15cm or 17cm artillery?

[stormbringer3]

I've read a lot of the older posts about this game and over the years some opinions have evolved about the better units to have. In the artillery area there is the harder hitting vs more ammo. What's the current thought about these two units for use until later when other choices are available?
Thanks for any opinions.

[hugh2711]

I upgrade my 10.5 directly to 17cm bypassing 15cm completly. There are two threads where people did tests and analysed them, (one is viewtopic.php?f=121&t=26663#p245092, but there is snother one as well .) and produced nice bar graphs of comparisons and they show clearly that 15cm (and 21cm) are not much of an improvement wheras the 17cm are value for money.

[huckc]

Depends on the Campaign.

Hard hitting:
Good for attacking

High ammo:
Good for defense

[ycloon]

I'm in GC 43E right now and 17cm is the way to go.

[AnalogGamer]

After the info provided in this forum, I down-graded my 21cm to 17cm, and am happier for it. It cost nothing and lost no over-strength.

I now have four 17cm and two Wurfies in Moscow '43 in the vanilla campaign.

BTW, a +3 attack, 13 strength Wurf is a beast. Too funny to see in action.

[hugh2711]

a 13 strength wurf would cost approx 739 according to my calculations (510+51+76+102), more than a tiger. I normally run with about 4 of them but at ordinary strength , yes they are great beasts but mess with the softcap terribly.

[AnalogGamer]

Yeah Hugh, they are pricey. I run my pair at 11 for most of the campaign. 12 for Moscow '43, and 13 for USA.

[captainjack]

I'd normally go for the 170 over the 150. For me, the 150 isn't enough of an improvement over the 105 due to the reduced RoF (80% for 150, 100% for 105). The 170 has same RoF as the 150 but hits harder enough to make a real difference on hard or heavily entrenched targets.

If playing Nico's equipment mod, the extra range of the 170 gives it an even bigger advantage over the 150.