Rockets

[Bromley]

It's probably already been suggested, but perhaps rockets should be a city upgrade rather than a unit.

After all, strategic level rockets were (AFAIK) only possessed by the Germans, making all those Russian ones a bit strange. That aside (alternate history etc.), the AI can't handle them at all.

Finally, it seems a little unfair that a forward strategic unit takes up an entire hex/square.

[Cary]

My thinking is that the Russian rockets are Katyushas. It's an interesting little conflation of strategic and tactical, but they do have a nice morale effect even at two hex ranges.

[Rolend]

Cary the thing is the German rockets were used as stratgic rockets, i thought that is what we were told anyway. I mean we have NO artillery except in the abstract and if you are talking about rockets like Katyushas then I classify them as artillery so why do we have rockets at all.

I would change rockets to long range and allow them to only target citys, ports and mines etc, other wise if used in an artillery roll then we need an artillery tech and artillry units. It seems strange to me that the rockets in SC 2 are artillery type and that is suppose to be abstract, so whats the deal?

[SeaMonkey]

Rolend.....you got it!

The subliminal message of the SC2, and for that matter SC1, Rocket unit is

quietly ...now

A R T I L L E R Y !!!!!

Did anyone notice that they are transportable now and with the mobility upgrade they become....

Self-propelled Artillery.

Forget what they look like and perish the thought of the map scale, they are simply deployed in the rear echelon just like they're supposed be.

Their combat prowess improves with tech levels, they have better range and accuracy.

Man-Law......SC2 Rockets will now be referred to as "Artillery".

[SeaMonkey]

Oh one other thing......

Once they get to level two mobility they should be allowed to "Shoot and Scoot" or vice versa.

[Cary]

Could somebody mod the Russians so they look like Katyushas?

As to the strategic rockets, true enough... But the Russian army, certainly, and the German army to a lesser extent did deploy corps level formations of artillery, in the German case to besiege cities, and in the Russian case to open the line. Sure, the scale's a little goofy... but...

[Rolend]

Yes Cary very true even the Americans had a form of rocket artillery.

Once again I question why we have a rocket tech to begin with. I mean artillery is an abstract item in this game, then why make rockets like artillery, if it is not artillery then it must be V1 V2 type rockets which is NOT how they work in SC 2. Frankly I am confused and a word from HC on this topic would be nice.

[Bromley]

I didn't know about the massed corps sized artillery, so I suppose that Rockets could represent that.

However, it's obvious that they weren't designed with that in mind. The Rockets tech increases the range well beyond that associated with massed tactical artillery.

Plus, at 300 MMPs, I suspect that a human will buy airfleets every time.

Having had more of a think about it, I can't see how strategic rockets can sensibly be included in the game. Even if they were attached to cities as upgrades and auto-fired at nearby enemy cities, they couldn't be allowed to do much damage. Otherwise they could cripple southern Britain, which seems a bit much.

[Preusse]

Perhaps the German rockets should be represented by Nebelwerfers? That would be more fitting imo.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

@ Preusse: not really. Nebelwerfer were a formidable midrange anti-Infantry weapon... its range just a few miles. Rockets in SC2 really mean strategic rockets like the V1 and V2.. which only Germany had. Russia and the USA (Calliope Tanks) use rockets, but as tactical weapons. Keep in mind that in SC2 one hex represent 80km, and no Katyusha or Calliope system could fire further than 15km... following history strictly neither USA nor someone else except Germany must have Rockets... they are NOT artillery.

Artillery is included in Korps and Armies.. and the rockets are useless on low levels, esp. for the attacker. They get powerful in later stages, but then the war is already decided in most cases.

[Lars]

How about re-naming it Long Range Bombardment and redoing the unit markers?

Level 0-1 - truck mounted stalin organ or nebulwerfer or whatever.

Level 2-3 - tracked self propelled arty.

Level 4-5 - existing rocket icon.

Or somfink.

[Rolend]

That was the impression I got was that rockets in SC 2 were not the artty type but V1 V2 types. If that is the case then their use in SC 2 is totally wrong. I believe that a few V1's were used against troops but they were too few and to inacurte to do much good. There use needs to be restricted to city/port/resource targets only, there damage needs to be very small, unless you have the rocket tech at a high level.

I would have no problem with taking them totaly out of the game, nice idea but does not really fit well into the game.

[rleete]

I think of them as railway guns. Not so sure the Ruskies should get 2 with the Siberian transfer, though.

[SeaMonkey]

Look you guys, you are going to have to get over this scale/range thing. Its not going to work if you can't get by this. Think in terms of deployment, behind the main positions of resistance.

What we need is to make the strike range 3 and leave it at that. I use 3, because the defensive lines are too porous in SC2. The tech levels should increase the effectiveness of fire, decrease in enemy readiness and morale, higher SA and TA for the artillery units.

These new units should be cheaper to produce and spend less time in the production queue.

[Rolend]

SM in there current condition rockets are NOT V1 or V2 because they could not even hit London, so then they are artty and every time the subject about artty comes up we are told that one of the most important factors in WWII was being treated in an abstract fasion. Ok I can go along with that but then why have rockets in the form of artty????

I mean either make rockets work like V1 and V2's, or take artty out of the abstract and give us an artty tech, or take rockets as they stand now out of the game.

[Retributar]

Well stated Rolend!... also to add i would like to still have V1 & V2 Rocket's to perhap's cause Morale Loss and some Minimal MPP loss'es...but, not to be used as a main center-piece weapon's platform!.

I too agree with some form of Artillery Unit's, whether they be shell or rocket artillery or both as different technological system's.

Rocket's, im not sure, but they might have been more demoralizing than regular artillery???...does anyone know?.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Look you guys, you are going to have to get over this scale/range thing. Its not going to work if you can't get by this. Think in terms of deployment, behind the main positions of resistance.

What we need is to make the strike range 3 and leave it at that. I use 3, because the defensive lines are too porous in SC2. The tech levels should increase the effectiveness of fire, decrease in enemy readiness and morale, higher SA and TA for the artillery units.

These new units should be cheaper to produce and spend less time in the production queue.

We're not going to have to get over the scale/range thing because if you do that for artillery then the game just became even more "unreal" or you can just start making other changes to the game.

One tile is 100km square, no artillery ever fired that long in WW2.

IMHO, Rockets should be German only, they arrive automatically in the production queue at the V2 level (3 of them maybe) while the Rocket Tech could be changed for something more usefull.

[SeaMonkey]

Come on Blashy....give me a break.

This game is not real...= unreal. Its a simulation.

The fact of the matter exists, deny it if you wish, but the way rockets are presented and used in SC2 more closely resembles artillery.

You know it...I know it...this forum knows it and I beg to offer that HC knows it.

Rockets, as represented by the V1s and V2s of WW2, did nothing as far as any battlefield consequences, in any theater.

Perhaps, and this is a stretch.....of realism.....they may have had some morale impact as far as English citizens were concerned and probably did divert some assets to their(rockets)potential demise. That is it.

They are in this game, that in itself is unreal, and because they are here, then they can be made to serve a rational purpose.

That purpose, in all logical deducement, is in the role of artillery.

[Blashy]

When someone makes a smaller scale scenario, bring on artillery.

[Agamemnon]

Plus, at 300 MMPs, I suspect that a human will buy airfleets every time.

This Quote should end the thread. Who is actually buying these. It never enters my thinking about what to produce. Rockets don't exist is SC2 except for the Siberian Transfer.

[SeaMonkey]

Exactly Ag, no one uses them, and thus we have a unit that could actually add to the strategic possibilities and the variable gameplay that we all wish SC2 could have more of.

I have no argument against the "scale" perspective, it is so, it is viable, and hard to ignore.

I admit it.

But SC2 is an abstraction and requires the accompanying thought patterns for credibility.

I, for one, believe it accomplishes that fact admirably. So it is that I play this game with that conceptual attitude.

Works for me.

But I realize, as I do about everyday life, that I can get alot of things to work that other people can't.

Hence, .....the demands on my time.

[Timskorn]

With some minor changes I think Rockets could become a viable unit.

Right now their base attack is only 1 (vs. all units/resources) with a strike range of 1. This is easily the worst unit in the game, even worse than a partisan (which has defense values and higher attack values). They cost 300 MPP's, and even more in research before they become effective. Since they have no defensive values, a couple hits on it from pretty much anything will destroy it or render it useless for awhile as you pour more MPP's into it to reinforce.

In the manual, it only mentions V-1 and V-2 rockets specifically in the "Rockets" research section. It seems the intention of this unit was to represent the V-1 and V-2 rockets that Germany had. The problem is, the unit doesn't feel like the high risk/high reward unit that it should be.

I think the Rocket would be more effective if it went along the lines of what Rolend suggested above. If I buy this unit for 300 and invest research into it, I want it to do more than just knock a couple of points off something, especially since it's so fragile and requires it to be so close to the front line.

I'd like to see this unit have higher attack values, longer range but lower % chances to hit and/or a random damage amount (say if it hits, it does 1-4 points of damage at level 0 Rockets).

For example:

Rockets Level 2

Strike Range: 5

Soft Attack: 2

Strategic Attack: 5

Chance to Hit: 20%

The chance to hit would be similar to the Subs chance to dive, and increasing Rocket levels would increase your chances to hit by 5%.

[SeaMonkey]

Glad to hear something positive and intelligent, Tim.

Its better than what we got!

[Bromley]

The trouble I have is that I hit the core concept problem, namely that despite sinking enough cash into the program to fund 24,000 Tiger tanks (source: Wiki), the German strategic rocket program did effectively no damage to the UK ability to wage war.

So, in game terms, whether its achieved via a unit or via a city upgrade, you still wouldn't bother doing it because it would never achieve anything of value.

The only way that I can create a (sensible) scenario where a player researches Rockets would be if they were:

(a) cheap/free upgrades for cities that automatically attacked enemy cities/ports in range doing only limited damage and

( if Rocket tech increases also affected other units.

So range needs to be limited as IRL it was only 200-300km. Damage needs to be limited because they just didn't do much.

Tech 1

No strategic effect

Army/corps soft attack +1 (katyuska/nebelwerfer)

Tech 2

Range 4 (Brussels - Chatham)

10% 1-2 strategic damage

Tech 3

Range 5 (Brussels - London)

20% 1-2 strategic damage

Airfleet air attack +1 (guided missiles)

That way the spin-offs of Rocket research might make it worth a punt, even if the strategic effect is minimal.

[KG]

I just wonder if we just started rockets off with either a base attack of 2, range 1(or start it off with base attack of 1, range 2), while keeping tech increases as they are that we might see some additional usage of rockets without actually changing the game dramatically.