The mortar, yet again.

There has been a lot of controversy recently on the subject of the mortar(Mowtah), and the grenadier class itself. I'm here to suggest how it should be used, and what the weapon is for. Yes, I know Empires fucks realism in the as*, however there are some similarities.

First of all, what is the purpose of a mortar?

From this, you gather the mortar is a weapon used to fire over short-medium distances from an entrenched position. It is a slow moving, high-velocity projectile, designed for indirect fire. Its shell explodes upon impact, supporting the indirect-fire function and its support role on the field.

How does this relate to Empires?
Well, to say it bluntly, mortars are not used for their intended purpose. Many people are simply going in, launching at blunt-range, and either dieing or leaving. THIS IS NOT AN INTENDED FEATURE.

How I suggest they be used.
Mortars should be a support weapon. They are not designed to kill, however they can one-hit people still IF HIT DIRECTLY. Their explosion radius should be big, but with a smaller amount of force. The mortar should be altered to it shoots with less force, and have a MINIMUM trajectory of 45 degrees.

 

I thank you very much that you finaly explained us how a real life mortar works.

 

Don't mention anything remotely corresponding to reality or mayama will get a headache of reading the text .

On a serious note check the gameplay section, there is the discussion. But if you really want we can start a new mortar war here too, but i don't got the energy to repeat myself and argue with people for 20 pages so i pass.

 

High sarcastic post cause I know that this will be a flamewar in one week

 

All of these are quality examples of mortars. Each is fired at a high-trajectory. Each is designed for a SUPPORT role.
*Edit
You two bastards poasted before I did. Anyways, this SHOULD NOT be a flamewar. This is a thread about what I believe/suggest mortars should do, and it will stay that way. You can post the good things, and hell, post about the negatives, BUT KEEP IT CLEAN.

 

Problems:
A. You only need indirect fire for dealing with turrets, really. Nearly everything else is better dealt with in deathmatch-style combat.
B. We've got modern pinpoint mortars with precision warheads, but our aiming methods are essentially from the stone age. (Artillery feedback is slightly better than asking the scout where it landed.)
C. Artillery tanks are the only indirect fire weapons powerful enough to compete in empires' constantly respawn-happy and repair-happy battlefield (and they're still better as direct-fire, for the aforementioned reasons). In turn they're balanced by their high cost, something that can't be done with infantry mortars.

 

Well, if you make the mortar weaker, then the RPG will need to be upgraded.

If the RPG had the same style as Team Fortress, that could even it out.

 

Go bump an old discussion no need to make another thread

 

bump

so anywayz this gayme is not like realisticzzz!!

 

It doesn't matter. Anyone can kill a tank with an RPG, it takes 3 hits to kill turrets, and both of them aren't meant for infantry.
Indirect fire is good for dealing with people who hide behind obstacles to nade-spam, or for getting over hills, or over buildings. Fact is, it's dead useful.
*Edit
And stop telling me to just go bump an old topic. I have my own views, and I'll post them. Plus, what does "Yet again" in my title mean? I'm acknowledging the fact that there are similar threads, and this is another one.

 

And we don't need another one, exactly why I suggested to go bump another thread with more/better discussion already included

 

However, all of those threads have turned into a flaming pile of text. Mine shall be filled with genuine statements; unlike what is happening now

 

Glad that's going well for you.

Like everyone else has said, there are tons of mowtar discussion threads, continue the discussion there.