Rockets will probably be in with the ability to launch nukes in them in mind. But other than that, don't expect much more wunderwaffles: the devs want the cleanest GUI possible, specially with tech. And that means leaving details out.
- 1
Wunderwaffe
- Thread starter Sharp163
- 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.
Rockets will probably be in with the ability to launch nukes in them in mind. But other than that, don't expect much more wunderwaffles: the devs want the cleanest GUI possible, specially with tech. And that means leaving details out.
Wait, we already have Luftwaffels! But I like the idea of having mega heavy tanks like the P1000.
That's what I meantI would be annoyed too if I was winning the war as UK only to see Germany use some wormhole trickery to turn the tide
Hooray! Shred ALL the roads!
Only problem with the V3 was that it was completely immobile. Once it's built, it's literally set in stone. So they've got no chance for being a tool on the front... Only places they could be of use would be across a channel (like in England) or perhaps in a Cold War...
The technology to do this probably wouldn't be seen by the end of the war... Of course they had ICBM's in World War Two (Germany wanted rockets that could hit New York), but nuclear bombs were large and heavy back then.
That's the thing, they are meant to make the UK bend to my will. I can keep the installations in the North of France and in Germany. Even if the USA invade, they are still good enough guns to repel any American invasion in England from liberating London, and they won't be able to keep any coast on France without being constantly bombarded. Add AA and air superiority to the mix, and the USA will never be able to make a move against the V3 installations. I will keep domination in Western Europe as long as Italy isn't invaded and Spain doesn't allow the USA to land their armies in it.
I could only see wunderwaffe that made sense make it into the game on release. Things like the V2 or POSSIBLY V3 rockets, or Japan's kamikaze jets (leave it at that for Japan for the sake of forum rules), and not much else due to historical plausibility.
Now, I would not be against a DLC that added more ridiculous wunderwaffe, but it should not be exclusive to Germany. All the major powers should have some form of ridiculous superweapons. Now, I am not that familiar with wunderwaffe, but I know there are plenty of examples that exist.
Now, I would not be against a DLC that added more ridiculous wunderwaffe, but it should not be exclusive to Germany. All the major powers should have some form of ridiculous superweapons. Now, I am not that familiar with wunderwaffe, but I know there are plenty of examples that exist.
- 2
I agree, still, it takes lots of wishful thinking to suppose that a jet fighter can turn the tide of the war.
Hindsight or not, you can't compare the atomic bomb with a supertank.
- 1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunderwaffe
Germany had a number of plans and prototypes that they categorized as being a "Wunderwaffe", meaning that it would be a revolutionary design unlike anything seen before.
I agree, I think this would be most suited to an awesome Wunderwaffe DLC
"What looks to be a church bell, soaring through the sky, was spotted near Nagasaki. We have no idea what this is, but our intelligence hypothesizes that this is a secret new aircraft designed by our allies in Germany called 'Die Glocke'"I agree, I think this would be most suited to an awesome Wunderwaffe DLC
[Let's hope this doesn't cause trouble] +10% chance of Illuminati
- 2
Germany used 7 guns like these V3 during the first world war, 7 gigantic guns to attack Paris. They didn't kill more than 300 people in 3 months, and though after the first attack a lot of people pannicked, it cooled down quickly. V3 themselves didn't do much damages with the few shells they had the time to fire. These weapons were and are still ineffecient, costy, and inaccurate. So I doubt it will make "England surrender" or help repeling operation Overlord.
- 4
Yeah I know, but what just because something is revolutionary and has never been seen before it does not mean that it will make you win the war.
I understand your point, from a technical point of view the jetfighter, the V2 or probably even the Mp44 might be considered wunderweapons, but too me they're not because they won't make you win the war on their on. I see nothing "wonderful" about them (well no, they were "wonderful", but not as much as the nuke).
Of these ones cited, the Mp44 is the one that can have a better impact, since it's rather affordable, and most importantly, it can be fielded in mass scale, giving you a huge advantage on infantry fighting.
- 2
- 1
Well, we're talking about WW2 tech here, and it's going to be more accurate and a greater rate of fire, plus Nazi Germany's industrial capacity to produce a huge amount of shells. It is a ultra long range artillery gun. It won't win the whole thing by itself, but it will force the enemy to spread out in order to avoid a successful hit, because a succeful hit on a concentrated "Schwerpunkt" would result in massive casualties. A shell like that hitting London would level a whole bloc, and without endangering the Luftwaffe. A weapon that cannot be stopped, with no way of prevention, would result in chaos on the populace. If a shell smashed into a factory, it would be out of commission for a few months. It's meant to softenup the target. A series of brit forts on the coast could fall in less than a day to become useless if under constant barrage by a good dozen of those guns, allowing a invasion force to land and not face an enemy entrenched in fortifications, but weary from bombardment that lasted the whole night and stuck in rubble, even if reinfroced, without having the opportunity to entrench properly due to the arty, it would be inadequate to face the invasion force. It would be a D-Day without half of the casualties for Germany. The Allies couldn't fully concentrate an invasion force in an area, but would be forced to spread out in order to avoid massive casualties. It would soften and slow down any invasion considerably, leaving a mop up force to clean up the demoralised and weary enemy.
@GhostKiller01 , the only V3 ever built was stationary, and destroyed without firing a shot by air attack.... Surely the same would happen to any more that were built, bearing in mind the lack of effectiveness of ww2 ground AA
- 2
that's why you have to keep air superiority in your own land. All you have to do is build a AA "wall" on the coast to weaken the bomber wing, and then mop up with a fighter wing. never build a bunch of AA over the provinces you want to protect, build them where the enemy bombers are sure to pass by, and hit them then. That way, you hit them twice: once when they enter, once when they leave. I does a lot more damage. And it also makes the Royal Air Force weaker every time it makes an attack in the mainland. There's no worse news than to lose a few bombers who just completed a air raid.
Did you read what I said ?
From what I read, the only time these things fired, they had the time to send approximetaly 180 shells in a few days to bombard a town in Luxembourg. And they only killed something like 250 civilians.
Is that with such a "terrific" weapon" that you're going to repel any sea invasion ?
These shells weighted only 140 kg, or 310 lbs. Compared to bombs from a heavy bomber that's pretty weak. Clearly. V2 had more explosives, anyway they were not the most effecient weapons of the war and they didn't make UK surrender. Pariser kanonen had almost the same kind of shells, anyway France didn't surrender in 1918, nor sustained heavy losses from the 367 shells fired at Paris, and they were never used against armies, always against towns, because 367 shells are nothing when you want to hit large groups of troops entrenched or dispersed like it was the case in WW1 or WW2.
And when you're saying that these are too far away in time to be compared, just wonder how much progress were done in the field of giant canons between the two wars. Considering these are weapons which were almost never used, you can easily guess there was not a big difference between a Pariser Kanonen and a V3, both had a big range (120km for a Pariser Kanonen vs 150 for a V3), the weight of explosivs was almost the same (140 kg vs 125), only the kind of explosiv used could make a big difference, but considering the canons used in Luxembourg did almost the same loss as the one used in Paris 26 years earlier, I doubt the new explosivs used are revelant.
Now, considering a V3 can fire every 3 minuts, it could be interesting, provided you can really make them fire a shot every 3 minuts. Also provided you can protect them from bombers, because they are huge target. And even during the first world war, were aviation was still pretty weak, the Pariser Kanonen were threatened by planes, and germans had to build a fake canon to protect the real one, and fire other canons at the same time to make sure UK and France would not guess where the real big canon were located (a proof of how much these big things need to be protected).
- 2
Ghost Killer, that's one hell of a rate of fire you're giving the V3...
- 1
@GhostKiller01 It's not after the appearance of 1000 lb bombs (500Kg) that the air bombs begin to be effective against buildings in a strategic manner. The shell of the V3 had 25Kg of explosive warhead, a charge more suitable to tactical attacks than strategic ones. And there is no chance that this weapon could have accuracy on the tactical level (ie, targeting a specific building, even a specific set of buildings). This kind of accuracy with rockets is simply impossible: missile technology is needed. And the amount of technology required, both in terms of aeronautics and electronics was not achievable in the time frame.
- 1
- 1
Indeed. In fact, the V3 idea was grabbed from captured French plans, dating from 1918, with the idea to create a cannon that could reply to the German cannon. The only thing that the German engineers did was to put a piston that avoided the premature detonation of the side charges, a problem that experienced the original creators of the idea in 1860. They planned to change the shell for a rocket, but they lacked the resources and the time.
Note: keep in mind that all my info comes from a quick search online.
Ok, fine I get...
The V3 was a bad idea, fuck it. You would probably need modern ballistics and explosives in order to make the V3 successful in at least doing some kind of chaos for a long time.
Might i suggest Knightmares instead?
I mean, a 4.39 meter tall steel giant weighting 7.48 metric tons, armed with an anti-tank "canon" and with great mobility would do some significant damage to any tank divisions. Plus you can also arm it with an assault "rifle" for serious anti-infantry. It's most likely way out of the technological prowess any nation could wield during WWII, but it makes for a great Wunderwaffe to use.
The V3 was a bad idea, fuck it. You would probably need modern ballistics and explosives in order to make the V3 successful in at least doing some kind of chaos for a long time.
Might i suggest Knightmares instead?
I mean, a 4.39 meter tall steel giant weighting 7.48 metric tons, armed with an anti-tank "canon" and with great mobility would do some significant damage to any tank divisions. Plus you can also arm it with an assault "rifle" for serious anti-infantry. It's most likely way out of the technological prowess any nation could wield during WWII, but it makes for a great Wunderwaffe to use.
- 3
- 1