cardboardMike

I have a theory that there is a very strong correlation between how good a turn-based game is (i.e. how well it scores on metacritic) and how fast (or "snappy") the turns are. I can think of several examples at both ends of the spectrum that support this. So it's good that this has been done.

With people stuck indoors. Like Mount and Blade.

I'm just sitting here waiting for the game to go into early access.

I don't have early access but have been waiting patiently for X2 for a while. Every few months I dip back into the forums to see how much progress has been made. I don't necessarily say this in a negative way, but it sounds like a large number of changes planned for X2 have been replaced by exactly the same mechanics in X1, often after (maybe not as a result of) complaining on these forums. Things that spring to mind are base mechanics and air combat. Whereas I hoped X2 would be able to evolve X1 in some positive ways, it seems that is not happening. Rather it's going to be the same thing with better graphics. That probably suits a lot of people here, but I can't help thinking it could have been more adventurous.

On the 10 o'clock news, people are questioning the combat tactics of the xenonauts. Why do they stay crouched behind cover and not do anything whilst the aliens shoot them? Sources inside xenonauts are reported to have said this customary, the aliens will also stop doing anything and let the xenonauts shoot at them for a bit.

My experience is based on the difference between playing X1 and XCOM2 and in fairness probably is in part ranting about X1. If I had to guess I would say I am probably on my 40th playthrough of Veteran Ironman by now - I get a little further each time. I agree that XCOM2 was too forgiving, particularly in the late-game when there was an abundance of money. But I think a halfway-house between both would be good. I don't mind the player being punished to the point where they lose, but at the moment the player could lose even if they are playing a brilliant game on the strategic layer, just because of one or two bad decisions. As an example, in my last game it was early Feb when my Shrike was downed (I stupidly decided to play out the engagement between my condor and a heavy fighter, something I usually win) on the way to an alien base. I then couldn't defeat the alien base with what was left of my A-team and B-team. In retrospect, I should have extracted the bodies of the second squad from the base before getting completely wiped in order to keep the weapons, but seeing as all my best soldiers were dead I could no longer be bothered. So I gave up even though I had ~$1 million, all continents and ~full coverage. I didn't really see how I could win with only pvts left. To me, that penalty feels too harsh for what was essentially a very small number of poor decisions. I know it's Veteran and it should be hard, but there is still a harder difficulty... Edit: I would also point out that this isn't a rant based on a single playthrough. It seems like every time I fail it isn't because of general bad play over a sustained period, but a single, cataclysmic event that is very difficult to recover from. E.g. my first terror mission, base randomly attacked etc. I guess it would make more sense to savescum the game first rather than play blind, but it just doesn't seem right.

Of course you can boil any complaint about the difficulty down to learning to play better or getting gud. I could equally ask why should the player be given a free aircraft when one of theirs gets destroyed? They should just player better and not lose any aircraft. The point is the player should not be disproportionately punished for minor mistakes. If was as easy as just withdrawing your men if the mission is too tough then it wouldn't matter. But then there are the terror missions that you have to do or lose a region. Or getting your base raided whilst your A-team are away. Or getting your drop ship shot down. Then there is just the fact that it isn't that fun getting your last 2 remaining squad members to carry 8 corpses across the whole map of an alien base mission, just so you can recover their loot.

I am currently playing through veteran ironman on X1. I get that it is supposed to be hard, but something that strikes me more "unfair" that "hard" is how difficult it is to recover from a catastrophe. Your playthrough can go from great to a lost-cause in a matter of seconds with little you can do about it. If you get squad-wiped, you not only potentially lose a good chunk of your high-ranking soldiers, but also all your weapons and armour too. The only way you can replace lost soldiers is by levelling-up new ones through missions, which at that point are probably too hard for pvts. The only way to get your weapons and armour back is to rebuild them (costs could easily be in the millions). It's clear in the philosophy of X1 that compromises were made to assist recovery (for example, destroyed aircraft isn't permanently destroyed), it seems a little strange that this didn't happen more with some other systems. It would be useful for example if it were possible to directly recruit higher-ranking soldiers.

Thanks. How many soldiers should I look to have in the rotation?

I have crashed out quite a few Veteran Ironman runs now. The farthest I have got was plasma weapons, shrike, wolf armour. However I lost 2 continents in January and about 3 high ranking soldiers in one mission. With little cash coming in, the situation didn't seem reversible. My question is how to you cope with losing your best soldiers later in the game? As far as I am aware, there isn't a mechanism to recruit anything but pvts, which are very difficult to keep alive in later missions. Do you just have to try your best to keep everyone alive? Or do you reach a point where technology makes everyone a killing machine? Should I be rotating men through missions more? I generally play with around 14 soldiers but tend to use the same ones every mission.