Rockets - totally usless or the second most powerfull unit?

[Shaka of Carthage]

Rockets are not artillery. Comparing the attack values against ground units is fruitless.

Rockets are strategic weapons. They are a poor mans strategic bomber. The "fixes" for rockets should be within that context, not some sort of artillery weapon.

[xwormwood]

Maybe the rocket tech should be handled a bit different: Lvl 1 - 3 improves only jets and armies, Lvl 4 allows one specific or all HQs to use each turn an V1-like-Rocket-attack (limited range, limited damage), Lvl 5 -"- V2-like-Rocket-attack (good range, limited damage).

This way the rocket tech would become more interesting to every player and only massive research would bring some limited extra-rockets, which would be quite expensive (history repeats itself...).

Any guesses?

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill Macon:

Like a gentle woman who reveals herself only slowly over time, Strategic Command still holds a few secrets, yes?

Ah... a true Romantic gracing the boards... like Miss little-town America strolling along the sea shore at Atlantic City... in the 1950s, when that white-froth ocean, sure enough... it was something to see... then! :cool:

And as any Romantic would insist, there is not always the need for ULTIMATE rationales & reasons for things.

For instance, I bought and used a rocket unit for the Germans in my last game.

One chit... total cost, ~ 525 MPPs (... removed the chit after I reached a potent enough level). Now, I coulda bought an AF, or a couple more armies, but who's to say that would have turned the tide anyway?

Sure, I banged around with it in Russia, and skewered some pesky Allied ships messing around the west coast of France, and all in all!

Had a grand old time firing off them firework Rockets!

Was it... WORTH it?

Well, let's use Mr Bill's metaphor, and let's say that you knew this beautifully spirited and extremely elegant woman... you go out to dinner once in awhile and sometimes you take in a ballyhoo'd hollywood picture show, or even, one of those sub-titled foreign ones where you have to follow along closely.

You talk and laugh and have a great and lasting good time... each and every time you go out!

But, you never, ever... hey!

Do you always NEED to?

You can often... WIN... without totalling up any scores, true? :cool:

And as for rockets being mis-construed as artillery... that's what IMAGINATION is for... of course! they can't go 200 miles! if they are perceived as... artillery shells... but,

I myself think of them as MOBILE ARTILLERY such as the Wespe ... and I manuever them in & out of the brutal contest as I please, which, come to think about it, is the REAL reason/rationale for even playing this game... any game... to have... FUN!

Rockets? What are they GOOD for?

Bring them little devils... on!

[Shaka of Carthage]

But, you never, ever... hey!

Do you always NEED to?

Yes.

You can often... WIN... without totalling up any scores, true?

The art of scoring, is to play, without worrying about the win.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Immer Etwas:

Rockets? What are they GOOD for?

Bring them little devils... on!

That's the right spirit!!

[KDG]

Question on the rocket equation. The equation has been listed as follows in another thread:

L3 rocket attacks corp 3 hex's away. L3 SA is 1 (base)+ 3 (tech) for 4 (total) but - 3 (distance) = SA of 1 on that corps at that location.

So if you had 0 tech and were attacking a unit 1 hex away(min. range) you would get the following:

L0 SA is 1 (base)+ 0 (tech) for 1 (total) but - 1 (distance) = SA of 0 on that corps at that location.

Please explain or relook at you equations. I would guess that the equation is giving an attack that is 1 less than actual, if this is the actual equation.

Update from Hubert would also be nice.

[ June 23, 2003, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[zappsweden]

KDG, it might very well be that the first hex is maximum power i.e L0 Rocket has attack value 1, range 1. That means if L0 rocket attacks unit one hex away it is still attack value 1.

L0: One hex away = 1

L1: One hex away = 2, Two hexes away = 1

L2: One hex away = 3, Two hexes away =2, Three hexes away = 1

I think u got the hang of it.

[ June 23, 2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Night]

Ya know I used rockets in the last game I played... I had great success shooting them across the English Channel and taking out Chatham below London. I also used it to soften up a British HQ across the Channel and finish it off with my Air Fleets. Of course though, you do need atleast equal air power to your enemy, because the British Strat. Bombers tried many times to bomb my rockets, and ran into interseptors, usally leaving my rockets with 1 point damage, and taking some of thier own.

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Night:

Ya know I used rockets in the last game I played... I had great success shooting them across the English Channel and taking out Chatham below London. I also used it to soften up a British HQ across the Channel and finish it off with my Air Fleets. Of course though, you do need atleast equal air power to your enemy, because the British Strat. Bombers tried many times to bomb my rockets, and ran into interseptors, usally leaving my rockets with 1 point damage, and taking some of thier own.

Was that against human or Compuer opponent?

You actually hit his HQ with Rockets?

Why did he have HQ in range of your rockets, his HQ should be in northern England i.e out of your rocket range. You probably did not win thanks to using rockets, you won despite using them

[Iron Ranger]

Ahhhh the great rocket debate continues. They are nice to have, fun to shoot and mae some really cool sounds. But in a game with an equal skill human and the desire to win baby win, rockets are a poor investment of time. They still might be very usefull in the late game as breaking the WW1 style of war is hard, but untill 1943 I can see many area where you could invest your MPPs to better porpose.

Zapp thanks for clearing up the distance formula thing.

Rockets L0 R and SA 1 at any hex next to it

Rocket L2 R&A at 3 next to it, 2 one hex away, 1 two hex's away

ect...............

[SeaMonkey]

This is why you campaign makers should sprinkle a few rockets around in the starting OOBs. Yeah! Immer, my imagination says they're artillery too. Sorry Shaka this is about fun. Besides the reality of the situation is that rockets never caused the devastation in WW2 that they are potentially capable of in SC. How much damage did artillery do?

[Shaka of Carthage]

Sorry Shaka this is about fun.

No problem.

[Liam]

The estimates I've heard about rockets was thousands of dead British citizens not nearly as much as the Blitz did in Damage or death. Actually quite effective weapon<terror weapon> useless for anything else. Completely a waste of resources, if anyone would like to research it I wouldn't mind of hearing a single incident of a German rocket hitting anything of any military value?

Having had Family in East Anglia, they use to say you're safe if you hear the buzz, it's when you don't that the rocket is landing near you...

Artillery killed more than any other weapon in WW2, of course a Huge Gun would. It's what it is take a Luger and increase the size 100 times excellent weapon

[ June 23, 2003, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: Liam ]

[JerseyJohn]

Liam

"I wouldn't mind of hearing a single incident of a German rocket hitting anything of any military value?"

This is mixing apples and oranges. The idea is difficult to judge because the V-2 was never used against military targets. I don't believe the V-1 was either, at least not in it's "Buzz Bomb" form.

You're completely correct in it's terror application; the V-2 was effective enough to spark talk of actually evacuating London, a possiblity never considered during the Blitz.

If, instead of following obvious paths with intercepting fighters and anti-aircraft guns at every turn, the V-1s had been directed at varying and seemingly random military targets, they might well have had an effective military application. Soldiers can be effected by psychological warfare the same as civilians. V-2s, fired in groups at a selected area well behind the front lines might also have been effective. It's conceivable that, with a small amount of targeting inormation, they might have been effective against sprawling targets such as supply depots.

Of course, they wouldn't have been as accurate as attack aircraft, but the deciding factor is your enemy is the one losing men and being disrupted, not you.

[ June 24, 2003, 02:59 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Liam]

John:

I think that the fear of a rocket would definitely cut morale, though targeting missiles at that size any distance without computers or more advanced electronics wasn't likely. The SCUDs kind of remind me of V-2s and you can only get so accurate with those. Frightening weapon yes, although really not accurate without #s. If me and you both had to sit down with those resources and decide a way to cause the most damage with that technology, what would you lean towards? I liked the Anti-Bomber remote controlled Rockets...

Or the Naval version which imagine if you had in the thousands what damage that could do, the impact on Germany's downfall it could've made... Hitler was into the bigger and badder thing too much and it cost him in this case. Rockets had an application just not really beyond a terror weapon in his eyes.

[pzgndr]

This is why you campaign makers should sprinkle a few rockets around in the starting OOBs.

SeaMonkey, this is something anyone can easily add to any scenario. I increased German rockets to Level 2 in the Campaign scenario mods which provides some additional incentive to use them. In fact, the AI has actually built rockets and used them, which surprised me when they appeared. :cool:

Going back to the air versus rockets argument, air wins every time. Until air units are toned down, they will continue to dominate. If you're playing to win, why mess with rockets? But if you're playing the AI or someone else who appreciates historical balance (thank you Immer Etwas!) then you can afford to experiment with various strategies. Have some fun with this game.

And here's a perspective on rocket attacks against military units. True, long range attacks did not destroy any units in WWII. But in SC they can inflict unit damage, which translates into an MPP economic cost, which is abstractly what you expect from such attacks - economic losses and unit interdiction. So that's OK. And if you complain about rockets totally destroying combat units, well then that sounds like an argument endorsing the effectiveness of rockets. They can't be useless and useful at the same time!

[Iron Ranger]

It's conceivable that, with a small amount of targeting inormation, they might have been effective against sprawling targets such as supply depots.

Three notes on Germanys Rocket attacks in 1944.

It his notes after the war Ike stated that if Germany had targeted the embarktion ports in southern England from mid may to early June (especially june 1-4) that they could have really caused some serious damage and maybe delayed the invasion till the next Moon and Tide phase. This would have given germany several more weeks to prepare for operation Overlord.

A german spy ring that had been turned by the british feed back the impact points of the V2 and gave the impact points as farther north then reality. Over time they gradualy 'pushed' the center of the impact zone far enough north that it wasn't so devistating.

The V3 was almost finished when the allies over ran the site in Holland. If finished it would have rained shells (?) on London at a steady rate (one every 20 min?). This might have been enough to reshape the overall ground war in mid 1944.

[JerseyJohn]

"They can't be useless and useful at the same time!" -- Bill Macon

Well put.

Iron Ranger

Glad you mentioned that info, I think Eisenhower wrote that in Crusade in Europe and the turned spies helps explain the V-2s inconsistant accuracy record -- as you say, with reasonable targeting a large number of them falling in the same general area would have done considerable damage.

Liam

Iron Ranger pretty well made the point I was going for. As to the rest of your statement, it's difficult to anticipate what either of us would have gone for at the time. Germany's first choice was a large Air Force but later in the war, as it lost control of the skies, it had to opt for something else that didn't involve battling it out dogfight fashion every time they wanted to launch an attack. The Germans also have early "smart rockets" launched and directed from aircraft. The first couple of instances were successful but American engineers were quick in finding a way to jam the frequencies, making these weapons useless.

All in all, the Germans were decades ahead of their time in these fields. The main problem with the V-2 is it was too large and cumbersome for the warhead it carried. The logical speculation is Hitler was really backing the program for use with undefined wonder weapons. In 1944 he told many people, including his personal secretary, that before years end Germany would have flattened London and other Allied cities with a new wonder weapon. It's my guess that either Werner Heisenberg, or possibly a nazi toadie close to Hitler, had given him misleading information on the progress of Germany's A-bomb program and that was the real reason Hitler was so optimistic about his rocket program.

< Article about Germany's Atomic Scientist, Werner Heisenberg >

As Iron Ranger also states, the V-3 would have been a powerful weapon in it's own right.

[KDG]

Level 3 and above rockets, combined with air equality, makes rockets a better choice than an additional jet.

Ex.

You have 7 jets, your opponent has 6, both the same level of tech(we'll say level 3). You have the MPP's to add another unit, so you can choose a Jet or Rocket.

The jet does 2 ground damage, while taking damage from a counter attack as well as damage from the unit it attacks. This leads to additional costs as you reinforce the jet, and makes it more difficult to gain exp.

The rocket(level 3 for this example) will do 3 damage from two spaces away, while taking none back. No additional costs for reinforcement, plus gains exp. quickly.

The main disadvantage is similar to HQ's in that they have 0 defense(most of us agree both these units should have a 1 AD), so protect it with jets.

Please note if you are behind in jet tech, range, and/or have less jets, then purchasing wouldn't be the best time for a rocket. Also note that a level 4 or level 5 rocket is devastating in its attack on ground units when compared to jets.

[zappsweden]

KDG...

1) You forget to mention the cost of researching them. If u want powerful rockets you have to have 2 chits probably and that is 500 MPP starting cost and alot of time before those 500 MPP pay off.

2) Front line do move. To be effective rockets need to be close, so that means you have to move your rocket now and then i.e it cannot be as active as land units or air (which seldom needs to rebase). Operating the rocket will cost you 35-40 MPP every time but that might be the only choice when front lines pull back.

3) Give me an example where rockets do work. Did u mean the Russian front? On the russian front that rocket would be constantly moving and get little work done.

4) In a extreme stalemate situation rockets would be good, but in SC air is king and the side which dominates the sky never stall. They can attack a single hex with 2 ground and 5-10 air units, break through the hole and move on.

SUMMARY:

I will never buy any rockets anymore for 350 MPP. If Rockets were cheaper say 250 instead OR had better overall attack strength OR had less attack decrease due to range I would buy them. Today they are not even close to being cost effective. Sadly there will be no more patch.

My top list of "not cost effective units"

1. Rockets

2. Bombers

3. Cruisers

4. Battleship

I very, very rarely buy any of these 4 units. On occasions, I buy a bomber (as Axis) to be able to strike enemy UK high-tech carriers without being intercepted (escorts take care of that).

[ June 24, 2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[KDG]

I agree getting the tech is the key. Invest one chit and let the dice roll as they may. A little luck, rockets can be your sledgehammer.

A rocket only moves one space less than an army, attacks with greater force(at higher levels), can attack from a distance, gains experience faster, and doesn't take any losses. Since you aren't reinforcing them, you can afford to operate them as needed. They also do the same amount of damage to ships, tanks, armies, and corps, thus they can inflict very high MPP damage, all while not taking damage themselves.

Use two rockets to attack cities, hexes that are surrounded by rivers and marsh, and hexes that can only be hit from 1 or 2 sides. With two rockets, at 2 exp., level 3 and above, you can do 6-7 damage with those two units, while not taking any damage yourself. Get level 4, with 3 exp. and you can sometimes destroy a unit outright with two rockets.

I agree with you that Cruisers and Battleships are units you might never buy, then possibly tanks if your opponent gets level 3 or 4 AT.

[zappsweden]

yes they can inflict much damage but in practice they never get those opportunities. Do not forget that ground units move+attack on the same turn compared to rockets who cannot attack while they are moving.

One Rocket cost 350 compared to one Army 250. They have attack value = 6 at L5 i.e more than the value of 4 that armies get. How often and how much MPP do u spend getting to level 5?

[ June 24, 2003, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[arby]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

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.

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

Oh, we're having quite a time. I kicked his Axis butt out of Russia, and retook the Low Countries. Now he's sitting in Berlin, whimpering as he waits for America to enter the conflict and open a gigantic can of Whomp-Ass on his head.

It's not going to be pretty. As that great American, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, once said, "We can do this the hard way or we can... No, there's only the hard way."

[Iron Ranger]

My top list of "not cost effective units"

1. Rockets

2. Bombers

3. Cruisers

4. Battleship

I like your list but would move bombers to #4. As you noted they can be very usefull for Germany.

[JerseyJohn]

Arby

Thanks for the update (Brest-Litovsk Scenario). I have a feeling I should have advised putting the Minor Allies on the Historical Setting as a lot of times the Balkan States don't join the Axis if Greece is activated early. If I just add those countries to the Axis from the start it would probably give them too much of an early edge.

Glad it's been a see-saw battle most of the way.