Over-Strengthed Rockets

    • Over-Strengthed Rockets

      Have not come across rockets too much in previous games, but at this point is appears to be the "go-to" for certain types of players. I guess assuming myself that they were not more than long-range industrial sabotage, I have been shocked to see that they have the precision and firepower of surgical, modern cruise missiles.

      If these rockets are meant for destroying city infrastructure, why are they so devastating to ground units? Players use them to almost annihilate stationary units which seems like a pretty far stretch for circa 1940s combat. Furthermore they are very inexpensive to build. Up to this point, this has to be the SINGLE greatest flaw in the balance of the game, and seeing this tactic become more and more prevalent - it may deter me from playing this game much more in the future.

      Just an honest assessment.
    • Well a missile is a powerful thing to a bunch of stationary objects and even the smallest of ones can take out a bunch of stuff. Doesn't really matter what it's intended purpose is a bomb with wings is a bomb with wings.

      That being said I do agree with you partially even the most sophisticated missile has a counter and maybe that ability should be the same in game. Maybe there should be an interceptor type missile you can build to counter these rockets, even the nuclear ones. I don't think they should be invincible or indestructible however, that doesn't seem very accurate or realistic.
      "It is even better to act quickly and err than to hesitate until the time of action is past." - Karl Von Clausewitz

    • You guys are not speaking in the context of WW2 - in which the rockets SHOULD NOT be that accurate or destructive, nor should there be technology capable of intercepting them (with the exception of the V-1 buzz bomb which could occasionally be intercepted by fighter planes). If you want a George Orwell war game that ultimately comes down to rocket production and placement then ask for a different historical genre from the developers. What I am seeing is a dynamic in the game that quickly shifts focus from strategic ground combat - one of the greatest appeals of WW2 strategy.

      Do rockets belong in the game - yes, absolutely as they existed in WW2. However, let's not forget that though they existed - they did not possess the capability of the precise annihilation of entire army divisions. They should remain as their unit description says - good for infrastructure damage, perhaps decreasing morale (as they really did when employed by the Germans). I would hate to think what would have happened if the Germans got their hands on CoW's versions of these rockets...

      Fix the game, this is a balancing issue :)
    • Simply saying rockets are grand doesn't address the issue/concern. I understand they are cool, "wunderwaffe" and it is exciting to develop them and use them. But perhaps they should be a little more pricey to produce - and I will once again stress they should be NOWHERE NEAR as destructive as they currently are. Secret technology is great, and they should continue to expand on it in the game - but this all comes back to an element of the game that completely changes the dynamic. There is an unbalance with how cheap and destructive the rockets are = plain and simple. They can and should continue to serve a purpose in the game, but it should reflect the actual use in the Second World War...

      Learning to fight against rockets essentially means adopting them yourself and turning the game into 1984-style rocket salvos/volleys.
    • Ameriken05 wrote:

      Learning to fight against rockets essentially means adopting them yourself and turning the game into 1984-style rocket salvos/volleys.
      Not really, in the 80s they had mobile launch as well, didnt have didnt have to transport them in a truck, just waiting to get picked off by 2 patrolling interceptors :P

      If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists
      -Friedrich von Haye

    • Given that the long term German plan was to fire these things in salvos, this seems fine.

      Personally, I think Rockets are alot weaker compared to a month ago
      "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
    • The 1984 reference was to the George Orwell novel where the wars are just a bunch of random rocket strikes. And that's fine if the Germans intended to use the rockets in a more operational/tactical role - but that still would have required almost insurmountable resources to pull off. And again - not saying you get rid of rockets because they can be fun, but they either need to be A) more expensive to produce, or B) less potent against ground formations, or even C) a combination of both.

      I'm just pointing out what I'm seeing - a game shifting from meaningful ground combat to war of rocket spamming/attrition.
    • Agreed - but to be fair those are introduced very late into the game and take quite a bit of resources to research - so do not have quite the same impact on the game as regular rockets do early on. Listen, I love how the game starts reaching into 50's era technology, but I just think there should be more balancing on the V-2s so they aren't equivalent to tomahawk cruise missiles. That's all. I want more WW2 ground war :)