Infantry, mortars and MGs: relationship and scaling.

Apart from maybe USF it seemed to be quite poor then as well. One single mortar every 5th to 10th game is not much, especially regarding the amount of MGs built that would be good targets (plus ATGs obviously).

The USF seem to be the champion with 10 mortar and 9 pack howitzers
one could add 7/5 MHT and 5/4 scott

while the Osther use 2/2 MHT and 1/1 Stug-E.

When I first saw the numbers I was surprised how many support weapons USF seemed to use for a faction original designed to be depend on riflemen. More 0.5 produced and HMG-42 look a bit odd.

The USF seem to be the champion with 10 mortar and 9 pack howitzers
one could add 7/5 MHT and 5/4 scott

while the Osther use 2/2 MHT and 1/1 Stug-E.

When I first saw the numbers I was surprised how many support weapons USF seemed to use for a faction original designed to be depend on riflemen. More 0.5 produced and HMG-42 look a bit odd.

My point is not about support weapons in general, just about mortars. I would surely not add the StuG to that, since they functions completely differently, and also not the scott since that one is bought mostly for its autofire that is a bit more like a mini brummbar that a real mortar. But these points are not the focus of the thread now.

There seems to be a value issue with mortars in small modes. Apparently there is no space for mortars in the early game, despite them being designed to have their main value in this time frame until rocket arty takes the crown.

My point is not about support weapons in general, just about mortars. I would surely not add the StuG to that, since they functions completely differently, and also not the scott since that one is bought mostly for its autofire that is a bit more like a mini brummbar that a real mortar. But these points are not the focus of the thread now.

There seems to be a value issue with mortars in small modes. Apparently there is no space for mortars in the early game, despite them being designed to have their main value in this time frame until rocket arty takes the crown.

Yes and what troubled be when I saw 2019 stats was that the once Ostheer "defensive" depended on support weapons faction was using about equal or less support weapons than the one "offensive" depended on riflemen factions the USF.

I am not sue if that sift was intended but I do not think I like it.

I'd like to see Mortars and MGs more useful in the lategame, but i think predicating their usefulness on veterancy might not be the best method. Team weapons are much more vulnerable to being wiped than any other type of infantry, but this is accounted for by their ability to be recrewed. Even with buffs to survivability from veterancy, this still means they'll be just as terrible

Would it be an issue if each faction instead had a similar bonus to Ostheer's BP3 Gren reinforcement reduction? Not in terms of reinforcement reductions, but in terms of an universal "Improved team weapon crew training" bonus in the (later) game, that inherently gave them better RA and/or some other assistance?

Perhaps that's a somewhat "gamey" solution.

I'd like to see Mortars and MGs more useful in the lategame, but i think predicating their usefulness on veterancy might not be the best method. Team weapons are much more vulnerable to being wiped than any other type of infantry, but this is accounted for by their ability to be recrewed. Even with buffs to survivability from veterancy, this still means they'll be just as terrible

Would it be an issue if each faction instead had a similar bonus to Ostheer's BP3 Gren reinforcement reduction? Not in terms of reinforcement reductions, but in terms of an universal "Improved team weapon crew training" bonus in the (later) game, that inherently gave them better RA and/or some other assistance?

Perhaps that's a somewhat "gamey" solution.

The vet is only there to softly account for the vet infantry get as part of their progression. Weapon upgrades would still steam roll support weapons.

Making them cheaper and easier to incorporate in a build through popcap is a way to make them more prevalent in smaller modes.

In case of MGs in particular, the reason since 7 years ago that they lose in effectiveness is that everyone benefits from -50% suppression in the late game. Which is why i suggest to reduce it (i would even go and say remove it at all and for a future COH, create a different type of yellow cover, which is generated by any kind of explosive but doesn't provide any suppression modifier but keeps the acc modifs).

Most Axis infantry don't have nearly enough RA from what I've seen.

Another factor that one should consider about what limits use of mortars is the effectiveness of ATG.

Allow me to elaborate.

A player want to counter UKF emplacements?
one can use ab ATG counter for all of them by using attack ground in to FOW.

A player want to counter Fighting position/bunkers?
one can use ATG counter of them by using attack ground in to FOW.

A player wants to counter a OKW truck?
one can use ATG counter of them by using attack ground in to FOW.

A player want to counter an infatry behind sandbags?
one can use the ATG to destroy that cover.

A player wants to counter a trench?
After the coming patch one will again use an ATG.

A solution to this could be if ATG did reduced damage to structures resulting in making the mortar a more attractive choice is these cases.

Microing units are an essential part of the game; the suggestion to change shooting in the FoW for ATGs doesn't make sense. Your suggestion adds another gameplay complexity and mechanic inconsistency and you'd have to apply that new rule to everything that related to FoW/Shooting (otherwise there's an inconsistency). You can shoot in the FoW with a mortar (and other units) too ... If your building gets shot at by an ATG, find the source and counter it. Buildings have enough HP to provide enough time for players to react. No need to change the game for that based solely on you not liking it.

Microing units are an essential part of the game; the suggestion to change shooting in the FoW for ATGs doesn't make sense. Your suggestion adds another gameplay complexity and mechanic inconsistency and you'd have to apply that new rule to everything that related to FoW/Shooting (otherwise there's an inconsistency). You can shoot in the FoW with a mortar (and other units) too ... If your building gets shot at by an ATG, find the source and counter it. Buildings have enough HP to provide enough time for players to react. No need to change the game for that based solely on you not liking it.

But Vipper suggested to reduce damage vs structures, not to disable ground targeting in FOW?

Regarding what Vipper said, I technically agree with him, although I doubt it would be good to indirectly buff defensive structures again at this point.

As a side note to the FOW shooting: I'd rather had it gone too. Yes, it allows good players to get some extra performance out of a unit, but even with all suspension of disbelief possible I always find it weird that units are able to do a pin point shot at something they have absolutely no line of sight on. It also really diminishes the value of smoke. Removing that mechanic would take away from micro focus, but put more emphasis on positioning and defense in depth.

But Vipper suggested to reduce damage vs structures, not to disable ground targeting in FOW?

Regarding what Vipper said, I technically agree with him, although I doubt it would be good to indirectly buff defensive structures again at this point.

As a side note to the FOW shooting: I'd rather had it gone too. Yes, it allows good players to get some extra performance out of a unit, but even with all suspension of disbelief possible I always find it weird that units are able to do a pin point shot at something they have absolutely no line of sight on. It also really diminishes the value of smoke. Removing that mechanic would take away from micro focus, but put more emphasis on positioning and defense in depth.

I said that I disagree with the change proposed (with reference to the change that Vipper suggested), I did not say anything about disabling it. I am not sure where you got disabling from.

Because if suddenly there's damage reduction for shooting in the FOW for one unit, every other unit should have something similar too. Otherwise, there's a weird rule that only applies to one unit. And as you said, it'd be a buff to defensive buildings; the change would be similar to a straight HP buff ...

Smoke could disable any targeting reticle, but that's like changing major parts of the play mechanic.

I said that I disagree with the change proposed, I did not say anything about disabling it.

Because if suddenly there's damage reduction for shooting in the FOW for one unit, every other unit should have something similar too. Otherwise, there's a weird rule that only applies to one unit. And as you said, it'd be a buff to defensive buildings; the change would be similar to a straight HP buff ...

The suggestion had nothing to do with FOW. According to Vipper, ATGs should do less structural damage in general.

That way I also would not say it were similar to an HP buff, since the whole point of this is to make mortars better relative to the ATG (which would also affect vehicles and basically all other weapons).
Still it would take out the most "convenient" way to deal with them. Not a bad thing by default but this potentially could make rebalances for all buildings necessary, since a bunker or fighting position should not force me to build a mortar at 1,5-2x the price. Obviously it all depends on how large the damage reduction of ATGs is supposed to be (10%? 50%?). If it were to harsh then people could just camp with a bunker and ATG behind it. Especially Brits without mortar option would be screwed over, but basically all faction would have trouble. I think though that mortars should first be made better vs infantry targets: static MGs, ATGs and infantry in cover. Currently the meta works completely without structures, so unless we want to bring them back, we need to balance mortars vs infantry and not vs structures.

...

(quick requote since you added some more parts)

I was talking about the FOW targeting in general. CoH2 should keep it since it has been part of the game forever. I hope that the hypothetical CoH3 will remove it, although I doubt it will happen.

(quick requote since you added some more parts)

I was talking about the FOW targeting in general. CoH2 should keep it since it has been part of the game forever. I hope that the hypothetical CoH3 will remove it, although I doubt it will happen.

Ah, OK. The way I read and responded to Vipper's suggestion is that I understood that they want ATGs to deal less damage when players are microing their units to target the enemy through the FOW. They do make a big point about targeting in FOW in several of their examples, leaving the reading open to different interpretations of the suggestion.

(edited for clarity)

But Vipper suggested to reduce damage vs structures, not to disable ground targeting in FOW?

Regarding what Vipper said, I technically agree with him, although I doubt it would be good to indirectly buff defensive structures again at this point.

I see more like a nerf to ATG's utility than a buff to structures.

As a side note to the FOW shooting: I'd rather had it gone too. Yes, it allows good players to get some extra performance out of a unit, but even with all suspension of disbelief possible I always find it weird that units are able to do a pin point shot at something they have absolutely no line of sight on. It also really diminishes the value of smoke. Removing that mechanic would take away from micro focus, but put more emphasis on positioning and defense in depth.

I guess if one wanted to address firing into the FOW one could use the system already in place for artillery pieces and increase scatter for shots fired into FOW.

Only in this cases one would have to make scatter penalty effect angular scatter and not both, since an linear scatter could act as increase in range.

Or/and one could reduce the range for attack ground?

I see more like a nerf to ATG's utility than a buff to structures.

It is both, you can't disconnect the change from the effects it has.

I guess if one wanted to address firing into the FOW one could use the system already in place for artillery pieces and increase scatter for shots fired into FOW.

Only in this cases one would have to make scatter penalty effect angular scatter and not both, since an linear scatter could act as increase in range.

Or/and one could reduce the range for attack ground?

Scatter is already increased in the FOW. I doubt though if target ground can get a difference range, since it is tied to the weapon. Modders could give in sight into this.

And while all of this would reduce the effectiveness, it would not fix that the concept of a direct firing weapon taking a blind shot is quite stupid by itself. It would make it more RNG and therefore frustrating for both sides.

But in the end that is just a personal opinion of mine, I assume a lot of other players actually like that possibility.

...
Scatter is already increased in the FOW...

Are you sure? do know what the penalty is for each gun.

Are you sure? do know what the penalty is for each gun.

MMX has done some great post on that. It actually already does exactly what you suggested.

Show Spoiler

MMX has done some great post on that. It actually already does exactly what you suggested.

Thanks for the link.

Maybe one should just increase the modifier for ATG and make the miss more at long ranges.

While possible, i don't think Relic nor the mod team likes to add target tables unless it's really needed at all.

Even if you were to cut down the damage from an AT gun to 50%, it would still be a better choice against emplacements due to reliability and RoF. On top of having a hard AT been a necessity as opposed to having a mortar.


Unless your faction is OKW and you went mechanized (with new patch ISG been more accessible), you don't build an AT gun to counter those things. You build an AT gun because you need to counter vehicles and while there's nothing else to do, you use it to assault enemy emplacements.

While possible, i don't think Relic nor the mod team likes to add target tables unless it's really needed at all.

Even if you were to cut down the damage from an AT gun to 50%, it would still be a better choice against emplacements due to reliability and RoF. On top of having a hard AT been a necessity as opposed to having a mortar.


Unless your faction is OKW and you went mechanized (with new patch ISG been more accessible), you don't build an AT gun to counter those things. You build an AT gun because you need to counter vehicles and while there's nothing else to do, you use it to assault enemy emplacements.

If recent tournaments have been anything to go by, what you actually buy an AT gun for is to kill enemy Sandbags. :^)

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.