Komandos

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.

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)".

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.

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.

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.

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?

If the aliens think that their technology is superior to Earth's (at the very time when the player wins 99% of the battles in the sky), then what prevents the xenonauts from starting to think that their technology has finally surpassed the technology of the aliens if the aliens start winning 99% of the battles in the sky?

1. The aliens could copy the Earth technology of Fighter planes. 2. If (as an example) 10% of the defeated UFOs will fall to the ground (create a "crash site"), and the remaining 90% of UFOs will leave the battle and fly into space with damage (evacuation for repair), then this will reduce the number of necessary tactical missions (battles). Even if the player knocks down 500 UFO units, the number of "UFO crash sites" will not exceed 50. Which is good for a very long game.

The player's soldiers are more effective than the alien soldiers from the very beginning of the game. And with the development of technology, the player's soldiers will become even more effective. "Desperate struggle", in the game, goes only for money. At the same time, the game is not economic at all.

The simplest interface has only one single button. In the game "JA 2- 2.5", it was possible to designate a firing zone for a machine gun.

1. "Cognition comes through comparison." 2. The player's soldiers (in the game) are strong and effective enough from the very beginning to defeat the superior number of aliens. By developing technologies and training soldiers, the player makes his strong soldiers even stronger. You propose to slow down the player's development by limiting the amount of available resources, but by doing so you deprive the game of drive. The player comes to the game for a constant stream of new sensations, so there should be no restrictions on the player's ability to constantly develop in the game (and not: "save and collect in the piggy bank").

Any war - always very generously supplies the winners with scrap metal. It would be very strange if a player captured a UFO weighing several hundred tons, and only one bulletproof vest weighing 5 kg can be created from the captured material.

1. Your soldiers are 100% likely to die sooner or later if they participate in a sufficiently large number of battles. (The probability of dying in one battle is about 1-3 chances out of 9 possible). 2. The balance of forces in the game is such that the player's soldiers are more effective on the battlefield than the alien soldiers. (The player almost never loses a battle, even against superior alien forces). If the death rate among the player's soldiers in the game exceeded the death rate among the alien soldiers, then there would be no need for your proposal at all.

The aliens must constantly win in ground missions, then the development of the player's technology will be justified. In order for the aliens to win constantly, it is enough to create this type of combat missions (tasks) where the player needs to have TIME to capture important alien technologies BEFORE the MOMENT when the aliens will be able to destroy their most important UFO technologies. For example: if the player does not have time to destroy the aliens inside the UFO in 5 turns (moves), then the most important secrets will be lost. The solution to this problem (capturing UFOs in 5 turns (moves) becomes possible for the player only at the final stages of the game, after the player improves his technology and his soldiers.

The global mistake of the game mechanics (X1-X2) is that the opponent gets experience in the game from successful actions. If you change the mechanics of gaining experience (experience in the game is calculated from the number of unsuccessful attempts), then the player winning 3 battles in a row will not get any experience for him, and his tactics will not move forward. The aliens, having lost 3 battles in a row, will gain experience and improve their tactical performance. The ratio of the opponents' forces in this way will naturally tend to 50/50.

This proposal will lead to easier solutions to the problem that has arisen. If earlier the player had 0+1 =1 Turn to solve the problem, now the player will have 3+1=4 Turns to solve the problem.

"The right balance" is what balance? What are the main properties of this balance? For example: In the game of chess, the right balance is when you and the opponent have the same set of pieces at the very beginning of the game, and these pieces obey the general rules. But if you are good at playing chess, it will be easy for you to play against inexperienced players, and against very experienced players the game will be difficult. Is this the right balance?

At the initial stage of the game, the player has absolutely no penalty (penalty) for the death of a soldier. 1. Soldiers' personal Armor is free or very cheap. 2. The soldier has no accumulated combat experience, which is lost in place with the death of the soldier. In the later stages, some of the soldiers gain experience, the armor of the soldiers becomes more expensive, but it is still more profitable for the player to finish any combat mission with victory, even if he has to lose almost all the soldiers. The penalty for the loss of soldiers, forces the player to prematurely interrupt unprofitable tactical battles.

A monetary penalty for the death of soldiers will make it less profitable to visit absolutely all the "UFO crash sites" and in some cases it will be more profitable for the player to abort the mission (retreat) than to continue to fulfill their goals.

I suggest using "cash grants for scientific research" to automatically adjust the difficulty level of the game at the initial (training) level. Monetary grants for research are issued, for the xenonauts team, by different regions of the globe (planets) if the player lags behind in scientific research from the required schedule (plot). "Scientific grants for scientific research" may also be present in the game as a random event that makes the game more gambling and less predictable when repeated games.

Instead of a negative rating (which the game charges for the loss of soldiers by the player) I propose to add to the game "monetary compensation to the relatives of the deceased", which Xenonauts pays for each soldier who died in battle.

As soon as the player gets familiar with the game, the difficulty of the game for the player will change. (The game will become easy). Therefore, it is impossible to "find" the "perfect balance of the game" in advance. Therefore, it is silly to look for the "perfect balance in the game". The best option is to provide the player with a large set of tools with which the player can independently adjust the strength of the opponent. (The easiest way to increase the enemy's strength is to increase the number of aliens and the physical capabilities of the aliens).

The game was released in 2014, so the developers basically could not use the symbols of 2022.

,We know how Ukraine supported the UN resolution banning the propaganda of Nazism and fascism.

Dropship should have a cargo hold for additional weapons and equipment that soldiers take with them into battle. The game is strategic, which means that the player has the right to strive for a strategic advantage, get a strategic advantage and use a strategic advantage.