The UKF mortar pit's problem lies in its very design: it's a big investment in a static emplacement you lose if you lose its position. 350 MP is a big deal.
Relic's adamant about not giving UKF a proper mobile mortar outside of commanders, so here's an idea to make it actually useable outside of very, very static games.
Split it in half.
» The mortar pits costs 175 MP, has half the health, half the popcap, and only one mortar.
» It has a 175 MP upgrade that doubles its health, doubles its popcap and adds the second mortar.
We know it's possible to do this because an abandoned balance patch did.
A 175 MP mortar pit is something you can afford to lose. If your mortar pit's in a good position and you have spare MP, you can upgrade it, effectively building a second pit.
Mortar Pit Split
12 Nov 2019, 15:41 PM
#1
Posts: 3260
12 Nov 2019, 15:56 PM
#2
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
...
» The mortar pits costs 175 MP, has half the health, half the popcap, and only one mortar.
...
That price is dirty cheap and building a second mortar would a far superior option than upgrading.
The price should be more like 200+150 in order to make sense.
12 Nov 2019, 16:14 PM
#3
Posts: 129
The UKF mortar pit's problem lies in its very design: it's a big investment in a static emplacement you lose if you lose its position. 350 MP is a big deal.
Relic's adamant about not giving UKF a proper mobile mortar outside of commanders, so here's an idea to make it actually useable outside of very, very static games.
Split it in half.
» The mortar pits costs 175 MP, has half the health, half the popcap, and only one mortar.
» It has a 175 MP upgrade that doubles its health, doubles its popcap and adds the second mortar.
We know it's possible to do this because an abandoned balance patch did.
A 175 MP mortar pit is something you can afford to lose. If your mortar pit's in a good position and you have spare MP, you can upgrade it, effectively building a second pit.
How would veterancy, and the pits smoke work with the half mortar pits
12 Nov 2019, 16:25 PM
#4
Posts: 3260
That price is dirty cheap and building a second mortar would a far superior option than upgrading.
The price should be more like 200+150 in order to make sense.
Dirt cheap, yes. But that's for a mortar pit with half health and half firepower. The whole idea its a very small investment for an easily killed emplacement you can afford to lose.
Upgrading the mortar pit is the stronger option if you want two in the same place because they share veterancy and a full health bar is more powerful than two half health bars.
Push comes to shove? Lock Brace behind the upgrade.
How would veterancy, and the pits smoke work with the half mortar pits
Smoke would only be fired from the one mortar. Veterancy would be the same.
12 Nov 2019, 16:47 PM
#5
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
Dirt cheap, yes...
It would pay for it self by killing 6 grenadier models...that is way too cheap.
12 Nov 2019, 16:56 PM
#6
Posts: 3260
It would pay for it self by killing 6 grenadier models...that is way too cheap.
It's half the value of the mortar pit.
12 Nov 2019, 17:17 PM
#7
Posts: 129
It's half the value of the mortar pit.
I'm inclined to agree w Vipper for once. 175 mp even for your proposed emplacement seems a tad bit too low. I like the 200-150 split more. It would also discourage someone popping up single mortars in 3 spots to mitigate counter barraging.
12 Nov 2019, 17:30 PM
#8
Posts: 3113 | Subs: 2
How many AT gun shots can a current mortar pit eat until it dies?
12 Nov 2019, 17:41 PM
#9
Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1
How many AT gun shots can a current mortar pit eat until it dies?
mortar pit has 700 HP
12 Nov 2019, 17:43 PM
#10
Posts: 3260
mortar pit has 700 HP
Which'd give the half-pit 350 HP, which is less than a light tank.
12 Nov 2019, 18:13 PM
#11
Posts: 211
I kind of like this idea. While some people might disagree on the price, this would literally be killed with a flame nade and a couple rifle shots.
The reason why the Mortar pit was so powerful was its fire rate with duo mortars.
A single mortar that can't retreat is not OP. We aren't talking about a Leig or a Pack Howi.
What would make this even more fair is to give this single mortar the same target size as the double mortar and the same build time for Engineers.
I got another suggestion though. What if you split the mortar costs between munitions. For example: Regular Mortar Pit with one mortar active for 250 manpower. Then, for 80 munitions, unlock the second mortar.
The reason why the Mortar pit was so powerful was its fire rate with duo mortars.
A single mortar that can't retreat is not OP. We aren't talking about a Leig or a Pack Howi.
What would make this even more fair is to give this single mortar the same target size as the double mortar and the same build time for Engineers.
I got another suggestion though. What if you split the mortar costs between munitions. For example: Regular Mortar Pit with one mortar active for 250 manpower. Then, for 80 munitions, unlock the second mortar.
12 Nov 2019, 18:17 PM
#12
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Wasn't single mortar pit categorically prohibited by relic?
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
12 Nov 2019, 18:17 PM
#13
Posts: 3260
I got another suggestion though. What if you split the mortar costs between munitions. For example: Regular Mortar Pit with one mortar active for 250 manpower. Then, for 80 munitions, unlock the second mortar.
If it costs over 200 MP, you're straying out of throwaway territory.
The idea is this is something you can afford to lose, like a bunker.
Wasn't single mortar pit categorically prohibited by relic?
It was in the cancelled patch.
12 Nov 2019, 18:19 PM
#14
Posts: 127
Wasn't single mortar pit categorically prohibited by relic?
Because it didn't work once or just because?
I am "Racist".
12 Nov 2019, 18:25 PM
#15
Posts: 5279
I'd keep it at say 280-300 and make the 2nd one fire as long as it's garrisoned. Adjust performance and popcap accordingly. Garrison bonuses are such an under rated element to balancing emplacements. Either they are trashy like now or fully autonomous and cancer like before. There has to be a middle ground and I think the extra resources of having to garrison is that middle ground.
#stalinwept
12 Nov 2019, 18:30 PM
#16
Posts: 818
Wasn't single mortar pit categorically prohibited by relic?
Who is the voice of relic on balance at this time? Has it changed since the suggestion was broached previously? Not that we know but maybe it has changed.
 | Playercard of Hon3y | |||||||||||||||||||
|
12 Nov 2019, 18:31 PM
#17
Posts: 127
I'd keep it at say 280-300 and make the 2nd one fire as long as it's garrisoned. Adjust performance and PopCap accordingly. Garrison bonuses are such an underrated element to balancing emplacements. Either they are trashy like now or fully autonomous and cancer like before. There has to be a middle ground and I think the extra resources of having to garrison is that middle ground.
I actually like this one the most, but what about wasting the ManPower into units that have to be inside of it? The fact that it can be built pretty close to the frontline isn't going to change anything, as it has to be in the back like any normal artillery not to be easily destroyed. The player would still have to waste a squad to sit inside of the emplacement for it to have full firing capability, so rather than wasting 350 the player would, considering we use same Royals, for example, from 280 to 490 MP and from 300 to 510 ManPower lost, and if the player just places a squad he already had to get inside, he would lose fighting/repairing/building/etc. capabilities. So still pretty bad...
I am "Racist".
12 Nov 2019, 18:32 PM
#18
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
It was in the cancelled patch.
Have you ever wondered why it never came back since? As there was supposed to be no following patches due to some relic internal stuff as far as I'm aware.
Its not a change you "just forget about".
Maybe it's 'cause the Axis players aren't a bunch of forum crybabies, and they keep their cool and fight the uphill battle, unlike some of their "allied" counterparts.
12 Nov 2019, 18:44 PM
#19
Posts: 1351
IMO we should only make it more viable to demolish the current structures by sappers. The resources regained should be around 70%. It would make UKF varied and cool to play with, giving them more potential and become more surprising to the opponent. They would be able to move structures at some cost and with some effort. Nothing would have to be really changed then statswise. Simple and effective plus retaining the uniqueness of the UKF.
(09.10.2019): "You really are a jewel to this forum" - feels proud, thank You
(24.03.2020): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9PiqCeLEmM
(25.06.2020): http://www.companyofheroes.com/leaderboards#profile/steam/76561198035553470/standings
12 Nov 2019, 19:23 PM
#20
Posts: 3260
Have you ever wondered why it never came back since? As there was supposed to be no following patches due to some relic internal stuff as far as I'm aware.
Its not a change you "just forget about".
Patch scope.
That patch also had the abominable variable call-in cost system in it, which was a large part of why it was cancelled.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34857.859+13
- 3.587233.716+3
- 4.1095612.641+19
- 5.882398.689+4
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.997646.607+1
- 8.379114.769+1
- 9.300113.726-1
- 10.717439.620+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1000
Board Info
676 users are online:
676 guests
3 posts in the last 24h
4 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
4 posts in the last week
23 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48723
Welcome our newest member, zowinfans
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, zowinfans
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM