XCOM's Epileptic Alien Trees: The Random Theory Thread

[Ranger Six]

All right, folks, I promised you a thread where you could put forth theories on why the various elements in XCOM exist and/or work the way they do, as well as theories about why what we've seen so far hasn't been quite up to our standards (for varying definitions of "standards").

So, here it is. Bring out your dead! (And by "dead" I mean "random theories, crazy conjectures, and epileptic trees*". Keep in mind, though, this is meant for serious discussion of relatively-plausible theories, regardless of how much evidence you have. Off-the-wall stuff like "It's an alien training simulation for a planned invasion of Earth, and Carter is actually one of the opposing-force AIs in the simulation" is fine, but please leave stuff like "The final boss will be Mecha Stalin, and he'll be armed with a pneumatic hammer, a sickle with a monomolecular blade, and a back-mounted cannon that shoots bionically-enhanced bears!" at the door. The former is a relatively plausible plot; the latter is just plain silly.)

So, that being said, on to the theories.

Theory the First: XCOM is like Omega Company from the Phule's Company books - a "dumping ground" for otherwise-skilled FBI agents that nobody else wants to deal with for whatever reason (he's black, he's gay, he's not a "team player", she's more competent than anyone else in my unit and it's undermining their morale, etc.).

Frankly, this is the only logical explanation I can think of for why XCOM's personnel would be so diverse despite the era the game is set in.

It'd also explain why they get assigned to investigate the various weird phenomena surrounding the alien invasion: since the XCOM division gets all of the "problem children" from other divisions (and, as such, are likely regarded as a joke by the other divisions), they're the ones who have to investigate the claims of every crank who calls in claiming that a weird black guy with glowing eyes has been stalking him for the past X days/weeks/months/etc., while the rest of the FBI works on "serious matters" (kidnappings, murders, bank robberies, Communist plots, and so on).

It's just sheer luck that they wind up dealing with an actual, verifiable alien invasion. (The jury's out on whether that's good luck or bad - though if the material from Citizen Skywatch is anything to go by, my money is on "bad".)

Theory the Second: XCOM is more successful against the alien invasion than the military because the aliens aren't expecting commando-raid tactics this early in their invasion.

Consider this: In what we've seen so far, an entire US Army encampment has been wiped out to the last man. Yet XCOM is able to kick alien butt repeatedly throughout the E3 demo.

Why? Because the aliens are used to full-fledged military responses at this point in their campaign - counterattacks using whatever the inhabitants of the target world consider to be "overwhelming firepower". The invaders, however, just keep chucking troops at the defenders until they wear down the defenders through sheer weight of numbers. Once that's done, they're able to xenoform at their leisure, while any of the original inhabitants who've survived are forced to watch impotently while it happens.

XCOM, however, doesn't deal in overwhelming firepower - they deal in quick, surgical strikes to cripple a larger enemy, and the invaders just aren't used to that except as a desperation tactic once the majority of a world's defenders are wiped out and the xenoforming process has become pretty much irreversible.

Theory the Third: XCOM agents can die; the only reason they didn't in the E3 demo is because they're using protective equipment derived from alien technology - and you might not get that equipment until after the "Find. Dr Weir" mission in the real game.

Okay, yeah, I know. You're probably thinking I'm high on something for saying this. But, again, consider this: in the 2010 trailer, an XCOM agent apparently died when one of the blob aliens in that trailer forced itself down his throat.

"But the agents in the 2011 playthrough didn't die!", I hear you saying. Well, that's probably because of the weird metallic things they were wearing - I'd wager that's some kind of protective equipment derived from alien technology. If its user is critically injured, it puts them in some kind of suspended animation until either A) you're able to revive them, or B) you complete the mission.

(If I'm right about that - and I sincerely hope I am - that could also mean that the protective gear isn't a guaranteed "get out of death free" card; after all, one of the developers said that you had to be careful when using heavy weapons such as rocket launchers and whatnot, because the splash damage could inadvertently kill things that you might want to keep alive. Everyone assumes he was talking about the aliens . . . but what if he meant you could accidentally kill your own men, too, even with the protective gear?)

Theory the Fourth: The blob monsters will show up; they'll just be an early-game enemy. The vanguard of the invading force, if you will - XCOM's version of the Floaters/Gill Men/(insert weak alien race from X-Com here).

This is just random speculation on my part - the only evidence I have that this might be the case is the 2010 trailer (in which we see victims of a blob-monster attack), and the photographs from early in the 2011 trailer (the first batch of which appears to be photographs of the victims of a blob-monster attack).

However, given how easily the blobs fall to even relatively crude weapons (at least, if the 2010 trailer is to be believed - that trailer demonstrates that pistols, shotguns, and crude incendiary grenades can dispatch the blobs with ease), it makes sense that they'd be scout units of some kind - and you generally employ scouts early in a campaign.

(Oh, and for anyone who claims that the original X-Com games didn't have blob monsters . . . might I refer you to the UFOpedia entry on the Calcinite from X-Com: Terror From The Deep? Go ahead and read it; I'll wait until you're done )

Theory the Fifth: What we've seen of XCOM isn't the real XCOM: it's an incredibly realistic simulation generated by an alien supercomputer, for the purpose of assessing what kind of a threat the human race poses to the race (or races) running the experiment - a race (or group thereof) which may not look anything like what we've seen in the preview material thus far.

No, this theory isn't original with me. It's actually based on one that Brian Damage posited a while back (though if memory serves, his version specifically stated that a small group of Ethereals was running the experiment - highly unlikely, given that apparently 2K has stated that XCOM isn't set in the same universe as the original games). A crackpot theory, perhaps, but somewhat less crackpot than Aegeri's theory that the end boss of the game will be a Mecha Stalin that shoots bionically-enhanced bears out of a cannon on its back.

(Personally, I think Aegeri needs to take a break from Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3! )

Theory the Sixth: We haven't seen the real Battlescape view yet, because the E3 demo was based on an early-game mission - one where you're not expected to field more than one or two agents to assist you.

I don't know about the rest of you, but if what's been said is true - that the Battlescape is supposed to some kind of pulled-back, slowed-down/paused tactical overview of whatever area you're in at the time - then what we saw in the E3 playthrough is probably a simplified version of that interface, geared towards smaller-scale missions; if later missions have you fielding more agents (and I think this is likely, based on how Battlescape Mode has been described), then you'll probably have a more complex command interface.

*If you're wondering what an "epileptic tree" is, it's a term I picked up in my time over at TV Tropes; it came into being after a bunch of Tropers who were into the show Lost started wondering why the trees on the island in that show were always waving back and forth, even when there was apparently no breeze. Many theories abounded - it was a hallucination, the trees were actually a herd of Sudowoodo, the characters were slightly out of phase with the island and couldn't feel the breeze, and so on - but the funniest one was that the trees were having seizures.

No, seriously, I'm not joking - one of the Lost Tropers actually suggested that the trees were having epileptic fits! (Trust me, it makes sense in context.)

Since that was the most amusing theory, the term "epileptic trees" kind of caught on amongst the general Troper population, and it became a catch-all term for theories about unexplained elements in various bits of fiction, be they sane theories or off-the-wall things like . . . well . . . epileptic trees!

[Cpl_Facehugger]

Theory the Second: XCOM is more successful against the alien invasion than the military because the aliens aren't expecting commando-raid tactics this early in their invasion.

Consider this: In what we've seen so far, an entire US Army encampment has been wiped out to the last man. Yet XCOM is able to kick alien butt repeatedly throughout the E3 demo.

Why? Because the aliens are used to full-fledged military responses at this point in their campaign - counterattacks using whatever the inhabitants of the target world consider to be "overwhelming firepower". The invaders, however, just keep chucking troops at the defenders until they wear down the defenders through sheer weight of numbers. Once that's done, they're able to xenoform at their leisure, while any of the original inhabitants who've survived are forced to watch impotently while it happens.

XCOM, however, doesn't deal in overwhelming firepower - they deal in quick, surgical strikes to cripple a larger enemy, and the invaders just aren't used to that except as a desperation tactic once the majority of a world's defenders are wiped out and the xenoforming process has become pretty much irreversible.

An interesting theory, but I don't think it'd work like that. Surgical commando raids most certainly have a place in warfare, but causing significant damage to a grossly superior force via bullets isn't that place.

Also, the invaders would have to be pretty slow to react if they're utterly baffled by small teams of troops. Particularly given how they can apparently deploy teleport-drop pods at will. Not really in character for a race of hypertech robotic killbots. They really shouldn't be confused by the concept of small surgical strike teams after the first few times Carter bushwhacks them.

Theory the Third: XCOM agents can die; the only reason they didn't in the E3 demo is because they're using protective equipment derived from alien technology - and you might not get that equipment until after the "Find. Dr Weir" mission in the real game.

Okay, yeah, I know. You're probably thinking I'm high on something for saying this. But, again, consider this: in the 2010 trailer, an XCOM agent apparently died when one of the blob aliens in that trailer forced itself down his throat.

"But the agents in the 2011 playthrough didn't die!", I hear you saying. Well, that's probably because of the weird metallic things they were wearing - I'd wager that's some kind of protective equipment derived from alien technology. If its user is critically injured, it puts them in some kind of suspended animation until either A) you're able to revive them, or B) you complete the mission.

(If I'm right about that - and I sincerely hope I am - that could also mean that the protective gear isn't a guaranteed "get out of death free" card; after all, one of the developers said that you had to be careful when using heavy weapons such as rocket launchers and whatnot, because the splash damage could inadvertently kill things that you might want to keep alive. Everyone assumes he was talking about the aliens . . . but what if he meant you could accidentally kill your own men, too, even with the protective gear?)

We've had direct dev comments about how if they let squadmates die, you'd burn through the squadmates they offer in short order. I think it's almost totally certain that squadmates won't die unless it's part of a scripted thing. Think Mass Effect.

What you say would make sense, but given how they've set up the game, I don't think there's *room* to allow for squadmate death. If squadmates died like rookies died in X-Com, you'd have to have a much larger squad roster to keep from running out. We saw, what, six guys in the roster during the E3 playthrough? Maybe double that to take into account guys who haven't been hired yet and we're still two guys short of an X-COM skyranger's full compliment. And that's just your active team in the originals. Garrison troops, backups, guys on other bases to cover the globe... Frankly here, the scale has been drastically reduced, so I'm pretty sure we're not going to be seeing battles with more than two agents directly commandable.

Theory the Fourth: The blob monsters will show up; they'll just be an early-game enemy. The vanguard of the invading force, if you will - XCOM's version of the Floaters/Gill Men/(insert weak alien race from X-Com here).

This is just random speculation on my part - the only evidence I have that this might be the case is the 2010 trailer (in which we see victims of a blob-monster attack), and the photographs from early in the 2011 trailer (the first batch of which appears to be photographs of the victims of a blob-monster attack).

However, given how easily the blobs fall to even relatively crude weapons (at least, if the 2010 trailer is to be believed - that trailer demonstrates that pistols, shotguns, and crude incendiary grenades can dispatch the blobs with ease), it makes sense that they'd be scout units of some kind - and you generally employ scouts early in a campaign.

(Oh, and for anyone who claims that the original X-Com games didn't have blob monsters . . . might I refer you to the UFOpedia entry on the Calcinite from X-Com: Terror From The Deep? Go ahead and read it; I'll wait until you're done )

Agreed. I'm guessing the blobs are initially some kind of reconnaissance nanotech blob, as opposed to an actual alien.

Then again, apparently all the aliens are some sort of hypertech entities. Which makes me wonder why they even care about our planet to begin with, since with such technology, they could surely make more comfortable habitats elsewhere without worrying about being machine-gunned by irate FBI agents.

Theory the Fifth: What we've seen of XCOM isn't the real XCOM: it's an incredibly realistic simulation generated by an alien supercomputer, for the purpose of assessing what kind of a threat the human race poses to the race (or races) running the experiment - a race (or group thereof) which may not look anything like what we've seen in the preview material thus far.

No, this theory isn't original with me. It's actually based on one that Brian Damage posited a while back (though if memory serves, his version specifically stated that a small group of Ethereals was running the experiment - highly unlikely, given that apparently 2K has stated that XCOM isn't set in the same universe as the original games). A crackpot theory, perhaps, but somewhat less crackpot than Aegeri's theory that the end boss of the game will be a Mecha Stalin that shoots bionically-enhanced bears out of a cannon on its back.

(Personally, I think Aegeri needs to take a break from Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3! )

I would love it if this entire game was just a bad dream alien simulation.

Theory the Sixth: We haven't seen the real Battlescape view yet, because the E3 demo was based on an early-game mission - one where you're not expected to field more than one or two agents to assist you.

I don't know about the rest of you, but if what's been said is true - that the Battlescape is supposed to some kind of pulled-back, slowed-down/paused tactical overview of whatever area you're in at the time - then what we saw in the E3 playthrough is probably a simplified version of that interface, geared towards smaller-scale missions; if later missions have you fielding more agents (and I think this is likely, based on how Battlescape Mode has been described), then you'll probably have a more complex command interface.

Unlikely. You can look at the interface and clearly see there's no *room* for other agents and their powers. It's pretty clearly designed around the two squadmate notion. Having another separate interface is unlikely, simply because it'd mean a lot more work for 2k.

Also, 2k has said time and again that you'll have two agents with you... And to be frank, there's only so many AI processes that console hardware can run at a single time. That number is probably less than ten, including squadmates and aliens.

This one is totally you indulging in wishful thinking. Sry.

[Ranger Six]

An interesting theory, but I don't think it'd work like that. Surgical commando raids most certainly have a place in warfare, but causing significant damage to a grossly superior force via bullets isn't that place.

Also, the invaders would have to be pretty slow to react if they're utterly baffled by small teams of troops. Particularly given how they can apparently deploy teleport-drop pods at will. Not really in character for a race of hypertech robotic killbots. They really shouldn't be confused by the concept of small surgical strike teams after the first few times Carter bushwhacks them.

I'm not saying they'd be confused by the commando raids per se, but by the unorthodox employment of them ("Wait, we haven't wiped out their defenses yet, why are they using desperation tactics now?").

The use of what they consider to be "desperation tactics" this early in the invasion - and the concept of an opponent capturing their technology and turning it against them - are probably alien to the aliens.

We've had direct dev comments about how if they let squadmates die, you'd burn through the squadmates they offer in short order. I think it's almost totally certain that squadmates won't die unless it's part of a scripted thing. Think Mass Effect.

What you say would make sense, but given how they've set up the game, I don't think there's *room* to allow for squadmate death. If squadmates died like rookies died in X-Com, you'd have to have a much larger squad roster to keep from running out. We saw, what, six guys in the roster during the E3 playthrough? Maybe double that to take into account guys who haven't been hired yet and we're still two guys short of an X-COM skyranger's full compliment. And that's just your active team in the originals. Garrison troops, backups, guys on other bases to cover the globe... Frankly here, the scale has been drastically reduced, so I'm pretty sure we're not going to be seeing battles with more than two agents directly commandable.

Okay, yeah, I get that. However, I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that you're going to have "mountains of dead rookies" like the original X-Com games, I'm saying that XCOM agents might die outside of scripted scenes, despite the protective gear, if you're careless with your heavy weapons and explosives.

Occasional deaths from carelessness != "mountains of dead rookies".

Agreed. I'm guessing the blobs are initially some kind of reconnaissance nanotech blob, as opposed to an actual alien.

Then again, apparently all the aliens are some sort of hypertech entities. Which makes me wonder why they even care about our planet to begin with, since with such technology, they could surely make more comfortable habitats elsewhere without worrying about being machine-gunned by irate FBI agents.

Probably for the same reason that aliens like the Sontarans from Doctor Who wanted to turn Earth into a Sontaran Cloneworld (see "The Poison Sky"/"The Sontaran Stratagem"): despite all their fancy technology, they need the resources and space afforded by planets like Earth.

I would love it if this entire game was just a bad dream alien simulation.

Unlikely. You can look at the interface and clearly see there's no *room* for other agents and their powers. It's pretty clearly designed around the two squadmate notion. Having another separate interface is unlikely, simply because it'd mean a lot more work for 2k.

Also, 2k has said time and again that you'll have two agents with you... And to be frank, there's only so many AI processes that console hardware can run at a single time. That number is probably less than ten, including squadmates and aliens.

This one is totally you indulging in wishful thinking. Sry.

Nope, it's totally not. Sorry, but I have to debunk that right here, right now:

In case you missed the memo, there are other FPS games that involve tactical squad-based combat - the more recent entries in the Rainbow Six line, for example - where you were working with squads that contained more than three people (and, if memory serves, the PC versions of the recent Rainbow Six games let you field pretty large squads compared to their console brethren - in fact, I believe the original Rainbow Six let you field up to twenty Rainbow operatives split into three squads of varying size, though AI wasn't all that good back in the late '90s ).

It's eminently possible that if the PC version and the console version are developed separately - as with Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield - the PC version might be closer to what we're used to from the original X-Com games.

On a side note, it's also possible that if there are multiple squads in the game, each squad will be given its own AI process. After all, there is such a thing as "squad-based AI" - each squad in a mission uses a single AI thread for all of its members, instead of using separate AI threads for each squadmate. If 2K uses squad-based AI in XCOM - and they might, we don't know for certain - it's eminently possible that we could have the ability to field multiple squads (albeit relatively small ones, and you probably wouldn't have quite as fine a level of control over the AI-run squads as you would over the agents directly accompanying you).

[Nosmirc]

In case you missed the memo, there are other FPS games that involve tactical squad-based combat - the more recent entries in the Rainbow Six line, for example - where you were working with squads that contained more than three people (and, if memory serves, the PC versions of the recent Rainbow Six games let you field pretty large squads compared to their console brethren - in fact, I believe the original Rainbow Six let you field up to twenty Rainbow operatives split into three squads of varying size, though AI wasn't all that good back in the late '90s ).

If this was a modern set X-Com game like that, I'd have to go change my underwear. Sadly, I don't need to go change my underwear. That's the annoying part. Having large teams like that HAS been done before, but for some reason, this era of gaming shuns it like the plague. I can understand moving away from the planning phase from early R6 games, because you could literally spend hours on a plan that may not work. Now if you had the ability to whip out a PDA or something and issue commands on a layout of the area, that would be a good compromise.

But they didn't do that. They removed the planning phase entirely, as seen in the Vegas games. Which is sad .

Erm. I would post more...but...I have an urge to play more DX:HR

[ShanDaMan]

Theory the Seventh, if I may. After the events of X-COM:Apocalypse, a cultist from the Cult of Sirius steals Dimension Gate reaearch and modifies it into a crude Time Portal. He uses it to go back in time to rescue the Sectoids from the Roswell crash site. This changes history as the rescued Sectoid scouts report back to Alien High Command the need to send only "non organic" invasion troops and to invade decades earlier than scheduled. Realizing at last the decptive nature of the Sectoids, the disillusioned cultist, Dr. Wier, attempts to warn humanity of the incoming attack.

I admit that this is sketchy and borrows alot from the Red Alert series.
But, there must be some connection to the first games' aliens since the XCOM aliens also use Elerium.

The Roswell crash was in the US. Dr. Weir is in the US. The XCOM aliens begin their activities in the US.

This would explain why XCOM agents are able to assimilate alien tech more quickly than in past games.

[Cpl_Facehugger]

I'm not saying they'd be confused by the commando raids per se, but by the unorthodox employment of them ("Wait, we haven't wiped out their defenses yet, why are they using desperation tactics now?").

The use of what they consider to be "desperation tactics" this early in the invasion - and the concept of an opponent capturing their technology and turning it against them - are probably alien to the aliens.

That still doesn't paint the aliens as particularly threatening. If they're that confused by the enemy shifting tactics early in the invasion, they pretty clearly got off the shortbus shortsaucer. And if they can't even make sense of the idea of humans using their own stuff against them (note that they seek out Weir at least in part because he's doing exactly that, so they know what's going on and who's doing it; see the E3 playthrough), they're clearly also not very credible threats.

Okay, yeah, I get that. However, I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I'm not saying that you're going to have "mountains of dead rookies" like the original X-Com games, I'm saying that XCOM agents might die outside of scripted scenes, despite the protective gear, if you're careless with your heavy weapons and explosives.

Occasional deaths from carelessness != "mountains of dead rookies".

Oh. So you're saying friendly fire might be able to kill agents? I suppose that might be possible, but I have my doubts. I don't see 2k having agents immune to alien guns but killable if you're careless. I'd imagine the "be careful what you shoot" is more in reference to aliens you want to capture or potentially non-agent NPCs you want to interact with.

Probably for the same reason that aliens like the Sontarans from Doctor Who wanted to turn Earth into a Sontaran Cloneworld (see "The Poison Sky"/"The Sontaran Stratagem"): despite all their fancy technology, they need the resources and space afforded by planets like Earth.

Why not plunder Mars then? All the space, none of the hostile natives.

In case you missed the memo, there are other FPS games that involve tactical squad-based combat - the more recent entries in the Rainbow Six line, for example - where you were working with squads that contained more than three people (and, if memory serves, the PC versions of the recent Rainbow Six games let you field pretty large squads compared to their console brethren - in fact, I believe the original Rainbow Six let you field up to twenty Rainbow operatives split into three squads of varying size, though AI wasn't all that good back in the late '90s ).

What recent entries in the R6 line? Vegas ditched squad control almost completely, IIRC. The GR-FW games have a squad of four, though at least they let you command people via a top down map... Even if their AI sucked horribly and ended up being rather useless.

The original R6 games had more squadmates in combat, but they didn't run all those processes at once - the player could only follow one guy at a time, so they could abstract out a lot of the more processor intensive tasks unless the guys in question were onscreen. They also had pretty limited AI. AI which would be a joke in this era of Crysis and FEAR.

I'm not saying a tactical FPS is impossible. I'm saying that there's only so much you can do with console hardware; particularly if you're married to the idea of a single character (Carter) since that way you can't switch between various viewpoints, thus allowing you to "cheat" your way to a seemingly larger squad.

Basically here, I have seen absolutely no evidence that XCOM allows for more than 2 agents plus the player in a mission. If it was possible, I'd think that 2k would say it was in an attempt to placate the angry fans.

It's eminently possible that if the PC version and the console version are developed separately - as with Rainbow Six 3: Raven Shield - the PC version might be closer to what we're used to from the original X-Com games.

That sounds like wishful thinking. Is there any actual reason to believe this, other than hope? Have the devs given any indication of this? Have the devs given any indication that the PC version lets you command more agents? I don't think they have, and I've been following this game since it was announced.

Seriously, giving the devs the benefit of the doubt is almost certainly going to lead to you being disappointed, since this game is not a tactical shooter in the vein of R6. The E3 playthrough should confirm that for you, but if it doesn't, I'm sure follow on marketing attempts will do so, as 2k seems to believe that what they're pushing is what the players want even when it isn't.

A tactical shooter could be fun. It's not my ideal, but I could live with it with minimal grumbling.

Does this game seem particularly tactical to you? Careful management of special powers Mass Effect style and an inability to command guys outside your field of view? Really?

On a side note, it's also possible that if there are multiple squads in the game, each squad will be given its own AI process. After all, there is such a thing as "squad-based AI" - each squad in a mission uses a single AI thread for all of its members, instead of using separate AI threads for each squadmate. If 2K uses squad-based AI in XCOM - and they might, we don't know for certain - it's eminently possible that we could have the ability to field multiple squads (albeit relatively small ones, and you probably wouldn't have quite as fine a level of control over the AI-run squads as you would over the agents directly accompanying you).

That wouldn't really save much processing power, I don't think. You'd still have to handle collision, movement, cover, shooting, and what not for all those individual actors, even if you command them as one blob. You could pull the wool over the player's eyes with clever map design and scripting, but that would end up being pretty limiting.

This method works well in RTS games where there's a lot less pathing and AI processing to worry about.

[Ranger Six]

That still doesn't paint the aliens as particularly threatening. If they're that confused by the enemy shifting tactics early in the invasion, they pretty clearly got off the shortbus shortsaucer. And if they can't even make sense of the idea of humans using their own stuff against them (note that they seek out Weir at least in part because he's doing exactly that, so they know what's going on and who's doing it; see the E3 playthrough), they're clearly also not very credible threats.

Obviously, you haven't read The Art of War (And, I suspect, the alien invaders haven't, either.)

If an enemy is used to dealing with particular tactics, they will gear their own tactics to counter them, and will come to rely on those tactics exclusively given enough time.

The aliens may be used to the whole "target planet's defenders start out with massive firepower and escalate until their military resources are significantly depleted, before resorting to more covert operations out of desperation" process. Hell, they may even use Infiltrator units (at least, I believe that's the name they gave to the type of alien that we saw disguised itself as a U.S. soldier) to encourage that course of action, knowing full well that the escalated response isn't going to stop them no matter how powerful it is. (Unless, of course, the defending forces decide to go for the whole "nuke 'em till they glow, then shoot 'em in the dark" option - but on the other hand, even that might not work. And I suspect that the United States would be rather hesitant to start nuking its own territory, for fear of the Russians thinking that we were getting ready to nuke them!)

But encountering an enemy that switches tactics earlier than they expect, and learns about the Infiltrator units in the process? That'd throw a monkey wrench in their plans, for sure. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, a smaller force can easily cripple a much larger force simply by being unpredictable - and if the aliens aren't able to effectively use their Infiltrator units, it'll be that much harder for them to predict what XCOM will do at any given time.

Of course, the fact that the Infiltrators even exist might mean that at some point you'll have to deal with a base-defense mission (or two, or three . . .) - and wouldn't that be something?

Oh. So you're saying friendly fire might be able to kill agents? I suppose that might be possible, but I have my doubts. I don't see 2k having agents immune to alien guns but killable if you're careless. I'd imagine the "be careful what you shoot" is more in reference to aliens you want to capture or potentially non-agent NPCs you want to interact with.

Well, I'm saying that it might be possible for them to die outside of scripted events, period. Maybe not in the quantities for which the original games were notorious (why hello there, fifty per cent casualty rate!), particularly given that you're likely not going to be fielding large numbers of agents at any given time, but it might be possible nonetheless. Friendly fire is just one example - another would be "at the hands of aliens because Agent X didn't have the protective gear that could have saved his life".

Why not plunder Mars then? All the space, none of the hostile natives.

Any number of reasons: it might not have the resources they need in sufficient quantity, it might be too far from the sun for their purposes, Mars's environment might be intrinsically harmful to whatever bizarre alien biology they have . . . I could come up with any number of reasons why Mars might not be suitable. Ditto for planets like Venus or Mercury.

What recent entries in the R6 line? Vegas ditched squad control almost completely, IIRC. The GR-FW games have a squad of four, though at least they let you command people via a top down map... Even if their AI sucked horribly and ended up being rather useless.

The original R6 games had more squadmates in combat, but they didn't run all those processes at once - the player could only follow one guy at a time, so they could abstract out a lot of the more processor intensive tasks unless the guys in question were onscreen. They also had pretty limited AI. AI which would be a joke in this era of Crysis and FEAR.

I'm not saying a tactical FPS is impossible. I'm saying that there's only so much you can do with console hardware; particularly if you're married to the idea of a single character (Carter) since that way you can't switch between various viewpoints, thus allowing you to "cheat" your way to a seemingly larger squad.

Raven Shield would like a word with you, sir. If my research is accurate (and I currently have no reason to doubt its accuracy) it actually managed to have decent-sized squads under AI control - and it did so on the Xbox360, no less. (Granted, its voice-recognition command method wasn't all that great - it would, for example, frequently confuse the command "Open, Flash and Clear" with "Open, Frag, And Clear" and vice versa - but it did manage to pull off decent squad-level AI with minimal pathing problems.)

Basically here, I have seen absolutely no evidence that XCOM allows for more than 2 agents plus the player in a mission. If it was possible, I'd think that 2k would say it was in an attempt to placate the angry fans.

And now for the Devil's Advocate point of view: since it is technically possible (and by "technically" I mean "within the constraints of modern hardware"), they might be keeping quiet about whether or not they've implemented it because they want the fact that they have to be a pleasant surprise.

That sounds like wishful thinking. Is there any actual reason to believe this, other than hope? Have the devs given any indication of this? Have the devs given any indication that the PC version lets you command more agents? I don't think they have, and I've been following this game since it was announced.

Seriously, giving the devs the benefit of the doubt is almost certainly going to lead to you being disappointed, since this game is not a tactical shooter in the vein of R6. The E3 playthrough should confirm that for you, but if it doesn't, I'm sure follow on marketing attempts will do so, as 2k seems to believe that what they're pushing is what the players want even when it isn't.

Well, my response regarding that aspect of the gameplay was speaking strictly to the whole feasibility aspect (i.e., providing evidence that it can be done, whereas the way you phrased your first post seemed to imply that you believed it can't be done, not that it won't be done).

As for whether or not it will be done? That, I grant you, is another matter entirely - but to expand on your point about whether the developers have said they will: no, they haven't said that they will.

Conversely, though, they haven't said that they won't implement multiple squads either, and the little information we do have doesn't rule the possibility out.

It may not be a very likely possibility, I grant you, but the point I'm trying to make is that it exists - and as such, it should be considered instead of being dismissed.

A tactical shooter could be fun. It's not my ideal, but I could live with it with minimal grumbling.

Does this game seem particularly tactical to you? Careful management of special powers Mass Effect style and an inability to command guys outside your field of view? Really?

. . . I'm guessing you've never had to deal with small-unit tactics before. If anything, using small units like a single three-man squad is more tactical than, say, having six squads of six men each, because you can't rely on numbers to overcome a stiff defense - you have to think about how to employ your men.

You know that bit in the E3 demo playthrough where the guy playing the demo had to deal with the aliens who used the shield generator? That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Obviously, the guy going through the demo had his squadmates flank the enemy position and draw their fire so that he himself could take out the shield generator and then help his teammates cut them down in the crossfire - but what if you'd been playing? What kind of tactics would you have tried? Would you have taken the obvious route (flank, distract, slaughter), or - for example - would you have been the one to draw the enemy's fire while one of your squadmates chucked a grenade into their midst?

Or would you have tried to take them out from a distance - say, with a few well-placed rockets or disintegrator-cannon shots? (I would have suggested a sniper rifle - something like the Springfield M1911, for example - but I don't know if they have weapons like that in the game.)

That wouldn't really save much processing power, I don't think. You'd still have to handle collision, movement, cover, shooting, and what not for all those individual actors, even if you command them as one blob. You could pull the wool over the player's eyes with clever map design and scripting, but that would end up being pretty limiting.

Or, as you pointed out earlier, you could abstract the offscreen action to something simple enough that it wouldn't necessarily need much in the line of collision detection or pathing outside of "did Unit X's shot hit anything?" and "keep the units in Squad Y from bumping into walls/trees/bushes/parked cars/enemies/etc."

This method works well in RTS games where there's a lot less pathing and AI processing to worry about.

. . . what RTS games have you been playing? I play the Command and Conquer games myself, and there's a lot of pathing and AI processing in those games.

It's particularly obvious in single-player skirmishes against multiple AIs - not only will they go after you, but they'll also beat on each other with varying degrees of success. And pathing? Hoo boy - you should see how the Harvesters and Ore Trucks act if you build perimeter walls around your base the way I do: if one of your harvesters/ore trucks is trying to leave the base while another is trying to get in, they have a tendency to wind up dancing with each other instead of going where they're supposed to. It doesn't happen as much in the more recent entries in the series - you don't get to build walls in Tiberium Wars, for example, and you're supposed to plunk your refineries right next to the ore mines in Red Alert 3, but I think you get the picture.

And it's not just resource-gathering units that are prone to this, either - you can substitute pretty much any vehicle, short of the Chrono Miners from Red Alert 2 (they teleport back to base once they have a full load of ore) and the Slave Miners from Yuri's Revenge (which are basically mobile refineries).