Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Whats the point of guided missle BCs?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
U

unmerged(25407)

Colonel
Feb 4, 2004
825
2
I researched them expected them to have vastly more range than normal BCs(currently my BC-8s have 66 km rnage with fire control), and nope, they are actually a downgrade.

Wtf? Why would i trade significantly lower sea attack and shore bombardment vlaues for slightly increased air attack? I have CLAAs with 10 air attack for that. BCs are there for anti-ship.

It boggles the mind how missles have the same range as the guns on a BC-8. Wasnt that why the world switched to missles for anti-ship work? Because they have vastly longer range and power?
 
This has been explained elsewhere recently by the team but in essence the reasons are that the missiles are actually AA missiles. They take up a lot of room on the ship normally allocated to guns so the naval attack value suffers while the AA value goes up. That's also why the range doesn't increase, they're not ship to ship missiles.
 
Why are they AA missles? I mean a battle cruiser is basically anti-ship/shore bombardment work right? If i want AA, i should be building CLs...especially the lovely CLAAs with 10 air attack(AA control). I thought guided missle BCs would be more like the russian BCs(real life) loaded with anti-ship missles with some SAMs.

It seems really odd, you have an entire tree of BCs as anti-ship capital ships, then suddenly the end 1947 model is...an AA one?

Also how come all the naval techs seem to end really early o_O. Only a few years after WW2 ended historically.
 
I guess there is a historical reason as with most things in core.
In my opinion BC:s were quite obsolete even at the beginning of the war.
Perhaps these missile BC:s represent conversions of existing hulls or redirection of production. Certainly no sane state would build a conventional BC in the end or post war.

For your second question I believe it is because CORE focus on the war and with al the detail there isn't room or sloots left for much post war techs.

If we are lucky you'll get an answer from the source instead of from me, ie one of the devs.
 
Sgt Nic said:
For your second question I believe it is because CORE focus on the war and with al the detail there isn't room or sloots left for much post war techs.

If we are lucky you'll get an answer from the source instead of from me, ie one of the devs.
Click to expand...
Well there will be an overhaul of the naval side of things in the next major release. That would give historic coverage until 1953, plus it will include CVLs and CVEs. As to the BC issue MateDow is the one to answer that one, I guess.
 
Hagar said:
Well there will be an overhaul of the naval side of things in the next major release. That would give historic coverage until 1953, plus it will include CVLs and CVEs. As to the BC issue MateDow is the one to answer that one, I guess.
Click to expand...

I love CORE! Devs who actually respond to concerns! :D
 
Btw is 0.30 the most recent one?
Click to expand...

0.31 (a bug fix for 0.30) is the current most recent version, in fact. 0.32 (some more bug fixes and enhancements) is being tested to make sure the fixes/enhancements work. After that, we will be moving on to the next "full" version - which (I'd say, but no guarantees) is likely to appear in the first half of next year (2008).

Tim
 
Question said:
I was talking about the comments.
Click to expand...
I've seen 'em... The main problem is that if a user posts comments won't show up as new posts, so you have to see them by accident really. :(

Usually people would actually post about their problems, so we can help them out. But it's all rather unfortunate...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back