First of all, thanks for this awesome game. I'm sorry, my english is a bit rusty and I'll try to do my best for you to understand me.
I had an idea. It would be intersting to give to the nuclear submarine the possibility to carry a nuke missil. It would work as the aircraft-carrier with a payload capacity, with a reduced hit zone maybe and a research branch to develop after the nuclear submarin one. It wont be too cheated I think coz it will be expensive to create and the payload limit force you to go to a harbor to reload it.
That's it. Just wanted to share my thoughts.
Have a good day and enjoy !
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
14 Replies
3 Mar 2017, 14:41 (edited)
Call of War is a World War II-based strategy game. In the most liberal interpretation imaginable of WWII-era technology, you will sometimes see comments that the COW tech timeline extends from 1939 to 1954, in order to justify such anachronisms as rockets with nuclear warheads. Even by that promiscuous interpretation of WWII tech, submarine-launched nuclear missiles are a huge fail. The first-ever ballistic missile submarines, those of the George Washington class, were not commissioned by the U.S. Navy until late 1959, and were not operationally deployed until 1960.
3 Mar 2017, 16:37
what about nuclear destroyers and cruisers?
4 Mar 2017, 00:10
GrandNagusZek wrote:
what about nuclear destroyers and cruisers?
Well, the first usage of the nuclear bomb is in 1945, i doubt that there was any cruiser, destroyer, or even a battleship capable of firing nuclear warheads
This player may have been reactivated in October 27th 2017
4 Mar 2017, 00:29
King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:
GrandNagusZek wrote:
what about nuclear destroyers and cruisers?
Well, the first usage of the nuclear bomb is in 1945, i doubt that there was any cruiser, destroyer, or even a battleship capable of firing nuclear warheads
mmm, sorry. I meant more of nuclear powered destroyers and cruisers.
5 Mar 2017, 19:27
GrandNagusZek wrote:
mmm, sorry. I meant more of nuclear powered destroyers and cruisers.
Nuclear cruiser was first commissioned in 1961
Nuclear destroyer was first commissioned in 1962
This is simply too far into the future for a WWII era game.
If you're looking for something more modern, check out Conflict of Nations, also by Bytro. The game is currently in an open beta. As with all Bytro games, you can sign in using the same account you have already created for Call of War, no new registration is needed.
Free Time looks good on me
5 Mar 2017, 20:00
WiseOdin wrote:
by Bytro.
Dorado Games*
This player may have been reactivated in October 27th 2017
6 Mar 2017, 13:51
WiseOdin wrote:
Nuclear cruiser was first commissioned in 1961
Nuclear destroyer was first commissioned in 1962
The U.S. Navy experimented with various DGN (nuclear-powered guided missile destroyer) and CGN (nuclear powered guided missile cruiser) configurations, including the purpose-built USS Long Beach, which was designed as an escort for the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise. The long and the short of the U.S. Navy experience was that the nuclear powered drive system for smaller surface combatants such as destroyers and cruisers was not cost-effective, and American naval designers have emphasized speed generated by gas turbine propulsion over high endurance generated by nuclear propulsion systems. The Soviets/Russians built the Kirov-class heavy missile cruisers (sometimes referred to as "battlecruisers"), but have also discovered that they have been expensive to operate in comparison to gas turbine, diesel or hybrid turbine/diesel propulsion systems. The added costs of nuclear propulsion makes sense in the context of large aircraft carriers, attack submarines and ballistic missile subs, but it is highly unlikely that any major navy will again build nuclear powered destroyers and cruisers.
6 Mar 2017, 13:58
King Draza Mihajlovic wrote:
i doubt that there was any cruiser, destroyer, or even a battleship capable of firing nuclear warheads
The U.S. Navy built 16-inch atomic battleship shells during the 1950s. It is unclear whether the Americans ever deployed them operationally, and the four remaining Iowa-class battleships spent most of the 1950s and early 1960s in mothballs. When the Iowas were updated and recommissioned in the 1980s during the Reagan defense build-up, they were equipped with sea-launched cruise missiles that had both nuclear and conventional warhead capability, but there was no public revelation about nuclear shells for the 16-inch main battery.
7 Mar 2017, 18:26
Given the advent of "two man control" for all nuclear warheads and the lack of ease in implementation for that on shells in the magazine, it is unlikely.
Plus, the explosion radius of the weapons in the inventory tend to make the range of a 16" shell not quite far enough.
Finally, the weight of the physics package in a nuclear warhead, even small yield, is not insignificant. The "active ingredient" weighs more than lead. Wrapping that with the right amount of explosive and getting the whole thing to explode correctly, when desired but not by accident is no mean feat. Not a lot of room for rough handling or error.
7 Mar 2017, 19:27
standby for pertinent info from Montana, concerning NATO 155mm howitzer rounds!
F. Marion beat me to the punch. The 155 mm nuclear artillery shell was repeatedly tested and worked just fine being fired from an artillery piece, so one presumes that a similar 16" atomic shell fired from a naval rifle would work similarly well. My point, however, was that once tactical nuclear missiles became practical, the need for atomic artillery shells became moot. The U.S. Navy's last four battleships spent most of the 1950s and early 1960s in mothballs, were briefly recommissioned during the Vietnam War, and were then extensively refitted and updated during the 1980s and equipped with nuclear capable cruise missiles. There was never a pressing need to supply the last BBs with nuclear shells for their naval rifles, even if the technology existed.
31 Mar 2017, 19:35
I think that if the war went on or went nuclear, that these would have been made much sooner. I think that this is a fine idea.
