Stats for usf mortar

What is it stats compared to other stock mortars?

I was just wondering, it seems a little to fast to fire and too accurate, but i could be wrong?

Contrary to what some people claim it ok mortar. You can find a good comparison here:

https://www.coh2.org/topic/106172/indirect-fire-performance-a-comparison

If it seem to accurate it probably because it is being used with Pathfinder and fires with LOS.

Unless Seralia page is incorrect. It's the same ROF and everything. USF mortar, compared to OST mortar, has 5 less range (80 vs 75) and 25% lower AOE distance short and medium (1-2-3 s-m-long VS 0.75-1.5-3).

Basically, USF mortar is equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot in teamgames. Can't speak for 1v1s.
USF mortar usage is 90% to smoke on lane-y teamgame maps. You won't get much bleed out of it unless you're lucky.
Especially since it overlaps with scott and pak howi. Pak howi being semi-trash after the nerf, and Scott being amazing, it's not really a tough choice. Basically, unless you're absolutely forced, don't go for a USF mortar. And if you're losing to an USF mortar, then you're probably in the rank 600+ games

Unless Seralia page is incorrect. It's the same ROF and everything. USF mortar, compared to OST mortar, has 5 less range (80 vs 75) and 25% lower AOE distance short and medium (1-2-3 s-m-long VS 0.75-1.5-3).

Basically, USF mortar is equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot in teamgames. Can't speak for 1v1s.
USF mortar usage is 90% to smoke on lane-y teamgame maps. You won't get much bleed out of it unless you're lucky.
Especially since it overlaps with scott and pak howi. Pak howi being semi-trash after the nerf, and Scott being amazing, it's not really a tough choice. Basically, unless you're absolutely forced, don't go for a USF mortar. And if you're losing to an USF mortar, then you're probably in the rank 600+ games

In other words you disregard MMX analytic comparison because you say so.

What is it stats compared to other stock mortars?

I was just wondering, it seems a little to fast to fire and too accurate, but i could be wrong?

you are wrong, yes


it's stats are: its complete garbage, smoke dispenser

In other words you disregard MMX analytic comparison because you say so.

As much as I respect his fortitude and decision and tenacity to create such simulations, they serve no real purpose. On paper they look nice and all, but the amount of extra, beneficial information they give you is nil. Mainly because there is no standard empirical method with which you will measure. It's a game with a large amount of variables/parameters, and trying to fit it to some model is... well. Not really necessary. Not to mention impossible. As nice as it looks, it's just a bunch of simple equations fitted to some data model, which was taken from the seralia stats. Not really telling anything. The most accurate and simple truth is: M1 81mm mortar, compared to OST mortar, has 25% lower AOE profile. That's it. That's the only difference if and only if the stats on seralia page are accurate. You can take what you want from it. Some will say M1 81 is useless, some will say it's OP. Don't care. I say it's meh performance wise, but being in USF, it's useless.
That aside, you also have a faction that needs to be mobile and aggressive, and spending MP on a mortar spells doom. But of course, I don't expect you to understand that.
Tens of thousands of games, and still you su** bal*s; With each faction. So stick to your paper general wannabe mathematician analysis or whatever rocks your boat, and leave me out of it.

Not to mention, nowhere does he explain the methodology he used in generating such stats. Which equations, which model, which representation. He just puts graphs on a paper, says he did 2500 repetitions and calls it a day. That wouldn't fly in a high school physics journal. I'm not saying he's lying. Of course not, but just putting graphs and giving a short explanation is... in poor taste.

Thank you very much. Have a pleasant day

..

In sort what I previous posted. You are saying "Don't trust the analysis, trust me because I say so".

Sorry but can't, I trust MMX's analysis more.

In sort what I previous posted. You are saying "Don't trust the analysis, trust me because I say so".

Sorry but can't, I trust MMX's analysis more.

Trust whoever you want more. There are people that believe the Earth is flat. Couldn't give less fu*ks who you trust.

Trust whoever you want more. There are people that believe the Earth is flat. Couldn't give less fu*ks who you trust.

Read closer, I did not post that I trust MMX more than you. I posted that I trust an analysis of indirect fire weapons more than you opinion that is not back up by anything.

And given your record of claims (KT pintle suppression that does not exist, HMG-42 pinning unit behind heavy cover in one burst that does not happen,...) I have many reason not to trust your opinion when it is not backed up by anything.

the fact that, M1 mortar deal less damage due to AoE force player to:
+ Constant laying barrage, increase mirco input.
+ Had to stick on defendsive play style
+ Tend to get overrun during early to mid game.
Yes, Unlike Soviet, Weh. You are limited on STOCK Scouting solution: only M20 as best ( still lose to Weh Armorcar 5 range lmao). Soviet have Flare, T-70, tripwire...v...v. Hey, Pios got 40 viewrange too.
MMX data is ok, Still not potrait a full point of view through. I rather trust my rank 70, wikis rather than a clown who had 20000 games in rank 1000.

https://www.coh2.org/topic/106172/indirect-fire-performance-a-comparison
talk about MMX thread:
As you can see, M1 mortar looks good for 240mp at 0 minutes, Right ?. No it dont !.
1/ Compare to the Standard, M1 mortar performance suck at in 60-80m in both auto fire/ barrage with LOS or without LOS.
2/ even in 20-40m combat range. M1 mortar somehow is worse than PM-41 mortar espically in Fig 8 to 10. So why you pick M1 mortar over 3rd rifleman, fast officer in early stage ?. Well, unless enemies go 2 pios 2 MG-42
3/ Every Mortar/indirect fire had something unique and it useful to OP. For example: 120mm need 1 crews to use, Pak Howie give 3 type of shell, Gw34 counter barrage to shut down almost every mortar...v..v. M1 mortar ?. Non. Just like stupid smoke barrage from ML-20.


Sum up. M1 mortar stat is suck. only buy them in 2v2 if you are BDSM guy like me.

As much as I respect his fortitude and decision and tenacity to create such simulations, they serve no real purpose. On paper they look nice and all, but the amount of extra, beneficial information they give you is nil. Mainly because there is no standard empirical method with which you will measure. It's a game with a large amount of variables/parameters, and trying to fit it to some model is... well. Not really necessary. Not to mention impossible. As nice as it looks, it's just a bunch of simple equations fitted to some data model, which was taken from the seralia stats. Not really telling anything. The most accurate and simple truth is: M1 81mm mortar, compared to OST mortar, has 25% lower AOE profile. That's it. That's the only difference if and only if the stats on seralia page are accurate. You can take what you want from it. Some will say M1 81 is useless, some will say it's OP. Don't care. I say it's meh performance wise, but being in USF, it's useless.
That aside, you also have a faction that needs to be mobile and aggressive, and spending MP on a mortar spells doom. But of course, I don't expect you to understand that.
Tens of thousands of games, and still you su** bal*s; With each faction. So stick to your paper general wannabe mathematician analysis or whatever rocks your boat, and leave me out of it.

Not to mention, nowhere does he explain the methodology he used in generating such stats. Which equations, which model, which representation. He just puts graphs on a paper, says he did 2500 repetitions and calls it a day. That wouldn't fly in a high school physics journal. I'm not saying he's lying. Of course not, but just putting graphs and giving a short explanation is... in poor taste.

Thank you very much. Have a pleasant day

MMX works is okay. In Fact, his data showed that M1 mortar suck ass and need more mirco to barrage, moving to good location more than everyone's mortar/ indirect fire weapon.

The reason why the M1 mortar is regarded as a hand me down version is probably not the AoE that were THAT much worse, but all the combinations of small downgrades.
Worse AoE
5 less range
And most importantly: It screws up all USF timings.

Building the mortar that early means giving up a Rifle squad, which you'll dearly need against Axis spewing out main lines at this time. Alternatively, it delays the officer and LV, so also not a great option. Worse AoE gives you a worse performance overall, and the 5 less range ensures that you're more likely to get hit back by artillery even in the early game. If my math is not mistaken, moving those 5 meters in means that an OST mortar could be laterally displaced compared to the target by roughly 28 meters left and right (so 56 meters in total) and still be able to hit you. You're also more likely to constantly needing to move the mortar to make the best out of it, in a faction that is fairly micro heavy.

Also, is the cost difference really only 10 MP as coh2.win states? I somehow thought it would be more.

As much as I respect his fortitude and decision and tenacity to create such simulations, they serve no real purpose. On paper they look nice and all, but the amount of extra, beneficial information they give you is nil. Mainly because there is no standard empirical method with which you will measure. It's a game with a large amount of variables/parameters, and trying to fit it to some model is... well. Not really necessary. Not to mention impossible. As nice as it looks, it's just a bunch of simple equations fitted to some data model, which was taken from the seralia stats. Not really telling anything.

The sheet is fine. The simulation is artificial by using a standardized squad and formations, but this alone does not mean that it couldn't represent what is happening. AoE is fairly straight forward, there are not THAT many variables in the game outside of the ones that have already been considered by the calculation.

Not to mention, nowhere does he explain the methodology he used in generating such stats. Which equations, which model, which representation. He just puts graphs on a paper, says he did 2500 repetitions and calls it a day. That wouldn't fly in a high school physics journal. I'm not saying he's lying. Of course not, but just putting graphs and giving a short explanation is... in poor taste.

He has given a brief but informative description of the test. The calculation sheet he used is linked, where he also explains how the sheet works. It's not a scientific paper, but I am not sure what you're expecting from a gaming forum. This is some of the best and also pretty well documented calculations that I have seen in any game/community.

the usf mortar is fucking dogshit and everyone who ever uses it will tell you as such

you reeeeally don't need a debate about it

the usf mortar is fucking dogshit and everyone who ever uses it will tell you as such

you reeeeally don't need a debate about it

The mortar is not "dogshit" and both the USF and UKF mortar see action in large modes.

There is simply no "balance complaint" about the USF mortar.

The mortar is not "dogshit" and both the USF and UKF mortar see action in large modes.

There is simply no "balance complaint" about the USF mortar.

Yeah, they see action like my wheelchair-bound geriatric grandpa sees action.

Yeah, they see action like my wheelchair-bound geriatric grandpa sees action.

For your next 10 4vs4 game that have a USF player keep track of how many time they build a mortar and come back with the result pls.

Yeah, they see action like my wheelchair-bound geriatric grandpa sees action.

Well I adapted my double USF mortar build from a streamer here. Granted that build had paths.

The mortar is not "dogshit" and both the USF and UKF mortar see action in large modes.

There is simply no "balance complaint" about the USF mortar.

im sure you have much to complain about the worst mortar in the game



don't be embarrassing yourself, this piece of garbage can go to fucking vet 3 without ever achieving a single kill, much more common than it actually being useful

im sure you have much to complain about the worst mortar in the game

Actually you are doing the complaining about balance in a thread that is not about balance not me.

don't be embarrassing yourself, this piece of garbage can go to fucking vet 3 without ever achieving a single kill, much more common than it actually being useful

Unit vet with damage and kills so you really do not have an argument here.

The mortar is simply not a "piece of garbage" not matter how many times you repeat that claim.