Economy-Global Strategy system

[Sophocles]

After playing the game for the better part of a month now I realized that bugs aside there is something missing. The emotions of great potential, let down by not up to par implemention, felt while playing AM started slowly kreeping up.

 

Major issues:

 

1. the upkeep costs for the tack system are prepostrous. For what matters, the whole idea of rail tracks is questionable on its logic. How long does it take to construct one in reality or costs to operate in a daily basis??

2. the lack of bartering (Guns, ammunition, technology etc) is frastrating.

3. the very little space in bases.

4. the lack of strategic importance of bases.

5. the diplomacy is very generic.

6. the frustrating limitation of only 5 players at its mission.

7. the repetition of tactical maps and situations and their very small size.

8. the resource system.

 

Tactical combat has been vastly improved compared to AM. I would give them that.

 

Speaking as a whole, dissapointment was what followed the initial excitement i felt when i played the game the first time. And then there are games like Rome Total war with similar notions of play (grand strategy and tactical play) that you always come back for more.

 

Am i the only one feeling let down once more

[Slaughter]

Well, I do agree with several of your points, but I can't say I feel let down so far. The more I played Aftershock, the better I liked it. Then again I've only just encountered the WGs, so I guess it's a little early to make up my mind.

 

1: Yeah, it seems too expensive. Guess some of the problem is that the tracks are constantly attacked. Even if we're not made aware of it in the game, my guess is that the Cultists and mutants do their best to destroy the tracks all the time, and that this is part of the upkeep cost - guarding and repairing.

 

2: Yeah, there should have been bartering between the factions.

 

3: I understand why they did it, but it does seem like a cheap way to make the game strategically harder.

 

4: Agreed.

 

5: Yeah, it should have been deeper. I knew it would be like this because ALTAR told me a long time ago, but it does have a lot more potential.

 

6: Well, it is increased after a while to 7. I'm not bothered by this, but I can understand that others may be.

 

7: I'd like to see some larger maps as well, and more enemies indoors.

 

8: I think it's okay. What is it you don't like about it?

 

As for the game in general, I'm a bit puzzled by your conclusion. If you've played the game for the better part of a month I'd say that's a testament to it's quality . It does have too many bugs, and quite a few areas where it could be improved, but would you play a lousy game for so long?

[Sophocles]

Point 8.

The allien technology resource is very scarse and can hardly support future demands for one thing. Most importantly though, to characterize scavanged allien artifacts as resources and expect a constant flow is kind of foolish.

 

As for my conclusion

First of all it is MY conclusion. I don't expect people to adapt it or not. I expressed what i am feeling.

 

For the month spend playing the game I would say that it is not a matter of time spend because it is a good game or not but more because I wanted to exaust all possibilities that I might miss something important that could reverse my opinion.

 

It is like reading a book you just cannot express a solid opinion untill you have read it to the final page.

 

I would like to say though, that the game has potential. But smaller or larger "mistakes" are holding it back from being a classic. I was expecting better from Altar this time around. That is why I was let down.

[ricardo440]

I agree with some of what you are saying, but I thought the resource system was actually quite good. Coupled with the high cost of tracks you have to make some seriously hard decisions on the strategy map (rather than just having everything).

 

I like that, I like the way some places are so worthless that it costs you money to connect them rather than gaining money. It makes sea routes mroe valuable, and means knowledge buildings are important.

 

 

Shame base defence buildings are pointless, or even counter productive.

[Silencer]

1. the upkeep costs for the tack system are prepostrous. For what matters, the whole idea of rail tracks is questionable on its logic. How long does it take to construct one in reality or costs to operate in a daily basis??

3. the very little space in bases.

4. the lack of strategic importance of bases.

8. the resource system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree and disagree. The tracks do use lots of resources but it also adds some more strategy to things. It's not just a matter of capturing everything you can as fast as you can, you need to think about the costs and rewards of different areas and make your expansion decisions carefully. In my opinion this also gives bases a huge strategic value. Since each base brings in different types and amounts of resources and allows you to connect to bases in other areas they differ greatly in their importance.

 

For example Paris, London, Malaga, Buenos Aires and other towns are very important either because they provide many resources or allow connections to many other bases or regions of the world. Coastal towns are especially vital. Meanwhile you have other bases like Seattle which provide few resources and don't connect to anything, but are so close to other bases that you can easily connect them for extra building space. Other bases are just too far and don't provide enough return to be worth it, and often times you are better off not connecting to certain areas of the world until much later.

 

However I do agree with one point, and to me it is one of the most annoying aspects of the game. The bases are too small. It's not so much the size of the bases even, it's the fact that as you get more bases it becomes increasingly difficult to actually remember and keep track of what each base does. What knowledge level do your bases have? How do your have your labs and factories distributed? It become increasingly important to reorganize your bases so that you can make the most of your limited space and resources, but there are so many bases that it is impossible to keep track of this.

 

It would be much better all the "bases" were simply capturable mines for strategic resource purposes and bases were a seperate entity that worked more like they did in the X-Com games. Players should be able to build their own bases in any political region that they fully control and is connected to the track network. Bases would be large like the X-Com bases with plenty of room to build, but limit them to one per region and have a high construction and upkeep cost to compensate. This way we can have a few large bases positions when and where we need them but still maintain the rather nice political/resource system that is already inplace for an added level of strategy.

 

 

2. the lack of bartering (Guns, ammunition, technology etc) is frastrating.

5. the diplomacy is very generic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree it would be nice to have more interaction and trading between the you and the factions.

 

6. the frustrating limitation of only 5 players at its mission.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

At first I hated this. Then I kinda got used to it. Then I figured out that you can expand it to 7. Now with 7 it seems like a lot. There are still times when I wish I had more space, and I don't think it would hurt the game to have more, but I think I've been converted from my X-Com days of Avengers with 20+ troops.

 

7. the repetition of tactical maps and situations and their very small size.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This also annoys me sometimes. The maps are pretty repetetive, and with only a few mission types things get very familiar very fast. I remember in X-Com each mission felt like a new experience but with this game it's more of a "which one do I get this time". I think the map size is fairly good for the smaller squads we have but we definitely need a LOT more map tilesets and they need to be better randomized. Things are just too familiar each time around to be scary.

[Paranoid Jack]

On my third game restart and after playing over a hundred missions into this campaign I began to get the feeling the maps could use a bit more variety also. But for the most part I am happy. I think the mission types should have been doubled at least... search and destroy, defend, attack, escort, and capture. Well defend and attack are really just escort and search & destroy. Did I miss any?

 

The main thing you have to remember about the tracks they do not need to be active at all times. I have tracks linking bases and seaports linked but all others are shutdown. My resources are shooting up into the thousands and there is nothing else I can buy at this point except maybe open more bases and create more Knowledge Buildings before adding more Factories and Labs.

 

I have been playing whenever possible and no other game has even been booted up on my PC since I installed Aftershock. I love the missions, tactical combat... either turn-based or quasi-turn-based is too much fun for me. When I can take out every target on a map with out even taking a hit I am beginning to think maybe I should have went with the highest difficulty setting.

 

Can it be changed mid-game? And what are the differences? Does the higher setting give more targets?

Think I will boot up and find out...

 

The mother-ship is still a few days out so I am looking forward to some changes in the tactical missions. Not to mention only having a 5 man pod has made things a bit more interesting. I have the research started to expand but with six or even seven troops won't it just make the maps easier?

[TYR]

I agree with everyone and everything, expept the idea that tracks are a strategic thing, if you can count 2+2 together then you should be able to figure out the cheapest way to connect bases. If any province is attacked you react anyways no matter if its a important harbor or netzwork hub. I would suggest the following for economy:

 

I. reduce the trackcosts to (10%), make tracks through uncontrollable territorys more expensive, you need security guards etc to protect it against mutants and roaming cultists.

 

II. Set the resource income to maybe 10% of the value now, which can be increased dramatically with specific buildings, like a smelter for low tech, a factory for hightech, and a research facility for hightech, also other buildings may have a small effect but not that much.

 

III. Increase the resource use of manufacturing and research by 200-? %, it should be damn expensive to build high tech weaponry armor etc, while lowtech weapons should be as cheap as now. Also research should consume alot.

 

IV. about the defensive buildings, heck i though that damned troops will fight on their own, i dont want to play every little skirmish, if there is a military unit present in a region it should be possible to send them in like RDE troops in AM, the capacity of the military buildings should be doubled and they shall consume resources of course, training and equiptment is expensive.

 

V. Id love to have some convoy missions like a convoy beeing attacked by cultist terrorists or any other group in a uncontrollable region, also there could be resource raids in the uncontrollable territorys like oh we have found a ufo wreck lets secure the area so we can grab the (stash).

 

Anyways im not sure how much we can change atm, i expected some mod tools and plugins but i assume the programmers out there are already tinkering their own tools, if its time ill start modeling starting with a few weapons for the arsenal