-base limit- people are saying that theres only 1 base but i have yet to see an official statement.
-ammo- people are saying that there's unlimited ammo again i have seen no official statement.
-inventory- people are saying that there's no inventory no official statement again.
i hope these are not the case but i would like these answered
-what's the word on psionics? are what abilities are there going to be? are there going to be class specific abilities?
i would like to continue the game after the ending, just to get what i didn't and not have to worry about the game ending or whatever
and i totally agree that we need sample vids, it would be cool to see how the game is developing, and it would give people a view as to how the game play is, instead of worded reports. give vids on the prototypes and explain your though process as the game plays, that would be a ton better than worded reports as this would be easier to see. if you change somthing from the prototypes, explain in the next video.
Yep, the small squad cap (if confirmed) is a design decision that just bewilders me.
any chance of alpha release-demo release-pre order help or even more photos-videos SOMETHING PLEASE
give something to us - the xcom j@nkies !
love you keep up the good work !
I am just glad that some questions are being answered, i would like to see the controller scheme Firaxis is useing for the console.
I am quite happy with their explanation on TUs - but they really have to "Show" me how their system improves things. I am actually quite of the belief he's correct and it will still lead to a tactically deep game - I would just like to see it in action.
Only thing still concerning me is the small squad size. I don't buy the explanation there, because reaction fire and cover should be able to counter those easily (as well as having more aliens). The original X-COMs problems with the player having too many guys was a bit different than the aliens not being able to react. More that the optimal strategy was to have two to four snipers (preferably flying) and then run out guys to spot the aliens for them. That was pretty boring gameplay, but it was massively effective and they have technically already solved this (as you can't have a handful of guys do all your shooting, vs. running guys everywhere like chickens with their heads cut off).
Have to see on that point, but 4 is far too low at the start and I think 6 with a maximum of 10 would be perfect.
Yeah, just in case any reader of these forums are not aware of the 'people-who-are-angry-comment-the-most-and-the-loudest' syndrome, I just want to say that I'm very happy with how this re-imagining is shaping up, bar a few question marks, as I'm sure most are.
I'd still like clarification on the bases. It has been interpreted by many that the player will be limited to only one base, but I still have not seen anything that specifies this... or the justification behind it if it is so.
Because thats a big thing for me, and a sound strategy for most. Take out the main base and severly cripple the enemy. In the case with just one "main" base that means GAME OVER.
Or do you like the idea of invulnerabel bases, then you have no use of base defences.
Because you cannot be attacked at your main base. Silly and very disturbing.
I was thrilled sometimes in the old UFO when battleships scanned the area, looking for your base. You knew you better had start construct another at some other place, and keep it hidden.
I'm willing to give smaller squads a shot if they think there's good design benefits from it, but I hope we'll get to see some in-depth coverage that will convince us that we can have great battles with only six soldiers.
"I always felt the multiple bases concept was a bit pointless, especially since most of my bases in the original were simply unmanned radar outposts with some base defenses."
It was realistic, though. Player had to advance his/her reach across the planet in order to halt enemy progression and make DECISIONS how and where to spend available material and financial resources. Tactics and strategy were present in geoscape, during missions and among the choises the player made in R&D-section.
I am not satisfied with the amount of squad members available. Though in games such as SWAT and Rainbow Six player had only few soldier to control on battlefield, the setting was completely different than in X-com series. Aliens are not terrorists barricaded into a warehouse, but a force invading a whole planet. Everybody who has played Halo: Reach or Halo: ODST know what I mean. Alien invasion is not terrorist-alien invasion, but tanks, infantry, air strikes and orbital bombardment. One does not fight an invasion with 6 soldiers (except if one of them is Chuck Norris or He-man). Though hell if I know? Perhaps X-com is about taking down terrorist-aliens WITH Chuck Norris? Sounds fun, actually.
I am not satisfied with real-time -approach, either. UfO: aftermath, aftershock and afterlight are excellent RTS-ufo -games already - each of them featuring a sophicticated system for chaining commands and actions, random map generator and semi-story-based plotline/progression. I do not think that the world needs yet another ufo-RTS. Turn-based UFO would be a blast from the past.
It is not unrealistic to claim, that all solutions reducing strategic-tactic -levels of the game make it simplier, thus dumber. I do not claim that such solutions affected difficulty, for difficulty is a different thing. Claiming that earlier X-coms included confusing tactical combat is just false. If aimed shot takes 66% of TUs, what is the problem? One could reserve TUs for each type of shooting with just one click. The only thing I find lacking in the earlier system could be corrected for example with simple solution: that is, to visualize how far the player character was able to walk and yet have TUs for different shooting/throwing actions. The system itself is perfect. There is no need to change something that works like a charm.
EXACTLY the type you bring a quick but small response team to, not an entire platoon with vehicles. The term "Invasion" is such a misleading term for the game, we are not talking about a war here but skirmishes and terror-like actions.
This tread covers this issue to some extent: http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...-to-accomplish
In the end the aliens destroyed whole ecosystem (Enemy unknown) or the human settlements with some sorf of beam weapon(TFTD) if player did not manage to stop the aliens. I would not call that mere terrorism. Aliens had unlimited number of UFOs/submarines with crews armed to teeth. They destroyed player bases, attacked cities globally and were altogether a pain in the ass everywhere and all the time. If player did not have build hangars and radars all around the world and intercepted UFOs before they build colonies and took down cities, they would win rather quickly. Terrorist acts do not bring victory quickly (as seen on many countries), and terror as tactic does not immediately aim to conquer areas. The aliens, on the other hand, could triumph in the period of few months.
My claim is that aliens in X-com are not actually terrorists though their tactics may seem like that. If player neglects his duties to intercept, recover and counter enemy actions, aliens would win rather quickly - usually in few months. Just try it! Start new game, and set time speed to maximum. Terrorists do not conquer whole planet in mere months. It is impossible without vast resources. And if the enemy has such resources, the enemy is not a terrorist but a considerable, yet flexitive, military force.
Thus: game cannot represent war of the worlds if it is about terrorist aliens. And if the stakes are not global, why the aliens even bothering to attack and uncover themselves? With supreme techonology they could harvest and abduct without problem almost anywhere. They could work in many developing countries or countryside of most countries without having to risk being noticed at all.
I like the plotline of UFO:aftermath the best this far. I hope this one has a sensible backstory, too.
First of all let me offer my appreciation to see the Lead down here in the trenches.
Explanation of the "Scan" - great. Context matters.
Time - units: I understand where you are coming from but disagree slightly. Having a system which gives the player control (use up x resource, use it as you wish) is deeper/more immerse than an abstract move up to X, Fire Y/N. Whst I am very edgy on is the move to cover for everything - maps seem to lean towards lots of "cover" so everyone moves and behaves as if this was a bird's eye perspective of a call of duty game - oh wait.. same company that said turn based strategy has no place is making an Alien C.o.d. waaaait....
Where you lost me: Squad size. Sure - staring with 14 can be a pain and might involve lots of "filler" movement/time as you hunt for aliens. You want to be more efficient by starting with a smaller number - OK. first - those 14 dont feel so extraneous or useless on a terror mission - esp. TFTD. BUT - going down to 4 and not saying how big the squad size can go to reveals that this is an action game - NOT a strategy game. So one base of 4-5 soldiers is going to save the world. Riiiggghhtt.
By definition you have made soliders much less squishy/easy to kill. You cannot have a situation where soldiers take a hit and are dead/very wounded with only 4 soldiers. So they are only in danger if we make a sloppy mistake and get flanked? (see COD reference above) so the entire game is hide behind cover and who pins who down - again - turn based action game to tie into 2K's other product. If your soldiers die less or are harder to kill you lose the fear - the i'm sending this guy out over there and he might just get wasted...
Also - because of your tiny maps, small number of aliens - having more soliders imposed your will on the aliens? ?!?!?!?!? Your poor choices in size and scope mean you had to scale down the squad? No my friend - be honest - your choices in squad size then had you test out the maps/aliens, etc. Don't pretend to imply you did the aline ai and maps first.
"You do begin the game with a 4-man squad size, and you can expand that over the course of the game. We found that small squads with our turn-based combat actually made the game more interesting. When we had large squads, then players had a considerable ability to inflict their will on their opponent before that opponent could respond. That meant that combat became less interesting, especially as combat progressed, because you ended up with more and more soldiers with nothing to do.
We haven’t backed off the lethality of the weapons involved, so it’s easy to make a sloppy mistake with positioning soldiers so they get flanked and killed by aliens. The small squad also means that losses are proportionally worse. If you have one guy die, you’re down 25% of your strength. If you have two die, you’ve lost half the soldiers you brought. It’s hard, but it’s fair. In the course of the game you will lose soldiers, and you will lose soldiers who were important parts of your tactics."
Second, it's not a group of 4-5 to save the world, that's just the size of your mission squad. You'll have a sizable reserve back at base to pick up the slack for KIA and injured troops.
Why not? Aftermath/Aftershock/Afterlight all did this. While noone likes having to rebuild a lost soldier, those games were entirely completable with easily killed troops and small squad sizes. People keep making this assumption that small squads=superhuman soldiers with no basis at all. So tell me, where have you heard that we'll have less easily killable soldiers? Everything is suggesting otherwise.By definition you have made soliders much less squishy/easy to kill. You cannot have a situation where soldiers take a hit and are dead/very wounded with only 4 soldiers.
Again with baseless assumptions. When has anyone even talked about map sizes at this point? What are you basing the idea that there will be tiny maps? Back your talk up.Also - because of your tiny maps, small number of aliens - having more soliders imposed your will on the aliens? ?!?!?!?!? Your poor choices in size and scope mean you had to scale down the squad? No my friend - be honest - your choices in squad size then had you test out the maps/aliens, etc. Don't pretend to imply you did the aline ai and maps first.
And yes, having a ton of soldiers did allow the player to impose their will on the aliens. Reaction fire only does so much, and as long as you make LOS, anyone can take a shot at a target from anywhere. It's very easy to abuse this capacity, and made the game largerly trival.
The game is entirely turn based in combat. I have no idea where you got this idea from.I am not satisfied with real-time -approach, either. UfO: aftermath, aftershock and afterlight are excellent RTS-ufo -games already - each of them featuring a sophicticated system for chaining commands and actions, random map generator and semi-story-based plotline/progression. I do not think that the world needs yet another ufo-RTS. Turn-based UFO would be a blast from the past.
First lets get this clear. 6 is way too small of a squad size. 28 is way too many. I am leaning more from 10 -14 to be optimal.
There’s a thread here about 3 high res screenshots. On the screenshots if you compile them together (they are all on the same map, but appear to be different turns), the squad size on that map appears to be 5 (based on the haircuts, gender, and features of each soldier). I think it’s safe to say that we can have more than 4 soldiers.
Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, the argument that less soldiers = super soldiers is false. You can easily have fewer soldiers, and not be supermen. An oldie (but goody) Commandos did this really well. You had at most 6 commandos, each highly specialized. Each one of your soldiers died when the enemy breathed on you. Each move mattered, and it was a very tense affair.
If you give every enemy in X-Com a weapon that will instantly kill people, you will naturally play more cautiously and move more cautiously. With this kind of game play, cover isn’t a bonus, but a necessity. You do cover because you want to keep your guys safe. If the enemy is using cover, you’re going to have to think how to move around the cover to get them out of the area. And if cover is destructible, it’s going to get even harder when the enemy starts taking shots at the cover.
This actually makes more sense to send in teams of commandos. If you have multiple assault/terror missions occurring with a window of hours, you’re not going to have time to do a full regiment deployment. The most you can do is deploy a squad/platoon of guys.
I think it’s more of well were not 100% sure that the aliens are bad, and they are talking good and there are rumors of kidnapping. This ends in the creation of X-Com, a paramilitary organization that reports to and is funded by the UN.
BTW, wasn’t one of the endings of x-com occur when the UN cut off all funding for your organization?
Another reason why I don't like the small squad size: new players are going to be haveing a hard time.
Think about it chief, do you go into FPSs knowing you'll get killed in 1 or 2 shots? We have Regenerating Health for a reason you know. Why do you think even Deus Ex: Human Revolution has it now? Console players aren't going to like dying over and over. You have no idea how dumb players can be.
If players aren't allow to experiment in gameplay (like letting their squads die), then how can they have fun then? Some players like to zerg rush. Some don't. by telling the player he can't zerg rush will only make the game less fun.
I don't think Firaxis has their head in the right place. We are talking about the same people who made Civilization Revolution. I couldn't even finish the demo of that game! The game was made for Civilization fans only.
And what of the poor Chryssalid? how is the poor thing suppose to be feared now that it can't cut down more then 1 or 2 X-COM men? The Chryssalid will never be this Terrifying again: image.
You have a point there. Newcomers to Xcom will be running around saying:
'Dis game iz to haaard, maaaan'!
And that'll hurt sales.
Pfft...gamers need tough games to put hair on their chests.
will there not be difficulty levels?
"In the end, you get all of the excitement and joy of carrying out that well-executed plan without having to break the immersion to think in terms of these abstracted Time Units. ".
Games, like any products including but not limited to movies and theatre plays, tend to change during the period they are developed. If I understood right, the game developers are aiming to make something that is accessible to modern audiences. They seem to think that the original turn-based system with TUs was not easy enough to approach for majority of consumers. Thus, they have made choises which lead not towards the original system, but away from it. As approaches are chosen, it tends to happen that they "live" and are developed even further. One thing led to another, as it is said.
Call it just a hunch, but I would not be surprised if X-Com: EU is like Baldur´s Gate in its final form. The game would be basically turn based, but it would be played like any RTS with a pause option. It is not a bad system.
"Why not? Aftermath/Aftershock/Afterlight all did this. While noone likes having to rebuild a lost soldier, those games were entirely completable with easily killed troops and small squad sizes. People keep making this assumption that small squads=superhuman soldiers with no basis at all. So tell me, where have you heard that we'll have less easily killable soldiers? Everything is suggesting otherwise."
I do not have to remind you, that in A) Aftermath: almost whole human population was killed by alien generated plague B) Aftershock player faction was residing in a space station with a very limited habitable environment thus smaller population C) Afterlight player faction was a mere colony on Mars.
In X-com: EU human civilization is at its peak, the global population reaching around 8 billions. You might think that humanity could afford more than 4 soldiers and a single base to counter a global threat? But hell if I know? Perhaps player faction in X-Com EU is mere one branch of X-com? Thus there would be other X-com units globally? That would make the game interesting, yes.
24 men I can do without, but I want a limit of at least twelve, with a reasonably early game limit of at least six. Six = 3x2 man fire teams and I can work with that. Four - if one man dies, then splitting up is no longer an option - for one man to go off on his own is a bad idea. I just can't figure out Firaxis' train of thought when saddling us with a four man starting squad. In fact, nine would be a better starting number: 3x3 man fire teams, but if a man is killed, then there are still two men left in the fireteam.
I'd like eight to start with, with a minimum maximum (if that makes sense) of double that, personally. Eight makes two nice four-man fireteams (one of each class, even, though after modding it'll probably be scout/spotter, marksman, and either a misslecaddy and rocketeer or another marksman and an autocannon guy), and sixteen gives me four teams, though I could work with twelve guys and three teams, I suppose. I suspect we'll need larger maps for this, though, but I have some ideas in that direction.
My guess is that having too many soldiers at the start made it too easy because of some of the things soldiers can do now. If you have six guys and encounter two aliens (even though there may be more on the map) you could alternate four soldiers raining down suppressing fire and reloading on the aliens while your other two go to throw grenades on them. With only four you may not be able to keep up the suppressing fire without reloading. So squad size of four is a more difficult challenge and makes you fight a little smarter in this example.
Point is, I think you are throwing these numbers around while thinking more about the old game's soldiers and capabilities than the new game.
Yeah, you're probably right. We can't really tell until we at least see a video I suppose. Four still seems a bit too small for me, but we'll see.
I think their decision to go with 4-6 soldiers is a good one. A maximum of six sounds ideal for me.
i remember in the old games that when i went above 8 soldiers in the Skyranger the extra members where mostly packmules with backpacks full of ammo and grenades.
8 soldiers was all i really needed on most missions.
If eight was all you needed on most missions, then why is six an ideal maximum number? Six is fine by me for a beginning maximum, but for an overall maximum, it seems a bit small. I'm not saying they should go with 14-20 soldiers like the original, but six? As I've said, we can't really tell until we've seen a video, but I would like more than six for sure.
Comments embedded <<>>
Good question SectoidSquisher
In all of the xcom games so far most of my soldiers were just extras that i didn't care much about. I always concentrated on raising 1-2 uber soldiers that performed head, shoulders and bellybutton above the rest.
The reason for this is that my big bro made this uber soldier in the first xcom game. That guy was a one man army with ridiculously high reaction, accuracy and psionic stats.
That's my biggest ambition in this game- to catch up to my big bro's monstrous uber soldier
I will surelly get a different outlook in this game that makes me care about the other soldiers more because there are fewer of them.
The class system will also help me get more attached to each soldier because their uniqueness. That's why a smaller squad is good in my opinion.