Super Heavy Railroad Artillery

[LimaTango]

Hello, I am playing Germany '44 scenario as Germany and I find that I have two of these brigades which I have never built or owned before. I have no idea what unit to attach them to or how to use them.

Should I put them on a MOT division?

Do they automatically do their thing when attacking and defending or do I need to specifically select Artillery Bombardment to get the best result?

Any insights are welcome. Cheers!

 

[mcganyol]

imo they are slow so u best attach them to inf. and they are only good for arty bombardment to destroy adjacent province's infra... for a lot of supplies
you better not use them for different reasons. simply disband them you are short on mp anyway in 44 ger

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Inf is the the only unit SHRA can be attached to. The only way to properly utilize this brigade is to use artbombardement. You should do this where your ESE is high and offensive supplies are helpful for this. Inf-SHRA used in huge amounts can diminish the resistance in any province you wish to attack. They can be rather useful, but they are expensive. Since you already have two of them you it might not the best idea to disband them. But i am not sure you will find sufficient oppurtunities to properly use them, so disbanding them at 4 mp each might be a good choice.

Art bombardements mixture is strategic bombardement and interdiction, but there is no stacking penalty and no penalty against dug in enemies. They greatly reduce the losses you will have to take in the attack following the bombardement, but it only makes sence if the resisentance is sufficiently great. Usually one can use them one time in a war and that is in the initial breakthrough like in Viipuri in the Winter War.

 

[mcganyol]

when i used it i didn't notice the interdiction effect at all. it is surely there if Pang told so, but i bet you wont destroy more than 1-2 org. [i tested it with 9 and still didn't notice the effect is there]. it was moderate effective destroying infra in adjacent provinces but even tac bombers can do it far better. You may slow down attackers by constantly destroying their infra and deny them to reorg but really ineffective in the attack (they are very slow, use a lot of supplies which is bad for TC, and destroying infra in provs you are going to capture is really counter-effective).

it may have it uses in a total static front if you cant hope even for temporary air superiority. but then you need a lot of sh-art to deny the enemy reorg in a lot of provinces along the front and you need a LOT of supplies for continuous art bombardment like that. it's in the game only for historical favor. they are just as inadequate for combat as were irl (and the psychological effect "demoralizing the enemy" is unknown in aod).

artillery bombardment as a mission could be useful tough with conventional arty. sh-art is 3 times more effective but not good for anything else. if Pang is right and no stacking penalty you are way way better with 9inf/9art than 9inf/3sh-art

 

[Pang Bingxun]

when i used it i didn't notice the interdiction effect at all. it is surely there if Pang told so, but i bet you wont destroy more than 1-2 org. [i tested it with 9 and still didn't notice the effect is there].

Using the 15 initial soviet Mot with Great War heavy Art with an art Bombardement value of 7 on viipure i cut enemy Org in half within hours. SHRA will do 4 times the damage. ESE does matter a lot. Having 200+% ESE and full supply stockpile is essential. But Using the Mission will reduce your stockpile fast. Luckily SHRA grants some big supply stockpiles to the unit. Merging with different divisions can increase the rate of resupplyment for a second art bombing run. Properly utilized Art bombing is way more effective than interdiction. One may discuss about efficiency, but the effectivity is high as hell. Unfortunatly what is left of the province will look like hell, too. Art Bombing is almost like using nukes.

artillery bombardment as a mission could be useful tough with conventional arty. sh-art is 3 times more effective but not good for anything else. if Pang is right and no stacking penalty you are way way better with 9inf/9art than 9inf/3sh-art

I think you are quite wrong on this. Afaik Art Bombardement depends only on Art Bombardement value. So 3 times 30 is better than 9 times less than 10. Still using great amounts if Inf-Art can be a good strazegy in general and using the ArtBombing mission at occasion may make sense.

 

[lollibast]

artbombing is a great way to destroy fortifications

 

[Commander666]

That answered all my questions regarding SH/ Railroad ART. I know what the things did historically which I believe was to throw a shell about every 2 hours and could take 2 days just to change the arc of aim while manned by a crew of ~2000 men. It was one of the best examples of Hitler's madness. But as AoD can sometimes mimic that madness (or fool those like me who don't know better) I always had the ridiculous hope that SHRA might somehow improve the railroads - which arn't shown on the map and so is about as crazy as my mad dream that any ART could improve infrastructure. Well hey, I was only working on the optimistic premise that the word "railroad" might have a double meaning in this case!

Well, now I'm so disappointed that my railroads can not be logistically improved generally to "super heavy standards" that I conclude to just continue my beforehand practical avoidance of that brigade as if it might carry a rare disease.

Well Pang says their use is great but admittedly extremely limited as in "Usually one can use them one time in a war and that is in the initial breakthrough like in Viipuri in the Winter War." What's wrong with a paratrooper assisting taking the province ANYTIME instead? At least they move faster; and can be very useful nearly everywhere! I suppose one can't really compare the 2 as they hugely different costs, MP and everything. Just thinking there might be better "mad options" than Hitler's favourites!

Thanks guys for pointing out the pros and cons of this special brigade.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

What's wrong with a paratrooper assisting taking the province ANYTIME instead?

Their advantage is realativly small. If you get 4 instead off 3 attack vectors you get +30% instead of +10% bonus. SHRA can reduce the enemy resistance a lot more. After some really heavy Art bombardement you just need to clean out what little is left of the enemy. It is also to note that after the initial breaktrough paras are rarely needed, their relative advantage diminishes after some progress has been made because of fastly progressing motorized or armoured forces.. So I would probably prefer SHRA over Para especially since i love to build up Infra. But as said above efficiency is low and against human player things might change in favour of Paras, too.

 

[Commander666]

It is also to note that after the initial breaktrough paras are rarely needed...

Not if one likes to puppet Siberia!

 

[Pang Bingxun]

This is easily achieved without paras. But one might want to choose a time without winter hitting in.

 

[Commander666]

It is all achievable without PARA or SHRA. But either unit will make a certain task go easier. SHRA seems to be helpful for gaining an otherwise more difficult breakthrough, and then - as you imply - they become useless ("usually one can use them ONE TIME IN A WAR"). While the cost of building a couple special brigades is not so large, when it comes down to Germany trying to get maximum efficiency from anything it builds , then something with a one-time use must be judged appropriately. While PARA are hugely more expensive they are used repeatedly in campaign after campaign, and can be used in every terrain and even winter conditions if one wants. Their very high cost also needs judging appropriately.


I would say that getting Wehrmacht mobile units to the far reaches of Siberia to puppet that is not "easily achieved" without PARA but achievable with greater time. Clearly the PARA will get up there much faster if one has appropriate transport planes and ample new air bases. But the PARA still need the mobile units to secure the more southern provinces. Just like the SHRA units need support from the army at large to make any winning difference.

So the comparison for me boils down to "limited use" for SHRA versus "unlimited use for PARA". However, just for game flavour, German player probably should build SHRA and be as crazy as Hitler was to support their construction.

Of course, a better comparison between Germany's two guns built specially to destroy the Maginot Line fortifications might be to the English Tallboy Bomb - also built specially to destroy heavily reinforced concrete bunkers. Comparing the 5 ton English bomb to the 7 ton German shell is the closest comparison we can make for two weapons designed specifically to break concrete structures which other munitions of the time could not crack.

However, the Schwerer Gustav and Dora guns were most limited by their range, requiring new track to even change arc of fire. But the Tallboy was so versatile that they ended up sinking the Tirpitz besides finding effective use against other ships, tunnel destruction, cities, coastal fortifications, destroying spillways at a couple dams, and U-boat pens (their original designed purpose). And the cost comparison between one German shell versus one British Tallboy was immense even considering the modified Avro Lancasters needed to deliver the bomb. The SHRA suffered from huge initial cost, very high maintenance and needed barrel changes besides needing precision manufactured munitions.

But the story doesn't end there because the British will go on to very successfully drop the 10 ton Grand Slam; and Hitler engineers will actually begin construction an even more limited SHRG called the Langer Gustav using rocket propelled projectiles to hit London. Of course, common sense and better engineering instead created the V-1 rocket.

But the point (which is transferable to the game of AoD) is that SHRA make little common sense, while PARA make extreme common sense.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Well, i disagree as usual. In AoD SHRA can help a great deal in the initial breaktrough, Para cannot. After the initial breaktrough however no additional help is needed. Mobile force can take down the remaining weakened enemies and drive their way to siberia. Paras may sometimes save a few few days but who cares about reaching the most unimportant regions of the world a few days later anyway?

I further have to disagree that Paras are more expensive. They are actually cheaper than reasonably used SHRA. Per unit SHRA is cheaper of course but you need to use them in big number, you need to build up super high Infra, you need to use offensive supplies and they regularly use huge amounts of supplies. In some situations they can shot within hours supplies equivalent to the icd needed to build a para divisions. Their supply usuage is insane, yet it can be sane as it helps to save a lot more valueable things like manpower.

 

[Commander666]

Well, i disagree as usual. .

I expected that.

In AoD SHRA can help a great deal in the initial breaktrough, Para cannot..

Maybe you not landing PARA in the right place?

After the initial breaktrough however no additional help is needed. ..

Oh, OK.

Mobile force can take down the remaining weakened enemies and drive their way to siberia. Paras may sometimes save a few few days but who cares about reaching the most unimportant regions of the world a few days later anyway? ..

I should have know it can all be this simple! In truth, the mobile forces can't even manage reaching next province in the northern muskegs until their fuel shortage is rectified, and guaranteed to be supplied while they complete the several week long trip. That's to get to just next province. But PARA can do it in 2 hours. How does that compute into "a few days later". I probably have the Siberian provinces repaired 100% and liberated before you even have the Reds out of the north. Think you and I are getting into hopelessly inflated statements with this section.

I further have to disagree that Paras are more expensive. ..

I shouldn't debate it since its a point in my favour (if it were true). But I have to disagree. PARA cost includes their transports planes (if reasonably used that's 1.5 squadrons per PARA division) and needed airbases (plus the PARA units themselves). That's a lot more expensive than building a few brigades. For arguments sake, let's compare the cost of building 1 SHRA battalion against the cost of 1 PARA division and 1 TRA. I mean, how else to compare but one-for-one? Then the actual costs to use the units can be tacked on later. The build difference is hugely greater for the PARA +TRA.

Per unit SHRA is cheaper of course but you need to use them in big number, you need to build up super high Infra, you need to use offensive supplies and they regularly use huge amounts of supplies.

Of course, the catch here is what you might mean by "use them in big number" and "super high infra". Only a few posts ago the discussion had reached TWO battalions... but now it may be possible to win the war with burying the enemy using SHRA?

In some situations they can shot within hours supplies equivalent to the icd needed to build a para divisions. Their supply usuage is insane....

Wow! Now I really think their use is insane. Building them might be OK for flavour, but sounds like actually using them might be very dangerous (to the user). Of course, it is always possible to conjure up "some situation" so that a SHRA battalion could spend more ICD within hours on just supply cost than it costs to build a PARA division. That would be some situation!

EDDIT: BTW, really don't think Siberia is the "most unimportant region of the world". Actually, having a Siberia puppet raise a modern infantry army to defend the Far East can be quite useful if Germany wants a port in the Pacific. I can think of some other places in the world that might be more unimportant.

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Maybe you not landing PARA in the right place?

I donnot even build them in the first place. Managing Paras properly would cause me headache.

I should have know it can all be this simple! In truth, the mobile forces can't even manage reaching next province in the northern muskegs until their fuel shortage is rectified, and guaranteed to be supplied while they complete the several week long trip. That's to get to just next province. But PARA can do it in 2 hours. How does that compute into "a few days later".

If mobile forces run out of fuel something is rather very wrong. It is obvious that Para can faster reach a province of choice. But for having proper fighting forces mobile units would still need to follow. So the main advantage in Siberia would be that provinces can be repaired earlier(if no enemy prevents this) and ESE can be increased earlier. That might add up to a month or so in total.

I shouldn't debate it since its a point in my favour (if it were true). But I have to disagree. PARA cost includes their transports planes (if reasonably used that's 1.5 squadrons per PARA division) and needed airbases (plus the PARA units themselves). That's a lot more expensive than building a few brigades. For arguments sake, let's compare the cost of building 1 SHRA battalion against the cost of 1 PARA division and 1 TRA. I mean, how else to compare but one-for-one? Then the actual costs to use the units can be tacked on later. The build difference is hugely greater for the PARA +TRA.

Of course, the catch here is what you might mean by "use them in big number" and "super high infra". Only a few posts ago the discussion had reached TWO battalions... but now it may be possible to win the war with burying the enemy using SHRA?

2 brigades are near nothing. A fair comparison would be 36 Inf-SHRA + additional supplies costs + Infracost vs. 4 Para + 6 Tra + Airbases. SHRA need numbers, Paras donnot.

BTW: 36 Inf-SHRA can consume 45 supplies each with a few hour. That is 1620 supplies with a few hours. My earlier figures might be a bit exaggerated. Still using offensive supplies will cause some addditonal costs, too.

EDDIT: BTW, really don't think Siberia is the "most unimportant region of the world". Actually, having a Siberia puppet raise a modern infantry army to defend the Far East can be quite useful if Germany wants a port in the Pacific. I can think of some other places in the world that might be more unimportant.

Given the chronically low ESE in these region it does not seem to be the most lucrative targets on the map. As rule of tumb the farer a provice is away from the coast the less important it is.

 

[Commander666]

I donnot even build them in the first place. Managing Paras properly would cause me headache.

AoD does have many things that need managing. But PARA are especially outstanding in their needs for that. Not so much management perhaps, as simply the decision to commit them. I well understand the possibility for headache although it seems to work a bit different psychologically speaking (at least for me). Using PARAs if one is brave enough to land them behind enemy lines can create worry that is out of all proportion to most anything else in the game. The worry is, of course, losing them. While a fleet may be much more investment than a PARA division, somehow getting one of my fleets battered and some sunk never seems to create the worry I feel sending out my PARAS to play a strategic role in a blitzkrieg - such as grabbing simultaneously 2-3 enemy airbases behind friendly lines. Of course, it only occurs as part of a grand master plan that supposedly used good intel to determine that the PARAs will be rescued before they are lost. And so far I never lost one. (lucky maybe?). But the joy of the game is the trepidation that results with risk taking. However, I sometimes - as I launch the TRA on their challenging missions - feel so much worry (in fact fear of disaster) that occasionally I've had to remind myself "it is only a game". Nobody will die if my paratroopers fail. So, I suggest "try using them" for an exciting game experience.

2 brigades are near nothing. A fair comparison would be 36 Inf-SHRA + additional supplies costs + Infracost vs. 4 Para + 6 Tra + Airbases. SHRA need numbers, Paras donnot.

I had anticipated that your number of planned SHRA might be that high - needing 36 infantry... all of which will be too slow (once the battles to take provinces are won) to contribute to the faster movement and timing blitzkriegs demand. So, I guess, that you just disband them then. Wonder how I would feel if I were to just disband 4 Para and 6 TRA (which you calculate is equivalent). I'll tell you how I would feel - very wasteful.

BTW: 36 Inf-SHRA can consume 45 supplies each with a few hour. That is 1620 supplies with a few hours. My earlier figures might be a bit exaggerated. Still using offensive supplies will cause some addditonal costs, too.

Exaggerated or not, it only increases as you spend more IC building otherwise unneeded still higher infra just so you can consume even greater amounts of supplies/hour. What is this... an exercise of grabbing the record for most supplies consumed in any set time period?

Given the chronically low ESE in these region it does not seem to be the most lucrative targets on the map. As rule of tumb the farer a provice is away from the coast the less important it is.

So Paris is less important than Berlin (doubt the Parisians will agree). But looking at your "rule of thumb" from only the conqueror's side, Oslo is significantly more important than either London, Paris or Moscow? Maybe the rule of thumb needs a few extra fingers included to make more rational rules.

I mentioned liberating Siberia to raise a puppet army to protect the Far East coastline - especially Vladivostok which is a 10 point Naval Base in the Pacific that German player can have (if wanted) to do some interesting game strategy with. It isn't about any "lucrative value" but only strategic importance. If German player decides to go for Vladivostok, then creating Siberia earlier (and repaired) is his wisest plan. Or the Wehrmacht can station their own divisions there to attrition away over the winters if you rather. Thinking of creating Siberia as early as possible I realistically estimate that doing it without PARA takes at least a year longer - meaning that Siberia's army build (which is quite significant) is delayed by that much.

If mobile forces run out of fuel something is rather very wrong.

Well, you might better conclude that what is wrong is that "Bitter Peace was avoided". But if going past the Bitter Peace line you will discover a whole new set of rules. Such as "fuel tanks never fully fill up it seems" and "they empty almost totally in just a few days once movement resumes" and "it seems mobile units can never even travel further than one province without taking long rest break" and "motorized units that start less than fully fuelled can struggle for weeks (even months) to reach next province in the northern marshes (and show progress) ... but will never reach their destination it seems because of "out-of-fuel". And all of this is experienced with a determined build of new infra as is reasonable during the advance. But nothing is wrong - it's just AoD game stats. So suddenly paratroopers start looking like angels.

EDIT; PS: For a very interesting read of Fallschirmjaeger contributing to the Wehrmacht's successes I recommend reading ""Uber Allen" A Third Reich Mod 1.08.2 AAR" by Lima Tango. Give it a fair chance, it gets considerably better once war breaks out... and his use of paratroopers is not radical but just kinda historic, I think. Maybe it will change your mind about PARA and your earlier statement that "They cannot help much in the initial break thru".

@ Lima Tango "Great AAR, glad I read it... and left you comment".

 

[Pang Bingxun]

Using PARAs if one is brave enough to land them behind enemy lines can create worry that is out of all proportion to most anything else in the game. The worry is, of course, losing them.

In order to lose them they would need to lose lots of Org and Strenght first. The later is my worry. Fighting with less than 6 division is unnecessarily wasteful on manpower.

I had anticipated that your number of planned SHRA might be that high - needing 36 infantry... all of which will be too slow (once the battles to take provinces are won) to contribute to the faster movement and timing blitzkriegs demand. So, I guess, that you just disband them then. Wonder how I would feel if I were to just disband 4 Para and 6 TRA (which you calculate is equivalent). I'll tell you how I would feel - very wasteful.

If building them the hope of course would be to use them later on, too. The logical alternative would be to not build them in the first place.

Exaggerated or not, it only increases as you spend more IC building otherwise unneeded still higher infra just so you can consume even greater amounts of supplies/hour. What is this... an exercise of grabbing the record for most supplies consumed in any set time period?

I donnot think about the Infra as unneeded. One need is to be found behind the bitter peace line as you already mentioned. The other reason is my general preference for high Infra.

So Paris is less important than Berlin (doubt the Parisians will agree). But looking at your "rule of thumb" from only the conqueror's side, Oslo is significantly more important than either London, Paris or Moscow? Maybe the rule of thumb needs a few extra fingers included to make more rational rules.

There is a reason why it is called rule of tumb and not "precision tool to allow perfectly adequat decisions under all circumstances possible".

I mentioned liberating Siberia to raise a puppet army to protect the Far East coastline - especially Vladivostok which is a 10 point Naval Base in the Pacific that German player can have (if wanted) to do some interesting game strategy with. It isn't about any "lucrative value" but only strategic importance. If German player decides to go for Vladivostok, then creating Siberia earlier (and repaired) is his wisest plan.

Taking Korea via china will grant a level 10 naval base as well. Taking China from the east is usually a good choice because you will find better ESE there.

Or the Wehrmacht can station their own divisions there to attrition away over the winters if you rather. Thinking of creating Siberia as early as possible I realistically estimate that doing it without PARA takes at least a year longer - meaning that Siberia's army build (which is quite significant) is delayed by that much.

Taking Siberia at a later time is preferable because it will allow to use higher ESE and faster units Like Arm1943 at speed 15. Accepting Bitter Peace has its advantages and allows to utilize troops at more lucrative places.

Well, you might better conclude that what is wrong is that "Bitter Peace was avoided". But if going past the Bitter Peace line you will discover a whole new set of rules. Such as "fuel tanks never fully fill up it seems" and "they empty almost totally in just a few days once movement resumes" and "it seems mobile units can never even travel further than one province without taking long rest break" and "motorized units that start less than fully fuelled can struggle for weeks (even months) to reach next province in the northern marshes (and show progress) ... but will never reach their destination it seems because of "out-of-fuel". And all of this is experienced with a determined build of new infra as is reasonable during the advance. But nothing is wrong - it's just AoD game stats. So suddenly paratroopers start looking like angels.

If infra does not suffice do allow succient ESE for fast progress via regular means an other alternative is to not reinforce fast units. Than their fuel consumption is lowered, but not the speed of refueling. But in general i advise against unconventional warfare because of unsuffient ESE. Increasing ESE first must be the priority. Taking rump soviet union as the latest target has its merits. Taking USA, South America and Japan before Siberia is quite preferable.

 

[Commander666]

Well, yes, all those considerations have merit too. But maybe German player doesn't want to invade China? Or S. America or Japan? Maybe not even invade USA because maybe player wants to enjoy the anxiety waiting for nukes to arrive (or just engage in fleet battles)? There are a lot of alternate "MAYBE WAYS" TO PLAY THE GAME, SO I DON'T SUBSCRIBE TO PLAYING IT PERFECTLY AS PER ANYBODY'S ELSES STANDARD ONCE GAME GETS PAST TAKING MOSCOW because all after that is completely ahistorical anyway. Besides, what is preferable really may not be Germany painting the world grey (Again for the umpteenth time) but maybe finding a new challenge by doing something different in the ahistorical future. Maybe? So, if anybody wants to puppet Siberia, that goal is best achieved using PARA. But if you want Korea instead... going to Siberia first maybe is not be the best direction.