mortar carrier

[Ninja2dan]

...I have found them to take too much time to sort out and in the long run, not worth it when CAS is available or you can simply bypass whatever is in the way.

They take long to calibrate, halt a squads speed and effectiveness. For fire support, I'd much prefer a Stryker MGS and whatever other countries have its equivalent.

It sounds like the mortar teams you have encountered were lacking skill and experience. Even in PR, setting up a mortar emplacement is fairly fast compared to the real thing. With enough practice, a team should be able to deploy their mortars and put effective fire support on the enemy in a short amount of time. Much faster than it would normally take for air support to arrive on station, locate the target, distinguish friendly positions, and make their attack run.

Generally, mortar teams should always be on the move and just to the rear of the infantry assault teams. Any time the grunts set up an RP in prep for an assault task, mortars set up to provide fire support if needed just like any other crew-served weapon system (just slightly more to the rear). That or crews set up mortar emplacement at the nearest FOB, which should be placed often enough to properly support front-line troops. This means they are already capable of dropping rounds within seconds of the forward troops making contact.

Mortars are also a great defensive tool, useful for protecting avenues of approach and holding choke points or strategic locations after the team has advanced forward. This can even free up some units who normally sit around defending those spots to perform other tasks. One mortar gunner and a spotter is a lot less manpower than a full squad when you need one or the other sitting in the rear guarding a FOB or flag.

The Merkava IV MBT and the Namer APC both have inbuilt 60mm mortars. They would be cool to see in-game.

The Merkava is a pimped ride, but I don't think it's possible to add the mortar system to an armored vehicle and make it work well. It might work, but it would probably require a lot of effort in coding it. It might also unbalance the game a bit, requiring mappers to reconfigure force tasking on any map the Merkava is assigned to.

As cool as it would be, I think the use of any mobile mortar platform is best left out of PR at this time.

[Redamare]

-_- . . . . very interesting but this could be exploited i believe . . . have the m111 one position shoot off morters then move it to the other side of the map or hidden somwhere no one can go . . . :l i dont know its interesting though

[dtacs]

not really, whenever I was on the TG server doing mortars, the SL said he'd like us to have under 30 seconds fire mission, and to be honest the mortars were destroying the militia today on Kozelsk. Damn were they effective, a bit overused I felt but whatever

Thats because on Kozelsk the militia are in static positions and on the backfoot for majority of the game whilst Russians are constantly pursuing them.

Today on Yamalia - which is a dynamic map I might add -my squad was wiped on numerous occasions by mortars, they didn't have enough oomph at any one time to shut us off the flag. On objective Foxtrot we had 2 squads being pinned, so two NATO guys just gave us a lift straight onto the flag itself, which allowed us to cap before they could properly calibrate to our new position. Mortars simply don't mitigate the infantrys uncanny ability to stay rooted in a position no matter what they're going up against. I've worked with good and bad crews but the fact remains that they are not as useful as made out to be.

[samogon100500]

I think it's good idea.Make 3 seats vehicle(driver/cannon gunner/mortar gunner).
Mobile artillery could be better thats stationary vehicle.For balance - make less fire radius(1km for mobile/1.5 for stationary)
About vehicles:
USarmy - stryker with mortar
USMC - not to much needed,cuz marines no have maps for that IMO.Wiki says they have LAV-M for that.
MEC/RUS - MTLB(std with PKT) with mortar.

Or Nona Self propelled mortar(Just an idea if VDV makes,only for RUS)
China - no ideas,they got too much howitzers.
Germany - Wiesel with mortar.
IDF - M106 or special Namer
Canada - M113?

[Bringerof_D]

@dtacs: pay attention...ONLY for maps where its too damn impossible to build an FOB. No FOB mortars means no men wasted. Korengal BLUFOR needs mortars bad but they cant get them up without being instantly over run.

alternative could be mapper placed mortars at the US main that are locked for the first 5 minutes.

however the mortar carriers would be more practical since they can actually be destroyed by insurgents making it a balanced option.

the only map i want to see mortar carriers on is so far just Korengal valley.

As for targeting. we dont need stabilization. lock the sights when the vehicle is moving. When the vehicle is stationary it works as usual. Just lock the vertical axis to the global variable. (assuming that that's not how its being done now) so if the mortar carrier is on it's side and your tube was pointing straight up, you would be now at 0 degrees instead of 90.

[Pvt.LHeureux]

Sniperdog;1523185']Unless you hijack DICE headquarters, steal the source code to bf2 and then figure out how to implement proper weapon stabilization on vehicles with it, it will be impossible to make any form of aiming system for it.

You can try though...

Infantry deployed mortars may be possible though.

FH2 got Wespe, which is a self propelled gun and act like mortar. It might be possible in PR too I guess