Weapons Call of War Should Add

25 Feb 2016, 05:06

1. Ruhustahl SD 1400 “Fritz X” Radio-controlled Bomb, and the Henschel HS 293 Radio-controlled Glide Bomb: A radio controlled bomb developed by the Germans, like their rockets, but a shorter range, but faster transportation. These weapon did see action, and are credited with numerous kills of naval ships, including the Roma, HMS Egret, and others

2. The V3 Cannon: A German "super-gun' built into the a mountain side, and was capable of firing 58 max miles away, the weapon was ineffective against troops, but destroyed buildings quite easily.

3 The Super Sub: a Japanese submarine that resembled the cold war era nuclear subs and also had high travel speeds. They were planned to use to transport airplanes and launching aerial attacks on the U.S. continent. However, they never saw battles.

4. Earthquake Bombs: the weapon delayed explosion until it was underground, at which time it'd explode creating a controlled earthquake, they very effective. (Use as a single airplane tier in secret with the ability to place all buildings in a province it hits at 75% hp, however should have high prod cost, and slow refuel time to eliminate spamming,

5. Tankettes: basically in between armored cars and light tanks and were very small.

6. The Landing Vehicle or LVT: an amphibious (usable on water and land) which were either fitted with troop transportation or an 75mm gun to provide cover fire or destroy fortifications.

I'll add more if request and feel free to say your on unoriginal suggestions.

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

108 Replies

25 Feb 2016, 07:11

First of all, I put this forth most respectfully to the CoW staff, understanding that this game ROCKS and that most of us can only guess at the multitude of long hours that you all have spend on making a good variety of units already.

1. Whatever you do Call of War staff, don't put carriers in the game, they're stupid! Just joking, of course carriers. Why not have the lighter/ lesser/ 'baby' carriers as well? If the over-arching thought is that carriers would imbalance the naval aspect of this (WW2) game... well historically they were game changers. Ha. There might be some sort of restriction set in place to limit players from only producing carriers & naval planes.

2. Pocket Battleships/ Old battleships. These are 2 distinct classes however. Reasoning- the old 24,000 ton'ish BBs just wouldn't stand up to the new 45,000+ ton'ish Bismark, King George, S.Dakota class ships. The Guns were often similar (14"- 15") HOWEVER, they're lacking belt & deck armor, propulsion, underwater armor (4 plunging fire), damage control, AAA guns, any radar, adequate fire control systems, etc.

My question to Call of War is what are you classifying the old BBs as- cruisers? They're just not the same- no offense.

3. Coastal guns. Obviously these were set implacements, that were on the shore. Artillery & rail guns just aren't the same

4. Sea mines. I know, I know... they're difficult to implement, but they mattered & could be put in the game. Are they important? Just ask the subs & DDs that struck them & perhaps a few capitol ships as well.

5. Marines/ assault troops

6. Units that gain experience

7. Paratroopers- Duh. Pa LEASSEE restrict their usage or the production of paratroopers to just a few units. A problem is that they never acted suicidally. Players in this game will do just that.

Many more... but that's a good start

25 Feb 2016, 07:14

Since some countries still used it around the time period, they could include a horse-back cavalry

25 Feb 2016, 12:59

Soldjer325 wrote:
The Landing Vehicle or LVT: an amphibious (usable on water and land) which were either fitted with troop transportation or an 75mm gun to provide cover fire or destroy fortifications.

LVT stands for Landing Vehicle Tracked and all had troop transport capabilities as well as multiple different gun sizes. LVT is very vague too, means all sorts of things.

Quasi thinks LCT would be better.

25 Feb 2016, 17:54

Quasi-duck wrote:
LVT stands for Landing Vehicle Tracked and all had troop transport capabilities as well as multiple different gun sizes. LVT is very vague too, means all sorts of things.

I noticed that I forgot the T word afterwards, thanks for the correction. I was thinking that the amphibious vehicles could be a new section under the armor category. There could be one that can carry 1-3 troops over water at a faster speed, and would also eliminate the disembarking time period. Then another that could be sort of like a amphibious tank, but with lighter defensed due to the need for buoyancy that had the same effect on water.

25 Feb 2016, 18:02

Well, Quasi thinks the problem with such a unit is that the Germans and Russians did not have such a unit so the game would become "unbalanced". That is why Quasi was saying that LCT might be better, for Germans just list some coastal barges(lol) and for the Russians use the American ones because of Lend-Lease.

25 Feb 2016, 19:49

Why are people still bringing carriers up in these threads?

Don't ya'll read the news or look at other threads.

Now, to debunk everything: you can't just make units for one country, it needs to have an equal unit for all other factions. For example, if you have coastal guns, you need them for the Allies, Japanese, Axis and Russians. Just remember that.

Paratroops will not be restricted, because we have AA units to counter the planes. Marines I support, and should be coming. Some old battleships got reclassified, also its easier to reclassify due to the Soviets not having a Blue Navy till the 60s.

Cavalry would be stupid, have you seen what a machine gun will do to a horse? Those units would be destroyed in seconds, horses got used for transport means only and message running

"If the tanks succeed, then victory follows."- H.Guderian
"Hit first ! Hit hard ! Keep on hitting ! ! (The 3 H's)" Admiral Jackie Fisher
"The 3 Requisites for Success – Ruthless, Relentless, Remorseless(The 3 R's)" Admiral Fisher
Crates: a Term used to define any unwanted and unneeded feature in CoW
Game Username: LordStark01

25 Feb 2016, 20:26

TankBuster wrote:
Cavalry would be stupid, have you seen what a machine gun will do to a horse?

In WWII cavalry units were still active and did fairly well. Dismounted before battle, though.

25 Feb 2016, 21:04

He mentioned about the carrier in development, and that's why I posted for people to use unoriginal ideas. Any comments on my other suggestions?

26 Feb 2016, 08:46

Quasi-duck wrote:
TankBuster wrote:
Cavalry would be stupid, have you seen what a machine gun will do to a horse?
In WWII cavalry units were still active and did fairly well. Dismounted before battle, though.

Thats dismounted then, not really cavalry. Troops would be mounted on this game, unless them have a 'disembark' feature

26 Feb 2016, 08:50

Soldjer325 wrote:
He mentioned about the carrier in development, and that's why I posted for people to use unoriginal ideas. Any comments on my other suggestions?

Unless you can think of a 'super sub' for the allies, Axis and the Russians: that idea is gone. We already have nuclear subs from the early cold war.

Tankettes aren't needed, as Armoured cars/Light Tanks fill that role. I believe the Italians used them and well, you know what happened to them.

When it comes to 'Earthquake bombs' you need to imagine that higher level Start bombers would carry these instead of normal bombing load.

26 Feb 2016, 12:46

TankBuster wrote:
When it comes to 'Earthquake bombs' you need to imagine that higher level Start bombers would carry these instead of normal bombing load.

Earthquake bombs were real, and used in world war 2, they were highly effective

26 Feb 2016, 12:49

TankBuster wrote:
Tankettes aren't needed, as Armoured cars/Light Tanks fill that role. I believe the Italians used them and well, you know what happened to them.

I believe they would be a good early on weapon. I just want a vehicle that's faster than the light tanks, say about 60-70km/hr, to be able to pick up undefended provinces then move in and aid the main assault.

26 Feb 2016, 14:10

Interesting proposals!

It would also be interesting, one aircraft carrying troops,these aircraft were used during World War II and in Normandy.

"I came, I saw, I conquered" Written in a report to Rome 47 B.C., after conquering Pharnaces at Zela in Asia Minor in just five days; as quoted in Life of Caesar by Plutarch; reported to have been inscribed on one of the decorated wagons in the Pontic triumph, in Lives of the Twelve Caesars, Julius, by Suetonius.
"Alea iacta est" Gaius Julius Caesar.

26 Feb 2016, 15:38

Soldjer325 wrote:
I just want a vehicle that's faster than the light tanks, say about 60-70km/hr, to be able to pick up undefended provinces then move in and aid the main assault.

Mechfantry.

26 Feb 2016, 15:59

I was surprised that troops, especially tanks, do not require a naval transport to go across oceans or even the Med.

Didn't Britain technically have coastal guns at Gibraltar? Germans Navarone? (Guns of Navarone, a great movie btw). My grandfather sadly passed away recently or I'd ask him about defenses around Dover Hasting etc but Im sure Britain had some decent coastal defenses such was the fear (and likelihood at the time) of an invasion

I know one of the defenses the UK had was simply blacking out there cities at night to make it very difficult for German bombers etc.

Technology theft (or defecting scientists) or code cracking certainly played a big role.

26 Feb 2016, 18:19

I know what earthquake bombs are, but an entire unit devoted to them? No need.

Coastal guns I support, I mean Normandy was one great big coastal gun.

26 Feb 2016, 19:15

TankBuster wrote:
Cavalry would be stupid, have you seen what a machine gun will do to a horse? Those units would be destroyed in seconds, horses got used for transport means only and message running

Cavalry was used in WWII by the Americans on several occasions,and by MANY countries when Zee German Blitzkrieg invaded.Cavalry units would be a bit more expensive infantry unit with the (almost the same) speed of light tanks,but not the terrain penalty.

As for the paratroopers...all they'd be is an infantry unit that can "jump over" a province,or two,to attack with the ability 'handcuffed' by a timer (as planes need to refuel,same idea)

Both interesting adds,but right now,as this IS still "in beta testing"...I'd save them as fun ideas to contemplate later,but not Pressing needs at this time.

James Hartmund wrote:
6. Units that gain experience

YES please !! Absolutely!

With an increase,over time & battles,to that units ability to fight better & retain a higher level of moral,but wanes after time & battle losses.

I am,I'm me.

26 Feb 2016, 19:30

You guys have all came up with amazing and unoriginal ideas and have freely offered your comments. I thank you all for allowing my first forum to be such a success!

26 Feb 2016, 20:02

Ah Zee wrote:
Cavalry units would be a bit more expensive infantry unit with the (almost the same) speed of light tanks,but not the terrain penalty.

And consume much more food per day too.

26 Feb 2016, 21:34

BarryBwana wrote:
Ah Zee wrote:
Cavalry units would be a bit more expensive infantry unit with the (almost the same) speed of light tanks,but not the terrain penalty.
And consume much more food per day too.

It'd be for those people who have high amounts of food, but little to no oil or metal

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

Back to Suggestions