| Marshal Trumm | Sunday, May 6, 2012 - 10:42 pm 
Keeping this simple and to-the-point, this game has nuclear and chemical weapons. That's two out of three. The game needs biological weapons. Bio-weapons should do very little in the way of destroying targets, but they should wreak extreme population havoc. Biological weapons should be added for realism.
Any thoughts? |
| Gunther Shamus | Wednesday, May 9, 2012 - 02:22 am
like it could tie into a newly implemented epidemic disaster |
| Scarlet | Wednesday, May 9, 2012 - 09:58 pm
-_-
This would add nothing to the game... the number of nuclear weapons in the game is already questionable, but each does fill a unique gameplay role:
Strategic Bombs create a disaster in a 2 country radius.
Nuclear Missiles create a disaster in a 1 country radius.
Tactical Weapons create a disaster in only the attacked country.
Submarine Missiles add unlimited range to nuclear capability.
Chemical Missiles allow weaker disasters without requiring the weapons grade uranium + plutonium supply line.
A biological disaster would function exactly the same as a Chemical disaster, Nuclear disaster, or Earthquake. These are all essentially the same thing, slapping on a new name and size adds nothing to gameplay. There is no role for it to play... a non-plutonium supplied Nuke-power-level weapon is completely imbalanced anyway... and that sounds like what you're proposing. |
| Crafty | Wednesday, May 9, 2012 - 10:24 pm
Yeah, I thought the chem weapons caused less infrastructure damage but normal population damage. Which is the point of biological weapons. I reckon they are just two different names for the same thing.
And if I had a pound for every time I've seen this suggestion... |
