Login

russian armor

Emplacements and mortar HT

25 Sep 2015, 09:14 AM
#21
avatar of slother

Posts: 145


About the realism, if you have a hole in the ground, covered by sandbags, with 2 steel mortars and few people, what's gonna burn like crazy? Sand? Steel? Ground?


Please, lets not talk about realism in this game. This argument work both ways. U have ground, covered by sandbags with 2 steel mortars, few people cover their heads (brace) suddenly it gets hit by railway arty ... nothing happens.

Back on topic, i think that flame attacks shoudlnt kill emplacements it just feel like a bug ... Mortar HT, OKW nades wiping emplacement no, decrewing yes.
25 Sep 2015, 09:17 AM
#22
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Sep 2015, 09:14 AMslother


Please, lets not talk about realism in this game. This argument work both ways. U have ground, covered by sandbags with 2 steel mortars, few people cover their heads (brace) suddenly it gets hit by railway arty ... nothing happens.

Back on topic, i think that flame attacks shoudlnt kill emplacements it just feel like a bug ... Mortar HT, OKW nades wiping emplacement no, decrewing yes.


But it was not me who said anything about realism in first place ;)

Tho you can find my post where I said that things lik Railway should insta wipe emplacement (very vulnerable to small arms and huge shells while very resistant to mortars and at guns/tank).

At least this is what I feel.
25 Sep 2015, 09:25 AM
#23
avatar of Cabreza

Posts: 656

The mortar HT as a unit is essentially fine. It's more an issue of how effective indirect fire and flame weapons are vs Brit emplacements as a whole. Right now one mortar HT means no Brit emplacements thanks to it's incendiary ability.
25 Sep 2015, 09:32 AM
#24
avatar of Iron Emperor

Posts: 1653

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Sep 2015, 09:25 AMCabreza
The mortar HT as a unit is essentially fine. It's more an issue of how effective indirect fire and flame weapons are vs Brit emplacements as a whole. Right now one mortar HT means no Brit emplacements thanks to it's incendiary ability.


I think exactly the same. As I go ostheer and I see 1 emplacement it´s almost insta spearhead doctrine for me and to pop out a MHT in notime. Seals the deal in utter seconds.
25 Sep 2015, 09:55 AM
#25
avatar of JohnnyB

Posts: 2396 | Subs: 1




About the realism, if you have a hole in the ground, covered by sandbags, with 2 steel mortars and few people, what's gonna burn like crazy? Sand? Steel? Ground?


The amo. And will not only burn like crazy, it would explode like crazy.
25 Sep 2015, 16:53 PM
#26
avatar of Rocket

Posts: 728

dude when something is on fire it will burn down, thats how life is (unless you call the firemen). it would be very unrealistic if the structure doesn't take any damage while being on fire.


Ok then why then does white phosphorous and the soviet incendiary arty call in or whatever not damage axis structures or trucks? im pretty sure they dont do any dmg at all even to bunkers if they do it is very little. White phos im sure does not. The whole point of them is to decrew and burn infantry not structures why then does the mortar hts do both?
25 Sep 2015, 17:11 PM
#27
avatar of Robbie_Rotten
Donator 11

Posts: 412

jump backJump back to quoted post25 Sep 2015, 09:55 AMJohnnyB


The amo. And will not only burn like crazy, it would explode like crazy.


You mean the ammo they pull out of their ass :snfPeter:

Only joking of course :snfBarton:
25 Sep 2015, 17:16 PM
#28
avatar of Iron Emperor

Posts: 1653

Robbie Barton is no Joke :snfBarton:
25 Sep 2015, 19:46 PM
#29
avatar of Ducati
Benefactor 115

Posts: 164




About the realism, if you have a hole in the ground, covered by sandbags, with 2 steel mortars and few people, what's gonna burn like crazy? Sand? Steel? Ground?


Graphically, the round looks/behaves move like a round of Napalm vs white phosphorus (which the Germans actually used). Assuming it were a Napalm like material the mortar rounds would "cook off" causing a massive explosion that would leave nothing but a deep impassible crater.
26 Sep 2015, 15:38 PM
#30
avatar of Hogman512

Posts: 168

One factor folks seem to be missing, is that using the incendiary mortar round a lot on brit emplacements costs an awful lot of ammo. So much so, that when I do this, I usually have to build a couple of ammo caches to support this play and thus also miss out on fuel as those ammo caches would usually have been fuel caches. One incendiary shot (which may or may not hit, because its accuracy sucks) costs 45 ammo. Which is a lot, using it excessively really limits MG upgrades on grens and fausting vehicles too.
nee
27 Sep 2015, 04:45 AM
#31
avatar of nee

Posts: 1216

As far as I am concerned Mortar Halftrack is hardcounter to emplacements of all types, and should stay as such. This can only be the same as complaining Riflemen can't beat Tiger, so Tiger should get nerfed.
Ostheer players pays a lot to get a hardcounter that's very vulnerable to literally every other asset a British player has on hand, besides emplacements. ANd like others have said, such an option only occurs if s/he picked the right commander and saved the fuel and manpower for it, AND works hard to preserve the halftrack from easy destruction- they lose the halftrack, they are done, and at 30 fuel less, too.

Also, last I played, emplacements were decrewed with damaged, so it is possible to salvage the situation.


About the realism, if you have a hole in the ground, covered by sandbags, with 2 steel mortars and few people, what's gonna burn like crazy? Sand? Steel? Ground?
If I had to guess, it's probably the magnesium, phosphorous or thermite that is the payload of the incendiary weapon in question.

While we are on the topic of Flames, they really ought to revert the Flames sticking around for 20 seconds. I was using a Wasp while defending my Forward Supply Station and it got caught in the DOT. I was helpless as I watched my building burn down from my own Wasp's three second burst... -_-
Serves you right for being so haphazard with the Queen's flamethrower...and destroying Crown property while you're at it, too!

27 Sep 2015, 06:26 AM
#32
avatar of Werw0lf

Posts: 121

Mortar HT is fine as is. It is doctrinal and thus a sacrifical choice if selected. 2CP required so it's not available immediately in any case, and extremely vunerable requiring intense attention and constant micro to keep it alive.

OstH mortar HTs are fine as they are. If anything, a buff to non-doctrinal availability would be justifiable.

no allied unit that lets us take out axis bunkers early that easily
.
Standard Soviet mortars take down OstH bunkers pretty quickly IME, as do USF mortar HTs among several other indirect fire choices available.

2 users are browsing this thread: 2 guests

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

1080 users are online: 1080 guests
0 post in the last 24h
11 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49992
Welcome our newest member, xewiy33830
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM