It is a RTS game, that's the way it is. I stated that the mortar even is an exception because every unit needs some kind of babysitting. The mortar was IMO never meant to fire at every single soldier it sees. Just see it from a Rock Paper Scissor point of view:
Mortar: Rock
Support weapons: Scissors
Infantry: Paper
The mortar (Rock) is meant to counter Supports (Scissors) and should die from Inf (Paper). But currently the Rock simply hammers against Scissors AND Paper and can mostly only be countered by other Rocks, which should not be the case. You have to face MGs and PaKs and you have to maneuver your inf through the battlefield. How hard would it be to tell your mortar to "barrage this MG here"?
The casuals just wanna play, they don't wanna micro manage every single unit by telling it where and when to fire.
As I said, it's the same with all support weapons currently EXCEPT indirect fire units. By your logic, a PaK should place its cone to where a tank will appear if it is visible on the minimap. Same for MGs. But that's not the case. A mortar automatically barrages the last position, an enemy soldier was seen. Why doesn't the PaK automatically face the last tank that has been seen too?
The arty pieces are enough of a headache as it is and most people often forget about them so it will be no different with the mortara.
If somebody forgets his Katy or Stuka then it is his own fault. Don't invest in a unit you don't use.
Sorry but all your points state are just some kind of "lazy logic". While removing auto barrages would add bit more micro to the game, it would also make the game way less hectic. In my opinion all the RNG wipes and losses from auto barrages require much more micro because your units are being under fire and dying all the time without any further micro investment from your enemy.
I've read this idea a lot of times but I think it might help to fix some of the major issues of current meta.
Somehow mortars seem to be the only "intelligent" unit in the game. Just think about it: MGs don't turn automatically when being flanked, neither do PaKs. Also other artillery like the LeFH (German artillery emplacement) doesn't shoot on its own.
So why are mortars an exception? They automatically attack everything in their range and stack more kills than usual infantry. That's why I thought, why not removing the auto barrage from them completely?
I would like to see mortars and artillery as what they are concepted to be: To handle support teams, to clear buildings and to provide smoke for your inf to advance.
My suggestions:
Remove auto barrage from Mortars and Howitzers
Give mortars a bit more range to compensate
Reduce the cooldown from the barrages to about 50% to smallen the time the mortar won't fire
Make barrages a bit more precise (about 10%) to compensate for the lack of auto fire, also more damage against units in buildings.
Maybe even add the possibility to define up to three points that will be barraged one after the other in one barrage, exactly like a single barrage but less shots per barrage location (3 shots per single target)
With this the mortars can still fulfill their role (even a bit better with the barrage buffs) while not being a stupid "buy-and-forget" unit.
Mortar Pits would also be balanced as they have double the fire power but cannot move. The emplacement is currently too strong because Brit players can build it somewhere safe and it bleeds the enemy automatically. This would be the case anymore.
I still have the images in my head from WFA release where P47 was the ability that killed everything in its circle in seconds. That's why I never even tried to test it out how strong it is currently. If I hear those planes and see the red circle on the map, I am going to evacuate as fast as possible.
Tbh, I am no professional player but play the game and its predecessor since release.
But if I want to have a relaxed game, I usually play as Brits. If I want to win, I don't build emplacements, Brits offer a lot of stuff to win, which is also better.
But if I don't care wether to win or not, I play 2v2 random with the heavy emplacement doctrine. 1 Inf section, 1 MG, 1 or 2 pioneers, the rest goes out for mortars and more. I kind of like the age of empires feeling behind that.
If I don't win the game in 20-30 minutes I am going to lose almost every time. But it's just so much fun.
That all factions receive the same kind of friendly fire should be a no brainer in my opinion. The allies having less ff values doesn't make sense mostly because allies have much more indirect fire options.
Axis: LeIG, Mortar, Stuka, Panzerwerfer, LeFH
Allies: Mortar Pit, USF Mortar, Sov Light Mortar, Sov Heavy Mortar, Pak Howie, UKF Base Howitzers, Sov "normal" Howitzer, Sov B4 Howitzer, M8 Scott, Calliope, Katyusha
The biggest problem of the game currently is that unit preservation is made unnecessarily hard because of all the indirect stuff flying around. Every team game usually has at least 2 LeIGs, a mortar for each faction that can buy one, a mortar pit (double round) and in the End a Katy, Stuka or a Panzerwerfer.
It's just way easier to build a lot of indirect fire because it requires almost no micro to kill stuff and vet up. The only thing you have to do is bring the mortar in position and retreat/brace if it is being attacked. Inf meanwhile needs a lot of micro - flanking, climbing over stuff, seek for cover, etc.
If players realized that their own artillery can fuck up their own units too, I think it wouldn't be so obvious to invest so much MP in indirect fire options. Currently it's just like 'Oh, I am massing a lot of MP? Let's build a LeIG or two', that's stupid. The most annoying thing for me when playing as Allies is the LeIG. The most annoying thing for me when playing as Axis is the mortar pit. Nothing else is turning down the fun for me so much as these two indirect fire possibilites.
Artillery should be used to counter support teams, such as MGs, PaKs and units in buildings. Don't know if I just wasn't good enough, but I never saw a problem in indirect fire (besides Scheldt) in vCoH. At least for mortars. If you simply barrage enemy lines while being able to storm them at the same time with your inf, it is not good. Why use mortar smoke ever?
I know the facts I stated are not as much related to friendly fire as other posts in this thread, but hopefully friendly fire could also make indirect fire spam a bit less.
IMHO IS-2 must be equal to KT from effectiveness (KT nondoctrinal, while IS-2 only few doctrines).
Keep in mind that you need AT LEAST 470 Fuel and 1320 MP for one single KT.
(All Buildings + 720MP / 270 Fuel per KT)
The IS2 can (theoretically) be called in for it's 560MP / 230 Fuel cost (I am not sure about those stats, but they are about right).
Sovs could theoretically play a Heavy T2 (I know, the maxim sucks, but still) with Cons Spam and AT guns and survive the game waiting for the IS-2. This will cost them about 250 Fuel in total (about half of the cost of one KT). Meanwhile OKW will have a way heavier time countering light and medium armor with Raketenwerfers and Panzerschreck Pioneers alone.
The IS-2 is currently fine in my opinion. If it receives a damage increase, it should get the same armor as the Tiger IMO.
Sure its damage output is worse than the Tiger's but there is no tank I connect with bouncing shells as much as the IS2. Even the King Tiger feels less bouncy.
So IMO the IS2 is the better 'defensive' heavy that can withstand a lot of shots while the Tiger is better and dealing damage while also melting like butter.
And best MG, best AT, best sniper, best light vehicles...
and everything else is above average.
Wow, just pull your head out of your allied biased ass.
A lot of people in this thread have busted you with proper stats knowledge and still you are simply whining about how OP Ost is. No reason to go on with other things only to get your butt kicked again.
Germany
Antarctica
highfiveee
Floris
highfiveee
HighFive
Relic Entertainment
