No more positive points from ground combat - implications?

[Ashery]

Then you and I have a very different idea of risk assessment. I'm not going to put my veterans into combat for 20k, and 2 alloys.

Even a 5% chance of having them die is too much for the possible rewards. I might want to do it for training a team of rookies... but the devs said they didn't want the game to devolve into farming like the supply ships raids in OG.

Throw in a couple experienced snipers and riflemen that never scout unexplored terrain and there's virtually no risk of losing them while they provide the firepower to completely steamroll the handful of aliens in a small ufo. You might lose a low ranking shield user, but until overdamage goes back in, that's pretty much a non-issue. On top of the small monetary benefit, your highly experienced core gains even more experience.

[Newfr]

That's like playing Civ, never settling a second city, and wondering why you never win. The original may have been designed (Or been broken enough, depending on your view) to permit a single base, but it's not viable here. Even if the game's changed such that there are more landed missions and you're able to use those to generate enough nation rating to offset air loses, you'll still need multiple bases due to the speed of the Charlie.

That actually leads us to another problems:

1) Base locations aren't that viable also. With just 2 bases you can cover 9 regions out of 10 (who cares about Australia anyway?). And places around Maxico or Cairo are unmatched as a base locations.

2) Also, according to lore, aliens are testing humans. And Xenonauts are the only humanity's hope. So aliens should be very interested in challenging Xenonauts. And that means that UFOs should appear near existing bases far more often than somewhere in the wilds. So lore wise one base strategy as viable as fast expansion strategy. But nope, they prefer to do some EVIL experiments over some bear corners of the Earth.

3) Why you all talking like "more challenge = more UFOs" or "more landed missions to generate rating"? You see challenge only in stretching players resources? How to kill 10 dumb aliens instead of just one dumb alien? Right - send more dudes! That how it works now. But at the same time you just inviting grind to the game with this "more" concept. And no one like grinding, because it's repetitive and boring. So you are trying to invent counter-grinding with all that autoresolve and air strikes. And then bashing your head against the wall trying to balance actual gameplay (normal air fights and ground combat) with you counter-grind mechanics.

But in my opinion problem is with that "10 dumb aliens are better than 1 dumb alien". One smart alien is better than one dumb alien. OH SHI~

Also there were some discussions why Civ analogy is wrong.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Newfr

[Chris]

If my posts yesterday were ill-tempered and offended some people, I apologise. It's just a combination of the fact that I'd just typed out a long polite post that disappeared when I clicked the quote button, and people love to create strawmen and exaggerate when they're telling us we've made bad decisions and being told you're wrong in a factually inaccurate way grinds after a while.

@Newfr - have you played V21 Experimental 1, or better still played V20 Experimental Balance Patch 2 on Veteran? The AI isn't dumb any more, and they'll probably wreck you unless you play very carefully. Also, it's not fair to say our choice of mechanics were bad because the game right now is not completely balanced or has bugs in it, that just means that the game is not completely finished. If you think we're not going to be able to finish the game properly, fine, but that's a different argument entirely.

@legit / kraex - the main problem with the system that you're suggesting is you're making the ground combat missions much more useful than the air combat missions, where as now they're somewhat better but not massively better.

There's never actually been a relations penalty or anything for not doing combat missions in the game, but even when we told people that some would still do all the missions even if they weren't enjoying them - because doing all the missions was by far the optimal way to play the game, as you got much more in the way of rewards for doing it. It was a chore, but it gave them by far the best chance of winning the game.

So if we're agreeing that having the UFO waves rather than the system in the OG is better (and for the purposes of this discussion, let's say that we are), then we either need to reduce the number of crash sites in some manner or make it so that not doing every ground combat mission is a valid choice in terms of game progression. Under what you're proposing, it is not.

TL;DR - relying purely on tedium to discourage people from doing crash sites is not a good idea. People will just say "this game is boring" and stop playing.

Regarding the point due to lack of consequences for failing ground combat missions, I do sort of see your point. It's true that losing a crash site mission doesn't give you much of a penalty...but losing a terror site gives you major penalties, and losing an alien base mission means the base is not destroyed. So you can't really ignore all the crash sites entirely, as you do need the soldier experience and in-game resources to be able to tackle the other types of mission. It's not just research.

EDIT - There is currently a situation where players can get so dominant in the air that they don't get alien bases or terror sites, and we're going to fix that so they'll still get some even if they shoot down every UFO (the bases are needed for the tech tree, so this isn't just to make the game harder).

[TrashMan]

Air combat is way more important in two aspects. Firstly, I have to keep the money rolling in to fund my soliders extravagant lifestlyes. I don't have to do that in ground combat any more - I can airstrike downed UFOs. Secondly, if I don't shoot down UFOs, I loose. If ground combat has no impact on relations, I can't actually loose the game if I loose ground combat missions, but I can loose the game if I don't shoot down UFOs, to prevent events from being generated and to get the vital relationship points to keep funding up. We're back to where we were in earlier versions, when air combat was way more important than ground combat ever was.

It makes sense for air combat to be more important. I'm not big fan of stacing artificial reasons just for the sake of makign ground combat more importnat. Why should it be anyway?

Speaking of which - Alien Bases. You need ground troops and they are big relation penalties.

Also, I'm quite sure the various nations would be delighted with new technological advancements and alien intelligence - most of which you can only get trough ground combat.

[Sentelin]

@Newfr ...

Banner Saga developers didn't have their paypal blocked in heat of development for almost a year,they also were not played by the people who applied for a job (i am talking about AI developers here before GJ who didn't screwed Chris like previous ,,AI developers" did),also looking at their kickstarter page they earned much more money ..... and 4x times more backers.And in the end what exactly Banner Saga has to do anything with Jagged Alliance,Xenonauts or any of XCOM games ?Its game on its own with different style of turn based combat similar to Might and Magic games or King's Bounty ....

Edited January 16, 2014 by Sentelin

[Dranak]

It makes sense for air combat to be more important. I'm not big fan of stacing artificial reasons just for the sake of makign ground combat more importnat. Why should it be anyway?

Speaking of which - Alien Bases. You need ground troops and they are big relation penalties.

Also, I'm quite sure the various nations would be delighted with new technological advancements and alien intelligence - most of which you can only get trough ground combat.

If you're good enough at air combat, you'll never have a base built. My last playthrough (stopped after a few waves of Carriers) I had 0 alien bases built, 0 bases assaulted, 0 air terror sites, and 1 terror mission. Battleships don't build bases (unless I'm misreading the XML) so it's currently quite possible to never have an alien base built without ever moving your aircraft past Foxtrots.

@Newfr - Autoresolve is actually pretty decent now. And that fight in my video had a 75% chance of victory, which is pretty reasonable given the starter missiles (and that you can't actually kill the Heavy Fighters with manual control). Yes, manual control can get you better results in many cases, but autoresolve is much less terrible than it used to be.

The other alternative Chris, would be fewer UFOs per wave. You'd still be rewarded for having coverage over multiple regions, but there would be fewer crash sites. I'm not sure that would still fix the old problem of the ground combat feeling overly grindy after a point though.

Oh, and with the current tech paths it seems the minimum number of missions that would be required to have a reasonable chance of surviving to unlock the final mission is 3: Cesean Scout (seems to be the only way to unlock Alenium currently, Seb Scout has no plasma pistols), Landing Ship (Plasma Explosives, Alien Biology/Stun Weapons), Seb Battleship (Capture all the things).

@Stellarrat - If you read the late game lore from Leader and Praetor interrogations, you'll see that the game explicitly tells us we can never win through pure strength of arms, even if we destroy every UFO and alien in orbit.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Dranak

[Max_Caine]

Hi Trashman,

Wow, it's been a while since I wrote that. My opinion has changed since then, I now think there are more subtle ways that GC could play a role in influencing grander strategy without becoming an uncessary grindfest. But if you can't see the situation where if I don't participate in air combat I loose the game and if I don't participate in ground combat I don't loose the game, a situation which essentially trivialises 4 years of blood, sweat and tears on the part of the GH dev team, then I don't know what to say, really.

Regarding your comments on alien bases. As Dranak comments, if I have enough aircraft then I don't have to worry about alien bases, base attacks or terror sites, and that's not theorycrafting, the evidence to back that up is here.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Max_Caine

[vaultdweller]

Again you guys are assuming that in my system the game would be balanced around income from EVERY ground combat. Balance it around a little higher then the airstriking income (so you do have to do SOME ground missions to be viable) but have all the rest of the money be icing on the cake so to speak. Whats wrong with floating the player an extra 200,000 a month from a few well executed ground missions?

It allows the player to be a little looser with his/her money and allows mistakes to be made without meaning an instant loss on the geoscape.

What's wrong with this is that it ignores player psychology. If you balance the game such that X missions are sufficient to finance your operations, but doing >X provides far more rewards, players will typically feel compelled to as many missions as possible... even after they cease to be fun, and after they cease to be necessary.

I agree that ground combat should provide more rewards than airstrikes, but airstrikes can't be so undervalued that they look like a drastically inferior strategy. With your numbers, I would never consider airstrikes to be a reasonable alternative in my games.

[vaultdweller]

...loose the game...

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Chris]

Yes, we do need to fix the issue that a player who expands air coverage quickly enough can avoid terror missions and bases spawning at all.

[kraex]

@legit / kraex - the main problem with the system that you're suggesting is you're making the ground combat missions much more useful than the air combat missions, where as now they're somewhat better but not massively better.

Except basically no one agrees with your assessment that ground combat missions are currently somewhat better than air combat missions. The general consensus is that air combat missions are MASSIVELY better than ground combat missions currently. Even the people defending the game as it is currently balanced can only fall back on "But you have to do some ground combat missions in order to get the tech to maintain your aircraft"

So the basic premise of your argument is, well, if not invalid, certainly not widely believed. If not for the need to get the tech research, an individual ground mission vs. an individual air mission is vastly less valuable. The reasons have been pointed out in this thread, but to restate a few of them:

- no risk in air missions

- every air mission is worth insanely more cash than a ground mission, considering for ever UFO you shoot down, you reap the rewards for the rest of the game

- air striking (and air strike is not really MY issue) gives almost as much cash as you would have gotten actually doing the ground mission, if you performed "average"

- secondary resources are currently not important enough to be considered as an advantage to ground missions (I'm aware this is a spreadsheet balance issue and can be fixed easily)

There are only 3 good reasons to do ground combat:

- You enjoy it. I haven't played a lot of the new build with the new AI, but I would say on v20 it wasn't that enjoyable, because the aliens were dumb. Also, having heavy plasma be able to teleport in and instagib your dudes is not fun. Also, dread as a mechanic is not fun.

- You need a research item. You say you can't rely on tedium to discourage people from making the game a grind. I say you can't rely on research blockers as the only significant reward for doing ground combat.

- You need experience. I suppose this is valid, you have to gain experience someday. But the risk of insta-death vs. the reward is questionable.

It's really not balanced. And it's not a tweak away from balance like alloys is. It's a design decision that puts ground combat at a distinct disadvantage. You have other people in this thread saying "ground combat is just skirmishes, air is the war" Pretty much illustrates the point nicely. Trashman states "Why should ground combat be more important?" Because it's what the game is based on, basically. He also points out "Alien Bases, you need ground troops and they're big relations penalties" Right, so there's a downside to relations on the ground, but no upside. Makes even less sense.

[Chris]

That was a typo. It was meant to say "airstrike" missions.

You're stretching your argument, though. You get Geoscape penalties if you don't shoot down UFOs, and you get bonuses if you shoot them down...it's not all upside.

If alien bases and terror sites give a severe penalty to relations, why is completing the terror sites and alien bases with your ground combat to prevent that happening not an upside? You also get a relations bonus for completing terror sites anyway...you're not really appraising the contribution of those two mission types properly in your post.

[kraex]

That was a typo. It was meant to say "airstrike" missions.

Ok, that doesn't really change anything I posted, so read it when you get a chance. I'm not going to argue about airstrike, because that is not something I feel so strongly about, as some others do. However, if you think that having to actually have an army, put them at risk, spend the time to fight a ground combat mission, etc. should only be "slightly" more valuable than pushing an insta-win button, I guess there's not much more to say.

I get why you believe it's necessary, to eliminate the need to grind out every combat mission, when your wave design introduces far more potential ground missions than the OG. I get it. I just don't agree. I refer back to legit's proposed change in economy balance where you could actually have a choice about doing a ground mission or not once you had acquired sufficient resources, and I think it's a far better system that introduces choice and benefits those who have some understanding of the needs of the economy. The system of airstrike isn't new, it existed in the UFO line, and was optional. It didn't have to have a ton of reward in order to use it. I used it when I couldn't get to a crash site (Due to only having one lander) or I just didn't feel like it.

[Chris]

Think of it this way - in a theoretical world where alien bases and terror sites were made severe enough to totally wreck a month if not dealt with, and if the bonuses for shooting down UFOs were less strong, are air combat missions still the be all and end all? Or does dealing with terror attacks and alien base missions the most important thing in the game?

If it does (and I'm pretty sure it would), then it's just a number balance issue and the fact that you don't get relations bonuses for doing a crash site mission is largely irrelevant. In which case, you need to make an argument for a numbers rebalance rather than a fundamental system change.

[kraex]

Think of it this way - in a theoretical world where alien bases and terror sites were made severe enough to totally wreck a month if not dealt with, and if the bonuses for shooting down UFOs were less strong, are air combat missions still the be all and end all? Or does dealing with terror attacks and alien base missions the most important thing in the game?

If it does (and I'm pretty sure it would), then it's just a number balance issue and the fact that you don't get relations bonuses for doing a crash site mission is largely irrelevant. In which case, you need to make an argument for a numbers rebalance rather than a fundamental system change.

In terms of pure importance, if you make an alien base or a terror site able to knock a country out of the alliance in a month, it becomes very important. Not necessarily the only priority, but a big priority, you can't ignore it. You don't mention at what cost the air combat bonuses are reduced. Are you simply making it more difficult to gain favor, but still gain it exclusively through shooting down UFOs? If so, that is not relevant to your rhetorical question. You'd focus on the thing that can permanently lose you a country regardless of the thing you can recover from. Exception may be if that terror site or alien base is in australia, and you're too early in the game to even consider wasting the resources on a base with air coverage in australia (illustrating another issue with the Geoscape, wtf to do about Australia, costs too much to keep them in the game)

But in terms of "then it's just a number balance issue" it's not. People talk about the mentality of the player. If the only thing you can do with ground combat is lose favor, and not gain it, then you're forcing players to do a certain type of task, while rewarding them for another. It's much like the tech blocker. You do it because you absolutely have to. You may as well put in a 3 strikes rule, where if you don't deal with an alien base or terror site 3 times, the game automatically ends. Economically, it's probably equivalent.

[Chris]

Ok, that doesn't really change anything I posted, so read it when you get a chance. I'm not going to argue about airstrike, because that is not something I feel so strongly about, as some others do. However, if you think that having to actually have an army, put them at risk, spend the time to fight a ground combat mission, etc. should only be "slightly" more valuable than pushing an insta-win button, I guess there's not much more to say.

I get why you believe it's necessary, to eliminate the need to grind out every combat mission, when your wave design introduces far more potential ground missions than the OG. I get it. I just don't agree. I refer back to legit's proposed change in economy balance where you could actually have a choice about doing a ground mission or not once you had acquired sufficient resources, and I think it's a far better system that introduces choice and benefits those who have some understanding of the needs of the economy. The system of airstrike isn't new, it existed in the UFO line, and was optional. It didn't have to have a ton of reward in order to use it. I used it when I couldn't get to a crash site (Due to only having one lander) or I just didn't feel like it.

Yeah, so basically you're arguing that people who feel obliged to play in an optimal way should be forced to grind crash site missions, because doing crash site missions should always give you a massive advantage compared to people that don't do it.

You can view my argument as UFO crash sites being primarily about gathering resources, experience and research, whilst you NEED your squad for potentially disastrous missions like terror sites, alien bases and the final mission (as well as the crash sites you choose to do).

I don't see why you're so keen to force players to do every gathering mission, when the emphasis should be on the big missions instead. A player doesn't want to do 8 Light Scout missions in the first month...so what? You're asking for choice on whether to do a combat mission or not once you've got enough resources, but the game already offers that.

I've not balanced the Geoscape yet and it's not necessarily working like it should be. But the issues are all just number balancing and don't require ripping out game systems wholesale to accommodate them.

EDIT - to answer your post above, if effectively the "three strikes" rule would be in the game already, the ground combat would be the most important part of the game again. I'd only need to change a few numbers in the code to generate that effect. I don't see the relevance of whether the player feels like they're being "rewarded" for doing the ground combat or just preventing their game from being prematurely ended?

[Dranak]

Think of it this way - in a theoretical world where alien bases and terror sites were made severe enough to totally wreck a month if not dealt with, and if the bonuses for shooting down UFOs were less strong, are air combat missions still the be all and end all? Or does dealing with terror attacks and alien base missions the most important thing in the game?

If it does (and I'm pretty sure it would), then it's just a number balance issue and the fact that you don't get relations bonuses for doing a crash site mission is largely irrelevant. In which case, you need to make an argument for a numbers rebalance rather than a fundamental system change.

I think it would depend on if we were doing those missions more to avoid the negative consequences of not doing them, or if they were being done because of an actual award. If we're doing bases and terror missions purely to avoid punishment, then the most efficient way to achieve that goal is to prevent them from occurring via air dominance, and mopping up any stragglers that get through. If they're worth doing because of the high reward, then we probably wind up with a situation where it's worth letting those UFOs execute their mission and then responding with ground combat.

[kraex]

I don't see why you're so keen to force players to do every gathering mission, when the emphasis should be on the big missions instead. A player doesn't want to do 8 Light Scout missions in the first month...so what? You're asking for choice on whether to do a combat mission or not once you've got enough resources, but the game already offers that.

I'm not, and I've tried to be clear about that, but maybe I haven't communicated effectively.

I don't see why you're so opposed to giving players any kind of favor award for doing ground missions. It doesn't make sense to me in terms of realism, lore, basic gameplay, etc. The only way it makes sense to me is that it makes tweaking economy 3 dials for you.

1. how many UFOs show up each month

2. how much favor do you get for shooting down a UFO

3. how much does each country pay per favor

3a. what is the favor cap

I see that adding in "possible" ground combat to the favor multiplier makes the economy tweaking more complex, but I think you could handle it. Right now, people don't give a shit about 2 alloy, and they won't do a ground mission for it. Yet you're so opposed to giving 2 favor for a ground mission because you assume that the majority will feel forced to do every ground mission. The evidence is already there that if tweaked appropriately, that's not the case. Think about it some.

[Chris]

Mmm, OK. I'll think about it for a while then and see if I change my mind.

If you're talking specifically about relations bonuses rather than relative allocation of rewards between airstrike and doing the ground combat mission, the key point is that I don't see crash sites as a particularly important mission once you've done the first and perhaps second of each UFO type. They should be optional, depending on how the player wants to play the game.

Therefore, if you need more resources then you can do a crash site and get some money and resources, and it's basically either a one-time bonus (or loss). Easy choice for the player to make, right? Do you need the money or resources / experience urgently, or are you happy with the current position?

Once you add in long-term benefits for doing an essentially optional task, you're encouraging the player to do the mission in a much stronger way. Doing 10 of those extra mission at two relations points each is $200,000 a month for the rest of the game, right? It snowballs much more than one-time bonuses do, so it stops those missions being optional unless the funding bonus provided is vanishingly small.

[kraex]

If you're talking specifically about relations bonuses rather than relative allocation of rewards between airstrike and doing the ground combat mission

I am.

the key point is that I don't see crash sites as a particularly important mission once you've done the first and perhaps second of each UFO type. They should be optional, depending on how the player wants to play the game.

I understand completely what you're saying here. 100%. Now, quick question. Why do you feel this way about ground combat missions, and not this way about UFOs? Why is the third, fourth, and fifth "small scout" that you shoot down so vastly more important than the third, fourth, and fifth "small scout" that you face in ground combat?

Once you add in long-term benefits for doing an essentially optional task, you're encouraging the player to do the mission in a much stronger way. Doing 10 of those extra mission at two relations points each is $200,000 a month for the rest of the game, right? It snowballs much more than one-time bonuses do, so it stops those missions being optional unless the funding bonus provided is vanishingly small.

Same question, why is this OK to you for air missions but not OK for ground missions? If you want to throw realism on it, I'd say that a scouting mission flying around is actually far less important to governments than one that lands and taps citizens on the shoulder. Sure, you could make the gain from cleaning up small UFOs via ground mission asymptotically rewarded, but why should it be when air combat isn't? That's the part of you're thinking that I just don't quite grasp. I think it's because you think that players will get bored with ground combat, but won't get bored with air combat, because it's short. Have i inferred correctly? If so, I think the opportunity to airstrike these, despite the "optimal" approach being to fight them out, already offsets this.

[Chris]

Because the UFOs attack in waves, and if you have three Light Scouts spawn then you need three interceptors to catch them and shoot them down. If it's not compulsory to shoot down the second and third Light Scout, you only need the first interceptor. A lot of the complexity of the air combat evaporates with just one plane at each base.

You can autoresolve the air combat too - you're not forced to fight every air combat battle, just like you're not forced to fight every ground combat mission. In fact, you're not forced to fight any air combat battles at all - you just need to send your planes to the right places.

The wave system stops this being too tedious, as it's something you have to do once every few days rather than being interrupted every 12 hours by a new UFO like you were in the original game. I can see some aspects of tedium creeping in, but as you point out issuing targets to a bunch of planes is much quicker than fighting an entire ground combat mission.

I can see what you're getting at with regards to the rewards for air combat being of the permanent snowballing kind, while the rewards for ground combat are not. But once terror sites are being spawned despite air superiority, it won't seem so overwhelmingly beneficial to go for air domination first. You'll need a bit of both.

[Chris]

(There is a potentially very interesting debate to have as to whether UFO events should cause permanent relations damage, or just a temporary drop in funding for the next month.)

[kraex]

(There is a potentially very interesting debate to have as to whether UFO events should cause permanent relations damage, or just a temporary drop in funding for the next month.)

Meaning you would only lose favor (and only temporarily) for not shooting down aircraft, as opposed to gaining for shooting them down? How would your overall economy be increased? Would funding escalate on a schedule, or would there be some other way to increase your potential income?

[RuskiVolkov]

I've been following this page for a while and I'd like to throw in my two cents!

I am totally fine with the air combat the way it is. My only complaint as of the last experimental was that the aliens were coming way too quickly but now that the invasion timers have been adjusted I'm sure that will no longer be a problem at all. I shoot down as many UFOs as I can and if I destroy crash sites until I've got two left.

No, the alenium and alloys you might get from early missions and some small craft aren't worth it. But they provide easy training for my soldiers and they're only like 10 minutes a small map. The experience they get is invaluable. Later on scout crashes are great after I had a wipe. I send in all privates and they come out corporals, slightly more ready for a real threat like a large base or ship.

Finally, I don't feel a need to shoot down every single UFO. I was so scared in November and December because the starting planes became useless during those months. I shot down 2 interceptor UFOs and a couple of scouts but all the big ones got away. After all funding drops in November I thought it was going to be game over, but even though I had all funding drops in December I'm still in the game and I'm finally able to step up my game against the aliens. I think a part of it is learning to accept and deal with loss.

[StellarRat]

Chris, one thing you probably should do is give at least an equal number of relation points for taking a landed UFO as you would give for shooting it down. Either way you've essentially destroyed/shotdown the threat. It wouldn't be logical not to. This would make those type of ground combat missions a bit more rewarding as they should be.

Also, you could consider having more UFOs land and stay down longer to offer up the chance to make ground combat more rewarding for players that like to do more of it. A player that doesn't could just shoot down the UFO after it lifted off and airstrike the wreckage.