in hoi4 rocket artillery is stronger on attack and worse on defense compared to regular artillery. Motivated by their much worse accuracy but higher firepower over areas.
???
Historical examples seem to show the opposite. In 1941-1942, Russian Rocket artillery got really famous for actually being able to operate in conditions where regular artillery could not, due to enemy air superiority, and overall advantage in counter-battery fire. German Nebelwefler, was also present, and used from 1940, but didn`t provide huge advantage. In 1944-1945, it was the otther way around. Russian Rocket artillery was used, but was not essential, as regular artillery could operate with little interference. Germans, on the other hand, had to rely on their Nebelweflers much, much more, and they were main threat to allies and soviets alike. Allies, didn`t even bother with having decent rocket artillery, and they were on the offensive.
Also, note how in regular artillery, tube is more expencive, while shells are cheaper, and in rocket artillery, it is the other way around. Losing Rocket artillery, while on defencive is far less of a blow.
Also, Rocket artillery doesn`t require quality steel alloys, which, again, is good when you need to make as much as possible.
Logically, the opposite of what you have, should be in game. Rocket artillery is better for defense, as it can allow to quickly barrage enemies and escape, or quickly halt offensive, when enemy troops are in the open. Tube artillery needs time to land strike, but if you can keep it alive, it is cheaper to operate.
That way, we will see historical Russia goes for a lot of rocket artillery in 1941-1942, while Germany for 1943-1945, while allies can ignore it altogether.
With your way, we will see massive German rocket artillery build up for 1939-1943, allies will build huge quantity from 1942 as well, while Russia will ignore rocket artillery in 1941-1942, because it is on defensive.
WW2 rocket artilery had relatively small range and worse accuracy, than tube artilery. Using area effect weapons is easier, whe you are attacking, because you can better manage safe (for your troops) use of such weapons. Tube artilery is much more viable option, when you are defending and enemy gets relatively close to your troops.
You ignore that defender`s artillery will always be the first target to destroy/suppres/kill with aviation.
It is much harder to do with rocket artillery, than with tube artillery, as tube artillery has to provide continuous fire, while rocket one gives a burst, and changes position right away.
Also, shorter range doesn`t really allow to use it to support long into enemy territory, while it is much less of a problem on defense. Also attacking troops need constant supporting barrage, to keep defenders suppressed, while a powerful quick defencive barrage can kill a lot of attacking troops at once, as they are in the open, stopping offensive in it`s tracks.
(sry)
.png){kind=avatar}
