Cruise missiles?

[SandMonkey]

Is there a specific reason that cruise missiles were not included in civ4?

I'm thinking back to Civ2, and although they weren't particularly useful in that game, I feel like cruise missiles would actually be useful in civ4. It couldn't be that hard to make a missile unit: destroyed once launched, capable of destroying resources/bombarding cities, can travel on ships (specifically subs), and can attack specific units (i don't think collateral damage is appropriate here, though).

I would actually find this unit useful in pre-stealth bomber gameplay, specifically when it comes to destroying resources and bombarding city defenses.

Any thoughts?

[johnmcd]

I think ability to target a unit or improvement in a stack would be great, the only thing I would say is that even on Marathon the late game techs whizz past so fast that it would probably never see much use. It would be interesting if it did a guaranteed 50% damage or something, no more, no less.

Marathon is great for allowing bronze and iron age war but as soon as you hit gunpowder the whole thing flashes past.

[Nikolai]

Cruise missiles was really bad in Civ3, and gave little to the game experience, perhaps that's why Firaxis decided to cut it in Civ4?

[Son of David]

Since things in Civ4 are based on utility rather than a simulation of history, I reckon cruise missiles should have a fatal bombard capability - this would make them the only non-nuclear, artillery unit capable of destroying other units through the bombard function. Of course, the missile itself always 'dies' after the attack.

I'd be really surprised if cruise missiles aren't in the expansion pack along with 'tactical' nukes.

[Urban Ranger]

Cruise missiles move about 2 tiles on the map. They are not ICBMs, you know, and have a very limited range.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Son of David
I reckon cruise missiles should have a fatal bombard capability

Actually no. Cruise missiles aren't that great. They are very good for damaging small fixed targets, while being completely rubbish against military units.

[VonSharma]

I doubt anyone would bother with cruise missiles when artillery completely own cruisemissiles. So money

[Son of David]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Actually no. Cruise missiles aren't that great. They are very good for damaging small fixed targets, while being completely rubbish against military units.

But then again no country on the planet has an SDI system, let alone one with 75% accuracy.

And very few bomb shelters exist in this world which reduce the damage done by ICBMs by 75%.

Gameplay over pedantics perchance?

'A cruise missile is basically a small, pilotless airplane. Cruise missiles have an 8.5-foot (2.61-meter) wingspan, are powered by turbofan engines and can fly 500 to 1,000 miles (805 to 1,610 km) depending on the configuration.

A cruise missile's job in life is to deliver a 1,000-pound (450-kg) high-explosive bomb to a precise location -- the target. The missile is destroyed when the bomb explodes. Since cruise missiles cost between $500,000 and $1,000,000 each, it's a fairly expensive way to deliver a 1,000-pound package. '

1000 miles isn't exactly a trip to the grocery; and you can interpret the 'precision' of the attack as destroying the supply depot/training corp etc that the units require to remain effective.

I can sure imagine that a lot easier than imagining a bomb shelter taking off 75% of the damage done by a long-range nuclear missile.

[Hedgie2]

I hated the Civ 2 Cruise Missles, and took them out of the game straight away.

Im glad Civ 4 doesn't have it

[zombielordzero]

if you want the cruse missile to be playable with artillery in civ4, you have to give it a 10-20 tile radius, WITH the ability for the heavy bombers (b52 and stealth) to carry the cruise missiles to their maximum range, then launch to give the missiles that extra reach (surprize bombardment of the soposid "safe" cities for an ego hit/production devistation)

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Son of David
But then again no country on the planet has an SDI system, let alone one with 75% accuracy.

And very few bomb shelters exist in this world which reduce the damage done by ICBMs by 75%.

So your justification for some additional unrealistic addition to the game is there are already unrealistic elements to the game?

Originally posted by Son of David
Gameplay over pedantics perchance?

What kind of gameplay would such an unit add?

Originally posted by Son of David
'A cruise missile is basically a small, pilotless airplane. Cruise missiles have an 8.5-foot (2.61-meter) wingspan, are powered by turbofan engines and can fly 500 to 1,000 miles (805 to 1,610 km) depending on the configuration.

1000 miles ~ 4 tiles.

Originally posted by Son of David
1000 miles isn't exactly a trip to the grocery; and you can interpret the 'precision' of the attack as destroying the supply depot/training corp etc that the units require to remain effective.

As a said before, a cruise missile is rubbish against military units It could hardly scratch a company-sized unit.

Originally posted by Son of David
I can sure imagine that a lot easier than imagining a bomb shelter taking off 75% of the damage done by a long-range nuclear missile.

A "bomb shelter" is just a representation of the evacuation measures aimed to reduce civilian casualties.

Never heard of them before?

Furthermore, most casualties won't be a result of the the initial explosion in a nuclear attack - none of the two in Japan was. It's the radiation - induced illnesses that kill most of them. So, a nice scrubbing of the city will go a long way in cutting down the death toll.

[Son of David]

In answer to your point - which I think is the most important one - what would a cruise missile add? Well currently only nukes are the artillery-type of thing that can destroy buildings or cause fatal collateral damage.

Firaxis have categorically stated that they will not make any existing units have fatal bombard.

Therefore there is room for a non-nuclear, conventional device which bombards, can destroy buildings and causes fatal bombardment. That would be the nice thing to add to the existing rich variety of late-game options. It would also have another advantage - since cruise missiles are, in real life if I remember right, hard to detect, they would not be interceptable. Therefore you have a unit which is totally unlike bombers, artillery etc - because it is ranged, causes fatal bombard, damages buildings, cannot be intercepted and is not a nuke. Obviously it would be expensive to build.

Now as for range - that's all relative anyway as you well know (ancient and medieval wars taking centuries, units taking hundreds of years to move from one end of the empire to the other). And since cruise missiles will be launchable from destroyers to reflect reality, this makes the building of a late-game navy even more desirable and essential. Build a bunch of destroyers, move them near enemy cities, and let loose. Four space range - even that would be enough to attack cities near the coast.

[Older than Dirt]

No cruise missiles because it would have taken up valuable programming time and space and we would not have FORTS. Everyone knows how much we want, need, and use FORTS. So be quiet or they will take the FORTS away.

[SandMonkey]

VonSharma

I doubt anyone would bother with cruise missiles when artillery completely own cruisemissiles. So money

Actually this is exactly why I wanted cruise missiles - artillery in the late game is very slow and keeps offensives from steaming along, among many other problems.This thread should explain what I mean.

I'm not sure what the best range for a missile would be. 2-4, even if that's historically accurate, would make the unit useless.

zombielordzero

you have to give it a 10-20 tile radius, WITH the ability for the heavy bombers (b52 and stealth) to carry the cruise missiles to their maximum range, then launch to give the missiles that extra reach

Instead of actually having the bomber ACTUALLY carrying the unit, what about just assuming that your best bomber can carry the missile it's max range, and then launch the missile an extra few squares beyond that? That would mean with regular bombers the missile would have a range of around 13-15 squares, and that would increase when you get stealth bombers (I forget st. bombers range). I know it seems dumb to "say" they're being carried on a plane if they're not, but I think it's a good rationale for why they should be able to move 10+ squares. And if you use Son of David's example, if a missile is launched from a boat it's movement is restricted.

Clearly there are a lot of people who would not use a cruise missile, and would apparently be annoyed by it, but I still think it would have its uses. Specifically for destroying resources/bombarding cities, cruise missiles could be very useful. I would also be happy with them being very weak when attacking units, so that their only useful option is attacking structures.

[zombielordzero]

Originally posted by SandMonkey

Instead of actually having the bomber ACTUALLY carrying the unit, what about just assuming that your best bomber can carry the missile it's max range, and then launch the missile an extra few squares beyond that? That would mean with regular bombers the missile would have a range of around 13-15 squares, and that would increase when you get stealth bombers (I forget st. bombers range). I know it seems dumb to "say" they're being carried on a plane if they're not, but I think it's a good rationale for why they should be able to move 10+ squares. And if you use Son of David's example, if a missile is launched from a boat it's movement is restricted.

Clearly there are a lot of people who would not use a cruise missile, and would apparently be annoyed by it, but I still think it would have its uses. Specifically for destroying resources/bombarding cities, cruise missiles could be very useful. I would also be happy with them being very weak when attacking units, so that their only useful option is attacking structures.

the idea behind a heavy bomber carrying the cruise missiles is to add more range (5 to 10 tiles) to the base range (10 to 20 tiles) of the missile for the cost of a bomber being occupied while carrying/launching the missile (the heavy bombers should carry more than 1 cruise missile, preferably 4 to 10 missiles) and to hit a target that is believed to be "beyond bomber reach" by your target.

giving the destroyer the ability to carry the missiles wouldn't hurt either, just have a larger capasity than the bombers (10 to 20)

as for being good only vs buildings, i think a middle ground is needed here:

vs non-fortified units- reduced damage (50% or less)
vs fortified units (stationary targets aka sitting ducks) full damage.
vs buildings - full damage