Leaderboard

Hello devs. I hope that you finally make two-stage "Terror" missions. I always saw it like this: 1. Destruction of enemy forces in the city; 2. Subsequent assault on alien transport. Missions of this kind are not very frequent, so I think the additional complexity and duration will not hurt them. Does it make sense to offer you any ideas now?

Well, imagine a sniper and a spotter. The person looking through the scope has a very narrow field of view so they have someone with binoculars to do the scanning.

Yeah, we'll have local forces. They may not *always* be friendly but they will be there.

Given the shadow war approach the game seems to be taking, the local forces could be made hostile too. There is a possibility of stealth/non-lethal gameplay, and that could be expanded to local forces as well. Fighting aliens and their henchmen with lethal force, but carrying stun weapons in case the local forces attempt to engage you and the aliens. There was also talk about intelligence gathering being a requirement to missions, and that could be used to tag local forces are enemies or not, and maybe even allies. That way, if acting on weak intel, you might be required to investigate to see if the a unit is a local force or an alien force before killing/subduing. If acting on strong intel, maybe you are able to arrive dressed in their uniforms or something and fool the local forces to work with you. Time will tell!

Making Terror missions two-parters would up the difficulty. Those missions are supposed to be gruelling - having to push through with an injured squad / depleted grenades would add a twist that cranked up the hardness without being as mundane as "more numerous + more powerful enemies". Also, this could perhaps allow you to skip the second part if you weren't up for it: less risk, fewer rewards.

The reason why accurate data in a game is very important is because it's the only reliable way to know how a game works. In real life you don't need 100% accurate data because the world operates according to various scientific laws that you can use to predict the outcome of a battlefield event - e.g. if you fire a rifle and a bullet falls short of a target, you don't need any accurate computer data to know that you need to aim a bit higher with your next shot (or get closer). The laws of physics apply on the battlefield just as they do in real life. That's not the case in video games because you don't know how far the developers have gone to model reality. If the bullet falls short twice in a row, it could be because the developers have accurately modeled weapon range and bullet drop, so the next shot needs to be taken from closer in. It might be because you got unlucky with the RNG, so you should stay where you are and keep shooting. It might be because one of the intervening cover objects is massively reducing your chance-to-hit, so you need to move a few squares laterally to shoot around it. It might be because there's some kind of bug in the game and there's literally no way you'll ever be able to hit that shot. As a player, I definitely want to know which of those it is - particularly if it's an unforgiving strategy game that sets out to punish me for planning badly.

Sure, but there's no reason you can't do some of both.