why is artillery commonly used while spg is not?

[seashell]

title

[Thedefense]

Artillery is cheap, only one thing that has to be researched and effective, needs no fuel and fits in any division.

SPG´s are good, but require a lot more investment to make them and need fuel to run.
Also while they are better than normal artillery, for most nations they aren´t that much better.

Lastly, people are lazy, as said, artillery is very simple and compared to SPG´s, very easy to use.

[Kinski]

From my experience Artillery is a good choice at the start of the game but loses its punch at around 1941. That's the time when I usually upgrade to SPGs. Otherwise it becomes really hard to push further forward.

[Big [REDACTED] Marty]

SPGs are awesome, use them often, though hard to mass for medium power nations most times, assuming you want to leverage the armor boost they provide to infantry

[glythe]

Opprinnelig skrevet av seashell:

title

If you read through the patch notes from the beginning you will see that SPG got something like a 50% nerf in how much soft attack they provide.

[Zerian VySil]

Horse Towed Artillery
Motorized Towed Artillery
Self-Propelled Artillery

What's changing here?

Hardness is one, Speed is the other.

If you're building Tank Divisions with Horse Towed Artillery, and using MassAssault Doctrine, you're doing wrong.


I didn't answer the question directly, but if you can't decipher my encryption, then you need to also build a Spy Agency.

[HappySack]

Becase SPGs while stronger are much more expensive and generally are most cost-effective when you're refitting outdated tanks to make them.