Suggestion for armored trains.

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      blue44elephant wrote:

      Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      Hello, it looks like projectiles and ballistic/explosives that you mentioned are used in modern world and not WWII. Also implementation of similar things will require great amount of coding and wouldn't be easily implemented. However, the picture you have really looks like a tank.
      the trains actualy had those guns i am just saying that the train was very good weapon. and that picture that you call a tank is called panzer in our language and as for doctrinees even after almost 76 years of ww2 european doctrines still haven't changed much
      Hi, so you are are German! :) So Panzers seem to not run on rails. Are you referring to something else?




      i am talking that they should add this to game
    • Chimere wrote:

      The armored train was a terrible weapon by WW2 except a few lucky happenstance or as a slightly mobile bunker in cities. It is rail bound, it can’t really hide, it can’t be massed, it can be avoided or mobility killed easily, and it took significant personal to man it.

      WW2 armored trains were all survivors of WW1 or of the wars of 1919// early 20ies
      it only took ten men to operate five of them provided combined small arms fire and were reserved other five were the ones operating.
    • Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      Ok, never knew about that but is it commonly used?
      it was used in ww1 and ww2 extensively and were fought for very hard by both sides but the train was vulnerable to commando raids blitz paratrooping attacks but even then entire battalions used abandon their orders and run when they used to hear the sound of the train. the russians developed one in cold war for launching ammunition delivery systems and nuclear warheads
    • blue44elephant wrote:

      Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      Ok, never knew about that but is it commonly used?
      it was used in ww1 and ww2 extensively and were fought for very hard by both sides but the train was vulnerable to commando raids blitz paratrooping attacks but even then entire battalions used abandon their orders and run when they used to hear the sound of the train. the russians developed one in cold war for launching ammunition delivery systems and nuclear warheads
      It was vulnerable to bombers or artillery. The locomotives were usually redundant but even one wagon getting destroyed would stop the train for a while the time to separate the wagon and remove it.

      Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      Ok, never knew about that but is it commonly used?
      In frontline duty, nNot that much in WWI and WW2. In World War 2 it was mostly used by Poland and a bit by USSR because they did not have much else as far as armor were concerned. It was mostly a defensive unit.

      In WWI there were plenty around but they were barely used. The WWI armored cars were in the same situation.

      The golden age of the armored train was the Russian Civil War (and all the smaller wars around it : Finnish Independance War, ...) There it was king due to the fluidity of the frontline and the lack of countermeasures.

      In WW2, it saw a very significant usage by the axis as anti-partisan duty though - those versions were lightly armored.

      blue44elephant wrote:

      Chimere wrote:

      The armored train was a terrible weapon by WW2 except a few lucky happenstance or as a slightly mobile bunker in cities. It is rail bound, it can’t really hide, it can’t be massed, it can be avoided or mobility killed easily, and it took significant personal to man it.

      WW2 armored trains were all survivors of WW1 or of the wars of 1919// early 20ies
      it only took ten men to operate five of them provided combined small arms fire and were reserved other five were the ones operating.
      No it did not. It took more than one hundred men for the one that destroyed your ancestor's tank. How do you want to manage the firepower a train has with 5 men ^^.
    • Chimere wrote:

      blue44elephant wrote:

      Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      Ok, never knew about that but is it commonly used?
      it was used in ww1 and ww2 extensively and were fought for very hard by both sides but the train was vulnerable to commando raids blitz paratrooping attacks but even then entire battalions used abandon their orders and run when they used to hear the sound of the train. the russians developed one in cold war for launching ammunition delivery systems and nuclear warheads
      It was vulnerable to bombers or artillery. The locomotives were usually redundant but even one wagon getting destroyed would stop the train for a while the time to separate the wagon and remove it.

      Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      Ok, never knew about that but is it commonly used?
      In frontline duty, nNot that much in WWI and WW2. In World War 2 it was mostly used by Poland and a bit by USSR because they did not have much else as far as armor were concerned. It was mostly a defensive unit.
      In WWI there were plenty around but they were barely used. The WWI armored cars were in the same situation.

      The golden age of the armored train was the Russian Civil War (and all the smaller wars around it : Finnish Independance War, ...) There it was king due to the fluidity of the frontline and the lack of countermeasures.

      In WW2, it saw a very significant usage by the axis as anti-partisan duty though - those versions were lightly armored.

      blue44elephant wrote:

      Chimere wrote:

      The armored train was a terrible weapon by WW2 except a few lucky happenstance or as a slightly mobile bunker in cities. It is rail bound, it can’t really hide, it can’t be massed, it can be avoided or mobility killed easily, and it took significant personal to man it.

      WW2 armored trains were all survivors of WW1 or of the wars of 1919// early 20ies
      it only took ten men to operate five of them provided combined small arms fire and were reserved other five were the ones operating.
      No it did not. It took more than one hundred men for the one that destroyed your ancestor's tank. How do you want to manage the firepower a train has with 5 men ^^.
      when i said ten men i said the men who were directly in charge of the train and looked after compartments AND provided ammunition and firepower when the train was stopped for some reason in the battlefield
    • If I had to do Armored Trains without changing any rules (so no "can only go on infrastructure")

      => To avoid them being used in attack, I would give them appalling stats in attack and solid stats in defense
      => This way, I would not care about the issue of them travelling in hostile territory, since they would presumably not be used in attack, except to buff up an attack which is OK as far as usage go.
      => They would only be available, in historical scenario, to some countries (Poland, USSR, Estonia, probably a few others)
      NOT BUILDABLE. NOT UPGRADABLE.

      Stats :

      - HP : 35 - Mid-way between Heavy Tank and Medium tank
      - Attack /Defense
      vs Infantry 2/8
      vs Armor 2/8 - it can destroy any armor in defense early game, but will eventually be beaten by a couple medium tanks.
      vs Air -/5 (they were full of AA, but also very vulnerable to compensate vs that

      Terrain bonus :
      -50% HP in Mountain, because ambush prone territory. I don't change the attack stats as a train in a defensive position in a pass would probably reinforce a lot, though I don't think it historically happened
      +25% Attack in Plains, due to clear sights and optimal use of range.

      Speed :
      40 km/h in Plains
      36 km/h in Hills / Forests (Railroad is not much slower than in plains, though I guess it climbs and turns a bit more)
      18 km/h in Mountains (half of the one in Hills)
      27 km/h in Cities (congestion and whatnot)
    • Chimere wrote:

      If I had to do Armored Trains without changing any rules (so no "can only go on infrastructure")

      => To avoid them being used in attack, I would give them appalling stats in attack and solid stats in defense
      => This way, I would not care about the issue of them travelling in hostile territory, since they would presumably not be used in attack, except to buff up an attack which is OK as far as usage go.
      => They would only be available, in historical scenario, to some countries (Poland, USSR, Estonia, probably a few others)
      NOT BUILDABLE. NOT UPGRADABLE.

      Stats :

      - HP : 35 - Mid-way between Heavy Tank and Medium tank
      - Attack /Defense
      vs Infantry 2/8
      vs Armor 2/8 - it can destroy any armor in defense early game, but will eventually be beaten by a couple medium tanks.
      vs Air -/5 (they were full of AA, but also very vulnerable to compensate vs that

      Terrain bonus :
      -50% HP in Mountain, because ambush prone territory. I don't change the attack stats as a train in a defensive position in a pass would probably reinforce a lot, though I don't think it historically happened
      +25% Attack in Plains, due to clear sights and optimal use of range.

      Speed :
      40 km/h in Plains
      36 km/h in Hills / Forests (Railroad is not much slower than in plains, though I guess it climbs and turns a bit more)
      18 km/h in Mountains (half of the one in Hills)
      27 km/h in Cities (congestion and whatnot)
      Which unit type should it be?
      FORUM GANG General
      Highest ranking (Acting)
      Ryan

      EN/ES/FR Forum Member
      Call of War Technician Fourth Grade
      Forum General
      Training Alliance Leader
    • Chimere wrote:

      If I had to do Armored Trains without changing any rules (so no "can only go on infrastructure")

      => To avoid them being used in attack, I would give them appalling stats in attack and solid stats in defense
      => This way, I would not care about the issue of them travelling in hostile territory, since they would presumably not be used in attack, except to buff up an attack which is OK as far as usage go.
      => They would only be available, in historical scenario, to some countries (Poland, USSR, Estonia, probably a few others)
      NOT BUILDABLE. NOT UPGRADABLE.

      Stats :

      - HP : 35 - Mid-way between Heavy Tank and Medium tank
      - Attack /Defense
      vs Infantry 2/8
      vs Armor 2/8 - it can destroy any armor in defense early game, but will eventually be beaten by a couple medium tanks.
      vs Air -/5 (they were full of AA, but also very vulnerable to compensate vs that

      Terrain bonus :
      -50% HP in Mountain, because ambush prone territory. I don't change the attack stats as a train in a defensive position in a pass would probably reinforce a lot, though I don't think it historically happened
      +25% Attack in Plains, due to clear sights and optimal use of range.

      Speed :
      40 km/h in Plains
      36 km/h in Hills / Forests (Railroad is not much slower than in plains, though I guess it climbs and turns a bit more)
      18 km/h in Mountains (half of the one in Hills)
      27 km/h in Cities (congestion and whatnot)
      if you drop its attack stats and someone wonts to kick some unwanted visitors out of their territory then i don't see the point in building one. and doesn't make sense for it being able to rip apart a panzer III and a train runs on rails so the speed doesn't decrease and nobody build rails in mountains. forests won't efeect speed because the trains is running on rails and they had a serious advantage in hills due to being able to shoot around ledges and tree growth also no one builds the rail over a hill or mountain they build it at the foot of the hil mountain. Go read eastern military doctrines such as india and european doctrines german,british,polish
    • Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      Which unit type should it be?
      Armored

      blue44elephant wrote:

      if you drop its attack stats and someone wonts to kick some unwanted visitors out of their territory then i don't see the point in building one. and doesn't make sense for it being able to rip apart a panzer III and a train runs on rails so the speed doesn't decrease and nobody build rails in mountains. forests won't efeect speed because the trains is running on rails and they had a serious advantage in hills due to being able to shoot around ledges and tree growth also no one builds the rail over a hill or mountain they build it at the foot of the hil mountain. Go read eastern military doctrines such as india and european doctrines german,british,polish
      I was about to answer you but then I realized it would be a loss of my time and that it does not need answer so I will let you have this last word above.
    • Chimere wrote:

      Ryan04px2025 wrote:

      Which unit type should it be?
      Armored

      blue44elephant wrote:

      if you drop its attack stats and someone wonts to kick some unwanted visitors out of their territory then i don't see the point in building one. and doesn't make sense for it being able to rip apart a panzer III and a train runs on rails so the speed doesn't decrease and nobody build rails in mountains. forests won't efeect speed because the trains is running on rails and they had a serious advantage in hills due to being able to shoot around ledges and tree growth also no one builds the rail over a hill or mountain they build it at the foot of the hil mountain. Go read eastern military doctrines such as india and european doctrines german,british,polish
      I was about to answer you but then I realized it would be a loss of my time and that it does not need answer so I will let you have this last word above.
      sarcasm? but why? i am just telling that it can be a bit realistic