Question: What will be the difference between rocket and standard artillery?

[Mevsrei]

Thinking of HoI 3 they were somewhat distinctive because they had their own tech/cost, but in the end it wasn't something adding much varity.

Not like you choose AT or AA or maybe both or Arty instead?
But like I allready decided for arty and now I have to choose just between 2 variants of it.

But in HoI 4 they will be variants of the same vehicle.

What will be the difference to make it really a choice?
Otherwise it wouldn't be justified to give a different variant among TD, AA and arty, because those are distinctivly different.
TD - strong vs hard
AA - strong vs air
Arty - strong vs soft
R.Arty - strong vs soft again?

 

[joe9594]

I might be mistaken but i thought the number of variants had been reduced to 3 with rocket art being removed. If I am right about that it makes sense as you are definitely right the rocket arty didn't really add anything to the game.

 

[Mevsrei]

I might be mistaken but i thought the number of variants had been reduced to 3 with rocket art being removed. If I am right about that it makes sense as you are definitely right the rocket arty didn't really add anything to the game.

Thx, that was quick.

 

[Alexander Seil]

There's all kinds of weird stuff on the screenshots that wasn't in HoI1/2/3, actually, so I doubt something like that got cut. Rocket artillery strikes can be very concentrated in time, so, in game terms, perhaps rocket artillery could provide some sort of a disruption bonus? And eat through the supply stash like crazy, while it's doing it...

These would indicate very clearly that you could plop a rocket rack on a Maus chassis, were you so inclined. I can't think of what else the little rocket could represent - the other 3 are, obviously enough, TD, self-propelled artillery and AA versions.

 

[joe9594]

yeah what I said might not have been correct. I thought I remembered it from somewhere. I have a fever atm so I am probably not the most reliable source.

 

[Denkt]

Rocket artillery are probably great against soft, weak against hard.

Artillery is decent but not great against both.

Anti Tank is great against hard weak against soft.

Other things could be in such artillery do more damage while rocket artillery have higher breakthrought chance.

 

[Mevsrei]

Than there is still the question what justifies an own variant for something that is allready there. Would be like adding an open-top TD variant with just some slightly different stats than the standard TD.

Rocket artillery are probably great against soft, weak against hard.

Artillery is decent but not great against both.

Anti Tank is great against hard weak against soft.

Other things could be in such artillery do more damage while rocket artillery have higher breakthrought chance.

But than arty wouldn't be different from the standard tank variant, since that will most propably be the allround variant.
Dmg vs breaktrough?
I don't know if that justifies a different variant. Could as well just be done by the field-exp system or the techtree to just alter arty in one or another direction.

 

[Denkt]

Than there is still the question what justifies an own variant for something that is allready there. Would be like adding an open-top TD variant with just some slightly different stats than the standard TD.

Well all HOI I know of have had both types of artillery. HOI4 may however be the first HOI that they will be really different because of the new stats they have added.

Normal artillery could have better damage while rocket artillery is better at disrupting the enemy. That way rocket artillery is most useful for mobile warfare while normal artillery is good for attrition type warfare.

 

[Mevsrei]

Hm, maybe we just need to wait for some dev to answer that question.

 

[Poh]

There's all kinds of weird stuff on the screenshots that wasn't in HoI1/2/3, actually, so I doubt something like that got cut. Rocket artillery strikes can be very concentrated in time, so, in game terms, perhaps rocket artillery could provide some sort of a disruption bonus? And eat through the supply stash like crazy, while it's doing it...

These would indicate very clearly that you could plop a rocket rack on a Maus chassis, were you so inclined. I can't think of what else the little rocket could represent - the other 3 are, obviously enough, TD, self-propelled artillery and AA versions.

From the thread on Italian armor

*necroing* ;D

Italian tree is pretty hard to get right, but fun We took some inspiration from this thread, and i had to make up some models to fit the slots

Here is a bonus screenshot:
View attachment 123443

Its clear to see that sub techs have been reduced from 4 -> 3 and that Rockets are gone

EDIT: that post is from februar though so things might have changed though i somewhat doubt it.

 

[Mendeth]

Its clear to see that sub techs have been reduced from 4 -> 3 and that Rockets are gone

EDIT: that post is from februar though so things might have changed though i somewhat doubt it.

It would be a bit disappointing from a historical perspective if rocket artillery has been removed but I suppose the OP's point is valid. The only thing I can think of would be maybe increasing cost in return for added damage to organisation. As I understand it the noise made by the rockets had some psychological impact on the troops under fire.

 

[Asfifldjarfi]

They could have Artillery with less Soft attack, more hard attack and more defensiveness(suppresses the enemy, makes it harder for them to attack) whereas rocket artillery would have more soft attack, but since you can't keep up a steady barrage, it wouldn't have as much defensiveness bonus. Ideal for short battles where you win quickly, but in a huge meatgrinder they wouldn't be as effective.

It could also be made a production time vs supply consumption. As the rocket artillery it self is a pretty simple construct, but the rockets are more expensive than the shells. The artillery gun is however a more complicated device, and requires more strenght to withstand the repeated force of shooting their own shells, but the shells are pretty simple and easy to make. Loosing a few katyusha's for the soviets should be a lot less annoying than loosing a couple of SU-122's.

 

[Mevsrei]

It would be a bit disappointing from a historical perspective if rocket artillery has been removed but I suppose the OP's point is valid. The only thing I can think of would be maybe increasing cost in return for added damage to organisation. As I understand it the noise made by the rockets had some psychological impact on the troops under fire.

Maybe they are still present in the support section of divisions as a non-self-propelled variant.

 

[Secret Master]

I was never satisfied with how rocket artillery worked in HOI3.

While some players could make efficient use of them, the tech setup, logistics issues, and a few other things ensured that they never appeared in significant numbers in any game I played.

I honestly think that without some new mechanics, rocket artillery will just be a mess or pointless. Fiddling with soft attack values and tech costs just ends up making rocket artillery the same as regular artillery, so why use both?

 

[Le_Carabinier]

Historically, rocket artillery launchers were used as part of larger artillery units comprising mostly guns.

In the game, they could be featured as simply being a tech increasing the soft attack of artillery units while increasing their supply consumption. That's how HPP chose to implement them IIRC.

 

[Mevsrei]

Historically, rocket artillery launchers were used as part of larger artillery units comprising mostly guns.

In the game, they could be featured as simply being a tech increasing the soft attack of artillery units while increasing their supply consumption. That's how HPP chose to implement them IIRC.

Pretty easy and good solution for them. Remembers me of the SAM-tech in HoI 3 just increasing AA stats instead of unlocking a new unit.

 

[eleetsdier]

I like the idea of having rocket artillery in the game but it is hard to come up with a way of making it distinct enough from regular artillery to be a meaningful addition. Certainly it didn't feel meaningful in HoI3.

 

[pommiebastard]

Surely now, though, they're another type of "equipment" or "ingredient" for possible battalions? - so they don't necessarily have to give different stats by themselves, but can either be a required component (amongst many) for a "heavier artillery" battalion, or you could have a "rocket battalion". And the stats difference comes from the battalion(s) rather than the vehicles.

 

[George Parr]

Historically, rocket artillery launchers were used as part of larger artillery units comprising mostly guns.

In the game, they could be featured as simply being a tech increasing the soft attack of artillery units while increasing their supply consumption. That's how HPP chose to implement them IIRC.

I don't know about the Soviets, but the Germans never used rocket artillery alongside normal artillery. (Nebel)werfer were used in their own regiments and Abteilungen (sometimes even combined into brigades). They were much closer to the front than normal artillery, as they didn't have the same range. A division could have borth an artillery regiment and Werfer regiment, though in many cases the Werfer-units were only on temporary assignment while the artillery regiment was part of the core division setup.

I can't really think of a time where rocket artillery was used in a non-motorised way. The Soviets had them on trucks or tanks, the Germans had them mostly truck-pulled and to a lesser extend on trucks or half-tracks. These launchers usually had a limited range, and especially the early versions had a smoke-trail that made spotting them easy, making them prone to counter-fire, which is where the trucks come in. They allowed the units to redeploy quickly so that they wouldn't be hit by artillery counter-fire.

When it comes to the impact of the weapons itself: psychologically they are obviously far more impressive than artillery. Not only because of the noise, but also because of how quick an entire barrage would hit. In case of the German Werfers, there was a huge difference in terms of firepower between the early 15cm versions, which had a relatively tiny load compared to artillery (just about 2.4 kilogram out of a total weight of the rocket of a bit less than 40kg), and the later 21cm versions (which had a load of almost 40kg at a total weight of 110kg, easily outclassing even heavy artillery). The former has 'relatively' little impact, while the latter was absolutely devestating against soft targets. Even more so because of their huge fragmentation effect (100m around impact) which was a whole lot bigger than for normal artillery, and worked even better on frozen ground, because they could bounce. They may not have been the most precise weapons, but a barrage from a whole Abteilung of these launchers wouldn't need to be, because it would flatten an entire area, not to mention the shockwave that hit when all these rockets landed in short order. Making them idea weapons against mass-attacks, especially in the open.

 

[Mevsrei]

I don't know about the Soviets, but the Germans never used rocket artillery alongside normal artillery. (Nebel)werfer were used in their own regiments and Abteilungen (sometimes even combined into brigades). They were much closer to the front than normal artillery, as they didn't have the same range. A division could have borth an artillery regiment and Werfer regiment, though in many cases the Werfer-units were only on temporary assignment while the artillery regiment was part of the core division setup.

I can't really think of a time where rocket artillery was used in a non-motorised way. The Soviets had them on trucks or tanks, the Germans had them mostly truck-pulled and to a lesser extend on trucks or half-tracks. These launchers usually had a limited range, and especially the early versions had a smoke-trail that made spotting them easy, making them prone to counter-fire, which is where the trucks come in. They allowed the units to redeploy quickly so that they wouldn't be hit by artillery counter-fire.

When it comes to the impact of the weapons itself: psychologically they are obviously far more impressive than artillery. Not only because of the noise, but also because of how quick an entire barrage would hit. In case of the German Werfers, there was a huge difference in terms of firepower between the early 15cm versions, which had a relatively tiny load compared to artillery (just about 2.4 kilogram out of a total weight of the rocket of a bit less than 40kg), and the later 21cm versions (which had a load of almost 40kg at a total weight of 110kg, easily outclassing even heavy artillery). The former has 'relatively' little impact, while the latter was absolutely devestating against soft targets. Even more so because of their huge fragmentation effect (100m around impact) which was a whole lot bigger than for normal artillery, and worked even better on frozen ground, because they could bounce. They may not have been the most precise weapons, but a barrage from a whole Abteilung of these launchers wouldn't need to be, because it would flatten an entire area, not to mention the shockwave that hit when all these rockets landed in short order. Making them idea weapons against mass-attacks, especially in the open.

So the best would be to have them as an individual support brigade.
If combined with motorized/mechanized brigades they will have their speed representing beeing mounted or pulled by trucks/half-tracks.