Doctrine Specific Units ??

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

    • Doctrine Specific Units ??

      What do you guys think about implementing some doctrine specific units?
      This could be placed under the research tap.
      For Allied units we could have radars that could reveal units up to a limited distance
      For Japanese units we could have Kamikaze units that can deal a decent amount of damage etc.


      Those are just some examples, but we could have some doctrine specific units, like just a couple for each doctrine. :thumbsup:

    • Kyle Callam wrote:

      What do you guys think about implementing some doctrine specific units?
      This could be placed under the research tap.
      For Allied units we could have radars that could reveal units up to a limited distance
      For Japanese units we could have Kamikaze units that can deal a decent amount of damage etc.


      Those are just some examples, but we could have some doctrine specific units, like just a couple for each doctrine. :thumbsup:
      no need radar you have interceptors armored cars for this

      no need kamikaze units you have rockets for this

    • The concept of kamikaze weapons is that they are weapons for terminal guidance using human life.
      Do you know the weapon called “ 回天 ”?
      This might be called a so-called guided torpedo.
      So a devastating attack comparable to a nuclear weapons can be applied to a small target area.

    • kamikaze is not so devastating, its morally destructive though to see that people are willing to give their lives in such a way. It would allow to extend the range of planes, because they dont have to come back.

      (that is why I dont understand the short range of paratroops. they used special gliders that were abandoned, or big bombersized planes with about 1600-3800 miles actiradius compare to B17 range at 3700 miles. The paratroopers range, especially at higher levels should be extended

    • Gen. Smit wrote:

      kamikaze is not so devastating, its morally destructive though to see that people are willing to give their lives in such a way. It would allow to extend the range of planes, because they dont have to come back.

      (that is why I dont understand the short range of paratroops. they used special gliders that were abandoned, or big bombersized planes with about 1600-3800 miles actiradius compare to B17 range at 3700 miles. The paratroopers range, especially at higher levels should be extended
      btw battleships can bomb to middle of italy , so history accurate doesnt work

    • Undaunted wrote:

      Gen. Smit wrote:

      kamikaze is not so devastating, its morally destructive though to see that people are willing to give their lives in such a way. It would allow to extend the range of planes, because they dont have to come back.

      (that is why I dont understand the short range of paratroops. they used special gliders that were abandoned, or big bombersized planes with about 1600-3800 miles actiradius compare to B17 range at 3700 miles. The paratroopers range, especially at higher levels should be extended
      btw battleships can bomb to middle of italy , so history accurate doesnt work
      battleships pounded over distances of over 30 km the widt of italy ranges from 120 to 200 km, so yeah covering the complete is maybe a bit too much, but they could certainly bombard a good part of the inhabited coastal areas

    • Gen. Smit wrote:

      kamikaze is not so devastating, its morally destructive though to see that people are willing to give their lives in such a way. It would allow to extend the range of planes, because they dont have to come back.

      (that is why I dont understand the short range of paratroops. they used special gliders that were abandoned, or big bombersized planes with about 1600-3800 miles actiradius compare to B17 range at 3700 miles. The paratroopers range, especially at higher levels should be extended
      Terminal guidance provides the operator with the possibility of accurately sniping the target's vital points.
      To go to the extreme, postｰmodern warships can continue to run If she absoluted total loss her bridge and armament.
      However, if a high-explosive shell explodes from inside the armor through the vital part, a chain of explosions may continue until the ship sinks.
      on the other hand, nuclear weapons destroy any targets without regard to their characteristics.
      In other words, nuclear weapons might be a disaster and kamikaze weapons might be a poison.
      The catastrophization of the kamikaze attack is such a context.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by pod_than ().

    • Undaunted wrote:

      Kyle Callam wrote:

      Those were just some examples, does anyone think they could come up with some doctrine specific units ?
      It is interesting to think about it.
      we need new doctrines not specific units
      what they will add as specific units , every doctrine has commando paratrooper railroad gun already
      I really think that British and French Doctrines should be implemented, and I do have ideas for them, those that say this would overcomplicate things don't seem to realise that the doctrine system as it is quite overwhelming for a new player, I went to a school a while back and saw someone playing Conflict of Nations, I told him about CoW and his shrugged it off saying doctrines were too complex and the CoN system of each nation having obvious advantages was better, I know many veterans of the game may dislike this, but right now bytro wants to get more younger players in this game.

      If they want more players they need to fix the mobile adds, I know it shouldn't be said in this forum but the CoN one about Ireland vs UK is super annoying to any brit and puts them off the game.
      President of The Forum.

      (As elected October 2023).

      Can be found on Call of War itself as "Zaktty".