Your Thoughts? Suggestions?

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

    • I do not feel obliged to do Eternus beckoning, but in all honesty I have great respect for the Polish and their tech. Their new tanks look great and they of course are NOT alligned to Russia and haven't been for a long time. As we are simulating tech from the 80s to today there is a strong hostorical component in this setup - that is predominately why we decided to use Eastern Doctrine.
      "Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion." Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf

    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      Sorry dude, but you outta read up on naval warfare. Battleships are obsolete since at least the 50s. r]
      Course Im not saying warships dont need guns.. just saying the age of battleships is 60 odd years ago :/
      Actually the Iowa class was recommissioned in the 1980s with updated AA Missile Systems,Guided Missiles,a Heli Deck,Modern RADAR,drones,etc. The Iowa would be good for the Western Tech while the Kirov would be good for Eastern. (The Russian navy's planning on recommissioning all 4 ships,with 1 already in service and 1 undergoing modernization already. )
      Rather than it's own line I think it'b be best suited for a 1 lvl Cruiser sub-tech.

      Eternus wrote:

      Bacon230 wrote:


      yeah, wikipiedia is answer to everything - but is not reliable source. I was always told not to quote wiki as a proof in serious discussion.
      Ya know,the beauty of Wikipedia is the fact that users require citations for all the info,so articles such as this have the info coming from multiple sources.
      "I know not what weapons WW3 will be fought, but WW4 will be fought with sticks & stones."
      -Einstein
      "Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind."
      -Kennedy
      "There's a plot in this country to enslave every man, woman and child. Before I leave this high and noble office I intend to expose this plot."
      -Kennedy,week before his asassanation

    • Bacon230 wrote:

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      Sorry dude, but you outta read up on naval warfare. Battleships are obsolete since at least the 50s. r]
      Course Im not saying warships dont need guns.. just saying the age of battleships is 60 odd years ago :/
      Actually the Iowa class was recommissioned in the 1980s with updated AA Missile Systems,Guided Missiles,a Heli Deck,Modern RADAR,drones,etc. The Iowa would be good for the Western Tech while the Kirov would be good for Eastern. (The Russian navy's planning on recommissioning all 4 ships,with 1 already in service and 1 undergoing modernization already. )Rather than it's own line I think it'b be best suited for a 1 lvl Cruiser sub-tech.

      Eternus wrote:

      Bacon230 wrote:


      yeah, wikipiedia is answer to everything - but is not reliable source. I was always told not to quote wiki as a proof in serious discussion.
      Ya know,the beauty of Wikipedia is the fact that users require citations for all the info,so articles such as this have the info coming from multiple sources.
      *facepalm* *cracks nuckles*

      The kirov class are more battlecruisers than battleships. The IOWA class, as I think I actually said all of this in discord. They were pretty useful for gulf ops. But wouldnt do very well in a modern naval engagement. Or even an engagement of the 1980s. There was no prob using them in the gulf ops as well... they can fire a lot of missiles and cause some havoc.

      But battleships are not the weapons of war today. They belong in CoW. Today most navies would make short work of an iowa class
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu

    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      *facepalm* *cracks nuckles*
      Lol

      Saying that though. The US did plan to replace the Iowa class with the Arsenal Ship concept, which later evolved into the Cruiser 21st century programme (Then never went anywhere after that). The arsenal ship was basically a large cruiser packed full of Missiles and guns. Russians have their own Heavy guided missile Cruiser the Kirov Class. And the British Royal Navy have released plans for a large displacement futuristic warship, nicknamed dreadnought to be built some time around 2050. So there is a actually potential for a class of Heavy displacement warships larger than Cruisers, such as capital ship class. But I couldn't CoN doing it with 4 types of warship already in existence with different abilities.

      But definitively not Iowa or battleships. Iowa was retrofitted with Cruise Missiles and CIWS weapons systems but it doesn't mean it was a modern capable ship in the 90's pretty much only good for shore bombardment and showering countries with Cruise Missiles (Iraq). It was just over-sized artillery for the USMC) Wouldn't stand a chance against modern Guided Missile Destroyers, Frigates or Cruisers. Unless they are stupid enough to get in within gun range.

      Here are the ships I'm talking about:
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_ship
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov-class_battlecruiser
      defensetech.org/2015/09/02/bri…hip-the-dreadnought-2050/

      2 are concept warships, the Kirov is the only one in active service.
      I would like to add that CoN does use concept military aircraft and ships.

    • Lord Aodhan wrote:

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      *facepalm* *cracks nuckles*
      Lol
      Saying that though. The US did plan to replace the Iowa class with the Arsenal Ship concept, which later evolved into the Cruiser 21st century programme (Then never went anywhere after that). The arsenal ship was basically a large cruiser packed full of Missiles and guns. Russians have their own Heavy guided missile Cruiser the Kirov Class. And the British Royal Navy have released plans for a large displacement futuristic warship, nicknamed dreadnought to be built some time around 2050. So there is a actually potential for a class of Heavy displacement warships larger than Cruisers, such as capital ship class. But I couldn't CoN doing it with 4 types of warship already in existence with different abilities.

      But definitively not Iowa or battleships. Iowa was retrofitted with Cruise Missiles and CIWS weapons systems but it doesn't mean it was a modern capable ship in the 90's pretty much only good for shore bombardment and showering countries with Cruise Missiles (Iraq). It was just over-sized artillery for the USMC) Wouldn't stand a chance against modern Guided Missile Destroyers, Frigates or Cruisers. Unless they are stupid enough to get in within gun range.

      Here are the ships I'm talking about:
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_ship
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirov-class_battlecruiser
      defensetech.org/2015/09/02/bri…hip-the-dreadnought-2050/

      2 are concept warships, the Kirov is the only one in active service.
      I would like to add that CoN does use concept military aircraft and ships.
      Really the likes of Kirov are cruisers in game. And I think the navies are fine really, Just hoping we get the Amphib assault aircraft/heli carriers.( Why this over a carrier? well acts like a mobile heli pad and allows airborne infantry operate away from homeland bases etc)

      Regarding the 2050 concept warships.. that is a good while away and things may have really changed by then. Who knows what things will be like
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu

    • Last warrior wrote:

      If NOT OK, gtfo, OK?
      that was polite, wasn't it? So you know what? GTFO yourself ;) Just don't forget to lube.

      after edition:

      Than Germanico perhaps you should consider changing some higher level units to western/european doctrine. The same to be honest could be the case for couple other countries that changed it's "doctrine" over time.

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

    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      Van Astrea wrote:

      Just Wanna Suggest or Rather Ask , If The Battleships Has Chance To get Into This Game Too..
      Display Spoiler


      Im Interested On BBs :D
      Stats Like
      High HP
      Cant Carry Nukes And Chemicals But Can Use Small Cruise Missiles
      Good For Providing Artillery Fire On Ground Vs Armored Units
      High AA Vs Fighters? (Hope So xD ) Cant Defend Vs Missiles/Torpedo
      Has Long Range w its Big Guns Or Something Like That.... :D
      .
      .
      Anyway Just My Cents
      -Zip-

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      Lord Aodhan wrote:

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      -Zip-
      -Zip-
      Ok Guys I Understand If BBs Cant Manage To Appear In Game
      , Also Pls Dun Fight Over it , Im just Asking So its Fine...
      Anyway Have Nice Day :D
      and Thanks For The Reply :3

    • UndeadSpider wrote:

      Why not add being able to send special forces, naval units or airborne units to aircraft carriers? Could be very helpful when Island hopping..
      Not naval units, but maybe airborne or special forces..

      Id like to see the Amphibious assault ships added and they can allow airborne infantry to operate in range of that, instead of a fixed air base.
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu

    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      UndeadSpider wrote:

      Why not add being able to send special forces, naval units or airborne units to aircraft carriers? Could be very helpful when Island hopping..
      Not naval units, but maybe airborne or special forces..
      Id like to see the Amphibious assault ships added and they can allow airborne infantry to operate in range of that, instead of a fixed air base.
      It's just an idea lol I figure why not try to make the game a little more realistic. This is probably one of the best games Ive ever played. Really Enjoy it. I'd enjoy being able to put units and not just planes on Aircraft Carriers, would be pretty cool crossing an ocean and drop of a few infantry units to get everything started.

    • I've only done one real combined arms invasion, but I created a stack of navy units (carrier w/ 2 strike fighters, 2x frigate, destroyer) and a stack of army units, and they moved at the same speed, so as long as they were going from the same point of origin to the same destination, the naval unit effectively escorted the army convoy.

      Having said that, maybe hosting airborne infantry should be an upgrade for a carrier?
      "The enemy cannot push a button, if you disable his hand."
      Sergeant Zim, Terran Federation

    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      Id like to see the Amphibious assault ships added and they can allow airborne infantry to operate in range of that, instead of a fixed air base.

      Yh I think the Helicopter carrier/ Amphibious assault ship is already in the works. Basically a aircraft carrier for army units and helicopters to support naval invasion. I would actually use this warship over the aircraft carrier.

      RasczakRough wrote:

      Why not just make carriers capable of hosting airborne troops?

      Using infantry from Aircraft carriers would just make the Amphibious Assault Carrier pointless. Besides despite the capability of Aircraft carriers to host light infantry units they usually don't do it unless it completely necessary. Helicopters have short range, so that would require a aircraft carrier getting closer to land where it more vulnerable to enemy air attacks and land based missiles. Helicopters/Amphibious assault ships are more expendable (Relativity speaking in terms of monetary cost) than a Fleet carrier. Modern helicopter carriers can also carry and deploy heavy Armour. Hence why they are used to support amphibious invasions. Transport Ships are very vulnerable to attack, having a better protected transport ship such a Helicopter carrier that can provide limited air support, deploy air-mobile and army divisions would be cool. Although It should carry less units than a Aircraft carrier since they are typically smaller and no fixed wing aircraft.

    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      UndeadSpider wrote:

      Why not add being able to send special forces, naval units or airborne units to aircraft carriers? Could be very helpful when Island hopping..
      Not naval units, but maybe airborne or special forces..
      Id like to see the Amphibious assault ships added and they can allow airborne infantry to operate in range of that, instead of a fixed air base.
      Yes for amphibious assault ships.
      Strong no to any land units on carriers. That would break balance and was talked already.

    • UndeadSpider wrote:

      When launching a Nuke from a ICBM I dont think that it should have a red line showing the path. I think it should be a complete suprise.
      Unless they have awacs, radar etc
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu

    • UndeadSpider wrote:

      When launching a Nuke from a ICBM I dont think that it should have a red line showing the path. I think it should be a complete suprise.Oceanhawk wrote:

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      Unless they have awacs, radar etc
      For nuclear states such as Russia and the USA, ICBM launches are usually detected by Satellites first, then tracked by early warning Radar. So unless the game brings in a Sate-little warning upgrade which warns you off Ballistic and Intercontinental Launches it should only be Radar that tracks missile flight paths. It should be a surprise for the Unprepared. Same could be said of Aircraft and Cruise Missile Launches. If you don't have a radar equipped unit you shouldn't know where they Launched/came from.

    • Lord Aodhan wrote:

      UndeadSpider wrote:

      When launching a Nuke from a ICBM I dont think that it should have a red line showing the path. I think it should be a complete suprise.Oceanhawk wrote:

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      Unless they have awacs, radar etc
      For nuclear states such as Russia and the USA, ICBM launches are usually detected by Satellites first, then tracked by early warning Radar. So unless the game brings in a Sate-little warning upgrade which warns you off Ballistic and Intercontinental Launches it should only be Radar that tracks missile flight paths. It should be a surprise for the Unprepared. Same could be said of Aircraft and Cruise Missile Launches. If you don't have a radar equipped unit you shouldn't know where they Launched/came from.
      Damn right! this is more doable with the addition of the ground radar units, and carrier based awacs
      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants
      - Thomas Jefferson

      Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
      - Milton Friedman

      Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.
      - Sun Tzu

    • Cool game I will stick around

      A couple suggestions not sure if they are already out there or not

      1) It would be nice if the Marines had the ability to somehow establish beachheads that allow for additional units to be landed amphibiously where the is no Naval base. Maybe that requires Marine engineers or something?

      2) The ability to develop satellites or long range high altitude spy planes that allow long range intel to be conducted that can be shared with Allies would be a nice touch. I would think something that takes snap shots of an area that can be shared via private message or some sort of shared intel dump that all players in the Alliance can refer to at any point in the game.

      3) just a personal preference I wish that I could zoom out further to see the entire map on my screen....maybe I am just playing on to small of a monitor.

      Aside from that I haven't really had many "I wish I had" moments in the game.