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

20 Mar 2016, 17:13

Nah mate, strats are better for that job. No need for unnecessary units. Better get to work on Paras.

The past is a foreign country.

20 Mar 2016, 18:47

Pablo22510 wrote:
Better get to work on Paras.

They can't take a fort.

20 Mar 2016, 19:18

Soldjer325 wrote:
An idea for coastal guns, you should have to have a fortification, naval base, and a factory in order to make one.

Why a Naval base? Yes,I agree one Should have a fortification for this installation.Not sure I agree with also needing a factory There for this. Would the guns to stationary (built in,non-movable) or an artillery piece stationed in a 'hard point' ? Also,would these installations provide cover (and therefore a Fort bonus) to infantry?

I am,I'm me.

20 Mar 2016, 19:29

Quasi-duck wrote:
Pablo22510 wrote:
Better get to work on Paras.
They can't take a fort.

Sure, mate? #FortEbenEmael

The past is a foreign country.

20 Mar 2016, 19:33

Pablo22510 wrote:
Sure, mate? #FortEbenEmael

A proper fort rather than a fort filled with lily-livered, snot nosed weaklings.

20 Mar 2016, 19:35

Mate, Fort Eben Emael has been described over many years by many historians as a tough fort to take. Furthermore, although you might not think so, Belgian soldiers were actually quite good, and fought on until the bitter end, even after Leopold III signed the surrender.

The past is a foreign country.

20 Mar 2016, 19:37

Pablo22510 wrote:
Fort Eben Emael has been described over many years by many historians as a tough fort to take

The attackers jumped through a blown up roof and (literally) grenaded and machine-gunned all within. That isn't hard work.

Pablo22510 wrote:
Belgian soldiers were actually quite good

So good they fell even before the French from a feint attack. High quality troops.... Almost as good as Italians, I must say.

20 Mar 2016, 19:48

Well, think whatever you want. When paras are implemented and I overrun you with them, I'll laugh. End of.

The past is a foreign country.

20 Mar 2016, 19:49

Pablo22510 wrote:
Well, think whatever you want. When paras are implemented and I overrun you with them, I'll laugh. End of.

Doubt it. Three things: Tac, AC and int.

20 Mar 2016, 20:26

Guys, how about dive bombers, as a precursor to tactical bombers, which would have a large attack rate against infantry, and low attack rate against tanks, they'd also be used to destroy grounded aircraft, and would have the second highest atk and def against planes.

20 Mar 2016, 20:28

Soldjer325 wrote:
Guys, how about dive bombers, as a precursor to tactical bombers, which would have a large attack rate against infantry, and low attack rate against tanks, they'd also be used to destroy grounded aircraft, and would have the second highest atk and def against planes.

All of that is wrong.....

Besides, some McDivers are used already as tacs.

20 Mar 2016, 23:17

To chime in lads

Para's have a time and place, right now, I feel like them and marines need more community support and the community to agree on how those units will behave. Paras can drop behind lines- we all like that- its how we drop them.

Strats are extremely underrated, I've seen them used once to destroy my forward lines: and when combined with rockets- you have a winning duo.

"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

20 Mar 2016, 23:38

TankBuster wrote:
Strats are extremely underrated, I've seen them used once to destroy my forward lines: and when combined with rockets- you have a winning duo.

Have you used the combo yourself? I know strats can be used as tacs in a pinch.

21 Mar 2016, 00:14

I've used the strats once to reduce Leningrad to a burning wreck, but i've not used them since. I made them en-mass thinking I was building tac-bombers.

21 Mar 2016, 00:16

TankBuster wrote:
I've used the strats once to reduce Leningrad to a burning wreck, but i've not used them since. I made them en-mass thinking I was building tac-bombers.

Lol, how could you make that mistake?

21 Mar 2016, 00:21

At the time I was building a huge army, and everything become "click, scroll, click, scroll' and I must have phased out before going to bed. When I woke up and saw them 3/4 done, It would have been a waste to stop production

21 Mar 2016, 00:24

TankBuster wrote:
At the time I was building a huge army, and everything become "click, scroll, click, scroll' and I must have phased out before going to bed. When I woke up and saw them 3/4 done, It would have been a waste to stop production

Oh man, that was a waste of time and res. How well did they do?

21 Mar 2016, 00:30

Lost most of them, damaged the naval yard and fortress: so they achieved their mission goals, I just never replaced the lost ones and put the rest onto recon and convoy hunting.

I did learn their value, but the need for escorts meant I wasn't prepared to move squadrons from other fronts.

21 Mar 2016, 09:33

TankBuster wrote:
Para's have a time and place, right now, I feel like them and marines need more community support and the community to agree on how those units will behave. Paras can drop behind lines- we all like that- its how we drop them.

Mate, sorry to say, but @Zarathustra already told us 3 months+ ago that we were going to get them, no matter what. SO it's no use arguing over it, because they're coming. The only thing we can argue about is when they're coming.

The past is a foreign country.

21 Mar 2016, 19:10

Never knew that

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

Back to Suggestions