SPA vs. mot rocket arty

[seattle]

I wonder which soft attack booster is better for a typical panzer division (medium tanks with mots): is it the SPA model of your current tank tech or is it the motorized rocket artillery (MRA)?

A comparison of the 1939 SPA and the base model of MRA:

SPA vs. MRA:
+ SPA can be upgraded to newer models, MRA has just that one base model
+ SPA can be pimped via variants, MRA can't
= Both are of equal width and stats while different pretty much even out
- both start at the same production cost, but SPA's increases with later models and will lose production efficiency with upgrades for a generally lower output
- SPA consumes more resources
- MRA gets free upgrades when you research the rocket arty tree!
- SPA will need lvl. 5 engines though lest it slows down the panzer divisions --> eats up a lot of army exp with each upgraded model!


Bottom line:
I used to go with SPA all the way with Germany, but lately switched completely to MRA.
Even a warmongering nation like Germany doesn't have army exp to waste until 1942-ish. During the time most of the fighting is conducted, you will need the army exp for templates and tank pimps. Since lvl.5 engines on tanks are crucial, you will need another lvl.5 engines on SPA as well. Effectively doubling army exp expenditure throughout the game.
MRA gets huge buffs via the rocket arty tree and those buffs are applied to all existing and future MRA in your army, for free. You can produce one MRA model throughout the entire game, always having max production efficiency.
SPA on the other hand will require you to upgrade the production lines to newer models in order to keep up with the MRA progression, losing you efficiency and again requiring to spend army exp on variants.

For me, MRA is the clear winner. I can imagine that seemingly minor factors like "hardness" might make a world of a difference in multi-player and SPA might end up being vastly superior for whatever reason. I just don't see it though.

So what's your take: SPA or MRA?

 

[kauzer]

Rart has more breakthrough, but no armor. SPA has much less breakthrough, but has armor. Choose what do you need more. I prefer to use Rart with tank division and SPA with mot (then mech).

 

[Alex_brunius]

- both start at the same production cost, but SPA's increases with later models and will lose production efficiency with upgrades for a generally lower output

Don't you need to take into account the fact that Motorized Rocket Artillery need 20 equipment +15 motorized per battalion, while SPGs need 40 equipment per battalion?

This should be making Rocket artillery cheaper.

The reason I use SPGs is since they add hardness and armor to the divisions while Motorized Rockets make tank divisions too soft, and because they add significantly more Soft attack ( +5 variant and with 1941/43 models ).

 

[seattle]

Rart has more breakthrough, but no armor. SPA has much less breakthrough, but has armor. Choose what do you need more. I prefer to use Rart with tank division and SPA with mot (then mech).

Why do you even use pure mot divisions?
I usually create tank divisions that consist of 4 medium tank brigades, 2 MRA/SPA, 7 mot (width 30).With pimped engines they are of equal speed as pure mot divs and pack way more of a punch.
Since the battle planer a.i. isn't too good with handling different unit types according to their strength (see mountaineers), I don't know how effective pure mot (with MRA) divs are unless you micro everything.

 

[seattle]

Don't you need to take into account the fact that Motorized Rocket Artillery need 20 equipment +15 motorized per battalion, while SPGs need 40 equipment per battalion?

This should be making Rocket artillery cheaper.

The reason I use SPGs is since they add hardness and armor to the divisions while Motorized Rockets make tank divisions too soft, and because they add significantly more Soft attack ( +5 variant and with 1941/43 models ).

I didn't take that into account because I didn't think about that. You're correct of course!

The lack of armour surely is a good point. Not too sure about the soft attack though.
Via doctrines you get +60% soft attack from rocket arty and +15% from the rocketry branch.
In time your MRA goes from 50 to 87.5 soft attack!

Don't forget that your SPA lvl.5 guns will slow down the division and again consume vast amounts of army exp. Don't you agree that in the first years of the war, army exp is still precious? Which would delay your positive effects into the later stages of the war, reducing the overall advantage considerably.

 

[Alex_brunius]

The lack of armour surely is a good point. Not too sure about the soft attack though.
Via doctrines you get +60% soft attack from rocket arty and +15% from the rocketry branch.
In time your MRA goes from 50 to 87.5 soft attack!

We should start with removing the 1944-1946 rocketry techs since that is not realistic to have in place, putting MRA at 50, 58 and 80 at 1939, 41 and 43 respectively.

These numbers should be compared with medium SPGs that baseline has 56, 72 and 84 for the same years, BEFORE we add boosts from variants, design companies as well as any doctrine which boosts soft attack of "tank".

That's not counting the 1945 modern SPGs ( since they are not more relevant, but probably of similar impact as the rocketry techs are for MRA ).

It's also not counting the fact that SPGs are much easier to rush for nations like Germany or Soviet with the tank treaty, so we can pretty much rely on having SPGs at least 1-2 years more advanced then our Rocket Artillery tech will be.

Don't forget that your SPA lvl.5 guns will slow down the division and again consume vast amounts of army exp. Don't you agree that in the first years of the war, army exp is still precious? Which would delay your positive effects into the later stages of the war, reducing the overall advantage considerably.

If one of the two relies on "later stages of the war" to be able to work well it's MRA which need 1946!!! rocket techs to reach max soft attack values, and don't become that useful until both the artillery techs are researched in 1942... Not SPGs which you can gain Army XP to variant upgrade easily as soon as your at war ( which usually is well before both 42 and 46 ).

 

[kauzer]

Why do you even use pure mot divisions?
I usually create tank divisions that consist of 4 medium tank brigades, 2 MRA/SPA, 7 mot (width 30).With pimped engines they are of equal speed as pure mot divs and pack way more of a punch.
Since the battle planer a.i. isn't too good with handling different unit types according to their strength (see mountaineers), I don't know how effective pure mot (with MRA) divs are unless you micro everything.

I dont use battle planner for offensive. #oldschool
Also as minor you will not have alot of tanks, sometimes mot divisions are good enough.

 

[Dalwin]

I think there is another key difference that is not yet mentioned. The impact will vary depending on nation played, but for most German builds I think this factor favors MRA. The point is not the total amount of resources used but which ones. SPA uses Tungsten which is also in great demand for tanks and artillery. MRA instead uses rubber. Depending on how many refineries built as well as the ratio of aircraft production compared to tank production etc. this should be taken into account.

 

[Secret Master]

The reason I use SPGs is since they add hardness and armor to the divisions while Motorized Rockets make tank divisions too soft, and because they add significantly more Soft attack ( +5 variant and with 1941/43 models ).

Damn it, Alex, I was going to say this!

Don't get me wrong, motorized rockets have their place, but if I can afford hard core panzer divisions, I will pay the IC and XP cost for SPART. The armor and hardness are worth it.

 

[seattle]

This is getting interesting.
I'll try to summarize (correct me if I'm wrong):
@Secret Master goes with SPA <==> nation can afford it. Else MRA.
@Alex_brunius goes with SPA, mostly because MRA makes tank divs too soft. Also Germany's blueprints favour SPA rush.
@Dalwin goes with whatever the resources favour. Germany should go MRA because you get rubber via synth plants and already enough tungsten is needed for tanks and arty.

I side with MRA because it's cheap, you save tons of army exp and you can vastly outproduce SPA because MRA never gets upgraded --> full production efficiency --> quantity over quality (especially against the a.i. which mostly produces soft units).

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

My rule of thumb for a major:
Tank divisions -> SPA, I have the same reasoning as @Alex_brunius here
Mot divisions -> MRA

If playing a minor I go for the reasoning of @Secret Master
Basically I build MOT divisions first, then start buidling tank divisions if I can afford them. In my last playthrough (Fascist Netherland) I omitted tanks completey until ~1945 and jumped right into building Modern Tank divisons from the scratch.

 

[Alex_brunius]

The way I view SPA is as a cheaper less potent alternative. If you want the best tank divisions ( and you already pay a high premium to put lots of tanks in them ), then SPA will be much more attractive to push that edge.

If your going for larger number of more defensive oriented tank divisions instead ( with more Motorized ), or want to field a large mobile force without tanks or with light tanks, then I think that MRA could be a quite competitive cheaper alternative, especially if you don't have the tank treaty research advantages.

MRA also makes more sense for later war entries, so it's best application might actually be Japan, Italy or for a Soviet player going a massed motorization approach. For use mainly in Motorized or Light tank divisions.

 

[Taghmon]

Ahm, how do you actually justify the research cost for MRA?
It costs 150 research-days to get every (medium)SPA you need, but about 1500 research-days to keep up with rockets.
I usually skip rocket art and therefor MRA to keep up with all other research fields.(about 800 days?)
Unless ignoring navy I don't see how to get it, and that's for 5 research-line majors.

 

[holoween]

MRA saves all the research time otherwise spend on SPA so it can be usefull to not research SPA to save the research bonus for actual tanks as germany.

 

[Saint Gwynllyw]

A minor marginally related side note,

I wish SPA , Anti-Tank and Anti-Air tanks had their own models in the tech tree and production screen.

 

[Duke_Dave]

Going from personal experience Rocket-Arty, because you can upgrade them so long, without loosing production efficency. Yes they get destroyed easily, but the casualties they cause is horrible for the enemy. Also you can research them quite early while decent SPA has to researched continously, you have to replace them in your templates if you switch to medium or heavy (or modern and superheavy) you have to replace the models in production, etc.
And they're cheaper. They only viable scenario I can imagine is with a country with low population, a lot of resources and efficent industry. Then you would choose SPA because they suffer less casualties in combat.

 

[Duke_Dave]

A minor marginally related side note,

I wish SPA , Anti-Tank and Anti-Air tanks had their own models in the tech tree and production screen.

There is a ton of mods for this. Just look them up they're ironman compatible

 

[redrum68]

I think there is another key difference that is not yet mentioned. The impact will vary depending on nation played, but for most German builds I think this factor favors MRA. The point is not the total amount of resources used but which ones. SPA uses Tungsten which is also in great demand for tanks and artillery. MRA instead uses rubber. Depending on how many refineries built as well as the ratio of aircraft production compared to tank production etc. this should be taken into account.

This is usually how I think about it. If you have available Tungsten then go for SPA. If you don't then the resource cost of MRA is much cheaper so I'd rather go for them.