What do u guys use cruise missles for? Anti-Ship or shore-bombardment?I always tend to avoid building them and jump directly to nukes under communist russia.but as im taking a less miliant role with an arab republic , Im considering keeping my state non-nuclear (coz I'm unlikely to use it with impunity and its unlikely AI has first strike policy for nukes).as such cruise missles are a good non-nuke alternative for bombardment.what do u think?
cruise missles: who uses them?
- Thread starter stalin83
- Start date
MAS
Deity
They have one single use, lethal bombard, range of 3, hit units first before pop/improvement, and their bombard str is the biggest in the game (high chance of success)
Their major drawback is their single use, but I suppose this could also be an advantage.
If you have a couple of metro's that can build 1 each turn, simply start building them as you need them and use them up as fast as possible. Saves upkeep cost. When the war is over, switch the cities back to wealth. And your total unit count didn't increase.
For more continual war, bombers are probably better because they can be used multiple times.
I must say, I have never seriously used them myself though, but this is more because I don't often play in the modern age, and if I do, I'm not fighting any war, or not any war I can't round up with the units I already have.
Their major drawback is their single use, but I suppose this could also be an advantage.
If you have a couple of metro's that can build 1 each turn, simply start building them as you need them and use them up as fast as possible. Saves upkeep cost. When the war is over, switch the cities back to wealth. And your total unit count didn't increase.
For more continual war, bombers are probably better because they can be used multiple times.
I must say, I have never seriously used them myself though, but this is more because I don't often play in the modern age, and if I do, I'm not fighting any war, or not any war I can't round up with the units I already have.
ChaosArbiter
King
I've used them, and they are great for taking out ships if your bombers are busy (the Aztecs had a Settler on a Galleon - two missiles 
); generally, however, they aren't going to be worth the time spent making them. They're fun to use, just not that useful in the long run.
); generally, however, they aren't going to be worth the time spent making them. They're fun to use, just not that useful in the long run.
PaperBeetle
Emperor
I thought their purpose was to move shields from core towns to corrupt ones in the late stages of a milk game. Building them to actually use in battle is just plain daft. Two or three bombers will give you roughly the same firepower as a cruise missile per turn, and the town which therefore isn't building a stream of cruise missiles can do wealth instead, and more than pay for the extra upkeep.
By the time cruise missiles come along, 60 spt towns can be churning out tanks and bombers, which I believe are a better investment. Either I can afford my military or I cannot. If I need it to do more, I may have to spend more to support it.
You're probably right about cruise missiles targeting units first, but bombers take out plenty of units, particularly if you take the time to redline them with artillery first. Besides, by the time bombers come along, the few cities that I do not raze won't have many improvements which I really want to keep.
Sweetchuck
King
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2006
- Messages
- 649
Too much hassle for one bang.
Bombers and artillary - now that's the way to blow the crap out of the AI.
Bombers and artillary - now that's the way to blow the crap out of the AI.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,291
They're useful for those circumstances when your air force is busy far away, thus unable to help, and a threat crops up out of range of artillery, i.e., across a channel or a pillaged wasteland. Occasionally they're also useful in offensives this way - if your bombers are busy on one front and you're invading an island on the other side of the world, cruise missiles may work better as you can attack from your side of the channel rather than having to use transport space to move across artillery.
Taking down the random ship is another good use of them.
It's certainly a niche role, but oftentimes it's nice to have a few around just in case the need for them does come up.
An example where I've used them is The Conquest of Britain in my current Civ3 story. At the time my bombers were mostly across the world, and artillery were out of range lest I wanted to wait another few turns for transports to bring them, so cruise missiles provided a very nice boost in bombard power.
Taking down the random ship is another good use of them.
It's certainly a niche role, but oftentimes it's nice to have a few around just in case the need for them does come up.
An example where I've used them is The Conquest of Britain in my current Civ3 story. At the time my bombers were mostly across the world, and artillery were out of range lest I wanted to wait another few turns for transports to bring them, so cruise missiles provided a very nice boost in bombard power.
Snarkhunter
Prince
Disagree. I find cruise missiles virtually guarantee hits, whereas bombers & arty don't. If I have a target that absolutely, positively has to take damage, I lob some missiles at it; also, I hit targets that I can't get arty in range of for a first strike. They're an add-on weapon rather than a replacement, but if the game lasts long enough to make them available, I almost always find a need for a dozen or so.
Besides, the animation when they hit is way cool
kk
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Cruise Missiles do lethal bombardment on redlined targets, I use them as follows:
Redline ships around your coasts with normal artillery, then sink them with Cruise missiles. If you can build them you should have at least one city that can churn them out every turn. Stockpile them for annihilating enemy navies when you declare war.
Redline ships around your coasts with normal artillery, then sink them with Cruise missiles. If you can build them you should have at least one city that can churn them out every turn. Stockpile them for annihilating enemy navies when you declare war.
MAS
Deity
You can sink ships with bombers too (in C3C at least) but bombers may not be at the right location, and re-base missions take up a turn as well. The missiles can use your rail network and instantly be at the right location.
I have been thinking about them.
If you make it to the late game, on a not to small map, you'll probably be able to make a number of metro's that can one turn build cruise missiles. Or maybe even 1 or 2 turn build any unit.
You can, of course, just build units and more units until the upkeep cost is killing you. But with cruise missiles, your units are used up. They have a very high probability of hitting, and their loss doesn't add up to WW.
The fact they hit units first, before pop and improvements makes it possible to capture cities intact.
They have a range of 3, combined with 3 movement modern armor...
They don't get shot down by fighters. (also causing WW)
I somehow have the idea they are being undervalued a bit.
Its to bad I don't play in the modern age a lot, I wonder if they can be put to better use... These cruise missiles intrigue me somehow.
I have been thinking about them.
If you make it to the late game, on a not to small map, you'll probably be able to make a number of metro's that can one turn build cruise missiles. Or maybe even 1 or 2 turn build any unit.
You can, of course, just build units and more units until the upkeep cost is killing you. But with cruise missiles, your units are used up. They have a very high probability of hitting, and their loss doesn't add up to WW.
The fact they hit units first, before pop and improvements makes it possible to capture cities intact.
They have a range of 3, combined with 3 movement modern armor...
They don't get shot down by fighters. (also causing WW)
I somehow have the idea they are being undervalued a bit.
Its to bad I don't play in the modern age a lot, I wonder if they can be put to better use... These cruise missiles intrigue me somehow.
MAS
Deity
Range of 4? wow, even better, this means you can fire them from any newly conquered city, whose borders have not yet expanded for you, to the next AI city.
Combined with a couple of 4 movement (cav or MA armies) units, or heck, 6 movement conquistadors... If you have enough of these suckers, you could take out a whole AI civ in one turn! Without RoP rape!
Combined with a couple of 4 movement (cav or MA armies) units, or heck, 6 movement conquistadors... If you have enough of these suckers, you could take out a whole AI civ in one turn! Without RoP rape!
I just started fighting a war in my current game, and I've been building about 10 CMs per turn. A few things I like about them:
1.) I'm making a ton of GPT off of the cities I'm capturing because all of their structures are intact.
2.) 1 CM is about the same as 3 bombers (bombers target a unit 1/3 of the time when attacking a city, and are less likely to hit if they do target the unit), cost 240 shields less, and I'm not building up a huge amount of upkeep (although I'm Communist and have a 400 unit limit, I've been able to stay around 350 units throughout the war).
3.) 3 cities can produce 3 CMs per turn, or 3 bombers every 2 turns
4.) I'm not losing any attackers, as all the cities are undefended.
5.) I don't have to wait for them to rebase, or in artillery's case, I don't have to wait for them to move within firing range.
6.) My bombers can be used at what they are most effective at, which is hitting AI units out in the open.
7.) The artillery never has to leave my rail network, thus allowing it to be more effective. I know I could be using my workers to build rails after I capture the cities, but they are on the other side of my empire improving a large chunk of land that I just captured.
8.) Most cities can produce 1 CM per turn, but not 1 bomber per turn.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still building a lot of artillery and a decent amount of bombers, but instead of using them as offensive units, I'm using them as defensive units, and using all my left-over Cossacks/Tanks to kill any AI units. I still use the bombers as offensive units after all the units inside my territory have been killed.
1.) I'm making a ton of GPT off of the cities I'm capturing because all of their structures are intact.
2.) 1 CM is about the same as 3 bombers (bombers target a unit 1/3 of the time when attacking a city, and are less likely to hit if they do target the unit), cost 240 shields less, and I'm not building up a huge amount of upkeep (although I'm Communist and have a 400 unit limit, I've been able to stay around 350 units throughout the war).
3.) 3 cities can produce 3 CMs per turn, or 3 bombers every 2 turns
4.) I'm not losing any attackers, as all the cities are undefended.
5.) I don't have to wait for them to rebase, or in artillery's case, I don't have to wait for them to move within firing range.
6.) My bombers can be used at what they are most effective at, which is hitting AI units out in the open.
7.) The artillery never has to leave my rail network, thus allowing it to be more effective. I know I could be using my workers to build rails after I capture the cities, but they are on the other side of my empire improving a large chunk of land that I just captured.
8.) Most cities can produce 1 CM per turn, but not 1 bomber per turn.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still building a lot of artillery and a decent amount of bombers, but instead of using them as offensive units, I'm using them as defensive units, and using all my left-over Cossacks/Tanks to kill any AI units. I still use the bombers as offensive units after all the units inside my territory have been killed.
D0NIMATRIX
Full of drivel
They have the highest bombard in the game, and they're cheap and fast to make. In the endgame, they can really annihilate units real fast. You can have core cities pumping them out 6 or 7 per turn, and they can take out sole units within range, but that would otherwise take a turn or two to reach with units. They save lots of time, and they're cool.
Just defeated the Germans, who controlled 24% of the world, on a 60% water, large pangea map in 1 turn using cruise missiles and modern armor/cossacks. Difficulty level, Regent.
Here's what the situation looked like before the war:
Germany (32 cities):
Military Advisor:
Victory Status:
I had 349 CMs and the Germans had a little over 150 total units. About halfway through I realized that I didn't have enough CMs to destroy every German unit, so I used some Modern Armor and Mechanized Infantry to kill off a few redlined units (approx 12).
1 turn later:
Germany:
Victory Status:
5 turns later the borders expanded (Internet RLs) and I won a domination vitctory:
Final Power Chart:
A few notes:
-No aircraft were used, although a few artillery were (aprrox 8).
-Germany was fully railed, so I didn't need any workers.
-I didn't have to worry about cultural flips,
-I should have signed a MA with Germany against a weaker nation a turn or two before, that way their offensive military would have been outside their cites, which would have required fewer CMs
-I had 14 CMs left-over.
-I chose CMs because bombers couldn't hit all of Germany from pre-war bases, and artillery, despite its quick movement, wouldn't be able to hit the German cities with a culture expansion, due to their limited range.
-Finished with 75% of the world.
-This is a rather ridiculous tactic.
Here's what the situation looked like before the war:
Germany (32 cities):
Spoiler :
Military Advisor:
Spoiler :
Victory Status:
Spoiler :
I had 349 CMs and the Germans had a little over 150 total units. About halfway through I realized that I didn't have enough CMs to destroy every German unit, so I used some Modern Armor and Mechanized Infantry to kill off a few redlined units (approx 12).
1 turn later:
Germany:
Spoiler :
Victory Status:
Spoiler :
5 turns later the borders expanded (Internet RLs) and I won a domination vitctory:
Final Power Chart:
Spoiler :
A few notes:
-No aircraft were used, although a few artillery were (aprrox 8).
-Germany was fully railed, so I didn't need any workers.
-I didn't have to worry about cultural flips,
-I should have signed a MA with Germany against a weaker nation a turn or two before, that way their offensive military would have been outside their cites, which would have required fewer CMs
-I had 14 CMs left-over.
-I chose CMs because bombers couldn't hit all of Germany from pre-war bases, and artillery, despite its quick movement, wouldn't be able to hit the German cities with a culture expansion, due to their limited range.
-Finished with 75% of the world.
-This is a rather ridiculous tactic.
