Jump to content

Komandos

Members
  • Posts

    673
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Everything posted by Komandos

  1. If researchers are idle, then researchers can be "rented out" for various government projects and earn money from it. From another point of view: this innovation can lead the player to cognitive dissonance: - after all, we know well that government research takes years and decades, but not several days or even hours (with a large number of scientists).
  2. Those who have played UFO:1-2, X-COM:3 games have the right to demand that the X2 game retains the possibility of the following in-game choices: self-identify as a "squad commander" or self-identify as a "platoon commander".
  3. In the game "Warcraft", "Start Craft" there were even more soldiers (units). Someone found it tedious and therefore played the game "Doom", where the player had only one character under control. It is normal if tactics at the platoon level have the number of soldiers equal to one platoon, and tactics at the army level have the number of soldiers, which is already in the hundreds. The argument that it is better for players to self-identify themselves in the game as a squad leader (manage soldiers in one squad) than to self-identify themselves as a platoon commander (manage soldiers in one platoon) is not an argument that this is a good thing to have. The old UFO: 1-2, X-COM:3 games are good because the player had a choice: to be a "platoon commander" or a "squad commander". I don't see any advantage in the fact that the game deprives the player of the opportunity to choose.
  4. The game balance is a very variable value, which depends on the player's experience, skill, cunning, and intelligence. The player's gaming experience and skills will change, and everything that was built in the game "on balance" will immediately become "tight", "narrow", "uncomfortable" for the player, like children's clothes for an adult. It is a mistake to think that it is possible to build capital structures on a shaky foundation.
  5. There are many game design concepts. It's like different concepts in drawing: from maximum abstraction (Malevich's painting "Black Square") to paintings with photographic accuracy.
  6. If we have to completely abandon the concept of "being more real", then we can add elves, dwarves, dragons, magic and wizards to the game. After all, the rejection of the concept of "being more real" is a very strong argument in favor of making the game more interesting.
  7. Do you think that: Julian Gollop (creator and founder of the UFO (X-COM) series of games) "Inflated the soldier count to some absurd number like 3 dozen" ??? (Since in UFO:1-2, the maximum limit on the number of soldiers in combat was 26 soldiers. And in X-COM:3, the maximum limit on the number of soldiers in combat was 36 soldiers)
  8. If reality is not needed in games, then let's add to the game: a weapon that increases all the characteristics of soldiers by 10%-200%. I also suggest adding magic, magic scrolls and spells to the game. "You want reality? Go serve in the army then. This game is entertainment." (c)
  9. A machine gun must have exactly the same weight as a machine gun in reality.
  10. Create two types of "Final Mission" in the game. 1 - The player flies to destroy the aliens in the final battle. 2 - Aliens are flying to destroy the player in the final battle. For example: if the player is destined to lose the game, then let the final battle be an alien attack on the player's bases with endless reinforcements of alien soldiers. While the timer is ticking, the game continues. When the timer ends, either the player flies on the final mission to the aliens, or the aliens fly on the final mission to the player.
  11. 1. Flipping through the pages of a book, we always know how many more pages are left. Looking at the games: football, basketball, hockey (others) and listening to the commentator, we always know how much time is left until the end of the game. The main intrigue is not how long the game will last: one hour or an eternity. The main intrigue lies in how the game will end, who will win and with what score. I am in favor of ensuring that the final battle takes place, regardless of whether the player has the opportunity to win the final battle or not. For example: if the player is destined to lose the game, then let the final battle be an alien attack on the player's bases with endless reinforcements of alien soldiers. While the timer is ticking, the game continues. When the timer ends, either the player flies on the final mission to the aliens, or the aliens fly on the final mission to the player. 2. Personally, I don't like the timer in strategy games. The game should end only with a "knockout" of one of the opponents. (Play to a complete knockout)
  12. 1. There is a page number on "every detective page" and the reader can always see (count) how many pages are left until the end. 2. In games, the final stage of the game is called "endgame" (which literally means "the end of the game"). In books, the final stage of a work of art is called: "culmination". 3. If the game has an initial stage, then the game should have a final one.
  13. There is an "endgame" in any strategy game. For example: the game "Chess". The "endgame" is the period of the game when the opposing sides have exhausted (used up) the main stock of their resources and capabilities and the outcome of the final battle becomes obvious.
  14. The game has a strategy! This means that the player will have to make choices that may turn out to be a strategic mistake or a strategically correct decision.
  15. If you make the aliens weak enough and make the player's soldiers strong enough, then indeed: the player's soldiers will not be in danger. But also: then the player will not have serious and difficult tactical tasks. If you increase the difficulty level of the battle; make the aliens strong enough, and make the player's soldiers weak enough, then nothing will give you a guarantee that the aliens will not destroy all your soldiers and win the battle.
  16. 1. A large amount of equipment for soldiers (equipment with a reserve) is justified in games in which the player cannot predict how the battle will develop. In one battle, the player may need a large number of smoke grenades. In another battle, the player may need a large number of machine gun belts with cartridges. Also: the player may want to save himself from having to equip soldiers before each new battle. It is much easier to equip soldiers as if they are going to participate in the most difficult battle imaginable, and not bother changing soldiers' equipment too often. 2. The amount of starting equipment in the game is unlimited, which means that nothing prevents the player from equipping his soldiers with the same amount of equipment as in the real world.
  17. Is there a speed bonus (additional TU) for fleeing units? Are the fleeing units running towards the evacuation or in a randomly chosen direction?
  18. Now the player has reduced opportunities for rotation (replacement) of soldiers flying out to complete the task. The "Stress" mechanics were introduced specifically to increase the rotation of soldiers on the battlefield. Increasing the cost of soldiers will not reduce the number of soldiers flying out on a mission. (It will not affect the balance of forces in battle). Increasing the cost of soldiers will reduce the player's ability to make the following choices: rotate soldiers; maintain a garrison at all bases; choose suitable soldiers for combat. To punish the player for the loss of soldiers, it is appropriate to force the player to pay monetary compensation in the event of the death of a soldier, but not to raise the cost of all soldiers. Keeping a lot of soldiers on the base is one of the nice features of the UFO game: 1-2-3.
  19. Does this mean that xenonautic engineers are now spending 1 Alloys to produce one weapon? (Since the volume of Alloys in the weapon is now equal to: 1)
  20. There are 8,000,000,000 people living on planet Earth. Some of them will go to protect themselves, their friends, their relatives, the whole of humanity from complete destruction, even if these people will not be paid money. There should be many, many soldiers in the game. The soldiers in the game should be very cheap in content. The only thing that should be expensive: monetary compensation in case of death of soldiers.
  21. Minimum number of soldiers under the player's control: equal to one soldier. Please do not forget that the games UFO:1-2-3 were tactics at the level of one platoon. And that the Xenonauts game is aimed specifically at fans of UFO:1-2-3, and not at fans of games of another genre. In UFO:1-2, the maximum platoon strength is 26 soldiers, in X-COM:3 (UFO:3) The maximum strength of the platoon is 36 soldiers. By reducing the maximum number of soldiers to one squad, the Xenonauts game ceases to focus on the tastes and expectations of UFO fans:1-2-3. Currently, there are many games where tactics are present at the level of one squad (4-10 soldiers) and these games are much better made than the Xenonauts game. The Xenonauts game will not stand up to competition in the niche of games (in the genre of games) "tactics of one squad of 4-10 soldiers)".
  22. In most games, soldiers and game characters are able to carry a huge number of things, but this has never been a problem. On the contrary, it was a reward for the player to develop the characteristics of his soldiers and his characters. You cannot take away the player's reward (bonus) for the fact that the player trains and develops his soldiers and characters. The reward that the player receives for the development of his soldiers and characters: motivates the player. The problem with the game is not that the player's soldiers are able to carry more things than necessary to destroy all the aliens. The problem with the game is that destroying aliens in battle is not a difficult tactical task. The player's soldiers are too strong and effective against the aliens. It is necessary to increase the strength and combat capabilities of the aliens, and not reduce the strength and combat capabilities of the player's soldiers.
  23. The problem is not the number of alloys. The problem is as follows: the rapid production of new technologies (weapons, armor); the small size of the tactical group (9 soldiers); the almost complete absence of losses of armor and weapons on the battlefield. As a result: you can provide a group of 9 soldiers very quickly and for a very long time. For comparison: In the UFO game:2 the number of alloys was very large (there was never a shortage of alloys). However, the average loss of soldiers in each battle was 9 soldiers (difficult level, beginning and middle of the game). Along with the soldiers, the player lost armor and often weapons. Total: we had to constantly produce 9 sets of armor and several sets of new weapons for each battle.
  24. In reality: machine guns have tapes for 100 rounds, have tapes for 200 rounds, have tapes for 250 rounds. I do not know why in the game the machine gun has a tape for only 30 rounds. Perhaps this is done in order to create additional tactical difficulties for the player, but these are definitely not the difficulties that the player wants to constantly overcome during the battle.
  25. Then what is the difference between a weapon with a large cartridge clip and a weapon with a small cartridge clip, if the need to reload the weapon does not create a pause in shooting? Wouldn't it be easier then to make an endless supply of ammunition in the weapon so that there would be no pauses in shooting?
×
×
  • Create New...