A new XCom should be...

[Jman4117]

You're most welcome, I shall keep spamming a bit. Alas, I have zero coding skills or I might consider signing up for this. Maybe I'll volunteer for some monkey work if I feel up to it

Don't forget the concepts, 2D/3D art and eventually testing!

[Zombie]

There are going to be a lot of more specific questions I want to ask but right now the key is realtime/turnbased/both. What do people want for a new game? For me XCom has always been a turn-based deal and I'd like to play a new game in the same way but its a very old fashioned method by todays standards and I'm thinking we'd be wise to offer a realtime solution too with the choice of how to handle it being down to the player. Really want to know what everyone thinks as it won't be long before we start programming and that's a must know for initial development!

I really love the pure-TB tactical portion of the game that X-COM provides. However, I'm also partial to how Silent Storm, UFO: After... and Jagged Alliance 2 handles combat. In those games you basically start in Real Time until you stumble upon an enemy (or vice versa) in which case the game switches to Turn Based. My only gripe with this system is that the time-counter runs way too fast which means I'm usually only able to move a couple of my men (max) before the baddies spot me which breaks up the formation and leaves some soldiers vulnerable and others unable to engage the enemy due to distance. Would be nice if there would be some way a player could select how fast the game moves in Real Time mode - especially if said player is a slowpoke and likes to plan out a strategy carefully. Or a way to move everyone while preserving the formation would be great too.

 

Anyhow, my 2 cents.

 

- Zombie

[NKF]

Very clear problem in games like JA2 - you barely get a chance to tell your squad to move and suddenly it's combat when an enemy comes into view. However, you weren't technically in combat until the enemy was aware that you were there (pointing their gun at you), so you could move about as necessary, and even break off the turn based mode by backing out of sight.

 

There was a game called Freedom Force, a bit of an ultra cheesy comic Superhero type game (go play it!) with a bit of squad based pick your hero team combat gameplay that played out in pausable real-time. One aspect I really liked was the fact you could speed up and slow down the clock as necessary. That way you could play it out in slo-mo when you want to do several things while letting the action play out, or go back up to normal speed when you just want to quickly get from one point to another.

 

Really, what's is time compression settings in addition to a RT-then-TB-combat system.

- NKF

[StVier]

The idea that the troopers we control are autonomous beings with no thought for their own safety and only enough brains to kneel when under fire if their CO told them to is absurd and this is what I am referring to when I say realism. I'm not imagining that private Jenkins will submit an annual leave pass in the middle of January therefore leaving the mission to UFO-017 3 men short as sergeant OConnor is suffering from shellshock and corporal Higgins is attending a family funeral.

 

I like this paragraph... would be wicked to include annual leave and family issues, somehow reminds me of the soccer managers game. Anyway, just a brief note about 'reactions', although not neccessary the case but rank should be consideration factor along with recklessness and bravery or other reaction-related stats. I can imagine a freshie requesting orders just about every step of their way but more prone to stupid mistakes should they act on their own, but a sergeant would make a more informed decision if left on their own. Does a soldier hiding behind a barrel come under fire shoot back or find better protection? How differently/similarly would a sergeant and a private react in the situation? It's almost like a RPG saving throw against recklessness/bravery that decides if a soldier tries to be Rambo or the enemy soldiers that jump out of cover to get shot by him.

[The Veteran]

Wow you guys were busy while I was squeezing in my beauty sleep eh! Seeing as there's so much here I'm afraid I feel obliged to double post. This one will deal with everything but Catwalk's comments and then I'll address them in another post!

 

Firstly Jman is right we aren't just looking for coders but we need artists urgently too! We're not really looking for designers right now but that's partly due to the fact that you guys are giving us so much good feedback in here we really don't need to fill another space on the team with someone who's job is already being done! So please keep throwing in your 2cents and you're already doing a great deal to help us make the right game for you!

 

Zombie and NKF make similar points so I'll do both of you guys together! Basically concerning the way real-time works in certain games unless I missed something but unfortunately I've never played Jagged Alliance 2 so I'm having trouble getting my head around the way the "turn-based" portion works. And the reason that's in quotes is because I'm not particularly convinced it is a true depiction of turn-based from what I've heard described so far. It sounds to me more like the sighting of an enemy allows the player to pause and micro-manage but that the enemy side can still disrupt this movement phase by opening fire for example.

 

So I'll need a bit of an example for this scenario I think as it sounds like these guys have kind of done what Catwalk is worried we may and featured both styles of gameplay in a big messy unpolished ball!

 

Regarding speed selection in real-time I agree that it's good to be able to speed things along, remember those alien colony missions with the tiny cupboards that lobstermen used to hide in? Speed controls in realtime go without saying for me, if you have a pause button you will also have other buttons to increase speed as well. What I commented on for Cat was the fact that I think a 'flashback' style rewind is basically cheating/reloading and therefore definitely won't feature. Sure if you're playing a game with pople who aren't paying attention then you could ell them what they've missed but why would you if you plan on winning? These aliens have already moved once and they aren't going to do it again if you weren't paying attention!

 

Lastly to StVier, I agree yu've hit on a good point regarding rank. Of course soldiers who have seen action multiple times will undoubtedly handle a combat situation better than their fresh-faced equivalents, even when possessing the same psychological trait. On my way to this post I saw the UFO2:ET news post which toted 'A strong RPG based system for soldiers' which I can't help but turn my nose up at. My first concern when playing Aftermath was the lack of a troop pool and the necessity to keep my men alive indefinitely. I think XCom titles especially should not face this crisis point in that soldiers who have been on 1000 missions are still just as likely to walk into a trap as a rookie on his first detachment.

 

However, I also agree that some element of RPG statistic or skill levelling feature is necessary to represent each troopers increasing battle experience and as StVier mentioned rank will also have an affect here. I simply think this should be balanced in such a way that the loss of a good trooper should not spell the end of the world thus causing reloads in order to finish the game with the same team you started out with. Not an easy task but there must be some balance here or the game will lose all credibility as a strategy game and became more of a Dungeon Siege style squad rpg which it is most certainly not!

[The Veteran]

I guess I misunderstood your goals slightly then. I took this to be a project having old fans as the main audience. Not that there's anything wrong with focusing on a younger audience.

 

You were definitely right first time around mate, we're not targetting a younger audience, we are targetting a wider audience. We're trying to cater initially to the older fans of the original series which is why all your feedback is so useful but we can't succeed on purely the old school XCommers so we're hoping to bring the games some new audience too!

 

I can't imagine that you won't have to make serious compromises along the way in order to achieve this objective. Not only due to a much higher workload, but due to probably having to change both game modes somewhat to account for the other.

 

This is regarding RT and TB playmodes and again I will say there is not to be any detrimental affect from using both! Each mode of play will be treated as a standalone method including identical features implemented in a slightly different way. Think of RealTime as being 5TUs per second for example, turn based we simply decide how long a turn will be (say 20seconds) and then allocate time units accordingly. For example the soldier who is given 5TU per second in realtime will be given 100TU per turn in turn based. It's simple maths and that's all there is to it!

 

I can definitely see this working for reaction fire in TB, and I agree that Bravery is one of the funny things you mess around with for a RT game model. I'm still concerned it'd be too much of a headache to play with, but it might appeal more to players who like RT (for sake of ease, I'll use RT to denote anything that isn't strictly classical TB).

 

Again the difference between turn based and realtime is completely negligible and it will be implemented in an identical way in both modes. Quite how it could affect ease of play I have no idea and I'm not sure how it constitutes a possible headache either so you may need to enlighten me there!

 

Reaction hiding?! I must say that's interesting, if you can code it properly.

 

Talking to the wrong guy! I just tell the devs what to do not how to do it! I imagine 'reaction hiding' as you put it will simply consist of a soldier attempting to lose their LOS with the enemy by placing any suitable object between the two but don't quote me on this!

 

This is starting to smell like feature creep to me While the Geoscape model was too simplistic, it was also very comfortable to use. I do like micromanagement on the tactical level, but I'd actually prefer to not have too much of it on the strategic level.

 

What is a feature creep? If it's the introduction of a new feature then you're absolutely right and I fail to see the problem. Name one sequel that has ever been successfully created without any changes to the feature-set of the original? With the possible exception of TFTD!!! Besides it's not a complicated feature, it's essentially training to make your team better. If you want to let natural selection take care of that for you then you don't need to bother with training one bit.

 

 

I agree with that much. All I objected to was realism used as a plus word in its own right, as I really don't feel it is.

 

Agreed, we aren't making a simulator, we're making a game. You're totally right that realism is not alwas a good thing and it must be introduced cautiously and sensibly to achieve the right balance.

 

I agree that balance is key, and I'm all about adding new features.

 

I'm not sure I agree that you're all about adding new features but at least we agree balance is important!!!

 

Have to disagree with you on this one, on grounds of time efficiency and convenience. The big killer in a TB game is the effort required in fighting mission after mission, and I believe this is the main goal you should seek to tackle for combat. I also play a bunch of board games, and I gentlemanly repeat my moves to anyone who needs the information I've even notified a player of missing information sometimes

 

This is regarding the ability to speed up gameplay, skip enemy turns and replay any missed movement phases. As I covered in the previous post, any game which features a pause option must also have speed controls to accompany it! That said though if the player decides to skip enemy movement or misses important information due to their own impatience they can suffer the consequences. There absolutely will not be any feature to allow the player to review previous turns and that's a final decision!

 

Sorry to end on a hatchet wielding moment but thanks again for your feedback. I'll try and get to your combat thread shortly!!!

[NKF]

Reaction hiding's already been done. Cautious disposition in Apocalypse seems to do that from time to time. Defensive reactions would be nifty - rolling out of the way of a projectile (potentially launching hapless hero into a pit), or pulling up a defensive shield of some sort - say a pot lid. The good old cRPG Dodge% skill.

 

As for JA2, the combat is similar to the Fallout games. Combat is all turn based, but switches to real time once you are not in combat.

 

Real-time stays in effect for as long as you don't see an enemy, or if you're not currently under attack. If you're under attack (or the enemies know you are in the area), you have to wait at least one full turn while staying out of view of an enemy to return to real-time mode. If they are not aware of you (they spot you then radio the whole squad to watch for hostiles),. If they are not aware of you, you cut back to real-time the turn after you end a turn with no enemies in view. Once the map is cleared, you switch back to real-time mode.

 

Fallout 1/2 had it worse off as some of enemies could amble about about really fast, thus initiating combat when you're not ready. They tend to stand around and even camp a bit in JA2, and can pin you down really well.

 

Both games could've benefited from time compression settings for the RT segments.

 

- NKF

[Catwalk]

You were definitely right first time around mate, we're not targetting a younger audience, we are targetting a wider audience. We're trying to cater initially to the older fans of the original series which is why all your feedback is so useful but we can't succeed on purely the old school XCommers so we're hoping to bring the games some new audience too!

Other than muttering some more about RT models sucking, I'll keep quiet about this

This is regarding RT and TB playmodes and again I will say there is not to be any detrimental affect from using both! Each mode of play will be treated as a standalone method including identical features implemented in a slightly different way.

---

It's simple maths and that's all there is to it!

I disagree with the notion that identical features will be implemented in a slightly different way. Sorry for being the pessimist, but I think this will be a lot more work than anticipated. One reason I don't agree it's simple math is that the RT model (I assume) does away with having own and enemy turns. And if that's not what you're looking at doing for RT, I see a whole lot of potential from that model going down the drain. I'll crawl back under my rock about this matter now, as it seems you disagree about the potential pitfalls of the dual model setup. As long as that isn't handled lightly, I have no objections.

Quite how it could affect ease of play I have no idea and I'm not sure how it constitutes a possible headache either so you may need to enlighten me there! [about an advanced reaction system]

I've thought some more about this and posted some ideas about it in the psi/morale thread. I do think it'll be a headache to play with in RT, but I already promised several times I'd abstain from commenting on it, so now I'm going to start keeping that promise I can easily see it working out well in TB.

Talking to the wrong guy! I just tell the devs what to do not how to do it! I imagine 'reaction hiding' as you put it will simply consist of a soldier attempting to lose their LOS with the enemy by placing any suitable object between the two but don't quote me on this!

This makes sense. I'll post some more about this too in the other thread.

Troopers with psychological traits which cause abnormal behaviour will have the option of training or disciplinary actions after a mission in which they have disobeyed protocol in order to provide the player with a better more professional team in future operations.

This is starting to smell like feature creep to me While the Geoscape model was too simplistic, it was also very comfortable to use. I do like micromanagement on the tactical level, but I'd actually prefer to not have too much of it on the strategic level.

What is a feature creep? If it's the introduction of a new feature then you're absolutely right and I fail to see the problem. Name one sequel that has ever been successfully created without any changes to the feature-set of the original? With the possible exception of TFTD!!! Besides it's not a complicated feature, it's essentially training to make your team better. If you want to let natural selection take care of that for you then you don't need to bother with training one bit.

Feature creep is the proliferation of features in a product such as computer software.^[1] Extra features go beyond the basic function of the product and so can result in baroque over-complication, or "featuritis", rather than simple, elegant design.

By feature creep I'm referring to features that are added for the coolness factor without thinking through what effects it'll have on the end goal. And you're right that you can't (or shouldn't) refrain from adding new features simply out of fear of straying too far from the point of origin. While I do like TFTD, I'm as disappointed as everybody else that they didn't throw in just a handful more interesting changes that would significantly improve the game, instead of simply re-skinning it. Feature creep basically means "I think that idea sucks and isn't necessary", but in much politer terms As for why I'm not keen on it, it's because it serves to complicate the strategic part of the game. A lot of cool stuff can be added to the strategic part of the game, but there is a critical limit. Add too much stuff (even though individually it's good stuff) and the net result is that it simply becomes too cumbersome. I'm not completely opposed to some kind of training, I already went along with the concept of advanced psycological profiles for soldiers. But it's yet another thing to manage, I'd prefer it to be kept simple and comfortable.

I'm not sure I agree that you're all about adding new features but at least we agree balance is important!!!

Nah, I really am a radical. You've just seen me from my rare conservative side so far because we've mostly been discussing a measure I disagreed with I see plenty potential for expanding on the X-Com concept, I'm not a purist by any means.

This is regarding the ability to speed up gameplay, skip enemy turns and replay any missed movement phases. As I covered in the previous post, any game which features a pause option must also have speed controls to accompany it! That said though if the player decides to skip enemy movement or misses important information due to their own impatience they can suffer the consequences. There absolutely will not be any feature to allow the player to review previous turns and that's a final decision!

My comment was aimed solely at the TB mode. As for your objection to my idea, what happened to "Why do you want to take an option away from players who'll enjoy it? It won't harm you any" Btw this option is available in Laser Squad Nemesis, which is where I got the idea from.

Sorry to end on a hatchet wielding moment but thanks again for your feedback. I'll try and get to your combat thread shortly!!!

Much appreciated, enjoying these discussions. I really hope this project makes it, it sounds very promising. How do you plan on avoiding a silent death due to RL priorities and waning interest from developers? That's always tough with amateur projects.

[AlanatXcomHQ]

1) Allow waypoints. It was argued that with RT you can plot a route for clearing an area and then have your troops execute it speedily. Why not in turn based as well? Let the player plot one or more waypoints to follow and have an execute button. For tedious clearing purposes, you'd be able to set detailed waypoints for several turns, allowing for efficient clearing of the area as you can specify how to do it.

 

I know this must look like I'm drawing things out but I do have to admit, this is an interesting point to consider.

 

Yes, I agree that it is possible to implement way points in the game, the only thing I should say here to back up that point is "BLASTER BOMBS" from X-com 1.

 

Now consider for one moment, if you will, the possibility of directing a single soldier's movements on the battlescape in much the same way as you would if you was directing an American Football shaped nuke right into the face of a Sectoid (e.g. the Blaster Bomb) with a TU indicator on each way point as well as the mouse cursor so that players could then judge just how many TU they have to spend for movement before allowing enough TU for any shots to be made, if any.

 

While this may seem like its making the game easy for players, especially since in X-com 1/2 whenever you moved your soldier, that was it, TU spent and if your guy/girl was in front of an alien your soldier was screwed. Think of this way-point system much like a visual representation of when a chess player picks up a chess piece and moves it around the board to see what his options are.

Plus, with plotting way-points with Blaster Bombs, you always had to option to cancel the movement, if way-points were implemented to soldier movements, its would certainly allow players to visually map out where that one soldier could go before making a final decision.

 

Now I know this doesn't have to be implemented, but I certainly think its something to consider and possibly lookover as a gameplay mechanic to implement.

[Space Voyager]

System that some here describe as "real time first, turn based after contact" (UFO:After...etc.) is definitely neither. It is real time in its essence yet it lets you pause at any moment to give/alter commands. So it is not really real time and it is far from something at first and something else later.

 

It lets the battle flow without interruptions until something worth mentioning happens, than it pauses the game. IF that is your configuration. UFO:Afterlight (IIRC) has a lot of config options so you can play the game without any pause.

 

That is however not feasible since your soldiers have no AI whatsoever.

 

Anyway, this system is one of the best battle systems that I have seen so far. If it had at least some basic options for your soldiers to shoot when a target is in an effective range or something it would be close to perfect.

 

I prefer it to turn based because things happen simultaneously - it is much more lively and it takes far less time cumulatively.

I prefer it to pure real time because you have several soldiers to think about and it is not possible to be done in real time unless you can go heavy on slow motion...

 

EDIT; Otherwise I would suggest that the game is done with one system first than implement the other. The game is out faster and you don't need to fine tune two systems at a time.

[Catwalk]

EDIT; Otherwise I would suggest that the game is done with one system first than implement the other. The game is out faster and you don't need to fine tune two systems at a time.

I think it'll be necessary to do both at once. If you do one system without taking into account, you risk making a game that isn't sufficiently compatible with the other game mode. But yeah, as long as you have a full design plan for both it might be possible to fine tune them one at a time. I agree it's a major resource problem that has to be looked at very carefully.

[The Veteran]

I disagree with the notion that identical features will be implemented in a slightly different way. Sorry for being the pessimist, but I think this will be a lot more work than anticipated. One reason I don't agree it's simple math is that the RT model (I assume) does away with having own and enemy turns. And if that's not what you're looking at doing for RT, I see a whole lot of potential from that model going down the drain. I'll crawl back under my rock about this matter now, as it seems you disagree about the potential pitfalls of the dual model setup. As long as that isn't handled lightly, I have no objections.

 

Agreed it's not going to be a five minute walk in the park but no corners will be cut so if it takes significantly longer than anticipated we'll just have to roll with it. The fact is though we are going to have both modes to increase the possible fanbase so the only real argument is not whether we implement it but how we do implement it and this is something I can't answer right now because it's the devs job but I can say it will be done to the best of our ability to the highest possible standard.

 

By feature creep I'm referring to features that are added for the coolness factor without thinking through what effects it'll have on the end goal. I'm not completely opposed to some kind of training, I already went along with the concept of advanced psycological profiles for soldiers. But it's yet another thing to manage, I'd prefer it to be kept simple and comfortable.

 

I can see your concern then but no I wouldn't consider this to be a feature creep at all as it is not an unnecessary or specifically 'cool' feature. The point behind these new traits are simply to add some character depth so the battlescape portion of gameplay can be more realistically related to a real-life combat situation. That does not mean we are attempting to create a combat simulation though as I've said before and the possibility for additional training to deal with troublesome traits such as cowardice will not be pushed on the player as it will be completely up to them whether or not they decide to recitfy these traits or simply let them play out. It is intended to be a noticeable feature in the game of course, or we wouldn't bother introducing it but the part of this feature which would involve the player carrying out additional micro-management is totally avoidable without serious effects on gameplay allowing for the player to decide for themselves whether to address training or not.

 

My comment was aimed solely at the TB mode. As for your objection to my idea, what happened to "Why do you want to take an option away from players who'll enjoy it? It won't harm you any" Btw this option is available in Laser Squad Nemesis, which is where I got the idea from.

 

I've not seen this as a feature in LSN but it still doesn't change my opinion on the matter. The reason my attitude is not that 'it won't harm any' is that it will harm plenty by allowing a player to play the game in a lazy and inattentive way without watching alien moves and playing every turn on full speed until it automatically pauses. Speed controls are good and will be featured as should be the norm in real-time strategy games but there will be no option to review past occurences other than a list of recent 'auto-pause' actions such as enemy sightings.

 

How do you plan on avoiding a silent death due to RL priorities and waning interest from developers? That's always tough with amateur projects.

 

The key to answering this question is that for the majority of Colonisation's team members this game is a real life commitment as we are all aspiring developers and designers trying to fill portfolios and make contacts and impacts within the gaming industry which will help smooth the way for us further down the line. While it is most likely there will be no financial gain for the team we will be looking to benefit from the publicity achieved through hopefully releasing the game some day!

 

INow consider for one moment, if you will, the possibility of directing a single soldier's movements on the battlescape in much the same way as you would if you was directing an American Football shaped nuke right into the face of a Sectoid (e.g. the Blaster Bomb) with a TU indicator on each way point as well as the mouse cursor so that players could then judge just how many TU they have to spend for movement before allowing enough TU for any shots to be made, if any.

 

While this may seem like its making the game easy for players, especially since in X-com 1/2 whenever you moved your soldier, that was it, TU spent and if your guy/girl was in front of an alien your soldier was screwed. Think of this way-point system much like a visual representation of when a chess player picks up a chess piece and moves it around the board to see what his options are.

Plus, with plotting way-points with Blaster Bombs, you always had to option to cancel the movement, if way-points were implemented to soldier movements, its would certainly allow players to visually map out where that one soldier could go before making a final decision.

 

Key points here are that firstly a soldier is not a blaster bomb and the reason they needed waypoints was because they were designed as guided missiles. Our soldiers will feature pathfinding to help them get from A to B and the time units required to reach a highlighted destination will be displayed in the movement cursor when it is moved to a position on the map. If the movement will take more than one turn it will also indicate this as well as the furthest possible location the soldier can reach if you select this second out of range destination.

 

The reason waypoints were really suitable for a blaster bomb however was that once you clicked execute it would reach its target within seconds! Add to this the fact that it would not reveal the terrain it passed through by revealing the fog of war or allow you to stop and re-route it partway through the turn. These are all things that waypoint movement for troops would have to allow for therefore making it more or less a complete waste of time.

 

For example, once you set your waypoints and execute the orders the troop will still take the same amount of time to reach it's destination as it would have done with a simple one click instruction therefore making waypoint allocation essentially a complete waste of time in turn-based mode. There is also the possibility that you have spent 5 minutes deciding on a strategic route for your troop to take in order to reach the far side of the map only to come face to face with a hostile unit after moving one step out from behind his cover. Here's another scenario then when you have just wasted a significant amount of time in order to achieve absolutely nothing.

 

The only way I can imagine waypoints being useful in turnbased is if you were to use the system to co-ordinate your entire squad and then move them all as one action but isn't that basically just playing a real-time game with stationary foes? (I know it's contradictory but I'm trying to make a point!)

 

I think it'll be necessary to do both at once. If you do one system without taking into account, you risk making a game that isn't sufficiently compatible with the other game mode. But yeah, as long as you have a full design plan for both it might be possible to fine tune them one at a time. I agree it's a major resource problem that has to be looked at very carefully.

 

I agree with this post, both systems need to work together in one engine or we may, as Catwalk says, spend a long time developing a realtime engine simply to discover we're unable to produce a compatible turn-based system therefore making it impossible to produce the game with both options available to the player.

 

And failure is not an option

[StVier]

I've not seen this as a feature in LSN but it still doesn't change my opinion on the matter. The reason my attitude is not that 'it won't harm any' is that it will harm plenty by allowing a player to play the game in a lazy and inattentive way without watching alien moves and playing every turn on full speed until it automatically pauses. Speed controls are good and will be featured as should be the norm in real-time strategy games but there will be no option to review past occurences other than a list of recent 'auto-pause' actions such as enemy sightings.

 

... which works perfectly well in the UFO series, and more or less improved along the series. The game pauses when enemy is sighted, when there's no more ammo, when soldier is down etc... important instances which require the player to make a decision.

 

The situations in JA2 or Silent Storm is that 'real-time until enemy contact' has it's out of battle functions, though limited, like searching drawers and such for the additional med-kit or toolboxes. It really depends on the size of maps and what there is to do beside shooting at aliens and searching their bodies. Maps in X-Com games aren't that big but it's frustrating enough at times. With modern days capabilities, if developers want, they can very well just have 1 20-storey skyscraper with every floor accessible, but can one imagine going turn-based on this kind of maps? I have more or less been pampered with playing real-time with pause functions but I am still able to keep at it with the original X-com games, but if I were to cross maps between games, I can see that what might work for TB will work with RTwP but not always the case vice versa. X-Com: Apocalypse is still a prime example of an X-Com game attempting to cross the 2 gameplay options but it does have its flaws. I could never get into the Real-time mode back then because things can somehow get furiously fast and screen messy with civilians, agents and aliens running around and hiding and getting shot during a cross-fire, which I never wanted to happen but nevertheless ended before I could react... even at slow speed!

 

In any case, the point I want to get across is both TB and RTwP has their own merits but to implement TB for nostalgia's sake or to win over the original X-Com fans, it's gonna be potential choke-point in terms of gameplay and really have to be well-thought out and balanced with RT gameplay... I'm merely echoing what other people have said.

[Space Voyager]

... which works perfectly well in the UFO series, and more or less improved along the series.

 

...Maps in X-Com games aren't that big but it's frustrating enough at times. ...

Agree VERY MUCH.

 

And IMO there is much more harm done by demanding an hour of real time to be spent on a single mission than by a possibility of player being inattentive while nothing of importance happens.

[Catwalk]

Maps in X-Com games aren't that big but it's frustrating enough at times. With modern days capabilities, if developers want, they can very well just have 1 20-storey skyscraper with every floor accessible, but can one imagine going turn-based on this kind of maps? I have more or less been pampered with playing real-time with pause functions but I am still able to keep at it with the original X-com games, but if I were to cross maps between games, I can see that what might work for TB will work with RTwP but not always the case vice versa.

Map size is indeed a very good example of a compatibility conflict between the game modes. One possible solution is to simply not employ maps which won't function well with TB. Alternatively, have the map size differ depending on game mode or even have separate maps. I think the main pitfall is trying to make the two game modes too similar, as they don't have similar needs. It's pretty much two games in one, and should be treated as such.

 

I also agree that time usage is the main downfall of TB, even though it's the mode I prefer. I'll try analyzing the contributing factors and see if I can come up with ways to speed up TB gameplay.

[The Veteran]

... which works perfectly well in the UFO series, and more or less improved along the series. The game pauses when enemy is sighted, when there's no more ammo, when soldier is down etc... important instances which require the player to make a decision.

 

Exactly the kind of behaviour I'd expect from a real-time mode after years of refinement, they've pretty much got it mostly right with modern games I think.

 

The situations in JA2 or Silent Storm is that 'real-time until enemy contact' has it's out of battle functions, though limited, like searching drawers and such for the additional med-kit or toolboxes.

 

As you said it depends on out-of battle features and off the top of my head none really spring to mind that will affect gameplay in a massive way so the way JA2 works can probably be mostly ignored (though I would like to get hold of a copy to see it for myself)

 

With modern days capabilities, if developers want, they can very well just have 1 20-storey skyscraper with every floor accessible, but can one imagine going turn-based on this kind of maps? I have more or less been pampered with playing real-time with pause functions but I am still able to keep at it with the original X-com games, but if I were to cross maps between games, I can see that what might work for TB will work with RTwP but not always the case vice versa.

 

I think regardless of being real-time or turn-based the size and layout of a mission or random map elements is still going to need to be very carefully balanced to avoid the frustration from the original games. Most notably the last soldier in an alien colony... It's true that a real time mode would most likely speed this search along however even if its just by leaving your soldiers in good vantage points and whacking up the speed until a hostile contact pauses the game!

 

I imagine in time a whole new thread will emerge to discuss battlescape levels in a size and scope way but while it's been raised here we may as well at leat touch on he question of using a 60x60 grid (for the original games) to provide the whole playable battlefield. I remember Apocalypse had set points around the map edge which functioned as retreat zones for individual soldiers as essentially you were moving your trooper too far from the action to be of any further use. I could see this working in Colonisation for certain mission types if used in a different way though I'm thinking about the aliens rather than the human side here.

 

Imagine an alien assault on some form of laboratory or corporation building (much like an apocalypse ufo assault) but remember the aliens will have infiltrated the target without a vessel due to their need for secrecy (it's not worth risking giving away base locations just to mess with a few VIPs after all!) I don't think it's unreasonable to imagine that the ethereals have the ability to blend in with the general populace quite well by maintaining a kind of psionic aura to convince people what they are looking at is human. That means that once a mission starts going wrong they can just disappear and return to their base. After all though these aliens are using clones like the original games they don't have infinite numbers and they don't really form any kind of psionic collective yet either so they still possess some level of self-preservation.

 

I think the main benefit of having aliens occasionally flee the battlefield would be to prevent that tedious search for the last alien. Imagine we take a map of ordinary 60x60 xcom size for example then add another border around the whole map which is 10 tiles per side making the map an 80x80 area. Then think of the border as an evacuation zone where aliens and humans alike can decide to leave the fight if they so wish as long as they remain in said zone undetected for x amount of turns. If they're spotted then they would be followed after they left so could only leave if they could sneak away.

 

I'm thinking the possible benefit of this could be to avoid long boring and frustrationg searches for the last man in a mission as once the alien force is on its last trooper that unit could automatically be forced to make a retreat to the borders. This means even if he's shut himself in a janitors cupboard on floor 17 of this skyscraper he will immediately emerge and attempt to leave the building whilst continuing to engage any targets.

 

This is a new idea I've just come across based on the last few posts so please let me know what you think of it as a way to avoid tedious manhunts!

 

X-Com: Apocalypse is still a prime example of an X-Com game attempting to cross the 2 gameplay options but it does have its flaws. I could never get into the Real-time mode back then because things can somehow get furiously fast and screen messy with civilians, agents and aliens running around and hiding and getting shot during a cross-fire, which I never wanted to happen but nevertheless ended before I could react... even at slow speed!

 

Apocalypse was probably my first experience of a real-time play mode and I never really liked the game just because it was so different to the original but I think really this was down to the new graphics and different aliens more than the real-time feature. Is it just me or was their not an option to switch from RT to TB at any point in the mission? I think Apoc was very hectic in RT but then the message bar did pause the game at the right time so all of the right components were there. Personally I'd debate how much has actually been changed since and that it's more to do with weight of troops and firepower that made RT slightly unbalanced but then that was the fast-paced nature of apocalypse. One autoshot from an HE cannon could destroy several different walls causing large parts of the building you were stood in to collapse around you killing friend and foe alike and causing untold devestation. This is the way the game played throughout though in my opinion so maybe it was more to do with balance that things were so fast and furious!

 

In any case, the point I want to get across is both TB and RTwP has their own merits but to implement TB for nostalgia's sake or to win over the original X-Com fans, it's gonna be potential choke-point in terms of gameplay and really have to be well-thought out and balanced with RT gameplay... I'm merely echoing what other people have said.

 

I agree the inclusion of turn-based gameplay simply for the sake of including it will be essentially pointless. I just think that the number of people out there who would still rather play in a TB mode (and yes these are mostly old XCom fans) warrants it's inclusion as an option. At the end of the day it will come down to the devs to make it happen for real or tell me they can't do both but personally I think it is more sensible to include both modes than to omit either one. So long as both are approached correctly and play well in the end product of course...

 

Agree VERY MUCH.

And IMO there is much more harm done by demanding an hour of real time to be spent on a single mission than by a possibility of player being inattentive while nothing of importance happens.

 

Hopefully the point I raised earlier or some similar feature will provide us with a way to avoid boring end-mission scenarios but I do agree that sending soldiers systematically into every toilet and cupboard on a cruise liner to find one stinking aquanaut leaves a lot to be desired!

 

Map size is indeed a very good example of a compatibility conflict between the game modes. One possible solution is to simply not employ maps which won't function well with TB. Alternatively, have the map size differ depending on game mode or even have separate maps. I think the main pitfall is trying to make the two game modes too similar, as they don't have similar needs. It's pretty much two games in one, and should be treated as such.

 

I also agree that time usage is the main downfall of TB, even though it's the mode I prefer. I'll try analyzing the contributing factors and see if I can come up with ways to speed up TB gameplay.

 

Again I think my earlier comments on map size and alien hunting may take some of the pressure off maps that don't work well in both RT and turnbased gameplay but there is almoscertainly room for a whole new thread to discuss that!

 

Thanks for all your feedback guys and don't stop now!!!

[Catwalk]

I do agree that sending soldiers systematically into every toilet and cupboard on a cruise liner to find one stinking aquanaut leaves a lot to be desired!

Sounds like that's more of an issue of insufficient potty training for your aquanauts

[StVier]

As you said it depends on out-of battle features and off the top of my head none really spring to mind that will affect gameplay in a massive way so the way JA2 works can probably be mostly ignored (though I would like to get hold of a copy to see it for myself)

 

I supposed the type of missions could give rise to out-of-battle situations? I'm can't be sure but it's quite normal for developers to throw in variety of mission scenarios other than 'kill all hostiles' so Colonisation could jolly well such variety? However, mission types can spawn a whole new thread of discussion but generally, out-of-battle situations might find their place in there, probably just as a bonus rather than a focus.

 

I'm thinking the possible benefit of this could be to avoid long boring and frustrationg searches for the last man in a mission as once the alien force is on its last trooper that unit could automatically be forced to make a retreat to the borders. This means even if he's shut himself in a janitors cupboard on floor 17 of this skyscraper he will immediately emerge and attempt to leave the building whilst continuing to engage any targets.

 

Escape AI is a good idea to do away with the hunt for that elusive bugger but caution should go into designing the escape AI... a mad dash for the exit is simply gonna give players the habit of hanging around the exit, assuming the exit area is fixed, unless it's a random teleport portal which is only known to aliens...

[The Veteran]

I supposed the type of missions could give rise to out-of-battle situations? I'm can't be sure but it's quite normal for developers to throw in variety of mission scenarios other than 'kill all hostiles' so Colonisation could jolly well such variety? However, mission types can spawn a whole new thread of discussion but generally, out-of-battle situations might find their place in there, probably just as a bonus rather than a focus.

 

That's a good point and though there aren't many to mention we do have a few non-combat specific missions laid out so far. Currently hey're mostly related to the way funding works and how to make sure you keep it nice and high! Definitely a good point though, we need some variety to keep away from the monotony of just another salvage mission and just another terror mission etc. I think this can go on my to do list!

 

Escape AI is a good idea to do away with the hunt for that elusive bugger but caution should go into designing the escape AI... a mad dash for the exit is simply gonna give players the habit of hanging around the exit, assuming the exit area is fixed, unless it's a random teleport portal which is only known to aliens...

 

Well my thought was that the extra area that would be placed around the battlefield would feature as the 'evacuation zone' if you like and rather than in Apocalypse where you simply stepped on specific door tiles to leave the battle, it would be a feature that could only be used by the aliens to help avoid the last man standing scenario and the area would have it's own special rule.

 

The way I see it working is that the second the penultimate alien dies, a new set of objectives is given to the last remaining foe which will initiate a retreat strategy. Now to avoid players camping around the borders of the map in the first place they'll never be told when there is only one alien left so there will still be situations when the player may spend a decent amount of time looking for the last defender but essentially if they don't find it after x amount of turns it will reach safety and escape thus ending the mission automatically as a victory for the player. There would be no negative score for the escape of an alien as the squad is unaware that one did escape and therefore nor is anyone else!

 

Essentially though the final alien will beat a retreat as soon as it realises the rest of the squad is dead. It will take the most direct route to the nearest border and attempt to escape by reaching a border zone and spending x amount of time there without being spotted at which point it will successfully escape and end the mission.

 

Of course if the alien comes across any of the player's troops it will attempt to engage them in combat and this will result in one of two outcomes. The death of the trooper or the alien. If the alien succeeds to defeat the trooper then it will continue its flight but obviously if the trooper is victorious the final alien will be dead and the mission successful.

 

If the final alien survives long enough to reach the border (say the outermost 5 tiles all around the battlescape) then it will need to remain unnoticed for a certain amount of time there until it is safe to leave the zone without fear of being followed. If spotted by a trooper before this time has expired the alien will engage in a firefight and will not be able to attempt to flee again until the soldier is eliminated and the countdown is successfully ended.

[Thorondor]

"(...) I think it is more sensible to include both modes than to omit either one. So long as both are

approached correctly and play well in the end product of course..."

You are offering two options instead of just one, which, as a general statement, is undisputedly an

agreeable arrangement. And, of course, the minimum requirement is always that - whatever you offer - it

remains functional in the end product.

 

However, don't let that mislead you into thinking you wouldn't be better off with a single system devised by your team and informed by your understanding of past offerings and hands-on experience with your own product as you develop, test, and hone it.

 

Providing more options seems like a win-win situation for everyone: players will have the ability to choose freely and hopefully you'll demonstrate you can implement either method satisfactorily.

 

On the other hand, and no matter how simple the arrangements may be to have both, you'll still have to separately do double playtesting and guarantee the integrity and logic of your game under those two systems, which _will_ take a toll on you at crunch time. On the upside, I guess you'll be able to say you're capable of handling the workload regardless...

 

But, perhaps more importantly, you have to ponder what other message you may be sending as prospective

autonomous developers. Namely, some people reviewing your work might question why you didn't believe in

your own system enough that you had to "cop-out" by implementing an alternative one.

 

At another level: presently it's your own time and money. If someone comes to you to develop a game you'll be expected not to increase production time and costs - they'll want the one _best_ solution. Can you be trusted to select and provide it?

 

I know these are tough and controversial issues, Veteran. I'm just raising your awareness, and besides, how else are you going to make Hardened Veteran otherwise?

 

Incidentally, and on the subject of TB/RT: I can honestly enjoy either when they're properly done and suit the game.

 

::

 

"What do we really want?"

 

"We want to kill us some alien scum already. Real simple-like: we come in, bag 'em, tag'em and put 'em away - just like we've always done... We're still on top of this here food-chain... This be just a l'il reminder."

 

"Cork it, Zilla. Now get to checking your gear and be nice to people..."

 

"Sho' thing boss. Just you leave some fa me down there! Don't you go wantin' 'em all ta yaself as last time - haha!"

 

 

Kidding aside that's what is at the very core of the fun we have in this kind of game: going tactical and dispatching aliens with the right moves and toys with as little casualties as possible. With a swagger coming on, to stave off the real nature of the gruesome task...

 

To avoid a common trap you need to realise you're not going to earn any points with anyone by simply seeking to achieve what was already achieved. You have to add something with your game that can't be experienced elsewhere. It's not going to be easy, if you want to get noticed.

 

Many of us have X-Com, Silent Storm and next-of-kin currently installed in our machines. As you know they're very good games in their own right with rich feature sets and some technical shine up the wazoo.

 

It's a lot to live up to, but they're not perfect games. What you need is an angle.

 

I don't have a magic wand, naturally , so I'll merely put forth some concepts for your appraisal that will hopefully be of some use at least...

 

For starters, the fact that these games have aliens as foes is an asset that has not been taken proper advantage of. And why ? Mainly because of the way in which the interaction between humans and aliens plays out.

 

To get at the root of what I mean, lets start with a look at other media. In pop culture, the movies, or the TV (ranging from the likes of X-Files, Aliens, or even The Twilight Zone) what essential traits are shared by alien creatures ? Enumerating: they look repulsive, monstrous or disfigured, they induce fear or even horror, they prefer to lurk in between strikes whenever possible so as to reveal themselves only in short stretches, they are aggressive, they attack at close range to great effect (both with the victims and audience), they like confined spaces or places with ample cover and favour the night or low-visibility environments.

 

Behavioural stances, it should be noted, are in turn triggered, and lead to the triggering, of a set of key reactions. To give an example: going down a street or alley, if you were suddenly faced with a stray dog you're unfamiliar with, your response would derive from factors such as

- its stance (fearful, defensive, unaffected/dismissive, agressive, persecutory; sound contributes)

- its proximity to you

- its size, build and speed (how big/small, muscular/lean, fast/slow)

- how much room is available to circumvent it and defuse potentially hazardous conflict

- visibility (how well/much you see, how effectively you keep track of threat)

 

Under the right circumstances, even a basketball-sized alien could scare the living daylights out of you - provided he sets off the right reactions. In the end, it all depends on an individual's perception and threat assessment.

 

Complementarily, humans are social creatures heavily influenced by the reactions of others around them.

 

That's how panic spreads like wildfire, or why people eventually laugh just because someone else is laughing heartily. In the same way, a wordless, shrill scream, efficiently conveys a lot (i.e. distress, despair, acute pain or terror) in no time, and has immediate impact on the listener. Here, what I'm getting at is that it's important to obviate the reaction or reactions that matter most.

 

 

What we have...

In the several squad-based games we have available, human/alien interactions and feedback to the player

significantly deviate from, or come short of, the aforementioned guidelines in several segments:

 

1) Creature AI/Tactical

.... Aliens do not act furtively

They amble back and forth, often in plain sight, without any regard for cover or stealth

Once creatures detect a target, they immediately engage and most often advance headlong until dead.

.... When they cannot be suppressed, it has important ramifications that are harmful to the breadth of

tactical gameplay (like pinning down the opposition thus creating the possibility to actually use cover,

manage ammo, and, work to, sooner or later, exhaust an enemy's ammo supplies)

.... Sometimes nights seem not to be remarkably different from days in tangible ways (though we know that

X-Com takes this into account with disadvantage to human eyesight, for instance)

 

2) Emotional feedback triggering from interactions

.... Though there are monstrous/disfigured creatures, they do not succeed in inducing a)repulsion b)fear

.... Some aliens' awkward form of locomotion limits/hinders their potential as imposing foes (aggressive, threatening, dynamic,...)

.... We see soldiers reporting unsuitably loudly, and repeatedly (sometimes comically), so carefreely one might actually believe them on a recreational field trip. How is one to believe that they could be killed at any time if heard offhand?

.... Uses for spotting/stealth, though grounded on a promisingly sophisticated system, are routinely nullified by both blunt alien conduct and ineffective (graphical) portrayal of the Line-of-sight calculations/implications. The potential of low visibility and/or night-time environments in terms of tension from reduced ability is, thus, fundamentally wasted

.... Sanitized injury and death

Injury, mild or severe, has little sway with any of the factions beyond rendering some units temporarily

unconscious or outright dead. Clean, detached deaths, no injury or 'in pain' animations, no convincing outcries of terror and/or pain impact the player to translate the battlefield reality of confronting deadly alien creatures. This creates a distance from the goings on.

.... Scarcity of alien vocalizations

.... Open spaces (outdoors) tend to have scant cover, which tends to defuse tension and remove tactical options

 

 

Where to go with it next...

 

[Catwalk]

Very well spoken on the issue of game TB vs RT models, I agree with your concerns. Good points about the developer aspects. But I think his mind is set in this matter

It's a lot to live up to, but they're not perfect games. What you need is an angle.

I think the psycology concept discussed elsewhere would be a good bid for that angle, if done well. You have some excellent points about alien behaviour, and that actually ties in well with the psycology concept in some aspects.

.... Though there are monstrous/disfigured creatures, they do not succeed in inducing a)repulsion b)fear

WRONG!! Tentaculats have scared the crap out of me on plenty occasions But yeah, you're right for the most part.

 

Your comments are mainly about graphics and atmosphere (which I don't consider unimportant in the least), I guess my interests are mainly about strictly gameplay related issues. I do agree that a spooky atmosphere would be a great asset, and the gameplay can also assist in creating that. The player should be feeling paranoid when playing. And I disagree with you slightly that the old X-Com games don't manage to achieve that, due to the difficulty level and the bond you feel with your strong soldiers you'll frequently feel very paranoid when on a tough mission during an Ironman campaign. Check out my thread on psi and morale, I think you might like some of the ideas there.

[The Veteran]

Thanks again guys, amazing post by you Thor! As Catwalk says I thik the decision has been made that we'll use both RT and TB modes of play for now but of course there are still a lot of things that could affect this decision based on the complexity of coding, extra time and resources to accomplish the task satisfactorily and of course testing the models themselves which could turn up a whole host of problems and most likely will do before we're done!

 

As far as the development standpoint goes I know what you're saying and you make some good points but they really aren't of major concern to us right now. You mentioned two major points being a) the use of a system other than our own and b) the extra resources to complete the same task in two different ways. Firstly, and correct me if I misunderstood this point, the choices are Real-time, Turn-based or some strange hybrid and there aren't many other ways to take it.

 

RT and TB modes are tried and tested and I think a quick look back through these forums over the last few days will go to show that both have dedicated fans with their own personal preferences. That said even though there has been mention of the 'realime until combat' model there has been no particular highlight of why it made a better game than a normal RT or TB system and so pales in comparison. To come up with another mode of gameplay would require a vast amount of time and resources and ultimately would be a huge risk to take on any new release. As a strategy game there are only a finite number of systems to implement and the ones that fit best are RT and TB, I can't think of anything else that would work so by using both we eliminate the problem.

 

Regarding extra resources from a professional developer or publishers standpoint it's my opinion that this is pretty much irrelevant due to the fact we aren't even in the same league as established companies in the industry. Therefore anyone who is an established player would be mad to assess our work based on their own resources and experience. We have no funding, no office and a small team just starting off with their first big project. A large multimillion dollar company with headquarters in several continents, hundreds of employees and a number of successful titles already in circulation cannot project their own time-scales and funding analyses onto a team or a project such as us and ours so the extra time it will take us to implement 2 systems may set back our completion date but it won't mean a thing to the big boys!

 

The other point you raised regarding the industry rather than the game was that people would be looking to us to provide the one best system for this title rather than using two but isn't the best possible system the one which will bring more players to the game? And didn't you already point out that having both systems will almost certainly allow for a larger target audience? I know what you're saying with regards to this point but personally I think it would be rather foolhardy to simply omit one system to save some time and money if it's going to reduce the end-products selling potential by even the smallest percentage. Again though this would have different ramifications in a large professionally developed title when the inclusion of a secondary system meant additional cost but that is why there are financial projections made by such companies during development decisions such as this to determine the extra time required to add this feature and what it's cost would be to the company. Add to that projected sales information based on products both with and without the additional feature and suddenly the maths will answer that question for you. But that only works for the bigwigs, and they had to start somewhere too!

 

All of the input in your post about sound and visuals and how they could be improved upon from the original games is really great and a lot of it is stuff that seems fairly obvious but to be honest it's not stuff I've ever really thought about. The sound of an aquanaut being shot in the chest and taken to critical health but not moving or changing posture is a fairly poor representation of what's actually happening and I agree there is a great deal to be improved upon!

 

While I don't necessarily agree with all of your suggestions I certainly do with most. I don't think an alien has to be ugly or disfigured to be feared for example, especially not if that alien can withstand fifteen direct hits, continue walking towards your troops without so much as a wince and proceed to decapitate every one of them without any show of effort. Not a very balanced creature but you see my point, this could be the most beautiful creature in the world but once I've seen it do that I'd be pretty damn scared! On the other hand I do think Fog of War is a must and based on the fact that we're going to be trying to ground the battlescape a little more within reality by introducing troop psychology things like radio communication between the troops and yourself as their commander is a very important feature to consider. I also agree entirely that damage to troops and alien creatures should be better represented by their immediate reaction and subsequent behaviour but I think you've gone into this in enough detail already!

 

I must agree with Catwalk regarding the comment that for the most part Thor's suggestions are regarding atmosphere, and while this is most certainly a necessary part of any game I think there's a long way to go before we need to start thinking about what is essentially polishing! Of course that is not to detract from the use of such information but if there's anything more physical you'd like to see in a new title Thor let us know that too!

[Thorondor]

In view of the good coverage this subject has been object of already I won't pester you with it any further.

 

I think, however, it's worth denoting what we circumstantially refer to as RT and TB, so that there are no doubts:

- Real-Time (like in the original Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines)

- Pausable Real-Time (like UFO:Aftermath & Co, Baldur's Gate, etc)

- Turn-Based (like X-Com, Silent Storm, etc)

 

In closing I'll also refer that one system can be made to comprise another only in specific ways. Say, for instance, by implementing a Pausable Real-Time one that only goes turn-based in very critical situations, and does so mandatorily to the benefit of the player's experience when handling them (impending deaths from multiple threats). Even slowing to a crawl here arguably wouldn't give you the kind of respite and control TB would offer.

 

It's a bit like saying "Okay, you can handle this, take a deep breath..."

 

It's a hybrid, but this sort of change in control mode doesn't happen frequently enough for you not to go ahead and brand it Pausable Real-Time all the same.

 

I must agree with Catwalk regarding the comment that for the most part Thor's suggestions are regarding atmosphere, and while this is most certainly a necessary part of any game I think there's a long way to go before we need to start thinking about what is essentially polishing!

I can see how it may easily appear to be so, but it's actually not a matter of polish. You could be tempted to think so because of some reliance on sound cues, general visual cues and animations in my suggestions.

 

The non-trivial nature of these elements can perhaps be better understood by obviating what sort of interventions we're talking about here:

- Alien units' AI

We're talking about change in alien creature behaviours. Aproach to human targets, dedicated escape routes, charging headlong to get to melee attack range, understanding being suppressed, taking cover or just getting out of sight, evading/absorbing damage, etc...

 

- The appearance of aliens

This is not just about the aesthetic values of their portrayal, though we know frigtening and horrendous when we see it.

 

Their physical traits, as per your design, will largely dictate their movement speed and locomotion gait. If they are intended to move aggressively fast that has an effect; if they are to move at a lumbering pace due to weight, that too has a bearing.

 

On the other side of things, seeing a creature move clumsily or awkwardly has an effect too. It can almost make us laugh to confront the poor Flapper in Aftermath, or recoil with revulsion at the sight of Zombies.

 

I think you'll find here too skill is required to fittingly design, animate and give voice to these beings. This will impact your game beyond eye-candy, and also beyond stats.

 

- Control and loss of control

Loss of control is a very important aspect in this kind of game.

 

In TB games like X-Com the strongest implement of loss of control is the alien's turn [the famous "Hidden Movement"] that leaves players with their heart in their hands as the aliens proceed to do as they will virtually unhindered, and you have examples of partial loss of control when there is out-of-turn alien reaction fire, soldiers panicking or going berserk, etc.

 

The sort of diminished soldier ability I talked about results in an accordingly reduced level of control afforded the player. A severely wounded soldier will try to drag himself out of harm's way if you give him a movement order, but he'll be doing it at possibly insuficient speed due to his condition and there's nothing more you can do about it except hoping he'll make it. It's not just a new animation that you throw in - it's the introduction of still-useful intervening states in between the standard offer of 1)healthy 2)unconscious/dead.

 

- Dynamic fog-of-war

This significantly changes a player's outlook in terms of situational awareness during gameplay.

 

Because of this interface tool (which is what it is) player decision-making will be markedly assisted and some behind-the-scenes LOS/LOF/Field of View factors very intuitively and unobtrusively communicated.

 

There are many valid examples of this, but I'll give you a simple one: a soldier has been wounded and is on the floor unable to move. He's not unconscious however.

a) since he's now at ground-level his line of sight (the area already scouted and visible that's not not shrouded) is shortened. Whereas, standing, he would see farther, the unshrouded area consequently larger.

b) once he loses enough blood and becomes effectively unconscious, the area becomes completely shrouded to the player with only a "snapshot", as it were, of the scene as last you saw it on display.

 

Games lacking this feature leave it to the player to mostly guess how far each of his men can presently see around them. It's a distinctive feature and not a minor one - it's like having candles or being left in the dark...

 

If you're interested in featuring this in your game, however, you should note that it is not without implications graphical engine-wise. As I recall, ALTAR, the developers of UFO: AM/AS/AL, had to drop what they initially had in mind in this respect because their in-house engine was too taxed by it when they went about testing it.

 

::

 

Hopefully I shall have given you enough insight above to prove my points. The rest is up to you, Veteran...

[DeathOfRats]

First of all I would sign Thorondors statement: Creating the right atmosphere in an X-Com game is far from trivial and it's crucial. If I'm not scared and fascinated by the Aliens it's likely I get bored even if the gameplay is good.

 

I think a new XCom should be some kind of mixture of an improved management system of X-Com Enemy Unkown and the Soldier management of X-Com Aftershock (classes, exp, etc.)

 

I think enough people are thinking about how to improve tactical combat. I want to shine a little light on the management side:

It shouldn't be the major part of the game but it shouldnt be neglected as well.

It always bothered me that such a resourceful and complex thing as a whole country in X-Com only was represented by one number: the amount of money they gave you. Countries have their own detection devices, they have installations they can offer to me (or to the aliens for that matter).

 

Then tactical descions should have impact on the geoscape.

For example: I attack an alien base. Now I as commander have several options.

* Wipe the base clean (and perhaps with enough research and technologies keep it). The base remains either in my hands or deserted for whoever can grab it.

* Blow key positions of the base up. The Aliens abandon it or maybe repair it. If they abandon it there are some live aliens running around in the area terrorizing the people of the area.

 

This would influence the possibilities of tactical combat as well. Why wipe the base? Why not create a diversion at the entrance and sneak 1-2 soldiers with explosives past the aliens to blow the generator up or whatever.

Freedom of choice.

 

Scavenging

Taking the alien stuff with me is to easy. A transporter that can hardly fit my team with its equipment in it can easily take the alien stuff of a whole base or a big UFO. maybe the countries could help or some transport mission or I dont know.

 

 

Make the world look alive

Aliens abduct people. Maybe sometimes you can find an abductee in a Base or a Craft.

 

Make Civilians act reasonable. Not only Aliens lumbering towards their death ar irritating.

 

Even on the geoscape scale.

 

For example:

There are other human crafts out there other then the X-Com patrols.

Maybe transport or other civilian or military planes of friendly countries spot UFOs (and inform me about it).

 

 

 

Perhaps you can find something useful in there.

I'm an X-Com fan since "Enemy unkown" came out and I'm sure I can think of more things to improve or implement.

hmm and I'm sorry the post is a little unstructured and my English isn't as good as I want it to be.

[AlanatXcomHQ]

There is an interesting thought in that last post "the base remains either in my hands or deserted for whoever can grab it"

 

Perhaps after an alien base is raided and cleaned out of hostile aliens, what if X-com had the option (during the debriefing after the mission) to "move in". It would certainly allow X-com essentially a free base without having to BUILD a new one. The only advantage / disadvantage I think that should come with that decision is that:

 

Whilst you gain TONS of alien materials, corpses and tech to use at your disposal, they remain in the alien base in a "general stores" facility already made after the mission is completed and the player chooses to take the base (live aliens get taken back to your own base for study)

 

However, the disadvantage I think should be that the aliens will not hesitate in trying to get their base back quickly after your forces have taken it from them. Meaning if you want to keep it, leave a few soldiers there to make sure no alien raids suddenly take over your recently acquired base.

 

Another thing to consider with this is, should an alien base take up a slot in one of the 8 main bases X-com can have? Or should alien bases have their own set, in effect, lets say for example, the player can manage 8 X-com bases and 16 Alien Bases that they've taken over?

 

Another thing to consider is, if the player loses an X-com owned base made by the player (Like the one the player starts the game with, the HQ) do they have the option to take that base back and regain the facilities there? Or like in X-com 1 and 2 that as soon as you lose the base, you have to build a new one?