With that suggestion you remove the only weapon ingame that isnt just aim at their head and fire. You kill diversity with it. Fighting against a mortar user isnt so hard as so many people want to tell you. Its only hard because they attack him in the same way they attack an assualt/smg user, in the way they are used to from css. Im all for even more weapons that need a totaly different play stile (look at dystopia :D ) that would make the game more fun and interesting.
Yes, yes, but the fact is, grenadiers aren't supposed to have that much diversity. They're the anti-tank class, in a game heavily focused on tanks. They shouldn't have a particularly strong anti-infantry weapon; they don't need it. The mortar does not add new playstyles, and there is no special attack or strategy you can use against them. In the hands of someone who's memorized where to aim when firing it (not someone 'skilled' -- it is gross memorization, not skill), it simply gets used like a slightly more limited rocket launcher. And, more importantly, the game's depth is not supposed to be in "how many secret tricks do I know?!" or "How great are my leet skillz with / against this weapon, so I can go on my crazy rambo rampages for and against it?" The game's depth is supposed to be in its teamwork, in classes and vehicles that are heavily dependant on each other. For that to work, each class needs weaknesses -- a grenadier must be weak against infantry, and require a rifleman, a vehicle, or some other anti-infantry weapon to help them out. Grenadiers are already decently strong against vehicles, buildings, turrets, mines, and just about everything else in the game; they can even circumvent walls. They absolutely do not need an even mildly-effective anti-infantry weapon; giving them one makes riflemen less important, and makes the game less deep as a result -- no matter how much deeper it might seem to make your grenadier / anti-grenadier one-on-one fights, those fights shouldn't be happening so often in the first place. They're not really the point of the game. The grenadier's defense against infantry should be to slam the voice-chat for "need anti-infantry support!", and shoot frantically with their pistol. That actually makes for a much deeper game, because it requires careful strategy to cover your more vulnerable grenadiers from infantry assault while they take down tanks and buildings. It is also a very rough-around the edges, unintuitive way for the weapon to be used -- it 'feels' hacky and cheap, something most new players are not going to realize is possible. It is a (not-very) 'secret trick', like 9-mining, and those are to be avoided... it is good to have strategies and skills, but the basic functionality of every weapon should be completely transparent from the start. There should not be a secret trick to your SMG that makes it effective against tanks; and there should not be a secret trick to your mortar that makes it effective against infantry at short range. If you want Grenadiers to have a strong anti-infantry weapon for the purpose of diversity, go ahead and suggest that their RPG be changed for more effectiveness against infantry instead. But I guarantee it will never, ever, ever, happen, because the grenadier is not supposed to be an anti-infantry class; the effectiveness of a short-range mortar is essentially an accident. (I know riflemen get stickies, but that's because their other weapons don't work on tanks at all, and because riflemen are otherwise only really good against infantry, with limited to nonexistent anti-building/turret capabilities either; and even with all that, stickies are still a very limited weapon against actual mids and heavies. They're closer to using the gren RPG, pistol, or mines against infantry, not the short-range mortar.)
Mortar take SKILL to use, people need to be able to use it at least a few game before they get used to how to use it. Mortar should be shot a few times before you know the right place to place it, this is to prevent something call "mortar sniping" meaning you can place easier shot and know where it will land exactly and be able to rape everyone within a large radius in the battle field. Right now, some people can do this already because they play grenadier enough to judge distance extremely effectively. And remember, Grenadier + improved Ammo = DEADLY, a grenadier can supply himself with more than like 2 dozen rounds (maybe even more) of explosive on both the rocket and mortar, not including the godly mines. So with an armed grenadier that's able to place direct shots all over the place, it's really unfair to all the targets that are being killed left and right. The skills that the grenadier have is enough to let them use their weapon effectively, we don't really need to change them to make them even easier to use imo. As for how the mortar and rocket are used, it's about the same. The rocket is easier use for straight on targets but is weak, the mortar is harder to use but do more damage. in higher ground looking down, a mortar is usually more effective; as for when you are on lower ground aiming up, it might be easier just to use the rocket to hit any buildings that are sticking out. For vehicle, i use both, but it's depend on the situation.
There weapons do not enough damage to late game tanks to be usefull, even with the rpg research stuff. Well I think that playing as grenader is a whole lot different than playing as rifleman/grenadier, those clases play like a average fps. You dont need "leed skills" to use the mortar and if you memorize how you have to aim and use that "memory" on the battlefield you are dead because you thought to much Whats the trick with the mortar? You can read in the manual how much damage it does, enough to kill infantry with one shot. That means everyone that is intelligent enough to read the manual knows that. If you want to follow that (weak against something strategy) remove the stickys from the rifleman and make the engineer helpless. Grenadiers are only strong against early vehicles. Rifleman stickys are the best anti vehicleweapon beside mines ingame. As said then make him really strong against vehicles, strong enough that meds and heavy tanks actually fear the grenadier class. It feeled natural from the first day and where is the secret trick that makes it effective against infantry at short range? Hitting your mouse to fire a shell is not a secret trick for most players that are as I guess used to other fps. I for myself think that stickys are the most fearsome anti tank weapon.
Indeed. This is what I object to. While individual player skill is good, I don't think that it should be a substitute for teamwork; to me, the ability to 'cold-fire' a mortar and hit something is too much. You should not be able to stop in mid-run, kneel, fire off a mortar round at an enemy you just saw on the hill, and have even the slightest chance of hitting them -- no matter how skillful you are, and no matter how much you have played the game. I would be open to all sorts of ways to fix this (a loading animation every time you kneel, a 'stabilization time' before which the mortar is absurdly inaccurate, whatever), but I think the use of it as a 'close-combat' weapon is badly broken, and needs to be removed completely. I would be happy to see the grenadier made more effective against vehicles (the RPG is, as many people have noted, too weak, probably because it's been nerfed over rocket-sniping -- but that's a seperate thread.) Perhaps stickies are also too strong, but, again, that's really not the point. The point is, each class needs things it is weak at, and things it is strong at; the classes are supposed to be dependant on each other, with none good at running around like Rambo and doing everything on their own. The scout can't kill buildings or vehicles directly; the rifleman is very limited at dealing with buildings, and can't hurt tanks at range; the engineer is supposed to be more of an all-around class (because they, uniquely, pretty much have to be present in all circumstances), but their ability to deal with tanks without time to prepare is still fairly limited, and without the preparation of building a turret they lack any great strength against anything but buildings. The grenadier has ways of fighting tanks and buildings at almost any range, as well as the ability to negate cover, and the ability to deal with both infantry and tanks via preperation (using mines.) Their sole weak point is close-range infantry combat (where 'close range' is anything close enough to shoot you with a typical SMG.) They should not have any weapon that is more useful than their pistol for that circumstance. Otherwise... what do you think a grenadier's weak point should be? What should they have to depend on riflemen and scouts for? For the non-Engineer classes to be balanced, there should be a reason (aside from depending on engineers for building/repairing/healing/ammo, which everyone does) why a team consisting solely of that class would get brutally and completely slaughtered -- there has to be a reason why there's absolutely no way you can just play that class and run off to 'play rambo'. They need an "absolute fail" condition, something they simply cannot handle effectively under any circumstances. (Maybe they can circle around, avoid it, whatever, but it's something where they're definitely at a massive disadvantage, one that cannot be overcome by individual skill alone.) And it has to be something common, something that comes up regularly in every single classic game. They need a situation that is essentially an auto-lose for them, something that forces them to depend on their team. Riflemen fail against any vehicle outside their throwing range; they also tend to fail against turrets, and aren't so good at destroying buildings. Scouts fail at taking out vehicles on their own, and at actually destroying buildings. Grenadiers fail at... what, exactly? Look at the top two, it's not hard to figure out where the grenadier role should be. In theory, they kill tanks at range, they kill buildings at range... if you don't think they're good at that, suggest improvements. But it is also obvious where they are supposed to fail. Grenadiers should not have any advantages in an infantry fight against opponents close enough to use their SMGs effectively. The purpose of classes is not to provide different ways for you to have fun going around ramboing other infantry while still killing buildings and vehicles; it's to provide a division of roles that forces people to depend on their teammates for the things their class simply cannot do. If you want grenadiers to be able to kill tanks, and you want them to be able to kill infantry, and you want them to be able to kill buildings... what don't you want them to be able to kill?
I haven't read all the replies but a read a few. It seems that the gren has a pwn weapon. The mortar acts more like a grenade launcher than anything else. A real mortar takes a spotter and some time to fire. When the round drops a charge is exploded launching to rocket. And they have a large range. When they are fired at low angles, it does not make much sense as to how they are fired because the rocket has to fall to the bottom and a charge explode. Rockets fired from an infantry wouldn't do much damage to a building. It takes big ones to do the damage we see in empires. Same with mortars. Those shells are kinda small. My 2 cents are remove the mortar and change the rocket launcher a little bit. Mortars aren't really one man things anyways.
Because people have to say things their way, and because they arent machines:D Anyway i agree that it should take time to set up, and be unable to move while using and such, because the grenadier is too strong as it is, hes not supposed to be good against infantry, and a normal mortar tube does have a minimum that it cant aim lower than... The point is the mortar is used in ways its not supposed to be or meant to be. Just add a revolver style 6 round grenade launcher that can be traded for the rocket/mortar, and be upgraded by researching UGL (which also makes the apc nadelauncher better).
Make the mortar innacurate when fired from crouching if you fire it immediately, so it has a warmup time where you have to sit still before you can fire an accurate shot. this will stop grenadiers deathmatching infantry but still be able to fire quick shots at tanks or buildings or groups of targets quickly when accuracy is ess important.
Kinda hard to make something like a mortar inaccurate like how you propose. Just make a set angle to which it can be fired.
Uhm seriously everyone here talks like the mortar is the ultimate anti infantry weapon. Just count how many players on that forum are good enough with the mortar that a average/good css whore rifleman is in danger if he encounters him. I mean if the mortar is SOOOO DEADLY why are their still players that choose the rifleman class? You have to balance the parts of a game on the average player not on some single uber talented guys. Its the same with stickys, yes they are extremly powerfull against tanks but how many players are deadly with them. 90% of all sticky attempts end with an dead rifleman and an unharmed tank. But there are some players out there that have to much skill and are absolutly deadly with stickys. So balance the sticky cause some boys are more effective with them against tanks as the average gren? I dont think so. Same is with the mortar, most people trying to use the mortar against every other class end dead. Every class needs to be able to deal with every situation to some extent because otherwise its very frustrating in my humble opinion. The gren has his mortar and the rifleman has his stickys. That gives you the believe that you always have a chance to get out alive. If you think the mortar is unfair because its an on hit kill (and to hit someone directly with one hit is not soooo easy as the majority here in this thread believes) than look at the rifleman, his weapons kill you in under one second if he aims correctly. Thats unfair in the same way. Yes he should be able to kill infantry fast and better than any other class but the argument that you dont have time to react can also be applied to the rifleman. I dont like it, if people try to make others believe, that some godlike players with their uber skills are absolutly unbeatable with their leed mortars because they arent able to use this tool correctly. Im for myself suck in nearly 80% of the game but i dont complain and whine that those aspects must be nerfed / rebalanced cause i cant handle them, I think that I suck with those weapons / vehicles and its my own fault. Oh and btw I counted 8 people that are a real threat if they use the mortar here on the forum
The grenadier is fine the way it is. Any changes will make the devs do a ring-around-the-rosie, meaning, we'll just change it back eventually. End of topic. Close please.
Ofcourse it's a fucking support weapon you fool! Have you ever seen a mortar squad go on a solo offensive against an enemy? No, they stay behind and wait for coordinates, then they support infantry with mortar fire against either troops or bunkers. I am of course talking about real combat, not Empires. I think mortars in empires should be like mortars in real combat.
Uhm... let me think... Everytime I use the mortar I play offensive. So A) I play totaly wrong, sorry for that Or B) You dont know how to use it in empires I dont care about realism and what the word "mortar" defines in reality. I suggest to give the empires mortar a new name, that would prevent people from thinking it has to work in one single way, because they are bound to reality cause of the lack of imagination.
The word you are looking for is "rocket launcher". No. Stickies are not in any way comparable to the mortar; they are a very, very limited weapon, carefully and deliberately crippled to ensure that a rifleman cannot compete with more broad anti-tank technologies. In particular, their range is about three feet, while the current mortar range is one of the best any infantry weapon has. I would be happy with making the mortar equivilent to the sticky, but that would require that it be a limited anti-infantry weapon -- one that is only good under certain circumstances. And, again, you misunderstood what I meant about skill. I personally think that yes, great skill is required to be dangerous with the mortar at close range. That is a problem. It is a major, seriously crippling design flaw; it encourages players (both skilled and unskilled) to "play rambo" and ignore their team. Screw individual player skill. The only really important skill in Empires (beyond the basic 'not crash into walls' and 'point this end at the enemy') should be working together with your team and responding to enemy startegy. If you have two teams (who know the basics of how to play), one with good teamwork and one with a bunch of people running off to do things on their own, the team with good teamwork should win. EVERY TIME. No exceptions. No amount of mortar skill should ever be able to, even to the slightest degree, make up for teamwork or an organized team implementing effective strategies. In a team game, the impact of individual weapon skill on gameplay always has to be balanced against the ability for people to play and work together as a team -- the more you let individual weapon skill influence things, the less teamwork matters. Players know this, this is why they run off to play rambo if they think they can get away with it. The game should be specifically and deliberately designed to nerf player's individual weapon skills, to equalize them as much as possible. The game already nerfs your SMG skills, quite deliberately; the inaccuracy of SMGs when standing or, particularly, when running when compared to when you're crouched or prone specifically nerfs the 'human aimbot' factor you get with many other games, where personal aiming abilities are more important -- in Empires, even if you're the most skilled player in the world, you're likely to die if someone takes you by surprise, because your skill with the SMG is quite deliberately and effectively nerfed by the game's design. Mortars should work the same way; if you want to show off your l33t m0rtar skillz, go play a deathmatch game. I believe that every class should have basic limitations that no amount of skill can overcome. Sure, some impact of skill is inevitable, and a cunning player can get close enough to use their stickies when a less experienced one might not manage it -- but no amount of skill will let you hit a tank with a sticky from a hundred feet away. Likewise, no amount of skill should let you use a mortar on a soldier twenty feet away. These things are basic, core limitations to the way the classes work -- they ensure that riflemen still depend on grenadiers to fight tanks at range, while grenadiers still depend on riflemen to keep them safe if they are ambushed by infantry. Your own skill should not have a very big impact in either of those, no matter how good you are. Sure, it can help a little (it always helps a little), but in my opinion a moderately experienced rifleman and grenadier who work together to cover each other's weaknesses should beat two highly skilled grenadiers who know every trick of their mortars, but don't coordinate at all -- and the people who work together should win every time, to the point where the uncoordinated grenadiers come off looking like noobs no matter how good their personal skills. Working together to cover your flaws should be the absolute heart of the game, the very height of skill; everything else should be a strictly and irrefutably inferior strategy in all cases. This is a game about teamwork. Not about showing off your personal elite mortar skills.
