Slam Bus Rodan Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Secondary objectives would be protecting VIP civilians etc. We've not formally implemented them yet. We're open to suggestions as to what they should be.... City Mayor Foreign Dignitaries Presidential Motorcade (if in D.C.) Bus load of tourists Hospital Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gazz Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 I think he was talking about secondary objective types, not just the name / title assigned to the persons to be protected. =P Something like... - Find and kill an alien collaborateur who is disguised as a civilian. - Find and destroy some kind of beacon the aliens used to mark the position. - Find out what exactly the aliens wanted from that particular site. - Find and acquire recordings of the alien attack, like from ATM machines or security cameras. - Dispatch a team to an area of the map where noncombatants have set up a fortified position that is under attack. This one is very hard to implement without a suppression mechanic because there would be no explanation for why the aliens didn't simply storm the holdout already. If you can only stop aliens by flat out killing them, offense is the only defense that works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 That depends on how good the AI is. If they know when they are outgunned, and react accordingly, then you could arrive to find them engaging with heavy weapons from long range while trying to stay in cover. Once they take down enough defenders they would be able to move in as the balance had been tipped in their favour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted March 9, 2012 Share Posted March 9, 2012 Maybe barricades of "spaceship hulls" can keep the people that have barricaded themselves safe, while the aliens roam around outside trying to find a way in (and occationally shooting at the barricades)? Or possibly have destructible barricades in 4+ layers so it takes a while for the aliens to shoot their way through em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherdevil Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 If the aliens like chrysalids do infect people to make zombies, then it could be cool to have all of the civilians captured and stuck in one building (as in they were rounded up) waiting to be infected. Then you get bonuses for each that you save (and then don't have to kill) =p But at the same time, you know that over exposing yourself wont be smart, because those creatures will be nearby... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Some of the civvies may be infected already, you may just not be able to tell until it advances. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anotherdevil Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 exactly...! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoodGuyEddy Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Objective: Sneak in to the alien base, and spray paint all their shirts red. Then it will be an easy victory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patupi Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 "Jim Jim! The extra's strayed out of camera shot!" Ear piercing scream from off camera. "There goes another red shirt!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amjh Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Maybe terror missions could be reinvented with secondary objectives? The main objective would be to survive on site for some time as a proof of effort, with the enemy AI adjusted to send soldiers towards the landing site. Actually defeating all the enemies and protecting civilians would be changed into secondary objectives with high rewards. The story explanation would be that you're proving the enemies can be fought in a situation you can't win yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoIdidnt Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) Cant win yet? If i have no hope of winning a battle there is no way i would send in my troops as it would meen they would all end up dead! the primary mission of any terror mission would always be to save civs. as the primary mission for the aliens is to destroy/capture/cause fear in the general population. Edited March 10, 2012 by NoIdidnt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Amjh that doeesnt make sense. The whole point of terror missions is to terrorize civilians and to lower their trust in the Xenonaut organisation. It's not a direct strike at the Xenonauts. Frankly I wouldn't like that change to terror missions. The aliens goal during terror missions should be killing civilians and wrecking havok. Your suggestion works better on secondary bases or defending allied bases/small supply depoes. (Do not think the second or third option is ingame or even suggested to be ingame). Would be nice to have a second type of base defense mission. You wouldn't even have to mark out allied bases on the geoscape. They would show up just like terror missions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amjh Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I didn't mean it would end in losing your troops, either you would be allowed to leave eventually, or the enemies would leave as they have done enough damage. The idea would be that you'd need to hold the ground in the early game, and once you got the technology to properly fight back you'd be able to achieve more complete victory. Just being there would only be enough to prove you're not just sitting on the money the funding nations are giving you. Defeating enough enemies would either be enough for a complete victory, or prevent the rest from leaving if a time limit on the mission is used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I didn't mean it would end in losing your troops, either you would be allowed to leave eventually, or the enemies would leave as they have done enough damage. The idea would be that you'd need to hold the ground in the early game, and once you got the technology to properly fight back you'd be able to achieve more complete victory. Just being there would only be enough to prove you're not just sitting on the money the funding nations are giving you. Defeating enough enemies would either be enough for a complete victory, or prevent the rest from leaving if a time limit on the mission is used. I don't think noIdidnt assumed you would lose your soldiers on the mission, just saying that he doesnt like the idea. As i read it if given an unwinnable scenario he as a hypothetical commander wouldn't send his soldiers in there in the first place. I don't like the underlined Idea I dont agree with the bolded assumption Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amjh Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Why do you think the idea wouldn't work? The fact you need to prove yourself to the funding nations shows that they don't have infinite faith in you. Going into the middle of the worst attacks with inferior technology, you couldn't expect to just defeat the enemies, but fighting them would be the only way to prove it's possible. If you were deciding on the funding, would you trust more an ally that sits and does nothing when you suffer, or one that doesn't win every fight but shows progress? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoIdidnt Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I don't think noIdidnt assumed you would lose your soldiers on the mission, just saying that he doesnt like the idea. As i read it if given an unwinnable scenario he as a hypothetical commander wouldn't send his soldiers in there in the first place.I don't like the underlined Idea I dont agree with the bolded assumption yep! you are right about the way i meant it Gorlom, if a battle is unwinnable in a terror mission i see only three outcomes possible. the aliens kill the civs. becouse you dont send troops. the aliens kill the civs and your troops becouse its unwinnable. the aliens leave the battle becouse they have had to many losses or done enough damage. this is where i have a problem, first as far as i have seen the aliens dont care about losses as long as they complete their mission, and second their mission isnt complete until all civs on the map are dead or transformed into zombies? which to me would translate into a complete loss for xenonauts. a complete loss for xeno would be a bad rep. hit from the nations. In the end the way i see it, the best option for a commander would be to destroy the site with missiles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amjh Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I always got the impression that the original X-com, and xenonauts as a successor, were about a desperate fight and eventual success against a supposedly superior enemy. To me, it just doesn't seem plausible to expect that you'd just steamroll all opposition from the start in such conflict. In such situation, every encounter would be considered a potential loss, and proving that resistance is possible would be the first milestone. For that, getting there and killing a few enemies would be a lot better that hiding and waiting until they go away. If there's technical reasons why it wouldn't work from a gameplay perspective, I'd accept that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 (edited) Why do you think the idea wouldn't work? The fact you need to prove yourself to the funding nations shows that they don't have infinite faith in you. Going into the middle of the worst attacks with inferior technology, you couldn't expect to just defeat the enemies, but fighting them would be the only way to prove it's possible. If you were deciding on the funding, would you trust more an ally that sits and does nothing when you suffer, or one that doesn't win every fight but shows progress? I don't think it would be fun from a gameplay point of view. Unwinnable scenarios seldom are, thats why James T Kirk cheated =P. Terror missions are fine and fun as they are. And I simply don't agree that it is showing progress. If you want me to motivate it with immersion (instead of just what I think would be good for the game) here goes: What you are suggesting is that nations reward an organisation for failure, for not being able to produce any results but saying "hey, I tried". From a point of view inside the organisation or anyone on the ground the funding nations might seem ungrateful or stupid for not considering all the circumstanses that was present. From an investors point of view you need to have riskassesments and clear evidence showing that you're not beeing screwed out of your money. Just showing up at the scene just won't cut it imo. How do I as an investor know you as a organisation didnt land a kilometer or two away from any action and just smoke ciggarettes untill the noise stated to die down and then swoop in to "save" (read pressure into supporting your version of events) any survivours without meeting any resistance? Edited March 10, 2012 by Gorlom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amjh Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 I suggested adapting the AI to force combat in such situations; in the situation I'd imagine that the organization is in the beginning of the game, some dead enemies around the site of attack would be a lot better than just waiting and giving up. From gameplay perspective, the point of the idea is to introduce more varied tactics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 In what situations? Are you talking about the aliens rushing Xenonauts in early battles untill they get better tech? Wouldnt that just throw the learning curve out the window? And would they automaticly know when you have better weapons equipped? or would they react in battle when you fire off that laser blast? Would they remember it to the next battle, even if you killed every alien on the battle field? From a player perspective you still haven't conviced me that this would be fun. Just different. I'm sensing an "Aftershock effect", trying to diverge from the standard X-com concept without really considering if it changes what made X-com so fun in the first place. What exactly is it that you think would be fun about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amjh Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 When fighting battles above your level, you'd need to fight defensively, and you'd only need to fight the part of the enemies that target you, the exact amount depending on how the AI is configured. That would achieve okay performance. Once you advance in tech, you can take more offensive approach, and face all off the enemies on the map, giving you a bonus in the final score if successful. As new types of enemies come, what is above your level and what is not changes. In the end, we would have both current offensive terror missions and new more defensive ones. The game would need to be balanced to work with that, but balancing takes work even without it. If everything is configured correctly, playing defensively would be easier, but would only work in short term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 I've not really understood what you have wanted up to now, and I probably still dont fully get it. Or atleast not how it should be implemented. Quite frankly, I think it would be easier to just seperate it from regular terror missions and make it it's own mission type. The whole tech advancement thing seems unneccesarily complicated to me. A pain for both the developer and the player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amjh Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 With tech advancement, I only meant what was in original x-com and possibly what comes from expanding that, going from basic weapons that barely work against the weakest enemies to the weapons and other equipment that work against anything you'll face. A lot of the idea relies on the player advancement, and the fact that what success means changes with progress; where you might get a minor victory at one point, you should get a major one at another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorlom Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 I'm still not sure if you think that would be fun or if you are just trying to fit how you think it would work realisticly into the game. It completly throws off and complicates any balanceing. And I have no idea what it does to the learningcurve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gauddlike Posted March 11, 2012 Share Posted March 11, 2012 Ignore the references to terror missions in the suggestion and it makes more sense. If you have an assault on an area (lets say a friendly nations airfield or something along those lines) and they have reinforcements on route then a timed mission would fit. If the objectives are to hold out for a set amount of turns OR kill everything then you can choose to play it defensively or offensively. It would probably have to be a rare mission type where the aliens have sent a larger ship, or more advanced troops, than are normal for the wave. You can risk taking them on in the hope of a bigger reward or leave the locals to it. The downsides are that AI in games is rarely up to the task of making these kinds of defensive missions fun. Being forced to play a mission for a set number of turns can also feel restrictive, especially when you are trying to get on with something else and are only doing the mission because you can't afford not to. This is even more of an issue if you are outclassed and steadily losing your best troops. This is kind of drifting away from the secondary objectives though now and into new missions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.