What if we could do this??

[ddiplock]

I dont know how feasable an idea this would be, but I was thinking about it last night and was thinking it could be a cool idea, but I doubt it will be implemented.

What if we were given the option to construct rail guns on a province level?? Like the Dora Railgun the germans built. Say, you could construct rail guns in a province, and then when you go to war and invade an enemy's province, they can support your armed forces. And, naturally with them being "rail guns" you can move them around to where they are needed.

Not sure if its feasable, but, its an idea Thoughts anyone?

 

[unmerged(12990)]

Too obscure.

 

[Shadow Master]

Interesting. I forgot about those guns, but you should go and mention them in this thread, as well.

 

[Kruz]

IMHO it would be silly to have railguns in a grand strategy game centered around division size armies as their impact would be too small unless you built really large ammounts of them. Besides if they were to be added provinces would need to simulate railways in addition to normal infrastructure. Sounds like a bad idea and "too obscure" as mentioned by a previous poster. I seriously doubt we will see anything like it in Hoi3.

 

[wiguy]

I dont know how feasable an idea this would be, but I was thinking about it last night and was thinking it could be a cool idea, but I doubt it will be implemented.

What if we were given the option to construct rail guns on a province level?? Like the Dora Railgun the germans built. Say, you could construct rail guns in a province, and then when you go to war and invade an enemy's province, they can support your armed forces. And, naturally with them being "rail guns" you can move them around to where they are needed.

Not sure if its feasable, but, its an idea Thoughts anyone?

It's certainly feasable to implement. But is it really a good idea? How often would you actually produce one of those guns? The Maginot Line may benefit from it. Other than that, maybe Singapore? And how often would you build a railgun instead of constructing another group of aircraft? It would have to be unreasonably effective in order to be an alternative to more units. Of course, it has a high cool-factor, but IMO that's not enough to warrant another province improvement. It needs an icon on the map, every province needs to have another property, there's gui considerations and it requires changes to the battle algorithms. I'd rather have Paradox focus more on other stuff.
Also, rail guns weren't something everybody in ww2 had. And it was not used alot. I don't see why it should be included.

 

[Shadow Master]

Rail guns, a way cool weapon.

I wouldn't see rail guns as a province improvement, but as the ultimate in land based arty. I know that very large guns were built and used, but in very small numbers and with very slow rates of fire. Offensively, they wouldn't be able to keep up with an advancing army, but they could be used to break a siege. Defensively, they couldn't effect a mobile front to much, but would be invaluable for static lines (coasts, major river crossings, and fortified positions).

Considering the time needed to build such a weapon (the time needed to build a BB), you would have to start their construction well ahead of your need for them. I think that this was probably one of the big factors limiting their development and deployment in any significant numbers. I would think that their cost for production would be something like .5 IC/720 days.

I agree that their usefulness was not something even the Nazi's really contemplated as more than curiosity, but then again, the Nazi's wouldn't have supported their need for rail lines through conquered provinces any better than they did for supplying their forward divisions, lol.

 

[Lazy_Boy]

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard suggested.

 

[lordy80011]

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard suggested.

You've been here since Sep 2003, and THIS is the most ridiculous thing that you've heard suggested...? :rofl:

 

[unmerged(77286)]

Speaking of guns....Big Gustaff gona be implemented?

 

[Darth Tracid]

1: DON´T SPAM!!!

2: rail guns didn´t really have a big enough impact to be included in the game, neither did they really have the potential to make one.

 

[henryjai]

2: rail guns didn´t really have a big enough impact to be included in the game, neither did they really have the potential to make one.

i think instead of rail guns we an attachment called "Siege Artillery" which means some really serious big guns (like those in WW1). Primarily to break stalemate/fortifications by making them able to inflict crazy damage...and perhaps lower enemy civilian morale when sieging a city with crazy arty....



this would give the game some WW1 elements what if Germany don't go blitzkrieg and spam big guns?...

 

[MagisterMundi]

i think instead of rail guns we an attachment called "Siege Artillery" which means some really serious big guns (like those in WW1). Primarily to break stalemate/fortifications by making them able to inflict crazy damage...and perhaps lower enemy civilian morale when sieging a city with crazy arty....



this would give the game some WW1 elements what if Germany don't go blitzkrieg and spam big guns?...

They would have lost even worse, lol. But the whole "heavy artillery" thing isn't a bad idea. Not entirely sure it's necessary, though...