Modify Mortar -> Firebase Damage System

[Mikemonster]

that is the point of airburst. when calling a fire mission one should report the type of defenses. if trenches and the like are present, we use airburst instead of HE which we reserve for open ground. IRL of course this is reversed since HE is good for collapsing entrenchments and AB spreads shrapnel well for taking out INF in the open but thats a video game limitation thing.

Heh, good info! Cheers!

[SGT.Ice]

After reading the OP. I like it.

[Wo0Do0]

excuse my language but, good..fucking..post Psyrus.

[billysmall44]

I have an idea.

What if mortars could only be fired with full magazines? For example, you have depleted your rounds in your mortar pit, and you buds throw down a few bags but it only brings it up short of the max rounds held. You wouldnt be able to fire until it was completely full. I don't know just an idea.

[doop-de-doo]

Jdam trumps mortars.

Our "FOBS" are really FBs or firebases: Throw up some sand bags and call it a firebase. What do you think mortar strikes would do to something like that.

I think that the actual static of the firebase alludes to something it is not. It's not a fortress! It's a simple "home zone" for friendlies to rendezvous and set up camp.

[PFunk]

Jdam trumps mortars.

Our "FOBS" are really FBs or firebases: Throw up some sand bags and call it a firebase. What do you think mortar strikes would do to something like that.

I think that the actual static of the firebase alludes to something it is not. It's not a fortress! It's a simple "home zone" for friendlies to rendezvous and set up camp.

This has no real bearing how the game actually plays out. Relation to real life terminology is mostly at this point totally separate.

I still think there should be a deployable static with overhead cover that can take quite a few rounds before being destroyed but have to be constantly dug to keep alive after it takes a certain amount of damage. To me this seems like a perfect solution since if you're getting constantly mortared then you'd have to keep digging to keep your defenses up, but if you synchronized this with an attack then they would have to decide if they wanted to dig or to fight. However, this would mean that a lone mortar attack wouldn't destroy the FOB or its structures permanently, just temporarily, rendering it mostly 'harassment' while the successful attack would require a high degree of coordination with mortars and ground infantry to work well.

Ultimately the simplest solution is to have a small unit constantly hunting mortars if they're a threat.


In general though... I dunno as much as I love them I think PR would be better off without mortars altogether.

[LITOralis.nMd]

Psyrus, well stated, and I agree with PFunk's post right above this,

I've gotten so good at mortars I've stopped using them, and really anyone who spends some time studying up on the game mechanics can get to that point in just a few hours of game time too.

We've gone from:
I need a mortar on D7- keypad 6 when available,

to something like:
Give me a rolling barrage in 10meter increments from D7-6 heading NorthEast until I call a ceasefire. Over.

[Walmarx]

Firstly, I would like to compliment Psyrus on his post; I actually got a little bit excited just before reading it on account of its clear, thoughtful structure (don't judge me). Anyways, excellent suggestion! Mortars are far from a mere 'gimmick', in fact they are the single most effective anti-fob element on the battlefield (short of my ninja skills), and in the setting of a PR match, they are excessive in that regard. I support Psyrus' thoughts, as well as the addition of new types of more complete cover deployables.

[Anderson29]

well, there are a lot of good points on this thread. but in public games i notice all to often that people still set up FOBs and their fob assets all within 50 meters of the fob when you have 200 meter to work with. if SLs would just get smart and set the MG nests, tows and AAs further from the fob, a lot less fobs would be taken out from mortars. in the end it is all on the player's tactics, and better tactics win. if you choose to build all your fob's shit real close together then you deserve to be "that fish in the barrel" and if you spread your shit out then more power to you. tactics men, tactics. dont demand the game charge because you suck, adapt and learn and dont put yourself in the "barrel".

for those of you not American(not sure if this saying is universal).... we have a saying that goes something like this...."easy as shooting fish in a barrel"

[40mmrain]

An Issue I find with mortars is that there's no real defence against mortar attacks, you have to completely abandon all your assets as soon as a shell lands. Foxholes work well to stay in the area, however there is an issue. A foxhole is supposed to protect you as, if youre prone in one, as long as a shell doesnt land right in your hole, the shockwave doesnt propagate into your hole, it's blocked by the bags and dirt, leaving you high and dry. This means that soldiers not on assets are immediately protected, and once the barrage ceases rebuilding and first aid happens quickly.

The problem with PR is that foxholes will disappear, or get destroyed by mortars, even if you dig as shells fall. Foxholes are just sandbags and dirt. They dont obliterate when being shelled. Damaged? yes, sure.

I suggest that when you are prone and digging in a foxhole, it can not be destroyed, only damaged, such that if you are not digging it will be destroyed. This gives a defence against a weapon you cant defend against, and can only offend against to preemptively defend.

[KiloJules]

Combine the first part of Andersons' post (tactics, 200m, etc.) with what 40mm said. +1 from me!

And Anderson, I think we got that but nice of you nonetheless!