Are the rail guns worth it? (2024)

The title says it all.

Is it worth it to do the 2 technologies necessary, buy the resources needed to produce them, and spend the IC on them? I am certain the answer is no for most small nations. However, let us take Germany as the test case since they have the Industrial Capacity, Research Slots, AND the opportunity to use them against dug in defenders. Then... are they worth it for the other major countries?

What do they do? I believe this is correct... They remove 33.3% from fort effectiveness, 20% from entrenchment effectiveness, and removes 10% from enemy's attack, defense and breakthrough for any combats taking place within their range.

Let me know what you think.

DaleDVM said:

The title says it all.

Is it worth it to do the 2 technologies necessary, buy the resources needed to produce them, and spend the IC on them? I am certain the answer is no for most small nations. However, let us take Germany as the test case since they have the Industrial Capacity, Research Slots, AND the opportunity to use them against dug in defenders. Then... are they worth it for the other major countries?

What do they do? I believe this is correct... They remove 33.3% from fort effectiveness, 20% from entrenchment effectiveness, and removes 10% from enemy's attack, defense and breakthrough for any combats taking place within their range.

Let me know what you think.

Click to expand...

I'm not the biggest fan of railway guns.

They aren't useless, but to use them effectively, you need to meet some parameters.

1) Air superiority: if your railways are getting bombed even somewhat, the railway guns are getting trashed.
2) You need to be fighting in places that actually have decent railway density. Trying to push past Stalingrad or pushing towards Murmansk is not something railway guns can really help with.
3) You need a front that can actually benefit from their use. If the front is mobile, railway guns are never going to be in position to really help in enough battles to justify their cost. If you need to break a defensive line, though, then they can help.

To be honest, I'd rather have more air power than the railway guns.

But I did notice something funny. They have enough range to barely reach across the English Channel. You can put one in Calais and support a bit of Sea Lion.

Id say definitely, but only if you have the spare industry and resources for it and can start early.

As mentioned, theyre only useful if you can back them up with a proper full army and can protect them with planes. I didnt have the railroad issue because typically you want to follow/build railways as you attack anyway. Also on the defensive theyre pretty much always good.

I think of them as no different than Shore Bombardment: not a priority, but definitely nice to have if you can afford it and can definitely cut down on your losses.

I havent played around with the army spirit that improves them but I imagine there should be good synergy.

DaleDVM said:

The title says it all.

Is it worth it to do the 2 technologies necessary, buy the resources needed to produce them, and spend the IC on them? I am certain the answer is no for most small nations. However, let us take Germany as the test case since they have the Industrial Capacity, Research Slots, AND the opportunity to use them against dug in defenders. Then... are they worth it for the other major countries?

What do they do? I believe this is correct... They remove 33.3% from fort effectiveness, 20% from entrenchment effectiveness, and removes 10% from enemy's attack, defense and breakthrough for any combats taking place within their range.

Let me know what you think.

Click to expand...

They really need to offer different levels. k5 guns at level one, Dora and Gustav as a prohibitively expense level two or higher.

I agree with Secret Master in that they require a static front. They are impossible to micro. I'm not sure if you can hotkey them or not, but trying to pick them out of a chaotic front is impossible.

I still build them though, because a 10% bonus still adds up. To me, everything is a 10% bonus, so I think if you assemble enough of them (e.g. terrain, general, advisor, intel, tactic, air superiority), then you have done the most you can to win.

aletoledo said:

They are impossible to micro. I'm not sure if you can hotkey them or not, but trying to pick them out of a chaotic front is impossible.

Click to expand...

Good idea about hotkeying railguns.

I bet it can be done.

I think this is how hotkeying is done:

[control] + [1]

aletoledo said:

I agree with Secret Master in that they require a static front. They are impossible to micro. I'm not sure if you can hotkey them or not, but trying to pick them out of a chaotic front is impossible.

I still build them though, because a 10% bonus still adds up. To me, everything is a 10% bonus, so I think if you assemble enough of them (e.g. terrain, general, advisor, intel, tactic, air superiority), then you have done the most you can to win.

Click to expand...

You can assign them to an army group to move automatically
Wouldn't recommend doing this if there's a risk of enemy tank breakthrough though, but if you have a sperior forces, just assign and forget

I suppose I should weigh in, since I started this.

The most important reason I like them is due to NSB. They give a bonus when you can't stack any more divisions in a tight space. That happens a lot more now that supply is a major concern. So what you want is to give the divisions that can be supplied every advantage that they can get. The research times are not very long so for countries with more research slots, I think they can be worth it. Obviously it helps if you have the resources to build these beasts! The IC cost is not that bad IMHO. You can get one of these for the cost of a 9/2 Infantry division.

I think for Germany they are a given. A couple really help the push through the low countries and France since it is such a congested area. They can also help in the Balkans where the terrain can make battles tough. I think they are less useful in Russia because things can be spread out and fronts can move rapidly. However, if you can micro them in SP they are incredibly powerful, even on the eastern front.

I also think that they can greatly help France due to the fact that a pair of them can cover their entire frontline.

Italy can use one or two to deploy at the French border and in Yugoslavia/Greece to break through the really tough terrain in all of those theaters.

Russia can plop a few behind the fortifications and the river lines to make them even tougher to break.

I don't think anyone else would really benefit from them enough to make the investment in a more historical game.

TempestM said:

You can assign them to an army group to move automatically
Wouldn't recommend doing this if there's a risk of enemy tank breakthrough though, but if you have a sperior forces, just assign and forget

Click to expand...

Wow, thank-you. I must have missed this feature in previous discussions/videos. I like how they did it as well, attaching it the same way they do planes. Without this micro I'm now all in favor of them.

There better for the defense then when attacking into enemy territory. They are quite good though, as you can get something like a flat 7ish reduction to all enemy stats within the rail guns range. Two researchers isn't a lot at all tbh, the production cost is the big factor.

I found them excellent for nations like Italy who can defend Africa with two of them then defend the entire island of sicily with one. The rest you make can help Germany with d-day defense. This is MP in SP there probably not worth it really because you will be attacking and there will be much less static fronts forming.

Secret Master said:

But I did notice something funny. They have enough range to barely reach across the English Channel. You can put one in Calais and support a bit of Sea Lion.

Click to expand...

This wasn't an accident

Arheo said:

This wasn't an accident

Click to expand...

While you're here, I don't know if it's been discussed much and if it has I haven't seen it, but the map projection has the English Channel appear much wider than it is among other oddities. Would it be possible to shed some light as to what decisions went into designing the map the way it appears? As a geographer this stuff is interesting to me.

blahmaster6k said:

While you're here, I don't know if it's been discussed much and if it has I haven't seen it, but the map projection has the English Channel appear much wider than it is among other oddities. Would it be possible to shed some light as to what decisions went into designing the map the way it appears? As a geographer this stuff is interesting to me.

Click to expand...

They wanted more space for naval battles inside channel.

Leinad965 said:

They wanted more space for naval battles inside channel.

Click to expand...

I suppose that would be a possibility.