I've found cruise missiles to be less useful in Civ3, because they can't be loaded on submarines. Has anyone found them to be worth building?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Do cruise missiles suck?
Collapse
X
-
Yes.
-=Vel=-
Comment
-
Used them once on a musket man. Didn't kill it. Tried sometimes again, but the "kill unit" ratio was too low (IF they did kill the unit; don't remember very well)."BANANA POWAAAAH!!! (exclamation Zopperoni style)" - Mercator, in the OT 'What fruit are you?' thread
Join the Civ2 Democratic Game! We have a banana option in every poll just for you to vote for!
Many thanks to Zealot for wasting his time on the jobs section at Gamasutra - MarkG in the article SMAC2 IN FULL 3D? http://apolyton.net/misc/
Always thought settlers looked like Viking helmets. Took me a while to spot they were supposed to be wagons. - The pirate about Settlers in Civ 1
Comment
-
Is a bear catholic?
If they had some range (3-5), they might have some use. Arty on rails works better, is cheaper and doesn't commit suicide and can move to another land mass.
I only use cruise missles when the game is won and I am trying different strategies.
Too bad you can't FedEx artillery.
Comment
-
LMAO! Shadow....the title of your post almost made me snort my tea thru my nose....
-=Vel=-
Comment
-
By default, cruise missiles are incredibly lame; 2-hex range, yadda yadda.
With the Civ3 editor, I did the following:
1) Gave the cruise missile a 4-hex range; 5-6 could be argued for by others.
2) Toggled the cruise missile to also be a "tactical missile." So my nuclear subs can carry them too.
3) Changed "transport" ability of nuclear subs (for missiles) to "2."
I'd like for AEGIS cruisers to carry these also, but then, to give those the ability to carry cruise missiles as "tactical missiles" would mean that AEGIS could carry tac-nuke missiles too.
Perhaps cruise missiles could also be toggled to allow "precision strikes" also? After all, that's their real-life primary function.
In hindsight, the best way that cruise missiles should've been handled in Civ3 is that when precision-strike becomes available to a civ, then its AEGIS, subs, and rocket artillery would all get the "precision strike" option.Last edited by Spook42; March 7, 2002, 15:09.
Comment
-
Artillery can't destroy a unit. Cruise missiles can.
Once you have rails, when used with artillery, cruise missiles are the most efficient way of defending your coastal borders. They move faster than naval units and have no problems sinking those bothersome bombarding battleships from land.
I wouldn't call them useless, but maybe limited in use. Then again, so are bombers or fighters or marines.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Loopy
Artillery can't destroy a unit. Cruise missiles can.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Loopy
Artillery can't destroy a unit. Cruise missiles can.
Comment
-
Cruise missiles can destroy units.
However, before 1.17f cruise missiles couldn't target units with only 1 hit point left. So you could only bombard units that you didn't have a chance of destroying.
Perhaps they are worth building now??I'm building a wagon! On some other part of the internets, obviously (but not that other site).
Comment
-
Maybe not _useless_, but I thought they were pretty silly.
I gave 'em range 5, and made them more expensive. (I made all the "offensive" units more expensive - IIRC, I made them cost 9.)
(I'll toggle "tactical missile" on so subs can carry them, too. Thanks.)
Comment
-
Originally posted by Skanky Burns
However, before 1.17f cruise missiles couldn't target units with only 1 hit point left. So you could only bombard units that you didn't have a chance of destroying.
I haven't used them post patch, but if the bombard rates haven't been too mucked up, they're probably a guaranteed sinking after bombarding down to 1 HP.
Loopy -- who wishes people would RTFM
Comment
Comment