Realism

[Aufklarer]

Some things I would really like to see implemented:

Posting grenades through doorways/windows - As a soldier myself I wouldn't stand in the doorway and expose myself to whoever might be inside while attempting to grenade a room. We stand to the side out of the line of fire and roll a grenade in. Also the amount of time units in game it take to prime and throw a grenade is unrealistic. At least add the option to prime a grenade on game turns prior to actually throwing it. There should be no time delay on detonation like in original x-com though as a grenade fuse cant be adjusted.

Machine Gun - The amount of rounds fired from a machine gun is fairly low in respect to the time units the xenonaut has. A machine gun is a suppresion weapon and very formidable once set up in a decent firing position. I would like to see at least 2 bursts being able to be fired per turn but at a much reduced accuracy. Also 99% of the time the weapon would be fired from the prone position, to hit anything from standing or kneeling would be a miracle or extreme luck. Unless it is mounted on a tripod in the sustained fire role.

Cover - once next to cover xenonauts should be able to hide from fire, currently you can still be shot at even if in real life you could choose not to expose yourself .

[Sathra]

For the last point, if cover was perfectly protective is would be too good (for both sides). It's still pretty hard to get a target out of cover already. Crouching does increase the protective value of an item of cover though.

[Ol' Stinky]

Yeah, I already design my squad to be able to kill aliens behind cover (playing v19). In mid-to-long range combat, I use sniper rifles since hypervelocity allows a chance to deal damage even if I hit cover. I might take a rocket launcher early on for emergencies, and later on for stun rockets. In close combat, I use the various grenades. Once various accuracy problems are sorted out - i.e. the stray shot bugs, untuned accuracy for weapons, etc - I imgaine being exposed will be more dangerous, and improving cover now would be overkill.

As for the LMG, once the AI burst fire cheat bug's removed, I'll take it along purely for its suppression power. It's competing against the rifle in this respect. Currently the rifle's advantage over the LMG is that it allows for more mobility, whereas a rookie using an LMG can only move a short distance before he has to choose whether to carry on moving or to open fire. If the LMG gets (say) a 20 or a 30 TU fire option, then I'd probably never take along a rifle. What changes would you make to the rifle to allow it to be viable?

Oh, and Sath, is that crouching-bhind-cover thing still in? I didn't realise that was the case. I see it's in the wiki, but on the same page it talks about the automatic cover-taking animations as though they were still in the game, so it's a bit dated.

[Sathra]

I'm not sure, but I don't see why it would be removed. I think it still in, or at least crouching behind cover seems more effective and alien standing behind cover are a bit easier to hit (rare cases they are standing though)

[Goetikmagus]

I'm all about grenades through windows. I'm also all about a higher lob height. It's really painful when your supposed highly-trained soldier "misses" throwing over low cover, and the 'nade lands in his lap. (Oh, well - I suppose I should just save more often, right?)

I like the idea of pulling the pin on one round and holding the spoon for the next, when you can be up and running as you chuck it. At the same time, if the aliens could do similar things, then I could see the game very quickly devolving into a frag-fest, when it's supposed to be a tactical simulation. All-in-all, I think that grenades should pretty much stay as they are.

As for LMGs, they ~are~ possible to fire accurately from a shoulder position, if you're very strong and heavy. (I'm not talking about a teeny little SAW, I'm talking M60/M240B). I think that they should generally be hard to aim, unless kneeling (the closest thing to a prone position) OR firing from behind low cover (whereas you could set down the bipod on said cover for extra stability).

Multiple-burst LMG fire makes sense, as well - though the second and progressive bursts are going to be more difficult to aim, due to recoil... recoil that you don't really get a lot of with smaller weapons. If you were to take an accuracy penalty with every additional burst, I could see it implemented. Of course, as pointed out above, you're already taking a major hit to accuracy if you're not in a steady position, kneeling or behind low cover. Hitting anything while moving, shooting from the hip, at full-auto would be a matter of luck more than anything else, which isn't really what you want in a tactical situation with civilians running around the battlefield.

Finally, LMGs are typically designed for destruction of vehicles (or, in some cases, vehicle-sized aliens), or suppression. Personally, that's exactly how I use my Machine Gunner. He either keeps the enemy's head down, or destroys soft cover. I almost never rely on him for a kill-shot, unless he's almost point-blank.

[Sathra]

Changing the shot cost for the LMG is troublesome, as its a fixed cost so you end up with veterans being able to throw an enormous amount of fire downrange. A max TU soldier (122 or so) can fire the current MG's 3 times.

I always thought of them being SAW's anyways. Though the 'moved' penalty could probably be increased to further reinforce them as being support weapons (currently I think it drops accuracy by 50%).

Try not to over-complicate things. Its a game, so there are compromises and the more complex things can be really hard to explain to new players.

Case in point: Medkits. Its apparently not at all obvious that they can be charged like weapon aiming.

[Aufklarer]

With regards to the cover point, I'm more pointing towards the fact you should be able to forsake your current turn in order to take cover and hide, there are times when it is more beneficial to not expose yourself to fire. Hiding behind a rock or wall this is entirely possible, while doing this though your not going to be able to effectively observe the enemy and the protection afforded would remain the same although the enemy should not be able to directly target you if hidden. AoE weapons such as grenades are invaluable in that situation. If you like you could almost imagine it like voluntary suppression in effect.

With regards to the replies on the machine gun issue, while trying to keep it simple I would propose that it is entirely possible to fire 2x 5 round bursts within the time it takes one of my soldiers to run 10-12 grid squares on the map. While I understand the game has its limitations with regard to balance I feel almost cheated when my xenonaut fires a burst with the meaty sound effects and then that's the end of the turn for him. The weapon portrayed at least in the illustration in game seems to be very similar to a GPMG (general purpose machine gun) and as stated by some is a support weapon. It should not be fired from the hip or standing in my opinion. It fires 7.62mm (As do most other similar varients such as the M60 or MG3) so it does and should not compete with the rifle which fires 5.56mm standard nato. The penetration and damaging effects on both cover and people is vastly greater than a rifle round. Without trying to sound like an ass the 5.56mm round was designed to wound not kill, that may sound strange but the idea behind it was to wound one man and take another 2 off the battlefield to care for him thus denying the enemy 3 soldiers rather than 1.

Potentially consider adding increased suppression, reduced accuracy all round, a single burst costs 50% TU's thereby allowing a stationary gunner to fire 2 bursts or a choice between a quick fire and move or all out movement? Obviously I dont want to see it overpowered just make it feel like a machine gun.

The machine gun should be used what its designed for, suppression to win the fire fight and allow freedom of movement for the rest of your squad. Currently even if I use it as it is designed in real life it feels to me like an overpowered rifle. Its a weapon of fear for sure, I found that out when I was on the receiving end of a PKM in a Taliban ambush in afghanistan

I agree with all points said about grenades, I just don't like having to stand in a doorway to throw a grenade into the room, makes flash bangs seem pointless to me at least. The throwing arc thing is a little annoying right now but i'm sure it will improve.

Regards to the developers for staying tru to the original x-com i played as a young man and still do to this day

Edited June 19, 2013 by Aufklarer

[ThunderGr]

The suggestions sound reasonable and not hard to be implemented. A note on the cover, though. Choosing to "hunker down", should not prevent the enemy from targeting you. Cover can be destroyed and positions can be flanked.

[Aufklarer]

Agreed when Line of sight is made then game on, but if I lie down behind a wall you can't aim for my head. You can guess at where I am roughly but not for sure.

When a target is behind cover, lets say a rock that obscures his waist down we aim for the visible center of mass. There is no visible center of mass for a target when hidden so the only option would be to shoot the wall in the hope of suppression and penetration of the cover to wound your intended target, which of course you approximate to be where your aiming.

I am trying to differentiate between taking cover but remaining exposed (in a fire position) and down right hiding out of sight.

[Solver]

Grenade trajectories clearly need work.

As for cover, it seems to hit a decent balance between realism and gameplay to me. You can, in reality, shoot at cover that you know someone is behind, and that will suppress them, and may even hit them if the cover is penetrated. The latter point is well done in the game where high-powered rifles can penetrate cover. You wouldn't expect a thin cement wall to fully protect you from the M24. What the game doesn't reflect is the ability to outright remove yourself from LOS. Unless cover is as tall as a standing soldier (like full-height walls), the game considers you to be at least partially exposed, so it basically assumes the soldier or alien is always in a firing position.

[Aufklarer]

It is certainly as it stands, a much better system than the original game whereby you were either hit or not hit regardless of cover.

[StellarRat]

LMGs have been discussed in great depth in various threads. I think the common understanding is that the LMG depicted is a SAW firing 5.56mm rounds. In the past I modded it to be an M60 firing 7.62mm rounds, but found it to be way too good. Also, a SAW can be handled by one man, while an M60 usually has a two to three man crew (one guy to carry the weapon, another to carry ammo, and an assistant gunner to help with firing.) There are no other weapons in Xenonauts that have this requirement.

As far as the grenades go, my understanding it that nearly all the current concerns are known and will be addressed before the game is released.

[Goetikmagus]

Haha! Mind you, I'm not trying to belittle you, Rat, but... what unit did you serve in, man?

<--- Cavalry (Laugh, if appropriate)

We never had enough people to fill crew rosters, but we did just fine with 1-serve-crew on a '60/'240b... no "usually" about it. You humped that pig (For you civilians: ~not~ a euphemism for "A good time"!) on your lonely onesies, plus ammo, plus a field radio, plus your personal weapon.

Now, a field Ma-Deuce? Yeah, 2 man crew (one for tripod + barrel, one for the goods + ammunition). I've never seen a three in my years of active duty, outside of arty (where each round of ammo weighs 30 kilos). Even tank-serve weapons only had a gunner and a loader. Keep in mind, however, I was usually WAY out in the woods, chewing on pine needles and hoping that the rest of the army actually remembered where they sent us... ... ... ... just sayin' - as long as we're on the topic of "Realism".

[StellarRat]

Haha! Mind you, I'm not trying to belittle you, Rat, but... what unit did you serve in, man?

<--- Cavalry (Laugh, if appropriate)

We never had enough people to fill crew rosters, but we did just fine with 1-serve-crew on a '60/'240b... no "usually" about it. You humped that pig (For you civilians: ~not~ a euphemism for "A good time"!) on your lonely onesies, plus ammo, plus a field radio, plus your personal weapon.

Now, a field Ma-Deuce? Yeah, 2 man crew (one for tripod + barrel, one for the goods + ammunition). I've never seen a three in my years of active duty, outside of arty (where each round of ammo weighs 30 kilos). Even tank-serve weapons only had a gunner and a loader. Keep in mind, however, I was usually WAY out in the woods, chewing on pine needles and hoping that the rest of the army actually remembered where they sent us... ... ... ... just sayin' - as long as we're on the topic of "Realism".

Yeah, but if you were in the cavalry then you must have had a vehicle to carrying the weapon most of the way, I hope. My Army buddy in the cav was pretty much ALWAYS in his Bradley. In fact, it saved his azz when they ran over a mine. Anyway, the SAW is a far more appropiate for a tiny unit like the Xenonauts IMO. I would think they'd value mobility over heavier weapons.

[Goetikmagus]

Nope. On foot for 83% of the km I put my boots to. Bradley or hummer for the rest. Completely agree with your opinions on the SAW.

I must have just gotten the crappy units.

[CJueroX]

The SAW would be a perfect weapon for Xenonaut squaddies, unfortunately we are a bit limited with the time frame the game is set in - late 70s early 80s we were pretty much limited to the 'crew served' lmgs (see Goetikmagus' post for why I put 'crew served' in quotes ) [two time veteran here, Navy and Army [was in artillery in the Army - desk pogue though]]

I do agree with some of the suggestions behind modifying the current game LMG though - as it stands I rarely carry one with me (it is 'cheaper' to use a rocket launcher [in terms of TU]). Since the penalties for collateral damage are so minimal (-2 points / civvie killed by xenonaug forces iirc) and there are no penalties for property damage (nor does it seem to affect what you get from the recovered craft) the rocket launcher just makes it easier to have a hw backup team.

Maybe to balance out the LMG with multi-round fire, change it so that the ammo belts take up more space and weigh more (maybe turn them into ammo cans that are roughly the same size [inventory space wise] as the rockets?)

[ThunderGr]

Since the penalties for collateral damage are so minimal (-2 points / civvie killed by xenonaug forces iirc) and there are no penalties for property damage (nor does it seem to affect what you get from the recovered craft) the rocket launcher just makes it easier to have a hw backup team.

I am pretty sure they will change that, or I think they absolutely should. The equipment you recover from the craft should reflect what you ended up with and the penalty for your troops killing civilians must be increased. Civilians dying by the aliens is one thing, dying by your troops, is another.

[StellarRat]

The SAW would be a perfect weapon for Xenonaut squaddies, unfortunately we are a bit limited with the time frame the game is set in - late 70s early 80s we were pretty much limited to the 'crew served' lmgs...

I figured it was really an FN Minimi (available 1974), but I been calling it a SAW because that's it's weapon class. It doesn't have to be an actual American M249.

[Max_Caine]

This discussion on the tier 1 machine gun has been an interesting read... but how does any of this apply to the other tiers? I think, guys, you're over-focussing on a weapon that will get swapped out fairly quickly.

[StellarRat]

This discussion on the tier 1 machine gun has been an interesting read... but how does any of this apply to the other tiers? I think, guys, you're over-focussing on a weapon that will get swapped out fairly quickly.

Well, it depends on if you are talking general MG or equivalent mechanics or strictly about level 1 LMGs. The OP stated that LMGs should get more bursts that could certainly apply to ALL autofire heavy weapons. Also, I bet a really good player might be able to get pretty darn far in the game with level 1 weapons. I think they are quite underrated by some players.

[CJueroX]

I am pretty sure they will change that, or I think they absolutely should. The equipment you recover from the craft should reflect what you ended up with and the penalty for your troops killing civilians must be increased. Civilians dying by the aliens is one thing, dying by your troops, is another.

I completely agree, I just am taking advantage of the situation how it stands now

[CJueroX]

I figured it was really an FN Minimi (available 1974), but I been calling it a SAW because that's it's weapon class. It doesn't have to be an actual American M249.

Ah, my mind automatically associates the SAW with the M249 (what a fun weapon )

[Aufklarer]

Yeah, but if you were in the cavalry then you must have had a vehicle to carrying the weapon most of the way, I hope. My Army buddy in the cav was pretty much ALWAYS in his Bradley. In fact, it saved his azz when they ran over a mine. Anyway, the SAW is a far more appropiate for a tiny unit like the Xenonauts IMO. I would think they'd value mobility over heavier weapons.

You would be surprised, we carry the GPMG on our own and unless its set up in the sustained fire role (tripod and spare barrels) there is never a second man. Also its meant to be good otherwise we wouldnt take it along after all it weighs a ton on its own and thats without the belts! Typicaly the scaling is one per section.

The LMG (we use minimi) if thats what it is meant to portray is used in a similar manner to how I discussed in the original posts and therefore I would still like to see in essence a machine gun being used as a machine gun in game.

[PerfectDeath]

I've played a few rounds with double LMG 'nauts. I can tell you guys it is very deadly once those two get to 80 TUs. 40 TUs per burst, if you set them up out of the alien's line of sight and crouch you can nail them with two bursts each.

But LMGs really have a hard time being a fire and maneuver weapon unless the entire group slows to the LMG's pace meaning you hold your riflemen and assault back so that the LMG(s) can always be set up before hand.

If my LMG does not have 80 TUs then I can have him set up before advancing to spot targets, once the target is dead, I still have some TUs left (something like 15-30 extra TUs), I usually use these to stand back up and start relocating. It kind of helps to allow the LMG to keep up.

[StellarRat]

But LMGs really have a hard time being a fire and maneuver weapon unless the entire group slows to the LMG's pace meaning you hold your riflemen and assault back so that the LMG(s) can always be set up before hand.

Yes, they do slow your MG guy down, but that said, we have no time limit in ground combat AND the aliens really aren't very dynamic in their maneuvering (if any.) So, it's not really a problem to take your time and get everyone setup for each bound forward. Hopefully, the AI improvements that are supposed to be coming will make speed more important, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Unless they actually start mounting counterattacks I see little reason to believe the ability to move quickly is going to matter much. Right now the only thing speed is important for is moving from cover to cover without getting caught in the open.