Weapons Call of War Should Add

Pablo22510 wrote:

Soldjer325 wrote:

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.

Just saw this. Let me answer.

1. These are very similar to rockets, so no need for more units that are exactly the same. We need game-changing units, like the newly introduced carrier.
2. Railway gun is more or less the same.
3. Now, this one is interesting. You bring up the topic of Jap subs. The subs actually had subs that carried planes. Only two of them, but still, two naval bombers could wreak damage. The subs WERE developed, but they were only used for dropping anthrax-filled balloons on the US West Coast, and the bio attack failed, 'cos the wind swept the balloons out to sea. Again, cool idea, but not really game-changing.
4. Never used in battle, so no.
5. Proven nearly useless, only Poles and minor countries used them. Again, not game-changing.
6. Cool idea, but once Marines are introduced, they won't be necessary.

My opinion is that only 3 more units should be introduced, for now. Marines, which will revolutionize disembarkment; Paras, which will change warfare, as they'll be able to stop reinforcements and make the enemy worry about their back line; and coastal forts, which will make ships think twice about approaching the coastline.

TankBuster wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Soldjer325 wrote:

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.

Just saw this. Let me answer.

1. These are very similar to rockets, so no need for more units that are exactly the same. We need game-changing units, like the newly introduced carrier.
2. Railway gun is more or less the same.
3. Now, this one is interesting. You bring up the topic of Jap subs. The subs actually had subs that carried planes. Only two of them, but still, two naval bombers could wreak damage. The subs WERE developed, but they were only used for dropping anthrax-filled balloons on the US West Coast, and the bio attack failed, 'cos the wind swept the balloons out to sea. Again, cool idea, but not really game-changing.
4. Never used in battle, so no.
5. Proven nearly useless, only Poles and minor countries used them. Again, not game-changing.
6. Cool idea, but once Marines are introduced, they won't be necessary.

My opinion is that only 3 more units should be introduced, for now. Marines, which will revolutionize disembarkment; Paras, which will change warfare, as they'll be able to stop reinforcements and make the enemy worry about their back line; and coastal forts, which will make ships think twice about approaching the coastline.

They used earthquake bombs to sink the Tirpitz, destroy V2 sites, gun emplacements and U-boat pens.

'Earthquake bomb' is an umbrella term for heavy set bombs

TankBuster wrote:

'Earthquake bomb' is an umbrella term for heavy set bombs

TankBuster wrote:

They used earthquake bombs to sink the Tripitz, destroy V2 sites, gun emplacements and U-boat pens

Quasi-duck wrote:

TankBuster wrote:

They used earthquake bombs to sink the Tripitz, destroy V2 sites, gun emplacements and U-boat pens

As far as I know those were Tallboys, not Earthquakes.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Well, the thing is that they were pretty big wars that are unnecessary for CoW.

I stand corrected then gentlemen, I was under the impression it was an umbrella term,

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Well, the thing is that they were pretty big wars that are unnecessary for CoW.

Totally agree. Not like we have dug in V2's or sub pens.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Yeah, it would be just another weapon to destroy buildings, and I believe we've got enough of them.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Yeah, it would be just another weapon to destroy buildings, and I believe we've got enough of them.

Yeah, totally. Unless we get, like, I dunno, armoured bulldozers? They would be good against forts.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Yeah, but they'd need a shitload of infantry support. Bulldozers are only good against empty forts

Wow, lol. Still, pretty unnecessary.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Wow, lol. Still, pretty unnecessary.

Quasi, the thing is, not everything in this game can have a weaknesses. Fortresses are built to slow enemy forces down, and cause them more casualties. If the enemy has a weapon that can destroy fortresses effectively, what's the point in building them anyway?

Pablo22510 wrote:

If the enemy has a weapon that can destroy fortresses effectively, what's the point in building them anyway?

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

If the enemy has a weapon that can destroy fortresses effectively, what's the point in building them anyway?

We already have strats that can damage the forts and tacs to just cream the troops within. Or just plain old arty. Bulldozers give the defenders more of a chance, if you ask me.

Tacs cause very little damage if the troops are within.

Arty is the one that can wreak havoc.

No need for more units.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Barely anyone bothers with strats.

Tacs cause very little damage if the troops are within.

Arty is the one that can wreak havoc.

No need for more units.

Quasi-duck wrote:

Pablo22510 wrote:

Barely anyone bothers with strats.

Tacs cause very little damage if the troops are within.

Arty is the one that can wreak havoc.

No need for more units.

By what you said, that is only one good unit vs forts. We should have more.

Pablo22510 wrote:

Only used against fortresses? No need for an extra unit, in my opinion.