Komandos

The problem is not that there are too many alien materials. The problem is that alien materials are only needed to equip 8-10-12 soldiers. If you reduce the team size to 3-5 soldiers, the purpose of alien materials becomes irrelevant. Randomly distributing rare artifacts is sufficient. 2. When aliens attack a player's base, they must have a strategic goal in mind. For example, they might want to destroy a warehouse with all its contents. They might also want to destroy a radar or an energy generator.

Хто не скаче той прибулець (The one who doesn't jump on the spot is an alien)

‎The presence of 6 bases in the game implies the presence of 6 fronts and 6 "flags" that are being fought for. It is similar to a chess competition on 6 chessboards. The player does not know the region (base area) where the aliens will concentrate their forces and launch their main attack. The aliens will conduct reconnaissance missions to find bases where the player's soldiers are less effective in combat and attempt to launch their main attack in that region. The player must anticipate the direction of the aliens' main attacks and strategically allocate their reserves. I find this concept fascinating. There will be many small reconnaissance skirmishes around the world, followed by a series of very large attacks with a large concentration of troops on one of your bases (one region) in an attempt to deplete your defenders. Unfortunately, the game does not support the number of soldiers at the platoon level. ‎Thus, the main alien attack will be similar to reconnaissance missions (battles), except for the frequency of attacks. To fully utilize the 6 bases in the game, some modifications to the game, alien strategy, and battle scale are required.

A decent woman does not give birth before her due date.

What do neural networks think about the number of soldiers in the UF game? How can I achieve the project goals? a) Diversity of scale (Task 1, 5) Bottom line: 18-24 units is the optimal maximum.** - **For normal missions**: 8-12 (stress-free controls). - **For large-scale battles**: 12-16 (difficulty progression). - **For finals**: 18-24+ allied NPCs (epic, but without routine). This approach retains the spirit of the classics (UFO 1-2 scale), but adapts it to modern UX standards and tactical depth.

It's a sword by weight.

To increase the difficulty, we have already tried to increase the accuracy of the aliens, increase the armor of the aliens and other characteristics of the aliens. But players complained that the aliens were getting too strong, and in the new versions of the game, the aliens were weakened again. How else can you increase the power of aliens without increasing their characteristics? Only by increasing the number of aliens.

If the player has progress in development, and the aliens do not have progress in development, then naturally the player's victory over the aliens becomes easier. I consider it a violation of the balance if the player has progress in the number of soldiers on the battlefield, and the aliens do not have this progress. I also believe that for the game it is necessary that the study of transport with a large number of soldiers becomes available for research only after the appearance of UFOs with a large number of soldiers.

This will force the player to start a new game every time until he gets a convenient configuration of the first base. This will force the player to save the game before building a new base. The idea is interesting, but players don't like to depend on chance in the most important cases.

If the player has progress in development, and the aliens do not have progress in development, then naturally the player's victory over the aliens becomes easier.

Additional gameplay difficulty settings can be opened after the player completes the game. (When the player needs additional innovations and the novelty of the gameplay.) 2. If a player is a bad tactician and loses too many of his soldiers in combat missions, then only he himself can choose a comfortable balance of the game (the complexity of the game). It is possible to increase the dimensions of the vehicle (the number of soldiers transported) by reducing the speed of this vehicle. The player will have to make a choice: either get to the place of completion of the task earlier (start completing the task earlier) and get a tactical, strategic, financial bonus (reward) from this. Or arrive at the place of completion of the task later and with a large number of soldiers, but get less reward for it. (For example: the later the player arrives at the task, the less cash bonus and government approval the player will receive). The player's ability (if desired by the player himself) to take more soldiers on a mission also opens up the opportunity for the player to train (train) more soldiers. This makes the loss of experienced soldiers in battle less painful and less critical for the player.

The fact that you could live a good life without requiring the maximum number of kidneys (two) does not mean that one kidney is superfluous, and the arguments in favor of removing the "extra" second kidney are correct. If the player wants to take fewer soldiers with him on a combat mission, then let him take fewer soldiers with him on a combat mission. Currently, the game makes it easy for you to do this. You cannot force your tactics on the rest of the player, who need more soldiers to complete the task. More soldiers (More soldiers compared to fewer soldiers): can make more shots in one turn, can kill more aliens in 1 turn, can explore more space in one turn. Consequently, more soldiers can complete any task faster. I see no point in increasing the difficulty of the game and increasing the time to complete combat missions by reducing the number of soldiers in battle. The game is already quite difficult, and the number of combat missions in the game is large enough to further increase the complexity of the game and the time to complete combat missions. I believe that the desired number of soldiers in battle should be added to the difficulty settings of the game. Then each player will be able to choose the difficulty of the game (the number of soldiers in battle) at their discretion. Why force all the players to play the game the way you personally like to play?

One kidney is enough for a person to live. Should people have a second kidney removed?

There are many role-playing games (RPG) where the player controls exactly a small number of Units. But in such games, the system of role-playing interaction of characters and character development is very well developed. Because: The intensity of tactical battles alone is not enough for the player to be interested in participating in the huge number of battles that are present in role-playing games. By reducing the number of soldiers in combat: we reduce the tactical variety of situations in combat and do not give the player anything in return: Neither a huge number of things and objects (which are present in role-playing games), nor character development. Besides role-playing games, there are also strategy games. In these games, there are a huge number of units on the battlefield. The development of role-playing characteristics in strategic games may not be at all. There may also be no items, equipment, or trophies that can be given to units and put on Units. However, in such games, a huge number of tactical situations arise on the battlefield. That is why strategy games are interesting to many players. Games like UFO (X-Com) occupy an intermediate position between role-playing games and strategy games. If we want to reduce the number of units on the battlefield (thereby reducing tactical diversity), then we must increase the number of role-playing elements in this game. Otherwise, we will get a copy of the role-playing game with 5-12 characters. but without a role-playing system. I believe that in a game that should have a lot of battles: there should be a huge number of items (as in the OpenXcom: X-Piratez modification, where we meet new items in almost every battle, even at the very late stages of the game), there should be more scientific research (new research appears after each battle); There should be more opportunities for the development of role-playing characteristics, there should be more game locations. And vice versa: in games where only a few battles take place throughout the game (wargames, strategy games), a huge number of troops (units) and a huge number of types of troops are created. Total: It all depends on the number of battles (on average for the entire game), which we will focus on when creating the game. For example, I prefer 10-20 battles for the whole game, but large battles (number of Units 16-36), than 100 battles but small battles (number of Units 3-12)

The complexity of the "Soldier". Day 58. Completed the task without loss: "The UFO crash site." At the moment, this is the easiest task in the game. I have now flown out on a mission to "Free 10 captured civilians." I took the strongest, fastest and most experienced soldiers on a mission. And although I managed to free 4 civilians, and I have 2 more moves left to free the rest, I no longer know if I will bring this fight to an end or replay it in another way: (completely ignoring the goal of freeing civilians in 8 moves). Because the task of freeing 10 civilians in 8 moves is impossible (in full), and the process of freeing civilians is more like self-sabotage, a "meat attack" and getting rid of their best soldiers. In completing this task, I made two blunders that no rookie player is immune from. My first mistake was to try to honestly complete the task I received at the mission briefing (to free 10 civilians in 8 turns). My second mistake was to send the best soldiers on this mission. I believe that many novice players will also make a similar mistake - trying to complete the task "free 10 civilians in 8 turns" without having the slightest idea about the strength and number of aliens in this location, as well as the chances of successfully completing such a task. And if the players send their best soldiers on a similar mission, then they will simply arrange a massacre for their best soldiers. In the future: I'm going to ignore such tasks (release 10 civilians in 8 turns). In the first 6 turns of the game: One of my soldiers blew himself up with his own grenade (game error?) trying to throw a grenade at an alien. Two of my soldiers who fled to free civilians were killed by aliens. Three more are seriously injured, bleeding and it is not known if I will be able to evacuate them from the battlefield. I will probably lose 3 more of my soldiers in this battle, since the next move is for the enemy and the enemy is standing too close to my soldiers. Total: the elite of my troops, which I collected for 58 game days, were destroyed by 2/3 in an attempt to free 10 civilians in 8 turns, who, in principle, cannot be freed in 8 turns. I don't mind the presence of "meat attacks" in the game. I don't mind having potentially impossible tasks in the game. This adds spice to the gameplay. However, in the briefing on the implementation of novice missions, you should honestly warn that the given task is potentially impossible. That the specified task potentially represents a "meat attack". And if "meat attacks/assaults" occur in the game and the player loses his best soldiers in them, then the reward for completing such tasks should cover all possible losses. Personally, I despair when I lose my best soldiers and realize that the goal of "liberating 10 civilians in 8 moves" cannot be achieved in principle, and the reward (if successful) is not able to compensate for the loss of experienced soldiers.