Rocket transport

And nerf rockets , they shouldnt do much dmg vs fleets and army .

Nope.

Game is tied to WWII tech with _very_ limited development past WWII tech.

Nuke missiles on submarines is not WWII tech.

Actually I was thinking the current level 4 missiles on the currently available Nuclear Subs.

Although the game is based on WW2 era technology, it does incorporate some elements through the mid -1950s. And although the U.S. Navy and Soviets both experimented with conventional submarines modified to carry one or more cruise missiles, the first nuclear-powered ballistic missile boats of the U.S. Navy (SSBNs), those of the George Washington class, did not begin carrying their first-generation nuclear-armed ICBMs (Polaris) until 1960.

Then again, if we want to wander down this rabbit hole:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic-Ford_JB-2

The Jet Bomb 2. Reverse engineered from V-1 rockets, tested and improved by those dang Americans. 1000+ were part of the planned 180 bombardment of Japan prior to landing troops. These were intended to be launched from carriers and modified landing ships.

Post WW11 development continued on launching missiles from the sea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSM-N-8_Regulus

Regulus missiles ( Type 1 and 2) were launched from both surface ships and submarines as part of the early nuclear deterrence force of the USN.

This program was superseded by the Polaris program, as implemented aboard the USS George Washington (SSBN-59.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_Washington_(SSBN-598)

Full disclosure. Dad served on board the George Washington as navigator back when. I remember visiting the vessel as a kid. That may have had something to do with my own career choice of submarines in the USN.

F.Marion

You argue referencing to not existing nuclear rockets on submarines in WWII.

That argument fails because the nuclear rockets being used allready in the game are overpowerd also. So by the same argument these rockets shouldnt exist too.

If at all nuclear rockets should be loadable on nuclear submarines only and only one rocket per submarine.

The game uses technology based on the fifties, so in my opimion its ok to implement rocket launching submarines after day 40

Arbales wrote:

That argument fails because the nuclear rockets being used allready in the game are overpowerd also. So by the same argument these rockets shouldnt exist too.

Thats what I tried to say

its technology from the fifties and later.

BUT IF these rockets are allready implemented - and they are - THEN it is reasonable to load one rocket onto an nuclear submarine

... in a TECHTREE AFTER DAY 40

@F. Marion The American knockoff of the V-1, the "Loon," suffered from all of the same defects and weaknesses as the original German rocket. It was a pulse-jet-powered cruise missile that was only slightly faster in level flight than the fastest piston-engine fighters, and could be shot down by either fighters or AA artillery. Like the V-1, they were also notoriously inaccurate, and would have been even less accurate when they were launched from a moving platform such as a ship. They were of dubious military usefulness, and were really a large-scale American experiment with first-generation cruise missile technology. And as I said above, it would be another 6 to 10 years before a practical and semi-reliable sea-launched cruise missile with nuclear capability was introduced into service (the Matador, I believe, was the first), and even these were highly impractical for submarine launches because they had to be carried on the deck in an external water-tight cannister and required the mother boat to surface before firing and engage in rather involved, labor-intensive pre-launch preparations, thus exposing the boat to attack.

Arbales wrote:

BUT IF these rockets are allready implemented - and they are - THEN it is reasonable to load one rocket onto an nuclear submarine

Arbales wrote:

If at all nuclear rockets should be loadable on nuclear submarines only and only one rocket per submarine.

MontanaBB wrote:

If we wanted to be more historically accurate, we should reduce the effectiveness of all existing conventional rockets (too powerful, too accurate), eliminate the nuclear missile (didn't exist), and not even contemplate a submarine-launched nuke.

We are historical accurate. Do not ignore the fact, that lvl 5 infantry is dated to 1946 at day 28.

The latest mech inf is dated to 1952 at day 44

assuming these date/day relation its historically completely correct to use nuclear missiles

historical background

1944 germany tests with V2 rocket launching boxes pulled by submarines in Peenemünde

1948 russia R-1 non nuclear range 270 km

1949 russia R-2 non nuclear

1953 russia R-5 since 1956 80kt nuclear warhead range 1200 km

1954 usa first nuclear submarine

1955 russia 1st submarine with ballistic missiles

1959 1st submarin with ballistic rockets of the usa

If you take the relation of days to years in the game you can extrapolate that 4 days roundabout corrospond with two years. So 1956 will be reached at something between day 48 and day 50

I would definitely like to see a missile subs. Not nukes though, that would be to OP.

Arbales wrote:

Please read the descriptions of the infantry units of the different levels.

Riiiiiiight.

MontanaBB wrote:

Arbales wrote:

Please read the descriptions of the infantry units of the different levels.

Thank you. I have read all of the unit descriptions. I have also actively participated in the forum discussions, where Bytro home office staff ---- including the developers ---- have told us the technology time line of the game runs from c. 1939 to c. 1950.

injinji wrote:

Remind me what year the first nuclear battleship was commissioned?

I assume you're being rhetorical.

The U.S. Navy actually looked at converting one or more of either the Iowas or the North Carolinas to nuclear reactors, but the costs were astronomical when they realized how much they would have to rearrange the existing internal layout of the boiler rooms, engine rooms and related mechanical systems. They could not even make it cost effective to complete with nuclear power either of the two Iowas that were never finished. And there was no real benefit to doing so, including cost of operations or speed. And the idea of a 75-kmh (45-knot) battleship is complete fantasy; it is impractical, if not impossible, to design a 45-knot, 50,000-ton battleship with an 800-foot waterline because of the hullspeed dynamics, with or without nuclear power.

MontanaBB wrote:

injinji wrote:

Remind me what year the first nuclear battleship was commissioned?

Uh, like the First of NEVER.

Rocket Transporters don't exist.

1942 not the year 2100

Wrong kind, and they do exist, what o you think the ISS is resupplied with?