Making Soldiers' Lives Matter

[coyote_blue]

Premise

Let's discuss game mechanics that would make soldier death more meaningful, without ruining gameplay.

Intro

IIRC, a new soldier in XCOM94 costs less than 10,000 dollars. Add that to the cost of a HWP (150K/4 crew slots), the stupid Guile haircut and dungarees, and the fact your Skyranger can fit a zillion dudes in it? The message is clear: human lives are cheap.

On the other hand, the slow training mechanics, renaming mechanics, and late-game permadeath of favorite soldiers say the exact opposite thing.

So it's natural that there are two camps of XCOM players: the sort who treat their men like RTS units (manufacture, send to their death, rinse/repeat) and those who mournfully look at their reload button whenever a rookie eats plasma unfairly.

So I want to posit some ideas on how to make fake soldiers' lives matter in gameplay. I'm a mournful rookie resetter, and if I want an RTS guy to share my warm fuzzy feelings for cannon fodder, it would be better to show that player how playing my way can be as much fun as sending swarms of dudes to an early grave.

First, Kudos

I think that Ironman and the Memorial Wall are awesome additions. Remembering individual soldier contributions increases their value.

Proposal: Morale Penalties to Recruitment

XCOM94's soldier cost is either way too high, or way too low. From a game-balance perspective, the cost should be 200,000, or zero.

200,000 because it costs about 150,000 or so to create a single U.S. soldier out of a high school grad, and we're assuming these dudes are spec ops.

Zero because the armies of the world would be chock full of volunteers. In reality, XCOM would be paying for the plane ticket for a pre-trained volunteer, and not much else. XCOM94 soldiers didn't have upkeep costs, so I'm ignoring that.

Anyway, the fun part. I suggest that the time cost of replacing the soldiers should be tied to combat results.
*If XCOM's overall rating is poor, it should take longer for new recruits to show up, showing reluctance of new soldiers to join a crap organization.
*If you only give armor to your elites, but let a rookie die in a few consecutive missions, the soldiers should notice that, and their grumbling should discourage new recruits.
*The worse your rating is, the better your recruits should be mentally. People who join an organization in desperate times tend to be aggressive self-starters.

Anyone see where I'm going with this? Thoughts?

[enfo]

My XCOM operation was run very harshly. All new recruits were subject to psi-training. If it turned out they were naturally psi-gifted, they would be given the best armor and equipment. If they weren't, they became cannon fodder to be destroyed. Some lucky recruits survived the cannon fodder stage, proved themselves, and leveled up their statistics. Therefore, my soldiers fell into three camps: Expendables, Combat professionals, Psi professionals who sat in the Skyranger.

To address your post, I'm not sure if there's anything fun about a morale penalty to recruitment. It introduces another feedback mechanism in the game, where if you're doing poorly, everything else starts to snowball as its harder to get new recruits etc.

[Howellren]

Some ideas from another post. I tried to shorten some because I can be really long winded. Lol.

Finding creative ways to grant character fulfillment in death is key. It may provide an alternative to cursing and reloading whenever a character dies. Here are some of my ideas.

• Mentorship: as posted in a separate post, allow soldiers to train other soldiers to hand-off benefits and create a sensation of legacy.
• Vengeance. Simple love interests or companionships between two characters. If one dies, the other visibly shows a desire for vengeance. (Bravery boost?)
• Violent Swan Song. Perk for character that allows them to go on some kind of a killing spree upon death. Blowing themselves up with a grenade, or maybe shooting a few rounds after having one arm blown off.
• Dogtags and Hierlooms. Small flavor items (dogtags, rings, ear-rings, etc); each character starts with 1. When a character dies that they are in a mission with, another character gets this item. Soon a player has a collection of dogtags/etc. Maybe high-level characters even have custom improvements to their weapons, which can get handed (kill check-marks and all) to another character with improved stats as heirloom weapons.
• An Arrow to the Knee. Maybe certain non-fatal injuries simply force players to switch the role from soldier to become a high level scientist, mechanic, pilot, or base commander, or some other role that provides an in-game benefit to that area. This way, if players grow really attached to a hardened veteran, it will survive the game and still provide a benefit.
• Funerals. For truly epic heroes, who have survived 20+ missions and achieved a certain rank, give them a funeral after a mission in which they die. Show a few video clips of them on missions. Give them a special bouquet of flowers on the wall of the fallen.
• Cloning Technology? Maybe someone dies, but comes back minus their rank and some of their skills. Other soldiers initially show distrust or wariness to clones until they prove themselves. Clones may all also have a certain physical marking (plug in the back of head, different eyes, etc)
• Cross-Game. Maybe have certain characters become injured, or “lost” rather than killed. They are effectively removed for all purposes from that game. However, maybe you somehow find them in other playthroughs. You may also have the ability to hire soldiers which survived previous games. Or with cloning, maybe you can clone heroes from past games.
• Queen of Borg. Maybe your character falls, and the aliens reconstruct them as a bad-guy. Maybe there’s a mission where your primary goal is to kill the character. When you do, they turn back to normal and utter some last words/clues before dying.

[coyote_blue]

@enfo: You're making my point from the opposite direction. In my version of the game, "expendable" was a dirty word. It's true that the original game let you play either way. But especially now with fewer squad members, the new version isn't going to support your way of playing the original.

What I'm suggesting is that we think of ways to adjust play mechanics to reward the behavior the current dev teams currently seem to want. If the game mechanics work in favor of valuing each soldier, then players will do it automatically in order to win.

By suggesting that soldiers should be free, but show up more slowly if they perceive it's a lost cause, I'm trying to set a balance. They're not a money drain any more. If you play conservatively, you'll have more recruits of potentially lower quality. If you have high casualties, your recruits get better, but you have fewer of them to choose from.

Either way, my idea would (potentially) balance against the cannon-fodder mentality: a person who uses cannon fodder tactics early one will eventually get people he no longer wants to lose. People doing well now have a bigger pile of crap to sift through when they're looking for new recruits.

@Howellren: I saw your post in the "character" thread. When it first posted, the discussion looked more geared to cosmetic differences - which are great, but not quite what I was getting at. Going back and rereading it now, I may just let this thread die and go join that discussion instead.

I worry about Violent Swan Song. If it's any good, people might use it in the early game to cannon-fodder rookies for easier wins. There's potential there, but it would be a dangerous tool.

The Queen of Borg sounds pretty flippin' awesome.

Edit Add: The dogtag feature reminds me of the Starship Troopers book. The rookie shows up and sees the elites all have earrings with skulls sitting on piles of bones. He asks how you get one, and they all just glare at him. Turns out the skull and bones each represent a dead buddy.

[Howellren]

I agree with your comment on cannon fodder. I think to go with that they might think of ways to force staggering usage of veteran players. A higher injury rate (as opposed to death) could knock out characters for time, forcing rotation. Maybe you can also have veterans train rookies, boosting their xp but also pulling your veteran out of combat for a month. Having 2+ missions which require split deployment would also force diversity. These kind of mechanics would make it more necessary for players to play and develop more characters.

As for your comment on swan song, I agree. I think it could only work well if it was a perk all characters got once they get to a certain level. I don't imagine people would choose to spec it. But if it was auto given may be cool.

[Roladin]

How you tread your soldiers is a roleplaying thing for me. It’s some kind of an ethical decision. From an objective standpoint: We talk about the last stand of humanity. Whatever it takes, I would say. From a personal standpoint: I will like my soldiers (because I will customize them to be likeable), and I will hate losing any of them.

There are “real” consequences to the dead of a soldier: There is a serious loss of fighting power in the mission a soldier dies because of the small squad size, and there is the loss of the experience. But other than that I don’t think a special game mechanic should you force into playing one way or another.

“Fluff” things like The Wall of the Fallen are great, because it works in both ways: for a ruthless commander it’s a remembering how many brave humans he send to death, and for a wimp like me seeing the name of my favorite soldier in golden letters could keep me from reloading!

[japester]

The fact that the original X-COM soldiers had zero personality made me personalize them more than characters in many other games I've played. I was free to fill in the gaps of their personality, feelings on the battlefield, and back story however I saw fit.

With the much smaller squads and voice acting, it looks like Firaxis will be doing some of the work for us. That could provide a leg up in getting to know them---or it could cause them to annoy the hell out of me and hate them. Just look at how many people have complained about the combat chatter and demanded that it be mutable.

I like some of the ideas in the thread, but I don't see them being included. And I'm generally against the various mechanics intended to penalize us to prove that life is precious (and that new recruits are a pain in the arse, LOL). We already have to choose a small team to take into the field, and casualties are going to be unavoidable. That alone will make me value my units. As long as their individual personalities aren't shoved down my throat by canned responses and such, I'm sure I'll get attached to the good ones.

When I first read the thread title, a funny image popped into my head. Thinking of how ridiculous the whole magnetic ribbon industry has become, I thought how funny it might be to produce a novelty ribbon to show our support for the brave XCOM troops. Something you could actually put on your car. "In remembrance of our brave troops that have been probed, vaporized, disintegrated, digested, mutated....."

[coyote_blue]

That's a fair argument, Japester (that we might not need more mechanics than we have).

As for the chatter...hrm. People may not like it, but I think it's appropriate. Soldiers swear continuously, and are trained to communicate constantly at shout level once shooting starts. It may be true that some squads are trained to be a bit more concise ("two at the street corner...[*fires*]one tango down...Ammo black").

And I suppose this is the tension I'm trying to address here. There's a phenomenon in books and movies called "not real enough for the plot". Say you're writing a WW2 battle, and you show only half of the Allied side firing. The sergeant isn't shooting, he's running around yelling at his joes to shoot.

Now, this really happened. But an audience member will see that scene, ask himself, "Why in God's name aren't those idiots shooting? The Nazis are coming!" And even though it's real, the audience now thinks it's fake.

Cannon fodder is annoying to me because, historically, commanders who are ruthless to their own soldiers generally lose to more responsible commanders. It's easy for us as armchair generals to think of ourselves as Sherman, say "War is all hell" and throw people into the meat grinder. But Sherman didn't do that - he burned down enemy towns, not his own.

[japester]

I guess I should clarify that I don't share the outrage expressed by some over the appropriateness of the chatter. I come from several generations of military, and I worked closely with our military in a civilian support position. Guys say dumb stuff on the battlefield. And off the battlefield. Hollywood's portrayal of every battle as some noble struggle, mixed with an overarching desire to seem more respectful than the next guy when it comes to our soldiers, makes people wince when they see or hear more realistic combat behavior. I have no problem with XCOM soldiers cussing their brains out at the invaders.

It's more of an immersion issue with me. Kind of like how modern toys often have sound f/x and voice clips. Those features can be fun, but it intrudes on the scenario I'd like to build with my own imagination. Likewise, if XCOM paints my soldiers a certain way, and that way doesn't resonate with me, then I'm less likely to become attached and will simply view them as digital assets.

[Howellren]

I deffinetly see your point japester, and honestly, it was one I hadn't considered. Since the characters in the original game were very generic and undetailed, it allowed me to fill them in with my own imagination. Once I got my first 2 power suits, I named one of my soldiers Megaman and the other Zero. I was 12 at the time too, and it wasn't hard for me to Imagine Megaman romping around blasting aliens. If the game had annoying voice acting or jammed preconceived character traits down my throat, it would have fought against my imagination.

Your point well taken, I still would like to see as much character flavor as possible in the game, but I think the key is customization.

Because having more customizable options can compliment the imaginative process. Wouldn't it have been cool if the original game had laser swords for my zero character? I used what I could, a stun rod, but would have welcomed an option that molded more precisely to my imagination.

[japester]

Hearing about Megaman and Zero put a smile on my face. Ha! Aside from a few random, goofy names, my soldiers tended to keep their given first names, plus a descriptor to indicate their combat specialty. (Hey, it was tough keeping track of dozens and dozens of soldiers!)

I can't claim too much credit for this train of thought. I'm also a fan of BioShock, and there are some parallels between the original game and the current one, BioShock Infinite. In the first, you were male, but you were mute and never saw yourself. This allowed players to envision themselves in the role. In the new title, the player's character is fully voiced. Which aids tremendously in telling the story, but it adds a new player complication in the form of, "But I wouldn't say that!" Discussing the challenges of adding personality to the main character without alienating the player is eerily familiar.

[coyote_blue]

It doesn't help that soldiers who actually find themselves having to shoot generally don't want to discuss it. I served next to such men, but I never had to bear that burden.

So when I hear someone dismiss the combat chatter as "80s action hero", I think two things:
1. You have never talked to a real soldier for longer than five minutes.
2. But I don't have much more authority to speak than anyone else on how they "should sound". It's hella subjective, and I shouldn't be advocating for something if the men themselves aren't.

So yeah. Weird all round.

On imagination: that's a wicked problem, isn't it? I remember my first dozen XCOM games: the Nick Jones narrative. Random chance put "Nick Jones" in most of my starting lineups, and he was a badass 70% of the time. It made me think of the end of Robocop, where the main criminal screams "do you know who I work for? Dick Jones. DICK JONES!" at Robocop.

Nick Jones would always get promoted early on, and so it accidentally became the battle cry for me and my friends. A rookie would make some miraculous shot, and we'd all yell at the screen. "Do you know who this guy works for? NICK JONES!"

Totally random. Maybe not even funny to anyone outside my circle of friends. But you're right: voice acting may kill this sort of fun, by rendering it unnecessary. And if you're going to replace such things, it better be with something good.

[Howellren]

I think have voice acting, but choose from. Pice sets you prefer.... Or allow to turn it off.

I wonder if having the soldiers use more generic words/shouts may also leave a desired amount of ambiguity. Short clips like "yeah", or "got it" or "alien down" infer less programmed personality, and leave more of it to be Infered or imagined.

[coyote_blue]

I reckon it'll have the crap modded out of it either way, eventually. Sound files are super easy to isolate and replace.

[AmazingMoose]

"In remembrance of our brave troops that have been probed, vaporized, disintegrated, digested, mutated....."

Would buy.

[Howellren]

Wouldn't mind there being a higher injury vs kill rate than the original. Knocking soldiers out for 1-3 months really is an effective mechanic. It forces staggering of veterans thereby allowing diversification of leveling. it may prevent players from simply restarting from a save; an injury result is a little easier to swallow. It encourages players to use support class (medics). From a gameplay perspective it also only "freezes" a players overall military response strength; it doesn't diminish it.

[Oathbreaker]

If you play this game just to win at all cost, then feel free to go the "cannon fodder" route. If you'd like a bit more immersion, then just keep them in the base and release them at the end of the month, like you would in the real world. No way in hell the other soldiers wouldn't catch on to the "cannon fodder" strategy and end up fragging your officers. If you did that to me or my friends for real as a commander - you'd have a price on your head in a heartbeat.

[coyote_blue]

I think I get what you're saying - creating an optional way for people to leave without re-enlisting?

My original thought was how to make these kinds of things features, and not just things players can choose to do. But like we've been saying above, the minute you code it into the base game, you're sucking the jam out of someone's donut, by making it harder for them to imagine the game the way they want.

I understand why it may not be the best fit for this game, but I also think XCOM is in a very unique niche, because it isn't a shooter or an RTS. Demon's Souls isn't for everyone, for example, but it's a more satisfying experience for its target audience because it does a few things very well, to the exclusion of everything else.

[DazzD]

From what we have seen of the game so far, I think they have gone a very long way to making us attached to our units. How we treat them from there will be up to the player. That’s one of the best things about xcom, playing the game how you enjoy it. Save scumming, cannon foddering, super defensive, all out attack, everyone has the choice to play the game the way they like it.

The hassle is that if they make the game so that the soldiers get injury rather than killed or bearly ever die then I doubt many of us would know about the original. That was one of the key mechanics of the xcom series, a unit could die easily at any time. I think this is something that made us most attached to them in the first place. The fact that at any time our favourite super soldier could be gone... and it usually was our favourite

[Sectoid Commander]

Don't think you have to make recruitment harder or have another mechanic in the game. It is a nice idea, though things like these get in the way of other peoples ideas of how they want to play the game. Especially if this is tied to mission scores (are they doing it in this game like the original?). A bad experience, like losing most of your squad from a blaster bomb, even if you are not going the "cannon fodder" route would make it harder to recruit.

I thought maybe a morale bonus/penalty might be a good idea, but it kind of falls into the same problem of what I think is a good idea effecting someone elses gameplay. But then again there are consequences to your choices. If you send out your rookies to get shot up while you have veterans sit back in cover and fire from safety then maybe it would be a good idea of having to face the consequences of that with some penalty. Just don't know what would be balanced.

I was never too attached to rookies/squadies, but was for higher ranked veterans. If a rookie died, he died, but I did not send him out in his clothes while a veteran was in a power suit. Everyone had the best armor available and everyone worked together as a squad. Sure, the rookie was the first thru the door of a landed UFO, but there were more experienced soldiers right behind him.

[AmazingMoose]

My rookies in the current game are packing pistols and a bunch of assorted grenades untill they prove themselves.
No armor. Not cost-efficient.

That being said. "Mr. hamstring" came home from his first mission alone, with 15 kills under his belt. I accidentally sent 5 guys to a nighttime terror mission because i forgot to reload the skyranger. 4 died leaving the ranger and then "Mr. hamstring" stepped up.
^^ He earned his flight-suit.

[coyote_blue]

Excellent points, all. And Mr. Hamstring sounds funny as hell. Let me play devil's advocate. Not shooting you down, just keeping the party going.

I think that making choices (especially story choices) have consequences is very difficult to add to games, and that's why so many design shops are rebelling against games being too much like movies. But I don't think players dislike stories, they dislike being railroaded or blindsided.

One way of fixing that is letting people play how they want - reduce consequences to "the essentials". And in XCOM's case, the game is deep enough that people can do that and have awesome stories to tell.

But the other way is the hard way - make every choice matter. That can be awesome too. Permadeath is the hard way, and it forces players to suck it up or resort to save-scumming.

I think a morale penalty for serious mission botches could work. Let's take Sectoid Cmdr's point: people get blown up by a blaster bomb. In real life, accidental botched missions have the exact same political effect as poorly planned botched missions: the commander gets blamed, and the unit's reputation suffers. Imagine the tension that creates in a player: should I save scum this? It wasn't really my fault. But what if I can salvage this? What if the modifier (penalty to recruitment speed, but bonus to base stats per soldier) ends up giving me the Ultimate Rookie?

Limitations improve the experience - but I guarantee you, if this game got focus-grouped by people who had never played before, and someone asked the "average" player what they would want, some genius would ask, "why is there permadeath? It seems like that makes the game unnecessarily hard."

[AmazingMoose]

I was actually neither for or against the proposal. I'm pretty neutral on that point.

+ It's a good idea mechanics-wise if well implemented.

- It might not be right for X-com regardless of being a good idea. (The might is a negative because it might break more stuff than it improves)

Hence, neutral. ^^

[japester]

This thread immediately came to mind while I was reading joystiq's latest XCOM:EU hands-on article.

Maybe this was already know, but they mention that you can add a bar to your base that includes "memorials to fallen team members". Which sounds fantastic. Both authors mention getting attached to their squad members, one going so far as to describe the personal connection as "intense". However, Jake Solomon makes a statement about how it's up to the players to use their imaginations to give stories and context to the characters.

[carldivine]

Maybe this was already know, but they mention that you can add a bar to your base that includes "memorials to fallen team members".

its one of the options in the barracks menu, memorial wall.

[japester]

Whoops. My bad.

I searched for "memorial" in this thread and in the summary thread and came up empty. Now I see that it was mentioned elsewhere a couple of month ago.

First I've heard of it, though. Heh!

[SupernovaXL]

Soldiers die get over it. The rest of the squad will, they have too there killing machines. The fate of the world depends on them.