New Steam review from X-Com veteran and Military Veteran

[warpout]

RPG-7 was in use since 1961 and it is field reloadable btw. So tech was there, and game is correct.

[Chthon]

Worth noting that it is unlikely the aliens signed the Geneva Accords

Also worth noting that the accords bind those that do sign it, even if fighting someone who did not. Hence why we must follow them when fighting terrorists who don't follow the conventions against torture, and executing prisoners.

And before you mention waterboarding, once it came out it happened, those who did it were courts martialed for war crimes. It's kind of hard to control everyone under a broad command when others conspire to hide it from you.

[Chthon]

Going back to the night vision point, you can't actually restrict the soldiers vision any further without making it impossible to see certain tiles. Its a hard limitation of the game engine and tile system that can't be overcome.

In theory, vision should be able to be restricted to as small as 45 degree cone. If there are blind spots due to the engine at that point, widening it to 46 degrees is a good work-around. If you have the option of taking off and putting on night vision, then you could restrict it further, say 30 degrees, and leave the blind spots as a draw back since you can remove it and see normal next turn.

[Irishguy117]

What, how? Can you elaborate? I can't imagine how restricting vision can make tiles impossible to see.

gauddlike put up an excellent description of it somewhere, bu the gist is your soldiers can only turn in 15 degree increments. Decrease their field of vision the way RL night vision gear does and they wouldn't be able to turn to face enemies, every direction they are capable of facing would be turning too far, resulting in a situation where you cannot see enemies that are standing right in front of you like 15 feet away.

EDIT: The game engine doesn't do 46 degrees.The game engine was a stupid decision by a programmer who is no longer on the dev team. As a soldier I'm sure your familiar with the idea that we could bitch and moan about how something SHOULD have been designed all day long, but this is the way it was designed and its what we have to work with.

Edited July 3, 2014 by Irishguy117

[Catfur]

Also worth noting that the accords bind those that do sign it, even if fighting someone who did not. Hence why we must follow them when fighting terrorists who don't follow the conventions against torture, and executing prisoners.

And before you mention waterboarding, once it came out it happened, those who did it were courts martialed for war crimes. It's kind of hard to control everyone under a broad command when others conspire to hide it from you.

The accords (including the Hague convention) only bind signatories fighting a non-signatory if the non-signatory power "accepts and applies the provisions." As the aliens manifestly flaunt just about every provision, the accords are clearly not binding on the signatories, vis a vis the aliens.

[StellarRat]

The accords (including the Hague convention) only bind signatories fighting a non-signatory if the non-signatory power "accepts and applies the provisions." As the aliens manifestly flaunt just about every provision, the accords are clearly not binding on the signatories, vis a vis the aliens.

The aliens fluffy, lovable, but misunderstood creatures...those Reaper spears are just a friendly greeting in their culture.

[Chthon]

The accords (including the Hague convention) only bind signatories fighting a non-signatory if the non-signatory power "accepts and applies the provisions." As the aliens manifestly flaunt just about every provision, the accords are clearly not binding on the signatories, vis a vis the aliens.

That is certainly not I was told while I was in the military. Also how do you define a power? Can a terrorist force without a discernible government count as a power? If not then the same that applies to human terrorists applies to the alien terrorists who have not attempted any form of diplomacy yet.

[Catfur]

That is certainly not I was told while I was in the military. Also how do you define a power? Can a terrorist force without a discernible government count as a power? If not then the same that applies to human terrorists applies to the alien terrorists who have not attempted any form of diplomacy yet.

It's not defined what a "power" is in the convention.

No, it doesn't apply to terrorists, because they don't "accept and apply the provisions therof." Hence we can throw them in Guantanamo bay indefinitely, without pay, etc...

[Granner]

Hence we can throw them in Guantanamo bay indefinitely, without pay, etc...

Actually, you can't. Article 3 of Geneva Conventions specifically, as an exception, applies to ALL conflicts, not only to international ones. So no, you can't ignore it no matter what.

[Max_Caine]

I can't sleep, so I thought i'd stick my oar in. This thread, like many like it typify a desire among players for versimilitude when it comes to the known and the tangible, even when such versimilitude really isn't in the game's best interests. Area of effect weapons are a valuable game mechanic, both for the player and his AI opponent. Area of effect weapons teach the player not to bunch up and in turn they permit the player to attack several enemies at once. As a game mechanic, to not include area of effect weapons removes a level of depth from ground combat that would rapidly be picked up and heartily complained about.

In Xenonauts, area effect weapons come both in direct and indirect flavours, specificially plasma cannons and rocket launchers for direct, hand grenades for the other. The direct and indirect area effect weapons are introduced at the start of the game for the Xenonauts player for a variety of reasons. The ones I can think of are to let the player experiment and comprehend the mechanics of area effect weapons, to provide a player who is otherwise at a disadvantage compared to aliens tools aliens will not have until later, to satisfy a need among players for area effect weapons and to provide a greater, more immediate depth to the game.

By providing such tools at the start of the game, the problem of versimilitude arises. Unless the setting of the game divorces the player from the "real world" as EU1994 and EU2012 did there is a demand that tools match the specifics of the tools they visually represent, even if such representation diminishes the weapon in terms of usable game mechanics. From a mechanics standpoint area of effect weapons tend to be either described as disposable and small, or large and reloadable. This is because a small, disposable area of effect weapon can be taken more than once, but a large area of effect weapon can generally only be taken once. If the large weapon only has one shot, then its perceived value (and please note that we are discussing the perceived value of a weapon, rather than it's actual value) is less than an area of effect weapon that can be taken several times as if a solider misses with a large weapon, does not cause any damage or does not cause favourable damage, then the immediate feedback is "well, that was a waste of time!". One might argue all sorts of things, taking into account the disparity between a small disposable weapon and a large one, but when it boils down to it, in a game like Xenonauts if I have a choice between an area of effect weapon that I can use more than once and an area of effect weapon I can only use once, then that once-only AOE weapon must have a intrinsic value far greater than a multi-use weapon, as I have more than adequate tools (such as smoke grenades, combat shields and sheer numbers) to position soliders in such a way that I can maximise value from my small, disposable weapons in comparison to a large, disposable weapon.

But versimiltude does not care. If something does not sit right, it will never sit right. It will be changed at the first opportunity to match the desire to create greater versimilitude, even if at the same time that change harms the tool in terms of mechanics. Versimiltude then, while being a noble endevour, harms games and should be minimised whenever possible in favour of better mechanics.

Edited July 4, 2014 by Max_Caine

[KevinHann]

Amen.

[Chthon]

I can't sleep, so I thought i'd stick my oar in. This thread, like many like it typify a desire among players for versimilitude when it comes to the known and the tangible, even when such versimilitude really isn't in the game's best interests. Area of effect weapons are a valuable game mechanic, both for the player and his AI opponent. Area of effect weapons teach the player not to bunch up and in turn they permit the player to attack several enemies at once. As a game mechanic, to not include area of effect weapons removes a level of depth from ground combat that would rapidly be picked up and heartily complained about.

In Xenonauts, area effect weapons come both in direct and indirect flavours, specificially plasma cannons and rocket launchers for direct, hand grenades for the other. The direct and indirect area effect weapons are introduced at the start of the game for the Xenonauts player for a variety of reasons. The ones I can think of are to let the player experiment and comprehend the mechanics of area effect weapons, to provide a player who is otherwise at a disadvantage compared to aliens tools aliens will not have until later, to satisfy a need among players for area effect weapons and to provide a greater, more immediate depth to the game.

By providing such tools at the start of the game, the problem of versimilitude arises. Unless the setting of the game divorces the player from the "real world" as EU1994 and EU2012 did there is a demand that tools match the specifics of the tools they visually represent, even if such representation diminishes the weapon in terms of usable game mechanics. From a mechanics standpoint area of effect weapons tend to be either described as disposable and small, or large and reloadable. This is because a small, disposable area of effect weapon can be taken more than once, but a large area of effect weapon can generally only be taken once. If the large weapon only has one shot, then its perceived value (and please note that we are discussing the perceived value of a weapon, rather than it's actual value) is less than an area of effect weapon that can be taken several times as if a solider misses with a large weapon, does not cause any damage or does not cause favourable damage, then the immediate feedback is "well, that was a waste of time!". One might argue all sorts of things, taking into account the disparity between a small disposable weapon and a large one, but when it boils down to it, in a game like Xenonauts if I have a choice between an area of effect weapon that I can use more than once and an area of effect weapon I can only use once, then that once-only AOE weapon must have a intrinsic value far greater than a multi-use weapon, as I have more than adequate tools (such as smoke grenades, combat shields and sheer numbers) to position soliders in such a way that I can maximise value from my small, disposable weapons in comparison to a large, disposable weapon.

But versimiltude does not care. If something does not sit right, it will never sit right. It will be changed at the first opportunity to match the desire to create greater versimilitude, even if at the same time that change harms the tool in terms of mechanics. Versimiltude then, while being a noble endevour, harms games and should be minimised whenever possible in favour of better mechanics.

Wow, long rant. Let me be clear to you. My review was almost purely positive, the things I listed were quibbles compared to what I've experienced in other "remakes." Of the things I listed, the only ones that I feel must be fixed are the interface issues and font sizes.

Beyond that I was having fun talking with people about how to possibly balance realistic machine guns in the game such that they are more useful as extended suppression weapons rather than massive damage weapons, and learning about other nation's unit structures and how they use RPGs. It might be a long thread, but it's all discussion and conjecture mostly. A lot of opinions. Something may come out of it, something might not, but it's a center for talk.

I am fully aware that you need a game to function as a game first before adding the form to it. Otherwise it's not fun. However some of the greatest minds have found ways to merge both form and function together into a cohesive unit. It might just happen here, or probably not, but hell, we can try. The important thing is we have fun doing it

I'd also like to see suppression from an automatic weapon work similar to how XCom:EU works. Where you set it for your turn, it uses all your remaining TUs and continues until your next turn where you can choose to keep going or stop. Let it be targetable on an alien, or an area. The latter would be more useful when you know where a shot came from, but not precisely, but the former can try to track the target if it moves borrowing TUs from the next turn the way the game already can do with reaction fire. A machine gun is designed to make a wall of lead, but is used more to scare the piss out of someone so they stay put while squad mates move in for the flank.

Of course aliens like Androns would ignore that instinct, as well as those under direct mental control of another mind. Also nothing says the aliens can't try to do the same to you. It could me more tactical options to open up the tactical gameplay even further on higher difficulty.

Anyways, first and foremost, this is a discussion of what could be done, how it could be done, and if it could be done without destroying the gameplay already there. I haven't stopped playing the game because machine guns don't jam on 30 round magazines (the M249 would, a lot).

I have stopped using grenades mostly as anything other than weights for soldiers to carry to improve their strength as grenades and rockets end up feeling weak. Something is wrong in the balance for them, but I can't quite tell you what. Sometimes they do ok damage, sometimes it's too strong, and sometimes it's negligible, all to the same type of enemy. Maybe the damage range of +-50%, for a weapon as powerful as them is too wide a range and needs to be reduced a bit. I don't know, but using grenades and rockets are like rolling dice compared to regular weapons, and I'm just not a gambler when lives are on the line.

[Huntota]

Also Bazookas, the infantry RPG of choice in the time period, were not field reloadable. The ignition charge was not part of the rocket and not easily replaced. Instead a bazooka was carried by select riflemen, not machine gunners who already had to carry heavy ammo drums. The bazooka was also destroyed and discarded after use. Reloadable Rocket Launchers were available at the time, but only as mounted varieties. This actually carries through to today's military.

RPG-7 was certainly field-reloadable.

[Chthon]

RPG-7 was certainly field-reloadable.

I concede that point. It did not come up in my history search due to the US Army's lack of use of the weapon. There is an issue with it if you didn't know that limits it's range to about 80 meters, although it can hit targets at 300 meters in some conditions. Any cross wind will cause the warhead to veer into the wind, which is counter-intuitive.

I'll give it that it's a good reloadable short range weapon, though I would think from the description it'd be a multi-turn reload. The rocket and powder firing charges must be assembled prior to loading the rocket into the weapon. Then the ignition charge must be prepared. Easily-field reloadable does not come to mind, though it is certainly doable. (For those who defend balance, this is not a suggested balance change, just an observation of the weapon mentioned and translation into game mechanics.)

According to the wiki the Taliban will use upwards of 15 of these against a tank, first at the treads to kill it's mobility, then at the tank itself to destroy it. It certainly doesn't work well on heavily armored targets even with HEAT rounds. Perhaps why the US prefers the AT4 LAW rocket launcher these days. The weapon was designed more around killing APCs and other lightly armored vehicles.

In other news, in my experience Taliban love shooting these things at US bases which have phalanx anti-mortar guns emplaced, as these fly lower than the guns tend to fire. Only problem, if the warhead doesn't hit something horizontally, it tends to slide to a halt unexploded and useless, so almost 90% of the shots are wasted.

[Huntota]

Well, RPG-7 is very outdated by now, it was good enough around Xenonauts ingame time, but now there are many other options to kill a tank for infantry, from RPG-32 to Kornet. You can see some examples of their usage in videos from Syria. Well, not kornet maybe, but konkurs is definately there.

[Gauddlike]

I have stopped using grenades mostly as anything other than weights for soldiers to carry to improve their strength as grenades and rockets end up feeling weak. Something is wrong in the balance for them, but I can't quite tell you what. Sometimes they do ok damage, sometimes it's too strong, and sometimes it's negligible, all to the same type of enemy. Maybe the damage range of +-50%, for a weapon as powerful as them is too wide a range and needs to be reduced a bit. I don't know, but using grenades and rockets are like rolling dice compared to regular weapons, and I'm just not a gambler when lives are on the line.

I believe that the rng roll for damage is only done once for the weapon which may be the reason area effects feel so unpredictable.

Assume for a second that I have thrown a grenade at a group of 3 enemies and also managed to get 2 cover props into the area.

The grenade lands and the rng decides that I was unlucky and the damage is 50 points, the lowest it can go.

Every object within the area of the grenade takes 50 damage and I wonder what the point was as there is no visible damage.

Rewind time and repeat the shot but this time the rng likes me and I do the maximum 150 damage.

Everything in the area takes 150 damage leading to dismemberment and all sorts of unpleasantness, this makes me happy.

In the first case the grenade looks like a pretty puff of smoke and nothing more, in the second case it is a devastating weapon of mass destruction.

It was suggested a while back that explosives could roll individually for everything in their area of effect to make them a little less of an 'all or nothing' weapon.

That shouldn't be much of a problem for small explosives but could get a little excessive for larger blasts affecting large amounts of tiles.

[Chthon]

I believe that the rng roll for damage is only done once for the weapon which may be the reason area effects feel so unpredictable.

Assume for a second that I have thrown a grenade at a group of 3 enemies and also managed to get 2 cover props into the area.

The grenade lands and the rng decides that I was unlucky and the damage is 50 points, the lowest it can go.

Every object within the area of the grenade takes 50 damage and I wonder what the point was as there is no visible damage.

Rewind time and repeat the shot but this time the rng likes me and I do the maximum 150 damage.

Everything in the area takes 150 damage leading to dismemberment and all sorts of unpleasantness, this makes me happy.

In the first case the grenade looks like a pretty puff of smoke and nothing more, in the second case it is a devastating weapon of mass destruction.

It was suggested a while back that explosives could roll individually for everything in their area of effect to make them a little less of an 'all or nothing' weapon.

That shouldn't be much of a problem for small explosives but could get a little excessive for larger blasts affecting large amounts of tiles.

I'm not so sure about that. I've had the same alien grenade fail to harm 2 soldiers, yet wipe the floor with two others. Of the unharmed ones, one was at ground zero. I think damage is rolled individually.

Furthermore, someone somewhere mentioned that there is a complex area of effect calculation as well, though I do not know the extent of it.

[Gauddlike]

I can't even find the original post that bit of information came from so can't decide if it was an official response or just a feeling someone posted up that I somehow got stuck in my head