Opinions on the "missing" mechanics that Xcom had but were missing in Xenonauts 1 (and 2)

[Kamehamehayes]

I have seen a lot of people talking about how the gameplay of Xenonauts 1 was a worse than the original Xcom because Xenonauts removed some of the mechanics that added some complexity to combat in Xcom. The main example I see sited is that in the original Xcom if you used burst fire and the first shot hits a wall and destroys it, then the other two shots form the first would go through the hole that the first one made and potentially hit more targets beyond the wall (like an alien or another wall for example). 

I would like to know how common this opinion actually is across people that frequent this forum and if these mechanics should also be ported into future versions of Xenonauts 2 (if they are able to be ported relatively easily). I personally do not find this to be a deal breaker or anything near the sort, but extra mechanics like these are always welcome if they improve the complexity and fun of tactical battles (given that they are not a big hassle to implement). 

[Chris]

It’s probably not impossible to handle burst fire that way. The reason it’s handled as a single “burst” and damage only resolved at the end of it is that:

1) the game has gibbing mechanics, and if you unload a whole clip into an enemy at short range then you’re more likely to obliterate them and their items than if you were hitting them with single shots 

2) the hits / misses are calculated in advance, and all the hits moved to the start of the burst. Visually this means you see the shots creep away from the target as recoil makes the shooter lose control. Rather than a seemingly random shot sequence.

[Kamehamehayes]

15 minutes ago, Chris said:

It’s probably not impossible to handle burst fire that way. The reason it’s handled as a single “burst” and damage only resolved at the end of it is that:

1) the game has gibbing mechanics, and if you unload a whole clip into an enemy at short range then you’re more likely to obliterate them and their items than if you were hitting them with single shots 

2) the hits / misses are calculated in advance, and all the hits moved to the start of the burst. Visually this means you see the shots creep away from the target as recoil makes the shooter lose control. Rather than a seemingly random shot sequence.

Ah I see, so that's why all of the hits in a burst sequence are always frontloaded. That makes sense. That's a cool detail. 

I have basically zero actual coding experience and do not really know what is easily achievable and what is not. I am wondering if it is possible for both ideas to exist simultaneously. I'm thinking that maybe if one of the shots was calculated to hit the cover or wall that is blocking the path to the target location that it would be moved to the front of the sequence so that the other shots can be recalculated with the lack of cover or wall in mind. Although, that sounds like that would come with some issues of its own like how to present that information in-game, how that would affect balancing of weapons that use burst fire (and how it buffs laser weapons specifically), and if it would be even feasible to implement in the first place. 

[Chris]

1 hour ago, Kamehamehayes said:

Ah I see, so that's why all of the hits in a burst sequence are always frontloaded. That makes sense. That's a cool detail. 

I have basically zero actual coding experience and do not really know what is easily achievable and what is not. I am wondering if it is possible for both ideas to exist simultaneously. I'm thinking that maybe if one of the shots was calculated to hit the cover or wall that is blocking the path to the target location that it would be moved to the front of the sequence so that the other shots can be recalculated with the lack of cover or wall in mind. Although, that sounds like that would come with some issues of its own like how to present that information in-game, how that would affect balancing of weapons that use burst fire (and how it buffs laser weapons specifically), and if it would be even feasible to implement in the first place. 

Yes, you could make 2) work with the X-Com style setup. You couldn't make 1) work with it though - either you apply damage at the end to allow a single burst to cause overdamage, or you have a system where an enemy unit falls to the ground the instant they are killed, somehow doing it fast enough to get out of the way of the next bullet in the burst.

Hmmm. Well, maybe it'd be possible to only stack damage on units, and not on terrain - so a wall would be instantly destroyed when it hits its damage cap, but a unit can soak up unlimited damage until the burst ends. So maybe you could have the best of both worlds.

Does it actually bother many people though? It's just a question of where developer time is best spent.

[Kamehamehayes]

I don't know if it actually bothers that many people. It doesn't really bother me that much as I said before. But I have seen some forums on both reddit and steam harshly criticizing the first Xenonauts for lacking such mechanics. 

Part of the reason I made this thread was to see what the general consensus actually was on it for this forum specifically. 

[Alienkiller]

From what I have in Mind is, that the manually Airfight should get some cool Content / Features in it´s Rework-Upgrade to make it interresting.

The Groundfight get cool Content / Features too. If some Content / Features aren´t doable, then the Graphics-Engine (in that Case Unity) show the Limitation.