Ground Combat Balance - V21 Experimental 6

[Ol' Stinky]

I've actually already been playing with values reduced to 5%. I can't tell how much of a difference it's making. I think there's less instances of not-firing, especially after suppression or as a result of smoke. Light Drones also do something, although it's plausible there was something changes between 21.5 and 21.6 that made a difference there.

On the other hand, there's still instances of aliens moving/standing still and refusing to take shots, which implies that some instances of alien passivity are related to something other than minimum hit chance.

Hm. Maybe it's to do with the passive script in the UFOcontents .xmls? I don't know what the difference between that and aggressive is. Or even if there still is a difference, now that aiprops.xml has all the fancy variables. As far as I know what the scripts do (beyond the obvious) isn't up for modding. Unless someone out there knows how to do that...?

I haven't tried it in 21exp6 but there is (was?) a bug with aliens using burst fire only weapons - if they had no single shot option, they'd get all moody and refuse to fire at all unless they were close. You have to make it a snap shop though, otherwise they get upset and don't fire. If light/mdeium drones are too annoying try that.

[Chris]

StellarRat - actually, yeah, you're right. Our system is a bit simpler, with any action within the enemy LOS causing an Initiative check but no actions causing the aliens to turn to face you. So positioning is more important with our system.

I'd consider adding some of the original game's modifiers to our system in the polishing phase, too - like where being shot allows an alien to turn on the spot and return fire if it survives and has enough remaining TU.

[kabill]

Hm. Maybe it's to do with the passive script in the UFOcontents .xmls? I don't know what the difference between that and aggressive is. Or even if there still is a difference' date=' now that aiprops.xml has all the fancy variables. As far as I know what the scripts do (beyond the obvious) isn't up for modding. Unless someone out there knows how to do that...?

I haven't tried it in 21exp6 but there is (was?) a bug with aliens using burst fire only weapons - if they had no single shot option, they'd get all moody and refuse to fire at all unless they were close. You have to make it a snap shop though, otherwise they get upset and don't fire. If light/mdeium drones are too annoying try that.[/quote']

I've actually just done a little test using the GC editor and it seems like there's a relation between aliens not doing anything and aliens taking more reaction shots than they should. Details are elsewhere, but I basically had an alien wander towards a short distance with TUs left to fire, but it didn't (even though I had guys 3-4 tiles away). Yet, on my turn, the editor indicated the alien had all of its TUs, as if it had done nothing (and proved it by burst-reaction-firing!).

I'd consider adding some of the original game's modifiers to our system in the polishing phase, too - like where being shot allows an alien to turn on the spot and return fire if it survives and has enough remaining TU.

For what it's worth, I actually like the fact that this doesn't happen in Xenonauts. It's one of the few things I really hated about the OG, since it rendered positioning almost meaningless and meant there was practically no way you could avoid reaction fire. Reaction fire isn't quite as deadly in Xenonauts as in the OG, so maybe it wouldn't be so bad. But I think I'd prefer it if the game rewarded you for out-positioning the enemy by not allowing retaliatory fire.

Edited March 11, 2014 by kabill

[Chris]

Be aware that the editor doesn't update TU quantities automatically. You need to select another alien first, then re-select the original alien to get an accurate reading.

[kabill]

Be aware that the editor doesn't update TU quantities automatically. You need to select another alien first, then re-select the original alien to get an accurate reading.

Yes, I noticed and did this. And tested by provoking reaction fire too, just to be sure!

EDIT: Solved it. It's something to do with whether aliens can see/detect enemy units (details in bug report).

Edited March 11, 2014 by kabill

[Gijs-Jan]

The passivity of the aliens should be fixed in the next release. The TU bug should be solved as well.

[legit1337]

Allow me to clarify my last statement. If grenades didn't provoke reaction fire - that is, the trooper maintained his initative level after throwing the grenade or any soldier - human or alien - whose reaction fire was triggered after initative dropped post-grenade throw was prevented from targetting the thrower, it would be as you say much safer - too safe. I can show that it's entirely possible, even viable to have a bunch of grenadiers in the chopper than guys with rifles.. If there were no comeback from throwing that grenade then a style where you have nothing but throwing grenades is safer post-shot than firing guns!

Again I disagree, not of what you are saying, but that it is a bad thing.

Hypothetical situation: A soldier is within throwing distance of an alien behind cover. He is also behind cover as well. He has enough TUs for both a normal shot, or a grenade throw. If throwing a grenade did not provoke reaction fire, you say that the better alternative would be to throw a grenade instead of shooting. You would be correct. You say this would be a bad thing, and I disagree.

Would you not rather stay behind cover and chuck a grenade in the direction of an enemy then expose yourself and try to shoot him? That is a perfectly acceptable situation in which to use a grenade. The downsides being that you are using a limited resource, and that you don't know for a fact that you killed him until you pressed end-turn.

Your assertions that the ONLY weapons that anyone will want to use are grenades, and then guns when people run out of grenades, strike me as overly pessimistic.

Guns would still be far more useful. They can carry much more ammo, they can kill outside of throwing range, they kill on your turn and not the enemies turn, they leave corpses and items intact, etc.

Is making grenades not provoke reaction fire exploitable? Maybe. Will it break the game and turn combat into a grenade-fest as you say? I don't think so.

Moot at this point, as chris is unlikely to implement my idea. I just think it is dumb to have to stand in a doorway and soak reaction shots if I want to throw a grenade in a room. There are ways of doing it IRL where you don't have to expose yourself, and the OG allowed for this.

Edited March 11, 2014 by legit1337

[KateMicucci]

You think all weapons should have unlimited ammo, then? If ammo levels are irrelevant, is there any reason to have reloading and clips at all?

(That's not what your post says, of course, but it's what the assumptions in it imply)

No- but consider that ammo counts in the OG were pretty high.

Pistol: 12

Rifle: 20

Cannon: 6

Autocannon: 14

Lasers: Unlimited

P. Pistol: 24

P. Rifle: 28

H. Plasma: 35

The weapon that stands out is the autocannon with 14 rounds. This is not very comparable to the LMG's 20, however. XCom's autocannon is a fictional weapon, apparently high caliber and magazine-fed. Even with only 14 rounds it could fire 4 and 2/3rds bursts, two bursts a turn, for more damage than the rifle.

Other abstractions you've made in Xenonauts are either normal for the genre, or convenient for the players. Abstracting one shot to represent two or three shots does neither. It is a fairly hamfisted way to try and make ammo conservation more important.

If your goal is to reward players for taking single shots instead of bursts, then bursts need to be *better* than single shots. In Xcom a burst only cost slightly more TU% than a snap shot. This had the side effect of making bursts more TU efficient than aimed shots. Up until now it seems like you've been trying to balance aimed shots and burst shots so that neither is better than the other. That's fine. However, if players are likely to run out of ammo from using bursts, and bursts aren't more effective than single shots, players are just going to take single shots instead. The more you lower the AR's ammo capacity, the more true that becomes.

[Lidhuin]

Again I disagree, not of what you are saying, but that it is a bad thing.

Hypothetical situation: A soldier is within throwing distance of an alien behind cover. He is also behind cover as well. He has enough TUs for both a normal shot, or a grenade throw. If throwing a grenade did not provoke reaction fire, you say that the better alternative would be to throw a grenade instead of shooting. You would be correct. You say this would be a bad thing, and I disagree.

Would you not rather stay behind cover and chuck a grenade in the direction of an enemy then expose yourself and try to shoot him? That is a perfectly acceptable situation in which to use a grenade. The downsides being that you are using a limited resource, and that you don't know for a fact that you killed him until you pressed end-turn.

Your assertions that the ONLY weapons that anyone will want to use are grenades, and then guns when people run out of grenades, strike me as overly pessimistic.

Guns would still be far more useful. They can carry much more ammo, they can kill outside of throwing range, they kill on your turn and not the enemies turn, they leave corpses and items intact, etc.

Is making grenades not provoke reaction fire exploitable? Maybe. Will it break the game and turn combat into a grenade-fest as you say? I don't think so.

Moot at this point, as chris is unlikely to implement my idea. I just think it is dumb to have to stand in a doorway and soak reaction shots if I want to throw a grenade in a room. There are ways of doing it IRL where you don't have to expose yourself, and the OG allowed for this.

If you're having trouble with reaction fire from grenades, try to position yourself so that you can throw the grenade without provoking reaction fire.

The flashbang has a very large radius - large enough that you can completely suppress the early light scouts without exposing yourself if you throw at the right angle. It's arguably also large enough for the scout and corvette. After it suppresses, you can move your riflemen in, shoot at what you want, and then move them out. Or you can have your MGs and snipers shoot at what they can.

Worst case, you can just keep chucking flashbangs in until everyone is either dead or stunned. This won't provoke reaction fire. It was a ridiculously good tactic vs light scouts and scouts and still is, since many early aliens only shoot on reaction fire (and with some semi-decent positioning, you wouldn't provoke any).

This doesn't work as reliably against robotic enemies like Androns or drones, but it works well enough that you can use it in any situation where you have some sort of cover. And it's ridiculously good every single time.

My early-game is already a grenadefest because I can easily bring enough grenades to deal with every alien in a light scout.

[DNK]

Burst vs med acc single shot: 3 singles should be far more accurate, and their (combined TU):accuracy ratio should be lower than burst, though obviously shot:TU should be better for burst. Burst's advantage is: suppression and CQC (where accuracy is less important than TUs).

[legit1337]

If you're having trouble with reaction fire from grenades, try to position yourself so that you can throw the grenade without provoking reaction fire.

The flashbang has a very large radius - large enough that you can completely suppress the early light scouts without exposing yourself if you throw at the right angle. It's arguably also large enough for the scout and corvette. After it suppresses, you can move your riflemen in, shoot at what you want, and then move them out. Or you can have your MGs and snipers shoot at what they can.

Worst case, you can just keep chucking flashbangs in until everyone is either dead or stunned. This won't provoke reaction fire. It was a ridiculously good tactic vs light scouts and scouts and still is, since many early aliens only shoot on reaction fire (and with some semi-decent positioning, you wouldn't provoke any).

This doesn't work as reliably against robotic enemies like Androns or drones, but it works well enough that you can use it in any situation where you have some sort of cover. And it's ridiculously good every single time.

My early-game is already a grenadefest because I can easily bring enough grenades to deal with every alien in a light scout.

I shouldn't have to exploit an odd angle to throw a flashbang into a light scout safely.

[lemm]

Well, I'm back after putting this game aside for a few months. I love the balance changes; the early missions are quite difficult now that the alien weapons have some punch to them.

As I've been explaining for some time, we're making a game rather than a realistic depiction of military combat.

...

I find it strange how people pick and choose the abstractions they decide are immersion-breaking.

I can get behind the argument that it's a Hollywood depiction of military combat, not a realistic military simulator, and not even a JA2-level depiction of military combat. Every absurdity in the game that involves sci-fi magic can be excused, even the paltry ammo limits for the laser-and-higher-tier weapons, and the fact that you can recover an interceptor that has been obliterated into a million pieces (maybe the magical alien alloys can be put back together again). But after all of that, it still seems weird that you would only bring 60 MG rounds into battle against freakin' aliens.

EDIT: Yeah, the MG definitely needs to have it's accuracy halved. It should be there to provide suppressing fire over a wide area, not to instakill at long distance.

Edited March 13, 2014 by lemm

[Max_Caine]

There's a phrase from a Terry Prachett novel - the Truth - which I think is very apt. "People will swallow a big lie but choke on a small fib". The idea of space lizards, space batteries or space ray guns - all these big absurdities are easily swallowed, but it's the smaller things that people can relate to more strongly, that they could empathise with more closely that cause people to say "hang on, that's not quite right".

[frank_walls]

I shouldn't have to exploit an odd angle to throw a flashbang into a light scout safely.

I agree. One of the most common tactics you see when assaulting something with rooms and doors is a soldier standing next to the door and tossing the grenade through the door exposing only his arm for a brief second. this should be allowed in the game as well, or you should be able to move to the door, throw without getting shot, and then step back.

[kabill]

I agree. One of the most common tactics you see when assaulting something with rooms and doors is a soldier standing next to the door and tossing the grenade through the door exposing only his arm for a brief second. this should be allowed in the game as well, or you should be able to move to the door, throw without getting shot, and then step back.

A similar argument has been made for shooting around corners, too.

The problem, however, is that while it may be feasible in real life, in the game it would be highly unbalancing. Being able to throw grenades around corners would make clearing UFOs trivial, since you would be able to suppress/kill them with utterly no risk of retaliation. Even if initial attack didn't kill the aliens, and even if the AI could cope with this type of attack by moving to attack you afterwards, they'd be sufficiently weakened by having to move and being suppressed that they'd be practically no threat. Such a change would make the last part of a UFO mission practically irrelevant, and have similar (though perhaps not so severe) consequences in Alien/Xenonaut base missions.

[Gauddlike]

Throwing around corners removes any advantage defenders may have when they need to defend within throwing distance of any object that can provide complete cover yet still allow grenades to be thrown around it.

Imagine it the other way round for a minute.

Aliens are attacking your base, you set up your soldiers in great defensive positions with overlapping fields of fire, you reserve maximum TUs for reaction fire when you don't see any targets in your turn.

Then a couple of aliens you cannot see throw grenades from a spot you cannot shoot using an attack you cannot reaction fire against.

In your next turn with your remaining soldiers who are likely suppressed (50% TU) and potentially injured your options are to sit and wait for them to do the same again or to leave your defensive positions and charge in the hope of killing them before their next turn.

This would be significantly worse if blind firing without exposing your soldiers was possible as the range from which you would be killed/suppressed would be increased.

I can see grenades having a reaction modifier in the same way other weapons do but I would resist making them completely immune to reaction fire.

With a modifier there is some risk involved in using them, with immunity to reaction fire the risks are significantly reduced.

I shouldn't have to exploit an odd angle to throw a flashbang into a light scout safely.

The suggestion was not to somehow exploit odd angles it was to use positioning to place your soldiers in a spot where they could see far enough into the alien craft to throw to a spot where the blast radius of the grenade would affect your enemy but that enemy would be unable to see your soldier in order to reaction fire at him.

I find that a couple of tiles back and slightly to one side is usually sufficient but door frames do get in the way sometimes.

Edited March 13, 2014 by Gauddlike

[frank_walls]

I think it could be done with a modified throwing area and it wouldn't be game breaking. Really though, once flashbangs are fixed it may not be much of an issue. Not being able to suppress the aliens waiting on the other aide of the door is annoying. I've compensated by just having 3 shield guys do the entry now. They run in and throw grenades, then my laser carbines come in behind them. It works pretty good, but it gets kind of repetitive after awhile.

[GlyphGryph]

Clearly we should be able to bounce grenades off walls.

[Gauddlike]

I think it could be done with a modified throwing area and it wouldn't be game breaking. Really though, once flashbangs are fixed it may not be much of an issue. Not being able to suppress the aliens waiting on the other aide of the door is annoying. I've compensated by just having 3 shield guys do the entry now. They run in and throw grenades, then my laser carbines come in behind them. It works pretty good, but it gets kind of repetitive after awhile.

I imagine whatever people find to be the best method will be used over and over until it also becomes repetitive.

Whether that is shields and carbines or flashbangs around corners.

Not really sure what you mean by a modified throwing area though.

Clearly we should be able to bounce grenades off walls.

Sadly not supported by the game engine, I believe it was originally intended to be possible along with flames from flamethrowers rebounding from walls.

Neither of them made it into the final game though.

[StellarRat]

the fact that you can recover an interceptor that has been obliterated into a million pieces (maybe the magical alien alloys can be put back together again).

Many of us didn't like this design change. If anything should be recoverable it's the AFVs.

EDIT: Yeah, the MG definitely needs to have it's accuracy halved. It should be there to provide suppressing fire over a wide area, not to instakill at long distance.

Why shouldn't it be deadly it's a PITA to use now? Specially with the limited ammo. You should get something for all the trouble. It's no more dangerous than a rocket launcher.

[legit1337]

There's a phrase from a Terry Prachett novel - the Truth - which I think is very apt. "People will swallow a big lie but choke on a small fib". The idea of space lizards, space batteries or space ray guns - all these big absurdities are easily swallowed, but it's the smaller things that people can relate to more strongly, that they could empathise with more closely that cause people to say "hang on, that's not quite right".

Agreed, and this is essentially my reasoning.

MGs having 20 bullet magazines is absurd, and so are assault rifles with 12.

Also, my idea for throwing grenades not provoking reaction fire was a sort of workaround for the idea of "throwing grenades without exposing yourself".

@gaudlike

I actually would not mind having an alien throw a grenade into a room from a place I couldn't shoot it from.

I would just have to adapt my tactics and not put troops within throwing range of the doors. That is a common sense tactic in RL too.

The game doesn't need to be more arcadey, it needs to be more real to life and more complex.

[Chris]

"More complex" and "arcadey" are terms that are elastic enough to be meaningless. You can argue that the game is made more arcadey by allowing the player to throw grenades without any fear of retribution, making attacking entrenched aliens utterly trivial. Or you can argue it's more arcadey if you don't have that ability.

Both have an element of truth to them, which ultimately is why the concepts of realism etc are so meaningless when developing a game.

(I also question whether you really would enjoy aliens throwing grenades at you without you having any chance to deal with them. I think you'd find it much more unfair in practice than you believe.)

[frank_walls]

(I also question whether you really would enjoy aliens throwing grenades at you without you having any chance to deal with them. I think you'd find it much more unfair in practice than you believe.)

I remember a few experimental builds ago when the sebillans were running up and throwing grenades at my guys. I actually thought it was very cool, and that you had implemented something new and exciting into their AI. If the enemy is beating me through superior tactics and strategy then I'm totally fine with it. If they're beating me because they get more TU's, do more damage than I could or any number of other artificially crafted advantages then the game isn't so fun.

I would love it if I was approaching a ship door, had positioned my guys outside, then the door pops open and an alien throws a grenade out. As it is now I know once I clear the perimeter and wait 2 turns outside the door it's totally safe outside - that within will be 2 to 3 aliens crouched behind a prop waiting for me to rocket into goo. Then I can proceed to the bridge where the other aliens will be complacently waiting behind props to also get rocketed.

[legit1337]

"More complex" and "arcadey" are terms that are elastic enough to be meaningless. You can argue that the game is made more arcadey by allowing the player to throw grenades without any fear of retribution, making attacking entrenched aliens utterly trivial. Or you can argue it's more arcadey if you don't have that ability.

Both have an element of truth to them, which ultimately is why the concepts of realism etc are so meaningless when developing a game.

I'll concede "arcadey" is a subjective term that means different things to different people. But "more complexity" is not. How hard is that to understand? More options, more weapons, more viable strategies, more! All balanced with each other in a perfect combination. That is what makes a good game.

Your argument of realism, or at least "authenticity" being meaningless when developing a game is a crock of crap. Look at the ARMA games, which strive to be military simulators as close to reality as possible. They have sold amazingly well. Bohemia Interactive started off as a tiny studio, but is now one of the biggest game developers in Eastern Europe.

Last time I checked, Xenonauts was supposed to be a "strategic planetary defense simulator". I get that some simplifying and "dumbing down" so to speak is necessary, but some of the latest design decisions have gone too far IMO.

(I also question whether you really would enjoy aliens throwing grenades at you without you having any chance to deal with them. I think you'd find it much more unfair in practice than you believe.)

My response is quoting frank_walls, as he has hit the nail on the head.

I remember a few experimental builds ago when the sebillans were running up and throwing grenades at my guys. I actually thought it was very cool, and that you had implemented something new and exciting into their AI. If the enemy is beating me through superior tactics and strategy then I'm totally fine with it. If they're beating me because they get more TU's, do more damage than I could or any number of other artificially crafted advantages then the game isn't so fun.

Edited March 14, 2014 by legit1337

[DNK]

Eh, it's a remake of XCOM, and XCOM was far from realistic. Many of the things people are complaining about here were either present in XCOM or worse. How about we go back to autocannon ammo counts for the MGs, heavily simplified (and easy) air combat, and infinite money manufacturing...

Not that I disagree that realism can go hand in hand with fun gameplay, but given that Arma is a sandbox that lets users create their own balance/scenarios, where if you make things even then high casualties for the player result, it doesn't fit so well into a game where building up a force of experienced vets is a must-have, and where losing even a third of your encounters would be catastrophic (not to mention unfun for all but hardcore gamers).

Making ground combat "realistic" here would be very unbalanced (for current build) and still unrealistic, in that aliens would suicide-charge Xenonauts to lob nades at them (since the AI isn't really good with cover or "knowing" how to pull off such a maneuver without being effectively suicidal most of the time). If you want suicidal AI charges that greatly increase Xeno casualties, then you also need to totally rebalance the game, again.