安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
此主题已被锁定 
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
The K5 guns, Germany's most numerous railway gun, still only numbered 25, and were not that much bigger than regular artillery. Their larger brethren, the siegfried guns, were the same as on the battleship Bismarck.
In comparison, a typical division had 50 or so artillery pieces. That's for a single division. In the battle of Kursk, the Soviets had amassed about 20000 guns.
That's on a completely different scale.
Their one big weakness is, they're really easy to find (just follow the railways) and are fairly vulnerable to air attack. So, I guess you could have a national objective that could give you a bonus in a region as long as you had air superiority and infrastructure (good enough rails) above a certain level. Possibly work as a sort of strategic bombing of neighbouring regions? It wouldn't have much battlefield effect, though.
How so? Show me the data to support your hypothesis.
Just for ♥♥♥♥♥ and giggles, you could add a tech line off of artillery, similar to how superheavy tanks branch from heavy tanks. Research would yield both an insanely-expensive line artillery unit, and something akin to a guided rocket site for strategic bombardment. But it's pretty much just a gimmick.
Like in real life.
Hell I'm not suggesting you equip it into specific divisions, Instead I want them to be separate entities that you could attach to the army and serve as a universal support role, and having the ability to direct it to specific targets for bombardment.
Perhaps you didn't notice, but by the end of the war....the world's naval powers stopped building battleships. Institutional inertia and tactical repurposing (they went from being the decisive arm of naval warfare to carrier AA escorts and shore bombardment) kept them around during the fighting. No point in throwing away assets you've already paid for while you still have a war to fight.
Schwerer Gustav weighed 1,350 tons. If we assume the production cost ~= to the per-ton cost of a Tiger II at 70 tons (and this is probably a low-end estimate).... 1350 / 70 = 19.28 or production equal to roughly one in-game battalion of Heavy Tanks....For ONE railway gun. Only 2 were made, and only Gustav saw significant use (2 weeks reducing forts at Sevastopol).
For comparison, in-game-equivalent production numbers of the equally-strategically-insignificant (but easier to code) German, Soviet, and US Superheavy Tanks:
Germany: 0 (2 prototypes of Panzer VIII Maus)
Soviets: 17 battalions (350 IS-3 produced during the war, none saw combat)
US: 0 (2 prototypes of T-28)
Bottom line: I would in no way expect the devs to allocate precious time/energy to implement superheavy artillery (which would function similar to a rocket site, with the ability to do strategic bombardment). If you want it, you'll probably have to mod it yourself.
Super heavy arty while very limited ability to it still maintained a presence in both World wars. So to say that Paradox shouldn't or wouldn't bother simply because you think its an unnecessary component is pretty short sighted.
Coastal guns != superheavy field artillery. The different nature of their employment necessitates a different cost-benefit analysis.
Nor does your pet fascination with big guns equate to a requirement for tasking limited developer assets (primarily time aka man-hours), especially given the current state of the game. Is it a nice to have, maybe two years down the line? Sure. In the interim, don't expect to see it as a priority from the devs, and if you are so interested in this subject......mod it.