Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?
Register

Light and Medium on Map Mortars

L

Larsen

Guest
I noticed that pretty much in all my games everyone (including me) is loading heavily on on board mortars. I decided to take a look at their pricing and I found the follwoing:

For the US in CMBN (everything is standard).
Light Mortar Team - 41 (5 men, 32 HE shells)
Medium Mortar Squad - 47 (5 men, 70 HE shells, 7 WP)
Medium Mortar Team - 58 (4 men + 4 carriers, 100 HE shells, 10 WP)

For Germans in CMBN
Light Mortar Team - 31 (3 men, 45 HE shells)
Medium Mortar Squad - 51 (4 men + 2 carriers, 48 HE shells, 10 smoke)

Well, for one a US medium mortar team with 100 HE shells is priced at 58 points (everything regular). This team can easily devastate a whole platoon, if not two. Easily. I don't understand why it is so cheap.
Even for Germans 48 HE shells will pretty much render a whole platoon of infantry ineffective.
Small caliber mortars are also divesting.

When I see the rules discussion for The Brigade Battles Campaign I see that eventually they agreed to limit all the support teams to a maximum of 2 of any particular support weapon per company.
My understanding is that the reason they agreed on this limitation was that the battlefield was overflowing with mortars and snipe teams.

Is it just me who feels that the mortars are priced too cheaply?
 
The problem here is that small HE in CMx2 is very effective. The 60mm mortars do a lot of damage already.

I think BFC priced them cheap because firing on-board mortars indirect is as slow as firing off-map ones. Gone is the time where a HQ standing very close to a mortar team could quickly direct fire. But as you can see players find it perfectly manageable to use them in direct fire roles, and now you have cheap units with lots of HE effect.

So it isn't so much that they are too cheap, it is that they are too effective.

In some games (times?) the German 81mm mortar also has a LMG in the carrier squad, which makes it priced nicely. Free LMGs!
 
Yes, i am talking about the direct fire mode.
The small mortars i think are intended to be used primarily like that and they are very effective.
 
Larsen said:
My understanding is that the reason they agreed on this limitation was that the battlefield was overflowing with mortars and snipe teams.
Click to expand...
I think it was HMG's rather than snipers.

I echo the sentiment of @Redwolf, the mortars are too effective for their price when used in the direct fire role. They are are almost pin point accurate and can deliver their first shells in what feels like a minute, it also wastes less ammo.

That said, it became and even bigger problem in the BB campaign as a heavy emphasis is placed on the surviving percentage of both teams after a battle, so take that rule with a grain of salt.
 
Redwolf said:
The problem here is that small HE in CMx2 is very effective. The 60mm mortars do a lot of damage already.

I think BFC priced them cheap because firing on-board mortars indirect is as slow as firing off-map ones. Gone is the time where a HQ standing very close to a mortar team could quickly direct fire. But as you can see players find it perfectly manageable to use them in direct fire roles, and now you have cheap units with lots of HE effect.

So it isn't so much that they are too cheap, it is that they are too effective.

In some games (times?) the German 81mm mortar also has a LMG in the carrier squad, which makes it priced nicely. Free LMGs!
Click to expand...
I have a different take.

I do agree that on map mortars are too cheap as they exist now.

But CM on map mortars are not as effective as mortars are in real life. So I would increase the effectiveness of CM mortars by a moderate amount and then increase their price by a large amount.

I was in the Combat Support Company of a US Infantry Battalion. We had 81mm mortars. You had better believe that mortars are incredibly lethal. Accurate, responsive and devastating. Mortars cause A LOT of casualties.

The 1980s mortars that we used were not much different than their WW2 cousins. Almost the same, really.
 
Nemesis said:
I have a different take.

I do agree that on map mortars are too cheap as they exist now.

But CM on map mortars are not as effective as mortars are in real life. So I would increase the effectiveness of CM mortars by a moderate amount and then increase their price by a large amount.

I was in the Combat Support Company of a US Infantry Battalion. We had 81mm mortars. You had better believe that mortars are incredibly lethal. Accurate, responsive and devastating. Mortars cause A LOT of casualties.

The 1980s mortars that we used were not much different than their WW2 cousins. Almost the same, really.
Click to expand...
But isn't a 60mm HE round basically 2x a hand grenade, explosives wise?
 
Have you ever had a hand grenade explode by you? WAY more power than you think.

Hollywood grossly underestimates them. In Panama, US soldiers would throw frags into rooms and then get hit by their own grenade fragments when the fragments penetrated dry wall.

In basic training when we threw live grenades.....I was shocked by their power. The ground shakes and you feel it in your chest.

Look at the kill/wound radius for mortar shells. They are seriously dangerous. Link below.

XcaGQhm.png
 
Last edited:
Nemesis said:
I have a different take.

I do agree that on map mortars are too cheap as they exist now.

But CM on map mortars are not as effective as mortars are in real life. So I would increase the effectiveness of CM mortars by a moderate amount and then increase their price by a large amount.

I was in the Combat Support Company of a US Infantry Battalion. We had 81mm mortars. You had better believe that mortars are incredibly lethal. Accurate, responsive and devastating. Mortars cause A LOT of casualties.

The 1980s mortars that we used were not much different than their WW2 cousins. Almost the same, really.
Click to expand...

Well, if that is the case then they should be even deadlier and nit just more expensive they should be much more expensive. 81mm then should cost 200+ points for the on board mortars.
Right now mortars just rule the battlefield.
 
Mortars win battles. I've never had too much mortar ammo, only too little.
For Germans, the standard loadout is 64 HE per section. I think you are getting 48 because you took an armored unit and deleted the halftracks. Then they only have 48 HE.
If you are after cheap mortar ammo in large quantities, go for British Parachute and Air Landing battalions.
 
I agree they are too cheap across the board, even without upping lethality to real life levels.

Also, I think ze Germans are once again given the short end of the stick by only getting half the amount of 81mm ammo for basically the same price.
 
Okay, so the smell HE is not too effective then.

The reason why I originally thought so is that it already does a large part of what heavier HE does. Does that mean 105 and 122-155 should have more effect in CM, too? Frightening thought.

(TacOps says yes)
 
Redwolf said:
The reason why I originally thought so is that it already does a large part of what heavier HE does. Does that mean 105 and 122-155 should have more effect in CM, too?
Click to expand...
Defintely. All HE is toned down in CM, but it seems to me large HE is toned down comparably more.
 
In casualties caused, small direct fire mortars will equal the bigger stuff by dint of accuracy and speed of effect on target, the larger stuff is scarier but it's much slower to get on target and much more indiscriminate.
The risk with the big stuff is once bought you really need to get your moneys worth from it, if you fluff the target or your opponent doesn't have as much stuff in that location as you thought - it's points wasted.

I remember a battle some time ago where my opponent brought a rocket barrage, looked and sounded scary as hell coming down... it killed one bloke and wounded three.
 
Larsen said:
Well, if that is the case then they should be even deadlier and nit just more expensive they should be much more expensive. 81mm then should cost 200+ points for the on board mortars.
Right now mortars just rule the battlefield.
Click to expand...
I agree with you @Larsen

I think that mortars can also do some unrealistic things like always being able to find a hole in trees to fire in forests. They always find a nice flat patch of firm ground to put their baseplate down. The baseplate never moves out of position. Mortar tubes never overheat.

The use of mortars should be a little more complicated than it is. Maybe with longer setup and breakdown times.
 
I don't know about all this. It feels like just rampant speculation. The HE effects being toned down are due to infantry clustering too much because of pathing limitations; together they are supposed to even things out. So, IMHO mixing the fact that HE is toned down with as discussion about the effectiveness of said HE is not really relevant. We should just stick with what the effects in game are and what we can support they should be.

Back to the topic: Some of you are saying that mortars are too effective. Based on what? Do we have studies or accounts that support this assertion? I haven't see any yet. Others say the mortars are not effective enough. Same questions.

BFC base the in game effects on some level of evidence. For some things there is a a lot of good work to base the decision on for others there is not. I realize they don't share their sources (not even with testers) but I do know that lots of things come from testers reading new releases of information etc. So, if there is evidence out there that supports your assertions please share. If not can you connect the dots from some other HE source that does have evidence. Again please share.

I am 100 percent willing to change my opinion on these types of issues but not because of anyone's feelings. I am certain Steve feels the same way but his standards are even higher than mine :)

On the subject of on map mortars used in a direct fire mode they are pretty nasty - if you can get them setup and firing. Having mortar teams at the pointy end also exposes them to incoming fire. I know my men consider mortar teams a priority target and if your mortar team is close enough to shell my guys they they are close enough for me to shoot back.
 
I think the LOS thing is a more to do with CMs spotting shenanigans, there's times I think LOS is blocked but when you draw a targeting line it remains blue - lost a few things over time that way.

I don't think the issue is so much with setup and breakdown times, 40-60 seconds seems reasonable for a regular mortar team not under fire. Aquisition of target may be too quick however, it would be helpful to speak with someone who used them for real. Overall I feel that they are too cheap for their effectiveness, which is why they are so commonly used - best bang for your buck.
Increasing the cost of on map mortars by 50 to 100% would probably bring them more in line with their real value.
 
@Stafford - I agree with you. I don't think we need to change the effectiveness of HE shells. As of right now the tac AI bunches guys together and basically one blast easily hits 3-4 men, just because they are on top of each other. The direct fire mortars should be much more expensive with the way things are simulated in CM2.
Nemesis brought up another interesting subject up - why mortars are allowed to fire through trees? I often see (and do that myself) mortars set among a bunch of trees. How does that work? I am curious to hear from someone who actually used mortars in real life.
 
Logic says that you wouldn't want to deploy a mortar in trees for fear of airbursting yourself, I've never had it happen in-game however. I do know that if you set up mortars next to a tall building and have them fire at a target on the opposite side of the building, if the flight of the shell will impact the building - the mortar team won't fire.

Regarding what @Nemesis said about overheating, off-map fire support has this limitation but not on-map, which is another feather in on-map fire support, as it were.

From the sublime to the rediculous, while toying around with using infantry guns as indirect fire (on very large maps), I found that if ordered to attack a point target they will hit it with pinpoint accuracy every time even over several kilometers!
If you want a spread pattern you have to specifically use area fire, yet when used in direct fire the guns will be subject to inaccuracy - as would be expected.
I don't believe this has any practical use in a real game, but I thought it was interesting.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top