Profile of adamírcz

Jump back to quoted post14 Aug 2017, 23:52 PMLoopDloop

I put this in balance but I'm more just wanting to have a discussion than actually move towards asking for changes or anything like that.

Theoretically, mortars (and other mortar-y like indirect fire options) are meant to counter static play right? Or at least work in tandem with hmgs to suppress and then shell helpless infantry. So why are most of them (poor soviets) so freaking good at killing lots and lots of mainline infantry just on autofire? I think the worst offenders are of course the mortar pit (the worst the worst) and ostheer mortar, as they are both really accurate with a relatively high rate of fire (or really high for the pit) on autofire, but other options are still very lethal as well.

On top of this, they don't really require a lot of micro to kill stuff unless you're actually using them in their intended role, countering static play and other indirect fire, since most of them (rip usf) have pretty long autofire ranges and will usually be able to shell infantry on the front lines while still being very safe from said infantry.

I just kind of want to hear other people's views on these points, I'm not going on a witch hunt to nerf all indirect fire.

Jump back to quoted post5 Aug 2017, 22:30 PMTiger Baron

If you still want to play with entrenched mortars that's also fine: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=679152285

Thing is if this was implemented most of the British players that want mobile mortars would be also covered.

If you want to continue like until now you're free to do that as well.

Jump back to quoted post5 Aug 2017, 14:00 PMSturmpanther

I know in the Poll are Both moscau, Hamlet and Across the Rhein missing.

There is a Reason. So pls do your 3 Votes in each poll 1.

(Because i think its not possible that people have more Votes for a poll on this forum)