Goetikmagus

Reading this thread only reinforces my desire to have procedurally-based (or even randomly-generated) maps.

I think that's a really good point.

Oh my!

Well, with the addition of having to pay engineering wages, the game economy (<--- Minor in Economics/Anthropology.. yeah, weird, right?) , the numbers aren't all that easy to calculate, my dear Thothkins. I could probably go on forever, talking about economies of scale and the law of diminishing returns, but I wouldn't want to bore anyone (or be more of a nit-picker than I am now!). I'd also point out that an "exploit" is an unbalancing of game mechanics in a fashion that the developers ~do not intend~. If the Devs change their mind, and allow this kind of action, then it is, by definition, intended.

I could see an upgraded late-game medkit which would serve as a kind of auto-doc (monitoring vital signs and giving injections, if needed) - but I'm not really for juicing up my troops. That leads to all kinds of problems with burnout and addiction that I just wouldn't want to inflict on my world saviors.

Balance would be lain out ~by~ the procedure. Having a procedure necessarily indicates "I need a map this (x) big. I need it to incorporate these (x) elements. Make it happen.". Sometimes, I might add, "outrageous" is, in fact, realism. You wouldn't believe the missions I've been thrown through - yet every time, my company and I had to treat it as "normal". Why should things be that much different for the XNs? Oh, sure... typical sweep-and-clear ground mission, based upon a shot-down UFO... except this time, it's teetering off of a cliff? That sure sounds like realism to me. If not, it at least sounds cinematic enough to make it into the game.

The creator of the original X-Com, every time he's interviewed, has pounded home the concept of procedurally-based combat zones. The way I see it... If all of the effort that is put forward into developing static maps were put forward into generating a procedure; You'd never have the tedium of playing the same map, ever again. You'd never have to design another map, ever again - you'd only have to tweak the procedure. It would make it easier for modders as well, because they could add or subtract simple elements of the procedure - rather than having to create an entirely new map. It would solve some of the elevation problems, by making them a universal situation, rather than something that is singular to a particular map. It would add some thrill to the game - with each player understanding that, every time they land, they won't be able to predict the environment. All-in-all, I think it would make the game better, and would detract absolutely no time or effort from development. So... why hasn't it happened, yet?

That's interesting. I think I'll start using autofire more often.

I never mentioned anything about cybernetics, but armor... is not such a wild speculation. If I recall correctly, the most excellent service dogs in the US (many of them outrank me, actually... and I'm not so bad off) actually wear flak vests.

Speaking from personal experience, you learn stuff really fast when you're being shot at. I suppose it's a question of motivation.

I'm not even gonna pitch this to the Devs.... this is for you modders: I will be your friend forever if you come up with some dog sprites. I think that having a canine XN on the team would be awesome. Sure, she can't use a weapon, but she can cover ground a lot faster than the human troops, and might even be able to suppress a low-level alien by clamping onto its firing hand or slow it down by biting its leg. How many precious civilian children could be saved by intervention on behalf of the stalwart family dog? Oh, sure - the Pomeranian might not be of much help... but the family that keeps a faithful pit bull or breeds Dobermans may give the aliens a bit more than they bargained for. *This message was brought to you by Dogmeat. Faithful to the end, I just have to mention this - for the sake of him and his pups.

*waves hands in the air* Dur, dur, dur... Sathra, I summon thee! Appear now before me, fair in form, and answer true to my post! (because you posted a split-second after I did, leaving an uncomfortable time gap in the forum... dur, dur, dur!)

I know I'm just beating a dead horse, here - but whatever happened to procedurally-generated maps? Get in a good procedure, and you could forget both the tedium of playing the same maps over and over (not to mention, you'd free up a lot of time that would otherwise be spent on map design), and the engine would also be easier to mod for interesting and/or unique missions. Heck, I'd help design the procedure for free, as would several others no doubt.

I think that delving into personal psychology might ~just~ be a little beyond the scope of development. Just sayin'.

I've often wondered about these things, myself. I think, to some degree, you get a little of that stuff during the first round, because the aliens are completely disembarked and scattered all over the place while your troops are just hitting the turf. It always kind of annoyed me in the OG when I'd just fanned out my team, and during the first round for the aliens, I'd hear automatic plasma fire, explosions, and people dying in every direction. Containment became a drag when all the civilians were dead before I had eyes on anything. Of course... that's the way it should be, really. It does strike up other questions - like: Do the aliens take captives at terror sites? After all, if they just put down and slaughter everything that moves, then shouldn't they be called "Extermination Sites"? I have no delusions that development time should or would be spent on anything like this, but it makes perfect sense that the aliens would seek to capture, instead of kill. Perhaps they want live food back at the UFO. Perhaps they want human genetic material for their breeding programs. Perhaps, in order to amass a decent count of reapers, they need live hosts, instead of dead ones. Of course, as soon as the civilians start fighting back or the XNs land on-site, the time to capture is over and the fight begins. It would give opportunities to stop captures-in-progress by confronting aliens bogged down with unconscious humans - at which point the alien would have to choose to either drop its prize and fight, keep its prize and flee the battle, or try to fight while weighed down. What's probably even more feasible is finishing a terror mission with an assault on some kind of temporary alien processing site - where they prepare their captured humans for transportation into space (be it either as food or scientific inquiry ... or even merely as hostages). That way, you've got another option at the end of a terror mission: Run your beat-up, low-on-ammo troopers back home for healing and re-supply, or send your gang of Devil Dogs to the nearby processing site to rescue as many captured humans as they can. Opting out may save wear-and-tear on your team, and wouldn't come with any penalties - but jumping in would act as a kind of "bonus round" for points, as it would present more aliens to kill, more artifacts to bring home, and best of all, more civilians saved. Just a thought.

As perhaps a tangent of this thought... people with red-green color blindness may suffer somewhat with just colors red-and-green. Those unfortunate folks with complete or near-complete color blindness would suffer no matter what the colors were. How about a little flag or beacon, identifying friendlies?

Shouldn't it be worth fewer points if aliens killed civilians, instead of XNs? Shouldn't you also be able to mitigate some of those negative points by killing the newly-spawned aliens? Just thinking out loud.

I'm not talking TFTD, or the original X-Com - I'm talking about this game - where you simply can't produce anything that makes a profit, anymore. For a player that really counts economy into their game, I look at the current situation with a great amount of frustration. The only way to "retain liquidity" here is to go forth and kick butt - and rarely even on the lower difficulties do you ever have enough to maintain a second base in the early game. There is no decision-making process about it ("Do I produce equipment that I need for missions, or do I produce equipment that I need to stay afloat and/or expand?") - you get what you get, which cascades down into the idea that initial base placement is going to be refined down into a concern of how many superpowers you can service... which cascades further into the idea that placing your home base anywhere but the optimum starting spot is a bad move, and all of a sudden, you're stuck building in the Middle East, so you can hit up as many countries for support as possible, and if you build in America or someplace remote, you're stupid and you've already lost. That isn't a decision-making process. That's just plain game mechanics which tie up your initial decisions. Want to start in Antarctica? You're not going to win. Want to start in Hawaii? You're not going to win. Polynesia? Ditto. I'm talking about a system whereas you can make a questionable, unpredictable initial choice, and still pull through because you can master your economy well enough that you can throw out a second base relatively early. Sure, they can't produce anything or help with research, but they can still move out and shoot aliens.

I'm not sure I like where this thread is going. Being a person whom believes in mind over matter (though, if you've got the matter to back it up, kudos), I'm leaning in towards the concept that every salvageable fragment or pool of DNA that your XNs can bring back to base is a step towards finding an effective way to combat them. Shell it, and you'll stop the battle, but you won't stop the war - and you'll have destroyed everything that could have been of use to your scientists. Were I a commander, I'd rather have my team pick through a complete alien-assault tragedy - loading civilian corpses and discarded-and-forgotten plasma magazines into the Chinook than ordering even the smallest AOE attack. Worse yet, you may have just killed that little girl who had managed to hide from the alien terror squad, or that brave husband-and-father who actually managed to fight the aliens out of his white-picket-fenced suburban American Dream home. ... Just sayin'.

As hard as it is for me to say so: This is the challenge of protecting the globe. You need to have multiple teams in multiple bases to cover the entire Big Blue Marble. Really. That's just the way it ~would~ be in reality. On that note, one would think that basic base creation would be less expensive, given support from superpowers - or income from successful missions would be higher, allowing the XNs to expand as they saw fit. If there's one thing I don't really appreciate, it's that one can no longer really produce something that has a mark-up resale value. I once played a game of X-Com whereas most of the world powers were falling apart, despite my best efforts. Financial backing dropped, due to alien incursion, but there were enough concerned citizens that wanted to shell out money for my market-priced laser pistols (presumably for self-defense) that they funded my final assault on the alien homeworld. I won, because I sold. I mean - hell - my expensive engineers weren't doing anything, anyway... and I consider the final product to be of higher market value than the raw materials... and every dime goes towards a good cause (protecting the Earth)... and as far as game balance goes, I've never met an X-Com player ~yet~ who has said to me: "I'm so filthy rich! What the heck am I going to do with all this cash?!?"... I don't see why a micro-factory which caters to those needing advanced weapons to protect their families shouldn't garner a little financial support. The game balance wouldn't be upset. Players wouldn't be buying luxury mansions and yachts for their XNs. They'd be building and supporting bases and staff. OK... let me catch my breath, and then I'll rant some more on another thread.

Well, I'm not necessarily putting these out for the developers. I'm throwing out ideas for modders, too - and that community adds features to the game all on its own.

Nope. On foot for 83% of the km I put my boots to. Bradley or hummer for the rest. Completely agree with your opinions on the SAW. I must have just gotten the crappy units.

Haha! Mind you, I'm not trying to belittle you, Rat, but... what unit did you serve in, man? <--- Cavalry (Laugh, if appropriate) We never had enough people to fill crew rosters, but we did just fine with 1-serve-crew on a '60/'240b... no "usually" about it. You humped that pig (For you civilians: ~not~ a euphemism for "A good time"!) on your lonely onesies, plus ammo, plus a field radio, plus your personal weapon. Now, a field Ma-Deuce? Yeah, 2 man crew (one for tripod + barrel, one for the goods + ammunition). I've never seen a three in my years of active duty, outside of arty (where each round of ammo weighs 30 kilos). Even tank-serve weapons only had a gunner and a loader. Keep in mind, however, I was usually WAY out in the woods, chewing on pine needles and hoping that the rest of the army actually remembered where they sent us... ... ... ... just sayin' - as long as we're on the topic of "Realism".

I'm all about grenades through windows. I'm also all about a higher lob height. It's really painful when your supposed highly-trained soldier "misses" throwing over low cover, and the 'nade lands in his lap. (Oh, well - I suppose I should just save more often, right?) I like the idea of pulling the pin on one round and holding the spoon for the next, when you can be up and running as you chuck it. At the same time, if the aliens could do similar things, then I could see the game very quickly devolving into a frag-fest, when it's supposed to be a tactical simulation. All-in-all, I think that grenades should pretty much stay as they are. As for LMGs, they ~are~ possible to fire accurately from a shoulder position, if you're very strong and heavy. (I'm not talking about a teeny little SAW, I'm talking M60/M240B). I think that they should generally be hard to aim, unless kneeling (the closest thing to a prone position) OR firing from behind low cover (whereas you could set down the bipod on said cover for extra stability). Multiple-burst LMG fire makes sense, as well - though the second and progressive bursts are going to be more difficult to aim, due to recoil... recoil that you don't really get a lot of with smaller weapons. If you were to take an accuracy penalty with every additional burst, I could see it implemented. Of course, as pointed out above, you're already taking a major hit to accuracy if you're not in a steady position, kneeling or behind low cover. Hitting anything while moving, shooting from the hip, at full-auto would be a matter of luck more than anything else, which isn't really what you want in a tactical situation with civilians running around the battlefield. Finally, LMGs are typically designed for destruction of vehicles (or, in some cases, vehicle-sized aliens), or suppression. Personally, that's exactly how I use my Machine Gunner. He either keeps the enemy's head down, or destroys soft cover. I almost never rely on him for a kill-shot, unless he's almost point-blank.