mortar change?

[Jasondunkel]

do we want to add the units here into small mobile units with light damage and large heavy ones with very heavy damage.

the Germans had e.g

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_cm_M%C3%B6rser_18

for me it is actually a normal artillery but it is seen specifically as a mortar

[Dahdee]

When we were discussing mortars before, I'm thinking of smaller man portable units.

I'm thinking units like that, which were towed by truck or horse belong under the general designation "artillery". As would seige mortars and coastal defense mortars that are built in place or mainly immobile.

[DreJaDe]

do we want to add the units here into small mobile units with light damage and large heavy ones with very heavy damage.

the Germans had e.g

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_cm_M%C3%B6rser_18

for me it is actually a normal artillery but it is seen specifically as a mortar

That is not the heavy mortar we are talking about.

I think we are only talking about infantry mortars and that is not one of those.

Like for that to be in game as normal artillery though.

[DreJaDe]

Heavy mortar
Prewar designs
US
M1

British
3inch

German
8 cm Granatwerfer 34

Soviet
M1938 mortar

French
Brandt Mle 27/31

Italian
81/14 Model 35 Mortar

Japanese
Type 97 81 mm infantry mortar

All this can have 2 range with the soviet can even have 3.

[DreJaDe]

Light version
German
5 cm Granatwerfer 36
50mm

Japan
Type 89 grenade discharger
(Knee mortar)
50mm

British
2inch
51mm

French
Brandt Mle 1935
60mm

US
M2
60mm

Italy
Brixia Model 35
45mm

Soviet
RM-38
50mm

Most of this are light ones
Can be speed 3 and range 1
My idea is to make them a unit that cant be counter attacked when attacking.

[Dahdee]

Light version
German
5 cm Granatwerfer 36
50mm

Japan
Type 89 grenade discharger
(Knee mortar)
50mm

British
2inch
51mm

French
Brandt Mle 1935
60mm

US
M2
60mm

Italy
Brixia Model 35
45mm

Soviet
RM-38
50mm

Most of this are light ones
Can be speed 3 and range 1
My idea is to make them a unit that cant be counter attacked when attacking.

Heavy mortar
Prewar designs
US
M1

British
3inch

German
8 cm Granatwerfer 34

Soviet
M1938 mortar

French
Brandt Mle 27/31

Italian
81/14 Model 35 Mortar

Japanese
Type 97 81 mm infantry mortar

All this can have 2 range with the soviet can even have 3.

That all sounds great to me.

[TntAttack]

Honestly at this one I have to question the existence of mortars if they have such a similar role to mgs as an anti infantry.

The defining feature of mortar is that they have range. If you are going out of your way to make mortar exist "realistically" and all its going to to produce is an another anti infantry that fails to distinguish itself as a unit from other anti infantry is a mistake.

You are better off removing mortars entirely from the game or keeping this unrealistic range.

Or try to come up with a way to incorporate the heavier company and battalion mortars that were too heavy to be carried by infantry into the game e.g. all infantry units get a mortar ability etc.

[DreJaDe]

Or try to come up with a way to incorporate the heavier company and battalion mortars that were too heavy to be carried by infantry into the game e.g. all infantry units get a mortar ability etc.

A better way on this idea is not mortar but a rifle grenade launcher.

You are better off removing mortars entirely from the game or keeping this unrealistic range.

There are other way for one range to exist.
1. No counterattack. (When it attacks)
2. Will be less costly than SMG (the statement from Jason)
3. Sure kill

Also, they are not unrealistic as per my examples of heavy infantry mortars

[TntAttack]

Or try to come up with a way to incorporate the heavier company and battalion mortars that were too heavy to be carried by infantry into the game e.g. all infantry units get a mortar ability etc.

A better way on this idea is not mortar but a rifle grenade launcher.

You are better off removing mortars entirely from the game or keeping this unrealistic range.

There are other way for one range to exist.
1. No counterattack. (When it attacks)
2. Will be less costly than SMG (the statement from Jason)
3. Sure kill

Also, they are not unrealistic as per my examples of heavy infantry mortars

Will mortars still have 2 speed compared to regular infantry 3 speed?

Even with 1, 2, 3, I still feel like this unit is lacking.
1. Not impressive. Infantry unit in general are weak, and not taking counter attack damage isn't huge in a game where most units kill shot infantry, if not almost.

Maybe if they dealt first strike and or have double counter attack damage that might be worthwhile.

2. Yes. Good point.

3. Snipers are a better alternative, despite being a bit more expensive.

[DreJaDe]

3. Snipers are a better alternative, despite being a bit more expensive

A barracks only unit is a barracks only unit.

Overall doesnt make 1 range mortar obsolete.

1. Not impressive. Infantry unit in general are weak, and not taking counter attack damage isn't huge in a game where most units kill-shot infantry, if not almost.

Not meant to be impressive but something you can put in your tactic.

Also, them having first strike doesnt really make mich sense for their use.

Another
4. High damage against building.
With no counterattack? Can be good alt for flamethrower against MG nest.

[TntAttack]

Another
4. High damage against building.
With no counterattack? Can be good alt for flamethrower against MG nest.

Okay this is a really good point. I am surprised I didn't think about this.

If anyone is bothered, maybe now is the time to open a thread for flamethrower.

One: Flame effect should not effect concrete structures and mega buildings.

If anything, there is a sore lack of a good anti building alternative to flamethrower so that is something else we can brainstorm if anyone wants to.

I know there were assault guns and engineers with special demolition bombs that were used against structures so that another pathway we could take.

[DreJaDe]

If anything, there is a sore lack of a good anti building alternative to flamethrower so that is something else we can brainstorm if anyone wants to.

Im surprised you can actually say this...

Cause there are a lot of alt to flamethrower.

Like a lot. I mean, "A LOOOTTTT" type of lot.

[TntAttack]

If anything, there is a sore lack of a good anti building alternative to flamethrower so that is something else we can brainstorm if anyone wants to.

Im surprised you can actually say this...

Cause there are a lot of alt to flamethrower.

Like a lot. I mean, "A LOOOTTTT" type of lot.

Okay. Name me some. Something that can take do a megabuilding.

Me. 3-4 flamethrowers about 8 turns value. What else is there that has the same cost effectiveness? Bombers? Maybe for US, but they are vulnerable to enemy attack.

The only unit I have seen in game that shreds buildings is Karl-Gerät seige mortar.

I will say that non mega-buildings, most unit values are fair so perhaps that was what you were thinking.

[DreJaDe]

I will say that non mega-buildings, most unit values are fair so perhaps that was what you were thinking.

I mean... You only said

If anything, there is a sore lack of a good anti building alternative to flamethrower so that is something else we can brainstorm if anyone wants to.

On this regard, I also find heavy artillery to be effective though can have more damage.

[TntAttack]

Yea sorry for the misunderstanding. Um.. Do you perhaps want to open a thread to balance megabuildings?

I personally would not mind discuss whether we should use other buildings...

Actually. Let me open another thread.

[Jasondunkel]

the different mortars that are mentioned should they get the same bonuses? or should they be different?

we can also bring the rifle grenade units into play