Thread Tools
Old March 7, 2002, 11:53   #1
reluctantfrance
Settler
 
Local Time: 15:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 12
Do cruise missiles suck?
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?
reluctantfrance is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 12:09   #2
Harovan
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormPtWDG2 Monty PythonC4DG Gathering Storm
Civ4: Colonization Content Editor
 
Local Time: 22:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,117
I built one just for fun, used it, laughed and never built one again. No, in this state they are completely useless.
Harovan is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 12:12   #3
reluctantfrance
Settler
 
Local Time: 15:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 12
Thanks, that's kind of what I thought.
reluctantfrance is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 13:14   #4
Velociryx
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of FameC4DG Gathering StormThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Moderator
 
Velociryx's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of Candle'Bre
Posts: 8,664
Yes.

-=Vel=-
__________________
The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.
Velociryx is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 13:25   #5
Zealot
King
 
Zealot's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,267
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
Zealot is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 14:40   #6
Shadow_Cougar
Settler
 
Local Time: 21:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Dallas, TX usa
Posts: 23
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.
Shadow_Cougar is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 14:45   #7
Velociryx
staff
PtWDG Gathering StormApolytoners Hall of FameC4DG Gathering StormThe Courts of Candle'Bre
Moderator
 
Velociryx's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: of Candle'Bre
Posts: 8,664
LMAO! Shadow....the title of your post almost made me snort my tea thru my nose....

-=Vel=-
__________________
The list of published books grows. If you're curious to see what sort of stories I weave out, head to Amazon.com and do an author search for "Christopher Hartpence." Help support Candle'Bre, a game created by gamers FOR gamers. All proceeds from my published works go directly to the project.
Velociryx is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 15:01   #8
Spook42
Settler
 
Local Time: 16:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: DSM
Posts: 23
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 at 15:09.
Spook42 is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 15:38   #9
Loopy
Settler
 
Local Time: 21:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12
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.
Loopy is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 15:55   #10
Spook42
Settler
 
Local Time: 16:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: DSM
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally posted by Loopy
Artillery can't destroy a unit. Cruise missiles can.
That alone probably represents inherent "precision" beyond artillery & air units, although, IMO, it'd be better that artillery & air be given SOME chance (even a small chance) to "kill" a unit too.
Spook42 is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 16:12   #11
Moonsinger
Warlord
 
Local Time: 15:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally posted by Loopy
Artillery can't destroy a unit. Cruise missiles can.
Thanks! I didn't know that. I have never built any missle but I have always captured some (about 17 of them in one game). Since I did know what to do with them, I just disband them for shields. Thanks to you, next time, I will try it on the enemy battleships.
Moonsinger is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 17:00   #12
godinex
Prince
 
godinex's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: because I'm the son of the King of Kings.
Posts: 661
Uh? Thats new for me.... Cruise missiles that sink batleships? Nice try
__________________
Traigo sueños, tristezas, alegrías, mansedumbres, democracias quebradas como cántaros,
religiones mohosas hasta el alma...
godinex is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 17:40   #13
Skanky Burns
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameACDG The Cybernetic ConsciousnessC4DG Team Alpha CentauriansApolytoners Hall of FameACDG3 Spartans
 
Skanky Burns's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:25
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Skanky Father
Posts: 16,530
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).
Skanky Burns is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 17:50   #14
Tarquelne
Warlord
 
Local Time: 16:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 208
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.)
Tarquelne is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 18:00   #15
Loopy
Settler
 
Local Time: 21:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12
Quote:
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.
Nah, they were still effective pre 1.17f. With an elite battleship offshore, you'd still want to use artillery or other bombard units to knock 'em down to 2 hp. The cruise missile would probably sink some of those damaged battleships, and most other naval units. Like bombers, cruise missles had a chance of taking off more than 1 HP.

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
Loopy is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 19:10   #16
Jaybe
Mac
Emperor
 
Jaybe's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Henderson, NV USA
Posts: 4,168
Re: Do cruise missiles suck?
Quote:
Originally posted by reluctantfrance
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?
Do cruise missles suck? NO

They are definitely worth building. The problem is that some people think just because they go by a particular name, they should be used the way we associate with in RL. Let it Go! They are just another unit, which you want to build depending on the type of warfare you are involved in.
Jaybe is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 19:40   #17
Andrew Cory
Warlord
 
Local Time: 13:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SF bay Area
Posts: 198
Quote:
Originally posted by Spook42
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.
Yep, I did all that. Well, a bit more. I pumped up the attack value of the missles to 50, with a bombard range of 8. I gave the missel a tactical missle flagg, made it loadable, and let it rebase (that last was a bit of cheese, to be fair).

I gave my N. Subs the abilty to carry up to 20 units (more cheese, but I was in a hurry to test the theory), and I gave the Aegis the ability to carry 10. The net result was a navy that could take out damned near anything on the seas, and make amphibious landings a cakewalk...
__________________
Do the Job

Remember the World Trade Center
Andrew Cory is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 21:31   #18
Gatekeeper
Mac
King
 
Gatekeeper's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: United States of America
Posts: 2,306
I find it curious as to why TPTB made subs incapable of carrying cruise missiles in the first place. Surely they're aware that certain subs routinely carry non-nuclear cruise missiles for use against foes. Tomahawk cruise missiles come to mind immediately.

CYBERAmazon
__________________
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll die defending your right to say it." — Voltaire

"Wheresoever you go, go with all your heart." — Confucius
Gatekeeper is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 21:33   #19
Whoha
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameACDG3 Morgan
Emperor
 
Whoha's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: The TOC is supposed to be classified guys...
Posts: 3,700
I gave em a range of eight, upped their attack to the max, set them as tactical missiles, gave several ships the carry option(8 for aegis, 2 for destroyers 1 for battleships,1 for regular subs,8 for nuclear subs), lowered their cost to 10. They are fairly useful with these changes, however I wish I could give Aegis cruisers a defense against them, and make cities able to produce multiple missiles a turn.
Whoha is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 21:48   #20
Thoth
King
 
Thoth's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Toronto, UnAmerica
Posts: 2,806
Quote:
Originally posted by Spook42
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.
There is a workaround for this:

Toggle the cruise missile to "Footsoldier" and "Tactical Missile"

Toggle the "Carry Tactical Missiles" flag and "Carry Footsoldiers Only" flags for the AEGIS cruiser

Increase the holds, tick the appropriate "Load" "Unload" boxes and you're there.
Thoth is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 23:09   #21
Spook42
Settler
 
Local Time: 16:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: DSM
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally posted by Thoth


There is a workaround for this:

Toggle the cruise missile to "Footsoldier" and "Tactical Missile"

Toggle the "Carry Tactical Missiles" flag and "Carry Footsoldiers Only" flags for the AEGIS cruiser

Increase the holds, tick the appropriate "Load" "Unload" boxes and you're there.
That's worth looking into, thank you, Thoth.

I had contemplated something like that earlier, but wondered if trying to define a cruise missile unit as both a "cruise missile" and a "footsoldier" would cause the Civ3 game to barf on the edit.

This would also make AEGIS cruiser units as able to transport other foot-soldier units too, but on an abstract level, that might not be so bad. It's just that in my own edit, the AEGIS are already the fastest ships (speed of 6) floating.
Spook42 is offline  
Old March 7, 2002, 23:11   #22
Cairo_East
Chieftain
 
Cairo_East's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 36
Cruise missles should be divided into two units. Somethuing like a V-2 would correspond to this unit, and a modern cruise missle could be closer to the CivII unit.
__________________
"'It's the last great adventure left to mankind'
Screams a drooping lady,
offering her dreamdolls at less than extortionate prices."
-"The Grand Parade of Lifeless Packaging" (Genesis 1974)
Cairo_East is offline  
Old March 8, 2002, 00:52   #23
Sinapus
Warlord
 
Sinapus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 15:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 269
Quote:
Originally posted by Thoth


There is a workaround for this:

Toggle the cruise missile to "Footsoldier" and "Tactical Missile"

Toggle the "Carry Tactical Missiles" flag and "Carry Footsoldiers Only" flags for the AEGIS cruiser

Increase the holds, tick the appropriate "Load" "Unload" boxes and you're there.

Should you also click the "Naval Missile Transport" box under the Sea AI Strategies section? (So it's a "Naval Power" and "Naval Missile Transport" ship.) Wondering if it will be needed to get the AI to carry cruise missiles on an Aegis.

Hm. Marines are Foot Soldiers, so if you give that ability to Battleships as well it might match reality since those ships usually had a marine detachment as well. Still, I'd rather see an "improved battleship" or something like that appear later on the tech tree for older battleships to upgrade to.
__________________
|"Anything I can do to help?" "Um. Short of dying? No, can't think of a |
| thing." -Morden, Vir. 'Interludes and Examinations' -Babylon 5 |
Sinapus is offline  
Old March 8, 2002, 09:14   #24
Thoth
King
 
Thoth's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Toronto, UnAmerica
Posts: 2,806
Spook:

In Civ III, transports can only carry one category of units: air, ground or tactical missiles. So there are no problems with AEIGIS cruisers carrying ground units, they can't.

Sinapus:

Yes, I think the "Missile Transport" AI option should be checked, but I haven't done much late game testing with this.
Thoth is offline  
Old March 8, 2002, 10:27   #25
Shadow_Cougar
Settler
 
Local Time: 21:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Dallas, TX usa
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally posted by CYBERAmazon
I find it curious as to why TPTB made subs incapable of carrying cruise missiles in the first place. Surely they're aware that certain subs routinely carry non-nuclear cruise missiles for use against foes. Tomahawk cruise missiles come to mind immediately.

CYBERAmazon
The attack subs carry cruise missles (Los Angeles class, SSN 719 + have 12 VLS tubes and 22 missles), but not tactical missles. Missle subs carry tactical weapons, but not cruise missles.

Something I would love to see...

I cross the AI's line of death and a wave a bombers, fighters and cruise missles pound my fleet into scrap.
Shadow_Cougar is offline  
Old March 8, 2002, 11:05   #26
reluctantfrance
Settler
 
Local Time: 15:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 12
All the suggestions for using the edit tool to fix this glaring oversite are appreciated.

I discovered that cruise missiles did indeed suck when indian battleships were off the coast of one of my large cities and bombarding the tile improvements.

"Aha", I thought, "they are dead now. I have 24 cruise missiles stockpiled. Get ready for 3 dead battleships and assorted support vessels."

Imagine my surprise when I discovered I couldn't reach any of their ships due to the very short range. This was after I discovered I couldn't load them onto submarines. (BTW, most of the real world cruise missile platforms are naval. And most of those are subs. Someone mentioned the Los Angeles class attack sub).

I ended up using them to beat down a city's defenders that was within range after they moved quickly on rail. Apparently, in Civ3, cruise missiles are all mounted on rail cars.

Again, thanks for the edit suggestions. I think I will alter the range for cruise missiles to 4 and make them a tactical weapon, so nuke subs can carry them.
reluctantfrance is offline  
Old March 8, 2002, 11:07   #27
reluctantfrance
Settler
 
Local Time: 15:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 12
Re: Re: Do cruise missiles suck?
Quote:
Originally posted by Jaybe

Do cruise missles suck? NO

They are definitely worth building. The problem is that some people think just because they go by a particular name, they should be used the way we associate with in RL. Let it Go! They are just another unit, which you want to build depending on the type of warfare you are involved in.
Yes , they do suck in their current form. Their short range and inability to be loaded on subs makes them next to worthless.
reluctantfrance is offline  
Old March 8, 2002, 15:33   #28
Spec
Emperor
 
Spec's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: of poor english grammar
Posts: 4,307
YES THEY SUCK!! PERIOD!! How can a 40 foot long missile not kill a unit?!? Dont get me wrong, I think that Civ3 is a great game but D A M N! A cruise missile is as useless as trying to swallow your pocket change!...or eating mud...or....anyway, you get my point right?

Spec.
__________________
-Never argue with an idiot; He will bring you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Spec is offline  
Old March 8, 2002, 15:51   #29
Jaguar
C4DG Sarantium
Emperor
 
Jaguar's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Haven, CT
Posts: 4,790
They sure are useful for getting those 1 defense modern age units that happen to be unprotected and two squares away from a city that has one.
__________________
"You're the biggest user of hindsight that I've ever known. Your favorite team, in any sport, is the one that just won. If you were a woman, you'd likely be a slut." - Slowwhand, to Imran

Eschewing silly games since December 4, 2005
Jaguar is offline  
Old March 8, 2002, 17:18   #30
Loopy
Settler
 
Local Time: 21:25
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 12
You know modern armor sucks soooooo badly. I had to up the attack rating to 65 and movement to 6 before they became of any use at all. I mean the Panzer VI only had a top speed of 25 MPH and the M1A1 can now go over 50 MPH (if wasn't speed governed). So modern armor should have twice as much movement as Panzers right?

The fact is, upping modern armor stats to those levels would make them extrememly overpowered and unbalance the game. Plus, my comparison of actual units (though accurate) isn't quite fair. Sure modern armor units with those inflated stats would kick butt, but if you just wanted to kick butt, you can play on Chieftan or something.

Or look at it this way. Of all the bombarding units, cruise missiles have the highest bombard rate and the highest firepower rate. If you could use radar artillery to scratch a unit, you could also use cruise missiles to destroy that same unit. If you look at range, they have the same max range as any ground unit (instant unlimited movement via rails in a single turn).

On top of being the best bombard unit, cruise missiles are the only bombarding unit that can actually destroy a unit. So they're hardest hitting, have awesome range (on rails + 3 MP), and can destroy. I can see the added utility of making them launchable off of some naval units, but I'd hardly call say they suck in stock form. The only balanced and justifiable way of giving them greater range would be to make them air units and taking away their ability to move on rails.

Simple fact is, cruise missiles are a balanced unit of appropriate strength and limitations for their cost and age. If you want mass destruction, use nukes.
Loopy is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 17:25.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team