according to my special statistical analysis: the usf mortar is shit
+ 3
Posts: 109
according to my special statistical analysis: the usf mortar is shit
Posts: 1379
Posts: 197
I mean Vipper is right that the USF mortar is comparable to the others.. On the other hand it quickly loses its place to paks and scotts. Whenever I am *forced* to get a USF mortar, I never feel like: "this is a worthwhile investment". It's more like: "fucking axis building straight MGs, now I have to build this crap and take up my popcap instead of waiting for something useful".
Posts: 1515
I mean Vipper is right that the USF mortar is comparable to the others.. On the other hand it quickly loses its place to paks and scotts. Whenever I am *forced* to get a USF mortar, I never feel like: "this is a worthwhile investment". It's more like: "fucking axis building straight MGs, now I have to build this crap and take up my popcap instead of waiting for something useful".
Posts: 1379
Exactly this. Even in the nerfed state, it's better to go for a pak howi. The M1 mortar is solely for those teamgame maps where the MG42 rush is OP. Which is most of them. In 1v1, USF does not need a mortar to counter the MG42 as you are solo playing across the whole map. You ain't trying to assault the beach on Rhine where one MG42 can cover both the VP and the fuel point from a perfect green cover position. You either need pathfinders to see the position and flank appropriately, or you go for a mortar.
Purely by stats, M1 mortar is not that much worse than the OST mortar. A bit lower AOE and 5 less range. Nothing extreme. But OST mortar is in a defensive faction with long range stock infantry. 42 vision pio. And a mega-arc MG42. Everything you can hope for, to dig in.
64 | |||||
328 | |||||
39 | |||||
27 | |||||
14 | |||||
4 |