Jump to content

Soldier Carrying Capacity & Strength


Recommended Posts

I would suggest a compromise between fixed values and progression.

I've never seen a soldier with less than 50 strength so use that as the base point in the progression, say 20kg to start, then allow progression up to 30 or 35kg at 100 strength. Or change the formula to 1kg/4str and give a bonus 1kg for every 10 points. That way at 50str they'd be able to carry 17.5kg, at 60 they'd be up to 21kg, at 100 they'd be able to carry 35kg. Then implement a limitation on how quickly a soldier's strength can increase, maybe 1 point per mission if they satisfy a requirement. Perhaps even impose a limit on how many times a soldier can increase in strength, say after they've increased their strength by 50% (ie going from 50-75 or from 60-90) they can no longer increase that stat through missions.

If you do this I'd recommend changing the way new soldier's stats are chosen on the hire screen. I rarely see any meaningful difference between the soldiers for hire, anything less than 5 points of difference is easily overcome after a bit of training. If there was a real difference between recruits things like stat advancement and hiring for a purpose would become much more central. As it stands all the recruits seem to have stats ranging from 50-60 upon hiring and they can all pretty much perform any task you want them to. If recruits came with a wider range of stats, say 40-70, you could choose specialists and see a genuine difference in their performance during missions. Hire the guy with the 70 accuracy to be a sniper and get the lady with the 70 strength to be your heavy gunner, sure they both may have a 40 in some other stat but they're specialists...you're not gonna give the sniper a ballistic shield and send him to breech a door, he's gonna sit in the back and wait for his shot. If you implemented the limitation on stat improvement it would be even more meaningful to keep an eye out for good soldiers to hire instead of just grabbing whoever is available when you need a replacement. A person with a 40 stat wouldn't be able to advance it beyond 60, so soldiers will either find a niche, be well rounded, or just be bad...and no amount of training will turn a bad soldier into a great one. It would also give you a reason to leave your veterans back at base, once they've reached their limit you'd be better off swapping a couple of them out for rookies to get them trained up too.

Edited by Lorebot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would suggest a compromise between fixed values and progression.

I've never seen a soldier with less than 50 strength so use that as the base point in the progression...

... I rarely see any meaningful difference between the soldiers for hire...

Some of that might just be the hiring requirements to qualify for the Xeno-program. The recruiters probably have a (very large) pool to choose from, and these might just be the candidates they feel are best qualified:

"Physically fit, adaptable soldiers who have a well-rounded skill-set and have shown aptitude to adapt to new roles in a squadron."

...For example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of that might just be the hiring requirements to qualify for the Xeno-program. The recruiters probably have a (very large) pool to choose from, and these might just be the candidates they feel are best qualified:

"Physically fit, adaptable soldiers who have a well-rounded skill-set and have shown aptitude to adapt to new roles in a squadron."

...For example.

True, but from the literature I've read the Xenonauts aren't really picking the cream of the crop. They've been operating as an extra-national organization for a couple decades without any real backing or support. They've been forced to recruit the rejects and the drop-outs, the people that have washed out or given up and have found a new cause in being recruited to the Xenonauts program. There may be hiring standards, but even in an organization with recruitment guidelines there are exceptions and in an organization that's recruiting from the left overs those guidelines must be more forgiving. A crack shot with a bad knee may be brought in for his shooting skills and someone with less than optimal eye sight may be accepted if they're unusually strong and courageous.

Homogenous soldiers are boring, they may as well not have stats at all most of the time. Just give them a level and assume the higher level soldiers are better...that's not what I want. I want unique soldiers. I want to have to build a battle plan around not just what gear my soldiers have, but what they can do with that gear. I want to look at a soldier's stats and say 'he'll make a great breecher' or 'gonna give her a medpack cause she's got tons of TU'. I don't want gear to be interchangeable between soldiers and have them all perform about the same with anything I give them. Gimme a reason to think, make me use my brain...isn't that the whole reason Xenonauts exist in the first place. They know the aliens are stronger and have better tech, we can't beat them without having a better battle plan. If the story is centered around out thinking the invaders then I want to actually have to THINK to win :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the current status of this?

I can say that the current model in the beta is excellent and working great, and that I prefer strength to be a non hidden stat that increases with experience, and is dependent on how close to or over their current carrying capacity the soldier pushes it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the "thinking" bit that Lorebot posted above; I too would rather have soldiers who's stats won't homogenize as they improve. Someone with great accuracy and terrible strength shouldn't ever become your strongest soldier through packing her down with gear all the time.

Make a cap on how many gains a soldier can get, so maybe +25 of the starting stat is the best they can get, besides a few things, like morale, and maybe TUs as well.

If this happens, though, we need to make sure there's not a "god-stat" that determines the soldier's worth. Like, if you will succeed by always picking the highest accuracy soldier every time, or the highest strength, or whatever, then it's not balanced properly.

You should pick soldiers based on what you need; if there's an opening for a scout/medic, then high TUs is a good idea. If there's an opening for a sniper, and high accuracy is a good idea.

Make the stats unique, but more or less equal in importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, worrying about soldiers getting stronger is simply silly:

In vanilla, soldiers "level up" at an alarming rate, and there are a LOT of items with a weight of one.

More importantly, item variety is intentionally low (Which is good for streamlining the game into a one time experience, but three times terrible for replayability,) not too unlike the original Xcom.

However, we are forgetting another lesson learned from the original: You could make it very far into the game using day one ballistic weapons.

- In fact, these day one ballistics were actually genuinely useful to the end... Just not the rifle, or the pistol.

Why is this?

Well, Xcom understood that not every weapon needs to be effectively usable by every last basic level recruit, and that some of the most effective weapons require a mix of recruits with sub-optimal stats for using weaponry, but the capability of using high power weaponry, and veterans who started with fairly good stats for using weaponry, but had to train, and survive many fights with sub-optimal weapons and armor to be able to use the heavier weapons needed to beat the alien threat within their tech level (Or carry 50 sticks of high explosive.)

It also had explosives that had weights of greater than one.

1 statpoint does not equal one bomb that can take out most enemies in a single hit, four does.

And you aren't going to use your light rifles forever: Eventually, you will get veterans are going to wield auto cannons (With many specialized loadings,) and heavy cannons.

While this kinda faded out as you hit plasma weapons and power armor, solving the survivability issue, it did a great job of having multiple weapons that fill similar roles, but had different purposes:

The heavy plasma rifle inflicted massive amounts of brute damage, and had a very accurate aimed shot, a battle rifle.

The plasma rifle was more of a carbine, with excellent accuracy, and TU Costs for its snap and burst shots.

The laser rifle was inbetween the two, having a hidden accuracy bonus on top of normal accuracy bonuses for crouching on its aimed shot, and adequate shots across the board. It inflicted laser damage, which was effective against certain enemy types that are resistant to plasma (Mostly terror units,) and it had unlimited ammo to make up for it being objectively weaker then plasma weapons (Averting the bard effect.)

The laser pistol could fire 11 sots in a single turn, while it was kinda weak, this alone made it a good weapon for specialists who use weapons impractical for self defense.

The heavy laser did poor damage-TU output, but was good for killing heavily armored, plasma resistant terror units.

The cannons and rocket launcher, while somewhat weak, and heavy, were good at starting large fires, hitting distant enemies with explosions, clearing paths through buildings, or clearing large stretches of alien cover.

The rifle and pistol were the first weapons that any dirt level recruit could use, and were not very good past the first few battles.

Yet, in did have three curves of progress, troop experience, resource accumulation and utilization, and technology, all of which needed to be balanced to win.

If you don't get resources, you don't utilize your technology.

If you don't utilize your technology, you loose your troop experience in the most painful way possible.

If you don't get experienced troops, you don't make the most of your technology, and you need to make even more sacrifices (But you still need some regardless.)

I won't accept loosing one of the three difficulty curves, because it kills one of my main appeals from XCom: The fear, and the tension as you encounter the battle where your attachment to your men causes you to let the aliens have their way, if for just one time.

I see this bit of streamlining, taking out an avenue of soldier progress, an element that makes you prize your men, of what make as a departure from the horror-tactical strategy game, and more to one of action, where losses are naught but statistics.

Make the TU penalty take place regardless of your strength level, or make the carrying capacity bonus tangential with strength:

Tangential power growth is a powerful element, as it makes having an extraordinarily high stat more prized, but less powerful. Cheating the player out of power, but making them feel more powerful nonetheless. (Particularly regarding hard to reach stat thresholds.)

It makes it so the soldier who can carry and operate the machinegun awfully important and treasured soldier, but it keeps the same soldier from being a maniac who carries 82 sticks of C4, and douses new york in a tyranny of flames and destruction while carrying a standard rifle in their pocket as if it were nothing.

It feels like the solutions the dev team comes up with are too core game mechanic oriented, and far too little about the small gameplay tweaks that the game needs in V18.5.

Edited by WalrusJones
Forgot an S.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like tangential growth, but it's only truly effective if stat growth is unlimited. As far as I know there is a hard cap on stats at 100.

There's no way to go past it so tangential growth is effectively meaningless since there is a point where you can no longer gain an increase in power. So regardless of how the power curve works there's an end point that will be the goal of every player. As long as the hard cap at 100 exists the only way to not end up with a homogenous group of super soldiers is to rebalance the game around that end point or to implement stat growth limitations for individual soldiers so that they all reach a different end point and then balance around the average. Individual limitations means variety in your roster and uniqueness of recruits. That soldier that can carry and use the machine gun effectively become important because having enough strength to manage the weapon is a rarity. Each soldier will be special for one reason or another, even just being average across the board would be special because in a world of specialists the guy who can handle any role with a reasonable level of success is a huge advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't need unlimited stat growth.

Rather, you can select a segment of the tangental groth curve, with math wizardry, and keep the spirit of tangental growth:

Low stats are strong limitations, high stats are minor boosts (Which may cross vital thresholds,) due to diminishing returns in stats.

I only suggest this for carrying capacity being silly, which is the only issue with strength currently.

Say, we have strength, and your base carrying capacity is 40, if you hit half of this, you incur a TU penalty, and you gain three capacity from your first three points of strength over 50, the next four provide two points of carry capacity, the next three provide one point of capacity.

Past this point, you only get a point of carrying capacity every several strength levels, at an increasingly steep curve.

An alternate would be me modding to games cap on strength growth (Such a thing exists in the XML,) which would allow me to say, YES: A solider can only get 15 points of strength above base.

Something I may personally do if everything in this thread gets scrapped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but without individual limitations you'll eventually reach that growth cap with every soldier which is what I'm trying to avoid.

A group of soldiers that are all identical just isn't fun, it makes things boring and leads to cookie cutter squads and tactics.

If you know before the game even begins that your soldiers will all be able to carry a specific set of gear once they're trained, and that set of gear will allow you to defeat the game, then what's the point of playing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why you make the training excessively slow.

At most, one point per battle, and this one point is to be awarded based on what the soldier did heavily.

Then hitting the cap is absurd.

Let me explain:

1 point per battle means you need 100 battles that specifically level that stat in order to hit the cap, and the difficulty of earning a point means that specialists only grow more specialized as time goes on.

He who shoots becomes a better shooter, he who runs becomes a better runner, and he who flippeth his shit... Learns to shit less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But you're not starting at zero, you're starting from 50+ so that's already cutting your 100 battles in half. With the rate I shoot down UFOs and go on terror missions 40 battles sounds pretty normal...perhaps even below average by the time I'm hitting the endgame.

If you already know what you need to do to improve a stat and how to game the system to focus on what you want then you can do that. A single point per mission is a good idea, but it's also overly limiting. If you can only advance a single stat per mission what makes the choice between TUs, Resilience, Strength, or Accuracy? If you're going by pure usage then TUs will win that contest every time. If you can only gain a single point of Resilience per mission and can only gain resilience by being injured it turns into a game of 'how many soldiers can I have wounded without any dying' and you start shooting your own guys to buff them up. You could also choose to have the same soldier do all the friendly fire just to ensure he gets his point of Accuracy. A single point per stat is more understandable as long as they're passing certain thresholds during the mission. But even then you're still going to hit the same cap with every soldier by the end of the game. So once again you end up with a group of homogenous cookie cutter squaddies filling your ships or you end up with a group of soldiers so overly specialized that losing any single one of them means you're set back 40+ missions. And there's no incentive at all to train backup soldiers because losing one is an unrecoverable loss along with the fact that a rookie wouldn't be able to fill the roll of the soldier you left back at base and you may not be able to get through the mission that way.

1 point per stat per mission with individual limitations (let's stick with 50% of base stat, ie start with 50 and you cap out at 75) means that a rookie may be able to fill a roll in combat that you don't intend him to stay in. That once he reaches a certain point you can give him the gear you intend him to have to make the best use of his specialization while still making use of him before he hits the point of being able to fill that role effectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I can understand, those caps are for earned points, not base points (If it isn't then it really isn't a something worth noting in the XML.)

More importantly if you are reaching endgame with your starter soldiers, then the game is probably too easy, and I simply need to make a more masochistic version of the game.

And making soldier training something that is a learned skill isn't necessarily a bad thing:

Many of the things you need to do to train a soldier can put their lives at risk, the civilians lives at risk, or worse, the mission.

Earning one point in each stat isn't restrictive, and what I meant from the beginning. Its making earning each stat point individually a challenging thing for a soldier not specialized in using that stat the good in it all.

Sure, using your too be sniper as a shotgun-oriented run-gunner for a while to train them to have more TU's will make a stronger sniper in the long run, however, the very nature of run and gunning means you are not going to have good survival rates for your to-be snipers, and you have lost countless recruits trying to get one man who can take the job of being behind the scope with absurd TU scores.

As long as training a soldier efficiently conflicts with their odds of survival, you have a system where soldiers earning all their stat points isn't an inherently evil thing in a battle: He is going to die anyway from their commander being a ding dong.

And if the game is balanced right, players won't find it worth while to waste your quarantine soldiers lives holding off the aliens as he grinds newbies stats in the background: Proper tactics will be more valuable then powerleveled recruits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long we get different stats for different soldiers, what about stats equaling what weapon they use or class they are then you would get specialist soldiers with certain stats or maybe have a chance that one of a group stats improve for each classes but that could be a problem as there not many stats, but I have not thought it though much it is just of the top of my head if it is a stupid idea then fair enough.

The last thing we want is all our soldier have the same stats or slightly different stats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More importantly if you are reaching endgame with your starter soldiers, then the game is probably too easy, and I simply need to make a more masochistic version of the game.

I have to disagree. I've been playing these games for a very long time and I'm very good at them. I lose soldiers very rarely and that's usually in the first month of the game or because they're rookies coming on later missions and I push them into situations they're not ready for because I'm accustomed to my veterans. The addition of Ballistic Shields has vastly improved my starter soldier survival rate. I don't think I've lost a soldier in the first 2 months for quite a while now.

I understand tactics and how to use my soldiers to get things done and I play cautiously. I'm very rarely surprised and I tend to creep across the map clearing as I go. There's really no time limit to the missions so taking extra turns isn't an issue, go as slow as necessary to ensure survival. Don't take unnecessary risks, stay in cover, and use those wonderful shields to soak up reaction fire and provide cover where there's no terrain to take advantage of. Certain tactics will be less viable if those aliens ever start using those grenades they drop...but for now creeping across the map in a column with a ballistic shield wielding guy at the head is a great way to move around without taking damage as long as you don't get flanked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Figure I'll chime in with my own two cents...

I think the current system works fine; it may need some tweaking, but there it is. No, not all troops are exactly the same, but after a certain amount of field use and training, especially when you look at a sort of unit like the Xenonauts are depicted to be, you end up with all the personnel in a unit capable of competently serving in just about any role, giving us both a semblance of reality and a system mirroring X-COM.

Plus, a few things get kinda... moronic... and are legit improved. The whole "getting shot with plasma and sustaining full-thickness burns over your body toughens you up" from the original kinda seems silly; the steady improvement of resilience in the system we have now makes more sense. As far as the weight thing goes, though, the troops we're getting are supposed to be representative of special forces and such. It's kind of odd that special forces guys dressed in jumpsuits and in the prime of their life have trouble hauling around more than a lightweight rifle and two or three mags and a grenade, or that these same guys are utterly incapable of carrying around a machine gun without keeling over from exhaustion. I mean, troops in the field (especially ones that don't have to walk for miles to get to where the engagement's happening) carry hundreds (sometimes better than a thousand) rounds, and numerous grenades, first aid gear, spare ammo for other guys that are carrying heavy weapons, etc.

Edited by EchoFourDelta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true that real troops in real combat don't leave base without at least 500 rounds of ammo, more or less depending on the weapon they're carrying. It's also true that the standard combat outfit and gear weighs about 50lbs.

But that's life, this is a game...and in a game losing a soldier doesn't require letters to family. Engagements in life can last hours or days and you need to be prepared for that. A mission in a game can last a few turns, maybe a lot of turns, but in the end the number of enemies you're facing is finite and balanced by the developers to provide a challenging but manageable experience. If you want to run Xenonauts like RL then you'll need to make all the rifles full auto or burst and make the game move either a lot faster or a lot slower. You'd need to increase the size of the backpack in the loadout and make room for rations and water. You'd have to implement endurance and exhaustion and make units less accurate as they get wounded. There's so much more that if you worry about replicating it all correctly you end up not with a game, but a chore...a job...and it stops being enjoyable. Besides that it creates so much work for the devs that the project becomes impossible without far more funding and support than the guys making Xenonauts have.

I don't want 100% true to life. I want something that's reasonably realistic while still being fun and balanced. I want a game :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yeah, I'm not saying make it burdensome. No one mentioned "track the guys' food and water." I'm just saying, when you end up with a Navy SEAL that served in Vietnam that's wheezing like an asthmatic from wearing pants and a shirt, and trying to carry an M16A1 with three mags, a first aid kit, and a couple frags... it can start feeling a little silly.

Edited by EchoFourDelta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My suggestions:
  1. Make shot TUs much less, with equally less accuracy. Basically, more shots/turn but the same hits/turn probability. This way even short-TU soldiers can be somewhat effective. This also increases the need for ammo/reloads (and you can adjust reload TU usage to be a bit higher).

  2. Make all increases to weight carried reduce TUs, with strength simply reducing the impact each kg has on this reduction.

  3. Reduce weight progression gains (along with other stat gains imo) to something more reasonable than +100% total after 20-30 missions, so that it just gives experienced soldiers less TU reduction from weight and better handling of recoil.

IF I can mod this, I'll do it for sure. Currently, however, you can only fully do #1 through mods. I hope we get better modding tools down the line if more things aren't going to be open directly via the .xml files.

Probably a bit late into this discussion, but I fully endorse this (not so sure on #1, but definitely #2 and #3).

In any case, even if this wasn't changed for vanilla, you could still mod it in assuming no radical changes to the extant system. If you reduced soldier's STR values to, say, half, it would be fairly difficult to equip a soldier without running into TU penalties. Having more STR therefore reduces the penalty. Reducing stat gain can also be very easily done in gameconfig.xml. So, it's perfectly possible to make a mod for this as things stand at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I hate caps of any kind, this is sci fi, not reality , and in sci fi the concept of the "Super Soldier" is well known, and part of what made the original xcom so fun. If your soldier consistently packs above her weight into the redline, her strength should continue to grow until she can bench press anyone in the locker room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
I remember that in the ufo enemy unknown the skyranger had a certain capacity on the amount of items you could have on it, once you upgraded your transportation vessel, you could bring more items with you

Nah, in the original X-COM, there was an absolute hard cap on items you could take onto the field: 80 objects. The aliens had their own pool that they drew from. If you attempted to, for example, edit UFOs so that they spawned too many aliens, you'd have a bunch of unarmed aliens running around, because there simply weren't enough slots for everything due to programming limitations.

The problem actually got *worse* as your improved you assault transports; as you added more troops, they individually had to carry fewer items to not be crippled by the cap on objects. This is where laser weapons often shined; if you were bringing out massive numbers of troops for a given mission, you'd be hard-pressed to completely equip the full complement with weapons and more than a single magazine or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
One of the things I've been thinking about as a result of the "Is Unlimited Ammo a Good Thing?" thread is the soldier carrying capacity. Ultimately, having to manage soldier ammo on the strategic layer is a pretty boring thing in my view.

Managing it on the ground combat should be a bit different, though. Ammo is something that the player should be worrying about, both in terms of how much is currently in their gun and how much the soldier is carrying. At the moment neither of these things are a major gameplay consideration.

Ammo is a consideration in real life because the emphasis is placed on suppressing the enemy force through massive volumes of fire, and because typical engagements involve high numbers of enemy units and at longer ranges.

Some reasons why this doesn't occur in Xenonauts:

1. Single shots are emphasized, and strong. Rifleman in the military are supposed to fire in three round bursts as a general rule and fire single rounds when accuracy is paramount. A twenty-round magazine goes by relatively quickly when you fire the rounds three at a time rather than 1.

2. Burst fire costs too many TUs. In real life, firing a burst doesn't really take any more time than firing a single shot; you acquire the target, burst, then reacquire for the next shot. Ideally I would like for the game to allow for snap, normal, and aimed burst-fire in addition to snap, normal, and aimed single fire; ideally all for the same cost but at differing accuracies.

3. Suppression through volume fire is relatively de-emphasized. It appears to be tied to accuracy of the rounds; in effect, this magnifies the value of the high-percentage single shots which deal more damage and also suppress more often. In reality, suppression is typically effective as long as you are firing in the general vicinity of an enemy unit. Obviously hitting an enemy has the most suppressive effect, but you typically can't tell how close bullets are to hitting you; anywhere within 5 meters and you'll be suppressed. This is especially important during 0-4% shots taken from a machine gun (either taken at beyond the weapons effective range, or taken at a target hunkering down in cover); you should still want to take them because you want the enemy to think that if they stick their head up from cover, they'll take a bullet to the face.

4. The engagement ranges are short. Longer sight ranges forces you to take cover earlier and fire lower-percentage shots, which means you'll expend more ammo.

5. Cover collapses too slowly to volume fire due to the absurdly inaccurate sprays it produces. Volume fire, in addition to its suppression effects, should also hit cover more often than it sprays ineffectually at the ground around the enemy, in order to destroy the cover quicker. With these two benefits, single shots can be tuned toward being more likely to deal more damage than burst fire (e.g. a single shot at 10% accuracy or three shots at 98% accuracy favors the single shot in average damage output; similarly, a single shot at 60% accuracy or three shots at 85% accuracy favors the single shot in average damage output), while burst-fire and machine guns have high suppression and destroy cover quickly.

6. Units can easily flee out of your sight range in between turns. The progress you made towards maneuvering a suppression element into position or destroying their cover is effectively negated. This encourages you to spend your ammo on better-percentage shots and outfit your soldiers likewise (by massing snipers, for instance). This is mostly a result of the poorly-implemented suppression mechanics; if suppression were more common during volume fire, the enemy would be forced to hunker down for several turns, allowing for you to tactically maneuver a flanking element and also allowing for large expenditures of ammo.

7. Overall engagement sizes are low. This ultimately isn't going to change much in the future, I imagine, since the enemies are tuned to be highly lethal.

While all these factors need not be changed at once (indeed doing so might make burst fire too powerful), at least a few of them must change for volume fire to be a reasonable option worth considering.

Personally, I disagree with effectively removing the strength stat from the game. A better option is to fine-tune the scaling on the weights of higher-tier weapons, armor, and equipment and the growth rate/cap of the strength stat to create the same effect; you experience tradeoffs in the early game since you have a low overall weight cap, and you experience tradeoffs in the end game through balancing the benefits of upgrading with the corresponding weight. Removing game mechanics (even something as simple as the increase in carrying capacity over time) should be a last resort.

Edited by TheDjinni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I hate caps of any kind, this is sci fi, not reality , and in sci fi the concept of the "Super Soldier" is well known, and part of what made the original xcom so fun. If your soldier consistently packs above her weight into the redline, her strength should continue to grow until she can bench press anyone in the locker room.

Hell no.

HELLL NO.

***

@ TheDjinni

One possible reason why volue fire is less usefull is a limit on supression. You drain it's AP to 50% (I think). And some laines have a lot of AP's . Hence why you can't really "pin" it in place

As I test I one threw 6 flashbangs on an alien and used 2 MG's to further supress it.

It still moved.

Maybe another option would be to double the movement cost if surpressed? (and the state persist into the next turn)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...