Jump to content

Suppression Mechanics


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was suggested a month or two ago that we look at the suppression system from JA1.13 for inspiration.

How ironic. :P

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Edited by Hellstormer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd have to say that I don't care for the AP loss thing either. While it works in some situations, it would be completely unreal and frustrating in others. Suppose that an alien flanks a soldier and succeeds in completely suppressing him? Now the soldier has no cover, cannot return fire and can't move to nearby cover. That isn't an accurate portrayal of suppression, but rather, it mimics the actions of those dumb victims in B movies who see approaching death and do nothing.

While it's not the same as real combat, I'm guessing that suppression in paintball provides a useful model to examine. I've played plenty of games and I know what response players have when under heavy fire. They either duck behind their cover, run to the nearest cover, fall to prone or return fire. The first option (duck behind their cover) is the action that is portrayed by the AP loss model being proposed for Xenonauts. In paintball though, players only react that way if they have cover in the first place. If they don't have cover, they'll never just sit around waiting to be eliminated.

Reduced accuracy however, is an effect of suppression regardless of the situation. I very much agree with putting that effect into the Xenonauts suppression mechanics.

As far as movement goes, paintball players use suppression tactics in a chess-like manner. It's usually not possible to entirely prevent the opponent from moving but it is easy enough to create a lane of fire that makes all movement through that specific area very risky.

What I'd like to see in Xenonauts is a three-fold effect. First, there's the accuracy penalty. Second, negation of reaction fire, Third, suppression fire creates an area of effect (cone-shaped) that stays in place for the remainder of the shooter's round and the subsequent opponent's round. Any attempt to move inside or through the AOE carries the risk of taking damage (greatly reduced if the soldier has cover). This system permits players to have more tactical choices. They can return fire with reduced accuracy, run in hopes of getting to safety or skulk behind cover.

That system also makes it possible to use area of denial tactics when advancing on enemy positions. Firing machine guns at the corners of buildings will make it risky for aliens to rush around the corner and open fire.

I'd also like to make a proposal for machine guns. They should have the option to shoot suppressive fire or short, controlled bursts. Suppressive fire would be the 15 round, inaccurate area of denial attack. The short burst option is there in case the player decides he needs to focus on putting a killing shot into a single enemy. I suggest the controlled fire mode because it's likely that at some point the player will be in a situation where only the machine-gunners are alive. At that point, ammo conservation and enemy kills will be critical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'd like to see in Xenonauts is a three-fold effect. First, there's the accuracy penalty. Second, negation of reaction fire, Third, suppression fire creates an area of effect (cone-shaped) that stays in place for the remainder of the shooter's round and the subsequent opponent's round. Any attempt to move inside or through the AOE carries the risk of taking damage (greatly reduced if the soldier has cover). This system permits players to have more tactical choices. They can return fire with reduced accuracy, run in hopes of getting to safety or skulk behind cover.

I'm not keen on the idea of taking damage from nowhere. Part of the feeling of the game is firing that impossible shot to save a squad member, and watching it fly to see if it hits. Dealing damage from a ballistic area of effect attack, in the turn after the attack it self has been made and animated would seem really awkward and unfitting in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

I would change the colour of the morale bar rather than having icons over the troopers head.

I don't really like those.

Morale bar fills up with yellow as you are suppressed and turns red when you are pinned.

Another option could be something along the lines of the cover indicators.

The suppression could be shown as a sort of negative cover.

I'm not keen on the idea of taking damage from nowhere. Part of the feeling of the game is firing that impossible shot to save a squad member, and watching it fly to see if it hits. Dealing damage from a ballistic area of effect attack, in the turn after the attack it self has been made and animated would seem really awkward and unfitting in my opinion.

I'm with IceVamp on that.

You could alter it slightly to make suppressed units very vulnerable to reaction fire to represent the same thing but it feels kind of forced and doesn't make a lot of sense why your troops would get shot at a lot and suddenly become easier targets because of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cone of suppression fire wouldn't have anything to do with individual soldiers. It's akin to the current fire system in which walking through a burning room will hurt a soldier. Walking through an area being saturated with bullets amounts to the same thing whether to soldier was previously suppressed or not. Note that only machine guns and their equivalents would be capable of conducting this type of fire.

Implementing a suppression system in a turn-based game is going to be problematic one way or another. The initial concept proposed by Chris forces soldiers to react in one predictable manner whether or not it fits the situation. Variations of that such as the "takes more AP's to move and shoot" idea will result it soldiers running slower at times when speed is the only thing that will save them or shooting slower at times when fast shooting is the only smart move.

The AOE approach results in damage being dealt out getting separated from the firing animation. That may be a minor issue but I see it as an acceptable trade-off to avoid the short-comings of the other proposals. Turn-based You-Go-I-Go games are inherently awkward anyway when it comes to timing and animation issues. They excel at providing tactical options, not believable cause and effect animations.

The real problems I see with the AoE system I've outlined are with implementation, not the actual gameplay. First, there would have to be a graphic indicating the exclusion zone (probably streaks of tracer fire or energy bursts). Secondly, the movement system would have to detect the AoE and calculate a movement path that doesn't send players through (unless the player really wants to move through). Lastly, the AI would need to be programmed to avoid suicidal charges into the AoE. Accomplishing all that may very well be too complex for Goldhawk to pull off within an acceptable timeframe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't remember if someone already suggested this. But why don't you select suppression as an option on your turn but have it carried out in the AI turn. I.e there is no firing animation until the enemy's turn and it is either activated by an enemy unit moving into the suppression zone/cone or if there is one already in the zone then it suffers the proposed AP reduction/movement/accuracy penalty. If no alien moves into the zone then the suppression animation is performed as the last part of the turn (so you visually see the ammo used).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TL; DR (at least until tomorrow).

I'd potentially be happy with suppression negating reaction fire and inflicting an accuracy penalty, then sapping AP but perhaps to a limit of say 50% of them. Negating reaction fire would mean that we could still do things like flashbangs etc without requiring full AP sapping.

For machineguns, yes, we could potentially do a short (more aimed) burst and a long (more suppressing) burst to give it several fire modes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there's stuff I didn't think of yesterday. I'm not entirely opposed to some form of the idea. I was thinking too that the AP drain or other effects could be limited to percentiles. I hope moddable too in as many ways as possible. If only I could have suppressed a chrysalid just 20% or so, where it would stop inches from my soldier on the next turn! Might be occasionally viable to stun one up close!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give the increased AP costs to some or all actions some thought Chris.

It is similar to the AP reduction but can be tweaked to allow some actions rather than a blanket reduction.

See that's why I was thinking percentage based, though likely a pain to code as I said in my earlier post on Page 3, but if it is percentage based, incremental AP cost increases it will be so much easier to balance because it's so easy to tweak. All you'd have to do is tweak the percentage numbers once it's coded in so finding a good balance would be simple(ish) to do <3

Plus it accomplishes the same effect but still allow for lots of choices and yet retains the possibility for soldiers to panic and still lose all AP. Well I'm just going to start repeating myself now so I'll shush...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TL; DR (at least until tomorrow).

I'd potentially be happy with suppression negating reaction fire and inflicting an accuracy penalty, then sapping AP but perhaps to a limit of say 50% of them. Negating reaction fire would mean that we could still do things like flashbangs etc without requiring full AP sapping.

For machineguns, yes, we could potentially do a short (more aimed) burst and a long (more suppressing) burst to give it several fire modes.

I wonder have you read this post of mine? I have a feeling that it was overlooked...

http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/1551-Suppression-Mechanics?p=17881&viewfull=1#post17881

EDITED: i don`t like the increased AP costs under suppression. You wont be doing things slower, actually you`ll do everything even faster in fear of being exposed to enemy fire for too long. At least that`s what i experienced in numerous airsoft battles i had. If enemy is trying to pin you down and you realise that you are in a very bad spot - you`ll run or crawl the hell out of there jumping like a crazy bunny all over the obstacles with your head down :)

Edited by Okim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may decide to run like a gazelle (do things faster) or you might keep your head down and crawl (higher AP cost).

The problem is that the suppression system would have to be incredibly complicated to take into account both of those possibilities.

Worrying about being taken out of an airsoft game is a little different to worrying that the next burst of plasma would ignite your face.

http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/experience-a-firefight-in-afghanistan-through-a-soldiers-headcam-20120317/

I don't see a lot of running around and risking a bullet in the head in this example.

It is a group of soldiers stuck behind cover while an unseen enemy takes shots at them.

What I see is this:

Slow cautious movement to limit the risks (higher AP costs).

Blind firing to minimise exposure while trying to keep the enemies heads down (reduced accuracy).

If you were to use this as an example then you would probably also need to increase the cover save of a suppressed unit (if it was in cover) to represent them keeping their heads down.

I am unsure if that would be necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice vid Gauddlike, thanks.

I actually like the idea of an increased cover save. That way you can't just have all your boys unload on one enemy in cover, you have to be proactive and flank or throw grenades or do something else. Well, not have to, but to conserve ammo and be effective. You can't spend 30 rounds shooting at one alien in a terror mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If suppression did increase the cover save of an enemy then that part at least would have to be directional.

You would be taking cover from the enemy that is suppressing you, not from the one who is flanking you.

That was why I was unsure, I don't know how practical that would be.

Actually, come to think about it if it made the soldier harder to hit (in the cover part of the calculation) then that would be directional anyway as he would be unlikely to have 360 degree cover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EDITED: i don`t like the increased AP costs under suppression. You wont be doing things slower, actually you`ll do everything even faster in fear of being exposed to enemy fire for too long. At least that`s what i experienced in numerous airsoft battles i had. If enemy is trying to pin you down and you realise that you are in a very bad spot - you`ll run or crawl the hell out of there jumping like a crazy bunny all over the obstacles with your head down :)

Are you saying that movement while supressed should cost less AP? You are focusing too much on the explanation or justification for the mechanic IMO.

Is the mechanic going to work differently if the target is in cover or out in th open? Everyone seems to be disscussing it from out of an assumption of one or the other but not both? You need an overall negative effect but not something that locks you down if you are in a situation that wasn't intended or discussed.

And this thread really has spun away from how the mechanic should work into what is justifiable and how people would react in real life etc etc. Make damn sure the mechanic is fun first, then you can bother with realism!

Quite frankly I'm worrying ALOT about supression as a mechanic because I think it could be potentially disasterous to the gameplay... it's interesting as an Idea, but I dont like the firaxis solution and I think if implemented the wrong way it will be horrendous. There is a chance I will simply want to mod it out of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both realism and gameplay need to be considered otherwise you end up with something that doesn't make sense or doesn't make the game better.

There needs to be something to the game mechanic that people will recognise or it just won't make sense.

I think the accuracy reduction, movement AP cost increase, and cover bonus model works.

You could tweak it so that if they are in cover they get the cover bonus and movement AP increase but if they are caught out of cover they get a firing AP increase instead.

Out of cover they get the chance to run like hell but if they are in cover they are more inclined to stay there.

I would keep the same accuracy reduction either way.

Quite frankly I'm worrying ALOT about supression as a mechanic because I think it could be potentially disasterous to the gameplay... it's interesting as an Idea, but I dont like the firaxis solution and I think if implemented the wrong way it will be horrendous. There is a chance I will simply want to mod it out of the game.

What do you see as the wrong way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you see as the wrong way?

Stunnlocking. Either go with the soldier haveing a % chance to panic or don't other with it at all.

Other then that I have to acctually try out the mechanics first before I can have an opinion. But I'm not going to be positive going into testing a mechanic that has been formed after the justification instead of the function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Panic is basically a stun.

They lose the ability to defend themselves or move away.

Giving it a percentage chance won't make you feel any better when you lose half a dozen people in a mission because you had no control over them.

You wouldn't register when they weren't stunned, you would only see it when it got you killed.

That is one of the more frustrating mechanics and one I definitely wouldn't be happy to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know panic is basicly a stun, but it's not a stunlock.

Panic would add to the tension and x-com atmosphere. I don't see a mechanic where you can simply do the math and be able to tell if your soldier is going to be stunned or able to do something the next turn contributing to that feeling.

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...