Thoughts on a problem which can negatively impact TBS games like Xenonauts 2 (and many others)

[Krydax]

I have a long-ish thought on one of the mechanics here. Just a preface, I am a long time XCOM EU and XCOM2 (and long war and long war 2) player. So I am new to the xenonauts world in general. Let that be the grain of salt   

Here's the main thought: These games suffer a LOT from the massive gap between save scum and no-scum (ironman-ish). You know nothing going into a mission. Let's count all the major things you don't know:

1. You don't know the types of enemies you'll be facing

2. You don't know even the general placements of enemies.

3. You have no idea how many of them there are.

4. You have no idea what the map even looks like (despite a helicopter having just flown you into the area?!)

5. You have no idea what is inside various buildings

6. You have no idea where the objectives are.

7. You have no idea where to send most troops or any reasonable distribution/defensive areas to take

Then guess what, if you play some of the mission, and then decide to restart. What percentage of those things do you now know? ALL of them! (or at least some to most, depending on how far in you got) I believe that this is a huge problem as it more or less forces players into a binary decision of playstyle even though there are more than 2 types of players (you either save-load or you don't).

Fact A: Some players love ironman and love not having info. The game meets their needs.
Fact B: Some players love ironman but hate not having any of that info. The game does not currently meet their needs.
Fact C: Some players love loading saves, and love not having the info on the first go, but love having the info on the second go. The game meets their needs.
Fact D: Some players love loading saves, but they want the info to stay hidden even on future loads, so as to not feel "cheaty". The game does not currently meet their needs.
Fact E: Some players love things the way they are, but wish more of that information was available prior to the mission in the first place, and didn't require playing and save-loading to get said info. The game does not currently meet their needs.

(I am somewhere between player D and player E, for what it's worth.)

 

But there's this huge gap between loading a save and not. Because once I have ALL that information, the mission is now MUCH easier, and maybe all I really wanted was a second try or maybe I just wish that info had already been available in the first place, since it's achievable simply by loading the game anyway. How do we solve this issue? Some ideas in no particular order:

1. Give the player vision of the maps layout/obstacles, but still under fog of war (not building interiors). This makes sense anyway, you just saw it all from the helicopter!

2. Give the player more info on enemy count/makeup either prior to the mission itself or upon landing. This again could make sense since you saw some aliens chillin around the place as you flew in and landed. (i don't know if the game already has this mechanic in place or not via technology. But either way, it's the issue of "info available from save-loading")

3. Give an option for "semi ironman", which allows for restarting a map completely from the beginning, at will, but it's randomized again. So you don't know everything about it. But now you'll at least know the enemy types and rough numbers, and you get another shot at it.

4. Other types of ways to feed the player information from the list of 1-7 above *without* needing a load a save to do so. This in turn means that loading a save isn't as much of an egregious advantage. This may also in turn require difficulty of the game to be slightly higher.

In closing, I believe the difficulty differential between information pre and post save-load is too drastic, and it forces players into a binary playstyle that doesn't fit some players (myself being one of those middle people). Ironman by itself is not a catch-all option, and is too extreme for many players, and those of us who avoid ironman are left with few options other than forcing ourselves to NOT save-load, which approaches being ironman anyway, or save-loading and getting massive advantages.

Edited February 9, 2023 by Krydax
fixed explanation of binary decision

[Kordanor]

While I don't think it "will bring down" TBS games, I consider this to be a problem for certain players, including me, who want a challenge, and a clear ruleset.

Ironman is far too extreme for me, and savescumming all the time ruins the game for me. "Then just dont load" doesn't really cut it for me, though I will play with these houserules if I have to. But I think that it is an oversight if you have to make the game enjoyable for yourself by enforcing houserules, which as a let's player I can at least "somewhat enforce" also via recording everything.

This exact question is also something I asked my audience. "If I do a lets play, should I play on Ironman or with houserules?" So far, everyone was saying Houserules. Nobody wants a "Ok, we have to stop the lets play, because a bug preventing me from proceeding on ironman" and neither do people want a Let's Play where I am just savescumming my way through as that takes away all the tension.

[Krydax]

I mean, "will bring down" as it, bring it lower. Not like "kill it" bring it down.  
 

[Kamehamehayes]

I think the issue with savescumming comes down to the options you have to contine after a unit death. Either you continue to push on or you reload to prevent the death of that unit.

In another tactics game like fire emblem, the issue is a lot less pronounced. Your two options are to push on or to restart the chapter completly (if one chooses classic mode). You can lose a meaningful amount of progress if you chose to reset as opposed to pressing on. So many players chose to press on to maintain their progress.

This is not apparent in Xcom like games where you can just reload the save from the previous turn and lose 0 progress. Thus, there is no strategic or time benefit for not reloading, making reloading a clear optimal strategy. 

Xen 2 has done somethings to try and tackle this problem like have a chance for a soldier to survive a lethal blow or having strong units that can be manufactures that require no training, but it is not enough as it is clear to see. There definetely needs to be something else to help discourage players from reloading outside of arbitrary restrictions like ironman, honestman, or house rules imo. 

[Krydax]

1 hour ago, Kamehamehayes said:

I think the issue with savescumming comes down to the options you have to contine after a unit death. Either you continue to push on or you reload to prevent the death of that unit.

In another tactics game like fire emblem, the issue is a lot less pronounced. Your two options are to push on or to restart the chapter completly (if one chooses classic mode). You can lose a meaningful amount of progress if you chose to reset as opposed to pressing on. So many players chose to press on to maintain their progress.

This is not apparent in Xcom like games where you can just reload the save from the previous turn and lose 0 progress. Thus, there is no strategic or time benefit for not reloading, making reloading a clear optimal strategy. 

Xen 2 has done somethings to try and tackle this problem like have a chance for a soldier to survive a lethal blow or having strong units that can be manufactures that require no training, but it is not enough as it is clear to see. There definetely needs to be something else to help discourage players from reloading outside of arbitrary restrictions like ironman, honestman, or house rules imo. 

Well, there are other reasons to reload, and it's not just reloading to "last turn". 

I would argue that the biggest issue is that there's a massive information differential between loading and not loading. And the game would be better served by giving the player MORE information on the front end, and creating surprise and difficulty in other ways. I'd rather have the game be slightly harder, but I can see the map and know how many and what general type of aliens will be there. Then, loading isn't this MASSIVE advantage of knowing the map and enemy makeup/location.

 

The other way to solve the problem is reduce the players information when loading a save. Such as the randomization upon restart option I mentioned earlier. So that you can restart a mission and stuff gets randomized again, so you might know the overall types/numbers of enemies, but the map and their locations is new again so you can't use your previous knowledge, and thus restarting isn't as big of a "cheating advantage" (if that's how you saw it).

 

[Seasand]

On 2/8/2023 at 5:15 PM, Krydax said:

The other way to solve the problem is reduce the players information when loading a save. Such as the randomization upon restart option I mentioned earlier. So that you can restart a mission and stuff gets randomized again, so you might know the overall types/numbers of enemies, but the map and their locations is new again so you can't use your previous knowledge, and thus restarting isn't as big of a "cheating advantage" (if that's how you saw it).

This would be one addition that would make the experience much better for me. There are many lessons to be learned while playing as a beginner. (Just played for the first time myself). Randomizing the map on restart would allow me to take something I've learned in the current combat and try again, now knowing how such and such mechanic works, without feeling like I know too much.

[redscarf]

This would something that would be fun as a variable. There could be player controlled things that give us more or less information. For example, I assume that eventually some research will unlock the ability to know how many/what is there, but in the meantime it would be cool if, for example:

 

If you have a better relationship with the country/closer to a radar or more intel on the area:

-rebels give you a headcount of aliens (with less intel, general like "lots of sebillians", with better intel, specific like "13 sebillians, and 2 reapers)

-you have more of the map already visible (yet still in the fog of war)

-you have a wireless camera in a building/on a light pole/on a garage and you can see everything that takes place within range of that camera

-you can see a flare that someone set at the entrance of the alien craft

 

Things like that. These would all give the player interesting choices. You want more intel? You need to spend more time reducing panic in that area/upgrading radars/loaning out officers to countries for side missions or something. You want to spend your resources on something else? You get less intel.