Komandos

In the name of "realism" and "balance", a laser weapon can be an exact replica of a ballistic weapon with a ballistic trajectory. But there is no tactical diversity in this. And there are no unique properties of laser weapons in this.

The Israeli military says that this is the letter "Z" (read the article "tactical symbols on Israeli tanks"). We have no reason not to trust the Israeli army.

1, 3,

Laser weapons must have the modes "target ignition", "target blinding", "100% accuracy". Or combine these modes together.

Why did you decide to ban tanks with the Latin letter "Z" right now, when the whole world is looking at Israel and sees Israeli tanks with the symbol "Z"?

So it's a letter of the Latin alphabet. The Israeli Army puts such signs on its tanks.

People who are interested in controlling only one unit - they play games of the "action" genre. People who are interested in managing hundreds of units - they play games of the "strategy" genre. Each game genre has its own fans. If you turn a franchise (popular in one genre) into a completely different genre, only to lose fans of the old genre and try to win the interest of fans of another genre, then this is a very risky and not reliable solution. X-COM:1-2-3 games have gained a lot of fans in the niche of the game market "tactics at the platoon level". In order not to lose fans of games in the niche "tactics at the platoon level", (games where it is necessary to control the number of units the size of one platoon) - these games should remain "tactics at the platoon level". Of course, you can "optimize" the number of controlled units to one or two, (similar to games of another genre) but it will be a game in a completely different genre. P.S. If you tell a fan of games in the genre of "strategy" that it is necessary to reduce the number of units in games of the genre of "strategy" to 5-6 units (since it is very difficult for some people to manage units in the amount of 500-600), then these people will tell you that you made a mistake in choosing the genre of the game.

If we take the "optimal number" (5-6) for the "epic coefficient", then the final battle should participate 6*5(6)=30(36) a soldier. Where 5(6) is the epic coefficient of the battle.

"If you lose, don't lose the lesson." It would be more correct to accrue experience not for successful actions, but for erroneous ones. A soldier who never misses will no longer be able to gain experience and grow in accuracy. Only those soldiers who often miss will gain experience and grow in accuracy.

I totally agree with that. The main goal of tactical missions (tactical tasks) should be: the extraction of alien artifacts (alien technologies). If it was possible to get new alien artifacts, then the mission (tasks) are considered successful regardless of how many soldiers were lost, and regardless of whether it was possible to destroy all the aliens or not. The aliens must be superior to the player in quality and complete victory over the aliens (in the early stages of the game) can only be achieved by having numerical superiority. At the moment: aliens in battle do not look like a serious force (threat). The player's 9 soldiers are able to cope with superior alien forces even at the earliest stages of the game.

If you constantly hit a target that stands at a distance of one meter from you, then you will NEVER learn how to shoot accurately at a greater distance. A well-aimed shot does not give experience. Experience gives only a miss.

In openCom mods , the player can choose a military doctrine at the beginning of the game . Depending on the chosen military doctrine, the player has access to different numbers of soldiers in the team, to different types of units and different types of weapons. Choosing a military doctrine - the player chooses what number of soldiers, weapons of what power, he will use the whole game.

1. However: it also turned out that primates (human ancestors) lived in groups of 20-30 individuals for tens of millions of years.!!! The human brain is able to hold all the individual properties of 20-30 people in its head. Student, school groups, military platoons - have a number of 20-30 people, because the number of groups of 20-30 is comfortable for a person. 2. Different types of information are processed by different parts of the brain. And different parts of the brain have different amounts of attention.

It would be nice for the game to color not only the attributes, but also the names of the soldiers. And so that this color does not change during the game. Then it will be easy to distinguish capable soldiers (with low starting characteristics) from soldiers with high starting characteristics.

At the moment: the weapons of different "technological eras" in the game are fundamentally no different from each other. The new technology only adds more damage, and no new properties and no new . All improvements look exactly the same as improvements: Arrows with a silicon tip - Arrows with an iron tip - Arrows with a tip of depleted uranium. I would add for laser weapons: incendiary effect, blinding effect. The "chainsaw" effect (wide beam). This means that accuracy is always 100% (if there are no obstacles between the weapon and the soldiers / target / target), since the width of the laser beam is several meters.pan widgetspan widgetspan widget

Are weapons of different technological eras comparable in terms of their tactical and technical characteristics in the real world? Are a rock, a projectile and a nuclear missile comparable in terms of destruction in the real world?

If these features really had a big impact, then school classes and student groups would be reduced from a few dozen people to 5-6 people, and the entire written alphabet would be reduced from a few dozen letters to 5-6 letters. For the convenience of perception.

New weapon levels = new balance levels. Ideally, each "technological era" should have its own balance. Weapons of different "technological eras" should not be at the same level of efficiency.

All stories have the same structure: Conflict is born. The conflict is intensifying. The conflict reaches the highest level of tension. The conflict is fading. 1. If you give the player the opportunity to engage 20 (24) soldiers at the stage of the game when the conflict reaches the highest level of tension (the number of opponents on both sides is equal, the battles are as large and complex as possible), then this will not spoil the increase in the complexity of the battles in the game, but vice versa - it will improve the most difficult battles. After passing the point of the highest tension in the game, the stage of attenuation (lowering) of the difficulty level of the conflict begins, which means that the player has the opportunity to enter 20 (24) soldiers into any battle (even the simplest) - and this fits perfectly into the schedule of reducing the difficulty in the final stages of the game. (After the climax, the complexity of the conflict decreases). 2. Transport for the transfer of 20 (24) soldiers on the battlefield can be either very expensive or very slow. As a result, it will be unprofitable for the player to send 20 (24) soldiers on a mission that a group of 12 soldiers can handle. (The player will have additional resource costs). And a slow transport with 20 (24) soldiers will not be able to arrive in time for a task where 12 soldiers are required.

1. There is already an imbalance in the game: 9 player soldiers easily defeat 9 alien soldiers. According to logic: aliens are technologically superior to humans, and humans outnumber aliens. We don't see this in the game. 2. In X-COM: 1-2 (at the very beginning of the game), the aliens had an advantage in armor, weapons, and viewing range. (Night vision). At the very beginning of the game: The player's 14 soldiers could hardly stand up against several krissalids. In a night mission, it was easy to lose most of the team. The first battles were difficult, although the player had numerical superiority. 3. In X-COM:2 (in the later stages of the game) there were several missions from two series, for which the player: having 26 soldiers, + the most perfect armor in the game, + the strongest weapon in the game, it was still very difficult to win these missions. There are players who like large-scale battles (several dozen soldiers from both opposing sides. as it was in the old X-Com:1-2). Don't these players have the right to desire the tactical capabilities that were in the classic X-COM:1-2???

In this case, the game can generate random soldiers for a training mission

The player has many ways to "make the game very easy": 1. The player invests resources in research and unlock more powerful weapons and more reliable armor. 2. The player invests time and resources in training soldiers in training centers and makes soldiers more efficient. 3. In addition, soldiers gain combat experience during battles, and thereby increase their combat capabilities. The following seems quite logical and natural: the player invests resources in the maintenance of more numerous tactical groups and thereby gets a stronger army. If the player wants to reduce the cost of building and maintaining several bases. (Refusal of advantage in airspace). If the player wants to reduce the cost of building and maintaining scientific laboratories, scientists (Giving up advantages in technology, in scientific technologies, in weapons and armor). If the player, instead of the above advantages, wants to direct finances and resources to the opportunity to get more troops on the tactical map, then it is not clear: what is one "advantage" that "facilitates the gamemake the game very easy" better (worse) than another "advantage" that "facilitates the gamemake the game very easy". "The complexity of the game" does not make the game interesting. What makes the game interesting is the variety of tactical tasks and the variety of ways to solve these tactical tasks. There are many interesting games in the world that people don't play because of the "high level of difficulty".

There is no economic model in the game, even at the X-COM:1-2-3 level. Consequently, the economy in the game cannot be an effective regulating factor of the balance of power, since it itself constantly needs to be adjusted to resemble the economy.

It's like making the services of an electrician very expensive, so that the player cannot hire thousands of electricians and thereby unscrew a light bulb at superluminal speed. The financial limit for limiting the speed of scientific research is a "crutch" to maintain the lame mechanics of research.