Are mortars basebombing?

[kwok]

Hello guys,

Trying to get a sense of what is considered basebombing, what is not, when it's allowed, when it isn't.

Write down below your rules on "basebombing". Try to be as specific, absolute, and definitive as possible please.

[Eldrak1911]

Basebombing. Let's cut this word in two parts : Base, and bombing.

This the action of bombing a base.

What's a base ?
- A base is the ground where the hq is. For the british, it could be the first place of the first truck. (I almost never move my first truck as brit)

What's bombing ?
- Bombing is the action of launching or dropping a bomb.

What's a bomb ?
- It's an explosive projectile, mostly pretty big.

So, mortar, howitzer, airbombers, they all can do some basebombing.

So, yes, mortar can be counted, imo, as basebombers.

[JimQwilleran]

Generaly, if someone is able to get a mortar to bomb ur base, u are pretty much losing the game already. BUT if you play a very small map, Lorriane for example, 120mm/4,2 inch mortars can bomb enemy buildings from your own HQ.

I avoid bombing bases even if I am winning, I dislike it. I only bomb AA guns and AI after players drop.

[kwok]

So I've also been bombed by calliope plenty of times. Offmap armor/LT/observer call ins, mortar call ins, etc. Do those count as basebombing?

[Armacalic]

Call me pragmatic, but if I'm at the enemy's doorstep and I'm faced with the choice of extending the game, and risking losing, or ending it as quickly as possible, I'd go for the kill shot to begin with. Now for the actual question, seldomly does a mortar get to attack an enemy spawn unless the enemy player is abysmal.

Is it base bombing? Well, yes. However, should it be counted as base bombing? In my opinion, no. The mortars are usually not as devastating or resilient and usually don't have the range of a proper artillery cannon. A sneaky sniper can put an end to the mobile mortars, and if you're in a situation were an emplacement mortar is within range of your base, I'd say it's not the enemy's fault there.

[Erich]

it depends on the caliber of mortars,if its 81mm,60,51 its not basebomb but as illa said the mortars that has 105+ are counted as arty. If a arty has 105mm and count as basebomber why a mortar that has 120 wil not be counted as basebomber.



Edit: The main problem is most of players will ignore the battlefield and use the arty to finish the game without any skills or even without capture the territory. u can see a example that is panzerlehr,both of matchs vs me and zadoff he did basebomb,if he rush for early base bomb he could win the game without any skills.

[kwok]

Armacalic, so would you say basebombing should be allowed overall? If not, when would it be fine to basebomb and with what means are allowed?

[Armacalic]

As a personal opinion, I'd say, base bombing should be allowed overall. Arty is a mean to put pressure onto an enemy, make them play faster or lose the game for it.

But I do understand that it is annoying, why wouldn't it be, something you cannot immediately counter is kicking your ass. It's not your fault or your enemy's, it's just a tried and true tactic, destroying an enemy while minimizing your own losses will never be so much easier than with indirect fire.

Though, if I had to budge and concede some no base bombing rules, I'd only refrain from attacking an enemy base sector with arty until it's clear the fighting has moved there.

[JimQwilleran]

I hate base bombing, and imo it should be never allowed in any form. It kills fun, we are not playing war simulator (sic!) we play war game thus we should aim for fun, not for brutally effective tactics that give victory but 0 fun.

As a personal opinion, I'd say, base bombing should be allowed overall. Arty is a mean to put pressure onto an enemy, make them play faster or lose the game for it.

That would mean the games as: All players are RA or Def, all goes directly for arty - who gets more arty wins.

Though, if I had to budge and concede some no base bombing rules, I'd only refrain from attacking an enemy base sector with arty until it's clear the fighting has moved there.

Now that is what I agree with. No base arty until you have enemy base in small arms range.

[Armacalic]

That would mean the games as: All players are RA or Def, all goes directly for arty - who gets more arty wins.

I'd say that's not necessarily the only thing would happen, only more static players, those who like to dig too much or are otherwise overly reliant only on support units would be the ones to suffer from such teams. More dynamic compositions should be the counter to arty heavy players.

[Warhawks97]

When mortars can fire into the enemie base then it usually means that you ahve taken the map. But on maps like lorraine, alsace moselle or duclair the (heavy) mortars can fire more or less from base to base. So then its actually basebomb.

But attacking base def is never a sort of basebomb, even if you use arty.
I always try to avoid shooting with any indirect weapon on enemie buildings and HQ retreat point.

When enemie is fighting out of his base with arty and mortars then you can fire back. Also when enemies build their defense in their base (Trenches, bunkers, paks etc) then you can shoot them with mortar.


Personally i dont have sooo many problems getting basebomb. Its nasty but i learned that lesson in all my vcoh games. There are no rules or "gentlemen playing". Also, even if it sounds stupid, getting basebombed helped me to win. When my enemie killed my buildings and not my units then i could use that to my advantage to make an major attack with my units. I just had to keep them alive and a forward Halftrack to reinforce. Ive won games where my entire base was down. Once at duclair even my FHQ was down but ive turned it and rebuild my entire base. Then the same at halfaya pass where i had my stormtooper HT as spawn point while i kept my panther alive to win at the end with completely destroyed base.

[Devilfish]

Standard manner of victory:
Winning the game by gaining overall military and map control superiority, resulting in vast resource income and simultaneously constraining opponents resources significantly, ending by destroying the opponent's base.

Basebombing:
Winning the game by destroying enemy base buildings with long range, indirect fire, with the goal of preventing the opponent from building more and more advanced units, reinforce operational units and rebuild the base buildings again. In order to achieve this, overall and map control superiority is not required.

[JimQwilleran]

Standard manner of victory:
Winning the game by gaining overall military and map control superiority, resulting in vast resource income and simultaneously constraining opponents resources significantly, ending by destroying the opponent's base.

Basebombing:
Winning the game by destroying enemy base buildings with long range, indirect fire, with the goal of preventing the opponent from building more and more advanced units, reinforce operational units and rebuild the base buildings again. In order to achieve this, overall and map control superiority is not required.

Ineed, good contradistinction.

[kwok]

Ok. Define in the most definitive terms, what is map control superiority, vast resource income/constrained resource income.
Is it 80% map control? Is it all points captured up to enemy base? Can I just straight attack a base without controlling the entire map with just tanks or a surge of infantry? Is that not standard? What if the enemy puts an 88 or pantherturm in their base effectively blocking the ability to capture/gain map control? What about maps like Semois where there are high resource points right outside the base giving the enemy plenty of resources? Wouldn't indirect fire onto a resource point defense with the intent of preventing an opponent to gain more resources be just as detrimental "tech-wise, reinforcement-wise, etc." as bombing a base and sometimes even more so?
You see, no one gives very definitive answers. Not only that, but everyone's answer is different.

Example, is AA okay to bomb? If they have mortar/arty in their base it's okay? What if the arty hits and destroys a building as collateral and in fact misses the arty entirely (like with nebels who never hit anything straight up but blanket an area). That nebel can keep firing into the base with intent to kill the howitzer, but end up ripping the base before it even finishes the howitzer in base.
What is the quantifer for "map control"? It's a qualitative concept that varies map by map.

Everyone has a vague sense of what it kind of is and some how only realize where the line is once they've been "basebombed". The majority of the hypocrisy in the community I don't think is on balancing issues but basebombing because somehow rules are decided AFTER someone has been allegedly "basebombed". So I find out most games anyways. I play through a game without basebombing, not even the AA, because I'm afraid my opponent is going to have a shitfest about "basebombing". Only to find later in the game, "oh calliope is okay," or "it's a mortar" and have my base fired upon. Suddenly when I use a mortar (against the same person) the 120mm mortar suddenly counts as artillery.

So give it to me straight. Because the only straight answers I've been given so far are from people who say "basebombing? yeah who cares. let them bomb, it doesn't affect me."

[JimQwilleran]

Is it 80% map control?

Yes.

Can I just straight attack a base without controlling the entire map with just tanks or a surge of infantry?

Yes.

What if the enemy puts an 88 or pantherturm in their base effectively blocking the ability to capture/gain map control?

Bomb that shit. Any defensive structure in base can be bombed. (seriously who of us would build pantherturm in base anyway?)

is AA okay to bomb?

Yes.

If they have mortar/arty in their base it's okay?

Yes.

What if the arty hits and destroys a building as collateral and in fact misses the arty entirely

Then dont put ur arty in base, moron.

My view: Bombing anything in base is possible only if it's a structure which prevents u to enter the base (88, bunker, AA), or enemy arty in base. Retreating units/buildings are not the be touched by any circumstances (I mean intended bombing).

[kwok]

And glad you answered those questions, but what about all other things that could possibly happen?
For example: def doc building MG's prevents entering into base. Large tanks that sit in base. Etc.

I'm looking for solid rules, not hit-them-as-they-come scenarios. Would your only rule by retreated units/buildings shoudln't be touched? Then what if they are collateral damage to times when basebombing is okay? What if my arty misses the AA, which happens plenty of times, and hits structures/units? Everyone's rules are different, who decides these case-by-case scenarios? Do you discuss it before a game starts every game?

[Devilfish]

.......

"Definition" i post above is only kind of general guidience, basic thought about basebombing, its no a law or something like that. I dont think there is a point in trying to define some absolutely strict and fool-proof rules. Everybody with half a brain knows what basebombing means and decides what he does in game. People only talk bullcrap in game and pretend they didnt mean to basebomb because of this and that. Same as no matter what, when you bomb base because opponent has arty or paks or mortar or whatever inside, or you are simply knocking on his base, people are still gonna complain and whine, simply because they are losing and of course they are pissed or at least disappointed so they talk shit about basebombing.

[kwok]

Well... for the tournament there needs to be a definition law... because money will literally be on the line. At least my money will, maybe not others.

[kwok]

And not everyone with half a brain knows what basebombing is. I mean... just look at the poll. It's split 3-7. And there are a lot of other things I can poll about basebombing. I doubt there will be a unanimous vote on any of the subjects.

[Devilfish]

Well, i haven't realized it's a dilema for tournament purposes, my bad. In that case, you set some boundaries (some middle golden way) or alternatively, players might report basebombing and referees (you xD) will check out the replay and decide, though it might end up for you to judge every second game....

[Armacalic]

Standard manner of victory:
Winning the game by gaining overall military and map control superiority, resulting in vast resource income and simultaneously constraining opponents resources significantly, ending by destroying the opponent's base.

Basebombing:
Winning the game by destroying enemy base buildings with long range, indirect fire, with the goal of preventing the opponent from building more and more advanced units, reinforce operational units and rebuild the base buildings again. In order to achieve this, overall and map control superiority is not required.

One thing I would point is base bombing means that someone is spending a lot of resources to try and bleed out the their targets, which is exactly the same as if arty tried destroying enemy units, they're trying to slow down or destroy an enemy with indirect fire. It is also a deterrent of static game play.

Base bombing does not come for free, and it cannot be performed effectively with off map (uncounterable support) arty, leaving only on map arty units to do so. These units are often fragile, slow, or otherwise helpless on their own. Performing base bombing without sufficient map control is tantamount to performing a tank rush: You can do it, but odds are as soon as the enemy realizes what's going on, they'll crack up some manner of counter.

Buildings, at least German ones, take quite a lot of punishment from arty without going down, allies seem a bit flimsy in my opinion but both would still take a while to be destroyed by base bombing, short of massed attacks.

So if you are taking constant and massed arty strikes to the base, it means the enemy has secured safety and resources to do so. Wouldn't that mean successful base bombing requires good map control?

[kwok]

Not necessarily, Armacalic. Some maps are small enough that you can shoot from base to base. While this won't technically happen in the tournament, it's a similar principle that you can poke your head out safely a couple of yards out of base, plant a howitzers, and skill-lessly shell the base without any real danger of losing your howitzers with minimal effort. It really makes the dynamic of bkmod stale. So far, there hasn't been any real hardcoded way to stop stale gameplay. People have been trying for years.

[Armacalic]

Not necessarily, Armacalic. Some maps are small enough that you can shoot from base to base. While this won't technically happen in the tournament, it's a similar principle that you can poke your head out safely a couple of yards out of base, plant a howitzers, and skill-lessly shell the base without any real danger of losing your howitzers with minimal effort. It really makes the dynamic of bkmod stale. So far, there hasn't been any real hardcoded way to stop stale gameplay. People have been trying for years.

However, the arty pieces are still not specially cheap, will not destroy a base in a single strike usually not even when massed, and take considerable population. Artillery pieces also take resources away from an effective forward fighting force, both in reducing their effectivity (upgrades and abilities) and their numbers, unless you play in unlimited popcap or high popcap. And the arty pieces still take on upkeep on top of hogging munitions. If a player is focusing on basebombing, their teammates are left with little support at the front.

Not to mention counters in the form of infiltration units, about the only mobile arty piece that cannot be immediately destroyed by the relevant paratrooper unit is the Churchill and those don't have that much range compared to more fragile SPGs.

[kwok]

True, artillery takes resources and upkeep. But not a crippling amount, especially as RA doc. Also, it isn't hard to postpone the building of a howitzers and time the building while units are reinforcing. In a game like BK, it doesn't take a 1:1 unit ratio on the front to fight effectively. Sacrificing a front line unit for a back line support isn't that great of a risk, especially with units like MG42's who can easily engage, hold against, and even win a whole bunch of units.

BTW, I personally don't really care about basebombing as long as I know going in how the other player feels about it. I'll play by their rules, so to speak. But, I'm just trying to play devil's advocate to everyone. It's really easy to make a case for both sides. It ultimately comes down to subjectively saying how people want to play the game. It seems like the majority of people do not want basebombing, so it might have to be the case for the tournament. It's defining the rules after to avoid, as Devilfish mentioned, watching every other game and arbitrating it all.

[Devilfish]

So if you are taking constant and massed arty strikes to the base, it means the enemy has secured safety and resources to do so. Wouldn't that mean successful base bombing requires good map control?

This depends on the map itself and available resources. But i think on many 2v2 and all 3v3 it is no problem to have enough resources for bombing out entire base with half of the map captured or even less.

For instance, I've played 2v2 duclair today. We had +/- half of the map and i had one stuka, had resources for other no problem if i wanted. I had enough ammo to launch both at once and i could go close enough (you know duclair layout), so they would be fairly accurate. I bet i would have destroyed or mostly destroyed all the buildings, maybe except the base one. And by the time my opponent would have started recovering, i would have sent another barrage and gg. It would have been pretty dumb though...don't you think?