Your thoughts on the mortar in the game?

[FluffyBunny]

Frankly, I'm not too excited about the mortar for two reasons:

1. From a historical perspective everything about the mortar procedure is inaccurate, starting with the concept to shell the trench that friendlies are assaulting. Defensive mortar fire might make a bit more sense but it still would be questionable to shell the own trench.
   
2. From a gameplay perspective, it is just a major nuisance as it nullifies the skill factor. A bit like COD's infamous noob tube :) And I think mortars can be called far too often. Granted, mortar fire can make otherwise difficult to breach trenches more breachable. But I suppose this could be done by other balancing features as well.

So in a way, and that is only my personal opinion, it does neither suit the game as a gameplay nor historically accurate feature. This is not Red Orchestra 2 where the artillery is some impersonal death from above that works very well in the framework of a more realistic shooter. There, the artillery serves an important role in the tactical planning of the commander. I could imagine something like that as well for Verdun. But the way the game works right now (which I like apart from the mortars) it's just a cheap way to get some kills.

[QuadN]

Morters are a bit op... like jesus, It doesnt matter how close you are, if you're in 10 meters you're dead, iv been killed more times by morter then bullet. thats saying somthing...

[Leo]

I disagree completely. The mortars and artillery in the game are meant to support an attack on a trench in the same fashion as the creeping barrages or preliminary bombardments. The mechanic of calling in the artillery and the pace of its arrival are a compromise on the realism vs practical application/accessibility of the game. However the heavy presence and kill ratio of artillery makes sense in the context of a first world war game where a majority of the casualties came from artillery.

In terms of gameplay they are supposed (and will more so) be a way to suppress the enemies in their trenches during an assault, which should be more prevalent when the shellshock/stun effect is added.

Originally posted by nnnn11112:

iv been killed more times by morter then bullet. thats saying somthing...

exactly ^^

[Kingjerk]

could gas masks be damaged by the enviroment which would lead to slow leak and a prolonged death?

[Gold Handles]

Y'know, I used to constantly hate on arty until I tried out the officer class. Once you learn the might of the mortar, you NEVER go back :)

[Rectunator]

I used to hate the minenwerfer strikes until I started leveling up my officer and learned to use it correctly. It's not supposed to rake up kills, it's an area denial weapon first and foremost. The cooldown is so short that you can keep pouring it in on a few different chokepoints in support of your own team. If you try to use it as a cod/ro -style "instant death from above" weapon then you're in for a sad surprise.

[PapaSloppy]

mortars explode and send out fragments of hot metal also know as shrapnel this is why mortars are op i would rather see random shelling all over the map rather than it being called in by an nco

[SlpWlkr]

I would disagree with that. Random shelling may sound nice on paper but it would probably be an awful gameplay element. At least as it is now you can relate to what the player who send it in has thought. If you were to die, possibly at a vital position and time, out of nowhere it would just leave you frustrated and feeling like the game had screwed you over.
As said above it can nicely function as an are denial weapon, i can remember a fun game on vosges were our team was up against skilled NCOs and mostly lost because during our attack they kept mortaring the main trench access points.
Personally i believe that, just as Leo has said, the mortar may be one of those things where we have to sacrifice a bit of realism to make it a worthwhile gameplay element. I'd be excited to see how it would work out if friendly fire was enabled though.

[FluffyBunny]

Originally posted by BlackMill | Leo:

I disagree completely. The mortars and artillery in the game are meant to support an attack on a trench in the same fashion as the creeping barrages or preliminary bombardments. The mechanic of calling in the artillery and the pace of its arrival are a compromise on the realism vs practical application/accessibility of the game. However the heavy presence and kill ratio of artillery makes sense in the context of a first world war game where a majority of the casualties came from artillery.

Yeah, I understand the need to reconcile realism with practical application. But let's see. As far as I can see the game only has mortars. Those mortars were usually not used as part of barrages but indeed for infantry support, therefore serving a different purpose with a different effect. Mortar batteries were company or battalion assets. Mortar strikes were called by forward observers, sometimes other officers. Not every rifle squad leader could call a strike. They were neither qualified nor equipped for it. (Apart from binos you also needed means of signalling. The game implies a field telephone. Well, those were wired in WW1. You don't lug those around when you are assaulting.) So in the scope of the game there would not be more than one FO per side (which is already overkill but okay ...).

Also, for the purpose of suppression or area denial the mortar fire would have to be more sustained than it is now.

Support strikes were usually carefully coordinated with the advance. This is, and probably cannot be, the case in the game where every squad leader can call a strike. If team kills would be possible it probably would be a disaster. The least you would need is a proper map where an imminent mortar strike is marked (and maybe a mark on the tactical display as well), similar to RO2.

Well as it is now, if push comes to shove, 4 squad leaders can simultaneously call a mortar strike every minute (?) or so in the closest proximity of friendlies (in fact right on top of them). Especially on a map like Argonne (also Vosges really) that is crazy (if squad leaders would actually realise what they could achieve with it, as Carbohydrate said).

I think all of this is far from realistic. And I accept some unrealistic behaviour, like response times, for the sake of the scale of the game.

In terms of gameplay they are supposed (and will more so) be a way to suppress the enemies in their trenches during an assault, which should be more prevalent when the shellshock/stun effect is added.

I agree that this would add a very nice touch to the game if mortars are remodelled within the game.

As for the gameplay, I'll be honest, I'm not too keen on it. I'd rather have a skill contest with personal weapons. But for the sake of immersion mortars with additional features like suppression might be a great gameplay element if they feel more realistic AND less over-powered (op not really in its effect but in its availability and use).

Originally posted by Carbohydrate:

I would disagree with that. Random shelling may sound nice on paper but it would probably be an awful gameplay element. At least as it is now you can relate to what the player who send it in has thought. If you were to die, possibly at a vital position and time, out of nowhere it would just leave you frustrated and feeling like the game had screwed you over.

I agree with Carbohydrate. Although I could imagine something like a creeping barrage which could be called like once in a game per side. But instead of killing it would just suppress the whole trench line (allowing the attackers to move up in the meantime). It would be an abstraction in a way but with an enormous immersion factor. It would also leave the tactical finesse when exactly to call it :)

Hey, this is all just my 2 cents on the matter. There is no right or wrong here as far as the game is concerned. I was just wondering how other people see this game feature. So, Leo, please don't be mad at me for criticizing the mortar feature. I was just voicing my opinion.

[Bishop]

I think the French did take field lines with them during their support actions at the Somme, and it was credited with their actions being more sucessful as they could redirect artillery and delay the creeping barrage when they fell behind the schedule. Not every squad could do it no, but a barrage also wouldn't be just 3 shells.

At squad level 50 the mortar is upgraded to a field gun and is called Sector arty (unsure the number of shells) and at 50 it's creeping barrage which I know is 20 shells.

Their planning to add shellshock to artillery which will supress. You're complaining of being killed in set places that shows it's effective area denial.

It would be nice for a blast zone to be marked on mini map of teams artillery, it is a pain at high levels or lag causes the mortar to get caught closer then expected or the SA/CB spread. It'd also support team play between the NCOs. Another reason I want Recons flight path to be shown to the team not just the squad.

[Hover_]

I didn't read any of this, with the exception of the article and the 1st comment.

I agree with the article because some people, including myself, will drop mortars in their own trenches to form a wall from enemy soldiers in the trench.

Also, when I have got my squad running across No Man's Land and another NCO calls in Mortars next to me, it gives my squad away, and is also extremely annoying.

People need to communicate with NCO's on where and when to place mortars. I think it'd be great to see the entire enemy trench get shelled instead of the right side...especially when I'm attacking left.

However, I hope there are artillery squadrons later in the game, this way, one man can have a map and he can recieve coordinates on where to fire, making the game just a tad bit more difficult, and a lot less nobby.

[FluffyBunny]

Originally posted by Franzie:

I didn't read any of this, with the exception of the article and the 1st comment.

I agree with the article because some people, including myself, will drop mortars in their own trenches to form a wall from enemy soldiers in the trench.

Also, when I have got my squad running across No Man's Land and another NCO calls in Mortars next to me, it gives my squad away, and is also extremely annoying.

People need to communicate with NCO's on where and when to place mortars. I think it'd be great to see the entire enemy trench get shelled instead of the right side...especially when I'm attacking left.

However, I hope there are artillery squadrons later in the game, this way, one man can have a map and he can recieve coordinates on where to fire, making the game just a tad bit more difficult, and a lot less nobby.

What can I say ... I agree with all you say :)

[Scoutthomson]

Over 60% of all casualties in WW1 were from Artillery, so this is accurate.

[AveryBlue]

I think mortars are cool sauce.

[Shot]

add team kills to the arty please :)

[JarJarBinks]

The mortars as they stand right now are basically drone strikes - hilariously accurate, pin point done strikes. You can either be okay with that or not. It seems a little silly to me. Darkest Hour handles it more preferable imo, with humans in charge of firing mortars in combination with mortar observers.