Are you sure about that? You could get extra slots every two promotions or something. I haven't seen fixed slots spoken about.Originally Posted by katscan
Are you sure about that? You could get extra slots every two promotions or something. I haven't seen fixed slots spoken about.
Not sure.. but based upon the philosophy they are taking, I am going to say thats a pretty safe bet. There's no reason a higher ranked soldier can/should be able to carry more than a lower rank. They are still the same people just with more experience. And experience has no legs or arms. Unless they want to insert yet ANOTHER gamey mechanic.
I have to look into it because that would be super cheesey if you are only allowed one 'equipment' slot.
So allowing more slots to veterans is gamey, but having a strength statistic that allows people to carry more is fine? It is a little abstracted, but they seem to have pretty similar results.
Well, I'd say the key there is, the strength stat allows you to carry more without penalty. You could overload them, but it was going to hurt their combat efficiency. It's another place where their direction seems to make it feel like a game over a simulation, and that sim feeling was part of the appeal of the original, for me at least.
Ok, I was hoping that would be your answer. I agree, I think that is the defining difference about why slots are not preferable to the stat approach in the original.
I would add that a strength stat is not gamey if it doesn't change MUCH over ranking up your soldiers. Just playing now, and I have soldiers with strength stats of 36 and some with strength stats of 24.. That's not gamey, that's an accurate description of physical characteristics. Sure, if it increases to 75, well then, that's just as dumb. But if it slowsly ranks up by repeatedly carrying heavy stuff, well, then that's reasonable.
I sure shouldn't have to decide between carrying a wrist watch or 6 large rockets because I only have one "slot".. Unless I have a very very large wrist.
Actually logistics fit what I wanted perfectly, but my thread was the end result of the logistics phase aka equipping the troops.
I am not sure if you mistyped about firaxis making a 1 man army because with a class system it seems they are restricting the freedom of doing that.
Also I have no problem at all with a slot based system but my point was there doesnt seem to be much room to be diverse. 4 slots, and 3 of them are dedicated to armor and weapons leaving a choice of grenades and what? Will scanners be a skill, no vision enhancers, flares, stunners? Thats what I am asking. Logistics just means I am curious about the process from start to end as well.
This was answer I guess I was looking for and while I am still reserving judgment, I just wonder how in a strict class system this will play to keep combat from being the same battle over and over without much diversity. This is why I equipped my troops with a variety of items because you never knew what you were going to run into or whether you would live to tell about it.
It seems enemy unknown will be pretty known since no variety in how you address each battle. How many battles will play out exactly or quite similar to the gas station?
I see in another thread they are giving perks to make troopers a little diverse, but are they making an xcom game or a 3rd person tactical BF3 game with aliens? Sorry for that last shot and it may work out, and am now watching this one closely. I wonder tho if this is why Sid isnt stamping his name on this one...
This, particularly with the small squad size. The lower number of soldiers greatly reduces the variety of threats they can reasonably face without making alien mobs a joke. Last I checked the aliens are able to do things we can't, making them laughably easy to kill individually kind of breaks the storyline.
Ability to carry more with level ups can easily be explained away with a real world example.
The more expeirenced soldier knows better how to pack and has all the small modifications to his loadout that he's learned over time is essential for survival.
/Yks
Are you absolutley sure about that? Without consoles, everything would be custom tailored for PCs. Now in this case, equpment and loadouts has been streamlined for consoles in many other games, (example: Skyrim) resulting in a tedious difficult system which PC users find infuriating. If the consoles never had been made, or at least made with mouse as a standard, equipment and loadout standards would have been easy flexible soloutions, and a good feature to implement..
I fully agree that loading out one guy with the Skyrim way of doing it is ill enough, let alone having 4-6 guys managed this way. Its logical that Firaxis had to find a way to work around this, thus removing inventory as a whole. But dont come here saying that consoles are not too blame, cause they are, and until they disappear, they always will limit games for PC. Thats as much as a fact as the earth is round. PC users dont like it, but we have gotten accustomed to it, and must accept that this is the new way of doing it until further eras.
The only thing thats saves this game from being a clear non-buy, is that they have promised PC users a unique interface. im gonna see how it works out before I decide to buy. If it dosent appeal to me, id rather load up X-Com Apocalypse, since its gameplay is as close to perfect as it can get!
I agree. Slots are making the game less realistic. You can say what you want about grids, but as its done in X-Com Apocalypse, grid combined with item weight made it as realistic as it can get. Grid to simulate the room a soldier can have, and weight on items vs the persons strength to simulate how much gear he could bring. What was wrong with it? Its too time consuming consoles as I stated above.
Slots remove diversity, removes complexity, removes charisma and soul.
I think the originals limited space/limited strength of the troopers allowed for massive cusomisation which I'm worried will be lost in the new game. Loading up a guy with a heavy cannon and ammo then realizing that your trooper was weak at the start of the mission was always an interesting learning curve for any noob to the game.
I consider logistics to be everything to get the gear to the troops, not what they can use.
Yes, that is a typo. "Firaxis removed this to not have each solder be a a one-man-army...." is what it should say.
Define what you mean by diversity, cause in my ears it sounds just like jack-of-all-trades. Just because you have limited slots doesn't mean that you have a limited equipment pool. You just have to make a choice before the mission on what to take, and stick with that decision throughout the mission.
Abilities does compensate for the limited slots I think, now you just don't need a special item for each ability as in the original.
The number of slots I think may wary by class, armour and perks. Sniper having the least slots.
I agree with Heniv. This thread is based on an incredibly faulty or broad view of the term logistics.
1.the branch of military science and operations dealing with the procurement, supply, and maintenance of equipment, with the movement, evacuation, and hospitalization of personnel, with the provision of facilities and services, and with related matters.
2.the planning, implementation, and coordination of the details of a business or other operation.
Logistics has virtually nothing to do with a soldier's individual kit or how they even carry it. That's done through field doctrine established almost by itself. That's not logistics. That's packing. Logistics is, like the definition says, the science of getting the gear where it needs to be so soldiers can carry it. In the old game logistics wasn't the load out, it was what people were working on what and where you were transferring buying and selling supplies. Not if your soldier was actually carrying a laser rifle.
Definitions. They save lives.
There's a logical flaw in this statement. I think it's a false corollary but I'm not quite sure. Regardless, it's not right to assume that the gaming industry would be better without consoles, because its probably not true. I know that some developers hate developing for PCs because they present unstable hardware/software platforms, and if you're making a game don't you want to use the most stable platform possible?
lol, the Vets fanny pack requisition went through.
This is not 1998 mind you.
I don't appreciate the rather erroneous snark. I can pull up instances from last year alone where developers have lamented working with PCs. The one that comes to mind is the Rage video card issue. The people at Bethesda said that PCs were a headache, and look what happened. They didn't fully test one of at least four main drivers enough and the game got lambasted, yet the the console release went without a hitch. PCs are, remain, and probably will always remain an unstable platform. If they weren't then they'd be a console.
Skyrim, PS3.
Yes, the PC isn't hard locked into a particular hardware configuration. That makes for a lot of contingencies to account for. Doesn't mean the platform itself is unstable, just diverse, and you'll almost always have issues with anything bleeding edge.
Unstable means that it doesn't have a set criteria of hardware specs. As opposed to a stable console which is the same no matter what (essentially, sometimes they update the optic readers and whatnot, but that rarely cause comparability issues.
I call it unstable, not just because of the hardware or software that it runs, but because the company or even the individual builder or programer can cause major differences in how a PC runs. That means that their could be several error, glitches, and bugs in any given machine. That's part of the territory, but it doesn't make the the machine stable. It goes beyond diversity.
You got me officer, I give up, I murdered the word logistics. Thanks for taking the time to post your superior knowledge with nothing else.
At least Henniv didn't become an a$$ about it. Yes I started with the word planning on starting from whether we would make or order supplies for the troops mostly and then I got sidetracked and decided to post about load outs, but knowing that much wont be in load outs already tells me their isn't much base logistics for the troops. Yes it might have been confusing and I truly thank you for pointing it out.
You're welcome.
I don't know about everyone else, but given a weapon with unlimited ammo I turn the battlefield into a charred wasteland with no cover. XD I preferred to play the original XCOM with laser rifles so I could just burn the battlefield to a crisp and not worry about the ammo of plasma weapons. Now if the new XCOM gives me unlimited ammo with my heavy plasma I'd be inclined to melt ships sooner than enter them lol
I doubt that will happen. The reload mechanic probably stops that. Also, we don't know if there's a way to target the scenery.
How do you propose reloading would prevent this?
Okay, clarification: It probably makes it an incredibly slow process. Reloading eats up the action so you might be able to move, but you can't shoot if you have to reload. Potentially and ideally this leaves you open to some kind of alien counterattack, because you can't overwatch or anything.
Unless plasma weapons are single shot, or don't do environmental damage, the reload mechanic will have marginal effect on playing like this. It's all going to rest on an AI with initiative.
I never stated the gaming industry as a whole would be better. I stated that solutions would be tailor made for PCes without consoles. You cant deny that.. Cause without any consoles, there would only be one standard to program for. IF.. thats IF this was the case, developers would not be annoyed with different PC hardware either, because they would never have consoles making it easier.
Now this is not the case, consoles exists, and PC interface gets limited. However, I never said the gaming idustry would go worse if consoles were not there.
Yeah, but the problem is this isn't really worth discussing because it swings both ways fairly liberally. If PCs were never used for gaming all the U.I. would have to be tailor-made for consoles, no one could complain, and Total War would have to be created with consoles in mind, etc. etc. etc. At the end of the day it comes down to the willingness of the developer to not go lazy on either console or PC.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote