I don't 'get' the need for a suppression icon? Why not just show the unit cower?

[Oathbreaker]

You should join the army.

I did, once or twice. Things didn't work out. I'm working on getting some more real-life trigger time.

You should start a fire fight with the police, and then use realistic and well developed cover. :3

I'd rather not shoot my buddies.

[nixcalo]

Have you guys thought that perhaps this issue might be solved with difficulty settings? Imagine that, on level Easy, you have the chance to get a lot of information and decide if you want them or not, such as the famous suppression icon, and perhaps other information, such as remaining alien HP, AP or whatever. In harder levels, you get less choices, and in the hardest levels, you have no suppression icon, perhaps a more realistic fog of war and other things. In that particular case, I am thinking, for example, that the field of view might be limited to the soldier you are controlling in that instant. That way, difficulty settings would go much farther than just giving more HP to the aliens, more UFO invasions, less money and less rewards from UFO missions.

What do you think? It would be a good solution to the suppression icon issue. I agree that in the hardest levels, you should not know beyond doubt whether an alien is suppressed or not, but that is only the beginning of what a hard difficulty level should imply.

[kefeinzel]

gameplay and fun > a made up buzzword like immersion

[Gorlom]

gameplay and fun > a made up buzzword like immersion

+1

[Xenophob]

I vote for that icon to be switchable on Options, or atleast difficulty level dependent. But switchable is better. Because it is more or less easy to say what settings of "Hard" and "Easy" should be. But who can tell what average player want it to be on "Medium" level? "Custom diffculty" is the best anyway.

Also if enemy suppressed or not you can see by scanning it with some MK technology later in game. Before that offcourse you will lose a few good mens.

[Buzzles]

Also if enemy suppressed or not you can see by scanning it with some MK technology later in game. Before that offcourse you will lose a few good mens.

With some what now?

[Oathbreaker]

gameplay and fun > a made up buzzword like immersion

Immersion = fun.

How you can't understand this is inconceivable. How could you possibly not enjoy everything I enjoy just as much as I enjoy it? I mean, it's perfectly obvious that everyone must enjoy all the cool stuff I enjoy because we're all ...different?

Oh wait. Never mind. How about some people want this or that in games, others want other things. It's cool. You're no doubt in the majority. Very few people are looking for atmosphere and mystery and simulation-style tactics in games these days. To each their own. The trend in games is definitely to give the players all the information about anything they could possibly want, down to the exact number of hit points of each opponent, their exact status, location, modifiers, percentage chance to hit and exact, to the last drop of blood, amount of damage a hit would cause. Anything else would just be "unfair."

/sarcasmfont

Edited October 10, 2012 by Oathbreaker

[Gorlom]

Immersion = fun.

How you can't understand this is inconceivable. How could you possibly not enjoy everything I enjoy just as much as I enjoy it? I mean, it's perfectly obvious that everyone must enjoy all the cool stuff I enjoy because we're all ...different?

Oh wait. Never mind. How about some people want this or that in games, others want other things. It's cool. You're no doubt in the majority. Very few people are looking for atmosphere and mystery and simulation-style tactics in games these days. To each their own. The trend in games is definitely to give the players all the information about anything they could possibly want, down to the exact number of hit points of each opponent, their exact status, location, modifiers, percentage chance to hit and exact, to the last drop of blood, amount of damage a hit would cause. Anything else would just be "unfair."

/sarcasmfont

I'm just confused about wanting a game that is largely completed in its design to be something completely different. If you want a game that is immersive through realism (or what is immersive for you? did I get that wrong?), shouldn't you seek those games out instead of motioning for change of a game that doesn't want to be realistic in the sense you want it to be?

Something where the realism makes sense and not just convoluted mechanics that doesn't work for anyone but the ultra realist?

[StellarRat]

Hey, Oathbreaker, I'm with you on this. Have you looked at any of the Battlefront CM series yet? I think you might enjoy them since you are into realism.

[StellarRat]

Something where the realism makes sense and not just convoluted mechanics that doesn't work for anyone but the ultra realist?

I'm a little confused by this statement. Realism and convoluted mechanics do not necessarily go hand in hand. Xenonauts lends itself to realism (if desired) because of small numbers of troops and aircraft in any given encounter. In some ways it's already very realistic.

[Gorlom]

I'm a little confused by this statement. Realism and convoluted mechanics do not necessarily go hand in hand. Xenonauts lends itself to realism (if desired) because of small numbers of troops and aircraft in any given encounter. In some ways it's already very realistic.

It's turnbased and fighting against aliens. I'm sorry for that cheap shot, but some of the suggestions I've seen to make Xenonauts more realistic not only breaks the game for me but also seems to be striving as far away from what the game looks like it is trying to be. I don't agree that Xenonauts lends itself to realism the same way you do.

It requires some suspension of belief and I don't agree that realism automatically = enjoyable gameplay. I want the game mechanic to work in the context of the gameplay rather than the games story or simulating reality.

PS: Crap... I've started something now haven't I?

Edited October 10, 2012 by Gorlom

[StellarRat]

PS: Crap... I've started something now haven't I?

Yes, you have. I'm sure you realize that nearly any game or story requires a suspension of belief unless it is historical. Even a "realistic" wargame with two human groups in conflict if there was never a war between those sides requires this. Why do they add real landmarks to a flight simulator if not to suspend disbelief? Because Xenonauts uses real world weapons I think realistic tactics and results at least on human end improves immersion and therefore requires less suspension of belief and that improves the game. Even in a sword and magic game, having realistic sword play, armor, and a consistent magic system is better than not. My opinion is that if you start with the cloak of reality than you have to follow through. Would "Aliens" have been a good movie if Ripley had suddenly found a magic bracelet that allowed her to turn the aliens into rabbits?? NO!

You have to stay in system you start and anything that increases the detail of that system adds to make it more convincing to the viewer/gamer. If you have a system that proposes the use of modern military equipment than it ought work as close to real stuff as you can make it otherwise you end up with a lot of people thinking, "Gee, how did he fire 12000 shots from his pistol without reloading?" or the A-Team where 10 million rounds could be fired and no one gets hurt.

It's not necessary to increase the complexity of the interface greatly improve realism because a lot of it can just happen behind the scenes and you only have to live the results. Battlefront's CM series is very realistic, but the interface it quite simple. Most of the realism happens behind the scenes. When you fire a machine gun the enemy might hit the dirt, some ammo is used, and morale is checked, the user doesn't need to do anything special. If your officers get killed it's harder to get the troops to execute orders, etc... What realism does is allow you apply knowledge and have it pay off because then you would know, for example, that attacking tanks from the rear gives you the best chance to knock them out. All the realism does is make so when you apply proper tactics you succeed. There is no reason realism should detract from Xenonauts. If "realism" keeps someone from winning they can always turn down the difficulty and continue to employ poor tactics.

Edited October 10, 2012 by StellarRat

[Gorlom]

I don't agree with a lot of your assumptions. (much like you don't agree with mine)

One of them is that I don't think realism automatically increases immersion. realistic swordsplay in a sword and magic game brings me out of it. I don't know enough to fully enjoy it, and in the end it will just feel like bad controls because it won't really be intuitive for the players with no swordsmanship skills.

Realistic physics in GTA or any of the racing games means that if you frontal your car it's over. You don't keep driving on a busted engine and if you flew out of the windshield you don't get back up. In mario kart you are tossing tortoise shells at other players.. some of them are homing. Plumbers shooting fire after touching a flower.. would super mario really be better if he hocked wrenches at bowser and had a big visible asscrack?

For me realism isn't a holy grail. It's something that would be nice if you could fit it in... but it doesn't take precedence over everything or even anything else. It's the lowest point on my list.

The FTL devs had a view on this that was interesting. As I understood it they tried out their mechanics and tried to figure out if they were fun first and foremost and decided to not worry if it made sense or was realistic until later.

This has left them with the little quirk that their stealth system vs weapon charge time doesn't make sense. Many users complain about the issue and assume it to be a bug. However the system is left as it is because the alternative just isn't fun gameplay. Realism and/or making sense does not make the stealth system better.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Gorlom

[Bletchley_Geek]

Hey, Oathbreaker, I'm with you on this. Have you looked at any of the Battlefront CM series yet? I think you might enjoy them since you are into realism.

Hahaha. I laugh because I was just checking Battlefront's forums. There you have people complaining about machine guns not being realistically effective (and maybe they aren't, judging from the videos people are making) since, well, ages. Let's not have that here. Not necessary at all, in my opinion, since Xenonauts isn't claiming to have a extremely accurate simulation of real world ballistics. I'm fine with a more boardgame-like approach to these things (which seems to be the way to go nonetheless).

Regarding suppression/morale/etc. I actually think the current system to be as detailed as that of XCom, and that's good enough. The effects of being subject under fire (and here were talking about high energy plasma bolts able to melt brick walls away, not bullets, which are scary enough) as in being "pinned" - you lose one turn -, "panicked" - you lose 1+ turns, soldier possibly gets killed since it jumps out of cover, or "nuts" - lose 1 turn, side effects might involve hitting squad mates, seem to me adequately nuanced as to make reasonable believable and immersive what we see on the screen.

Having these morale effects tied to nearby events such as the soldier seeing a fellow squaddie to have a very horrible death would be a neat thing as well.

However I can see a case for "partial" AP reductions. Say that whenever a "disturbing" event - such as a plasma bolt flying so close to your face as to burn your eyelashes away - happens to a friendly unit, the game rolls some "dice", so the result of the dice modified by the unit attributes, needs to be above a certain threshold. If the check fails, then you get the pinned/panic/berserk effects, depending on how bad the roll has been. To accomodate Oathbreaker suggestion one just needs to add more levels of failure in a table like this:

[table=width: 500, class:grid]

[tr]

[td]Difference between[/td]

[td][/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]roll+attribute modifiers[/td]

[td]Effect[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]vs. difficulty check[/td]

[td][/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]Greater than zero[/td]

[td]None[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]-1 to -2[/td]

[td]10% AP reduction[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]-3 to -4[/td]

[td]25% AP reduction[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]-5 to -7[/td]

[td]50% AP reduction[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]

-8 to -20

[/td]

[td]

100% AP reduction (Unit becomes pinned)

[/td]

[/tr]

[tr]

[td]

Less than -20

[/td]

[td]

Berserk or Panic (depending on perhaps a roll against a unit attribute)

[/td]

[/tr]

[/table]

The brackets indeed depend on the number of "sides" on the dice and the range of attributes.

This is quite easy to implement (I'm assuming this is not too different from what Chris has in place), allows modding and I don't think it can affect players in a bad way (after all, this is a single player game, so min-maxing isn't an issue).

Edited October 11, 2012 by Bletchley_Geek
Added HTML table

[StellarRat]

Hahaha. I laugh because I was just checking Battlefront's forums. There you have people complaining about machine guns not being realistically effective (and maybe they aren't, judging from the videos people are making) since, well, ages.

Yeah, that's been an ongoing topic since the FIRST CM in 1999...LOL. I think the main problem is that there is no set in stone accepted scientific models to use for MG effectiveness in combat, so you're forced to guess and try to come up with something that gives historical results, but then there are different views of history, right? Hardly anyone argues about their armor penetration modeling or tank accuracy comparatively because those were extensively studied and recorded on fire ranges and it's much easier to come up with specific combat records/values for those weapons since they're big and people remember big events.

Anyway, you're right that we don't have to get that detailed in Xenonauts. For example I think just having a morale system is more important that than trying to figure out a "perfect" system. We also don't need a perfect system for shooting down UFO's because there is no historical or scientific way to model it because we don't know the characteristics of UFO's, just a model that makes some logical sense based on what do know about the aircraft and missiles.

Getting back to your morale system: I have no problem with your proposal, but I think the main point of contention is whether or not the player should "know" a unit is pinned. Or should be player be unsure about how much AP the target has remaining?? That is a serious consideration. I would prefer not knowing. If the player knows a unit has no AP then there is no reason to proceed with caution. You just run up and shoot the target in the head. Something that no reasonable person would do in a real combat situation. Hence, highly unrealistic.

Edited October 11, 2012 by StellarRat

[Oathbreaker]

I'm just confused about wanting a game that is largely completed in its design to be something completely different. If you want a game that is immersive through realism (or what is immersive for you? did I get that wrong?), shouldn't you seek those games out instead of motioning for change of a game that doesn't want to be realistic in the sense you want it to be?

Something where the realism makes sense and not just convoluted mechanics that doesn't work for anyone but the ultra realist?

I think you're taking this a bit too far. The OP was just a simple question about one simple graphical icon detail. That's it. I couldn't care much less about the actual game effect with mechanics and whatnot, to my eyes the underlying math/psychology/battle system is just fine. It was just a thread about the icon, no more.

I'm not trying for a huge overhaul of the game. If you think a bit of constructive criticism of one single little icon floating over a character's head on the screen is "wanting... something completely different" then I really don't know what to tell you, other than that you in this post appear incapable of rational discussion regarding something that doesn't immediately appeal to you. Or perhaps this is just a case of normal reasonable people not being able to have a reasonable discussion over the internet, as seems to so often happen over this medium. I'm moderately certain that if we had this discussion face to face it'd last about 2-3 minutes and finish with a mutual "Ah well, no big deal" from each of us. Well, at least from me.

Again, and with renewed emphasis - TO EACH THEIR OWN. I'm not trying to force or QQ to change - as you so fanatically put it - "completely different" design. Now, if you continue to say anyone who disagrees with you about some minor little icon or detail should go find another game, you appear as tolerant as the extreme liberals that call themselves "tolerant" and yet can only handle talking to anyone that shares their every opinion.

Edited October 11, 2012 by Oathbreaker

[Bletchley_Geek]

Yeah, that's been an ongoing topic since the FIRST CM in 1999...LOL.

It's really funny

I think the main problem is that there is no set in stone accepted scientific models to use for MG effectiveness in combat, so you're forced to guess and try to come up with something that gives historical results, but then there are different views of history, right? Hardly anyone argues about their armor penetration modeling or tank accuracy comparatively because those were extensively studied and recorded on fire ranges and it's much easier to come up with specific combat records/values for those weapons since they're big and people remember big events.

That's very true. Although I can remember one guy - Lewis? - ranting for years about the StuG's not being modelled properly.

Anyway, you're right that we don't have to get that detailed in Xenonauts. For example I think just having a morale system is more important that than trying to figure out a "perfect" system. We also don't need a perfect system for shooting down UFO's because there is no historical or scientific way to model it because we don't know the characteristics of UFO's, just a model that makes some logical sense based on what do know about the aircraft and missiles.

Yep. The point is to get a system which is interesting in itself from a tactical perspective but not too detailed either (otherwise, air combat would need to be turn-based). We don't need anything like Hornet Leader. In this respect I think Chris got it essentially right from the very beginning.

Getting back to your morale system: I have no problem with your proposal, but I think the main point of contention is whether or not the player should "know" a unit is pinned.

Here I'm a bit guilty of being off-topic For your own units, yes, of course.

Or should be player be unsure about how much AP the target has remaining?? That is a serious consideration. I would prefer not knowing. If the player knows a unit has no AP then there is no reason to proceed with caution. You just run up and shoot the target in the head. Something that no reasonable person would do in a real combat situation. Hence, highly unrealistic.

That should be hidden from us by Fog Of War, indeed. However, the part I highlighted is not an uncommon way of handling troopers in a XCom mission

[Gorlom]

I think you're taking this a bit too far. The OP was just a simple question about one simple graphical icon detail. That's it. I couldn't care much less about the actual game effect with mechanics and whatnot, to my eyes the underlying math/psychology/battle system is just fine. It was just a thread about the icon, no more.

I'm not trying for a huge overhaul of the game. If you think a bit of constructive criticism of one single little icon floating over a character's head on the screen is "wanting... something completely different" then I really don't know what to tell you, other than that you in this post appear incapable of rational discussion regarding something that doesn't immediately appeal to you. Or perhaps this is just a case of normal reasonable people not being able to have a reasonable discussion over the internet, as seems to so often happen over this medium. I'm moderately certain that if we had this discussion face to face it'd last about 2-3 minutes and finish with a mutual "Ah well, no big deal" from each of us. Well, at least from me.

Again, and with renewed emphasis - TO EACH THEIR OWN. I'm not trying to force or QQ to change - as you so fanatically put it - "completely different" design. Now, if you continue to say anyone who disagrees with you about some minor little icon or detail should go find another game, you appear as tolerant as the extreme liberals that call themselves "tolerant" and yet can only handle talking to anyone that shares their every opinion.

Actually I have to apologize to you, this wasn't about the Icon at all. I couldn't care less if it is kept or discarded. If it's possible I'll probably try to mod it out for my personal enjoyment.

It was more a rant about some championing for realism or verisimilitude that goes too far. I had forgotten that you were the one that made the Original Post in this thread.

I simply responded to that posts tone and to my impression of what you wish every game out there to be.

[xcorps]

I don't think moral should have anything to do with suppression. Suppression =!= cowering in fear. Suppression is achieved through fire supreriority, which is accurate well aimed fire that is intended to cause a unit or person to take cover to avoid casualties. This reduces the effectiveness and volume of the suppressed units fire.

It's conceivable that a combat robot could be suppressed if it's AI determined that the volume and accuracy of incoming fire would cause it's destruction unless it took cover. When it takes cover to avoid destruction and cannot effectively return fire, it is suppressed. The duration of the suppression should be determined by the incoming fire, not a moral check.

It is possible to achieve suppression on elite units, like SAS or GS9. They doesn't mean they are cowering in fear.

[Gorlom]

I don't think moral should have anything to do with suppression. Suppression =!= cowering in fear. Suppression is achieved through fire supreriority, which is accurate well aimed fire that is intended to cause a unit or person to take cover to avoid casualties. This reduces the effectiveness and volume of the suppressed units fire.

It's conceivable that a combat robot could be suppressed if it's AI determined that the volume and accuracy of incoming fire would cause it's destruction unless it took cover. When it takes cover to avoid destruction and cannot effectively return fire, it is suppressed. The duration of the suppression should be determined by the incoming fire, not a moral check.

It is possible to achieve suppression on elite units, like SAS or GS9. They doesn't mean they are cowering in fear.

Now that you have explained how suppression works, how would you translate that into (fun) game mechanics?

Do you want it to be completley independant of the targets stats, so that every enemy gets supressed in the same situations? is that kind of predictability good and fun?

Or do you want to go the other way and make it a random chance for each and every shot so that a unit can be supressed by a single shot if you're lucky (or unlucky if it is your unit). It's more random, possibly too random. That would seem to go against your description of suppression in real life .

[xcorps]

I like the system explained in the suppression thread.

I wasn't proposing a change, just pointing out that suppression and fear aren't the same thing. I don't think it should be influenced by bravery. A measure of discipline doesn't really exist AFAIK, but THAT would be the stat that would influence suppression relief.

[Gorlom]

I like the system explained in the suppression thread.

I wasn't proposing a change, just pointing out that suppression and fear aren't the same thing. I don't think it should be influenced by bravery. A measure of discipline doesn't really exist AFAIK, but THAT would be the stat that would influence suppression relief.

Ok, I missunderstood you then. I'm confused by your 2 posts though. You say that being suppressed does not mean that that individual is cowering in fear, but what stat should it be tied to then? As I understand morale it has nothing to do with bravery. (you opposed morale in the first post, but now you are opposing bravery... at least I think you do. the last sentence is confusing me since it seems to do a 180 degree turn)

Morale (also known as esprit de corps) is the capacity of a group's members to maintain belief in an institution or goal, particularly in the face of opposition or hardship. Morale is often referenced by authority figures as a generic value judgment of the willpower, obedience, and self-discipline of a group tasked with performing duties assigned by a superior.

According to Alexander H. Leighton, "morale is the capacity of a group of people to pull together persistently and consistently in pursuit of a common purpose".[1]

Assuming this meaning of morale wouldn't this be a perfect stat to tie the suppression to? It has nothing to do with being afrid or not. it is simply the belief in the group or organiation working together.

[xcorps]

Welll, the current system as I understand it needs to use bravery because it's the only stat by which you can make a roll from. What I would implement is a system that has a discipline model. Each deployment of soldiers would have a chain of command. 12 soldiers would have 3 team leaders, and the first team leader would be the squad leader. (Ideally, you would deploy 3 teams of 4 and 1 squad leader for a total of 13.) Or whatever other chain of command the player choses, but there needs to be a cascade of leadership positions. Not a bunch of "team leaders" all modifying each other in the same mission.

Each soldier would have a moral, bravery, and discipline score. When promoted to a leadership position, the leaders would have a leadership score. That leadership score would modifythe moral and discipline scores of the soldiers in the unit. (Team leader 1 would modify all soldiers in team 1. He could modify the other teams scores if their leader dies.) The squad leader would also modify the leadership score of his team leaders. Those bonus's would be range limited by an effective range. (If your team leader is on the opposite side of a map from his team, his team loses those bonus AND takes a penalty)

The ability of a demoralized soldier to overcome panic would be dependent on moral, bravery, and discipline modified by the leadership bonus.

The ability of a pinned or suppressed soldier to overcome those states would be dependent on moral and discipline modified by leadership.

I realize this is probably a vastly overcomplicated system for Xenonauts. It's just what I would consider ideal for tactical shooters.

My point wasn't really that bravery shouldn't be used as the base stat for Xenonauts, it's that suppression isn't a result of fear..and therefore robots and other low intellect oppenents can be suppressed under certain circumstances. Again, those circumstances probably being outside the scope of the Xenonauts model.

Edited November 6, 2012 by xcorps

[Gorlom]

Oh right, there is no morale stat in game my bad.

Yeah, that probably is a bit overcomplicated. It doesn't sound that fun to me to involve 3 stats like that..

it would be enough and simpler to just use morale for suppression and bravery for berserking, panic, mindcontrol. or maybe just rename bravery to "mental fortitude" and use it for everything or something... nah sounds too obscure.

Edit: How about basing suppression on the reflexes stat? It may not be intuitive but think about it for a sec If you have to base it on an existing stat, and want to distance it from bravery. why not reflexes? It would also involve reflexes more than just reaction shots and give you an alternative way to level that particular stat.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Gorlom

[xcorps]

Well, ideally the only time you would worry about those scores is when promoting soldiers to leadership positions. In combat all you'd need to worry about is keeping some form of team cohesion (not sending your soldiers off willy nilly all over the map.)

That might be an annoying micromanagement to some, but imo it's a critical part of tactical combat and deserves modelling. But that's just one of the things on my "perfect game" wishlist.