Login

russian armor

UK Mortar Barrage Range

10 Aug 2016, 11:38 AM
#1
avatar of SturmAlpha

Posts: 42

The UK Mortar has an immense barrage ability range especially in small maps, once built in the middle of the map it will start shooting down your units in your base, it makes no sense because its hard to counter early game and will take too much time to counter, while it keeps killing your units in your base and healing them it becomes too late. Im not talking about nerfing or anything im just asking don't you think the barrage ability needs to be looked into? maybe the range needs a bit of adjustment especially in tiny maps 1vs1?
10 Aug 2016, 11:41 AM
#2
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

If its middle of a small map you could just bumrush and destroy it you know.
Also the range of static emplacement will never be lower then mobile, cheaper units, so as long as ISG can have 115 range, mortar pit will never have less.
10 Aug 2016, 11:53 AM
#3
avatar of MissCommissar

Posts: 673

Well... in vCoH there was such cool thing for UK arty like "Supercharge rounds". Without them - arty and mortars had pretty low range. With - incredibly high. I would make that passive ability in CoH 2 too, in Royal Arty doctrine. Without that - mortar will have just a bit bigger than all other common mortars range of fire, with that ability - same as it has today.

It would both make Royal Arty more attractive and would improve "waychoosing" playstyle and design of UKF. If you taking non-arty doctrine - you won't rely on indirects too much anyway, use a lot of other units, which UKF have. If you taking arty doctrine - all kinds of arty at your service then, but... each mortar pit costs really a lot of MP, so you won't get a lot of other "agressive" units instead.

Yet, it would maybe cause a bit decreasing of price of mortar pit.
10 Aug 2016, 14:08 PM
#4
avatar of vietnamabc

Posts: 1063

No thank you, emplacements have no place in COH, nobody used Royal Arty in vCOH 1v1 ever, I still have nightmare about Scheldt arty spam. I would prefer UKF do away with emplacements entirely, replacing emplacements with bunkers that can garrison MG and Mortar, for the 17-pounder, just gives RE ability to hull-down tank, 360 degree defense structures were bad design since OKW.
nee
10 Aug 2016, 14:39 PM
#5
avatar of nee

Posts: 1216

I wish that by itself the range was shitty, but range was increased according to conditions like nearby units or that units can "spot" for them, similar to base howitzers.
But that clearly seemed to be too much work for Relic to consider. If they make the most money when reaching Bronze, they sure as shit won't try any harder for Silver, let alone Gold.
10 Aug 2016, 17:05 PM
#6
avatar of Dangerous-Cloth

Posts: 2066

Always the same people rushing in to defend their beloved factions. Lol
10 Aug 2016, 17:19 PM
#7
avatar of VelikiStrateg

Posts: 50

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Aug 2016, 11:41 AMKatitof
If its middle of a small map you could just bumrush and destroy it you know.
Also the range of static emplacement will never be lower then mobile, cheaper units, so as long as ISG can have 115 range, mortar pit will never have less.


Are you an idiot?
10 Aug 2016, 17:28 PM
#8
avatar of Waegukin

Posts: 609

Either reduce Auto-Attack range to 80 while retaining the barrage (and fixing the second mortar) so that it retains its current stats when micro'd correctly or bring back the old Heavy/Light (and WP) shells.
10 Aug 2016, 18:25 PM
#9
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8



Are you an idiot?

You certainly are one if you think otherwise.
10 Aug 2016, 18:29 PM
#10
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1

Katitof is right, mortar pits need longer range to deal with mobile indirect fire. Otherwise you could not build mortar pits at all.

There are many better ways to implement the mortar pit than currently which is just a no-brain unit designed to be entirely ignored by the player. Occasionally they need to hit brace.

All Brit emplacements need to be looked at in my opinion.
10 Aug 2016, 20:06 PM
#11
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2

Katitof is right, mortar pits need longer range to deal with mobile indirect fire. Otherwise you could not build mortar pits at all.

There are many better ways to implement the mortar pit than currently which is just a no-brain unit designed to be entirely ignored by the player. Occasionally they need to hit brace.

All Brit emplacements need to be looked at in my opinion.


Mortar pit gets replaced by a mobile 3-inch mortar team, emplacement gets turned into a garrisonable structure like the trench that can accommodate 2 mortars instead of 1 like the trench, problem solved.

Nobody builds 17 pounders because of it's pop cap, mostly, the other 2 problems being it's price and size.

What do you suggest for the Bofors? It already locks out the AEC Mk. III, needs to be built and has a now nerfed suppression barrage, what else is there? At least I don't see as much whine topics about it as before the nerf.

I mean really, what do you do with it? It's a 360 degree platform that can fire on both air and land targets like the Flak 88 in CoH, except it costs 280 man power and 30 fuel and is in an emplacement (unlike the 88 which was a lone gun) and cannot be decrewed, and more nerfs and it's going to be useless while it already is if not properly supported, and the Brit player already has less shit to rely on in terms of numbers so making it even shittier and adding even more need to babysit it would put even more strain on the UKF man power.

Emplacements were made so because of the British low numbers high man power, mostly static and powerful units meant to hold the line, if they lose their powerful static units without a cost decrease and buff to or replacement with more mobile units they become a very ineffective Army, much more than OKW is now.
10 Aug 2016, 21:49 PM
#12
avatar of Thunderhun

Posts: 1617

How about removing the cancer pit and just adding a normal mortar?
10 Aug 2016, 22:13 PM
#13
avatar of Smiling Tiger

Posts: 207

How about removing the cancer pit and just adding a normal mortar?


+1 Plus the other emplacements should be removed because nobody uses the 17 pounder anyway and the Bofors has been and is a balance nightmare because is either unusable or OP as hell but im not sure what should replace it but these things will probably never happen because it would require Relic to actually do something not half assed because this is a result of sloppy design.
11 Aug 2016, 00:00 AM
#14
avatar of mediev

Posts: 93

jump backJump back to quoted post10 Aug 2016, 11:41 AMKatitof
If its middle of a small map you could just bumrush and destroy it you know.
Also the range of static emplacement will never be lower then mobile, cheaper units, so as long as ISG can have 115 range, mortar pit will never have less.


Exactly, against competent opponents, it is quite lucky to live through the mid game actually. It costs almost the same as 2 enemy units, which means that if you build it, you will probably be heavily outnumbered, therefore it will be relatively easy to rush. Building it early is risky because of rushing, building it later is VERY risky, because the enemy probably already has a counter. If it had lower range than ISG, what would be the reason to build it at all?
11 Aug 2016, 00:22 AM
#15
avatar of miragefla
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

None of the stock indirect-fire should be able to engage targets past 80 in-game meters for the five faction, even with veterancy outside of their barrages. There should be some control for the further engagement ranges.

If you're all fearful of the pit being rendered useless, shorten the barrage cooldown so you have to micro it to actually do damage and clear position. Do this and fixing the fact its second mortar does less damage while barraging and it should be able to still hold back other indirect-fire assets early on. It'll probably do it better if the barrage cooled down faster allowing players who micro the pit to be rewarded more than those who simply toss it down at let it auto-fire for 115m.
11 Aug 2016, 00:23 AM
#16
avatar of miragefla
Developer Relic Badge

Posts: 1304 | Subs: 13

Edit: Accidental double post. Please remove.
11 Aug 2016, 10:13 AM
#17
avatar of SturmAlpha

Posts: 42

None of the stock indirect-fire should be able to engage targets past 80 in-game meters for the five faction, even with veterancy outside of their barrages. There should be some control for the further engagement ranges.

If you're all fearful of the pit being rendered useless, shorten the barrage cooldown so you have to micro it to actually do damage and clear position. Do this and fixing the fact its second mortar does less damage while barraging and it should be able to still hold back other indirect-fire assets early on. It'll probably do it better if the barrage cooled down faster allowing players who micro the pit to be rewarded more than those who simply toss it down at let it auto-fire for 115m.


Thank you miragefla, i completely agree with you, the sad part is that this mortar barrage shoots non stop the cooldown time is way too low, it keeps shooting like a canon, and 2 mortars shells at a time is too much especially when your healing in the base and theres no where to run.
11 Aug 2016, 10:15 AM
#18
avatar of Firesparks

Posts: 1930



Thank you miragefla, i completely agree with you, the sad part is that this mortar barrage shoots non stop the cooldown time is way too low, it keeps shooting like a canon, and 2 mortars shells at a time is too much especially when your healing in the base and theres no where to run.


are you referring to the mortar emplacement's autofire or its barrage ability? there's a difference.

the barrage ability on the mortar emplacement have a 75 second recharge time. Most people just use the autofire because there isn't much of an advantage to actually mirco the mortar emplacement.
11 Aug 2016, 11:01 AM
#19
avatar of Obersoldat

Posts: 393

None of the stock indirect-fire should be able to engage targets past 80 in-game meters for the five faction, even with veterancy outside of their barrages. There should be some control for the further engagement ranges.

If you're all fearful of the pit being rendered useless, shorten the barrage cooldown so you have to micro it to actually do damage and clear position. Do this and fixing the fact its second mortar does less damage while barraging and it should be able to still hold back other indirect-fire assets early on. It'll probably do it better if the barrage cooled down faster allowing players who micro the pit to be rewarded more than those who simply toss it down at let it auto-fire for 115m.


This ^^
11 Aug 2016, 13:51 PM
#20
avatar of Imagelessbean

Posts: 1585 | Subs: 1



Mortar pit gets replaced by a mobile 3-inch mortar team, emplacement gets turned into a garrisonable structure like the trench that can accommodate 2 mortars instead of 1 like the trench, problem solved.

Nobody builds 17 pounders because of it's pop cap, mostly, the other 2 problems being it's price and size.

What do you suggest for the Bofors? It already locks out the AEC Mk. III, needs to be built and has a now nerfed suppression barrage, what else is there? At least I don't see as much whine topics about it as before the nerf.

I mean really, what do you do with it? It's a 360 degree platform that can fire on both air and land targets like the Flak 88 in CoH, except it costs 280 man power and 30 fuel and is in an emplacement (unlike the 88 which was a lone gun) and cannot be decrewed, and more nerfs and it's going to be useless while it already is if not properly supported, and the Brit player already has less shit to rely on in terms of numbers so making it even shittier and adding even more need to babysit it would put even more strain on the UKF man power.

Emplacements were made so because of the British low numbers high man power, mostly static and powerful units meant to hold the line, if they lose their powerful static units without a cost decrease and buff to or replacement with more mobile units they become a very ineffective Army, much more than OKW is now.


The mortar pit needs to be closely examined, its ability to deny area with zero micro input is disturbing.

The 17lber is a straight downgrade of the Pak 43, but I don't think it should ever have been brought into the game. At this point I would be ok with a Pak 43 clone, possibly requiring tech to unlock (Anvil?).

The Boffers is still too lethal against infantry, and in team games where another player can provide the mortar pit it can lock out areas too quickly and for too long. Its suppression barrage no longer kills weapon teams but it does seriously discourage any sort of attack. The unit has no business in this game, and I don't really have a solution for it.

My feeling about emplacements is that the game is worse off for having them.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 13
United States 168
New Zealand 14
unknown 3

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

1057 users are online: 1057 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49129
Welcome our newest member, softhealertech
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM