You couldn't launch a nuclear bomber off of an aircraft carrier so the answer would be no.
14 Sept 2016, 15:24
"It is even better to act quickly and err than to hesitate until the time of action is past." - Karl Von Clausewitz
Aircraft carriers (Nuclear)
Was wondering if the Aircraft carriers could be at some point be made to carry a nuclear bomber? If not the standards, can the Nuclear Carriers transport the nuclear bombers?
EN Community Support
Moderator
Moderator
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
13 Replies
14 Sept 2016, 20:37
Is there an update that would allow these things?
EN Community Support
Moderator
Moderator
15 Sept 2016, 01:25
Unfortunately, should regular aircraft carriers be able to base and hold nuclear bombers, they would be SOOOOO OVERPOWERED late game that it would not make much sense to go to war with someone who has them and you do not.
15 Sept 2016, 03:02
What about the nuclear carriers? Also, what is the difference between Reg and Nuclear carriers? Just speed?
EN Community Support
Moderator
Moderator
15 Sept 2016, 15:21
That is correct and I think you get a little armor and damage buff as well but mostly just a speed increase.Jewbear wrote:
What about the nuclear carriers? Also, what is the difference between Reg and Nuclear carriers? Just speed?
"It is even better to act quickly and err than to hesitate until the time of action is past." - Karl Von Clausewitz
15 Sept 2016, 23:29
Good to know.
EN Community Support
Moderator
Moderator
16 Sept 2016, 00:07
Nuclear carriers have not only higher speed, but rather in addition to greater capacity even double hit points, and depending on the game situation it's particularly advantageous that they need no oil.Jewbear wrote:
What about the nuclear carriers? Also, what is the difference between Reg and Nuclear carriers? Just speed?
Browser games are an ingenious business idea to lure out money ..
..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
.... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps.
Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D
..... >> more or less cleverly camouflaged as a real game <<
.... .. so beware of caltrops, spring-guns and booby traps.
Warning! Texts above this signature may contain traces of irony! :D
16 Sept 2016, 02:21
Helps with one of my current games right now. Oil is a big need. Hahaha
EN Community Support
Moderator
Moderator
18 Sept 2016, 10:49
I suggest a nuclear submarine which can carry one nuclear missile, or like the bomber which can carry only one bomb before despawning a special submarine which vanishes after dropping the missile
18 Sept 2016, 13:38
Hmmm, maybe that could be for a future Cold War map or a future Modern Day map, but stuff like that did not occur in World War 2.Arbales wrote:
I suggest a nuclear submarine which can carry one nuclear missile, or like the bomber which can carry only one bomb before despawning a special submarine which vanishes after dropping the missile
19 Sept 2016, 02:55
So if i attack a province with a nuke sub, will it launch a missile?
EN Community Support
Moderator
Moderator
19 Sept 2016, 06:21
As purplepizza said: its a very futurous design. I am not sure if a cold war setting would be very interesting. It would be like waiting for the bomb -.-
19 Sept 2016, 18:11
1955 is when the US deployed the SSM-N-8 Regulus system. It was a ship and submarine launched nuclear cruise missile.
With a range of 500 nautical miles, it led to some very cold Cold War missions for the Regulus Missile Boat Submarine Squadron. The first four boats converted to carry Regulus missiles were not nuclear submarines. The last Regulus boat was nuclear powered. Follow-on submarine based nuclear deterrence went with the Polaris system on the George Washington class of submarines.
One thing I believe is missing from the "let's put nuclear weapons in the game" is that using nuclear weapons meant that all sorts of bad things were going to happen. Crossing that nuclear threshold in a war invites escalation that is potentially the end of humankind.
It might be reasonable to allow for the initial range of nuclear weapons and some "tactical" devices but simply put, once it gets to the point where nuclear weapons are being deployed every turn, any "realism" in the game is lost. It may still be fun (in some sense) but I would not consider it a war / strategy game anymore.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
