Infantry, mortars and MGs: relationship and scaling.

I agree that target tables are a poor idea, though, they make things far less readable. There's no logic behind your AT gun being inexplicably worse against certain targets, and it doesn't "feel" right to people.

That's also something to account for. Even if a change is OBJECTIVELY better, human psychology weights more the lost rather than the gain of something.

And then you thread a thin line between what its right or not. Why AT infantry or a flame grenades destroy faster than an AT gun for example.

That's also something to account for. Even if a change is OBJECTIVELY better, human psychology weights more the lost rather than the gain of something.

And then you thread a thin line between what its right or not. Why AT infantry or a flame grenades destroy faster than an AT gun for example.

Exactly. There's a lot to be said for making things "make sense" for players.

Honestly this same issue arises in a few friends of mine who i've tried to play CoH with, who can't even get over the fact that many units in CoH do not act in the way they "should" when compared to their IRL counterparts. One friend being very unhappy when he built a Firefly, and finding that it did not act as a medium tank, for example. This is rather a more extreme example than AT guns, but I thought it was an interesting anecdotal addition.

Honestly this same issue arises in a few friends of mine who i've tried to play CoH with, who can't even get over the fact that many units in CoH do not act in the way they "should" when compared to their IRL counterparts. One friend being very unhappy when he built a Firefly, and finding that it did not act as a medium tank, for example.

I hope stuff like this is given a little more weight if there's a coh3. I know coh isn't meant to be a perfect stimulation, but I wouldn't mind if they leaned just slightly more towards realism

It's different reasoning but a friend of mine won't play much because of how friendly fire is handled in this game. He thinks hmgs should do friendly fire suppression, mortars should have full friendly fire damage etc.

Idk if I agree with him that it would make coh better but it would certainly be interesting. Friendly fire suppression i think makes some sense at least

Edit: i should clarify he means for your own units. Obviously teammate friendly fire could get cancerous

AT is inexplicably worse against certain targets like infatry...
AT hand held weapons are inexplicably worse against certain targets like infatry...

Mortar is real life are designed to counter trenches and earth bunkers, in this patch the mortars life will suddenly become inexplicably worse against trenches than ATG that in turn useless vs trenches in real life.

From a design point of view if one wants to create diversity in builds one has to make certain units worth buying to counter the enemies stragies

I hope stuff like this is given a little more weight if there's a coh3. I know coh isn't meant to be a perfect stimulation, but I wouldn't mind if they leaned just slightly more towards realism

It's different reasoning but a friend of mine won't play much because of how friendly fire is handled in this game. He thinks hmgs should do friendly fire suppression, mortars should have full friendly fire damage etc.

Idk if I agree with him that it would make coh better but it would certainly be interesting. Friendly fire suppression i think makes some sense at least

Edit: i should clarify he means for your own units. Obviously teammate friendly fire could get cancerous

It all doesn't bother me so much, I can accept that it's a game, and a lot of these abstractions are for the good of balance. I'd rather have a playable and fun/balanced game than one that tries too hard to be realistic at the expense of playability.

I have just found that friends of mine can't quite think in the same way, and keep trying to 1v1 Panthers with Churchills with no support.

EDIT: Really its consistency within the game itself that I'm more concerned with. AT guns inexplicably not being as effective against certain targets they "should be" effective against, for example.

AT is inexplicably worse against certain targets like infatry...

Mortar is real life are designed to counter trenches and earth bunkers, in this patch the mortars life will suddenly become inexplicably worse against trenches than ATG that in turn useless vs trenches in real life.

Mortars aren't for entrenched positions, and that's the fundamental flaw in their game design. Mortars are for breaking up concentrated attacks in open terrain where the shrapnel can fly everywhere. The chances of landing a mortar shell in a trench is quite difficult, and will at best only affect a few soldiers since trenches are built with curves etc. The only time you would expect mortars to affect an entrenched enemy is if you've got an unlimited number of shells, and all the time in the world.

What the mortar should be is a blob punisher, as it is in real life. It was cannons and mortars that killed mass formation warfare after all.

If the game wants mortars to have a serious role in the game the following needs to happen:

Drastically reduce damage on mortar shells. No more than 10-20 HP per model.
Drastically increase the AOE radius.
Increase the projectile speed.
Increase the range.

If possible add a special 'adjustment shell' to the barrage that's fired first, and lands almost instantly. Ought to do low damage, but will suppress if it hits at least two squads, and possibly pin if it hits 3 or some other number. It shouldn't be enough to suppress a single squad.

The end idea would be that mortars are no more than a nuisance to a single squad; however, the auto-attack would be cause serious damage to a blob, and the barrage would be a near force retreat.

Mortars aren't for entrenched positions, and that's the fundamental flaw in their game design. Mortars are for breaking up concentrated attacks in open terrain where the shrapnel can fly everywhere. The chances of landing a mortar shell in a trench is quite difficult, and will at best only affect a few soldiers since trenches are built with curves etc. The only time you would expect mortars to affect an entrenched enemy is if you've got an unlimited number of shells, and all the time in the world.

What the mortar should be is a blob punisher, as it is in real life. It was cannons and mortars that killed mass formation warfare after all.

If the game wants mortars to have a serious role in the game the following needs to happen:

Drastically reduce damage on mortar shells. No more than 10-20 HP per model.
Drastically increase the AOE radius.
Increase the projectile speed.
Increase the range.

If possible add a special 'adjustment shell' to the barrage that's fired first, and lands almost instantly. Ought to do low damage, but will suppress if it hits at least two squads, and possibly pin if it hits 3 or some other number. It shouldn't be enough to suppress a single squad.

The end idea would be that mortars are no more than a nuisance to a single squad; however, the auto-attack would be cause serious damage to a blob, and the barrage would be a near force retreat.

Well, no, I'd argue it was the Machine-gun that truly killed Mass Formation warfare, not cannon or mortar. Formation fighting coexisted with both for hundreds of years.

It died due to developments in Machine-gun technology, and to a similar extent advancement in the accuracy of infantry small arms.

Mortars aren't for entrenched positions, and that's the fundamental flaw in their game design. Mortars are for breaking up concentrated attacks in open terrain where the shrapnel can fly everywhere. The chances of landing a mortar shell in a trench is quite difficult, and will at best only affect a few soldiers since trenches are built with curves etc. The only time you would expect mortars to affect an entrenched enemy is if you've got an unlimited number of shells, and all the time in the world.

On the contrary. Trenches offer protection from direct fire weapons.

Mortars are indirect fire weapons specifically designed to hit target behind obstacles. Trench warfare was there bread and butter.

WWI was a war of artillery after all.

Wiki
Show Spoiler

Show Spoiler

As to how to implement this is probably quite easy. One has to follow the hand held AT model and reduce damage but add damage vs vehicles.

It even makes sense, an AT doing extra damage to vehicle...

Well, no, I'd argue it was the Machine-gun that truly killed Mass Formation warfare, not cannon or mortar. Formation fighting coexisted with both for hundreds of years.

It died due to developments in Machine-gun technology, and to a similar extent advancement in the accuracy of infantry small arms.

Pickett's charge wasn't devastated by machine guns, and warfare had already been trending towards as much dispersal as allowed with the limited communications.

On the contrary. Trenches offer protection from direct fire weapons.

Mortars are indirect fire weapons specifically designed to hit target behind obstacles. Trench warfare was there bread and butter.

WWI was a war of artillery after all.

WWI was a war of trenches. It was thought it could be won strictly through artillery in the same way people thought WWII could be won solely through air power. If the stoke's mortar was so great for entrenched positions why were they used for the entirety of the war?

WWI was a war of trenches. It was thought it could be won strictly through artillery in the same way people thought WWII could be won solely through air power. If the stoke's mortar was so great for entrenched positions why were they used for the entirety of the war?

You mean why trenches where used through out the war?

Because barbwire and HMG stop all attacks. In the start of WWI cavalry charges existed and they stopped to exist with few day and the was no replacement of cavalry chargers in sight.

Attack could not be launched successfully until the invention of Gas and then the invention of Tanks.

So the fought an attrition war of bombing each other.

Mortar are quite accurate, German crew during WWII even manage to land shells inside open top US TD...

You mean why trenches where used through out the war?

Because barbwire and HMG stop all attacks. In the start of WWI cavalry charges existed and they stopped to exist with few day and the was no replacement of cavalry chargers in sight.

Attack could not be launched successfully until the invention of Gas and then the invention of Tanks.

So the fought an attrition war of bombing each other.

Mortar are quite accurate, German crew during WWII even manage to land shells inside open top US TD...

Strategically it was a a war of attrition because on the tactical level massed attacks were devastated by artillery. There's no reason not to commit stand-off attacks like shelling entrenched positions if you have the resources to spare, but that doesn't mean that it's effective.

Again, WWI was trench warefare up until the very end. If artillery were the counter to entrenched positions they wouldn't have bothered with entrenched positions.

Artillery killed open terrain mass attacks. It counters them. Tactics switched to trenches to counter the artillery until they could come up with a new way of attacking.

E: Why blitz through the benelux if you could just shell the Maginot line?

Strategically it was a a war of attrition because on the tactical level massed attacks were devastated by artillery. There's no reason not to commit stand-off attacks like shelling entrenched positions if you have the resources to spare, but that doesn't mean that it's effective.

Again, WWI was trench warefare up until the very end. If artillery were the counter to entrenched positions they wouldn't have bothered with entrenched positions.

Artillery killed open terrain mass attacks. It counters them. Tactics switched to trenches to counter the artillery until they could come up with a new way of attacking.

E: Why blitz through the benelux if you could just shell the Maginot line?

Tactics switched to trenches to counter direct fire small arms, not to counter artillery. By the end of the American Civil War, trenches and field works were becoming far more common then ever before, but this was not due to advancements in artillery-in fact field artillery saw little improvement up until this point. Small arms however became dramatically more potent due to inventions like the mini ball and the advent of widespread army issue rifled firearms.
In napoleonic era the hit rate of a soldier at 50-100 yards would be unlikely to reach 10% even against an enemy formation which allowed massed formations to thrive. Attempting those same formations against rifled firearms resulted in tremendous casualties and are one of the major contributing factors(if not the single largest contributing) to the increased lethality of civil war combat.

As mentioned above, artillery and formation warfare coexisted for hundreds of years prior to world War 1. The portable mortar was designed specifically with the intent of combating trenches by essentially extending the range a soldier could throw a grenade.

Soldier fought in the trenches did not stay in them for protection from artillery. When ever there was shelling they moved into bunkers.

Prior to any attack heavy shelling was used for even days but the logistic of shelling the enemy 24/7 made it impossible at the time.

Even so artillery was the weapon that causes most deaths in WWI. (at least in western front where there was trench warfare, the eastern front was more fluid)

this sounds like a bad joke.. as if instant surpression MGs and aimbot mortars still need any kind of buff.. but i see, you are basically never playing 3v3 or something similar so its ok to keep on going to literally balance the game around 1v1

btw: if you really want to BALANCE (!!! not buff already too good MGs) remove the death loop on maxim (and improve maxim in general, as it is a piece of ****) and fix the 50 cal - vickers and mg42, mg34 are always teleporting if the model carrying the MG gets killed.. 50 cal is still bugging around. very ESL ready
but hey, at least maxim wont die to a single ober squad running straight from the front anymore in the next patch (hopefully) because they always aim down the gunner and sometimes the death loop starts..

another good idea i just found in another thread here:

QoL request: hold fire for HMGs.
This ability would have dual purpose: for one, and most importantly, it would prevent a HMG squad from automaticly deploying, which most of the times results in a terrible angle and consequent retreat. Secondly, when smartly microed, it would allow HMGs to ambush approaching squads from closer, even if they spotted them far away. Right now HMGs automaticly fire at squads at the edge of their range, which may allow them to crawl out before getting pinned.

Mortars could use a debuff on their barrage, like applying malus on accuracy for the squads under fire. They would become then a real counter to trenches and covers allowing your own troops to rush them with less casualties.

With that no need to increase too much their accuracy or damage output.

I think the same debuff could apply a suppression malus on HMGs so they lose some of their suppression under mortar barrage.

This would allow to make some changes to HMGs, maybe decreasing their setup times to make them more responsive.

I'd rather have a playable and fun/balanced game than one that tries too hard to be realistic at the expense of playability.

I tend to agree, I just think currently it might lean slightly too far away from realism. I don't want a stimulation by any means, just take a little less of a poetic license with history

The friendly fire idea I just find interesting. But it could also get really frustrating really easily

Or one can change them to be more real life and decrease or remove the penalties for firing in units in heavy cover garrison and trenches (from 0.5).

One could even increase the penalties for other indirect fire weapons so that mortar are ever better vs units using cover that other srouces.

Tactics switched to trenches to counter direct fire small arms, not to counter artillery. By the end of the American Civil War, trenches and field works were becoming far more common then ever before, but this was not due to advancements in artillery-in fact field artillery saw little improvement up until this point. Small arms however became dramatically more potent due to inventions like the mini ball and the advent of widespread army issue rifled firearms.

MG-42 fires at 1,200 rpm. If machine guns were the death of open terrain warfare then why did all the German generals cry in their memoirs about human wave attacks on the eastern front? Why not trench up and own the ruskies if this is the case?

The confederates fired the largest artillery barrage of the war before Pickett's charge. Shouldn't that have devastated the Union trenches?

If direct fire weapons are so deadly to open terrain combat then why the move to tanks? They too are countered quite easily by direct fire weapons.

If trenches exist solely to counter direct fire then we would expect WWII to have been a war of tunneling machines, not mobile armor.

Pop-history wants to talk about whats sexy and new because they want to sell books. They don't want to talk about what's actually effective i.e. incremental advances in artillery size and density.

At Waterloo there was one artillery piece for every 477 men. Most were around the 6 pound range. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle_of_the_Waterloo_campaign)

At Gettysburg there were similar numbers at one piece per 578 men, however most guns were around the 12 pound range. (https://www.teachersfirst.com/gettysburg/weapons.cfm)

In WWI a standard british infantry division had one piece per 236 men. 18 pound guns were the most common. (http://militaryhistoryvisualized.com/british-infantry-division-19141916-visualization-organization-structure/)

In 1944 the standard German infantry division had 76 mortars and 48 guns for 12,000 men. A ratio of an artillery piece per 96 men. (https://www.ww2-weapons.com/germany-army-unit-organisation-1942-45/)

MG-42 fires at 1,200 rpm. If machine guns were the death of open terrain warfare then why did all the German generals cry in their memoirs about human wave attacks on the eastern front? Why not trench up and own the ruskies if this is the case?

The confederates fired the largest artillery barrage of the war before Pickett's charge. Shouldn't that have devastated the Union trenches?

If direct fire weapons are so deadly to open terrain combat then why the move to tanks? They too are countered quite easily by direct fire weapons.

If trenches exist solely to counter direct fire then we would expect WWII to have been a war of tunneling machines, not mobile armor.

Pop-history wants to talk about whats sexy and new because they want to sell books. They don't want to talk about what's actually effective i.e. incremental advances in artillery size and density.

At Waterloo there was one artillery piece for every 477 men. Most were around the 6 pound range. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_battle_of_the_Waterloo_campaign)

At Gettysburg there were similar numbers at one piece per 578 men, however most guns were around the 12 pound range. (https://www.teachersfirst.com/gettysburg/weapons.cfm)

In WWI a standard british infantry division had one piece per 236 men. 18 pound guns were the most common. (http://militaryhistoryvisualized.com/british-infantry-division-19141916-visualization-organization-structure/)

In 1944 the standard German infantry division had 76 mortars and 48 guns for 12,000 men. A ratio of an artillery piece per 96 men. (https://www.ww2-weapons.com/germany-army-unit-organisation-1942-45/)

I'm not certain if you realise, but machine-guns and other small arms are not effective against armoured vehicles, but they are against men. This is why there was a move to try and develop Tanks. ATGs were not a feature of The Great War, the best developments in this area were a repurposing of field guns, late in the conflict.

In WWII tanks were most effectively used for manoeuvre warfare, as they are able to more easily circumvent defensive positions and strike weakpoints, while also carrying heavy armament and being resistant to infantry attack. This is the basis of Blitzkrieg.

On the other hand, Artillery is rather effective against armoured vehicles. This doesn't quite support your theory.

Further, in WWII there was a distinct move away from static battle lines. This was, in part, due to further improvements in artillery technology. Static trenches are not the preferable defence against indirect fire weapons.

As an aside, The Great War did in fact see the use of fairly large-scale tunneling efforts to attempt to circumvent No-Mans-Land. If "Tunneling machines" had been a viable device, then they absolutely would have been used during the war.