Ground Combat Balance - V21 Stable Candidate

[StellarRat]

Flanking isn't as useful in Xenonauts as it could be for three reasons: First the aliens are usually on the defensive so when you start to flank them they can just fall back to another piece of cover. The AI is pretty smart about this, BTW. Second, the alien ships are always on a map edge so you are pushing the aliens into a corner most of the time or the ship provides one refused flank for the aliens. Finally, in real military ops, you can actually pin down the enemy with suppressive fire to the point where they can't move much and get around the flank with another group to finish them off. The aliens in this game can move fairly well even when suppressed and there is usually plenty of cover nearby to fall back to even with only half their movement allowance.

[Khelevaster]

I had several situations where an alien would miss all the bullets from a burst while shooting point blank (normal difficulty). Do the aliens get the same accuracy boost up close as xenonauts do?

[Max_Caine]

They may do, but they also get a big global accuracy malus, which quite badly affects their aim.

[kabill]

Finally, in real military ops, you can actually pin down the enemy with suppressive fire to the point where they can't move much and get around the flank with another group to finish them off. The aliens in this game can move fairly well even when suppressed and there is usually plenty of cover nearby to fall back to even with only half their movement allowance.

I'm not sure I agree with this point. Indeed, in my experience aliens do the opposite, prefering to stay still and return fire rather than flee. (I'd prefer it if they fled, from a game-design perspective, because that's probably the smarter thing to do. But I guess that's another discussion!)

The issue that I have with flanking is that I frequently end up killing my target before my flanking team is in position. Especially with a LMG, you can destroy a lot of cover in a couple of turns which leaves the target exposed anyway. Or else you pin the target down with so much fire-power that you end up hitting and killing them anyway. I've been disheartened on more than one occassion by setting up a good flanking manouevre, only to kill the target from range the turn I'm about to swoop in for the kill.

[StellarRat]

I'm not sure I agree with this point. Indeed, in my experience aliens do the opposite, prefering to stay still and return fire rather than flee. (I'd prefer it if they fled, from a game-design perspective, because that's probably the smarter thing to do. But I guess that's another discussion!)

The issue that I have with flanking is that I frequently end up killing my target before my flanking team is in position. Especially with a LMG, you can destroy a lot of cover in a couple of turns which leaves the target exposed anyway. Or else you pin the target down with so much fire-power that you end up hitting and killing them anyway. I've been disheartened on more than one occassion by setting up a good flanking manouevre, only to kill the target from range the turn I'm about to swoop in for the kill.

Hmmm...they always seem to move to a different spot when their cover is threatened in my experience. Anyway, since GH reduced the cover of cover in the current version protracted firefights are much less frequent now. I don't like it, but hey, it's not my game.

[Skitso]

Its rather easy to mod to your own liking though...

[StellarRat]

Its rather easy to mod to your own liking though...

Of course. I would prefer a vanilla version that is done exactly like I want it though.

[kabill]

Hmmm...they always seem to move to a different spot when their cover is threatened in my experience. Anyway, since GH reduced the cover of cover in the current version protracted firefights are much less frequent now. I don't like it, but hey, it's not my game.

That's fair enough - I guess we do something different to produce different outcomes (yay for responsive AI!).

Agreed about cover modifiers (almost wrote the same above) - I'd prefer them higher to encourage more positioning/mobility (and, I guess, to increase bullet count a little).

[Gauddlike]

Reloading is actually something to take into consideration if you have to throw loads of bullets a the enemy.

I much prefer enemies in cover (and your own troops in cover) being tough rather than just piling more hit points on across the board.

Of course the downside then is that there is a great incentive to just stay in cover if you know that you are a guaranteed kill for the enemy if you get caught in the open and Chris wants to promote more movement.

[kabill]

Of course the downside then is that there is a great incentive to just stay in cover if you know that you are a guaranteed kill for the enemy if you get caught in the open and Chris wants to promote more movement.

I'm not sure why better cover encourages more camping.

I'd argue that if it's easy for you to hit a target even when it's in cover, you might as well just sit there and shoot. Since you're fairly likely to score hits anyway, and since moving around your target's cover is giving you less of a reward, it seems to me that it's a better use of TUs simply to maximise firepower.

In contrast, if you can barely hit a target when it's in cover, then sitting there shooting isn't going to help much and you need to reposition to take out your target.

It's probably just a play-style thing, though. I have a preference for suppress and flank moves and I guess I just want the game to reward them more!

[Gauddlike]

Actually I think we were just looking at it from opposite sides.

The aliens are not smart enough to be able to use flanking tactics to get around your great cover so the player is subtly pushed towards staying in cover, probably with the exception of a scout or two with shields who are effectively carrying their own cover.

If the best weapons you have for removing/negating cover are also the longest range, i.e. precision rifles, machine guns, or rocket launchers, and also suffer from penalties when moving then that tactic is reinforced.

It is all about the balance as usual.

Getting cover that provides a challenge without also providing a safety net.

I would hope the aliens AI would also consider flanking but I imagine that would be quite tricky to pull off intelligently enough.

It is a pity that weapons only have one damage type.

Adding a bit of incendiary damage to alien plasmas would help give them a little edge against cover to help balance their difficulties in dealing with it other ways but without also increasing their damage against humans.

[kabill]

Yes, that's a good point and I'd not been thinking about it like that.

[Gauddlike]

That's the beauty of forums, when you miss something (like I didn't consider the points you put forward) there is always someone helpful around to point it out to you

[StellarRat]

Actually I think we were just looking at it from opposite sides.

The aliens are not smart enough to be able to use flanking tactics to get around your great cover...

But since they are normally on the defensive they don't really have to out flank you. They can just keep falling back towards their ship or whatever fighting a delaying action and trying to inflict casualties with lucky hits. The ones that actively seek you out, Sebs and Androns, don't really need to out flank because their attack style is just a straight Banzai charge towards your men. Edited March 18, 2014 by StellarRat

[Lidhuin]

28% TU cost does not work. Reason: Inexperienced or burdened troops can now shoot four times, versus experienced and unburdened troops only being able to shoot three times.

Snap shot costs: TU cost to fire a pistol when you have 24 TU is 6. TU cost to fire a pistol when you have 41 TU is 11.

This either needs to be adjusted so that even burdened troops can only fire three times (if the costs were always rounded up, perhaps?), or so that experienced troops can also fire four times. Otherwise, your gunmen can actually shoot faster if they are carrying a bunch of shields in their backpack.

[Beltorn]

i fail to see how inexperienced or burdened troops can now shoot four times - its 28% - 28*4=112% and no soldier can have 112 percent of TUs. They too only make 3 shots. It counts from current TU maximum, so weight doesn't have an impact.

and 24*0,28%=6.72, with rounding its 7. Are you saying that currently a soldier with 24 TU max can fire 4 shots at 6 TU each in your game? That's a mistake of rounding function then. Save please.

[vaultdweller]

Yes, he's saying that the TU cost is a floor function - it rounds down. In order to prevent getting 4 shots, it would need to always round up.

[Lidhuin]

Since I am fairly sure it's easily reproducible (i.e. give a pistol to a soldier and burden them until they have 24 TU and see how they get four shots), I'll hold off on the save for now. If it can't be reproduced, I'll gladly produce a save.

But yes, I suspect it's rounding down, when it should be rounding up.

[Chris]

Yes, TU costs should be rounded up rather than rounded down. It's a bug if it is not working accordingly.

[lifehole]

Is it normal to be missing 95% chance shots as often as I seem to be? Just bad luck? I thought the phantom block thing was fixed but I've had 4 95% chance shots miss in a row on both sides, with aliens being pointblank and it happening. All of this happened in the span of a few missions. Maybe I've just got some weird RNG going on but it seems extremely frequent.

[Lidhuin]

I'll second that. I know it was mentioned to bring up the debugger (which I sadly have little way of using), but I am fairly sure that aliens should not be missing 3 out of 4 shots at point blank range consistently. It's very rare that they get 2 hits, which is perhaps part of the reason why shields are so OP at the moment (walk right up to an alien with a shield, wait until next turn, he shoots and maybe hits your shield once, which likely survives, and you've got all of next turn to gun him down).

There also seems to be some times where I'll miss every shot from certain angles, despite a 95% hit chance.

[Max_Caine]

Tbh, this posts really should be on the other thread. However! Lidhuin, lifehole, I refer you to Skitso's concerns regarding the same thing, and his opinion after using the debugger. If you feel that the dice are rigged, then you need to test it strictly to remove all subjective bias.

[Gauddlike]

Rather than concentrating on how many 95% shots miss you also need to consider how many hits you get and the total number of shots taken.

Most people don't notice a string of hits when they expect hits, they only notice the 'lucky' hits when they expect a miss or the 'unlucky' misses when they expect a hit.

Not suggesting selective blindness, it is just a flaw of the human design

[Selvhan]

Balance issue :

Small Alien weapon suppress really too much.

Alien can see/shoot your soldiers around corner while you can't see and shoot them.

EDIT : I still have a "bug" that happen when I shot many snapshot at an alien. My soldiers will hit the square with the alien but nothing is happening (95% to hit ) I can shoot with all of them. The only way to hit the alien is to make an auto fire.

Edited March 24, 2014 by Selvhan

[lifehole]

What above said. The snapshot thing is precisely what I'm talking about. I miss pointblank shots like 5 times in a row every other mission. It's ridiculous, especially when you use shields + pistols and assault tactics.

I really think if there is this much concern over it it's probably not just 'random rng trickery.'

Also as for accusations of "it's just human assumption error" I have played sooo many games using rng, maybe not c++ rng in specific, but generally the same system; and I've never had any complaints about it.

Edited March 25, 2014 by lifehole