Cruise Missiles

[danielc]

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. ! ! !

[OrangeSfwr]

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?~~~

[Zulu Elephant]

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

[agent4043]

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.

[tniem]

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. :-)

[War4ever]

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

[Venger]

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

[Par4]

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

[Urban Ranger]

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).]

[Az]

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).]

[Eurhetemec]

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."

[ember]

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

[The Kaiser]

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.

[Jon Miller]

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

[The Kaiser]

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.