Okay okay. I almost thought I'd get away with it, though. =POriginally Posted by b15h09
I still think that a TU system with "more complex" actions is too fiddly because it naturally gravitates towards micro actions in an attempt to give the player ultimate control - which is paid for with a glacial game flow.
It may not be impossible to combine those two aspects but they come from mutually opposed kinds of gameplay.
I am 100% certain that another move-action game (that is popular on consoles) let's you attack and then move. Final Fantasy Tactics is also a very deep game (I am actually starting to feel somewhat lost amongst all the tons of abilities even), so if they can get some depth on the level of FFT I will be pretty happy.
Where is it said that you cannot attack/use an ability and then move? Is this another paranoid assumption that is going around or is it actually based on anything coherent?
The ability to use an action, then move was mentioned as a later / unlocked ability.
Could hardly be more vague than that but it's hard to blame them. They'll have to reserve some ammo for hyping the game prior to release. =P
They keep phrasing it as move - move OR move - action, with "cases" where you can fire and then move implied to be coming later as perks, with which I have the previously mentioned issues.Jake Solomon: The idea is that each rookie soldier at the very beginning is capable of doing two things; the idea is that your soldier can move and then perform an ability,
[...]
Jake Solomon: So the system is move, and you can either move again, or you can take an action, and of course you can bypass your action entirely by dashing, what we call taking a dash, and that is moving extremely far in one turn,
[...]
RPS: So I guess you can’t do something like walk a bit, shoot then crouch? You need to make your decision upfront about how you’re going to do your play, basically.
Jake Solomon: Yeah, it’s hard to classify because there’re so many different ways you can customize your soldiers as they level. There are cases when you can fire and then walk, and so it’s the sort of thing where it’s hard to classify but certainly for rookies, when the rookies start they can do very basic things. Walk, and then shoot, or they could dash, or they could hunker down, or they could go into overwatch to do reaction fire, but then yeah, it becomes a game more about planning your squad’s turn as a whole as opposed to sort of running an individual unit and then letting it play out.
Yeah, sadly this is the case. But such an approach to designing a TBS game is just unbelievable to me.. so I refuse to believe it.
--
Soldier1, who was already in position, takes a shot, kills an alien. Can't move anymore even though he only spent half his turn. Soldier2 scouts a bit now that the way is clear, spots a massive threat, retreats with his second move action. Soldier1 can't escape or attack, merely hope that the newly spotted alien doesn't smoke him.
Why is it so unbelievable? That's basically how Valkyria Chronciles did it, with the exception of instead of each soldier having a single turn in a round, the player gets so many commands to issue to the whole squad...but once a command was used, that's exactly how the game behaved.
So it's not all that unbelivable that a TBS game would do that. Heck, even D&D had restrictions on movement and attacks. You did a full attack, the most you could move is five feet.
Keeping track of movement amounts on pencil&paper gets a _lot_ more tedious than having a computer do it for you.
--
D&D has free actions, swift actions, immediate actions, standard actions and full-round actions at least that I can think of and what actions you can take in a round are limited by the action types. Movement and attack are both 'standard action' so you can take both in one round, and in whichever order. Full attack is a full-round action so as mentioned you can only take a 5-foot step with it... But even that is more flexible than any full-round equivalent action in this new game is going to be: Full attack can be taken by first doing a standard attack and seeing the results and if the target didn't die then doing the remaining attack(s).. or something else entirely. You're not locked into the full attack right from start of round. The 5-foot step can also happen before, during or after the full round action.
D&D had restrictions for sure, but far less than this new x-com game seems to have.. and here we've got computer for tracking what's allowed and what is not, showing what you can do and so on.. compare that to keeping track with pencil & paper.. I stand by my "it's unbelievable" statement. Of course games exist that have this stupidity in them, the bit I'm not wanting to believe is that the developers of XCOM are going to make the same mistake :P
You've obviously never seen how the US Military (or any other first world country's military for that matter) deals with adversaries these days. For all intents and purposes, modern military fireteams might as well just have unlimited ammo. I recall seeing a video once on youtube of a Humvee gunner shooting so many rounds during an engagement that his lower body was almost completely submerged in a pile of spent casings and was complaining about them burning the hell out of his legs.
So yeah, I know, it's a mounted vehicle weapon, doesn't count, whatever. However, I know both someone else and myself have mentioned this before on this forum, but your typical infantryman nowadays carries at least 260 rounds of ammunition on his person (not including a possible backpack that can hold several hundreds of more rounds of ammunition).
So in all seriousness, an XCOM operative having unlimited ammo for a short engagement is not that far from reality. If you're still not convinced, think about this: I'm sure the skyranger could easily hold tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition to resupply operatives. But that, of course, is another story.
Bullets are cheap.
My Full Fighting Order generally consisted of 5 mag of 30 rounds. We did carry extra rounds in our rucks, but not in Mags, and rucks have quick release, so you did not fight with them. They would be left at camp, or if you were attacked on the move they would be dropped and not necessarily available till after combat.
Afterall you don't say "Sargeant! Can we stop the section attack as my ruck is way back over there and I'm low on ammo!".
Add on an LMG + ammo, some Laws, radio, etc, you will realize that carrying all this stuff does come at a cost of encumbering the soldier.
Only 5? Which military and branch? Also, why so few?
I'll admit that I've never been in an actual combat situation, but when I received combat training back in the US Air Force with MILES gear I always assumed that the low number of 5 clips they would give us (2 in each cargo pocket and 1 in the rifle) were merely for training purposes and that in a real battle we would have many more (in vests, belt attachments, rucksacks, etc). I also did simmunitions once (those things hurt like hell), but only got 2 clips during that exercise.
Are 5 clips seriously standard for a modern infantryman?
Update: Been searching the internet a bit for some info on this. It's a bit difficult to find something official or reliable (most likely due to OPSEC). The general consensus seems to depend on the engagement, but floats somewhere around 5-8 clips with 30 rounds each (150-240 rounds) for an assault rifle with some stripper clips and spare ammo in a rucksack. For LMGs I've seen people claiming anywhere from 400 to 1000 rounds (apparently this number depends on how much trust you put in ammo count versus skill and training). To me, this all still seems more than enough to be considered "unlimited" for a short engagement
But yeah, point taken: you don't want to overencumber soldiers. I'm wondering that with all the ammo and equipment the XCOM operatives are carrying, if some or all of them could possibly be wearing one of THESE. I mean, seriously, a heavy with an LMG, 1000 rounds of ammo and a rocket launcher must weight damn close to 200 pounds (91 kilograms).
Last edited by craziestp; 03-30-2012 at 02:40 AM. Reason: Update
Ultimately what Solomon means when he says they've made ammo "more important" is that they've shifted the focus from strategic importance to tactical importance (which, in my opinion, is probably where something as small as ammo needs to be).
Let's look at what we know:
In the original X-Com ammo was something you made or bought, packed into the skyranger, and distributed among your men. If you kept taking potshots at long range then you might eventually drain the clip of say a heavy plasma, but mostly it was a non-issue
In fact, the number one cause of ammo consumption in the game was that if you had a clip with a few shots out of it in your gun at the end of the mission it was considered spent, and would be removed. It didn't matter if it was one or twenty-nine shots fired.
From what I can tell of the new system they put the focus more on the heat of the moment. You clips are (by all indication) universally smaller, your lasers overheat, and reloading is considered an action (giving it considerably more weight).
Remember the focus of this re-imagining is a focus on the "team's" turn over the individual unit, and when you have four people and two of them need to reload that's a radical shift in that turn. You could hunker down and wait or push on and scout hoping that nothing too bad lurketh.
So yeah, "more important" in a way, and in a way I'm willing to appreciate.
VC had metered movement, which I think would be a godsend in this design.
It take a turn to reload, so if every other turn of firing you empty out your gun's clip, firing at an enemy you are very very unlikely to hit, they'll just pop out and blow your brains out while you are piddling about. Suppression fire has it's purpose, but if you're entire team is doing it, then you are boned.
Just dropping by to say that I've been a long-time fan of X-Com, going back all the way. I've seen any number of attempts at modernizing or cloning X-Com's mechanics, and numerous failed attempts at taking the franchise in "new and exciting" directions.
This is the first time I've ever been really pumped for an X-Com revamp, however. I probably won't agree with 100% of the decisions Firaxis makes with this game. But, let's be honest - that was never a possibility anyway. Take any one person on this forum, design the game specifically around what he/she wants in this game; and you're still going to have just as many people who will say they were the worst decisions ever. (Heck, even that one guy is probably going to have things they still won't like about it.)
But I do think that the things I've seen and heard have me really excited about this. Having read through the interviews, I can see where they're going with the whole TU thing. Honestly, I don't have a horse in that race - I just simply don't see it as a big deal.
What does have me really excited is the addition of actual cover mechanics (I've been waiting forever for a good TB game to make good use of something like that,) and any number of other additions.
Also, I'm really behind the art aesthetic that I'm seeing in screenshots and videos. Very clean and stylized (which Firaxis has always seemed to be particularly good with.) I like it.
Anyway, going to be very interesting to see how this all pans out.
Reloading was not very consequential in the original unless you had less than ten TUs of slack on your unit's plans. Trading off being able to fire for needing to reload for an entire turn is indeed far more of an important tradeoff to firing often than there was in the original game, so perhaps it's better to say managing when you reload has become more important, but ammo counts have been abstracted down to reloading, except, as is mentioned in the interview, for certain heavy weapons.
That is incredibly dumb if that's the case. Especially because it doesn't hurt say, Final Fantasy: Tactics doing the same thing fine (you can attack and then move in that game if you want - in fact sometimes it's an essential tactic). There really isn't any good reason to disallow shooting and then moving. Using certain abilities might end your turn though, which I think is fine - but definitely not just plain forcing you to move first or lose it.
I certainly hope they change it before release. Heck, I hope they go the whole hog and add metered movement.
The only reason I see them keeping it move then shoot (barring perks) is that they want you to think about your moves. You know, make effective use of cover. Honestly? I can't really think of a situation where I need to shoot and then. I mean sure it's good for battlefield advancement, but let's look at some things.
1.)If you've got a scout out and he runs into aliens. I wouldn't want them to shoot it out with them in the open (like I would in the original game (if the snipers missed... it happens) I'm going to want him to break for the nearest cover. Having him end his turn in the open even after a kill is tempting fate.
2. Like I said, it makes you think about your move. Remember if you move on step or the full range that's your move action. If you move to a crappy position you're going to want that second move no doubt. If you shoot and move it bones you pretty well. That's probably why they're putting it in a perk. Let people get better acclimated to the system.
3 I don't think they would force you to move before using an ability, and that's true in the trailer, the heavy shoots and throws a grenade from the same position.
4. It's just kind of smart to shoot from a position of cover.
Last edited by Inkidu; 04-01-2012 at 02:31 PM. Reason: Shoot and then move.
As Aegeri mentioned and as I've outlined elsewhere, there are situations in which I can see people wanting to fire and then take advantage of what should be a still-existing move, so I'd prefer the ability to do so was in there from the start.
Moving and shooting covers the majority of it, from where I'm standing. So if you have a few scenarios where shooting then moving are better I think having it as a perk would show kind of the cockiness of the soldier. It's a more aggressive move, because then you do give up the chance if you run into an alien to retaliate.
I just think it's a newb clamp really.
And I just think it's something that should be in there by default, really, because while I'd prefer for soldiers to be able to behave in a risky manner by default anyway, I can also see situations in which the move is, say, going to be a reasonably safe strategic repositioning made to be ready to address other, more distant enemies on the next turn once you've dealt with a nearby one that your guy was already in a prime position to shoot at the start of this turn. As always, I'd rather have it from the start.
If you really think it's to stop newbies from hurting themselves before they understand the game, well, sounds like prime "Toggle on the options screen" material to me, not something for a perk.
Last edited by Brian Damage; 04-01-2012 at 02:57 PM.
Fair enough, though I think it would also be an incentive to some players to take care of their troops so they can get that ability. However, that could be said for any desired ability. Well, the game's still far off so it's really just up to the developers.
Then let's hope they make the right decision.
I honestly can't say I understand this at all and I'll use Final Fantasy Tactics as an example, because it's a very deep game (actually the depth in Final Fantasy Tactics has really taken me by surprise). In that game, you basically have two actions per turn and one of these can be moving with the other being using magic/attacking/defending or whatever else. Alternatively you can opt not to use one of your actions and "wait", which increases the chances of getting a second turn faster than an opponent who uses both their actions (There is plenty of mental calculus here for those who understand how this works that I won't get into).
Inherently, FFT is a very easy game to learn but incredibly hard to master. If you couldn't do an action and then move, a lot of great tactics would be lost from the game entirely. For example, using magic on an enemy that would hit your ally is not a great sounding idea, but if you understand the turn order so that your friendly fire ally turn comes up first (before your magic charges and attacks) you can avoid it. So you could attack first, then move away and thus avoid the magical explosion on the enemy (as most magic affects tiles in a radius around the target - and does not discriminate).
If you couldn't attack then move, you would lose the ability to take a chunk of HP off the enemy and then move away so the magic finishes it off (while keeping your own unit safe). More than likely, your enemy would just follow your dood and attack him, leading to taking more damage when you wouldn't have had to. So depth wise, there is utterly no good argument for doing this and it's completely silly if they have.
Plus I think this is actually a terrible "Newb clamp", because it's utterly illogical and actually makes the game considerably harder. It doesn't help that you have two actions and yet one of them can only be done after the other. That's not good game design: Taking the actions in either order is more intuitive and simple to grasp.
Yeah, as awesome as FFT is, there's one thing you're not factoring. They're two different games in the way they play out. In FF tactics (I don't remember exactly if you have hidden units on the field) you're likely not going to get bushwhacked from nowhere.
The key difference and this is big. XCOM uses cover. That changes a lot. Think about that, and the FFT comparison kind of breaks apart.
Other things to keep in mind that FFT sudden-permadeath is not really a factor. RPGs rarely have one-hit kills through the majority of the game.
FFT did essentially have cover in the form of directional facing. Rather than working as a damage reduction, it was an accuracy reduction, but the end result is essentially the same. The hosing from the front wasn't as bad as the hosing from the side or rear.
Still, how often are your own people going to die on-hit-kill from it?
One hit, not very often, unless it was a mage class. The way the initiative order worked could leave you open to a few successive attacks, which you had to remain aware of.
Not saying that cover provided the same sort of life or death importance, but protecting your flanks was something you generally kept in mind, especially when the enemy was about to get 3 movements in a row.
Knights can also rend your armor or other defensive items, leaving you open to one hit kills from other enemies (some of whom can do ridiculous damage) and later on Archers with aim +7 or higher can easily one shot squishier classes. Fast enemies can also tear you to pieces in a single turn and while you can Pheonix Down/Raise/Arise characters that fall, this requires you to have a character that can use items or has white magicks to do so.
It can be a surprisingly unforgiving game when it wants to be.
Oh, yeah, no doubt. However, I do think there are some elements that give XCOM a unique flavor. Something about the screw up sticks more in my mind. That oh crap moment that you just have to see play out.
I remember I had one guy running back to the skyranger after the rest of the squad got waylaid and he runs into the last alien. They aren't ten tiles apart when they trade shots for two whole turns. I think the guy took a wound (not a fatal one) but manage to autoshot that gray back to alien hell for the win.
I wish I could my finger on it. FFT is great, but there's something different. Maybe it's just the fact that XCOM has guns. :\
I haven't touched FFT since I ran into a travelling band of monks that was out for blood. I'm terrified that my next encounter will be against them again.....
I can think of one way that will appeal to those that want numbered clips. Put a reload restrictions varying from gun to gun, to where you have to re-enter the transport to reset the clip value.
Except for the fact that the Skyranger doesn't stay on the map anymore (hey, they must have actually hired pilots to fly them) it drops your troops off and flies off (like it should in the first place). So there's no way to re-enter the transport. Though I'm sure they have a scrub option.
Hi all, my PC's been down for a bit.
Now I come back to this:
No.2 is really concerning me - this is from a comment on the article. Is this guy right, or is he just presuming there will be no base defence missions because of the base layout?1. A single base
2. No base defense missions at all
3. No time units
4. No ammo – instead we get #5
5. “Special abilities” with “cooldowns” that, from a design perspective, are arguably LIKE ammo
6. Weird camera stuff that still isn’t fully explained
7. “kill” animations and assorted nonsense that seems to be inspired by FO3
8. Character “classes”
9. No inventory at all
In a article or it may have been a podcast i listened to i am 99% sure that a base defence happens but is later in the game.
You can just throw out that list. It's pretty much outdated.
However, don't worry. We get to defend our base. Go back and read the GameSpy interview with Solomon. He confirms but does not comment.
Good, good. Thanks for that, buddy.
Actually, the PAX videos show two things on this.
The Skyranger DOES stay, but it hovers in the corner of the map, it's not actually on the ground.
Also, there's an outlined box in the same corner, which is likely the dustoff option.
Yeah, I haven't seen the demo footage. So I was just assuming that it took off after it dropped everyone off.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote