I am an XCOM veteran and have now played XCOM: Enemy Unknown.

[HWP]

Cinderblock is not concrete. I have never seen ANY 7.62mm round get through a foot of solid concrete.

Oh, right, sorry for that. Yeah, not solid HPC used in building pillars, rather what makes up most walls - foamed concrete, cinder block, perforated brick, et cetera.

Ya, I'm aware of the penetrating capabilities of modern ammunition, put it's still gonna take a hell of a lot of bullets to completely demolish a section of wall.

About one mag (i.e. 3 seconds) for a decent firing hole.

[TornadoADV]

Unless you have a HUMVEE load of .50 caliber for the M2 or 40mm grenades for the Mk.19, you're not getting through 6 inches of solid concrete, much less 12 inches in any useable amount of time.

US Army Urban Combat infantry manual (ca. 1993)

[HWP]

I know, said that already, just casually referred to wall materials as concrete.

You do only need one mag of 7.62 to go through 6", however. But not 12".

Solid concrete is not a common material for the kind of construction depicted in the game anyway.

[TornadoADV]

I know, said that already, just casually referred to wall materials as concrete.

You do only need one mag of 7.62 to go through 6", however. But not 12".

Solid concrete is not a common material for the kind of construction depicted in the game anyway.

If it's typical walling material such as cinderblock and plywood, then yes, even 5.56mm can do that. But you're going to need to use the rocket launcher with one of the exotic warheads to get through 6"-12" solid concrete (much less reinforced) in one shot.

[HWP]

Solid and reinforced has the same resistance, the difference is metal bars.

Rockets will destroy the barrier, not fly through.

Not to rely on building walls to stop bullets is one of the basics.

What's worst is that in EU your xcom relies on just plain random crap for protection. Flower pots, park benches (wooden and full of holes as it is), car doors, anything really. That stuff won't even stop plasma. Clear sign of cover-shooter fad service. In 5 years we'll laugh at how dated this mechanic is, same as we laughed in 2000 at automatic vertical aiming in Doom.

[Sinfullyvannila]

It's just arbitration. That's why cover doesn't protect you fully in the game. You are meant to interpret how your soldier avoided taking damage.

It's like AC and HP in D&D. You are more or less left to interpret how you were protected and how much physical harm your character sustained(2 damage to a character with 8 HP and 25 damage to a character with 100 HP could be interpreted as the same kind of would, or may not even be interpreted as a wound at all, just an expenditure of "luck" or energy to avoid actually being wounded).

[TornadoADV]

Solid and reinforced has the same resistance, the difference is metal bars.

Rockets will destroy the barrier, not fly through.

Not to rely on building walls to stop bullets is one of the basics.

Reinforced concrete stays together when it might otherwise fall apart and when directly impacted, rebar reacts differently then the concrete around it does under the same force. Also, I don't think you understand how ACTUAL rockets work, all of them meant to destroy tanks (So not the RPO from the CIS, which is an incindiary device) are HEAT (or Tandem HEAT). When they come in contact with the target, they create a hyperelastic(or molten, whatever fits your fancy) copper slug to punch through armor and cause severe spalling and internal thermal damage to the vehicle's vital areas or crew compartment.

So the only thing you're going to do is punch a nice little hole into the concrete.

[HWP]

Reinforced concrete stays together when it might otherwise fall apart and when directly impacted, rebar reacts differently then the concrete around it does under the same force.

Not really a factor in penetration.

Also, I don't think you understand how ACTUAL rockets work

Then you haven't read a lot of this board's more technical discussions.

To begin with, rocket weapons are meant to destroy light and medium armored vehicles, enemy infantry and fortifications. Only in very favorable situations are they a danger to MBT. Weapons meant to destroy tanks are normally guided missiles (and increasingly with molybdenum liners, even DU now, due to better penetration:diameter ratio than copper), not rockets.

Actual rockets have multiple types of warheads. One of the most common types is HEDP - which combines a shaped charge with fragmentation casing around the explosive. So, hitting a barrier, it will both punch through with a jet and destroy or heavily damage it, if it's a common low-rise wall.

Even if it's pure HEAT, though, only a fraction of explosive's energy is directed into the liner. Most is still dissipated in the shock wave. It will still blow up a moderate barrier like wood and drywall and punch through a heavier one with the jet.

You are meant to interpret how your soldier avoided taking damage.

It's pretty graphical. We see units sticking from out of cover, not bullets going through it.

If only aliens had mirrors... Well, looking like they do, probably a worthy tradeoff not to.

or may not even be interpreted as a wound at all, just an expenditure of "luck" or energy to avoid actually being wounded).

Luck can't be restored with medkits and expenditure of luck doesn't put you in a hospital.

[Sinfullyvannila]

It's pretty graphical. We see units sticking from out of cover, not bullets going through it.

You see both actually.

Luck can't be restored with medkits and expenditure of luck doesn't put you in a hospital.

I was talking about D&D's HP specifically as an illustration of arbitration.

[TornadoADV]

Not really a factor in penetration.

It's pretty big factor in how the concrete reacts to the shockwave bow effect, which you are trying to pass off as a significant secondary effect with other types of warheads.

Then you haven't read a lot of this board's more technical discussions.

To begin with, rocket weapons are meant to destroy light and medium armored vehicles, enemy infantry and fortifications. Only in very favorable situations are they a danger to MBT. Weapons meant to destroy tanks are normally guided missiles (and increasingly with molybdenum liners, even DU now, due to better penetration:diameter ratio than copper), not rockets.

Actual rockets have multiple types of warheads. One of the most common types is HEDP - which combines a shaped charge with fragmentation casing around the explosive. So, hitting a barrier, it will both punch through with a jet and destroy or heavily damage it, if it's a common low-rise wall.

Even if it's pure HEAT, though, only a fraction of explosive's energy is directed into the liner. Most is still dissipated in the shock wave. It will still blow up a moderate barrier like wood and drywall and punch through a heavier one with the jet.

I know what man portable anti-tank systems are meant for and how they are deployed. A majority of them are still unguided rocket systems, even in this age, you will rarely see Javelins, Predators, MILANs or Metis-Ms. Emplaced tripod systems like the TOW-2 and AT-14 Kornet are rarely, if ever, used in an anti material role. (IE : Shooting at things other then AFVs) Volume and portability has replaced lethality as MBTs have become more and more capable of defending themselves.

DU is too brittle to the shear force it would exposed to as a liner to a HEAT round and is better served in the role it is already in, as a SABOT dart, you are probably thinking of Tantalum. As for the use of HEDP, it's basically HE with a meager HEAT ability. You wouldn't use it on the barrier somebody is hiding behind, you would use it on something behind them, the detonating surface would direct the fragmentation back and into the people you are trying to get.

[HWP]

It's pretty big factor in how the concrete reacts to the shockwave bow effect, which you are trying to pass off as a significant secondary effect with other types of warheads.

Possibly. Haven't seen data going either way. Would expect that for small thicknesses and conventional rebar reinforcement, rebars should should mostly stay in place and more concrete be retained, but little difference in threshold thickness for significant damage.

Emplaced tripod systems like the TOW-2 and AT-14 Kornet are rarely, if ever, used in an anti material role. (IE : Shooting at things other then AFVs)

Of course they aren't. Why would you use a guided missile ($20k+ right there) like a dumb rocket? They are used in anti-tank role.

Rockets, on the other hand, have been largely relegated into obstacle breaching and general explosive roles by most organized militaries. Only insurgents keep using them as anti-tank, and get little success compared to IED.

DU is too brittle to the shear force it would exposed to as a liner to a HEAT round and is better served in the role it is already in, as a SABOT dart, you are probably thinking of Tantalum.

DU is currently the highest-performing liner material for diameter-limited charges. Penetration:diameter ratios a bit over 10:1 have been reached in lab conditions, less in the field. Copper tops out about 7:1 (lab). Tantalum performs well in EFP, but production HEAT shaped charges AFAIK don't use it as of now.

As for the use of HEDP, it's basically HE with a meager HEAT ability. You wouldn't use it on the barrier somebody is hiding behind, you would use it on something behind them, the detonating surface would direct the fragmentation back and into the people you are trying to get.

HEDP has become the configuration of choice precisely because the loss in penetrative ability for a diameter-limited charge is small. And most charges are diameter-limited. The difference from HEAT is just the addition of a fragmentation jacket around the liner.

Shooting behind someone is hardly always an option, given the limited range of portable weapons, and you'd prefer a pure HE-Frag warhead there or even less common types like thermobaric.

[TornadoADV]

I can't seem to find any information on DU being used in a non-kinetic penetrator type fashion outside of testing. Which makes sense, considering it's better used as it already is. As for HEDP, it's fuctional window is so small before other types start doing it better on either end of it's functional spectrum that it's only use seems to be taking out irregulars of hillbilly armor plated technicals and masses of untrained troops.

[HWP]

I can't seem to find any information on DU being used in a non-kinetic penetrator type fashion outside of testing. Which makes sense, considering it's better used as it already is.

DU isn't a particularly limited resource. KEP aren't be-all end-all, e.g. BK-21B rounds are HEAT with DU liners. US munitions occasionally use "dense metal" which does or does not refer to DU on a case by case basis.

As for HEDP, it's fuctional window is so small before other types start doing it better on either end of it's functional spectrum that it's only use seems to be taking out irregulars of hillbilly armor plated technicals and masses of untrained troops.

There's little benefit of replacing HEDP with pure HEAT where it is used. You win a little in charge diameter, more considerably in weight, but mostly these are diameter limited. Again there isn't actually a line between HEAT and HEDP, the latter implies a thicker, fragmenting casing, but it mostly refers to intended application.

[Sirinan]

So how exactly does XCOM limit you guys from playing the game the way you want to? Please elaborate.

Having read all your other posts on this subject, I'll save myself time and angst by leaving well enough alone. You appear eager to bend over backwards in defense of the new game's flaws, and don't seem willing to accept that some design elements are steps backwards from the old game. Yes, I can tell you like the new game (and from so few clues, too! ) but you really don't have to defend it to the death. Even if you admit the flaws, it will still be a good game. (Yes! I actually think it's not bad - just that it's not as good as the original, but that is a very high bar to cross.) On my part, I'm perfectly happy to admit that the original wasn't perfect, and I like to think that my views are pretty balanced.

Chris' thread on comparing the old and new is actually pretty good. I'd probably be a fraction more critical of some elements, but by and large he's identified the problems and where it doesn't improve on the original, while pointing out that it does have its strengths.

[TrashMan]

It's just arbitration. That's why cover doesn't protect you fully in the game. You are meant to interpret how your soldier avoided taking damage.

It's like AC and HP in D&D. You are more or less left to interpret how you were protected and how much physical harm your character sustained(2 damage to a character with 8 HP and 25 damage to a character with 100 HP could be interpreted as the same kind of would, or may not even be interpreted as a wound at all, just an expenditure of "luck" or energy to avoid actually being wounded).

I personally don't care much about such abstractions when the visuals show me different thing.

Bullet doesn't even connect? Criticla hit on an enemy anyway!

Bullte pases trough 3 cars? I still hit you for full damage!

[Kentaro]

What's worst is that in EU your xcom relies on just plain random crap for protection. Flower pots, park benches (wooden and full of holes as it is), car doors, anything really.

The point of cover is not just physical protection but also visibility. You can't see if i'm crouching, standing, sitting, left or right behind that cover, which makes up the "defense" part in XCOM:EU.

That stuff won't even stop plasma.

And you know that from first-hand experience with plasma weapons? Judging from the lore, plasma does damage because it's super hot. If that heat is not focussed and applied to a small area, it will disperse and, while being harmful, it won't be deadly anymore.

Back on topic:

I bought the game and finished in normal and i liked it. working on

The issues I have:

The research is a bit lacking in variety. In total i had 51 research projects. I guess one should add the Foundry projects to it, but still...missing a few things there

Is it actually possible to capture any of the robotic things and gain something from them?

Grenades are useless once Mutons show up. Better to use either more defense or scopes.

At least on normal, the game was over too soon, but I have read classic rectifies that

What i really like:

No more micromanagement. Soldiers remember to take enough ammo with them and it goes without saying that the armory is always stocked with enough ammo.

Squad sized combat. Probably personal preference than anything else, but the combat is just..spot on. 8, 12 or 20 soldiers would be overkill.

Maybe it's not as dark as the original (although I don't remember it being particularly dark, back in 93 when I was a teenager), but overall there's a sense of urgency that's very appealing to me. Kind of like in Mass Effect 3.

Building things. Some things like new airplanes takes time, other things like rifles do not. I also like how the technology is SECRET and cannot simply be dumped on the economy. Which makes sense...if you can churn out enough laser rifles to arm militaries around the world - what's the point of having Xcom?

Yes, it's not the original. But it's still very much worth it. Movement has been "simplified", but let's face it - what's the difference between 100 time units and shooting your weapon = 35-75% of your TUs vs the system in XCOM:EU?

you can still move and then shoot or just stay put and shoot. The XCOM:EU System won't work on the old maps, but we're not playing on the old maps.

[Sinfullyvannila]

Is it actually possible to capture any of the robotic things and gain something from them?

Nope. Same deal with Chrysallids and Zombies.

Grenades are useless once Mutons show up. Better to use either more defense or scopes.

Grenades are always useful, but much more so the less experience your Soldiers have. They are great because they will ALWAYS hit and ALWAYS do the same amount of damage. They are absolutely the best thing for finishing enemies off, especially with rookies. They also get rid of cover, making it easier to hit enemies with follow-up attacks. And they are great for lowering HP to set up a stun.

At least on normal, the game was over too soon, but I have read classic rectifies that

Maybe not Classic, Ironman for sure though.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Sinfullyvannila

[APelz]

"Is it actually possible to capture any of the robotic things and gain something from them?"

Nope. Same deal with Chrysallids and Zombies.

Talking about those things, I have to say that they aren't even scary like they were in original. In OG they were PitA to kill and if you let either of those too close your guys were soon dead/zombies. Also in OG shooting zombies caused them to drop their skin and born new chryssallid. I haven't even seen a chryssallid born once in new XCom, apparently it takes something like 10 turns and zombies just drop dead when I shoot them...

[Sinfullyvannila]

They're not really a big deal in either game once you learn to deal with them. I think they are actually a much bigger threat in this one because they always travel in groups and your squad is much smaller, so a 2 unit swing is much more dangerous.

[Gazz]

Which is also kind of silly.

So limited ammo (grenades) is silly and unlimited ammo (magazines) is silly.

This sounds a lot like you're secretly enjoying the game but don't dare let anyone discover that and destroy your old-school-gamer street cred! =P

They're not really a big deal in either game once you learn to deal with them. I think they are actually a much bigger threat in this one because they always travel in groups and your squad is much smaller' date=' so a 2 unit swing is much more dangerous.[/quote']

I had one terror mission where I started with 2 groups of crysalids on turn 2 and a new group would run in every turn afterwards.

It was like bloody Starship Troopers!

It was glorious. =P

The body count was 15 chrysalids.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Gazz

[Sinfullyvannila]

I started up UD again last night and I've gotten 3 Terror Missions in month 2 so far, all of them at night lol.

[LittleNicky]

So limited ammo (grenades) is silly and unlimited ammo (magazines) is silly.

I agree. Hated that in the new fraxis game. Heres one grenade haha!

[HWP]

The point of cover is not just physical protection but also visibility. You can't see if i'm crouching, standing, sitting, left or right behind that cover, which makes up the "defense" part in XCOM:EU.

A huge guy hiding behind a flower pot (edges of his mega-armor sticking out) is an even easier target than the same guy walking around.

And you know that from first-hand experience with plasma weapons? Judging from the lore, plasma does damage because it's super hot. If that heat is not focussed and applied to a small area, it will disperse and, while being harmful, it won't be deadly anymore.

Plasma cutters (think a knife for two-inch steel). It's not quite as sissy as a green (why in the hell green?) blob of hot jello. It should still be stopped by concrete, metal, etc easier than bullets, albeit at the cost of heavy damage to the barrier. But flower pots and car doors (0.6mm thickness)? Spare me.

Building things. Some things like new airplanes takes time, other things like rifles do not. I also like how the technology is SECRET and cannot simply be dumped on the economy. Which makes sense...

It doesn't, however, since you can sell ALIEN TECH on the gray market. But a laser pistol, no, no, never. Not even a medkit.

I mean, you at least know what your medkit does. Know well. You have no idea what Alien Surgery is used for, maybe they make Xsalids there? SELL'EM ALL, LET ARRAHU SORT'EM OUT.

Edited October 31, 2012 by HWP

[GoodGuyEddy]

sigh..still going on?

Oh well

Yes, it's not the original. But it's still very much worth it. Movement has been "simplified", but let's face it - what's the difference between 100 time units and shooting your weapon = 35-75% of your TUs vs the system in XCOM:EU?

you can still move and then shoot or just stay put and shoot.

Or how about i shoot and move out of the way. With TU i could reload and move to a different spot. Reload and shoot. Pick up a grenade off a dead guy or a med kit and use it. Pick up a more siutable for the situation gun off of a dead guy. I could do lot's of things assuming i have the TU to do it. And game developers give you enough TU(the good ones anyway) to do multiple things. With TU soldiers are much more tactically flexible. It wasn't simplified it was dumbed down. Sure it got faster but then again we are not talking about an FPS but a TBS. A genre the point of which is planning not running and guning.

Edit;

Oh and you know what else? when spotting an alien a soldier can stop and save the remeining TU for some other order. Instead of continuing to run in between two mutons like a jackass.

Just say'n.

Edited October 31, 2012 by GoodGuyEddy

[LittleNicky]

Or how about i shoot and move out of the way. With TU i could reload and move to a different spot. Reload and shoot. Pick up a grenade off a dead guy or a med kit and use it. Pick up a more siutable for the situation gun off of a dead guy. I could do lot's of things assuming i have the TU to do it. And game developers give you enough TU(the good ones anyway) to do multiple things. With TU soldiers are much more tactically flexible. It wasn't simplified it was dumbed down. Sure it got faster but then again we are not talking about an FPS but a TBS. A genre the point of which is planning not running and guning.

Edit;

Oh and you know what else? when spotting an alien a soldier can stop and save the remeining TU for some other order. Instead of continuing to run in between two mutons like a jackass.

Just say'n.

Yes. I was as well very dissapointed with these things. they could have made the new game much better but made it dumbed down. I don't like that.