides so they're balanced. With mortars it's very different. In vCOH it made sense that the allied mortars were weaker since axis did not get their mortars until later in the game. In EIR however it makes no sense.

And then if you look at the factions as a whole again, the PE has the very useful mortar halftrack. In vCOH CW also has a good mortar but in EIR they don't. Another disadvantage.

[Smokaz]

If you're going to start balancing by the flat tech structure, have fun reworking all PE units.

Allied mortar is fine!

[Malgoroth]

The only reason I keep bringing it up is because the majority of people I see who make balance suggestions don't take that fact into consideration and only end up having dumb suggestions. I'm not trying to be mean or anything, but it's true.

In a strategy game "other units" always matter. If people continue to not recognize that, then the forums will forever be awash with stupid ideas.

[TheVolskinator]

So in english, this is a retarded waste of a thread?

[Mister Schmidt]

+1

[hans]

+1

[nugnugx]

In a strategy game "other units" always matter

Balancing on other units is bad, because if everything would be balanced this way, a single unit without the 2nd or 3rd unit would be very bad or very good depending on the situation.
Balancing on single unit makes sure that the unit is always medium aka 'balanced' in all situations.

By logic of 'multiple balance' sniper is very bad in tandem with mortar for example, because he cannot pin units for mortar to kill them and they both can be rushed by any inf squad.

problem 'multiple balance' lovers?

[Mister Schmidt]

Well done for making zero sense Nug!

[RoyalHants]

By logic of 'multiple balance' sniper is very bad in tandem with mortar for example, because he cannot pin units for mortar to kill them and they both can be rushed by any inf squad.

Then get a MG, noob

[nugnugx]

No because when you balance on multiple units you have to make all possible faction units that the current faction has and uses, meaning there can be hundreds of compilations, and there might be a time when someone will be using a mortar with a sniper.

problem?

[LeoPhone]

Lol.

Stop proving it was good you were banned from balance nug. We get it now.

[RoyalHants]

So units should be balanced according to every combination?  or just those which are common and actually work

[nugnugx]

I'm not proving anything Leo, there is nothing to prove because that is a fact.

So units should be balanced according to every combination?  or just those which are common and actually work

Making only things which are common would leave other things unbalanced and players who would find those unbalanced setups would be OP and people would start to use them and the 'balanced' ones would be less used as opposed to those OP combinations which were always used in EIR = resulting in that, that every combination needs to be balanced eventualy.

90% of nerfs in EIR came from players who used OP stuff which promoted the use of them in game and others would often start to use them also which became the new 'common' - thus the need for a nerf and often proclaimed on this forum 'change in metagameplay'.