Acceptable Losses?

[Jh316]

 Besides the Griffon isn't a tank.... its more of a big ass SUV with plasma cannon for those slow traffic days

 

Bwahahaha~! That's the best description I've ever heard.

[Lonestar]

Any amount of casulties are acceptable. Just as long as the people named after my brothers don't die. And since they are my "elite soldiers" they only go on alien base missions, landed battleship missions and terror missions. They are also only in one base. So there have been some missions where only one wounded soldier gets out alive. But I'd save anyway.

[Snikers]

In my current game where I use no tanks, armour, and only use pistols and grenades

(and of course stun rods) I take terrible casualties without batting an eye. Just the last

few missions I've been left with four survivors, including wounded... I remember the

last numbering one woman clinging barely to life (something like four health), two men

seriously injured (half health) and one person just fine (who, if I remember correctly,

sucked majorly in battle, including going berserk and murdering one civilian).

[Orac]

I try not to reload too often. I just usually figure I'm going to take casualties quite often in the beginning. It makes it so missions don't drag on forever too.

 

I don't consider reloading cheating in any way. Afterall, the game was designed with, allowing the player to load and save at any point they wish, in mind.

 

Near the beginning I usually take whatever the outcome is. Usually am going to lose a couple men per mission no matter what. I can get more choosy as the game progresses because I wouldn't have to do it as much, since the soldiers can survive better and it becomes more important to keep them alive.

 

I don't generally bother with sacking soldiers. The battlefield seems to do a much better job at screening. If a soldier survives, he gets better, if he dies then he must've been a poor candidate.

[NKF]

Well, they did leave the reload option out of tactical combat.

 

I don't mind reloading as long as it's not during a tactical mission, so I don't get the same map. As I keep telling myself, it's fairer for both sides.

 

As for soldier screening: Yes, I agree entirely. Experience is the best method of screening. Poor stats can be improved. And you never know, one of the poorer soldiers may have the fabled 100 psi defense stat. 'Life is like a box of chocolates...'

 

I do sack soldiers who get mind controlled by sectoid leaders and or commanders. The reason being, if we were to go up against ethereals soldiers, these soldiers will become heavy liabilities or will just end up as psionic bait, which isn't exactly a palatable situation either.

 

Of course, if they are good soldiers with plenty of experience under their belt, I keep them but stop them from going to combat zones riddled with psionic aliens. I might just ship them off to guard one of my passive bases. No sense in wasting a good soldier.

 

- NKF

[Orac]

Well, they did leave the reload option out of tactical combat.

 

I don't mind reloading as long as it's not during a tactical mission, so I don't get the same map. As I keep telling myself, it's fairer for both sides.

 

As for soldier screening: Yes, I agree entirely. Experience is the best method of screening. Poor stats can be improved. And you never know, one of the poorer soldiers may have the fabled 100 psi defense stat. 'Life is like a box of chocolates...'

 

I do sack soldiers who get mind controlled by sectoid leaders and or commanders. The reason being, if we were to go up against ethereals soldiers, these soldiers will become heavy liabilities or will just end up as psionic bait, which isn't exactly a palatable situation either.

 

Of course, if they are good soldiers with plenty of experience under their belt, I keep them but stop them from going to combat zones riddled with psionic aliens. I might just ship them off to guard one of my passive bases. No sense in wasting a good soldier.

 

- NKF

At first I was confused about when you said they leave out reload in tactical. I figured out that you meant it's not in the options menu in tactical. It's really hard to say whether they intended it though. Afterall they have the save option in the tactical options menu. What would be the point of allowing mid-mission in tactical if they didn't intend for you to be able to load it? I've got to admit the whole save and reload debate has always been subjective at best. When you read the manual you're left with the assumption that they'd prefer you not to. But probably in the end they figured it was best to leave it up to how the player wants to go about things. I mean, if they felt strong about the player not saving and reloading in mid mission tactical, they would've omitted the ability to save while in tactical altogether.

 

I agree though that's it's much more fair to reload prior to starting the mission so it's different. Fairness isn't a really an issue since it's a computer you're playing though. However I still think it's more ideal to reload prior to mission start (so it generates a new mission) in that it spoils the game less for the player. Afterall, you come back with knowledge you really shouldn't have if you reload the same mission. On the other hand, if the game is real tough for a player, it's nice they provided that option. I don't usually get that frustrated, but some people I know would shelve the game out of frustration if the developers didn't give them that slack. Wise move on the developers' part IMHO.

 

That's a real good point with the "life's like a bunch of chocolates..." analogy. Many times soldiers have surprised me. Like some soldier started off strong but a runt of a soldier outdid him in the long run. It's like the soldiers often adapt to the situation at hand. It's as if a soldier that has to try harder will often compensate in sometimes become the Ace because the odds were more against him. Xcom seems to award higher the harder the challenge for a soldier. Like how rookies advance real quickly later on in the game.

 

Yeah, it's hard to gauge how much you want to stick each soldier's neck out. It's a catch 22. If you don't push them they don't advance much, but when you push them, there's more chances of losing a well developed soldier. It's alot like gambling. No pain no gain, on the other hand, what's the point of a badass soldier if you're not going to use them, on the other hand, all time developing the soldier is lost if they die. I do love how the developers did that though. It adds tension and suspense to the game and makes you relate each soldier as individuals instead of relating to them completely as expendible, cloned, cannon fodder to merely just overload the meat grinder with meat (i.e. games like C&C, Homeworld, etc.). I think that's also one of the aspects that really sets xcom ahead of many other strategy/war games. Not all of them, but many of them.

 

I guess to sum it all up I think it's no big wonder that xcom is such a timeless classic. It allows a player to play how they want to play (custom tailor it enough so they can extract the most fun based upon what they like) in both difficulty, and strategy/tactics, as well as, is both highly detailed while simultaneously rather broad in scope without really feeling overwhelming at the same time.

[NKF]

Well, I'm not entirely sure why the left the reload option out of the tactical options menu, as it is rather inconvenient to have to abort the mission for a reload. Probably a blunder, or perhaps it was due to some very careful thought on their part.

 

Not complaining much. Save-reload immortality is a good way for new players to get their feet wet, or for the matter, for old players who want to remember how everything goes but not suffer any setbacks in the process.

 

Then again, it's nice to have some bragging rights after winning a tough tactical mission in one sitting without once reloading to reanimate a dead trooper. Heck, I was really happy when I almost won my first solo strike (well, it was a pair, but blaster bombs make very strong statements) on a floater base with nothing but a pistol and a couple of grenades in one sitting. But I aborted it because of a stupid blunder I did with a proximity mine.

 

It's really just pride talking, but, I'm sure a lot of us enjoy these once-in-a-blue-moon experiences.

 

Having plenty of options is always a good thing™.

 

- NKF

[Orac]

Yeah. I totally agree.

 

I know if they had been more stringent in saving and reloading, when I first started playing, I probably would've gotten too frustrated to keep on playing the game enough to where I could develop good enough strategies to have a decent chance to make it through a mission.

 

It's cool how xcom allows one to keep coming up with new challenges for themself. Gives it tons of replayability, especially for a single-player game.

 

Then when a player feels really cocky they can give TFTD a shot for a sadistically difficult challenge

 

TFTD kicks my ass anyway. I was on a TFTD binge recently and a few nights ago my frustration level got too high so I decided to play some xcom1 some more. I'll probably give it a go again in a little while. On the other hand, I think it was my last cruise ship mission that made me decided enough was enough with it. There was psi attacks galore very early in the campaign before there was even a decent supply of zrbite to be had. Not to mention it would place those brains in a saucer that explode when they die (can't remember their names, I don't think I even want to remember ) in a spot that was hell to weed out. took almost a whole night for of reloading mid-mission to finally waste him. Then I was onto the second part of the cruise ship mission and my men were severely low on ammo and in how many survived. At that point I decided, "screw this! I think I'll take a break and play some more good old X-Com: UFO Defense.".

 

Anyway, they just don't make games as good as they used to. They certainly don't make games anywhere near as good as xcom1 and 2 anymore. It's really a shame Microprose and Mythos is pretty much non-existent anymore. Mythos were masters at gameplay design and Microprose were experts at knowing a good game when they saw it and publishing it.

[Asmodai]

Griffons aren't tanks? Treads... Turret... Armored... What do YOU think a tank is?

[The Demi-Godly One]

My homeroom teacher when she is angry.

[[TBC]Blade]

There is no such thing as an acceptable loss only necessary ones

[X-Coma]

I believe that there is an acceptable level for losses in a mission, but they have to be justified. If im just bringing back the usual junk from a crash site, then really no-one can die,if i'm recovering a couple of powersources or e;erium, the odd rookie dont matter too much, but if its an ethereal commander from a base, then as long as they' not my my commander or his colonels or captains then hell, they'e expendale!!

 

Thats the way that worked for me, and those base commanders would always rather blow themselves to pieces with a blaster than be caught out by X-Com!

[cyna]

about 1/4 losses isn't the end of the world. regardless of the size of ship i'm assaulting, i always seem to end up with similar casualty rates..... and yeah, if a soldier dies in combat, then he wasn't worth crying about + reloading for anyhow. if he makes it through, he's doing his job (or her.... my women tend to last longer than the guys do, actually )

[Psy Guy]

Untill the Griffon goes off road and can survive a collision with another car im going to call it the Griffon SUV (Motto): For when the road is a jungle, have the vehicle that can clear cut traffic.

 

Also tanks don't have to have treads, armor, or a turret. Hovertanks don't have treads, APCs don't have turrets, and my 1975 Volvo doesn't have armor or a turret.

 

(about the losses) Its not about how any you lose its about why they died. (if one blew himself up killing 4 sectoids thats onething but if 10 people die from a blaster bomb that entered the skyranger then thats when you hit control, amiga, amiga. (or control, alt, delete for you PC gamers)

 

-PSY GUY-

[Sgt. Strike]

Actually, in UFO and TFTD, I have no casulties, or try not too. I do use my save games, that is that I save before going into a mission, and try to kill them all quickly, and then collect bodies and gear afterwards. Now, if I want to stun some, I'll use the stun stuff.

In Apoc, I try not to let anyone die, but sometimes they do. Then I replace the people.

[PvT Emil Thorsell]

I say, stuff the Skyranger, or the avenger, full of rookies with lasers, send them into combat, except for two who stay in the ship, and only retreat when the guys outsides dead. Dont car much bout the rookies, and no rookie ever live long enough to become higher rank then squaddies

[Cazbol]

[snipped some reloading prose.......]

 

I don't mind reloading as long as it's not during a tactical mission, so I don't get the same map. As I keep telling myself, it's fairer for both sides.

 

[.....snipped more reloading prose.]

- NKF

 

[snipped even more reloading gibberish........]

 

Afterall they have the save option in the tactical options menu. What would be the point of allowing mid-mission in tactical if they didn't intend for you to be able to load it?

 

[......snipsnipsnipsnip all that reloading gibberish.]

No sooner do I stop following this forum than the reloaders crawl out of their holes. What a sad, sad thread.

 

Reloading will only be "fair" once the aliens can restart missions where they've lost troops.

 

The point in having a save option in tactical missions is to be able to do the missions in more than one sitting. Some of these missions can take several hours if you're being careful, as you have to be if you want your men live through other means than cheating. That's why you can save, turn off the computer and come back again.

 

The reason for the absence of the load button in tactical combat should be pretty straight forward for those who can bear the thought, but is often discussed as the great unsolvable mistery. The load button isn't missing. What's missing is the an extra level of difficulty right below "Beginner", called "Whaaa Momma", where all soldiers are invulnerable to save the reloaders some time.

 

:dontgetit:

Cazbol

[Psy Guy]

Ouch a little harsh are we.

The people known as "reloaders" are just a misguided bunch. Not the scourge of the earth. So they cheat, big deal its not like there hurting anyone in fact when they cheat there only hurting themself. I don't approve of common place reloadiing but for some situations I make allowances (blaster into skyranger turn 1 being the main one). Besides games are made to allow people to enjoy themselves (and sometimes to influct pain ) and if people gain enjoyment from not lossing people (via reloading) then let them.

 

-PSY GUY-

[Orac]

No sooner do I stop following this forum than the reloaders crawl out of their holes. What a sad, sad thread.

 

...

 

What's sad is being so religious over such a trivial thing. Personally, I couldn't care less how anyone plays the game. Whatever they want to do, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. There's alot of other more important things to get all worked about.

 

Ok, so you hate reloaders. Why don't you go to Washington D.C. and lobby over it now. Afterall, your enterpretation is law.

[NKF]

But does not the Parable in the Book of the Potato With Two Funny Looking Lumps of the Muton and the HWP not say that "lying face down in grass can be hazardous to your health?" or does the tale of the snakeman and the gas station not teach us the valuable lesson that a watched biscuit never boils?

 

What does that have to do with anything? Well, nothing. The idea of X-Com as a religion just seemed like a curious idea at the time.

 

---

 

You know, the funny thing is, the only bit of reloading prose in my quote in Orac's quote was the first line and the bit that wasn't snipped. The rest ought to have been "soldier screening prose". No worries. I'm just being an annoying nitwit.

 

---

 

I don't know. I always felt that reloading a tactical mission before its been created also 'reloads' the aliens that were killed in the mission as well as your own soldiers. That's their 'reload' ability right there. The only thing you've gained is experience in a hypothetical mission that you probably won't see again. [1]

 

My most common excuse for reloading these days is because some bug caused the game to crash in mid battle, or the blaster-bomb before anyone's even stepped out of the skyranger schtick. Oh and to play my solo floater base assault mission over and over again, but that's another story entirely.

 

But if the reason behind reloading the mission is because your pet soldier got a papercut, well... now that's a can of worms I hesitate to even touch. It's just as bad as the X-Com Apocalypse RT vs. TB debates. They never end.

 

Still, X-Com is not an easy game for one to just pick up and start playing like a pro (with a few rare exceptions, so I've heard), even if you already are a veteran X-Com player. I'm no pro. I'm just a bad player with some really peculiar ideas.

 

I propose we drop all mention of save-reload immortality morality debates for good and make it a semi-taboo subject. But then again, who am I to say what shall or shan't?[2] Oh I give up. I'm clutching at straws here.

 

- NKF

 

[1] All right, so it's not an eye-for-an-eye 'fair', but it's still has a better 'fair' component in there than reloading during a tactical mission after having explored it for a bit.

 

[2] I shall like pie!!! Ahahaha!!!!! Mad I am? No, it is not I who am eating pie, it is I who am a half chewed caramel?[3]

 

[3] Now, I believe neither you nor I found that footnote to be particularly amusing. But it was unexpected, and that's what counts.

[Asmodai]

"Hovertank"... Doesn't exist! An APC is not a tank. A Volvo? My mom isn't a tank, but she's stronger than a Volvo, haha.

 

Hovertank... Imagine how far that thing would fly from the recoil of a cannon. Haha that'd be fun to watch!

[mirage]

" A little revolution now and then is healthy" from a movie.

 

I don't mind seeing my team get juiced, just as long as it is every 4-5 missions. I like to hang onto my medics if at all possible, later on they become my "uber soldiers".

[BladeFireLight]

What ever hapens hapens. I dont save except to sleep.

 

If my son hit's the keyboard and kills my whole crue, Their loss. It makes it more chalanging.

 

-Blade

[Crazy Photon]

Hey, welcome back Blade please take a peek in the TFTD forum when you have time

 

Speaking of losses, I lost like half of my agents in my last terror mission (cargo ship mission in TFTD) as at one point my troops were surrounded by 6 biodrones and 3 or 4 lobstermen, in superhuman difficulty.. luckily some of the troopers were on mag. ion armour and had vibroblades so I made a bit of HTH combat

[Jman4117]

If they all die, they all die......

No casualties is best, but if it is an important mission (battleship, terror, base, etc.), I generaly fight to the death. So I'll go with 3/4