V1 and V2 rocket Should be very ineffective

[Axe99]

My impression of the V weapons was that they were reasonably effective for broad-based 'bombing' an area, and that applied in number they could have been just as effective as massed strategic bombing raids. The Allies (particularly the British, given the targets!) devoted a fair bit of effort to shooting down V1s.

 

[Noel84]

Game Balance nonsense! I want realistic effects. Any game that does things for game balance than for historic accuracy is worthless!

You're right. There should only be four buttons, pause, play, fast forward and rewind as you watch WWII unfold. Anything beyond that is for game balance rather than historic accuracy and is therefore worthless .

 

[Secret Master]

Otherwise nobody would have bothered since strategic bombing in HoI3 was pretty useless overall.

Strategic bombing was only useless when done improperly. I can kill every single IC and resource in range of my bombers as long as I combine it with infrastructure bombing so the repair work is slow.

You can't win the war with strategic bombing, though, so you can't just bet on air power.

On the other hand, V weapons could do logistics bombing, so they were doomsday weapons even without nukes. Who needs strategic bombing or nukes when I can lay waste to 100% of the infrastructure in, say, a 500 mile radius at the touch of a button?

 

[safe-keeper]

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.

That, too. But it was also that they damaged, as far as I remember, everything in the province they hit. A single rocket simultaneously hitting numerous factories, airfields, AA batteries, and ports in the same province isn't very realistic. Then again, you could say they represented "volleys" of V2s, the same way we had "wings" of strategic bombers.

Edit: and as Secret Master says, strategic bomber was incredibly powerful in HOI3. Being able to shut down mainland British industry, airfields, ports, and other infrastructure completely is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[LordOfWar16]

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.

That also had the effect that you can hide the ramps somewhat in the forrest for example. Massive airstrips are a prime target for bombers of course and can easiely be damaged to a point where starting with planes is impossible.


To OP:
V1 could be intercepted if spotted early enough and be brought down, yes. V2, if adjusted accordingly were a extremely dangerous and deadly weapon that you wont hear comming nor will you be able to defend yourself against them. Bombers only deliver a limited payload aswell and can be shot down, i.e need escort to protect them, binding alot more resources to deliver the payload than with a V2 for example. The psychological effect was enorm aswell, since again, you cant defend against them. If they were more relieable and accurate and if they were produced in larger quantities they would have been a extremely dangerous weapon that couldnt be intercepted. All the allies could have done is find and destroy the V2 Bases in the middle of forests and in underground bunkers.

 

[Nicolas I]

Rockets should cause more of a National Unity shock than anything else...

Is it just me, but in HOI3 when my German V1 were intercepted over UK it would trigger a City Blitz Lost event and I would lose -0.1 National Unity !!!

The more I bombed, the more my National Unity would sink, go figure...

 

[RELee]

Game Balance nonsense! I want realistic effects. Any game that does things for game balance than for historic accuracy is worthless!

 

[ZuperHyperZam]

Game Balance nonsense! I want realistic effects. Any game that does things for game balance than for historic accuracy is worthless!

Then dont buy the game. It is as simple as that. We are not forcing you to buy the game. Have a nice day

 

[GundamMerc]

Then dont buy the game. It is as simple as that. We are not forcing you to buy the game. Have a nice day

Hate to rain on your snide comment parade, but he was posting in sarcasm.

 

[Zaku]

Game Balance nonsense! I want realistic effects. Any game that does things for game balance than for historic accuracy is worthless!

You can mod the game then, or don't play with it.
For most people game balance is more important then historical accuracy in a video game.

 

[Mannstien]

I'm no rocket scientist but based on a couple of notes from wiki, they are a fun to have pointless to research weapon if we are talking WW2, despite the below fact regarding the cost of the project the other problem with the V2's were not having a proximity fuse which limited their effectiveness when they hit and though they were in relative terms much less accurate than bomb's dropping from 25 or 30 thousand feet in the air they were to expensive to saturate a target area to making them effective in their design.

The German V-weapons (V-1 and V-2) cost the equivalent of around USD $40 billion (2015 dollars), which was 50 per cent more than the Manhattan Project that produced the atomic bomb.[11]:178 6,048 V-2s were built, at a cost of approximately 100,000 Reichsmarks (GB£2,370,000 (2011)) each; 3,225 were launched.

Personally, late game like if I'm in 46' and winning as Germany maybe I'll go down the rocket path but otherwise strategic bombers without the A bomb were a more effective measure from a military perspective in providing the results. I'm not going into the A bomb debate but it as well for it's cost can be just as easily argued not to be the war winning weapon in game terms unless your the US, SU, or UK and if money were a factor I would say the UK's own bombs would been developed deeply with the US because of their economic situation by 1944-45.

 

[Daddl]

You're right. There should only be four buttons, pause, play, fast forward and rewind as you watch WWII unfold. Anything beyond that is for game balance rather than historic accuracy and is therefore worthless .

To be fair, I would spend hours watching a HoI savegame "movie" where everything is strictly a historical replay with strict historical units doing the exact thing they did historically, tweaked so the outcome is exactly what really happened.
If something like that existed.

 

[Mannstien]

To be fair, I would spend hours watching a HoI savegame "movie" where everything is strictly a historical replay with strict historical units doing the exact thing they did historically, tweaked so the outcome is exactly what really happened.
If something like that existed.

+1

 

[Noel84]

To be fair, I would spend hours watching a HoI savegame "movie" where everything is strictly a historical replay with strict historical units doing the exact thing they did historically, tweaked so the outcome is exactly what really happened.
If something like that existed.

To each their own I guess

 

[mursolini]

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.

Yes, but that hardly invalidates my point, which was that USAF was pretty much the only (bar GB) air force that actually had continuous development of jets from 1943 to 1950, hence it makes sense to take them as an example of what late game jet could do.

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

I don`t think we really disagree that given another 2-3 years to work out the problems, Me-262, P-80 or what ever Soviet&British jets name would be vastly superior to piston fighters, and economically viable as replacement.

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

True, but Soviet first proper jet fighter was literally a copy of Me-262, after which Soviet aviation went it`s own way. Soviets didn`t invest into jets nearly as much during the war, which is hardly a shock considering their dire situation in 1941-1943.

That said, before the war, SU actually invested heavily into rockets and jets, hence why it is important to remember that the gap in Soviet tech was created by German invasion.

 

[aruon]

True, but Soviet first proper jet fighter was literally a copy of Me-262

kinda incorrect. while yes the BMW 003 used by the MiG-9 came off the Heinkel 162, and the Junkers Jumo 004 used by the Yak-15 and 17 came from the me-262, they were utilized in the most insane configuration possible by having the engine block underneath the front of the fuselage, and the exhaust about 1/3rd of the way. even when they figured out how to keep the underside of the fuselage from burning they still never really solved the problem of melting runways. hell they should've just copied the me-262 like the japanese did! at least the MiG-9 was a solid fighter though.


MiG-9

Yak-17

 

[Beefbomber]

kinda incorrect. while yes the BMW 003 used by the MiG-9 came off the Heinkel 162, and the Junkers Jumo 004 used by the Yak-15 and 17 came from the me-262, they were utilized in the most insane configuration possible by having the engine block underneath the front of the fuselage, and the exhaust about 1/3rd of the way. even when they figured out how to keep the underside of the fuselage from burning they still never really solved the problem of melting runways. hell they should've just copied the me-262 like the japanese did! at least the MiG-9 was a solid fighter though.


MiG-9

Yak-17

The Aircraft he is talking about is the Sukhoi Su-9 (Correct me if I'm wrong)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-9_(1946)

 

[Denkt]

I think rockets in the game should play a similar role as synthetical plant. Expensive but more dependable then bombers if you need to bomb a well defended area.

 

[CharlieFox]

Regardless of their historical efficiency, V1 and V2 should have its use in Hoi IV. They should probably be a good alternative to strategic bombing when you can't achieve air superiority and attempting strategic bombing would result in many of your bombers and escorts fighters being shot down.

 

[Mannstien]

Regardless of their historical efficiency, V1 and V2 should have its use in Hoi IV. They should probably be a good alternative to strategic bombing when you can't achieve air superiority and attempting strategic bombing would result in many of your bombers and escorts fighters being shot down.

I would agree with that, but I just want to add for potential commanders of the Rocket programs to realize it's not a one for one, and I think if not the beta testers but the folks that purchase the game will decide if the cost of the Rocket program is at least somewhat on par with the costs of it. For gameplay perspectives Germany should get Werner Von Braun (a figure head for the other brilliant engineers) as an architect that no other state gets to boost this technology (Might be there already but I don't know) while the Allies nor SU get this bonus. Otherwise the UK, US, and or USSR will dominate in a typical WW2 scenario because of their research speed and ability.