Guided Missiles = POWER!

[Warspite2]

Maybe too much power? Look at the advantages of these...they don't cost any resources, cheap and build fast, good range, pack a powerful punch on units or cities, can be rebased to ANY city in range! Sure, they are a fire and die weapon but you can build another one in just one turn. On quick game speed, I was building these things in just 1-2 turns in most cities and rebasing them to one central city. Then I would bomb enemy cities down with B17 bombers and level it with a GM. After this, walk the boys on in. Then when the enemy would attempt to counter attack, I would launch more bombers and GMs and hit their ground units. I prefer this to moving around slow artillery pieces with several units to surround a city to take it. I was using only 2 Mech Inf to walk in and take the cities. Then these GMs can be carried aboard a Cruiser or Submarine! I AM SOLD I don't remember using these missiles much in Civ4, hardly ever so I guess they must have not been near as good. Sure bombers are great but they do cost oil and more then double the cost of a GM. Perhaps they are not too powerful in Civ5, but maybe just too cheap? So next time you go on an offensive in the later era, try a bomber/GM combination and you might can see some great results too.

 

[Slowpoke]

The thing is, most of the time you can pull off a kill/loss ratio of about 5:1, wheras guided missiles are a kill/loss of 1:1. In Multiplayer, though, it's probably broken as heck, if the game lasts that long.

 

[firecat318]

I've buffed Guided Missiles to 100 ranged combat in my mod. They cost what... 200 hammers? Mech Inf are I believe 440 hammers but you should be able to get a good 10 kills before you lose one. Also I've buffed the Nuclear Missile to cost just 800 hammers and require just 1 uranium.

 

[Rathelon]

The guided missile in Civ IV was similiar; could be loaded on ships and submarines or stationed in cities. But in IV, it's range was pretty short so it was really best used in naval vs naval fights or in coastal cities to shoot at navies.

What is the range in this version? I've built them, but not used any.

 

[neilkaz]

The guided missile in Civ IV was similiar; could be loaded on ships and submarines or stationed in cities. But in IV, it's range was pretty short so it was really best used in naval vs naval fights or in coastal cities to shoot at navies.

What is the range in this version? I've built them, but not used any.

Range is 8. A few days ago I posted that I'd like to see their damage raised from 70 to 80..ie I felt that they were a bit weak. But now that I've been told that you can base more than 1 in a city I think they're nicely balanced.

.. neilkaz ..

 

[halyavin]

Used them again human opponent. He was greatly surprised when his highlevel powerfull ships sank like kittens. I was able to hold more than centuary thanks to them (and bombers) until he finally got bombers and captured my cities with horde of lancers (the cheapest ground unit that has speed 4 - the best way to capture cities with 0-1hp).

 

[droosan]

Yes. And just as importantly, no maintenance cost! And you seem to be able to rebase them up to about 20? away. And you can rebase them between watercraft. So you can set up a supply chain for a campaign, as far from any of your cities as necessary.

Defensively, just stockpile them in a central city. (Anyone run into a limit for a city?) If invaders show up, ground or naval, just rebase to the closest city and blast away on the next turn. Yes your cities are still vulnerable to aircraft, but aircraft can't conquer a city.

So the moment you have more production than you need--a city's run out of things you want to build--build guided missiles. The ultimate rainy day offensive and defensive commodity.

 

[aluelkdf]

Used them again human opponent. He was greatly surprised when his highlevel powerfull ships sank like kittens.

Guided missiles are very powerful and dangerous in real life. Guided missiles is what makes Iran such a formidable adversary. At a minimum, the entire Middle East is within range of Iran's missiles. And the US navy is by far the largest in the world, but Iran can easily defend their entire coast with their missiles. If there ever is a war, American carriers may end up at the bottom of the Persian Gulf.

Iran's missiles are the only thing that is preventing an attack against them. When the US started talking about war with Iraq, about 6 months later the war started. I know that some may think America can kick Iran's ass with one arm tied behind it's back. But there has been talk about war with Iran for many years now and it hasn't happened yet, if it was really so easy an attack on Iran would have already happened. Their missiles are the reason why there is so much hesitation.

 

[smallfish]

They are incredibly versatile, cheap-to-build and purchase oneshot weapons to defend yourself in desperate times.

By desperate times I mean facing the landlocked runaway zombie hordes of Deity.

In that, they have been massive situational savers, allowing me to multiply force over two fronts while using minimal ground forces. And as stated, they are cheap to build - 1 or 2 turns in your best cities to churn them out.

 

[utgotye]

Guided missiles are very powerful and dangerous in real life. Guided missiles is what makes Iran such a formidable adversary. At a minimum, the entire Middle East is within range of Iran's missiles. And the US navy is by far the largest in the world, but Iran can easily defend their entire coast with their missiles. If there ever is a war, American carriers may end up at the bottom of the Persian Gulf.

Iran's missiles are the only thing that is preventing an attack against them. When the US started talking about war with Iraq, about 6 months later the war started. I know that some may think America can kick Iran's ass with one arm tied behind it's back. But there has been talk about war with Iran for many years now and it hasn't happened yet, if it was really so easy an attack on Iran would have already happened. Their missiles are the reason why there is so much hesitation.

The targets of those missiles will be American carriers which will be several hundred miles away behind screens of escorts with hundreds of sea sparrows, SM2s, RAMs and CIWS. Not to mention that they would be at the top of the target list and likely destroyed before whatever advantages they made have could be used.

 

[Camikaze]

Can't remember if they've been nerfed since this thread was started, but they aren't really worthwhile. As much as they can be useful in a tight stop, there's almost always something that would be more useful, and a better way to spend your cash.

 

[aluelkdf]

The targets of those missiles will be American carriers which will be several hundred miles away behind screens of escorts with hundreds of sea sparrows, SM2s, RAMs and CIWS. Not to mention that they would be at the top of the target list and likely destroyed before whatever advantages they made have could be used.

I think if America uses all of it's firepower then Iran really doesn't have a chance. But a victory will not come without heavy losses. Iran has thousands of anti-ship missiles. Even if 99% of them are shot down or destroyed before launch, there is no way that every single missile can be destroyed. All it takes is 1 or 2 missiles to sink a carrier.

That's why there is so much hesitation. If the generals in the US military really thought it was so easy, there would have already been a war years ago. They know that once the war starts they are all in, fully committed. They are not ready to make that commitment yet.

 

[Tiber4321]

@utgotye and alueakdf I believe war with Iran is inevitable. Iran is bent on getting a nuclear ballistic missle. You both make good points. I do think Iran has the capability to cause us far more casualties than Iraq did, especially if it becomes a ground war. Something to consider, I believe the US has the capability to take out most if not all Iranian command/control/communication facilities within the first 48 hours of a potential war. I also think our missle interception capabilities are a generation more advanced than anything Iran has. Bottomline, hellfire will descend on Tehran within the first week, and they Mullahs will regret Jihad.

 

[theguy8882]

Please people can we not turn this into an argument about war in Iran. Let's stay on topic with the discussion.

 

[smallfish]

Range is 8. A few days ago I posted that I'd like to see their damage raised from 70 to 80..ie I felt that they were a bit weak. But now that I've been told that you can base more than 1 in a city I think they're nicely balanced.

.. neilkaz ..

Just 3 of them can take out a Modern Armor with Lv2 Open Terrain promotion, or at least reduce it enough so you can get a fighter or Bomber to finish it off.

 

[KM]

..Thing is in MP that if a game goes on that long u will in 99% of the cases just skip the guided misiles because u do one thing and one thing only, have saved GS + rationalism +2 tech to bulb stealth and nukes and that is what u will use, + a few tanks just to run in and take cities.... and mabye some units like boats or fighters to get sight for the bombers.... 3 hits or even just two from a stealth bomber and a unit dies 1:0 ratio...

Get rax and armories etc before buiding the bombers and u can have some specialized on units and others on cities + repair promo.

 

[Tabarnak]

Ther only way for me to use them in mp games is when i try a science victory. I made this strategy against humans for the first FFA EPIC GAME serie played a year ago. I managed to repulse units while i was building parts(not nukes but barely made it anyway).

They are cheap and can be useful if you are more or less isolated.

 

[l4d2bob]

I think if America uses all of it's firepower then Iran really doesn't have a chance. But a victory will not come without heavy losses. Iran has thousands of anti-ship missiles. Even if 99% of them are shot down or destroyed before launch, there is no way that every single missile can be destroyed. All it takes is 1 or 2 missiles to sink a carrier.

That's why there is so much hesitation. If the generals in the US military really thought it was so easy, there would have already been a war years ago. They know that once the war starts they are all in, fully committed. They are not ready to make that commitment yet.

A carrier battle group consists of 13-15 ships, all with AEGIS and SAM anti-air or anti-torpedo systems. 1-2 missiles will NOT sink that carrier as there are a ton of ships surrounding it. The war with Iran will probably not happen anyways as we are near a diplomatic resolution, if only Israel doesn't screw it up.

 

[Veneke]

A carrier battle group consists of 13-15 ships, all with AEGIS and SAM anti-air or anti-torpedo systems. 1-2 missiles will NOT sink that carrier as there are a ton of ships surrounding it. The war with Iran will probably not happen anyways as we are near a diplomatic resolution, if only Israel doesn't screw it up.

I think his point was that it only takes 1 or 2 missiles to get through to sink a carrier (or any other ship for that matter), which is definitely the case.

The more interesting question is how many guided missiles can Iran control remotely in one strike against a Carrier Battle Group? The fact is that with enough guided missiles in the air at least some of them will break through and you only need 1 or 2 to sink a ship.

Of course, the point is largely mooted because any conflict with Iran would not be confined to the sea so the carrier groups wouldn't really be at risk. Just base your birds and soldiers to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Pakistan and/or Afghanistan and deploy a couple of naval groups to the Gulf of Oman/northern Arabian sea. The real issue is that you're effectively prevented from entering the Persian Gulf without risking serious losses which is unpalatable in peace time even if the need for it (say Iran closes the straits) is significant.

===

@ OP and discussion: I agree, guided missiles are great. You've usually got your army, navy and air force in pretty decent shape by the time it comes to build them and you can usually spare a city or two to just keep stockpiling them.

Personally I think their selling point is the fact that they can't be intercepted. To me that puts them heads and tails over pretty much every kind of bombardment unit. You do need a lot of them, but they're cheap as chips and you can avoid having your limited stealth bomber fleet from getting chewed up by air defences.

 

[_Calyx]

I like guided missiles quite a bit, but I am always underwhelmed by their damage - in my experience, they usually hit enemy mech infantry for 1-2 points of damage at most.