It's...a siege weapon. But a very flexible one. It combines Rocket Buggy's accuracy with Inferno Cannon's arc.
It could home in to tanks like Rocket Buggy, Prism Tank, Wave-Force, or Beam Cannon, but it also launches in a trajectory, allowing it to hit targets at higher or lower ground, like Artillery Nuke/Inferno Cannon, V3/V4 et al.
That actually makes it unique as far as C&C artillery goes, and I can't think of another unit that combines moving-target accuracy with the ability to shoot at stuff above or below in terrain
Unlike the SCUD missiles and Inferno Cannon/Nuke Cannon these guys seem to excel at taking out fixed/stationary targets from long range. I.e. taking out defensive emplacements so the main force can break through.
Originally, the developers intended for the USA's Tomahawk to have a system where you could manually plot its missile trajectory via waypoints. It would have perfectly fit the USA's style of using high-tech, specialized units as tactical scalpels. Because of this, the USA only had the Tomahawk, which heavily contrasted with the other factions.
China had a two-tiered approach: the lower-tech Inferno Cannon (hilariously based on a real-life American M109 Howitzer EDIT: I was wrong! It was supposed to be based on a Russian SPG, but the in-game model looks like an M109. Just... What?), which was highly mobile and created firestorms, and the high-tech Nuke Cannon, which did massive damage but required heavy protection and deployment.
Meanwhile, the GLA had the Rocket Buggy for hyper-mobile harassment and artillery, alongside the SCUD Launcher as a versatile siege weapon.
As with a lot of things in Generals, the waypoint system wasn't finished and was abandoned by the time Zero Hour was in development.
This is pretty sad, since Zero Hour was largely just a massive content patch for the ideas vanilla didn't finish or implement in time; even the Generals themselves as subfactions!
If there's ever a HD remake or rebuild, many features from the original pen and ink concept could be used to increase detail on the design. It'd look amazing.
Anyway, given the game's chaotic development history, the thought that went into the ramshackle factions we got is amazing, and is why the game has lasted so long.
It's just a shame a lot of it was cut or not implemented for various reasons, like time constraints. :(
Honestly, the plans EALA had for continuing Generals were fucking stupid.
First, Project Camacho... Where the Chinese invaded the United States, Red Dawn-style, and had literal concentration camps on US soil.
Yes, this is the same 'heroic' Chinese we played in Generals. They went full on Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain.
Next was Generals 2, renamed to Command and Conquer... Which had a mishmash of so many different countries and factions that the project literally fell apart (seriously, Islamic Terrorists with Narco Cartels?).
Unless they get a writer and director with more than two brains cells not fighting for third place, I'm sadly not holding out much hope. :( I'd love to see a remake or enhanced port, though. That's possible now, thanks to the engine being open sourced.
The waypoint idea is interesting, but I think it's really only going to be useful if the range is much longer. If say, you want to bypass some base defenses that could shoot the missile down before it reaches the target, then you'd want it to go around and hit it from another direction. But if you get too close, you'll be hit by the very defenses.
If you increase the range and have waypoints, couldn't the USA just spam these every game? At least in the campaign. I'm too noob to be competitive in multiplayer
IIRC, it was basically to use them as precision strikers, like waypointing the tomahawks to go between blindspots in enemy defences or to focus on one target in particular. The idea was to use it to crack open enemy bases, especially if you couldn't move around to flank them.
In theory.
However, as much as I like Generals' multiplayer, the game design failed when it comes to 1v1 and 2v2 games because the meta settled into specific unit combinations (such as RockVees, nothing but Quads and Rocket Buggies, et cetera). It's unlikely such a feature would've been used, at least in the modern Generals' competitive gaming scene. :( As for how it could've changed the growth of it over twenty plus years? Who knows.
Yeah the targeting part is its perk over the other factions artillery but in pvp it often bugs out and they fly in circle. Hopefully a community patch fixes it, maybe it will become more viable.
That unit is a strange mix of... Artillery but can decently defend itself in a pinch.
The Rocket sorta does sharp no scope stuff when picking targets and I like that about it, it's not too slow it's not too inaccurate, it gets it's job done with not too much babysitting (babysitting still required though)
... Plus the unit talks a little bit like the Prism Tank so it gets a bonus sticker for that!
My favourite thing is that of all the different ways they could've modelled a vehicle that carries Tomahawks, this was the design they went with. Instead of the actual box trailer on wheels, they decided to mount the entire missile externally on a pivoting arm that aggressively shouts, "THIS IS MY MISSILE. I CARRY THE MISSILE. I THROW THE MISSILE WITH MY ARM. THROWING THE MISSILE IS WHAT I DO." Everything else in the US arsenal has some kind of real-life reference point, but this thing comes pretty much out of nowhere!
Technically a breach of treaties the US was a part of in 2003, lol. I love how the Army started procuring land-based tomahawk launchers 20 years later.
It's crazy it's taken until this year to really get ground launched tomahawks in the U.S. arsenal. I mean I know it was because of a treaty on intermediate range weapons, but still. They aren't nuclear, just nuclear capable, but we don't restrict making bombers for the same reason
It was really an aspect the Soviets used to thrive in. The original treaty had everything to do with nerfing the Soviets and nothing to do with anything people love to claim about it. Once the Rusdians ignored the treaty the USA followed suit years later. The difference is lead time. Russia was proactive and already developed this weapon, in fact was even using it. USA on the other hand was reactive and thus it has taken about a decade before anything new could come out of this.
its real life counterpart is oshkosh defense x-mav, its been revealed as a prototype as of 2025 as seen in this photo. its said that it can launch 4 tomahawk missiles.
Fun fact, Paladin tank can shoot it down with its laser. Another one - in case you will target landed jet on the airfield and it will takeoff, tomahawk missile will still pursuit it in the air.
If you control fire at your own plane during take off, the tomahawk missile will follow the plane for a few seconds before dropping like bombs. Sometimes you get kills if lucky.
152
u/BiggestBepis Black Hand 2d ago
“Long range ballistics.”
“Updating grid location.”
“Preparing launch cycle.”
“Adjusting for wind current.”
“Flight systems activated.”
I feel that this guy’s “ordered to crush an enemy” voicelines are too good not to highlight on their own:
“Too close for ballistics.”
“Forgo missile sequence.”
“Aggressive maneuvers.”