Dagar

The question is, what role this should fill compared to the grenade launcher (that replaces the rocket launcher from X1), especially as the Grenade Launcher will not computationally fire in an arc,

Hey, X2 will also take place in the Cold War scenario. As such, factions could be as simple as the blocks of the cold war era, with some "neutral" nations having their own agendas (e.g. collaborating with the aliens to become a global player once the sovjets and the capitalists are overthrown), but there was no mention of how the cold war era would be better integrated into the game, just that this is a goal. NGOs with own agendas surely would be cool as well.

Okay, I understand that you wanted to write your position on the topic in a prominent position before any prolonged discussion arises. I also am aware that the game is in a very early state and that, naturally, you are doing the best job you can to give us a great game, and it is good to read that you have interesting decisions in mind as a leading factor to design the core mechanisms. No, they are not. What I had in mind is that you keep your achievement driven upgrade system for soldiers, but give players the opportunity to choose what bonus they want to get once they unlocked an achievement. Let me give some examples: In my game of X1 I use Specialists as mules, basically. They can shoot alright, but they are there to carry rockets for my rocketeer, ammo for my MG gunner or medkits. Let's say there is an achievement where a soldier has to go 5kg overweight into a mission in order to get a bonus to carrying. Now the player can choose between giving the character more strength, a bigger inventory or less TU costs to use or drop an item from the backpack or belt. That way the player can choose one of these that fits his play style and the character the most; is there enough room and he just is there to carry another ammo box more, give him more strength. Do you want more utility (e.g. make him carry a riot shield for better protection), give him more inventory space. Do you want him to be a medic or c4 throwing specialist, give him the TU reduction. One achievement for good shooting could be to kill 3 aliens who had cover against the soldier. Now you could choose a flat accuracy increase, a slightly lower TU cost for aimed shots or to omit the accuracy penalty after movement. Now, still each soldier can do each achievement and the order in which you attempt them is still as important as if you just have one bonus for one achievement, but you have some choices and therefore means to fit your troops to your needs and play style. This is not the same as your restriction to base slot usage (I have not said anything about the inventory and I am not sure atm what you plan with it); it would be the same if you allowed each soldier only to get five achievements each from the accuracy/reflexes category, five from strength/hp and five from TU/bravery. Here we have different opinions. X1 allowed any soldier to carry anything, and still we equip them differently (not just from soldier to soldier, but also from player to player) and there are different roles they naturally fill on the battlefield due to the equipment you brought, the properties they have and where they fit in the squad. It could have been even better in my opinion, but not with any restriction, but rather with a system that rewards not packing your backpack to the carrying limit (e.g. with additional TUs or less TU cost for shooting) and having enough equipment that the decision the player makes is not 'do I take a smoke grenade or a gas grenade more?' (implying that I already have at least one each) as it is in X1 but rather 'I really want to take the heat vision goggles, but I'd have to leave either the grappling hook or the heavy plating. Do I exchange better vision for mobility or survivability?' Concerning your examples of base buildings in the respective categories, I do not really see any overpowered combination that you prevent by your type restriction, but of course, I might be wrong there.

Thanks Chris for the answer, I hope that is not what you took away from my post (the language barrier might have done some harm here, I am no native speaker). I am not a person to criticize new ideas, very much to the contrary, and I love the fact that you try to transport the cold war feeling more than you did in X1. I just wanted to encourage you to not just remake X1 (as in staying very conservative with changes) or bring X2 closer to 'contemporary' games like XCOM 2, but to build and follow your own vision for the game. From what I have read, much of this vision involves streamlining, which is okay, but with every element you remove as well as with every new element introduced, you should ask yourself not only if it works in the context of the game's setting and rule system, but also if it brings with it interesting decisions, and not only for the first playthrough. You have the rare advantage that you have a fan and player base that likes games that stem from a time where the game did not take the player by the hand and lead him (or her) through every step of the game. We are an audience that likes to find out things for themselves; you had no need for any equipment restrictions for classes, you left it to your players to find out what works best for them; you did not need to press players into building a second or third base and hint what rooms they should be composed of in X1; we found out ourselves that this is a good way to prevent countries from decreasing funding and what it takes to keep them operational. Do not restrict us on needless things like what number of buildings for each type we may build in X2; we will find out what works for us. Do not make soldier development a no brainer achievement collection; give us choices and opportunities to specialize; present us with trade-offs and hard decisions. I do not fear new mechanisms to learn, I fear that there will be no consequences of what I am doing or that the optimal path will lay out very clear. @Sheepy: I thought so, but I was not completely sure and did not want to hi-jack your thread.

Dear Goldhawk Interactive, dear reader, this first post aims to present my personal thoughts about Xenonauts 2 and the path the game takes from the information that is given until now, but I invite you to discuss the matter, disagree with me, add points or do whatever you feel appropriate. I am not an expert in the first game (I am still in my first campaign), neither in the old XCOM games (I played a bit of Afterlight and Aftershock), but I am quite familiar with XCOM: Enemy Within, Long War and XCOM 2. However, I really enjoy Xenonauts and I want the second part to be a success. Xenonauts 1 aimed to recreate the feeling and gameplay of the original XCOM (or UFO). I cannot really comment on how well this goal was achieved, but I like the outcome. Xenonauts feels like a solid and round gaming experience, which has some rough edges that I generally take to be amicable characteristics that make the game stand out rather than flaws. From what I have read so far (and I have read the majority of forum threads here) X2 wants to reimplement X1 with better graphics, smoother gameplay and better story. That involves leaving out a fair chunk of mechanisms (which in itself is not bad; "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."), including vehicles (or at least the bigger than one tile ones from X1; entities like drones or SHIVs from XCOM EW might be there), the workshop/lab duality, the story driving research, multiple bases the consequential progression of your area of influence, and troop transport aircraft. Other mechanisms are altered, like the base layout (slots instead of a grid), the air combat (from single aircraft to squads, more tactical), a perk tree for your soldiers unlocked by 'achievements' in the engagements for soldier progression, the randomized tactical map layout, story and goals for the player and the aliens. New things also are to be added, like the Psionics system for humans (which already was in the original XCOM) and more mission types. You, Goldhawk team, have established a new franchise with Xenonauts, that primarily was there to satisfy gamers that wanted that 'old XCOM' feeling back. Most of the ideas I read about X2 point in a direction of cutting everything that did not work well in X1, and adding mostly better graphics, comfort and story and its related mechanisms. Your crowd of people are players of the old XCOMs and openXcom for the most part. I think, in general, they are like me in believing that better graphics are nice, but secondary at best. Comfort functions are good and in some places direly needed (like showing which obstructions my shot will have from a certain location). Story in a 'real' Cold War setting is very promising, but from what I read, this might not be all that well implemented. The bottom line here for me is: you take a bunch of choices we had in X1 (paragraph of things cut) and seem to not replace them. Strategic and tactical games are all about choices the player has, even more so if they are turn based (as you have unlimited time to choose). Where is our East vs. West balancing? If the Aliens try to weaken mankind, the most obvious way would be to make the Cold War go hot. Where are our benefits in more aligning with the Soviets or the Capitalists (i.e. making more missions for them, strengthening their military and independence)? Why are there 5 slots each for management, research and military in the base? Why not make all slots available and let the player choose what he wants to build in them? With more buildings than slots, these will still be meaningful decisions, just more free than in your plan. Why are soldier perks collectibles that are tied to achieving something on the battlefield? There is no real choice there, a sniper will always have to ramp up kills to get these aim perks. What about achievements that give us choice of perks? What about trade-offs of the type '+5 aim, no damage grenades'? Just fulfilling mini missions in the missions is not a real choice, at most a choice of prioritizing. Why have multiple weapon tiers when there are clearly better ones? Instead of limiting our use of tiers by imposing an artificial ammo infrastructure on us, why not make them differ more? Laser weapons could be more accurate and long range, plasma could penetrate armour better, mag weapons could have a chance to panic the enemy, coil guns could have a higher chance to suppress. Even if damage increase during the game should be a thing, why can we not upgrade these systems to have similar damage output in the end to use these unique properties? Why can our soldiers have all their TUs with 30kg of equipment and less if they carry more, but not the other way around? Why only one base raid mission when the aliens clearly could start multiple attempts? Why not a choice between translocator or troop transports? Or both, but none of it that well. In X1, I built one base with only scientists and a second with only engineers to help their respective output and keeping the infrastructure streamlined. I also had multiple bases with squads in order to answer to multiple simultaneous UFOs shot down. Not all players have one main base in X1 and only bare bones secondaries for scanner coverage and pilots. With only one base, fixed slots for buildings, instant deployment and access to the whole globe from the beginning, you leave a hole in our decision space that should be filled by new, meaningful and thematic choices. I have read little here that resembles these filler choices. Sure, the whole stealth vs. going loud aspect of the geoscape is interesting, but inevitable. You only choose the point in time you do it, and this choice will vanish with experience (namely knowing when you are ready to take on the base assault). What X1 missed for me was some comfort (like waiting for dawn before going on a mission and the already mentioned shot preview) and more equipment (night vision, smoke vision, heat vision, armour that makes you harder to hit, repair kits for shields, more rocket variants, a camera drone to scout, ...), not that R&D were one and the same or a perk system instead of the rank ups and stat increases. I know from experience that one's own vision of a product can differ vastly from what a customer might want, and I am just one of them, so please take this post as what it is meant to be: one person's opinion. Just take away from this wall of text that there are people out there that care for depth more than they care for a shiny wrapping. And depth in video games is usually created with meaningful choices. Best Regards, Dagar