Cruise missile in CtP2...

[TheLimey]

Just lazily looking through the Activision site, I noticed the inclusion of Cruise Missiles in CtP2. As I recall, CtP1 didn't include them, except through a mod, where ultimately they weren't used by the AI, and hence unbalancing.

I'm not sure if others have already seen and dicussed this. If so, I apologize for the repetition.

I wonder if the AI can effectively use the cruise missile. If so, this will be a very nice feature, as it was in Civ2.

[samurai]

I hope the cruise missiles in CTP2 could be of some use, and not have a negative influence on the game. I remember in civII when you got the AEGIS cruiser,there was no point in building cruise missiles.And the civilzation that got the AEGIS cruiser didn`t build any other ships, cause they would only be smashed by the cruise missiles.
I hope that the missiles don`t have the same effect in CTP2.
My problem is to see where it should have been used.If you attack a stack of units with a cruise missile,it shouldt have any effect.If you attack a single unit, it could be effective. What I think would be a very nice feature was if the missiles could chose a target in the middle of a stack of units, but less effective the further "back of the stack" you attack.
I also think that the missile shuld either hit or miss.It`s a bit unrealistic that it hits a little.Either it gives a lot of damege, or nothing at all.
What about more kinds of cruise missiles? More or less heavy.

------------------
The samurai has spoken

[Gedrin]

While I agree whole-heartedly that no-brainer decisions detract from the game (ie the build Aegis and only Aegis since everything else will die) I don't agree that a hit from a 'conventional' missile, cruise or otherwise, should automatically kill the target.

The benifit of the cruise is in its flightpath and accuracy, not payload. Cruise missile payload is pretty small when compared to a ballistic missile. Of course if it's a nuke who cares but the cruise in these games carry conventional warheads.

In a nutshell, I don't think the cruise should be turned into a clean nuke. At the very least if you want it to kill one unit garunteed then make it a tactical nuke which causes pollution on the square hit.

Gedrin

[Reaver]

I was thinking that it might work by doing a certain amount of damage to each unit in a stack. It would work to soften up an enemy stack before you sent in your troops to defeat it.

[The Kaiser]

Double post (doh!)
[This message has been edited by The Kaiser (edited October 10, 2000).]

[The Kaiser]

I sure I've seen info on Cruise missiles that can carry bomblet's, or cluster bomb type devices. I can't remember how many bombs they each carried, but I'm sure these could cause moderate damage to a wide area i.e. Unit Stack's.

I think a approach similar to Alpha is required, where you can define what type of warhead to fit to a missile.

[samurai]

Maybe its not realistic to let a missile destroy a whole unit,but its effect should be something else that no other ships got(I assume the missiles will be mostly used at sea).If I got a city that produces a plasma destroyer in two turns,why should I build a cruise missile? Of course there would be other cities producing not that fast, but I think the whole idea is to give this unit something that no other units has.
Maybe it doesnt have to destroy the whole unit, but If the missiles was capable of attacking one spesific unit in the stack,it would be a threat to every battleship sailing alone. Destroyers arond the ship would be needed at any time to make it harder for the missile to get a good hit.
I guess what I am trying to say,is that if the missile doesn`t have any specialities exept the "fast to produce and kamicase" option, it would be a very few that what would find it effecktive instead of building their own ships

[Bartemans]

How about putting cruise missiles on a ship? I mean, when I saw the American campaign against Bin Laden, I saw LOTS of Cruise missiles being launched from surface ships.

This should be possible in a CIV game, but up to now, I haven't seen it. Just submarines are capable of doing that in CTP. I do not agree with that. Since CTPII will have a great improvement on naval warfare, it would make ships more powerful against other ships and against (coastal) stacked units and cities.

It would also be more realistic, since most of the latest wars were fought with warheads.

Any reactions?

Bartemans
http://home.hccnet.nl/stolte.1

[samurai]

I can`t remember any missiles on subs in CTP, I guess you ment civII.

Yes, I think it would been a great idea to put some missiles on the ships.I think it would have been an idea that some ships actually started with a couple of missiles when they just was produced.
I don`t think that any war ship that is beeing buildt today not is equiped with any missiles.

[Bartemans]

Dear Samurai,

Must we always disagree?
(Norwegian and Dutch civil engineers both have their own specialties, so who's better in engineering? I do not know (just kidding)

Second: It is possible to put nukes on submarines. Nukes are (cruise)missiles with a nuclear warhead, so it is possible in CTP. However, no cruise missiles were implemented in CTP

I played CivII the other day and I really enjoyed those cruise missiles, espescially against inland cities. Then Those AEGIS cruisers couldn't defend inland cities.

I strongly agree with the idea that ships have longrange bombardments abilities (cruise missiles), even without having to build missiles. It is good for the big naval warfare part in CTPII.
However, special aeroplanes should then have the possiblity to knock out those ships, since that is happening today. One aeroplane not being detected is fatal for a warship.

Regards,

Bartemans
http://home.hccnet.nl/stolte.1

[MadWoodster]

Well after events in Yemen this week I think we need the Yemen rubber dingy, which can sink any ship no matter how advanced it is!

[samurai]

Thanks for your regards bartemans.
Of course there should be planes, or other ships that could bombard the long range bombard ships.
Making units capable of bombarding would stop the possibilty for ancient cannons to bombard battleships or plasmadestroyers as the ships in reality could bombard from a longer distance than the cannon would be able to shoot.
I think that this feature is a part of the whole "phalanx figthing stealth bombers" consept as activision has promised to fix.
It would also make it a lot more fair to the civs that has a lot of science.I mean,A civ with a lot of cannons and musketers,has no problem to stay alive against civs with battleships and tanks,unless the "battleship and tank" civ spend a lot more resources than they normaly would have.

Regard(especially you bartemans who liked my idea of long range bombardments)

[red_jon]

I HATED cruise missiles in Civ2.

Only because of the way the AI used them! They'd launch on after another at ships, taking ages, with the most annoying repetitive sound.

Oh, and cities should be able to 'prepare' for air bombardment, be it missile or otherwise. You should pay money that would go towards bunkers and AA guns, etc.

------------------
...And if the British Commonwealth and its people live for a thousand years, man will still say "this was their finest hour"- Winston Churchill.

[Dida]

quote: Originally posted by MadWoodster on 10-14-2000 09:11 AM Well after events in Yemen this week I think we need the Yemen rubber dingy, which can sink any ship no matter how advanced it is!

Yeah right, why not add a special unit call "Yemen Die Hard" , which sacrifice themselves in an attack.

[Bartemans]

Dear Dida,

Have you ever used the Eco-Rangers in CTP?
THAT is Jemen, but then on a larger scale

About the counter arguments: isn't it the reason why missiles were invented? Taking out enemy threats it the main goal of a missile. An enemy missile has the same goal: taking out your unit, so that is not a threat for the AI anymore. It balances the game, taking out the super-units.

Bye,

Bartemans
http://home.hccnet.nl/stolte.1