When do I want to use Artillery? When do I want to use Rocket Artillery? Do I want to use them both? When do I want to use one rather than the other?
TY
JJ
TY
JJ
Art or Rkt Art or Both?
- Thread starter JerkyJerry
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Artillery is better in the vast majority of scenarios. I never build normal RART, but I do build motorized RART for my motorized/mechanized divisions, and sometimes armored divisions depending on the situation.
If you're short on steel but have an abundance of tungsten then R.art can be the way to go as it allows you to husband your steel for tanks, ships and the like instead. If you research the rocket trees and the theoretical techs, r.art will have better soft attack and breakthrough stats IIRC.
Rocket Artillery is better in the long run- and is more offensive IIRC.
Standard Artillery is better for defensive situations.
Standard Artillery is better for defensive situations.
I'm interested in the dynamics of including Mot-RArt in motorized divisions, versus having no line artillery, versus having SPArt.
Has anybody crunched numbers or what not? Motorized RArt starts at 50 SA and has 15%, 15%, 30% boosts using the rocket techs. The SP art techs have beastly soft attack but don't scale with techs. It's also very cheap to get motorized divisions with just ART/RART as support and no self propelled stuff, but it's less powerful. If htey only have to "hold" a line during exploitation though, that may not matter.
Hmm.
Has anybody crunched numbers or what not? Motorized RArt starts at 50 SA and has 15%, 15%, 30% boosts using the rocket techs. The SP art techs have beastly soft attack but don't scale with techs. It's also very cheap to get motorized divisions with just ART/RART as support and no self propelled stuff, but it's less powerful. If htey only have to "hold" a line during exploitation though, that may not matter.
Hmm.
well line art will only work as support unless you have line inf and slow your mot down to a crawl...
I was including Mot-RA and SPART as line art when I listed that as an option. Basically that is a motorized division with only MOT on the front lines. Decently defensive, but lacking in firepower.
The wiki has stat-breakdowns by unit here and by year here - values include the RArt upgrades but not doctrine techs. I've scanned the numbers and they look sound, although I haven't done an in-depth check. Short version is that going by soft-attack values, RArt looks pretty good.
'41 RArt has 57.5 SA - roughly equivalent to '36 L-SPArt or '39 M-SPArt with 56 SA.
'42 RArt has 65 SA - similar to '41 L-SPArt at 63 SA but not as good as '41 M-SPArt with 72 SA
'43 RArt has 80 SA - competitive with '43 M-SPArt on 84 SA
Add in the rocket-engine techs from Engineering research and '46 RArt can hit 87.5 SA (if you're willing to spend research time on those for 5% RArt SA per tech...). It also has better defence and breakthrough than SPArt does. Basically, all you're sacrificing is the armour/hardness, and it's significantly cheaper to build - the costs don't increase, so even '43 RArt only costs about as much per battalion as '34 L-SPArt and something like half as much as '43 M-SPArt (or even less, depending on how you value resources vs factory time).
H/SH/Mod-SPArt is still better, of course, but if you have the resources to burn by using those even in your 'light' exploitation divisions, you probably don't need to ask the question in the first place...
If you go superior firepower with dispersed support (not sure of the name, the line that gives +50% SA to support battalions) , then it is worth it to have both normal arty support and rocket arty support in all your divisions since those supports will have as much SA as two arty battalions but at zero width and lower cost.
If you don't go for this branch of the tree, then IMO rocket arty is not worth it as it is a very minor upgrade over standard arty.
If you don't go for this branch of the tree, then IMO rocket arty is not worth it as it is a very minor upgrade over standard arty.
RA is, on paper, better than normal arty, but researching it requires unlocking lots of normal artillery tech. At that point, one is already using arty in their divisions, and phasing normal artillery out requires lots of fresh production and is more complex to manage production-wise. So it's usually not worth it.
I’ve toyed around with the idea of taking Russia down a path of only Rocket Artillery and no regular artillery. I’ve never done it, but it seems doable in SP.
The only other country I could see making it work is the USA because of its late entry. It’d be interesting to take he USA down a path of only armor, motorized, and special forces divisions. Though, I’d have supply concerns with that plan.
The only other country I could see making it work is the USA because of its late entry. It’d be interesting to take he USA down a path of only armor, motorized, and special forces divisions. Though, I’d have supply concerns with that plan.
These are my thoughts as well. Unless, as @Baron Jukaga stated, you have an abundance of tungsten and need the steel, I really don’t see the economic advantage of pursuing rocket artillary.
In the grand scheme of things, Arty is just better.
1) Simplifies logistics
2) Arty is already well integrated
3) Does not require that you research rocket tech to gain maximum benefit. like with rockets. Taking away research from other areas
4) SP Art still gets the job done and can be modified for more soft attack with variants and takes less research.
1) Simplifies logistics
2) Arty is already well integrated
3) Does not require that you research rocket tech to gain maximum benefit. like with rockets. Taking away research from other areas
4) SP Art still gets the job done and can be modified for more soft attack with variants and takes less research.