Missiles = Ground Units ????

[Mr. Schwang]

Firaxis,

Please tell me there is a very good reason why missiles can be launched from anywhere on the map.

Please tell me why it often takes several cruise missiles to destroy a Modern Armor.

Please tell me why nukes don't obliterate my enemy's city.

The second question above I can fix in the editor (which I do), but what about the others?

I want to be forced to launch a nuke or cruise missile from a city or missile silo.

I want a nuke that will wipe out the population, all units, and most (if not all) structures in a targeted city.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Mr. Schwang
Firaxis,

Please tell me there is a very good reason why missiles can be launched from anywhere on the map.



I want to be forced to launch a nuke or cruise missile from a city or missile silo.

Well, I'm not Firaxis and I'm not sure if you don't like this because you think is unrealistic or because of a different opinion about a "game mechanic".

On a realistic point of view, mobile missile launchers where available since years ago in USSR and USA.

[Mr. Schwang]

good point. but they are still considered ground units.

Realistically, then why can any other civ (other than Russia or the U.S) move missilis around, and launch them from anywhere?

[WarpStorm]

Well for one thing in real life cruise missiles are used to attack things that move real slowly like buildings. They are not used on tanks.

The only nukes used in war didn't obliterate Hiroshima or Nagasaki. They did a hell of a lot of damage, but didn't obliterate. Have you tried the nukes? They usually do about 80% damage (I don't care what the civilopedia says, Soren beefed them up at some point becasue they always do more than 50% for me).

If you want to mod things in the editor feel free. The immobile flag will do what you want. In real life most cruise missiles are ship launched, not from cities.

[Mr. Schwang]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
The only nukes used in war didn't obliterate Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Atomic Bombs are not in civ3. I'm talking about modern nuclear warfare.

A modern ICBM WOULD obliterate a city. (if a direct hit anyway)


And about the "Immobile Flag"...is that possible with ground units? afterall, missiles are ground units in civ3.

Are you telling me that you use Cruise Missiles in civ3 simply to destroy your enemy city's library? Please say no. I doubt anyone uses them (in civ3) for destroying buildings. Yes, you are correct, in real life, cruise missiles are used for bombing cities and buildings, etc. But then again...how similar is civ3 to real life?

[Optimizer]

About cruise missiles being ground units - I think of them as loaded on trailers. Sad that there is no animation of missiles on a trailers.

From a gameplay perspective, it is not strange that a Cruise Missile usually doesn't destroy a Modern Armor unit since the cruise missile is cheaper.

Oe can always bring up the discussion how many tanks there are in a Modern Armor unit, and whether a Cruise missile unit symbolizes a single one or several ones.

[Andrew_Jay]

one annoying thing about cruise missles is that you can't but them on boats or move them off an island.

[Dida]

I made BB's, DD's, Subs and AGEIS Cruise capable of carrying cruise missles.

[XOR]

You can put cruise missiles on transports. It seems Firaxis wanted to disable that option for some reason so the "load" order isnt there, but you can still load cruise missiles in transports by walking them into a transport that's on a coastal tile.

I am not sure of what I should edit of cruise missiles. Their range and attack need to be increased. After that, dont know. Cruise missiles could be fired from submarines, missile frigates, aircraft carriers, trailer trucks, B-52 bombers and I dont know what else. I think the preferred launch platform is B-52 bombers.

So one thing I thought about doing would be to turn them into air units, then I could put them on carriers and move them like aircraft.

Another thing I thought was to just make it like the tactical nuke, so it could be loaded on a sub, but then the sub would only load 1, or if I modify it, it will be able to load a huge tactical nuke loadout.

I still didnt care much about the launching from subs anyway, not even on Civ2, on Civ2 I used to load the cruise missiles (and nuclear missiles) on Carriers, but then carriers could carry, I think, 24 units. It said 8 but I could just keep moving in more and more of them and they would land in the carrier, which was ok because the carrier icon was similar to a US carrier that carried like 200 aircraft so 24 cruise missiles wasnt much.

I think maybe I'll make 2 separate cruise missile units, one that can go anywhere on the ground and one that is an air unit as if it was fired from a B-52. I want to edit it (along with other things) so that I can get Civ3 to be like how it should be, but I dont want to edit things into making it become a terribly different game, just into making it a kind of "fix".

[Dida]

B-52 is a bomber, and people usually don't fire missle from a bomber. Cruise Missle are mostly fired from Fighter Jets or from Warships. Most modern warships are capable of launching missles because this increase their range of attack. BBs after modernization can launch missle as well.

[XOR]

I know cruise missiles are fired from B-52s. I know there are also some type of them known as Exocet missiles that are ship sinkers and are fired from primarily from jets, but those are only anti-naval missiles, arent they?.

[WarpStorm]

Deleted

[Andrew_Jay]

cruise missles are big, and are carried on B-52, or big Russian Tupolov Bears and Backfires, just like XOR said. A jet fighter like the F-15 or Su-27 (the regular fighter) couldn't carry the big missles that the cruise missle represents. I think in Civ3 terms we are looking at stuff like V-2's and SCUD missiles, etc.

Exocet are anti-ship missles, and are fired from ships, and maybe strike aircraft, but still not fighter jets.

[Panag]

hi ,

since new units can be included , one can make several type of missiles , ....

have a nice day

[Gen. Maximus]

yep, cruise missiles only fires from ship or larger bombers. The only country that has been actively using this missile is the US and I doubt they have them ready to fire from their silos. They still have a limited range unlike the ICBMs and best they are mobile.

[XOR]

Exocet are anti-ship missles, and are fired from ships, and maybe strike aircraft, but still not fighter jets.

In the war in the Falklands Exocet missiles were fired from Mirage airplanes. I think they were french Mirage but it doesnt make a difference because both Mirage are so much the same that they are called the same.

yep, cruise missiles only fires from ship or larger bombers.

So then the Cruise missile should be like an air unit with a bit more range than a bomber, right?

Are there unit graphics of truck carried missiles?

[Gen. Maximus]

For all practical purpose, the cruise missile do not need to be fired from air unless the range from the ship is too far, i,e. the target is too far inland.

[Andrew_Jay]

You're probably right XOR. The Falkland Islands war was exactly what came to mind when you mentioned the Exocet missile. I just couldn't picture the Mirage carrying them . . . though it makes sense since I also can't picture them being fired from a shore installation, and there weren't many Argentinan ships around. I do know the Argentinians were dropping bombs on British ships using their Mirages as well.

It's too bad there isn't someway of loading a weapon like the nuclear or cruise missles on a plane and using them. It could be a bombard option; you can bombard within 8 tiles with a bomber, or launch a cruise missle strike within 11 tiles. I'm thinking mostly of the Tom Clancy book Red Storm Rising where Soviet Tupolovs from Iceland flew south and hit NATO convoys with air launched anti-shipping missles (two per plane).

[Dida]

You are telling me that you actually enjoy reading that guy that not only has these crazy thoughts on oncoming soviet and US conflicts, but also look ridiculously similiar to a frog?

[WarpStorm]

Well, most of Red Storm Rising was written by Larry Bond (if you've read any of his books it seems more like his style than Tom Clancy's later books). The possibility of US-Soviet conflict was very real in the 80's when it was written.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Andrew_Jay
cruise missles are big, and are carried on B-52, or big Russian Tupolov Bears and Backfires, just like XOR said. A jet fighter like the F-15 or Su-27 (the regular fighter) couldn't carry the big missles that the cruise missle represents. I think in Civ3 terms we are looking at stuff like V-2's and SCUD missiles, etc.

Exocet are anti-ship missles, and are fired from ships, and maybe strike aircraft, but still not fighter jets.

Mostly correct! The last statement should take into account that actually many fighters double its role as fighter-bomber too, for technical and economical reasons.

BTW, in 1982 Falklands/Malvinas war (historical link here) the Exocet, a French air to surface missile, was fired from Argentina's Super Etendard, a fighter bomber originally built in France and hence with avionic integrated to support Exocet launch.

On the mobile missile concept, please don't forget that SCUD missiles on mobile laucher were sold to many others country, where often the local industry introduced some modification: e.g. in middle east Syria and IRAQ, in far east China, North Korea, etc.

On topic: I too would like a more balanced CIV 3 cruise missile, but I don't love to mess with value editing, because I prefer a standard game, to better match others players settings. I would love a generally accepted mod, but I think that incoming PTW will be my best hope for a "standard" set.

[Andrew_Jay]

Yeah, he does look like a frog. And yeah I enjoyed the book, except the oh so boring plot like about the submarine, I hated being taken away from the huge land battles being fought in Germany to hear about this one lousy submaring sitting around and doinng nothing.
"Come on Clancy, I want to go back to Germany, thousands are dying by the hour in titanic battles, and you make me sit through 20 pages of this submarine doing nothing? Sink something, or get sunk yourself, at least let me see what's going on on Iceland" etc.

Anyway
I can picture the Super Entendre, and that makes sense. The Mirages are tiny little planes, but I couldn't think of anything else the Argentinians had.

[XOR]

Rite, Super Entendre, not Mirage, oops on that, sorry for the mistake. The argument still goes on the point that the missile fired from a fighter jet (or fighter bomber for that matter) is just the Exocet missile which is an anti warship missile.

There were also many technologies for anti-naval attacks from air like torpedo bombers used in the pacific in WW2, the divebombers used by the German Stuka attack planes and the rather weird water bouncing ball bombs used by the Japanese back then at WWII.

On topic: I too would like a more balanced CIV 3 cruise missile, but I don't love to mess with value editing, because I prefer a standard game, to better match others players settings. I would love a generally accepted mod, but I think that incoming PTW will be my best hope for a "standard" set.

I agree, but I am simply not going to take some of the current lame units. So far this is what I modify:

- Swordman (and swordman UUs) upgradeable to Rifleman. (Else you can still build them until the end of the game)
- Paratrooper range to 8.
- Cruise Missile rate of fire to 4, their range to 6.
- Submarine and Nuclear sub attack to 9.
- Carrier load to 6 (so I can build them in fleets of 3 instead of 4).
- Infantry not upgradeable to Mech Inf. This because the Mech inf is a vehicle unit, the Inf has the advantage of being the highest defense unit that can be loaded on helicopters. Besides the fact that they look cool and are cheap for things like fortifying them on top of a resource, or for pillage.

[WarpStorm]

In PTW, the swordsman and bowmen lines will upgrade to the Guerilla unit (6/6/1 no resource required). The problem with upgrading swordsmen and archers to riflemen is that you are going from an offensive unit to a defensive unit. The AI will do stupid things with this (I know, I tried this in a mod already). They will upgrade their stuff up to infantry and mech infantry and use these as attack units because they have the offensive flag set. To make things worse they won't buy tanks and modern armor because they think have enough "offensive" units.

[XOR]

Well, in a non modified game I had them attack me with massive numbers of infantry. I suppose this is because the infantry had 6 of attack and that was the highest value at the time (there were no tanks), when it got tanks, it attacked with tanks AND infantry. And that is with standard un-moded settings. They also attacked with riflemen previously when riflemen were the "latest" tech and attacked just a bit less than cavalry. I also had them attacking me with paratroopers as if the paratroopers were longbowmen or some conventional offensive unit. And Mech Inf is not a "bad" offensive unit.

AI using some defense units for offensive and assault happens without the necessity to "mod" units. But it does not matter much because I do that myself, I often enough attack cities using infantry and rifleman when the thing defending is a musketeer or rifleman. Sometimes I would just pack infantry-only armies and use them for attack. Infantry-only armies do a great defense job too btw.

[Andrew_Jay]

Except for any AI screw ups, upgrading everything that isn't on a horse to riflemen is a good idea I think. They are resourceless, so it's not like you'll ever need to go back. Also, riflemen have a greater attack than anything before them, even if it is the 'defense' unit.
And I too really hate upgrading the Infantry to Mech Infantry. Mainly the M. Infantry doesn't look as cool. I made a mod where I made the regular Infantry up to Marines, and switched the Marines' defense with the defense of the M.Infantry. That way Marines were better Infantry, and the Mech Infantry became a light attacker . . . I didn't do it but you could possible remove a resource or two (maybe just oil) so you can still have something to use.

[des-esseintes]

I like to make swordies and longbows upgrade to rifles, Infantry unupgradeable, and also i give all vehicles the "wheeled" tag. Who ever heard of tank wars in mountains

[XOR]

Originally posted by des-esseintes Who ever heard of tank wars in mountains

The Russian invassion on Afghanistan used tanks. It was a big failure because Afghan mujahadin (holy warriors) had antitank weapons and could ambush tanks very easily.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Gen. Maximus
yep, cruise missiles only fires from ship or larger bombers. The only country that has been actively using this missile is the US and I doubt they have them ready to fire from their silos. They still have a limited range unlike the ICBMs and best they are mobile.

hi ,

the Israeli's actually had the first missile battle in history , .....

they use them on a regular basis in there wars , ....

the French have used them , ....

and about a dozen other nations , .......

and you dont need them on a ship or airplane to fire them either , they are actually very mobile , ......

as for the range , well 1200 km aint much maybe , but most people dont want to be on the recieving end , ......

have a nice day