StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Stark wrote:Yeah, they didn't even use energy with smoke or stun, I think; it was just there to annoy anyone in a map with lots of corn. :V

Is cover placed on hex edges or mid-hex?

Hexes seem to be an abstraction. For example, the screenie shows one soldier selected. Several hexes out presumably is his max travel distance, given that he's down half of his TUs. But each Hex is not an obvious 'game board' piece. So for example, a hex can have a chunk of rock anywhere in it, or a tree. Or the obstacle stretches into another hex. It looks fairly seamless, which further makes me assume that each hex is a movement abstraction. Instead of you getting 60 TUs and each step takes 4 TUs like ye olden days, you now get 6 TUs and each hex worth of movement or so takes 1 TU. But you can end up anywhere you please within that general hex area.

That sounds pretty good; texture blending like that makes the maps instantly look less awful, as well. Are they still random or semi-random?

Lemme get up some image links. They're where I'm figuring this stuff from.

Looks kinda promising. Valkyria-Chronicles style over-shoulder target selection. Then you pick from what sort of shot you're making. To-hit modifiers and such clearly displayed.

Apparently, a friendly death will have cinematic death-cam likewise.


Here you can see the vague hexes, and some sort of humanoid infiltrator alien. The sliding bar appears to be a TU bar. Those boxes I THINK may be health. And the shield icon clearly represents taking cover, and POSSIBLY the quality of such cover.


Another aiming shot. Stickycover makes sense in a game like this. Ideally it'll be intuitive and directionally appropriate. Especially if enemies are offered return-fire reactions.

HELLO MY NAME IS SKYRANGER AND I AM AWESOME.

I wonder how loud the nerdrage is that the game is clearly 'inspired by XCOM' and not 'slavish recreation of 20 year old game'. :V

The aim-view is interesting, because it suggests to me that they're building it for controllers. No mouse pointer required = no mouse required, after all. If you select a dude, go third-person, they wave the camera around to select targets, that'll be boss. The long-shot looks a bit bleh, so maybe they're building it as a multi-character third-person thing rather than top-down.

If only they have a pointerless geoscape...

So it turns out I have a GI subscription somehow?? I blame EB for signing me up. Anyway the issue has some hilarious shit in there about XCOM that will fuel the nerdrage for months!

Once you get past the obligatory 'they are huge fans and this is relevant somehow' nerd-cred check and the 'it is natural to fear the game will be dumbed down for consoles' knee-jerk, there are some solid and really interesting decisions being made. First, there are no time units. Units can move twice or move and shoot; that's it. As Neph thought, the hexes are hugely abstracted and you're not expected to count footsteps to get your shot off. Overwatch and shit still works, but its pure opportunity fire as far as I can tell, and not READ THREE BOOKS THEN DRINK A COKE AND THEN MAYBE FIRE.

Interaction with funding countries is described as core, with them giving you sub-mission requests based on what's happening (give us sweet alien guns, make sure you have coverage of our whole area, etc). The article suggests that resources will be super-tight relative to tasks - you won't be able to spam out guns if you're trying to spec into robots, building a global troop bonus is a big deal, you can't catch all the UFOs, etc, so juggling the funding guys will be way more interesting.

The strategic LOS comes from satellites, which are apparently long-winded and expensive to launch. Time passes on the strategic level during tactical combat. Soldiers are class-based and have restrictions on weapons.

Hilariously the writer apparently believes UFO ended with an invasion of XCOM's base, so maybe he's not as hip with the nerd-cred as he thinks he is.

Anyway, they're pushing the dynamic angle, with much more to do on the strategic level than just SPEED UP TIME THEN CLICK ON UFO, with a lot of decisions that is used to drive the game a bit less randomly than the other game. Who knows if it'll work, but its far more interesting than REHASH UFO, RELEASE FOR FREE CASH.

PS best part of review? ARE CONSOLE AUDIENCES READY FOR A TRIPLE-A STRATEGY GAME. Y'know the game with tactical combat from the Advance Wars school.

The idea of improved geoscape politics and interaction with the funding countries sound really damn great, I gotta say. X-COM's feedback into effects of your actions was always really crappy, and it didn't feel like the countries were actual actors with goals and politics and agendas.

Time passes on the strategic level during tactical combat? How does that work?

PeZook wrote:The idea of improved geoscape politics and interaction with the funding countries sound really damn great, I gotta say. X-COM's feedback into effects of your actions was always really crappy, and it didn't feel like the countries were actual actors with goals and politics and agendas.

It sounds like they consider it a big part of the design, with 'xyz needs abc to get you the jfk' stuff being common. I'm interested in the suggestion that resources will be much more limited, and that things like 'build a tank' or whatever are mid-term goals that will prevent you from meeting other goals along the way. Without being too enthusiastic it sounds like they're really building on the 'aliens target countries and turn them' element. The regional goals you get for having 100% coverage sound like a bit of a lol, though. I want to hear more about the way it sets up campaign, because it sounds like the alien force makeup and agenda is not always the same, which would be pretty cool.

Time passes on the strategic level during tactical combat? How does that work?

Is this a serious question? Taking too long in a tactical mission means you might miss a UFO contact or be unable to meet a goal or whatevs.

Stark wrote: It sounds like they consider it a big part of the design, with 'xyz needs abc to get you the jfk' stuff being common. I'm interested in the suggestion that resources will be much more limited, and that things like 'build a tank' or whatever are mid-term goals that will prevent you from meeting other goals along the way. Without being too enthusiastic it sounds like they're really building on the 'aliens target countries and turn them' element.

I liked thatin UFO: Afterlight, where at the start of the game you were always short on ammo and equipment and people. Discounting the flaws of the rest of the game, I always felt they got it pretty right, since it applied lots of pressure and caused decisions like "Do I go to defend this place underequipped, or count on it holding out until I get the sniper rifles?" etc.

Of course this can still be fucked up, so who knows

They talk about soldier growth, and while class-limited weapons is a bit lameo, hiding a recruits class until they level a bit will at least stop scumming. Higher level or skill dudes can apparently start projects to provide global bonuses (through better training I guess) which again apparently costs heaps and takes a while.

Afterlight is a good comparison, because it didn't hold that sense of resource pressure very long. It stopped being about uzis and terror and about what colour shield you had and how long you could be bothered shooting the alien before he died.

Stark wrote:Afterlight is a good comparison, because it didn't hold that sense of resource pressure very long. It stopped being about uzis and terror and about what colour shield you had and how long you could be bothered shooting the alien before he died.

True ; It's one of the few games where third-party mods actually made it balanced and good (well, better: some problems are too endemic to cure with mods), by making the game keep this feeling of hectic struggle longer, but also not disregarding rewards for the player - deploying better weapons and equipment made things easier tactically, but placed more burdens on your logistics (oh god I'm running out of mines fuck!), and made enemies gradually use more numerous and powerful units to counter your unholy sniper-covered minefields guarded by warpcannons and heavy machineguns.

Anyways, X-Com was also best when your weapons were limited and you were hectically trying to even the odds. Hell, Stalker was best when you had a Makarov and a sawed-off shottie instead of a guaranteed headshotgun. This can be said about a great many games where you went from "scrounging to survive" to "invincible demigod".

Stark wrote:

Time passes on the strategic level during tactical combat? How does that work?

Is this a serious question? Taking too long in a tactical mission means you might miss a UFO contact or be unable to meet a goal or whatevs.

Well I'm thinking more like doesn't that mean if you're in the tactical mission and something happens on the strategic level that requires a decision, or there are multiple missions on hand, how does the engine/game system handle that? I'm not saying I can't conceive of how it can be done,.

url=http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/ ... known.aspx]A brief interview with the man in charge of audio effects for the new game[/url], which also showcases a couple of new alien designs.

Overall, this is looking pretty good, even if I'm not wild about the art direction; the new Muton looks like it was recycled from some rejected Halo concept art, and it would have been nice to have futuristic space marine armour without gigantic shoulder pads for a change. Oh, well, it's not as if several of the original's character designs weren't pretty silly as well.

The examples suggest you simply is things while in a tactical battle, but that's a bit lame. My our think you'd get the same popup alerts anyway, or even be able to switch out at will. Maybe they'll improve it.

Stark wrote:

Time passes on the strategic level during tactical combat? How does that work?

Is this a serious question? Taking too long in a tactical mission means you might miss a UFO contact or be unable to meet a goal or whatevs.

If I were doing it, it would mean that the turns would represent a certain amount of time, and after the mission completes, the game would resume where it was, but the skyranger would sit where it was for the amount of time the combat took, plus maybe a fixed period of resource recovery relating to the mission type.

What this probably means is, in addition to a single base, we're only going to have a single skyranger... Bringing it in line with UFO:Afterlight...

Isn't it more likely to mean that UFO speeds are high relatively interception window, y/n? The example they use is a ship being lost during a battle; obviously this wouldn't happen if they had better coverage, more planes, better positioned planes, etc.

Outside of edge cases there's no real reason why this would limit you to one team. It might, of course (just like you might not be able to interact with the strategy level in a battle for some stupid reason).

If the tactical layer is turn based and the strategy layer is real time, I'm not really sure you can smoothly integrate them, though programtically the RT layer is actually a turn based auto-end-turn in 5 sec increments.

An event on the strategic level still occurs at a given time, and whatever ratio of turn:time they use that time is still passed in a battle, so there doesn't seem to be a reason for you to take that phonecall.

It'd be easy to let people 'leave' a battle and 'go back' if they paused the strategic level too, but they may not want you to ever be able to pause the strategic level for flow reasons.

Andrew_Fireborn wrote:

Stark wrote:

Time passes on the strategic level during tactical combat? How does that work?

Is this a serious question? Taking too long in a tactical mission means you might miss a UFO contact or be unable to meet a goal or whatevs.

If I were doing it, it would mean that the turns would represent a certain amount of time, and after the mission completes, the game would resume where it was, but the skyranger would sit where it was for the amount of time the combat took, plus maybe a fixed period of resource recovery relating to the mission type.

What this probably means is, in addition to a single base, we're only going to have a single skyranger... Bringing it in line with UFO:Afterlight...

I like the gist of your system, but I don't see how it results in limiting to one Skyranger, since if you have two skyrangers, you handle the one that landed first, then the second skyranger. The thing would be making sure that another tactical mission doesn't occur at the same place again before the first battle 'plays out' in the strategy layer.

Calling something so simpleminded a 'system' is probably being a bit generous.

Since speeds are apparently very high (ie not hours to cross your detection areas like in the old games) its pretty trivial to just have each squad wait; the edge cases wouldn't come up much and nobody would notice.

Frankly I hope it has auto-resolve, because even with the streamlining the 159th battle will still be boring.

AniThyng wrote:I like the gist of your system, but I don't see how it results in limiting to one Skyranger, since if you have two skyrangers, you handle the one that landed first, then the second skyranger. The thing would be making sure that another tactical mission doesn't occur at the same place again before the first battle 'plays out' in the strategy layer.

Probably should have explained more that the second was in relation to the news that the Fraxis X-COM game is going to have the tactical still progress time in strategic. Coupled with the fact that, at present, they're only allowing one base.

There's only one base because you don't need radar posts.

Its funny that some people can be concerned about whether or not the funding nations can change and what sort of dynamism or emergence can be in the driving narrative, and other people are just obsessed with creating 'systems' to explain dumb shit. If you've only got one transport, but they reduce the required workload, the game won't end up being amazingly slow and boring, so its a net plus. Hiring is cheap and easy, however, so I'm not sure what utility having 20 soldiers would be with a single transport; the only image of the base seems to be that cross-section, which obviously isn't in-game.

There isn't really a need for multiple bases for troops. You could have a backup troop base to get skyrangers on target faster in the original, but the main purpose of extra bases is to house extra scientists/engineers, to provide extra radar coverage and to provide local interceptor locales.

It's cool that Radar's now covered by launching sats. That's fine. Extra scientists/Engineers could be crammed in the main base, okay.

But how will intercept be handled? If you build the main base in the US, how will you take out UFOs in Asia? Hmmmm...

They don't talk about it, but frankly I'd like it if at least at the start you just use nearby military planes rather than flying to America from Japan for intercepts. In the brief walkthrough they're intercepting guys in Europe and the US, and obviously the skyranger is captain long-range. The base seems to be far larger than previously, and I doubt they'll enforce the hard limits on workers as they did previously.

That said, given the way they are trying to put a story across the events, you may not get to choose your base position. I hope they at least have a 'random funding nations' mode where you could be funded by a bunch of random guys rather than BIG RICH COUNTRIES OH AND AFRICA DON'T IGNORE THAT CONTINENT. The article talks about how they want the aliens to respond more to your actions or choices than in the older games, but they don't talk about setup options.