Xenonauts vs Xcom Enemy Unknown

[XenoMask]

This too.

If the aliens were actually smarter or had different/more abilities on higher difficulties it would be a lot less frustrating. Giving them aim and damage boosts and making panic increase faster then calling it the next difficulty level is just lazy in my opinion. This is also another reason why (tying in with my reply to XenoMask in the another thread) I don't see much replay value in the game.

AI is smarter on Classic(note: Impossible AI is same), but I'm not sure about details. Only thing I know for sure is that on normal and lower AI can only move five units per turn. Anyway, its pretty sad, but its nearly impossible to create challenging AI without giving it some advantages. I guess you could think of it like its like aliens from original game with them having better aim than you. Though in original game that was balanced by AI being stupid, they never moved before turn 20 unless they saw you or you were near for example. Or at least thats the case in TFTD, I do know from save scumming that AI doesn't tend to move much.

But yeah, cover scratter thing doesn't really work with chrysalids and berserkers since they don't use fricking cover They just get right to your face. Its possible to deal with with overwatch though.

@HWP: Are you referring to good AI? .-.

Edited October 14, 2012 by XenoMask

[HWP]

Anyway, its pretty sad, but its nearly impossible to create challenging AI without giving it some advantages.

It's fortunate then that this is X-COM - a game about fighting a vastly superior opponent, so you don't have to hold back.

@HWP: Are you referring to good AI? .-.

I'm referring to this idea: let's first make the game as realistic as possible. Not actually make it, just sketch the concept. Trust me, it will be so hard that no one will possibly be able to complete it. Then look at it and compromise bits of realism that add more difficulty than enjoyment, until the game is playable (at least one player can complete it). Then add more optional compromises for lower difficulties.

That's how you arrive at a game that's interesting and challenging in a realistic way.

I can't stand this "Oh no, but if we add this realistic feature, the game might become easier!" that I hear sometimes. Yes, it might. So bring back realistic features that would make it hard. Reality has solutions for everything, too hard, too easy, too boring, what have you.

[Par'Gellen]

But yeah, cover scratter thing doesn't really work with chrysalids and berserkers since they don't use fricking cover They just get right to your face. Its possible to deal with with overwatch though.

Well I never seem to run up on berserkers unless I'm already fighting something else so overwatch is rarely in the cards for me with them. Cryssalids get overwatch popped a lot though. Still doesn't help sometimes but if I can at least get a reaction shot off at them as they run at me I don't feel quite as cheated. Mainly it's the berserkers that leave me just staring at the screen thinking "WTF!".

[XenoMask]

It's fortunate then that this is X-COM - a game about fighting a vastly superior opponent, so you don't have to hold back.

I'm referring to this idea: let's first make the game as realistic as possible. Not actually make it, just sketch the concept. Trust me, it will be so hard that no one will possibly be able to complete it. Then look at it and compromise bits of realism that add more difficulty than enjoyment, until the game is playable (at least one player can complete it). Then add more optional compromises for lower difficulties.

That's how you arrive at a game that's interesting and challenging in a realistic way.

I can't stand this "Oh no, but if we add this realistic feature, the game might become easier!" that I hear sometimes. Yes, it might. So bring back realistic features that would make it hard. Reality has solutions for everything, too hard, too easy, too boring, what have you.

So you mean that you want your games as realistic as it is possible? Ok, got it.

@Par'Gellen: Hmm, yeah, I've noticed it that in this game its best to fight enemy groups one by one if possible, of course its hard to get good flanking without getting line of sight to enemies elsewhere... But yeah, since enemies that trigger scratter thing on their turn can't attack, as long berserker does it on enemy's turn, its not too hard to deal with. Unless you are in position where you can't kill it or your units panic from intimidation and shoot each other. Good thing that high will units do that rarely...

[Par'Gellen]

But yeah, since enemies that trigger scratter thing on their turn can't attack, as long berserker does it on enemy's turn, its not too hard to deal with. Unless you are in position where you can't kill it or your units panic from intimidation and shoot each other. Good thing that high will units do that rarely...

It usually happens when I'm down to my last guy alive and he just moved his "blue turn" to get in cover while fighting other aliens. There is simply no way out in that situation. If he triggers a berserker by accident the mission is failed. I really really hate that.

[XenoMask]

There are counters to that, though they are pretty rare... For example, assault with that reaction fire if enemy approaches them ability. In fact, assaults pretty much kill berserkers easily when given chance.(whoever said few pages ago(it was this thread right?) that shotguns are useless is plain wrong, you just need to be at close range with them.(its easier than it sounds as assault class' perks are made for that to be possible) They have good critical chance too) Though yeah, you are still most likely gonna lose one guy unless you have chitin plating on everyone or something.

[Par'Gellen]

Well of course in the perfect situation with the correct soldier with the needed skills and exactly right equipment I could kill it. That's never how it works out though Not for me anyway...

Edited October 14, 2012 by Par'Gellen

[flashman]

My biggest bug bear about the ground combat was the seemingly random nature of the spawns aswell as the aliens ability to move as soon as you spotted them. Surely if i catch them napping in a huddle I should be entitled to shoot them instead of them randomly jumping/moving all over the place and turning strategy into luck.

On another note just completed the game and nobody died.... besides the stupid tutorial mission. Mainly because I am a sniper with scope and overwatch whore. My lady sniper with squad vision could kill across the entire battlefield and I supported her with a move and fire sniper with double tap, 1 assault, 1 heavy and 2 med pac supports. Whilst my assault would just double shot- shotgun every single alien.

[wiglafman1225]

Playing Enemy Unknown on classic has been a great experience. A lot of the things Goldhawk held hostage for kickstarter money (i.e. varied maps, soldier memorial wall, updated UI) are included and look fantastic.

Enemy Unknown gets rid of a lot of the tedious micromanagement of the previous game. The inability to pick up dead comrades' guns and items adds to the importance of each soldier. The inability to field multiple Skyrangers and squads -- which I originally thought would harm the game --- in fact is a welcome change, because there's less tedium (Fewer ground missions) and more choices (Abduction sites), adding to tactical depth. The lack of base assaults is a bit unfortunate, but good base design and foresight is still important thanks to adjacency bonuses. The smaller squads increases the importance of each soldier. The new abilities and skill trees further help personalize soldiers and open up new tactical playstyles, and players no longer have to scour through stats to discern how to play with each soldier. Eliminating time units is a lifesaver -- there was nothing strategic or tactical about constantly having to do subtraction in your head just to figure out how many tiles you could move.

Most important, the AI in Enemy Unknown is fantastic. It will flank, use items, and retreat when necessary. It makes occasional bad moves, but usually only due to lack of LOS. Yes, it gets a free turn when spotted, and some aliens remain stationary until spotted. The former rule is necessary for balance reasons, and the latter because players would just sit in overwatch all day.

Will Xenonauts compete? Hard to say at this point. There's no AI, there's lots of missing content and maps, and the aliens seem like generic ripoffs of the original XCOM aliens (which, themselves, were not terribly original). But Firaxis has nailed it, releasing the game I've always wanted --- and Xenonauts just missed its promised beta date and is far, far from completion.

On another note just completed the game and nobody died.... besides the stupid tutorial mission. Mainly because I am a sniper with scope and overwatch whore. My lady sniper with squad vision could kill across the entire battlefield and I supported her with a move and fire sniper with double tap, 1 assault, 1 heavy and 2 med pac supports. Whilst my assault would just double shot- shotgun every single alien.

You have to play on Classic. Other difficulties are worthless.

Edited October 15, 2012 by wiglafman1225

[HWP]

Well, good for you, at least someone liked it. Though it is a mainstream game, only stands to reason that there would be a lot of people that like it. Don't know why I keep being surprised.

[wiglafman1225]

It's actually quite far from mainstream. I can count the number of quality turn based games that have come out in the last five years on one hand.

Regardless, just because something has a budget, or is released on a console, or is popular, does not mean you should dismiss it. Overcome the elitism for a second.

[wiglafman1225]

XCOM at its core, by the way, was not a terribly good tactical game. It involved a huge degree of randomness. I chuckle every time someone like you acts like a nuclear scientist because you enjoy tedious micromanagement and tons of coin flips, and look down at a streamlined incarnation as an "arcade game" or a "Rolex knockoff."

XCOM was great then, and Enemy Unknown is great now. But let's not pretend either game has the depth of, say, Chess.

[Shuichi Niwa]

The inability to field multiple Skyrangers and squads -- which I originally thought would harm the game --- in fact is a welcome change, because there's less tedium (Fewer ground missions) and more choices (Abduction sites), adding to tactical depth.

What ?

Let's just assume we have different view on the meaning of "tactical depth" >.>

Regardless, just because something has a budget, or is released on a console, or is popular, does not mean you should dismiss it. Overcome the elitism for a second.

Sorry, this is purely insulting here. Because we don't like a game you like mean we are elitism ? Hardly, I like the new EU but it have too many flaws that it frustrate me when I played it and that's the reason I'm bitching about them. If I really don't like it or don't care I would just not saying anything at all. Please stop it with the holier-than-thou attitude T_T

Edited October 15, 2012 by Shuichi Niwa

[Par'Gellen]

What ?

Let's just assume we have different view on the meaning of "tactical depth" >.>

I agree. His statement baffled me as well.

[wiglafman1225]

What ?

Let's just assume we have different view on the meaning of "tactical depth" >.>

I suppose so. I do not think of "more options" as "more depth." Remember: very simple games like Chess tend to have the most depth. If designed properly, a game like XCOM could have limitless tactical depth with just 5 units and 1 map.

Adding more Skyrangers to the game would allow players to handle more units and go on even more missions, true. Just like adding 10 pieces to a chessboard would give players more things to do. But I'm not convinced it would add much to the game.

Enemy Unknown reduces the nonessentials.

Sorry, this is purely insulting here. Because we don't like a game you like mean we are elitism ? Hardly, I like the new EU but it have too many flaws that it frustrate me when I played it and that's the reason I'm bitching about them. If I really don't like it or don't care I would just not saying anything at all. Please stop it with the holier-than-thou attitude T_T

This seems to miss my point entirely. The poster I was quoting was looking down on "mainstream" games. Now you are saying I am looking down on him by simply pointing out that he looks down on others? Bizarre.

Edited October 15, 2012 by wiglafman1225

[Shuichi Niwa]

Regardless, just because something has a budget, or is released on a console, or is popular, does not mean you should dismiss it. Overcome the elitism for a second.

Okay, let me rephrase it this way for an easier understanding.

"Regardless, just because someone hate a game that has a budget, or is released on a console, or is popular, does not mean they dismiss it because they are elitism and not because they play the game and it sucked. Overcome the prejudice for a second."

I suppose so. I do not think of "more options" as more "depth." Remember: very simple games like Chess tend to have the most depth.

Let's see. If chess now read like this each turn "you can only do one of these 3 moves and NOTHING else". Yeah, that would be incredible tactical depth. And what makes you think forcing you to choose in such stupid way give "more options" ? More options is how you divide your soldiers in each base. Which soldiers which squad for which mission and which mission have the priority so that you need your main Alpha squadron to go, etc... That is the "more options" and "tactical depth" I think of. Not the "hey dude we have 3 FUBAR zones. DECIDE !!!"

The new EU game give you absolutely no "more options". They LIMITED your options.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Shuichi Niwa

[XenoMask]

While I think XCOM: EU is great game, I'm now starting to suspect that Wiglaf really is a troll as opposite is more popular opinion here

[HWP]

I chuckle every time someone like you acts like a nuclear scientist because you enjoy tedious micromanagement and tons of coin flips, and look down at a streamlined incarnation as an "arcade game" or a "Rolex knockoff."

No, it's not nuclear science.

But in comparative terms...

In comparative terms, UFO vs EU is high school class science versus Mythbusters "Let's drop balls off a truck to see if Newton's first law is real and blow some crap up" science.

Also, note how I was very kind to the game: I didn't call it a "Rolex knockoff", I called it a quartz Orient styled after a Rolex. In case you don't know, Orient is not knockoff, it's an actual brand, known, in fact, for high quality. So it keeps time just as well, it's just - not the same thing.

[Shuichi Niwa]

Also, note how I was very kind to the game: I didn't call it a "Rolex knockoff", I called it a quartz Orient styled after a Rolex. In case you don't know, Orient is not knockoff, it's an actual brand, known, in fact, for high quality. So it keeps time just as well, it's just - not the same thing.

I think your kind comparation is lost on people without fashion knowledge as well as a need for watches like us here =)) This is the second time you had to explain that

While I think XCOM: EU is great game, I'm now starting to suspect that Wiglaf really is a troll as opposite is more popular opinion here

Nah, I think he is quite serious. In fact I hardly see any trolls here in this forum, which is a very good thing...

Edited October 15, 2012 by Shuichi Niwa

[wiglafman1225]

Remember that calling someone a "troll" is a personal attack.

Let's see. If chess now read like this each turn "you can only do one of these 3 moves and NOTHING else". Yeah, that would be incredible tactical depth. And what makes you think forcing you to choose in such stupid way give "more options" ?

The original game basically forced you to respond to certain missions, as well. It was just less forthright about it. The Enemy Unknown strategic game, even with its three choices, does confront players with some tough choices. Players must weigh their squad's strength against the predicted difficulty of the mission, as well as the relevant panic levels, and determine whether it's worth an insertion.

The three abduction mission choices can be very difficult to make. If they aren't for you, I suggest playing Classic difficulty.

[XenoMask]

Eh, I was kidding, but sorry if you were offended.

[HWP]

The Enemy Unknown strategic game, even with its three choices, does confront players with some tough choices.

Yeah, it's just like the choices in Ass Effect 3.

Almost deliberately like.

Except without the actual ass. Like watching a porno censored down to a "G" rating.

[wiglafman1225]

If there's a complaint I have about EU, it's that it's too easy for a run of bad luck in one mission to basically ruin a Classic campaign game. It'd be nice if the Officer Training School upgrade that allows new recruits to start at Squaddie was much, much cheaper. Hopefully, this will be fixed in a patch.

[wiglafman1225]

Yeah, it's just like the choices in Ass Effect 3.

Almost deliberately like.

Except without the actual ass. Like watching a porno censored down to a "G" rating.

Choices in Mass Effect 3 could not cost you the game. In EU, the wrong choice can lead to global panic and a loss.

[Shuichi Niwa]

The original game basically forced you to respond to certain missions, as well. It was just less forthright about it. The Enemy Unknown strategic game, even with its three choices, does confront players with some tough choices. Players must weigh their squad's strength against the predicted difficulty of the mission, as well as the relevant panic levels, and determine whether it's worth an insertion.

The three abduction mission choices can be very difficult to make. If they aren't for you, I suggest playing Classic difficulty.

I just noticed something. Aren't you actually just full of prejudices ? Why did you assume that all people aside from you DIDN'T play at Classic difficulty ? I haven't play the game at any other difficulty aside from Classic. So stop that please, it's annoying as hell.

And let me explain what this game limit the player with their stupid "3 choices". The same situation arise in both the old XCOM and new XCOM. 3 abduction sites.

New - DECIDE. 1 of 3. Bwahahahaha.

Old - Do all of them [if you have good squadrons]. Do 2 of the. Only do 1 of them.

Another more in-depth situation. 3 different locations require your attention. 1 abduction sites. 1 terror mission. 1 UFO landing.

New - never happened. Because that would make people to think too much it hurt their braincells.

Old - You can do all of 3 if you think you are strong enough. Only do the easy mission if you don't think you can. Do the UFO landing for the materials and perfect condition UFO Source you need. Do the mission in country that are indanger of withdrawing. Or even more tactical choices, if you only have 2 squadron that are capable enough you can do the abduction and terror mission, while having you Interceptor aecure the airspace above the landing UFO to prevent them from up and escaping and then after one of the two mission complete you can think about going to the UFO landing.

Okay, now answer me. What game offer you more choices ? And did I make something up in my simulation ? You say "more choices" mean more "tactical depth". Totally agree with that. Just don't understand what makes you think the new EU give you "more choices".

It give you OBVIOUS and difficult choices ? Sure, agreed. But more ? Absolutely not.

Edited October 15, 2012 by Shuichi Niwa