Transporting missles

Dida · September 21, 2001, 20:08

It's totally rediculous that you can fly your nukes from city to city without putting them on some bombers or truck. I mean, how the heck did you manage to fire the nuke at a friendly city, and have the nuke land safely without harming anyone (including itself)??????

GaryGuanine · September 21, 2001, 21:17

I guess the airlift is kind of implied. Since it's really only a single missile, the transportation could easily be in teh background.

Gary

Skanky Burns · September 22, 2001, 01:38

They train these guys for years to fly nukes around the country, and land them on their tails. Very difficult

Earthling7 · September 22, 2001, 01:47

I totally agree with you! And this airlift thingy... Scott me up, Beamy, more like. Why don't they call them teleporter? This is truly outragious!

UKScud · September 22, 2001, 02:34

Can't say I agree with you.

It's hard enough to micromanage all the cities and the number of units as is, without adding more transport units. Granted, if they were mobile launchers like the Scud then adding a new unit would certainly be justified.

I don't see how it is so difficult to deal with two cities connected by road - it goes by truck.

and so on for cities connected by rail, harbour or airport (though there might be a case that these things aren't exactly carried on domestic passenger flights - military airbases anyone? we had (in civ2) barracks and port facilities, how about military airbase?

Given the new system of "missions" for air units and their limited "operation area", couldn't you make missile transport a new mission.

Earthling7 · September 22, 2001, 02:47

Quote:

Originally posted by UKScud
Can't say I agree with you.
Given the new system of "missions" for air units and their limited "operation area", couldn't you make missile transport a new mission.

What? Tell me something I don't know

BTW, I was being sarcastic above. I disagree with Dida.

Admiral PJ · September 22, 2001, 07:32

They should have nuclear bomber aircraft as the first nuke capable unit, which only drop the nuke bomb if they succeed in a ordinary combat and get past the defending units air defences.
Hopefully nuke unit abilities will be more editable in civ3.

It would be nice to see mobile nuclear ICBM trucks to launch these things

How about a nuclear disarmament diplomatic/wonder too?
Thereafter if you build a nuke your opinion rating goes down with the countries in the treaty you signed(eg the US gets angry over Russia if it builds nukes after siging a treaty)

Dida · September 22, 2001, 09:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
They should have nuclear bomber aircraft as the first nuke capable unit, which only drop the nuke bomb if they succeed in a ordinary combat and get past the defending units air defences.
Hopefully nuke unit abilities will be more editable in civ3.

It would be nice to see mobile nuclear ICBM trucks to launch these things

How about a nuclear disarmament diplomatic/wonder too?
Thereafter if you build a nuke your opinion rating goes down with the countries in the treaty you signed(eg the US gets angry over Russia if it builds nukes after siging a treaty)

I agree, we should have Nuclear Missile Silo, which is installed on the ground and cannot be moved, and Mobile Missile launching (whatever) truck to mobilly launch the missile.

Inverse Icarus · September 22, 2001, 09:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Dida
It's totally rediculous that you can fly your nukes from city to city without putting them on some bombers or truck. I mean, how the heck did you manage to fire the nuke at a friendly city, and have the nuke land safely without harming anyone (including itself)??????

very large cushions.

isaac brock · September 22, 2001, 09:11

i think you won't have these problems with civ 3. there are icbms and tactical sub-launched nukes. what else do you want?

The Andy-Man · September 22, 2001, 09:17

you lot are masacists.
I WANT THESE NUKES
I WANT A NUKE TO DESTOY THE WORLD

think of the pollution!

Inverse Icarus · September 22, 2001, 09:21

when i nuke an enemy, i expect them to clean it up.

after all, THEY BROUGHT ME TO USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO SAVE (insert civ name) LIVES.

if they dont, i destory them and finish the job myslef.

isaac brock · September 22, 2001, 09:22

pollution can kiss my radiation-filled ass. the pollution isn't that bad. the final solution of killing off all those people is more important than any so-called environment.

The Andy-Man · September 22, 2001, 09:40

what about civ score...

isaac brock · September 22, 2001, 09:46

what about civ score? who cares what the civ score is if their civ is dead? if they die, you win. Its how the world has always functioned.

Inverse Icarus · September 22, 2001, 15:12

i never pay attention to civ score, and in civ 3 if you can max out your score by cultural, peaceful means, i will again ignore them.

theres no bonus for overcomming the top civ in the game, from going from 7th in power to 1st, destroying all those above you, and that is too bad.

WARMONGER NEEDS APPEASMENT.

mactbone · September 22, 2001, 16:38

They need to have a Demolition truck! Well maybe...

*Beep* *Beep* "Delivery for..." (looks at clipboard) ".. a Mr. oops I mean President Lincoln."
*Mushroom Cloud*

Inverse Icarus · September 22, 2001, 16:54

Red Alert 2 has a nice one if you play as Lybia

.

but its real cheap when used properly (5 hovercraft with 4 nuke trucks in each hovering into the enemy base)