Thread Tools
Old May 17, 2000, 19:58   #1
danielc
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Charlottetown, P.E.I., Canada
Posts: 2
Cruise Missiles
A quick thought....cruise missiles were a wonderful addition to Civ II..but, they lack any real use. My gripe is that they can only attack units. What I mean is that you should be able to fire them at a city and pick a target, such as city walls, nuclear plant (so they can't build Nukes ? ) etc., etc.

Then, you could build a array of cruise missiles, load them up on submarines and if someone messes with you, down goes their SAM missile batteries and the rest of their military infrastructure. ! ! !
danielc is offline  
Old May 17, 2000, 21:29   #2
OrangeSfwr
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I agree completely Danielc. I believe it was discussed on another thread, probably in the archives somewhere but I'm glad you made it a new topic because it deserves more recognition IMHO. One thing, what does a Nuclear Plant have to do with producing Nuclear Weapons? (Or did I misread that).

------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~
 
Old May 18, 2000, 10:51   #3
Zulu Elephant
Prince
 
Zulu Elephant's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 763
Yeah, I always thought it was weird that you couldn't do that with bombers either.
Bombers are used as much for attacking infrastructure like SAMs etc as they are for attacking units
Zulu Elephant is offline  
Old May 18, 2000, 14:40   #4
agent4043
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 14
That's a great way to extend the tech tree too. Say you start with your basic missle/bomber but with a particular future tech, you have the ability to specify targets, increase range, etc.
agent4043 is offline  
Old May 18, 2000, 15:15   #5
tniem
King
 
Local Time: 19:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Hope College
Posts: 2,232
Agent,

Why would it be a future tech? The U.S. has missiles today that can hit the target that they want to hit. Supposedly it is acurate to a few feet.

Of course American military still occassionally hits embasies. :-)
tniem is offline  
Old May 18, 2000, 15:57   #6
War4ever
Civilization II MultiplayerCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization II Democracy GameApolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
War4ever's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: I live amongst the Red Sox Nation
Posts: 7,969
i agree that missles should be "smart".... while i do love the units in civ, i now feel that there is something lacking as far as air/missle power is concerned.

Perhaps using the three free spots in the rules text for new units would solve this, say a missle with the same capabilities of a spy for a smart bomb.... no nuke capabilities though
War4ever is offline  
Old May 18, 2000, 20:10   #7
Venger
King
 
Venger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Posts: 1,104
quote:

Originally posted by danielc on 05-17-2000 07:58 PM
A quick thought....cruise missiles were a wonderful addition to Civ II..but, they lack any real use. My gripe is that they can only attack units. What I mean is that you should be able to fire them at a city and pick a target, such as city walls, nuclear plant (so they can't build Nukes ? ) etc., etc.

Then, you could build a array of cruise missiles, load them up on submarines and if someone messes with you, down goes their SAM missile batteries and the rest of their military infrastructure. ! ! !


I like it. They of course should still be available against military units. I would suggest that if you choose to attack a structure, you have a chance of failure (maybe 50% non-vet, 25% vet), and if you fail, nothing is damaged at all.

Venger
Venger is offline  
Old May 18, 2000, 20:28   #8
Par4
King
 
Par4's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,543
Cruise missles are nice but are not cost efficent in real life. A million each we build cruise missiles because we don't want to risk the life of pilots to bomb all the factories, power plants, parking lots Cruise missiles should be able to knock out units, improvements, terrain improvements, small cities(multiple missiles). Here's how I would implement it.

Base with missile silo or something to make missile construction available. Missiles completed sent to a missile destroyer/cruiser/carrier/base something. Click on unit/base select launch CM select target cursor comes up you click on something if its in an army or stack you get a list. You would get a launch animation from the ship and see the unit destroyed, remember this is gonna be a cool engine, hopefully.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
Par4 is offline  
Old May 19, 2000, 06:17   #9
Urban Ranger
NationStatesApolyton Storywriters' GuildNever Ending Stories
Deity
 
Urban Ranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
Cruise missiles have very small warheads.

They could damage or destroy individual units (say an aircraft carrier or a cruiser) and small infrastructure but not units such as infantry or large infrastructure such as city walls or airports.
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited May 19, 2000).]
Urban Ranger is offline  
Old May 19, 2000, 09:40   #10
Az
Emperor
 
Local Time: 03:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: A pub.
Posts: 3,161
quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 05-19-2000 06:17 AM
Cruise missiles have very small warheads.

They could damage or destroy individual units (say an aircraft carrier or a cruiser) and small infrastructure but not units such as infantry or large infrastructure such as city walls or airports.
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited May 19, 2000).]



I totally agree with this . I think that Cruise Missiles should be able to hit NAVY Units(kinda like the sub) and city improvements.
Urban Ranger : btw you said that they have very small warheads ... even if they were REALLY big , but still conventional ,would they be able to destroy a whole armor Division , streching on a few thousands square miles ? ( because of this I think that even Nukes shouldn't destroy 9 tiles but only 1 . hmmp . Radiation, maybe , and it even than it shouldn't be only the squares around . Radiation is Volatile .

------------------
Prepare to Land !
[This message has been edited by Dalgetti (edited May 19, 2000).]
Az is offline  
Old May 19, 2000, 11:29   #11
Eurhetemec
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 25
There's always FAE bombs, a large one of those could easily take out an entire infantry unit if it was close together, though it would be near useless against sealed tanks and so on. I think we should keep weapons of mass destruction, otherwise we'll just get into arguments as to why we can't make the bombs bigger...

You can always have chemical or gas weapons too, a Cruise missile, even with it's small warhead, could be very lethal if loaded up with biowarfare stuff.

Sure, a 1 megaton nuke should only affect one "square", but what about a 10, 20, or 40 Megaton nuke (largest every detonated was 63 Megatons, by the Russians)? As we have (currently) no control over how large the warhead(s) is, it needs to be pretty big.

On the other hand, Cruise Missiles (which, IRL, FYI, CAN carry small nuke warheads) should only be able to attack structures and individual units, not infantry or tank brigades (though they could damage them by taking out HQs and so on). Letting them attack particular things, like comms centers, powerplants and so on would be a good idea.

------------------
"You're standing on my neck."
Eurhetemec is offline  
Old May 19, 2000, 13:11   #12
ember
Warlord
 
ember's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 221
One thing to remember.
A cruise missile 'unit' is NOT a single missile. My estimate is more like 100-200 missiles. 100 Missiles would not put a huge dent in an armour division/brigade, but could do some severe infrastructre damage (disabling if not destroying improvments)
Like a cruiser unit is not 1 cruiser, but a small detachment.
Only a carrier unit could really be argued to be 1 ship.

------------------
"Any technology, sufficiently advanced,
is indistinguishable from magic"
-Arthur C. Clark
ember is offline  
Old May 19, 2000, 13:32   #13
The Kaiser
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, England
Posts: 91
Because Cruise missiles are expensive, they are only used by country's concerned with avoiding loss of life to a pilot etc.

So how about making them only available to Civ's using Democracy or Republic, a bit like the Fundamentalist unit. Other Civ's goverments could still have missle's, but only unguided one's (Buzzbomb, V2), and these would not be targeted in the way a Cruise missile could perhap's be.
The Kaiser is offline  
Old May 19, 2000, 16:57   #14
Jon Miller
staff
ApolyCon 06 ParticipantsCivilization III MultiplayerCivilization II MultiplayerRise of Nations MultiplayerPtWDG Vox ControliC4DG Vox
OTF Moderator
 
Jon Miller's Avatar
 
Local Time: 18:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 13,063
stupid idea

what is stopping other nations from using the same technology?

maybe make it so there is no happiness penalties to using cruis mistles (or less)

jon Miller
Jon Miller is offline  
Old May 19, 2000, 19:56   #15
The Kaiser
Chieftain
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Stoke-on-Trent, England
Posts: 91
How many non-democratic country's do you know that have Cruise missile capability, like that seen in the Gulf and Kosovo? Do you really think a country like China or Iraq would waste a million dollar missile to blow the aerial mast off a T.V. station?

It's not really that they don't know how to build one. It's because they cost so much per missile that, a less democratic ideology would prefer to produce more cheaper weapon's of a type that had less respect for life (i.e hundreds of SCUDS which are less precise but fitted with a chemical warhead).

Ok, maybe let non-democratic Civ's build them, but perhap's at a slightly higher cost.
The Kaiser is offline  
Old May 19, 2000, 21:59   #16
Urban Ranger
NationStatesApolyton Storywriters' GuildNever Ending Stories
Deity
 
Urban Ranger's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
Kaiser: military hardware in the US is at least several mangnitudes higher than other countries. Everybody have heard of the $8000 hammer. So what is expensive in the US is not necessarily expensive elsewhere. Also, the Soviets and the Chinese have cruise missiles.

All: sure, cruise missiles can carry nukes or biochem warheads, but IMHO, the cruise missiles in Civ2 carry only conventional warheads.
Urban Ranger is offline  
Old May 19, 2000, 22:31   #17
Par4
King
 
Par4's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,543
Good point about the infantry although they should be able to seriously damage infantry and tank divisions. A cruise missile should be more for wiping out military bases/infastructure/naval units. Miniture nukes like neutron bombs and emp bombs could be loaded specially into missile deployments. I still picture the cruise missiles as more of a weapon of keeping losses down or getting into heavily guarded cities. Your civ has had many deaths and the people are mad. So you bite the bullet and go for cruise missiles and bypass the SAM sites that have been blasting your planes and losing many lives. I think they should be more tied with popular opinion and thus democratic civs. The infastructure of cruise missile launches is extensive you have your satelites, laser guidance, radar, remote control, launching platforms, construction centers, all that computer crap in em, expensive stuff.

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
Par4 is offline  
Old May 21, 2000, 03:34   #18
Napoleon I
Chieftain
 
Napoleon I's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 95
I think it would be reasonable to let any nation build cruise missiles. After all the only reason stopping North Korea from building them is the fact that it would not be able to use them. However, the major advantage of cruise missiles would be the fact that they would not cause unhappiness, so fundamentalists and communists would automatically be prevented from building them because to them the advantages of cruise missiles would be useless.
Also CMs should be able to do some heavy damage to the infrastructure (check out pictures of Kosovo after NATO bombing). For example, a city hit with a cruise missile will not contribute to the treasury that turn (all resources are converted to local use).

------------------
Napoleon I
Napoleon I is offline  
Old May 21, 2000, 04:16   #19
Biddles
Prince
 
Biddles's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 404
If the unit workshop idea is incorporated into civ3 than these problems can be solved easily. The cruise missile is your chassis than you choose the warhead (chemical, bio, nuke, conventional) and the targeting system (precision, good, average, poor, who really gives a rat's a@#) and the propulsion (high speed, average speed, slow speed). Only precision targeting systems would be able to target individual buildings. But for something like a nuke you wouldn't really care about it's targeting because a poor system is going to still place it over the city and a nuke will blow it all away. The propulsion would affect the countermeasures that your enemy throws up. It would be hard for them to launch countermeasures against a fast missile but easy against a slow missile. The better components that you use the more expensive the missile is.

I agree with the $20k hammer. It is just that the american beureucracy is just inefficient (either that or those black ops take up a lot of cash!).

The ability to be able to target individual structures is a must, and with precision targeting hardware should be 90%+ chance. To be able to cripple an oponents military or economy would be a good addition to the game. Think: Start a brief war, take out all his/her banks, markets, stockXchanges etc. Then make peace. Their economy will be crippled andd you will be sitting pretty.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission
Biddles is offline  
Old May 24, 2000, 09:24   #20
UltraSonix
King
 
Local Time: 10:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,728
Just to divert back this thread - the problem about cruise missiles that was discussed was that in reality they are built to save the lives of pilots, but are very expensive. So to represent this in the game, the missiles could take a lot energy(shields/whatevers) to build, but then more importantly would have a higher morale (morale as in SMAC) than a normal unit.

And I love Biddles' idea abou the unit workshop thing with different payloads. BTW, is it Stratford as in near Sale - thought ISPs wouldn't even exist over there...

This is for the rest of 'em:

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited May 24, 2000).]
UltraSonix is offline  
Old May 24, 2000, 15:58   #21
Mo
Warlord
 
Mo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 124
This idea should be widely implemented not only to cruise missiles, but to all air units and artillary units. Also I think that when you tell say an attack fighter to kill a carrier you should also be given an option as to how much emphasis they put on returning alive and how much on destroying the objective. You could tell them to suicide bomb the carrier, which would have a greater chance of succeding than if you told them to just drop their bombs where ever and retreat if it looks like they are facing overwhelming odds. Cruise missiles would always be at the suicide level of kill accuracy.
Mo is offline  
Old May 25, 2000, 01:06   #22
Biddles
Prince
 
Biddles's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 404
UltraSonix: I actually live in Melbourne now. They do have ISP's over in Sale (Well, ILTNSP's - internet little to no service providers).

By the way, what do you mean we don't have kangaroos and koalas in our backyards? We do in the sticks. (Until the farmers see them anyway)

------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission
[This message has been edited by Biddles (edited May 25, 2000).]
Biddles is offline  
Old May 25, 2000, 01:50   #23
UltraSonix
King
 
Local Time: 10:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,728
No, don't say that!

Besides, in the city we don't get kangaroos etc anyway --> that was what I was saying.

Anyway, back to the topic - weapons that are supposed to 'disposable' should have higher morale than people units to encourage their building. eg the cruise missiles as above, but also maybe things like robots, automated fighters/bombers, and spaced based weaponry.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
UltraSonix is offline  
Old May 26, 2000, 01:57   #24
agent4043
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 14
quote:

Originally posted by tniem on 05-18-2000 03:15 PM
Why would it be a future tech? The U.S. has missiles today that can hit the target that they want to hit. Supposedly it is acurate to a few feet.



I meant in game terms a future tech. Not in our relative terms today. Say civ3 uses a unit workshop like biddles mentioned. You'd initially be given a cruise missle with your basic conventional warhead, poor targeting, and slow speed. With later techs, you can then upgrade the warhead, targeting or propulsion system. This can then be used to extend the tech tree by upgrading any of our realistic units allowing the modern day game to go further.

One thing that always bugged me was how the technology advantage ended soon after I got to the end as I was no longer able to advance and eventually my enemies caught up.

And I agree that cruise missles should not cause unhappiness in a Democracy. I think that was done as they are primarily an offensive weapon but it has been said a good offensive is sometimes the best defense.
agent4043 is offline  
Old May 28, 2000, 03:47   #25
Biddles
Prince
 
Biddles's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 404
UltraSonix: By Morale do you mean 'experience' morale or 'Esprit de corp' morale?

Something you said got me thinking though, robots. It isn't all that far off ( ---> future tech). I can just imagine those enemy generals:
Master, Destroyers! (two droids roll out and start firing). Their shielded Master! The second general takes his lightsaber out of .... (Got a bit carried away there!).



------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission
Biddles is offline  
Old May 28, 2000, 09:13   #26
Theben
Deity
 
Theben's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Posts: 15,132
Well I'd rather Firaxis kept the strategic scope of the game in mind when designing any missile units. Do you really want a separate unit for a short ranged SAM, ground-to-ground, air-to-sea, and cruise for infrastructure targeting? Bah. Just give me a generic, all-purpose "missile" unit that can do all of these things. Then maybe I'll actually build some.
And make sure the AI knows how to use them.
Theben is offline  
Old May 28, 2000, 09:16   #27
Theben
Deity
 
Theben's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Posts: 15,132
And why should missiles be that expensive? A squadron of fighters or bombers would be MUCH more expensive.
Theben is offline  
Old May 29, 2000, 05:46   #28
Biddles
Prince
 
Biddles's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 404
But should an all purpose missile have the ability to target individual structures? If so this would make the missile expensive because of it's usefulness, which would mean you wouldn't want to use them on anything other than structure targeting.


------------------
- Biddles

"Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission
Biddles is offline  
Old May 29, 2000, 11:42   #29
Theben
Deity
 
Theben's Avatar
 
Local Time: 20:21
Local Date: October 30, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Dance Dance for the Revolution!
Posts: 15,132
But it's still a one-shot unit, whereas the heavy bomber (if implemented as per many suggestions) would be able to do all the things I listed- except AA of course- and still survive to perform another mission in the future. So what would be a balanced ratio between the two in cost?
Theben is offline  
Old May 29, 2000, 15:48   #30
The Joker
Prince
 
Local Time: 02:21
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 505
I actually agree with everything Theben has said!
The Joker is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:21.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team