No point if V2s would cost as much as STR bombers. After using the bombers to drop the nukes you still get to keep the bombers. However after using a V2 the unit will be lost.
Last edited:
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No point if V2s would cost as much as STR bombers. After using the bombers to drop the nukes you still get to keep the bombers. However after using a V2 the unit will be lost.
I don't have a problem with that - as per my previous post - as at least it's semi realistic. Using inaccurate (4.5Km circle) ballistic missiles that have just been invented to pinpoint and target Nuclear facilities is ridiculous..
Strat bomb them if you can...
Since the beginning I am trying to say that you CANNOT "pinpoint and target nuclear facilities" with rockets; BUT as you know the "strategic bombardment" mission damages all "buildings" in the province, ie resource production, infrastructure, IC, and, well, various existing facilities. And since the strategic bombardment potential of V2 is so incredibly high, a single hit pretty much razes the province to the ground, destroying everything that was there. Including nuclear facilities, if any.
Well in this case, why not, just like IRL. But indeed bombers will remain more economical until you develop the ICBM.
If V2's damage Nuclear facilities, then of course they are being targetted. Obviously this is due to the way strategic bombing is handled (IC, Inf and facilities).
I think V1's and V2's should not behave like Strategic Bombers. They do not try to target a specific industry type and are simply (pretty much random and inaccurate) terror devices. How about making them increase dissent - so countries have to spend money (rather than repair provinces) to bring dissent down?
#C
That's an excellent idea! One might even have a strong incentive to develop and construct them, were that the case.
As for the modifier, the dissent hit could be determined by the amount of MP in the targeted province. Rumors and panic spreads at an exponentially faster rate in densely populated areas, so cities and such are more vulnerable to people seeing rockets and panicking etc. (Rockets are basically science fiction to the people of the early 40's, the psychological effect is huge.)
A little bit of random could be in there as well. 5% chance of the attack failing and 5% chance of dealing a "critical" hit?
I'd favor this, too - and, by the way, could "Strategic bombardment" mission (which is supposed to target the whole of an enemy province) be changed to inflict also some dissent?
IMO some kind of damage, albeit small, should always be inflicted, so I wouldn't be in favor of these two chances to double the - or score no - damage.
Not only that but there is more of a chance of actually hitting something.
With a 4.5km diameter of accuracy, the Wehrmacht isn't going to try to target Smallsville, population 132.. The locals probably wouldn't care too much if a few rows of carrots were blown sky high.
I don't think the effect should be overestimated though. Londoners didn't run around panicing when the V1's came over and the effects of the V2's were only felt 'after' it exploded. You just can't see or hear them before that.
Unfortunately, they can be launched from anywhere, unlike IRL.
#Cakes
Well, but every province in game is big enough to host a small glade in a wood (where historically V2s were launched from)...
Yeah, know that. That's what I meant. Airfields in Europe are practically everywhere - there are also cheap and easy to construct.
V2's (initially) were launched from fixed locations (they needed to be transported and assembled) but yes, they were eventually mobile. I don't think V2's (or V1's) should start the game as mobile launch rockets (maybe we need a new quick and easy to research tech for this?). V1's of course needed a constructed launch ramp which should be able to be bombed.
Actually iv had a lot of experience in-game with ballistic rockets via my own created 1947 scenario, and I saw a post here mentioning how the AI handles it, ill tell you this, Japan and Germany have no problems building and launching an ICBM blowing half the NE/west coast of America sky high via nukes or standard missiles from the safety of over 5000 distance away 
. Not to mention the AI is actually very smart with the missiles, I tried playing as Argentina and I managed to get to a lv 5 nuke reactor and outta no where about 3-4 US ICBM destroys the entire facility, not once but constantly every 4-6 or so months, effectively preventing me from ever building a nuke. since I cant stop em.
From the stand point of destroying key strategic targets missiles should not be underestimated even though they have a one shot use and require several missiles to get the job done. The ability to destroy any airfield/key structures (nuke reactors, missile sites ect..) regardless of distance is a good advantage especially since it cannot be stop, use it in junction with a rapid land assault, and it wont matter if you need that forward airbase at all. Thus allowing you to spend IC's more on Tac's/CAS for ground support instead of overly expensive strats which can be picked apart if your not lucky and takes up precious airfield space on your front lines.
. Not to mention the AI is actually very smart with the missiles, I tried playing as Argentina and I managed to get to a lv 5 nuke reactor and outta no where about 3-4 US ICBM destroys the entire facility, not once but constantly every 4-6 or so months, effectively preventing me from ever building a nuke. since I cant stop em.From the stand point of destroying key strategic targets missiles should not be underestimated even though they have a one shot use and require several missiles to get the job done. The ability to destroy any airfield/key structures (nuke reactors, missile sites ect..) regardless of distance is a good advantage especially since it cannot be stop, use it in junction with a rapid land assault, and it wont matter if you need that forward airbase at all. Thus allowing you to spend IC's more on Tac's/CAS for ground support instead of overly expensive strats which can be picked apart if your not lucky and takes up precious airfield space on your front lines.
Strategic warfare in HoI3(strategic bombing, convoy raiding and such) does exactly that. Nuclear strikes increase dissent proportionally to the manpower of the province. There would be nothing wrong with such a feature.
I agree. Reducing a province's manpower would not be allowed, but increasing dissent is ok.
If it's just a question of description, then it's easy to call it something else. It happened IRL and this is a historically based game so..........
Nope, it doesn't. They even highlight it in forum rules. Strategic bombing is just that, strategic bombing. Not fire bombing, not terror bombing.
Even nukes are only tactical and not city busters.
Dissent is there, but only as a secondary effect because those things are just that strong. Being bombed isn't good on morale, yes.
However, shifting V2 focus from industry and giving them dissent effect combined with their production time will turn them into the actual weapons for terror bombing and that's a no no.
Paradox supports a certain level of political correctness in their games. You are risking to get whatever will include this effect banned.
A number of other things that happened IRL is also restricted from the game, if you didn't noticed.
And really, how would you even describe it? What makes V2 create dissent when start bombers don't?
Last edited: