Mortar Troop

[MSS-Gaming]

Do you use the mortar troop?

 

[FroggyKilla]

There was absolutely no reason to run Siege Infantry over Ranged Artillery, except the lower space costs (6 from 9). Thank god they’re fixing the train costs and times.

 

[KniferX]

I don't see this helping a lot. Train time per troop space for mortar will be 90 seconds compared to ranged siege's 100 seconds per troop space and the food costs will be reduced, but it still doesn't make it worthwhile to ever use over the classic no-delay on shooting ranged siege.

 

[Navalis]

I would vote: I use on occasion to change things up!
I enjoy the mortar troop and am working on the Library buffs now. Looking forward to the range 5 at which point I am sure I will use it a lot more. We shall see...

 

[Manifesto]

I tried them and found them underwhelming except for one thing, when they deploy and fire the graphics are better.

 

[Mcnasty]

The only thing I find them good for is a war base filler for lower ranks they can only fit 15 troops. They might be better for attack in large groups

 

[SiuYin]

I have tried mortar before.
Even with full Library Upgrade, Mortar Troop are not easy to use
(All number based on base state of atomic unit)
1. Slow Projectile Motion: Waste a lot of hit on the ground
2. Low DPS:
351 vs defender, 59 per troop space, while shooter got 180
351 vs defense building. 59 per troop space, while howie got 75 per troop space

3. Low Damage per hit
700 per hit, while Howie is 2000 per hit

4. Bad AI
I guess it is using AI template of Heave Infantry instead of Siege, always stupid movement on the battleground

 

[Munchy]

As I said in a previous post, train time & cost matter 0 grams to me. What they really need is a buff, maybe one that corresponds with the library tech. As it is now, I think the majority of us will never use it in place of howies. I myself only try them every now and then in multiplayer to experiment, maybe see if something clicks. Of course, nothing does, they’re just too unreliable.

 

[Manifesto]

The first 3 points are all the reasons I don't use them.
I would rather use an army of oil-rich bazookas than an army of mortars.

 

[_Flash_]

The unit might benefit a lot from just one change: have them focus exclusively on buildings. Change the 'Favorite Targets' from 'Any' to 'Nearest building', similar to the siege units, and the unit might be a lot more usable.

 

[Saruman the White]

Sometimes I use it, there are also times that I use it along with ranged siege. The basic advantage over ranged siege is that they do better when having to deal with troops.

 

[Horsepower]

The troop space discourages me from using them. The value isn’t there.

 

[Isrem Ovani]

They are only worth using after the library range enhancement. They sadly still do less damage than the siege units, but still, the ANY compared to nearest building as default target makes them worth using to me. I always have 3 of them with me, and they mostly survive the battle because of this target type.

 

[Quovatis]

The projectiles are so slow that they miss their targets half the time, totally wasting their DPS.

 

[Motaz Tarek]

the main reason i will never use them is that I won't risk wasting time/workers to max their university researches to find out they suck at the end
as long as i test them without these upgrades I won't be able to tell if they r better than howitzers, and I won't do these upgrade just for the sake of finding which is better

 

[Manifesto]

Even with an increased range and rate of fire the mechanics of the mortar is ''wanting''. They lob shells at a base in a lazy arc where as the howitzer fires directly and does more damage.
Rifles also shoot over a wall AND rifles shoot directly at a target. 6 rifles = more dps/hp than one mortar troop.
Rifles are also better at protecting artillery than mortars. Mortars need a serious buff, higher splash damage would be great.
I like the way they look but I'm here to win, not look pretty!

 

[Tsamu]

Theorizing is all well and good, but experimentation is the true test. I swapped my 4 field howitzers for 6 field mortars, both Atomic level, mortars with the library research to increase range to 5. My howitzers have almost max uní skills, my mortars about half. The rest of my army (5 main battle tanks, 6 infantry, 2 tactical helicopters, 39 Royal Green Jackets, 5 mk6 strike fighters) stayed the same. The mortars work as well as, if not better than, the howies.

I am level 237 Cold War Age, and I keep my medals in the 1300 - 1800 range so I have silo-less bases to raid. I will hit any base under level 190 as long as it does not have any defensive blessings, and has a relatively straightforward layout. I use tactics, mercenaries, and alliance troops only as a last resort, or if I come across a juicy base and want to be sure to clear it. I drop tanks, mortars, helicopters, green jackets in that order. I use my fighters right from the start to take out anti tank guns and mortar buildings, after first clearing any buildings on the flight path that shoot at planes. I rarely lose a fighter.

What would happen with howitzers is one would wander off on its own and either roll over a spike trap or trigger an ambush trap and die. So in about 50% of attacks I would lose at least 1 howitzer. The mortars stick together, so they are protected by my green jackets and tanks. They also fire at defending troops, which is actually a desirable behavior because they protect themselves. I rarely lose a field mortar, and even if I do lose one, I don't care, because they are quick(era) and cheap(er) to retrain. I will keep using them and report back in a day or 2 with any additional observations.

The only downside is I no longer have howitzers to donate, which is what most people want. Or maybe that's a good thing

 

[Quovatis]

In my experience, by the time the mortar projectiles land, the defender has moved out of the way, wasting the entire firing sequence.

 

[_Flash_]

One reason the mortars might be working well might have to do with the troop composition. Out of a maximum troop capacity of 155, 39 shooters is on the lower side compared to other typical compositions. Typically, most others carry a lot more number of shooters. The lower number of shooters in the composition might mean there's a higher concentration of defending units to deal with. In this situation, the mortars might be landing more of their shells on the defending troops. They might be doing a better job of crowd control when there are a lot more defenders to deal with.
My typical low cost troop composition for getting NTGs is 2 main battle tanks, 5 field howitzers, 2 supply convoys, and 76 shooters. With a larger proportion of shooters in the troop composition, the mortars are probably not being as effective when the shooters make short work of the defenders before the mortars are able to land their shells on the defending troops.
Interesting to observe that the mortars are being more effective with a troop composition involving fewer shooters. It's giving me some ideas to try out.

 

[Manifesto]

So what you're saying is the mortar troops work well for you, as long as you select an easy enough base with a straightforward layout, below lvl 190, without any blessings and no silo.
Well, if you have to select ''those'' types of bases, I think it explains why rifles are better than mortars.