project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > PR:BF2 Mod Forums > PR:BF2 Suggestions
20 Nov 2019, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Developer Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
PR:BF2 Suggestions Suggestions from our community members for PR:BF2. Read the stickies before posting.

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2018-06-23, 20:59   #1
Unarmed Civilian
Default We need to go back. (Mortars)

I have fond memories of barricading Muttrah City, squeezing the enemy's advance to certain choke points that had .50 and TOWs awaiting. This is no longer a reality. Because in my recent experience, since Mortars were introduced, anything, anything whatsoever built, is doomed to mortar shelling. This kind of killed immersion and the usefulness of this once critical asset for the defending positions: emplacements.

I have before suggested that mortars shouldn't be a thing available on the field, but rather work as a mini area attack that grants a mortar salvo every half the time it takes for a full area attack, mostly because it can be too punishing, specially if teams are unbalanced.

Now, I have thought about a new approach, instead of allowing mortars to be this almost "undefensable" threat, make it so it only damages infantry and vehicles, so that structures can stand firm and force the enemy to deal with them again with their own hands (C4/HE shells).

We are locked in this engine, and while the Dev team has got to lengths unimaginable with the limits they have, it is crippled with certain "bugs/limitations". Like bunkering your whole squad inside a bunker, with .50, razorwires, a FOB, and only have everything instantly pulverized by a rain of mortars, inside that THICK bunker war that was supposed to not let that happen.

So I humbly hope more few would enjoy this... Thank you for your time anyhow. Keep up the superb work, I've been a faithfull PR player since 2008'ish.
Unarmed Civilian is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2018-06-24, 09:21   #2
PR:BF2 Developer
PR Server License Administrator
Default Re: We need to go back. (Mortars)

If anything, I would reduce mortar's range on 2km maps, or slightly increase ammo cost (now that crates rearm twice as fast and carry 3 times as much ammo). I disagree on removing them.
AlonTavor is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2018-06-24, 10:17   #3
Default Re: We need to go back. (Mortars)

Originally Posted by Unarmed Civilian View Post
we are talking about "bunkers" that are built under 1 minute though...

Since you like to translate into real world, those "bunkers" would be few empty ammo boxes piled together with a couple sandbags. Something a mortar would have no issue dealing with.

agus92 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2018-06-24, 11:45   #4
Supporting Member

sweedensniiperr's Avatar
Default Re: We need to go back. (Mortars)

I agree. Perhaps it could be up to mappers to decide on what maps mortars could be on and not? Some 2km maps can be really annoying since there's not much space to hid on. While on other maps mortars are pretty necessary to defeat these "forts".

sweedensniiperr is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2018-06-24, 21:52   #5
Default Re: We need to go back. (Mortars)

There is no need to change anything on Muttrah City map.
-When both sides have commanders and mortar teams.Then it starts playing right.Commanders looking for opponent mortars and then starts bombarding each other.
-During this time infantry and vehicles have a lot of time to fight each other.
-the game would become boring if the FOB was initially set up and remained intact until the end of the battle(because the map is too tight,It's difficult to pass with the infantry behind the enemy lines)
-by the way ,mortar teams never have many points and kills(in 80% cases enemy APC come and destroy mortar pits)
-And the rarity is in the game to be seen mortar sq(nobody wants to throw the ammo boxs all round of game)
The easiest thing is to get rid of something(like ammo, range...)
The game just needs to play as it plays nothing more or less than that.

lakinen is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2018-06-26, 01:47   #6
Unarmed Civilian
Default Re: We need to go back. (Mortars)

Muttrah has no balance. The sheer mobility the USMC enjoys with helis over MEC ground vehicles is absurd if played right. We are talking about pub games, people will not have the capacity nor will to play right sometimes. Placing AA and what not. USMC's mortars can be rebuilt fast and almost anywhere if the logistics is played right. I've been witnessing a lot of USMC mortars west of Muttrah Docks, behind those high mountains that the MEC infantry will have a very tough time getting to. While MEC is "landlocked", any USMC lonewolf can sail his ways to the mainroad and hears his way toward enemy mortars.

The point though is not the use of mortars, is that it KILLED barricading yourself whilst defending, almost every time mortars will be built and your nice HMG will be deleted.
Unarmed Civilian is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2018-06-26, 01:51   #7
Unarmed Civilian
Default Re: We need to go back. (Mortars)

One of the main things that differed PR from any other tactical shooters out there, and often made and still makes it shine above all, even after some years, was the utterly superior gameplay. Building stuff on the go was something rarely seen elsewhere. Recent titles have done it, namely Squad, now Battlefield 5 is going to make it I guess, but again, same button here: Mortars killed over 75% of the defense's bonuses for barricading themselves.
Unarmed Civilian is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2018-06-26, 07:25   #8
Default Re: We need to go back. (Mortars)

It works as is should work. No need for removal.
InfantryGamer42 is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2018-06-26, 13:03   #9
Unarmed Civilian
Default Re: We need to go back. (Mortars)

This post is not about removing mortars, it's about how mortars changed gameplay in such a way that trying to barricade a sector has become almost entirely a waste of time.

And mortars do are abused. I've seem occasionally players take over a map by just building mortars, using all the ammo, then through the Squadleader, de-construct the empty mortars, then build again freshly new mortars with full ammo again. They keep doing this to keep their targeted zone a WW1 no-man's land style of thing. Where's the fun in that? Instead of concentrating on the map's objectives, the team will have to focus their main goal to hunt the mortars, and even if they succeed mortars will be rebuilt elsewhere and the same thing repeats itself over and over.

"But you can deny the enemy mortars if you leave them be and camp them, right?" Wrong!
I've tried that, the mortar squad will temporarily elect a Commander to use the "erase" ability to remotely destroy the mortars and then again rebuild them where they see fit.
Unarmed Civilian is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2018-06-27, 19:58   #10

Murphy's Avatar
Default Re: We need to go back. (Mortars)

Even if you change the range of Mortars they will still be used to destroy FOBs and the emplacements that accompany them. The whole role of Mortars is to keep the battle moving and making any static defense a big risk for the Squad that is defending in the open. They are the Rock to the Scissors of TOW/HMG (Also other Mortars to a big extent).

Having a huge FOB in the open used to be quite OP with very few counters (CAS/Armour cannot attack when the AA/TOW are manned by capable players). I believe the entire point of Mortars was to keep these FOBs from being overwhelming and to serve as a way to force teams to find hard cover or advance. Allowing games to be determined by megaFOBs doesn't happen as much as it used to and I believe that is in large part due to the implementation of Mortars as a way to demolish enemy emplacements.

Murphy is offline Reply With Quote

back, mortars
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT. The time now is 06:29.