SS_PanzerLeader Posted July 1, 2000 Share Posted July 1, 2000 I was wondering does anyone else think that the rockets should be modified a bit ? I find them useless and expensive, I realize they wern't the most accurate piece of artillery on the battlefield, but due to the pricing and limited ammunition I cant see the point of having them at all! Looking for some feedback from others,,,,,, as I dont think they could hit a fat womans ass parked in front of a refrigerator at 20 paces ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out [This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 07-01-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Posted July 1, 2000 Share Posted July 1, 2000 I agree they are expensive and a bit inaccurate. Given they were quite devastating in real life, do you think maybe this is the designer's way of keeping their use at a level that won't affect play balance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted July 1, 2000 Author Share Posted July 1, 2000 I wondered that but If you think about it with teh ammo loadout they have currently they are TOTALLY ineffective, so why have them? At least if the ammo were increased they would have some effectiveness IMO ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted July 1, 2000 Share Posted July 1, 2000 The rockets are much more accurate when you're firing them with an FO within line of sight of the target area. If you fire them blind... good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer! Posted July 1, 2000 Share Posted July 1, 2000 I tried these rockets out in a DYO yesterday. I had the target area in LOS of an FO. The impact sites were spread right across the map like a mad womans poop! I can then assume that w/o an FO, half the rounds would have landed off-map?! On the other hand, if I had hordes of Russians puring across the Steppes towards me, that would be just the sort of suppression fire I would want. Otherwise, I think I would spend my artillery points on something else. However, I am wondering what the morale affect is on the troops at teh receiving end of a totally random series of rocket impacts? I didn't notice anyone running away. Ober ------------------ "Them Yankees couldn't hit the broa..." [This message has been edited by OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer! (edited 07-01-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ACTOR Posted July 1, 2000 Share Posted July 1, 2000 You've got to consider what it is that your firing. These rockets were, by there nature, not as accurate as other artillery at your disposal. If you want accuracy then stick with the cannons. As for removing them from the game, I wouldn't want to do that. I like having them to use, even though I almost always get the odd round, or two, or three that lands on my own troops. [This message has been edited by ACTOR (edited 07-01-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted July 1, 2000 Author Share Posted July 1, 2000 lol that is my point - they are innacurate yet you are given a miniscual amount of shots -- so why have them in? At least if the load out was a bit bigger they would have some effectiveness but as it stands now I haven seen them do anything but miss by miles ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted July 1, 2000 Author Share Posted July 1, 2000 BTW dont get my worng this is still the best game on the planet ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Posted July 1, 2000 Share Posted July 1, 2000 Love the line about a 'mad woman's poop'! That's not too far from reality. Has anyone else seen their rocket rounds hit outside the battle area? I've seen smoke and fire from their impacts WAAAAAAY off in the distance. Great game. Never the same problem to solve... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted July 1, 2000 Share Posted July 1, 2000 I think they should be modelled as realistcly as possible. If you don't see a tactical use for them, don't use them. If you are clever enough to find a use for them, the better for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeAcH Posted July 1, 2000 Share Posted July 1, 2000 I agree on modeling them as realistically as possible. To that end, they should not be "dumbed down" so our games will be better...hence more gamey if you ask me. So I hope that was not the design decision made about them. I vote that their accuracy and loadout be modeled as accurately as possible while their rarity affects the units price. When that is accomplished, then let the chips fall where they may on the field of war. TeAcH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted July 1, 2000 Share Posted July 1, 2000 I suspect that they *are* being modeled accurately. The point of rocket artillery was not that they were as accurate as tube artillery, they weren't. But they were *cheap* to produce, and you could put a *lot* of HE on an area target in a hurry. Using them in close proximity to your own units is not a good idea, as some of you have discovered. They were used to saturate a large area, especially where the exact location of enemy units was not known, so accurate fire would be no advantage anyway. BTW, for all those reasons, IIRC BTS included them in the game reluctantly in response to some quite vocal demands to have them. They almost never came into play in combat at this level in real life. If we were playing a game at the operational level (one where the smallest units were battalions or regiments) they would be more appropriate. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted July 1, 2000 Share Posted July 1, 2000 These rockets were not that inaccurate. they were alot better than the soviet katyushas. When fired the rocket motor imparted a spin as well as a forward thrust to the projectile. This is alot more accurate than just fin stabilization. These 'Howling Cows' need to be given alot of credit. In reality, the crews took casualties like the front line infantryman. The smoke the rockets plumed out gave away there positions and counter battery and air power made them pay. During Normandy, these weapons held the line when divisions were shattered. In the East, they were sometimes used as direct fire weapons in city fighting. Smokescreens would allow them to push out into the street and fired remote from a building. Interestingly, the payload was in the rear and the rocket engine was in the front in some of these. This ensured a blast a little above ground. They really were a blast/shock weapon with the shrieking whistles attached to them. I have read of accounts which describe victems having the life sucked out of them by the rapid , large detonations. Its probably just concussion that killed them though. Best use? Well I look to reality and would use them against infantry in buildings. Knock down the building and wipe out the infantry. Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talenn Posted July 1, 2000 Share Posted July 1, 2000 Pillar & TeAcH: I think everyone wants them modeled as realistically as possible. I dont think thats an issue. But the 'point cost' should match the effectiveness. If they have crappy accuracy and limited ammo, make em cheap to buy in 'scenario points'. For me, I just use em in premade Scens where I'm not concerned about exact point values. Their usefulness is dubious, but there is nothing to lose if you arent needing to 'mini-max' every purchase point. Thanx, Talenn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted July 1, 2000 Author Share Posted July 1, 2000 I dont think they could be dumbed down anymore than they are They cant hit squat ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader.......out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted July 1, 2000 Share Posted July 1, 2000 Talenn, How are the point costs currently decided? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeAcH Posted July 2, 2000 Share Posted July 2, 2000 I think that is one part of the issue and a very good question. I would surmise that the 'point costs' are based on the cost to manufacture an item perhaps combined with its availability on the battlefield, perhaps not. TeAcH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusjm Posted July 2, 2000 Share Posted July 2, 2000 I hope they model the Katuschas "Stalin Organs" correctly. They weren't very precise but they compensated with volume instead. As allways in USSR doctrine . The best effect of these "organs" were on the unit moral though. The actual casualties were prettty low I think. The whining sound broke down the poor sods. Marcus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talenn Posted July 2, 2000 Share Posted July 2, 2000 Pillar: I'm not 100% sure, but from what I've read there is some sort of formula used to derive point costs. However there is no guarantee that any such formula can be completely accurate. After all, how do you compare Tigers to MG Jeeps. It doesnt matter how many Jeeps you have, the Tiger will always win (this isnt Op Art, you know ; ). Given that, it is nearly impossible to have a formula which can work in any situation. There has to be a certain degree of 'fudge factor' in determining costs that is based on ACTUAL game effectiveness. For examples, see the threads on the Puppchen and the MG Carriers. Both are surprisingly cheap because, overall, their effectiveness is slight, but in a certain ROLE, their effectiveness FAR outweighs the piddling costs. In that vein, I think that if a certain unit is 'not really worth buying' in the predominant number of game situations, the point cost should be 'fudged' up or down to compensate. Having designed a fair number of games and game systems over the years, I've come to rely quite heavily on adjusted 'fudge' factor numbers. Perhaps BTS already does this to a degree. I wouldnt doubt it as it's often a clean and simple fix for a lot of scenario balance issues. In this case, maybe the Rockets are just another item in need of a slight cost tweak. Thanx, Talenn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grunto Posted July 2, 2000 Share Posted July 2, 2000 put them in a custom scenario using the scenario editor and give them max ammo. then they'll be worth their money. in general i don't find artillery to be worth the money in a quick battle. i prefer to bring the artillery onto the mapboard itself using 75mm halftracks and armored cars as germans or m8 carriages as americans. also there are the various low-cost HE direct fire guns available under support units. the rocket sounds are very good you have to admit. i've 'seen' it where i could hear the incoming barrage but it didn't appear to land on the board. that was 'spooky' as heck. so as for rockets in scenarios, leave them out of your force buying in quick battles but put them in your custom scenarios and crank up their ammo. andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest grunto Posted July 2, 2000 Share Posted July 2, 2000 here's an idea... put rockets in a custom scenario... like three spotters with max ammo and use them in a bulge-like counterattack to take out a suspected rear-slope american defenders. you can't have your guys anywhere _near_ the fo target point.. =g= the spotters' names would be, rauck aand role =g= andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonicc Posted July 2, 2000 Share Posted July 2, 2000 Well I made a scenario with the following forces: German 1 150mm rkt fo 1 210mm rkt fo 1 300mm rkt fo Points 419 Allied 1 rifle battalion points 2438 Here are the results: Here is a picture of the resulting barrages. The barrages where timed so as one was done the next took over. All Fo targeted along the tree line in the middle one on each end and one in the middle. As you can see they are spread all over the place. The ai moved most of its troops towards the middle of the battle field. I saw one burst from the 300mm rocket take out 5 squads. Just my two cents worth. Sorry about the big size but I wanted to get as much of the map as possible. ------------------ Teutonicc The MEMBER Formerly Known as Teutonic [This message has been edited by Teutonicc (edited 07-01-2000).] [This message has been edited by Teutonicc (edited 07-01-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Captain Foobar* Posted July 2, 2000 Share Posted July 2, 2000 I have to agree with teutonic here, if used correctly, these things can be highly effective. I find that they are more effective when used defensively, as your opponent tends to spread out to cover many firing angles while assaulting you. If you have all your troops in cover, and at least 500m away from the target, you are good to go. Personally I took out about 4 to 8 tank destroyers with rocket artillery, as they were either immobilised by the blast, or shocked/killed due to the open top. I would not have won said game w/o those rockets... If you are firing at a concentrated, or mobile enemy, dont bother firing rockets, but if they are all over the place, or defending a large area, go for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts