Why is crouching OK but leaning is not?

[eobet]

I don't think any soldier in the history of the world has ever just walked around a corner to check what was happening on the other side, especially not in a fire fight, but that is what you do in almost every turn based strategy game.

I mean, the soldiers can crouch behind things, but why can't they lean?

[Elydo]

Inner ear problems.

More seriously, I think it would be difficult to code. Or if not code, then enact in the first place. Do you have the lean be a toggle, or just an action? Does it trigger reaction fire? Can you take other actions whilst leaning?

Another answer might be just having vision go around a corner slightly when stood at one, allowing a soldier to 'see' around a corner without actually going around it, suggesting that the soldier is peeking.

[Rack]

I suspect the answer might just be because crouching was in Xcom and leaning wasn't. If you added a lean option then it would be something you'd have to do as you got to every corner, it wouldn't really be a decision. But crouching isn't a whole lot different, I don't think I ever agonised over the choice of whether to crouch or not, it was just an interface hurdle.

[TrashMan]

becasue it would require a whole new set of animations..for EVERY armor and weapon combo.

In a 3D game it's not a problem. For a sprite-based one it's a LOT of work.

[Xintrosi]

While we're at it, what about strafing? I use Shielded combat scouts, and I'd love for them to move without exposing their flank to the enemy. At least the corner thing is easier, because you can drop smoke and then get oriented properly before poking one's nose through the other side.

[EchoFourDelta]

becasue it would require a whole new set of animations..for EVERY armor and weapon combo.

In a 3D game it's not a problem. For a sprite-based one it's a LOT of work.

Well, it's not if you do it the right way.

[Chris]

Rack actually guessed correctly a few posts up; I imagine the reason X-Com did not contain it is because being able to look round corners means less tension.

[Dchi4x4]

well they could code that if you are in a space that is directly next to a corner and you face your unit in the direction of the corner, you can automatically peer around the corner. Thus making you able to see as if you were facing down that side of the structure without exposing yourself.

[tb87670]

If you can't lean you can do like I do and scoot soldiers back from the corner a little at a time to see slightly more of what is around the corner. If the corner goes around East to North, put a soldier one or two blocks from the corner then go south a block or two then look North. Still the chance of an Alien getting a snapshot on you the moment it sees you but you will be further away at least. This also works well with a few soldiers. I first developed this technique in XCom when trying to get a solid method of tossing grenades around corners with minimal risk.

[Ol' Stinky]

Maybe they could tweak the LoS rules somehow so that you can "see" around the corner without having a specific lean function. I'm not a fan of having to risk reaction fire in CQC in order to see where the enemy even is. Although I guess some kind of mutual surprise rule would sort that out anyway, I vaguely remember something like that being the case in the original X-Com.

Edit: I don't know how I missed Dchi4x4's post. Whoops. Erm. What he said.

Edited September 13, 2013 by Ol' Stinky

[GizmoGomez]

Also, there's this to consider:

If we had leaning, the aliens would have to have it too. Do you want to have plasma snipers firing at you from behind walls? Or, if in your idea you can look around corners but still cannot shoot (which would still be "unrealistic"), scouts seeing your soldiers so plasma snipers can fire at you from across the map.

Either way, I much prefer not having leaning, if only because it'd be so much more difficult if the enemy could utilize it effectively.

[eobet]

My problem is this:

The more realistic the graphics become, the more you expect the game to behave like in the real world (which is why misses or sight blocks in the 3D version of XCOM is so infuriating compared to the old one, because it uses most of the same old grid based rules which you can now clearly see don't work in 3D).

In the original UFO this didn't bother me because I could clearly see that things weren't realistic, but in Xenonauts, every turn I wonder why my soldiers are so suicidal.

And by chance I just happened to come across this trailer for another game inspired by UFO, that does seem to have leaning despite not having realistic graphics at all (20 seconds in):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwmDeIJ-LHw#t=19

And regarding alien snipers hiding around corners, you should still be able to see them peeking out just as they see you. I don't see why it should have to be handled in any other way than crouching. In fact, press the crouch button while standing on a corner facing in the wall should automatically lean you out, imo.

Nothing said so far in this thread has convinced me that leaning is a bad idea yet though, sorry.

Edited September 14, 2013 by eobet

[Amaror]

My problem is this:

The more realistic the graphics become, the more you expect the game to behave like in the real world (which is why misses or sight blocks in the 3D version of XCOM is so infuriating compared to the old one, because it uses most of the same old grid based rules which you can now clearly see don't work in 3D).

In the original UFO this didn't bother me because I could clearly see that things weren't realistic, but in Xenonauts, every turn I wonder why my soldiers are so suicidal.

And by chance I just happened to come across this trailer for another game inspired by UFO, that does seem to have leaning despite not having realistic graphics at all (20 seconds in):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwmDeIJ-LHw#t=19

And regarding alien snipers hiding around corners, you should still be able to see them peeking out just as they see you. I don't see why it should have to be handled in any other way than crouching. In fact, press the crouch button while standing on a corner facing in the wall should automatically lean you out, imo.

Nothing said so far in this thread has convinced me that leaning is a bad idea yet though, sorry.

Your example isn't very good.

First of all: That game has 3D graphics and in 3D leaning wouldn't be as difficult to implement.

Second of all: It's a very different game.

Xcom and Xenonauts are about tension. The tension of not knowing to be precise. Not knowing if the alien will do a reaction shot, not knowing if there's an alien in that room. And not knowing if there's an alien around that corner.

Leaning would make things more trivial, easier and less tense. To look around an edge is currently very dangerous and that's how it should be. Leaning would make it too easy.

[MellowJello]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwmDeIJ-LHw#t=19

Regardless of whether the video applies to this thread or not, I'm suddenly interested in this game. Thanks!

[eobet]

Your example isn't very good.

I think you misunderstood me there. I did not use it as an example of leaning, if you read carefully, but rather as an example of how more advanced graphics also brings more expectations of how a game should behave.

Leaning would make it too easy.

Since aliens would be allowed to lean as well, I do not believe it would make it any easier, merely more realistic. Leaning, as I described it would be no different from crouching, except that it would work around corners instead of objects with low height.

[eobet]

And by chance I just happened to come across this trailer for another game inspired by UFO, that does seem to have leaning despite not having realistic graphics at all (20 seconds in):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwmDeIJ-LHw#t=19

Hey, what do you know... I found another new 2D game with X-com roots that has leaning:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQZnIgoTA3E

[GizmoGomez]

Awesome.

(This is merely speculation, albeit informed speculation): Still not gonna make it into the game. Sorry mate.

Also, just out of curiosity, how successful/popular was that game, or the other UFO-inspired game/s you mentioned? I'm not trying to bash or anything, but as far as I know, Xenonauts is the only game that comes close to the original. I'm just interested in what all has been done, and what has and has not worked.

[StellarRat]

Leaning...hmmm...that would be OK, but I'd much prefer going prone if another posture was added. Just remember, if you leaning around a corner and get hit it should have a very high chance of being a head shot i.e. instanto death.

[Gorlom]

Guys, did you miss Chris post? This isn't about versimilitude or what negative possibility space you encounter. This is about TENSION B****ES!

Atmosphere and all that! How the gamemechanics play together! not how much you can pimp out the tools in your toolbox.

Rack actually guessed correctly a few posts up; I imagine the reason X-Com did not contain it is because being able to look round corners means less tension.

Personally I don't think leaning would be much fun. It would take away too much of the atmosphere for me. It wouldn't be X-com anymore. It would be... Aftermath/shock/light ugh.

Hey, what do you know... I found another new 2D game with X-com roots that has leaning:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQZnIgoTA3E

eobet: It only really works in that second game you posted because of the mapdesign. The 2 tile wide hallways etc. There is not a single 3x3 tile in that map.

It also looks like that game is designed to be faster paced and going for a different atmosphere.

[Wraith_Magus]

I'm not trying to bash or anything, but as far as I know, Xenonauts is the only game that comes close to the original. I'm just interested in what all has been done, and what has and has not worked.

Technically, X-Com was not the only tactical game made by Julian Gollop. The Rebelstar series, Laser Squad, Laser Squad: Nemesis, and Rebelstar: Tactical Command.

The games aren't exactly the same - Laser Squad: Nemesis was basically multiplayer, and relied upon you submitting your orders in advance of them actually being completed, only for all side's turns to be resolved simultaneously. You also could play as the aliens.

Still, you can pretty much see the evolution of the game concept by looking through those games that came before X-Com.

As for other games that are "close to the original", I think that depends a bit on your definition of "close to the original". I found the Jagged Alliance and Silent Storm series games to be "close to the original" in the parts that really mattered. (That is, the way you played the major aspect of the game, the combat, rather than whether or not it had to do with aliens.)

Microprose attempted to make a real-time version of the original X-Com, to be called X-COM: Genesis, with all the base-building and research and stuff intact. It died of lack of funding.

Gollop also tried to make his own 3d pseudo-remake of X-Com in full 3d with Dreamland Chronicles, which also died of lack of funding, and killed his studio. (Incidentally, it would have been set in the "humans lost the war in X-Com" timeline, which is what ultimately wound up being used in Rebelstar: Tactical Command.)

Apparently, after its failure, Dreamland Chronicles was bought up and released later by some other people, making a UFO:Aftermath series of games that not too many people really liked that much. (I never even heard of it until looking for it just now...) Apparently, you play as various things like colonists on Mars that have to hunt down aliens while building bases in the traditional format. (Old Gamespot review here.)

Anyway, for full-on X-Com clones that aren't licensed or related to Gollop, there's UFO: Extraterrestrials, which is available over Steam as "Extraterrestrials Gold". (Apparently, it was a buggy mess at release, and they had to release a new version.)

There's also UFO: Alien Invasion, Xenowar (featuring laughably awful 3d that would have been right at home in 94), and the now-defunct Xenocide. All are/were open source. (Funny how the same words keep popping up in all the titles...)

[Max_Caine]

Being able to take cover in whatever form - whether leaning, crouching, going prone, etc is great when everyone has the same level of ability. It's when there's a skew in that level of ability that being able to take cover benefits the side which has the greater potential than the other. And like it or not, that potential swings in favour for the aliens most of the game. Who remembers GJ's early AI, who did nothing except retreat, take cover, go on overwatch, retreat, take cover, go on overwatch? Winkling out each alien was a total pain in the arse. We should be thankful that the AI is currently ditzy enough to have aliens keep swapping cover rather than digging in and firing away, because in a shooting war between an alien in cover and a Xenonaut in cover, the Xenonaut is more likely to loose than the alien.

So, the more options added to taking cover, the more the balance swings in favour of the aliens. I mean, take Sebillians. Regenerating, tanky Sebillians. Regenerating, tanky Sebillians with plasma rifles from Scouts onwards. It's bad enough when these gits can and do crouch behind cover, suck their thumbs and wait Call of Duty style for their health to regen before going over the top. Imagine giving them the ability to lean as well? "Oops! Just got hit by a bullet. Oh well, I'll duck back, suck my 4 thumbs and wait a bit before peeking out again. *Ding!* I'm healed! Result!". It's not just leaning - I'd apply the same reasoning to going prone, hugging cover or any other form of movement designed to maximise the use of terrain as a defensive tool. Each time you permit a guy on your side the ability to do something like that, it would be unreasonable to not allow the AI to have the same options, or the AI becomes crap and tedious "because it can't take cover". But each option the AI has in its toolbox, the harder it is for the humans who are behind already in terms of technology and (usually) stats to keep up.

To sum up. If more defensive manoeuvres like leaning were to be implemented, I'd really only want my guys to be able to use those defensive manoeuvres because as I see it, the more defensive manoeuvres the aliens have on top of their deadly guns, better armour and funky special abilities, the more likely they are to win and wipe. But if only I have such defensive manoeuvres, then it becomes less satisfying to play because in contrast to my guys, the AI will feel stunted, hobbled and dumb.

[Wraith_Magus]

Being able to take cover in whatever form - whether leaning, crouching, going prone, etc is great when everyone has the same level of ability. It's when there's a skew in that level of ability that being able to take cover benefits the side which has the greater potential than the other. And like it or not, that potential swings in favour for the aliens most of the game. Who remembers GJ's early AI, who did nothing except retreat, take cover, go on overwatch, retreat, take cover, go on overwatch? Winkling out each alien was a total pain in the arse. We should be thankful that the AI is currently ditzy enough to have aliens keep swapping cover rather than digging in and firing away, because in a shooting war between an alien in cover and a Xenonaut in cover, the Xenonaut is more likely to loose than the alien.

So, the more options added to taking cover, the more the balance swings in favour of the aliens. I mean, take Sebillians. Regenerating, tanky Sebillians. Regenerating, tanky Sebillians with plasma rifles from Scouts onwards. It's bad enough when these gits can and do crouch behind cover, suck their thumbs and wait Call of Duty style for their health to regen before going over the top. Imagine giving them the ability to lean as well? "Oops! Just got hit by a bullet. Oh well, I'll duck back, suck my 4 thumbs and wait a bit before peeking out again. *Ding!* I'm healed! Result!". It's not just leaning - I'd apply the same reasoning to going prone, hugging cover or any other form of movement designed to maximise the use of terrain as a defensive tool. Each time you permit a guy on your side the ability to do something like that, it would be unreasonable to not allow the AI to have the same options, or the AI becomes crap and tedious "because it can't take cover". But each option the AI has in its toolbox, the harder it is for the humans who are behind already in terms of technology and (usually) stats to keep up.

To sum up. If more defensive manoeuvres like leaning were to be implemented, I'd really only want my guys to be able to use those defensive manoeuvres because as I see it, the more defensive manoeuvres the aliens have on top of their deadly guns, better armour and funky special abilities, the more likely they are to win and wipe. But if only I have such defensive manoeuvres, then it becomes less satisfying to play because in contrast to my guys, the AI will feel stunted, hobbled and dumb.

Well, actually, I don't think that having sebilians that tried to hide and regenerate would be all that bad, if we just had a few extra options for dealing with aliens behind cover.

The most obvious one we have right now is just plain using terrain destruction to make cover no longer an issue.

I would also hope that we have a few things added to the game, such as the grenade launchers mentioned here, which, in real life, were capable of tossing grenades up to 375 meters (but could be more like just 20 tiles or so), or else just having more useful types of rocket that don't take so much inventory space (like flare rockets). Similarly, having sniper rifles have the capacity to be aimed over a few turns specifically to mitigate cover penalties.

It also wouldn't be such a problem if there were aliens that more actively destroyed cover, themselves. Leaning means nothing if the wall you're hiding behind disappears.

---

With all that said, there's actually an alternate solution to this from an older game - Rebelstar Tactical Command actually used a different overwatch system, where it basically measured how much of both units "turn" was left over before letting a reaction shot occur.

Basically, if a pistol shot took 10 AP, and the alien had 50 AP total, and had spent 30 AP on its own turn, leaving only 20 left, it couldn't actually fire the reaction shot until 80% of the target's AP had been spent, itself, because that would be where the simulated "simultaneous" move would leave that shot. Hence, even against camping overwatching aliens, you could typically end a turn next to a blind corner, and then have the chance to step out, look at what's around the corner, and then recognize there's an alien firing squad right there before just getting reduced to goo. Because of that mechanic, overwatching basically meant "never move again". But also, it made flanking extremely powerful, because they wouldn't change facing except for 45 degrees at a time when reaction-shooting. You could run through enemy LoS and then attack them from the side if they were overwatching with insufficient AP to shoot you as you were running. (Or had weapons with huge AP costs.) That included the melee weapons - a fast guy could just run around a corner overwatcher and start the shivving process, since melee took ludicrously low AP.

Currently, the problem people want a solution for is just having the ability to walk to the side while facing in a different direction - especially since shields depend upon that facing. Simply delaying the reaction phase a little would provide that same effect without having some fiddly interface features or sprites added.

And let me tell you, no, it didn't make the game less scary to have the reaction fire delayed, because it made every single corner that could have an alien much more scary if you didn't know whether there was an alien there, or not. You might have a guy facing right at the corner, gun drawn, set to overwatch, but too bad, the alien gets there and can shoot faster than your reaction time goes off. (It also was essentially THE reason to use a pistol, for its very low AP costs.)

Of course, it depended on whether the enemy AI was set to be aggressive or camper - and they didn't set it by race, alone in that game.