Overall Overhaul!

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

    • Overall Overhaul!

      Hey (Def members, and other forum users).
      It is quite problematic to realise that the stealth bomber of the Russian doctrine, the Tupolev Tu-PAK DA is supersonic. The max bomber of the Russian Doctrine as well as the 2nd bomber in the Russian Doctrine can go supersonic. Isn't it ironic to find a Mach 2 bomber going slower than a Mach 1 fighter jet?! I say, WE NEED A REVOLUTION! ^^
      Each doctrine should be different, so that each unit's specifications are different. If you end up with a subsonic bomber, then the speed value should be subsonic. If you end up with a supersonic bomber, then the speed value should be supersonic. (I'm sorry, EU. Just very sorry) If you end up with a subsonic fighter, then the speed value SHOULD NOT be over the speed value of a supersonic bomber!

      Now, some relief for the EU.
      If you do decide to do that, you might as well just open up a black market. Say you could buy yourself any unit (for an expensive price, of course. At least 4 times the price) which belongs to another doctrine or another lvl. This will certainly make me happier.

      -- Insurgent
      Why no railgun?
    • Also, we need an:

      OVERALL OVERHAUL!

      It has came to my attention that EU doesn't really have nice bombers, so this is why I introduce my concept...

      THE BLACK MARKET!

      Used for all your needs. Priced 4 times more than regular units, you can buy anything in any doctrine in any part of the level tree. ~Instant delivery on your capitol!
      ~A building that you can ONLY build in your capitol!
      ~You can sell your units too! (If somebody wants to buy it, of course)
      ~Black Background!
      ~Great Taste


      Um...
      Also:
      DOCTRINE DIFFERENCE!

      Every doctrine should have their special units and their special properties. It is very important that a subsonic EU bomber doesn't have the same speed value as a Mach 2 Tu-160 Blackjack!
      I SAY, EVERY UNIT IN ANY DOCTRINE SHOULD BE DIFFERENT!!! :P

      Um....
      Aerial Refuellers!!!!

      Unfortunately, I suffer from a symptom called "I can't reach that enemy tank from my airbase with my Lvl. 7 strike fighters!"
      I NEED AERIAL REFUELLERS
      With an influence circle, any aircraft that enters it sticks in the sphere like a flying aircraft carrier, where you can launch y'all planes!
      Except that the aerial refuellers should have a really horrible range like 500 km.
      US Aerial Refuellers: McDonnell Douglas KC-10 Extender
      EU Aerial Refuellers: Vickers VC-10 (Yay! 10 will be my new favourite number if you add them into the game)
      Russian Aerial Refuellers: Ilyushin Il-78

      Um.....
      New BOMBERS!
      I believe that the EU need a bomber overhaul, so I used all my brain nerves to come up with bombers for EU!
      EU Bombers:
      Avro Vulcan --> Dassault Mirage 2000N --> Panavia Tornado IDS
      EU Stealth Bomber: BAE Systems Taranis

      That's it. Please please please make sure some of that list is added into the game PLEASE!!!!
      Why no railgun?
    • I cant believe your name is "boeing" and you know close to nothing about planes...

      the hell are you on about? Vulcan - Mirage 2000N - Tornado IDS ?


      In what way would you even think that the Tornado is in the same role as a B-52 bomber?





      Go learn some things about planes first buddy... cos you just really embarrassed yourself


      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
    • BoeingJet wrote:

      The EU really needs a change.

      Oh, also US, Nazi Germany and Russia aircraft and missile programs are my speciality, and I am not good at remembering other names (not my fault)


      How about you. Could you do better?
      What are you on about?

      Bombers are more or less obsolete... I already recommended adding the French Mirage IV as a replacement for Tier 1 bomber. It fits much better than the current Valiant.




      But your suggestions were really silly dude. Anyway, they dont need a change. Not much needs fixing here, Id just like to see more units added
      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
    • BoeingJet wrote:

      Still. It disturbs me to see that the EU bombers are all retired. MUST HAVE NEW BOMBERS!!!
      Why must have new bombers? they are obsolete unless you are America or Russia really....

      UK and France retired them for a pretty simply reason.... SLBMs are a much better deterrent
      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
    • In CON, bombers play an important role in attacking a target which your strike fighters could not go. Also, I find bombers very useful (for their large hit points and attack against infantry, which is the most important part of an army).

      So... New and improved list:

      US: Boeing B-52H Stratofortress ----> North American XB-70 Valkyrie ----> Rockwell B-1B Lancer
      EU: Avro Vulcan ----> Avro 730 (I know, tenacious) ----> Dassault Mirage 2000N
      Russian: Tupolev Tu-95 Bear ----> Sukhoi T-4 ----> Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack

      I want to make sure that each bomber can achieve the same potential. The first generation bombers should be subsonic, and so that the speed value is equal. The third generation bombers are Mach 3~, and so the speed value would be almost equal while the third generation bombers are Mach 2~ with RCS reduction. Weaker radar units could not detect it.




      First generation bombers: The B-52H, Vulcan and the Bear are subsonic unit. For the B-52H, the unit speed will be 8.4, the Vulcan would be 9.1 while the Bear would be 8.3. which means that they are as fast as our current CON bombers.

      Second generation bombers: The XB-70, Avro 730 and T-4 are supersonic units. They could achieve Mach 3± speeds, while all are able to supercruise at Mach 3. For the XB-70, the unit speed will be 32, the Avro 730 would be 32 as well while the T-4 would be 32 as well. These would be much faster than the current bombers.

      Third generation bombers: The B-1B, Mirage 2000N and the Blackjack are supersonic units. They could achieve Mach 2± speeds but is unable to supercruise. These have a reduced RCS design. Also, they would be subsonic for ferrying, but supersonic for attacking. For the B-1B, the unit speed would be 23 while fighting, with a unit speed of 11 ferrying. The Mirage 2000N's unit speed would be 23 while fighting, and 12 ferrying. The Blackjack's unit speed would be 22 while fighting, with a unit speed of 9.6 while ferrying. These would be pretty powerful against SAMs while providing a safe platform to launch cruise missiles from.
      Why no railgun?
    • For stealth bombers, fighters and strike fighters, I would like to file a complain.

      Stealth units are underrated. They are undetectable by early radar forces, yet they don't seem to have improved much from previous units. Also, they couldn't be further upgraded..

      Oh. And one new thing:

      Nuclear bombers

      Nuclear bombers were researched by the superpowers during the Cold War. These were interesting since they have infinite range, but extremely expensive to create. Realistically in CON, nuclear bombers should have huge range, and should not need to land while patrolling a certain area. They should be subsonic if it were to be added.

      US and EU Nuclear Bombers:
      Convair X-6 ----> Reactor Downsizing (Increased missile payload and bomb payload) ----> Passive Cooling (Increased Range) ----> WS-125 (The ACTUAL bomber that was supposed to be designated as B-72)

      Russia Nuclear Bombers:
      Tupolev Tu-95LAL ----> Reactor Downsizing (Increased missile payload and bomb payload) ----> Passive Cooling (Increased Range) ----> Myasishchev M-60

      The last nuclear bomber upgrade should be supersonic. I believe that this should be unlocked on Day 37, with a 2 day gap between each upgrade.

      The research time for each upgrade should be 2 days, costing 5000 rare resources. This will mean that it would take the nations a long time to research the nuclear bomber.

      Each nuclear bomber should cost 7500 rare resources each, but each day's daily upkeep should be just food, the same to nuclear submarines.

      The Convair X-6 and Tupolev Tu-95LAL should have a range of 10,000 km, but doesn't leave the sky while on patrol. It should also be able to patrol a 1000 km radius circle, just like during the Cold War.

      The active cooling upgrade allows the range to increase to 20,000 km, like the ICBM.

      The WS-125 and Myasishchev M-60 should have supersonic performance (Unit speed for both would be 12)
      Why no railgun?

      The post was edited 2 times, last by BoeingJet ().

    • I had to stop reading, cos I could feel the stupidness coming through my screen.

      The bombers are fine, I really dont understand at all the point ur trying to make.. I said bombers are no longer a focus IRL... in game is something very different. Course they useful in game, and they are fine...

      now stop proposing the Mirage for the European bomber, cos you sound soo stupid
      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
    • Why do you think strategic bombing is unimportant? It had been quite important during the WWII, and it provides the only stealth nuclear deterrence platform. It could destroy targets across the globe. Only it could carry armaments large enough to destroy strategic targets i.e. Industrial complexes. Not even electronic warfare could deal against light bunkers, but strategic bombers can. Even though nowadays a lot of strategic bombers are converted into anti-ship or attack aircrafts, strategic bombers could still play an important role in warfare. Do you really think that surgical bombings could "surgically" remove huge targets?! Do you really think that an teeny little F-35B Lightning II could carry a GBU-43 to destroy tunnels?! No! They would carry "Paveways" to destroy the tunnels ONE by ONE. That is exactly why we need the strategic bombers ; To bomb its target back to the stone age with all their bombs!

      In CON, if you are having more than 2 wars going on at the same time, and you just want to focus on one, you could use strategic bombers to blow up all your opponent's infrastructures and units stationed at the city before you have the army and time to invade the area. I like patrolling an area I would like to invade with Strike Fighters, to remove the infantry and tanks. If I see some sort of heavy ground resistance, I send in my 27 stealth bombers.
      Why no railgun?
    • BoeingJet wrote:

      Why do you think strategic bombing is unimportant? It had been quite important during the WWII, and it provides the only stealth nuclear deterrence platform. It could destroy targets across the globe. Only it could carry armaments large enough to destroy strategic targets i.e. Industrial complexes. Not even electronic warfare could deal against light bunkers, but strategic bombers can. Even though nowadays a lot of strategic bombers are converted into anti-ship or attack aircrafts, strategic bombers could still play an important role in warfare. Do you really think that surgical bombings could "surgically" remove huge targets?! Do you really think that an teeny little F-35B Lightning II could carry a GBU-43 to destroy tunnels?! No! They would carry "Paveways" to destroy the tunnels ONE by ONE. That is exactly why we need the strategic bombers ; To bomb its target back to the stone age with all their bombs!

      In CON, if you are having more than 2 wars going on at the same time, and you just want to focus on one, you could use strategic bombers to blow up all your opponent's infrastructures and units stationed at the city before you have the army and time to invade the area. I like patrolling an area I would like to invade with Strike Fighters, to remove the infantry and tanks. If I see some sort of heavy ground resistance, I send in my 27 stealth bombers.
      Firstly, you said it very well... "It had been quite important during WW2" ... Air warfare has changed a lot, a single F-15 can carry something like twice the load of most of the lancasters. If strategic bombers still played such a vital role as you propose they do, why is it that only Russia and America make them? Seriously dude, you must know some things that Whitehall and Balard Site dont know. Theywill be all over you looking for your knowledge....

      Warefare has changed, strategic bombers were needed by the UK for dropping nukes in Russia... they dont need bombers anymore as Submarine Launched Ballistic missiles are a much better alternative (pls dont make me have to explain why, I already lost a lot of respect for ya) . Hence they retired the Vulcan bombers. The F-35 is the biggest failure of an aircraft so I wouldnt recommend that for any armed forces. The Brits would use the legendary tornado and drop some paveways.
      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
    • Here's the problem.
      Not all wars are nuclear wars.
      SLBMs are designed to carrier large nuclear payload i.e. 10 ≥ MIRVs. Also, they could not do stealth. Once it clears the ocean and fires it's rocket boosters, even the oldest surveying satellites would detect that launch (unless you put your missiles in a volcano, and fake the launch as a volcanic eruption)
      Furthermore, it could only carry nuclear payloads. It is completely unnecessary to equip SLBMs or ICBMs with conventional warheads since it would be a waste of money. Bombers, on the other hand, can be reused several hundred times and is MUCH cheaper than SLBMs. Bombers have a larger variety of loads, from nukes to Mk.82 multi-purpose bombs.

      One more request:
      Paratroopers.
      Able to conquer territory, these "weaker" versions of Airmobile Divisions. They have longer range (half as long as the strategic airlift range) and have slightly more health than airmobile divisions.
      Why no railgun?

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

    • Oceanhawk wrote:

      BoeingJet wrote:

      Why do you think strategic bombing is unimportant? It had been quite important during the WWII, and it provides the only stealth nuclear deterrence platform. It could destroy targets across the globe. Only it could carry armaments large enough to destroy strategic targets i.e. Industrial complexes. Not even electronic warfare could deal against light bunkers, but strategic bombers can. Even though nowadays a lot of strategic bombers are converted into anti-ship or attack aircrafts, strategic bombers could still play an important role in warfare. Do you really think that surgical bombings could "surgically" remove huge targets?! Do you really think that an teeny little F-35B Lightning II could carry a GBU-43 to destroy tunnels?! No! They would carry "Paveways" to destroy the tunnels ONE by ONE. That is exactly why we need the strategic bombers ; To bomb its target back to the stone age with all their bombs!

      In CON, if you are having more than 2 wars going on at the same time, and you just want to focus on one, you could use strategic bombers to blow up all your opponent's infrastructures and units stationed at the city before you have the army and time to invade the area. I like patrolling an area I would like to invade with Strike Fighters, to remove the infantry and tanks. If I see some sort of heavy ground resistance, I send in my 27 stealth bombers.
      Firstly, you said it very well... "It had been quite important during WW2" ... Air warfare has changed a lot, a single F-15 can carry something like twice the load of most of the lancasters. If strategic bombers still played such a vital role as you propose they do, why is it that only Russia and America make them? Seriously dude, you must know some things that Whitehall and Balard Site dont know. Theywill be all over you looking for your knowledge....
      Warefare has changed, strategic bombers were needed by the UK for dropping nukes in Russia... they dont need bombers anymore as Submarine Launched Ballistic missiles are a much better alternative (pls dont make me have to explain why, I already lost a lot of respect for ya) . Hence they retired the Vulcan bombers. The F-35 is the biggest failure of an aircraft so I wouldnt recommend that for any armed forces. The Brits would use the legendary tornado and drop some paveways.
      Well, what about non-nukes?
      Why no railgun?
    • Off the cuff because I do not feel like googling it but does the EU have a large SLBM fleet? Or since they are typically part of NATO they largely rely on the US to supply that? Thus they can retire their strategic bombers to reduce costs. The US simply spends a hell of a lot more than anymore else on everything. We were going to retire our own strategic bombers till some dude decided to invade Kuwait, yes I know the guys name. Point is the US did not retire them because it found a need for them in a conventional war. B1s were intended for cold war nuclear options as was the B2.

      And yes in game I find them invaluable. I am amazed how many by reading the global chat want to go straight to nuclear. I have yet to get even chemical but I find my two wings of White Swans invaluable as I use then to kill off the ability of opposition to resist. I just finished my most bloody conflict yet. Largely due to most of my Air Force unable to assist ground troops but several times my White Swans had to come to just decimate some city to end the opposer's Air Force by largely destroying airbases. I am looking to build a few stealth bomber wings next and as well as move the WSs to 5 bombers in each wing.
      Ain't Nothing But A Thing!
    • BoeingJet wrote:

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      BoeingJet wrote:

      Why do you think strategic bombing is unimportant? It had been quite important during the WWII, and it provides the only stealth nuclear deterrence platform. It could destroy targets across the globe. Only it could carry armaments large enough to destroy strategic targets i.e. Industrial complexes. Not even electronic warfare could deal against light bunkers, but strategic bombers can. Even though nowadays a lot of strategic bombers are converted into anti-ship or attack aircrafts, strategic bombers could still play an important role in warfare. Do you really think that surgical bombings could "surgically" remove huge targets?! Do you really think that an teeny little F-35B Lightning II could carry a GBU-43 to destroy tunnels?! No! They would carry "Paveways" to destroy the tunnels ONE by ONE. That is exactly why we need the strategic bombers ; To bomb its target back to the stone age with all their bombs!

      In CON, if you are having more than 2 wars going on at the same time, and you just want to focus on one, you could use strategic bombers to blow up all your opponent's infrastructures and units stationed at the city before you have the army and time to invade the area. I like patrolling an area I would like to invade with Strike Fighters, to remove the infantry and tanks. If I see some sort of heavy ground resistance, I send in my 27 stealth bombers.
      Firstly, you said it very well... "It had been quite important during WW2" ... Air warfare has changed a lot, a single F-15 can carry something like twice the load of most of the lancasters. If strategic bombers still played such a vital role as you propose they do, why is it that only Russia and America make them? Seriously dude, you must know some things that Whitehall and Balard Site dont know. Theywill be all over you looking for your knowledge....Warefare has changed, strategic bombers were needed by the UK for dropping nukes in Russia... they dont need bombers anymore as Submarine Launched Ballistic missiles are a much better alternative (pls dont make me have to explain why, I already lost a lot of respect for ya) . Hence they retired the Vulcan bombers. The F-35 is the biggest failure of an aircraft so I wouldnt recommend that for any armed forces. The Brits would use the legendary tornado and drop some paveways.
      Well, what about non-nukes?
      Non nukes what?
      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
    • DevinMacGregor wrote:

      Off the cuff because I do not feel like googling it but does the EU have a large SLBM fleet? Or since they are typically part of NATO they largely rely on the US to supply that? Thus they can retire their strategic bombers to reduce costs. The US simply spends a hell of a lot more than anymore else on everything. We were going to retire our own strategic bombers till some dude decided to invade Kuwait, yes I know the guys name. Point is the US did not retire them because it found a need for them in a conventional war. B1s were intended for cold war nuclear options as was the B2.

      And yes in game I find them invaluable. I am amazed how many by reading the global chat want to go straight to nuclear. I have yet to get even chemical but I find my two wings of White Swans invaluable as I use then to kill off the ability of opposition to resist. I just finished my most bloody conflict yet. Largely due to most of my Air Force unable to assist ground troops but several times my White Swans had to come to just decimate some city to end the opposer's Air Force by largely destroying airbases. I am looking to build a few stealth bomber wings next and as well as move the WSs to 5 bombers in each wing.
      The EU has no SLBM Fleet

      Firstly, SLBM stands for Submarine Launch Ballistic missiles, nobody has a "fleet" of those... you mean a fleet of ballistic missile submarines.
      And No the EU do not have a fleet of Ballistic Missile submarines. Now The royal navy do. They have had 3 generations of ballistic missile submarines and have recently renewed them. They currently operate 4 Vanguard class ballistic missile submarines which 1 is always operating at sea. They are now constructing the even better Dreadnought class.

      Meanwhile in France, they have the most expensive ballistic missile submarine. More expensive than the American and British submarines. Triomphant class they are called, and again like the UK they always have one at sea.



      As for the bombers, dont have them in a group of 5. Always in multiplies of 3. 3,6,9
      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:

      BoeingJet wrote:

      Oceanhawk wrote:

      BoeingJet wrote:

      Why do you think strategic bombing is unimportant? It had been quite important during the WWII, and it provides the only stealth nuclear deterrence platform. It could destroy targets across the globe. Only it could carry armaments large enough to destroy strategic targets i.e. Industrial complexes. Not even electronic warfare could deal against light bunkers, but strategic bombers can. Even though nowadays a lot of strategic bombers are converted into anti-ship or attack aircrafts, strategic bombers could still play an important role in warfare. Do you really think that surgical bombings could "surgically" remove huge targets?! Do you really think that an teeny little F-35B Lightning II could carry a GBU-43 to destroy tunnels?! No! They would carry "Paveways" to destroy the tunnels ONE by ONE. That is exactly why we need the strategic bombers ; To bomb its target back to the stone age with all their bombs!

      In CON, if you are having more than 2 wars going on at the same time, and you just want to focus on one, you could use strategic bombers to blow up all your opponent's infrastructures and units stationed at the city before you have the army and time to invade the area. I like patrolling an area I would like to invade with Strike Fighters, to remove the infantry and tanks. If I see some sort of heavy ground resistance, I send in my 27 stealth bombers.
      Firstly, you said it very well... "It had been quite important during WW2" ... Air warfare has changed a lot, a single F-15 can carry something like twice the load of most of the lancasters. If strategic bombers still played such a vital role as you propose they do, why is it that only Russia and America make them? Seriously dude, you must know some things that Whitehall and Balard Site dont know. Theywill be all over you looking for your knowledge....Warefare has changed, strategic bombers were needed by the UK for dropping nukes in Russia... they dont need bombers anymore as Submarine Launched Ballistic missiles are a much better alternative (pls dont make me have to explain why, I already lost a lot of respect for ya) . Hence they retired the Vulcan bombers. The F-35 is the biggest failure of an aircraft so I wouldnt recommend that for any armed forces. The Brits would use the legendary tornado and drop some paveways.
      Well, what about non-nukes?
      Non nukes what?
      Like conventional warfare. (almost wrote warefare)

      Bombers are capable of both delivering conventional bombs AND nuclear bombs stealthily without much detection. True, ICBMs can launch large amount of nuclear weapons, but is EXTREMELY noticeable. Even though it's really difficult for the enemy to intercept, they could still place most of their population into bunkers before the nukes strike or at least evacuate the affected areas.

      Stealth nuclear bombers wouldn't. It would be quick and stealthy, and the enemy will have no time to react whatsoever other than launching their own ICBMs, but you still have time to rush everything to the bunker.

      Stealth ICBMs are not very "plausible" because the temperature achieved through launch is incredible, and certainly would be detected.
      Why no railgun?