Cruise Missiles and Nukes

[Crouchback]

I hope cruise missiles are examples of smart weapons, capable of targeting specific buildings/units. Sorry, I'm sure Dan said this somewhere in these forums but the best link I can find on short notice is civfanatics.

David

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Crouchback
I hope cruise missiles are examples of smart weapons, capable of targeting specific buildings/units. Sorry, I'm sure Dan said this somewhere in these forums but the best link I can find on short notice is civfanatics.

David

Dan mentioned smart weapons before, didn't he?

[drake]

Fair enough grumbold......

However, this incident is so insignificant in the granduer of the entire operation. No one even died. It wasnt a big issue. The targeting technology is far from perfect and sh1t is going to happen. No getting around it.

The Taliban werent upset by this. They were overjoyed. They werent worried about food being burnt or people dying. They just wanted to have a picture to put in the news. Negative propoganda is the only thing they can fight with. Eating it up isn't going to help our cause at all.

[Tventano]

Could you move this propaganda war, including the bad jokes to OT?

I think it very sad that again we are killing each other. For whatever "good" cause, and I do not think revenge a very good reason. Fighting a war in Civ is a different story, in reality it is awful.

[Lorizael]

I'm gussing Cruise Missiles (and yes, they can be smart weapons) will work the same as other planes, but nukes will probably be different. I'm hoping there is some sort of MAD. With every unit having an animated graphic, I'm sure nukes ( ) and cruise missiles will have one, too.

OT: Bad, baaad jokes. But seriously, we do have the best targeting sysmtes and missiles and satelites (which reminds me, what are satelites in Civ III gonna be?) in the wolrd, so hey, we are doing the best that can possibly done. More accidents would happen if others were doing the attacking.

And this is not a war of revenge. This is a war to make sure that another 7,000 people don't die.

[Fredric Drum]

Originally posted by drake


These terrorists intentionally killed thousands of people and we got people getting in a huff because we injured a few people and burned a couple loaves of bread that we surely had provided them in the first place anyway. The US has given more aid to Afghanistan than any country in the world. It was nothing but a regretful yet insignificant incident.

Next time we'll hit our target dead on right in the heart of a civilian population. Maybe then some people would be impressed by our accuracy. Right grummy?

Uhm.. the Afghan civilians weren't actually responsible for the air disasters, were they? You might as well drop bombs over Buenos Aires or Beijing for that matter.


Fred

[Matthew Hayden]

Alright Grumbold ?!!
My, aren't we British a bunch of pessimists


Sadly Drake, you are only too right about the Taliban using the incident involving the red cross facility ( In fact, given the oppurtunity Taliban forces have so far been taking supplies from the people, but this could be for a myriad of reasons) as propaganda to a population that has had to take their word for everything for seven years, causing them -sadly- to see the western world as enemies.
The rascism in Britain (I don't know about other countries) is creating exactly what bin Laden wants, and the whole idea of retaliating against the Taliban for the actions of a terrorist when really (seeing how the US armed forces are of course the best equipped, the probably the best period, in the world) they should have been liquidated before they could do so much damage.

"...we do have the best targeting sysmtes and missiles and satelites.....in the wolrd

Not only that, but you seem to have the crappyest schools in the world as well!!!!! Congrarulations you almighty protectors of Democra... sorry, Capitalism

By the way, what do all og yuo thnik of Prseidnte Bsuh??

I think he is a ****** intent on starting WW3.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Matthew Hayden
Not only that, but you seem to have the crappyest schools in the world as well!!!!! Congrarulations you almighty protectors of Democra... sorry, Capitalism

By the way, what do all og yuo thnik of Prseidnte Bsuh??

I think he is a ****** intent on starting WW3.

Well you certainly show stupidy isnt limited to the US school system.

[TVA22]

Mathew Haydon

I'm an American, I nearly lost someone I knew on Sept. 11, fortunately, she changed her plans at the last minute, I don't think the way to go about this is kill civillians, and our cruise missile accident was regretable, but just what the hell would you have done if you were the President of the United States?

I think you need to shut the f*ck up about our president, and either get behind the US, or go to hell. If you don't like it in the free world, move to Afganistan. And just what do you think makes Britian so much better than America in the political/economic sense?hmm? Um, sorry, but I like being a capitalist, I'm proud of being a sensible economist. And here's a fact for you: British are capitalists too, and our government derives from 16th century constitutional monarchy in England, with a bit of French philosophy for good measure.
The US is by no means perfect, but just how would you solve the world's problems, if we took our "****** intent on starting WW3" out of office, and put you in charge???

I've got no beef with the British here, in fact I thought it was particularly touching when Tony Blair said something to the effect of, "When the men of my father's generation withstood the Blitz, there was one people who stood by our side, Americans-- now we intend to return the favor."

[Colonel Kraken]

Originally posted by Shiva


Well you certainly show stupidy isnt limited to the US school system.

Sorry, I'm not one to usually make a one icon post, but that sure was funny.

[manofthehour]

Crappiest school system huh, so this is why we lead the world in technology and ideas.

[drake]

Uhm.. the Afghan civilians weren't actually responsible for the air disasters, were they? You might as well drop bombs over Buenos Aires or Beijing for that matter.


Fred

You talking about my last paragraph? Geez I think you need to take sarcasm 101

If we were intentionally attackin civilians I would agree with you fred. For that matter we might as well be bombing our own cities. But seeing how that isnt the case, theres no need for discussion.

Geez I'm sorry I opened this can of worms. Again sorry about that pods.

[Ming]

THIS IS THE CIV III FORUM... NOT THE OTF

Take your hateful comments somewhere away from Apolyton.
If you want to discuss politics or other issues... post them in the OTF where they belong. The next person that doesn't stay on topic in this thread WILL get a vacation.

[Sarxis]

About those Missiles

I know that air combat and bombardment is different, but I have no idea, nor have I heard anything about how the missiles work.

I wonder though if the missiles will have the same 'selective bombardment' ability as the bombers (and whatever) have? It would be great to be able to choose what city improvements or units they could hit.

Again, I can't say I have heard anything on the subject.

:EDIT:

Thanx to korn in this thread, we may now be enlightened:

quote:

there are now three additional types of combat: bombardment, missile attacks, and air combat. Bombardment is not limited to targeting enemy units--players can also use it against terrain improvements (roads and the like) and cities (where it may cause a population decrease or destroy city structures). Missiles operate in a similar way, but they are expended once the attack is conducted. And air units now have a specialized range of missions, running the gamut from air superiority to recon and precision bombing.


Check that thread for further discussion.

[Faboba]

Originally posted by cyril25376
Hi Faboba,
do you know the proverb:
"Si tacuisses philosophus mansisses" - If you would have been silent, you would be still a philosopher"

Feh!

I say what I think.
You will get neither falsehoods nor censor from me.

As to the topic in hand I once again find I wholeheartly agree with firaxis. It's stupid to be able to protect your civ from nukes by ringing troops around your territory,

"Base this is Eagle one. Sir, we cannot proceed to target, we'll have to abort"

"Base to Eagle one, Pilot, whats the problem?"

"We can't seem to fly over the warriors they've got down there sir"

Talk about you're low flying nukes

Also with planes the way they were you didn't really get a feel for the power of an aircraft carrier. It was really just a fast way of moving nukes round the world, admit it.