Make Projects Destroyable

[Lu Xun]

I've been hearing about a lot of new projects in the pipeline, and one issue with them is that most of these are late-game projects and potentially quite gamebreaking. A player who amasses a large number of projects, no matter what happens to infrastructure and improvements, can continue to maintain significant advantages over other players.

 

National Projects being destroyable in similar ways that improvements are could help deal with this. This wouldn't apply to say, nuclear weapons or missiles, which can quite trivially remove improvements, but to ground attacks and naval attacks at a significantly reduced rate compared to improvements (say, 1-10% of improvement destruction rate). In a long-term war, one thing we could see is that nations end up losing expensive projects like Space Program and so on, helping to increase damage in long wars. And National Project destruction could similarly be a function of the number of National Projects; i.e, the more Projects you have, the more vulnerable you become to Project destruction.

 

One way to think about it is that players have continually asked for the ability to nuke cities away, which would be absolutely devastating to upper tier nations and to an extent gamebreaking. Projects, to an extent, are a surrogate for cities as they're bound by the same city / project timer. But projects, on the other hand, aren't cities, and when you destroy a project you're not necessarily wrecking a 10 billion city, as you might if cities were destroyable.

[El Che-kun]

I agree, I think it will also make people a bit more cautious before declaring and it will also make attrition wars quite more cool...

Yet nuclear weapons should also be able to destroy projects, just like ground and naval battles, with the same or even a lower chance of it happening. I mean, nukes are supposed to be a weapon of "mass destruction" so it would make sense to give them (with the sake of RNGsus) this kind of power.