Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 80 of 171

Thread: Strategic layer is broken (defeat with 80% success rate)

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    606
    Quote Originally Posted by stray cat View Post
    So if I did indeed "miss" the game slipping away, then it has to be due to not getting ANY indication on wether other countries are getting attacked or not. In the original XCOM you could build smaller radar stations around the globe to see what was going on. But in this all you get is abduction warnings and then the doom tracker at the end of month.
    The situation room tells you what the panic level is everywhere and satellites take a lot less time to deploy that a radar base did in the original.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by stray cat View Post
    Besides what complete idiot thought up the concept of local satellite coverage? Satellites are supposed to circle earth on a stable orbit, so there should be at least some global indication on aliens flying around.
    lol. What kind of idiot even thought up the concept of a game where aliens of various types go and invade Earth with superior technology (a.k.a. magic)?

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    511
    Besides what complete idiot thought up the concept of local satellite coverage? Satellites are supposed to circle earth on a stable orbit, so there should be at least some global indication on aliens flying around.
    erm... lol... OK.

    No offence intended straycat, but you CLEARLY are not grasping the strategic side of this game.

    What you need to do is sit back, calm down and read up some more on the strategy.

    It should be obvious to you that other people are not experiencing your problems, or that other people CAN handle the strategy layer.

    That pretty strongly indicates that the problem does not lie with the game, but with the player.

    I suggest that you ease back on the "I am a strategy god" attitude and start listening to some of the people giving you tips here... personally I cant be arsed as you appear to be just one more person who couldnt beat the game n first play-through and who then considers a game broken because of that.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by Arthur A Aronson View Post
    lol. What kind of idiot even thought up the concept of a game where aliens of various types go and invade Earth with superior technology (a.k.a. magic)?
    spot the connection between geo-synchronous satellites and the opening quote of XCOM.?

  5. #45
    Well, if you're getting screwed on the strategic layer, there is this mod that opens up a few options: http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...difficult-only

    It allows you to shoot down UFOs heading in for Terror and Abduction missions through enabling functionality that wasn't enabled for some reason.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    196
    What are you guys for real? There should be room for errors? That is like admitting to be a buffon. Don't make mistakes and use your head. Heavy satellite coverage is not possible? You can have 4 satellites up at the end of month 2 ... 8 by th end of month 3, pay for it, power generators and OTS upgrades.

    Stop picking friggin scientist missions and stick to engineering and 200$

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    25
    Just because you have an 80% win chance doesnt mean you'll win.

    If you win all of the battles, and you always pick to fight in Europe, the rest of the world will be pissed.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    170
    the losing battles were not even important ones most of the time
    Obviously they were important, because you lost the game by losing them. Didn't have to read any further.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    511
    Quote Originally Posted by Pappus View Post
    What are you guys for real? There should be room for errors? That is like admitting to be a buffon. Don't make mistakes and use your head. Heavy satellite coverage is not possible? You can have 4 satellites up at the end of month 2 ... 8 by th end of month 3, pay for it, power generators and OTS upgrades.

    Stop picking friggin scientist missions and stick to engineering and 200$
    Pappus... its all kinda redundant if your game-save screws up.

    They really need to fix the bugs relating to saves and all the game-enders ASAP. I cant face another Ironman failure... especially the last one in which i was rocking n rolling.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Turkey
    Posts
    1,616
    I dropped as low as grade C on the 5th months but then recovered after losing 6 countries. Went all grade A after that. It's easier to cover panic after losing a couple continents.

  11. #51
    Obviously they were important, because you lost the game by losing them. Didn't have to read any further.
    No, you are wrong.

    I had 80% successes and 20% failures. Of those failures one was a terror mission. The rest were just abductions.
    Among my successes were captures of 3 LARGE ships + all the tech you can research from that so that should count a lot more than some mutons lucking out during a shootout in a convenience store. And I successfully completed 3 terror missions.

    And in the original XCOM you could survive even if most countries shut down their funding, by living of selling alien hardware.


    Also just to clarify, anyone who is posting advice and is not playing on ironman, your advice might be good but useless if you can not reload after a failure.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    112
    I feel like on Classic there's only one way to design a base or one path through research, and GOD HELP YOU if you stray from it even for an instant.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by kingsword View Post
    I dropped as low as grade C on the 5th months but then recovered after losing 6 countries. Went all grade A after that. It's easier to cover panic after losing a couple continents.
    isn't that kind-of US policy right now?

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    606
    Quote Originally Posted by Drake Sigar View Post
    I feel like on Classic there's only one way to design a base or one path through research, and GOD HELP YOU if you stray from it for even an instant.
    No research gives a lot of leeway. I made a lot of mistakes when it came to my research paths but I wasn't playing on ironman so I was able to make it up on the field. As for base design... yeah that gives a lot less.

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by stray cat View Post
    The strategic layer is broken.
    ALL ON CLASSIC + IRONMAN
    Here is the story:
    Days survived: 153
    Battles fought: 24
    Battles won: 19
    Battles lost: 5
    Aliens killed: 254
    Soldiers lost: 45

    I made no tactical mistakes whatsoever. I took down large ufos using standard interceptor jets (sent 3 jets after it, retreating if one was too damaged). And then flawlessly attacked the ships on the ground.

    During abduction mission selection I always went for the missions with the highest panic.
    I played at the best that was possible, still the game stacks odds so unfairly at times where it devolves to pure luck to get out alive
    "no tacticals mistakes" and "flawless attacks" just made my day. For some bizzare reason, under same game conditions that u play, I have lost around 15 soldiers in ca. 22-25 missions, not a single mission lost.
    So far only 3 countries left the pact, but that was both expected and intended.
    IMO, if u cant handle the difficulty, then disable iron man and play on normal or whatever, instead of coming here, waving your tear-soacked hankerchief and cryingout demands to nerf the game, so u can complete it on on harder difficulty levels and feel badass.

    Sorry for being that negative, but I`ve seen a share of good games that were ruined coz certain ppl whined too much on forums about this and that not suiting their play style, and I just dont want it to happen with new X-Com.

  16. #56
    Guess you just lucked out when your guys panicked. Also let us meet on a multiplayer match then we see who will be tear-soaked

  17. #57
    Oh, you are saying that classic is unfair, right?

    Remember the old XCOM game? Yeah, the 'classic' one?
    It was unfair too.
    Hence the name of the difficulty setting.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Turkey
    Posts
    1,616
    Just stop playing ironman. I can't grasp the mentality as if you reload, you'll lose something inside you. If you can't manage, don't play it such. It's a single-player game.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by stray cat View Post
    Guess you just lucked out when your guys panicked. Also let us meet on a multiplayer match then we see who will be tear-soaked
    Ye, sure, just pure luck, whatever you say... Cant compare to your lack of tactical mistakes and flawless attacks....

    Edit: actually considering how lucky I am, I should probably quit working and buy a lottery ticket. Thx for a tip

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by colej View Post
    I think your biggest flaw was that you didn't have enough satelite coverage. 5 sats are nowhere near enough. I usually have a new satelite uplink with 3 more sats every month. With more satelites comes more cash, engineers, scientists, and better coverage. More cash = more toys. More engineers = better toys. More scientists = more sophisticated toys. More coverage = more shot down UFO's, which means more alloys, ufo power sources, and elerium.

    In short, satelite coverage is arguably the single most important aspect of the strategy layer.
    Yup that's basically it. More money less problems. Launching more sats the earlier you can will give you more money down the road. The money needed curve is exponential in the beginning. You can't sit back like in the OG, enjoy the early mission kills, and take your time. Although I do wish it was more like that..

  21. #61
    80% is not very good. Losing even one mission has very negative consquences, and you lost 5?

    You'll need to do better, soldier!

  22. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    667
    I have a couple of problems with the game.

    It basically forces you to go into fast satelite coverage, because otherwise you are short on cash. I found that the tutorial gives a huge boost to your ability to succeed... extra cash and scientists and a satelite.

    I do not like the idea of RNG being the KEY element... it should be influencing element, which you can overcome with sheer numbers... that is why I do not like idea of only a 6 squad members... people who completed the Ironman classic had a good set up of steam tiles in their base plus they had good mix of abduction mission spread - these are RNG factors.

    To top that they were also fairly lucky on the tactical layer... I had the opposite thinmen sniped each turn... no matter the cover. each fu--- shot connected, so even if I was picking them up to spawn like 2 at most, I still lost a lot of HP and 2 soldiers... that was more difficult than a medium landed UFO with 4 mutons while I only had basic weapons and armor... That does not make sense... it feels more like playing a lottery. Some people are winning on a lottery - seems similar with classic/impossible Ironman.

    I do not like the panic mechanics... seriously a cpt panics, because he got hit by a poison tick, while a moment ago he nailed an alien? then the chain panic friendly fire? It seemed like that council mission with Thinmen in June was just there to bait me in, and make me lose soldiers, because up to that point I lost only a one soldier, a Rookie to a Muton... The RNG was stacked up so badly against me, that I just aborted a mission with 4 gravely wounded and 2 dead, then left the game to have a drink...

    Worst part is that I've been doing really well on strat layer up to this point and it is still playable because I had 2 sgt+ squads... and 4 rooks in a back up. Losses on the one squad are painful, but there is still the second one... If I had not gone for two missions with vet soldiers reward though I would be in deep ☺☺☺☺ now...

    Add 2 more soldiers to a squad, add one more point in panic in a country and add some more council missions where you can train a back up squad and get some benefits, then we are good to go. That way you will be able to overcome occasional bad RNG (missing 70+ shots while aliens snipe my guys that are behind high cover, or bad steam spawn in a base, or unlucky placement of alien abductions). As it is, if you will get a bad mission where you get a wipe or have to abort with some losses, anywhere in June-July, you are basically done.

    PS. I would love if a successful UFO mission, either shot down or a landed one, would reduce panic in that country where you had a mission

  23. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Zutha View Post
    because you failed the strategic element.

    I've won all tactical battles before and played ☺☺☺☺ in strategy, hense I failed.

    Don't blame the game if you are incompetent and can't adapt.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bird125 View Post
    This game isn't for everyone. Go back to your mindless shooter.
    Oh and "That's XCOM baby!"
    If you don't have anything useful to say then just don't post.

    Overall, the important thing to take away from the OP is that even if you just look at human military history, the winning side in just about every war makes some mistakes, and as such, there is a margin for error in warfare. I think the main problem is that the devs in trying to match the "That's XCOM, baby" mentality from the original game made it a bit too unforgiving.

    Also, regarding abduction missions, it's completely counter intuitive that you can only deploy to one site. If you have multiple skyrangers and enough guys, you SHOULD be able to defend multiple sites. Hellooooo, this is a TBS game. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to control the squad on one site and complete that mission and then immediately switch to the next one.

  24. #64
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by stray cat View Post
    I had 80% successes and 20% failures. Of those failures one was a terror mission. The rest were just abductions.
    Among my successes were captures of 3 LARGE ships + all the tech you can research from that so that should count a lot more than some mutons lucking out during a shootout in a convenience store. And I successfully completed 3 terror missions.
    Doesn't matter what you think you successfully completed. 80%/20% is irrelevant to anything. You lost where it counted. Taking 4 easy shots doesn't save you from the consequence of missing the most important 5th. You can sit here and extoll all day about how many great missions you completed, it doesn't change the consequences of the ones you failed. I chose to ignore a terror mission in my ironman game, because many of my vets had been wounded during the last one and I thought the low-panic country could stand the increase. Unfortunately, that country decided to immediately leave. Did I come here to whine about it? No. I learned my lesson and I went on to win the game.

    Also, ROFL at the "face me in multiplayer". so ROFL. "I can't win my argument anymore but I CAN BEAT YOU 1v1 THAT MUST MEAN IM RIGHT."

    Either adapt to the game or admit you don't like it, shelve it, and move on. You're not gonna change anything, and you're not finding much sympathy here.

    There's no reason you shouldn't be able to control the squad on one site and complete that mission and then immediately switch to the next one.
    There is a reason. It's called game balance and game design. "Realism" takes second place (or lower) to balance and design.

  25. #65
    If you don't have anything useful to say then just don't post.

    Overall, the important thing to take away from the OP is that even if you just look at human military history, the winning side in just about every war makes some mistakes, and as such, there is a margin for error in warfare. I think the main problem is that the devs in trying to match the "That's XCOM, baby" mentality from the original game made it a bit too unforgiving.

    Also, regarding abduction missions, it's completely counter intuitive that you can only deploy to one site. If you have multiple skyrangers and enough guys, you SHOULD be able to defend multiple sites. Hellooooo, this is a TBS game. There's no reason you shouldn't be able to control the squad on one site and complete that mission and then immediately switch to the next one.
    Exactly. They desperately held on to some xcom features but cut down the scale (world depending on 4 man swat team) without readjusting the strategic difficulty to it.

    The old xcom was just as brutal in combat, but you lost less matches because you could still win because you had at least 12 men and turn it around.

    But with 4 units, one bad accident, bad decision or bad luck destroys 25% of your force.

  26. #66
    Also, ROFL at the "face me in multiplayer". so ROFL. "I can't win my argument anymore but I CAN BEAT YOU 1v1 THAT MUST MEAN IM RIGHT."
    I already won the argument.

  27. #67
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by stray cat View Post
    Exactly. They desperately held on to some xcom features but cut down the scale (world depending on 4 man swat team) without readjusting the strategic difficulty to it.

    The old xcom was just as brutal in combat, but you lost less matches because you could still win because you had at least 12 men and turn it around.

    But with 4 units, one bad accident, bad decision or bad luck destroys 25% of your force.
    As many ppl pointed out - x-com is a game, and it has a certain set of rules and mechanics, that dont neccesary have to be realistic or make any sense in terms of realism. Its called a game design, and as far as it goes -firaxis made a great job designing a good game that both can be challenging and fun to play, and has very immersive atmosphere.
    I played original x-com, tftd, ufo:after... series, ufo:et and I liked them all. Each was a good game in its own respect and had own design and gameplay mechanics (Probably the only one that really deserved stomping was ufo:et, coz apparently it was a straight up remake with lots of features of OG missing.).
    So my point is that the new x-com, while sharing name with OG, is a new vision of a game, with new mechanics and gamerules, so trying to compare it with OG and stating that new x-com lacks this and that and a ripoff of OG in general is bordering on uncomprehensive ignorance. If you dont like the game - dont play it, nobody forcing you to do it.

    EDIT:
    Quote Originally Posted by stray cat View Post
    I already won the argument.
    You are as laughtable as pathetic. If you were capable of at least some logical thinking, you would realise that MP match offers completely different conditions for combat, and lacks consequenses coz of lack of strategic part of gameplay. So it cant be used objectively as an argument on a current topic.

  28. #68
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    418
    Quote Originally Posted by stray cat View Post
    The USA did not really "lose" the vietnam war. They simply pulled out in fear of this dragging on for years.
    But the US did lose the Vietnam war. You have just disproved your own point. The result of a conflict defines who won. The result was that the North controlled the Vietnam and the South was controlled by a communist regime. That is clearly a US loss because that meant US objectives had failed.

    What the US may have done is irrelevant because they didn't carry on the war. In game terms, The US panic level (reflected by public opinion) was too high. So you have just made the point that the US lost despite winning 100% of their battles.

    Likewise, Napoleons won 50 out of 59 battles (85%) in his career. But in the end, he did not end up winning because France lost the Napoleonic wars and Napoleon ended up exiled on St Helena. In the end, Napoleon lost because he made strategic errors, and a few key battles towards the end.

    You can't use statistics to determine who should win. It depends on the rules of a game.

    In tennis you can win a match by winning less points. You can win a general election in the UK and the US while winning less total votes than the opposition party.

    In Civilisation, you can win 100% of battles and still lose if the opposition get an economic, technological or financial victory

    The key to winning strategically is whether you win and indeed fight the key battles and whether you use your resources optimally.

    Classic mode is clearly harsh. Whether it is too harsh or not, I cannot say. But you can't use battle statistics to justify winning or losing in a strategic game.

  29. #69
    Yeah, the Skyranger thing is a bit silly.
    I see that the concept is to face hard choices, but that feels a bit forced.

  30. #70
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by thufirhawat333 View Post
    Yeah, the Skyranger thing is a bit silly.
    I see that the concept is to face hard choices, but that feels a bit forced.
    But thats a whole point behind the game. You have to make hard choices all the time, not just while picking what mission to go to. More base infrastracture or better gear for soldiers? More mid-ranked soldiers to balance out casualities or an all-stars team of terminators, where losing one can really screw you? More interceptors with inferior weapon or vice versa? And so on... I think making those choices is more fun, than having best-best of everything for the most part of the game like we could in previous titles. In this respect game reminded me of a Witcher approach from Project Red, where no choice was neccesary better than the other, but u had to make a choice.
    I think current generation of gamers got too used to being handed everything with lack neccesarity of making choices or facing consequenses, hence half the whine on forums...

  31. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by thufirhawat333 View Post
    Yeah, the Skyranger thing is a bit silly.
    I see that the concept is to face hard choices, but that feels a bit forced.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fenyx View Post
    As many ppl pointed out - x-com is a game, and it has a certain set of rules and mechanics, that dont neccesary have to be realistic or make any sense in terms of realism. Its called a game design, and as far as it goes -firaxis made a great job designing a good game that both can be challenging and fun to play, and has very immersive atmosphere.
    I played original x-com, tftd, ufo:after... series, ufo:et and I liked them all. Each was a good game in its own respect and had own design and gameplay mechanics (Probably the only one that really deserved stomping was ufo:et, coz apparently it was a straight up remake with lots of features of OG missing.).
    So my point is that the new x-com, while sharing name with OG, is a new vision of a game, with new mechanics and gamerules, so trying to compare it with OG and stating that new x-com lacks this and that and a ripoff of OG in general is bordering on uncomprehensive ignorance. If you dont like the game - dont play it, nobody forcing you to do it.
    Good point, thufirhawat333. That's not really what I was thinking but it is the case. It's definitely forced which makes it either just frustrating or poor design.

    Fenyx, see thufirhawat333's post. The point is it's forced. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a penalty for spreading your troops thin like that but it should be possible. There should be a trade-off to doing it just like there is now. You could definitely preserve the challenge of the gameplay and achieve realism; it just takes some thought.

    Also, I don't think the OP was arguing about having more things similar to the original game. Just pointing out that the original was more forgiving.

  32. #72
    It's reasonable to desing a game that has the players facing difficult choices, I, for one, agree with the limited squad size and even the limited number of inventory sluts or special skill uses (oh, come on, who the hell carries 16 rockets with him?), it even makes sense or can be reasonably explained, but the Skyranger is just silly.
    I mean I'm using Firestorms and plasma weapons, I have full satelite coverage over the countries that are still standing, I dug deep underground to have a fortification which use the technology adapted from the aliens, and I can't afford a second transport?
    I know, gamplay and design over realism, but still, it seems silly, they could have figured out a different type of difficult choice in this regard.

  33. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    606
    Quote Originally Posted by thufirhawat333 View Post
    the Skyranger is just silly.
    I mean I'm using Firestorms and plasma weapons, I have full satelite coverage over the countries that are still standing, I dug deep underground to have a fortification which use the technology adapted from the aliens, and I can't afford a second transport?
    I know, gamplay and design over realism, but still, it seems silly, they could have figured out a different type of difficult choice in this regard.
    I proposed a potential solution to that in this thread, but unfortunately implementing any such fix would require a major patch or an expansion pack. I do agree that it should be possible for XCOM to dispatch multiple skyrangers and multiple squads on missions provided you can afford it, but the most limited and important resource XCOM has access, the player, to should only be available for one of those as they are occurring at the same time. So all secondary missions need to be left in the capable hands of either your second in command or a ranking officer on the ground... and lets face it the tutorial showed us those guys are pretty bad on their own.

  34. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by Hoplite39 View Post
    But the US did lose the Vietnam war. You have just disproved your own point. The result of a conflict defines who won. The result was that the North controlled the Vietnam and the South was controlled by a communist regime. That is clearly a US loss because that meant US objectives had failed.
    The USA won the Vietnam War. They drove the aggressors out of South Vietnam and the Paris Peace Accords of 1973 ended the war.

    Subsequently, North Vietnam violated the treaty and renewed their attack on South Vietnam and the US congress voted to not support South Vietnam.


    On topic...
    But you can't use battle statistics to justify winning or losing in a strategic game.
    I agree.

    The premise that "Doing everything right with a 80% success level [in tactical battles]and you still lose" is flawed because there's no mention of how the strategic situation was managed.

  35. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Disney World
    Posts
    1,074
    Quote Originally Posted by stray cat View Post
    No, you are wrong. I did not fail the strategic element. In case you did not read my post: I WON 80% OF MY BATTLES. Never skipped a mission and always went for the missions with the highest panic level.
    So if I win 80% of battles under these harsh conditions, which ironman classic is, then I am what one would call a very good player statistically speaking.
    Umm... you confuse the Tactical game with the Strategy game. The part where you move the little figures around? That's tactical. Strategy is the broad game you play when you have the globe, choose where to spend money, and decide who you help first.

    You failed the Strategy element to the game. If you fail either element, you lose. Perhaps you should step down a difficulty level and learn that part better.
    Last edited by Chthon; 10-13-2012 at 09:31 AM. Reason: Fixed who I was quoting.

  36. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,043
    Over 24 missions you lost 45 men. You weren't playing all that well to begin with. You were probably playing badly on the strategic level. If you don't fast expand, you will lose nations. Almost 100%. I'm up to the final mission for my second time in Classic Ironman, I've won every mission and lost 4 countries because I chose not to get sat coverage early. Tough choices.

  37. #77
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    28
    yea by going after the highest panic you get up to many different countries in panick lvls. the trick is to see how the game goes. I have a almost 100% score and lost the game anyways i missed one large ufo i simply could not shoot it down. But played to slow with the satelites. so yea ya loose what ever that's XCOM btw i just lost 2 soldiers still lost. but i dont care need to do that part better.

  38. #78
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by Avi1231 View Post
    Good point, thufirhawat333. That's not really what I was thinking but it is the case. It's definitely forced which makes it either just frustrating or poor design.

    Fenyx, see thufirhawat333's post. The point is it's forced. I'm not saying there shouldn't be a penalty for spreading your troops thin like that but it should be possible. There should be a trade-off to doing it just like there is now. You could definitely preserve the challenge of the gameplay and achieve realism; it just takes some thought.

    Also, I don't think the OP was arguing about having more things similar to the original game. Just pointing out that the original was more forgiving.
    I clearly see your point, but my point was that "forcing" is a part of current game design, part of what makes this game interesting to play. Its a setting of rules, which u either can like or dislike i.e. play or not play the game. Otherwise we could say that game is forcing player to play in turn based mode and not realtime... See my point?
    Every game has its own ruleset, and for once if there is good game design and gameplay vs realism, I would choose first one. Dont get me wrong, I used to be a realism junkie too, where most valued aspect of game for me was how "realistic" game was. It took me over 15 years of gaming to realise that games cant be "realistic", we simply lack technology for that, and realism isnt always that fun or interesting as we belive it to be. Game is supposed to be fun, interesting, immersive and challenging in on aspect or another, otherwise it becomes tedious. Lets see, for example we get an x-com game which is "realistic". That should mean the following - nearly unlimited funding, numerous bases around and a few thousands military operatives around the globe. All recruits come from SF background, thus from the start they are basically what u get on highest soldier lvl in "normal" game, but slightly better. Player shoots down ufos, flies on countless missions, not forced with any choices. 90% of play time involves moving your soldier from tile to tile, occasionally shooting things, losses is not a prob since there are millions of ppl outthere to serve as replacement, and the only challenge would be to force yourself to fly on "UFO Crash Site :183". And dont start talking about "AI should give challnege, not a gamemechanic limitations", coz even with the best AI there is still a limit to what AI alone can do under certain game mechanics, no matter how advanced it is.
    So all in all in my opinion, talks about new x-com being unrealistic are somewhat pointless, especially considering that game is very well designed in almost every aspect and presents a good combination of challenge, immersion, fun and is interesting to play in general.

  39. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by stray cat View Post
    Had all of asia covered (4 sats) and USA (1 sat). Rest of my money went to building structures and so forth, and yes I also used the grey market for extra cash.
    That's your problem right there. You need to get those satellites up. Stubbornly refusing to build them because you think you shouldn't have to is an quick way to lose the game. I'm nearing the end of my first game, and I have full coverage of North America and partial over Europe, Asia, and Africa. Sorry South America. I'll cover you next game.

  40. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    12
    Quote Originally Posted by Anbar View Post
    OP: I dont understand your post.

    Are you saying that you completed the game, including winning the final encounter...?

    Or are you saying that you "Lost" because you lost more than 8 countries from XCom (even though you won 80% of your tactical battles?)

    ------

    I suspect it is the later.... in which case I do not think you are grasping the point of the strategic layer:

    It doesnt matter if you win 100% of your tactical games, if your lose more than 8 countries in the strategic game, then you lose.

    You have to "win" both elements of the game to "win"
    Exactly. Winning battles is only a portion of the strategic layer. OP needs to get that through his head.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •