Project Reality Forums

DudeofDeath wrote:that sounds kinda cool, a partially underground foxhole/bunker, maybe the top's like a machine gunners nest with little windows and it takes a little longer to build, like 60-75 shovels or something because it affords more protection. (3-5 Direct hits might destroy it? maybe or invincible.)

You can't spawn things underground because of how the terrain works, nor can you make a slit trench as a deployable.

But hey the 64 player limit used to be hardcoded so who knows?

the continuos use of mortars has become such a rare occourrence that i dont recall many games where they have been effectievely used

Suggestion is solid.

However, I've never seen a problem with people just spamming firebases to kill them once they are discovered.

It takes a like, direct round to destroy it.

Dev1200 wrote:Suggestion is solid.

However, I've never seen a problem with people just spamming firebases to kill them once they are discovered.

It takes a like, direct round to destroy it.

Just be in a mortar squad and you will take down alot of FOBs. Just yesterday on Beirut, I joined a mortar squad. In 8 minutes we had 4 FOBs to shoot, we destroyed 4 freaking FOBs without moving our *** and not even seeing wtf was going on there.

Just reload the mortar, get in position, aim, click for 12 shells x 2. 24 shells ready to blow anything.

Mm.. A lonewolf on teamchat can really ruin a good team's day by guiding his mortars onto the target.

I'm not sure how often it happens, but look at maps like Fallujiah for instance, the Ins can do this quite easily.

I disagree with this idea. Part of the reason is to indeed wipe out the fire base and everything near it. However one way to lighten the impact mortars have on a game could be to increase the reload time.

However in the overall scope, mortars do need to be re-examined for 64 layer and possibly in general on the engine. It's quite easy for mortars to decimate a whole battlefield most of the time from near their main where the supply route is short.

And this reminds me of my 8th grade english class.

To be honest, I think mortars should be removed.
Using the external program to calculate mortar strikes can put me and a few guys in a position to control a 1km diameter around the mortars if we have a good supply line.

Ok, now as to this suggestion:
1. Would it be possible to have the FOBs bleed very slowly and to only allow the Combat Engineer Wrench to repair the FOB? This way at max only 2 FOBs can be repaired at any time. With 0.973 the C4 blast radius effect on Caches has been decreased which has devalued the Combat Engineer role. Giving the Wrench the unique ability to repair FOBs would restore value in the kit. To be clear, shovels can build a FOB, but not repair it. IDK if possible inside the engine. The wrench is 9 times faster at building a razorwire, maybe the bleed can increase the repair needs by 4.5X to 9X. SO would take like 216 to 432 shovels to repair a FOB, or 48 Wrench turns. (Would people rage quite if they had to singlehandily repair a FOB with a shovel for 18 to 36 minutes? lolz)

2. I like the 2 minute overrun concept. Would that also affect Rally points?
3. Underground FOBs present problems to any alteration of the current system.
4. Sgt.Ice, the reload time has already been more than doubled from the first introduction of mortars. Originally each ammo bag supplied FOUR mortar shells, they now only supply TWO mortar shells, and they draw down the health of a supply/ammo crate equal to before, meaning less ammo bags in total from ammo/supply crates.

LITOralis.nMd wrote: 2. I like the 2 minute overrun concept. Would that also affect Rally points?

They only last for 90 seconds! hahaa!

Mortars can get a little spammy tbh, but I've never really been on the receiving end of "spammy" mortars.

LITOralis.nMd wrote:3. Underground FOBs present problems to any alteration of the current system.
crates.

No, just make the overrun radius big enough.

Dev1200 wrote:Mortars can get a little spammy tbh, but I've never really been on the receiving end of "spammy" mortars.

I have, many, many times. It's not fun.

SGT.Ice wrote:And this reminds me of my 8th grade english class.

If you check my profile, under "Occupation", it'll probably come as no surprise

I'm gonna bump this thread since I think this still is a problem. The suggestion is quite good.

Personally I think a good solution to more defensive gameplay around FOBs would simply making the foxholes invulnerable.
This way people still have a change to stay and defend the FOB. Of course a direct hit on a foxhole from a mortar round should kill the guys who are in it but the fox holes should still be "alive". This is a better simulation of actually fox holes which are dug into the ground.

I think that a more logical solution to the situation here would be to remove the "bleeds" from deployable assets. Currently, all that is required to destroy a well prepared defensive fob is to lob a few mortar rounds in the vicinity. Once a mortar round lands within the splash damage radius of a deployed asset, that asset takes damage and begins to bleed. Depending upon the number of defending players occupying and available for repairs, as well as the number of assets deployed (ironically, the better dug in a position is, the worse shape they will be in after a mortar strike) it becomes a game of whack-a-mole trying to guess which assets are damaged and "bleeding" and trying to get everything shoveled back up before it bleeds out.

Mortars landing in or near stacks of sandbags should definitely cause damage to those assets. Sandbags are good at stopping bullets and shrapnel, but large caliber shells full of high explosive are going to damage the positions. In my opinion, however, it is not realistic to have the sandbags continue to bleed out until the whole position disintegrates. By removing the bleed, mortars would still be viable and combat relevant to soften up defensive positions, and a sustained barrage could knock down defensive assets. This is as it should be. However, it would remove the ability of a mortar crew to just spam 5-10 rounds on a FOB position then move on, knowing that the squad occupying the FOB can not adequately defend anymore, because if they don't run around like madmen repairing everything in that position, it will all magically go away in the next few minutes.

As an added afterthought, perhaps an alternative foxhole could be added for additional overhead cover. Something similar to the current BluFor style FOB, however instead of a small broken sandbag wall, raise the wall, and add solid overhead cover in place of a camo net. The position would be smaller and higher profile, but would offer overhead cover from mortar fire, particularly airburst munitions.

Stoickk wrote:..

Mortars landing in or near stacks of sandbags should definitely cause damage to those assets. Sandbags are good at stopping bullets and shrapnel, but large caliber shells full of high explosive are going to damage the positions.

..

Well if you're going to be exact the HE mortars should be pretty bad against the current 'foxholes', whereas Airburst would defeat them completely (no overhead protection).

Overhead cover would be cool to see. And it would also be more 'destroyable' because it could revert to the current foxhole if it was hit.

Out of interest, if a crate is dropped INSIDE a foxhole, is it protected from mortars?

To be honest, I think mortars should be removed.
Using the external program to calculate mortar strikes can put me and a few guys in a position to control a 1km diameter around the mortars if we have a good supply line.

No a calculator is mostly used in much more organized type of rounds ( high above any pubbing session ) - PRT and similar where any second of round matters a lot.

To be able to effectively use mortars you need a dedicated mortar squad in your team with not less than three and not more than five men. What you need more is a solid supply line cause mortars are very dependant on resources, so if your supply line is being cut off or you do not have a vehicle to keep supply line alive - you don't have mortar support. Next thing you need is a very good communication inside a team ( preferably all players or SL's on mumble ) to be very much effective with it.

Most of the arguments here are invalid, maybe with an exception of that foxhole thing. I agree on that they must be more resistant to fire but not indestructible. It should sustain constant indirect hits for some time, but this should not make anyone inside it invulnerable.

If you want to be a teamplayer make a squad that will have to go behind enemy lines, and sabotage supply routes, laze, spot or in any other way make mortar team a headache, buying to your team a time to advance if they move on the open and their position is under fire.

Removing mortars, or making them in any way different then they currently are is not for the sake of gameplay, its a just for the sake of few which had a bad experience few times.

EDIT: on a side note I think the argument of small maps ( 1 km ones ) is valid, and mortars should not be available on such maps

billysmall44 wrote:I think mortars should be more used as a suppression technique more then demolition.
Another thing, Ive been in fox holes when being mortared and they don't seem to do anything special. any even if they did work, Air bursts would make them useless wouldn't they? Mortars are awesome, don't get me wrong, but they are totally replacing a few important game play aspects.
I haven't been in a squad were anyone used a combat engineer for a long time. Maybe it would be better if you had to use C4 to completely kill emplacements. Incendiary just disable them, but sooner or later to completely get rid of them it takes a combat engineer. In my mind that would make a lot more sense then calling in mortars to do that job.

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.

MaSSive wrote:Most of the arguments here are invalid

Wholeheartedly disagree with the above.

@op: i've created my own suggestion based on modifying the FOB which might also address the problem you are trying to here. please have a look and tell me what you think.

https://www.realitymod.com/forum/f18-pr ... hicle.html

i like your idea, but i feel it only deals with this one specific problem while possibly creating another. for example if it only disables spawning for a short time, then a well coordinated mortar team can disable use of every enemy FOB they know of for the rest of the round. My idea hopes to address this by allowing a well coordinated team to maintain an FOB's usability in the face of mortaring and other assaults which may temporarily disable spawn.

Some interesting thoughts in this thread: I would like to throw my ideas into the mix.

1) Add a heating element to the mortars - if they get too hot they first increase in deviation and then further heating risks cooking a round off in the tube leading to an untimely demise of the crew.

2) Make the quick deployment of 10-15 rounds possible per mortar. In a pinch a 81mm mortar can throw out a whole heap of bombs in a small amount of time. The offsetting factor would be the heating. Continuous operation of the mortar would require a lower fire rate.

I think what makes mortars less useful is their current fire rate - you can't get the massed firepower in a small time which is core to the doctrine of use of mortars.

I would also advocate for smaller maps the 60mm mortar being implimented as it is more appropriate for infantry operations at a company level. These have a slightly bigger blast than a 40mm grenade and a much higher fire rate than a 81mm mortar.

TL;DR - Higher rate of fire for mortars offset by the mechanic limiting the continuous operation at such a high rate of fire.