Xenonauts Balancing Process

[Aaron]

Thanks for the posts guys, let's try to keep this thread focused on ground combat for now; we needed to note how many ground missions a typical game might have in order to give us an idea of how long and involved each ground combat mission should be, but discussion in depth about the Geoscape and air combat will come later.

The feedback so far is already useful, and even just knowing where you guys feel the deficiencies are in the current game balance (which is quite haphazard) is illuminating. Generating lots of interesting ideas is probably more useful than in-depth discussion of specific ones, as it will give us more ideas to work with when deciding what to do.

Also, I should have mentioned in my first post but I will be doing this balance process from the point of view of the "Normal" difficulty level to start with. At the moment the differences between difficulty levels are disabled, but when we do enable them we can change the following variables between the different levels: invasion "ticker" rate, UFO health, alien health and alien weapon damage. I would guess we will end up implementing differences beyond these too, but that's what we have now.

[jimbobfury]

Regarding the discussion of the importance of cover, I'd just like to throw my thoughts into the mix:

I personally would like cover to be a clear and important benefit, both for your troops and the aliens. This would lead to positioning and squad tactics being important, as they should be in a game like Xenonauts. The idea of suppressing an alien in cover so that your squad can flank them is really appealling and having to watch out for flanking aliens at the same time will lead to some very tactical engagements.

However; I think it's important that "grab cover, suppress enemy, flank" doesn't become the ONLY way to deal with an enemy in cover. That would lead to it being a very obvious game mechanic rather than a natural tactical choice that you make.

So, if I have 5 guys in cover, firing on 1 alien, also in cover, then it should be my choice if I want to make a flank. Say if I'm not sure the route I'd use to flank is secure, then given that in this scenario I have an overwhelming fire advantage, I could just opt to stay in cover and fire away lower accuracy shots safe in the knowledge that my number advantage gives me the edge against the alien in cover, it just might take longer to hit him. But, I also have the safety of possibly drawing unseen aliens to my position where I'm ready to deal with them, rather than stumbling across them as I make the flank move.

So I guess, if a basic soldier has between a 50% - 60% chance to hit a target in the open, then that could be reduced to 25% when targeting a unit in cover. So you still have a chance to hit, but it's significantly reduced and if you want to deal with the alien quickly then flanking him would be your best bet.

[Sathra]

In Terror missions I've noticed alien moving towards the fire zone, but not on crash-sites. Anyone else noticed this?

Also, I'd love some feedback on the feasibility of having random numbers of aliens on a ship. My mod does this (with some at times crazy numbers) but I never get feedback on it .

[Skitso]

Also, I'd love some feedback on the feasibility of having random numbers of aliens on a ship. My mod does this (with some at times crazy numbers) but I never get feedback on it .

This absolutely!

[StellarRat]

1) the fact that its your fault a soldier is out in the open and you should be punished is not quite right, because most of the time you have no other way to advance on the enemy other than being exposed. the question is really HOW much punished you/aliens should be. My opinion is that currently it is TOO MUCH punished and should be reduced by a lot. That is not to say that cover will not offer significant advantage.

I have no problem with that the tactical game should require tactics such as flanking (currently it does not. currently it requires only concentrated fire from far far away because you always have a chance of hitting even from across the map, or at the very least you'll destroy the cover, therefor max range should be max range). It's also very very simple to implement and has no bug potential.

I still think the accuracy formula I proposed would go a long way to solving many of these range issues. This allows the bullets/beams to do damage with a linear fall off while cutting accuracy rapidly beyond effective weapon range. So, your guys can flank if they keep their distance, but there is always the danger of getting hit by random shots and the occasional "golden bullet". So, "Bolts from the Blue" will still exist, but they will be wild shots 99% of time. I believe that is closer to reality than changing the sight ranges to fix a problem that really has nothing to do with sight range, but everything to do with weapon accuracy. Edited May 13, 2013 by StellarRat

[Lightzy]

I still think the accuracy formula I proposed would go a long way to solving many of these range issues. This allows the bullets/beams to do damage with a linear fall off while cutting accuracy rapidly beyond effective weapon range. So, your guys can flank if they keep their distance, but there is always the danger of getting hit by random shots and the occasional "golden bullet". So, "Bolts from the Blue" will still exist, but they will be wild shots 99% of time. I believe that is closer to reality than changing the sight ranges to fix a problem that really has nothing to do with sight range, but everything to do with weapon accuracy.

'tis an issue of sight range if every time you advance, you get 1shot or wounded because the enemy has more sight, is waiting to fire at you, and there is no way to advance in most places unless you leave yourself exposed. equaling out the sight range would remove this, and make room for the 'reflex' score of soldiers/aliens (or whatever it's called) to decide who gets to do what and when.

as for balancing the ground combat, i would suggest to play a lot of jagged alliance 2 for a couple of days, then return to the ground combat system in the right frame of mind :>

[Sathra]

I dunno, with the current build I almost never get hit with reaction fire anymore. Maybe when I get to Harridans.

There's no mutual surprise system in yet, which makes close range dangerous. Its not too hard to do though, since the aliens don't turn alot so you can move around them and shoot them in the back.

[StellarRat]

'tis an issue of sight range if every time you advance, you get 1shot or wounded because the enemy has more sight, is waiting to fire at you, and there is no way to advance in most places unless you leave yourself exposed. equaling out the sight range would remove this, and make room for the 'reflex' score of soldiers/aliens (or whatever it's called) to decide who gets to do what and when.

as for balancing the ground combat, i would suggest to play a lot of jagged alliance 2 for a couple of days, then return to the ground combat system in the right frame of mind :>

The problem is that the weapon accuracy is far in excess of the sight range. With the formula I proposed that will be very much reduced because the weapons will lose a lot a of accuracy beyond their listed effective range. So, long range squad sight will be much less useful for sniping except in the case of the most accurate weapons. Hence, it will be easier to advance across open ground because not everyone on the map will be able to hit your soldiers consistently. You will only need to worry about heavy weapons and aliens that are actually in range. Edited May 14, 2013 by StellarRat

[Gauddlike]

Plus if reaction shots are only taken where there is a reasonable chance of a successful shot then a bigger falloff in accuracy would also prevent some of the long rang reaction shots.

You would still reaction fire out to your max weapon range and a little past it but not on a target halfway across the map.

With the current accuracy formula that wouldn't work unless there were plenty of obstacles in the way.

Accuracy is maintained out to four or five times the actual weapon range in a lot of cases.

[Omots]

In Terror missions I've noticed alien moving towards the fire zone, but not on crash-sites. Anyone else noticed this?

Also, I'd love some feedback on the feasibility of having random numbers of aliens on a ship. My mod does this (with some at times crazy numbers) but I never get feedback on it .

I had 2 different sebilians move into sight range during separate AI turns during a crashsite mission - V18.5. They seemed to have used up their TUs as they stopped within range of multiple soldiers but did not fire.

[StellarRat]

I had 2 different sebilians move into sight range during separate AI turns during a crashsite mission - V18.5. They seemed to have used up their TUs as they stopped within range of multiple soldiers but did not fire.

Other people have seen the same behavior and also noted that they don't seem to take up good defensive and use regular (not reaction) fire on the Xenonauts. I think something went wrong with the AI in this release. Chris made it sound like it should be better than the previous release, but it appears to be worse.

[Omots]

Other people have seen the same behavior and also noted that they don't seem to take up good defensive and use regular (not reaction) fire on the Xenonauts. I think something went wrong with the AI in this release. Chris made it sound like it should be better than the previous release, but it appears to be worse.

Makes sense...both aliens moved out into areas where cover was not within 4 or 5 tiles, as I recall.

[Omots]

Other people have seen the same behavior and also noted that they don't seem to take up good defensive and use regular (not reaction) fire on the Xenonauts. I think something went wrong with the AI in this release. Chris made it sound like it should be better than the previous release, but it appears to be worse.

Makes sense...both aliens moved out into areas where cover was not within 4 or 5 tiles, as I recall.

[Lightzy]

look honestly I don't care about formulas and all that.

I want for guns to be 100% effective up to a certain range (According to gun), then less and less effective, and then 0 effective.

the 0 effective that I want, is what currently the max range is for each gun.

Then I want that nobody will take a shot that is 0% effective.

Then guys won't be shooting each other from across the map and combatants have to actually close in on one another and do combat with tactics.

This is imperative, because otherwise the AI won't stand a chance. the AI doesn't go in groups and scout ahead for a squad full of snipers and rocket launchers waiting in the back out of harms reach. The AI has single units running around waiting to be picked off by those snipers.. therefor all combatants must be a bit closer to each other in order to pose a danger to the player and make the game tactical and fun and not a cheesefest.

If gun ranges are shorter, then it works.

If not, it doesn't. fixing squadsight will not fix this at all. only reducing weapon ranges significantly and with a marked 0% after the current max range, which is far enough and maybe too far already (as it allows u to shoot without risk)

[erutan]

So you want to make absolute weapon ranges shorter than the current "optimal" and get rid of squadsight... so all combat takes place within 18 tiles or so. That will lead to pretty cramped map design. EU12 had weapon range set at 27 for most weapons and movement was 12 (24 for dash). Given Xenonaut soldiers move 4 TUs per tile, and start ~60TUs and grow from there, under your system rifles/lmgs should be effective to ~30 tiles. I highly doubt squadsight would be taken out, but if it did we'd be using something more like the "long range vision" mod: http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/5082-Long-Range-Mod-%28another-sight-mod%29?goto=newpost

Maybe you "don't care" about formulas, but having accuracy greatly drop off past an optimal range (ala JA2 - I guess that game had a shitty combat system) would solve "shooting across the map" thing.

[erutan]

So you want to make absolute weapon ranges shorter than the current "optimal" and get rid of squadsight... so all combat takes place within 18 tiles or so. That will lead to pretty cramped map design.

EU12 had weapon range set at 18 tiles for most weapons and standard movement was 6 tiles (12 for dash). Given Xenonaut soldiers move 4 TUs per tile, and start ~60TUs and grow from there, under your system rifles/lmgs should be effective to at least 30 tiles. I highly doubt squadsight would be taken out, but if it did we'd be using something more like the "long range vision" mod: http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/5082-Long-Range-Mod-%28another-sight-mod%29?goto=newpost

Maybe you "don't care" about formulas, but having accuracy greatly drop off past an optimal range (ala JA2 - I guess that game had a shitty combat system) would solve "shooting across the map" thing.

[Lightzy]

Dude if you say JA2 had a shitty combat system then you really shouldn't be talking about balancing a tactical turn based combat system until you play it a bit!

And it would only solve shooting across the map if you and the AI actually stopped shooting across the map because you either can't or have absolutely no cause to do it. as in 0% of hitting..

[erutan]

Please read that last sentence again.

I'm somewhat confused that you think JA2 and (I assume) the original XCOM had good combat systems since they both a) had bullets that could travel past the optimal range of a weapon b) had squadsight (though JA2s was a bit more advanced). Given that I can't see why you see the only solution as limiting absolute weapon range to soldier sight range.

If you really want to get rid of squadsight going the EU12 route in terms of move/vision balance seems a lot more viable than just keeping the xenonauts system as is without it. But then you lose those unlucky/lucky/random shots that are so XCOM.

[StellarRat]

There is no "good" squad sight system as long as a human can view the whole map and controls all the units themselves. But without the exact same elements the game is no longer "fun". Take your choice. I pick the first alternative.

[Gauddlike]

And it would only solve shooting across the map if you and the AI actually stopped shooting across the map because you either can't or have absolutely no cause to do it. as in 0% of hitting..

That would involve a formula that has a greater degree of falloff than is currently used which is exactly what was being discussed.

You may not care about them but they are what the game engine will use to achieve the effects you want.

Currently a precision rifle on max aim with a maxed out soldier can have a reasonable hit chance (in the open) out to over 150 tiles.

It is more like 90 tiles with a less accurate soldier.

Most maps are not big enough to allow you to stand far enough away to be safe.

Cover and terrain obviously has an effect on this.

With the proposed formula weapons stay at 95% accuracy out to just before their listed range then drop sharply to 50% accuracy at max range.

Aiming at anyone out past the weapons max range is possible but after about 110% of range (i.e. around 29 tiles with a sniper) it becomes a very difficult shot.

Higher accuracy stats and higher aim modes push this out further so a well trained soldier may make shots out to 125% (32 tiles with the sniper) of range.

It is not impossible to aim at people further away and hit but your chances would be ridiculously low and moving up to engage the following turn may be a better use of the AP.

The numbers used are not exact, just approximations for example purposes.

There are graphs and detailed descriptions available in other threads.

Edited May 19, 2013 by Gauddlike

[Lightzy]

Erutan, ja2 indeed had the option of shooting an enemy out of your sight or weapon range, but:

1) chances of hitting, regardless of cover, were nearly none, unless you had an excellent sniper

2) ammunition had cost. at least for part of the game it was hard to find good ammunition and arm your guys properly, with only some guys having good weapons etc

3) shooting in JA2 means all enemies now know where you and set up an ambush zone around you, or throw grenades out of the dark at your location, or even rocketing you from afar. So even the simple action of shooting wasn't so simple unless you have your strategy planned out and know how to keep on the move.

4) almost all combat scenarios in JA2 involved your squad and multiple enemies, not just your squad and 1 alien who's a long distance from another, with enemies being completely unaware of you and your location, or how to approach you, as is the case here. So it was stupid to waste your action points on an impossible shot when you had a much more pressing threat closer by.

Shooting after sight/weapon range isn't in itself bad, but the overall game design dictates what you do with it.

In JA2 it was a very silly thing to do and so you generally didn't do it. In xenonauts it is the win strategy because closing in involves risk. And I don't really see how you could, for now, fix this in xenonauts, for it requires a whole rebalance and reminagining of the ground combat game, with squads of aliens creating ambushes, stalking, flanking and going on the offensive smartly) and complete AI, so for now I think it would benefit from much shorter ranges.

[nutbarz]

I Like Squad Sight, I like the Shots from across the Map. Is it realistic? Maybe not, but it is part of the fun I had playing the original all those years ago on my Tandy. And if I have a 0 percent chance to take a shot at someone clear across the map that Bob sees, but Vera can not, I make Vera take the shot. She just may get lucky, or she may take out that hay stack Bob has to shoot around.

What would I improve on the ground Combat right now? Lets See...

1 - The Row of aliens waiting behind the door of the ship, waiting for your squad to come into range should not be susceptible to stun grenades thrown at the outside of the ship. Though I find it really a neat exploit right now to stun 3/4 of the crew on the cruiser by using a bunch of stun grenades thrown at the door.

2 - With the AI - right now I know there is a flaw with it, and the first alien turn takes so long, as every alien on a terror mission is firing everything they got at all the Civilians, no matter where they are on the screen. Seems they should know enough to not shoot through the wall of the building. I'm sure this has been fixed already.

3 - Alien Squad sight needs a little tweaking. Just so they stop killing each other in the ship before I have a chance to see them as they destroy all the good artifacts on the ships. I think this is/Has been addressed as well.

4 - Better Civilian AI - Why must they always run into the middle of a battle.

5 - Hooray for letting me Stun the Civilians and not have them count as casualties at the end of combat. That was always so frustrating

6 - Who gave the Local militia Laser weapons? I had one mission where the Local's were shooting off laser rifles. In Fact I took one or two of them after the first round slaughter of all humans

7 - I Read in another thread that spinning your units may cause reaction fire from the aliens. I have not tried it to see. If it does, I think it should be fixed so it does not.

8 - Map Selection - I Don't know if all the maps are available, but I seem to get the same ones for certain ships. Like the Carrier is always in a Farm, and Its always the same map. Don't know if that's Really Ground Combat.

9 - Love the Fog of war, would like to have a small overview of the whole area that would show the "explored" areas of the map - Probably too late for that now.

10 - Keep up the great Work - Maybe make it harder for the reapers to convert my units... Let them have a save percentage based on their bravery or something, and each reaper attack would half their bravery (So if its 70, there is a 70 percent chance the unit will survive the attack and not change, then on the next attack the bravery would only be a 35 percent chance to survive) And if by some miracle they survived 2 attacks and there is a third attack, it would be an 17.5 percent chance to not change. I Get attached to these little buggers...

Ok, That's some thoughts, Hope it may help. Lets remember this is supposed to be a Fun game.

[Max_Caine]

nutbarz, the local milita get their hands on better toys in the later game. I think it only goes as far as laser weapons, but they do upgrade!

[Solver]

I find squadsight to be mostly fine except cases where aliens can really shoot at you from all the way across the map without anyone actually providing sight. Making LOS update either with movement, or at least upon death, would fix that. Other than that, I really don't see much of a problem.

[TrashMan]

Please read that last sentence again.

I'm somewhat confused that you think JA2 and (I assume) the original XCOM had good combat systems since they both a) had bullets that could travel past the optimal range of a weapon b) had squadsight (though JA2s was a bit more advanced). Given that I can't see why you see the only solution as limiting absolute weapon range to soldier sight range.

Wut? Optimal range isn't maximum. Why shouldn't bullets travel past it?

JA2 had an amazing combat system.