Just had a thought; would it make sense for Axis mortars, if they get a direct hit on an open-topped turret, for them to stun the vehicle? (at least for firing) Heard ImperialDane the other day talking about spamming M10s being OP, so I thought maybe this would be a counter to that?
Just a thought!
Idea: Mortars vs. Tank Destroyers
13 Aug 2016, 19:06 PM
#1
Posts: 63
13 Aug 2016, 19:15 PM
#3
Posts: 63
Sorry Still new here
13 Aug 2016, 19:20 PM
#4
1
Posts: 2885
The idea is not retarded at all. The only problem I can see is that it's hard to imagine anyone using mortar especially against a vehicle as they move quickly. So it would be rather a nice real life polish than meta change.
Btw the m10 spam is not OP. USF have better commanders than armor.
Btw the m10 spam is not OP. USF have better commanders than armor.
13 Aug 2016, 19:23 PM
#5
Posts: 4474
don't mind katiof he is like that
first of all welcome
second there where 2 other post like this but were very old
the end was that it would be too hard to implement cause there no upper armor and would be a not very used
first of all welcome
second there where 2 other post like this but were very old
the end was that it would be too hard to implement cause there no upper armor and would be a not very used
13 Aug 2016, 19:34 PM
#6
1
Posts: 2885
Its both, a dead horse and retarded idea.
Sorry Still new here
Also, Katitof said it is retarded mainly becouse it affects only allied tds, while in fact there are some axis vehicles that could be changed in such way, too. For example top armour of real life panther turret was so thin it could easily be penetrated by mortar shell (15 to 16 mm depending on version). Other examples are LVs like 222 and 251.
13 Aug 2016, 19:52 PM
#7
Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1
Also, Katitof said it is retarded mainly becouse it affects only allied tds, while in fact there are some axis vehicles that could be changed in such way, too. For example top armour of real life panther turret was so thin it could easily be penetrated by mortar shell. Other examples are LVs like 222 and 251.
Isn't that an good example why it shouldn't happen if it were applied with realistic logic? 222 and 251 are already damaged by mortars and they'd probably be pretty guaranteed dead most of the time from suffering a sudden random stun.
13 Aug 2016, 20:23 PM
#8
Posts: 1216
Just had a thought; would it make sense for Axis mortars, if they get a direct hit on an open-topped turret, for them to stun the vehicle? (at least for firing) Heard ImperialDane the other day talking about spamming M10s being OP, so I thought maybe this would be a counter to that?Doesn't make sense, neither would it be very practical. Making the effect apply only to specific mortars is, besides fairness from a design perspective, presents technical questions, like if a Gr34 mortar was crewed/ recrewed by both sides, etc. The game is simply not reliable enough to avoid these potential hiccups. From a practical perspective, it is much more effective to merely deal with the TD spam issue than trying to tweak units to be more effective against it (which also raises the question of whether it actually is an issue, just because ImperialDane spouts a bunch of hearsay doesn't mean it's true).
Just a thought!
In other words, M10 spam is an issue with the M10, not an issue with the design of other units. The odds of scoring a hit with mortar against one of the fastest moving vehicles in the game, coupled with the fact that the damage from being hit by a mortar is already substantial given that M10 and Jackson aren't exactly durable vehicles, makes the whole subject a moot point anyways: if it gets stunned along with substantial loss of health, a second mortar round will just finish it off. But before you consider this making mortar a hardcounter, this is assuming it hits at all.
If you want to deal with M10 spam then just tweak the M10. For example, making it a unit unlock rather than call-in through T4 will mitigate the problem- you can't spam M10s if you're waiting for Major to finish coming in, or building the M36 or Sherman. The Easy Eight and Soviets' T-34/85 was given this treatment precisely for this reason, despite the fact that both are T4 as well as late-game costing more, AND operating as superior versions of stock medium tanks.
If in doubt, the Captain's speed construction would help getting that first M10 out quickly; it costs less than M36 and if you blitz to T4 fast enough, can potentially let you bring in M10 even earlier than the 8CP unlock.
Performance wise IMO the M10 is in a good spot, which is why I don't advocate tweaking their actual stats. By the time they come into play, you've already got Major tier unlocked or just about: the spammability is from being able to dispatch them without using up queue slots.
13 Aug 2016, 20:29 PM
#9
Posts: 232
I'd love to see top and side armour properly modeled in game, but it's something for the next game rather than trying to force it into the current one.
13 Aug 2016, 20:40 PM
#10
Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2
I believe it would be hard to implement if possible at all, but yeah.
I know for sure you could make flamethrowers do damage to the crew in CoH tho.
I know for sure you could make flamethrowers do damage to the crew in CoH tho.
PAGES (1)
3 users are browsing this thread:
3 guests
Livestreams
18 | |||||
5 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.829222.789+35
- 2.34857.859+13
- 3.1095612.641+19
- 4.587233.716+3
- 5.881398.689+3
- 6.280162.633+8
- 7.996645.607+4
- 8.300112.728+6
- 9.379114.769+1
- 10.716439.620-1
Replay highlight
VS
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
999
Board Info
246 users are online:
1 member and 245 guests
capiqua
capiqua
0 post in the last 24h
1 post in the last week
20 posts in the last month
1 post in the last week
20 posts in the last month
Registered members: 48707
Welcome our newest member, linkvaobong88vip
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, linkvaobong88vip
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM