mortars v tanks

[cardiffian]

I find that mortars used against tanks and disrupting them is so unrealistic
Mortars against tank destroyers(open topped), light vehicles, and half tracks is fine. I think the only artillery that should be allowed to disrupt or knockout tanks is the heavy artillery.

[IainMcNeil]

Have you been inside a tank that got hit by a mortar shell? It must have been pretty terrifying. For a start you don't know for sure what it was that hit you. If it hit your track there is a chance it could blow something off or damage it enough to be unusable so I think having a morale effect is justified. It's pretty marginal and wont really stop a tank unless it happens turn after turn without pause or you get very lucky.

[cardiffian]

Come on Iain, your just making excuses here. And to answer your question, no I haven't been inside a WW2 tank that was hit by a mortar shell. Have you??
I have read lots of books about WW2 and not once come across a tank getting disrupted or even knocked out by a mortar shell or shells. I stand by my original message, it's not realistic and I have not come across this in any other WW2 game I have played.

[junk2drive]

Bob we are having this discussion over at the Panzer Command forum as well.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3143729

[cardiffian]

Thanks J2D
I will head over there shortly and add my tenpence worth

[gortwillsaveus]

Have you been inside a tank that got hit by a mortar shell? It must have been pretty terrifying. For a start you don't know for sure what it was that hit you. If it hit your track there is a chance it could blow something off or damage it enough to be unusable so I think having a morale effect is justified. It's pretty marginal and wont really stop a tank unless it happens turn after turn without pause or you get very lucky.

I agree with those sentiments. In fact, I was going to say almost the same thing.
I totally agree that if you're in a tank (WW2 era) and a mortar blasts up-side your tank, you're morale will most definitely take a hit.

I suppose the other argument is this,..suppose your a mortar team that gets surprised by a tank coming down the road that will ambush your platoon.
You're cut-off and can't retreat and your only effective weapon is the mortar rounds.
I'd be firing those mortar as fast as I could until I ran out of them.
If you're hidden well,...that could easily frustrate the tank crew not knowing where the shots were coming from and will probably cause them to retreat until they have more intel. The mere fact that they retreat is effectively equivalent to lowering their morale in this game.

In the movie "Saving Private Ryan" or perhaps "Band of Brothers",..didn't they take the mortars bang them to ignite the fuse and throw them like grenades?

[cardiffian]

I totally agree that if you're in a tank (WW2 era) and a mortar blasts up-side your tank, you're morale will most definitely take a hit.
Ok, let's go along those lines. Mortar shell hits tank. The crew get shaken up. But that should be it!!

I suppose the other argument is this,..suppose your a mortar team that gets surprised by a tank coming down the road that will ambush your platoon.
You're cut-off and can't retreat and your only effective weapon is the mortar rounds.
I'd be firing those mortar as fast as I could until I ran out of them.
The tank is moving down the road and your trying to hit it with mortar shells??

If you're hidden (then you can't see the tank!
well,...that could easily frustrate the tank crew not knowing where the shots were coming from and will probably cause them to retreat until they have more intel. The mere fact that they retreat is effectively equivalent to lowering their morale in this game.

In the movie "Saving Private Ryan" or perhaps "Band of Brothers",..didn't they take the mortars bang them to ignite the fuse and throw them like grenades?[/quote]
That's in a movie and we all know what Hollywood is like.

[Brummbar44]

Being a gunner and seeing the effects of artillery and mortar fire I think I can speak to this point.

I think how BA handles the effect mortars would have is accurate. It is a disruptive effect which is reflected in the game as a loss of morale (don't think I've seen a tank taken out with mortars). A mortar attack on a tank could disable the vehicle (blow a track or wreck the wheels), it would certainly cause problems if the tank isn't hatches closed. Barring that, it's not just a matter of being shaken up if hit by mortars...a direct hit would send the crew reeling...imagine being inside a bell when a bomb hits it!

Loss of morale isn't unreasonable...and it works well in the game.

[k9mike]

Being a gunner and seeing the effects of artillery and mortar fire I think I can speak to this point.

I think how BA handles the effect mortars would have is accurate. It is a disruptive effect which is reflected in the game as a loss of morale (don't think I've seen a tank taken out with mortars). A mortar attack on a tank could disable the vehicle (blow a track or wreck the wheels), it would certainly cause problems if the tank isn't hatches closed. Barring that, it's not just a matter of being shaken up if hit by mortars...a direct hit would send the crew reeling...imagine being inside a bell when a bomb hits it!

Loss of morale isn't unreasonable...and it works well in the game.

There....Is that good enough for ya????:;)
Thank you for your post.

[gortwillsaveus]

Being a gunner and seeing the effects of artillery and mortar fire I think I can speak to this point.

I think how BA handles the effect mortars would have is accurate. It is a disruptive effect which is reflected in the game as a loss of morale (don't think I've seen a tank taken out with mortars). A mortar attack on a tank could disable the vehicle (blow a track or wreck the wheels), it would certainly cause problems if the tank isn't hatches closed. Barring that, it's not just a matter of being shaken up if hit by mortars...a direct hit would send the crew reeling...imagine being inside a bell when a bomb hits it!

Loss of morale isn't unreasonable...and it works well in the game.

Well stated!! Thanks for sharing your first-hand experience and for serving your country.

[cardiffian]

Being a gunner and seeing the effects of artillery and mortar fire I think I can speak to this point.

I think how BA handles the effect mortars would have is accurate. It is a disruptive effect which is reflected in the game as a loss of morale (don't think I've seen a tank taken out with mortars). A mortar attack on a tank could disable the vehicle (blow a track or wreck the wheels), it would certainly cause problems if the tank isn't hatches closed. Barring that, it's not just a matter of being shaken up if hit by mortars...a direct hit would send the crew reeling...imagine being inside a bell when a bomb hits it!

Loss of morale isn't unreasonable...and it works well in the game.

But it would have to be a lucky shot by a mortar team to hit a tank. I think it happens far too often in the game. And thanks for the post.

[Brummbar44]

But it would have to be a lucky shot by a mortar team to hit a tank.

Indeed it would...were it just one tube firing. Mortars, like artillery, is an 'area' weapon in that it targets an area and just tries to put rounds there...hitting things is tricky in general. The motto of the artillery is Ubique which we like to think means 'everywhere' but the infantry like to say it means 'all over the place'. LOL!

Also, don't forget that tanks tend to have the thinnest armour on top...mortars have plunging fire that tends to come directly down. In contrast to artillery which comes in at an angle. So in some ways, mortars are actually more effective than artillery. They actually fire great illumination missions as a result.

Thanks for the kind words guys! It was an honour serving.

[cardiffian]

But it would have to be a lucky shot by a mortar team to hit a tank.

Indeed it would...were it just one tube firing. Mortars, like artillery, is an 'area' weapon in that it targets an area and just tries to put rounds there...hitting things is tricky in general. The motto of the artillery is Ubique which we like to think means 'everywhere' but the infantry like to say it means 'all over the place'. LOL!

Also, don't forget that tanks tend to have the thinnest armour on top...mortars have plunging fire that tends to come directly down. In contrast to artillery which comes in at an angle. So in some ways, mortars are actually more effective than artillery. They actually fire great illumination missions as a result.

Thanks for the kind words guys! It was an honour serving.

This argument can go on for ever but I still believe it has to be a lucky shell which hits the top of the tank and in the right place. Even with several mortars firing. And what does the mortar team in this game represent? I have no idea how many mortars are in that team. Maybe someone can enlighten me.

[Vulcan]

I have to say that I agree with the original poster here, WW2 mortars seem to be designed as portable support/anti-personnel weapons; to saturate areas quickly and suppress infantry. Once the mortaring stopped though the enemy infantry would generally be functional again. Artillery and mortars in WW2 are by nature fairly random weapons from a soldiers perspective. Protected infantry in foxholes are probably safe(ish) albeit 'suppressed'.

Moving tanks (not open top vehicles though) would pass through mortared areas quickly though and would be unlucky to be directly hit. Sure, they would be sprayed with shrapnel but that's all par for the course in a tankers life. At least when in a mortar 'storm' they were safe from enemy infantry attacks. Experienced tank crews may be able to tell the difference between the sounds of mortar shells (which they knew couldn't penetrate the armour) and anti-tank weapons being fired.

Ultimately, if mortars had proven anti-tank or tank crew morale-hammering capabilities then I feel sure we would have seen/read about them being commonly employed in this way. Happy to be corrected here but I am not aware of any such common usage.

However, opinions seem to vary on the subject so perhaps this is one of several situations in BA where options offered in multi-player game setup would help make everybody happy ?

e.g. options to

- Do not allow mortars to affect tank morale values
- Do not show enemy morale values
- Do not show enemy infantry ammunition (stock of 'explosives')
- Do not show enemy infantry experience chevrons

The person setting the game up can select which rules are active/inactive. I doubt that any of the above would be game breakers and of course both sides would be subject to the same rules.

Regards

[gortwillsaveus]

Let's not forget that back in WW2, we're talking about mostly "citizen soldiers". Most of these soldiers had minimal training, if barely any.
We're not talking about professional soldiers, or M1A1 tanks, but thin skinned Shermans with kids shoved in a sardine can.
I've been in a Sherman tank, a Panther, and a M1A1,...it's scary to think that, that armor on a Sherman was all that protected the crew.

I suppose it is true, we could argue this point forever,....but I like the potential suppression the mortar provides.
If you also notice, in the game, the mortar shots are mostly off from where you originally targeted.
So there is some randomness in those shots.

[Slowbius]

As Vulcan suggested, perhaps these option could be made configurable when setting a MP game up? At least then we'd have the choice.

From my point of view mortars and in particular bombard units such as Priest and Wespe are lethal, and possibly a little too powerful. They can sit at the edge of the board for the entire game with little or no chance of being discovered and lay down a constant barrage of fire which can severely disrupt any type of unit.

[joelq]

Id like to see less hard coded thresholds in game and more probability calculations being used. We currently use probabilities for hit/miss and damage. However id like to see it extended to include morale state and the amount of morale loss inflicted. The threshold between suppressed and unsuppressed should be more 'grey' and less predictable for each encounter.

Same goes for healthy tanks defensive reaction shots. If a unit is a threat and in sight of a healthy tank then reaction fire should not be so limited as to only 1 defensive round (i realise theres circumstances when theres more but most common 'hot' encounters its 1). There should be a probability of defensive fire that increases according to proximity of the threat. Theres a tad too much 'gaming the game' that occurs to healthy tanks once you manage to draw out their defensive reaction shot quota with low % long range bait. Its then all too easy to drive, front on, right along side it and pop it knowing its impotent and zero threat. If you want to kill a tank you should have to overmatch it, flank it unseen or suppress it and then approach from the front.

[bjarmson]

I think the type of armored vehicle should play a part in formulating the suppressing effect. Armored personnel carriers the highest, open top antitank vehicles a little lower, lightly armored tanks next, till Tigers aren't affected much at all. At the moment, there doesn't seem to be any difference when suppressing a halftrack or a Tiger. I regularly use my mortars to keep knocking points off the Tigers morale until I get bailout. This doesn't seem particularly realistic.

[gortwillsaveus]

I regularly use my mortars to keep knocking points off the Tigers morale until I get bailout. This doesn't seem particularly realistic.

And see, I like this because the mortars are wasting their shots on a Tiger instead of targeting my infantry.
Besides, Tigers and especially King Tigers, are essentially a waste and I find useless.
They can't move that far, break down often, and are targeted relentlessly.
I like to use them as a mobile pillbox. or should I say immobile pill box.

I see all of this as a fine balance,...if you modify or restrict one particular aspect of this game, then another aspect gets more power than it should.
Think symbiosis.

As for this game having "gaminess",..well I suppose I agree.
Except for one thing,...all games have gaminess.
You just can't software engineer randomness in every aspect of a game.
There has to be some form of predictiveness to the AI, just as I can predict where a human player will press their attack in a few scenarios.

Take for example the scenario "Christmas Surprise".
I have a pretty good idea that more than 90% or more of the time, the attack will come on the right flank.
Why,..because you as a intelligent being see that if you drive your armor though the forest on the left flank,..you'll get ambushed every time.

Good topic,..with lots of comments,...I see both sides of this issue and agree with these points,....it's just that I'd hate to see a change come in that throws off the games enjoyable playability.

[IainMcNeil]

Its very easy to stop mortars hurting tanks but I think the way it works is fine. How many tanks have you seen stopped by a mortar fire in the game?