Guided Missile: 60 Hammers of Suck?

[TheMeInTeam]

I was in the ole dark laboratory attempting to concoct some new war methods. Cloning, arm cannons, beam spam, maniacal laughs, mind worms...you know. So checking the review notes we see that this unit actually exists.

The one civ IV thread on it in the search seems to me to have failed to shed any light on actual utility of GM against alternatives (including my own comment on it at the time).

In the overpowered/underpowered units thread, nobody mentioned them at all. It's possible that the reason is because they are so well balanced , but somehow I think it's more likely that this unit is so underwhelming that it is not even CONSIDERED!

So I ask you all ----> do you ever use cruise missiles for anything other than cherry tapping? When I look at their returns and do world builder tests, it seems bad:

1. It takes like 40 of these to kill off a couple mechinfantry in a city. 2400 hammers just to kill a few units! So these are not nuke substitutes unless you are attacking VERY few units.
2. Their range is terrible. At least tacticals damage adjacent tiles. These things are true 4 range units, frequently unable to hit anything without being carried by naval forces or using forts.
3. They inflict 0 collateral. That's right...they're a 1 time use 40 str fighter. They can kill...but see #1.
4. They don't come especially early against other options (radio + rocketry puts them in the neighborhood of nukes, fighters, and bombers. Fighters are actually faster to get).
5. Unlike fighters, the #'s it takes to make these practical makes using them at sea unwieldy.

What bothers me the most about them is their to kill/damage ratio. Depending on what you want to use, every alternative is better.

If you want a ground-based typical beatdown SoD, arty will serve you better for virtually the entire game and is available sooner.

If you want fast wars, air power or spies make better complements. Annoyingly fighters are more cost-effective even when the enemy has fighters too. Fighters are a mere 40 hammers more expensive and don't automatically die.

If you have access to uranium, nukes own these silly. Anything over 4-5 units and the tac nukes are ALREADY more cost effective...and longer range...and barely later.

So what's the role of the cruise missile then? The only thing it seems to have going for it is that the AI doesn't use them . It loses for naval superiority (badly), loses for missile stopping power badly compared to nukes, and can't replace air due to terrible range and the fact that it is markedly *worse* in cost effectiveness!

Granted, they're resource-less, but how exactly would you use them without oil or uranium? You can't load them on ships (since you can't make metal ships), and your fastest resource-less units are cavalry and (if you tech more) paratroopers, but paras require an empty city, and guided missiles are even worse for this than nukes (it takes sooooooo many to clear a city, assuming they even fricken reach, and then one worker, missionary, or exec and you can't take it).

Am I mistaken, or are these legit candidates for "most underpowered unit in the game"? How do people use them? IF you do use them, please tell us how and why they compare favorably to alternatives in that situation. I've yet to see a case.

 

[TCMIV]

Do they destroy terrain improvements? That's the only use I could possibly think of, in a game where the UN has banned nukes.

 

[mariogreymist]

Now that you mention it...I think it's the one unit I have yet to find any use for. Even explorers have some use.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Do they destroy terrain improvements? That's the only use I could possibly think of, in a game where the UN has banned nukes.

Yes, for 60 hammers you can destroy an improvement at war.

For 40 hammers (spy), you can destroy an improvement regardless of war, and you might get to recycle it. EP cost can't measure up to the fact that you can use a spy more than once potentially and that the spy comes sooner and can actually reach something decently far away.

Also note that all air units (except airships) and missiles can destroy terrain, so fighters + carriers can just as quickly (and likely more efficiently) erase terrain improvements.

The 4 range means you'll need some help reaching those improvements though, which again calls into question whether these things not needing resources is truly useful.

 

[Zexx]

The only thing I can think of using them for is loading them into Missile Cruisers or Subs and throwing missiles at stacks of lategame naval forces :/ They kind of suck.
I've seen the AI harass your terrain improvements with em with roving naval units - wander up, throw some Cruise Missiles, then run away. Generally just a slight annoyance.

 

[btgwynn]

If there's one thing I hate it's a fair fight...

The only use I've seen is that a missile cruiser and a battleship both have equal hit points, but if going into battle and you have your missile cruiser loaded you can at least lob missiles at them and have a good expectation of winning the eventual battle.

 

[NihilZero]

Hehe, I remember one forum game where TMIT used GMs, much to my amazement. Was it MS Justinian? Not sure. Anyway, my comment at the time was something along the lines of an incredulous "He managed to find a use for those things? Wow."

It's something the AI likes to do, and characterises the AI's approach to warfare in general - annoying rather than fatal (and its not possible to annoy an AI so why bother). In MS Napoleon I must have lost about a hundred tile improvements to the things - gave my workers something to do.

 

[Riot]

Your Town has been destroyed by a Spanish Guided Missile!

 

[KingMorgan]

GM seem only useful when playing human v human. Even then, they are a bit inefficient, but they do get the job done.

 

[vicawoo]

According to the XML, fighters and bombers have a 50% air combat limit. Against a strong defender, if you lose the fighters/bombers you're losing far more hammers, and they're less likely to do as much damage.
And for some reason all great people have an iaircombat strength.

So in the combat metagame, they're nutcrackers. You'd use pure barrage artillery, guided missile the remaining strong stack defenders, then clean up with your normal units.
If a cr3 tank or other nutcracker has worse than 50% odds, I'd much rather waste a 60 hammer unit.

 

[lymond]

Is there a counter to GMs? That is, are they 100% effective? I built a few of them as a newb a long time ago but rarely give them a thought now.

Xena? WTF TMIT? I didn't even now it was you.

 

[Silu]

Maybe they can be used as a piss-poor nuke substitute for, say, destroying Uranium mines at the start of an intercontinental invasion (when spies would be uncertain/a hassle), IF you are in a spot where using nukes yourself would make you diplomatically vulnerable to some juggernaut AI. Personally, I don't think I've ever built one.

 

[bestsss]

actually they have super cool application, killing planes and nukes!
yes, target the forts, nukes and planes gone.
cheap and efficient.
--
that being said: i consider them overpowered.

 

[Tomice]

Wasn't there some guide to naval combat where the author said something like in the modern era it's all about loaded missile cruisers???

I never bothered about it, because it's so rare that modern naval combat plays an important role...

 

[NihilZero]

I suppose the one thing you can say about GMs is that they can be used in situations where you would ideally use air support, but where you cannot achieve air superiority. In such cases it may be more hammer efficient to just settle for GMs rather than spend massive hammers trying to overpower a strong air force and SAM defenses through sheer attrition. Likewise if the baddies have SDI or nukes are undesirable for any other reason.

Although I guess TMIT already covered it -

Annoyingly fighters are more cost-effective even when the enemy has fighters too. Fighters are a mere 40 hammers more expensive and don't automatically die.

Still, picture the scenario - your foe has had flight/advanced flight for ages and has a massive air force and his cities bristle with SAMs. You can spend thousands of hammers on fighters and bombers, but it's possible that none of them will ever be able to penetrate enemy airspace enough to do their jobs. All those hammers are then wasted, at least in the short term. Sure, your planes may live to fight another day, but in war you want to get the job done sooner rather than later. Maybe a dozen cruise missiles can succeed where twenty planes failed, and let you take a key city?

Assuming that it's in range, of course.

 

[Silu]

Still, picture the scenario - your foe has had flight/advanced flight for ages and has a massive air force and his cities bristle with SAMs. You can spend thousands of hammers on fighters and bombers, but it's possible that none of them will ever be able to penetrate enemy airspace enough to do their jobs. All those hammers are then wasted, at least in the short term. Sure, your planes may live to fight another day, but in war you want to get the job done sooner rather than later. Maybe a dozen cruise missiles can succeed where twenty planes failed, and let you take a key city?

Assuming that it's in range, of course.

In that scenario, it's usually much better to build more siege (and SAM Inf, prolly). They don't automatically die either

 

[UncleJJ]

They are underpowered and are not a cost effective way to kill other units, but they can do a few things other units can't. At that stage of the game I often find I have hammers flooding out of many cities that have few useful things to build. There is no limit to the number of GM that can be stacked in a fort or city so if there is one within 4 tiles they can concentrate extra air power. Also they fly from the production city to anywhere in the world ready for use next turn, so they're convenient.

The damage they do is pathetic but like all airstrikes it is dependent on the strength of the defender. Mech infantry are always a tough target, if they're well promoted, fortified in a city with 80% cultural defence, and if there is a Bunker (-50% airstrike damage) it is going to take a lot of airstrikes from fighters or bombers to reduce them to 50% strength, just as it takes many GMs to do the same and even more to kill them. So there is little to learn from that exercise, all forms of air attack are weak in that circumstance. It's equivalent to taking on Protective longbows, fortified in a castle with only catapults, a pretty messy task.

I have used them in special circumstances. Once when I had about 50 fighters on 12 carriers and some cities I was faced with an invasion against an AI with 3 well developed cities with airports and 8 fighters each. The 3 cities had overlapping CAP so although I could have engaged in a massive fighter shoot out it would have been costly. Shooting down their 24 fighters might have cost me 20 fighters so I looked for a way to destroy part of the airforce and maintain mine. One of the 3 cities was coastal and only had 2 infantry as garrison. I had no amphibious troops and only rifles and cavalry with various promotions including combat and pinch. So I sent the destroyers in to reduce the defences, then used GMs fired from subs (6 GMs IIRC) and then attacked with cavalry from transports, losing 2 cavalry (IIRC). Not a bad exchange for taking a poorly defended city but without using fighter support and having no amphibious troops. I then landed a huge SoD in the captured city with artillery and MGs and proceeded to take out the other 2 cities with land forces. I still lost quite a few fighters in the subsequent air battles as they used their remaining fighters to airstrike my SoD.

In this circumstance I guess using the GMs saved me losing 2 or 3 more of my well promoted cavalry, and I could still have taken the first city by simply sacrificing more troops. But for the loss of 6GMs and 2 cavalry I killed 2 infantry and 8 fighters and gained a city which is not a bad exchange. In this case I could have just blasted my way past the powerful defensive airforce with my own 50 fighters and carriers but perhaps if I had invested in more subs and GMs I would not have needed to invest in all those carriers and fighters. A fighter on a carrier effectively costs 160 hammers and on average can be used for 10 air missions before being shot down, so about 16 hammers per airstrike. A GM hits harder but costs 60 hammers per strike.

I am not impressed with GMs compared to other units available at that time. They should be stronger in my opinion if they are to be an option in modern warfare. How much stronger would they have to be to be better value than fighters or bombers? If they did 3 times as much damage as now would you consider using them? If not, how strong would they have to be for you to consider using them? would their range have to be extended as well?

 

[UncleJJ]

I suppose the one thing you can say about GMs is that they can be used in situations where you would ideally use air support, but where you cannot achieve air superiority. In such cases it may be more hammer efficient to just settle for GMs rather than spend massive hammers trying to overpower a strong air force and SAM defenses through sheer attrition. Likewise if the baddies have SDI or nukes are undesirable for any other reason.

Although I guess TMIT already covered it -

Still, picture the scenario - your foe has had flight/advanced flight for ages and has a massive air force and his cities bristle with SAMs. You can spend thousands of hammers on fighters and bombers, but it's possible that none of them will ever be able to penetrate enemy airspace enough to do their jobs. All those hammers are then wasted, at least in the short term. Sure, your planes may live to fight another day, but in war you want to get the job done sooner rather than later. Maybe a dozen cruise missiles can succeed where twenty planes failed, and let you take a key city?

Assuming that it's in range, of course.

You made the point I was trying to make, but more succinctly

I guess that window of opportunity where GMs are more cost effective than building a massive airforce to take on a powerful opposition is small. Once the opposition gets really tough the ultra destructive power of nuclear weapons are a very cost effective way of destroying large stacks. As massed use of nuclear weapons usually results in a quick end of the game the player never really has time to suffer the consequences. There is no incentive to use the "clean" technology route that GMs represent.

 

[Tomice]

How much stronger would they have to be to be better value than fighters or bombers? If they did 3 times as much damage as now would you consider using them? If not, how strong would they have to be for you to consider using them? would their range have to be extended as well?

Since I don't hesitate modding what annoys me, I'd like to know that, too.

Price, Range, or strengh, capacity of ships, and to which extent? Or a little of everything?

6 Range, 2/3 price, 48 strenght; six of them per cruiser?

Although capacity would include tact.nukes, guess that would be too much. Also increasing their number would overpower them in their other functions (destroy improvements). The safest would be to just increase their strenght.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

If a late game domination run is in order, I'll get like 15 of them built in a few of my hybrid cities and then DoW and NOT invade. Let the AI stack enter the land, launch all 15, send in 5 or 6 barrage promoted artillery, let 4 fighters continue to slay 'em, and then send in the infantry/paratroopers to wipe out the enemy SoD. After that, it's a pretty quick rush to victory. The guided missiles followed by artillery do enough damage that any SAM infantry/machine guns are usually nullified before the fighters do their run. Sometimes I don't have fighters and in that case, i'll build 20-25 GMs before the DoW. Either way, they are decent at demolishing the AI SoD outside of a city.

Other than that type of situation, I don't build GMs.