Seriously, what is up with these? All the other elite units are realistic (elite bomber is questionable) and this one is out of this world. I was amazed to not find a thread calling out the stats on this unit. Here are my questions:
How are these effective vs infantry?
They are massive guns firing hypersonic shells. Because of this, it should not be the case that it could take out more than a few soldiers per shot. It would take out maybe a single soldier, then have to reload and shoot again. It could have some sort of explosive payload, but wouldn’t that compromise the speed of these shells? One could argue that the infantry are in trucks therefore they are vulnerable, but trucks in general should be maneuverable enough to find defilade from the guns. Not to mention that a shot from a railgun is probably a lot more expensive than a well placed RPG or 50 BMG. The co-driver taking shots with a sniper rifle would be better.
Attack range
The anti air aspect of these units is probable, but the artillery aspect is not. For it to attack land units far away, it would have to arc its shots, which it cannot do with hypersonic shells. If it did arc the shots in a manner that would strike the target, they would lose their speed and be completely ineffective. If a railgun is in a city, and it is firing at a tank a province over in mountain terrain, it is implied that these shots are penetrating through the buildings in the city and then penetrating through a mountain before hitting the tank. Maybe the railgun thing is a cover up and it’s actually Shin Godzilla. It would explain the damage to population and buildings, as well as the anti air. Maybe I’m on to something here
Anti-Air
How is it that a fat, slow, low-flying helicopter does a better job at surviving this unit than a small, supersonic jet fighter thousands of feet in the sky. In comparison to guided missiles, the projectile does not possess the ability to change its course, and lacks any sort of proximity fuse system, meaning that the guidance system of the gun would have to score a direct hit from a range of up to 100!
While this is plausible, it would be incredibly inefficient. When all factors are taken into consideration, the probability of nailing this one shot is very low, which is why weapons systems like CIWS (which does not rely on direct hits but proximity fuse) fire thousands of shots at a single target. A more reasonable system would be to take away the anti air radius and instead give it point defense values against planes, helis and missiles, as this weapon would be effective against air targets when they are coming right at them.
Air Assault
Don’t quite understand this one. How exactly is the thing air assaulting? It’s absolutely massive. Based on the picture it looks like it could rival TDS in terms of size. The other air assault units are air assault not because of their ability to be carried by helicopter but by their ability to be deployed rapidly from the air. Airmobile infantry just hop on the helicopter, while some bigger vehicles like tank destroyers are small and light enough to be picked up and deployed elsewhere without wasting time. The railgun, on the other hand, looks like it would have to be fully packed up before moving. The comes the issue of hauling the truck, the massive gun and whatever gives it power straight into battle. The MBTs in game would have a better time air assaulting.
Anyway, this unit needs an overhaul. It’s no fun to have a unit that deletes everything within a 75 radius in a game about strategy and counters. I think it would be better suited to an anti-ship defense (as they are in real life) with some defense vs air targets and no defense vs infantry, since the current meta is build MRLS or Cruisers or else your coastal cities are mine. Not only would this further solve the whole Cruisers-rule-all issue, but it would give more purpose to underutilized units like Special Forces that could hunt down and kill it easily.
How are these effective vs infantry?
They are massive guns firing hypersonic shells. Because of this, it should not be the case that it could take out more than a few soldiers per shot. It would take out maybe a single soldier, then have to reload and shoot again. It could have some sort of explosive payload, but wouldn’t that compromise the speed of these shells? One could argue that the infantry are in trucks therefore they are vulnerable, but trucks in general should be maneuverable enough to find defilade from the guns. Not to mention that a shot from a railgun is probably a lot more expensive than a well placed RPG or 50 BMG. The co-driver taking shots with a sniper rifle would be better.
Attack range
The anti air aspect of these units is probable, but the artillery aspect is not. For it to attack land units far away, it would have to arc its shots, which it cannot do with hypersonic shells. If it did arc the shots in a manner that would strike the target, they would lose their speed and be completely ineffective. If a railgun is in a city, and it is firing at a tank a province over in mountain terrain, it is implied that these shots are penetrating through the buildings in the city and then penetrating through a mountain before hitting the tank. Maybe the railgun thing is a cover up and it’s actually Shin Godzilla. It would explain the damage to population and buildings, as well as the anti air. Maybe I’m on to something here
Anti-Air
How is it that a fat, slow, low-flying helicopter does a better job at surviving this unit than a small, supersonic jet fighter thousands of feet in the sky. In comparison to guided missiles, the projectile does not possess the ability to change its course, and lacks any sort of proximity fuse system, meaning that the guidance system of the gun would have to score a direct hit from a range of up to 100!
While this is plausible, it would be incredibly inefficient. When all factors are taken into consideration, the probability of nailing this one shot is very low, which is why weapons systems like CIWS (which does not rely on direct hits but proximity fuse) fire thousands of shots at a single target. A more reasonable system would be to take away the anti air radius and instead give it point defense values against planes, helis and missiles, as this weapon would be effective against air targets when they are coming right at them.
Air Assault
Don’t quite understand this one. How exactly is the thing air assaulting? It’s absolutely massive. Based on the picture it looks like it could rival TDS in terms of size. The other air assault units are air assault not because of their ability to be carried by helicopter but by their ability to be deployed rapidly from the air. Airmobile infantry just hop on the helicopter, while some bigger vehicles like tank destroyers are small and light enough to be picked up and deployed elsewhere without wasting time. The railgun, on the other hand, looks like it would have to be fully packed up before moving. The comes the issue of hauling the truck, the massive gun and whatever gives it power straight into battle. The MBTs in game would have a better time air assaulting.
Anyway, this unit needs an overhaul. It’s no fun to have a unit that deletes everything within a 75 radius in a game about strategy and counters. I think it would be better suited to an anti-ship defense (as they are in real life) with some defense vs air targets and no defense vs infantry, since the current meta is build MRLS or Cruisers or else your coastal cities are mine. Not only would this further solve the whole Cruisers-rule-all issue, but it would give more purpose to underutilized units like Special Forces that could hunt down and kill it easily.
Yee Haw