A ship that fires cruise missiles.

[bollocks]

REFDOR has those artillary boats, why not have ships equipped with medium-long ranged cruise missiles?

[Callsign_RABBIT™]

How would it be implemented though? Consider that a cruise missile hitting a ship is almost always an instant kill which would be difficult to balance. Cruise missiles arent used in close-medium range combat in real life either, the range of maps in Wargame are too small for them to be properly used, they are mainly used for hitting static positions at great distances but unlike ICBM's and the alike, they stay within the atmosphere. What is it your thinking here bud?

[bollocks]

Originally posted by Callsign_RABBIT:

How would it be implemented though? Consider that a cruise missile hitting a ship is almost always an instant kill which would be difficult to balance. Cruise missiles arent used in close-medium range combat in real life either, the range of maps in Wargame are too small for them to be properly used, they are mainly used for hitting static positions at great distances but unlike ICBM's and the alike, they stay within the atmosphere. What is it your thinking here bud?

What, cruise missile ships can be used irl to fire off the coast to hit targets inland. it's about as realistic as the artillary we have in game.
Just to clarify, I'm talking about using them to hit ground targets. They could have HE power, maybe 10 per missile or something, with bursts of 8 per reload. And yes, they could have a minimal range.

[Xenophon]

i wondered this as well

naval should have more of a role in supporting the ground forces

[Callsign_RABBIT™]

Originally posted by David:

Originally posted by Callsign_RABBIT:

How would it be implemented though? Consider that a cruise missile hitting a ship is almost always an instant kill which would be difficult to balance. Cruise missiles arent used in close-medium range combat in real life either, the range of maps in Wargame are too small for them to be properly used, they are mainly used for hitting static positions at great distances but unlike ICBM's and the alike, they stay within the atmosphere. What is it your thinking here bud?

What, cruise missile ships can be used irl to fire off the coast to hit targets inland. it's about as realistic as the artillary we have in game.
Just to clarify, I'm talking about using them to hit ground targets. They could have HE power, maybe 10 per missile or something, with bursts of 8 per reload. And yes, they could have a minimal range.

Sorry, my bad, I see what you mean now. I mistook you for wanting cruise missiles for ship combat. Cruise missiles would be pretty awesome in-game to be able to use for supporting ground combat but, again, I fear the maps arent big enough, cruise missiles are supposed to be a long range, highly accurate weapons system that takes out static defenses and structures such as buildings and encampments. Considering the range of cruise missiles for the Uk and the US nears 1000km, what would be the point of introducing cruise missiles to destroy only vehicles? The Dutch Lance is a perfect example of why cruise missiles just wouldnt work, such a limited use....

[IRDCAM]

Most modern Naval combat is over the horizon stuff when it comes to 500mile ranged 'Cruise Missiles', which are far more 'strategic' than tactical. The Soviets as well as US fielded these missiles on submarines, shipboard and air craft. Read Red Storm Rising for an example of over the horizon Cruise missile warfare with submarine, shipboard and air launched cruise missiles, though fiction well researched. And modern CWS systems will kill the larger cruise missiles at a far better rate than the smaller Harpoon type systems.

And contrary to popular belief these cruise missiles do not guarentee 1 hit one ship sunk results. A US Carrier will take 3-4 hits, preferably waterline, but big fires will do, the bigger 'cruiser' types US and Soviet/Russian 2-3 good waterline hits.

US Tomahawk series does have and did have rudimentary GPS mavigation, set co-ordinant of target, and missle does the resy guided only by it's internal GPS. Soviets used a reworked gyroscopic/timed navigation system simular to the V-1 'buzz bomb' of WW2.

Both nations saw the cruise missile as too expensive for the HE 'boom' delivered for over ground use. Put a Nuke in there, different story.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally posted by mouadood:

Devs said no strategical weapons.

Which is incredibly lazy, IMO. Wargame loses out on so much potential to really set itself apart because it's a WW3 game that plays like WW2.

[IRDCAM]

Modern Naval Warfare is fought over the horizon, which would translate in game as the ships not even on the maps. So if you wanted to fight WW3 in game scale no ships would be on the map.
Gun and anti-ship missiles are far too short ranged in game scale as it is. And Cruise Missiles are ranged near 1000 miles. BGM-109 Tomahawk ranged at 1,350 nautical miles, Soviet KSR-2 20,000m, we can go on. Naval guns of era ranged again around 16-20,000m.

Example the OTO Melara 76mm gun on the Oliver Hazard Perry Frigate has a 16,000m range, not 4000m. The AK-130 130 mm/L70 dual purpose gun on the Sovremennyy Destroyer ranged at over 20,000m. And both navies use CWS with near 4000m range.

So cruise missiles are strategic and developers made correct decesion not to include strategic weapons. Once again the HE warhead on a cruise missile not worth the cost of the missile for in game use, too small. And imagine a B-52 strike across the tactical field, and a poor ability to counter it. And no way to replicate the ECM issues strategic systems bring with them.

[bollocks]

I'm seeing a lot of these "Over the horizon warfare" comments, aren't long range artillary pieces such as ATACMs and so on somewhat similar?
Right now, we basically spawn ships in to Cap'n'die.
Unless you use them for anti air defence which is very difficult without being attacked by armoured land units trying to get the ships close enough to inland air traffic routes.
I feel ships are losing huge amounts of potential being so secluded to the sea and having line of sight, direct fire-only capabilities.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally posted by SrSgt Ivan Patapov:

Modern Naval Warfare is fought over the horizon, which would translate in game as the ships not even on the maps. So if you wanted to fight WW3 in game scale no ships would be on the map.
Gun and anti-ship missiles are far too short ranged in game scale as it is. And Cruise Missiles are ranged near 1000 miles. BGM-109 Tomahawk ranged at 1,350 nautical miles, Soviet KSR-2 20,000m, we can go on. Naval guns of era ranged again around 16-20,000m.

Example the OTO Melara 76mm gun on the Oliver Hazard Perry Frigate has a 16,000m range, not 4000m. The AK-130 130 mm/L70 dual purpose gun on the Sovremennyy Destroyer ranged at over 20,000m. And both navies use CWS with near 4000m range.

So cruise missiles are strategic and developers made correct decesion not to include strategic weapons. Once again the HE warhead on a cruise missile not worth the cost of the missile for in game use, too small. And imagine a B-52 strike across the tactical field, and a poor ability to counter it. And no way to replicate the ECM issues strategic systems bring with them.

The modern warfare mod for world in conflict handled it just fine on maps much smaller than in wargame. Eugene just played it lazy and safe. There's a way to do this and balance realism and gameplay, and make it work well, and it's been objectively proven by multiple mods and games. Eugene went with a reskinned WW2 game because it took the least effort and the least technical prowess under the hood of the engine to pull off.

[IRDCAM]

Ships are expensive so they do not venture near ground threat IRL. Ships today are no longer the armored behemoths of years past, and are pretty fragile anymore. So to close within range of land based guns or anti-ship missiles is not a good thing. Shipboard guns use radar fire controls not true visual LOS, and with ship borne 76mm auto guns, they can wreck an opposing ship pretty quickly, so guns are secondary to anti-ship missile systems anymore.

And yes ships essentially spawn and die in game as the ranges are too short, and weapons systems scaled really bad.

Modern Artillery can also fire ar ranges far in excess of game equipment. Towed big gun tube artillery is obsolete, modern Self propelled guns/mortars are the only true survivable artillery in game and other than mortars would not be on the maps as well withn thier true range potential.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally posted by SrSgt Ivan Patapov:

Ships are expensive so they do not venture near ground threat IRL. Ships today are no longer the armored behemoths of years past, and are pretty fragile anymore. So to close within range of land based guns or anti-ship missiles is not a good thing. Shipboard guns use radar fire controls not true visual LOS, and with ship borne 76mm auto guns, they can wreck an opposing ship pretty quickly, so guns are secondary to anti-ship missile systems anymore.

And yes ships essentially spawn and die in game as the ranges are too short, and weapons systems scaled really bad.

Modern Artillery can also fire ar ranges far in excess of game equipment. Towed big gun tube artillery is obsolete, modern Self propelled guns/mortars are the only true survivable artillery in game and other than mortars would not be on the maps as well withn thier true range potential.

And machine guns don't fire over 1k meters, and flamethrowers don't shoot over 300m, and amphibious vehicles can't cross the sea or large lakes, and apaches can acquire and destroy several tanks at the same time, and so on and so forth.

Gameplay > Realism.

[IRDCAM]

To quote 'Zebra Cakes'- "Gameplay > Realism"

So let me understand the circular logic here. We need all these vehicles to have 'perfect' stats and abilities, close to 'realism', but gameplay and balance is the priority. Really people think about this for just a second, you can not have both in any form of wargame when you demand 'true' stats on the equipment within the game, just does not work.

Go with generic 'fantasy' stats of equality, only way you get that gameplay and balance requirement. The imbalance is the challenge to real wargamers.

[Muad'Dib]

Originally posted by SrSgt Ivan Patapov:

To quote 'Zebra Cakes'- "Gameplay > Realism"

So let me understand the circular logic here. We need all these vehicles to have 'perfect' stats and abilities, close to 'realism', but gameplay and balance is the priority. Really people think about this for just a second, you can not have both in any form of wargame when you demand 'true' stats on the equipment within the game, just does not work.

Go with generic 'fantasy' stats of equality, only way you get that gameplay and balance requirement. The imbalance is the challenge to real wargamers.

I'm pretty sure you need to work on your reading comprehension, because I've been saying the exact opposite.

[IRDCAM]

Really that's not how it comes across. Your gameplay>Realism to me is Gameplay (greater than) Realism, yet realism is 'demanded' by so many and argued over, this tank needs this, this tank has too much of that, and no one really understands that randomness of combat, and the Mr. Murphy Rules of Game Warfare,

[Muad'Dib]

Originally posted by SrSgt Ivan Patapov:

Really that's not how it comes across. Your gameplay>Realism to me is Gameplay (greater than) Realism, yet realism is 'demanded' by so many and argued over, this tank needs this, this tank has too much of that, and no one really understands that randomness of combat, and the Mr. Murphy Rules of Game Warfare,

Do point to where I demanded 'realism' in a game that has almost none. The only thing I've advocated for is for it to play like a WW3 game by having the tools that make combat in the two wars vastly different.