Profile of Bohewulf

The AoE range being reduced 17% is the damage reduction. The lethal explosion radius has been reduced.



The m2 60mm mortar already exists in the game assets. It was decided that cloning the Ostheer 81mm mortar was the way to go instead.

This might be so. But as we see the cloning was a bad decision. It just didnt work. And we now constantly (and rightly) move the stats away from the 80mm version toward the 60mm mortar version. So I think it is not at all unreasonable to revive the idea of using the already existing M2 60mm - or, if it turns out being too weak (which I highly doubt) a buffed version of the M2 instead of using a nerfed 80mm version.

USF mortar

The USF mortar is still very lethal, given the early-game strength of the faction it is in, as well as the characteristics of the opposing factions. To keep things fair and unique, we are further reducing the raw damage (and range) in exchange for mobility. Thus, the USF mortar, like all mortars in the game, will have a particular area it excels in, and it will better fit the theme of the faction.

Cost reduced from 260MP to 240MP
Near AoE distance further reduced from 0.9 to 0.75
Pack-up time improved from 1.9 to 1.1

-------------------------------------------

Just wondering, you surely missed to mention the damage and range reduction, right? Because all what is mentioned as game data are BUFFS.


I would agree that an US mortar with less range and damage but better moblity should be our aim. It was planned as such in the beginning after all.

Depending on how far we go this road we should also consider renaming this little thing to its historical counterpart, the M2 Mortar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_mortar

We tried some fancy variations, like higher speed, lower range for less damage, etc.

In the end, we decided that since the USF mortar has been causing issues for so long, we should go for a super-conservative design. Thus, we mirrored a mortar design that works and nerfed it down from there.

We did try some fancy variations (e.g., lower damage, lower range, but higher reload). In the end, we decided that this wouldn't stop the community from seeing ghosts and pointing the finger, as they have already been doing with Miragefla all those months. Stuff like "Oh, the USF mortar is still OP/better than the OST mortar", or "Now the USF mortar is crap. Back to 3-rifles, guys".

Let me recap as I am still wondering:

The US mortar came into discussing to tackle MG positions as it was claimed that US suffers problems in that regard, namely to counter crowd control (the issue was not about support damage). The idea therefore was to add a small mortar, probably based around the historical 60mm M2, primarily for giving the US faction some smoke screen capability as this little thing would obviously be lower in damage and range than any other mortar ingame.

What then happened was the introduction of a laser guided atomic murder mortar even stronger than the OT one. Now we are scaling back which is more than necessary. But we seem to forget that a fully 80mm mortar has never been the orginal intention. Now, we are being offered a copy/paste 80mm mortar with only slightly worse characteristics than the OT one without questioning the necessity of a full scale 80mm US mortar in the first place.

The aim should be a 60mm light mobile mortar at T0, obviously with smoke capabilty, but less range and damage compared to 80mm or 120mm mortars as it was originally planned but never tested.

How many other allied tanks need to be around for giving a vet 1 sherman the bonus of RadioNet Ii and Iii?


Is it as follows?

Radionet I = 1 allied tank around
Radionet II = 2 allied tank around
Radionet III = 3 allied tank around

It seems to me that there is still some underestimation of the problem: The susceptibility of 4-man squads to wipes does not only lead to a higher manpower bleed. In addition, it also means that 4-man squads "level" indirectly much slower (due to being wiped more often).

It is no coincidence that in an average game you will find vet3 units among allied inf much more often than among German 4-man squads.

So there really is nothing to argue. The 4-man squad is a huge disadvantage, the slightly better rec_accuracy value does in no way balance this. The question is: Is this disadvantage justified or is it not.