This is why submarines and ICBMs were replaced...

s0nny80y

Emperor
Joined
Mar 16, 2011
Messages
1,125
Location
Ohio
Satellite launches could be misconstrued as ICBMs. The failure of a launch could not be ruled an accident by another faction especially in the event that the debris ignited over or near faction territory/space. Especially since orbital monitoring satellites haven't been left in obit prior to landing on Beyond Earth's lore planet. (however, perhaps the hexes in fog of war denote our 'God' perspective of the game as really what we would be seeing through a monitoring satellite we've left behind in orbit prior to landing although this is speculation)

And nuclear submarines and their ability to self destruct regardless of AI or human occupancy (fly by wire would be prone to hacking...or covert ops o.0) could assure destruction to any coastal city. (dumb fired submersible missiles of mass destruction could be intercepted more easily than a pilot controlled highly reactive submersible vessel, an arms race would make this preventable)

This begs the question of how humans on Earth in Beyond Earth's lore managed to launch highly reactive materials into orbit for construction of deep space vessel thrust...

...good thing our international space station hasn't accidentally dropped onto any target of opportunity on earth (imagine Pyongyang techies hacking and controlling the ISS to crash onto Seoul, for example).

However, it's good to note the ESA (and mankind in general) able to intercept another flying heavenly object, for survival purposes. Russia should be ashamed of itself :P
 
ICBMs and Submarines share the same thing. They are too important in real life to be skipped, but never worked well in Civ. Even with trade routes, naval combat don't have that much importance to play with subs. And ICBMs were always so crazy, Civ5 even used limited-range missiles instead.

And if you make sci-fi game you have enough excuse to not include feature which will not work in gameplay.
 
Back
Top Bottom