First, increase the range of cruise missiles and then make the modern ships more powerful by the Battleship by adding missiles to them but less powerful missiles.
:king:

I think that is a very good idea. Also, Battleships could have a new bombardment, such as torpedos fro boat to boat.

1st Reply to a thread in the C3:C Forums! [dance]

Good idea. How about land based missiles that can only be fired at ships? And give them a decent range.

I 100% agree with these posts!

Yes! Missiles with range!

I'll reiterate what I've said elsewhere: A flag for ships to carry cruise missiles...please. Also, a bombardment range of 4 as default setting. As we're on the subject of ships and missiles, how about this - an Exocet anti-ship missile, transportable only by battleships and AEGIS cruisers, and only able to attack ships (with a lethal bombard). Should be fairly expensive, but will enhance naval warfare. Somebody should be able to whip up an Exocet model very quickly.

You can already flag those ships to carry tactical missles.

Then flag the cruise missle as tactical.

Works for me. ;)

right...

Also, you can increase the range of cruise missles in the editor.

I would like to have fleets, I mean we have armies why not fleet . And groups of planes, squadroms right?

Originally posted by EddyG17
I would like to have fleets, I mean we have armies why not fleet . And groups of planes, squadroms right?

I was thinking the same thing. What if you had an elite frigate that won a battle and the it could produce a great leader! That would be awesome. You could sail him back to a port city, and then choose to build a fleet, or help buil a wonder.

Oh, @joespaniel, yes we could do that, but then you, your friends, or the computer players could all have battleships and AEGIS cruisers carrying nukes. But you're right, it is a better option than nothing, but this seems like such a simple request that is not only do-able, but historically accurate.

:D

Please be more descriptive that just using a :D smiley. Otherwise, it can be considered spammish.

Oh oh, I forgot to add...what if boats could sail up/down river? Or, better yet, what if it was possible (as a worker command) to build canals and then have boats move through them. Discuss.

There are tons of great ideas here.
Benderino, that is a nice idea as well.

Originally posted by Benderino
Oh, @joespaniel, yes we could do that, but then you, your friends, or the computer players could all have battleships and AEGIS cruisers carrying nukes.
You mean like they do in real life? ;)

Yeah, in my games, surface ships can carry tactical nukes, just like subs. It makes naval battles REAL exiting. :D

They did, when we still had battleships. All are mothballed now.


Answering post below ... how odd.

Oh, I agree its an improvement, but do battleships really carry tactical nukes these days?

Whoa.

Battleships & Destroyers should carry cruise missles. Its a pain in the @ss to have to load up a transport with cruises.

But give them a 1 or 2 CM limit. Also leave the nuke carrying to the subs, more realistic & they'd be pointless if battleships could carry them.

If ships carry missles, you'd have to load them in ports as well. A re-base type function for missles is too overpowering.

Originally posted by Gengis Khan
Battleships & Destroyers should carry cruise missles. Its a pain in the @ss to have to load up a transport with cruises.

But give them a 1 or 2 CM limit. Also leave the nuke carrying to the subs, more realistic & they'd be pointless if battleships could carry them.

AFAIK, Battleships were WW2 style and *only* carried huge guns but no missiles. I agree that destroyers (modern ships) should be able to carry smaller missiles.

Originally posted by civrules


AFAIK, Battleships were WW2 style and *only* carried huge guns but no missiles. I agree that destroyers (modern ships) should be able to carry smaller missiles.

The last Battleships WERE built in WW2, but were upgraded to launch cruise missles in the early '80s. It was those cruise missles that started the Gulf War in '91.

Oh, well. Any ship with a missile would be nice. :)

Today's Nuclear submarines can carry up to 24 missiles and in each missile there are 4 or more nuclear bombs that can be programmed where to hit once in space. That makes 96 small nuclear bombs in most of today's subs. In the game there can be only one nuclear missile in one sub.

What I suggest is to make the tactical nuclear missiles a bit cheaper to make and allow like at least 10 in each sub. And make the ICBMs more powerful but keep the power of Tactical Nukes the same.

BTW, please change the AI so it dose not use *all* of its nukes in one turn...:crazyeye:

What about just missiles not nuclear missiles the first one with one of those could cause some severe damage regardless how good you are.

10 missiles per sub? That's too many. Keep in mind that the nuclear warheads in SLBM's are not for the most part multi-megaton city busters. They are smaller warheads, and the idea is to launch 2 or 3 missiles at each large city, so each MIRV targets a different area and causes more damage. If you wanted to bust up a large metropolis like NYC, you would need at least a dozen warheads to really burn up the whole city. Taking into account that you have less cities in civ3 than nations do in real life, allowing one sub to toast 2-3 cities is fairly realistic. I let my nuke subs carry 2 tac nukes each, and that seems to be enough.

I think it would be cool if oyu could make an ICBM strike a target more than once, like a cruise missle thus making it like a MIRV. Also I agree with the idea of making certain ships carry certain missles. I also liked putting cruise or tactical nukes in my stealth bombers, more realistic. Plus I would like to see a plain old Nuclear Bomb.

Originally posted by Ivan the Kulak
10 missiles per sub? That's too many. Keep in mind that the nuclear warheads in SLBM's are not for the most part multi-megaton city busters. They are smaller warheads, and the idea is to launch 2 or 3 missiles at each large city, so each MIRV targets a different area and causes more damage. If you wanted to bust up a large metropolis like NYC, you would need at least a dozen warheads to really burn up the whole city. Taking into account that you have less cities in civ3 than nations do in real life, allowing one sub to toast 2-3 cities is fairly realistic. I let my nuke subs carry 2 tac nukes each, and that seems to be enough.

Maybe you are right that there should not be 10 nukes in one sub in Civ 3. I think you are underestimating the power of a nuclear bomb. At least a dozen? Now, today's nuclear bombs may not be as powerful as a few decades ago but you would not need at least a dozen nukes to burn a 8 million population city.

Well... the warheads in the latest Tridents are a bit under 500kt, IIRC, and would each cause significant damage out to a radius of about 4-5 miles. But a really big city has a metro area often more than 30 mi. across, counting outer developments and suburbs. So, you would need several to really pulverize the whole area (plus you need to allow for weapon failures). Of course, just one detonation would totally disrupt the city. If you're talking about those huge 20-30 megaton bombs it's a different story, but those aren't deployed on subs - both US and USSR had a few of those on ICBMs targeting the other side's strategic command centers. It would be nice if ICBMs did more damage than tac nukes - if you leave tac nukes as they are now, you could have ICBMs cause 50% of second layer of tiles around city become polluted as well, and have the city reduced to size 2, no matter what its original size. In addition, cities up to 10 tiles away in a random direction would suffer population loss from radiation fallout. (If they don't belong to the civ you nuked, they could become enraged at you as well.)

That would be a very nice improvement. Nukes in Civ 3 in general do more reputation damage than any physical damage.

Originally posted by Benderino


I was thinking the same thing. What if you had an elite frigate that won a battle and the it could produce a great leader! That would be awesome. You could sail him back to a port city, and then choose to build a fleet, or help buil a wonder.


Admirals are great leaders as well in history. That would be a good improvement. They could limit a GL Admiral to building a Fleet/Armada or naval wonders, i.e. Magellans, Lighthouse, etc. Even the AI uses the escort principal when moving troops at sea.