20 Feb 2018, 18:33
Rocket transport
Currently:
- You need to drive your rocket to the front on a truck to an Airbase in range of your target to launch.
- We have career based aircraft, and we have nuclear subs in the game, which historically are armed with missiles.
- However, we can not load our missiles on the sub for delivery to target.
Coding should be similar to planes/careers with Sub based rockets/Nuclear subs, applying a sub based status to certain level rockets and a carrying capacity to the sub.
I know, lots of other things that take priority, just throwing it out a s a nice to have someday.
"A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week." - General George S. Patton, Jr.
"Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
"Do, or do not. There is no try" - Yoda
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
30 Replies
20 Feb 2018, 19:54
Actually, rocket transporters did exist in 1944. The same guys who invented the V-2, invented a completely mobile launch system, including a combined erector-trailer, tow vehicle, launch/command vehicle, and fueling vehicle. The German V-2 crews only needed a small clearing with relatively level ground, and they could be prepared to fire in about an hour after arrival. And the V-2 transporter and support vehicles were substantially faster than our in-game unit's 20 kmh (~12 mph) on the road; most of the weight of the V-2 was actually fuel and oxidizer, and that was not pumped into the rocket until shortly before launch.SpectatorGuest wrote:
Rocket Transporters don't exist.
22 Feb 2018, 10:46
Well the official timeline of the game is not set in stone, it goes from whatever the earliest technology is in the game until whatever the latest technology is in the game. So whatever you find in the CoW research tree is canon. It is per design that you also have pre-war, post-war and secret-weapon type technologies available, as you are exploring a "what-if" scenario in Call of War (e.g. what if the war would have gone on?).MontanaBB wrote:
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.
22 Feb 2018, 13:32 (edited)
Rocket Transporters 1943, perhaps late 42. But there is a picture of Pennemunde from 43 here , and if you blow it up you can see V-2's on trailers. Was an important picture as it confirmed their existence to the Allies and the RAF bombed it shortly after. The missiles(V-2's) themselves and a true in the field transport and launch system(no airbase required I would say) were not operational till 44. The mobile launch system though made them very inaccurate , which can justify the in game need of airbases to launch them.
22 Feb 2018, 17:37
Tbh I would be worried about adding these. AI used to rocket spam and I would worry that the coders might mess up and make it so that the AI can do it again, just with mobile missile launchers 
22 Feb 2018, 20:11
For added 1940s "realism," I would gladly make the in-game conventional rockets fully mobile (no air base required for launch) provided their effectiveness against ground and air units was reduced by 50% or more, and their effectiveness against naval units was eliminated. There was no conventional ballistic missile that was accurate enough to be a conventional tactical weapon in the 1940s or early 1950s. The V-2's primary use was against cities because they provided targets that were big enough to be within the V-2's rather large margin of error in targeting. It was relatively easy to hit London (or Antwerp) with 1940s tech; almost impossible with first-generation guidance systems to hit Horse Guards or the Treasury building. And even with relatively accurate targeting that was not then available, the effect of a single one-ton warhead on a 1,500-man infantry regiment or an 800-man armor brigade, deployed in the field and spread out over several acres, would be far less than conventional artillery.Quasi-duck wrote:
I would worry that the coders might mess up and make it so that the AI can do it again, just with mobile missile launchers
22 Feb 2018, 20:19
100% agree. What would the build prices be like? Trucks are cheap, but I don't quite know what makes a truck a missile carrier, besides carrying a missile. I mean, the guidance systems are in the nose of the rocket and afaik the carrier vehicle is basically a flatbed truck with a guide rail for a missile, so it shouldn't be too much more expensive than current missiles imo.MontanaBB wrote:
For added 1940s "realism," I would gladly make the in-game conventional rockets fully mobile (no air base required for launch) provided their effectiveness against ground and air units was reduced by 50% or more, and their effectiveness against naval units was eliminated.
22 Feb 2018, 20:23
especially with an artillery brigade, with a combined firerate of like 70 or 80rpm...MontanaBB wrote:
would be far less than conventional artillery.Quasi-duck wrote:
I would worry that the coders might mess up and make it so that the AI can do it again, just with mobile missile launchers
22 Feb 2018, 20:33 (edited)
No guide rail for the V-2's erector-carrier. The erector placed the rocket upright on a small platform, and then retracted from the rocket before launch. The rocket was then fueled and launched.Quasi-duck wrote:
I mean, the guidance systems are in the nose of the rocket and afaik the carrier vehicle is basically a flatbed truck with a guide rail for a missile, so it shouldn't be too much more expensive than current missiles imo.
22 Feb 2018, 20:45
Oh right, I was thinking of the V1 which wasn't even mobile, silly me. Was it a complicated system?MontanaBB wrote:
No guide rail for the V-2's erector-carrier. The erector place the rocket upright on a small platform, and then retracted from the rocket before launch. The rocket was then fueled and launched.
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
