Sure they can! Haven't you played Metal Gear Solid?!
Then they would just be bombers.
Guided (Rocket) Missiles: A new paradigm
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
Bombers with a new "Carpet Bombing" promotion are just missiles.
Even if you believe that's the case, the simple solution is to just remove their healing then, but still give them the ability to be used more than once. Because the other alternative is to give them production cost reductions later in the game so you can spit them out faster, but then your resources are strained more.
Last edited:
I feel like missiles should just be deleted. They're like bad airplanes that give humans carpal tunnel and I've never seen AIs use them.
I like the idea of the niche of attacking the garrison directly but it isn't worth the clicking
Giving missiles cost reductions just means more clicking
I like the idea of the niche of attacking the garrison directly but it isn't worth the clicking
Giving missiles cost reductions just means more clicking
Yeah, why AI doesn't use them? If that's the case then maybe they should be deleted.
For me best usage was, that when my air disabled any air interception, i could attack city garrison unit, and it did tons of damage to stationed unit, comparing to
conventional attacks, and city without garrison got tons od extra damage..
I wonder how many people used it similar way
That would be basically some upgrade system, that cost not experience but resources.
Im afraid, it could become too good and basically mandatory upgrade, and i guess huge buff to Autocracy with their 100% increased resources.
That could be a problem. What will you do, when you put too much of them into units, and then suddenly enemy will pillage your rich oil ofshore platform?
There should be some option to use them maybe old fashion, in some Kamikaze attack or at least option to disband
An interesting point. Right now it would work just like any strategic unit that requires oil....they wouldn't heal. But that wouldn't actually apply to the unit with missiles itself, which could be considered a weird inconsistency
hmm perhaps this concept is chaining itself too close to the original model, and maybe throwing out the baby with the bathwater is the right idea.
What if perhaps certain units got an entirely new button (similar to the upgrade unit), that cost X gold. And it both gave the unit a new promotions (that gave it whatever combat bonus we wanted) and gave it a 1 oil strategic resource cost.
Now I'm sure this is much more complex to code, you would need a UI change for the button, and I'm guessing strategic resource costs can't be easily tied to a promotion or individual unit compared to a unit class (would love to be told wrong though, if this is easier to do than I think).
But with that model there would be no physical missile. Guided missiles would just be promotion augments you could add to certain units.
What if perhaps certain units got an entirely new button (similar to the upgrade unit), that cost X gold. And it both gave the unit a new promotions (that gave it whatever combat bonus we wanted) and gave it a 1 oil strategic resource cost.
Now I'm sure this is much more complex to code, you would need a UI change for the button, and I'm guessing strategic resource costs can't be easily tied to a promotion or individual unit compared to a unit class (would love to be told wrong though, if this is easier to do than I think).
But with that model there would be no physical missile. Guided missiles would just be promotion augments you could add to certain units.
I think the right way to look at this is the difference between "units" and "spells". The missile is a spell that you use for a flash of power, offset by either a cooldown period (indirectly via healing rate, or directly with a promo/lockout period), or by its consumable nature. The form it's currently taking is correct to me (real unit on the board, periods where the unit is not available to balance against (potentially) fight-determining power), to differentiate it from regular air units. Reducing it to a simple stat change defeats the entire purpose of the missile.
If the effect isn't worthwhile is another question. I think your initial idea @Stalker0 of free splash is the right direction, whether it's through those promotions specifically or not. Missiles can remain the premier option for targeted area damage to knock out a Citadel's defenses, pillaging it and allowing you to move up. Damaging a group of fortified melee units so that they are can either be picked off, or they have to cycle away and the replacements are no longer pre-fortified.
If the effect isn't worthwhile is another question. I think your initial idea @Stalker0 of free splash is the right direction, whether it's through those promotions specifically or not. Missiles can remain the premier option for targeted area damage to knock out a Citadel's defenses, pillaging it and allowing you to move up. Damaging a group of fortified melee units so that they are can either be picked off, or they have to cycle away and the replacements are no longer pre-fortified.
Last edited:
This is the key division in the philosophy. We have one of two possible problems with missiles.
1) A balance problem. In this version, there is a version of the missile with certain strength and cost that is considered viable enough to a human to use as a regular part of their arsenal BUT is not so good that it takes over as the dominant unit.
2) A design problem. In this version, the concept of consumable units is so against the current war design that to make it viable requires making it so powerful that it then becomes the only weapon worth considering, and there is no true middle ground. That the missile is just not balanceable as a direct damage unit compared to other non-consumable direct damage units.
We could look at the skirmisher doctrine for guidance. While at the end of the day its a simple promotion, it was a radicaly re-think of what a skirmisher does. We changed it into a fast support unit that greatly magnified other units, BUT the unit itself was relatively weak and expensive. This provided a niche of a support unit that was good to augment a force, but a mass of them might not be optimal play.
Could we do the same for missiles? Possibly. Now the garrison attack is a unique niche for the missle. Do we simply need to make that stronger? We had a lot of suggestions of ranged pillaging this congress, what if that was given but only to the missile? Maybe the missile leaves a lingering promotion (similar to the incan slinger), etc.
There might be something there, but I do think we need to go beyond a simple "well make the missile do more damage, or be cheaper, or add a bit of splash, etc". It needs unique concepts that make it relevant without making it dominant.
usadefcon1
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2016
- Messages
- 520
If missiles destroyed buildings or pillaged improvements they would justify their one time use. I'm not sure why that was voted down.
I'm glad you mentioned the pillaging proposals, those came to mind to me as well. I think pillaging fits infinitely better on missiles than it does on siege or bombers (as far as good game design goes). Building demolition still feels like it would be better represented through a City Event triggered in cities below 50% HP while at war. The pillaging for missiles failed to move forward because of no sponsor.
Honestly, I would probably do all of the things we can:
Honestly, I would probably do all of the things we can:
- Missiles all have a radius of effect, starting at 1 and going up from there.
- Missiles pillage the tiles they effect. Nuclear bombs eventually create fallout as well.
- Missiles apply Dazed for 4 turns to all units within the radius.
- Missiles deal a punch of damage to their main target and 50% of that to all units (including friendly, allied, and neutral targets) within the rest of the radius.
- Depending on code complication, scaling the splash damage as you get farther from the epicenter would be good as well.
- Missiles get a promotion "Cooling Down" for 6 turns after use. Missiles cannot attack while Cooling Down.
they weren't voted down, they were not sponsored. That means our coders either:
1) Didn't have time this session to work on that.
2) Thought it was not worth the work
3) Didn't know how to implement such a request.
Not quite the same thing.
So instead of focusing on the cheapness of missiles, there is notion of turning them into a "mini-nuke". They have a radius of 2 to start lets say, damage everything there, pillage all tiles, and are very expensive to build.
Something like that. On paper pillaging ALL tiles in range 2 seems like a lot, especially for the first tier missile. But I'm generally a fan of play with it OP once so everyone tries it and tune it back based on some actual data.
I think the "very expensive" is still relative, but it's relative to the overall damage the missile deals, since we must keep in mind you can still fire 3 of them in a turn when you need it. 3 missiles wiping out a 19 tiles of infantry would be pretty huge.
I think the "very expensive" is still relative, but it's relative to the overall damage the missile deals, since we must keep in mind you can still fire 3 of them in a turn when you need it. 3 missiles wiping out a 19 tiles of infantry would be pretty huge.
If the missiles could destroy the improvement, they would immediately make sense. Imagine that at the beginning of the war we could disable the enemy’s resources, not only strategic ones, but also factories and mines. which would greatly weaken the enemy. Then it would make sense to accumulate missiles on ships and in cities. And also the placement of air defense not only on the front line, but near valuable resources. It’s a pity that no one sponsored this proposal, it would have radically changed the late war.
This seems to be a point of confusion so I'll note it and put it in the OP as well. The following units can carry missiles:
1) Attack Sub (Ranged - 1 missile)
2) Nuclear Sub (Ranged - 2 missile)
3) Missile Cruiser (Ranged - 3 missile)
4) Sensor Combat Ship (Melee - 3 missile)
1) Attack Sub (Ranged - 1 missile)
2) Nuclear Sub (Ranged - 2 missile)
3) Missile Cruiser (Ranged - 3 missile)
4) Sensor Combat Ship (Melee - 3 missile)
Last edited:
confirmed correct, I will update my notes
so thinking about it more, there really aren't that many units that can carry missiles all said and done. I don't think my original suggestion is worthwhile for such a small portion of the units and portion of the gameplay to warrant a whole suite of brand new mechanics.
So perhaps the "mini-nuke" is the better way to go. Instead of cheap, make them expensive and powerful. 2 oil, lots of hammers, but can do damage like a nuke in a 1-2 tile radius (though with the fallout and city damage).
From a code standpoint, how granular are nuke mechanics? Can you just add in some of their abilities (like pillaging tiles and damage all units in a radius), without actually requiring it to be a "nuke" type of weapon?
So perhaps the "mini-nuke" is the better way to go. Instead of cheap, make them expensive and powerful. 2 oil, lots of hammers, but can do damage like a nuke in a 1-2 tile radius (though with the fallout and city damage).
From a code standpoint, how granular are nuke mechanics? Can you just add in some of their abilities (like pillaging tiles and damage all units in a radius), without actually requiring it to be a "nuke" type of weapon?
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked