Komandos

As an alternative to the "automatic battle", it does not look bad. It resembles the mechanics of the game "Heroes of Magic and Sword". There are immortal heroes in this game who participate in the battle, but cannot be killed in battle. And there are troops who are suffering losses. Only immortal heroes can raise the level of development and accumulate experience.

Stress and fatigue

The stress mechanism is able to work (appear) as a valuable resource in the game, only when the aliens use massive attacks (raids). In these cases, the player needs to maintain an army of several tactical groups so that the soldiers do not lose combat capability after several battles in a row. Tactical groups also need to create a sleep and rest regime. So that the tactical group, which spent a day on combat duty, could not fight effectively after the end of the work shift. All this requires the creation of a full-fledged army structure for the player's army (similar to how it exists in the Warhammer game)

Stress, overwork, on the contrary, make a soldier less attentive and more indifferent to danger. The stress indicator should reduce reaction speed, accuracy, endurance, strength and health. On the contrary, courage increases with severe fatigue. If you have ever cared for wild animals, you should know that if wild animals lose their fear and wild animals stop being afraid, then this is a sign that the animal is weak and sick. A dying animal is completely indifferent to any danger.

If the game is based on logic, then the player should have time and opportunity (pause) to think about it. If reflexes and reaction speed are required from the player, then the game cannot be called logical.

The ability to heal soldiers (after infecting with maggots) will make the game less dramatic. Previously, the aliens had almost no weapons that were guaranteed to kill xenonauts with one blow, and now the aliens will not have such weapons at all. The aliens become weaker and less scary on the battlefield.

There are simply not enough events in the game that require the player to react (action). I would advise giving the player more money so that the player can look less into the void on the monitor screen, waiting for a new event. The player should take more part in the construction of bases. The lack of micro-management makes the game empty and boring in those moments when the player has to wait for the next UFO appearance or a new task. For example: if in the game "HMM:3" remove from the strategic map all the bonuses and resources that the player can collect by exploring the world around him, then the game instantly becomes boring and empty for the entire period, which is while he is waiting for the completion of the construction of his city (castle). Because there are no events happening at the moment. The player is just waiting for the accumulation of sufficient resources to enable new construction.

The game as it exists in 2023: - you can already play in 2023. It exists in the public domain. The game in the form in which it will be in a while: - it will be possible to play only after a while.

Footprints in the snow should not disappear at all, only during heavy snowfall or blizzard.

Instead of displaying progress using %%, you can change the color of regions on the planet map. Alien activity (panic) can be displayed in a similar way

I also remember my first fight in UFO:1 where several (2-3) surviving aliens completely killed my entire team of 14 soldiers. In Xenonauts 1, I had battles in which my soldiers completely destroyed themselves on their own. (Friendly fire, suppression, a grenade thrown at oneself and comrades' feet). Also in the game Xenonauts 1 there were very poor settings: the range of visibility, the range of weapons, which forced them to play very slowly and walk in dense crowds, exposing soldiers to the risk of being killed by "friendly fire". As a result: I continue to play the game with my own settings. As a result: the battles in Xenonauts 1 were difficult only because they forced the player to use boring tactics, and the greatest threat was not the aliens, but the player's own soldiers.

The game does not provide an option that aliens defeat the player on the battlefield. Or the option that the aliens are defeating the player due to the faster development of technology. There is an option in the game that the aliens defeat the player only economically. (The player's victory or defeat depends on the effectiveness of economic management.) For me, a more interesting option is when a player loses because he has incorrectly prioritized research. (The player made a mistake in choosing the direction for research, as a result of which he lost a lot of time). It is better to limit access to alien technologies in the following way: if the player arrives on a combat mission later than a few hours, and also: if the combat mission lasts more than a given number of moves (rounds), then the aliens manage to destroy their most important technologies. As a result: without important alien technologies, the player's scientific progress slows down.

Battles in the sky can be done on the same principle as battles in the game "Mortal Kombat". Each aircraft has its own set of techniques (which depends on the design of the aircraft and the skill of the pilots). The outcome of the battle depends on how the player correctly assesses the situation (the distance to the enemy, the reaction time and time the execution of the "tactical technique".

In aerial combat, players do not have the opportunity to gain an advantage over the enemy in any other way except to upgrade weapons and aircraft. There are no pilot skills. There are no weather conditions. No wind, no sun, no altitude. There is nothing that gives airplanes a situational bonus.

I like the idea of adding the ability to hang additional fuel tanks or reconnaissance equipment on the plane instead of weapons.

There are no real difficulties in the game. (Aliens are easy to defeat in battles on earth and in battles in the sky). But there must be difficulties and problems in the game that make the player think. Therefore (I assume so) the developers decided to create difficulties and problems with financing.

In X2, do the xenonauts return all their weapons to the warehouse if the xenonauts are not on the helicopter? (Can all soldiers who are sitting in reserve be "armed" with one laser rifle?)

Xenonauts 1 was a tedious game because the range of view and range of the weapon were very small. (In UFO, the range of the weapon was not limited). Besides, the team of soldiers was small. As a result, the soldiers had to move in a very dense crowd and with very small steps. (Any alien that appeared out of the darkness immediately approached the dense one and presented a serious problem. Especially considering the fact that the player's soldiers liked to make "friendly fire" and suppress their neighbors. But the range of the view, the range of the gun and its low lethality, did not allow the soldiers to disperse.).

If we take, for comparison, the old UFO:2 game, in which the player loses 6-13 soldiers out of 14 in every battle from the very first day of the game (especially for battles in which units like Chryssalids participate from aliens), then the level of drama in the game in the old UFOs is much higher than in Xenonauts. where the player often wins the battle without any losses at all. In Xenonauts, players lack drama during combat. Also, the game Xenonauts is inferior to UFO in epic battles. As a comparison, the final and general battles in UFO and Xenonauts are incomparable in terms of scale and number of losses on the part of the player and the aliens.

The work of the "Analytical Department" can be done in the form of a text quest, where instead of answering a question, the player chooses "research" (preparation) to conduct a particular tactical mission (task). The preparation of different tasks takes different amounts of time (days, weeks) from the "Analytical Department". This mechanic will allow the player to choose the types of missions that the player likes best and it will make the game more fun.

If the player wants to see the heroic death of his soldiers, then the easiest way to achieve this is to create a combat mission with significantly superior enemy forces. In Xenonauts: The player really loses too few soldiers, so there are too few dramatic moments in the game.

Add an "Analytical Department" to the game that works similar to how Scientific Laboratories, Factories work (employees are hired, projects are given) but only the Analytical Department plans and prepares missions on the tactical map. For example: you give a task to the Analytical Department: "Prepare an ambush on a convoy"; "Arrange a diversion on someone else's Base"; "Prepare the abduction of a VIP person". After several days (weeks of work), the Analytical Department makes the combat mission available: "Ambush on a convoy"; or "Sabotage on someone else's Base"; or "Kidnapping of a VIP person". Such game mechanics will allow the player to actively choose their own strategy, rather than passively react to the actions of aliens. For example: if the xenonauts lack important resources, then the Analytical Department can provoke the landing of an important UFO (preparing an ambush for UFOs), which contains the necessary resources and artifacts.

Such an objection is not proof that you are right. If I called your comments a "word salad" would you take such a comment as a valid argument that refutes all your arguments?

I have already explained many times on this forum why to change the genre from "tactics at the squad/platoon level" (UFO:1-2, X-COM:3) the genre of "tactics at the department level" is a bad idea. 1. You lose some of the fans of the game UFO:1-2, X-COM:3. 2. There are many games on the market in the genre of "tactics at the department level" and of better quality. 3. You disrupt the economic balance of the game, where the mechanics are designed for heavy combat losses among soldiers, and spend a lot of time eliminating the problems that have arisen from using the old mechanics for a new concept. 4. A wider variety of combat missions and a wider variety of tactical situations and tactical tasks.

You use demagoguery by turning to the opponent's personality in an argument and attributing sophistry to him, instead of refuting his arguments. You are mistaken (or lying). It was the player's choice: take 26 of his soldiers or much less into battle with a very small UFO (with one alien). It was the player's choice: take 26 of his soldiers with him or much less to fight a small UFO (6 aliens). It was the player's choice to take 26 of his soldiers or much less into battle with a large UFO (12 aliens). There were few battles in the game in which the player had to fight more than 26 aliens. This technique on your part is sophistry (a way of conducting an unfair dispute). The correctness of the statement (as an example) "2 + 2 = 4" does not depend on the nickname or avatar.