Cruise Missile

[Bugfatty300]

BTW, you can already let ships carry and fire cruise missiles in Civ3.

Go to the editor give the AEGIS Cruiser/destroyer/battleship a trans capacity of what ever you like, then make it "transport tactical missiles only"

Then go to the Cruise missile unit and make it a "tactical missile"

Peice of cake.

 

[searcheagle]

I agree, cruise missiles should be loadable on Battles, Destroyers & AEGIS'. Leave subs with the ability to carry nukes though, that's enough for them.

In RL, Subs can fire cruise missiles. They can fire the Tomahawk Cruise Missile. If subs could fire cruise missiles, they make actually be a useful combat tool (they are still to weak).

 

[searcheagle]

but if you are able to load infantry and other units onto war ships,it would make transports useless.

The big problem is there is no diversity in transport units. I wouldn't mind some sort of fast transport, whether it is allowing a combat ship (destroyer, cruiser, battleship) to carry an infantry unit (they shouldn't be allowed to carry a tank). With a quick transport, you can change the pace of the game. Right now, naval combat is too slow. There is barely any difference in speed of ships. We should have some sort of super transport that can carry lots of units and is very vulunerable, a medium transport, which has some defense and faster speed but less transport ability, and a lighter transport with faster speed but again, less transport ability.

 

[searcheagle]

correct me if im wrong but isnt the point of an AEGIS cruiser for defence/offence using missiles? so why doesnt the animation fire them? they only have a crappy cannon that fires. AEGIS cruisers should be rivaling battleships for supremacy as they have such cruise missiles that fire miiiiiles

Here is what the U.S. Navy says about its AEGIS weapons system:

The Aegis system was designed as a total weapon system, from detection to kill. The heart of the system is an advanced, automatic detect and track, multi-function phased-array radar, the AN/SPY-1. This high powered (four megawatt) radar is able to perform search, track and missile guidance functions simultaneously with a track capacity of over 100 targets. The first Engineering Development Model (EDM-1) was installed in the test ship, USS Norton Sound (AVM 1) in 1973.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/weapons/wep-aeg.html

So, basically Aegis is a complicated comand center hooked up to a powerful radar. Part of the system governs the use of anti weapons systems, which include using countermeasures (chaff and flares) and if it must automatically firing the guns to knock the missile out of the air.

 

[brinko]

cruise missle launched off boat

 

[Stid]

they should hav their unique kind of cruise missiles as their bombard or attack w/e

 

[searcheagle]

cruise missle launched off boat

I know for a fact that missiles are fired from ships. Usually, missiles launched from a ship are fired at ground targets or at aircraft. Missiles work at far ranges because they have to arm themselves- guns don't. Usually, if a missile gets close enough, it is taken out by a barrage of guns.

 

[sir_schwick]

Here are my feelings on naval bombardment.

All pre-steel ships should have a bombard range of one.
Cruisers two.
Battleships three.
Cruise missle four.

AEGIS cruisers, battleships, missle-destroyers, and subs should all have cruise missle attack once the tech comes along. Now subs could be used to bombard targets inland without exposing position. If that sounds outlandish, considered it was a tactical use of nuclear subs in Desert Storm(probably two as well).

 

[dexters]

The big problem is there is no diversity in transport units

That's not a problem. Civ3 is not a naval simulation and with the current unit set, human players already far outpaces the AI in using and deploying navies. Adding more units = more coding = less effective AI. That's just a rule of thumb. You want to simplify. The current Civ3 model of vulnerable transpots carrying lots of units needing escorts is perfect. A bit more work on the coding and they'd have really good AI use of navies.

I Agree that cruise missiles should be on battleships but no troops on any kind of warship as it could be used as an exploit also. Players can simply not build any transports and built tons of warships. They are harder to sink and if they are sunk, you lose 1 unit, as opposed to a full transport.

With regards to Cruise missles, the current unmodded game pretty much have these missles that are useless. If battleships can load them, you'd have an ability to project power beyond your task force and possible sink and incoming ship that is threatening your task force.

Why only on battleships? Rationing and scarcity to create strategy. Also currently, the Battleships need something unique in its abilities. Cruisers are uber AA units, Destroyers are the workhorses and Battleships seem more like luxury warships that players build for their own vanity than for any significant practical usage.

 

[Hyronymus]

Don't we need another type of vessel than a Battleship btw? The real Battleships as they entered service in WW1 and WW2 don't exist anymore. They were too large, too slow and too expensive. Instead destroyers, mine counter measure ships and frigates saw the light.

 

[sir_schwick]

Personally I think cruise missle attacks should be a standard bombardment option of modern naval ships(the ones with missles). IT would extend naval warfare to the three/four square range and make navies more of an off-shore threat.

Also, I would like them to scrap the current transport system in favor of one more like RoN. If for any reason is that the AI could handle it way better.

 

[dexters]

Don't we need another type of vessel than a Battleship btw? The real Battleships as they entered service in WW1 and WW2 don't exist anymore. They were too large, too slow and too expensive. Instead destroyers, mine counter measure ships and frigates saw the light.

Not really. The US used a refitted WW2 super battleship (iowa class) to launch cruise missles during Gulf War 1.

Granted the battleship fleet has been all but decomissioned today. So There's really now point introducing another ship. The Aegis Cruiser/Carrier/Destroyer combo is not far removed from the actual type of ships that rule the seas today. Granted you have auxillary ships, frigates, and other type of boats, but Civ3 isn't a naval simulator.

One idea I have is that since Cruise Missles come after Battleships, players can upgrade their battleships in the modern era to slightly higher stats and a +1 transport capacity for the missles.

sir_schwick

I would like them to scrap the current transport system in favor of one more like RoN. If for any reason is that the AI could handle it way better.

I agree. But Let me put forward a rant

I think the problem with the Civ3 naval AI is that it wasn't one of the strong points of the original AI and what BreakAway and Firaxis did in C3C was to patch that weak AI. The end result is we get a hyperactive AI who likes to build a lot of ships and to escort their mix fleet of galleys, caravels and transports

The problem is, the AI sometimes forget to upgrade their transports and I've seen AI Aegis Cruisers escorting Galleys! This isn't a chieftan game either but one of my earlier games on Monarch.

Problem #2 The sitting duck effect is in the game. When you destroy the escorting fleet, the transport simply stops dead in the water waiting for a new escort rather than running for its life.

Problem #3 The old Civ3 naval AI was superior in one aspect. It would send its fleet to decimate the improvements around your cities. The C3C naval AI almost always bombs cities. I assume this came from the WW2 scenario where the AI is programmed to bomb the heck out of the island bases before they invade. But it doesn't quite work in Epic games when you see them send a line of 20 ships to bomb your coastal city while it could probably do even more damage by destroying all the improvements around it and cutting it off from the trade network.

Problem #4 Naval invasion is improved but still weak. Read my Post about it at Apolyton here. I wrote this a couple of weeks after C3C hit the market. One slight correction I would make is that in my article, I put the problem to bad AI invasion planning. After more experience with the game, I would revise my opinion to say that it's just the overall AI weakness in handling the 3 movement attack / 2 unit defense units that leaves them so vulnerable (even against another AI) when they invade by sea or by land. Invading my sea only makes it more difficult for the attacking AI by adding the problem of transporting their units.

I am hoping if they rewrite the naval AI from scratch, the overall result would be far superior to what we see today from C3C and we wouldn't have to go with the RoN system, which I think oversimplifies to the point of being lazy. And that game is an RTS so loading and unloading troops probably would have been an extra layer of complexity that wasn't needed. Civ3 however could use that complexity, it adds to logistics of going to war overseas.

 

[Hyronymus]

Not really. The US used a refitted WW2 super battleship (iowa class) to launch cruise missles during Gulf War 1.

Granted the battleship fleet has been all but decomissioned today. So There's really now point introducing another ship. The Aegis Cruiser/Carrier/Destroyer combo is not far removed from the actual type of ships that rule the seas today. Granted you have auxillary ships, frigates, and other type of boats, but Civ3 isn't a naval simulator.

I didn't use the expression real batteleships for nothing, dexters . Fact is that smaller nations often rely on frigates, submarines, destroyers and minesweepers. The Netherlands i.e. have all of these but they don't have a single battleship or AEGIS cruiser. They are however building 3 stealth frigates for deployment in 2006/7. Appearently that serves the demands for a small(er) nation well. And of course Civ isn't a naval simulator but I never hear anyone complain about the diversity of infantry units either.

 

[sir_schwick]

And of course Civ isn't a naval simulator but I never hear anyone complain about the diversity of infantry units either.

Maybe I should start. The shallowness of modern warfare(tank who?) is kind of funny. It is especially how funny how Armour can roll over anything.

 

[dexters]

Maybe I should start. The shallowness of modern warfare(tank who?) is kind of funny. It is especially how funny how Armour can roll over anything.

This isn't quite true. Firaxis addeded the med inf > Guerilla > TOW Infantry line to the unit list AND while TOW infantry is no match for a modern armour out in the open, those units can hold their own in well fortified cities. Their defensive bombard also has a good chance to reducing attacker HP which slightly alters probability to winning a fight in their favour. Using the combat calculator, even out in the open, a fortified TOW infantry on plains has a 40% chance of surviving an attack from a modern armor. If that unit was defending in a city (size 8 or larger) they win 58% of the time. In a Metropolis, the win 70% of the time.

Given the current combat model, you need a unit like a Tank or Modern Armor with a decisive base attack edge, otherwise, the AI would never be able to take a single city. If the combat in Civ4 switches to a countering system where 1 unit counters another and attack and defense isn't the single overriding factor, then perhaps we can see a less pronounced attack differential between tanks and defensive units and instead see the need to build a mix of units to defend against a different mix of attackers. Until then, the current system is the way it is because of the combat model as it exists.

You should realize Civ3 as a game is fairly defensive in nature. The advantages go to the defenders. A unit sitting on any tile get at least a 10% bonus, if its fortified, the bonus goes up to 35% in a town, a fortified unit also receives a 35% defensive bonus.

In the late game, when most AI cities are size 8 or larger, your looking at 85% (for cities) to 135% (for metro) defensive bonuses. That high base attack for tank is quickly negated and I've seen the AI throw several tanks at size 11 cities against 1 elite 1 veteran Mech Inf and fail to capture it. We may call it stupid, and in some ways it is stupid how the AI squanders its military units, but I would agrue in a world without bombard units, which the AI can't use all that well, we'd be doing the same thing and the results isn't pretty.

Hence a good human player use artillery so much, it is in some ways an exploit and makes an end run around the the game's defensive bonuses while at the same time, benefiting from it.

 

[sir_schwick]

Bombardment firepower really should be upgraded termendously in the modern era. The fact there is no heli-lifted arty(Korean War), Paladins, or anything of the sort. If anything, the US military can kill something if someone paints it with a laser. There is so much firepower it is ridiculous. The age of static defenses ended in WWII.

 

[sheerin]

I agree that warships should have the capability to fire cruise missiles (TLAMs)... however, this shouldn't be a given.
The destroyers used in CIV III appear to be WWII era (or perhaps even 1960s era) warships, nothing like the destroyers that are on the seas today. Once you reach the point where you can build cruise missiles you should be given the option of upgrading your battleships/destroyers to allow them to use this capability.
Likewise, after this point you when building a destroyer you should be given the option of building with or without the TLAM capability. Say the version with TLAM takes X amount more shields and costs that much more to operate.

For Subs you should be given the option of producing either SSNs (which can be loaded with one or two cruise missiles), SSGN (which would be dedicated land attack submarines - like the Russian Oscar and the newly upgraded Ohio class (SSGN 726-729)) which would be used for bombardment or precision attacks, and finally SSBN boomer boats which could hold say 5 tactical nukes.
You should also have the option of created SSGs (like the Australians are doing with their Collins class SSK) but they would only be able to carry one TLAM.

And speaking of naval deployment I would like to see the introduction of AORs but I'm sure most people would be against this.

 

[sir_schwick]

Having a second-generation, missel BBs/Destroyers makes sense. Its an obvious upgrade path and you could still build the old versions. As for the subs, I like sub warfare, but considering how 'shallow' naval warfare is, you could probably simplify it with these:

Attack Subs - Attack other subs but do have limited missle capability(1 ROF instead of more).
Boomers - Carry all the toys and the nukes. Have excellent missle capability(4 ROF).

 

[rhialto]

Why does everyone seem so fired up on the idea of a cruise missile armed BB? Granted, they existed - a total of four ships in world history with no more on the way. That kind of puts it in among the class of "military ideas that didn't really work as well as hoped". People ask what's the point of the BB without missiles, as it otherwise becomes a weaker cousin to teh smaller ships. The significance of the BB is that it came into the battlefield a LOT earlier than the missile cruisers, almost an entire age in civ3 terms.

Besides, I don't see anyone clamouring for the manned submarine torpedo (suicide type), which was far more plentiful in world history.

 

[dexters]

Why does everyone seem so fired up on the idea of a cruise missile armed BB? Granted, they existed - a total of four ships in world history with no more on the way. That kind of puts it in among the class of "military ideas that didn't really work as well as hoped". People ask what's the point of the BB without missiles, as it otherwise becomes a weaker cousin to teh smaller ships. The significance of the BB is that it came into the battlefield a LOT earlier than the missile cruisers, almost an entire age in civ3 terms.

Besides, I don't see anyone clamouring for the manned submarine torpedo (suicide type), which was far more plentiful in world history.

Because it kills 2 birds with one stone. If you read one of the threads in the strategy forums talking about the usefullness of BB in Civ3 and C3C in particular, the consensus is, its pretty useless. Lots of people build them, like me, but its almost always better to build destroyers and cruisers, especially with the new AA factor in C3C. Cruise missles are even more useless and because they get used up and cost quite a bit, relative to non consumable units, players are reluctant to build any since they are land based, effectively limiting their range and flexibility and everytime one is fired, we are burning shields. If you make it so that Battleships can fire these missiles, you make both a bit more useful by making Battleships the exclusive ship for carrying these missiles and cruise missiles can become a source of porjecting power in the high seas, to augment the carrier based bombers.

Not knowing any details as to how it will all work in Civ4, or whether even cruise missles will return, we're working under the assumption that Firaxis is including all the units in Civ3 and we, as the public, is making suggestions how they can mix up their units, alter them etc. to improve on their usage.

A valid improvement beyond the Civ3 framework could also be to make cruise missiles multi-fire consumables, so that building 1 unit of cruise missiles does not equal fire once but fire multiple times before the unit is used up. And in the same vein, a battleship may be able to carry more than 1 such unit to make them even more leathal by firing multiple times in one turn.