Recruiting soldiers and other personnel

[Gazz]

Why all the micromanagement 'hate' I sense around here, some players really love that. I guess it's the younger people not caring anymore for game depth

Compare this to the "old way".

Yes, it reduces MM, but would it really be so despicable to get rid of that pure MM?

What micromanagement really means, is failure to produce an interface that translates the player's decisions into game actions.

Micromanagement alone does not equate with game depth.

[Sathra]

Yes, that's how I like it ! I didn't mind using bad rookies or sack them really....

You bothered to sack rookies? I just got them killed if I really didn't like them. Half the time I didn't have to try (and half of the time when I did, they became incredibly skilled and indispensable as a result).

@Gazz: Yeah, clicking 8 times to get to something does get annoying. Streamlining is good, as long as you don't lose the ability to do stuff as a result (or at least not have it compensated elsewhere).

[Leto]

You bothered to sack rookies? I just got them killed if I really didn't like them. Half the time I didn't have to try (and half of the time when I did, they became incredibly skilled and indispensable as a result)

I use "sack" when I used them as cannon fodder I know it's not the most humane thing to do

Edited October 29, 2011 by Sathra
fixed quote

[Sathra]

Ah, euphemism. I can stand behind that.

[anotherdevil]

You guys are mean. I used to send those men home, with their tales between their legs, to tell their wives and children that they just weren't good enough! Arguably that's meaner I guess...

[MickeyC]

You guys are mean. I used to send those men home, with their tales between their legs, to tell their wives and children that they just weren't good enough! Arguably that's meaner I guess...

For me it always depended on why I was hiring. if I needed to fill out my team and had nothing pressing for them to do, I'd dismiss any that didn't met my standards.

If I was hiring because I needed them for a men for a mission, base assault or just happening to have something come up while they were enroute, I'd take them along as cannon fodder, breaching and scouting etc.

[Sathra]

Always held the view that any trooper could become good with time, and lots of corpses at their feet. Well, beyond the psi stuff, but there's ways around that.

If they died in the process, well, that's just fate. It was either them or someone I'd grown to rely on (which is similar to caring about), so I didn't begrudge them for failing. Unless I had an irrational dislike towards a trooper, in which case I'd gleefully destroy their corpse as well.

I did hire in groups of around 10-20 at a time though. Also mostly at random, or as garrison meat.

[Gauddlike]

Remember though that you will be hiring from a list with visible stats so you won't need to pick up twenty unknown rookies just to get the four or five with half decent stats.

[Sathra]

And if you don't care about stats much (such as myself), you can save money by picking ones that don't end up dying quite as amusing.

[catmorbid]

Well, the basic idea is reasonably simple. I'm all for simplicity if it serves its purpose. But in this case, does it?

Now the problem basically is that the rookies are useless in late game. Hence you thought to introduce some sort of training system, which is fine, in theory. Just as long as we avoid the mistakes of other games.

Now, wouldn't it be logical that since the problem is in late game, that training would be introduced not in the early game but in the late game as well? Or at least at a point later than the earliest point, say after doing some research on the topic?

Then you could also add further research topics that make the rookie training more powerful - perhaps triggered not (only) by some found tech but actual ground battle experience. Say first advancement comes up after 50 battles and tech x found etc. Meaning that if you invest all the Research resources and Time resources and Money, you get better recruits. You could opt not to do that and instead invest on keeping a handful of soldiers alive and armed to the teeth. Choices... choices...

Personally, I'd prefer some sort of passive training benefit if the research-link is used. Nothing complex, just tiny automated returns for idling troops, just so you can keep them doing something. I mean, it would make sense to have some troops in the reserve, just in case you need them. But then again, using your primary troops, those who already have the experience engage in missions with constantly increasing difficulty makes perfect sense. You don't want to use the reserve unless you have to. Hence it would make sense to have them at least do something.

Of course, this could partially be solved by introducing varying difficulty missions. I don't really remember how it went in x-com but I remember there was some variation, even though it did get more difficult in time. I.e. Enemies got worse.

[Gauddlike]

Rookies are ALWAYS useless.

I would prefer having your experienced officers make the difference rather than artificially making the rookies stronger.

That feels more like a good response to the issue.

Adding a rookie or three to a squad with experienced officers shouldn't be a massive drawback.

Experienced troops would then counteract the weakness of rookies as they should.

OK if you haven't cycled some rookies through your squad and end up getting wiped out you might have a problem.

Surely that is part of the game though?

If you make a huge mistake like that then it should be more difficult to recover.

That would also be counteracted slightly by my suggestion to allow you to hire the odd higher rank.

The usual reply to that is "but then people will reload instead of dealing with it" but nothing will stop that and it IS the players choice.

[MickeyC]

Adding a rookie or three to a squad with experienced officers shouldn't be a massive drawback.

Experienced troops would then counteract the weakness of rookies as they should.

It would, I should think, actually be quite realistic to have some squads in any force be a mix of veterans and rookies. It'd be reasonably counter-productive to keep having an all rookie squad annihilated only to replace it with another all rookie squad...

OK if you haven't cycled some rookies through your squad and end up getting wiped out you might have a problem.

Surely that is part of the game though?

If you make a huge mistake like that then it should be more difficult to recover.

That would also be counteracted slightly by my suggestion to allow you to hire the odd higher rank.

The usual reply to that is "but then people will reload instead of dealing with it" but nothing will stop that and it IS the players choice.

Exactly, it is the players choice. A choice which cannot be prevented, no matter what you do, even being unable to save during a mission doesn't preclude saving just before the mission and just redoing the whole thing if you don't like the result.

I freely admit in the past I often grew too attached to my troops and would often reload if I lost too many in one go. I was a firm advocate of the saving at the start of every turn and if during the alien turn something happened I didn't like, reload try something else... Really slowed down gameplay, but at the time I enjoyed keeping my people alive so it's what I did. Now I always try not to do it at all, and accept these are war games, soldiers die, live with it. But that is not everyone's cup of tea.

It again all comes down to that overarching word for all aspects of the game ... Balance. As long as there is a balance between the starting troops to rookies in late game, whether that is better rookies, ability to train them prior to engagement, or just better weaponry and armour, then people will find a way to play the game that suits them

[Sathra]

Adding rookies into experienced squads is already a good idea (well, planned to be). It counteracts the morale penalty they have and create.

Chris did mention that autopsies could add passive bonuses to damage too, to all troopers. Having stuff like that DOES help balance out rookies late game, without weakening the effort and time you put into growing the old hands of the organisation. That and the shiny, shiny tech.

[Leto]

It again all comes down to that overarching word for all aspects of the game ... Balance. As long as there is a balance between the starting troops to rookies in late game, whether that is better rookies, ability to train them prior to engagement, or just better weaponry and armour, then people will find a way to play the game that suits them

I agree with this completely. The issue 'balance' is very relative in a game like this, as there is no multiplayer to be reckoned with (and if there was it shouldn't be competitive). Which is a blessing, in a lot of games the single player experience is ruined by balancing the game for multiplayer until everyone is basically doing the same thing, using teh same weapons, etc...

The great thing about turn based single player games should be all the choices you have, there shouldn't be one way to do things.

If you want to bring a full rookie squad you should be able to do so to, just because you want to, nothing should prevent you from doing that, so yes let the rookies flow in

[Jean-Luc]

Now the problem basically is that the rookies are useless in late game.

Not necessarily.

I heard that the final mission in X-Com was perfectly passable with a pure rookie force. Apparently it was more about the sword rather than the hand that wields it. While Xenonauts is a different game rookies may still be decently effective if one is careful.

[S0ny_B1ack]

Rookies are ALWAYS useless.

I would prefer having your experienced officers make the difference rather than artificially making the rookies stronger.

That feels more like a good response to the issue.

Adding a rookie or three to a squad with experienced officers shouldn't be a massive drawback.

Experienced troops would then counteract the weakness of rookies as they should.

OK if you haven't cycled some rookies through your squad and end up getting wiped out you might have a problem.

Surely that is part of the game though?

If you make a huge mistake like that then it should be more difficult to recover.

That would also be counteracted slightly by my suggestion to allow you to hire the odd higher rank.

The usual reply to that is "but then people will reload instead of dealing with it" but nothing will stop that and it IS the players choice.

I compleatly agree it should be part of the game to find a good mix of experienced soldier a rookies to still mamage your missions (having enough veterans) and have enough training to get more experienced troops while the game moves on (when you'll need more squads to go on all or most missions at roughly the same time, or when you have to replace a soldier who was killed)

[Dalthius]

I miss the days where the word "details" was a good thing, not a curse words. More and more I see games cater to the console crowd...I certainly hope this is not one of them. There is a great opportunity here to make something better than an X-COM clone. Ranks, medals, training, specialization...all these things give the player a feeling of ownership. You've got a troop that you've had since he was a rookie, named him, watched him grow from a rookie to a non-commissioned officer, a leader of men...he's hardened, grizzled, won medals, there's a running tally of how many and what type of aliens he's killed. He was wounded, maybe he has a purple heart (or equivalent), heck maybe he even has a minor stat reduction due to his wound (ok, I can already hear several powergamers moaning in the background). He inspires his fellow troops. He has a story. But it's not just him...all your recruits have a story to tell, and it's told through stats and records, and your own imagination. The game should SUPPORT your imagination; please, please do not make this nothing more than "line up 12 faceless troops against X amount of bad guys", rinse, wash, repeat. There is a great opportunity here to really turn this into an impressive, AAA title instead of just another "clone".

[Sathra]

Medals would be great, I agree. But they're not essential, which is part of the concern. There are ALOT of nice-to-have things floating around (its several pages of 12pt last time Chris mentioned it), and not all of them are going to be implemented.

[MickeyC]

Yeah to get all the nice to haves in, would delay the game for months more (if not longer) and would cost a fair packet too

[Dalthius]

It's called "polish". Why rush and put out an ok product? Wouldn't you want to have the best quality you can? I understand there has to be reasonable time and money constraints, but don't put out a skeleton product. If you do, this game will quickly fall by the wayside. As is, the Extraterrestrial games have more depth than Xenonauts. No,you can't afford the artwork and time involved in flashy graphics, but you CAN make this a far superior game than the clones out there by creating depth.

[sloan_55]

I like it. It's simple, it's optional, it makes for decent immersion..

But I agree with the viewpoint that the Over-arching strategy of technology capture / research makes for over all better troops.. Then it turns into something like I'd imagine out of a terminator film. A small rag-tag force (with blue lasers) fighting desperately to capture the next robot (alien) and examine it until they can harness it's technology for their own (red lasers).

Until you've got this cycle (if you're like me and can't keep anyone alive) Of having a pretty good base pool and the tech to support rookie training / enlistment. (I'm super okay with retraining my little guys!)

[Elydo]

Blue lasers would be more powerful than red lasers. /Pedant

[Sathra]

RTS have taught us this. Elite troops get blue lasers.

As for the medals and stuff, yes they would add 'depth' but not much compared to quite alot fo the list. I'm pretty sure at least half of them were mechanical things rather than window dressing (like tanks leaving corpses that can be used as cover, equipment templates, things like that).

[anotherdevil]

But red lasers travel faster! (I know, on topic right?)

[MickeyC]

RTS have taught us this. Elite troops get blue lasers.

No, no, no. The good guys get Blue lasers, the bad guys get Red lasers. It's all about the aesthetics