The HM-38 needs a reload buff
Posts: 69
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
I have not used the 120mm very often for the last patch. Is the autofire slow as well? That would make it a very bad mortar overall. Bad versus structures due to slow fire rate, bad on autofire due to low fire rate and even the additional +20 range for the barrage are less useful because you might just park your mortar outside of the auto fire range so it does not participate in battles in the worst case.
I think a good rework would be to buff it's ROF and adjust the AoE and scatter profile a bit. Make it more consistant than it is now. Maybe even give it a small OHK radius. Something that makes it an improved version of the standard one in case you want a louder boom, even if this means being uninspired. The current one is quite useless unfortunately.
Posts: 5279
Give its BARRAGE suppression
Now I know I know we HAD indirect units that applied suppression and it was fucking awful BUT that was different for a few reasons. Firstly, it was on auto fire which means constant suppression AND the enemy had do do nothing but park their leig and wait benifit AND the rate of fire was much higher meaning constantly applying suppression. This, being a targeted ability would mean its restricted to an area, requires micro to apply and can be avoided (one would probably try and avoid a shelling from a 12cm bomb if they could so hey its lore friendly!)
Special barrage types
one of the things that makes the usf mortar HT fun is that you have a good few goodies to rain death with... Perhaps something like that can shine life onto this forgotten beast?flammen? AP? WHO KNOWS?
Increased range on barrage?
Least inspired but at least it's something.....
Give the crew a rifle that snipes models then if nothing else you can storm the enemy lines after softening them up a bit. A true all in one mortar bound to set itself apart from the competition! (nobody said these would be good ore useful suggestions)
Wider AOE?
it's low ROF makes it pretty low impact. Why not spread the love around?
Stun when hitting armour?
It's a big boom that probably would be rather alarming hitting your metal box. Why not add some utility in the form of a headache?
Posts: 999 | Subs: 1
dps-wise it is also better than any other traditional mortar in the game despite the lower rate of fire (time between shots is 8.6, 7.1, 5.6 and 5.6 for the HM-38, PM-41, GRW-34 and M1, respectively).
the only indirect fire team weapon that is able to out-dps the 120mm mortar at 80 range is - unsurprisingly - the pack howitzer.
i'll post some more in-depth analysis illustrating my point later
Posts: 5279
ok, so after doing some analysis myself i'd conclude the hm-38 is mostly fine. its barrage has lower scatter than the american m1 and the grw-34 and is only slightly worse than the pm-41. in addition, due to the superior aoe profile it will vastly out-damage the other mortars vs infantry at all ranges.
dps-wise it is also better than any other traditional mortar in the game despite the lower rate of fire (time between shots is 8.6, 7.1, 5.6 and 5.6 for the HM-38, PM-41, GRW-34 and M1, respectively).
the only indirect fire team weapon that is able to out-dps the 120mm mortar at 80 range is - unsurprisingly - the pack howitzer.
i'll post some more in-depth analysis illustrating my point later
Its great against static targets, but not great enough to make up for how poorly it performs against a mobile enemy. I called in a barrage in a game last night and the first shell just landed now.
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
ok, so after doing some analysis myself i'd conclude the hm-38 is mostly fine. its barrage has lower scatter than the american m1 and the grw-34 and is only slightly worse than the pm-41. in addition, due to the superior aoe profile it will vastly out-damage the other mortars vs infantry at all ranges.
dps-wise it is also better than any other traditional mortar in the game despite the lower rate of fire (time between shots is 8.6, 7.1, 5.6 and 5.6 for the HM-38, PM-41, GRW-34 and M1, respectively).
the only indirect fire team weapon that is able to out-dps the 120mm mortar at 80 range is - unsurprisingly - the pack howitzer.
i'll post some more in-depth analysis illustrating my point later
As much as I like your scatter data sheet,the issue here is that the barrage of the heavy mortar is very useless.
The time between shots is so long that you can only use it on structures. If you use it on enemy infantry, your opponent has plenty of time to move away after the first shot. Even team weapons can be moved decently well. And then you have to hope that the first shot lands very well, otherwise your opponent might not get too much damage at all for such an expensive unit. Against garrisons the issue remains the same. The third option to use it against static buildings like bunkers is also bad, because you could do more damage with the normal mortar. Additionally the low ROF makes it vulnerable to rocket artillery in the late game because it sits at the same spot for 40 seconds. The only virtue of the longer range, slow firing barrage is that you cannot be counter mortared and have a long area denial.
Yes, it has a bit more range, but only for the barrage and as I explained the barrage is quite shitty in most scenarios. The autofire on the unit might be fine, but the barrage is not. And this is exactly what balance team wanted to move away from and redesign mortars as support units that need active management. Ever since that patch, the 120mm became very bad, because it was hit by the damage nerf harder than all other mortars but cannot really support better than the standard SOV mortar. It's probably even worse due to the lack of flare at vet0.
And one last thing which I am not sure about though: I got the impression that it is more clunky to use. It needs to turn more often and/or at least has longer setup times.
All in all I don't feel that the 120mm is in a good position. You pay more to get a mix of slightly better performance in some circumstances but also much worse performance in other aspects. There is no real benefit and no real situatuon where it is consistently better than the normal mortar, especially conaiderung the quite hefty price.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
The only virtue of the longer range, slow firing barrage is that you cannot be counter mortared and have a long area denial.
Aaaaaactually....
Counter Barrage range from 80 to 100
The fact that it doesn't even have flare at vet0, while stock mortar does isn't helping either.
Its a bad, overpriced unit with heavy pop cap that isn't worth bothering with at this state.
But certain someone will probably rush in to tell us how wrong we are and how amazing it is on paper.
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
Aaaaaactually....
Yes, but even with this buff you should realize that the chances of counter barrage activating are very slim. And this already assumes that you fight OST and the OST player has it activated.
Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8
Yes, but even with this buff you should realize that the chances of counter barrage activating are very slim. And this already assumes that you fight OST and the OST player has it activated.
ISG barrage is range 100 as well, is much faster and more accurate.
Posts: 3114 | Subs: 2
ISG barrage is range 100 as well, is much faster and more accurate.
Alright, I though it was 80 as well, thanks for the correction.
Doesn't change my point though.
Posts: 5279
Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3
What about taking away the flare at vet 1 and giving it a faster barrage at vet 1? Then it doesn't completely replace the 82mm but also gets a wee bump after it's been on field awhile
That literally nerfs it.
Posts: 5279
That literally nerfs it.
It does and it doesn't. It would trade utility for DPS. Soviet does not want for recon and if you really NEED the flares, getting the 82mm isn't a huge obstacle since it doesn't require vet.
Posts: 2358
It does and it doesn't. It would trade utility for DPS. Soviet does not want for recon and if you really NEED the flares, getting the 82mm isn't a huge obstacle since it doesn't require vet.
Yup, i like this approach. You can still combine it with PM41 for the flares. No nerf hammer there, it just "demands" unit diversity + micro
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
What about taking away the flare at vet 1 and giving it a faster barrage at vet 1? Then it doesn't completely replace the 82mm but also gets a wee bump after it's been on field awhile
I like this as well. The think the vet 0 flare on the 82 is a big reason that mortar is more useful. A better barrage at vet 1 would distinguish the 120 a lot more
Posts: 558 | Subs: 1
Posts: 999 | Subs: 1
As much as I like your scatter data sheet,the issue here is that the barrage of the heavy mortar is very useless.
The time between shots is so long that you can only use it on structures. If you use it on enemy infantry, your opponent has plenty of time to move away after the first shot. Even team weapons can be moved decently well. And then you have to hope that the first shot lands very well, otherwise your opponent might not get too much damage at all for such an expensive unit. Against garrisons the issue remains the same. The third option to use it against static buildings like bunkers is also bad, because you could do more damage with the normal mortar. Additionally the low ROF makes it vulnerable to rocket artillery in the late game because it sits at the same spot for 40 seconds. The only virtue of the longer range, slow firing barrage is that you cannot be counter mortared and have a long area denial.
Yes, it has a bit more range, but only for the barrage and as I explained the barrage is quite shitty in most scenarios. The autofire on the unit might be fine, but the barrage is not. And this is exactly what balance team wanted to move away from and redesign mortars as support units that need active management. Ever since that patch, the 120mm became very bad, because it was hit by the damage nerf harder than all other mortars but cannot really support better than the standard SOV mortar. It's probably even worse due to the lack of flare at vet0.
And one last thing which I am not sure about though: I got the impression that it is more clunky to use. It needs to turn more often and/or at least has longer setup times.
Your arguments against the 120mm barrage are very much reasonable; however, I don't really agree with your conclusion.
Sure, the barrage ROF is lower than that of other mortars, but the actual difference is smaller than portrayed here. It does fire 20% slower than the PM-41, which translates to ~1.5 s more time for the target to move out of the firing line after the first shot lands. And while this may or may not make the difference between dodging or eating another shell, it could be
argued that most players would reposition early enough to not get hit by a second barrage shell from any indirect source anyway.
Therefore, the first shot is what counts most for any source of indirect fire against a non-static target, and this is where the 120mm barrage is superior to any other mortar in the game. Due to its relatively low scatter (only the PM-41 has ~6% less scatter area) and far better AoE profile it has a much greater chance to deal at least some damage to the target and will on average drain more HP with its first shell than any other comparable indirect fire piece except the Pack Howie.
Still, I agree the barrage is way less stellar against garrisoned troops and emplacements for the reasons you laid out above, and I'd also like to see some buff in that department - either by a different vet1 ability or slightly improved ROF with vet as suggested by others.
However, I think the main area the 120mm is lacking in is its horrendously long setup and tear down duration in conjunction with having to pack up and reposition for even the tiniest adjustment of firing direction. Since other mortars can even pivot in-place to adjust aim, maybe a justified buff for the HM-38 would be to reduce setup and tear down times a bit to compensate for the poor angular tracking capability?
All in all I don't feel that the 120mm is in a good position. You pay more to get a mix of slightly better performance in some circumstances but also much worse performance in other aspects. There is no real benefit and no real situatuon where it is consistently better than the normal mortar, especially conaiderung the quite hefty price.
Agree fully that the HM-38 is a bit lacking in total, especially considering the bang you get for the buck. Still, I'd say it does have its use in certain situations where it clearly outshines its smaller 81mm cousin, it's just not a flat-out better (or worse) option in every game.
Posts: 301
In my opinion, before any tweaks on stats, the unit needs urgent QoL changes.
1) Make it set up in an arc. This way you avoid the unwanted repacking times when it chooses to fire at a unit outside its cone and forces the soviet player to use it more actively.
2) Standarize the damage.
In terms of which way the unit should go, I'm all about the little howitzer route.
Posts: 359
Removing the doctrine requirement seems like a good way to test it in play. To see if its worth the doctrine slot.
I tried using this mortar in a test match and it just feels so clunky. With the exception of OKW trucks, there is no one anyone is going to sit still long enough to be hit by the mortar. The damage feels very 'meh' even when you do hit. I think the design philosophy of this mortar was slow but powerful. Changes over time have made this mortar slow and weak.
Posts: 359
https://community.companyofheroes.com/discussion/comment/288466#Comment_288466
Livestreams
19 | |||||
151 | |||||
20 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.615222.735-2
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.918405.694+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Board Info
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Welcome our newest member, Mcwowell05
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM