New Unit: Elite Destroyer

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • NO DESTROYERS WITHOUT COASTAL BOMBARDMENT!!!

      Lame, suggesting a capital ship weaker (indeed, totally impotent) against ground troops than a Corvette.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      NO DESTROYERS WITHOUT COASTAL BOMBARDMENT!!!

      Lame, suggesting a capital ship weaker (indeed, totally impotent) against ground troops than a Corvette



      Corvettes have mounted guns that they can shoot at troops. Helicopter carriers are carriers hull-wise and thus have no considerable weaponry. Not that it matters, as coastal bombardment is a far cry from the unit’s intended purpose
      Yee Haw
    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      NO DESTROYERS WITHOUT COASTAL BOMBARDMENT!!!

      Lame, suggesting a capital ship weaker (indeed, totally impotent) against ground troops than a Corvette



      Corvettes have mounted guns that they can shoot at troops. Helicopter carriers are carriers hull-wise and thus have no considerable weaponry. Not that it matters, as coastal bombardment is a far cry from the unit’s intended purpose

      And yet that "no considerable weaponry" can be turned on other naval craft, but not ground troops. Well doesn't matter if it's not considerably there.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      NO DESTROYERS WITHOUT COASTAL BOMBARDMENT!!!

      Lame, suggesting a capital ship weaker (indeed, totally impotent) against ground troops than a Corvette



      Corvettes have mounted guns that they can shoot at troops. Helicopter carriers are carriers hull-wise and thus have no considerable weaponry. Not that it matters, as coastal bombardment is a far cry from the unit’s intended purpose

      And yet that "no considerable weaponry" can be turned on other naval craft, but not ground troops. Well doesn't matter if it's not considerably there.
      Torpedoes are a thing that exist, you can’t use torpedoes to attack ground troops. You also can’t cram guns onto the surface of a ship designed to carry aircraft. Why would a military waste their time putting anti-surface weapons on the deck of a helicopter carrier? Again, it is not even relevant to the unit because it is not meant for coastal bombardment at all. You are arguing as if destroyers are designed to perform coastal bombardment
      Yee Haw
    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      NO DESTROYERS WITHOUT COASTAL BOMBARDMENT!!!

      Lame, suggesting a capital ship weaker (indeed, totally impotent) against ground troops than a Corvette



      Corvettes have mounted guns that they can shoot at troops. Helicopter carriers are carriers hull-wise and thus have no considerable weaponry. Not that it matters, as coastal bombardment is a far cry from the unit’s intended purpose

      And yet that "no considerable weaponry" can be turned on other naval craft, but not ground troops. Well doesn't matter if it's not considerably there.
      Torpedoes are a thing that exist, you can’t use torpedoes to attack ground troops. You also can’t cram guns onto the surface of a ship designed to carry aircraft. Why would a military waste their time putting anti-surface weapons on the deck of a helicopter carrier? Again, it is not even relevant to the unit because it is not meant for coastal bombardment at all. You are arguing as if destroyers are designed to perform coastal bombardment
      They damn sure aren't designed for helicarry, those are Amphibious assault ships, not destroyers. Any ship that can be fitted with Surface to air missiles can be fitted for surface to surface missiles. hence a ground attack
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      They damn sure aren't designed for helicarry, those are Amphibious assault ships, not destroyers. Any ship that can be fitted with Surface to air missiles can be fitted for surface to surface missiles. hence a ground attack
      Fact check - The USA's Littoral Combat Ship and the USA's Zumwalt class Destroyers were designed from the ground up to carry Helicopters (two per ship).

      Please resume debating.
    • Well I think the one of the important points in this discussion is clear. The dark "Fog of War" Water scares the shit out of every player going to bed not knowing what happened when he logs in after a nice long sleep.

      I played Rising Tides as First Nation and California. And although California is mcuh more comforatble with 7 core cities I had a better sleep as Firs tNations, knowing that i have radar statiosn along alle the water ways and any enemie wanting to ht my homeland need at least 24h passing 3-4 radar statiosn on the way. No way of sneaking up on my.

      California is horrble.I mean Hawaii...you cant defend this with any economical reasonable effort. And this leaves you with 3 other costal cities to the open ocean. When you check my statistic you will see that i have considerable high losses when it comes to heavy aircraft. Those are not bombers. Its AWACS and Naval Patrol Aircraft. I tend to lighten up the whoel ocean around me to see if something comes close enough to be any potential danger.

      As a Landlocked Nation you dont have these fears...you see every approaching army and can take countermeasures.

      If this submarine with landing pods is the right measure...i dont know. I still would prefer some defense unit that makes me sleep better and longer.

      Something like land and sea mines...they could be even deyployable from Naval Awacs (to give that unit a use)
      Alle sagten: Das geht nicht. Dann kam einer, der wusste das nicht und hat es einfach gemacht.
    • Dealer of Death wrote:

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      NO DESTROYERS WITHOUT COASTAL BOMBARDMENT!!!

      Lame, suggesting a capital ship weaker (indeed, totally impotent) against ground troops than a Corvette



      Corvettes have mounted guns that they can shoot at troops. Helicopter carriers are carriers hull-wise and thus have no considerable weaponry. Not that it matters, as coastal bombardment is a far cry from the unit’s intended purpose

      And yet that "no considerable weaponry" can be turned on other naval craft, but not ground troops. Well doesn't matter if it's not considerably there.
      Torpedoes are a thing that exist, you can’t use torpedoes to attack ground troops. You also can’t cram guns onto the surface of a ship designed to carry aircraft. Why would a military waste their time putting anti-surface weapons on the deck of a helicopter carrier? Again, it is not even relevant to the unit because it is not meant for coastal bombardment at all. You are arguing as if destroyers are designed to perform coastal bombardment
      They damn sure aren't designed for helicarry, those are Amphibious assault ships, not destroyers. Any ship that can be fitted with Surface to air missiles can be fitted for surface to surface missiles. hence a ground attack
      These EDs are fitted with missiles. They can launch cruise missiles, which are anti surface and anti ship. The destroyer variant described here is designed specifically to carry helicopters. You must remember that I am peddling an elite unit. Elite units push the limits of what is normal and realistic. The real helicopter destroyers can only really carry helis. They don’t have missiles and ASW weapons like a real destroyer. This unit is essentially that, but with actual destroyer elements that find a middle ground between the classification of destroyer and aircraft carrier. I still do not see how coastal bombardment is relevant to the unit. The Russian aircraft carriers have missiles up the wazoo, should I make a thread suggesting they get coastal bombardment too?
      Yee Haw
    • KFGauss wrote:

      Dealer of Death wrote:

      They damn sure aren't designed for helicarry, those are Amphibious assault ships, not destroyers. Any ship that can be fitted with Surface to air missiles can be fitted for surface to surface missiles. hence a ground attack
      Fact check - The USA's Littoral Combat Ship and the USA's Zumwalt class Destroyers were designed from the ground up to carry Helicopters (two per ship).
      Please resume debating.
      A Littoral Combat Ship is a Littoral Combat ship not a destroyer=disqualified, The Zumwalt can fire on ground targets, unlike this farcical Elite Destroyer which is not a destroyer.

      Please resume being wrong and obtuse.
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD
    • kurtvonstein wrote:

      The Germans used FLAK(AAGUN) for crowd control...so whats you point? Weapons can be used beyond the designed purpose...

      A submarine as aircraftcarrier and even stealth...i love it...full auf stealth helis....muaahahaha
      Can torpedoes be used for crowd control?
      The ship has no weapons on the deck, like an aircraft carrier. It has torpedoes and missiles (represented by cruise missiles)

      If cruisers have both a base attack, and a CM launch ability, we can infer that ranged attacks of surface ships are specifically with cannons. The attack doesn’t count missiles because that’s what the CM are
      Just like how attack sub ranged attack is specifically torpedoes because it’s the only way it could attack ships

      Elite Destroyer
      >Torpedoes (Attack vs vessels, can’t reach ground)
      >Missile tubes (Launch CM to land)
      >No guns, because it needs to land aircraft, therefore no ranged attack vs ground

      Remember that it’s not a submarine and can be detected by radar.
      Yee Haw
    • kurtvonstein wrote:

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      You must remember that I am peddling an elite unit. Elite units push the limits of what is normal and realistic. The real helicopter destroyers can only really carry helis.
      May I have the honor to beat you with your own words?

      You can not talk me down!
      I suggest a ship that combines the aspects of destroyers and aircraft carriers into a ship that’s a master of none
      You suggest a torpedo for killing ground units. Elite units push the limits of what is normal and realistic. Your torpedoes are out there. Implement a unusual device like this one to justify the ship having anti-ground damage? Can it just not have that damage?

      Edit: I did a quick search of your torpedoes and couldn’t find anything about them popping out of the water
      Yee Haw

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Colonel Waffles ().

    • Colonel Waffles wrote:

      kurtvonstein wrote:

      Colonel Waffles wrote:

      You must remember that I am peddling an elite unit. Elite units push the limits of what is normal and realistic. The real helicopter destroyers can only really carry helis.
      May I have the honor to beat you with your own words?
      You can not talk me down!
      I suggest a...
      NO.jpg
      *** The Creator of Zombie Farming ***
      The KING of CoN News!!!
      The "Get off my lawn!" cranky CoN Forums Poster - not affiliated with Dorado in any way


      "Death comes to us all. Shall I deal you in?" - DoD