Missile Destroyers

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

    • Missile Destroyers

      Hello comrades, once again TB here trying to convince you the navy in this game needs expanding.

      Today, I'm here to talk to you about something which I feel needs to be implemented due common sense and general game feel.

      We have Nuclear BB, CVN and subs: and you know what, i feel like something else should be there. The Guided Missile destroyer.

      "But Tank buster, that class of destroyer is fairly new, its not ww2!" Oh sweet child, the Kirov-II class cruiser is neither a Nuclear battleship* or WW2 vintage- but we still have it.

      Frankly, the Guided missile destroyer would be the counter to the Nuclear Sub: i can't see a high tech sub being chanced down a WW2 vintage destroyer which has no upgrades and still considers cannons its primary weapon.

      In a nut shell:
      The Destroyer will be in the secret tree, with the same unlock criteria as the rest of its 'nuclear' class, but with a slight change: it will require lvl 4 missiles and lvl 6 destroyers.

      It will be faster than its usual counter part and have better damage, and for the sake of game play, use a similar model but with slight additions of missile tubes- its attack animation will remain the same as well.

      Ships which would fit the class:
      Farragut Class (Allies 1950s)
      Kotlin class (USSR, 1950s)
      Amatsukaze class (IJN, 1960s vintage)
      Hamburg Class (Axis, 1960s vintage, later upgraded with missiles: in service with west Germany)
      Lutjens class( Axis, 1950s vinatge. Basically a Charles F. Adams class guided missile destroyer, but with some added Germany goodies. 1950s vintage)

      I put two German classes in because I couldn't decide fully on what I want, and if the French and British get implemented, they have their own classes ready.

      So, as usual, pick it apart and tell me we shouldn't dive into the early cold war....you know, not that we haven't anyway.

      *-However, it is considered a 'battle-cruiser' and is the largest non-CVN ship afloat, if I remember right.
      "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

    • Yeah, i'm trying to look into experimental craft and putting a heavy cruiser tech tree together. I'm sticking to what I know
      "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

    • I might have to stray into the early Imperial Russian armoured cruisers, same with the Japanese: for the allies, I might be able to make it an entire US tree and make a different UK tree
      "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

    • These would be great in the game..
      Id love to see the naval warfare more diverse, and expanded


      Plus, this would be pretty useful in the world map. I still would like missile subs as well



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


    • I have generally came around to the idea of missile subs, i've been swayed
      "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

    • I've been researching susbs, so I might be able to put some ideas forward- though I might have to scrape the barrel in places
      "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

    • TankBuster wrote:

      I've been researching susbs, so I might be able to put some ideas forward- though I might have to scrape the barrel in places
      Soviets had them in the early 50s

      they should be added, but I am losing faith that many of our suggestions actually go anywhere :(



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


    • TankBuster wrote:

      We have Nuclear BB, CVN and subs
      And none of those have any business in a game based on WWII era technology. No one ever built a "nuclear" battleship, and it is unclear whether the designed hull speed of the fastest American, British and German battleships would have permitted anything like a sustained 75 kmh cruising speed, regardless of the propulsion system used. The basic design specs for large ship-borne reactors that would have been required for a nuclear-powered battleship would presumably have been the same or very similar as those for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and that technology was not available until the early to mid-1950s, and the first navy to build a CVN did not do so until 1960 (USS Enterprise CVN 65). The second navy to build a CVN did not do so until 2001 (Charles De Gaulle R91).

      The first nuclear-power sub (USS Nautilus SSN 571) was designed in the early 1950s after a crash program led by Hyman Rickover and was commissioned in 1954. The Soviets would not commission their first SSN for another 4 years.

      None of these technological anachronisms really belong in a WWII game because the ship-borne nuclear reactor technology was not available for another 5 to 7 years after 1945. For 1945-46, jet aircraft and nuclear missiles are far more realistic than nuclear-powered ships, which required some of the best engineering the U.S. could manage in the 1950s. The irony is that the game still lacks several major elements of actual WWII technology and tactics such as airborne infantry.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MontanaBB ().

    • @MontanaBB

      I agree with you on your last paragraph. This game is mainly based on WW2, and more emphasis should be placed on developing important units like Marines and Paras rather than units that play a mediocre role, like CVN and nuke battleships. However, this game is also Cold War, amd adding a unit such as a missile destroyer AFTER Paras and Marines are added wouldn't hurt.
      The past is a foreign country.

    • MontanaBB wrote:

      TankBuster wrote:

      We have Nuclear BB, CVN and subs
      And none of those have any business in a game based on WWII era technology. No one ever built a "nuclear" battleship, and it is unclear whether the designed hull speed of the fastest American, British and German battleships would have permitted anything like a sustained 75 kmh cruising speed, regardless of the propulsion system used. The basic design specs for large ship-borne reactors that would have been required for a nuclear-powered battleship would presumably have been the same or very similar as those for a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, and that technology was not available until the early to mid-1950s, and the first navy to build a CVN did not do so until 1960 (USS Enterprise CVN 65). The second navy to build a CVN did not do so until 2001 (Charles De Gaulle R91).
      The first nuclear-power sub (USS Nautilus SSN 571) was designed in the early 1950s after a crash program led by Hyman Rickover and was commissioned in 1954. The Soviets would not commission their first SSN for another 4 years.

      None of these technological anachronisms really belong in a WWII game because the ship-borne nuclear reactor technology was not available for another 5 to 7 years after 1945. For 1945-46, jet aircraft and nuclear missiles are far more realistic than nuclear-powered ships, which required some of the best engineering the U.S. could manage in the 1950s. The irony is that the game still lacks several major elements of actual WWII technology and tactics such as airborne infantry.
      The game isnt based on WW2.

      It is based between WW2 and during the 1950's

      Look at the tech tree, take the later units. A level 3 Heavy tank. For the American Skins, its a M103.. Didn't enter service until 1957 (Off the top of my head) Plenty other examples

      Not to mention nukes



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