6 man squad cap POLL

[podtech115]

Vote!

As for myself, think of this: You have a group of 3, with 6 men each, and you go to take on a Super Alien! You send Group 1 to attack the alien, Group 2 as back-up, and Group 3 guards the Skyranger.

When most of Group 1 gets killed-off, you think to yourself: this is one tough alien. Then when the Super Alien goes to attack and kill-off Group 2, cold sweat dripped from your hands as you think: is there even a chance I can win.... and as the last man is about to die.... you.... somehow did it! you won. With only one last soul. And you think to yourself: I hope I never meet the Super Alien again.

That's what I want to happen! I want a Tank-alien to kick my butt to the moon so I can fear it the next time I encounter the thing. And you can't have that with a 4 man squad.

As for those who think we can still have that with 4-6 men, no. Because we get bonus experience for keeping your men alive. So, in other words, the game is telling you that your not allowed to get your 4 man squad killed. And it's easy to reload to save your men.

Besides, remember how useless hero units were in StarCraft? That's because you knew you couldn't let them die, because it was game over. Do you really want to be baby-sitting your more powerful squad-mates like that?

[bigsquads]

Your quite correct, 6 men is far too few. Even if the developers didn't realize it, the orginal game back in the 90s was the only truely squad based game of this type on the market. A primary reason for its success and draw was the niche market it served providing forces that could act independantly to pin an area of aliens while another squad of 4-8 moved to flank the the aliens. With realistic loss effects of weapons, it was necessary to have reserves to keep an operation going despite losses. I remember sometimes have 4 of my own men turned into aliens and barely surviving a mission starting with 14 men, and coming home with less than 4.

I don't want to rely on unrealistic supermen that can't be killed as this would defeat the whole purpose of trying to fight effectively. If a man gets hit with an energy weapon and dies, so be it. Proper use of smoke, covering fire, squad tactics, flanking actions, reserve movement and special weapons use, should be the decisive elements to victory.

My thanks to the developers for there work on trying to reboot the orignal game that was the best in the series.

[Nosmirc]

Bigsquads, I suspect you have a bias there

Just saying lol...

Anyways, I voted that yes, it is 'enough'. Ideally, I'd prefer something closer to 10 or 12, but 6 is sufficient to play the game based on my experiences trying the game with a small squad.

That's what I want to happen! I want a Tank-alien to kick my butt to the moon so I can fear it the next time I encounter the thing. And you can't have that with a 4 man squad.

Yet they showcase just that in the video, with the Berserker. Gotta disagree with you on that one, based on that.

Besides, remember how useless hero units were in StarCraft? That's because you knew you couldn't let them die, because it was game over. Do you really want to be baby-sitting your more powerful squad-mates like that?

False. If you're baby sitting your troops, they're not being used, which means you're gonna run into trouble at some point.

It's not game over if they die. The StarCraft comparsion doesn't fly, IMO.

[Usul]

Do you really have to discuss this here, too?

[Inkidu]

Do you really have to discuss this here, too?

Actually, this would be a more fitting place.

Anyway, I voted yes. You may not like it personally, but there's nothing to say it's fundamentally broken. Plus look at the detail on those guys. They're like the G.I. Joes I never had! :')

[bcgamer]

you know what would be interesting? is if the devs had announced that the squad cap was 10 instead of 6 back when they first announced the squad size limit.

it would have been interesting to see if there would still be people coming out here defending the number '6' as if it's some magical number that offered the best tactical experience for any turn based tactical game.

ironically, i can only imagine that the people valiantly defending the 6 man cap now would have been the same guys who would call anything significantly lower than 10 to be "less realistic" or "4-6 guys? pfft that's stupid, where'd you get that?" or" xcom was always meant to be played by at least 10 guys" etc.

anyhow voted 6-10. 10 i think would have been a very acceptable number and a decent enough compromise to many people complaining about the squad size.

[Being]

Anyways, I voted that yes, it is 'enough'. Ideally, I'd prefer something closer to 10 or 12, but 6 is sufficient to play the game based on my experiences trying the game with a small squad.

So what is the poll asking us actually? "How little can we make do with"? I would have thought any poll of use for the developers would give definitive answers for what we want. Experiences of old x-com have no guarantee of translating cleanly to the new one, so I feel like that's a pretty shaky foundation to base your wants on (having played the original with 6 soldiers).

The squad size also doesn't live in a vacuum, it depends a lot on the kinds of maps we're going to get (we've seen one, in glimpses), the alien numbers and AI, how effective the various perks are and what they do etc.. 6 is no doubt enough. They wouldn't design a game where the max soldier limit wasn't enough to succeed. But they could be designing a game with a different squad cap, and polls should be about that.

More people might be answering this poll below their ideal numbers because they think a change couldn't happen or because they think the difference in their enjoyment between the ideal and what they vote for is small. Preserving status quo, resistance for change, compromising?

I don't think a poll on this subject can be made extensive enough for everyone to find their ideal choice.. Maybe you see some grand scale trends from this, but the actual written posts are going to offer more insight. Better to know the 'why' than just knowing the numbers of people who like some number of soldiers.

I voted 6-10, meaning 10. The original game did suffer from extraneous soldiers onboard the ship, particularly with the Avenger, but I also feel that having fewer soldiers reduces options from the gameplay that can't be returned with the addition of the perk system. Or maybe I'd want 12 soldiers since that divides cleanly into 3 groups. I'm not sure myself.

[apoxwrhthrio1980]

Poll is usless since we haven't played the game yet.

[Gazz]

I think it's just odd.
The first two choices cover what's planned for the vanilla game (6) so it's 15:5 "in favour".

[bcgamer]

I think it's just odd.
The first two choices cover what's planned for the vanilla game (6) so it's 15:5 "in favour".

6-10 as in the game starts with 6 and gradually increases to 10 max. since the question is " Do you think 4 to 6 men is enough?" and not "What should the squad cap limit be?"

[Inkidu]

you know what would be interesting? is if the devs had announced that the squad cap was 10 instead of 6 back when they first announced the squad size limit.

it would have been interesting to see if there would still be people coming out here defending the number '6' as if it's some magical number that offered the best tactical experience for any turn based tactical game.

ironically, i can only imagine that the people valiantly defending the 6 man cap now would have been the same guys who would call anything significantly lower than 10 to be "less realistic" or "4-6 guys? pfft that's stupid, where'd you get that?" or" xcom was always meant to be played by at least 10 guys" etc.

anyhow voted 6-10. 10 i think would have been a very acceptable number and a decent enough compromise to many people complaining about the squad size.

Well, yeah. There are going to be those people defending 10 or whatever number really because there are going to be people who say, "That's not enough." or "That's not X-Com" or "That's not doable" because in the original you could field fourteen and then twenty plus. You can't make everyone happy, and you're definitely not going to make every X-Com fan happy.

[Gen_Pho]

you know what would be interesting? is if the devs had announced that the squad cap was 10 instead of 6 back when they first announced the squad size limit.

it would have been interesting to see if there would still be people coming out here defending the number '6' as if it's some magical number that offered the best tactical experience for any turn based tactical game.

ironically, i can only imagine that the people valiantly defending the 6 man cap now would have been the same guys who would call anything significantly lower than 10 to be "less realistic" or "4-6 guys? pfft that's stupid, where'd you get that?" or" xcom was always meant to be played by at least 10 guys" etc.

anyhow voted 6-10. 10 i think would have been a very acceptable number and a decent enough compromise to many people complaining about the squad size.

Sure and people complaining that 4-6 isn't enough would complain until the limit was at 24. Actually, I take that back, claiming to know what would happen in alternative universes isn't actually interesting.

[simoco]

Leave things as they were decided by the designers.
If they feel we would have a better experience with their choice, believe in them.

In any case we could use Mods to adjust the gameplay.

And frankly no matters the size of the squad because I'm sure you will enjoy playing it.

[bcgamer]

Sure and people complaining that 4-6 isn't enough would complain until the limit was at 24. Actually, I take that back, claiming to know what would happen in alternative universes isn't actually interesting.

err.. seems you're confused. 4-6 IS what's happening in our universe now and i dont see people clamoring for 24 at all.

[Inkidu]

err.. seems you're confused. 4-6 IS what's happening in our universe now and i dont see people clamoring for 24 at all.

That's because most have already internally compromised it. The devs said 4-6, the fans want 24, but they think that 6-10 would be a good compromise. Really, if you change the developers minimum number there's just going to be a general shift until it hits 24. Plus, some people just don't post their thoughts. :\

[Gazz]

I think I saw someone asking for 500.
In a turn-based game, mind you.
Given that frame of reference, there is hardly any difference between 6 and 24.

Can't say that I see much of a compromise anywhere.
If the number can be modded, then there is no practical limit but the system memory.
Well, you might run into issues when trying to field > 2147483647 soldiers at once.

[bcgamer]

That's because most have already internally compromised it. The devs said 4-6, the fans want 24, but they think that 6-10 would be a good compromise. Really, if you change the developers minimum number there's just going to be a general shift until it hits 24. Plus, some people just don't post their thoughts. :\

i dont find that to be true at all. I for one wouldnt have bothered registering in this forum and complain about the squad size as I have if the devs made the limit 10 instead of 6.

it's the same with TUs, people dont complain about it much because it's acceptable enough. 10-12 i believe is acceptable to most and i doubt many would have been unreasonable enough to continue asking for 24.

[Gen_Pho]

err.. seems you're confused. 4-6 IS what's happening in our universe now and i dont see people clamoring for 24 at all.

Seems you didn't read my post? Not that I blame you, this is a silly argument to be having which is really my point so lets just leave that there.

[Gen_Pho]

I think I saw someone asking for 500.
In a turn-based game, mind you.
Given that frame of reference, there is hardly any difference between 6 and 24.

Can't say that I see much of a compromise anywhere.
If the number can be modded, then there is no practical limit but the system memory.
Well, you might run into issues when trying to field > 2147483647 soldiers at once.

That was me speaking in a somewhat facetious manner. My point was that my ideal game would be one where I could control a realistically sized organization in the defense of our planet. I realize this would not work so well in a turn based game with the same mechanics of our 1994 wonderchild

[Elisha]

something between 10 and 20 its a good size between possibilities and too much micromanagement.

[simoco]

Keep in mind that we are all fans and that this survey only takes into account the opinion of the fan, and not all players.
While Firaxis's priority is to satisfy the fans, they must above all ensure that it is accessible to the greatest number.

And in Our days, to manage 20 guys per mission per turn... it seems tedious... even if I loved it in the past. Today the gameplay has evolved and I think "to get our foot" (as we say in ...) we will not all need an army and with small squads that will be more intense.

Let see.

[Nosmirc]

And in Our days, to manage 20 guys per mission per turn... it seems tedious... even if I loved it in the past. Today the gameplay has evolved and I think "to get our foot" (as we say in ...) we will not all need an army and with small squads that will be more intense.

Seemed? It WAS tedious. By late game, you had so many men, that the final missions, instead of being tense and gripping, was a chore.

It never really clicked to me tha having too amny troops was a majo factor in that.

[Chibi-chan]

yes, tedious and time consuming. it made turns go slow, with 6 people i even got to turn 40 and still didn't finish the battle, but then again i was careful and no one died, if it had completed that battle in 14 turns i would have lost half or more of my 6 units. the final mission was fun with 6 guys. and psionics was a lot more balanced. i had to choose to either mind control or kill, not both, sometimes i had to sacrifice some TU's to save my people.

[heniv]

When will ppl drop this frekking issue?

[Inkidu]

When will ppl drop this frekking issue?

Never? I'm sure there will be a bunch of people who will continue to push the subject even after the game is out.

Personally, I'm convinced. My work with the six-man-game and Mr. Solomon's explanation of the move-action, equipment, and ability mechanics in the Rock, Paper, Shotgun interview makes 4-6 people make a heck of a lot of sense.

[Gazz]

When will ppl drop this frekking issue?

You do realise you're talking nerds here?
It's not going to happen. Not now, not after release, not ever.

We just love to hear ourselves talking too much. That "the other side" has long stopped listening doesn't factor into it at all.

[IllusionOfLife]

When will ppl drop this frekking issue?

I suspect that once the game is released at least half of these people will wind up being okay with it and move on, but there will always be a group of people with which this will always be a point of contention and they'll carry the nerd rage over this to their graves.

[Inkidu]

I suspect that once the game is released at least half of these people will wind up being okay with it and move on, but there will always be a group of people with which this will always be a point of contention and they'll carry the nerd rage over this to their graves.

Here lies an old-school X-Com fan:

"Four to six people? They've ruined it forever!" was inscribed upon his headstone.

The one next to him was engraved with a trollface and the words, "U mad, bro?"

[Gazz]

I'd totally go for a tactical map with a patch of graveyard on it so the designers could vent back a little.
Fallout (and I think Wasteland) had that. =)

With the zoom function of the engine, that would be quite reasonable without requiring mood-breaking popup text. =)

Time Units.
R.I.P.

[Inkidu]

I'd totally go for a tactical map with a patch of graveyard on it so the designers could vent back a little.
Fallout (and I think Wasteland) had that. =)

With the zoom function of the engine, that would be quite reasonable without requiring mood-breaking popup text. =)

Time Units.
R.I.P.

Bonus points if you can use it as cover and it subsequently gets blown up.

[Aegeri]

Although I think six can work, I am not convinced this is a great idea and I would much rather 8-10 as the maximum.

[olyer]

Voted 10-20, optimal choice for me would be 1-20. For most mission, i am beween 4-12 + a tank.

I suspect that once the game is released at least half of these people will wind up being okay with it and move on, but there will always be a group of people with which this will always be a point of contention and they'll carry the nerd rage over this to their graves.

I suspect half of the people will be ok with the FPS xcom once it is released too. At least those who bought it.

[Nosmirc]

You do realise you're talking nerds here?
It's not going to happen. Not now, not after release, not ever.

We just love to hear ourselves talking too much. That "the other side" has long stopped listening doesn't factor into it at all.

I know right? That 'taptaptaptaptpaptpataptap' noise is just so invigorating to me.

[serious77]

When will ppl drop this frekking issue?

When the developers realize that those of us who want larger squads are right and up the limit!

[simoco]

I think they will not expand the squad and they will respond kindly we could do it through the mods as we please.

[Inkidu]

When the developers realize that those of us who want larger squads are right and up the limit!

I had this whole argument about how you weren't right, citing two logical fallacies and a lot of fairly solid evidence from the RPS interview... and then I saw the winky-face. *sigh* *backspace, backspace, backspace*

[BCD917]

I think they will not expand the squad and they will respond kindly we could do it through the mods as we please.

Well they have said that they have played with more, so we know it is possible to have more on the battlefield, but I imagine that they added more to the battle using scripts and not necessarily from some sort of squad deployment screen.

That is where the modding could get interesting. If the Squad deployment screen can only handle 6 members, can we up it there? Perhaps, perhaps not. I am hoping so.

[timewatch]

Who knows what the developers are thinking. No doubt they already hard capped it so whether they regret the decision or not, it is probably too late. But on the slim chance they can change it, they have lots fans who know larger squad is a good thing and perhaps they'll increase the cap. Maybe they can increase the cap for certain missions to increase its difficulty level.

[54x]

I think the current cap SOUNDS low because the absolute minimum you'd put into a fireteam would be three soldiers, so at best with six in a mission you have two fireteams that would need to rendezvous if/as soon as one of them suffered casualties.

Before I had heard about how powerful the devs feel their new abilities are, I would have said that you needed a maximum of twelve or more to make the tactics interesting for a game like this. If they're right, then I can see them making a cap of six soldiers work, although I would have preferred eight, just to give me a little leeway with splitting them up. I'll wait to play it before deciding, but I hope they're open to patching in higher maximums if it's just not fun with low soldier caps.

[Aegeri]

I am not going to be overly upset if it is locked at 6, because a lot of great tactical games don't have huge amounts of mans: But I am worried that will mean there is a considerably reduced room for error in a mission (or just not that many aliens in a mission as well). It's worth noting that the SHIV (XCOM:EUs equivalent of a tank) only takes up 1 person, not 4 like the tanks of the original.

Nothing has dampened my excitement for this though.