Komandos

I like this option the most: defeat in the mission should open the way to new research. However, it is worth adding to the briefing such a type of mission as "reconnaissance" is to engage the enemy, try to inflict losses on the enemy (destroy several aliens), and then retreat. Or he will engage in battle with aliens and retreat from the battlefield only if the losses among the player's soldiers amount to more than 25%. In this case, a new door for research opens. In general: I suggest adding a type of "exploration" missions whose goal is not to defeat the enemy, but to open a new study, or to show the player the complexity of such tasks.

I believe that the aliens and the player's soldiers should obey the same rules (play by the same rules). It is impossible to create a good artificial intelligence for aliens aimed at winning if the aliens are forced to concede purposefully to the player.

To do this, it is enough to set a lower difficulty of the game.

Return fire (overwatch) is one of the few tactics that are in the game. You can't just cancel it. And you are unlikely to like the situation when your soldiers will not be able to create ambushes, or 8 of your soldiers sitting in ambush with a full supply of AP (movement points) will not be able to react (ovoverwatch) to an alien who came around the corner (or entered the door) and threw a grenade at your soldiers. If the player is playing at a high level of difficulty, then it is normal that aliens create difficult problems for the player. If the player is playing at a low difficulty level, then the aliens should not pose much danger to the player.

If the task of the aliens (on the battlefield) is to resist the player's soldiers with all their might and, if possible, destroy all the player's soldiers, then what's wrong with the aliens doing a good job of it? If aliens are needed only as targets that the player can shoot with pleasure, then there should be significantly more aliens on the battlefield and they should die much easier. Like, for example, in the game "Diablo".

In the game UFO:2, it was a typical game situation when a player's soldier goes inside a UFO and there is an ambush waiting for him (a reaction shot) from several aliens. In UFO:2, it didn't seem like something inappropriate and annoying, because the game didn't assume that all your soldiers would successfully return from a combat mission. In the game, the player had to use a "motion sensor" before going inside the UFO (wait for the moment when the aliens inside the UFO will be located in a way convenient for the player). At a difficult game level, it was a normal mission if 2-4 soldiers returned from 14 soldiers. Sometimes only one. Soldiers could accumulate experience and improve their performance only in the later stages of the game, when there were many technical improvements and a ship with a capacity of 26 soldiers. I think the problem is the balance of the game. The reward for winning the mission is too small (not tangible) compared to losses, and at the same time, the player cannot ignore the mission and refuse to complete it without even greater losses for himself. For example: if a player, in case of victory, receives a tangible (large) bonus that will pay off any losses (losses of soldiers, equipment, ammunition), then such situations will not be perceived as: forced choice of two bad options.

In Xenonates 1, it was possible to use explosives with a timer. Even if a soldier died, the explosives worked. Xenonauts 2 has robots that (in theory) can be used for such tasks. If an alien can meet 5 player soldiers (assembled together) who will respond with shots to his appearance, then why shouldn't the player be in a similar situation? Even in real time, this problem cannot be solved otherwise than by throwing grenades at the enemy's lair or using poison gas, a flamethrower.

Yesterday I watched Xenonauts 2 version 24.7 broadcast on YouTube. I got the impression that the enemy has more chances to die from a single shot than the player's soldiers. I see the problem in the fact that on some tasks it is very easy for the player to lose 4-5 soldiers, and the remaining 4-5 soldiers of the player are very insufficient not to put the remaining soldiers of the "second line" (snipers) at risk. Or it is necessary to take more soldiers on a mission so that the player has the ability to calmly survive a much larger number of "sad situations". Or make it so that the aliens could not cause serious damage to the player's soldiers.

In reality (in real reality): grenades are used indoors without any problems.

I was trying to create a modification for the final mission. The mission modification was supposed to provide the player with a high level of drama and adrenaline from the large number of casualties among the warring parties. To do this, I needed four autonomous tactical groups of 6 soldiers each. The first group of 6 soldiers was to attack right down the corridor. The second group of 6 soldiers had to protect the rear from constantly attacking opponents. The third group of 6 soldiers had to perform a combat mission on the left side of the corridor. (Destroy alien equipment). The fourth group of 6 soldiers had to perform a combat mission on the right side of the corridor. (Destroy the alien equipment). The number of aliens and the power of their guns were planned so that only 6 of the player's 24 soldiers could reach the final goal. As a result, I was unable to create a large-scale and intense battle due to software limitations.

If the complexity of the battle increases, and the number and quality of aliens increases, then naturally, you have to spend more effort and attention on the game in order to save the lives of your soldiers, and the dynamics of the game are lost.

If the player is given the opportunity to sort soldiers into separate tactical groups (as is done in X-COM 3 Apocalypsys), then: 1- we will be able to appoint squad commanders and calculate the effects from their leadership; 2 - we will not need a very long tape of soldiers on the control screen.

With the game balance that Xenonates 1 had, the number of 12-16 soldiers was really enough. When rebalancing the game in the direction of increasing the number of aliens and the lethality of weapons, losses among the player's soldiers will increase. This is not critical on small missions to capture small UFOs. But this made it impossible to create too large-scale battles. For example: the final battle, or the battle to protect the Xenonauts Base from an alien invasion. I tried to add more soldiers to the game by creating an additional interface for them on the control screen. However, this interface did not work. The task of finding a place on the control screen and placing the control button for additional soldiers there was the easiest task for me. The most difficult task was that: I couldn't get around the software limitation. I'm not asking you to increase the number of soldiers for the main game. (This will require changing the balance of the game). No. I ask you to leave such an opportunity for future modifications of the game that players will create for themselves and their friends.

If you look at the modifications that players create, you will see that all the modifications are trying to increase the variety of the game: modifications add new weapons, new equipment, new missions, increase the number of characters, personnel, and the scale of battles. If the game does not allow the use of modifications to increase diversity, then players find games with more diverse features. The only obstacle that was in Xenonauts 1 and did not allow the game to get closer to UFO: 1-2 (from the point of view of combat tactics) was the inability to increase the number of the team to the number that was in UFO: 1-2. (modification of this was not possible) I hope there is room for modifications in Xenonates 2. In 2022, a lot of tactical games with a team size of 4-8 are going on sale. There are a lot of role-playing RPG games with a team size of 1-8 characters. Yes. It's very popular, but I want something new.

And how many people didn't mention anything because the available team size seems normal (adequate) to them? When a player chooses the difficulty of the game, I suggest giving the player the opportunity to choose a team size that is convenient for him. Someone likes an easier fight. Someone likes a harder fight. Someone likes the fight on the recommendation of the developers.

I think it would be correct to add a parameter such as "evasion". The faster the unit moves, the harder it is to hit it. This means that it is easier to get into a combat unit that did not move in the last round (turn) than into a combat unit that spent all its AP (movement points) on moving around the terrain (it will be difficult to get into such a unit). The difficulty of aiming at a unit (shooting accuracy) should depend on how much AP the unit has spent on movement before. This also applies to the "overwatch" feature. The more AP a unit has spent on movement, the harder it will be for it to get into it.

By forcing the player to play more aggressively, you force the player to take more risks. More risk means more casualties among the soldiers. It's easy to take risks when the player has a lot of soldiers in battle. When there are few soldiers and the loss of even one: this is the loss of 15-20% of all personnel. (And 15-20% of all combat experience earned by the tactical group on combat missions). If you force the player to: risk a lot of combat experience (which is expensive), in exchange for a small part of the resources, then such a game will not seem friendly to beginners. (For players who do not have enough gaming experience to correctly assess tactical risks).

You can put a valuable artifact in the alien room. If the player does not dare to storm a room with a valuable artifact for a long time (the player is afraid of losing his soldiers), then the aliens blow up (destroy) both themselves and the valuable artifact. If a player takes a risk, he should be rewarded. If the player refuses the risk, the player loses the reward.

On combat missions (where a UFO landed on the ground on its own), a timer would be appropriate if the aliens tried to return to their UFO, get into a UFO, spend several rounds (turn) to prepare for takeoff and take off. If the player gives the aliens the opportunity to evacuate, then the combat mission will end in nothing. (the UFO capture mission was not successfully completed).

If the aliens are placed on the battlefield in groups, and these groups of aliens will attack the player. (Not alone, namely simultaneously in a group) then this will increase the difficulty of the battle for the player.

You can add a "map of scientific knowledge" to the game. X-COM scientists are moving along the "research map" - just like in RPG games, a "group of travelers" travels around the map of the country, (from one location to another) exploring the game world and making various useful discoveries in game locations, and also encountering various difficulties and "random encounters" along the way. Time required for movement: this is the time needed for research. Each new location is each new technology, which (in turn) opens up a map of smaller studies (discoveries). (Just like in an RPG game, a player visiting a city discovers a map of the city, with many places to visit.) Difficulties and "random encounters" "on the way" are missions that your soldiers are forced to fly out on. In other words: each study should generate (create for the player) a new type of combat mission that must be successfully solved in order to move forward. (moving forward in research) Thus: scientific research in the game can be made no less exciting than traveling through an unknown country in RPG games. However, this will require creating many unique locations (alien bases, human bases, etc.) with many different quests. (As in RPG games, many unique cities, settlements and other locations have been created.) I hope I was able to express the idea clearly in English. Create a "research map" where "research time" is like "travel time" from one location to another; where "random encounters" and "quest tasks" are combat sorties of your soldiers. Where each scientific research creates new (additional) combat tasks for the player. (Just like playing the game "Fallout" - the player explored the world around him, discovered new cities and engaged in combat clashes to gain access to new locations and advance through the plot).

If the effect of "the less the better for the player" really worked, then it would work on weapons. But the game provides a lot of new weapons. And even more weapons will be added to the game by the players themselves with the help of mods. I saw in the screenshots of the Xenonauts 2 game about 3-4 vehicles of the initial (starting) level. This transport has already been drawn by artists and tested in the game. It only needs to be added to the final version of the game.

Do you think that if the player gets the opportunity to make a choice on which transport to send soldiers on a mission, it can make the game less interesting and diverse?

If this happens at the maximum complexity of the game, then to someone such a "maximum complexity" of the game may seem insufficient.

Unloading soldiers from the transport, at the beginning of the mission, is a rather risky and stressful stage. But due to the fact that the variety of transport in the game is not large, there is a small number of tactics (tactical diversity) associated with the deployment of soldiers on the ground.