Poll

How do you feel about the artillery currently in game?

I don't mind getting killed by it at all, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
It is (a bit too) powerful, but i can live with it.
Sometimes I get frustrated, it kills me too often!

Author Topic: Artillery effectiveness  (Read 3502 times)

Offline Slayer

  • Freeze Veteran
  • FH-Betatester
  • ***
  • Posts: 4.002
    • View Profile
Re: Artillery effectiveness
« Reply #45 on: 09-05-2012, 19:05:21 »
@Slayer

Relax, please. It's just my opinion and I like FH2 very much, no need for modern warfare ;)

Again, correct me if I'm wrong with my picture of reality, otherwise I fear you are going to be even more mad at me :)
Hehe, I'm not mad :)

I actually agree with you on the mortar thing, that might be interesting gameplay (more interesting than simply removing it, imo). And on other artillery: yes of course irl the guns would become targets, but usually for airplanes only, which is nicely represented in FH2 as well. So imo that's the way to keep it.

@ Solifuge: I see how this thread developed, maybe we can discuss fiurther in /Feedback then? And yes, arty can be cumbersome, but I'm sure you can be smart enough to find a way to deal with it, right? :)

Offline kaminikaze

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: Artillery effectiveness
« Reply #46 on: 09-05-2012, 22:05:56 »
little suggestion:

Mortars in real life : They fire, they cover a big area. Not a very precise weapon.
Mortars in FH: They fire, they can hit a target spot on. Not realistic. Leads to much frustration on maps like Brest.

But...
On large maps, where mortars are necessary to break through static defences (Alam Halfa is the prime example here), accuracy is needed to be able to shoot certain gun emplacements that are dug in or covered by sandbags.

==> Is it possible for the developpers to make 2 kinds of mortars;
mortars for large maps, that are precise, like they are now.
and mortars for small, crowded maps, that have a certain inaccuracy built in?
shoot on sight :


Offline Kelmola

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2.853
    • View Profile
Re: Artillery effectiveness
« Reply #47 on: 09-05-2012, 22:05:18 »
If anything, arty (both mortars and howizers) is not powerful enough. C'mon, the shrapnel should be lethal out to tens of metres, now it's more like you have to get almost direct hit with mortar,s and one survives even howizers and commander arty standing upright at a distance you should (and would) be perforated IRL.

That in some maps, artillery dominates more than in some others, is a map design issue, not proof that arty would be in any way OP. Even on those maps, most of the casualties come from repeatedly spawning at a flag that's being shelled by arty, instead of spawning at another, non-shelled flag. This much the same song as is with the never-ending complaints of "camping" by tanks when they are actually doing what they are supposed to  - laying suppressing fire to a known (or suspected) enemy position.

Offline Flyboy1942

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 633
  • AKA: Ghanrage
    • View Profile
Re: Artillery effectiveness
« Reply #48 on: 10-05-2012, 21:05:02 »
Heh they wouldnt be complaining about camping if it wasnt an obvious, known location and they spawned there a few times. : P

I'm still happy with arty as it is. It has a solid kill radius, and you can adjust/walk your shots with reasonable accuracy. Any weaker would be going against one of the main ideals of FH, historical accuracy. Majority of casualties in war are from Artillery.

If anything, arty (both mortars and howizers) is not powerful enough. C'mon, the shrapnel should be lethal out to tens of metres, now it's more like you have to get almost direct hit with mortar,s and one survives even howizers and commander arty standing upright at a distance you should (and would) be perforated IRL.


The thing is a tens of meters chunk of land usually has more ground releif/clutter/previous shell holes for soldiers to dive into compared to the unforgivingly flat areas ingame. so I just imagine the lowered effective range to be taking this into account as well as the random distribution of shrapnel as you get farther away from ground zero.

Offline Comrade Roe

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 328
  • Achtung panzer!
    • View Profile
Re: Artillery effectiveness
« Reply #49 on: 11-05-2012, 01:05:18 »
I love arty. It's a way of bringing teamwork in, and it can touch on how a game ends depending on who's on it and how they're using it.

I find that artillery is only unfair if A: it bombards a base or B: is hacking, and whoever hacks should be banned anyway.

Meanwhile, artillery is mean't to kill. I mean, it's job is to prevent the enemy from doing what they want. Shouldn't it continue to do so?

BTW, I also agree the god view is OP. You can easily adjust right on top of things. You already have a spotter, why do you need a second eye? Though, with minimap, it helps show if friendlies are there, preventing FF accidents.

Also, I think that if spotted targets by friendlies were marked on map, it'd also get friendlies out of the way.