Why I'm Quitting This Game

I can't play this game any more. I've tried it twice. It just doesn't work for me.

The ground combat is just what it should be. It has lots of nice tweaks over the original. My only complaint on the ground is the lack of options with ship assaults. In the original, I remember blowing open the roof of the small alien ships and filling them with smoke. I remember motion sensors and ship walls that could be blown with explosives. I remember bouncing grenades around corners.

Those are small flaws. Here's the big flaw that convinced me to quit trying: The strategic game is very narrow. It's designed to produce a specific plotline, just like a good alien-invasion movie. Armed with experimental technology, humanity's only hope lies with our plucky wisecracking heroes as they launch a desperate assault on the alien mothership.

The strategic game presents a very narrow unmarked path to walk. Expand too slowly, and your political support will collapse. Expand too quickly, and you'll go broke. Buy too many scientists or engineers and you'll go broke. Buy too few, and you won't keep pace with the increasing alien pressure. If you buy too many soldiers, you'll go broke and waste player time grinding on characters who don't matter. Buy too few soldiers and you won't have any defense when the aliens invade your base. How many soldiers are enough to defend a base? I still don't know, and I no longer care.

The only way to find that unmarked strategic path is through trial and error. The strategic game isn't simulating anything that I can predict, so every strategic decision for the new player is essentially blind. Was I supposed to buy more scientists at the end of month 2? Should I spend the last of my cash on missile arrays, more radars, or better equipment for my soldiers?

The strategy game is a "guess what I'm thinking" game. If you didn't guess that aliens would start base invasions as early as November, then too bad, your game is screwed, try again. Next month the aliens might have tougher ships that my air weapons can't handle, or tougher armor that my ground weapons can't pierce. You can't build both, and if you guess wrong, my game is screwed.

And the trial-and-error nature of the strategy game wouldn't be so bad if the feedback loops weren't so long. It can easily take a game month to realize that you spent money in a way that you shouldn't have, or you didn't spend money in a way that you should have. And during that time, the player has invested many hours in ground missions.

Last night I realized that all my careful soldier maneuvering probably didn't matter at all, because my game is probably doomed because I didn't buy extra scientists three weeks ago for a laboratory that I should have built two weeks before that. Instead I bought extra soldiers to protect against the base assault that killed my game last time, but now maybe I've bought too many soldiers, so they're a game-dooming waste of money.

It'll take me a game month and twenty man hours in ground missions to find out why my current game is doomed, and which decision that I've already made is the bad one. I've played lots of tedious strategy games. I've mastered Dwarf Fortress and Crusader Kings 2. I loved the original X-Com. But I don't have enough patience for Xenonauts.

The geoscape might benefit from an 'Alien Ticker' with a tooltip indicating what might comes next, optional stuff because some don't want these forewarnings though. I don't mind when it is 'too tough' and doomed is a very relative term I find. It is in the darkest hours that you can find your most awesome gaming experience!

That said, if you believe you are walking a too thin rope, then you should probably lower difficulty level one notch. Lets take the example of the lab & scientists. If you believe that having a 1 month delay in that may cost you the game, because your soldiers or planes won't be properly equipped, then you are just too near your expertise level and you need to crank the game down one level, so you get back some margin of errors.

Also remember that the game is very moddable and basically just released. Return to it in 6 months, where it will have received 4 patches or more and where mods opening up new game styles might be there. I find it very good and intent sticking to it for some time.

If things suddenly go south, you can adapt with your decision-making on the Geoscape. Probably the only thing that will screw you on the Geoscape is base positioning...and how you approach air coverage. Nothing else is really set in stone, tbh.

Besides robotic enemies, the only upgrade to enemy units is health and better weaponry; even against robots, some ballistic weapons are very good at piercing armour (LMG, sniper rifle) and armour degrades as damage accumulates, so they aren't invincible.

It's a shame that you're dropping it, but it's not like you're forced to go ABC or you lose. To each his own, though.

Edit: Which month are you losing in and what's the difficulty?

The lab issue sounds strange, I was able to go through the entire game on Insane with a single laboratory. They provided more than adequate research progression - what is your usual research pattern? Are you sure you haven't spent excessive time on projects you don't really need to survive?

Also what is your usual spending template? Often there are numerous expenses which qualify as luxuries rather than vital necessities, such as tanks. There is a relatively simple path of going for two bases and then a third when you have properly equipped the former with 3 radars and sufficient aircraft. Also you don't need more than a single team of soldiers, and you could get away without equipping more than 8-10 of them with up-to-date lasers/plasmas/armors.

You could also explore some of the mods already available - a few of them do offer significant rebalancing of the Vanilla version and might happen to be closer to "your thing".

Idk, man. I invested a ton of efforts into laser/plasma weaponry, lost aerial supremacy (Foxtrots vs Carriers), didn't get any new aircraft/tank/armor and yet I'm doing pretty well. Recently I built second science lab, hired 15 more smart guys and little by little I'm taking back the skies (Corsairs) and whatnot.

As you might have guessed I don't play on Ironman. First play through on typical normal difficulty.

Yup, there's a *lot* of ways you can lose the game. I'm not sure it'd be improved by telling you in advance what the aliens are going to do so you could prepare for it though.

As Nibelung says, the margin for error is a lot larger on the easier difficulty settings, which allows you to play more reactively. If you're not good enough at the ground combat or air combat to cover for any strategic mistakes you make, the game will punish you pretty hard for it on the harder settings. But a lot of people like that.

In the end, though, if the game's not to your tastes then the game's just not to your tastes.

Thats weird im on my first playtrough, veteran difficulty and i seem to be doing ok . I think reloaded only once (i lost 5 of my interceptorsa and the dropship, i watched as the aliens inteligently pursued my ships that wanted to run and was amazed (positievely) )

Anyway im going on hunches from the orginal game, and just going middleground, and it seems to work. 3 bases (5 inities in main base, 2 in each of the later ones), most of ufos get shot down, first alien base and terror mission are done.MAybe a doom awaits me tough, who knows

I think reloaded only once

You what?!... You tell me you never used save/load in ground combats and always won?.. Teach me your ways, master!

You what?!... You tell me you never used save/load in ground combats and always won?.. Teach me your ways, master!

i actually did only once and only due to that aircraft situation yea.on the ground Im going with 1 tank 6 man combo. 1 hvy with machine gun , one hvy with rocket launchers, rest have sniper guns for long range + shotguns in backpacjs for close. Its tight on the strenght/ecumbrance side, but atm all can do it. In past some of them were single puurpose as they just were to weak to carry it all:) .I usally went then with 2 snipers 2 shotgunners.

The tank eats lots of plasma each mission and i suppose without him it would be a bit of bloodbath, i lost one tank once, and usually its down below 20 % hp after missions.

I used to loose a guy from time to time before wolf armor , after wolf armor no more deaths, plenty of wounds tough.I susppose aliens will escalate soon, we shall see.

i actually did only once and only due to that aircraft situation yea.on the ground Im going with 1 tank 6 man combo. 1 hvy with machine gun , one hvy with rocket launchers, rest have sniper guns for long range + shotguns in backpacjs for close. Its tight on the strenght/ecumbrance side, but atm all can do it. In past some of them were single puurpose as they just were to weak to carry it all:) .I usally went then with 2 snipers 2 shotgunners.

The tank eats lots of plasma each mission and i suppose without him it would be a bit of bloodbath, i lost one tank once, and usually its down below 20 % hp after missions.

I used to loose a guy from time to time before wolf armor , after wolf armor no more deaths, plenty of wounds tough.I susppose aliens will escalate soon, we shall see.

I see. I went Firaxis' way: one soldier - one type of weapon. I'm somewhere in the late mid game and still using Jackal armor x.x Hence much headache.

My first game was on hard. I put up my second base in late October. The aliens wiped it out in mid-November, and I lost three regions at the beginning of December.

So this time on normal, I built three bases with three planes each to keep from losing funding. And I bought soldiers to keep the bases from getting overrun. But now the upkeep on those soldiers has wiped out my income, and I can't afford to put them in basic armor, let alone make laser weapons for my A-squad. I still have no idea when to expect a base attack, or how many men with what experience and equipment I'll need to survive it.

With enough fiddling, I'm sure that I could find the magical middle way in which the strategy game works. And then I could just do it the same way every time. It's just that the money decisions and air combat aren't that interesting. And the ground combat, which is interesting, doesn't seem relevant to whether I win the game.

My first game was on hard. I put up my second base in late October. The aliens wiped it out in mid-November, and I lost three regions at the beginning of December.

So this time on normal, I built three bases with three planes each to keep from losing funding. And I bought soldiers to keep the bases from getting overrun. But now the upkeep on those soldiers has wiped out my income, and I can't afford to put them in basic armor, let alone make laser weapons for my A-squad. I still have no idea when to expect a base attack, or how many men with what experience and equipment I'll need to survive it.

With enough fiddling, I'm sure that I could find the magical middle way in which the strategy game works. And then I could just do it the same way every time. It's just that the money decisions and air combat aren't that interesting. And the ground combat, which is interesting, doesn't seem relevant to whether I win the game.

As long as you have AA defenses and good air coverage you don't really need to worry about base attacks.

Well, the game isn't for everybody. Nothing wrong with quitting and moving on.

Interesting thread. Seems like:

Game Community: Don't pick difficulty setting based on how good you think you are at video games. Pick normal if you are new to the game, or want to play a reactive game. Pick the higher difficulties once you have a more thorough understanding of the different phases and overall arc of the game, and normal no longer has surprises for you.

Thread Maker: If the game has a static, predictable arc, and can be beaten by using the same, repeatable strategy (or a small set of strategies), then discovering that strategy becomes the focus of the game. It's no longer about repelling a dynamic, strange, alien invasion, but recognizing which part of the game you're in, then sticking to a predetermined counter-plan. After which, you're either done with the game (the discovery being the fun part), or hone your existing strategies against a higher difficulty level (which does not sound as fun).

Gotta admit that I find game more a lot more frustrating than original XCOM on strategic level <_< Its really really punishing and its really easy to go bankrupt too soon especially since you have to really fast spread out bases to prevent funding level from dropping in other countries. I'm not even sure if its feasible to start from other places than europe since europe has most amount of countries you can cover with single radar, but thats because I have been bit afraid to try other places first.

Heck, game is actually bit more frustrating than original XCOM on tactical layer as well since computer is actually pretty smart. I mean, rookies in this game are much better shots than one in the original xcom, but to counter that aliens seem to be much more effective at killing if you play badly... In original xcom most of early difficulty comes from reaction fire in dark spaces and rookies missing all the time, but if you get close to aliens, they are pretty much toast since they die really easily from one hit early on. But in this game aliens are sturdier and difficulty doesn't come from blind reaction fire, its because computer actually knows what to do once it spots you

In otherwords, this is really unforgiving game <_< Even the normal difficulty can become hard on late stage of invasion. Then again, I was playing the version where tank killing zombie created two reapers... I personally like hard games even if I'm doing badly, but I have to admit that this is hardest XCOM type game I've played yet. And yes, I'm including Terror from the deep. That game is hard because its basically remix of first game with everything made harder, but I don't think it compares to this... In Terror from the deep, if I play badly, I can survive first few missions fine enough, in Xenonauts if I play badly, my whole squad is dead in first three missions.

So yeah, in other words... I'd say that original XCOM is actually more "fun" game than this one in terms of difficulty <_< I mean, I guess its partly because original xcom did have the part where if you managed to survive it, rest of the game was a cake while in Xenonauts you always have to be in your toes since aliens get a lot stronger during course of the game... Its pretty stressful. Original XCOM and 2012 had the inverted difficulty curve where game is hardest at beginning and once you get good equipment it got easier, in 2012 it just got a LOT more easier than the first game. So yeah, I'd completely understand why some XCOM type game fans might not get into Xenonauts, I do like hard games so I'm fine with it, but Xenonauts is notably harder if you ask me

Note: Of course, original XCOM was also fun because of stuff like ridicolously powerful grenades. Seriously, those things went really big boom. It was really fun blowing stuff up in that game. Cyberdiscs also went in glorious boom... Plus incendiaries! Fun to burn stuff even though fire isn't that effective. Ah the ridiculously cool weapons in original...

Interesting thread. Seems like:

Game Community: Don't pick difficulty setting based on how good you think you are at video games. Pick normal if you are new to the game, or want to play a reactive game. Pick the higher difficulties once you have a more thorough understanding of the different phases and overall arc of the game, and normal no longer has surprises for you.

This is true for any game with a reasonable difficulty curve, though. If you're new, you become familiar with the mechanics of the game and play-through on normal to get comfortable. For a second play-through, you test yourself against the higher difficulty levels. If you're new and you start with hard mode, having no previous familiarity with the game (Xenonauts is not Old XCOM) then expect to get stomped as you go through. Players aren't required to like every game they play though, so it's fine.

I understand topic author. Imagine a game of chess. In a normal game, the player sees an enemy pieces and has all the necessary data in order to make the correct decision in time. If a player made ​​a mistake, he sees how and why he got defeated. But Xenonauts is a game with invisible opponent pieces. We see the enemy pieces only when they hit ours or we accidentally hit them. Therefore, we must guess, estimate where the pieces is and follow the tactics, in which each of our figure covered by some other. And opponent is in the same conditions. Can such game be named "strategical"? Of course, no.

But. X-Com globe never was a strategy game. It was only "glue", "content source" to order sequence of tactical fights in something like alien invasion story. Even in hardest level, X-Com globe gameplay was quite trivial. But the Xenonauts have decided to go further. Developers decide to make a game on the globe that is as complex as the ground missions. So, on insane, we have "invisible chess", where our alien opponent makes smart, but all the time same moves. And task for player is to learn this moves and counter them. But each try consists lots of ground missions, whose can not be skipped. So we have not just "invisible" chess, but chess, where each piece weights 100 tons and we need a derrick to move each one. Did you predicted enemy position incorrect? So, hire porter team and put all the pieces back.

I think its silly to leave such a moddable game like Xenonauts, just because you dont like vanilla...

Already there are at least 2 mods that more or less overhaul the game.

Im pretty sure you could find the droids you are looking for...

The strategic AI really doesn't do anything clever. It spawns increasingly powerful UFOs with increasingly powerful crews at predictable intervals, whilst research gradually takes longer as the game progresses. Half the alien mission types are introduced in the first month and the rest will be on the table by the time Landing Ships and Bombers appear.

Talk about invisible chess is overdoing it a lot imo given the escalation is largely predictable. It's a timer rather than an AI; you can beat it with pattern recognition rather than trial and error. Insane difficulty is indeed extremely unforgiving, but that's kinda the point.

This is true for any game with a reasonable difficulty curve, though. If you're new, you become familiar with the mechanics of the game and play-through on normal to get comfortable. For a second play-through, you test yourself against the higher difficulty levels. If you're new and you start with hard mode, having no previous familiarity with the game (Xenonauts is not Old XCOM) then expect to get stomped as you go through. Players aren't required to like every game they play though, so it's fine.

I agree with you, to a point. To play devil's advocate here, a game can provide a difficulty curve that can be overcome, but still require differing strategies each playthrough. It's hard to accomplish, and fairly rare, but possible.

To give an example, I play another game, a roguelike, called Brogue. The entire thing is randomized every time I play, from level layout, to character loadout. There are also many constants, such as the same types of monsters, or sets of tiles, traps, and what have you. However, my overall strategy in playing the game is different each time, because my character is defined by what equipment he can find, and how I decide to use it and improve it. If I find a really good sword early on, I might plow my resources into improving that, search for good armor, and be a melee character. Or I might decide to stick with magic instead, and risk the dungeon not coughing up the magical resources I need. My choices might be wise, or disastrous, but are dependent upon some degree of unpredictability; no one strategy will work for all (or even many) playthroughs.

In other words, once I overcome the initial difficulty of understanding the basic strategies of the game, there's a whole other level of adapting to unpredictable combinations of situations and resources. In essence, that's where the real game begins.

I think the poster's complaint has more to do with the perceived lack of that second level of challenge. He's worried that by grinding away at trying to figure out how to play a winning game of Xenonauts, the only thing left for him to do is play against "faster monsters with more hit points," which is not the same thing as breaking open a new level of mastery. All it is doing is testing how well you know the script of the game, which is not really exciting to look forward to.

It may be unfair or unrealistic to expect that level of depth from Xenonauts. It's not Chess or Go, after all. It's a game with some degree of breadth, and some limitations are the cost of that breadth. Many strategy games have these great rulesets, and lots of mechanics to master, but ultimately these are absorbed by the player and a limited set of strategies emerge that allow human players to thrash the AI, and the only thing left to do is give the AI more artificial advantages, "faster monsters with more hit points." At that point, you're just flexing the same set of muscles over and over.

The promise of mods don't quite solve this worry, either, since they are more likely to just push values around, include fan service additions, or fix real/perceived bugs rather than break new ground within the game itself.

Mind you, I'm pretty happy with Xenonauts as it is, and I really look forward to seeing what modders do with this game. I see no dark clouds on the horizon: Xenonauts is already one of my favorite games. But overall I feel that this is a common issue with strategy games, and I think some anxiety over it as a player isn't unreasonable.

I do think that there needs to be a bit of balancing for Xenonauts. I have said it before and i'm sticking to what I had said that I believe that the nations are too unforgiving with funding. Doesn't need a drastic bit of balancing but some balancing I think it needs. Lots of people will say that well if you do this a certain way or build this many bases and you have to gain air superiority early that you can be successful. It shouldn't be that you have to do things a specific way to have success.

For instance you should be able to start off maybe working hard on troops weapon tech but leave air tech alone for a while and if you do really well with ground battles then you should still be able to do well. But I have played literally like 5 times on normal difficulty having to restart. Trying different strategies also and still getting smashed while losing funding just because the nations seem to freak out when there is some alien activity in their air space- lowering funding a lot. Then in turn I can shoot down at least most of those UFO's but still the nation is showing estimated monthly funding at a loss. And sure enough at the end of month almost all have lowered funding.

I think that 1 of 2 things should be altered for balance purposes:

1- lower UFO activity some because its way too high OR

2- make there have to be way more activity in countries airspace before they lower funding so much while also increasing benefits for successful UFO's shot down etc...

Couldn't you just play the game an easier level? I'm playing on Veteran and having an easy time of it. I have more money than I need and am only putting off the Final Mission because I want my guys to have better armor and some more experience i.e. all research is completed and I've built just about every possible weapon armor save a couple suits and two weapons. Perhaps you think because the difficulty setting says, "Normal" or "Easy" and you have gaming experience it shouldn't be challenging for you?

to StellarRat:

Well the difficulty isn't balanced in regards to the ground and air parts. Most of the time I do well on the ground battles, while the air game is very difficult to gain an edge or even stay competitive. Also keep in mind that I play ironman mode only- I do love a challenge and I don't like to reload just to get better results.

Not sure how many times you have played but I can almost bet that you use similar strategies to get the upper hand. That's part of my point is that you shouldn't be forced to play a certain way to be successful.

The strategic AI really doesn't do anything clever. It spawns increasingly powerful UFOs with increasingly powerful crews at predictable intervals, whilst research gradually takes longer as the game progresses. Half the alien mission types are introduced in the first month and the rest will be on the table by the time Landing Ships and Bombers appear.

Talk about invisible chess is overdoing it a lot imo given the escalation is largely predictable. It's a timer rather than an AI; you can beat it with pattern recognition rather than trial and error. Insane difficulty is indeed extremely unforgiving, but that's kinda the point.

When you identify the issue as a timer, it kind of excites me a bit. Timers can be adjusted based on other factors and events that can vary from game to game. A cold winter that slows alien progress (somehow). A preference for sandy areas of the earth for setting up bases. A hyper-aggressive alien commander that doesn't research as quickly. Nations can be similarly tinkered with.

Small adjustments or mutators that "fake" the appearance of that invisible chess game. It gives the player something else to try to figure out, and provides a greater level of unpredictability to the game.

So this thread might be seen, in a way, an opportunity. It's feedback: "I like your game so much, here's the wall I'm hitting." Is that wall something you can take a crack at? It's not like fixing a flabby AI, creating a competing faction, or someone being unhappy that it's got aliens instead of zombie pirate ninjas. This is something that seems like it might be fixable without changing out the whole engine. (I say this as a non-programmer.)

I'm not saying it's simple, or that it's mandatory (ie. "fix your broken game." The game's not broken and this is not a bug), just that it's an opportunity to expand the game.

(And yes, I do understand that you're chomping on the bit to start that next project.)

"I think the poster's complaint has more to do with the perceived lack of that second level of challenge. He's worried that by grinding away at trying to figure out how to play a winning game of Xenonauts, the only thing left for him to do is play against "faster monsters with more hit points," which is not the same thing as breaking open a new level of mastery. All it is doing is testing how well you know the script of the game, which is not really exciting to look forward to."

The complaint really seems to be that he doesn't know what to expect, so he prepares for one thing and something else ruins his play-through. Reading the original post, I don't see any concerns about gaming the system, just frustration with the Geoscape challenges. For example, I play for x amount of time, then y happens and I didn't expect it, so my game is ruined. This isn't really true, and I would think one of the draws of Xenonauts is experiencing the "unknown" and adapting accordingly, but not everybody is going to want that.

There is nothing wrong with lowering the difficulty (even to easy) if you're having problems with the current level of difficulty.