Komandos

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.

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).

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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)

A machine gun must have exactly the same weight as a machine gun in reality.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Is there a speed bonus (additional TU) for fleeing units? Are the fleeing units running towards the evacuation or in a randomly chosen direction?

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.

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)