USF Mortar Halftrack meta

Howdy!

One other meta that has caught my attention since December has been the abundance of USF Mortar HTs in teamgames. I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter and how has it affected the overall gameplay experience and enjoyability.

I find them to be pretty cost effective and decently easy to spam because of their low manpower cost of 200. The 30 fuel definitely isn't a huge sum of fuel to pay either for a unit with such good mobility and rate of fire. Many people have seemed to realize the potency of the white phosphorus rounds. They can be easily spammed for the low cost of 25 munitions. (should not be a problem for a faction that is not really munitions starved) The ability to rapidly drain the health of enemy support weapons usually always forces a hard retreat because of the huge wipe risk. That can buy the Allied players a great amount of map control when the axis have to spend time to fully heal their squads. It will also take a long while to get from 1% HP to acceptable levels. Often the snowball effect gained from the increased map control and the huge harassment done to support weapons will snowball into very strong mid and lategame.

Synergy of the mortar HTs seems to be best with lieutenant builds that rely on .50 cal. MG spam which will rapidly suppress advancing axis infantry and make them a sitting targets for the mortars to barrage. Bazooka blobs / few REs equipped with them combined with AP rounds of the MG will keep all light vehicles at bay with proper micro and will usually buy enough time for the mortar HTs to escape when mediums hit the field.

One of the biggest peculiarities I find with the unit is the cost of the phosphorous that is considerably cheaper compared to the axis counterpart of incendiary shells . They are usually a lot less effective and the threshold of using the incendiary is a lot higher since Wehr is a munitions starved faction unlike the USF. Also the reaction time to dodge the fire damage is a lot more forgivable compared to the rapid health loss from white phosphorous.

Now for my personal opinion of this strategy. It is obviously a "one trick pony" build that can net a lot of cheesy wins against players that are not used to dealing with such aggressive and mobile artillery spam. Many wehr players play cautiously and I think such strats will punish them the most and usually a risky dive is needed to be able to deal with the halftracks. The effectiveness of WP makes it easy for the halftracks to fire the barrage and then quickly relocate before a counterattack is made while the damage has been already done. Also the net gain from the dives can be of questionable value since individual halftracks are easy to replace and the white phosphorus will be strong even in the late game so loss of vet should not be too big of a deal.

I would place the fun factor of playing against this strategy (far too often nowadays) on the lines of breaking a double Pre-December Simcity in Minks Pocket as double wehr. It is beatable but you will probably feel frustrated after the match and the effort you had to put into it was much more considerable compared to your opponents efforts.

I've included a replay of a generic mortar HT strategy as an example to people who aren't familiar with this meta.

•  
  

  0

  VS

  titty twister 4 ur sister Sgt.Legend SweetrollWerfingInAGoodSpot

  [NS] YGNOW [NS] Sanya V.Litvyak fucker

  2

  Example Of USF Mortar HT Spam

  by: SweetrollNearTheDoor map: Rzhev Winter

  1

  -

I'd like to hear what the community has to say about the matter and is the status quo acceptable or is a change desirable.

I'd disagree with your assertion that USF isn't a "munition starved" faction. In fact, I'd argue that this is simply based on perceptions acquired in the game. When you're winning you're most likely going to feel like you're munition starved if you're doing everything properly, whereas when you're losing it'll feel like your opponent is lobbing grenades left and right and there's a mine in every doorway.

It's all about map control and choosing what to use your muni for. If you go for the standard 3x rifles that's 300 mu for two zooks/squad or 360 for BARs on each squad. You can also get upgrades for your REs and LT/Captain, as well as miscellaneous infantry like Assault Enginners, Rangers, etc. That's a lot to spend to make your infantry the best that it can be. In fact, the USF not having much access to mines made it easier to use and probably contributed to the proliferation of smoke grenades because there wasn't anything other than weapon upgrades and grenades to spend your munitions on... but I digress.

Basically, if your opponent is spamming WP mortar shells, they're probably not able spend as much on weapon upgrades for their infantry squads, plant mines (infantry company has mines yay!)

The Mortar HT could probably use an mp increase, maybe a 10 fuel increase to bring it in line to the Wehrmacht's SdKfz 250 Mortar HT.

Mortar halftrack is op because its a ostheer mortar on wheels.

snip

I think this is a bit off topic but in any case:

Every faction can be munition starved and good players will always find useful ways to spend their munitions.

But for this argument let's take Ostheer munitions use as an example. Your first 60 munitions is a critical investment that will shape your early game. Do you go for an early teller mine that can be game changing if you face a light vehicle rush? By getting that you're most likely delaying your healing by a minute or two so the manpower bleed will be increased as a trade-off. How about instead of a teller or healing you go for early lmg's to get an advantage over allied infantry? How about a bunker to protect that critical flanking route that could make your frontline collapse if properly used by the enemy? How about S-mines to keep a flank of an MG42 safe?

These are important choices especially in the early game and your choice of munition sinks will have trade-offs to healing, infantry upgrades or sufficient mining ability.

For USF however your primary munition sink will be the weapon racks and the only question pretty much is how big of a bulk one can buy immediately. Your healing is not tied to munitions, the aggressive playstyle rarely requires fighting positions as a necessity and USF don't have decent mines. (Riflemen take ages to plant them and you rarely have the luxury of idling your mainline infantry on mining picnics and the RE mines seem to be a bit of a niche even though they can be decent) Also grenades are not too common and they are usually seen with doctrines that don't have any late game munition abilities.

Also there are ways to play around the lack of double equipping rifles like before mentioned use of .50 cal MG spam which will be better suited for offense compared to an MG42. Also the M15 and its rapid suppression will make it easier to maintain crowd control and rifles can do damage safely without taking much fire in return.

For USF lack of munitions will mean lowered firepower. For Ostheer it instead means sacrificing healing, squad upgrades, mines, bunkers or doctrine abilities and each of these trades or bad investments can be extremely costly.

I think this is a bit off topic but in any case:

Every faction can be munition starved and good players will always find useful ways to spend their munitions.

But for this argument let's take Ostheer munitions use as an example. Your first 60 munitions is a critical investment that will shape your early game. Do you go for an early teller mine that can be game changing if you face a light vehicle rush? By getting that you're most likely delaying your healing by a minute or two so the manpower bleed will be increased as a trade-off. How about instead of a teller or healing you go for early lmg's to get an advantage over allied infantry? How about a bunker to protect that critical flanking route that could make your frontline collapse if properly used by the enemy? How about S-mines to keep a flank of an MG42 safe?

These are important choices especially in the early game and your choice of munition sinks will have trade-offs to healing, infantry upgrades or sufficient mining ability.

For USF however your primary munition sink will be the weapon racks and the only question pretty much is how big of a bulk one can buy immediately. Your healing is not tied to munitions, the aggressive playstyle rarely requires fighting positions as a necessity and USF don't have decent mines. (Riflemen take ages to plant them and you rarely have the luxury of idling your mainline infantry on mining picnics and the RE mines seem to be a bit of a niche even though they can be decent) Also grenades are not too common and they are usually seen with doctrines that don't have any late game munition abilities.

Also there are ways to play around the lack of double equipping rifles like before mentioned use of .50 cal MG spam which will be better suited for offense compared to an MG42. Also the M15 and its rapid suppression will make it easier to maintain crowd control and rifles can do damage safely without taking much fire in return.

For USF lack of munitions will mean lowered firepower. For Ostheer it instead means sacrificing healing, squad upgrades, mines, bunkers or doctrine abilities and each of these trades or bad investments can be extremely costly.

I don't really understand you point of comparison, USF early choice is based on fuel: ambu or T1 or T2 or rack unlock, not on munition. You can't really compare Ostheer and USF on this point.

On topic: if we agree that Ostheer mortar is OP, then yes USF HT mortar and Ostheer HT mortar are OP as well. The problem here with the USF HT mortar is about a pure cheese strategy and counter cheese knowledge, if you don't know how to counter it, you'll be in trouble be if you do, that's basically a waste of fuel for the USF player.

Now let's be honest. What strategy is the most popular for Ostheer players on teamgame, I can see two and one rely on heavy usage of HMG42s and Mortars, especially when facing dual USF. When as USF I see two HMG42 and two Mortar for each Ostheer players, well I'm sorry but I push my Infantry commander button and call 2 mortar HTs to counter this shit. What do you think I'm suppose to do since RM don't have smoke anymore? Call an outranged mortar of my own only to deal smoke a one location when I need at least 3 smoke to be able to do something? And on the mean time I try to flank I lost 50% of my squads by lucky random Gw34 mortar hits? Or maybe build 3 RE squad that can't do shit without an weapon, weapon I can't buy if I spend my munition on smoke...
I didn't watch your replay but I could post my last 2vs2 game USF/USF vs Ostheer/Ostheer, an ugly mortar spam game yes it was, but without those half-track that would have been a one-side match.

Now you want to know how to counter USF HT mortar, it is easy build less mortar of your own and more... 222. 222 counter USF HT mortars like hell, build 2 or 3 and rush them with a sweeper close enough to detect mines. 2 or 3 HT mortars also mean less infantry on the field and one or two HMG.50 aren't going to stop you.

You have to be realistic, the problem is definitively not the USF mortar HT but mortars, all of them.

I don't really understand you point of comparison, USF early choice is based on fuel: ambu or T1 or T2 or rack unlock, not on munition. You can't really compare Ostheer and USF on this point.

On topic: if we agree that Ostheer mortar is OP, then yes USF HT mortar and Ostheer HT mortar are OP as well. The problem here with the USF HT mortar is about a pure cheese strategy and counter cheese knowledge, if you don't know how to counter it, you'll be in trouble be if you do, that's basically a waste of fuel for the USF player.

Now let's be honest. What strategy is the most popular for Ostheer players on teamgame, I can see two and one rely on heavy usage of HMG42s and Mortars, especially when facing dual USF. When as USF I see two HMG42 and two Mortar for each Ostheer players, well I'm sorry but I push my Infantry commander button and call 2 mortar HTs to counter this shit. What do you think I'm suppose to do since RM don't have smoke anymore? Call an outranged mortar of my own only to deal smoke a one location when I need at least 3 smoke to be able to do something? And on the mean time I try to flank I lost 50% of my squads by lucky random Gw34 mortar hits? Or maybe build 3 RE squad that can't do shit without an weapon, weapon I can't buy if I spend my munition on smoke...
I didn't watch your replay but I could post my last 2vs2 game USF/USF vs Ostheer/Ostheer, an ugly mortar spam game yes it was, but without those half-track that would have been a one-side match.

Now you want to know how to counter USF HT mortar, it is easy build less mortar of your own and more... 222. 222 counter USF HT mortars like hell, build 2 or 3 and rush them with a sweeper close enough to detect mines. 2 or 3 HT mortars also mean less infantry on the field and one or two HMG.50 aren't going to stop you.

You have to be realistic, the problem is definitively not the USF mortar HT but mortars, all of them.

I was just about to write somethin similar. THX for saving my time

You have to be realistic, the problem is definitively not the USF mortar HT but mortars, all of them.

the old soviet 82mm mortar was fine, before the flare change turned it into one of the best scout in the game.

personally I think autofire should be nerfed across the board with longer reload. Barrage ability should be left alone.

Lastly, the introduction of the tech tree USF mortar was a serious mistake. The USF didn't need a mortar early game and their mid-late game artillery is served by the pack howitzer.

snip

The comparison was meant to show how USF is not such a munition starved faction compared to Ostheer. Nothing more, nothing less. (Also I'd argue 10 fuel is pretty easy to obtain without delaying your tech by several minutes, the manpower might be the bigger issue if you get a lot of bleed in early engagements.)

Now for the Mortars part. I doubt there are a lot of people who'd disagree that the Ost mortar is in a peculiar spot right now. The strength of wehr is in theory in its strong support weapons so they have always been used in abundance though. (Not counting the gren spam meta when 100+ winstreaks in 1v1 were posssible)

Now for the support weapon counters. I'm not 100% sure is it possible to rush an M15 before 2 CPs but that is my preferred counter to support weapon play and crowd control. That nullifies light vehicles and can force a lot of retreats. Good kiting enables it to make a dent to a P2 even. Up until that point the mortar smoke will usually be enough (smoke barrage has good range so I prefer that over normal shells often with MGs) USF is also one of those factions that has serious issues dealing with certain strats, like sniper spam or mg spam especially on open maps so I get that fighting multiple MGs etc. can be frustrating as well. Personal experience included.

Now if you have .50 cals, an M15 and a bazooka squad you should be well covered for light vehicle rushes. 222s will fall quickly if an M15 starts focusing them and a few AT grenades are usually available and should be covering for the HTs anyway. Lets say in theory you would trade 3x 222 for 3x mortar HTs. That trade would be unfavorable and the odds are high a good player has the mortar HTs covered with an M15 or bazookas. Also you should be prepared to counter an all in push when using this strat since that is the best way to try and deal with it. If you can manage the push it should be clear sailing from that point on. I know there are a lot of players who also hesitate to do an all in push or try to back out of it resulting in huge losses with little gain. Many would rather try to try and keep the HTs away with paks and whatnot without possibly gambling the match in a single push.

There are as I said counters to this strat. It definitely requires good micro and familiarity with the build. (the replay shows how it can be pretty easy to counter it if the user is untrained or relies on cheap wins against most players, I just linked it as reference material) My intention on this thread is to try and see whether people think such meta is good or harmful for the overall gameplay experience.

The amount of indirect and its effect on gameplay would require a much larger thread with much more arguments, comparisons and reference material and I don't think I have the motivation for that so I prefer to keep the topic a bit more limited while still not forgetting other arty exists. (all I'm gonna say is that RNG has perhaps too big of an impact in artillery hits and RNG wipes can be very unforgiving and frustrating to deal with especially when/if they are caused with minimal player input and don't have that much to do with skill in some cases)

sniped

the Mortar HT is a doctrine unit limited to 1(?) USF doctrine, the one explicitly described as the artillery specialist.

doctrine are suppose to offer the faction option and strength not otherwise available to the faction, and in this case, a 80m range mortar. (and mortar in general, before the ill conceived mortar team)

the Mortar HT is a doctrine unit limited to 1(?) USF doctrine, ...

It now also available to mechanized so 2 doctrines.

Cost is also down to 30 fuel.

It now also available to mechanized so 2 doctrines.

Cost is also down to 30 fuel.

the auto fire on the USF mortar ht is actually a bit slower.

and if the cost is that much of a bother, just raise the cost back to 40 fuel.

the auto fire on the USF mortar ht is actually a bit slower.

and if the cost is that much of a bother, just raise the cost back to 40 fuel.

The unit should be less cost effective than Ostheer MHT the same way USF mortar less cost effective than Ostheer mortar.

It should also lose some acceleration since it almost double the Ostheer one.

The WP barrage (3 shots) in game seem to be more accurate than incendiary barrage (1) and thus more effective.

Now if you have .50 cals, an M15 and a bazooka squad you should be well covered for light vehicle rushes. 222s will fall quickly if an M15 starts focusing them and a few AT grenades are usually available and should be covering for the HTs anyway. Lets say in theory you would trade 3x 222 for 3x mortar HTs. That trade would be unfavorable and the odds are high a good player has the mortar HTs covered with an M15 or bazookas. Also you should be prepared to counter an all in push when using this strat since that is the best way to try and deal with it. If you can manage the push it should be clear sailing from that point on. I know there are a lot of players who also hesitate to do an all in push or try to back out of it resulting in huge losses with little gain. Many would rather try to try and keep the HTs away with paks and whatnot without possibly gambling the match in a single push.

You are talking about a lot of manpower and a lot of fuel just to counter 3 222. 222 and Mortar HT cost the same amount of fuel, so for any Mortar HT you can have a 222. Then if there is a HT covering them, that's 50 more fuel, then zook 15 more fuel. If you rush them with an army worse 700mp / 90fu, do not expect to win if in front of you there is a 1400mp / 150fu army to receive you.
At the end, micro with good decision making is going to decide who wins. If you face this strat for the first time, you lose indeed, but if you face for the first time someone who flank you, you'll probably lose as well.

Is the strat acceptable, yes, I never saw you complaining about the exact same strat with Ostheer available since years. It was the best strat vs UKF when they joined the game to break in a minute any defensive UKF player and it is still available and working fine in 4vs4.

In my opinion the success of this strat with USF isn't due to the mortar HT being OP, but being the only option left facing heavy support play.

Cost 222
250/30

Cost M21 MHT
200/30

Sacrificing 222s for M21s is not worth it.

I'd argue the Ost mortar ht is more powerful, since the incendiary rounds on that mortar actually kill, where the wp rounds do not. Cost of USF HT to 40 should not be a problem, not sure why it was made cheaper anyway.

Cost 222
250/30

Cost M21 MHT
200/30

Sacrificing 222s for M21s is not worth it.

You are the one talking about sacrificing units.

You are the one talking about sacrificing units.

If one drives his 222 in the mist of enemy units to kill a M21 and expect it to survive he is playing vs poor opponents.

If one drives his 222 in the mist of enemy units to kill a M21 and expect it to survive he is playing vs poor opponents.

If one does what you just say, he is the poor player. No surprise it comes from you.

If one does what you just say, he is the poor player. No surprise it comes from you.

I have no idea why you want to turn this into personal issue, but I really would rather not.

My level as a player is quite irrelevant to the balance of the m21 MHT.

You are talking about a lot of manpower and a lot of fuel just to counter 3 222. 222 and Mortar HT cost the same amount of fuel, so for any Mortar HT you can have a 222. Then if there is a HT covering them, that's 50 more fuel, then zook 15 more fuel. If you rush them with an army worse 700mp / 90fu, do not expect to win if in front of you there is a 1400mp / 150fu army to receive you.
At the end, micro with good decision making is going to decide who wins. If you face this strat for the first time, you lose indeed, but if you face for the first time someone who flank you, you'll probably lose as well.

Is the strat acceptable, yes, I never saw you complaining about the exact same strat with Ostheer available since years. It was the best strat vs UKF when they joined the game to break in a minute any defensive UKF player and it is still available and working fine in 4vs4.

In my opinion the success of this strat with USF isn't due to the mortar HT being OP, but being the only option left facing heavy support play.

I am pretty confident that unit composition is able to counter other units. Lemon has a good build that he had seemingly good results with so I will not copypasta the entire thing when you can read it yourself here https://www.coh2.org/topic/66462/2v2-usf-infantry-company I personally prefer the M15 build because I feel that it gives me a safe zone to work around with and pull back to while being good at supporting pushes as well. The build was done before the December patch but most USF units in the build weren't affected by that except the slight toning down of the Mortar HT. I am positive that this strat is still very viable to do and will yield acceptable results.

And now the part I dislike in balance discussions the most: personality politics. First of all I don't think I'm complaining. I have not made a single demand to nerf the Mortar HT to oblivion because I can't beat the cheese strat. The replay alone shows that is false. I want to see the consensus about how people feel about it, nothing more and nothing less while trying to show how flexible the build can be.
I have repeated this fact several times by now and I'm starting to think its falling on deaf ears.
I will still criticize counterarguments and make them myself but that is definitely not complaining. It's called debating. And if you look closely you will also notice I have never complained about the Infinite Vickers Range Bug, USF bulletin stack nor Gliders that could instakill OKW HQs. I wonder what conclusions we can draw from this. A simple minded person might say I have not bothered to post that much in the past and quote me on my previous reply that I wanted to keep this topic a bit more limited so that focus point would not get too large to make a fleshed out argument in acceptable time constraints. (If I'd want to make a good thread about the indirect in coh that would probably take several hours for the initial post so that it would contain all the things and perspectives a good argument requires and so that it would meet my personal standards)

If one does what you just say, he is the poor player. No surprise it comes from you.

And please do not make this thread a personal fight between people, that adds absolutely 0 (zero, nil, nothing) value to this discussion and will only get this topic derailed and devolved. If you don't have an objective answer that has something to add to the discussion and have to rely on calling out certain people take it to private chat.