Why did the Reds cut the number of MLRS ?

[Tila]

Recently, the developers have humiliated the Reds once again. The number of Grad MLRS was cut in half. And in addition, the accuracy was cut to smithereens. Now against 2 Grad MLRS we have 2 M270 MLRS. A stupid balance in the masses. What really needed to be cut was the number of self-propelled guns from 3 to 2.

[Ahriman]

Because Grads and MFRWs were outright better than the M270s for the simple facts that 1) they had a very quick rate of fire to mass dump a desired target before it had realistic chances to get away, and 2) were effective against all ground targets, not just vehicles.

You take M270s if you feel like taking them. You took the Grads/MFRWs because you weren't sniffing glue for a living. Now they are in a similar spot, you take them if you want their utility, but they are no longer so braindead picks that you always go for them.

M270 is such an exceptionally niche unit, as the mix of painfully slow fire rate and high supply cost per missile, makes them hog supply, and doesn't even guarantee kills when you start firing them. Add to that their higher base price of 300pts, you don't tend to go for them as much.

[Marek]

The developers of the division are properly pruning. Keep going, just a moment and it will stay only 1 grad in division. How to solve the balance? In short, remove it. In a moment there will be empty divisions.

[Tila]

The only advantage of the Grad MLRS was the massed fire. Sending 160 shells from 4 installations could really destroy units. At the same time, there is a powerful consumption of base supplies, which are cut here. 4 Grad MLRS cost 880 points and require a base for 175 points, that is, more than 1000. Having placed units at a distance, the threat from the Grad MLRS is not high. My Grads when I was sitting on the arty often stood still to search for targets. Now Grads are a joke, not artillery.

[Ahriman]

Originally posted by Tila:

The only advantage of the Grad MLRS was the massed fire. Sending 160 shells from 4 installations could really destroy units. At the same time, there is a powerful consumption of base supplies, which are cut here. 4 Grad MLRS cost 880 points and require a base for 175 points, that is, more than 1000. Having placed units at a distance, the threat from the Grad MLRS is not high. My Grads when I was sitting on the arty often stood still to search for targets. Now Grads are a joke, not artillery.

Really just shows how your poor utilisation of them makes you think them weak.

The trick to the Grads was always point-blank blasting. You drove them on a road relatively close to their minimum range, then aim a pair at the target you wanted gone. By the time the first shell left the enemy's counter artillery, your Grads already drove off, the target was destroyed, and you were well on your way back to resupply that pair.

Unlike the poor LARS, or any heavy MLRS, Grads and MFRWs could fire their barrages very rapidly, and mix that with a small spread when fired at effectively pointblank, they will thousand cut even the heaviest tank to death, easily making up their points.

Alternatively you could use them to easily halt any and all offensives by pre-aiming bombardments along predictable attack routes, or just use them in response to an attack, to stunlock enemy units.

One card of 2 Grads/MFRWs was a no-brainer pick. It's the same reason as to why SU-25s and A-10s got hit with the card nerfs, because people were always going for the ATGM variants, as the others were effectively pointless to go for when the one type was able to outperform them by a mile.

[Tila]

Originally posted by Ahriman:

Originally posted by Tila:

The only advantage of the Grad MLRS was the massed fire. Sending 160 shells from 4 installations could really destroy units. At the same time, there is a powerful consumption of base supplies, which are cut here. 4 Grad MLRS cost 880 points and require a base for 175 points, that is, more than 1000. Having placed units at a distance, the threat from the Grad MLRS is not high. My Grads when I was sitting on the arty often stood still to search for targets. Now Grads are a joke, not artillery.

Really just shows how your poor utilisation of them makes you think them weak.

The trick to the Grads was always point-blank blasting. You drove them on a road relatively close to their minimum range, then aim a pair at the target you wanted gone. By the time the first shell left the enemy's counter artillery, your Grads already drove off, the target was destroyed, and you were well on your way back to resupply that pair.

Unlike the poor LARS, or any heavy MLRS, Grads and MFRWs could fire their barrages very rapidly, and mix that with a small spread when fired at effectively pointblank, they will thousand cut even the heaviest tank to death, easily making up their points.

Alternatively you could use them to easily halt any and all offensives by pre-aiming bombardments along predictable attack routes, or just use them in response to an attack, to stunlock enemy units.

One card of 2 Grads/MFRWs was a no-brainer pick. It's the same reason as to why SU-25s and A-10s got hit with the card nerfs, because people were always going for the ATGM variants, as the others were effectively pointless to go for when the one type was able to outperform them by a mile.

Approaching the front line with the Grad MLRS is ineffective from a supply standpoint. Constantly supplying 4 Grads is impossible without a FOB or Mi-26 helicopters. That is why you have to shoot from the rear. In addition, shooting at a single target does not make sense. There is a howitzer for that. Clusters of infantry and armored vehicles do not appear often.

[Ahriman]

Originally posted by Tila:

Approaching the front line with the Grad MLRS is ineffective from a supply standpoint. Constantly supplying 4 Grads is impossible without a FOB or Mi-26 helicopters. That is why you have to shoot from the rear. In addition, shooting at a single target does not make sense. There is a howitzer for that. Clusters of infantry and armored vehicles do not appear often.

Might not make sense, but that is the most effective strategy, and it brings great results. As for the logistical standpoint, not really no, they are wheeled trucks, they move really damn fast back to the FOB all by themselves, especially since you can just Queue command the barrage, fast move to FOB, and to their next firing position in the same chain thanks to their fire rate without fear of retaliation.

All of this is what made them S-tier to take, and why they still are worth taking, but no longer an auto-pick.

The thing with tube arty is that the target has a chance to reverse from the barrage still, unless you get lucky. The Grads didn't have to worry about that, since the barrage stunlocks the enemy in place long enough for the kill to happen. Combine this with people that don't spread their units, and you got yourself a rather tall tally of kills very quickly for a surprisingly small investment.

[Timmer120]

Originally posted by Tila:

Approaching the front line with the Grad MLRS is ineffective from a supply standpoint. Constantly supplying 4 Grads is impossible without a FOB or Mi-26 helicopters. That is why you have to shoot from the rear. In addition, shooting at a single target does not make sense. There is a howitzer for that. Clusters of infantry and armored vehicles do not appear often.

Why do you need to shoot from the rear when Grads are quite fast? These aren't towed arty pieces

Additionally if you bring MLRS, ANY MLRS you need to bring one of the massive supply sources, so why bring up the point?

The shooting a single target would be a fair point, but if your target is say.... a M1A1(HA) or T-80UD then if you start tapping them with something like 155 or even 203mm arty, they'll scream at you the first hit and then get away taking at most 2-3 hits, the point the other guy was making is that Grads can guarantee kills on these precious units which probably are a cornerstone to the forces the other side has and then get away scott free save for the supply cost coming out of your FOB

[ArmedGhost-]

If you weren't so dependent on arty, you wouldn't even be bothered by this change. Maybe learn a new strategy instead of spamming arty the entire match.

[Centurion74rus]

Reds need their arty back - arty was a part of strategy of PACT

[Ahriman]

Originally posted by Centurion74rus:

Reds need their arty back - arty was a part of strategy of PACT

Pact still outnumbers the Nato ones in terms of availability across Divisions. Be it towed or SPGs, Pact Divisions tend to get tube artillery minimum in all Divisions aside from AB, with MLRS tacked to the side often as well. Basically it is effectively given that you have artillery no matter which Division you play as Pact, while not so much for Nato.