Rockets - totally usless or the second most powerfull unit?

[Iron Ranger]

Rockets - this unit has to be the least used and most dispised tech in the game. Even Sonor get alittle love when the axis player go's heavy into Subs.

I wanted to look deaply at this unit and see if we are missing somthing. I ran a few games in AI and pushed this unit for germany to see what would happen, also tried it in a few HvsH games. below is my analysis.

Advantages:

1) Only unit that doen't recive damage when attacking. This means you can gain experence quickly, and as we all know a unit with 3-4 bars of experence can really pack a punch.

2) Only unit that you can increase its Soft Attack. Actually all attack values start at 1 and increase's 1 for each level of tech.

Break down (soft attack only):

Corps 2 -- Army 4 -- Tank 4 -- Air 2 -- Bomober 1

Rocket 1 at L0 and +1 for each tech

At L1 tech its just as good as Air fleets and corps in attack ground troops and by L3 equal to Tanks and Army and keeps getting better! And there is no defence, its considered a Soft attack but there is no tech to increase Soft defence unlike Air Defence (AA) or Hard Defence (AT or HT)

3) One tech does it all. To really make Carrier's effective you need to invest in 2-3 techs (Jets, LR, Sonor) and slowly build experence without reciving return damage. With rockets you recive an increase in range with each level and a across the board incress in attack points.

Disadvantages:

1) Air defence 0, just like HQs. You really need to control the air for this unit to build experence. Though it takes 5-8 hits to destroy, each hit is going to be draining the experence you gained earlier.

2) Slow, 2 AP just like HQs. This unit can't move and attack so only static battles work well or Strategic targets. Works best against ground units in the 2nd half of the battle for russia when things slow down to trench war, or pounding on resources from afar (London blitz?).

3) Spotting range is 1 so you'll need to spot your targets with air or ground units.

Conculsion:

If you can reach L3+ tech and have 3-4 bars experence this unit will control a battle field. It sheds entrenchment, causes huge amout of damage and can hit several hex's without needing to move.

Problem:

In HvsH games controling the air is all important. Nothing else matters as much so you almost never have the time to develop this unit. Since quite offen your trying to 'break' the other players Will, and no one fights to the end. We just conseade the end game where this unit would shine, final battles are never fought (much).

Bottom line:

In HvsH games you never have the time or money to develop this unit before the other player quits. Unless we see a force pool on Fighters it will always be better to spend your money elsewhere.

[disorder]

excellent and informative post!

[Terif]

Correct Iron Ranger.

Rockets are not used at the beginning and the middle of the game. But when Axis advancements stop, rockets become the most important unit. Against an experienced Axis player, its difficult for Allies to win without rockets at the end. They are needed as soon as trench warfare takes place and the last battle starts.

Unfortunately most players concede when they think they cant win and they dont try to achieve a draw or give a good defence at the end. So rockets are only used when the full game is played. But when its played in the whole length, its the most fun .

[KDG]

Thanks for the info. I'd like to see HQ's and rockets have a 1 defense instead of the existing 0 defense.

[xwormwood]

BIG disadvantage:

Can't be shipped with transports, so no chance for US-Rockets.

I see no reason why every army, tank group or HQ is allowed to sail the seven seas but the rocket battalions are doomed to stay where they once were built.

Every Jet-Air-Unit(!) can be moved with operational movement but not the rockets?

[JerseyJohn]

Rockets are especially useful in breaking deadlocked positions such as often occur along major rivers. They're good if you have the MPPs to buy and develop them to L3 and higher.

Agreed with xwormwood, they lose much of what might be their value through immobility. They're expensive to operate and can't be transported.

I think what xwormwood meant about operating them is they should be operated in the same manner as air units, enabling their deployment from the U. S. to Europe and Africa/Middle East in one turn. If so, I'm in total support. As they take so long to develop, it makes no sense to spend so much time and MPPs transporting them and then having to operate them after they've reached port; put it all in operate mode.

[xwormwood]

they should be operated in the same manner as air units, enabling their deployment from the U. S. to Europe and Africa/Middle East in one turn

JerseyJohn :

Exactly! Thank you (again), JerseyJohn.

[JerseyJohn]

My pleasure Mr. X., you have an excellent idea here.

[ May 20, 2003, 05:02 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

The way people talk about using strategic bombers, rockets and to some extent submarines, shows you why in other games they take the approach of only allowing them to be used in a sub-system called strategic warfare.

The problem with Rockets in SC is that there is no way to reflect the negative effect it has on civilian morale. Would be more realistic as well if the Rocket unit was not spotted by Air or Naval units.

Thats why it makes more sense to make a certain level of Jet advancment dependent on Rockets. Without that research, there would be no Jet aircraft.

[Iron Ranger]

To be honest I look at 'Rockets' to be heavy artilery until you reach L3. It would be more in line with the Rail guns and massed batterys of equipment used by the Germans and Russians.

[Edwin P.]

Shaka

I like your idea of rocket units not being spotted by Air or Naval units.

This one change would totally change the dynamics of rocket units. The Russians would have an early "survivable" counter to German air. The Germans would have an invisible defense against allied transports and allied carrier strikes. The consequences would be most interesting.

[ May 20, 2003, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Edwin P and Iron Ranger

Within SC, that is exactly what they become, some sort of super heavy artillery that can fire 100 to 300 miles.

I just threw the idea out there, never thought it thru. Go with it if you want.

[Codename Condor]

Rockets CANNOT be transported, so u actually NEVER can deploy US rockets in europe or germany rockets in Africa (unless u have beat russia and theres a connection path).

Rockets are not good, in russia u cant use em and neither attackin london unless u have air superiority in france, well, the only 1 that would support this kind of thing is Rambo as i read he deployed 11!!! airfleet in france last game against terif, bah, forget it, he didint even reach air superiority :eek:

But if u deploy air in france tehn u are not doing a fast campaign in russia whats worst.

So the only time to deploy em is when u are defeated, allies are invading germany and with air superiority, and tehn war is lost whatsoever terif says. Unless u have defeated russia, can deploy air and have lots of MMPs.

[SeaMonkey]

Well right now I'm playing JJ's Brest-Litovsk Aftermath custom campaign against Arby, I'm Axis. After floundering around for a half dozen turns trying to get some neutral acquisitions and building MPPs it has turned into a stalemate. But with level 5 rockets for the grays I have decided to act upon this advantage and build them, many of them, and research jets to give them air cover. They are expensive (525 MPP), so I'm researching IT also. The potential for rockets IMO is a devastating strategy in which their worth could be second to none of the other units. I think of them as artillery (they should be transportable). The reason why the grays never use them in the regular campaigns is that there is just no need to, to win. But if this strategy works out I may change my play and employ artillery/rockets profusely in the future. Isn't this as historical as it gets, the main weapon contribution to casualties in WW2 was artillery. Even now, what are precision guided weapons delivered with? That's it, flying artillery, that's what airpower is and artillery came first.

[KDG]

Give rockets and HQ's an AD of 1. This will help these units and reduce jets power slightly. All units should have some type of defense vs. air.

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey

I'm honored you and Arby are playing that scenario. I've found it to be very difficult for either side and reached the same conclusion you have, that L=5 rockets are the breakthrough element.

The reasoning was that between wars Germany would do extensive rocketry research while the UK did extensive sonar research, each exploring technologies relevant to their situations (sea vs land warfare) and both reaching L=5.

It's good to know people actually have the patience for that grinding scenario. Originally my goal was to make it simple, but that turned out to be impossible.

I'd be very interested in knowing more game details and how it turns out.

JohnofJersey@AOL.com

[ May 21, 2003, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[SeaMonkey]

On the contrary JJ the honor is all ours; that you would take the time to bestow the enjoyment on another human being speaks highly of your nature (as if we didn't know it already). We(I) wanted to simulate the unknown of war, where in the beginning neither side knows not what to expect as the scenario unfolds. I picked yours because of the eloquent presentation of the preface and the real possibility that it may indeed have come to pass as an alternative history. Keep up the good work and thanks to all that contributed to such an interesting campaign, I will keep you posted as arby dispatches me to the netherworld. Oh yeah thanks for the heads-up on the level 5 sonar for the UK, I didn't know, now cease and desist, it's not whether you win or lose but how you play the game.

[ May 21, 2003, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[JerseyJohn]

Thanks SM, feeling is mutual; looking forward to the updates.

In that scenario the AI plays an interesting game as the Allies.

The guys who helped me with it were CvMannerheim, Wachtmeister and Martinov

I'm pleased to thank Otto for the excellent introductions to both the Brest-Litovsk Aftermath and Z-Plan Scenarios. They stimulate interest and I enjoyed reading them myself.

[ May 21, 2003, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[santabear]

One observation: Rockets are handy in defeating Sevastopol if the Germans care to purchase any. And they make the coolest sounds in the game...

[Edwin P.]

As was pointed out earlier in this post Rockets can't be transported.

Some have suggested that rockets should operate like air units. I disagree. Air Fleets fly to location, rocket units have to be diassembled and loaded onto freight trains, travel via rail and then be reassembled at their final location. A much more time consuming and less flexible process.

I do think that one should be able to transport rocket units via ship; however, it should be expensive to do so.

[xwormwood]

The russian katjusha-system was mobile, and so was the german nebelwerfer-system.

V1 were fired from mobile launching pads and even from the german medium bomber HE 111.

http://psywarsoc.psyborg.co.uk/timeline/v1rocket.html

V2 rockets were transportable as well.

I think rockets should really get the same moving abilities like HQs (sea-transport).

Does anyboy know the reason why this weapon got such a limitation in SC?

[ June 21, 2003, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[zappsweden]

Rockets are almost useless. Do not get fooled by the high attack values they get after tech advances. THEIR ATTACK VALUE DECREASE ON RANGES (with 1 per hex distance)!!!

Not mentioned in the manual, ofcourse

That means, if u have L3 rocket (which means soft attack = 4) and attack some unit 3 hexes away u get 4-3=1 Soft attack. That is worse than a corps!

The enemy will not walk straight up to your rocket at close range and let you fire them in his face, so the Rocket will almost never be using their full potential.

Since air is king in this game, there is no way of using rockets. If I have total air superiority I do not need Rockets. I can blow up enemy HQ's and destroy enemy units with ground+air fleet combos and eventually bleed the enemy to death.

Say I have a stalemate with equal strength as my enemy. I buy some Rockets, he buys some extra air fleets. Suddenly, HE has air superioriy and my rockets cannot be used, they are destroyed by his air from long range.

You have to have air superiority to use Rockets, but if u have air superiority u win the game anyway. Breaking trenches (with rockets since they take no casualties) is not an issue. There is always a good spot to break through enemy line anyway and surround his units i.e destroying them. Rockets cost 350 MPP compared to 400 MPP for air fleet.

DO NOT BUY ROCKETS

[ June 23, 2003, 05:31 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[jon_j_rambo]

If you see me buy rockets, that means you suck. Why? Because rockets suck in this game.

1) You can't afford to waste tech chits on rockets with IT, Jets, & Long-Range as better choices.

2) Rockets are too slow to move.

3) It's about air.

Rambo-Hollywood-Vegas

[pzgndr]

Rockets are almost useless. Do not get fooled by the high attack values they get after tech advances. THEIR ATTACK VALUE DECREASE ON RANGES (with 1 per hex distance)!!!

Not mentioned in the manual, ofcourse

Our super sleuths have found yet another surprise after this game has been out for a year! Like a gentle woman who reveals herself only slowly over time, Strategic Command still holds a few secrets, yes?

High level rockets do get increased unit strength with tech advances. Combined with experience and HQ support, this still makes them lethal at long ranges and devastating at closer ranges. So they're not completely useless. It makes sense that there is some decrease in attack value at extended ranges due to inaccuracy. If not, wouldn't max attack value at max range turn high-tech rockets into a true super-weapon in this game?

I'd argue that this needs to be documented better, but probably does not need to be changed. Air Fleets, on the other hand, need to be toned down. That would help make rockets more interesting.

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Rockets are almost useless. Do not get fooled by the high attack values they get after tech advances. THEIR ATTACK VALUE DECREASE ON RANGES (with 1 per hex distance)!!!

Not mentioned in the manual, ofcourse

Our super sleuths have found yet another surprise after this game has been out for a year! Like a gentle woman who reveals herself only slowly over time, Strategic Command still holds a few secrets, yes?

High level rockets do get increased unit strength with tech advances. Combined with experience and HQ support, this still makes them lethal at long ranges and devastating at closer ranges. So they're not completely useless. It makes sense that there is some decrease in attack value at extended ranges due to inaccuracy. If not, wouldn't max attack value at max range turn high-tech rockets into a true super-weapon in this game?

I'd argue that this needs to be documented better, but probably does not need to be changed. Air Fleets, on the other hand, need to be toned down. That would help make rockets more interesting. </font>