In HOI 3 V1 and V2's were very effective in bombing cities In H0I4 they need to be reduced to very ineffective weapons. Unless maybe attacking a port in mass.
- 26
- 2
V1 and V2 rocket Should be very ineffective
- Thread starter Ruthlesssamuria
- Start date
-
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.
Gamebalance and interesting choices are more important then to showcase history so they should be effective in my opinion.
- 16
- 6
Why?
The V1 was more effective than the Luftwaffe Blitz.
And the V2, well, its ineffectivity was due to the lack of a proximity fuse and the inability to correct for the point of impact.
If those things are addresed they are worthwhile, even if only to save on menpower.
The V1 was more effective than the Luftwaffe Blitz.
And the V2, well, its ineffectivity was due to the lack of a proximity fuse and the inability to correct for the point of impact.
If those things are addresed they are worthwhile, even if only to save on menpower.
- 11
- 2
Game Balance nonsense! I want realistic effects. Any game that does things for game balance than for historic accuracy is worthless!
- 54
- 4
They certainly need to be less effective than the overpowered doomsday weapons they were in HOI3. I don't mind them being situational myself, to be honest. Like jet fighters, they should be a neat and "flashy" tech, but expensive to unlock and build and not cost-effective.
Then again, I think HOI4's approach is to make all "Wunderwaffen" like super-heavy tanks and V2s actually useful and worth it.
Then again, I think HOI4's approach is to make all "Wunderwaffen" like super-heavy tanks and V2s actually useful and worth it.
- 4
- 1
What made them overpowered doomsday weapons in HOI3 were the fact you could use them as nuclear delivery vehicles. Otherwise nobody would have bothered since strategic bombing in HoI3 was pretty useless overall.
- 1
- 1
Rockets should cause more of a National Unity shock than anything else. The think people took from V1/V2 rockets wasn't their destructive power but the fear it instilled in civilians. Bombing runs could be heard and at least slightly prepared for. V2's broke the sound barrier and would hit before anyone noticed them. They were a psychological weapon more than a destructive one, and I think this would be better represented in game by a Unity hit or reduced production efficiency in that area for an amount of time etc.
- 8
Then again strategic bombing was not terribly efficient.
Look at the ressources used to cripple Germany:
Thousands of bombers escorted by thousand of fighters dropping millions of tons of bombs and still only one fourth of Germany economy fell.
- 2
the V1 and V2 should be able to do some damage provided they aren't intercepted. they sure as hell shouldn't be able to mount nukes, (that's what the V3 was going to be for) and considering how they are planes which means they use air zones, this could be accurately used to represent the poor accuracy that they (or at least the V1) had.
Jets have far outperformed piston aircraft's even in early stages of Korean war, which is in game`s timeframe more or less.
Jets should be inefficient in 1945, but by 1947-1948, they should have little problem sweeping piston engined fighters, if the numbers are present.
- 2
Dude, do you even care about things like "fun" or "losing is fun"?
On topic: I think V1 and V2 should be used as tactical super-artillery (i.e. giving bonuses to rocket artillery), like they should have been used senisbly. Or appling a debuff to provinces for targeted strikes.
In any case, I think "strategic bombing" is way, way overrated due to various historical reasons.
PS: If you are incapable of spotting the irony in the above post, ye shouldn't post such silly threads.
- 2
- 1
actually, it wasn't until korea that jet fighters became consistent in being far better than late and post-war piston fighters. before the LA-15 and MiG-15, only the german ME's were truly great at outperforming piston fighters. in fact, the earliest soviet jet fighters (yak-15 and 17) were actually slower that the last model Dornier Do.335 fighter.
- 2
- 2
Soveits were behind on jet program, and pretty much had to restart if from captured German equipment and scientists. If you want to argue that, why not take American jets?
P-80 is credited with the majority of USAF kills in early Korean war (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/100years/stories/p80.html).
Germans, if not destroyed in 1945, would have a number of new jets models and upgraded Me-262, USA would migrate to P-80 which outperformed piston fighters and was deployed in 1945.
- 2
Wiki says:
After the war, the USAAF compared the P-80 and Me 262 concluding, "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (900 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number, from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter.
well i was about to get there but i compete with my family for the computer sometimes and so my argument was left with a glaring hole in it.
more or less this. too bad german aviation was stalled for a couple decades. i'd love to see how the MEs would've turned out going into the swept wing transonic, and supersonic eras.
EDIT: oh hey, just found one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_P.1101
Last edited:
You are correct, the Soviets were behind in Jet Tech, but the British gave them their best Jet Engine, the Rolls Royce Nene. They got given Jet Engine in 1946 under the Labour government. This engine was reverse-engineered and produced as the Soviet Klimov RD-45 jet engine, subsequently incorporated into the MiG-15.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klimov_VK-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Nene
Last edited:
- 3
- 1
Well it was not the only thing. Do you fear some landing in Normandy ? Then fear not ! Murica sent 200k soldiers there, then just use your cheap V1-V2 to do some logistical bombing and that's it, Murica will not have supplies anymore. Can use the same to destroy infrastructure too, for, let's say, create bottlenecks in the supply chain (useless if your playing in harder difficulty, someone said in another thread the AI get huge bonus to supply throughput, and I noticed something like that while playing UK and reducing Southern Italy infrastructure to 1, Germany was still able to supply heavy tanks without penalty ><).
They were so cheap.... Far cheaper in the short term than heavy bombers.
Of course they are.
The V1 you can launch from a train or from a ramp much easier built than an airstrip, then launch them with reasonable accuracy at a target (about 7 miles in diamter at the end of the war which was not drastically worse than a bomber).
So yes, short term they are better.