Jump to content

Suppression Mechanics


Recommended Posts

Continously fireing DOES improve your chances to hit...because your gun is already poitning and you're spewing bullets..also you can adjust your aim more easily with a sustained barrage.

If you're caught in the open..sucks.. But if someone is going full-auto while you are in the open, you are in a pickle either way. You can run for cover, but if you do in a straight line, it's not that hard for the enemy to lead your shots. If you zig-zag, you spend more time under fire. So you're boned either way.

Getting the supression mechanic to work in a turn-based games is hard. I'd go and say impossible.

If we want to talk realism, you'd be in far greater danger in the moment you are leaving cover then when you are sprinting. But there's no way to model that, because the combatants take shots in turns, rather than continiously. And applying a "to-hit bonus" (or evasion penalty) only when the other guy is leaving cover is unfeasable... Hmm...maybe if we're talking about reaction fire, but supression may eat all TU'.

How about this - supression eats half TU's and the other half is used for reacton fire IF the enemy moves.

The bonus to hit depends on the distance from the enemeis original position. The further away from the position he was supressed he moves, the safer he is.

So basicly:

supressed unit

- if in cover, no to-hit bonus for the enemy

- if caught by reaction fire when moving while supressed, enemy gets bonus to hit (dependent on the distance from the soldiers original position)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of suppression as an action separate from firing.

It just doesn't make sense that 40 shots could land all around you with no effect but one labelled 'suppressive' would suddenly make you unable to move.

Suppression if you are in cover keeps your head down so would probably affect movement, suppression out of cover would probably motivate someone to head for cover faster.

That makes it difficult to decide if someone would crawl (not represented in game) or sprint (not represented) when taking fire.

Not affecting the movement at all may be a better idea, maybe adjusting reactions instead.

Reduction of the reaction stat may be a good idea as I think it not only reduces your chance of reacting but also increases the opponents chance if I remember rightly.

Gives you more incentive to keep your head down without limiting your options if you want, or need, to take a risk.

Accuracy for the suppressed target would more than likely be reduced as they cant take time to aim carefully.

That would have to be carefully balanced though otherwise two opponents could well end up suppressing each other to the point where the fight goes on forever.

Although that would definitely make flanking and smoke screens valid tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Continously fireing DOES improve your chances to hit...because your gun is already poitning and you're spewing bullets..also you can adjust your aim more easily with a sustained barrage.

We were talking about accuracy. It's not the same as chance. I'm going to assume you do not have a lot of experience firing combat rifles, because in my experience, all of the above is just false.

If you're caught in the open..sucks.. But if someone is going full-auto while you are in the open, you are in a pickle either way. You can run for cover, but if you do in a straight line, it's not that hard for the enemy to lead your shots. If you zig-zag, you spend more time under fire. So you're boned either way.

True, except the "not hard" part. It is hard, and takes a skilled marksman to hit diagonally moving target, especially on full auto.

Getting the supression mechanic to work in a turn-based games is hard. I'd go and say impossible.

If we want to talk realism, you'd be in far greater danger in the moment you are leaving cover then when you are sprinting. But there's no way to model that, because the combatants take shots in turns, rather than continiously. And applying a "to-hit bonus" (or evasion penalty) only when the other guy is leaving cover is unfeasable... Hmm...maybe if we're talking about reaction fire, but supression may eat all TU'.

Yeah, that's what's making this discussion so long. For all we know Goldhawk has already settled on a system. :P

How about this - supression eats half TU's and the other half is used for reacton fire IF the enemy moves.

The bonus to hit depends on the distance from the enemeis original position. The further away from the position he was supressed he moves, the safer he is.

So basicly:

supressed unit

- if in cover, no to-hit bonus for the enemy

- if caught by reaction fire when moving while supressed, enemy gets bonus to hit (dependent on the distance from the soldiers original position)?

I don't want suppression to be an action either, like I've stated many times. I think a dynamic suppression system would be a lot more "realistic" and fun to use, albeit harder to balance. I don't know if I can convince you that it could be a lot better, but yeah. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all supression does is reduce reactions, then it's pointless. A player would simply use all of the units TU's to fire and avoid any meaningfull penalty.

I suggested accuracy and reactions in that post.

If you read it again you will notice I mention the reaction stat because it increases your chance of being attacked with reaction fire as well as reducing your own chance of reaction firing.

If it doesn't affect both then another way of doing the same thing would replace it.

Basically doing both would be better than one or the other.

As you say losing your own chance of reaction fire is pretty much pointless alone.

Increased chance of being reaction fired upon is better, but not as good as having both.

My current thinking is:

Reduced chance (or no chance) for the suppressed unit to reaction fire.

Higher chance for suppressed unit to be reaction fired upon.

Reduced shot accuracy and/or limiting weapons to the first aim level depending on fire modes.

All weapons cause suppression, more distance from shot impact to the unit can reduce the effect

Reasons for these suggestions:

If you are suppressed and moving/shooting is risky (because of the chance of reaction fire against you) then you could have a lot of AP left at the end of your turn.

With no penalty to your own reaction fire that would effectively leave you in cover and able to use your whole AP bar in reaction shots, despite being suppressed.

If you are more likely to get shot by reaction fire (note I am talking more chance of being shot at, not more likely to be hit) then you have a good reason to keep your head down but importantly you are not forced to do it by an arbitrary game mechanic like AP removal.

Accuracy reduction is also there to reflect your difficulty in aiming a shot properly while under sustained fire.

It also gives you a chance to return fire (unlike AP loss) but penalises you for being in a position where you have taken a lot of fire.

Again without a movement penalty you are free to try and run to a better position but you may take reaction fire along the way.

All shots cause suppression, variable depending on how close the shot hits to a soldier.

Some weapons may have bonus suppression weighting (such as sniper rifles) but that would be decided by balancing as it is probably not needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm...if people fire full auto-on you to supress you, I don't think they will have TU's left to reaction-fire on you.

Doesn't that negate the danger of runing out of cover?

You can just casualy walk away

The biggest problem with getting this to work is the fact that it's turn-based and the sequences of events plays differently than in real life. There's no way to model it accurately.

You and the enemy take turns. Doesn't it make sense then that the effects/states ALSO take turns?

This is the reason why I sugegsted for "supressed" being a state that lasts a turn.

If you get supressed on the enemies turn, you are in that state for the next turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking along the lines of the way stun damage works.

Taking fire builds up your 'suppression bar' which ticks down by a set amount a turn, probably determined by the bravery stat.

As the bar climbs your accuracy and reactions decrease.

Braver troops recover faster when they are no longer taking fire.

Something like bravery/10 per turn taken off the suppression at the start of each of the enemy turns.

That should allow suppression to be built up in their turn, last over your own turn and start to reduce again before they get a chance to top it back up.

If you are alone and suppressing an enemy but you decline to save AP for reaction fire you would be losing some of the benefit of that system.

You would still be forcing them to keep their heads down so their accuracy would still be reduced.

Of course if you move in groups then the people on either side of you would be able to take full advantage.

Remember that you are still taking shots at them as well as increasing their suppression.

You get to choose if you want to keep building up suppression and trying to do damage or hold some AP back in case they make a break for it in their own turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what's the point?

You are already shooting at the enemy NOW.

Increased chance of reaction fire doesn't mean much, since those AP's you left might remain unused, and thus, go to waste.

So in effect it's better to just shoot and leave no AP for reaction fire, thus making the "inreaced chance to be reaction-fired at" penalty pointless.

Hm....maybe make it so that rection-fire costs for attacking supressed units cost less? That might actually make it worth-while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the point in leaving AP for reaction firing if you are already in a fire fight? I thought leaving AP was only for when you didn't spot any aliens during your turn but might come in contact with them on the enemy turn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Increased chance of reaction fire doesn't mean much, since those AP's you left might remain unused, and thus, go to waste.

So in effect it's better to just shoot and leave no AP for reaction fire, thus making the "inreaced chance to be reaction-fired at" penalty pointless.

Hm....maybe make it so that rection-fire costs for attacking supressed units cost less? That might actually make it worth-while.

That would still involve saving AP though which seemed to be your major objection.

The main difference, and point, would be that you can continue to fire into the targets cover or you can save AP and try to catch him moving out of cover where he is more vulnerable.

If you look at the suggestion as a whole rather than picking one piece out of it then it gives a better idea of where I am going with it.

It is about options and giving the player something to worry about in their own turn when they have troopers that are being suppressed.

Without reaction fire there is nothing to discourage the player from simply running every suppressed trooper out of danger as soon as they start taking fire.

Making reaction fire more likely on a suppressed unit makes the player think about that more.

They have no idea how many aliens are out there waiting, or how many AP they have ready to put little holes into one of their prized troopers if they do decide to run for it.

You can choose to use every last AP to attack a unit that is in cover, that is still a valid option.

It isn't the only option though.

You could choose to hold some AP back so that you can get a reaction shot into the enemy if they leave cover and make themselves more vulnerable.

You may use up all of your machine gunners AP to keep a unit suppressed and try to kill it outright but save some AP on a trooper who is supporting him.

That other trooper may not have a great angle so saving some AP for if the enemy tries to move would make sense.

Suppressing the enemy also gives you the opportunity to try and flank them while their accuracy and reaction fire chance against you is reduced.

It is less dangerous for you and also pressurises the enemy into having to make a decision about fleeing into potential fields of reaction fire.

If it one of your troops that is suppressed then you have to choose if you want to stay put and return (reduced accuracy) fire, make a very risky run for a safer position, drop smoke and run, drop smoke and hold position waiting for the suppression to fade etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I lost track of the discussion ten or so pages back, but I have this sudden urge to add a couple of points that may or may not have some remote and convoluted connection to the topic at hand.

First of all, none of the aliens can currently crouch as far as I know. That kind of hinders everything I understand about suppression.

Second, I'm not sure if the aforementioned needs to change.

I've been thinking that the game might benefit from the AI War method of doing things: The fight is not supposed to be fair. The enemy is not playing by the same rules as the player. Will an alien be threatened by suppressive fire like a Xenonaut rookie? Does it have any reason to be?

It's also worth remembering that the AI will always be inferior to the player. The ultimate goal of AI coding is not passing the Turing test, but being entertaining to play against.

This starts making less and less sense the more I type, so I'll leave it there. I might try translating some of this into XCOM-relevant stuff once it's not three in the morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like where Ljas is going with this. A lot of the discussion seems to be based upon the unspoken idea that the thing being shot at is human. Exactly why does a Sebillian care about being shot? They're as tough as nails, take forever to kill with human weapons and when the healing passive ability is introduced, will be even tougher. The higher classes of sebillians even now can wade through storms of shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like where Ljas is going with this. A lot of the discussion seems to be based upon the unspoken idea that the thing being shot at is human. Exactly why does a Sebillian care about being shot? They're as tough as nails, take forever to kill with human weapons and when the healing passive ability is introduced, will be even tougher. The higher classes of sebillians even now can wade through storms of shot.

Pain, immobilizing and crippling pain. terrible terrible pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like where Ljas is going with this. A lot of the discussion seems to be based upon the unspoken idea that the thing being shot at is human. Exactly why does a Sebillian care about being shot? They're as tough as nails, take forever to kill with human weapons and when the healing passive ability is introduced, will be even tougher. The higher classes of sebillians even now can wade through storms of shot.

Yes the Sebillians are tough and can regenerate, that doesn't mean they will walk into a firestorm just because they may be able to survive it.

Androns are immune to pain and morale effects so don't use cover.

Sebilians may be less concerned with cover once they are in close.

Ceasans are less physically durable and therefore more likely to take cover and may be easier to suppress than the others.

The AI should be able to take into account these preferences once it is finalised and if the suppression system is in place it should also affect them to some degree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would still involve saving AP though which seemed to be your major objection.

Yes, but you can get more potential bang for the same amount of AP's this way, thus actually making supression fire more appealing.

The main difference, and point, would be that you can continue to fire into the targets cover or you can save AP and try to catch him moving out of cover where he is more vulnerable.

Assuming he moves out of cover.

And what happens if he is surpressed in the open?

You can choose to use every last AP to attack a unit that is in cover, that is still a valid option.

It isn't the only option though.

You could choose to hold some AP back so that you can get a reaction shot into the enemy if they leave cover and make themselves more vulnerable.

A reaction fire that MAY happen. Or may not. Which is what I'm talking about.

You are sacrificing a guaranteed use of AP's for a "maybe" with no real gain. If the unit is surpressed, it already has less accuracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have sort of hit on the whole point there though.

If a unit that is under fire chooses not to move away and sits there being ineffective then he is, by definition, suppressed.

I prefer increased chance of reaction fire against the suppressed unit and decreased chance of reaction fire from that suppressed unit over reducing the cost of reaction shots.

You would still need to be luckier on the roll to get a reaction shot with your system and to get the benefit from the reduced cost you would need to be lucky several times.

The current system uses all available AP's on a reaction shot for increased accuracy, by reducing the AP cost you would effectively only be increasing the accuracy of reaction fire which also makes less sense to me than making it more likely to happen.

On your last point, that is why reaction fire should be easier to do against a suppressed target.

You are trading a shot into a target that is in cover (which may or may not hit and may or may not get past the cover) for a chance at a reaction shot (which could be an almost certainty, depending on the amount of suppression on the target) if they choose to move or attack.

If they don't then you have them suppressed and can operate without much risk from that unit.

*edit*

Forgot to address the person who took fire in the open.

In that case you would probably be more likely to use up all your AP to try and kill him before he made cover.

Of course if you had troops who were too far away to get a good shot then you could save AP on them in case he ran towards them looking for cover and left himself open to a reaction shot.

Edited by Gauddlike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current system uses all available AP's on a reaction shot for increased accuracy, by reducing the AP cost you would effectively only be increasing the accuracy of reaction fire which also makes less sense to me than making it more likely to happen.

More shots is effectively the same as less shots, but with higher chance to hit.

On your last point, that is why reaction fire should be easier to do against a suppressed target.

You are trading a shot into a target that is in cover (which may or may not hit and may or may not get past the cover) for a chance at a reaction shot (which could be an almost certainty, depending on the amount of suppression on the target) if they choose to move or attack.

By your own words, supression doesn't increase the chance to hit, so where does this "almost certanty" come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't mention chance to hit, I mentioned chance of a reaction shot.

If you have an increased chance of a reaction shot and that chance goes high enough then that is an almost certainty.

Obviously that does depend on relative reaction stats, how many chances you get to take that shot etc.

If you have a 75% chance to fire and got 3 opportunities to make that roll then you would be likely to succeed.

If you had a 20% chance and had the same 3 opportunities you would be less likely to fire at all, no matter how many reaction shots you had AP reserved for.

More shots is effectively the same as less shots, but with higher chance to hit.

I guess you are saying that 3 shots with 20% chance to hit is the same as one shot with 60% chance there?

That may be true in a normal situation, probably not when you also have to take into account that you may only get one reaction shot.

The 60% shot would be far more useful then.

I just don't like the idea of making a unit easier to hit just because he has been fired at recently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gorlom you math is correct.

I started reading the suppression mechanics threads and was thinking of adding my 2 cents, but the thread so long I read some of it. So excuse me is what I'm suggesting is already been covered. Suppression fire is as much reactive as it is proactive, and assault rifles are capable of suppression fire as well as machine guns. Three shot burst on a assault rifle is for suppression fire in game that could translate into single shot being higher damage low suppression, while burst fire high suppression lower damage. Machine guns with controlled bursts would be lower suppression higher damage while full auto would be high suppression lower damage. As far as the suppression fire goes I also think there should be a suppression mode for reactions. Basically if a soldier is intended on doing suppression fire as a reaction to an alien(or vice versa) poking his head from cover or concealment a mode should she be toggled. Reaction shots while in the mode would be at a reduced AP and a reduced accuracy to balance each other and to throw more bullets down range. This would help to give the feel of suppression fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You talk about high and low damage. Are you saying the hits would deal different amount of damage based on what mode you select while shooting? As opposed to your chance to hit being based on the firing mode I mean.

I think variable damage per shot would make it a different game from what it is and what X-com was. I don't think I find that idea very appealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I read some of the beginning of the thread but skimmed over a few parts here and there on it, so I may be talking about a point that is no longer in question or a concern in the suppression mechanics. People were initially talking about having a suppression shield for suppression and having machine guns do less damage and more suppression while other weapons doing normal damage with little or no suppression. That over looks the fact that machine guns can still be very accurate on point targets with controlled bursts and the fact that assault rifles using burst fire work more like machine guns for suppression. I'm not sure if that is still the current concept of suppression. To clarify what I was saying is suppression fire would have a reduced damage but higher suppression while single shot or controlled bursts on machine guns would have normal (higher) damage and lower suppression. Example: a SAW firing a single round (yes you can squeeze out a single round although its usually done in 2 - 5 shot bursts) is technically the same thing as a 16 firing off a single round, they both have the same muzzle velocity and mass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm still not sure whether you are talking about damage per shot or overall damage moderated by accuracy.

IE if you fire 10 single shots they each have 60% chance to hit while if you fire 10 shots in burst mode they each have 20% chance to hit. If the bullets do the same damage independent on firing mode, the single shots will by average deal more damage since more of them will hit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It just seems easier to have every individual bullet add the same amount of suppression to the unit under fire.

The damage of individual shots would also not need to vary.

That way the suppression potential of a weapon would be set by the amount of shots it could fire, its accuracy at the specific range you are firing, and the amount of AP per bullet of its current shot type.

For example a precision rifle would always be a good choice for damage but would generate little suppression due to its high AP per shot.

However at long range, because of its accuracy, it would actually be a good choice as other weapons would be less likely to get a bullet close to a target so would be less effective.

Machine guns can throw a lot of bullets around so could more easily suppress an enemy at most ranges but will suffer accuracy penalties on moving so for mobile troopers the assault rifle on burst would be better for suppression and damage.

Remember though that suppression used in this way is a by product of attempting to damage an enemy rather than a goal in its own right.

It is not a separate mode it is just an effect on the unit of having bullets flying past its head/other sensory appendage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...