Small change to brittish hammer tactics

Why do some players think a non doc howitzer is a good design choice? Seriously? It's probably hands down the worst suggestion ever put forth yet people still keep asking....

Why do some players think a non doc howitzer is a good design choice? Seriously? It's probably hands down the worst suggestion ever put forth yet people still keep asking....

Yeah that surprises me too.

Its a better plan than the UKF's original design, with no indirect besides a rifle grenade range base howitzer that's only even any good after teching twice and picking Anvil

Given no UK rocket truck exists, the Sexton or Land Mattress is the closest thing we have.

Not like it seems to matter. Given the chance to fix some of the hideous design of the brits the team doing the commander patch decided to just nerf the UC and call it a day.

add top mounted MG in hammer tactic

Its a better plan than the UKF's original design, with no indirect besides a rifle grenade range base howitzer that's only even any good after teching twice and picking Anvil

Given no UK rocket truck exists, the Sexton or Land Mattress is the closest thing we have.

Not like it seems to matter. Given the chance to fix some of the hideous design of the brits the team doing the commander patch decided to just nerf the UC and call it a day.

The pit now functions like a mini (and much cheaper) static howitzer but people can't be bothered to put the micro in to barrage because they are so used to the pit playing itself. Same "issue" with the pak howi. Great and devistating barrage but nobody wants to put in micro anymore.

Change the garrison bonus to slightly increased barrage range when garrisoned and add increased barrage range instead of durability in the pits vet and it won't be an issue. Hell, add the pit barrage into the flares as well to make em a bit more attractive. The short auto fire lends itself to taking away the micro on defense but there ain't nothing wrong it needing barrage for offensive operations.

But straight up a non doc sexton is literally the last thing this game needs.

In what way is the lack of mobile indirect somehow addressed by the mortar pit?

The shortest range static emplacement going? Key word static?

And how is a sexton somehow worse than a non doc Katty or Stuka or Werfer available already?

The brits lack any way to bring the indirect firepower that team games downright necessitate and range is literally the most important factor for static howitzers in those situations.

A mortar pit is not a solution to needing on demand smokes. A mortar pit is not something you can use with your army on flanks or pushes. Mortar rounds do not have the single burst damage or area saturation needed to break up a defensive line.

Given that no UKF rocket truck model exists and apparently just giving them a mortar the exact same way the USF got one for the exact same historical problem, we're going to have to rely on the Sexton.

"The brits lack any way to bring the indirect firepower that team games downright necessitate and range is literally the most important factor for static howitzers in those situations."

Box, base howitzers have unlimited range (essentially) but, their mode of employment limits their usefulness. Fixing that issue would go a long way to solving the artillery issue for the Brits. Adding artillery flares to commandos and command tanks would be one way to do it, as would adding them to the 81 mm mortar as a veteran ability.

This would be a doctrinal "fix" but, it would cover 6 doctrines. That would allow for a lot of variety in play-styles.

Artillery flares on more units does not address the fact you have to get into flare throwing range to drop it and stay there long enough to fling the stick

It does not bring smoke

It has no way to gain veterancy and improve with use and preservation

It has a single cooldown timer so there is no way to ever invest more to bring more than one piece of indirect


At least putting it onto the 81mm would help, but that's hardly going to address the fundemental flaws in the UKF toolkit.

It doesn't need to be mobile if it has the range. I'm saying ensure it has solid range ON BARRAGE so it's not overbearing as an autofire cancer pit like it was. It's range is already substantial for 1s maps, even some 2s can make good use of the barrage range. Increasing that with a garrison hardly seems unreasonable. It's primary role is clearing garrisons and deploying smoke anyways so as long as that is a possibility I see no reason it HAS to be mobile.
The pit should be built with its autofire range being your line in the sand. The barrage allows to to apply pressure to the front line and its auto fire provides overwatch when the enemy pushes. That's a much better design that is in line with the brits own design.

I'd suggest that hammer teching allows for tank commanders to call in the arty flare as well as the squads that do now, but upgrade it to a "Victor target" type brrahe that includes the pits as well. It then allows the brits to have a concentrated barrage to fuck up hard points on the assault.

To keep air burst unique I'd allow it to apply Supression so that it's not overshadowed by Victor target and still suits the defensive nature of anvil.

There's no way you can make a purely stationary emplacement sufficient for all games modes. If it works on the largest 2v2 maps, never mind the 4v4, it will totally saturate the map in 1v1. And for an expensive static late game howitzer, that is fine. For an early game autofiring mortar it is not.

Mobility is important because the units have to be able to move with a front line.
Mobility is important because preserving veterancy on your indirect requires an ability to retreat when a flame barrage round lands on you.
Mobility is important because on big maps no unit in the game has a range that spans the entire area of a map you could potentially fight on.

Mortar pits are not a viable replacement for mobile indirect because mobility is crucial to their functionality, not an optional extra. No range on a static post will ever be viable in the extremes of 1v1 to 4v4 in the way that a mobile mortar is.

Even the size sifference on some 1v1 maps make a barrage that could support both flanks on the largest straight up overshoot the enemy base on the smallest.

Box, I don't think there is a way to "fix" the issue in the way you seem to have in mind without redesigning the faction completely.

The simplest "fix" would be to add a new unit to their core roster, such as a pack howitzer, but I think you'd find a lot of resistance to that idea (both from the design team and other players).

A solution I've liked since CoH1 is allowing all emplacements to be scuttled but, that idea never seems to gain any traction and I'm sick of trying to push it uphill.

I think doctrinal "fixes" are the most likely to be accepted. The one I suggested above would make the affected doctrines quite powerful because, most of them already have off-map arty items.

Smoke is a different issue and it's probably easiest to fix by giving one of the infantry variants a smoke grenade. It's not a cure-all but, it would make a big difference.

Darkarmadillo, I didn't get what you meant the first time I read it but, if you meant that all British Tank Commanders could use Arty Flares, I am all for it.

I love the idea of drive-by artillery barrages!

You can't ensure any unit is viable in all game modes. B4 howitzers are making a comeback in team games but I've never seen one in 1s since they lost the ftml and precision barrage nerfs. Relic has stated in the past that all balance decisions are based first and foremost around 1v1 as that mode is the easiest to balance due to a lack of unintended synergy. Extreme cases are of course addressed.

Mobility isn't critical if the design accounts for that. Ideally the pit will be placed far enough back that direct conflict over it means a massive loss of ground or a risky dive from the enemy and has enough health unvetted to survive a sturmtiger rocket without even accounting for brace. A single flame barrage will not end the pit.

You seem to be missing that I only want it's extreme range to apply to the barrage, which is frankly lack luster. It's enough to force the enemy to move but isn't game winning in and of itself. What's more, since I'm suggesting locking the extra range behind a garrison you are looking at around 500mp to be able to barrage into base, with a mortar,which at any decent range will be incredibly unreliable. Maybe there will be a strat of force retreat, garrison the pit and barrage base in the hope for a wipe but I really don't see it.

Mobility isn't required if the unit can, under the proper circumstances, do what it's supposed to which is apply smoke and pressure static positions. The issue lies in being able to apply constant pressure without any actual work from the player. If the pit as able to more or less call in smoke wherever needed I don't see a reason it HAS to be mobile. Similarly to the barrage. It's just a matter of ensuring its not overbearing as a constant thing, which is why I think being hid behind garrison is an interesting route since it allows it to punch above its price point as long as its price point is artificially raised.

Keep in mind that the old mortar pit was plenty viable in all modes, too much so. I fail to see how simply gating that power (or more power even) behind micro is the end of the world.

RE adding a mortar to the UKF as stock:
This is literally exactly what they did for the USF. And the USF have T0 available smoke grenades that comr with your starting unit, not a unit locked behind tech that you then need to also buy.


RE the mortar pit barrage:
Unless you give the pit a pack up and move option it will never replicate what a mobile mortar does. Mobile mortars scale to any game mode because you can move them with your force. A static pit is garbage on a big map once the fight shifts.
Giving them a massive barrage range is just slapping a band aid on the problem that also means you can always barrage your opponent's base as soon as they retreat. If the cooldown is quick enough to allow a stationaty pit to replicate a short range non doc mortar its borderline abuse to base sectors.
Not to mention that stationaty emplacements mean after they fire once your opponenent always knows whwre itis and can plan accordingly, unlike mobile weapon teams. Its the same problem the vickers has with trench based vet bonuses. Static play is bad and should be discluraged. Even a static line shoupd be repositioning units to remain protected from blindfire and catch pushes off guard. Why you want to further encourage a literal pit in the ground baffles me.

I'm trying to come up with a way to fix a poolydesiged unit without removing it entirely because they're not a fan of that. Usf got their mobile mortar because they didn't have a an early option aside from echoing grenades for garrisons. Brits have the wasp, arty flares and the pit. Each has their merits. Minimal changes is the more likley changes.

As for the enemy always knowing where it is, unless you let them get in range with their own mortars a long range barrage revealing the pit won't be an issue. Howitzers reveal themselves every time they shoot and are actually even squishier as a single off map can kill them outright, the same is not true with the pit the only way I can see the pit remaining and being useful at all is to treat it like a lite howitzer. Again, if it's required to be garrisoned to be able to have a longer barrage range than now that alone will limit the effectiveness of it by ting up additional pop cap and squad to be able to do it. Or they should reintroduce the multiple mortar shells. That would be ideal tbh but they were removed and here we are.

What ever happened to the individual mortar pit idea? In a preview a while back they had the option of building a pit with 1 mortar (250mp i wanna say it was?) You could then upgrade it to have 2 and the upgrade equalled the full cost (400 at the time).

Not sure on the specifics beyond that, but at least in concept it allowed much more flexibility. Though perhaps there were other issues that were the reason it was removed

What ever happened to the individual mortar pit idea? In a preview a while back they had the option of building a pit with 1 mortar (250mp i wanna say it was?) You could then upgrade it to have 2 and the upgrade equalled the full cost (400 at the time).

Not sure on the specifics beyond that, but at least in concept it allowed much more flexibility. Though perhaps there were other issues that were the reason it was removed

That was the preview that was pretty much universally loved but trashed because it changed too much eh? (the one where pgrens had mark target and stuff?)
My guess is that the devs still want their own vision of the game without it just becoming a community thing. Idk.

But pit aside I think letting the panzer commander call in the base arty might be enough to make hammer a smidge more attractive. I always thought that the okw commander and the brit one should have been swapped; the brit one should have the arty strike and and okw should have had the increased vet gain and accuracy but it is what it is.

That was the preview that was pretty much universally loved but trashed because it changed too much eh? (the one where pgrens had mark target and stuff?)
My guess is that the devs still want their own vision of the game without it just becoming a community thing. Idk.

Yup pretty sure it had the price premiums for all the call-ins too. It seemed like they might revisit some of those changes, since they thought it was too much for one patch.

I never got to try the mortar pit idea out before it was removed, but that seems worth trying again. It allows you to keep the emplacement style of the unit while also making it more flexible.

That was the preview that was pretty much universally loved but trashed because it changed too much eh? (the one where pgrens had mark target and stuff?)

Pretty sure that was the preview that was trashed because it had a really low approval rating from the community, based on polls (read: not universally loved).

Pretty sure that was the preview that was trashed because it had a really low approval rating from the community, based on polls (read: not universally loved).

I don't recall any poll tbh. The discussion on the official forum was all praise however it did contain things that I'm sure people here might not have been fans of like punishing stalling for call in cheese.