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.

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.

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.

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 .

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.

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)

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).

I agree with the $20k hammer. It is just that the american beureucracy is just inefficient (either that or those black ops take up a lot of cash!).

The ability to be able to target individual structures is a must, and with precision targeting hardware should be 90%+ chance. To be able to cripple an oponents military or economy would be a good addition to the game. Think: Start a brief war, take out all his/her banks, markets, stockXchanges etc. Then make peace. Their economy will be crippled andd you will be sitting pretty.

------------------
- Biddles

And I love Biddles' idea abou the unit workshop thing with different payloads. BTW, is it Stratford as in near Sale - thought ISPs wouldn't even exist over there...

This is for the rest of 'em:

By the way, what do you mean we don't have kangaroos and koalas in our backyards? We do in the sticks. (Until the farmers see them anyway)

------------------
- Biddles

Besides, in the city we don't get kangaroos etc anyway --> that was what I was saying.

Anyway, back to the topic - weapons that are supposed to 'disposable' should have higher morale than people units to encourage their building. eg the cruise missiles as above, but also maybe things like robots, automated fighters/bombers, and spaced based weaponry.

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 05-18-2000 03:15 PM 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.

I meant in game terms a future tech. Not in our relative terms today. Say civ3 uses a unit workshop like biddles mentioned. You'd initially be given a cruise missle with your basic conventional warhead, poor targeting, and slow speed. With later techs, you can then upgrade the warhead, targeting or propulsion system. This can then be used to extend the tech tree by upgrading any of our realistic units allowing the modern day game to go further.

One thing that always bugged me was how the technology advantage ended soon after I got to the end as I was no longer able to advance and eventually my enemies caught up.

Something you said got me thinking though, robots. It isn't all that far off ( ---> future tech). I can just imagine those enemy generals:
Master, Destroyers! (two droids roll out and start firing). Their shielded Master! The second general takes his lightsaber out of .... (Got a bit carried away there!).

------------------
- Biddles

------------------
- Biddles