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

21 Mar 2016, 20:12

Search for the topic: "give commandos parachutes", or something like that.

The past is a foreign country.

21 Mar 2016, 20:13

Pablo22510 wrote:
give commandos parachutes

What in the world.....?

21 Mar 2016, 20:15

Quasi-duck wrote:
Pablo22510 wrote:
give commandos parachutes
What in the world.....?

Yeah, there was a thread called like that.

The past is a foreign country.

21 Mar 2016, 20:19

Pablo22510 wrote:
Yeah, there was a thread called like that.

Quasi can't find it.

21 Mar 2016, 20:38

I can't either.

The past is a foreign country.

23 Mar 2016, 00:02

I still think a by sea transport for armor would be beneficial, but it should only be able to carry light tanks and armored cars. You could send Marines, with the light tanks, and armored cars as advanced troops on mainland invasions, and have your main infantry and heavy/medium tanks come in behind to provide reinforcements and support.

23 Mar 2016, 00:04

Soldjer325 wrote:
I still think a by sea transport for armor would be beneficial, but it should only be able to carry light tanks and armored cars. (To land units faster) You could send the Marines, with the light tanks, and armored cars as advanced troops on mainland invasions, and have your main infantry and heavy/medium tanks come in behind to provide reinforcements and support.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. You know what tanks were landed on D-Day? Shermans and Churchills. You know what wasn't? Staurts and M3's.

23 Mar 2016, 00:26

Ugh, forget it.....

23 Mar 2016, 10:08

Pablo22510 wrote:
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.

Fort Eben Emanuel was even the reason why France didn't build the Maginot line along the Belgium border till the North Sea.

But they didn't converted the fortresses to the upto date weaponry by adding Anti-Air defence on the roof.

"You can't outrun Death forever, but you Can make the bastard work for it!!"

23 Mar 2016, 10:36

If you want an example of a fortress Paratroops couldn't take- I present you the entire South coast of England during 1940.

"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

23 Mar 2016, 11:09

TankBuster wrote:
If you want an example of a fortress Paratroops couldn't take- I present you the entire South coast of England during 1940.

Well, an attack wasn't attempted, so you can''t say that.

The past is a foreign country.

23 Mar 2016, 13:18

It was a still a fortress of such, and the Battle of Britain stopped any invasion. But we've gotten off track: paratroops in this game are likely to be used to by pass fortresses and strong hold.

23 Mar 2016, 13:20

Yeah, that's one of their uses. I got more.

The past is a foreign country.

23 Mar 2016, 13:23

In my opinion, the game needs new units, for example, paratroopers.

"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.

24 Mar 2016, 13:48

Paratroops(w/ transport plane), Battle-cruisers, marines(w/landing craft). fighter-bombers, corvettes, Amphibious tanks- the list goes on. Everytime we add a new unit, it means another unit needs to be added to either counter or compliment it.

We're slowly working our way through the main stay WW2 weapons, but CoW has a habit of seeping into the 1960s- possible early Missile cruisers/destroyers?

I'd love to explore the 1950-60s, as so many units cross into those time lines

24 Mar 2016, 15:24

TankBuster wrote:
I'd love to explore the 1950-60s, as so many units cross into those time lines

That would mean getting LT with devastating anti-tank power thanks to TOW's. Bring on Shillelagh!

24 Mar 2016, 15:45

How about a gunboat? It could cost a very low amount of resources to make, and have low stats. It would be best for patrols and to pick off unprotected troop convoys.

24 Mar 2016, 20:40

Soldjer325 wrote:
How about a gunboat? It could cost a very low amount of resources to make, and have low stats. It would be best for patrols and to pick off unprotected troop convoys.

Subs already do that kinda job.

The past is a foreign country.

25 Mar 2016, 01:13

Can somebody explain to me the point of having marines? What they only be able to be deployed via landing craft or something?

25 Mar 2016, 01:23

Lieutenant Henry wrote:
Can somebody explain to me the point of having marines? What they only be able to be deployed via landing craft or something?

Marines would have little to no disembarking time, saving you many hours during an amphibious invasion.

Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival.
-Winston Churchill
Attack rapidly, ruthlessly, viciously, without rest, however tired and hungry you may be, the enemy will be more tired, more hungry. Keep punching.
-George S. Patton

Post a Reply

Please log in to post a reply.

Back to Suggestions