Give UKF mortar emplacement a minor fuel cost
6 Jun 2019, 02:05 AM
#1
Posts: 18
One thing i've noticed quite a bit playing against UKF in team games is that they'll build (or start building) a mortar pit near the frontline, cause you a bit of a headache while you take it out, and then immediately rebuild it 5 feet back. I don't think that the emplacement has any major balance issues regarding its effectiveness, but I do think that the time and effort it takes to knock one out (even in a best case scenario where you get it relatively quickly with an AT gun or flame HT) is in no way comparable to the paltry loss of 350 MP this inflicts on UKF, because MP even in 2v2 is so plentiful it just doesn't matter. To that end, mortar emplacements should have an added cost of 15 fuel which isn't a major problem for the first emplacement but will, at the least, be a moderate tax by the 2nd emplacement on teching and bringing out tanks. This also has the effect of bringing it in line with the other UKF emplacements that do cost fuel.
6 Jun 2019, 02:30 AM
#2
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
Sorry but you asking brit Pay fuel for indirect support ?
6 Jun 2019, 02:36 AM
#3
Posts: 18
Sorry but you asking brit Pay fuel for indirect support ?
I'm asking the brits to pay fuel for an emplacement.
6 Jun 2019, 02:39 AM
#4
Posts: 2358
They cost a lot of MP already. Fuel only will delay teching and a much needed AEC or cromwell. Even in teamgames mortar pits are a risky bet. OKW can counter them with LEIGs and FHQ.
UKF mortar emplacement is to counter barrage other indirect fire and protect other empacements, and they are not the best at it currently.
UKF mortar emplacement is to counter barrage other indirect fire and protect other empacements, and they are not the best at it currently.
6 Jun 2019, 02:39 AM
#5
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
Anyone pay fuel for a mortar?
6 Jun 2019, 02:51 AM
#6
Posts: 2358
Anyone pay fuel for a mortar?
OST, SU, OKW and UKF (because of teching/buildings tho)
6 Jun 2019, 03:10 AM
#7
Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1
They should go through with the idea they had in an old preview, where you could build a pit with just one mortar, and upgrade it to two. I don't see why a fuel cost should be added though
6 Jun 2019, 03:33 AM
#8
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
OST, SU, OKW and UKF (because of teching/buildings tho)
Pay fuel for the unit itself.
6 Jun 2019, 03:34 AM
#9
Posts: 18
They cost a lot of MP already. Fuel only will delay teching and a much needed AEC or cromwell. Even in teamgames mortar pits are a risky bet. OKW can counter them with LEIGs and FHQ.
UKF mortar emplacement is to counter barrage other indirect fire and protect other empacements, and they are not the best at it currently.
350MP is a mortar and a half, while the emplacement gives 2 with more health. Leigs also don't outrange mortar emplacements so they aren't actually a perfect counter, but more importantly, why are you forgetting ostheer? As you said, fuel will delay teching and tanks, as it should if you are constantly rebuilding them. 15 fuel alone is a delay, but not a huge one.
6 Jun 2019, 03:38 AM
#10
Posts: 18
Anyone pay fuel for a mortar?
The mortar emplacement isn't just a mortar, don't be disingenuous. It has the range of field artillery like leigs and packs, and has two mortars firing simultaneously. It also can't be decrewed or shot down by infantry rifles. I'm not saying this to imply it's OP, i'm saying this because it is clearly very different from the mobile mortars and field arty of the other factions, and thus giving it a fuel cost is not somehow making UKF pay fuel for the same thing everyone else gets with just mp.
6 Jun 2019, 03:50 AM
#11
Posts: 1220 | Subs: 1
All of the range, 2 gun and health of the pit is off set by the fact that it is stationary, required constant protection, micro and repair. It is different but after all, still is a basic tool, pay fuel for basis tool.
6 Jun 2019, 04:04 AM
#12
Posts: 18
All of the range, 2 gun and health of the pit is off set by the fact that it is stationary, required constant protection, micro and repair. It is different but after all, still is a basic tool, pay fuel for basis tool.
Every static building requires some level of protection and repair, and every single one (besides defensive doctrine concrete bunker, which is an odd outlier) requires either fuel or muni. Mortar pit also doesn't really need to be micro'd except versus leigs and maybe a brace if things get bad; it does just fine on auto-fire for anything in range. It's not a basic tool for UKF, they have other options and in 1v1 mortar pit can often see no play at all. It should be brought in line with other emplacements. and fact is, 350mp is just not a large cost by any means.
6 Jun 2019, 09:06 AM
#13
Posts: 591 | Subs: 1
What a great idea
Make the brits pay even more for their limited, unretreatable, easily countered, static indirect
[/rampant sarcasm]
Make the brits pay even more for their limited, unretreatable, easily countered, static indirect
[/rampant sarcasm]
6 Jun 2019, 09:21 AM
#14
Posts: 935
Brits must have normal movable mortars
6 Jun 2019, 09:47 AM
#15
Posts: 18
What a great idea
Make the brits pay even more for their limited, unretreatable, easily countered, static indirect
[/rampant sarcasm]
Lets not shed any tears for the equivalent of 2 static pack howitzers for 350 MP. The mortar pit is by no means a bad investment, as long as you know the right situations to use it. It should still cost something rather than nothing to lose, though.
Brits must have normal movable mortars
They will, in their new commander.
6 Jun 2019, 10:11 AM
#16
Posts: 591 | Subs: 1
Lets not shed any tears for the equivalent of 2 static pack howitzers for 350 MP. The mortar pit is by no means a bad investment, as long as you know the right situations to use it. It should still cost something rather than nothing to lose, though.
They will, in their new commander.
Oh good. Brits can now pick exactly 2 commanders to have access to the basic tools every other army enjoys as standard, like convenient smoke and an indirect unit that can actually support your fights ratber than sit on one spot forever. Diversity in gameplay in action, folks. Clearly we learned a lot from the last few years of CoH2.
I also don't know what you think a pack howitzer is and does, but the mortar pit hasn't had a 10lb heavy shell barrage since the UKF beta. The mortar rounds do mortar round damage.
It can't retreat and it can't preserve its vet because of it. It shouldn't cost fuel until the UKF design is adjusted to compensate for the massive gaping weaknesses that its strong units have to comoensate for.
6 Jun 2019, 10:27 AM
#17
Posts: 18
Oh good. Brits can now pick exactly 2 commanders to have access to the basic tools every other army enjoys as standard, like convenient smoke and an indirect unit that can actually support your fights ratber than sit on one spot forever. Diversity in gameplay in action, folks. Clearly we learned a lot from the last few years of CoH2.
I also don't know what you think a pack howitzer is and does, but the mortar pit hasn't had a 10lb heavy shell barrage since the UKF beta. The mortar rounds do mortar round damage.
It can't retreat and it can't preserve its vet because of it. It shouldn't cost fuel until the UKF design is adjusted to compensate for the massive gaping weaknesses that its strong units have to comoensate for.
You're absolutely right that the UKF as a faction should not exist because everything about their design is horrible, but as long as they do exist, mortar pits should be rewarding to take out, not meaningless. Also, I don't know what you think a pack howitzer is, because vet barrage aside mortars, packs/leigs, and mortar emplacement do the exact same damage.
6 Jun 2019, 10:30 AM
#18
Posts: 1096
they'll build (or start building) a mortar pit near the frontline, cause you a bit of a headache
There are some issues deserving of a balance thread. This is not one of them.
6 Jun 2019, 10:35 AM
#19
Posts: 18
There are some issues deserving of a balance thread. This is not one of them.
Oh sorry, would you rather I rephrase it as "has the potential to completely force back your defense if you don't deal with it, and if you do deal with it, they'll just rebuild it 5 feet back because losing some manpower is meaningless"? Because I can be more dramatic if that's what you want, like the other posts in the balance forum that will cry that everything is either singlehandedly game-winning OP or completely useless in every situation UP.
6 Jun 2019, 13:23 PM
#20
Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2
You're absolutely right that the UKF as a faction should not exist because everything about their design is horrible, but as long as they do exist, mortar pits should be rewarding to take out, not meaningless. Also, I don't know what you think a pack howitzer is, because vet barrage aside mortars, packs/leigs, and mortar emplacement do the exact same damage.
Same potential damage, but they have different AoE profiles and radius which makes their performance change drastically.
Pack Howie basically has a 50% range increase in each of the damage drop off distances (1.5/3/4.5 vs 1/2/3) while also having a slight bigger AoE radius (5 vs 4). The drop off is important, cause that small value change makes it have basically double the area of effect for doing the maximum damage.
Same with say the Leig but in the opposite direction, as it has half of the drop off value as other normal mortars. But it "works", kinda, cause it's more accurate and firing faster.
The mortar pit at 85 range on auto attack, has limited use which is perfect since only the barrage has retained a bit of it's previous range.
My controls weren't working
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
And if they were, you were playing dishonorably,
And if you weren't, you were playing without skill,
And if you were, it's not fun to play that way,
And if it is, you only care about winning.
Bible of Scrublord, Psalt 3:16.
1 user is browsing this thread:
1 guest
Livestreams
 |
|
|
29 | ||
|
|
|
|
9 | ||
 |
|
|
25 | ||
|
|
|
|
20 | ||
 |
|
|
18 | ||
|
|
|
|
6 | ||
|
|
|
|
3 | ||
 |
|
|
2 | ||
 |
|
|
1 | ||
|
|
|
|
1 |
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.600215.736+15
- 3.34957.860+14
- 4.1107614.643+8
- 5.305114.728+1
- 6.916405.693-2
- 7.273108.717+24
- 8.722440.621+4
- 9.1041674.607-2
- 10.17146.788+1
Data provided by
Relic Entertainment
Relic Entertainment
Replay highlight
VS
-
cblanco ★ -
보드카 중대
-
VonManteuffel -
Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1234
Board Info
981 users are online:
981 guests
0 post in the last 24h
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
8 posts in the last week
37 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49103
Welcome our newest member, 77betgratis
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, 77betgratis
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM