105 howitzers

[Viper]

does anyone here think howitzers are a bit too strong now?

i think they are........
standard reload very quick. longest range. no other artillery can reach. and very cheap to build. so when you reach and kill them. enemy will just build new. very cheap for the great performance. can deliver 8 shells in very short amount of time. and when you get veterancy. howitzers can shoot almost as fast as anti air guns

i think developers should rethink latest howitzer changes. i saw some very bad artillery games because of the howitzers.

everyone spammed them. they burn the crew. and build new. this way you can get 4 howitzers or more. in big games. the munition is very affordable.

and the 25p is very broken.

i think static howitzers in general are now at worst condition. they were all better in previous versions.

[MarKr]

Static howitzers need to be better because they are static. Once you fire and hit enemy unit, opponent can see where they shoot from and can counter-arty them. They have longer range, true but once you know where they are, you can move your mobile stuff in range.

The "burn-and-recrew" is a long standing issue which can be used to bypass limit on nebels and other "crewed" arty too. We'll try to get some solution for that.

If the vetted RoF is too high, it can be brought down a bit but since the howitzers are static and thus easy to counter-arty, getting one to higher vet level is rare and so should be rewarding so the vet bonuses should not be completely useless.

[Viper]

Static howitzers need to be better because they are static. Once you fire and hit enemy unit, opponent can see where they shoot from and can counter-arty them. They have longer range, true but once you know where they are, you can move your mobile stuff in range.

The "burn-and-recrew" is a long standing issue which can be used to bypass limit on nebels and other "crewed" arty too. We'll try to get some solution for that.

If the vetted RoF is too high, it can be brought down a bit but since the howitzers are static and thus easy to counter-arty, getting one to higher vet level is rare and so should be rewarding so the vet bonuses should not be completely useless.

i saw blitzkrieg doctrine with 105 howitzers. and armor doctrine with 105 howitzers. power of teamplay

the problem is not the rate of fire after veterancy. but the standard rate of fire i think. it is way too fast.


also something off.topic but important.....i saw tetrak with 76mm howitzer gun (not 2 pounder) 1 shot hotchkiss....3 times

[kwok]

I was wondering it's probably possible to stop this exploit by adding a requirement to the bombard abilities that a player must be a particular doctrine to use. What do you think?

In general i think unit limits aren't something worth including, units should be balanced so limits aren't an issue. It is the balance of last resort.

[Warhawks97]

In general i think unit limits aren't something worth including, units should be balanced so limits aren't an issue. It is the balance of last resort.

THANK YOU!

[kwok]

Only my opinion though

[MarKr]

I was wondering it's probably possible to stop this exploit by adding a requirement to the bombard abilities that a player must be a particular doctrine to use. What do you think?

The whole point of decrewing/recrewing is that you can regain a lost weapon/gun for lower cost (the cost of reinforced squad which you used for recrewing the weapon) but at the risk of the weapon falling in hads of someone else if they get there first. If you want to make it this way we might as well just make it so that the weapon gets destroyed once the crew is dead.

In general i think unit limits aren't something worth including, units should be balanced so limits aren't an issue. It is the balance of last resort.

Limits are just not working for the guns that can be decrewed because it is easy to bypass the limit so I agree that for these units it would be better to have some system that would be self-limiting and discouraging from building crapload of these units.

In cases like these the most natural limit seems to be the price of using the unit. So one possibility would be to remove the limit on howitzers but increase the cost of barrages by a lot (like 150 ammo or more), give them longer cooldown and make them able to fire anywhere on the map (maybe except HQ sectors). This way they would become kind of an "off map arty which is on the map" you would be able to build as many as you want but you wouldn't be practically able to "feed" with ammo more than 2 at the same time.
Just an idea.

[Warhawks97]

I was wondering it's probably possible to stop this exploit by adding a requirement to the bombard abilities that a player must be a particular doctrine to use. What do you think?

The whole point of decrewing/recrewing is that you can regain a lost weapon/gun for lower cost (the cost of reinforced squad which you used for recrewing the weapon) but at the risk of the weapon falling in hads of someone else if they get there first. If you want to make it this way we might as well just make it so that the weapon gets destroyed once the crew is dead.

No way... idk how often a howitzer got decrewed in arty battles... would be bad to lose the entire gun...

In general i think unit limits aren't something worth including, units should be balanced so limits aren't an issue. It is the balance of last resort.

Limits are just not working for the guns that can be decrewed because it is easy to bypass the limit so I agree that for these units it would be better to have some system that would be self-limiting and discouraging from building crapload of these units.

In cases like these the most natural limit seems to be the price of using the unit. So one possibility would be to remove the limit on howitzers but increase the cost of barrages by a lot (like 150 ammo or more), give them longer cooldown and make them able to fire anywhere on the map (maybe except HQ sectors). This way they would become kind of an "off map arty which is on the map" you would be able to build as many as you want but you wouldn't be practically able to "feed" with ammo more than 2 at the same time.
Just an idea.[/quote]

Oh come on... i remember the days with no limit on howitzers and you couldnt fire more than two, max three anyway nonstop. The reason to have more was to have some sort of "spare" instead of waiting untill one gun is down and losing all at once. Or having some sort of "back up arty"... frontline moved forward, you build new one closer to the front, if front came back you still had your previous guns.

The only abuse of mass howitzer was VT.... but under normal conditions you cant afford to shoot all nonstop... even two nonstop shooting guns ate all your ammo. And if map got bigger, the MP income did so as well.


so yeah, increase cost of howitzers.... 400-450 MP, boost its range to at least vcoh range (250) and idk.... but remove limit.



the second mass abuse was nebler spam in terror doc using all by VT at once.

[MarKr]

The only abuse of mass howitzer was VT.... but under normal conditions you cant afford to shoot all nonstop... even two nonstop shooting guns ate all your ammo. And if map got bigger, the MP income did so as well.

You say that the problem was abusing the unlimited howitzers to boost the strength of VT, how does your solution solve this problem? You lift the limit, give them more range, people would be able to "normally" fire just 2 or 3 of them at a time, but you can still build 10 howitzers to have super strong VT.

[Warhawks97]

That's true, but that's why I would want howitzers costing more.. 400 mp or more for the naked and emplaced versions accordingly.

I would make vts always require an unlock, roughly 80 activation range and at least 75 ammo to cost.

So making vt worth to use would at least cost 800 mp for the arty units, 160 or more for the unit activating it a good amount of ammo and a few cp points.

[MarKr]

Is there even a reason to have the naked/emplaced versions? It seems sort of pointless. They are usually so far away that direct-shooting weapons cannot reach them (maybe infantry but if they get this close, they can throw grenade at either of them and kill the crew) and other arty can kill the crew either way. It makes sense to have emplaced/naked versions for emplacements that get under direct fire but the howitzers don't really need it.

One solution which I think would be possible, is to make it the way that VT can use only cetain limit of units (e.g. 2 or 3). If you wanted to use VT, you would need to select which howitzers participate in VT (probably some on/off ability). This way you could build as many howitzers as you want, you would not be able to feed them all with ammo and only given number would be able to shoot past its range limit.

Or....you know...remove VT.

[Warhawks97]

Is there even a reason to have the naked/emplaced versions? It seems sort of pointless. They are usually so far away that direct-shooting weapons cannot reach them (maybe infantry but if they get this close, they can throw grenade at either of them and kill the crew) and other arty can kill the crew either way. It makes sense to have emplaced/naked versions for emplacements that get under direct fire but the howitzers don't really need it.

perhaps, but thats up to the player i would say. I think def doc has the biggest reason to build emplaced versions due the ability to strenghten them. Thus they can withstand even long toms.

One solution which I think would be possible, is to make it the way that VT can use only certain limit of units (e.g. 2 or 3). If you wanted to use VT, you would need to select which howitzers participate in VT (probably some on/off ability). This way you could build as many howitzers as you want, you would not be able to feed them all with ammo and only given number would be able to shoot past its range limit.

If thats possible. I dont mind. I also already thought about something like only the closest 3-4 howitzers would fire at the targeted location.

Or....you know...remove VT.

Or the only way to fire would be VT.... The american artillery doctrine in ww2 more or less worked this way (thus was more effective that other factions arty where artillery commanders could make their battery shooting at targets they wanted while US had some sort of "upper command" that directed several batteries.



To be honest, a few VT´s in game simply look broken. Like Luftwaffe VT.. their 88 can only shoot with VT which is unique. Besides that ive never seen anyone using it bc CP and MP cost to get all requirements is too high.
Terror doc. Rocket launchers with long ranged massed accurate shooting? VT for rocket artillery that gets called "btw." by "stg ramboing" units is weird.

def doc: .... 105 mm, 88 and even grille starts shooting, even several salvos. Its, if all things are fielded, the most devastating VT.
I would make only 105 start shooting at the called VT.

Inf doc 107 mortar pit VT. Mortars across the map as long range artillery? even more weird.
Doesn't def doc bunker has a similar ability to make all mortars shooting?


So so generally i would remove certain VT´s (mortars, nebler, luft 88) and make them only for inf, def, se and RA doc. In each faction only max 4 stationary howitzers would start shooting (for RA perhaps 5 since its a weaker howitzer). I am not sure about SE though. If all 4 SPGS are on the field the blow is absolutely devastating, if not already over the top.

These VT´would be usable by spotters, officers or certain artillery command units, but not by random combat units.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I would like to bump this topic once again...

Let alone the fact that players can exploit the limit of only 2 howitzers by burning the crew and then building more howitzers for themselves and their team-mates too... I dare to say that currently, these howitzers are the ULTIMATE weapon in the game, they are so overwhelming and hold up so many advantages, with very little disadvantages in return...

Not to mention how the howitzers can shoot a direct shell at incoming enemy units that are attacking it.. and apparently this shell in particular deals way more damage than when shooting a salvo.

Moreover, the rate of fire is simply extreme.. combine that with very long range, and overall "dirt cheap" cost!

I believe howitzers should be a top priority on the next version.

[kwok]

But what’s the solution

[mofetagalactica]

Too bad that the unit control of this mod is based on basic cost and limits instead of upkeep right? lol.

[Krieger Blitzer]

But what’s the solution

It's fine that howitzers have the longest range.. and the fact that they can't move is already compensated by this, in addition to being very cheap.

Now, the biggest problem is;

- insane rate of fire, 4 seconds?? Reloading faster than 2 pdr guns... Really?

- Number of shells per salvo, 8 shells are too much for only 50 ammo.

With this high rate of fire.. they can deliver more damage than most 150mm artillery, and in such a very short time.

What needs to be done:

- increase reload time to 6.5 or 7 seconds, just as it was in the past.

- Reduce number of shells once again to only 6 rounds for each barrage.

- ALL arty units in the game should not have direct fire ability... It's already hard to finally reach the arty units deep behind enemy lines.. only to be killed by the arty itself in a head to head engagement?? Artillery shouldn't be a threat to targets which are close to it.. they shouldn't be able to protect themselves against a rushing tank for example... I saw a Grille killing a Pershing in a head to head fight, thanks to this dumb ability. Same happened with a Priest one-shot a Panther tank face to face!

That's all for now...

[Warhawks97]

But what’s the solution

It's fine that howitzers have the longest range.. and the fact that they can't move is already compensated by this, in addition to being very cheap.

Now, the biggest problem is;

- insane rate of fire, 4 seconds?? Reloading faster than 2 pdr guns... Really?

- Number of shells per salvo, 8 shells are too much for only 50 ammo.

With this high rate of fire.. they can deliver more damage than most 150mm artillery, and in such a very short time.

What needs to be done:

- increase reload time to 6.5 or 7 seconds, just as it was in the past.

- Reduce number of shells once again to only 6 rounds for each barrage.

-4 seconds are perhaps too much, but increasing it is also not an option, or not by too much. Else all units can just run away after the first shell hit the area (one reason why grille is so damn cost effective per shot, when it lands it hits and you cant run away anymore).
But which 2 pdr are you talking about? Those in vehicles like tet? Vehicles arent comparable to that since crews have some sort of limited moving area and thus harder working conditions.



- I consider 8 shells as fine for a not movable unit that costs CP, esspecially considering the current camp style meta again. I like nothing more than bombing the shit out of Bunker/trench/Tank destroyer (faggot) campers, esspecially when the entire team does nothing else than that.

- ALL arty units in the game should not have direct fire ability... It's already hard to finally reach the arty units deep behind enemy lines.. only to be killed by the arty itself in a head to head engagement?? Artillery shouldn't be a threat to targets which are close to it.. they shouldn't be able to protect themselves against a rushing tank for example... I saw a Grille killing a Pershing in a head to head fight, thanks to this dumb ability. Same happened with a Priest one-shot a Panther tank face to face!

That's all for now...

The emplaced cant fire directly. The US unemplaced has a single AP or HEAT shot as selfe defense. The Axis unemplaced has timed AP making it effectively an AT gun that can attack multiple targets. Finally there is the Grille that has a direct shot for whatever reason.
The 88 guns are ofc shoot also directly.

But what’s the solution

Remove stupid unit limits (as many as possible) and make balance by cost. Thats how we were used to in the past. Arty is cheap as fuck, usually cheaper than a god damn mortar. No arty unit should cost less than 350 MP, not even neblers and 75 mm guns.

105 mm have to cost at least 400 MP and 35 fuel, emplaced versions a bit more.
And upkeep needs to cost something. Havent checked the current upkeep but if you get lots of arty, it should cost something. Arty wasnt cheap to maintain.


I would perhaps increase the reload time to max 6 seconds (not more) that gets lower with veterancy.

Perhaps we can choose a long and short salvo? Short one with 4-6 shots and 35-50 ammo and long 8 shot salvo for 65 ammo.
That would add some flexibility. Sometimes an area needs a longer bombing, sometimes 4 shots are enough to support a push against a lighter defense.

[kwok]

So basically bring arty the way they use to be but nerf it in a new way? I don’t find this convincing of a solution because this arty is ALWAYS one of those things that will never get balanced right and everyone has a different way of balancing. I don’t think there was ever a patch where arty felt balanced except when immediately after a patch when players were still getting use to things. Like take the last patch as an example, it took a few tests to get it right but arty was nerfed in terms of accuracy when we corrected it to have a more circular spread than linear. Ranges were tweaked and everything, still problems exist.

If we lessen barrage intervals then we will likely get to a situation where it doesn’t properly dislodge certain defenses.
If we increase costs then we will likely get a situation where they will be useless because mobile arty will trump it for the same costs.

I’m not saying your solutions are wrong, I think a lot of these solutions can be considered, but I was hoping for more creative or out of the box solutions because this has been tweaked through the same mechanisms they’ve always been tweaked forever and balance never changes.

I kind of like the idea of removing direct fire but don’t know how many people are on board with that.

The best solution doesn’t change though, play bigger maps.

Edit:
Also, I think figree that upkeep of the original units is used when recrewing weapons. Gotta rest this but for example if you build an MG your upkeep can be high, but when the MG dies and it is recrewed by an engineer then it retains the engineer upkeep, not the MG. So adjusting the upkeep actually doesn’t help this particular problem. Otherwise yes players usually forget upkeep as a factor and mechanism to balance.

[Krieger Blitzer]

4 seconds are perhaps too much, but increasing it is also not an option, or not by too much. Else all units can just run away after the first shell hit the area

Artillery isn't supposed to hunt down mobile targets anyway... They are meant to strike static defense, so.. in my opinion; this would be totally fine.
Even though a reload of 7 or 6 seconds, is still actually fast enough that units can't escape so quickly after all.

I kind of like the idea of removing direct fire but don’t know how many people are on board with that.

Direct fire ability on Priest, Wespe (?), Hummel (?), Grille as well as 105mm Howitzers should be all definitely removed...
I don't see how anyone could be against that, I think everyone would be ok with it.

[kwok]

Removing direct fire could be removed/kept, but I don’t think it really addresses the main issue that was described.

A few other ideas thrown around:

Increase price of barrage only for non-arty doctrines, so if a blitz doc recrewed the barrage price to use for the blitz doc will be more.

Increase not necessarily the price but munition upkeep of howitzers, even for recrewed howtizers (didn’t know this was possible)

Make it so only arty docs can use barrage, non-arty docs will only be able to use direct fire if recrewed (soldiers are not trained in artillery)

Make it so only engineers that recrew howitzers can use barrage (tbh I say this theoretically not sure if it’s possible yet, didn’t test)

A very direct exploit punishment: If a non-arty doc recrewed more than 1 howitzer then the player’s income becomes zero.

[MenciusMoldbug]

To me the one thing that should have direct fire but does not in current BK is the 105 sherman.

This thing was like a KV-2/ISU-152 vs tanks. The sheer amount of HE loaded in would cause serious spalling inside vehicles upon impact (there was also M67 HEAT rounds for the 105 shermans if I'm not mistaken). Suprisingly this sherman which should act more like the stuh/stupa is only treated as an artillery unit like the 95mm cromwell/churchill. On this note, I think only the 'tank SPG's' should have direct fire capabilities if any unit is to be given any. Always felt to me like the 95mm churchill was lacking something and to me it feels like a direct fire mode for targets close to it. I don't really think that royal artillery needs another form of an SPG unit in the form of 95mm cromwell when they have all the other artillery units in their army already (75mm autocar, 25 pounders, priests, forward observation artillery, etc.).

[MarKr]

I am for the "only arty doctrines can use barrages on captured static howitzers". The thing is that static howitzers (and barrages from them) are an asset which is meant to be dontrine-specific but due to the capture system of the game, it possible to get this thing even as another doctrine. There are other doctrine-specific assets such as airstrikes, Pershings, Churchills, Kingtigers etc. and there is no way to kill the crew of a tank and leave them for your team mates to capture and thus them gaining something they should not have access to, nor can you just "give access" to your team mates to your airstrike abilities. So I don't think that on-map howitzers should be fully useable by doctrines that cannot build them.

This would solve the "players build howitzers, burn the crew, team mate captures them and then everyone has howitzers with barrages" problem.

I would keep the current 8 shots per barrage and remove the unit limit on all static howitzers but I would add an ammunition upkeep per each howitzer built. Let's say that each howitzer would have an upkeep of "-10 ammo" so if you have an ammo income of 50 ammo per minute, with one howitzer your income would drop to 40 ammo/minute, with two howitzers to 30 ammo/minute etc. this would make sort of "self-regulating" system where on smaller maps with less resources you would not be able to feed many of these things unless you want your ammo income to reach 0. On bigger maps you would have more ammo income so you would be able to feed more howitzers at a time. With more howitzers you would accumulate ammo slower so you would not be able to shoot them all very often so it would be up to you to find the "sweet-spot number" for any given game and map.
They could get a little bit longer reload time but with this new system I don't think that it would be so much needed.

[Krieger Blitzer]

I am for the "only arty doctrines can use barrages on captured static howitzers". The thing is that static howitzers (and barrages from them) are an asset which is meant to be dontrine-specific but due to the capture system of the game, it possible to get this thing even as another doctrine. There are other doctrine-specific assets such as airstrikes, Pershings, Churchills, Kingtigers etc. and there is no way to kill the crew of a tank and leave them for your team mates to capture and thus them gaining something they should not have access to, nor can you just "give access" to your team mates to your airstrike abilities. So I don't think that on-map howitzers should be fully useable by doctrines that cannot build them.

This would solve the "players build howitzers, burn the crew, team mate captures them and then everyone has howitzers with barrages" problem.

I would keep the current 8 shots per barrage and remove the unit limit on all static howitzers but I would add an ammunition upkeep per each howitzer built. Let's say that each howitzer would have an upkeep of "-10 ammo" so if you have an ammo income of 50 ammo per minute, with one howitzer your income would drop to 40 ammo/minute, with two howitzers to 30 ammo/minute etc. this would make sort of "self-regulating" system where on smaller maps with less resources you would not be able to feed many of these things unless you want your ammo income to reach 0. On bigger maps you would have more ammo income so you would be able to feed more howitzers at a time. With more howitzers you would accumulate ammo slower so you would not be able to shoot them all very often so it would be up to you to find the "sweet-spot number" for any given game and map.
They could get a little bit longer reload time but with this new system I don't think that it would be so much needed.

+1 from me.
Sounds good... Can't agree more!

[Warhawks97]

Removing direct fire could be removed/kept, but I don’t think it really addresses the main issue that was described.

Units not supposed to do direct fire should have it removed. Thats basically all units.

A few other ideas thrown around:

Increase price of barrage only for non-arty doctrines, so if a blitz doc recrewed the barrage price to use for the blitz doc will be more.

Nah, what would it solve besides making it less appealing to cap a gun. Its not the core issue.

Increase not necessarily the price but munition upkeep of howitzers, even for recrewed howtizers (didn’t know this was possible)

Sure its possible, you can add upkeep in every ressource section.

Make it so only arty docs can use barrage, non-arty docs will only be able to use direct fire if recrewed (soldiers are not trained in artillery)

again, the core issue was not who can fire and what.

A very direct exploit punishment: If a non-arty doc recrewed more than 1 howitzer then the player’s income becomes zero.

you are too focused on "non arty player" using arty players arty. Stealing assets and re-use them was a big thing in wars, i mean we have "Beutesherman" for SE in game.

To me the one thing that should have direct fire but does not in current BK is the 105 sherman.
This thing was like a KV-2/ISU-152 vs tanks. The sheer amount of HE loaded in would cause serious spalling inside vehicles upon impact (there was also M67 HEAT rounds for the 105 shermans if I'm not mistaken). Suprisingly this sherman which should act more like the stuh/stupa is only treated as an artillery unit like the 95mm cromwell/churchill. On this note, I think only the 'tank SPG's' should have direct fire capabilities if any unit is to be given any. Always felt to me like the 95mm churchill was lacking something and to me it feels like a direct fire mode for targets close to it. I don't really think that royal artillery needs another form of an SPG unit in the form of 95mm cromwell when they have all the other artillery units in their army already (75mm autocar, 25 pounders, priests, forward observation artillery, etc.).

Yeah, fully agree.

i would also like to see the 105 sherman more in an active infantry support role, thats what it was meant to do. Good in taking out emplacments and stuff and supporting inf.

I have been looking for the function of this tank but somehow it did both things, direct and indirect shootig. It had, even less good, equipment to use its gun via indirect fire support, but idk if it had to see the target or if you could fire via coordinations from frontline radiomen. But i think a role more similiar to stuhs and scotts would fit more to it. Coh2 also did it that way and i know that 105 shermans shot directly against heavier german tanks. With its HE blast it could deal damage to them unlike the short 75 mm gun at this time.

But i dont want a stuh/stupa 2.0 for infantry doctrine. At the end all will sit behind their at guns and play "stuh/105 mm sherman chess" trying to snipe each other from distance. I would rather have them all reworked (i made a topic recently)

That tank should be able to fire smoke shells (like three in a row at a location) as well as single HEAT round shots for self defense (50 range).

I would keep the current 8 shots per barrage and remove the unit limit on all static howitzers but I would add an ammunition upkeep per each howitzer built. Let's say that each howitzer would have an upkeep of "-10 ammo" so if you have an ammo income of 50 ammo per minute, with one howitzer your income would drop to 40 ammo/minute, with two howitzers to 30 ammo/minute etc. this would make sort of "self-regulating" system where on smaller maps with less resources you would not be able to feed many of these things unless you want your ammo income to reach 0. On bigger maps you would have more ammo income so you would be able to feed more howitzers at a time. With more howitzers you would accumulate ammo slower so you would not be able to shoot them all very often so it would be up to you to find the "sweet-spot number" for any given game and map.
They could get a little bit longer reload time but with this new system I don't think that it would be so much needed.

Good idea. But what would be best? upkeep+cost per barrage, ammo build cost+upkeep+barrage, only upkeep, upkeep+build cost (like tanks do in fuel).

I would make it perhaps costing ammo to build and to maintain. But then free use for barrages?
And what about arty units? (eg pakc howitzer, 88, leig 18, calli/nebler?). I would make it so that all cost ammo to build (kind of initial supply) and then costing also upkeep in ammo. But how much then per gun? Lighter one less than heavier one.

And will US start off with higher initial upkeep but then lowered via supply yard (early game late game trade) for inf doc as its the case with Menpower?

But i would not just unmobile howitzers treat it that way, but basically all arty units. And perhaps really ammo build cost and upkeep but free usage. That way a number of guns would severly lower your capabilties to use other abilites and mobile spgs would cost upkeep in all 3 ressource categories.

[MarKr]

Hard to say. I would start with pure ammo upkeep and adjust from there. There are tons of ways to implement this and no way to tell which one would be the best one.
E.g. the cost of barrages can be the same as now and the upkeep can be something relatively low (e.g. 5 ammo per minute) - this way you would pay "higher" cost per barrage but each howitzer would eat less from your upkeep. So with each howitzer your ammo income drops only a little but still accumulating ammo for the "more expensive" barrages would take longer.
It could go the way you said - free barrages but then higher upkeep (e.g. 15 per howitzer) - but I don't think this would be the best option because the howitzers would drain a lot from your ammo income even when you would not use them.
Another option could be lower cost per barrage, some ammo cost when building them and also some lower upkeep.

Each has some pros and cons so we will start somewhere and see from there.