Quote:
Originally Posted by MBot
I don't think strategic escalation is a necessity. A hypothetical scenario where tactical nuclear weapons are limited to at sea use is conceivable.
The big question is gameplay. I must say I would like to try SUBROC very much, but how much fun the possibility to get nuked in return is, is something that could only be shown by play testing.
|
Not strictly a necessity, but a clear possibility. It's a slippery slope that might as well be random because it's up to the politicians' whim once tactical nuclear exchanges become widespread. If nuking military units is allowed, there's not much of a distance between that and general military targets (i.e. Holy Loch). That in turn affects population centers indirectly, and once that becomes common, strategic nuclear exchanges suddenly don't seem so far-fetched. No limitations would stand given we're talking about increasingly desperate measures.
From the gameplay perspective, once the Soviets start retaliating, you don't have much of a chance. Any torpedo could be nuclear, and your chances of avoiding one would be slim as it could detonate pretty far away from your boat and still kill it. As The Bandit said, as well, Holy Loch could be plausibly hit, and put an expiration date on your operations.
Overall, it might interesting for a DLC, acknowledging a campaign with nuclear options on would come to an abrupt end before long. But I can't see nuclear gameplay being sustainable without artificial, unrealistic limitations.