Attn: XCOM shit in this thread.

[Zinegata]

Yeah, not as "realistic", but given that I don't actually have a soldier's eye-view of the shot it becomes very frustrating to realize you just spent 4 turns and a ton of AP shooting at something that you would never have hit in the first place due to cover.

I guess you should've gotten the hint after the second or third turn?

How is it in any way better/more tactical than ignoring cover altogether when the smallest sliver of the target is visible? If it matters how much crap is between you and the target, then suddenly position becomes important and you're forced to flank/use grenades/supress and close.

The problem usually crops up early in the game, when gun ranges are low and it takes a couple of turns before reliably scoring some hits. It's hard to get a hint when it normally does take 2-3 turns before scoring a hit.

The thing about JA2 is that you simply can't tell from the iso view. There are some tools that help (i.e. Mercs saying it outloud that they have no shot, and some 3rd party mod tools) but it's not always guaranteed. Especially with damn trees; where in many cases shots go through the trees and only do 1 damage against the guy behind it; but the game tells you it's a "clear shot".

Also, I'm not saying it's necessarily better. And I am saying it's less realistic. But it's a game quirk (or more correctly a mechanical abstraction) that I'm willing to tolerate as long as it's actually a decent minis game.

[Stark]

The simplicity of the combat mechanics and the resultant abstractions remind me of a miniatures game, though I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing. Like in a minis game, there's an assumption that a unit's position is only an abstract representation of what's "actually" going on, hence why LOS-breaking shots are possible. Familiar to a 40k or Flames of War or whatever player, not so much to someone more used to something like Silent Storm.

Too complex for Zinegata, people. This is the benchmark we have to lower if he's to follow the arcane discussion of line of sight and to-hit rolls; new concepts to him.

Hey White Haven, what's up with the last mission? The first game also had a terrible final mission; is this one shit in similar goes-on-forever ways or is it spawn city like the VIP missions? At least now you can't run out of basic weapon ammo.

Pezook, the game isn't 'bad' at what it does. It just doesn't do what most tactical turn based games do. Like BCG said, it's all about to-hit rolls and penalties from cover, rather than games like Silent Storm or JA2 being about bullet divergence and how the bullet interacts with obstacles and shit. This just makes it incredibly tiresome on hard, but extremely easy on normal. I find it very frustrating and don't like it, but once you're thinking about the game the right way this is less of an issue.

Every time my guy gets hit by bullets passing through the ground (or within a wall for the length of two train carriages) or taking a step makes badguys magically spawn in front of me and get a free turn, it shits me to tears. If you can deal with this (simply changing movement tactics is enough to game the system pretty badly and never deal with more than 2-4 guys at once) its avoidable. It's just LAME.

And man that LOS stuff is funny. Games like JA2 give heaps of feedback on to-hit chance and whether or not you can see guys. JA2 greys out guys you can't see and the reticle says NO LOS for guys you can't aim at for whatever reason. XCOM doesn't deal with these issues, because if you can see the tile a guy is on, you can shoot him with your aim skill - range - his cover = to hit.

Its sort of like how in Silent Storm you can see a guy a few squares away down stairs and shoot him, because you can 'see' him from the shoulders up. However default aimpoint is centre of mass, which is obscured by the top of the stairs, so all your shots thud uselessly into the ground and you feel retarded. In XCOM they'd just fly through the ground, because aimpoints and where a guy is and his posture etc aren't relevant to the game. The reverse is that in JA2 seeing a guy over a filing cabinet and through a window and past some smoke means any deviation from a straight line is a miss (ie change to hit is very low). In XCOM none of that matters even slightly - you can stand in a bus and shoot out the windscreen and you won't even break the glass.

[Zinegata]

The simplicity of the combat mechanics and the resultant abstractions remind me of a miniatures game, though I'm not sure if that's a good or a bad thing. Like in a minis game, there's an assumption that a unit's position is only an abstract representation of what's "actually" going on, hence why LOS-breaking shots are possible. Familiar to a 40k or Flames of War or whatever player, not so much to someone more used to something like Silent Storm.

Too complex for Zinegata, people.

Actually, I said I figured it out only after BGC's comment; his analogy with minis game was so spot on you even copied it in your later posts. It was your comments that were incomprehensible gibberish; and it's that comment which is why you're engaging in yet another smack-crusade.

For instance it took Gaius saying the rules are like a minis game for me to "get" that cover in this game is apparently not based on true line of sight; but on simply a set percentage.

But hey keep on lying to preserve your fragile ego with your bitter idiot homies.

[PeZook]

The problem usually crops up early in the game, when gun ranges are low and it takes a couple of turns before reliably scoring some hits. It's hard to get a hint when it normally does take 2-3 turns before scoring a hit.

Which is actually when the game is at its best ; Endgame is all about staying in one place, interrupting and no-risk headshotting everybody with your supermen, while in the early game you have to carefully manage cover, overwatch suppresion and maneuver, and it's great.

The thing about JA2 is that you simply can't tell from the iso view. There are some tools that help (i.e. Mercs saying it outloud that they have no shot) but it's not always guaranteed. Especially with damn trees; where in many cases shots go through the trees and only do 1 damage against the guy behind it.

Also, I'm not saying it's necessarily better. And I am saying it's less realistic. But it's a game quirk (or more correctly a mechanical abstraction) that I'm willing to tolerate as long as it's actually a decent minis game.

It's not less realistic if it forces you to use an approximation of real tactics, even if it's still a very gamey abstraction.

[Zinegata]

Which is actually when the game is at its best ; Endgame is all about staying in one place, interrupting and no-risk headshotting everybody with your supermen, while in the early game you have to carefully manage cover, overwatch suppresion and maneuver, and it's great.

Nah, Night Ops for me .

There is a certain thrill and fun in the early battles though, I agree.

It's not less realistic if it forces you to use an approximation of real tactics, even if it's still a very gamey abstraction.

You're getting what I said the other way around. I'm saying the new X-com (minis-game based) is apparently LESS realistic than JA2. And I'm not saying it's necessarily a better thing.

But I'm okay with that as long as it's a good game.

[Stark]

Actually, I said I figured it out only after BGC's comment. It was your comments that were incomprehensible gibberish.

Hey look pa, he edited his post. One day you'll learn that if you stopped starting personal attacks, you'd stop getting them and looking like a retard. Maybe going in guns blazing makes you feel tough, but it doesn't get results (especially when you double the size of a post in an edit).

And man lategame JA2 (and most bullet-travel simulators) is fucking terrible. Like Zooka says it's all infinite headshots all day long (or all night because night = you win). XCOM ends up that way (especially with snipers, like White Haven said) but it never gets to the point of six guys in a row lying prone headshotting 30+ guys one after the other.

TBH, if they changed the display effects I don't think XCOM would be so frustrating. For instance, your guys are constantly exposing themselves in their idle animations (which goes a long way to cover the abstracted stuff), and if they just chose an exposed frame when you fired and actually showed the bullet being able to hit you, my eyes would sure roll a lot less. That said, the way it calculates visible is a bit fruity; a guy on the outside of a train can see a guy on the inside of the train if they're both against the same wall, because there's a window there. Fine you might say, but then the shots between the two literally fly through the train's wall cavity from one end to the other over and over and it looks absolutely retarded. It's a shame cause there's a lot of contextual animations (window smashing etc) but no 'lean over cover to actually have LOS'. You've just got to buy the high abstraction, which is pretty hard when your sniper react-fires through two levels of concrete floors and three intervening walls to kill an alien.

[Zinegata]

Hey look pa, he edited his post. One day you'll learn that if you stopped starting personal attacks, you'd stop getting them and looking like a retard. Maybe going in guns blazing makes you feel tough, but it doesn't get results (especially when you double the size of a post in an edit).

*points at Stark and LAUGHS*

Yes, this is all about poor, poor Stark being bullied by mean old Zine. Stark's explanations were crystal clear! This was all some evil nefarious plot by Zine!

Instead of "Cut the pendantic crap, game good or bad?"

Poor Stark. Give him a cookie. Give him a hug.

And man lategame JA2 (and most bullet-travel simulators) is fucking terrible. Like Zooka says it's all infinite headshots all day long (or all night because night = you win).

LOL. I was expousing NIght Ops before it was Stark-cool :p.

[Stark]

*points at Stark and LAUGHS*

Yes, this is all about poor, poor Stark being bullied by mean old Zine. Stark's explanations were crystal clear! This was all some evil nefarious plot by Zine!

Instead of "Cut the pendantic crap, game good or bad?"

Poor Stark. Give him a cookie. Give him a hug.

See what I mean? Zero content, 100% posturing, you look like an idiot. Just stop, so people can stop making fun of your hysteria. If you didn't want to know about pedantic details, why are you even engaging on these issues? These are clear issues (whether they're a problem is a matter of taste) and most people can talk about them.

And man lategame JA2 (and most bullet-travel simulators) is fucking terrible. Like Zooka says it's all infinite headshots all day long (or all night because night = you win).

LOL. I was expousing NIght Ops before it was Stark-cool :p.

Sorry I missed this piece of content! Oh my mistake, it was just more 'hilarious' 'flames' from Z-gats, the man who edits his posts and then calls people who didn't read the 'new' version liars. At least you didn't snip out the content of my post again to try and score cheap internet points in your personal crusade to... oh shit. Wrong again. Sorry team!

What is particularly interesting about this LOS to-hit business is that reviewers and 'normal people' have commented on it. Its not like some buried mechanic that only affects the extremely fat (and man, I sound pretty fat complaining about it lol): the combination of tile-based LOS and the drama camera showing off the no-LOS shooting and how this affects the play is even mentioned on IGN. I've been asked if I think Firaxis made this cause of 'dumb down' or whatever, but I think that they decided to go with a faster and less analysis-based game deliberately. People sure seem to like it and its not amazingly terrible like the old game, so I don't think they got it wrong in broad strokes.

[PeZook]

I think it's just that they didn't have time/they decided it wasn't important to touch up the look and feel, since as you wrote, it would've been easy to make it look believable with things as simple as spouting some particle effects when shots go thorugh obstacles, or showing your guys popping in and out of cover etc.

I just personally have a thing where such stuff irritates me because I like immersion (I can play a shitty game if it immerses me ). But the strategic layer is interesting, right? You mentioned there's too much resources, I guess they didn't quite deliver on their promises to make you feel the pinch?

[Zinegata]

Stark, because you're never going to admit you overreacted because you thought your street cred was getting attacked (which you have somehow morphed into me being some bully bashing your skull in), there's really nothing further to talk about. This is your issue, not mine.

Also, stop pretending that you're "adding" anything to the discussion by repeating the LOS issue over, and over and over again. This is just you throwing a tantrum because I happened to say that I found BCG's explanation better than yours. Yeah, it's an issue. I agree it's not realistic. No, it's not the whole game.

And the edit issue? Go whine to a mod and see if they care. It was actually a minor edit.

Again, thanks to the folks to who cut through that circular crap over one specific mechanic and gave evals on the game (that includes Stark). Will be buying it.

[Zinegata]

I just personally have a thing where such stuff irritates me because I like immersion (I can play a shitty game if it immerses me ). But the strategic layer is interesting, right? You mentioned there's too much resources, I guess they didn't quite deliver on their promises to make you feel the pinch?

I was wondering about the "you can only respond to one crisis" thing too.

[Lagmonster]

I own it, and I enjoy it. Reasons below.

1) Turn based will always be my favourite type of strategy, because I'm old and can't respond to the pressure of RTS. My handicap, not everyone's.
2) Guys in futuristic armor with laser cannons shooting aliens are cool. The animations, pacing, and imagery are just right for the theme. I didn't find it either too cheesy or too SERIOUS, which helped me enjoy the experience. I have a high level of suspension of disbelief and willing blind spots to themes I love (I play SWTOR and I have never noticed the flaws in it until after someone points it out to me, because lightsabers).
3) The gameplay isn't too hard, but the game forces other pressures on you to compensate. It's akin to being asked to play chess where each round the other guy gets an extra rook and you're always down three pawns, but the gameplay itself and aside from that never changes.
4) The game goes to great lengths to limit your access to resources and forces you to spend them willy-nilly. If you demand that your game fit the idea of "run a secret military organization", it won't make sense. If you don't give those kinds of shits and just treat it like a themed board game (where gameplay elements and restrictions exist just "for game" and no other reason), you'll have fun, especially if you just get glee over the laser gun part (ie style lathered on your substance like jam).


Also, re: Stark. Stark isn't wrong about his criticisms. But as with any criticism of entertainment you're exposed to, just decide whether the elements that concern him overlap with elements that concern you. If they don't, content yourself with your tastes and tolerances. Live and let live, and shit.

[Losonti Tokash]

I'm having fun with this game. But the fact that once you run across an enemy spawn point they get a bunch of free moves pisses me right off, especially if my guy who spotted them was the last move of my turn.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

The free move makes sense, I think. They don't get a free turn, only an initial move that lets them move into cover. Otherwise they'd just be sitting ducks when you run into them and it would be a turkey shoot.

[Losonti Tokash]

Then just put them in cover, don't let chrysalids or berserkers have a free go at my whole damn squad.

[White Haven]

The flip side of the whole 'run to cover' thing that aliens do is that t lets you cut them to ribbons on reaction fire if they're running past guys with overwatch already set. A squad-sight sniper or two on overwatch, particularly, will chop them into little bitty pieces. There are times when it gets irritating, true, but it's not a gamebreaker.

With regards to resource-crunch, it's pretty mild on Normal, but on Classic and above? Man, things get rough in Strategic as well as Tactical. My Classic Ironman playthrough is essentially in a slow, downward spiral, where I'm falling more and more behind bit by bit, but things are snowballing as I'm barely treading water and the aliens are upgunning. I've been reduced to spamming SHIVs to avoid ruinous personnel losses, but that puts a serious crunch on my alloy supplies. Seven countries have already left XCOM. My entire veteran supply has been wiped out.

And I'm loving it, because it's been a good while since a game was unafraid to be difficult without just being cheap.

[Stark]

Some might say making players learn spawn points to pre-set guys to kill spawners with reaction fire is pretty cheap.

The bad guys could, y'know, have AI and be doing things and not need a free move to prevent their stationary asses getting ruled. The game being so static is bad in the same way old Sudden Strike being static was bad - most missions are just a block of spawns the player must chip away at, and one of the most useful skills is 'manage the spawns', which I don't consider a very rewarding tactical exercise. The only excuse the game has is each mission setup is (I hope) different, so at the very least you're getting a different shopping list of stationary enemies each time.

'I lost because I took one step in the wrong direction and some guys spawned and killed me' is pretty much why I'm returning the game. The importance of cover and facing + guys magically appearing on your flank if you cross an invisible line = get fucked. It being so easy once you manage the spawns only makes this worse, because it means even on hard that's where the challenge is coming from, and I don't do 'cheating'.

[White Haven]

That's actually completely wrong, Stark. Enemies can and do move about on their own to engage you, even from outside of the area you've explored; I lost all but one squad member to a mission in which Mutons just kept pouring into a rolling firefight on their own accord. The Cyberdisc didn't help things, admittedly, but I was pretty well fucked by then anyway. Iron Man does keep you honest...

[Block]

That's actually completely wrong, Stark. Enemies can and do move about on their own to engage you, even from outside of the area you've explored; I lost all but one squad member to a mission in which Mutons just kept pouring into a rolling firefight on their own accord. The Cyberdisc didn't help things, admittedly, but I was pretty well fucked by then anyway. Iron Man does keep you honest...

Yeah I have swarms of thin men wander into fights on a fairly regular basis.

[White Haven]

Basically, on an abduction mission there are two types of enemy groups. The ones who are busy processing some dude who's wrapped up in green shit on the floor and as such aren't looking for trouble, and the groups roving around looking to start shit. Obviously in a UFO crash/landing or a terror site, the first group doesn't even exist.

[Stark]

That's actually completely wrong, Stark. Enemies can and do move about on their own to engage you, even from outside of the area you've explored; I lost all but one squad member to a mission in which Mutons just kept pouring into a rolling firefight on their own accord. The Cyberdisc didn't help things, admittedly, but I was pretty well fucked by then anyway. Iron Man does keep you honest...

Maye it's a console thing, but I get audibles on guys in exactly the same spot for half a dozen turns and then cross a magic line and they rush to flank with their daft intro cutscene. Some of the mission types seem to have more initiative (the terror sites etc) but others like abductions the aliens don't move to contact (I had the amazing fun of inching guys forward for a dozen turns while the enemy didn't move, activate enemies and suddenly I was playing a game). I find you can start a fight, run a guy around and note the spawns, then just load and farm the spawns, so they can't be moving far or doing much. It's a lol when reloading doesn't deactivate all the bad guys too, lol.

If the enemy actually is doing things (to a greater or lesser extent) the free move becomes actually less forgivable. As a fudge to cover their shit AI it's bad, but as literally just a free turn to make it harder? Perhaps this is a result of the reliance on cover; if you spotted guys in a random location they'd get toasted, but then if they're moving by themselves they should be moving in cover anyway and shouldn't need a free move to cover. The playing field is not even, and this stuff just slows the game down by encouraging extremely defensive play.

[CaptHawkeye]

I've had instances on harder difficulties of enemies taking initiative and attacking me or hunting my squad. But most of the time they don't do that.

TBH I'm sick of the entire fog of war mechanic that's so prevalent in strategy games. It's too simplistic to cover the details of spotting and detection in an abstraction.

[UCBooties]

Stark, you mentioned console. Are you playing the Xbox 360 version?

Has anyone else noticed differences vis a vis enemy behavior based on platform?

[Zinegata]

Given my local store has apparently run out of the PC version, I'll second the question on the console version before I go buy the console version :p.

[Skgoa]

I'm playing on Normal, because I have never Played an XCOM game before. First it was very easy and then suddenly I'm only getting big UFOs with Mutons In them and all missions are rated Very Hard. I have only just equipped my soldiers with Laser weapons and Nano-Suits. Is this the normal progression or does the game change the difficulty by itsself? And I'm supposed to build a key now, does the game end after that mission?

Edit: And is there a way to influence what classes your soldiers are assigned? I have ton of snipers that don't even see that much combat...