Rocket artillery

[ZeusEQ]

Hi,

First off, I’m sorry if there’s already a topic about this (if so, please point me to it). I don’t know if it is like this for everyone, but the “google custom search” functionality places its results overlaid on the topic overview, making one unreadable mess of letters :-( .

Anyway, with their multiple launchers and large payloads, rocket artillery, though less accurate, in general was able to saturate a target area much quicker than a comparable “regular” artillery battery, but then needed much more time to reload.

I was thinking of representing a rocket artillery unit with the same stats and rules as a regular artillery, but rolling 2 dice instead of 1 for each rocket artillery unit to represent the large number of launchers. However, rocket artillery would only be able to fire on uneven combat rounds (ie the first, third, fifth etc round of each combat), to represent the slow reload.

Even though over the course of a long battle the difference with regular artillery shouldn’t be that big, in short battles I guess it would have a bigger impact that the unit could basically make its round two attack even if it’s chosen as a casualty in the first round.

So my questions:

– Would this be feasible, or is it too OP?
– How many points do you think this unit should cost?
– Do you have specific rules for rocket artillery, and what are they?

Thanks, Zeus

[UncleSam0330]

I think that’s a neat idea. What about making it a research option? Tech was always improving in increments throughout the war so it can be tough to decide where to draw the line. For example, most armor from 1940 would be no match for most armor in 1944 or 1945. I’ve rationalized it to myself by assuming that surviving units from the earlier rounds of play are being periodically “refitted” with new equipment throughout the game. Naturally, that happens passively and without cost for the sake of simplicity. I bring up that example as a comparison to rocket artillery because I think you could make the case that rocket technology is different enough that it would justify an entirely different unit type as you described. Even though the Germans and Russians were using them in the field by mid-war, it’s reasonable to say that that’s because they invested in the research earlier. You could also say that the level of effectiveness you’d give that type of unit (perhaps beyond the true effectiveness of Nebelwerfer or “Stalin’s Organ”-equipped units) warrants tech research. For my house rules, we have a somewhat different set of research options and a different convention for achieving them. The researcher picks a specific technology or program which has its own set of odds based on how good it’s deemed to be and the number of prior attempts. I’d probably make what you described a low to mid-level difficulty technology to acquire.

[CWO Marc]

Rocket artillery, or multiple-launch rockets systems (MLRS), should probably be considered a supplemental unit to regular artillery rather than a tech upgrade that replaces regular artillery.  MLRS never replaced artillery in real life; they were a different type of weapon, not an improved version of conventional tube artillery.  They were good for situations in which a large volume of indirect fire needed to be brought down in a short amount of time on area-type targets, situations in which accuracy wasn’t particularly important.  The opening Russian bombardment in the Battle of Berlin was a good example of their use.  Another example was the American use of rockets fired from landing craft during amphibious assaults, to give the enemy coastline a final dose of saturation pounding just before the Marines or GIs hit the beaches.  (This might actually be interesting to apply to A&A, as a house rule addition to the amphibious assault rules.)  The Russian Katyusha MLRS, incidentally, was known for the loud and intimidating howl that its rockets made when they were fired, which (like the siren of the Stuka) added to the unpleasantness of being on the receiving end of this weapon.

[Young Grasshopper]

There’s definitely something here worth exploring.

[baron Münchhausen]

What about these values?
MLRS
Attack 3
Defense 1
Move 1
Cost 4 IPCs
No combined arms.
In my mind, this weapon seems more for offensive than defensive and is less accurate than Artillery, so cannot combined with Infantry.
However, Russia can find it useful to get this slow A3 unit for 4 IPCs.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@Baron:

What about this values?
MLRS
Attack 3
Defense 1
Move 1
Cost 4 IPCs
No combined arms.
In my mind, this weapon seems more for offensive than defense and is less accurate than Artillery, so cannot combined with Infantry.
However, Russia can find it useful to get this slow A3 unit for 4 IPCs.

In your case Baron, I would consider the ability to blitz with a tank as well.
Screaming Mimis for example were hault on trucks, later assembled on sdkfz 250. Halftrucks and Opel blitz armored halftrucks such as the Maultier.
Katyusha was also on a truck.

So:
Move 1. Can blitz when paired with a tank.

[General 6 Stars]

MLRS -  C5 A3 D1 M2  can blitz.  Otherwise keep cost 4 move 1 only. No blitz.

[Young Grasshopper]

Any way a mech infantry can be modified or upgraded instead of introducing a new unit?

[CWO Marc]

@Young:

Any way a mech infantry can be modified or upgraded instead of introducing a new unit?

Not realistically, in my opinion.  Mech infantry units were essentially troop-carrying vehicles.  Motorized MLRS systems were basically trucks carrying rocket-launchers and ammunition as their payload.  The two unit types were completely different in configuration and purpose.

[aequitas-et-veritas]

@Young:

Any way a mech infantry can be modified or upgraded instead of introducing a new unit?

Of course YG

Here are version of Mechanized Units who existed:

Germany:

The SdKfz 250, SdKfz 251

US:
M16 MGMC /M17 MGMC, M3,M2

Russia:
ZIS-42
UK:
M7 Priest Kangaroo

Summary:
Mech Units could be upgraded and used as mobile Arty,AA-gun,MLRS, or blitzers.
Example:
SdKfz 251-1 MTW Personell carrier only / regular Mech unit.
SdKfz 251-2 8cm Mortar / may support Inf. like an arty.
SdKfz 251-7 Pioneer (engineer) / may blitz without beeing paired w. a tank
SdKfz 251-21 mounted AA gun / may work like an mobile AA-Gun
SdKfz 251-? had Do-Werfer mounted and could be used like an MLRS

My thoughts to your question.

[amanntai]

@ZeusEQ:

Hi,

First off, I’m sorry if there’s already a topic about this (if so, please point me to it). I don’t know if it is like this for everyone, but the “google custom search” functionality places its results overlaid on the topic overview, making one unreadable mess of letters :-( .

As far as I know, that happens to everyone.

@ZeusEQ:

So my questions:

– Would this be feasible, or is it too OP?
– How many points do you think this unit should cost?
– Do you have specific rules for rocket artillery, and what are they?

Thanks, Zeus

While everyone else seems focused on their own ideas of an MLRS unit, I’ll comment on your idea.
I think it is definitely feasible. To avoid being OP, I’d either up the cost from 4 to 5, or keep cost at 4 but drop the defense value to 1 instead of 2 like artillery, since rocket artillery always seemed more offensive than defensive to me.

I have no specific rules myself, but a unit with your fire twice ever other round property and the following values would likely be used by me:
C5 A2 D1 M2 (no blitz), can support Infantry on attack.

[ZeusEQ]

Thanks amanntai,

I like your idea of giving the originally proposed unit def 1, as indeed rockets were primarily offensive; they were very inaccurate, making it harder to hit units on the move (as attacking units would normally be) as compared to targeting fixed positions (as defending units would usually be in).

I think I will implement it this way and see how it plays.

Thanks, Zeus