Ground Combat Balance Discussion v19 Experimental Build 4

[StellarRat]

Now that I've heard your balancing argument for the stun gas vs. other weapons I do see your point. I was thinking of them alone. I think if the other "stun" type weapons remain at the same effectiveness the stun gas grenades should have their cloud size increased to cover a larger area, but don't think the gas should be anymore effective, thicker, or quicker. It should perhaps last a bit longer too.

As far as the C4 comments: Well, it's not really for removing the cover of aliens in my mind. I use it to open breaches in walls and such to get to parts of the map quicker and avoid known alien positions. It is very effective as a "grenade" if you can get in that close. I don't really consider it "suicidal" anymore than getting grenade tossing range is in general. The proper tactics in my mind are to suppress the aliens with direct fire while moving someone up to deliver the grenade or C4. That's how the real Army does it anyway. I think the when aliens start using buildings more as cover and hiding spots we'll find it far more useful. Remember, it can bring down an entire building. And I do believe you can toss it through a window just like grenades.

Edited July 18, 2013 by StellarRat

[GizmoGomez]

Hey, that's a good point that kabill made, about C4 and reaction fire:

How about the UFO doors are unlocked (as they are now) and destroyable (as Aaron wants them to be), and make it so that opening the UFO door triggers reaction fire, but blowing the door does not?

This makes sense from a real world perspective; you'd assume they'd know the sound of their own door being opened, and be prepared for that to happen, guns waiting. However, the door being destroyed isn't something they'd expect as much, and it'd probably create a good deal of smoke, dust, etc that would blind them for a bit, removing the chance for them to use reaction fire.

[StellarRat]

Hey, that's a good point that kabill made, about C4 and reaction fire:

How about the UFO doors are unlocked (as they are now) and destroyable (as Aaron wants them to be), and make it so that opening the UFO door triggers reaction fire, but blowing the door does not?

This makes sense from a real world perspective; you'd assume they'd know the sound of their own door being opened, and be prepared for that to happen, guns waiting. However, the door being destroyed isn't something they'd expect as much, and it'd probably create a good deal of smoke, dust, etc that would blind them for a bit, removing the chance for them to use reaction fire.

Not to mention the discomfort and bloating of having door fragments lodged in your face.

My person feeling is that ALL explosions should cause suppression and stun damage even if they don't cause physical injuries.

[Black Cat]

Hey, that's a good point that kabill made, about C4 and reaction fire:

How about the UFO doors are unlocked (as they are now) and destroyable (as Aaron wants them to be), and make it so that opening the UFO door triggers reaction fire, but blowing the door does not?

This makes sense from a real world perspective; you'd assume they'd know the sound of their own door being opened, and be prepared for that to happen, guns waiting. However, the door being destroyed isn't something they'd expect as much, and it'd probably create a good deal of smoke, dust, etc that would blind them for a bit, removing the chance for them to use reaction fire.

I could get behind a system like this. Of course I would probably end up having one poor bastard with a pistol and 10 C4 Packs running around specifically to blow doors.

[StellarRat]

I could get behind a system like this. Of course I would probably end up having one poor bastard with a pistol and 10 C4 Packs running around specifically to blow doors.

Anyone with that much C4 and determination is scary! :-)

[DNK]

if you ended up greatly increasing expected death tolls and gave the Aliens more intelligence and Advantage...

"More intelligence" implies they have intelligence to begin with. They don't. There is no getting around it: the AI is totally incomplete currently. It is placeholder AI. XCOM had much better AI than this. I expect the remake to at least have a similar level of complexity and challenge to its AI, if not a good improvement over it.

What you want is a shooting gallery, where you find an alien, and then take pot shots at it for a couple turns until it dies. There is no challenge in that, it's stupid gameplay, and bores me to death. There's no way I could recommend this game to anyone if this stays the same, and frankly I would consider my $20 totally wasted if it did.

The original game's battles were unforgiving. Entire squads got wiped out, and this is one of the things many, many commenters over the years have praised it for.You landed your ship and there was a good possibility half your men died, hell there was a good possibility you failed the mission, maybe one wounded guy got out alive. This happened early and often in that game. It made the game a classic. Had XCOM been "find aliens, shoot fish in barrel, repeat", no one would've given it a second thought and it never would've spawned multiple remakes over decades.

Edited July 19, 2013 by DNK
Go back to CoD, it has the challenge you want.

[Aaron]

Mytheos has a good point to keep in mind regarding balance; lots of people playing this will not be as familiar with the precise breakdown of all the stats in the game as we are, and also most probably will not be interested in running a hyper-optimised route through the game for reasons of immersion/role-playing - they probably won't do an all snipers/grenades/MGs squad, even if they might be more effective. That's not to say it isn't important to balance the system (and there's more to do for sure) but I also don't want to get drawn down the hole of chasing "exploit proof" balance, as that will end up being very prescriptive in terms of play styles.

Flashbangs are in for a serious stun damage nerf next build - they shouldn't be effective as anything other than a complete last resort in that role. I also think I will increase coverage of stun grenade gas just a little - it needs to be just a little bit more reliable that an enemy ends up in a gas square.

Now sniper rifles and grenades do still seem to be a bit too effective. The problem with grenades is that while they are quite inaccurate, the splash damage means that really doesn't matter that much; I think shortening their throwing range might actually be the way to go here, as they would still be as satisfying to lob as they are now, but you would have to risk a little bit more exposure to use them. For sniper rifles I am not so sure - they are getting a range nerf in the next build (30 -25) which might help a bit, but I doubt it will change them that much - any suggestions from you guys for simpler ways we could make the choice between normal/sniper rifle a bit more interesting?

[Max_Caine]

Regarding sniper rifles. You could make the difference between snap shots and normal shots quite significant in terms of accuracy. At the moment there's a smooth grade of increased accuracy with snap shots for sniper rifles (as with every other weapon), but a sniper rifle isn't at its best when used on the move. Rather than 60 80 100, make it, perhaps... 30 80 120, to reflect that you need to stand still with the thing to work properly

For normal rifles, Mordobb suggested reducing the cost of burst fire for assault rifles would be useful to distinguish them, although assault rifles have to compete with carbines in this respect in almost all tiers. I had previously carried out quite a lot of tweaking with assault rifles, and came to similar conclusions a while back.

Finally, I would suggest one of the best ways to counter long-range Xenonaut fire is to give aliens smoke grenades of their own. (When is grenade throwing going to be implemented, btw?). If aliens can throw up their own smoke screens long-range sniper fire becomes less valuable as a consequence.

-----------------------------------------

I've played with combat shields for a quite a while now, and I find them quite hit-and-miss as to their effectiveness. For every time a combat sheld saves a squaddies' life there's another where, infuriatingly, the enemy shot seems to slip past the shield and promptly kill the operator. The problem is you have to make big sacrifices to carry a combat shield. Even with constant stat increases, a squaddie with a combat shield can't effectively carry very much, and is limited to a pistol. The blocking effectiveness of a shield was previously listed as 80% from directly to the front, and 65% from an angle to the front. Could that be increased to at least 80% from both the front and angles to the front, and could serious thought be given to 90%+? The reason I ask is that if I'm going to sacrifice armour and weapons to carry a combat shield, my solider should have a reasonable expectation that the shield should do its job.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Max_Caine

[kabill]

Regarding sniper rifles. You could make the difference between snap shots and normal shots quite significant in terms of accuracy. At the moment there's a smooth grade of increased accuracy with snap shots for sniper rifles (as with every other weapon), but a sniper rifle isn't at its best when used on the move. Rather than 60 80 100, make it, perhaps... 30 80 120, to reflect that you need to stand still with the thing to work properly

In the mod I am presently running, I did precisely this with sniper rifles; snap shot is lower than a rifle, normal short is either the same or slightly higher (I can't remember) and aimed shot is much higher. TU costs were also adjusted, such that it's quicker to fire an regular rifle over an assault rifle (actualy, I reduced the AR burst fire TU cost too, as suggested in your post). Personally, I've had good experiences from this and would recommend it. (Although, I also removed hypervelocity from snipers; if this is left in I don't know how it would interact).

re: Grenades - what about increasing their TU cost to use? It seems to me odd that a soldier can move, throw and possibly even fire all in the same turn. This would have the same effect of exposure in that you'd be able to move less and therefore would need to be closer to the target the turn before, or not be able to retreat afterwards. It also stops you from being able to spam grenades with a single soldier.

I understand what you are saying, and agree.

But I think playing it the 2nd way would increase the game's difficulty far too much, I would love to play the version you're talking about...but the honest truth is people are complaining about difficulty somewhat now, if you ended up greatly increasing expected death tolls and gave the Aliens more intelligence and Advantage...

Well lets just say the boards would be set on fire by complaints.

Its hard for us that have the game "more" figured out to understand the frustration this would cause newer players...and how somewhat high this game's learning curve is to begin with.

In fairness, *I'm* a new player (if you exclude any experience with similar games... Yes, I take your point).

I do agree, improving AI will make the game harder. I also agree that having a game which is aimed specifically at 'hardcore' players is liable to be a (commercial) disaster. But AI is a single variable which relates to difficulty out of many which might be adjusted to allow room for it. Moreover, most of these can be related to difficulty levels. So I don't think that it's an impossible situation. Probably enough on this, though - lets see what the AI actually ends up being like, since that's more than likely going to be the deciding factor!

[Skitso]

any suggestions from you guys for simpler ways we could make the choice between normal/sniper rifle a bit more interesting?

It should be much, much harder to hit up close enemies with a sniper (some severe aim penalty if target is witih 10 squares or something) and there should also be only one aim level with high TU cost. This should make snipers more vulnerable in close quarters and they would have to also rely more on a hand gun when enemies are up close...

Edited July 19, 2013 by Skitso

[DNK]

Mytheos has a good point to keep in mind regarding balance; lots of people playing this will not be as familiar with the precise breakdown of all the stats in the game as we are, and also most probably will not be interested in running a hyper-optimised route through the game for reasons of immersion/role-playing - they probably won't do an all snipers/grenades/MGs squad, even if they might be more effective.

Just so long as "keeping the AI dumb" isn't included in "balancing for less difficulty", I'm fine. I have no issues with giving the AI, well, actual AI, while at the same time reducing accuracy/strength (or SLIDERS for the latter). But, you can't call yourself a serious TBS game when you (A) don't have PvP, and (B) have dumb-as-hell AI that walk in circles under fire or literally sit in the open and wait to be killed in every single encounter.

any suggestions from you guys for simpler ways we could make the choice between normal/sniper rifle a bit more interesting?

• Much higher TUs for each shot type

• Not nearly as higher accuracy compared to TU increases

• All-around accuracy nerf

• Recoil

• Strength limits much lower and progression slower

The problem is you're trying to balance a totally imbalanced system, where accuracy dominates instead of mobility. Of course, having terrible AI (the first imbalance versus the player) makes this a necessity since the aliens never DO anything. But if they were capable of (A) taking cover, (B) flanking, (D) using smoke, or (D) regrouping to pose more of a numbers challenge, well then you could do something other than make it an accuracy game in the open.

If you make it hard to NOT kill something in 1 turn due to high accuracy at most ranges (and I believe this was the case in XCOM, I can remember needing multiple turns regularly to actually kill targets), you make it so that positioning and tactics become more important. Getting in close so short ranges make accuracy less important and initiative and skill moreso, that's the point of making it interesting and challenging. At least in urban settings, accuracy should be really, really less important than (A) killing power and (B) TU management, and this requires making it just less accurate.

You can't help that in wide-open farm maps snipers will dominate, but if you limit strength and make TU management (and recoil for these big sniper rifles) a real issue for players, in conjunction with reduced accuracy, you make it a moving tactics game instead of a shooting fish in a barrel sniping simulator.

Of course, just reducing their killing power would help a bit too.

Regarding recoil, it's pointless currently (and I think in the configs just ignored as 0), and of course, because strength is totally imbalanced (along with most other stat progressions). You can't have soldiers that end up twice as strong as recruits AND have to constantly use recruits throughout the game AND have recoil progress with typical strength values to be a meaningful part of gameplay (or weight management either). And hence just 1 less way to balance snipers or MGs.

You really need to reconsider this "progress into triple digits" approach to stats. An extra 25-30%, okay, but 75-125% extra? How can you hope to balance a game with that where you still need to be able to use fresh troops throughout? How can you create these tradeoffs or limitations for weapons when everyone can quickly level up past them? You're stuck, yes, and this is a big reason why (the other being weak AI that makes focusing on tactics unbalancing in favor of the player by a LOT).

I also agree that having a game which is aimed specifically at 'hardcore' players is liable to be a (commercial) disaster.

Yeah, like, having a game where you lose tons of troops and planes throughout and can easily lose a long campaign at any time and face an ever-increasingly impossible force would never, ever, ever become popular, famous, or sell well. That's why we're remaking CoD here

Losing 14 geared out and highly progressed soldiers + landing craft within the first 3 turns was a NORMAL occurrence in XCOM (sure, save scum happened a lot there, if only to hit "abort" ASAP). That's the game the devs are supposedly trying to remake. That's the game that so many fans love and want to see remade.

Honestly, this talk of demographics and "what people want" ignores the fact that a much better game exists (for what you're describing and the people you're talking about), with much better graphics and "streamlining" that is a remake of XCOM with XCOM in the title because the rights were bought by a much larger studio with much higher marketing spending. Why would the devs want to pander to a crowd that already has its game? And there's another being released that's an FPS too. So, going down that road opens you up to "why should I pay $25 for a 'weak' 2D version of a AAA 3D game I already have?"... So, your answer? I have none.

You want to know why so much of the forum seems like hardcore players? Because those are the bloody people that want this game to succeed, because casual players have got their game already. This is the crowd that's funding a small studio to do something they've wanted for decades: a proper XCOM remake, with all its complexity and difficulty.

And it managed to be a success, even though new players "wouldn't know everything going on under the hood." That you can't sell games with that is ludicrous. The Civilization series is more proof than you'll ever need of that - strategy games are made for people who want lots going on under the hood. If they didn't, that's what all the FPS and RTS games are for! Not having to think much and clicking fast.

[StellarRat]

Sniper rifles should NOT have a penalty for close range firing. They are already penalized enough compared to an assault rifle because of the firing rate difference (which becomes very significant in close combat.) It also makes absolutely no sense to penalize them at close range. I don't where people are getting the idea that somehow the magically become less accurate at closer ranges. If anything they should be able to void cover at close range because you can aim through a keyhole.

My opinion is that the assault rifles / carbines / medium size weapons, etc... need a higher rate of fire to make them a better choice. I would lower the TU cost for all firing modes some. At medium to close range they ought to be the weapon of choice in nearly every situation.

The shotgun ought to get a slight damage buff. They ought to be more powerful than a sniper rifle at close range and fairly quick to snapshot. Remember that shotguns with slugs can be used to hunt BIG African game animals, so one should not sell them short on the power side.

Making the grenade range fairly short is something I've always advocated so I'm going to agree with on that one. I would not reduce the power of grenades as they are deadly in close combat. They certainly need less range than a pistol or shotgun in all cases.

Also, I think the stun gas weapons (grenade and rocket) ought to make bigger clouds, but not a more "filled in" cloud. I'm assuming the aliens will at some point get smart enough to run out of gas clouds, so they will become useless unless the cloud is made larger. I also think the gas should disperse more slowly. The effectiveness and speed of the gas doesn't really need any changes.

@DNK - I certainly don't remember the AI in the OG being much better than the AI in Xeno. The current AI is much smarter about not letting itself get surrounded, using cover, etc... i.e. it's pretty good at fighting a delaying action. I agree that it could be more aggressive and smart about coordinated attacks, but the OG AI used ZERO teamwork too. Also, the OG AI frequently did really stupid stuff like positioning units completely out in the open. I recall lots of aliens just standing the the middle of a field. I wouldn't call that a particularly smart move. One of the biggest reasons you lost entire squads in the OG was that the AI actually used grenades and rocket launchers something the current AI does not do. Psionics was also a killer.

Edited July 19, 2013 by StellarRat

[Mytheos]

"More intelligence" implies they have intelligence to begin with. They don't. There is no getting around it: the AI is totally incomplete currently. It is placeholder AI. XCOM had much better AI than this. I expect the remake to at least have a similar level of complexity and challenge to its AI, if not a good improvement over it.

What you want is a shooting gallery, where you find an alien, and then take pot shots at it for a couple turns until it dies. There is no challenge in that, it's stupid gameplay, and bores me to death. There's no way I could recommend this game to anyone if this stays the same, and frankly I would consider my $20 totally wasted if it did.

The original game's battles were unforgiving. Entire squads got wiped out, and this is one of the things many, many commenters over the years have praised it for.You landed your ship and there was a good possibility half your men died, hell there was a good possibility you failed the mission, maybe one wounded guy got out alive. This happened early and often in that game. It made the game a classic. Had XCOM been "find aliens, shoot fish in barrel, repeat", no one would've given it a second thought and it never would've spawned multiple remakes over decades.

I think you misunderstood the entire point I was making.

Not sure if the go back and play CoD was aimed at me, but I have never played CoD or any CoD type game.

But the AI isnt complete from what I have heard, so lets wait for it to be done before we judge anything.

My point was only talking about general accuracy in XCOM-Type games, and why it is and has been similar.

BTW, there are several versions of AI in XCOM and it depends on the version and patch. I wouldnt say any of them are THAT much better than Xenonauts is currently.

Once you learned the game you arent going to have squads take heavy losses, same as this game. I used rookies as fodder for scouting, so yeah they died, but I used them like pawns so go figure...but that hardly counts as no one ever died that I didnt want to..well 95% of the time anyways 8-)

But in any case, there was only one version of AI in XCOM that was NASTY. And it simply was them knowing and staying outside your visual range, running in, shooting from the darkness, and then running away from you back into the darkness.

It didnt have advanced AI beyond a nasty little trick.

Yes Xenonauts needs the AI Profiles for different Aliens, I havent gotten far enough in 19-4 to see if Chryssalids run away and hide behind a box, or if they charge you like they should. ( I would imagine if the stats had a first pass thrown at them, they should have an alarming amount of TU, however if they AI knows that and understands its role, I cant say)

Also Aliens cant "Come outside" of their UFOs which makes prepping for a breach rather simple, and much less dangerous than in XCOM.

So again lets wait and see what the Devs do.

[MikeV37]

As a relatively new player (No experience with XCOM or XCOM like games other than occasionally trying xenonauts) I'm fine with the AI being smarter and me losing more troops in the ground battle. That's not the difficulty which annoys me. What would make me rage on the forums would be if it was difficult to deal with the over world, and the pen pushers on planet defeated me. (Such as finding out I expended too much ammo last mission so we have to shut down the bureau) Or if the mechanics of the game defeated me. (Such as being able to load four soldiers in a chinhook with a vehicle with the map spawning twenty aliens) But harder AI is a challenge, not something which blocks my way.

Civ isn't a good example of a hardcore series, imo, because the latest iteration of the series is vastly simpler than its predecessor, in part to please the people who don't want to figure out all the complexities of a game.

In Short, better AI is good, even if it makes the game harder. Make the player have more and better stuff on easier difficulty levels, (such as loading a transport to the brim with recruits and mob rushing the four expert alien warrior clerks who crash landed on a farm) But don't skimp on the AI as a way to make the game easier.

Don't know how to improve on sniper rifles as I load out with machine guns and assault rifles and shotguns, primarily because I'm not very good at the game.

[Mytheos]

Now that I've heard your balancing argument for the stun gas vs. other weapons I do see your point. I was thinking of them alone. I think if the other "stun" type weapons remain at the same effectiveness the stun gas grenades should have their cloud size increased to cover a larger area, but don't think the gas should be anymore effective, thicker, or quicker. It should perhaps last a bit longer too.

As far as the C4 comments: Well, it's not really for removing the cover of aliens in my mind. I use it to open breaches in walls and such to get to parts of the map quicker and avoid known alien positions. It is very effective as a "grenade" if you can get in that close. I don't really consider it "suicidal" anymore than getting grenade tossing range is in general. The proper tactics in my mind are to suppress the aliens with direct fire while moving someone up to deliver the grenade or C4. That's how the real Army does it anyway. I think the when aliens start using buildings more as cover and hiding spots we'll find it far more useful. Remember, it can bring down an entire building. And I do believe you can toss it through a window just like grenades.

Yeah I brought some C4 on a couple of Terror Missions, and tossed one on the sidewalk, right next to a building.

It was a grocery store and had the long line of glass windows...

The C4 shattered the windows, but didnt destroy a single wall tile....I think C4 still needs a little work.

On a side note Alenium Grenades seem like they got a boost, as 1 was dropping Cyberdisks and Androns like crazy, hitting for 110+ damage at times.

[StellarRat]

Civ isn't a good example of a hardcore series, imo, because the latest iteration of the series is vastly simpler than its predecessor, in part to please the people who don't want to figure out all the complexities of a game.

CIV 5 took a beating in the reviews and didn't sell as well due to it being too simple! So, that's something to bear in mind about making thing "simple".

[StellarRat]

Yeah I brought some C4 on a couple of Terror Missions, and tossed one on the sidewalk, right next to a building.

It was a grocery store and had the long line of glass windows...

The C4 shattered the windows, but didnt destroy a single wall tile....I think C4 still needs a little work.

Was that in 19.4? Last mission I played ONE charge killed a Sebillan and took out the entire back wall of small Mid-Eastern style house.

[Mytheos]

Quick question, and then I'll back to working on my 19-4 Gameplay Log.

(I feel Aaron impatiently staring at me, lol)

When there is a Terror Attack, there is always (So far) a landed UFO next to the Terror Location.

So thats the ship doing the Terror Mission...however I can choose to assualt the UFO or the Terror location, and I was just wondering what the different result is, if any?

You get more money for a landed Ship and its less dangerous than a Terror Mission generally, so why would you do the Terror Mission?

I assume you get more Funding points?

Anyone have the comparison numbers?

[StellarRat]

Quick question, and then I'll back to working on my 19-4 Gameplay Log.

(I feel Aaron impatiently staring at me, lol)

When there is a Terror Attack, there is always (So far) a landed UFO next to the Terror Location.

So thats the ship doing the Terror Mission...however I can choose to assualt the UFO or the Terror location, and I was just wondering what the different result is, if any?

You get more money for a landed Ship and its less dangerous than a Terror Mission generally, so why would you do the Terror Mission?

I assume you get more Funding points?

Anyone have the comparison numbers?

I think if you take out the terror ship the terror mission is also ended. At least I remember reading a comment to that effect. Plus you get all the money and goodies of capturing a landing ship!

[Mytheos]

Was that in 19.4? Last mission I played ONE charge killed a Sebillan and took out the entire back wall of small Mid-Eastern style house.

Yeah, its my current 19-4 playthough.

It could just simply be a case with that wall tile, a bug, or it could just have been bad luck.

But either way, I think C4 should have a larger blast radius...and LEVEL almost anything in it.

I have a sneaking suspicion I could toss one at a buss and it would survive...I guess my feeling so far without having extensively tested it is, the times I use it, it doesnt produces the expected results...and other methods are more effective.

Maybe if you really wanted to take out a train, doing it would take less C4 and many more grenades....But if I have to toss 3-4 C4 to remove a train...well I'm just going to not bother and do something else, as it isnt worth the inventory space at that point.

[StellarRat]

Maybe if you really wanted to take out a train, doing it would take less C4 and many more grenades....But if I have to toss 3-4 C4 to remove a train...well I'm just going to not bother and do something else, as it isnt worth the inventory space at that point.

OK. A train is a huge steel object. It would/should take a lot of any kind of explosives to destroy one. Did you know that the size of the C4 blast was increased in 19.4? It's much bigger than a grenade now. I'm happy with it.

[Mytheos]

OK. A train is a huge steel object. It would/should take a lot of any kind of explosives to destroy one. Did you know that the size of the C4 blast was increased in 19.4? It's much bigger than a grenade now. I'm happy with it.

Yeah I only tried it with 19-4 because of the update. Bigger blast, more damage, but much shorter tossing range than a grenade

But C4...2KGs worth?

"A small amount of C-4 packs a pretty big punch. Less than a pound of C-4 could potentially kill several people, and several military issue M112 blocks of C-4, weighing about 1.25 pounds (half a kilogram) each, could potentially demolish a truck."

**I read that wrong lol**

And again if I can shoot through walls, and more safely toss a couple grenades vs 1 C4...and again it has limited use in the first place...yeah its lackluster.

Are you really sneaking up on Aliens trying to kill them with C4? 1 Grenade as I said can drop an Andron or Cyberdisk...

And getting that close is far more dangerous that any other method, and of course destroys their stuff.

I dont know, I just havent seen anything about C4 that makes me say, wow that is a nice card I want in my deck! I may not play it every mission, but its very nice to have around!

My current thought it, I would use it when using something else wouldnt be as effective...but in those situations it either cant do the job anyways, or only does it slightly better, but at greater risk.

[Skitso]

Sniper rifles should NOT have a penalty for close range firing. They are already penalized enough compared to an assault rifle because of the firing rate difference (which becomes very significant in close combat.) It also makes absolutely no sense to penalize them at close range. I don't where people are getting the idea that somehow the magically become less accurate at closer ranges. If anything they should be able to void cover at close range because you can aim through a keyhole.

While the game is turn based, it simulates real time combat. Sniper rifle is not an optimal weapon aiming through a scope trying to track a fast alien charging at you few meters away...

If you have ever played CoD or any similar FPS, you should know who walks away as a winner if a sniper meets shotgunner in close quarters.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Skitso

[StellarRat]

While the game is turn based, it simulates real time combat. Sniper rifle is not an optimal weapon aiming through a scope trying to track a fast alien charging at you few meters away...

If you have ever played CoD or any similar FPS, you should know who walks away as a winner if a sniper meets shotgunner in close quarters.

I don't base my judgments on games. The developers interpret how THEY want weapons to work and the software is just THEIR view on weapons taking into account balance, etc...

I've fired many types of weapons in real life. The sniper rifle is penalized enough in close combat because of the number of TUs it costs to fire and because it gets the moving penalty. There is no problem getting the first shot off. It's the second and third where problems begin because nearly every sniper rifle is bolt action and has heavy recoil and that makes firing quickly a pain. Also, you don't need to use any sight at the ranges where the scope becomes difficult to use (like inside a room.) You can just sight down the barrel or point and shoot. Most decent scopes also have variable magnification to make close shots easier.

I agree the shotgun is superior at close range because of the hitting power and low TU cost to operate. However, if I had to choose between the two I'd pick the sniper rifle everytime because it is much more useful for nearly every other circumstance.

Edited July 19, 2013 by StellarRat

[kabill]

While the game is turn based, it simulates real time combat. Sniper rifle is not an optimal weapon aiming through a scope trying to track a fast alien charging at you few meters away...

I would assume that anyone using a sniper rifle in close-quarters wouldn't be trying to aim through the scope. This isn't to say that such a weapon isn't unwieldy in close-quarters, but I don't think its the scope that's a problem. Albeit from a position of real-world ignorance, I'd expect a long rifle to be no less accurate in close quarters, just requiring more time/effort to aim effectively with any kind of speed (implying lower snap-shot aim or increased TUs per shot).

EDIT: Ah, StellarRat beat me to it, and has the real-life experience to support the argument.

@DNK: I'm not sure comparisons between the commercial viability of a game made 20 years ago and a game made today are in the least bit valid. Completely different contexts. Moreover, you're conceptualising possible markets for the game as being entirely exclusive of one another and I think that's a mistake. This game can easily cater for 'hardcore' and (more) 'casual' players alike - that's precisely what difficult levels are for (and, as it happens, is the mechanism by which your referred-to example CIV works). Aiming the game at only one (and the smaller one at that) seems to me a financial mistake, especially if Goldhawk have intentions to continue in this line of work after they complete Xenonauts.