Cruise Missile Redundancy

dexters · November 21, 2001, 19:24

I haven't yet figured out why anyone would want to spend 60 shields to build a "fire and forget" missle with a range of 2 squares, and a bombardment rating that is marginally higher than an artillery. wouldn't it better to just build units and artilleries, pair them up and have units that can bombard enemy cities indefinately?

The game is great, but one of the biggest disappoint for me are the moderm units and Cruise missles tops the list. Much to my disappointment, it appears to be a richman's toy for bombardment that a lesser Civ could effectively emulate by spending on low-tech solutions like artillery.

A few suggestions from me to improve the value of building such missiles are:

-increase range back to 3 , as stated in the manaul.
-Allow nuclear subs to carry them
- treat them like planes with rebasing capabilities instead of moving them via roads.
-increase their effectiveness. Currently, it takes 2 successful bombardment to destroy a fully developed sqaure. The railroad goes in the first bombardment, then the irrigation/mine and normal road is destroyed next. For 60 shields a pop, it isn't too much to ask for more destruction?

Capt Dizle · November 21, 2001, 19:42

If anyone working for me came up with a crusie missle that had a range of 2 and couldn't be loaded on a sub I would fire them on the spot.

And then I would try to get them on disability due to their obvious mental dysfunction.

Poor sod. Poor us.

dexters · November 21, 2001, 22:32

i wouldn't go that far :/ but it is kind of disappointing putting all that effort into research and the cost only to get what is essentially a fire-once artillery shell.

Green Giant · November 21, 2001, 22:51

They should have a longer range longer than the bomber. They could have hit points too and lose one after each attack that could'nt be repaired. Problem solved.

jack_frost · November 21, 2001, 23:35

good solution.

Cavalier_13 · November 21, 2001, 23:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Green Giant
They should have a longer range longer than the bomber. They could have hit points too and lose one after each attack that could'nt be repaired. Problem solved.

By definition, a Cruise Missile is destroyed when it hits it's target, so adding hit point would be moot here.

I played around with them myself and edited them and the AEGIS Cruiser/Nuclear Sub to reflect the American Tomahawk missile and how it is deployed. I upped the movement to 16(Cruise missiles have a LONG range), a bombard range of 6/radar capability (to "simulate the use of satellites to pinpoint targets), allow them to rebase to AEGIS Cruiser / Nuclear Submaries (as in the American Navy - well, to some extent), upped the bombard rating to 8 (it has a pretty big warhead), gave it an attack rating of 5 (so it can and WILL destroy an elite unit, what ever that unit is as the current missile tech pretty much allows) and doubled their cost to build.

It does not unbalance the game too much, make the missile worth building, and make you swear at the AI when he shoots a few your way.

Cavalier

barefootbadass · November 22, 2001, 00:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Cavalier_13

I upped the movement to 16(Cruise missiles have a LONG range), a bombard range of 6/radar capability (to "simulate the use of satellites to pinpoint targets), allow them to rebase to AEGIS Cruiser / Nuclear Submaries (as in the American Navy - well, to some extent), upped the bombard rating to 8 (it has a pretty big warhead), gave it an attack rating of 5 (so it can and WILL destroy an elite unit, what ever that unit is as the current missile tech pretty much allows) and doubled their cost to build.

Cavalier

Umm, the bombard rating is 16 by default, so it sounds like you lowered it. I know that 2 is too short(I even think that's a bug that will hopefully be fixed). Raising movement to 16 is kind of pointless because by that time in the game you should be able to move them around on railroads, and moving a missile that fast on other things like roads is unrealistic. 6 bombard range sounds reasonable to me though.

Thoth · November 22, 2001, 00:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Cavalier_13

I played around with them myself and edited them and the AEGIS Cruiser/Nuclear Sub to reflect the American Tomahawk missile and how it is deployed. I upped the movement to 16(Cruise missiles have a LONG range), a bombard range of 6/radar capability (to "simulate the use of satellites to pinpoint targets), allow them to rebase to AEGIS Cruiser / Nuclear Submaries (as in the American Navy - well, to some extent), upped the bombard rating to 8 (it has a pretty big warhead), gave it an attack rating of 5 (so it can and WILL destroy an elite unit, what ever that unit is as the current missile tech pretty much allows) and doubled their cost to build.

Cavalier

Could you explain in detail how this was done? Cruise missiles are land units (standard Civ III). How did you set up the subs and AEGIS cruisers to carry only cruise missiles?

Cavalier_13 · November 22, 2001, 01:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Thoth

Could you explain in detail how this was done? Cruise missiles are land units (standard Civ III). How did you set up the subs and AEGIS cruisers to carry only cruise missiles?

Sorry, I didn't quite explain it well enough.

What I did was set the AEGIS and the Nuclear Sub to NAVAL TRANSPORT in the editor. Upped the amount of units and promised myself to ONLY carry Cruise Missiles in them and not a dozen Tanks.

I did the best I could with the tools I had. I wish the AEGIS (which is useless except to detect subs) and Nuclear subs could carry them by default since it is common for those units to carry them.

Cavalier

EDIT: Need to add that you need to interchange 2 units for this to work. I made the Galleon the AEGIS and the AEGIS the Galleon since the Galleon is NAVAL POWER / NAVAL TRANSPORT and the AEGIS is NAVAL POWER only. I changed the relevant data (advances, attack, defend, cost) to what is should be (least we have AEGIS Cruisers riding the seas in 1500 AD

) and everything is well.

Cavalier_13 · November 22, 2001, 01:10

Quote:

Originally posted by barefootbadass

Umm, the bombard rating is 16 by default, so it sounds like you lowered it. I know that 2 is too short(I even think that's a bug that will hopefully be fixed). Raising movement to 16 is kind of pointless because by that time in the game you should be able to move them around on railroads, and moving a missile that fast on other things like roads is unrealistic. 6 bombard range sounds reasonable to me though.

Ooops.....that should have read 18, not 8.

As for the movement, since I tend to use them in enemy territory :P and I can't make use of their roads and such, I had to find a way to simulate the Cruise Missile ability to fly to distant targets and render them to ashes.

Cavalier

TheDarkside · November 22, 2001, 02:31

i editted the cruise missile heavily. my cruise missiles are air units, with a range of 6. thye can be re-based and bombard like thye normally do, destroying units completely if they do enough damage. but they still arent allowed ot bombard units at 1 hit point. the only problem i came accross is cruise missiles as air units were now intercepted by common fighters frequently, so i gave them stealth and a high defense rating, so in the rare case they were intercepted, they won the battle. (which i know is unreasonable but slightly more rational then a jet shooting down a cruise missile!)

GavfromNZ · November 22, 2001, 04:57

One thing, when you make these changes in the editor, do they apply to your current/new games, or do you have to create a map specifically for them? Im wondering this because when I load up the editor again, the default rules are back on.

Deathwalker · November 22, 2001, 05:34

I think that the modern units in the game are all defective in one way or another? I don't think we need a firepower indicator but the units need to be made stronger

xane · November 22, 2001, 09:46

A Cruise Missile is not just "fire and forget", that is a property of nearly all kinds of precision bombing, it's chief strength is extreme range.

Quote:

which i know is unreasonable but slightly more rational then a jet shooting down a cruise missile!

Actually this is precisely how you defend against Cruise Missiles using aircraft as well as surface units.

Any small missile is effectively an anti-missile, regardless of the platform that launches it, it is perfectly reasonable to allow Fighters to shoot down Cruise Missiles (using regular Air to Air weaponry), even rapid firing cannon can defend against munitions much smaller than Cruise Missiles.

Conversely any Anti-Missile defence is equally effective against aircraft, and in some cases can be used against other surface targets (like most US naval defences).

A Cruise Missile is just like a small plane, it doesn't really fly that much faster and certainly not faster than a traditional AAM.