I like the clear differentiation between suppressed and not suppressed, but the suppression is currently too easy and too powerful. More variability in the amount of suppression would also be nice. Maybe using the same multiplier as is used for normal damage calculations would work. Additionally the current AI needs updated to know how to handle suppression and deal with it appropriately. As an example, a nice reaction to suppression would be that the suppressed alien would fall back from the enemy and his buddies would set an ambush up for the pursuing Xenonauts. Using grenades to create smoke / fire would also be good to do before falling back or to make his current position more easily defended.
Although I agree that we need to test the current system more fully before trying something else, what follows is a suggestion for a slightly different approach that maintains the current approaches benefits while making it less boolean. A happy middle ground between the two systems (the current binary and a % based approach) would be to introduce tiers of suppression that have different effects and colors. The tiers could be cumulative so that as you go from one to the next the penalties stack. Here is an example (in brackets are the rough sketch of about how much suppression should occur before it becomes applicable):
Tier 1 (Blue - "Faltering") [2 burst shots from the M16 against a Non-Com]:
- Accuracy reduced by 25%
- Points left for reaction fire is reduced by 25% of what is leftover from the last turn.
Tier 2 (Yellow - "Cowering") [burst shots from the M16 and the machine gun against a Non-Com]:
- Unit is forced to crouch
- APs for next turn reduced by 25%
- Points left for reaction fire is reduced by another 25% of what was leftover from the last turn
Tier 3 (Red - "Pinned") [Three to four volleys of machine gun fire against a Non-Com]:
- Points left for reaction fire is reduced to 0%
- APs for next turn reduced by another 25%
- Accuracy reduced by a further 25%
- AI will seek to retreat from the current position
At tier 3 (and after a lot of fire from the Xenonauts) the alien has no chance of reaction firing, half AP for the next turn, half it's regular accuracy, and will have been forced to crouch.
Last edited by Quartermaster; 06-21-2012 at 19:32.
Reason: Summary paragraph of the cumulative effects.
The accuracy reduction is mainly to negate the accuracy bonus from crouching and the AP reduction would not allow more expensive firemodes and reduce mobility.
Reducing the suppression values by 30% did make it feel less overpowered
Reducing the effect of suppression and at least giving a chance of reaction fire is the way to balance it from my point of view
I like that system a lot
The only thing I would change is
But that's just me being annoying
Last edited by Khall; 06-21-2012 at 20:38.
At the moment the hand held MG is way better than the 50. cal on the ferret (the tank thing)
First of all the 50. cal ran out of bullets half way into the match which is ridiculous if a person can carry enough ammo on foot and a tank can't.
The 50. cal never hit anyone, I like the spread but it really needs to be more deadly, either make it more accurate or give it a longer burst.
Also I'm not sure it causes any suppression when it should be the most terrifying thing on the human side.
I'd like to see a vehicle mounted flame thrower that ignores cover as the ultimate terror weapon.
It sounds like we need to reduce the suppression values of the weapons then, as it seems too easy to suppress enemies at present.
I do think you guys are being a bit unrealistic as with the amount of fire required to reduce an enemy to 0 reaction APs though. It's fine now in early game but in some of the later missions you'll be facing a LOT of aliens. Making people use up all the APs of three different soldiers just to make sure one soldiers can run up to him and shoot him with a shotgun (and presumably really hope he dies, otherwise that soldier will be dead next turn) when he might already not have any APs saved doesn't seem a very efficient way of doing things.
Can people specify if they're playing Quick Battles (against alien soldiers) or just normal UFO battles (presumably against alien non-coms and weak soldiers)? It may be that the main issue is that the weaker aliens need a buff to their Bravery more than anything else.
Essentially I'm reluctant to change the system until the AI is working better and we know how it'll work in the final game, but in the meantime I'm happy to balance the numbers or obvious exploits better.
For the next build I'll significantly increase the burst fire cost for machineguns and reduce the suppression levels across the board by 20%. I'll also buff the non-combatants so they have the same amount of Bravery as the Guards, as they're already quite a lot weaker in terms of attributes and weapons. Should stop them being such pushovers...
Yes, I'll also add suppression to the Ferret for the next build.
Also, anyone got any ideas on how the final suppression icon should look? The current one is a placeholder, and I'm not entirely sure what the final one should look like...
Current icon looks fine, maybe make it red.
Or a red downward arrow with an ! in it as in keep your head down or down as in a negative condition.
Then you can have up arrows as positive effects like moral check save from nearby commanders or alien equivalents.
Having some kind of indicator to show what modifiers are on a unit would be helpful for revealing mechanics such as moral boost range.
Last edited by spinaljack; 06-22-2012 at 11:24.
I have played both the Quick Battle against the Androns and normal UFO battles since the latest patch. I have never suppressed an Andron, but the basic weaponry your troops start with contains no weapons that excel at suppression. In the basic UFO battles even without a machinegun you can regularly suppress non combatants with basic fire. Your suggestion to make non-coms more brave seems to make sense.
I understand our difference of opinion, but in my opinion to providing enough firepower for someone to be unable react to others should take a substantial amount of fire. To me the tactical use of suppression is not to allow a soldier to charge up to him from the front without risk, but to hold the enemy in place while your troops move around to flank or mass allow you to concentrate your firepower against the target.
Would I be wrong in thinking that the aim of everyone is to be able to implement the tactic of "fix, flank, finish"? And that discussion is more about the journey than the destination?
Max - that's spot on in my opinion. I think the main point for me is that, even suppressed, an alien should pose a threat to some joker running straight up to them with a shotgun, and that's why I think an accuracy reduction or a suppressed unit only having a chance to reaction fire would be a good way to go. Or, how about suppression causes a range reduction on the unit? Tweaking the weapons values, it's clear how closely the range stat seems to be linked to accuracy and this would mean that suppressed units have little chance of making a meaningful contribution to a ranged engagement, and they'll be easy prey for a flanking force who keep their distance, but they won't be helpless against a shotgunner who thinks he can run straight up to a suppressed enemy to finish him off.
Saying that though, I seem to remember Chris saying that suppression was intended as a way for stun rod equipped units to close the gap with aliens, so maybe that needs to be taken into account?
Tags for this Thread