What ever happened to.......?

[The Lance]

Cruise missiles?

My favorite tactic in CivII used to involve packing a couple of subs with cruise missiles, parking the sub in the middle of the ocean, unleashing all sorts of mayhem from a safe distance, and then landing the ground troops to mop up.
I was dismayed to find that my favorite toys weren't in CivIV. I never really played Civ III so I'm not really sure if they were in III or not. Anyone know why they have disappeared?

 

[kristopherb]

the dalescombat will not dissapoint you then,altough i dont think it has subs like civ2

 

[Sisiutil]

Cruise missiles?

My favorite tactic in CivII used to involve packing a couple of subs with cruise missiles, parking the sub in the middle of the ocean, unleashing all sorts of mayhem from a safe distance, and then landing the ground troops to mop up.
I was dismayed to find that my favorite toys weren't in CivIV. I never really played Civ III so I'm not really sure if they were in III or not. Anyone know why they have disappeared?

I'm not a game designer myself, but if I were, I should imagine the phrase I emboldened above would cause me concern. The way I see it, Civ IV has evolved over previous versions with the overall concept of "game balance" as a guiding creed. Every unit has a unit that counters it, and therefore most tactics have effective counter-tactics as well. With the possible exception of Praetorians, no unit in Civ IV is truly over-powered. This is as it should be, providing a more sophisticated challenge for the player.

However, I do think in some areas the designers may have erred too much on the side of caution, and your post gets to one of those areas: the weakness of naval units in Civ IV. Granted, in previous versions, units like battleships were overpowered, able to attack and kill land units, which didn't strike me as realistic (though it sure was fun). Now, all naval units can do on their own, besides fight one another, is pillage fishing nets and bombard cities. (The Syrian Doctrine doesn't count, because the land units do the heavy lifting; the ships are just functioning as a floating taxi service.)

I'm not so sure I'd like to see the return of cruise missiles; you'd need to also include effective counters like AEGIS Cruisers and so on. What I'd really like to see is the naval units gain the ability to bombard and cause collateral damage, rather like bombers do. That would make them more useful and more realistic. It would also add impetus to using air and naval units to counter them.

 

[Sullla]

Cruise Missiles were in Civ3, but they were pretty useless. (I'm sure some folks enjoyed them, but those shields really would have been better spent building armor instead.) Like paratroopers, helicopters, and AEGIS cruisers, they were cut from Civ4 because they didn't really serve much of a point. One of the design goals of Civ4 was to eliminate useless or irritating features of past Civ games in favor of adding new strategic elements. As far as units go, these extreme late-game units that rarely had any impact were cut in favor of USEFUL units like axemen, crossbowmen, maces, and grenadiers, none of which were present in Civ3.

Game development works under real-world limitations. There is an art budget for only so many units. Would you rather have useful new units, or meaningless late-game toys? In a nutshell, that's why there are no cruise missiles in Civ4.

Oh, and Syrian Doctrine?! You do mean the Sirian Doctrine, right? Please make sure to give credit where it's due!

 

[binhthuy71]

Granted, in previous versions, units like battleships were overpowered, able to attack and kill land units, which didn't strike me as realistic...

There are numbers of WWII Japanese soldiers who found naval bombardment extremely realistic. Softening up beachheads via bombardment is one element that's been completely knobbled in CivIV. As you mentioned in your post, ships have a very limited utility now. That something can bombard without causing collateral damage is an affront to an already badly compromised bombardment model.

 

[Sisiutil]

Oh, and Syrian Doctrine?! You do mean the Sirian Doctrine, right?

I was going to fix this in my post in true Soviet revisionist fashion, but I realized that would make one of us look like an idiot--and given the choice, I'm usually the logical suspect in that regard. Just ask my wife.

 

[Whitetale666]

wat exactly did the cruise missile do in civilization 3? (i never got the game).

 

[None_Existant]

If i remember correctly, I felt it was completely useless xd. It was basically the same as other bombardment weapons except it was one use. (Apparently missiles explode)

I think bombardement in civ III did dmg to the city's infastructure, units, population or defence. But I'm not sure.

 

[binhthuy71]

If i remember correctly, I felt it was completely useless xd. It was basically the same as other bombardment weapons except it was one use. (Apparently missiles explode)

I think bombardement in civ III did dmg to the city's infastructure, units, population or defence. But I'm not sure.

My experience with Cruise Missiles was completely different. They were cheap to build and could fatally bombard ships. Also caused collateral damage when used on a stack. Last, they could be moved in a transport. Although they were indeed a one-shot weapon the odds of hitting were 100%.

The CivIII bombardment model would reduce population, or damage city infrastructure to the point of destroying buildings. Additionally, bombardment from aircraft, artillery or ships would destroy roads, railroads, improvements as well as being able to take down the HP of units to around 40-50%. Researching the Smart Weapons tech would enable your Stealth Bombers to do assured damage to a city.

 

[SwordofStriker]

Well.....Civ IV is the first Civilization I've played since Civ II, but I do recall cruise missiles back then.

I recall really liking the cruise missiles then. They were perfect for killing units protecting cities without nuking the place or losing units trying to take it the usual way.

I also really enjoyed sneaking my subs up to the coast line and bombarding the enemy cities with them in preparation for an attack. It is quite the disappointment that cruise missile carrying subs are not included because that one feature was what made subs so dangerous in the past, and that was why it was very important to have sub-countering units.

As far as the battleship being able to attack land units on the shore line goes......ummm one of the battleships most useful features in real wars is the fact that it can and does bombard the shoreline and enemy fortifications before the troops ever land. There really was no good reason IMHO for that to be changed. It was realistic and it was accurate. Now it's not.

This all really just points out what we already all knew, and that is that naval combat has been severely handicapped in the newest release and should be revised.

 

[The Lance]

The cruise missiles did have an ultimate counter in CivII, city based missile defense. While the concept of each city having it's own orbiting satellite to shoot down missiles is kind nuts it was an effective way to limit the use of them. When the other side had the SDI defenses in place it effectively limited the use of cruise missiles to hit naval units, airfields (loved those too), and units on the march. While their one hit, one kill power was obscene it would be nice to see them back in some manner.

 

[Strato]

Cruise missiles were great. I don't remember the AI however doing much with them in Civ II, they tended to go for nukes more than anything. Never played much of Civ III to get an idea, but yes, in the Civ II days, I was one of those build em up and whack a city types. Cheap and easy to build.

One factor to consider is scripting the AI to use them in Civ IV. I don't know much about the inner workings of the AI, but as has been mentioned here, the game is all about balance, and its no good having a unit which a computer opponent can not or will not use effectively.
The second thing is gone are the old days of unit support, now it's just money, so there's nothing stopping someone from building a massive force. After all, I don't think armies are fielded as large as in previous civilization games, I know I don't make massive armies like I used to.

If it were to be brought in, i reckon having a missile base would be mandatory for the cruise missiles and ?nukes to be launched from a city. This building would also cause unhappiness with the population. Afterall, who wants to live next to a missile base, all sorts of security troubles there. Also, having the subs launching cruise missiles would be the only other way, it does make the naval units a lot more useful, firstly to look for subs, to protect subs, and to use subs. Again however, it requires some solid AI scripting to make good use of this, something which I doubt would be done.

 

[flamingzaroc121]

what exactly is the Sirian Doctrine i know it has something to do with ships . . .

 

[Endovior]

Refer to the posted link; basically it's using ships and aircraft to bombard a city's defenses down to nothing in one turn, then hit it hard and take it with a powerful amphibious force. This is an excellent strategy against the AI, which usually doesn't focus enough on navy to counter it.

 

[Mano3]

What about the Rocket Artillery? I miss the better movement and 2 hex range...

 

[Blaarg]

Refer to the posted link; basically it's using ships and aircraft to bombard a city's defenses down to nothing in one turn, then hit it hard and take it with a powerful amphibious force. This is an excellent strategy against the AI, which usually doesn't focus enough on navy to counter it.

Why would I give someone credit for that? The Amphibious promotion, heck the Marine unit just screams that tactic....heck, i think I did it in my first complete game of Civ with the Navy Seals, and I never even heard of Sirian.

 

[Pounder]

I miss the cruise missiles. I'm sure they could be added and keep some balance to the game, especially if they were used as a form of bombardment.

I also miss the Partisans in Civ 2.

 

[Sebiche]

WHY DO THEY KEEP TAKING STUFF OUT?!?!

they should stick to taking the stuff that we say we dont want and not just assume half the stuff.

you mean they had paratroopers????

something is only useless if you make it so

 

[Sisiutil]

Why would I give someone credit for that? The Amphibious promotion, heck the Marine unit just screams that tactic....heck, i think I did it in my first complete game of Civ with the Navy Seals, and I never even heard of Sirian.

Good for you! Though as I recall, the particular twist Sirian (yes, I've learned how to spell his name) made on the tactic was to not land your units, even before you have Marines (though they're ideal for this, obviously). The idea is to avoid any withering collateral damage attacks on your stack as it sits helplessly next to the city on the turn after landing. Your own siege units are likely to suicide anyway, so why not have them attack from the ship? Use enough of them and the amphibious penalty won't be significant for your non-marine city raiders.

 

[Blaarg]

WHY DO THEY KEEP TAKING STUFF OUT?!?!

they should stick to taking the stuff that we say we dont want and not just assume half the stuff.

you mean they had paratroopers????

something is only useless if you make it so

No they're right. There were too many units in the modern age. It was great for the WWII Scenerio, but in the actual game they saw little use. There were Alpine troops in Civ II as well. 5/5 treats all tiles like roads.

However, you didn't have as many units in the non-modern ages as we now have in Civ IV. Axemen, Crossbows, Horse Archers, they really do add a lot more to the game than Paratroopers or Cruise missles ever did.