Login

russian armor

Light indirect fire (mostly in team games)

11 Dec 2017, 13:53 PM
#1
avatar of Nubb3r

Posts: 141

Many hard issues are being looked at during the process of the upcoming DBP and the map changes are promising as well.

However, there is one thing still flying under the radar here that is not getting a lot of much attention since it is being overshadowed by other things, especially in team games.

It is, to try to be as precise as possible: The abundance and effectiveness of light indirect fire units (mobile, stationary, heavy and light varians plus the LeIG) especially considering the low amount of attention they need, compared to the effect they have on the game, which gets even worse when they come in higher numbers (let's say 2+ units of this kind in a 2v2 for each side).

Where I perceive the problem to be:

The first thing is their safety and the higher potential due to more targets and less idle time.
The most glaring reason why these units are a larger problem in team games than in 1v1s is of course the disproportionately small maps when you account for player numbers in team games. Basically all 2v2+ maps are way too small compared to the 1v1 situation. This of course isn't necessarily a bad thing, since these games are bound to feature more action, but the issue I see is that front lines are relatively easy to saturate for prolonged periods of time and the direction of approach for flanks are more limited either. These circumstances allow the aforementioned indirect fire units to be very safe, even if you build more of them in relation to your main fighting units, when comparing to 1v1.

The second part of the problem is (in team games partly) related to the abundance of targets and their ease of (passive) use. Even if you were ever only to purchase such a unit and just put it behind your lines and never interact with it again, these units (in team games) are not that much less effective compared to actively using them as much as you can. Herein lies the main problem IMHO. Since (especially long) team games are exhaustive and very taxing on players' multitasking, players have to divert their attention and prioritize. These units are so convenient and are so effective while being so. They litter the skies with explosives and just add to the "battlefield noise", that demands you to focus a lot in order to not lose squads frequently.

Before trying to fix the situation:
What's the ideal situation to go for and what are the given constraints?
What is/are the intended roles for these units?

These units should be exclusively and actively used against weapon teams, garrisons and emplacements. Either with or without smoke and incendiary rounds, that doesn't matter too much.

Where I'd suggest looking for solutions:
Since the first part of the problems I listed is kind of unfixable given the team game character should stay the same, we can only address the second part, by encouraging active usage of mortars and discouraging passive use of them, but how?

Plain and simple: Make auto-fire basically almost useless and give all the attention to barrages.
Make barrages either short or long, have short or long cooldowns, firerates, reaction times and whatnot, plenty of levers to turn here, but nerf auto-fire.

The changes to spacing (and maybe squad AI?) might help to alleviate the symptoms, but the underlying problem is still there (as seen in the recent 2v2 Tournament where mortars and Le.IGs dominated until overshadowed by (rocket) artillery). I doubt that the squad changes would have mattered too much in the tourney, but they're still welcome.

Do you think this assessment is accurate and if not, where are gaps and "misperceptions"?
Sorry for the wall of text, but I needed to write down all my thoughts about this issue.

TL;DR
Nerf auto-fire on mortars heavily, make them all about barrages and barrages only.
They maintain their role against weapon teams, garrisons and emplacements and become less obnoxious in team games.
11 Dec 2017, 14:36 PM
#2
avatar of ullumulu

Posts: 2243

more annoying than this...are: rocket artilly...exspally Caliope/ kati and LM..
their huge rockets amount and huge area of effect and need no recon (not like the stuka) is very annoying..more and more you spam them.


yesterday i had a 4v4 where a USF player had 4-5 caliope....which denied every front line or attack, because the 2 ost player lost in to many shot their infantery


and: they was paked behind a wall of sov, UKF and usf TDs....

you had no change with infntery..and no change with tanks...they bombed the hell out of you ..with no skill require units...

aim a area...and kill all
11 Dec 2017, 14:56 PM
#3
avatar of Syllabeer

Posts: 41

I second this; ISG, Mortar Teams, Pak Howies, Motor carriages (USA), Mortar pits completely annihilate squads within seconds.

Especially when there are 2-3 out: 1 shot kills 1 squad member and the next shot gets the rest of squads. Happens all the time. Especially when you play Ostheer. The current state punishes aggressive infantry pushes late game since indirect fire auto attack wipes squads within seconds
11 Dec 2017, 15:38 PM
#4
avatar of Highfiveeeee

Posts: 1740

When I play as allies, I fucking despise LeIGs because of their range.

When I play as axis, I fucking despise PackHowies and Mortar Pits because of their range.

:-(
11 Dec 2017, 18:14 PM
#5
avatar of adamírcz

Posts: 955

Hmm, imagine the current USF mortar with the range of the Soviet one and slowly travelling projectile and a slight damage bonus against weapon teams. That should be a golden standart for light indirect.

Instead we have plenty of monsters that require zero micro to precisely snipe squads from across the map and on top of that are consistently able to hit quickly moving squads.

Though nerfs of indirect fire might promote camping
11 Dec 2017, 18:41 PM
#6
avatar of RedT3rror

Posts: 747 | Subs: 2


Though nerfs of indirect fire might promote camping


The problem origins from the way most light arty pieces work. Instead of concentrated hard hitting attacks which will force the enemy to abandon his position (and clear the way for an assault), they do damage over time and punish the usage of cover mechanics. They are defensive tools even though they should actually be used for offense.
11 Dec 2017, 19:39 PM
#7
avatar of EtherealDragon

Posts: 1890 | Subs: 1

Good thing is that the DBP fixes the most cancerous aspects of this with nerfs to LeIG and Mortar Pit range as well as Brace nerf. I think that's enough since now everything has roughly 80 range and you don't have stupid BS of Mortar Pits and LeiGs just camping in relative safety. I don't think nerfing Autofire is the way to go - they tried that with ISG and Pak Howitizer manual facing and it made them way too hard to use for the cost.
15 Dec 2017, 08:52 AM
#8
avatar of Darkshaddowsss

Posts: 27

Maybe lowering the damage and increasing the rate of fire on barrages would work. This would mean the dps is around the same but stops the crews from being able to wipe squads.

If it makes you feel better LeiGs are getting buffed

Increasing utility could also work, make the smoke faster and on different timer then lower auto fire ability. Personally I dont think mortars or LeiGs are that op, the issue is there is little counter play (besides calliopes :spam: ) which makes playing agenst those units not fun
15 Dec 2017, 09:10 AM
#9
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1

Mortars could be given a "stun" barrage ability or a suppressive fire barrage at the cost of completely removing auto fire.

I liked the change when ISG and pak couldn't reposition automatically, the problem around it was the lack of fairness with other mortars that are 360 degree.

Removing auto-fire and add some more utilities like I mentioned, stun and/or suppressive fire would give them a real role on the battlefield other than supporting HMGs.
15 Dec 2017, 10:43 AM
#10
avatar of Vet 2 Scout Car

Posts: 4

Maybe lowering the damage and increasing the rate of fire on barrages would work. This would mean the dps is around the same but stops the crews from being able to wipe squads.


I second this.

currently, light indirects have two purpose, killing garrisoned/static units and softening up enemy field force. I was kind of thinking in the sense of changing scatter to better represent siege unit/make hitting mobile units harder, but this is much simpler and yet effect way of countering the issue.
15 Dec 2017, 10:55 AM
#11
avatar of skemshead

Posts: 611

Indirect fire is by far the biggest issue I have with this game because aside from it being braindead and an rng clusterfuck it almost guarantees any unit that is hit needs to return to base for healing which tbh kinda detracts from the game.

As others have said it completely negates the cover mechanic, especially for 4 man squads, and also counters superior positional play often without input from the player.

The thing that really rubs salt into the wound is how difficult it can often be to kill a mortar squad with a flanking squad. It is virtually impossible unless the allied player is afk.

Now I know many people will say counter it with your own indirect fire but i find that to be too simple of a solution, bit like countering mgs with smoke. Coh is about positional play and flanking, not units of the same type countering each other.

My position is, +1 to limiting use to barrage and decreasing survivability vs flanking squads. Also fix smoke so that it fire s faster and add some timed abilities like phosphorous barage or increased barage rate or creeping barage etc etc.
15 Dec 2017, 18:39 PM
#12
avatar of Darkshaddowsss

Posts: 27

I like the idea that mortars should be more vulnerable to flanking, it would allow for better counter play. What about mortars take extra damage from small arms fire, in exchange for better smoke maybe? This would punish players who don't use the mortar well, making players have to better micro their mortars.

I think indirect fire is not op, the issue is there is no counter play which is highly frustrating for players getting fired on.
15 Dec 2017, 20:10 PM
#13
avatar of Array
Donator 11

Posts: 609

I like the idea that mortars should be more vulnerable to flanking, it would allow for better counter play. What about mortars take extra damage from small arms fire, in exchange for better smoke maybe? This would punish players who don't use the mortar well, making players have to better micro their mortars.

I think indirect fire is not op, the issue is there is no counter play which is highly frustrating for players getting fired on.


Support weapons already take extra damage from small arms
20 Dec 2017, 12:37 PM
#14
avatar of Bravus

Posts: 503

Permanently Banned
This is since COH2 launch. Mortars are annoying, they fire like GPS attack 2fast (fast mount). A squad moving, and the mortar will be a lazer precision weapon in a lot of cases!
21 Dec 2017, 12:46 PM
#15
avatar of DerKuhlmann

Posts: 469

Indirect can be countered by simply pressing right click on your mouse.
21 Dec 2017, 22:33 PM
#16
avatar of thedarkarmadillo

Posts: 5279

Indirect can be countered by simply pressing right click on your mouse.


Yes and no. Part of the problem with indirect fire os oddly enough the scatter on autofire. It can fairly reliably hit and hurt or kill advancing units (arguably better than it can static units because of that same scatter... )

I sincerely think the game would be better off without auto fire on this things but an almost nonexistant cooldown on barrage. Rewarding players for simply spending manpower and next to nothing outside that is kinda against the whole idea of "tactical" RTS
0 user is browsing this thread:

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

590 users are online: 590 guests
0 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
34 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49117
Welcome our newest member, topcsnvncom
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM