Page 3 of 22 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 214

Thread: Suppression Mechanics

  1. #21
    Xeno Lover IceVamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Hammerfest
    Posts
    699
    The problem is we're having is that suppression should both keep units in place, and not do it. At the same time. How about this then; While suppressed the AP cost for fire is slightly increased, the accuracy is moderately decreased. The AP cost to move is slightly increased. If you move and then fire, that unit's turn ends. Moving and then firing costs all remaining AP. This would simulate popping out of cover to fire, which would immediately illicit a hail of bullets. This now occurs naturally in the opponents turn. (If they decide to shoot) Next turn, you can fire again, and move back into cover. Or just make a run for it, or whatever, but still suffering from higher AP costs.
    I would if I could, but I can't, so I won't.

  2. #22
    Moderator Gauddlike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Leicester, UK
    Posts
    5,593
    Quote Originally Posted by Gazz View Post
    The increase in movement costs is largely the same as "AP damage".
    If you decide to move away from the bad place, you're more likely to run like hell than to walk carefully.

    What would better model the risk while moving is an increase in damage taken while out of cover.
    Suppressed units would have a motivation to stay in cover but the option to break out and face enemy fire.
    You move in your own turn, you are at risk of a rare reaction shot.
    Even more rare for the enemy if you have spent all your AP trying to suppress them.
    Yes that does make suppression useful in the turn of the suppressor, not much use otherwise.
    Suppression would be a purely offensive action that basically just gives your troops a damage boost.

    Increased AP cost for movement is not the same as AP reduction.
    The main clue is in the word MOVEMENT.
    If you lose your AP you have no options.
    If you can move but you know it will take time then you can decide if you want to fire back, drop smoke, or risk that move to better cover.
    If I was being shot at I wouldn't get up and run in plan view, I would keep my head down if I needed to move.
    Devil's Advocate and forum moderator

  3. #23
    Captain
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    423
    In reality, suppression doesn't really lock you in the exact same place - it usually just stops you moving quickly (as you have to crawl). In addition it definitely stops you from firing back accurately as you will only be able to take token shots at the aggressor in an attempt to stop their suppression. Certainly you will not be as aware of what is going on around you so maybe this should be something that was implemented (a reduction in view range) as this is the real reason for suppression - while you wait for your flanking unit to make the kill.

    If you are suppressed, your not going to be sitting behind the only rock in the world. You're going to have all sorts of other obstacles that you can hide behind or can use to block a direct line of fire not to mention the difference even small undulations in the terrain can make. As long as the unit in suppression they should still have some ability to respond. Lying still when you are being suppressed is a guaranteed way of getting killed. You are always supposed to move backwards and sideways on the deck.

    So yeah, basically there should be an accuracy reduction and perhaps a movement penalty such as double cost movement actions (not an AP reduction).

  4. #24
    Colonel Gazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by Gauddlike View Post
    I would keep my head down if I needed to move.
    The funny thing is that I agree in principle - but there are no crawling animations in Xenonauts.
    You can't display it in any way that makes sense. Crouch-walking away in plain sight is just asking to get killed.

    Barring that, the other (believable) way to avoid getting hit is running like hell, dashing for the next cover.



    Quote Originally Posted by Gauddlike View Post
    Yes that does make suppression useful in the turn of the suppressor, not much use otherwise.
    Suppression would be a purely offensive action that basically just gives your troops a damage boost.
    That's why this suppression effect has to carry over into the next turn.
    The easiest way to do that would be to make "suppression decay" happen at the end of one's own turn.

    Turn 8 Human: you suppress the sectiod for 80 points, maxing it.

    Turn 8 Alien: sectoid runs back, trying to reach a healthier place.
    Turn 8 interrupt human: Reaction fire nails it for 20 damage, plus bonus damage from max suppression level.
    Turn 8 Alien: sectiod continues to a safer bit of cover. End turn. Sectoid suppression reduced by 26 points.


    With reaction fire you get the full benefit of suppression because it's "immediate".
    If you want to advance on a suppressed unit in the next turn, you have to do so while laying down further fire because the enemy has had one round's worth of suppression decay since your last turn.


    Since your suppression only decays at the end of your own turn, too, dashing for better cover "under fire" would be hazardous if any other alien can get off reaction fire.
    Sitting tight in your current foxhole would seem safer (you're not inviting reaction fire) but sarge has hammered into your brain that sitting tight is going to get you killed because the flanking move is going to come. And then you're hamburger.



    Quote Originally Posted by Belmakor View Post
    Certainly you will not be as aware of what is going on around you so maybe this should be something that was implemented (a reduction in view range)
    Good spot!
    Very good addition to simulate "distraction".
    It also makes reacion fire by suppressed units less likely. (you can't hit what you can't see)

    You still couldn't walk up right next to suppressed units and pump them full of lead but suppression would make it much easier to pull a flanking move.
    Useful tactics here we come! =)
    Last edited by Gazz; 04-28-2012 at 14:13.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Gauddlike View Post
    Suppression would be a purely offensive action that basically just gives your troops a damage boost.
    If suppression was to actually suppress the other sides movement, your guys would need to fire in their round not in their own. They would need to save saving AP for suppression fire the way they need to save them for reaction fire.

    Someone in cover and under suppression fire sure still would be able to throw a grenade or shoot in the direction of suppression fire, but very inaccurately. He could accurately shoot someone from the opposite direction.

  6. #26
    Sergeant jimbobfury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sheffield, UK
    Posts
    234
    Do people think suppression could maybe work differently depending on whether the unit was in cover or not? The way I see it, if a target is in the open, there's not as much incentive to suppress him, as you've got a straigh, high accuracy shot on him, so you'd be better inflicting the damage. Also, from the target's poing of view, if you took a burst of fire while in the open, chances are your first instinct would be to run to cover (unless you want to account for the shock of taking fire, but I think that's a whole other topic!)

    So how about;
    Units in the open who take suppressive fire - No AP penalty, to allow them to run to cover. But they receive an accuracy penalty, so should they choose to stand their ground and return fire, they're doing so inaccurately.

    Units in cover who take suppressive fire - AP penalty, to represent the fact that they're hunkering down behind their protection and also a slight accuracy penalty.

    This means that, from a tactical point of view, if you have a target in high cover who you can't shoot outright, you can lay suppression on them, and then flank them with other units to get a clear shot around their cover. The flankers could still take fire (so the enjoyable element of risk isn't removed completey) but the fire directed at them would be panicked and innaccurate.

    All of this would happen after the build up system Chris describes, by the way, and wouldn't be instantaneous. Just wanted to clarify that.

  7. #27
    Commander Jean-Luc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris View Post
    It was suggested a month or two ago that we look at the suppression system from JA1.13 for inspiration.
    How ironic.

    I actually liked how suppression worked in JA2. It wasn't instant stun, you had opportunity to move away and if your guy does get "fully suppressed" it wasn't game over or "certain death" (some people here exaggerate I think) because you had a whole team of mercs and not just the one guy. Any sensible player spread his mercs around so there was plenty of opportunity to relieve the suppressed fellow. It was something you dealt with.

    It worked great in CoH too but there was a notable difference in that the MG had a limited arc of fire as well as a setup time which left it very vulnerable to flanking attacks and, of course, you could just press the retreat button and run away at high speed under a shield of almost invulnerability. Also the suppressed soldiers received great damage reduction from all fire, not just the mg.

    One way to deal with suppression in Xenonauts might be to use a smoke grenade to interrupt the line of sight between the suppressor and the suppressee.

    But perhaps suppression shouldn't siphon away all of the APs. It really depends on how common it would be. Situations where a unit is constantly pinned for several or more turns would be quite rare I think. It's a huge expenditure of ammo to not even make a kill (unless aliens have unlimited ammo?) and units (on both sides) with dedicated suppression weaponry would be relatively few I expect.

    Of course it all comes down to balancing (duh) but I don't see why it shouldn't work.
    "This is a primitive culture. I am here to facilitate its incorporation"

  8. #28
    Colonel Gazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by jimbobfury View Post
    Do people think suppression could maybe work differently depending on whether the unit was in cover or not? The way I see it, if a target is in the open, there's not as much incentive to suppress him, as you've got a straigh, high accuracy shot on him, so you'd be better inflicting the damage.
    Agree. If the goal is to kill that unit, it would be more effective to just shoot it dead with aimed fire and save a whole lot of ammo.

    That doesn't mean suppression can not work out in the open.

    What if you want to stun / capture it?
    If suppression reduced it's accuracy, view range, and reaction (little bit), then it would be easier to get to this "pinned down" unit and subdue it.

  9. #29
    Xeno Lover IceVamp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Hammerfest
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by Jean-Luc View Post
    One way to deal with suppression in Xenonauts might be to use a smoke grenade to interrupt the line of sight between the suppressor and the suppressee.
    I like that, using smoke to an actual effect, not just to maybe prevent being shot at.


    Quote Originally Posted by jimbobfury View Post
    Do people think suppression could maybe work differently depending on whether the unit was in cover or not? The way I see it, if a target is in the open, there's not as much incentive to suppress him, as you've got a straigh, high accuracy shot on him, so you'd be better inflicting the damage. Also, from the target's poing of view, if you took a burst of fire while in the open, chances are your first instinct would be to run to cover (unless you want to account for the shock of taking fire, but I think that's a whole other topic!)

    So how about;
    Units in the open who take suppressive fire - No AP penalty, to allow them to run to cover. But they receive an accuracy penalty, so should they choose to stand their ground and return fire, they're doing so inaccurately.
    that.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gazz View Post

    That doesn't mean suppression can not work out in the open.

    What if you want to stun / capture it?
    If suppression reduced it's accuracy, view range, and reaction (little bit), then it would be easier to get to this "pinned down" unit and subdue it.
    Yes, while one can aim to suppress a unit, it should happen whether you want to or not. Units that are susceptible to suppression should always start getting the effect when being shot at. But yes, the system has to be such that units caught in the open (farm maps) have an opportunity to act in a fashion that makes sense. Thus, stripping away all AP's is a bad solution.
    I would if I could, but I can't, so I won't.

  10. #30
    Coffin Stuffer
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    301
    Chris seems set on AP siphoning but I'm going to suggest some things anyway...

    Here's how I see this playing out.

    You have a MG Unit lay down suppressive fire along with your hunter with the .50s on it. This would seriously, if not fully, suppress any aliens in the area you aimed at.

    That would remove their ability to use reactive fire with any sort of accuracy making it far easier for your own troops to move in or flank them to kill the aliens.

    On their turn the aliens gain back a bit of their suppression resistance and any APs they have left. If they have APs they'd better move... but (if we add in the shorter sight range effect from suppression fire) they can't see where your soldiers are at. So should they look for nearby cover or just run?

    Now put yourself in that situation and the enemy is firing a gatling laser at you.

    What if, instead of sapping APs (yes Chris I know you like that system) but what if instead your actions merely cost MORE APs to do based on a percentage of suppression received.

    So if you had reached 50% of your bravery in suppression fire all your actions cost 25% more AP, your accuracy is reduced by 25% and your vision range is reduced by 25%.

    At 100% of your bravery received in suppression fire those values could all be at a 75% modifier as listed above. Something like that. I mean sure it would take more coding and more math running in the background and I don't know what the engine could handle but that would still leave you with choices as a player.

    Do you stay and fight with the one or two suppressed people while trying to rescue them?
    Do you run into a nearby building for more cover or to break line of sight?
    Do you fire back and pray it works knowing your accuracy is lowered AND it costs more AP?

    Well you get the idea. I think that this might work quite well. Thoughts?

    Edit: Further I think that for low level soldiers experiencing suppression fire for a couple of turns should add to the chance to have them panic and lose ALL APs just like panic works now. That would combine the two systems nicely and you could call losing all your APs being "Pinned Down" with a different color marker over that unit. Use the same as the suppression marker just a new color? Yellow suppressed -> Red pinned?
    Last edited by Hellstormer; 04-28-2012 at 18:20.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •