I don't understand why this unit was added.
The PAK howie is excellent, the USF didn't need another IDF unit.
USF didn't need a mortar.
24 Jun 2016, 15:42 PM
#1
Posts: 1534 | Subs: 1
24 Jun 2016, 15:47 PM
#2
Posts: 794
I agree with this.
They just needed a cheaper teching for nades, so cancerous HMG play could be countered more easily.
They just needed a cheaper teching for nades, so cancerous HMG play could be countered more easily.
24 Jun 2016, 15:54 PM
#3
Posts: 88
usf didnt need a mortar that strong.
Maybe its me but i feelt helpless against garrsions and well placed mg's in early games.
Maybe its me but i feelt helpless against garrsions and well placed mg's in early games.
24 Jun 2016, 15:54 PM
#4
1 
Posts: 2075 | Subs: 2
This word cancerous has really gotten out of control. MG play is now "Cancer" LOL.
24 Jun 2016, 15:57 PM
#5
1 Posts: 418 | Subs: 1
I enjoy the variety in openings now but still not sure the mortar was the right unit. I also think since they now have the mortar, riflemen should lose their smoke grenades. Smoke should be given to the rangers instead. Smoke doesn't make sense on baseline inf. It was only acceptable on USF since they lacked means of taking on mgs which is no longer the case.
24 Jun 2016, 15:57 PM
#6
Posts: 368
I think it's okay to add it (although if the original faction design had been realized, they wouldn't need it).
Problem is, it should've been a real support weapon for the rifles, cheap, mobile and with low DPS and range, and smoke that enables rifles to push into locked-down areas (as an alternative to 'nades). Not the best damn mortar in the game.
Problem is, it should've been a real support weapon for the rifles, cheap, mobile and with low DPS and range, and smoke that enables rifles to push into locked-down areas (as an alternative to 'nades). Not the best damn mortar in the game.
24 Jun 2016, 15:58 PM
#7
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
They didn't need a T0 mortar (they've certainly been playable without it), but their variety is far better for it.
And they definitely didn't need a T0 mortar more broken than release GrW. 34s
And they definitely didn't need a T0 mortar more broken than release GrW. 34s
24 Jun 2016, 15:59 PM
#8
Posts: 794
This word cancerous has really gotten out of control. MG play is now "Cancer" LOL.
Rushed VIckers/MG42/Maxim inside concrete buildings on the lost glider
24 Jun 2016, 16:04 PM
#9
Posts: 1534 | Subs: 1
grenades, pak howie, flamers, these all got units out of buildings.
24 Jun 2016, 16:05 PM
#10
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
I enjoy the variety in openings now but still not sure the mortar was the right unit. I also think since they now have the mortar, riflemen should lose their smoke grenades. Smoke should be given to the rangers instead. Smoke doesn't make sense on baseline inf. It was only acceptable on USF since they lacked means of taking on mgs which is no longer the case.
Pretty sure there's as much chance of that as Infantry Sections losing their cover bonus, or Conscripts losing Oorah!, or Grenadiers losing their Rifle Grenade. It's their thing. Suggesting its cost be nerfed or something like that could happen if necessary, but I doubt they'll say Rifle smoke spam is as bad for gameplay as Volk Schreck blobs and gut that too.
24 Jun 2016, 16:05 PM
#11
Posts: 500
shouldve moved pack to t0
24 Jun 2016, 16:07 PM
#12
Posts: 1439
I enjoy the variety in openings now but still not sure the mortar was the right unit. I also think since they now have the mortar, riflemen should lose their smoke grenades. Smoke should be given to the rangers instead. Smoke doesn't make sense on baseline inf. It was only acceptable on USF since they lacked means of taking on mgs which is no longer the case.
Good point +1
24 Jun 2016, 16:12 PM
#13
Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13
They should have made the mortar more accurate, less damaging that only kills with direct-hits with higher drop-off with more ROF and less range. This way this would differentiate itself from the pack howitzer by being meant to displace units and being light support while the pack howitzer is what you want to break fortifications and actually kill units.
24 Jun 2016, 16:13 PM
#14
Posts: 278
usf didnt need a mortar that strong.
Maybe its me but i feelt helpless against garrsions and well placed mg's in early games.
This was my reaction too. Either I got up a fighting position in riflenade range of the garrison, or I was fucked until pack howi.
24 Jun 2016, 16:15 PM
#15
Posts: 368
They should have made the mortar more accurate, less damaging that only kills with direct-hits with higher drop-off with more ROF and less range. This way this would differentiate itself from the pack howitzer by being meant to displace units and being light support while the pack howitzer is what you want to break fortifications and actually kill units.
Exactly.
24 Jun 2016, 16:24 PM
#16
Posts: 2066
It seems to me that they copied the Ardennes Assault USF mortar 
Kappa
24 Jun 2016, 16:36 PM
#17
Posts: 1072
They should have made the mortar more accurate, less damaging that only kills with direct-hits with higher drop-off with more ROF and less range. This way this would differentiate itself from the pack howitzer by being meant to displace units and being light support while the pack howitzer is what you want to break fortifications and actually kill units.
More accurate? It already pin point wipes grens in cover. When I hear a mortar shell being fired when against USF I immediately move my grens cuz a second later a shell lands right where they just were.
24 Jun 2016, 16:39 PM
#18
Posts: 673
Maybe USF didn't need mortar (or such mortar) in T0, but they definitely needed something in T0, cos before, T0 provided to USF only 1 (ONE!) combat reliable unit - riflemans. No HMGs, no mortars, no light vechiles. Rears and MedTruck (obviously) are not combat units.
I always said, that T0 sniper would be interesting idea, but im not really sure, that it would work fine. Adding HMG in T0 for USF will be... copy of Ostheer/UKF.
Maybe would be reasonable to make WC51 non-doc and move to T0? Might look like copy of Bren Carrier, but they are different anyway. Since USF army is about "high mobility" - T0 carrier would work pretty nice.
I always said, that T0 sniper would be interesting idea, but im not really sure, that it would work fine. Adding HMG in T0 for USF will be... copy of Ostheer/UKF.
Maybe would be reasonable to make WC51 non-doc and move to T0? Might look like copy of Bren Carrier, but they are different anyway. Since USF army is about "high mobility" - T0 carrier would work pretty nice.
24 Jun 2016, 16:41 PM
#19
Posts: 320
A 60mm mortar with shorter range, normal RoF and less damage but also able to fire fire smoke would have been enough. With veterancy the mortar comes to the range of the 81mm from Wehrmacht and also gains a flare ability. That would have made sense. But just my 2 cents...
24 Jun 2016, 16:41 PM
#20
Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1
The unit was added because 3 rifle starts are boring. It also assist USF on urban maps if they don't select Rifle Company so that they can deal with units in buildings more easily. Having said that, I don't think the USF mortar should be very good at dealing damage, it should be about supporting other units with smoke, and maybe even white phosphorus with vet. I like the idea of diversifying USF builds, but I don't want to see them become unstoppable in the early game.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
19 | ||
|
|
|
|
9 | ||
 |
|
|
9 | ||
|
|
|
|
4 | ||
 |
|
|
4 | ||
|
|
|
|
2 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 | ||
 |
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.655231.739+15
- 2.842223.791+5
- 3.35258.859+1
- 4.939410.696+5
- 5.599234.719+7
- 6.278108.720+29
- 7.307114.729+3
- 8.645.928+5
- 9.10629.785+7
- 10.527.881+18
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
11
Download
1265
Board Info
846 users are online:
846 guests
0 post in the last 24h
12 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
12 posts in the last week
26 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49989
Welcome our newest member, LegalMetrologyConsul
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, LegalMetrologyConsul
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM