• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Guided (Rocket) Missiles: A new paradigm

Stalker0

Baller Magnus
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
10,992
The current rocket and guided missiles....are a failure of design. Its not their fault, but the VP combat system has an extraordinary prejudice against consumable units. Human units are not supposed to die often, they live, get experience, and kill a dozen times their value against AI units. The idea of building units that are literally one and done are so anathema to that concept....that I don't know if any version of the model short of basically a mini nuke would get us a unit that humans would actually use.

Its a shame because we not only put them in cities, but in theory have all of these late game units where you are supposed to put guided missiles on them. But you never do.

So I want to consider a new paradigm. People have talked about lot about the Civ6 "army" concept and ideas to apply it to Civ5. Well here is a light version of the concept that could be tailored to guided missiles specifically.

Rocket Missile (we would likely drop the more expensive guided missile, though people might like to keep the guided missile name)
Is now regeared as a support unit. It has no attack option and would be immune from air sweeps like a nuke is. They still move around like an air unit.

When a missile is stationed on a city/unit that can support them, it increases the CS and RCS by X per missile.


So for example a late game nuclear sub. You could place a couple of missiles (costing oil of course) in the sub and increase its CS and RCS attack. The missiles don't depreciate, it just becomes part of the assumed arsenal the sub uses when it attacks. In this model, you gain the ability to spend an extra amount of resources (especially oil!) to turn 1 unit into a "super unit". This becomes a more interesting option to allow you to augment the depth of your late game forces rather than the breadth.


My one concern is the idea that I could attack with a unit containing a missile, then send that missile to another unit who could also attack with the bonus. We definately would want to stop those shenangans so its a question of the best way to to do that.

For reference, the following units can carry missiles and so any proposals would impact them:

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:
We should make them unmovable once stationed on a unit. Otherwise you can keep them alive forever...
 
you could still move them in cities though unfortunately.
Yes, but they don't start working until they're stationed on a unit.
 
Yes, but they don't start working until they're stationed on a unit.
I gotcha. So in that model we would remove the rocket missile (as there aren't units to station on it yet), but then the guided missile could work that way. Honestly that would be fine with me, I don't see the need to have two missiles for this kind of model.
 
Current missiles do still have a niche of hitting the garrison unit directly.
 
My one concern is the idea that I could attack with a unit containing a missile, then send that missile to another unit who could also attack with the bonus. We definately would want to stop those shenangans so its a question of the best way to to do that.
Missiles should have depleted movement if unit/city containing them attacked this turn.
 
Actually, we don't even need to remove their current functionality.

Missiles can still be fired from cities as usual, but will work the new way when loaded onto units as cargo. Then we can remove Guided Missile and keep missiles unlocked earlier.
 
I'll reflect further, but on first reaction, strikes me as a bit odd. You increase CS/RCS so units will both attack and defend better. But missiles/rockets are generally regarded as an offensive weapon, ie stretching the limit of reasonable abstraction. A melee unit with rocket equipped would still be limited to adjacent attacks, I presume? Or does it gain a ranged attack somehow? If so, AI won't do well here without adjustments

There's also something fun to how they currently work vs a passive buff. There's a tendency in this community to convert interesting mechanisms into flat, passive yields. Like we're building a mod for an AI audience. But we're all human here (I assume)

It's not perfect though, OP is on point in description of their shortcomings -- perhaps some improvements are in order.

Maybe just need to change the way they are acquired.
 
Last edited:
But melee units can't carry missiles except GDRs. I agree, though, that it should only boost RCS for ranged units and for GDRs maybe they should have an additional ranged attack with just missiles, just like Impis.
 
Sensor Combat Ships can carry missiles.
 
I'll reflect further, but on first reaction, strikes me as a bit odd. You increase CS/RCS so units will both attack and defend better. But missiles/rockets are generally regarded as an offensive weapon, ie stretching the limit of reasonable abstraction. A melee unit with rocket equipped would still be limited to adjacent attacks, I presume? Or does it gain a ranged attack somehow? If so, AI won't do well here without adjustments
We already have this strain when we think about late game melee units. For example infantry have guns that can shoot much farther than an ancient bow, but still operate "in melee" and use them both on offense and defense. At the end of the day, this is no stranger than the combat system we already use.
 
But melee units can't carry missiles except GDRs. I agree, though, that it should only boost RCS for ranged units and for GDRs maybe they should have an additional ranged attack with just missiles, just like Impis.
GDRs can carry missiles?!

Wow, that's funny. Can they carry nukes?
 
We already have this strain when we think about late game melee units. For example infantry have guns that can shoot much farther than an ancient bow, but still operate "in melee" and use them both on offense and defense. At the end of the day, this is no stranger than the combat system we already use.
True, though a gun CAN be used effectively from a dozen feet from target, even in cqc melee range you're probably still better off with a gun than an actual melee weapon. Using guided missile from a few feet away from your target, on the other hand... I'm no rocket scientist but I don't think this works
 
True, though a gun CAN be used effectively from a dozen feet from target, even in cqc melee range you're probably still better off with a gun than an actual melee weapon. Using guided missile from a few feet away from your target, on the other hand... I'm no rocket scientist but I don't think this works
if you need another example think of artillery pieces. There's no way you are using that long barrel in "melee" range.....but artillery still have a CS. ITs just the nature of the Civ 5 beast
 
I don't disagree necessarily. But if I have a missile in a game, my expectation is that I can fire it somehow. Seems we're suggesting that missile/rocket perform the exact same role as promotions already serve. So why not just hand out a promotion?

I'm thinking maybe we look at having the missiles auto-generate. Something like, you build missile factory, and every x turns it loads one missile into an available slot. Maybe even overlap them into the strategic resource system so they can be traded. VP took out vanilla mechanism for supplying arms to other players. Would be nice if we found a VP compatible way to bring this back -- the rockets/missiles could be part of this. Anyway I digress, my thoughts here are a little half baked at this point, will reflect further and watch this discussion develop
 
So why not just hand out a promotion?
This perhaps could be the way the mechanic is implemented. I send a missile to a unit, it gains the promotion "Armed Missile: Gain X"....something like that.

The key difference between this and just any other promotion was the notion that you could upgrade a unit not through XP in this case, but by the expenditure of resources (some hammers, and an oil in this case). So it allowed for someone to upgrade their army late game should they wish to expend those resources.
 
The key difference between this and just any other promotion was the notion that you could upgrade a unit not through XP in this case, but by the expenditure of resources (some hammers, and an oil in this case).
I like this thought very much, even if I'm not that excited about the specifics.

I'd rather get rid of the oil requirement and rebalance missile/rocket DMG/cost to encourage human use
 
I think I posted this in the original proposal that was withdrawn, but to solve the consumable nature of missiles couldn't you just make them have more charges?

I'm thinking of a design around the missile costing 50hp to fire, (maybe it also takes interception damage?), and it can heal, representing the ability to reload an exhausted supply. So the city-production cost is one-time, but the unit itself has a "salvo and reload" feeling unlike most other units.

The 50hp cost could then be modified by traits like policies or techs, such that later in the game you could lower the cost to 25hp, roughly doubling the up-time of missiles as necessary.

What I think would be missing if missile were relegated to a promotion is that splash damage largely doesn't apply to units in shielded locations like forts and cities; missiles are how you break that rule, and to not have them would be losing something, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
if you need another example think of artillery pieces. There's no way you are using that long barrel in "melee" range.....but artillery still have a CS. ITs just the nature of the Civ 5 beast
I always think of unit markers representing an entire unit. For siege units, the soldiers that operate - and in many cases set up hardened defenses - are part of that. Not just Civ V, but real life gives even older units an ability to defend at close quarters. Ironically, more modern “shoot and scoot” systems tend to be quite vulnerable if caught in the open, so are less defended. Thus their position further from the action. (Personally, I find siege units a little too crunchy, so use an old mod that grants the terrain bonus to them, as well).

That being said, fortifying cities, ships, and maybe even ranged units an intriguing idea.
 
Top Bottom