Jump to content

451

Members
  • Posts

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

10 Good
  1. These are not bad ideas. I like the idea of specialization and of having groups as I do something similar with my X-Com game already. It does have the potential to be a little OP, but I think it'll help alleviate the sense that players have when they're trying to decide what role a particular individual should fill. Overall, I support this, Cityonhill.
  2. Yes, just as the title says, this is a thread about recollecting the soldiers you had in X-COM or what have you that stuck out to you. It could be any number of them, just let your story go and tell us why. I'll start with saying Shigeru Noguchi. The name is apparently also the name of a famous go player, but he happens to be my first X-COM Commander. His rise to prominence included killing two sectoids in one mission with a single reaction burst, so I had a feeling he was eventually going to be someone special.
  3. I just saw this from Chris. While I can see this being effective, I'm a little reluctant to let go of the notion that you have to have x amount of troops before you can get a higher ranking officer. The experience pool for choosing an officer is a great idea. I know Xenonauts isn't a 1 to 1 remake of X-com, but even then X-com didn't force you to have too many soldiers for a commander to be brought in (30 for 1 commander). I also enjoy the idea of making it a finite resource much like the original X-com. Maybe allowing 1 of each rank to be open immediately, then expanding based off of numbers would be a better solution.
  4. Are you talking about Xcom or xenonauts? XCOM EU has the highest rank a Commander, where Captain is the highest in TFD if that's the case.
  5. TFD used naval ranks where as X-Com EU used shortened Army ranks with Commander being the highest.
  6. There is an active discussion about how higher ranking individuals affect morale when a soldier is killed. Bringing out your one commander on a mission would be beneficial to a mission you feel you're unavoidably going to lose soldiers in, because you have to assume that risk in order to maintain combat effectiveness. As to your earlier statement about how you work your squads, yes, it is a play style, but my understanding of Xenonauts and X-Com is that it absolutely rewards you for having a greater area of coverage, which means bringing up multiple squads to man these stations. If you sank all of your high-ranking operatives into one base, you would have a disparity in the effectiveness of your squads to maintain cohesion when the inevitable losses occur. I firmly believe that if you have a morale bonus or loss due to an inherent bonus from a rank then it is necessary to have a pyramid style rank where it becomes a finite resource. If the ranks are only mean to associate with a level it becomes the opposite, morale should be a static gain or loss unaffected by how many captains or rookies you have.
  7. As far as it stands, unless there is something to the contrary that I am missing, it stands as is with what Gazz has stated. Pyramid structured ranks means that after x amount of soldiers have been recruited, a slot opens up for promotion and is granted to the most meritorious individual. Example: After 6 soldiers have been recruited in X-com, you can get your first sergeant. After 11 soldiers, you can get your first captain, and another sergeant slot opens up. It continues to progress like that, with one overall commander allowed for up to 250 soldiers, 10 colonels, 22 captains, 50 sergeants and unlimited squaddies and rookies. You were absolutely meant to protect your officer types (Sergeants, captains, colonels and commander) because not only was there a huge penalty to morale immediately, but the loss of the mitigation towards future losses could be devastating for rookies you're trying to bring up.
  8. This is direct from the FAQ pinned at the top of this particular section of the forums. That's from Gazz and as far as I know that is what will be in the game. I can see that type of logic affecting the current XCOM re-imaging done by Firaxis considering that you only have 1 base, but playing the original XCOM where I would build up to 3 or 4 response bases coupled with a few manufacturing bases I would have anywhere between 40 to 90 soldiers, while rotating high-ranking officers to new bases so to have the veterans spread around with the influx of new recruits. Xenonauts seems to reward you for building extra interception bases as you can effectively cover more of the world and respond to alien threats more often. The missions that they would run, which would be very frequently, would mostly comprise of A captain or colonel, 2 to 3 sergeants, and the rest being 6 to 7 rookies and squaddies for the interception crew, with a small contingency back at base in case of an emergency base attack.
  9. I believe it is as you said, Xenonauts promotes based off of stat increases gained, which leads to situations where your entire army is compromised of Captains or what have you. If there was an option to check where the rank structure was a hierarchy or not, I would be for that. However, this is not the case, it seems to be from my research on the forums that the base game will have one set rank structure, which is a completely meaningless one were it's only representative of a level gained by your soldiers. My posts have been about advocating a pyramid rank structure and why I feel it's beneficial to the game. If you're talking about the OP then I believe he was just talking about the rank names that could potentially be in the game, I was talking more about the benefits and ramifications where limited ranks and bonuses (and penalties) to morale coincide. I don't believe you'll be the one having to do that.
  10. The high ranking individuals in Xcom for me were, more often than not, not the better individuals in the squad. They did get the rank bonus for when they leveled up, but after a short while in the game the squaddies eventually surpassed them with getting battlefield experience. In talking about good game design, I believe that it is. You can send your captain or colonel out first, but you're assuming a huge risk for minimal gain based off of stats not to mention acting short sighted in the grand scheme of the game, it's not as if the game simply refuses to let you use your high-ranking officers in dangerous scenarios. Overall, I believe that having ranks being a finite resource based off of the number of soldiers present adds a level of complexity to the game that fits right in with the overall terrifying feeling of the game.
  11. If a soldiers rank has a modifier to how much morale is lost when they or someone else dies then I want that to be limited by having a smaller pool of high-ranking officer types to lower echelon troops. It would make a high-ranking morale-loss-reducing individual a finite resource while also causing it to be a tragedy when they are unfortunately struck down in the heat of battle. That was part of X-com, keeping the captains and colonels back while the squaddies and rookies do the dirty work. That would be the point of the pyramid style structure.
  12. I believe that the XCOM system of having promotions as a limited resource is a system that immerses you in and is superior therein. I do agree that the change needed to it would be to have control over who becomes promoted, though this needs one more change. Have it be where a meritocracy is what takes control - soldiers who actually preform on missions gain promotions away from corporal (I assume that's the equivalent of squaddie) can be selected for promotion to sergeant and higher. It was a simple change that made it more realistic in my mind. Immersion is an important part to me and it makes me behave much more realistically.
×
×
  • Create New...