Why doesn't Battleship upgrade to Missile Cruiser

[Scirocco16V]

Is there any reason why the Battleship doesn't upgrade to a Missile Cruiser? It seems like a stupid oversight to still be in the game after so long. That and the Pikeman -> Lancer -> Anti Tank Gun -> Helicopter Gunship nonsense are about the only remaining problems with the military unit paths. Of course it would be nice if there were more chances to use Information Era units, especially XCOM squad, giant death robot, and stealth bomber.

 

[Walter R]

Beacuse they're useful against high-tech alien invaders who find it easy to deal with current war units but not old battleships? (see movie)

Seriously, I agree: if you play as a naval power you end up with these well-promoted units that feel like they should get upgraded. For that matter why do missile cruisers not get indirect fire?
Don't get me wrong, I love the game but there are a few little things like that that I would have thought pretty easy to fix.

The Pikeman etc. upgrades do have a certain logic (in that they are all anti-cavalry units of their respective eras) but I would have preferred the Pikeman to become another infantry unit.

 

[TPangolin]

Balance reasons I presume. Once you get a good armada of around 4 battleships and repeatedly pound land units, you tend to get Logistics, Supply and Range up pretty fast. The armada would be virtually unstoppable if it were upgradable.

 

[Scirocco16V]

Giant death robots and stealth bombers can be upgraded to from weaker units and they're not exactly push over units. Missile cruisers still couldn't capture a city, due to being ranged units, and can only attack 2 land tiles in from the coast. It does seem strange that they don't require aluminum, though.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The upgrade fixes that would improve the game

Pike->Rifle

Knight->Lancer->Cavalry

Chariot archer->Crossbow

Battleship->Missile Cruiser

(Keshik+Camel Archer-> Gatling Gun)

*Anti Tank gun gets same upgrades as Helicopter Gunship*

 

[Scirocco16V]

The upgrade fixes that would improve the game
Pike->Rifle
Knight->Lancer->Cavalry
Chariot archer->Crossbow
Battleship->Missile Cruiser
(Keshik+Camel Archer-> Gatling Gun)
*Anti Tank gun gets same upgrades as Helicopter Gunship*

Definitely! Though I would make a slight change:
Pike -> Musketman

For the Keshik & Camel Archers I'd prefer that they upgrade to Cavalry but get to re-pick their promotions when they do, but short of that your suggestion would be an improvement over the current situation.

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

But Pikes, anti tank guns and helicopters are used to counter the enemies mounted unites (horseman, cavalry and tanks)
And it is very common that old cavalry regiments around the world turned in to tank regiments once horses got obsolete so imho it is more realistic if they follow that path.

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

I dont think battleships should upgrade to missile cruisers but it would be cool if they could be upgraded to battle ships with railguns instead. Similar damage but with much longer range and vision. I mean, if we can have X-com squads and GDR´s we can have railguns.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

But Pikes, anti tank guns and helicopters are used to counter the enemies mounted unites (horseman, cavalry and tanks)
And it is very common that old cavalry regiments around the world turned in to tank regiments once horses got obsolete so imho it is more realistic if they follow that path.

No they are not...
Pikes are used as resourceless infantry... that provides a Slow defense against mounted units
(Muskets are just as good)

Lancers are used as mounted units..ie not much but primarily for sniping off units.. and they are slightly better against knights/cavalry
(Cavalry are better)

That is the issue.. if you had Lancers->Cavalry and Pikes->Muskets, they would be just as good at anti-cavalry and would become better as infantry/cavalry.


Antitank is almost never used since it is slow.. but it provides some defensive lines if your opponent goes heavy tank.
Gunships are mostly used for sniping and crossing mountains/heavy terrain.

 

[Scirocco16V]

I dont think battleships should upgrade to missile cruisers but it would be cool if they could be upgraded to battle ships with railguns instead. Similar damage but with much longer range and vision. I mean, if we can have X-com squads and GDR´s we can have railguns.

What is your reasoning for why battleships should not upgrade to missile cruisers?

All sorts of futuristic units would be cool. I loved the future eras of Call to Power 2. A remake of Alpha Centauri on the Civ 5 engine like they did with Colonization on Civ 4 would be great. However, this would require a major expansion. As it is, I've been playing Civ 5 since it's release and I have yet to actually build a stealth bomber, giant death robot, or xcom (I do tend toward non-domination victories though). Adding more futuristic units to the already under-used ones is silly. Besides, fixing upgrade paths is a lot less work than making a new unit.

 

[Scirocco16V]

But Pikes, anti tank guns and helicopters are used to counter the enemies mounted unites (horseman, cavalry and tanks)
And it is very common that old cavalry regiments around the world turned in to tank regiments once horses got obsolete so imho it is more realistic if they follow that path.

I never build pikemen to counter mounted units. I build them because I don't have enough iron the build the longswordsmen I really want. Then, if you want to upgrade them you suddenly need a resource: horses; then you don't: anti-tank; then you do: helicopters. Spearmen, pikemen, and anti-tank are all 2 move units with terrain defense; lancers and gunships are much more mobile but don't get terrain defense. I never build anti-tank guns; I'd rather have infantry or machine guns, which are tougher against everything except tanks and I don't recall every being attacked by a overwhelming number of tanks at the same time. The purpose of spears and pikes is just different from lancers and gunships and anti-tank is a waste. If you need to change the names to make it more realistic, go for it, I'm more concerned with mechanics.

 

[AriochIV]

Battleships and missile cruisers were contemporaries. They served side-by-side in the US Navy from 1955 to 1992.

 

[Ninakoru]

Battleship has indirect fire, Missile cruiser has AntiAir ability, and can carry missiles. They are different units.

 

[Sturmgewher88mm]

Actually, I think the missile cruisers are overpowered. They should be slightly weaker than battleships.

 

[Scirocco16V]

Battleships and missile cruisers were contemporaries. They served side-by-side in the US Navy from 1955 to 1992.

So were bazookas and machine guns. I'm concerned with game mechanics. Would it work better if they called the missile cruiser a Zumwalt-class destroyer?

 

[Scirocco16V]

Actually, I think the missile cruisers are overpowered. They should be slightly weaker than battleships.

How about making missile cruisers require aluminum? Battleships need oil & Frigates need iron.

 

[Sturmgewher88mm]

How about making missile cruisers require aluminum? Battleships need oil & Frigates need iron.

That also. They required aluminum in vanilla..

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

What is your reasoning for why battleships should not upgrade to missile cruisers?

All sorts of futuristic units would be cool. I loved the future eras of Call to Power 2. A remake of Alpha Centauri on the Civ 5 engine like they did with Colonization on Civ 4 would be great. However, this would require a major expansion. As it is, I've been playing Civ 5 since it's release and I have yet to actually build a stealth bomber, giant death robot, or xcom (I do tend toward non-domination victories though). Adding more futuristic units to the already under-used ones is silly. Besides, fixing upgrade paths is a lot less work than making a new unit.

Missile cruisers have limited ammo, they can only fire as many times as they got missiles on board. I like having a powerful ship that have good range and dont need to resupply all the time like a battleship. Even in the late game they are very powerful and even do they are outdated today with carriers and missile cruisers they could still do some serious damage even with their limited range.
Once railguns are ready to be deployed IRL I think we will see the re-birth of the battleship.

 

[Scirocco16V]

Missile cruisers have limited ammo, they can only fire as many times as they got missiles on board. I like having a powerful ship that have good range and dont need to resupply all the time like a battleship. Even in the late game they are very powerful and even do they are outdated today with carriers and missile cruisers they could still do some serious damage even with their limited range.
Once railguns are ready to be deployed IRL I think we will see the re-birth of the battleship.

Missile cruisers don't need missiles stationed on it to attack. It can carry up to 3 missiles, but it also has 100 strength, range 3, ranged attack independent of any missiles it is carrying. It can also see submarines, has 100 interception and +100 vs submarines. The only thing battleships have that missile cruisers don't is indirect fire. Really, missile cruisers are by far the best naval units and probably over powered.

A naval railgun would be something IRL, though it seems unlikely it'd have more range than a missile and modern missiles seem to have plenty of punch... I suppose amo would be smaller and thus more could be carried or the ship could be smaller....

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

Ha ha seriously? Lol, I have been playing this game since the summer and have had enough late era experiences to build a lot of them but never used them for anything else then carrying missiles. Me needs to play some more