Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文(簡体字中国語)
繁體中文(繁体字中国語)
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština(チェコ語)
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia(インドネシア語)
Magyar(ハンガリー語)
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português(ポルトガル語-ポルトガル)
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română(ルーマニア語)
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
I honestly find it disgusting that you would tell me how should i enjoy the game and what is fun and what is not fun. Nuclear weapons are major part, mayber even THE MAIN PART of cold war and it's ommision is detrament to gameplay.
I find it funny that you think nuclear torpedo is not tactical but P-700 Granit a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ flying schoolbus that outranges anything is OKEY because it's just explosives, despite the resolution being the same as with nukes, point, click, win. Arguably Granit is more "strategic weapon" then a nuclear tiped torpedo.
Also i think people here overestimates the power of nuclear tipped torpedos as the "killzone" of nuclear torpedo is a meager 1-2km (about 1 mile).
One or the other, as it cannot, without destroying immersion, be implemented into the current game setup.
Period.
What part says "we are not adding nukes"?
Am only asking where/when are they. What don't you understand you phony
See it's a win/win.
I want to make a sub hunter mission where if you don't find them in time, then it's big boom boom.
I do agree that they are not as important now this early. Other things need attention but it's nice to know you may consider them eventually.
Thank you for clarifying. Some mentioned that "the devs are distinctly against having nuclear weapons in the game." I also see it as a low priority, to be honest. However, implementing nuclear flashes, visual effects, and EMP nuclear jamming seems like a big task to leave to mods. I’d appreciate it as part of the base game for the reasons I mentioned earlier: a relatively small kill zone, its tactical nature, and its significance as a period-defining weapon.
I'd much rather see devs work on new scenarios and campaigns, additions to the unit roster, active mine warfare (minelaying/minesweeping), the ability to rescue survivors at sea, the ability for ships to render damage control assistance to other ships, more realistic implementation of CEC capabilities. I could go on. Nukes would be cool but there are so many other things I'd rather see in game first. I don't mind if devs never get around to 'em tbh
Tactical nukes are a thing.
Thank you for your much needed leadership in explaining to us how to enjoy the game we payed for. What would we do without you?
Can you help us with our other games as well? Is it permissible to enjoy stealing cars in GTA? How about flying IFR in MSFS2020? I mean, I don't have a real IFR license, can I still have fun flying in bad weather...please I beg you, teach me how to correctly play my steam library.
Oh and for the uninitiated/pedantic , it was a B-52 in the mission builder
Nukes are overkill and useless in this game other than for wow factor.
Start game, launch nukes, game over. Nuclear weapons would also be used as a last resort, not something to be used indiscriminately. Same reason they are not in Warno. Out of scope and not much use in the context the game is in.
Besides the fact most naval units had no nukes anyway besides a few rare cases.
yeah no
" We won't rule them out but they are non-trivial to implement on technical level and it's something we wouldn't be looking at until at least post 1.0 release"