Launching V2 missiles from Submarines

[Riekopo]

This and V2s somehow get intercepted by planes. They are worse than useless; they hurt you from the cost of researching them and building the bases.

Yeah they shouldn't be able to get intercepted by aircraft. They were too fast and dropped straight down onto targets. I don't think any V2's were intercepted or shot down. They built around 6,000 and launched around 3,000. V1's were the rockets that could be intercepted and shot down.

 

[desphorin]

If you go check the bug forum, you will find out most of the bugs reported receive no replies or fixes. Interestingly, during patch week, you will see plenty of replies from dev team.

They do between major patches before lockdown. So I'm willing to give them the benefit of doubt that because of lockdown they cant get access to whatever bug tracking software they use (say Jira) so there's no point looking at those bug reports right now.

 

[RyansPlace]

How's this for an approach: Create a sub_carrier that restricts what type of aircraft it carries (remove fighters, CAS and naval bombers). Then create a V1 aircraft equipment type using the Japanese suicide plane architecture and assign it to that carrier. Only challenge is filtering what type of aircraft are allowed.

 

[SophieX]

Create a sub_carrier...

The idea is great; but I think you'll meet 2 problems:
1. If that vessel is a sub, I believe the "game-software" will not allow you to put an "air-base" on it.
2. If that vessel is a surface ship ( as some kind of carrier-type ), the question is, how to let it "act" like a sub? Sure you can reduce "surface-visibility" but how to enable a "Sub-visibility" ? Just adding the stat "sub-visibility", might work. But how to tell the "game-software" that it should ( or also could ) attack this vessel with depth-charges, if it flees "submerged"?

Many testing-work for the future.... and good luck, my friend.

PS: Going back to your V2-Question:

Last thought:
In post No. #7 I quoted something about a rocket-launcher ( Nebelwerfer ) mounted on a sub for firing submerged.
It should be possible to create a submarine-version of that equipment.
It should be possible to add a naval-combat stat to that equipment.
And / or perhaps an strategic_ground_atack_value?

 

[RyansPlace]

The idea is great; but I think you'll meet 2 problems:
1. If that vessel is a sub, I believe the "game-software" will not allow you to put an "air-base" on it.
2. If that vessel is a surface ship ( as some kind of carrier-type ), the question is, how to let it "act" like a sub? Sure you can reduce "surface-visibility" but how to enable a "Sub-visibility" ? Just adding the stat "sub-visibility", might work. But how to tell the "game-software" that it should ( or also could ) attack this vessel with depth-charges, if it flees "submerged"?

The good news is the game coding isn't that diligent. There are already a couple mods that add carrier submarines by doing little more than adding 'submarine to the ship_type.

Steam Workshop::Battle Carrier Ise-NRM II (Legacy)

steamcommunity.com

Steam Workshop::Battleship-Carrier Plus

steamcommunity.com

PS: Going back to your V2-Question:

Last thought:
In post No. #7 I quoted something about a rocket-launcher ( Nebelwerfer ) mounted on a sub for firing submerged.
It should be possible to create a submarine-version of that equipment.
It should be possible to add a naval-combat stat to that equipment.
And / or perhaps an strategic_ground_atack_value?

I've been experimenting with adding new stats to naval modules without much luck. My focus has been on adding commander stats that'll allow you to reload torpedoes faster or have improved fleet coordination. I believe those stats are hard defined in the defines file, which i'm hesitant to mess with (anytime I have has always resulted in a crash).

You inspired me to look at rocket artillery coding. As I feared, it does little more than add soft attack and breakthrough stats which doesn't help if you want to attack buildings. I think the most realistic approach is creating a new plane type with the Japanese suicide plane mechanic and just make it really fast/agile so it's not easily shot down. Give it a building attack stat and its now a missile. Also, I don't believe losing planes impacts your manpower so that's a bonus. The challenges with this approach is you can't limit the other planes from being stationed on the sub and you can also launch the 'missiles' from any airbase so missile spam.

 

[Vlad123]

The good news is the game coding isn't that diligent. There are already a couple mods that add carrier submarines by doing little more than adding 'submarine to the ship_type.

Steam Workshop::Battle Carrier Ise-NRM II (Legacy)

steamcommunity.com

Steam Workshop::Battleship-Carrier Plus

steamcommunity.com

I've been experimenting with adding new stats to naval modules without much luck. My focus has been on adding commander stats that'll allow you to reload torpedoes faster or have improved fleet coordination. I believe those stats are hard defined in the defines file, which i'm hesitant to mess with (anytime I have has always resulted in a crash).

You inspired me to look at rocket artillery coding. As I feared, it does little more than add soft attack and breakthrough stats which doesn't help if you want to attack buildings. I think the most realistic approach is creating a new plane type with the Japanese suicide plane mechanic and just make it really fast/agile so it's not easily shot down. Give it a building attack stat and its now a missile. Also, I don't believe losing planes impacts your manpower so that's a bonus. The challenges with this approach is you can't limit the other planes from being stationed on the sub and you can also launch the 'missiles' from any airbase so missile spam.

it would be a good idea if it were moddable and you could turn magare old light tier 1 wagons into bomb wagons (like german goliahs)

 

[balmung60]

This and V2s somehow get intercepted by planes. They are worse than useless; they hurt you from the cost of researching them and building the bases.

Hey, researching them isn't completely detrimental - it's a key part of maximizing your rocket artillery and rocket interceptors are actually amazing for swatting bombers if you're not arbitrarily hampered by geography (which is to say, if you don't have to operate in huge air zones).

But yes, actually building rocket sites is wasting valuable CIC and building slots.

 

[Baron Jukaga]

Hey, researching them isn't completely detrimental - it's a key part of maximizing your rocket artillery and rocket interceptors are actually amazing for swatting bombers if you're not arbitrarily hampered by geography (which is to say, if you don't have to operate in huge air zones).

But yes, actually building rocket sites is wasting valuable CIC and building slots.

True, as long as you're building R.Art there is some benefit, but there are bigger research priorities imo. I never have bothered with rocket interceptors.

 

[balmung60]

True, as long as you're building R.Art there is some benefit, but there are bigger research priorities imo. I never have bothered with rocket interceptors.

Rocket interceptors have massive attack but are maneuverable and fast enough that light fighters don't shred them like they would heavies. Also, they're very cheap, and at level 3, they have the same reliability as anything else. They do one thing and do it well - shred support and bomber craft in small air zones (eg. Most of Europe and much of Central America).

 

[Baron Jukaga]

Rocket interceptors have massive attack but are maneuverable and fast enough that light fighters don't shred them like they would heavies. Also, they're very cheap, and at level 3, they have the same reliability as anything else. They do one thing and do it well - shred support and bomber craft in small air zones (eg. Most of Europe and much of Central America).

I could see them being of use in MP, but the AI seldom if ever strat bombs in force.