Milestone 2 impressions

[Grobobobo]

4 hours ago, ovoron said:

While rockets and wallbreaking retain usefulness, its accuracy and TU are no longer impressive compared to well-trained soldiers.

I'm not using the rockets, I'm using the cannon, which is an extremely damaging sniper rifle that can shoot twice per turn. it does get slowish at some point but it still keeps up in terms of tankiness and damage output. Plus as you yourself mentioned, it's disposable. If it dies, it can get repaired for much cheaper.

[Conductiv]

the current MARS

Base accuracy of 50, can be increased by the rangefinder up to 60, the rangefinder allows the cannon to hit 100% of the time if the target is exposed, medium sized and within 8 tiles. its damage is greater then any rifle available at the same tier and shreds considerable armor. the rockets will never have a 100% chance to hit, nor will the cannon if anything other then the rangefinder is equipped. it can fire twice with the cannon, but only if you are willing to sacrifice chance to hit. at 20 rounds it will generally last the entire fight.

smoke launcher can also be used as it has grenade spread, and as such doesn't miss by a country mile unlike the launcher. while it is a stable platform for automatic fire using its AR sidearm its extremely unreliable with that weapon.

health is always 100, armor depends if you have the heavy armor tag set or not, but its generally slightly tougher then equal tier troops in the armor department, even so..it can only take 2 sometimes 3 shots/bursts from most enemies (it can take more from cleaners)..especially once plasma becomes available. unlike troops it cannot crouch..meaning it is a preferred target for most enemies if your troops are crouched and behind cover. it can get laser and gauss weapon upgrades for the cannon and AR sidearm, alenium explosives and fusion explosives for the rocket, these are completely seperate upgrades, effectively increasing the vehicle cost. and grows along with the armor upgrades from aircraft (seperate upgrades, but the techs become available at the same time). does not benifit or gain medals. expendable only really in name as its repair cost is half the build cost, usually taking almost all monetary gain from a mission, unless you go heavy capture (ignoring material gain here, as those are generally not sold). but if damaged, will always instantly repair once back to base..it needs no time to heal unlike troops. so there is no need to ever have more then 2 per available dropship.

relative to experienced troops, its less accurate unless equipped with the cannon+rangefinder combo. and much less flexible, can't be healed in combat, can't carry alternate grenades (smoke launcher is the only option) it does have headlights for the night missions and that is better then the flares, but this is pointless if one times its arrival as to avoid night missions. can't use any roofs that have to be accessed by ladders 

relative to the troop weapons its closely related to, the cannon more powerful then a sniper, but the sniper can strike reliably much further out, and gets a bonus if the unit didn't move. despite the cannons long range, it isn't all that reliable against targets in cover, and even though it can fire twice unlike the sniper its unlikely to hit with that outside of point blank range
relative to the shield, now the advanced shield has been moved down to the basic alloy tier, the shield users are more suitable to soak shots then the mars is. the mars has no secondairy HP pool to soak shots on and 100HP goes down fast. However, the MARS extremely powerful ability to instantly repair post mission actually allows it to somewhat compete..as it can combine being a reliable soak with a powerful cannon without awkward juggling (like a pocket sniper would require)
the AR sidearm is always worse then the most novice rifleman, its benifit on burst fire is lost because of the MARS low base accuracy
and the rocket and smoke are more akin to HEVY.. the MARS rocket systems are more likely to connect at mid and long range up to about 70 ish trooper accuracy, and have a better range at 25 relative to 15 tiles.  and the smoke launchers spread is much more preferable over the HEVY wide miss.

I have used MARS many times, the cannon build is the best killer, and very useful against robotic enemies (especially turrets). the rocket setup with rangefinder gives you a quasi-accurate shield+HEVY trooper putting it the support role. rocket + smoke is basically an instantly switching HEVY..but less accurate then the rangefinder equivalent with the rockets. any build using the AR just felt weaker compared to the rangefinder or smoke equivalent. run wise, you can completely ignore MARS alltogether and perform similar actions with troopers, its by no means a must have tool.  

[Pathfinder]

First of all - about complains

I can't even start to understand how - in the game that tries to simulate real weapons of the era - someone is complaining that there are: demolition charges or machine guns, or grenade launchers. Xenonauts 2 grouped together multiple different weapon types into few, easily distinguishable categories, to let player pick up for specific game scenarios. Player may use it, or may not - it is provided. Personally, I feel that there is too little of such difference, there should be more (lets just say, I like Jagged Alliance games). Personally, in 9-soldiers team, I use 2 with machine guns as a must - these soldiers are invaluable in laying down heavy fire at long ranges on dangerous enemies or ensuring that enemy in vital position will be gunned down quickly. How someone may complain that in game we have stun baton on flashbangs? these exists for already a long time, and there is nothing extraordinary in making them. However, I agree, stun batons and flashbangs could not work against aliens without modifying them to alien physiology first. I miss to having ability to set up claymores and mines - these could be such a great tactical improvement. However "perception" stat would be important to spot them. Aliens should have them too!

Second - soldier stats

Personally, I think that every stat is fine and reasonable. I would even add 1 stat more - Perception, but lets say, variety of them is good as it is. The problem with increased skills, and variety of possible stats during recruitment is basic, and simple. Stats like strength (if we take it realistically), should not increase in 1 game year for any specific soldier more than, let's say 30%. More over, during recruitment, there should be option to select from: 1* Cannon-fodder (conscripted civilians), 2* Regulars (professional soldiers, but not veterans), 3* Veterans, 4* Elites (special forces), which of course would cost different amount of money (I would go into: 5k / 10k / 22k / 50k), and would have greatly different stats.

Third - armour / modules

I like the idea of armour versions (it is fine) - I only advise to put "heavy" checkbox near armour selection - it would be more reasonable. About modules - I think that "rebreather" shouldn't be taking up space of a backpack (realistically, it is looking like a gas mask, so, why soldier would use it from his backpack...) - it should be selectable option for an armour. The same for other modules. So, to make it more scalable for any expansion, there should be selectable, dynamically expandable list (of checkboxes) - each modifying some stats. I think that largest impact of encumberance for a soldier (appart for speed, of course) is not accuracy, but reaction times, so, heavy armour (or actually any growth of additional weight) should lower down reaction times.

Fourth - airplanes

It is GREAT idea about "hardpoints". Nicely done! I would, part away, however such thing as an armour - I would not put it into hardpoint. You know what I mean - hardpoint is kind of "pylon" for missiles or droppable tanks. I believe intentions were not exactly about adding armour under a pylon, however, but choice of words, and this breaks the immersion of reality. But apart from wording problem, idea is perfect. Please, think about missiles to have 3 (or 4) ammo, rather than 2. With 2 ammo, these are almost useless (because before they shred UFO armour enough, they are already gone), and from realistic point of view, Torpedo looks like AIM-54 (USA), R-40 (Soviet), which weights roughly 450-480 kg each, and Missile could be kind of AIM-9 (USA), R-60 (Soviet), which are between 40-80 kg each. These are having exactly such functionality as in game. Air combat is very good, and I liked it in Xeno1 as well.

Fifth - few own wishes

Sad that maps are small. Soldiers should have ability to go prone. Prone should be prohibited for heavy armour. Soldiers should be able to walk low when crouched (TU should be much higher then, as it is large strain on soldiers legs). "Armed soldier" directly behind soldier with shield, should be almost fully defended by the shield bearer (of course not 180deg, but lets say 60-90deg) - I suspect that currently it is only lowering down probability of hitting such "armed soldier". Personally, on most missions I use 2 shield bearers, and on base defense even 4. They do great job at defending shooters, but my shooters got direct hits on a few occasions, which should be much less frequent in such a setup. This is one of Anti-Terrorist units tactic. Another tactic is to use tightly packed 4 soldiers (it would look like 4 soldiers sticked together on 2 tiles), however it is far beyond capability of implementing here, as would require much rewrite of code. There are many other tactics, but most of them would be very difficult to implement. Please, take into consideration the first one - shield bearer who is bullet sink for his immediate coleague at back.

Please allow full auto on machine gun to be used for reaction fire. Obviously aimed fire of sniper rifle shouldn't be used as reaction fire, but full auto for MG is very reasonable.

Sixth - overall

Game is good. It is progressing, slowly, but progressing. I had no doubt. One of the most important things - I never had a crash, and that is the confirmation of good programming skills.

 

---

Thank you for creating good game. Wish to see it in full.

---

As it may help, I show what my usual 9-soldiers setup is:

2x Shield
2x Machine gun
2x Sniper
2x Assault
1x Rifle

By the way, Knife is far, far, far too heavy. You've put image of a combat knife, but it weights like a huge machete, so, for a close combat I use... stun baton :).

As you see, not everyone is using Riflemen as a core of a team ;).

Edited December 8, 2023 by Pathfinder
Additional info

[Pathfinder]

Machine gun:

- should be much heavier (should weight about 3x weight of rifle),

- should have about 50% higher damage than rifle (for gamey purpose, I would be satisfied with 25-30% increase)

[Pathfinder]

More medals, please!

[Komandos]

4 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

Machine gun:

- should be much heavier (should weight about 3x weight of rifle),

A machine gun must have exactly the same weight as a machine gun in reality.

[ovoron]

21 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

Obviously aimed fire of sniper rifle shouldn't be used as reaction fire

Aimed fire of sniper rifle is authentic AF.

Edited December 9, 2023 by ovoron

[Pathfinder]

7 hours ago, ovoron said:

Aimed fire of sniper rifle is authentic AF.

Of course it is authentic. However, not in 180deg cone (which is default for xenonauts vision). Sniper waiting on overwatch, cannot browse whole battlefield in front of him. 1 turn is about 5-10 seconds. If enemy is not within very narrow cone of current view, then in most cases won't be possible to overwatch and additionally take time to aim with necessary precision. Similarly ridiculous idea is in Firaxis XCOM where combatant (aliens and humans) have awarness of 360deg at all time.

By the way, the quick video you shown it is not about aimed shot - it is snap shot. Aimed shot in sniper rifle, is taking stance, precisely setup rifle against ones shoulder, ensure rigidity of a setup, calculate distance, add corrections to optics, and then, finally, cool down heartbeat (yes, it is happening) and fire. It sounds complex, but in quick cases, still, takes few seconds. It is taking an aimed, precision shot.

There was discussion somewhere about firing cones for machine gun (I don't recall now where exactly, but it was). It would be good, however would require quite a lot of coding to implement such additional feature. Cones of fire would solve the problem, and then, yes, aimed sniper fire could be a viable option. However, not currently with 180deg reaction fire.

One additional thing - for purpose of finding targets on battlefield, designated snipers do work in tandem with spotters which have large binoculars, to easily spot targets and then rely theirs position to the sniper. I hope now we have some understanding.

Edited December 9, 2023 by Pathfinder

[ovoron]

12 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

taking stance, precisely setup rifle against ones shoulder

 

[Pathfinder]

I am not talking about games. I am talking about reality.

[ovoron]

8 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

I am not talking about games. I am talking about reality.

You want reality? Go serve in the army then. This game is entertainment.

 

Speaking of entertainment, Here's a scene from a film about sniping. Note how the sniper in this video easily kills the driver and then at 3:57 instantly lands an overwatch headshot.

Edited December 10, 2023 by ovoron

[Komandos]

8 hours ago, ovoron said:

You want reality? Go serve in the army then. This game is entertainment.

If reality is not needed in games, then let's add to the game: a weapon that increases all the characteristics of soldiers by 10%-200%. I also suggest adding magic, magic scrolls and spells to the game. "You want reality? Go serve in the army then. This game is entertainment." (c)

[Pathfinder]

9 hours ago, ovoron said:

Go serve in the army then.

I already been there. Have been using all categories of firearms, as well trained with grenades, explosives, anti-tank rocket launchers, and whatever you may imagine yourself, as I am not really keen to put up here my CV. Your mentioning of this was kind of derogatory, and should be not allowed in a nice place like here.

I can assure you, apart from something that is already within your cone of vision, which you can shot accurately in less than a second, anything outside of that cone has to be initially spotted. There is no way that any human being, at maximum sniper rifle range, spot a target, asses its speed, direction, local wind speed (yes, wind speed during flight of a bullet, at various distances), take a posture, and shot, in a time aloted like in a few seconds. Of course, he may try, and by a pure luck, he may actually hit a target, but if we are talking about 99% chance of bullet hitting someones chest at 700-900m, then it takes a bit more time. However, if we are talking about ranges about 50-100m (which are NOT maximum ranges of sniper rifle), of course, you can snapshot, without taking consideration of any adjustment to the optics.

I have not asked for adding fully-fledged physics for ballistics, but only that aimed shot for sniper rifle should not exist in game as a reaction shot (if we do have 180deg cones of reaction).

And yes, game is entertaining. I've play chess as well, and it is entertaining, even it has nothing to do with reality.

Edited December 10, 2023 by Pathfinder

[Vitruviansquid]

"Meh," on these posts about realism.

You look at that real life training with firearms, you look at chess, and consider whether this turn-based science fiction strategy game about shooting aliens looks more like those or chess. 

If additional realism will make the game deeper and more interesting, then sure. But what I see are posts where Chris, the lead developer, says stuff about how he meant for Strength as a stat in the game to give players an opportunity to make interesting choices with what their soldiers can carry, and then players posting suggestions about how Strength can do just that, and then some dude who really loves realism in the game makes a post to essentially educate everyone about what modern soldiers carry in their backpacks as a way to argue against the lead developer of the game.

I'm "Meh" on that idea

Quote

Your mentioning of this was kind of derogatory, and should be not allowed in a nice place like here.

With all love and respect, I think you should read over and check the tones of your own posts in this thread and possibly other threads if you're shocked that people talk to you that way.

[skaianDestiny]

7 hours ago, Vitruviansquid said:

"Meh," on these posts about realism.

You look at that real life training with firearms, you look at chess, and consider whether this turn-based science fiction strategy game about shooting aliens looks more like those or chess. 

If additional realism will make the game deeper and more interesting, then sure. But what I see are posts where Chris, the lead developer, says stuff about how he meant for Strength as a stat in the game to give players an opportunity to make interesting choices with what their soldiers can carry, and then players posting suggestions about how Strength can do just that, and then some dude who really loves realism in the game makes a post to essentially educate everyone about what modern soldiers carry in their backpacks as a way to argue against the lead developer of the game.

I'm "Meh" on that idea

God I absolutely agree with this wholeheartedly. It's incredibly annoying how some people keep throwing out shit like "BUT REAL SOLDIERS CAN CARRY 50 KITCHEN SINKS AS PART OF BASIC TRAINING" or inflating the soldier count to some absurd number like 3 dozen and never actually give out how exactly it would improve the game and or result in meaningful choices by the player. It's always some vague high minded concept about "being more real" when all it results in actuality is tedium or flat player choice.

Edited December 11, 2023 by skaianDestiny

[Vitruviansquid]

31 minutes ago, skaianDestiny said:

It's incredibly annoying how some people keep throwing out shit like "BUT REAL SOLDIERS CAN CARRY 50 KITCHEN SINKS AS PART OF BASIC TRAINING" or inflating the soldier count to some absurd number like 3 dozen and never actually give out how exactly it would improve the game and or result in meaningful choices by the player.

A dude's just proposing that soldiers with sniper rifles should be able to take reaction shots and some people act like he wants there to be magic and wizards in the game.

[Komandos]

2 hours ago, skaianDestiny said:

or inflating the soldier count to some absurd number like 3 dozen and never actually give out how exactly it would improve the game and or result in meaningful choices by the player. It's always some vague high minded concept about "being more real" when all it results in actuality is tedium or flat player choice.

Do you think that: Julian Gollop (creator and founder of the UFO (X-COM) series of games) "Inflated the soldier count to some absurd number like 3 dozen" ??? 

(Since in UFO:1-2, the maximum limit on the number of soldiers in combat was 26 soldiers. And in X-COM:3, the maximum limit on the number of soldiers in combat was 36 soldiers)

[Komandos]

3 hours ago, skaianDestiny said:

It's always some vague high minded concept about "being more real" when all it results in actuality is tedium or flat player choice.

If we have to completely abandon the concept of "being more real", then we can add elves, dwarves, dragons, magic and wizards to the game. After all, the rejection of the concept of "being more real" is a very strong argument in favor of making the game more interesting.

[Skitso]

11 hours ago, Vitruviansquid said:

"Meh," on these posts about realism.

You look at that real life training with firearms, you look at chess, and consider whether this turn-based science fiction strategy game about shooting aliens looks more like those or chess. 

If additional realism will make the game deeper and more interesting, then sure. But what I see are posts where Chris, the lead developer, says stuff about how he meant for Strength as a stat in the game to give players an opportunity to make interesting choices with what their soldiers can carry, and then players posting suggestions about how Strength can do just that, and then some dude who really loves realism in the game makes a post to essentially educate everyone about what modern soldiers carry in their backpacks as a way to argue against the lead developer of the game.

I'm "Meh" on that idea

With all love and respect, I think you should read over and check the tones of your own posts in this thread and possibly other threads if you're shocked that people talk to you that way.

Agree. It seems we have few people here who really struggle to grasp the concept of game design. No matter how realistic the game's theme is, all the design decisions need to be made with gameplay and balance in mind. And no, that doesn't mean the game needs any magic or dragons. We can have a nice and realistic milsim themed game where gameplay and balance still comes first.

I'ven seen so many walls of text here describing everything between ancient war techniques and modern SWAT tactics just to justify odd changes in the game that I can't even bother to read them any more. Even if something is objectively more realistic, it still doesn't guarantee to make the game better.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Skitso

[Komandos]

37 minutes ago, Skitso said:

It seems we have few people here who really struggle to grasp the concept of game design.

There are many game design concepts. It's like different concepts in drawing: from maximum abstraction (Malevich's painting "Black Square") to paintings with photographic accuracy. 

[Komandos]

1 hour ago, Skitso said:

No matter how realistic the game's theme is, all the design decisions need to be made with gameplay and balance in mind.

The game balance is a very variable value, which depends on the player's experience, skill, cunning, and intelligence. The player's gaming experience and skills will change, and everything that was built in the game "on balance" will immediately become "tight", "narrow", "uncomfortable" for the player, like children's clothes for an adult. It is a mistake to think that it is possible to build capital structures on a shaky foundation.

[Vitruviansquid]

1 hour ago, Komandos said:

Do you think that: Julian Gollop (creator and founder of the UFO (X-COM) series of games) "Inflated the soldier count to some absurd number like 3 dozen" ??? 

(Since in UFO:1-2, the maximum limit on the number of soldiers in combat was 26 soldiers. And in X-COM:3, the maximum limit on the number of soldiers in combat was 36 soldiers)

I was there and I played those games. Yeah, it was too many soldiers. It was tedious to keep track of and became a detriment to gameplay. It would also be so in Xenonauts 2.

An argument that you could have 26 soldiers in Xcom and TFTD isn't an argument that this is a good thing to have. They asked for some explanation of why this is a positive for gameplay, not whether another game you enjoyed had the same mechanic. Games you enjoy can have bad mechanics, and we hope their spiritual successors (like Xenonauts to Xcom) refine the formula, not repeat it by rote.

1 hour ago, Komandos said:

If we have to completely abandon the concept of "being more real", then we can add elves, dwarves, dragons, magic and wizards to the game. After all, the rejection of the concept of "being more real" is a very strong argument in favor of making the game more interesting.

This is such a grossly disingenuous way to respond to their argument. 

You know they're not talking about changing the entire genre or aesthetic of the game, you know they're not talking about completely divorcing the game from reality so that a gun makes you run faster or survive better, you know that the developers aren't out to make the most accurate military simulation it can, and you know you haven't addressed the main point they're trying to make, which is that they'd like to see your suggestion about how to shape the game come with an explanation of how it'd make the game more interesting in terms of the choices a player would have to decide to make. In lieu of actually engaging with their concern, you've brought out a strawman to just try to make him look ridiculous.

This is just sophistry and petty bullying.

Now, I haven't been around the forum the entire time, because I only dipped in to give my feedback for Milestone 1 and now I'm dipping in again to give my feedback for Milestone 2, so maybe you've already done it, but it strikes me that Instead of clogging up other people's threads that have productive suggestions on how to improve the game, you can go make your own thread with all your feedback about what's not realistic enough and then see if Chris comes in and says, "wowee! We never thought that a machine gun in the game had to weigh exactly as much as a machine gun does in real life! Thanks! We'll make that change right away!"

[Vitruviansquid]

23 minutes ago, Komandos said:

There are many game design concepts. It's like different concepts in drawing: from maximum abstraction (Malevich's painting "Black Square") to paintings with photographic accuracy. 

Well go on. Tell us which game design concepts you had in mind with your suggestions. I don't think anyone in this thread finds your suggestions to come with too little explanation.

14 minutes ago, Komandos said:

The game balance is a very variable value, which depends on the player's experience, skill, cunning, and intelligence. The player's gaming experience and skills will change, and everything that was built in the game "on balance" will immediately become "tight", "narrow", "uncomfortable" for the player, like children's clothes for an adult. It is a mistake to think that it is possible to build capital structures on a shaky foundation.

This is a word salad trying to pass off a non-argument as if it was an intelligible response to the (extremely straightforward) thing Skitso said.

Skitso said that all decisions to change the game has to include game design and balance in mind. You merely pointed out that there are players at different levels as if that makes game design such an incredibly difficult and mystifying task that it somehow invalidates what they said, so that instead of making decisions to change the game to include game design and balance, it would somehow be better to make decisions to change the game based on realism.

But this doesn't make sense at all as an argument, because if game balance is such a difficult thing, it actually makes more sense to make every decision to change the game with game design and balance in mind.

[Komandos]

17 minutes ago, Vitruviansquid said:

I was there and I played those games. Yeah, it was too many soldiers. It was tedious to keep track of and became a detriment to gameplay. It would also be so in Xenonauts 2.

In the game "Warcraft", "Start Craft" there were even more soldiers (units). Someone found it tedious and therefore played the game "Doom", where the player had only one character under control. It is normal if tactics at the platoon level have the number of soldiers equal to one platoon, and tactics at the army level have the number of soldiers, which is already in the hundreds.

18 minutes ago, Vitruviansquid said:

An argument that you could have 26 soldiers in Xcom and TFTD isn't an argument that this is a good thing to have.

The argument that it is better for players to self-identify themselves in the game as a squad leader (manage soldiers in one squad) than to self-identify themselves as a platoon commander (manage soldiers in one platoon) is not an argument that this is a good thing to have.

The old UFO: 1-2, X-COM:3 games are good because the player had a choice: to be a "platoon commander" or a "squad commander". I don't see any advantage in the fact that the game deprives the player of the opportunity to choose.

[Skitso]

1 hour ago, Komandos said:

Two text walls of non-arguments

...and with these replies you just proved my point. No point to continue this discussion.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Skitso