Chris

Suppression Mechanics

214 posts in this topic

Well, yes. While some seem to want suppression as an action, I and a lot of others want is as an effect (of shooting to kill). There's a big difference, so it's not being left out of the discussion. But the discussion is very TL;DR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what is being left out in this discussion is when and why one would surpress rather than just kill.

You are assuming that suppression is a separate action from attempting to kill the target.

Instead think of it as another effect of the same process.

Some enemy is spraying lots of bullets your way.

If you take a lot of hits you will probably die.

If you take a few hits and a lot of close calls you will probably want to keep your head down and become suppressed.

Those are not separate things at all.

Finally, by reducing aim you simulate the fact that they will be unable to take careful shots, although you could also just 'disable' aimed fire when pinned down or something similar.

Already pointed out in a few posts that this would have no effect on burst firing weapons as burst has no aimed fire mode.

Edited by Gauddlike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kingmob I never thought of also reducing the chance of suppressed targets to make reaction shots, but that makes total sense. Where I'm stuck at is the "there should be some sense of hiding from the fire + some risk to run, but no impairment to do so"... the risk is largely implied because suppression doesn't make total sense in a IGOUGO setting.

I agree that in game it will most likely occur when you are trying to flush enemies out from cover or negate their advantages of being in cover. That being said if you have a waves of full auto bullets screaming around you in the open you are most likely going to drop prone and crawl for cover or sprint to get the hell out of there... it could be the target is far enough away you don't have to time to go for a proper kill or there are a small group in the open and you happen to have a MG with a line on them.

Full auto on an MG would be used for suppression (lots of large bullets, inaccurate, possibly only feasible if lying prone if more stances are in game) but you could also kill someone if they or a small group were silly enough to hanging out in the middle of a parking lot. Having non-heavy weapons create a much smaller suppression effect stops it from randomly happening in battle (wtf my soldier had two semi-auto bursts and now he's suppresssed) without just making it a "hit this button to suppress the target and not do any damage"

also let me know what you think of my stances post, I'm trying to raise awareness about that without being too much of a repetitive asshole. now that KS is doing well I think there might actually be a decent chance it could be done. http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/1833-Any-way-to-change-stance-%28crouch-etc.%29?p=20558&viewfull=1#post20558

Edited by erutan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think machine guns should be so inaccurate from a crouch as it is already. As it stands right now rocket launchers are much more accurate, which just seems ... weird. Obviously rockets are more powerful, as well. There's still balancing to be done in the future, though, and I hope they take another look at the shotgun as well (maybe they can use some of that Kickstarter money to get a little armory going and find out for themselves how .223, 9mm, 7.62 and 12 gauge rounds really perform).

Personally I think accuracy works badly in the game as it stands right now. I'm fine with the hit rate, but shots that miss should not veer off at a 45 degree angle except in the most extreme circumstances. If we're talking about suppression fire, the shots that don't hit are going to need to at least hit close. Right now you can be standing 30 yards away, fire a burst, and half the shots won't pass within 10 feet of the target. That's not suppression fire. Suppression fire is when your ears pop or you lose a few hairs because the round is that close.

As for stat effects, I think they're on the right track with reducing AP, and I don't see a problem with this. It would take quite a bit of suppression to keep one of your soldiers down for multiple turns, and it's perfectly valid for a soldier to be pinned down and require rescue from the rest of your squad.

I think there's a certain elegance to just keeping it that simple, but perhaps people would prefer a more nuanced approach where suppression fire has an effect spread over several stats. So it reduces AP (starting with that reserved from the last turn for reaction fire), reduces chance of reaction fire, reduces accuracy, and perhaps reduces morale?

How good of cover the target is in should definitely be a factor. Perhaps it could be as simple as any shot that hits the cover in front of them, rather than whizzes by, just doesn't have an effect. Damage potential versus the target could perhaps always be a factor, not just when it couldn't pierce the armor at all. A .50 BMG round flying by ought to be more shattering to your equilibrium than a .223.

If suppression can simply be based on how many rounds fly past the target (or even hit it?), I don't see why 'suppression factor' would need to be an implicit stat on a weapon, as it seems like a simple function of how much lead / scorching plasma is flying past. Obviously a single-shot weapon would take several shots to have a suppression effect, a burst-fire weapon would have a greater suppression effect, and a full auto weapon would send a lot of shots near the target.

I just don't want this system to be too gamey and statistical is all. We don't need total realism, but we don't need anti-realism like what amount to obvious buffs and debuffs.

Edited by Stromko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think machine guns should be so inaccurate from a crouch as it is already. As it stands right now rocket launchers are much more accurate, which just seems ... weird. Obviously rockets are more powerful, as well

It could seem that way, but properly used RPG's aren't inaccurate at all. That would be dangerous. At long ranges they take skill to fire, yes. But they go where they're supposed to. Just remember to brace against the weight of the grenade tipping the tube ever so slightly down when it moves forward. And don't fire until your CO says so.. *cough* :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The variation from target on a missed shot should probably be related to the amount it missed by.

Each 10% its roll was below the required number it misses by the equivalent of 1 tile at targets range or something (numbers are random to show the thinking).

If suppression can simply be based on how many rounds fly past the target (or even hit it?), I don't see why 'suppression factor' would need to be an implicit stat on a weapon, as it seems like a simple function of how much lead / scorching plasma is flying past. Obviously a single-shot weapon would take several shots to have a suppression effect, a burst-fire weapon would have a greater suppression effect, and a full auto weapon would send a lot of shots near the target.

That is basically what most of us have been saying in the last few pages.

I still think AP reduction is the wrong way to go though.

It takes complete control away from the player.

Other methods that penalise you for getting your trooper into that situation but still allow you to play the game are far superior.

Shotguns will not be getting different ammunition types unless it is as a mod.

None of the weapons will apart from the rocket launcher.

If you want a different effect or to work in a different role then use a different weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think @stromko was referring to the damage/penetration/accuracy of different caliber weapons vs. different ammo types. I also lean against AP reductions - if nothing else since suppression should not be a tickbox on a certain attack type one can have a certain amount of bullets wizzing by if not under cover and there's no prone animation/stance so they'd just be crouching there. :P

Though it would be cool to have AP and hollowpoint, buckshot and slugs, etc... fixing the UI for this wouldn't be worth it as energy weapons shouldn't have any real ammo types as it's all energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh this topic has become TL;DR quite a while back. I'm just going to jot down a few thoughts and hope for the best :P

Personally I think the ammount of supression a shot does should be weighed against how much AP it costs to fire it. I know this doesn't make much sense from a realistic point of view but bear with me. If it's only based on "per shot" you are much more likely to get one of the extremes. It's either too easy to supress someone or it's too hard, (or if you prfere cheap/costly) And supression becomes something you automatically do to your opponent when fireing at him without any real tactical decision from the players part.

I'm not sure about the acctual numbers but right now a snapshot from a gun costs like 10 AP to fire? and other guns costs 20-30+? bursts areound 30-35?

Should a handgun be the weapon of choice to supress aliens?

What if supression fire didn't do anything to movement, ap or line of sight, but instead forces your soldiers (and enemies) on their next turn to return fire on whoever is supressing them? The game would make your soldiers automatically shoot back towards the aliens (assuming they have gotten aflicted with enough supression points or however the system works), leaveing you with scraps of AP to try to move out of the way. You would be unable to use grenades or aimed shots, but you wouldn't be completly locked down. (Dunno what to do about rocketlauncher guys? make them drop their rocketlauncher, possibly after unloading it, on the ground if they are supressed enough? That way they have to spend AP on picking it up or if you chose to run away and leave it on the ground.)

As a player supressing the aliens you could also draw fire from that soldier you left exposed far to close to the enemy line... Adding a new tactical element.

Most likely people aren't going to agree with this idea, but I thought it to be interesting. I guess this idea cold cause a bit of problem with for example if 2 units suprsses the same enemy, which unit does the enemy automatically fire upon on his turn?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about the acctual numbers but right now a snapshot from a gun costs like 10 AP to fire? and other guns costs 20-30+? bursts areound 30-35?

Should a handgun be the weapon of choice to supress aliens?

In that example a handgun probably wouldn't be all that effective unless you were at short range.

Remember that another part of the suggestion is for the distance from the bullet impact to also influence the suppression.

Of course if you were able to put a half dozen shots into whatever the person was hiding behind then that would probably be enough to persuade anyone to keep their heads down.

At longer range, especially with a low AP shot, then you would be less likely to land shots on target and would therefore generate less suppression.

The machine gun would be the most effective, if balanced properly, because it can throw a lot of bullets towards the target.

Precision rifles would be less so but are more likely to land shots close to (or in) the target so would also generate a good amount of suppression, more than other weapons out at longer ranges.

Shotguns and pistols would be good at short range because of how cheap the shots can be but would rapidly lose that advantage as the range opened up.

Assault rifles would be somewhere in the middle.

Less suppression up close than the pistol, more than either the precision rifle or pistol in mid range and less than the precision but much more than the pistol out at long range.

You could always add a suppression modifier to the weapons in the same way as the reaction modifier to assist in balancing this.

The big disagreement really is on the effect on a suppressed unit.

As long as it doesn't remove control from the player I am willing to consider it :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the suppression system might work better if it can't completely kill a unit's ability to fight across multiple turns. Instead, suppression could add cost to every action type through a multiplier with a cap. Units don't become frozen, they become sluggish. Instead of being able to move 10 squares, you might only move 3 with max AP. Whatever the degree of suppression, it should allow at least one shot with a rifle or pistol. It will give attackers a much better chance of safely approaching and flanking an enemy, but doesn't make it a sure bet. On the reverse, it lets the player setup a defense, escape, or use a sharpshooter to kill an enemy who has a suppressive weapon.

Bravery could counter the rate of accumulation, as translated through moral, and someone near breaking would have no ability to counter suppression point accumulation. However, as in the OP, suppression itself would have no effect on bravery nor moral, it only works through those stats.

Crouching could also reduce the accumulation of suppression, because being smaller makes you less likely to be hit. Since crouching should have movement penalties, but firing bonuses, it is something of a trade off.

Suppression would wear off after a single turn, so you have to maintain suppression very carefully. Everyone switching magazines at once could reduce the amount of available suppression by too much, so you might need to preserve shots for when the machine gun will stop, to take up the slack.

I think giving the machine gun, a strong Suppression score as a balance tool is smart, but I feel it cuts into the raw ability of the weapons. What if the machine gun were even less accurate when standing, but gains its full accuracy only when crouched? Also, the magazines aren't the correct weights, I'm sure they'll be changed, but I feel like proposing weights anyway. Going with the idea that the weapon is the M60, its ammo was 7.62, and at 50 rounds per mag, should be 1.6 kg, but probably higher because of the weight of the box, and the precision rifle ammo should be 0.9 kg including the magazine. The M-16 magazine should weight .45 kg loaded, if I'm not mistaken.

Another thing I noticed is, the rifle's range and damage are lower than that of the machine gun. Correct me if I'm wrong, the damage is per shot? If anything the individual shot of both weapons should be equal, as they use the same type of ammunition, coming out barrels of similar length. The M60 and M21 both have muzzle velocities of 853m/s. Secondly, while the machine gun's effective range is listed as much longer in the game and real life, I'm guessing the effective range of the rifle should be longer, because it's easier to handle, and has the proper scope. The machine gun is harder to handle, probably even prone, and lacks long range sites. Mounted and with the right scope, I bet the machine gun could probably pull off better range. Or, maybe it is a matter of its volume of fire. I'm guessing the game's reason for the long range is the poor accuracy of 60%? With uniquely better accuracy when crouched, the standing accuracy could actually be decreased even further, and the range could be left alone. That way, while the total firepower is higher for the machine gun, and it gets the best suppressive fire, the precision rifle would have the best all around effective range, and per shot damage second only to the rocket launcher. Hopefully, players would use the machine gun and precision rifle together when doing counter fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M60_machine_gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M21_Sniper_Weapon_System

[edit] I just realized the precision rifle is the FN FAL. It's range is a lot worse than the M21, and it has less muzzle velocity, but not by much. Maybe with a scope it could compare to the M21. The FAL was really a battle rifle, and was full auto. With the scope in the art, maybe it would be a lot more similar to the M21 to the extent that you could use the 21's real life stats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL

Edited by Bibidibop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[edit] I just realized the precision rifle is the FN FAL. It's range is a lot worse than the M21, and it has less muzzle velocity, but not by much. Maybe with a scope it could compare to the M21. The FAL was really a battle rifle, and was full auto. With the scope in the art, maybe it would be a lot more similar to the M21 to the extent that you could use the 21's real life stats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL

It's not a FN FAL. It's actually an H&K G3 variant (closest match is the civilian HK41 version).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't either, it is a Xenonauts precision rifle.

It may use a model that resembles a real life weapon but that doesn't mean it will share any statistics.

Balancing the weapon in relation to game mechanics is more important than it trying to mimic something else.

That balancing doesn't really have much to do with suppression mechanics, probably best to make a new thread unless it is directly related.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a FN FAL. It's actually an H&K G3 variant

G3s are tested after production. Those with exceptional results are set aside to become sniper rifles.

I don't know if it was intentional but the weapon gfx for this rifle makes sense. =P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not a FN FAL. It's actually an H&K G3 variant (closest match is the civilian HK41 version).

That seems to have even worse muzzle velocity than the rifles I posted, but much better range than the FAL. It must be much more accurate.

It isn't either, it is a Xenonauts precision rifle.

It may use a model that resembles a real life weapon but that doesn't mean it will share any statistics.

Balancing the weapon in relation to game mechanics is more important than it trying to mimic something else.

That balancing doesn't really have much to do with suppression mechanics, probably best to make a new thread unless it is directly related.

The real life weapons can inform decisions on balancing. I think the weapons, as they are, may already be better balanced to reality than in other games.

The OP specifically mentions suppression as a way to balance the machine gun and Ferret machine gun turret, so their damage can be lowered without making them bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was pointing out that the entire second half of your post had no useful information to the thread, it was more about balancing the game weapons with RL versions.

But if you do have a related point then I am more than willing to hear it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming we will have the 'panic' routines in there for the aliens, too? An alien that get's 3 rounds plugged into his chest in one turn should pretty much shit his pants, drop his plasma rifle, and run for the barn, unless he's a mutalisk.

Instead he is just standing there like a bad mo-fo and blasting away my guys like he's a Terminator or something. Only the genetically bred alien super-soldiers should have this 'non-panic' ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Andron will be immune to morale effects but the others should be more or less susceptible.

That is part of the problem in this thread, finding a suppression mechanic that has similar effects on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Armor influencing the amount of suppression being added to a unit, I'd say a character wouldn't necessary know what caliber bullets are being shot at him, moreover I think whatever the armor, nobody would be stupid enough to stand against hail of small-caliber bullets (maybe units with low Intelligence stat would...? ;D )

I agree with IceVamp about units being suppressed when bullets are being shot in their DIRECTION, not only when shooting at specific target. Even when shooting at a wall, behind which a unit is hiding, would lead to increase in suppression, but to a lesser degree?

Also, an eventual hit on morale would be welcome IMO.

By the way, great idea Devs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking more about the damage type being a factor if your armour was resistant to it, rather than different weapons within that type having different effects.

If you are in your 6 inch armour plated battle suit then you may be less influenced by a few bullets than you would by the plasma blasts that you know have a chance of melting it.

It would be like modern soldiers being afraid of a guy with a paintball gun in the same way they would be by someone with an AK-47.

They would probably react in pretty much the same way but not to the same extent.

The other part ties in with shots having an area of suppression based on where they hit.

A hit might generate 3 suppression points, a near miss 2, and a wider miss 1, while anything outside of that radius would receive no suppression at all.

Numbers and mechanism made up for illustrative purposes.

It would be nice if the game could track the shots in the air and allocate suppression for near misses that way as well but that would be a whole new level of work.

Morale is a tricky one as affecting it depends entirely on how the soldiers react to lowered morale.

The old style panic/berserk model isn't a great one for me.

I would prefer the suppression effect to just get steadily stronger the longer you keep them under it (or they keep you under).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to supression, the idea of supression is to prevent a unit from moving.

reducing AP prevents it from doing anything.

So just have supressed being a special state that stops you from moving. You can still shoot, throw nades and stuf.

Or alternatively, you can move, but if you do move the enemeis get an accuracy bonus to hit you for the entire next turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with that is suppression in an open area. Where you would like to move, or at least get horizontal real fast, and not from exit wounds. And in Xenonauts, you can't go horizontal.

It's a very simple solution, but the fact above will make it feel cheap I think. Maybe not as much when you're gunning down aliens, but when you get three guys stuck in the middle of nowhere, and you know they are now dead.. So movement kinda has to be allowed still, but an accuracy bonus doesn't quite fit with trying to hit someone zig-zagging the hell out of your kill box.

I'd rather suppression had no effect on the suppressor, except ammo loss, only the suppressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole point of supression fire IS that someone is throwing so much led, you don't dare to move.

If you DO move, you should consider yourself lucky if you don't get hit.

An accuracy bonus for the supressor makes sense, as it implies he is already shooting to keep the supresee (?) pinned.

So..either you DON'T move, and the enemy gets no bonus to hit you...

OR

you do move and the enemy does get a big bonus to riddle you with bullets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but that applies to when you're in cover, and if you could only suppress units that were in cover, I'd be a lot more on board on your interpretation. Imagine you get shot at, and for some reason, you can't hit the dirt, and you have no cover. You don't stand still, unless you're in shock.

Continuously firing does not improve accuracy, firing at a moving target is not easier than a stationary one, vision gets impaired by all the smoke etc.

Of course it's possible Goldhawk will settle for a solution where you only suppress units in cover, and that it's an action to do so, though I hope not. If that's the case, this would be fair solution, though I would include sight range loss and accuracy loss for the suppressed. Along with no accuracy bonus :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now