the problem with USF mortar

the USF should be forced into grenade upgrades.

It's part of the game meta that the Allies are "forced" into side teching in order to keep up with the axis and to delay the arrival of the allied vehicle. The Soviet, british, and american all put their infantry upgrade into side tech while the axis package their infantry upgrade into tier research.

a t0 mortar breaks the balance because it allow the american to skip grenade and rush for the stuart with relative safety. This is inherently broken. it make the american too safe in the early game.

if the axis managed to dig in too deep for normal rifleman, the USF should either be teching grenade or teching up to the pack howitzer, not buying a t0 mortar

The logic to this statement is true, to an extent. The game is largely built upon teching, upgrading and building units and buildings to counter what opponent is doing. However having to spend 25f and 150mp to access an ability that then has an ongoing muni cost to counter a unit that can be built from the start of the game is where your argument falls to pieces.

I am not disputing the effectiveness of grenades, rather the cost so early in the game as well as the fact no other faction has to tech to counter a unit built at minute zero. Please do not respond with "soviets have to tech to t1 or t2" or "soviets have to tech to flame nades" etc etc etc. Every faction has different teching cost, different starting resource and it is not required for this argument.

I am surprised however that the cost of grenades and weapon racks are not reversed.

If usf are, as you say required to tech to grenades, then the cost of t1 has to come down. M20 meta is virtually dead as it is.

Personally i almost never go grenades, unless i am facing mg spam ( 3+ ) or if the ostheer player is being overy agressive with mg positioning.

The logic to this statement is true, to an extent. The game is largely built upon teching, upgrading and building units and buildings to counter what opponent is doing. However having to spend 25f and 150mp to access an ability that then has an ongoing muni cost to counter a unit that can be built from the start of the game is where your argument falls to pieces.

I am not disputing the effectiveness of grenades, rather the cost so early in the game as well as the fact no other faction has to tech to counter a unit built at minute zero. Please do not respond with "soviets have to tech to t1 or t2" or "soviets have to tech to flame nades" etc etc etc. Every faction has different teching cost, different starting resource and it is not required for this argument.

I am surprised however that the cost of grenades and weapon racks are not reversed.

If usf are, as you say required to tech to grenades, then the cost of t1 has to come down. M20 meta is virtually dead as it is.

Personally i almost never go grenades, unless i am facing mg spam ( 3+ ) or if the ostheer player is being overy agressive with mg positioning.

well you know there is this thing called flanking ,Soviet know it very well
If you don't want nade which btw magically work on inf too and smoke work on tank wooooo
Pack howitzer has much range and good aoe it may cost much but it is very good

well you know there is this thing called flanking ,Soviet know it very well
If you don't want nade which btw magically work on inf too and smoke work on tank wooooo
Pack howitzer has much range and good aoe it may cost much but it is very good

Lol.

+1 dude on adding nothing to the conversation...

If your going to reply to other users posts then try posting something relevant. My post spoke solely to the cost, timing and relevance of grenades in response to countering mgs.

I know full well how the concept of flanking works and unlike soviets i don't need to rely on oorah either.

Your second sentence makes zero sense whatsoever. I am guessing your try to look clever or something, not sure really.

Your reference to the pack howie is relevant because ?????

The logic to this statement is true, to an extent. The game is largely built upon teching, upgrading and building units and buildings to counter what opponent is doing. However having to spend 25f and 150mp to access an ability that then has an ongoing muni cost to counter a unit that can be built from the start of the game is where your argument falls to pieces.

I am not disputing the effectiveness of grenades, rather the cost so early in the game as well as the fact no other faction has to tech to counter a unit built at minute zero. Please do not respond with "soviets have to tech to t1 or t2" or "soviets have to tech to flame nades" etc etc etc. Every faction has different teching cost, different starting resource and it is not required for this argument.

I am surprised however that the cost of grenades and weapon racks are not reversed.

If usf are, as you say required to tech to grenades, then the cost of t1 has to come down. M20 meta is virtually dead as it is.

Personally i almost never go grenades, unless i am facing mg spam ( 3+ ) or if the ostheer player is being overy agressive with mg positioning.

The grenades is not the "perfect" solution to the mg42 in the early game due to the fuel cost and munition demand, but the USF doesn't need a perfect solution early on. The USF infantry and light vehicle still provide decent map control in the early to mid game without the t0 mortar (or even grenades in many cases).

I would say that the USF still have the distinct advantage in the early game with the stuart and rifleman. The wehr are basically stuck on the defensive unless they get the puma or Stug E.

the situation start to change in the mid to late game, but that's why the pack howitzer are placed behind research. The USF uses the rifleman and light vehicle to gain initial ground in the early game and then research the unit and technology to crack the wehr defense. USF t0 mortar break the balance because it give the USF a reliable mean to break wehr defensive early, before the wehr can get their tanks out.

Giving the USF a t0 mortar will require some drastic change to the wehr and/or USF.

The m20 is itself a victim of the meta shift caused by the sov's t70 and the USF's own stuart. I also doubt the wehr can handle an even earlier m20. There's also the fact that LT lack atg and pack howitzer, both important unit.

the USF should be forced into grenade upgrades.

The grenades is not the "perfect" solution to the mg42 in the early game due to the fuel cost and munition demand, but the USF doesn't need a perfect solution early on.

Make up your mind.

The m20 is itself a victim of the meta shift caused by the sov's t70 and the USF's own stuart. I also doubt the wehr can handle an even earlier m20. There's also the fact that LT lack atg and pack howitzer, both important unit.

M20 is dead largely because of the improved AC.

Make up your mind.



M20 is dead largely because of the improved AC.

the grenade is flawed in many way, but even flawed it's still good enough for the USF's better early game.

Particularly good USF player can succeed without needing to buy mortar or grenade, but 5x rifleman is still inherently easier to deal with than 4x rifleman + 1 mortar. The lack of mortar make the grenade more attractive in any case. the mortar just make the grenade redundant.

The USF should be forced to buy grenade, but yet they are not. The reality is that the Rifleman is already good enough that good players can manage without them, especially now when the more practical mortar is available to them.

The fact that people can rifleman spam into dominance in the early game is all the more reason why the mortar shouldn't be given for "free". Giving them mortar without some kind of nerf just boost the USF early game even further.


the AC was improved because the stuart was moved early, and because wehr doesn't have any light tank.

Lol.

+1 dude on adding nothing to the conversation...

If your going to reply to other users posts then try posting something relevant. My post spoke solely to the cost, timing and relevance of grenades in response to countering mgs.

I know full well how the concept of flanking works and unlike soviets i don't need to rely on oorah either.

Your second sentence makes zero sense whatsoever. I am guessing your try to look clever or something, not sure really.

Your reference to the pack howie is relevant because ?????

you argue that nade are not such a reliable counter to mg , but that because of their versatility they work on other thing too a mg counter is a vehicle that from ww1 pack howi work too the mortar was not needed in the first place and was implemented the wrong way

you argue that nade are not such a reliable counter to mg , but that because of their versatility they work on other thing too a mg counter is a vehicle that from ww1 pack howi work too the mortar was not needed in the first place and was implemented the wrong way

Learn to read.

I am not disputing the effectiveness of grenades, rather the cost so early in the game as well as the fact no other faction has to tech to counter a unit built at minute zero.

I also make no reference to the morter.