Ships and Missiles

[Malgg]

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.

 

[Civrules]

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

 

[Civrules]

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...

 

[EddyG17]

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

 

[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.

 

[serpentx777]

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.

 

[Civrules]

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.

 

[Ivan the Kulak]

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.)

 

[Civrules]

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

 

[Wolp]

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.