I played a game a while back, on regent, though I'm sure it works on monarch which is what I play now.

In the actual game this happened, I did this on the Eastern Front. On the Western Front it wasn't so clean (picture artillery killing millions of civilians before moving in--pop 26 and the likes down to 1)

However, here's the plan:

Whenever you are tempted to build wealth or excess military units, build cruise missiles. Got around 100 (in theory--I got about 60 or so, but the first 40 before the war started--100 would have been enough to avoid such high civilian deaths in the west). You can always build more during the war.

Then, when war inevitible happens, find a city with only one or no tiles of a barrier (so you don't have to move the missiles in their lands). Then, you fire until all until the garrison is dead. Proceed by moving Mechanized Infantry and Modern Armor into the newly liberated ciy.

Congrats, you got city number 1 without any of your troops or their citizens dead.

Now here coems the trickier parts:

1)What if I have to move the missiles into their territory to be in range?
2)What if they start bombing and invading me?

1) If you can't just shoot from your territory (and this WILL happen), you have a few options:
A. abandon this whole cruise missile thing and start using bombers and artillery as well as the missiles and expect civilian casualties.
B. Bring in the Mechanized Infantry to excort such missiles until you are in range. When you are in range of firing, you are also in range of taking the cities with the Mechanized Infantry. Infact, you might notice that to follow this strategy modern armor are not needed (but are usefull as I will explain later).
Note that it is quite likely you will lose some troops doing this. One nice thing is that since cruise missiles only move one tile, you have enough movement to fortify your MI, thus giving you 24+terrain defence. Bringing along the artillery for support fire from enemy soldiers won't hurt--could even help take the cities, but that goes against the spirit of this plan).

2)First off, when I commenced this plan myself, just about every city was a metro, so if the enemy attacks your metros head on (especially in PtW--civil defense, radar towers), he's bound to lose. However, it can be a pain when the enemy starts pillaging your roads, bombs your cities, massacres your workers, etc. To defend against such a counter attack you can have jet fighters gaurding cities and 3 squares surrounding terrain (air superiority gives a defensive range of half it's operational range). You can try having MI at your borders in fortresses with supporting radar towers and artillery. That may seem somewhat unfeasible, but one must remember at this point you've already won or lost the game anyway, so you're probably just playing for fun.


Other things to note! In Play the World, stealth bombers now have a range of 12. This means even in large maps, they can usually hit at least halfway across the continent. Since this is modern warfare it is ESSENTIAL to pillage their resources, in this priority.

1)Rubber (makes tanks, modern armor, mech.infantry, infantry, paratroopers, marines). Even though cruise missiles are so powerul, enemies with such high defense, especially in such large cities (I think that affects bombarding units), are going to take alot. It's much nicer hitting riflemen and guerillas.

2) Oil (makes tanks, modern armor, mech.infantry, planes, and modern ships). This one really helps with the enemy counterattacking with planes, sinking your ships, etc. Not as useful when they aren't counterattacking in any way.

3)Aluminum (stealth planes, modern armor, cruise missiles, radar artillery, nuclear weapons). You'll notice the important ones the AI makes are covered with oil/rubber. You might even hope the AI makes such artillery as you may want to take it. Nuclear weapons, however, are a danger if nukes have already been launched in the game. (Rarely does an AI make the first strike of the game--though I HAVE Seen it happen in vanilla 1.29).

4)Uranium (nuclear weapons, nuclear submarines) obvious why this one is lower priority, no?

The rest are a bit more trivial. Iron/coal for rails. Any of them for ruining your enemy's trade deals with their allies is nice. I mean, at this point with your endgame units, how much are you going to fear the extra production of enemy cavalry or knights?

To explain the modern armor thing (which I promised earlier--if I haven't already :p), modern armor is really nice for counter attacking. If the enemy attacks your stack of MI and CMs, they may kill a few, or one, or just wound itself with whatever means it can, modern armor is great for the counter attack, as you generally want cruise missiles to use on the well defended cities.

Precision bombing: If you are willing to accept colateral damage, or spend lots of money spying (to know how many/what buildings the target has, as to know when to stop before civilians), you might opt to use your theoritcal stealth bombers (or f-15s or stealth fighters--but don't expect results) to take out enemy buildings. Since stealth bombers employ either 8 or 12 range depending on what version you have, you can pretty likely strike deep into the core to take out factories and the likes, to help prevent counter attacks.
This is not the wisest strategy on the parimeter cities as you want as many buildings functioning there to make them productive.

Part of the plan is that you DON'T starve enemy citizens down. If you are going to kill them that way you might as well hit them with inaccurate artillery.

Remember, this can be used in conjunction with other strategies, as that is what I did in the actual game. (I must admit I built too much artillery to let it go to waste). Good luck on "liberating" the world!

Ahh, yes, cruise missiles. I am familiar with those. I am experimenting with a v1.9 (beta) of the ArtilleryMod and cruise missiles have been hiked up, cost lower and ROF higher and range higher, too. In that game, I built cruise missiles in stacks of six and used them.

I was killing 3hp and 4hp units and knocking down mechanized infantries down to 2hp and 1hp. It helped greatly with the damned AI drafting and me not bringing enough units - I'd kill the draftee with a cruise missile and take them over.

I think that it would be most effective if just done before the age of mechanized infantries and modern armor. For some reason, the AI doesn't prioritize Computers as much (at least in my games). I've killed transports and riflemen with the cruise missiles, but never mech infantry in one shot.

I think cruise missles are great but u use them once and poof there gone. I only use cruise missles to hit targets in a first wave. Then I bombard them to death with massive airpower and artillery.

You should be able to load them into ships toget them closer to the enemy and also a range of TWO!!! If a cruise missile can't go from the South to the North of Britain on a single fuel tank then I'll eat my hat. Can't they hit the opposite side of the world in half an hour or something?

Hygro, I like your approach to using cruise missiles. I've never built them in the numbers you suggest, but I think I'll give it a try when the opportunity arises. It really could be a game breaker. Even in smaller numbers, it's a good way to avoid beating your regular units up taking a city. I've gotten good use out of them defensively too.Originally posted by immortal_empire
You should be able to load them into ships toget them closer to the enemy and also a range of TWO!!! If a cruise missile can't go from the South to the North of Britain on a single fuel tank then I'll eat my hat. Can't they hit the opposite side of the world in half an hour or something? I agree they should be launched from battleships, nuclear subs, and Aegis cruisers. The range of a Tomahawk is about 1000 miles (not quite the other side of the world), so the game cruise missile unit could probably stand a little more range. As far as speed - about 400 miles/hour IIRC - they rely on flying below the radar, not on speed.

My experiences with cruise missiles in the game has always been that they are fairly dismal. I might try this though, just to see.

Yes they should be launchable from ships - not battleships though, they are meant to be obsolete long before cruise missiles - although for launching them from ships to be truly useful, one would have to be able to sign agreements against launching long range land-to-land cruise missiles, like the US has :)

-Sirp.

A war like this is not exactly cost efficiant, as you can usually stik with your old bombers and huge artillery stacks, and then accept a few tanks as casualties, taking down enemy cities to nothing and starving the citizens, making your own people live their, and all the usual tactics. Since cruise missiles are so slow

However, if used as a hybrid tactic as I did, it can be cost effective, and extremely useful against huge, well defended cities.

As I mentioned earlier, by this point in the game, even if you haven't recieved an official win yet, you're still to the point where you can't lose, and probably will get that win regardless of how serious you play.

Thus, it can be fun fighting a war like this.

I agree, cruise missiles should be able to go on ships, like aegis cruisers and nuclear subs and such, and their ragne should be a bit greater. However, I've found that they are relatively powerful is it is, and they are still effective.

I think Cruise Missiles are quite useful even when using more "normal" tactics. Pesky AI Battleships bombarding your coasts? Redline 'em with Arty and sink 'em with Cruise Missiles. Obnoxious AI Mech Inf moving into your mountains? Redline and Cruise Missile. If only it was possible to airlift the stupid things ...

I'm not too fond of using them against AI cities, since I don't typically care if I kill enemy civilians.

when capturinjg a enemy city,you will normally find at least 7 resisters in a size 20 city, normally more. so it is easier to kill a few of them off before you capture it.
if youve already got a victory, or diplomacy is off, then there nothing to stop you from signing a RoP with the civ, movign all your cuise missiles, arty and other slow units that get there nomally after your Ma's have capured a city. move about 10 cruise missiles in range of a city, then fie all of them at the same time. te civ has now got all hthere cities with little or no defences, so youre ma'a, aslo postioned nextthe the enemy city, can march in, maybe kill the few defenders left.
this way the whle nation wil be gone in one turn if you have enough units.

One thing I've found effective is precision bombing cities down to size 6 or less, and THEN using cruise missiles. This is nice since your enemies will no longer get a city related defence bonus (as walls and civil defence will be gone too), thus making your missiles more potent.

However, as I think I've mentioned everytime, this is not a strategy for winning but for fun (like the majority of modern age wars).

I orringinally wrote this strategy since it was all about not killing any civilians.

One serious advantage to that is you can remain on positive relations with civ after the war.

And Farting Bob, most cities I take over have a vast majority of resisters. Just the other day I took a size 12 city with 12 resisters, which as you can imagine, was a pain to quell.

Originally posted by Hygro
And Farting Bob, most cities I take over have a vast majority of resisters. Just the other day I took a size 12 city with 12 resisters, which as you can imagine, was a pain to quell.
Aren't they a bugger? I think I got 17 in a size 24 city. They always seem to flip back before you can quell the last one or two.
I found the only way to stop this I have the patience/inclination for was to kill off the parent civ. Then you can quell at your leisure with all those useless longbowmen. Heh, heh.

edit the game and set Cruise Missle to an air unit with more movement( i like to give mine 7 or so). then, give it the highest bombard range possible without giving it infinate range. this will make it impossible for the enemy to steal your Cruise Missles in mid-air.
________
American idol advice (http://www.tv-gossip.com/american-idol/)

So, can someone give a 100% confirmation whether Cruise Missiles can ever be put on a vessel in any way.
I'm not so worried about firing them but last game (I'm new to Civ3 but played Civ1 & 2 plenty) I made CM's on my continent, planning to transport them to the continent where all of the remaining AIs lived ... Only to find :eek: that I couldn't get them on a transport. Would an Aegis have worked (the game didn't last that long).
Similarly, it seemed strange that they couldn't be transported by airport when modern armor (which *must* be heavier) could..... And super-strangely, workers are afraid to fly !!!??? ... but I digress.

you can only load cruise missiles onto transoprts, galleons, caravels, and galleys. However, you cannot use the 'load' feature. You must manually walk from the shore to the ship hanging next to land.

As farting bob said, in every serious modern age war,
you actually WANT to starve the enemy cities, so i see
CMs as additional weapon to be used against fortified
positions in favorable terrain, not as replacement
for artillery, which you produce once and then use forever. ;)
On the other hand, if you are playing a peaceful game on
your continent (space race) and the AI trys to invade with
large ship stacks, i prefer the range and power of nukes. :nuke:

I like CM as a defensive tool. line stacks of them scattered on your coast and border (if your not on a continent by yourself) with artillery and tanks to guard them to show the enemy that getting in our empire is FUTILE scum! (works well if u also have a continental navy that has ships based in every coastal city along with bombers to help in the job of pummeling transports and annoying little ships that attack your coast) I usually play defensive any ways...

Wow, - what a wierd restriction! ( the need to walk cruise missiles onto ships, not "load" them ) .... anyone know what the thinking is there? - does it avoid some sort of exploit? ... are there any other units that work the same way?
-
Anyway, - thanks for the info

THe one bad thing about cruise missles is they can only be used once, the best thing about them though is when you hit a city with them they will always either miss or hit a mililtary unit, they leave citizens and infastructure pretty much alone.

Originally posted by sabo10
THe one bad thing about cruise missles is they can only be used once, the best thing about them though is when you hit a city with them they will always either miss or hit a mililtary unit, they leave citizens and infastructure pretty much alone.

:D that's the whole Idea, kill the soldiers, take the rest.

In all my civ3 games, I have never built a cruise missile and I never saw a need to build one

Cruise Missles are fun. I use them to take down heavily defended towns and in conjunction with Marines' assaulting coastal cities.

i built 1 cruise missle, and it got hijacked by a Longbowman when i was taking it to its destination. After that, i used the editor and gave Cruise Missles more range and flagged them as "Treat all terrain as roads."
________
Strawberry Cough Pictures (http://trichomes.org/marijuana-strains/deep-chunk-x-strawberry-cough/deep-chunk-x-strawberry-cough)

CMs are inexpensive and can kill injured units from a single shot. After you have blasted your enemy's city to Stone Age with Artillery and planes, you just have to storm bombard them with CMs and land paratroopers after garrison is destroyed.

I have generally found cruise missiles and artillery in general to be a complete waste of time. I have found that a massive stack of tanks will do what artillery can is half the time. I get bored as all hell clicking through ordering 40 rocket launchers to bombard a city, especially when 35 of them miss their target, very frustrating and boring indeed. Bombers are far more useful that any sort of artillery, although not necessarily more acurate. Is there a way to increase the odds of a bombardment? Also, anyone else have troulbe getting the "automate bombing" button to work? I get so bored ordering hundreds of bombers and artillery to attackt the same cities turn after turn.
Cheers,
Maples45

I've been playing at Monarch level lately and winning, but I still haven't ever checked out cruise missiles, so I have some questions.

- CMs aren't like bombarding? They will actually kill units?

- CMs aren't like bombarding? They only hit other military units, not city improvements or citizens?

- How effective are they? CM vs tank against infantry? CM vs modern armor vs mechanized infantry?

- Can you use them against naval units?

Thanks :)

You can use them against naval units. In fact that's the real use of them - any idiotic ship bombarding you, you can hit them out with a couple of cruise missiles.

I've found that they're only really effective against industrial units, like riflemen or infantry. Mechanized Infantry and Modern Armor are too strong to get knocked out by a cruise missile in one shot. More like three missiles, which isn't worth it.

No they don't hit citizens or improvements. That's the beauty of it. You can launch missiles at a city and not worry about destroying a building or killing a citizen. But if you've killed all the defending units, you can destroy improvements.

Yes, they're lethal bombardment - they can kill units. You can kill industrial age units in one shot often. A ship will get destroyed by a few cruise missiles.

Hope that helps.

I don't use cruise missiles much. They are usually too hard to move around my empire (if I have multi islands).

I did use one in the current GOTM (no real spoiler here). I had a barbarian galley redlined and wandering in an inland sea for about 1000 years. I didn't want a ship in that sea, so I finally built a cruise missile just to put it out of its misery. :)

Now that's what they are there for. To get rid of things that annoy you.

Cruise Missiles are great for modern warfare, and I would argue essential.

MI and CM stacks can take the most heavily defended of cities with ease while not taking a single casualty which in my opinion makes them a better option to MA which can be stopped by even infantry in a well defended city. No casualties = no war weariness! (Or at least as far as I can tell.) Sure this is a bit slower, you are limited to only moving two squares (or perhaps one, I cannot remember if I uped thier movement when I did so to the Radar Artillery in my game) so each stack is restricted to one city per turn, but I think the benifits are definetly worth it.

Assuming a stack takes on average two cities every three turns I'd say you'd only need four cities making a CM per turn per stack. Multiply that by about four or five stacks for about 16-20 cities making just cruise missiles. Not very hard to do.

In a city, trying to strike with cruise missiles is even worse, because of the defense they get. The stats on cruise missiles were upped a fair bit when I was playing with them (ArtilleryMod) and if I was lucky I was able to take out a mechanized infantry in a metropolis with three missiles.

Well that seems odd, as I can generally seem to do it with about 2-3 unmodded as far as I can recall... it's been a while since I've had a modern age war though...

Generally I can take a veteran mechanized infantry unit with no more than 4 cruise missiles undmodded--often 3.

While in a metropolis on say grasslands, a fortified mechanized infantry unit has a total defense of 42.3 I believe, and a cruise missiles has 16 attack with 3 tries effectively giving it 48 attack.

Originally posted by Lord Beverage
Cruise Missiles are great for modern warfare, and I would argue essential.

MI and CM stacks can take the most heavily defended of cities with ease while not taking a single casualty which in my opinion makes them a better option to MA which can be stopped by even infantry in a well defended city. No casualties = no war weariness! (Or at least as far as I can tell.) Sure this is a bit slower, you are limited to only moving two squares (or perhaps one, I cannot remember if I uped thier movement when I did so to the Radar Artillery in my game) so each stack is restricted to one city per turn, but I think the benifits are definetly worth it.



Aren't cruise missles used up in an attack? I thought they were always destroyed in the attack process, but it's been ages since I have used one (maybe CIV II :rolleyes: )

Cruise missiles are used up in an attack.

Arty/cruise missiles are excellent defense against AI transports. I usually ferry a few to my island cities, as the AI is fond of trying to hit those. When teh destroyer/transport comes around, I redline with arty, sink with cruise missle, thereby saving me the hassle of dealing with a transport full of invaders.

Later!

--The Clown to the Left

Well I've found out a lot from this thread. I feel like loading that saved game I never finished while at war with the french.

I've never been a CM user

I rarely get to the modern ages but when I do the main use of the Cruise missiles is to sink AI warships. I first weaken them with arty, then sink them with one cruise missile. Other than that I don't really use them even if I build and stockpile them in low shield cities.

Originally posted by immortal_empire
You should be able to load them into ships toget them closer to the enemy and also a range of TWO!!! If a cruise missile can't go from the South to the North of Britain on a single fuel tank then I'll eat my hat. Can't they hit the opposite side of the world in half an hour or something?

No my friend. Cruise missiles fly at a speed of aprox. 2000 kmph, and have a range of aprox. 1000-2000 kilometers.

Cruise Missiles SUCK. Why bother with something that has bombardement range 2? Every bomber now has lethal sea bombardment, and the range of 2 prevents any use of them as anti-ship weapons mostly. And well, if you need to walk (urks) them on land, you can use artillery, not wasted but however destroys infrastructure and people, too.

For me, a COMPLETE waste of shields. They should have greater range, then they would be more interesting. And they should be loadable on certain ship types.

Curious: did you bother reading the whole article? Or did you read the title then skim a bit before responding? Either way, this was written for PTW and not Conquests, so despite that cruise missiles have a range of 4 in conquests their lethal bombard isn't special with bombers being far far better.

I guess you are referring to me: Yes, I read your article.

I see no point in using Cruise Missiles in C3C or PTW either.

They are the perfect unit of demonstrating shortcomings of the movement system:

You cannot let them fly over water e.g. They need to be transported an then they are launched.

Cruise Missles should ... "cruise". Hence the name. :p

But you need to bring them close to the front and then launch them. You cannot fire them more than 2 or 4, whatever you play, hexes away from the target.

4 hexes is better, it allows CMs in coastal cities to attack enemy ships. That increased their usefulness.

But for destroying land units -> quite costly. You lose shields, your opponents loses more.

OK, your choice. But can't bombers and artillery do better. I think CM can shine sometimes, but in general?