CoW rockets act like cruise missiles and are very unrealistic/ahistorical

thisisnudge · Jul 6th 2018, 6:18pm

It is clear that CoW is just a game, but if you make rockets that powerful, which is not even realistic today, escpecially regarding the production costs, you miss these important points:

I have an issue with the rockets in CoW. Although they are cool, they never worked this way in WW2. WW2 rockets were not used as crusise missiles, with exceptions see below, and they were never as powerful as in this game. You can see that players are heavily using rockets to crush the enemy units, but this would never had worked in real-life.

In real-life WW2 we had, for instance

Guided systems (range 2-5 km)

- guided missile systems such as Ruhrstahl X-4 was an anti-tank missile, yes, but never deployed; but it is similar to the ATGM's a few decades later; however, there are part of a bigger equipment system such as infantry or air plane, as just an effective weapon
- the Fritz X was an anti-ship glide bomb, not a rocket in the modern sense; and it used a primitive guidance system similar to that of the X-4
- the anti-ship Henschel Hs 293 was interesting indeed, because radio guided, but it was a glide bomb and not a rocket

Non-guided systems (medium to lange range)

- the V1, V2 etc. were very inaccurate; even if you would tried to hit a building many hundreds of kilometers away, you might have missed it by hundreds of kilometers; the reason base on the tech limits of the WW2 era (V rockets were, for instance, not guided in the modern sense, but had sort of a mechanical navigator that base more or less on predications on how to fly and were to land, if the weather did not change or the enemy did not prevent it somehow! which made them quite ineffective as a military weapon, yet as a terror weapon that inflicts horror)

What I'm trying to say is the following. It took the world many years to develop a weapon that was even close to a cruise missile in the way you use them in Call of War. The Germans too were simply not able to create such a thing -- for a fast rocket that travels hundreds of kilometers! It was technically not possible, simply due to the lack of computers and modern manufacturing practices.

Even during Cold War the tech behind ICBM's was pretty bad into the Cold War era. It really took some effort to develop accurate long range systems -- and there is no way, except in the Marvel universe, that the Germans or any nation in WW2 was capable of such things without mini computers and chips. As mentioned, I strongly advice to read about how exactly those V rockets were configured so that they hit their target more or less. It is an eye opener on how underdeveloped and primitive that technology back then still was, and remained for more than a decade.

Last but not least. If you say that a cheap rocket system is more powerful than a whole infantry or tank division this is even unrealsitic today. I am judging this by the unit stats of rockets and inf/tanks.

You are basically saying that 10,000 men, equipped with more or less modern weapons, are less powerful than a few rockets? The MAJOR DOWNSIDE of guided rockets is that they are so EXPENSIVE! That's why we have still tanks, air planes and infantry until today. Even 100 cruise missiles do not the damage a division of 10,000 does. 100 cruise missiles have many advantages, but not these; and they are super expensive and difficult to reproduce.

Modern missile systems are simply expensive; the only hope is that they are more effective, if they hit their target; but due to the counter meassures this is today even pretty ridicoulous sometimes, for as long as the enemies fighting each other are on equal tech levels (think Phalanx CIWS that fires 3000 rounds/minute and is radar/computer guided with a range of only 3.5 km in order to hit fast missiles that are in close range already).

With best regards :tumbleweed:

NukeRaider33 · Jul 6th 2018, 6:32pm

You are correct, but a miss mechanic is difficult to program. Bytro aslo has bigger fish to fry than historical accuracy like this

Diabolical · Jul 6th 2018, 8:30pm

I'll be honest, I didn't read most of your post, but I need not to point out something very simple...this game doesn't cover only WWII but a larger block of time from before to after....roughly 1931-1960 which adds even nuclear missiles. And though the different levels of missiles might not align perfectly with the varying stages of development during that era, they are spaced apart time-wise for playability. And this game has to have a playable balance.

That said, a simple fact of the relative cheapness of missiles is due to their lack of reusability. Figure in also that they are relatively powerful when used correctly, but they have many weaknesses also. It is very difficult to hit a moving target unless it is close to a missile's base or else is relatively slow. They also can be easily destroyed on the ground by a surprise attack and their total hit-points on defense is ridiculously low. Missiles are pretty cheap, but the developers added additional unrealistic costs in the form of Oil maintenance (as if missiles ever used petroleum*).

Now, I did go back and read a little bit more of your post, skimming through to the section on accuracy. Frankly, that's a moot point since the game already takes into account the lack of accuracy of all weapons fire by the random 'X' factor figured into the damage dealt during combat. Even though a unit may be rated at a certain value, that is only its maximum possible damage dealt which is often mitigated -- heavily -- by the random factor. If that random value is a decimal value from 0.0 to 1.0, you'll at-most hit the target at full power only in extremely rare cases.

According to another post in another thread by me, @freezy has confirmed that the 'X' factor is based on a bell curve (though he hasn't disclosed whether the curve is natural or distorted by mitigating factors) which would indicate that the likelihood of hitting a target with roughly about 50% of the maximum possible hits is going to happen most frequently.

Also, except for level 4 missiles and the nuclear missile, a fortress defense bonus will reduce a missile's attack strength. Finally, they are very slow to move overland, so their convoy rating is just as weak as when they are sitting on the ground in their silos...though they probably should be considered even weaker since a silo might be more protective. Of course, who's to say whether a level 4 missile should be freestanding or in a silo? Oh, and don't forget that the level 1 missile can even get shot down en route to it's target!

So, to sum up, there are mitigating factors to a missile's strength: one-time use, slow-moving relocation, low hit-points, vulnerable until use, inability to penetrate fortresses (L1 - L3), ability to be shot down (L1), high maintenance until usage, and a relatively low chance of dealing even near to a maximum possible level of damage.

* Note that most Rockets in history were based on solid fuels (mostly gunpowder) until the advent of liquid propellants as first developed by American Physicist, Robert Goddard, in 1926, who actually started by using gasoline as his fuel of choice. But even the infamous and oft-used German V2 rocket was fueled by an alcohol-based mixture, not petroleum. Also, to date, solid-fueled rockets are still commonly used for their simplicity and ease of storage for availability. So, unless Bytro adds an alcohol maintenance cost to the game (to keep soldiers happy), there is no reasonable fuel maintenance cost for rockets since Oil was not reliably favored during the era that this game encompasses. Note also that there are some applications of petroleum-based fuels since the development of the RP-1 fuel back in 1954 which is essentially an ultra-refined form of kerosene somewhat similar to jet fuel, but often not favored due to the heavy residue and risk of long-burning launchpad fires due to spillage at and before launch.

Diabolical · Jul 6th 2018, 8:34pm

thisisnudge wrote:

Even 100 cruise missiles do not the damage a division of 10,000 does

BTW, I take issue with this particular statement. A carefully-aimed series of 100 cruise missiles can achieve a whole heck of a lot more damage than 10,000 regular soldiers equipped only with typical small-arms and moderate arms equipment. For such an army to be more effective, they'd have to be heavily equipped with armored vehicles, and utilizing heavier arms than they can individually transport on foot. Even then, they'd be hard-pressed to outdo 100 cruise missiles in dealing a heavy amount of damage in a short amount of time over any particular series of targets.

PhiipIII · Jul 20th 2018, 5:22am

I think rockets are massively overpowered. All you have to do is wait for an enemy force to finish its strike and they are sitting ducks to one missile. In my game we just lost 3 stat bombers, 2 fighters, and 2 tac bombers to one missile. Think of the exchange ratio to that! It is very hard and extremely tedious to try to get missiles across oceans and into position by capturing and rebuilding airfields to be able to launch rockets and counter your opponent's missiles and watch your air fleets get shredded trying to get into this position. But if you don't move them in and at least try, your opponent's air units wipes you out.

I find it infuriating, extremely depressing to watch extensive and carefully planned builds be worthless in the face of cheap and easy. I'm very discouraged by this ahistorical imbalance.

Am I wrong about this and missing something? Is anyone else discouraged by this? Or giddy-giddy because they know they can hardly lose in a strong defensive situation?

MontanaBB · Jul 20th 2018, 1:24pm

PhiipIII wrote:

I think rockets are massively overpowered.

In-game rockets are massively over-powered, especially against ground units. I have complained of this several times before. The idea that two or three V-2 rockets -- which were wildly inaccurate -- could destroy a full infantry regiment (1,000 to 3,000 men in real life) or a full armor brigade (800+ men), deployed in the field and spread across 10 or 12 or more acres, is complete nonsense. If memory serves, the biggest "kill" for a V-2 was something like 120 civilian dead when it hit a department store in London or Antwerp. V-2s never killed more than a handful of military personnel, mostly those caught in civilian areas completely by coincidence, and were almost useless for pinpoint targeting of military units or bases.

VorlonFCW · Jul 20th 2018, 2:44pm

Once level 2 and up rockets are in play you NEVER direct attack with your planes. Patrol with your planes, and move them by selecting patrol to a new location. Never refuel when enemies have sight of your airfields. This means eliminating subs from your coast as well.

Strategic bombers are a good tool for eliminating rockets, as they have a long range. They are slow to kill a group of rockets, but they work as long as your enemy doesn't have a lot of anti air at the airbase with their rockets. It will force your enemy to either use or lose the rockets.

Rockets only target a location, so units in motion are rarely hit by rockets. Of course slower units may not be able to move far enough to get out from under the rocket, but if you keep your units in motion your enemies will waste a lot of rockets. Another thing you can do is use a few units to draw their rocket fire and then move them when the rockets launch if you can get a visual of the launch area.

I really like having aircraft carriers when enemies like their rockets. If you can keep the carrier group moving the rockets are useless. If you can clear a coastline of units with your planes the enemy can't see your units disembarking. So if they don't know when you are disembarking they can't rocket your disembarking troops. Once you have some high speed units on the ground and running you have won the war against someone who depended on rockets.

I have faced many players with a lot of rockets, and a few who could actually use the rockets with some skill. I certainly have lost some planes and units to them, and winning the war in those cases depended on a strong economy and the ability to procure replacement units rapidly.

MontanaBB · Jul 21st 2018, 4:14am

VorlonFCW wrote:

. . . winning the war in those cases depended on a strong economy and the ability to procure replacement units rapidly.

That's Call of War in a nutshell.

Xarus · Jul 21st 2018, 7:38am

Diabolical wrote:

Missiles are pretty cheap, but the developers added additional unrealistic costs in the form of Oil maintenance (as if missiles ever used petroleum*).

That's no unrealistic. You need trucks to carry the rockets and the personal. The rocket fuel must be cooled to be stable and for this you need electricity. This electric power you generates we generators and this generators needs oil for operation.

----------------------------------

Freezy says that they planing a balance update in the next time...

So let us think about what you think need to be changed in the rocket science. I have four points that need to be changed to the rockets in CoW:

1) Enter a rocket motor in the research in CoW at day 8, you need to research it first to get the normal level 1 rocket at day 16. (It's crazy the rockets are much earlier in game than heavy tanks)

2) The damage against units must be reduced

3) The "ignore fortifications" must be deleted in level 4 rockets. Maybe we can talk about to reduce the effect of fortifications to 50%.

4) The possibility to attack patrolling planes with rockets must be deleted.

MontanaBB · Jul 21st 2018, 4:57pm

Xarus wrote:

4) The possibility to attack patrolling planes with rockets must be deleted.

Shhhh. That's one of my favorite screw-ups, bugs, misunderstood features, or eccentricities of the game as it presently exists. Even the vast majority of experienced players seem to be completely unaware of this, even to the point when you tell them about it, they don't believe you and assume you're some kind of forum crank.

MontanaBB · Jul 22nd 2018, 5:26pm

Xarus wrote:

You need trucks to carry the rockets and the personal.

Yeah, Xarus, but a single rocket transporter and 4 or 5 trucks/lorries for support equipment and personnel did not burn the daily petrol consumption equivalent of an entire fighter or bomber squadron (plus support equipment). Adding the daily rocket maintenance cost was an improvement because it eliminated the Super Rocket Spammers who were using [the substance which shall be not named] to buy rare materials and create large standing rocket forces, often using accelerated production too. I remember some noob bragging in the forum about having 700 rockets in his inventory ---- I didn't believe him until he produced a jpeg file to show them. Absolute insanity, and a grotesque distortion of the game (and history).

The real problem that makes rockets attractive for spammers is their over-powered strength against ground units. Reduce rocket strength against ground units by 50+%, and then you can reduce the daily petrol maintenance for rockets by 50 to 75%.

Xarus · Jul 22nd 2018, 8:28pm

Yes, you are right - the main problem is the efficiency of the rockets. I'm with you, if we had a reduced strength that the upkeep can be set to 50 oil per day.

Diabolical · Jul 26th 2018, 6:14pm

PhiipIII wrote:

I'm very discouraged by this ahistorical imbalance.

Well, since this game gives you the ability to rewrite history, I'd say yours is a moot point.

MontanaBB wrote:

PhiipIII wrote:

I think rockets are massively overpowered.

In-game rockets are massively over-powered, especially against ground units. I have complained of this several times before. The idea that two or three V-2 rockets -- which were wildly inaccurate -- could destroy a full infantry regiment (1,000 to 3,000 men in real life) or a full armor brigade (800+ men), deployed in the field and spread across 10 or 12 or more acres, is complete nonsense. If memory serves, the biggest "kill" for a V-2 was something like 120 civilian dead when it hit a department store in London or Antwerp. V-2s never killed more than a handful of military personnel, mostly those caught in civilian areas completely by coincidence, and were almost useless for pinpoint targeting of military units or bases.

Interestingly, while I won't agree that rockets are overpowered (as cited in detail with many points of evidence in a previous posting), I must now take issue with your reasoning.

Yes, it would seem that a single missile -- or two or three -- might not be able to wipe out such a seemingly-large and widespread representation of forces. But, while you assume that a single regiment of infantry might encompass one to three thousand soldiers, you make the mistake of not making the assumption that a single rocket in this game might represent a cluster of many rockets.

One soldier in the game represents thousands in real life. I'll grant that. But, apart from the nuclear branch, I think it is unfair to assume that rockets have a 1 to 1 representation in real life.

That's all I have on this particular subject, for now.

Diabolical · Jul 26th 2018, 6:40pm

VorlonFCW wrote:

Once level 2 and up rockets are in play you NEVER direct attack with your planes. Patrol with your planes, and move them by selecting patrol to a new location. Never refuel when enemies have sight of your airfields. This means eliminating subs from your coast as well.

Strategic bombers are a good tool for eliminating rockets, as they have a long range. They are slow to kill a group of rockets, but they work as long as your enemy doesn't have a lot of anti air at the airbase with their rockets. It will force your enemy to either use or lose the rockets.

This reminds me of a great way -- actually two great ways -- to eliminate an enemy's air force. First, you fire off a missile or two at the enemy as bait. Do so from a visible airbase, of course so that they know you are there. And have a few more missiles sitting at that base, "exposed" and "vulnerable". Let the enemy come to patrol over your forces, thinking that they'll take you out.

Now, a "wise" player will think, "only by patrolling, the other guy's missiles will never hit him on the ground while refueling". Sadly, that line of thinking fails to consider that patrolling aircraft can also be targeted by missiles. So long as the patrol doesn't get moved, they are just as vulnerable to those missiles they are patrolling over. And, with the extreme-close range of those missiles to the patrol point, few players are ever lucky enough to catch them in motion in time enough to move the patrol to a new point far enough away to avoid getting hit.

Don't believe me? Here's where anecdotal evidence becomes empirical (fun from another thread). I have personally witnessed and tested the fact that patrolling aircraft are indeed vulnerable to missiles. And it's not just level 1 missiles as some might suppose, given their low-flying, interceptor-shot-down vulnerable, different ballistics way of being. I have shot down large stacks of patrolling aircraft with missiles on numerous occasions, even pissing off a golder who later came back with a huge army of light tanks to "punish" me and take out my airbase.

There's always a counter strategy to every strategy. In this case, patrols can be knocked down by missiles.

VorlonFCW wrote:

Rockets only target a location, so units in motion are rarely hit by rockets. Of course slower units may not be able to move far enough to get out from under the rocket, but if you keep your units in motion your enemies will waste a lot of rockets. Another thing you can do is use a few units to draw their rocket fire and then move them when the rockets launch if you can get a visual of the launch area.

This is true, slower units are easier to hit. Yet, even the fastest units can be hit if the range to target is shortened. A maxed out Armored Car that is only a few minutes from an airbase can be hit by rockets from that airbase. Per your point, further above, I would suggest that, even in the era of higher-level missiles, using an attack command instead of patrol can certainly be safe if your airbase is close to your target and you have upgraded your airbase to its highest level.

A long time ago, another player, @Phoenix King I think, took the time to calculate and show that, since a patrol hits 4 times an hour, it is better to use the attack command only when the flight to target and back, combined with refuel times, is less than 15 minutes. That point is still valid today. It's still balanced by whether or not you are going to get hit on the ground by missiles (or while on patrol, as mentioned above).

VorlonFCW wrote:

I really like having aircraft carriers when enemies like their rockets. If you can keep the carrier group moving the rockets are useless.

So long as it's far enough away from their airbase, I agree. But keeping carriers on the move without approaching too closely to the shore is the real key. Still, I like your idea about having the aircraft carriers as a counter to a heavy missile-user. I might have to try that, someday.

VorlonFCW wrote:

Once you have some high speed units on the ground and running you have won the war against someone who depended on rockets.

Unless they are constantly at vigile and slapping down your fast units moments before they reach the airbase(s). Still, your point is valid for most cases, I think. This is why any decent player who does overly-rely on missiles probably has a web of Anti-Tanks on their perimeter to avoid breakthroughs by those fastmovers.

MontanaBB wrote:

VorlonFCW wrote:

. . . winning the war in those cases depended on a strong economy and the ability to procure replacement units rapidly.

That's Call of War in a nutshell.

...unless you are skilled at keeping your forces alive. That's thinking outside of the nut...um, er, I mean outside of the box.

Of course, with copious amounts of Gold, one can buff up their damaged armies endlessly and therefore be able to boast in the forums about near-perfect KD ratios. You know who you are.

VorlonFCW · Jul 26th 2018, 6:45pm

While rockets can target and hit planes on patrol the cost per kill is quite high. The amount of rares that you burn through per rocket for one plane or two killed is where the balance is. Sure it is fun, but it isn't really a wise use of rares as a general strategy.

Diabolical · Jul 26th 2018, 7:05pm

Xarus wrote:

So let us think about what you think need to be changed in the rocket science. I have four points that need to be changed to the rockets in CoW:

1) Enter a rocket motor in the research in CoW at day 8, you need to research it first to get the normal level 1 rocket at day 16. (It's crazy the rockets are much earlier in game than heavy tanks)

2) The damage against units must be reduced

3) The "ignore fortifications" must be deleted in level 4 rockets. Maybe we can talk about to reduce the effect of fortifications to 50%.

4) The possibility to attack patrolling planes with rockets must be deleted.

1. Not a bad idea, in a way, but it should be replaced by my alternate idea in response to MontanaBB, below.

2. I disagree. As I said in another recent post, rockets aren't single units. LIke with Infantry, they represent more than one. As Montana has said, Infantry might represent a few thousand soldiers. It's reasonable to assume that a rocket/missile represents at least a few rockets at a launch site.

3. I would ONLY agree with you here if they added a level 5 rocket blueprint which DID have the bunker-busting capabilities of fortress ignorification.

( lol, the spell-check totally OK'd "ignorification" )

4. ABSOLUTELY NOT! This is not an error. This is not a hoax. This is not a joke. If a plane sits suspended in the sky, it makes perfect sense that it could be taken out by a missile. And though the realism of hitting a moving patrol with a V2 might seem unlikely, would it not be possible to do so, even if only by sheer luck?

If I were to compromise even just slightly on this issue, I'd piss myself off. HOWEVER, if I WERE to compromise, I might suggest (and I emphasize the word, "might") that there be another offshoot (like the rocket fighter) which represents a kamikaze fighter (branching off of level 1 rockets which act like planes, anyway). Thus a kamikaze rocket could deliberately have a chance to target a patrolling -- or attacking -- enemy aircraft stack.

ALSO, a kamikaze unit would act like a missile in it's one-time usage, but it's range might be modified to be a variant of a fighter's but shorter for a larger payload.

(I've actually proposed Kamikaze as an attack option which would extend your Fighter's range by 50% and strength by 300% for single usage, missile-like attacks. But that idea never took, with the devs.)

MontanaBB wrote:

The real problem that makes rockets attractive for spammers is their over-powered strength against ground units. Reduce rocket strength against ground units by 50+%, and then you can reduce the daily petrol maintenance for rockets by 50 to 75%.

I can't agree with this, but I can understand your reasoning. I have an alternative idea, though, that makes more sense to me.

Why don't we make rockets not a one-time usage thing? No, I don't mean resurrecting blown-up rockets. Instead, though, I mean that, rather than building a rocket, you are building the launchpad and equipment to manufacture them. This is kinda similar to something they've got going in Conflict of Nations.

Instead of rockets being able to convoy around by truck (or lorry, for you UK weirdos), have them stay put at a permanent platform. Instead of building rockets as "units", you should have to build the rocket launcher as "buildings". Then, once the building is constructed it automatically completes the build of a rocket every certain amount of time (i.e., once every 12 hours for a level 1 rocket). This would require a heavy usage of resources to build a rocket, but it'd be completely automatic.

Of course, you would need to be able to deactivate a launcher so that it doesn't use resources, but once you do deactivate it, it's countdown timer until a new rocket is ready to use will also be paused. Furthermore, once a rocket is completed, the launcher would necessarily self-shutdown to conserve resources since it's no longer building a rocket. But, since it automatically deactivates, it makes sense that it would then automatically reactivate as soon as you launch the missile. Obviously, if you manually deactivate the platform, it should be immune to reactivating on it's own.

One more thing, since missiles would needfully not be allowed to convoy to other locations, the platform launcher would need to ignore the rallying point option from the High Command feature set.

Oh, and higher level missiles, obviously, would need to take longer to be rebuilt. And, since you are spending more resources on the construction of the individual missiles on top of the high cost to build a launcher, it makes sense to eliminate the missile maintenance costs altogether.

Now THAT is a great idea.

Diabolical · Jul 26th 2018, 7:05pm

VorlonFCW wrote:

While rockets can target and hit planes on patrol the cost per kill is quite high. The amount of rares that you burn through per rocket for one plane or two killed is where the balance is. Sure it is fun, but it isn't really a wise use of rares as a general strategy.

buzzkill, man.....buzzkill.

dw98 · Jul 26th 2018, 8:26pm

ya know what I like about rockets - - - everything!
and ya dont have to feed em

PhiipIII · Jul 30th 2018, 8:20pm

Vorlon,

Thanks for your response, and I am implementing the aircraft carrier strategy, slowly. But I just lost a big moving, stack to rockets as they closed in on the base.

I see no hope in your other proposals, none at all. I am playing the Pacific map and it is hard to build, move and deploy huge armies against a player who sits back behind a thin (spammed) AA screen. I am relentless and moving large armies steadily across the ocean and into position, but the rockets are so OVERPOWERED that it crushes any meaningful strategy.

And the idea that no airstrikes are possible in a war game because of rockets is so Silly that it screams that the game mechanics are just kiddy-silly. Come on.

Each level 3+ rocket functions in a WWII style setting with the power that a conventional 10 kt nuclear munition does in modern combat scenarios.

For instance, let's say the equivalent of 5 heavy tank battalions, 4 slow AA and 5 Motorized AA, 2 Motorized arty, and 3 Med-tanks (the last stack that I lost a few minutes ago to a few rockets) are advancing through a province in a modern combat situation. Let's say I have 3 10 kt nuclear munitions to stop them.

I would have no chance. Even if I pick pinch points of concentration of strength and drop my nucs on the very center of them points, I would not come even close to knocking out that force. In this game rockets are more powerful than modern conventional nukes.

Just in, I lost 1 Heavy Tank, 1 Motorized arty and 1 motorized AA in a stack going full speed over the plains to one rocket.

Unbelievable.

Diabolical · Jul 30th 2018, 8:55pm

PhiipIII wrote:

I am relentless and moving large armies steadily across the ocean and into position, but the rockets are so OVERPOWERED that it crushes any meaningful strategy.

I've done what you are doing.....the ONLY way that rockets can stand before an armada is when the convoy is unloading. Once safely unloaded, a big army is not going to suffer that much to rockets unless they are all very low-level whilst the rockets are high-level or else they have a large quantity of the rockets. As Vorlon mentioned in a previous post, there is a substantial cost to building those rockets. So, to have such a large enough rocket force to defend against a large armada that has already successfully landed would be prohibitively expensive.

PhiipIII wrote:

Each level 3+ rocket functions in a WWII style setting with the power that a conventional 10 kt nuclear munition does in modern combat scenarios.

debatable at best....laughable at worst

PhiipIII wrote:

For instance, let's say the equivalent of 5 heavy tank battalions, 4 slow AA and 5 Motorized AA, 2 Motorized arty, and 3 Med-tanks (the last stack that I lost a few minutes ago to a few rockets) are advancing through a province in a modern combat situation. Let's say I have 3 10 kt nuclear munitions to stop them.

I would have no chance. Even if I pick pinch points of concentration of strength and drop my nucs on the very center of them points, I would not come even close to knocking out that force. In this game rockets are more powerful than modern conventional nukes.

First off, the forces you represent would be completely slaughtered by even just one of those tactical nukes. Secondly, the only way (as mentioned [similarly] further above) that those forces would be completely destroyed by rockets is that either there was a large number of rockets, or else they were maxed out while your forces were mostly low-levels and/or operating in a highly-disadvantageous province (i.e., urban for the heavy tanks, or mountains for everything, etc.)

PhiipIII wrote:

Just in, I lost 1 Heavy Tank, 1 Motorized arty and 1 motorized AA in a stack going full speed over the plains to one rocket.

They were either already damaged or low level as I said just above, there. A single maximum-level (4) rocket can not have enough firepower to waste all of the mid-level variants of those three units in a plains province. So they must have been low-level (at least in part) or damaged.

There is also the possibility that you are getting hit by other airstrikes and/or rockets that you aren't noticing.

Share