mortars for BA?

[DigitalStef]

Do mortars CoD:WoW style! Hand thrown xD

[Stahlseele]

totally Feasbile, at least, with Power-Armor

[Scruffe]

mortars would still play an active part of combat due to the fact that they are a cheap and reliable weapon with a good amount of stopping power and ease of use.

[Valaska]

mortars would still play an active part of combat due to the fact that they are a cheap and reliable weapon with a good amount of stopping power and ease of use.

 No they really wouldn't, battle armor can take MEDIUM LASERS, Mortar CAN NOT match the stopping power of a Medium Laser unless thats like a howitzer of a mortar launcher.. Basically it would be taking a  flintlock pistol into the modern battlefield just because its cheap and can possibly hurt someone, except even interceptor one of the worst armor's out there can even stop flint lock muskets like nothing, this is what a mortar would be like against battle armor.

 At this point just to make mortar viable you'd need to spend a great deal of effort and money and time just to make a round that could hurt anything in BattleTech period, sure you could POSSIBLY hurt infantry, but usually they are wearing armor too, the concussive force would probably do the most damage unless they have an unprotected face and took shrapnel to the face. And then why bother wasting this insanely expensive and sophisticated round by just lobbing it? Why not put it attached to a missile? Missiles are VERY compact and advanced in BattleTech, this gives it a kinetic force value mortars just don't have.

 Basically mortar and mortar fire is useless in BattleTech, because infantry are usually only used for an urban warfare setting anyways and mortar unlike in video games its not very feasible in a city with tall buildings -at all- and would end up doing more collateral damage then to enemies, sort of like today when mortar teams are used in a modern urban city with buildings over 5 stories near and around, at that point its better to pack in the mortar and try to get it ontop of that building.. Which again in BattleTech if you are in that building why go out on the roof where you are exposed to all sorts of extremely sophisticated battle machines of the future more then capable of taking you down without a thought?
 No you are going to go in oh say the 4th story or even 3rd for more protection and pack an inferno or SRM portable launcher with your 24 other buddies and hope to god you nail the target in the head a few times, or just hope to god BA aren't coming because they are rather hard to hit with SRM's.

[HellHound]

Mortars would be usefull, only if there were conventional infantry to be killed with em.

[Scruffe]

mortars would still play an active part of combat due to the fact that they are a cheap and reliable weapon with a good amount of stopping power and ease of use.

 No they really wouldn't, battle armor can take MEDIUM LASERS, Mortar CAN NOT match the stopping power of a Medium Laser unless thats like a howitzer of a mortar launcher.. Basically it would be taking a  flintlock pistol into the modern battlefield just because its cheap and can possibly hurt someone, except even interceptor one of the worst armor's out there can even stop flint lock muskets like nothing, this is what a mortar would be like against battle armor.

 At this point just to make mortar viable you'd need to spend a great deal of effort and money and time just to make a round that could hurt anything in BattleTech period, sure you could POSSIBLY hurt infantry, but usually they are wearing armor too, the concussive force would probably do the most damage unless they have an unprotected face and took shrapnel to the face. And then why bother wasting this insanely expensive and sophisticated round by just lobbing it? Why not put it attached to a missile? Missiles are VERY compact and advanced in BattleTech, this gives it a kinetic force value mortars just don't have.

 Basically mortar and mortar fire is useless in BattleTech, because infantry are usually only used for an urban warfare setting anyways and mortar unlike in video games its not very feasible in a city with tall buildings -at all- and would end up doing more collateral damage then to enemies, sort of like today when mortar teams are used in a modern urban city with buildings over 5 stories near and around, at that point its better to pack in the mortar and try to get it ontop of that building.. Which again in BattleTech if you are in that building why go out on the roof where you are exposed to all sorts of extremely sophisticated battle machines of the future more then capable of taking you down without a thought?
 No you are going to go in oh say the 4th story or even 3rd for more protection and pack an inferno or SRM portable launcher with your 24 other buddies and hope to god you nail the target in the head a few times, or just hope to god BA aren't coming because they are rather hard to hit with SRM's.

you are way to caught up in your little dream world to see the real facts, so i just give up because you guys will never change.....

[(TLL)Nick]

Actually, I have to be with Valaska on this one. He brought up some interesting points. Mortars would just devastate buildings in a city, and kill innocents.

And, now that I thought of it, if you were a BA with mortars, how many rounds would you carry? A few? The simple idea of a BA with mortars, in my mind now, is useless, when you are already packing SRM's, or a ManPack PPC, it truely is obsolete.

[Scruffe]

ahh in a city center it might be but in any sort of even half open area a mortar is better because it leaves no trail to find the launcher by.

[=]FC[=Striker]

Then again, after spending a year in Mosul, the 2nd largest city in Iraq, and being mortared nearly everyday, the theory tank seems to break down a bit. We took a hell of a lot more mortar fire then we did missile fire, and you can't blame that on the supply of RPGs, because there was no shortage of RPGs. The reason they used mortars is because they could do it from a distance and move position before anyone could react (unless the anti-mortar system picked them up and automatically returned fire).

While the ammo supply would be quite limited, so is the ammo supply on any ballistic weapon that the BA would have. The only difference is that a mortar or mortar-like futuristic weapon would allow for much further range attacks that while not ultimately destroying a target or multiple targets, could soften them up for the stronger firepower. There are all sorts of sizes when it comes to mortars, and some serve more purpose then just harming ground pounders. If you look at missiles being smaller and more deadly in the future, then why is it hard to stretch that idea to other conventional weapons that are used today? Last I knew there were all sorts of ballistic weapons in BT, and they all do at least a small amount of damage.

Striker

[(TLL)Nick]

Original post: Yes, but in half-open areas, you have to hit a MOVING 'Mech, usually they will be going 45kph, no slower, and not only do you have to hit them, you have to hit them repetitively. And, as soon as the rounds are exploding, all forces in the area will be thinking and saying, "Hey, there's a BA here somewhere..."

And, if you were firing at a stationary 'Mech, why not just drop behind him, or somewhere out of his view, and TAG him, so instead of small mortar rounds, you have LRM's flying in from all corners of the map, right on top of him. And, with the TAG, you will have precision on your side.


Now that Striker posted while I was going to, that states my previous argument. I don't know which way to sway to. I'll just talk about the pros and cons of each side.

[=KoS= Eldragon]

So let me get this straight, this thread is comparing modern mortars versus the totally fictional weaponry of a totally fictional universe?  We can label the mortars "Antimatter Mortars" and declare one hit is equal to that of an Arrow IV. What is really important is gameplay balance.

So the real question is: Would Indirect fire weapons contribute to the fun factor of the game? I am inclined to think they would, but not worth adding to the game just yet. I would rather have a Mech lab, or AI controlled squads of infantry to squish.

[Bowrrl]

I just don't see a point to Mortars. You are taking a unit that best works off of mobility and closing in on a target and giving it a weapon that requires it to be stationary and is preferable to be as far away from the target as possible while using it.

Who cares, throw it in. I always have trouble hitting small targets like BA so the 1 second where they stop to fire and hope to do insignificant damage to me will help me out a lot.

Now special shells in the mortar... like a smoke bomb... that could be some use...

[Askis]

What you guys need to remember, MWLL is in Feature lock afaik, which means no new stuff until after the release.

Oh and imho, mortars would be unnecessary, if I can strap a manpack-ppc to my elemental, I've got a powerful gun with unlimited ammo, beats sitting on a hill, lobbing shells and hoping my target doesn't move away from the point of impact.

[=]FC[=Striker]

So let me get this straight, this thread is comparing modern mortars versus the totally fictional weaponry of a totally fictional universe?  We can label the mortars "Antimatter Mortars" and declare one hit is equal to that of an Arrow IV. What is really important is gameplay balance.

So the real question is: Would Indirect fire weapons contribute to the fun factor of the game? I am inclined to think they would, but not worth adding to the game just yet. I would rather have a Mech lab, or AI controlled squads of infantry to squish.

This thread is not about comparing RL to fiction, it is just debating that the fiction can be compared to advances on RL weaponry and that mortars should not be excluded in this advancement of fiction.

I just don't see a point to Mortars. You are taking a unit that best works off of mobility and closing in on a target and giving it a weapon that requires it to be stationary and is preferable to be as far away from the target as possible while using it.

Who cares, throw it in. I always have trouble hitting small targets like BA so the 1 second where they stop to fire and hope to do insignificant damage to me will help me out a lot.

Now special shells in the mortar... like a smoke bomb... that could be some use...

This point is true to a certain extent. The purpose of the BA as you see it is mobility and closing in on a target, but in a mech dominated world, I see BA as more a harassment factor which can be accomplished long range or short. The point also is that the damage would not be insignificant, although it would not be devastating on the other extreme. It could have its use tactically, which provides for a much more interesting and enjoyable experience then straight up slug fests.

What you guys need to remember, MWLL is in Feature lock afaik, which means no new stuff until after the release.

Oh and imho, mortars would be unnecessary, if I can strap a manpack-ppc to my elemental, I've got a powerful gun with unlimited ammo, beats sitting on a hill, lobbing shells and hoping my target doesn't move away from the point of impact.

Set up a few BA with this type of weaponry and target a nice choke point and it is a viable opening attack. This could do a decent amount of damage, softening a target, without exposing the BA. Its purpose would be to cause a bit of confusion before the BA moves in under the cover of heavier firepower. It isn't perfect, it isn't overpowered, but another possibility that could be added to the arsenal.

[(TLL)Highlander]

The main problem i see with this is the indirect fire element. I dont know what kind of radar or targeting capabilities BA are going to have, but to be any use at long range you will have to know where your target is. Unless you and your target is in a direct line of sight then you wouldnt know where to shoot, and then you would probably get smoked while setting up or firing. If you where behind a hill or other terrain then you would have to rely on a spotter or your targeting data for distance and position. If you are within radar range then you might as well hop on top of your hill and hit them with your weaponry insead of relying on your opponent's predictability and your own skill with judging distance and other factors required to put shells on target. On the other hand if you relied on a spotter it would take a lot of coordination to hit unless you where on a VoIP. In this case it would be more effective to use a spotter for a missile strike with TAG and a missile boat or an aerospace run for greater damage and accuracy.