Rocket artillery

[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