Stat degradation - not sure if it's been mentioned

[Simmo753]

was playing last night and after shooting an aliens about 20 times I got to thinking about stat loss after injury, is it going to be implemented for both player and alien or is it already there in some form?

[Gorlom]

Hopefully not.

[Simmo753]

would add another element to the game though, that and it would likely be a life saver for your guys if they finish there turn in-front of an alien you didn't manage to kill.

[Gorlom]

Ah I was assuming permanent stat penalty and I really hated that Idea.

You are really talking about a temporary penalty though? To which stats though? Strength would make most sense but would be the most frustrating and would probably be a poor choice. AP? Accuracy? Both? Bravery?

[Simmo753]

yeah was meaning connected to hit points, accuracy and strength would be what I'd expect, there may be ways to tie in bravery, all stats would recover after the soldier is healed in base.

[Gorzahg]

In the original, wounded agents and aliens would have their accuracy decreased. I was hoping that would be in Xenonauts.

[Gauddlike]

I don't think that's a good idea.

In Xenonauts you fire at an enemy and they get suppressed.

They lose any chance of reaction fire and AP for the next turn.

Then on top of that if they get hurt they would also lose accuracy?

That seems a bit much to me.

If you throw in strength and bravery reductions on top of that anyone who gets hit is going to be seriously reduced in effectiveness.

Maybe realistic but would that be fun to play?

[sledge]

In the original game a soldier who was wounded usually had to be taken completely out of the action with like 80% accuracy reduction rendering him all but useless.

I have been pondering the above sentence for the last five minutes. At first it was meant to discourage stat decrease. But the more I think of it the more I like the idea of having a wounded soldier SEVERELY impact the whole operation. In real war the goal is to wound enemy soldiers for a wounded soldier in contrast to a dead soldier takes not only himself out of the fight but also the other soldiers who have to take care of first aid and extraction measures.

Everything that adds to rendering a wounded/under fire soldier helpless and dependent on intervention from his fellows would create a massive shift in operation tactic. A squad that was just now advancing along a road would dig in, lay down cover fire, throw a smoke grenade and send in the ever suicidal/selfless medic to carry the wounded soldier away from danger.

Well at least from my experience playing UFO and watching war movies

[...]Maybe realistic but would that be fun to play?

Sounds much more fun and immersive than the guy who just got chest armor burnt into his flesh just firing back then after taking a shot of morphine or two continue to snipe the odd alien that happens to come along.

In the end it would come down to how frequent injuries will be. As it is with the current AI an injured soldier is rare and SHOULD evoke such dramatic consequences.

If the endgame would have your war40k like exoskeleton armor equipped soldiers take a few hits every single battle (which wouldn't be UFO style) each time evoking a saving-private-ryan epic reaction would get old really fast.

My pov purely gameplay wise:

A wounded soldier should force the player to commit considerable resources to saving said soldier and said soldier to cease being a useful combatant for the rest of the mission or at least a substantial part of it (not so much, AFTER the mission hint: advanced medical science). In the later stages of the game improves medical science could alleviate the effects of injuries and contribute to the getting-more-powerful-feeling by enabling you to just apply some "medigel" and "stims" and send the guy with the hole in the chest back to get some revenge

[Gauddlike]

I feel that would lead to rookies being used as bait and getting left for dead once they get hit because saving them is a hassle.

If anyone more important gets hit you would either leave them to die or just walk them away from the fight because after a wound they are useless anyway.

A small reduction to one of the stats might work but too much of a hit to effectiveness would just make any wounded soldier a liability.

Anyone who takes fire is likely going to be severely limited in their actions due to AP loss from suppression.

If they get hit they are also dealing with an accuracy penalty.

If strength is affected then they will likely have further AP loss from encumbrance.

If bravery is affected they will be more liable to panic and become useless and also easier to suppress again.

I really don't see how that would be fun to play.

The choice to remove a wounded player from the fight should be the players not forced on them by a game mechanic.

If one of your troops gets hurt then you know that they are in danger of getting killed if they take more fire.

You have the option of bravely/desperately continuing to fight or dropping smoke and waiting for support or withdrawing.

That was the good thing about the accuracy reduction as a penalty.

It only affected your chance of hitting the enemy, it didn't really limit your choices.

That is one of the reasons I dislike the current AP based suppression system.

[kbronct2004]

It's a good idea (and real) to be implemented.

No soldier is hit and continues fighting as Rambo does.

A wounded soldier would have less AP, carry less weight so he would have to throw heavy equipment, less accuracy, panic...

I think the extent of the wounds should affect those stats depending of the type of the wound: burning, being shots by laser or hand to hand.

I assume there must be a balance between realism and playability. I only ask wounds system doesn't get too simple.

I haven't played enough to know what "supression" actually means but first glance, it sounds good.

[Chris]

I don't really fancy this. We've already got suppression and the bleeding wounds system, as well as an entire morale system around making your troops semi-useless when scared (and they take morale damage from injury, or should do). I don't want to gimp Xenonaut operatives completely

[thothkins]

This is one of the things I thought would be making it's way into the game eventually.

It doesn't make a lot of sense for Cpl Tupper to be gurgling blood from his gaping chest wound, yet still leap about and kill off lots of his enemies.

I think it adds nice wrinkles to a mission. Sometimes, they are little wars of attrition. In EU energy levels would decrease, giving some of the larger missions that little bit more of an edge. Likewise with this. I don;t see it as particularly harsh on the player.

[Gauddlike]

If body parts could be individually damaged then you could have all of those penalties for different injuries and it would make sense.

A blanket reduction in stats would just be frustrating.

If someone gets hurt and becomes practically useless why bother with better armour?

They will likely die soon anyway as they are probably bleeding, barely able to move, unable to fire back and on the verge of panic.

It really does depend on how the balance works though.

If you are getting hit and surviving multiple times per fight then a penalty to effectiveness probably needs to be considered.

I would still avoid over penalising an injured trooper though.

[StellarRat]

I don't the current stat and damage system really lend themselves to implementing this even if it is a good idea. I believe Gauddlike is correct in saying that it really only works well if the damage can be assigned to a certain body part. I remember the old XCom showed where the wounds were on the medipack screen that had no bearing on the operatives performance. Maybe they had planned to implement that at some point but never did. I'm not sure the painkiller actually did anything either. I know the stimulant actually would wake up a stunned soldier though. My own feeling is that getting hit ought to cause major suppression that's about it.