General > Discussion

Hostile civilians?

<< < (3/3)

TheFatSandRat:
I find that unarmed civilians are the most passively dangerous things in the game- often, especially in the Bristol Military Base, they surround my troops entirely allowing the aliens to slaughter us all. I now have a strict 'shoot-on-sight' policy when it comes to them.
I rationalize it by pretending that the U.N. has given PHALANX authorization to destroy any form of life deemed hostile to the human race or to the mission, thus allowing for the wholesale slaughter of endangered species, as well as humans.
And then for some reason only Australia likes me... D:

Lord Valdez:
:) I always tried to protect them, but not so meticulously as in former X-COMs.
I do not support arming civilians in crisis situations, but if they have the ability to arm themselves, I would be happier to know that I have some limited control over them.
In fact I would be happy, if I could only command them out of the line of fire.

Surrealistik:

--- Quote ---And then for some reason only Australia likes me... D:
--- End quote ---

For some reason unknown to me, and completely unspecified in the game's backstory, Australia is the nation most sympathetic towards the aliens, the hardest to satisfy, and the most likely to be corrupted/infiltrated.

Surrealistik:
Hmm, India, the location of the Mumbai incident is apparently a part of Oceania, but it was only subject to a harvesting rather than infestation/corruption raid prior to the events of the game; the human strain of XVI was not yet developed at that point. If anything Oceania should initially harbour the most negative disposition towards the aliens.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page