Ok, let's tackle the bigger Post....
Q-Ball wrote: Tue Oct 21, 2025 2:06 pm
And yes, I know the difference with "Active" and "Transit" pools; I have quite a few guns in transit pools all the time, but seems like "Active" is the best measure for where you stand vs. requirements. My active pools for Howitzers, Heavy Artillery, AT Guns, etc, are nearly always empty.
It's not about Active/Transit but about
seeing what you actually are missing.
You can have 1k in Active and 2k in Transit an still miss 10k which you will only see in the "Ground Elements Map" (that one also takes into account reduced TOEs - so with reduced TOEs it will show less missing). So it is possible you build and build more units needing an Weapon because you see it being present in the Pools which is missleading since you have dozens of units missing it (because they simply do not have freight or manpower or fail rolls for actually emptying the Pools).
Artillery/Rocket:
Q-Ball wrote: Tue Oct 21, 2025 2:06 pm
Another idea, as you suggested, might be to build alot of Heavy Rocket Bn, to at least have something there. I have plenty of Rockets, so it's better than nothing. The only question is whether it's worth the VEHICLE allocation.
Not sure if I rly suggested "Hvy Rocket BATTALIONS" (I was mostly referring to TB stuff, for MAP use we would need an average Hits per Gun to be compared with Artillery (SU) averages to then be combined with the manpower and truck numbers of the SUs to get the true efficiency).
In 1942 since the recent update, you can expect them to be SOMEWHAT (if they have a good battle) equal in Manpower per Hit and Trucks per Hit to the ~122mm'ish Artillery SUs on the attack (but I did not do in depth analysis of that). They have battles where they are about equal in man/trucks per hit and then they have battles where they are only ~50% as effective (so the arty hits 4times more per gun while only needing 2times more per gun compared to rocket)....so no clear answer....
In 1943 this will turn (even) further in favor of Artillery until 01/1944 comes, since Artillery will gain even mroe Ammo while Rockets stay at the same 1941/42/43 Ammo levels. So in 1941+42 it improved to previous versions but they can probably still only be seen as an "alternative" (unless someone comes up with other infos/tests/ways to make them perform (constantly)
acceptable).
I have not looked into if
this issue of Rockets being bad on the defense in Forts was investigated by the Devs. If it is still around (be it a bug or a intended historical fact of Rockets performing worse in defense[in Forts]), then the Rockets fall even more behind Artillery SUs on the defense.
But despite this, if you rly only have 120+80 Artillery SUs and 60 Armies, that's only ~3 per HQ which is very low, the Rockets would certainly not hurt to be used as addition. But as you yourself hinted before, before that, build the Rocket Brigades/Divisions for more control over them to only be used on attacks(with stacked CPP and so on).
If it is Truck efficient/worth it...well...
I did not look into the Rocket CUs. Maybe they rule with the many MP they have or work different in some way to the SUs...
Mortars:
M60A3TTS wrote: Wed Oct 22, 2025 7:40 pm
Q-Ball wrote: Tue Oct 21, 2025 2:06 pm
I would love more Mortar Bn, but I don't have enough of a surplus of 120mm Mortar to do so.....I have about 80 of those Mortar units. I don't think I can go higher without cheating Rifle units, and I don't want to do that.
OK, let's talk mortars...
First off, you don't have 80 mortar battalions, although I'm guessing that isn't what you meant. For clarification, the battalion cap is something like 16.
What you do have probably is 64 regiments either the 42a or 42b brand with a combined total cap space of 122. The 42a type are not motorized and the 42b types are, so the latter is going to be a bigger consumer of vehicles. You can build the 42a regiments in Jan 42 and the 42b's in May 1942. Both will not be eligible to convert to the 43 mortar regiment until July 1943, so there is indeed a long wait there.
42a regiment is a mix of 16 82mm mortars with the same number of 120mm's. The 42b is all 36 120mm's.
So there is something of a tradeoff here, irrespective of competing with infantry units for assets. If you want steel on target, I wouldn't hesitate to take from the infantry and give to the mortars, especially as the mortars flip to guards. Multiple guards mortar regiments with all 120mm tubes can be helpful when supporting ground attacks and are more manpower and vehicle friendly with regards to the artillery class as Wiedrock has shown.
@Q: Sounds reasonable.
@M60: No he means 36gun Battalions, there is no limit on Mortar Battalions (you may mean the Brigades with 144 Mortars?).
I tried figuring out the difference between the 120mm inside Divisions vs SUs. Divisonal Mortars are performing better (with everythign equal) since the Ammo reduction for Artillery is not affecting the Ammo of the Division that much, but the SUs in live games would usually have way more CPP, so I'd say it's about equal on where the 120mm are inside/comming from in the end.
Tanks/AT:
Q-Ball wrote: Tue Oct 21, 2025 2:06 pm
I have actually disbanded almost all AT REGIMENTS. Good idea, or no?
I did this because a) to me they are defensive units, and at this point I would rather direct attach a TANK unit, b) I need the AT guns for Rifle and other units, c) don't want to spend the VEHICLES on them. I feel like Rifle formations have a pretty good amount of AT guns anyway. Thoughts?
I don't think so. (see attached)
a) AT Guns=defense only (definitive 100% true), Tank=offense(in rare cases defense, sometimes also suck in offense)
b) not sure, 45mmm you must have a quadrillion in the Pool, no? The 76mm is what you may need looking into, they mostly enter regular TOEs only in like mid 1944. Those I would propose are worth it to keep AT Regiments around and attach for defensive purpose.
c) yes, 45mm mostly, they also are well suited taking out Panthers later on. Tho I'd say the 76mm is well worth it to get into defensive combat additionally with SUs, as said in b).
M60A3TTS wrote: Wed Oct 22, 2025 7:49 pm
Q-Ball wrote: Tue Oct 21, 2025 2:06 pm
I think I am stuck with not really enough Artillery SUs; I haven't been assigning Armor SUs to Army HQ (I always direct attach them) so I suppose I could start doing that just to fill slots.
[...]
ARMOR is a whole different subject in terms of production vs. needs........
As M60 indicates, the Soviet Union produces an obscene amount of KV Tanks. I have 20 Guards Heavy Tank units right now, and still there are nearly 2000 in the pool. I just don't think it's really possible to use them all.
It's nearly the same with MEDIUM Tanks. Medium tank production for me was short through early winter of 1942, then with expansion of T-34 production really went into surplus. The pool is swimming with all types of medium; the Matilda and Valentines aren't really being used[.]
I would submit that the best 76mm artillery is the gun mounted on a T-34 or KV-1. Battle results consistently show that tanks have higher HPE than a lot of artillery types. That is not to say tanks are better than artillery. Firing early in the battle sequence is a big benefit. So it's combined arms all the way. But if we're talking Soviet tank regiment vs light howitzer regiment, I'll take the tank.
Attack, mostly.
Defense, it depends. If you are attacked by good Panzers the Tanks completely vanish and perform worse than 76mm Art/AT (funny huh?). That's what I several times hinted at in other Threads.
In the defense they...
1.can underperform,
2.are lost for future attacks,
3.if some are damaged before combat, they will just vanish as well when you retreat, something that does not happen that way (in that scale) with guns.
If you see differences in live games, then likely because you have tanks have other factors improved over others (e.g. more Ammo, ASSAULT, more CPP or the circumstances (the enemy offers) for them to succeed/survive. Or you are looking at attacks.
You can also do the same Soviet attack 5times and sometimes the Tanks get some good rolls and are on the top of HPE and sometimes the enemy just retreats without the Tanks getting seriously involved, so it's rly hard to make definitive statements imo. But the are definitely better on atatcks than AT Guns. So AT Guns defense, Tanks Offense is what I'd say (with many caveats on the tanks).
Q-Ball wrote: Tue Oct 21, 2025 2:06 pm
It's in RECON tanks that there are shortages; I think alot of that is just because RECON tanks evaporate in combat. There aren't enough for open slots, and the engine is substiting T-26s and T-38/40. I don't really care much if RECON tanks aren't filled, because they don't provide much combat value. I actually prefer the T-26 to the T-60, because the gun has a chance to actually kill something. Not sure if others feel the same way about RECON tanks.....it will be a good thing IMO when they start disappearing from TOEs.
Thoughts?
They evaporate as all other tanks but the difference is that they simultaneously completely underperform. I'd call it "treshholds" of the combat engine which makes some elements simply underperform because of how RoF/Damage works and further is coded together with (low) MOREX values and such. Since you can't change the TOEs, nor production, nor manually change equipment you just have to ignore them I suppose, they are what they are.