Leaderboard

God I absolutely agree with this wholeheartedly. It's incredibly annoying how some people keep throwing out shit like "BUT REAL SOLDIERS CAN CARRY 50 KITCHEN SINKS AS PART OF BASIC TRAINING" or inflating the soldier count to some absurd number like 3 dozen and never actually give out how exactly it would improve the game and or result in meaningful choices by the player. It's always some vague high minded concept about "being more real" when all it results in actuality is tedium or flat player choice.

Okay, this is probably the last reply you're gonna get out of me, so let me make this one count. Yeah, we know there are different games with different scales. You might notice that Warcraft and Doom also have entirely different control schemes, entirely different pacing, and are in entirely different genres. But we're talking about Xenonauts 2, a game which has already had a Kickstarter campaign and a closed beta, and is now in open beta. You are really not beating the allegations that you are using sophistry or that you honest-to-god just have no idea what you're talking about, if you are implying that Xenonauts 2 can now pivot to being a game on an entirely different scale on a whim. The first paragraph here is built on the interpretation that my argument is about how players self-identify in the game (I think you really meant to say "self insert," but that's neither here nor there). And that's a misrepresentation of what I said, because I clearly said, "It was tedious to keep track of," as my reason for disliking 26 soldiers in those games. And the second paragraph is kind of telling me you either didn't play those old Xcom games or you had no idea what you were looking at when you played them, because no, it wasn't really about player choice to be a "platoon commander" or a "squad commander." In UFO Defense, you had to start with the Skyranger and bring 14 soldiers because that was the best tech available, and then when you upgraded to Avenger and got to bring 26 soldiers, it wasn't really a choice because you were just handicapping yourself if you didn't bring more soldiers when the game let you. These were games that set a challenge in front of the player and tasked them to defeat the challenge, but you're talking about them like they're sandbox role-playing games. Jesus Christ, man, did you just think readers wouldn't notice that you're talking about UFO Defense like it was Stardew Valley or Minecraft, or is this really an actual argument you thought would sway people? This is the first thing you've typed in this thread that I agreed with. Yeah, you have the right to "demand" the game to be anything. Let's just be a bit more honest about your demands, alright? You can "demand" that a machine gun in the game weighs just as much as a machine gun in real life or whatever other thing. When people ask you why you'd want that, just say it like it is: it appeals to your sense of immersion and you've given absolutely no thought to how it'd impact game balance or how much other people would enjoy the game or, in fact, what genre the game set out to be, or what the lead developer has said about the direction he wants to take the game in, or the other objections that I think you routinely read from other posters when you bring up your ideas. Edit: Oh yeah, and if it helps, naming yourself "Kommandos" and then having your avatar be a picture of a sad little blue-eyed, blond-haired boy isn't a great look if you want people to tolerate the sophistry you try to put out on the internet.

Agree. It seems we have few people here who really struggle to grasp the concept of game design. No matter how realistic the game's theme is, all the design decisions need to be made with gameplay and balance in mind. And no, that doesn't mean the game needs any magic or dragons. We can have a nice and realistic milsim themed game where gameplay and balance still comes first. I'ven seen so many walls of text here describing everything between ancient war techniques and modern SWAT tactics just to justify odd changes in the game that I can't even bother to read them any more. Even if something is objectively more realistic, it still doesn't guarantee to make the game better.

"Meh," on these posts about realism. You look at that real life training with firearms, you look at chess, and consider whether this turn-based science fiction strategy game about shooting aliens looks more like those or chess. If additional realism will make the game deeper and more interesting, then sure. But what I see are posts where Chris, the lead developer, says stuff about how he meant for Strength as a stat in the game to give players an opportunity to make interesting choices with what their soldiers can carry, and then players posting suggestions about how Strength can do just that, and then some dude who really loves realism in the game makes a post to essentially educate everyone about what modern soldiers carry in their backpacks as a way to argue against the lead developer of the game. I'm "Meh" on that idea With all love and respect, I think you should read over and check the tones of your own posts in this thread and possibly other threads if you're shocked that people talk to you that way.

It is very unrealistic for researches to do Nothing. Therefore, there should be some kind of research always possible to choose. Something similar was in Master of Orion, when there was no research anymore, player could choose "future tech" which gave next level of miniaturizations for each complete level of that tech. Just a though. I know, researchers are making income when idle, but still, it is unrealistic.

In the game "Warcraft", "Start Craft" there were even more soldiers (units). Someone found it tedious and therefore played the game "Doom", where the player had only one character under control. It is normal if tactics at the platoon level have the number of soldiers equal to one platoon, and tactics at the army level have the number of soldiers, which is already in the hundreds. The argument that it is better for players to self-identify themselves in the game as a squad leader (manage soldiers in one squad) than to self-identify themselves as a platoon commander (manage soldiers in one platoon) is not an argument that this is a good thing to have. The old UFO: 1-2, X-COM:3 games are good because the player had a choice: to be a "platoon commander" or a "squad commander". I don't see any advantage in the fact that the game deprives the player of the opportunity to choose.

Well go on. Tell us which game design concepts you had in mind with your suggestions. I don't think anyone in this thread finds your suggestions to come with too little explanation. This is a word salad trying to pass off a non-argument as if it was an intelligible response to the (extremely straightforward) thing Skitso said. Skitso said that all decisions to change the game has to include game design and balance in mind. You merely pointed out that there are players at different levels as if that makes game design such an incredibly difficult and mystifying task that it somehow invalidates what they said, so that instead of making decisions to change the game to include game design and balance, it would somehow be better to make decisions to change the game based on realism. But this doesn't make sense at all as an argument, because if game balance is such a difficult thing, it actually makes more sense to make every decision to change the game with game design and balance in mind.

I was there and I played those games. Yeah, it was too many soldiers. It was tedious to keep track of and became a detriment to gameplay. It would also be so in Xenonauts 2. An argument that you could have 26 soldiers in Xcom and TFTD isn't an argument that this is a good thing to have. They asked for some explanation of why this is a positive for gameplay, not whether another game you enjoyed had the same mechanic. Games you enjoy can have bad mechanics, and we hope their spiritual successors (like Xenonauts to Xcom) refine the formula, not repeat it by rote. This is such a grossly disingenuous way to respond to their argument. You know they're not talking about changing the entire genre or aesthetic of the game, you know they're not talking about completely divorcing the game from reality so that a gun makes you run faster or survive better, you know that the developers aren't out to make the most accurate military simulation it can, and you know you haven't addressed the main point they're trying to make, which is that they'd like to see your suggestion about how to shape the game come with an explanation of how it'd make the game more interesting in terms of the choices a player would have to decide to make. In lieu of actually engaging with their concern, you've brought out a strawman to just try to make him look ridiculous. This is just sophistry and petty bullying. Now, I haven't been around the forum the entire time, because I only dipped in to give my feedback for Milestone 1 and now I'm dipping in again to give my feedback for Milestone 2, so maybe you've already done it, but it strikes me that Instead of clogging up other people's threads that have productive suggestions on how to improve the game, you can go make your own thread with all your feedback about what's not realistic enough and then see if Chris comes in and says, "wowee! We never thought that a machine gun in the game had to weigh exactly as much as a machine gun does in real life! Thanks! We'll make that change right away!"

4 by day 200? I had 4 by Day 35. There is no other critical stuff. 2nd base? Not important because losing the game by panic is no longer a thing. Armor? I already have full Warden by day 55. Weapons? Got 2 accel snipers in mid 30s, you can postpone that to get laser, but then again, Gauss is not that far off either and the only thing that's tough to beat with bad weapons is the Cyberdrone, but even that can be smoked so it wouldn't hit the broad side of a barn and then grinded down with grenades and focus fire. Air? I've tried Sidewinder and Accel Autocannon. Both are meh, I've got myself a 2nd autocannon instead of armor and fuel. It's funny how you don't need as much fuel if you just double your damage output... 2nd Angel isn't a priority either, just 1 with basic twin Autocannons takes care of business if you know what you're doing in manual combat.

This mission is so easy it's essentially free money even on Commander. Just give everyone a Shotgun and Heavy Armor, all the Cleaners fold in 1 turn.

See link

There is actually pop-up warning before mission. However, there is no pop-up warning about rescuing the VIP, which should be corrected. Yes, would be great to have bigger bases. Especially with stairs and elevators. Game states it is modified Chinook which sacrifice cargo/troops for fuel. Even so, even with filling up whole Chinook with fuel, it would be not able to reach such vast distances as is stated in game - above some, specific point for any air engine, there is weight that such engine will not take of from ground anymore, no matter how much fuel would be provided, so, in short, adding additional fuel, after some specific point, is only making things worse, rather than better. I am personally explaining this as Chinook being refueled mid fly be air tankers :). However, it would be nice to be able to specify fuel/cargo for each of aircrafts to manipulate theirs maximum speed, range, cargo, as it is done in a real world. This would be quite an advancement for a game, but I think devs could implement this quite easily. Page up / Page down And as well would be useful, to have option for reaction, to choose what kind of fire mode should be used - snap/aimed/burst, if have melee weapon at hand, could charge if alien within (lets say) 3 tiles away, and stab an alien with many melee hits, or... option to run away if see a Reaper, and so on. Would be so much tactical option, and really a lot of fun to play with. Yes, it is very, very clunky right now. I advise as well to set fixed teams, and reserve soldiers which are attached to each teamed soldier, as a temporary replacement if such soldier is in hospital ward, or lightly injuried. It would save huge amount of micromanagement which is actually completely pointless, as each time some soldier is wounded, player has to manually pick some. This could be streamlined. There is little benefit, and most of weapons are just barely better for theirs price. I've made only pistols and shotguns as these are crucial because soldiers wielding them have to be close to enemy and takes the highest risk of alien retaliation. Currently with economy in place, most of my spendings go into expanding and improving fleet of interceptors. While I still have basic ballistic guns (mostly, with few exceptions I mentioned), I already have 2x Tier 2 interceptors plus 6x Tier 1. It pays off.

...and with these replies you just proved my point. No point to continue this discussion.