Germans and soviets have their 80 mm beauties but americans, brits and japan still dont have those in free unloackable tree.
Also brits using murican mortars is cringe
we need to see new mortars
Uk : 2 inch mortar (51 mm)
Stokes Mortar (81 mm)
us: m1 mortar (81 mm) should be free unlockable, muricans will face germans who have grw 42 80 mm
Italy: 81/14 model 35 mortar (81mm)
Japan: type 97 81 mm
mg squads, at squads, engi squads have their special buildables so why not mortars
heavy mortars:
uk: ordanance ml 4…2 inch (107mm)
Yeah, i prefered them a bit more deadly. Even when they did wreck i can count the amount of times i was killed by it on one hand. Not sure why it got neutered.
I’ve made a similar post before. Although some factions did have a little variety of mortars and while it would be cool to have a lot of toys, I think for now it’s better that each faction has one light, medium, and heavy mortar. General purpose.
And in game the default Allied mortar is the British two-inch. In fact I don’t even use mortars in the Pacific because I’d prefer to use their actual M2 Mortar. One day. Or if we get Britain’s campaigns in the Pacific
On one hand, it is true that unrestricted arty / mortars + lack of friendly fire could make an open cap point virtually impossible to cap.
Yet, I’m confident that quite a lot of arty and mortar hate (“OP”, “Noskill” etc.) came / comes from people who inexplicably find it easier to open the forum and type a 2000 words essay about why X is OP, rather than come up with a slightly different game tactic other than “press W and beeline to the cap”.
When you know how to use a mortar and the team gives you the exact coordinates, you can hold the first place in the leaderboard from the beginning of the game.
That goes basically for anything. Since in majority of cases, you don’t have a very high competition.
You can be easily in top of leaderboard even using pistols in factions like Tunisia axis. It still doesn’t mean it isn’t trash thing used only by hipsters and people who spend way too much time in this game.
You can be the best of all players in a battle and still lose.
And it’s for the trivial reason of saying that the team didn’t take advantage of the chance you gave them to win.
And the truth is that you contributed to the failures because your actions, although spectacular, were not effective.
That’s completely irrelevant to this topic. My point is that mortars are currently pretty underperforming. There’s not many reasons why to play them.
And even if few decent players can be effective with them, it’s still not changing basic fact that mortars were overnerfed. Same goes for bombing runs and so many stuff.
Yeah, I can still use them effectively in specific scenarios. But they’re still not good overall.
Mortar is underrated and for a trivial reason. Players do not see the mortar’s direct actions, only indirectly in the form of the result.
In addition, the mortar has several tactical uses, one of these possibilities is mentioned in the guide about using a smoke screen.
In addition, the mortar allows you to hit targets 250m deep into the enemy’s gray zone. Stalingrad and Berlin mortars are especially useful here, as they easily destroy enemy armored vehicles.
I can destroy enemy tank way faster with EP while still having actual bodies near combat zone where they are needed more. (Which is eaybmore important than you think)
Or I can use tank instead of mortar squad. Still way better option.
Mortars are lackluster no matter what you say. They’re definitely not underrated.
And you still judge everything from your perspective because you’ve done everything to the max blah, blah, blah. Tactics make up for lack of strength.
I’m not talking about using a mortar when you have 10 slots, planes, tanks and teams of people who are a cross between Stallone and Schwarzenegger. But about ordinary players who want to be able to react to this or that situation.
What? I used mortars as well. I am just saying they’re overnerfed and not good enough in comparison to other options you have.
It just seems you feel personally attacked because I don’t agree with your opinion that mortars are underrated. Because they are not. They’re rated pretty much fairly. They’re just not good enough, not versatile enough. That’s it.
It’s no wonder people are not playing them often. And it’s completely reasonable. Deal with it.
I understand you can solve a problem on a map in 30 different ways, and so can I.
I just think it’s important to encourage players to use other squads and show them what they can do, rather than saying there are better ways. And especially to encourage diversity because nowadays, as you probably noticed, most f2p players have three assault squads consisting of 4 assaulters and nothing else. And a vehicle that rusts behind the front lines.
That’s not how discussion works. There’s no reason to continue debate with you. You act childishly and doesn’t even understand what’s relevant in this discussion.
That’s not encouraging, that’s lying. But I guess reasonable buff for mortars is way worse than your made up manipulative scenarios which are completely ignoring other types of squads.
Keep saying mortars are underrated, everyone will just ignore you because your opinion sucks.
Example of underrated squads are snipers, especially Soviet semi ones. Not mortars, they’re just lackluster.
It’s pointless talking to you because you can see that if someone disagrees with you, you take it as an attack. Your opinion is not the only one, but you think everyone believes like you.
But I guess reasonable buff for mortars is way worse than your made up manipulative scenarios which are completely ignoring other types of squads.