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. |
That approach will not solve the issue that allied TD are very effective vs ALL vehicles.
Imo one should be more creative. One should test creating 2 set of rounds and use them to balance Super heavy tank and medium tanks separately. Unit meant to Counter Super heavies could have access to "AP rounds" with accuracy, penetration and ROF design vs those units , while normal round with characteristics better suited vs mediums tanks.
One could ever take a bit further increasing the target size of Super heavies (maybe decreasing of other vehicles also) so that thing become easier to balance. Finally one can create more interesting profile for vehicles and create a "flanker" clash that would benefit the most from engaging enemy units close.
If you want to be more creative, then here's an idea: panthers should be removed from the game altogether, except maybe as expensive, limited doctrinal units. Then give ost non-doctrinal tiger like OKW gets (but limit them to 1 heavy, so no tiger and elefant at the same time) because, ironically, tigers are easier to take out than panthers are because of how slow they move and fire. If you want allies to stop spamming TDs, then remove the unit that forces them do to so in the first place. |
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. |
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. |
Sorry but you asking brit Pay fuel for indirect support ?
I'm asking the brits to pay fuel for an emplacement. |
Easy8/M10/The new Sherman76 are more than enough if handled correctly, sure on some cases the cost effective ratio turns around, you end up paying more than axis tanks to beat them, but hey, its a start at least.
Except the problem is that all of those solutions are doctrinal. Does USF really need their medium counters hidden behind commanders? |
|
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. |
|
Here's a thought: maybe the game shouldn't be designed so that Panthers invalidate all Allied medium tanks, while Soviets and USF have absolutely nothing that invalidate Axis medium tanks besides doctrinal heavies. (PIVs can and do solo a SU-85 by running circles around it, and two PIVs can and do beat a single jackson or firefly) And, as has been said, maybe USF shouldn't have literally zero AT options besides the Jackson. (remember, HVAP shells on their AT guns requires vet, much like their snares do. these are not a counter.) |
Relic Entertainment
cblanco ★ 
보드카 중대 
VonManteuffel 
Heartless Jäger 
