Rockets

[SS Viking]

Hi all SC gamers!

Now I'll start a new topic again. We last one Finland generated 60+ comments. Lets see if this topic is as important.

I'm surprised that noone have addressed this problem before.

First of all, Rockets CAN'T take out land units. They can lower entrenchment levels, morale, maybe supply and a smaller part of the strenght.

I allready see all comments regarding Stalin orgels and so on. Forget it.

Rockets should mainly be a strategic wapon.

Now it's some kind of super artillery and that's wrong and "super" unrealistic. Just as little as airunits could take out whole armies. That's another topic thu.

Hubert, pls change them and implement artillery. That should enhance the realis greatly.

Best regards, Eric

[Randell Daigre]

The U.S. Army's MLRS system can do a 1-battery (6 launchers) fire mission which will essentially eliminate everything in a 1x1 kilometer square. Now, obviously, WWII rocket systems were not as advanced as the MLRS. However, the tech research function is set up to provide you with the ability to go beyond the capabilities developed in WWII. Remember, also, that many things in this game are meant to be abstract. A "rocket unit" does not necessarily represent a specific set of rockets or launchers, but rather a level of potential to conduct a certain kind of operation.

Another thing to mention about the use of rockets to cause damage to units is that "damage" is also somewhat abstract. Even in modern warfare, it is very difficult to actually destroy ground units in detail with aircraft. Most of what is done by air forces is to destroy the enemies infrastructure (C3 abilities, supply, airfields, bridges, roads) and to interdict its movement. The same was true in WWII. In the game, the effects of this activity is represented as reduction of entrenchment levels and damage to the unit in question. You may not have killed a lot of people and vehicles, but you have "damaged" that unit's ability to conduct combat operations and destroyed some of its cohesion. Technically advanced rocket forces (if you choose to make the investment) can perform similar functions.

(Edit)

Another good example (don't know why I didn't think of it before) is to look at the eefect of cruise missiles. The V-1, athough crude, is the direct-line ancestor of *all* modern cruise missiles.

[ August 22, 2002, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Randell Daigre ]

[SeaMonkey]

allright, I'm not quite at a conclusion on this but have been thinking about it quite a bit. The only element of the "combined arms team" missing in SC is artillery. Yes , it is unrealistic to incorporate it givin the scale. But to enhance the strategic options maybe it should be added in the form of the rocket icon/role. Perhaps the first level should have a range of 2 and a cheaper MPP. 2nd level greater range (3) but still cheap. 3rd level same range more mobility to represent mobile artillery. 4th level, now we are into the reality of the v-2, greater range, expensive, not very mobile but operational, devastating firepower when massed, etc. 5th level Ok use your imagination, this is the what-if. All should be transportable, varying MPP cost and possibly some benefit enhancement from gun-laying radar tech value. Ok, get after it.

[Norse]

The rocket unit represent some of the insane artillery during the war.

The Germans started the work on insane artillery pieces, that fired shells weighting several tonns, over 40ish and beyond kilometers. As the war progressed, the tech got more advanced, and they got the ability to fire beyond several hexes in SC. Theese guns required a crew of thousands to operate, and reloading time could be 45min with the early guns. Yes, sorry I forgot to finish the first sentence They began the work on these kind of guns as a response to the French maginot line, as they wanted something powerful enough to bomb that line to smitherins. The guns were later used on the eastern-front, atleast against the fortress-city Sevastapol and Leningrad.

To move the artillery was rather difficult, due their incredible size, so they put them on railroads and thus they were known as railroad-artillery.

I think it was Langer-Gustav that was placed on the other side of the English-channel later in the war, an insane cannon that could rapidly fire shells of this size into London. The rocket artillery also represents the work on V1 and V2 units, and if you get the tech high enough, I'd guess that you are seeing V3. V3 was in the process, but I don't think the war lasted long enough to see them in use.

The Sovjets had special "elite" armies, called Shock-armies. The thing special about these armies, was the extraordinary amount of artillery that followed them. Before a Shock army would attack, they would bombard the enemy with their artillery. The extent of the bombardment was no joke, entire hills could be blown away to a big crate before the attack. Out of memory I think there was such an Shockarmy in the battle of Kursk, that bombarded the attacking German panzer armies, tremendously reducing their strenght before the final showdown.

To include the rocket unit in SC is an exotic addition that IMO isn't historical inaccurate. The Shock armies, the V' class rockets, the famous German railroad artillery, in general the insane ammounts of firepower delivered by certain artillery-units during ww2 needed to be represented in this game. The price of a rocket unit is high, and many might ignore them completely, but they are there if you want to use them and they do have their advantages.

As the tech on rockets increase, so does the range and capability. With every attack from a rocket unit, the rocket unit will never take damage (unlike airpower, where anti-air tech can make it very dangerous to commit bombing missions).

Artillery might be one of the most overlooked parts of ww2 history (and in this game).

~Norse~

[SeaMonkey]

and that's another point, anti-air tech should be extended to the ground units somewhat, not just when they occupy strategic assets.

[Good Soldier Svejk]

Hello, good fellows,

A minor but important point: technically, rockets ARE artillery (all armies classed them under their artillery branches, whether they were a major or a minor sub-branch is another issue and varied by nation and as the war progressed).

In a game of this scale, it's probably safe to assume, therefore, that a "rocket" unit represents artillery assetts, including rockets, maybe, as tech levels increase, increasingly rockets and missiles as opposed to other assetts. Regardless, you do have a "combined arms" mechanism in the game. Get over the name of the unit, "rocket," and think of it as an artillery counter and it works.

As far as a rocket counter at this strategic level, it's mainly speculative, anyway--the only nation that actually deployed a ballistic missile was Germany; so who knows, exactly, what higher tech level rockets of other countries are supposed to actually be?

My friends, I think that we should lighten up a bit. The level of detail in this game is deliberately abstract to reflect strategic decisions, for production, research and for employment of forces; you get to play the war leader who decides where to invest resources, how your forces are going to be structured, and in what combinations you will fight with them (and othe fun stuff, like which front to fight on and when). As such, it works pretty well, I think, rockets included

Salute

[Bruce70]

There is probably some justification for not being able to transport rockets, but for the life of me I can't think of any. Surely anything that can be moved on a railway can be moved on a ship?

Can anyone offer some justification?

[husky65]

Originally posted by Bruce70:

There is probably some justification for not being able to transport rockets, but for the life of me I can't think of any. Surely anything that can be moved on a railway can be moved on a ship?

Can anyone offer some justification?

The Germans actually developed containers to tow a V-2 rocket (behind a Submarine) out to where it could reach the USA.

[daystrom]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

and that's another point, anti-air tech should be extended to the ground units somewhat, not just when they occupy strategic assets.

I agree SeaMonkey, ground unit strength at this scale would be AA capable.

[Ymir]

Hello everyone.

When talking about the casualty-rate of artillery

(rockets,mortars and art. gun) in WW2 remember this:

80%-70% of all casualties infliced on the easternfront was caused by artillery.

This is why the modern G.I "just" has vests and helmets that stop shrapnel but no bullets.

So, In my head when playing SC a lev.5 rockt is just a huge asembely all kinds of artillery.

(Used many times by the russians late in the war)

The size of these assembelies of artillery where so big that they under a "Startegic Command"

Ymir, out.

[SeaMonkey]

It was always my contention to assume that "Rockets" represent artillery while playing. All I'm saying is, let the icon/tech function logically as what it represents. I understand abstraction as a general reresentation of a concept "nes pas"?

[gunnergoz]

A suggestion to include the role of conventional artillery in the game...give HQ's a supplemental combat value they can lend to subordinate units to represent supporting fires. Technology might improve the HQ strength and range of effect over time. Putting your money into this tech would give HQ's a whole new reason for being. A solid HQ within range could entirely alter the combat effectiveness of conventional units, more than it currently does in any event.

[Nitro]

I think we have to assume that the Corps- and Army-units have got artillery of their own in since this game is on a strategic level. The rockets are just something to toy around with

[jmbunnelle]

Originally posted by Nitro:

I think we have to assume that the Corps- and Army-units have got artillery of their own in since this game is on a strategic level. The rockets are just something to toy around with

That's how I see it as well. To include individual artillery units, Hubert would have to take the game to a smaller scale and resize the map.

[pzgndr]

It was always my contention to assume that "Rockets" represent artillery

Ditto. Indirect fire, ranged weapons systems of various types. Based on this, lower tech levels are nothing more than mobile artillery, nebelwerfers, and the like. Higher tech levels are the heavier rockets like V-1 and V-2.

A suggestion. Perhaps lower level rocket units should have more mobility but less range and effectiveness. As range and effectiveness increase, mobility could decrease (ie, 4-3-3-2-2). Giving rockets a move-and-shoot capability, at least at the lower levels, would also increase their value early on.