...But I still want my one shot kill aliens and aggressive alien operations on the geoscape... I just don't want to deal with six guys.Originally Posted by Zyxpsilon
This controversy on the optimal squad amount is really getting silly.
So choose between left or right columns here...
http://img535.imageshack.us/img535/1976/46xcsquads.png
You've just been hinted about difficulty levels.
There, feel any better?
I dunno, not saying it won't be a great game in it's own way, but to me when game design limits the size of your forces to 4 (stretching it to 6 almost sounds like a concession and/or afterthought on their part) I can't help thinking it's because the design is intended to accomodate co-op play (either initially or eventually). The people footing the bill will usually not let a big budget production happen without gearing it towards multiplayer of some sort these days, because that is where the marketing folks tell them all the money is. If that is what is happening it's a shame, because the single-player experience in too many 'great' games being released these years leaves me feeling flat (and like a second class citizen).
One thing is likely: it will not be the same flavor of chess game the original XCOM was (yes, in which point man = sacrificial pawn sometimes), I think it will likely be more of a superhero squad experience. Might turn out to be great nonetheless, but perhaps shouldn't be using the XCOM title to snag customers if its a different type of gaming experience. Time will tell.
Me too, sort of...
I would love an updated XCOM, but I think I see what the developers are doing here in the re-imagined version. They are focusing on scenamatics, graphics and gameplay. Still I would like to start with 7 or 8 and cap at 12 or 13 plus HWP so I can have multiple fire teams and use pincer movements, which incidently, was wat I did... move to contact, 2nd or 3rd teams pinced into crossfire. Poor military doctrine.
Last edited by LuckyLindy; 03-10-2012 at 07:16 AM.
IMO, I would be more inclined to think that it is a limitation on their engine to handle too many mobs on any single map. At least for the average players system or current console limitations.
I like the chess analogy, I've been thinking on that myself lately. Like how much fun would I find chess if each player only had 6 pieces.
Great so X-com basically now becomes Gears of War. 4 people who kick ALL OF ALIEN ASS! ...
It's possible that the perk system and the skills and the move and action system really do change up the tactical so that 6 units are better then many more. But it really does seem like we won't have as many alien bases, or they will be small. Terror missions won't be in possibly.
But the results of harder missions seem like it will be the change we need to know about. Will abandoning a mission change things? What exactly are we getting out of missions? How do the funding nations react if you have to evacuate from missions?
More of the non-combat parts of the game have to be revealed for us to figure out why it's so simple for them to be playing with 6 person squads and not have any issues.
Just go away. If you have nothing constructive to add to the discussion, and have to resort to making totally inflammatory and untrue statements, just go away.
I really highly doubt that's the problem. The reason you can't have more than ~10 actors in modern FPS games isn't polygons, it's AI processing. This is a lot less of a problem for a turn based game. Particularly a turn based game that's fairly low poly, like this one.
Well, I am speculating, but i just find the whole "makes it more tactical" excuse as weak.
I can't see how someone can try to argue that the old system was "More flexible". It was extremely clunky, especially once your squads got up over 8 members. Also, anybody considered the possibility of multiple landing craft on one battle map? Maybe you can call in reinforcements?
Well, on the reverse I don't see the old system being any more tactical. Honestly, I think it comes out about the same. I'm tired of going into detail as to why. Trawl around here a bit and you'll probably find it.
The design of the single hangar available to you suggests you will only ever have one landing craft, which appears to take up the entire central landing pad. You might be able to upgrade it, but I doubt it, since I suspect the top layer of the base is fixed and unchangeable in order to serve as a proper UE3 map in base defense missions.
IIRC, they didn't mention "more tacical" but rather that it made the game too easy if you could go in with a large squad, always advancing with multiple teams that are able to cover all angles.
The small squad size was explained as an intentional limitation, not an improvement of any sort.
It's more flexible in a sense that you could make soldier death a regular part of the game. Not saying they didn't go overboard with the number of people you could field with larger craft. But only 6 soldiers max leaves no real room for error. Basically each guy has a unique critical role that makes him not expendable so you must save/reload. And most likely knowing modern game difficulty this means the soldiers will just be much more durable than old X-Com soldiers. Yeah i'm sure they will die fast on hardest difficulty. But then you will just have to save/reload to win since losing a soldier is not an option now.
Part of what made X-Com so exciting was how when you went into a tough mission you knew some people probably were not coming home. And you could live with the losses. In this with only 6 people each with their key role you know they are all coming home or its time to reload. It reminds me more of what the later UFO games tried to do. But those were never as popular as X-Com, and didn't have that same feel.
Baseless assumptions, yay! Honestly, there's no way to know that the game is instantly save-scumming territory with six people. For all you know they die fairly easily. As a person who has lost all his squad but two regular riflemen (rookies at that) in the original X-Com and gone on to clear the whole terror site with those two rookies using smart tactics, and without save scumming, I find your whole claim baseless. It makes it harder sure, but if you can do it in the original you sure as hell can do it in this new one.
Honestly, what I'm thinking is you're thinking in only terms of sheer man power. Typical meat-grinder tactics.
I think this is the is one of the reasons behind the limited squad. It gets people out of that Darwinist, whatever-sticks approach. Anything that makes me assess those moves more carefully and adds real wait to that gamble move is welcome in my book. It may or may not be more tactical, but it sure makes me think a lot more about the people I put on the ground. I try to never go into a battle thinking, "I know I'm going to lose X". That just leads to fielding large amounts of cannon fodder.
Now I want to play an X-Com game with six troops at any given time to prove it can be done.
The thing is... how LONG did it take you to finish that mission with only those two rookies. I gaurantee that it was much longer than had you had your full compliment. Then, you claim that you used tactics to survive the mission. So, is it safe to assume that you entered the mission without any thoughts of tactics to begin with? Else, how did you lose the rest of your team so quickly. If you were using tactics, then apparently, those tactics didn't help to have a near TPK leaving only a couple rookies.
Not to mention, you even outline the whole point of arguing for more than 4-6. With only 4-6 max, you WOULD have had a TPK. Even the best tactics can go south quickly. I am pretty certain that all of us have had moments in the original similar to what you describe. That is part of the game. However, those instances where you only comlete a mission with one or two squad memebers left were rare (unless the player was totally careless), even without save-scumming (as you call it).
The thing is, with such a tight limit, it will make instances like that more common and increases the likeliness of TPKs. You may think that is fine, but, I promise you, after a few missions in a row that end like that, it will become very discouraging. The other alternative would be for the AI to be so dumb, that you could take the whole alien force out with 1 or 2 members. That would not be good either. Not to mention, the 4-6 limit will highly encourage save-scumming. I know that I, for one, will not hesitate to use it if I find that I am finishing missions with only 1 or 2 living members every time and TPKs for the rest. I want to have fun with the game, not get frustrated over constant death tolls every single mission.
And didn't 'meat grinder' tactics go out with the Romans, or the Medieval era at least?
You've given me an idea - an interesting little game to play: choose a number, four or six, and see how far you can get in the original game.
I predict the first terror mission, where your troops are outnumbered (and out-teched). At most, you may have one survivor after an extended (couple hours at least) mission. Most likely, however, TPK!And didn't 'meat grinder' tactics go out with the Romans, or the Medieval era at least?
You've given me an idea - an interesting little game to play: choose a number, four or six, and see how far you can get in the original game.
I gave it a shot for a few months in game with 4. Did pretty decently, although the first terror mission I upped it to 8 because I knew it was going to be a painful disembark.And didn't 'meat grinder' tactics go out with the Romans, or the Medieval era at least?
You've given me an idea - an interesting little game to play: choose a number, four or six, and see how far you can get in the original game.
Was actually a lot of fun.
You know what they say about assuming.
Here's the rundown. Captain in power armor, gets wasted by overwatch. (This happens to me a lot! D'
It took me about fifteen minutes to clear the mission. A little long, but no longer than a good war in Civ, so. Why, I say the assuming remark is because I went in. Two teams of five. Two riflemen, two support, and a heavy. No plan survives the battlefield.
The things I'm noticing though is that you:
Save scum when you lose too many people, someone important, or have a TPK, and this is in the original X-Com. So what's it matter if it's six or sixty? You're still going to save scum the six man squad when you've got one person left, lose someone important, or have a TPK. The only thing that changes is the ratio. The original X-Com shows that it doesn't really matter if it's twenty or two they can all die, quickly, brutally, or twenty or two can go onto win it.
So you just want it to take less time? That's why we have difficulty levels. Actually, it doesn't matter about time, because after turn 20 the alien's start searching you out (more or less).
I am ok with 6 man squad if there is a medic to sustain damages. Else a 8 man squad would be ideal.
All your points are good, but as was mentioned previously in this thread the great strength of the original Xcom games was in how you could choose the tactical style that suit you. I am sure some enjoyed going around with one ubersolider who cleared the map by himself, other wanted a hollywood style 4-6 crack commando group with specialized roles, while others yet again want a tabletop/chess style tactical game with backups, sacrifical pawns and whatnot. Some run almost all mechs, while others wanted exclusively soliders - or decided based on the mission.
It saddens me, like some, that they take away the choice to play the style you want. It also scares us that this implies certain changes to how the game is played. (i.e beefier soliders who can take more hits, less "deaths" and less tactical games with flanking et al).
The same goes for only having one base. I know having one "main" base was common in the game - in particular among those who would save scumming if something got through/defend mission lost. But to me this is both implausible (can be forgiven), but also implies a less deadly game. The greatest games i had of Xcom generally involved several Ufo assaults that would partially decimate my soliders and bases. An extra factor in the game i enjoyed was trying to keep (some) bases low profile and spread my eggs around in multiple basket to prepare for the eventual double dreadnaught assaults.
I personally loved to play the original Xcom games with large groups (but then i have always loved tabletop games or chess for the same reason). I loved how it felt like a grand tactical game. I'm sad, for me/us that this new game with not recapture this.
This doesnt mean that it will be more or less fun, or more or less difficult, it just means it will be a different game. To xcoms chess this will be mass effect with 3 additional people. I think its the right move from the developers as this + no TUs will make the game more accessible to a wider audience and make it easier to pick up and play. The original Xcoms were hurt by being too complex in that only a niche of players found them enjoyable.
Still it is unfortunate for us living in the past who would have loved the old Xcom with better graphics, fine tuning and some expansion and we can only hope that the game is modifiable to allow what we want.
Reminiscence-rant:
I loved to have specialized roles in Xcom games, and i loved how each larger ship allowed one to bring more and more and thus increasing the overall strength of the team. There were never any "reserves" standing in the ship in my games - but generally a perimeter watch that protected the ship (and the psi squad inside). There were specialized medics who would run around the battlefield to heal the injured. There were snipers in strategic locations and multiple 5-6 man (generally expendable rookies) ufo-entry squads that would each enter through different access points. As many mechs as could fit in the remaining slots would provide general battlefield support.
If someone died, they died. Luckily one could have hundreds of ready recruits to take their space. Multiple bases (to reduce the apparent "threat" to any one of them and avoid having all the eggs in one basket) would have multiple teams and loosing an entire team or even a base was a setback - not a loss.
The "grand" strategy/tactical feeling of these games is not something ive seen recaptured since. "Chaos gate" came close, but the ufo:after**** games failed due to the small squad size, few soliders and the reason you HAD to savescum if you lost an entire team.
While I don't have time right now to break down all of your quote, some key points:You know what they say about assuming.
Here's the rundown. Captain in power armor, gets wasted by overwatch. (This happens to me a lot! D'
It took me about fifteen minutes to clear the mission. A little long, but no longer than a good war in Civ, so. Why, I say the assuming remark is because I went in. Two teams of five. Two riflemen, two support, and a heavy. No plan survives the battlefield.
The things I'm noticing though is that you:
Save scum when you lose too many people, someone important, or have a TPK, and this is in the original X-Com. So what's it matter if it's six or sixty? You're still going to save scum the six man squad when you've got one person left, lose someone important, or have a TPK. The only thing that changes is the ratio. The original X-Com shows that it doesn't really matter if it's twenty or two they can all die, quickly, brutally, or twenty or two can go onto win it.
So you just want it to take less time? That's why we have difficulty levels. Actually, it doesn't matter about time, because after turn 20 the alien's start searching you out (more or less).
I save/reload as I need to. While I let many deaths go, when you spend so much time building up a soldier who has survived countless missions, only to die by the freak snap shot that wasn't intended for that player, I think that is S/R worthy.
I play the game to have fun... it is not fun when I have to scour the map with one or two people every time because my first two rookies bit it pretty early. Plus, as I stated, I see the population at large Save/Reloading a lot more often, whether they did in the first or not... maybe even you.
If the aliens are limited to 4-6 per map, that would be pretty awful, IMO. As you move on, and get bigger UFOs or encounter Terror missions, there should be an increase in number of aliens that you face... though with only 4-6 soldiers, you are outnumbered and likely still out-teched when you encounter them. I don't see that adding up to a lot of fun.
I have never encountered a game where the aliens start hunting me. I have spent many turns searching for that lone alien only to find them hiding in some closet or building that I have searched before, but took a while to get back because I had to move my surviving members around the entire map. It took much more than 15 minutes in those cases...
They said that there demo maps were among the smallest... that means on the larger maps, the aliens could be hiding anywhere!
I'll have to continue later... gotta go to work.
To clarify what i think he meant: In the original Xcom from turn 21 the aliens can see you regardless of range/los. (perhaps it takes that long before their sophisticated alien psi-scanner equipment activates ;-)
It doesn't necessarily mean they will be rushing toward you, but does tend to make them more aggressive.... and if they have any mind control/psi aliens you best be careful. Generally though they will move to engage your troops if they are currently "free" and close enough to your men to consider them worth attacking.
In the (imo greatly improved) Xcom2 its further complicated in that it seems that the AI is less likely to leave good ranged spots - so a melee monster will generally come hunt you down, but an alien sniper at the end of a thin corridor or rooftop will be just fine where he is.
Three words: first world war
One word: idiocy. They weren't tactics, they were idiocy that was entirely unnecessary. In Roman times, they had no choice but the meat grinder. The people who commanded during WW1 were still living in the Napoloeonic era - and that would've been fine but for one thing: the machine gun. They weren't tactics, they were organised suicide.
This is true.
I say, the main reason for small squad size is they want each mission to be short. Old Xcom missions can take pretty long. It requires a lot of strategy where you divide the map into sections to cover all the hidden los with all the buildings and stuffs. That's where the high squad help a lot, the extra troops aren't just meat shields, they are eye and ears to help spot aliens.
The way they choose to build the map this time around probably means its a lot easier to spot aliens. So that's probably why they are limiting the size, it would be too easy to concentrate fire and kill any aliens player spot, just like the UFO series. UFO was more about watching an alien stepping into los and have all squad members shoot it.
So smaller map size, no lego-style buildings to create lots hidden los, and wanting a shorter mission for console gamers is probably why they are limiting the size to 4-6.
Saddly I can see some truth in that - the need to cater to an increasingly attention deficient population. I'm not just dissing the younger gamers either, the various forms of interruption technology we're all becoming hooked on in our increasingly connected world is lowering the attention span of all. Look at the way we've re-programmed our brains to seach for information on the web - hunt & peck a few words per search hit caption until you spot a web page that promisses; then skip quickly through that web page picking out a few words per paragraph to see if it merrits investigating further, etc. Very few paragraphs that our eyes touch on do we actually read fully. We're becoming of necessity highly efficient at finding information - and at the same time our patience and therefore attention span has become significantly shortened.
PS: While the above is not a direct quote I give credit to Nicholas Carr's excellent Book "The Shallows: What the Internet is Doing to our Brains" for coherently exploring this very complex subject. A highly recommended read (for anyone who still has the patience to read a book).
Last edited by g0pher_11; 03-13-2012 at 06:16 PM. Reason: Give credit where due
Eh, that's a factor, but I think another part is that the 94 gamer generation is getting older. As people get older they have less time to devote to things like video games. So, the days when you could sit down for a three or four hours and play games are disappearing. People still want a sense of accomplishment, so you have to accelerate it to get that same sense.
Very true also.
I find it strange that people think its acceptable to "have losses" in every mission. At that point it isn't even really tactical, just a game of math. If you have x number of soldiers you are guaranteed to win. Might as well just have an "auto - complete" on tactile missions at that point.
I don't for a minute believe that any tactical game ever intends you to just "lose a unit" for the sake of losing a unit. Losing a unit should be tied to punishing inept commanders with poor tactics.
Having losses grant the game a survivor horror feel. Its like watching those survivor horror movies, a entire squad of soldiers is going to die with maybe 1 or 2 survivors. That makes your surviving soldiers more special, they lived. In a superhero squad game, completing the mission is less special because everyone lived. Its like, aliens..big deal.
On the other hand in Xcom, once the soldiers level up and get equipped with high tech gear, each mission was more about sweeping away aliens. The best part of Xcom was the beginning where the losses were high and each battle intense.
That's my belief. You're going to lose a unit, you're probably going to lose lots. However, no one should go into the battle thinking. "I can lose X number of people".
The only time I think losses are acceptable is when the mission is complete. Even then there should be weight to the price of victory.
Survivor horror does not have 14 heavily armored soldiers being deployed with tanks. Most horror movies have small groups not not 14+. The smaller the group, the worse each loss is, because its much more punishing for inept tactics. Sure you win, but now you don't have Mr. Superstar on any future missions because you didn't scout properly or played too aggressively.
A smaller number ensure that every turn moves. Even a turn of just moving from point a to b is a huge decision, because if the unit dies, you lose whatever advantage he has for the rest of the mission, and the rest of the game.
That's my thought. Also when you have a lot of people most of them end up not doing anything but standing and acting like meat shields.
One of the coolest things about the original is the use of different tactics. And to quote the great Zapp Brannigan, sometimes I just liked to send in wave after wave of my men until the enemy was destroyed.
But the main reason to running that tactic was in the early game, you were severely outclassed. You could have a rifle, flank an alien, get right behind him, autoshoot and hit him 3 times and he would just laugh, turn around shoot and you were dead. You could normally expect half the squad not to return in the first few missions. But by the end of the first month, I think most people ended up running with crews of 6-10.
As long as the rookies aren't severely outclassed at the beginning of the game, 6 should be fine.
I think, in this case he means, something more to the effect of the last half hour of Hamburger Hill where only three of the platoon make it to the top, as opposed to actual horror movies.
Well we actually start with 4 and later get an increase up to 6 (more likely 5 then 6).
Any modern commander who tried that tactic would be drummed out of their nation's service faster than a Dark Souls death. Remember that Zap is a shameless parody of all the aspects of a bad captain. Funny as hell though. More to the point. I think they're keep the same amount of lethality, but focusing more on unit interaction and interplay. The most interplay the original provided was scouts picking out targets for those in the back, or the infamous grenade throw from the back line.
Normally until I hit the first terror mission my casualties are pretty light. Terror missions are the killers, and half of that is because they almost always occur at nighttime.
Guess you haven't seen sci-fi invasion shows like Battle LA or Falling Skies...
Anyways, the survivor horror feel isn't about having 14+ soldiers, its about the high casuality rate when fighting unknown meance with superior firepower. That's the survivor horror feel. If those same 6 squads all beat the hell out of the monsters, they become superhero fighting team. Plenty of those kind of tv shows too.
Back to xcom, the beginning of the game is very in keeping with survivor horror feel. Alien first landed and the human knows nothing about them. Almost immediately, the humans get wiped out fast unless they focus fire and keep 'throwing bodies' at the enemy. Its not until the humans research enemy tech or figure out a their weakness, that they can go toe to toe with them.
And also in xcom, people don't play it like a rts zerg game. You can't just select every unit and move them together as one unit and just have zerg fights like in rts. People divide their 12-18 men troops into small fireteams. They place their fireteams around the map to take control of chokepoints. And they assign fireteams with special roles like sniper team, or a shotgun team for indoor sweeps. Or rocket teams for long range artillery support. Or a reserve team they don't use unless things go crazy. There's a huge variety of tactics you can do once you expand the numbers to 12-18. The idea is that a 4 men team can't do everything...unless or course, they are superheroes.
But in xcom, the players do end up with a superhero team once they level up a few soldiers and equip them with hi-tech gear. The easiest way to achieve is to reload a save if a high level soldier die. The developer is probably trying to fix this flaw by limiting the squad to 4-6 so each map is always challenging because they are assuming players all have high level soldiers that never died.
Last edited by timewatch; 03-14-2012 at 02:04 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote