XCOM3: First Impressions: The Thrill is Gone (Long)
Chris Glover
Initial Impressions - XCOM 3 Turn-based mode
First a small memory from a disastrous TFTD mission in TFTD and why I
liked it and XCOM so much.
It is a night on a small ship mission. My squad is doing a sweep
across the seabed looking for gillmen, hardly the most dangerous of
enemies, yet more than capable of killing a careless or unlucky
squaddie. Everything is dark and gloomy, amongst the murk my squaddies
can barely see the shapes of sunken buildings, great sniping spots for
the enemy. From painful experience the squad knows to move carefully
and slowly from cover to cover, each man watching the other's back.
The squad is well dispersed to avoid multiple casualties from
grenades.
A shot is fired and a squaddie is killed instantly. One shot, one
kill. I have no idea where the shot came from. Flares are produced
and thrown at likely areas. Nothing is seen. So I wait for several
turns hoping the little bastards will reveal themselves. And do they?
Like Hell. This is a bit I hate, there is a very good chance that the
next man to move will be killed. And he is. One shot, one kill. I
respond by throwing a volley of grenades into the darkness hoping to
hear alien deathcries. Not a chance. Two men are dead and I don't even
know where the enemy is.
To cut a long story short, many turns were then spent in a
cat-and-mouse hunt which resulted in the death of 2 aliens and 2 more
of my squaddies. The last alien (I think it was the last, though I
never did get to find out) was tracked down to being in or by a small
two level building. Which was pounded with everything I had, grenades,
rockets. And there I was thinking is it dead, and another one
elsewhere is keeping the game going? Has it moved? Every movement
towards the building cost me a man. In the end the last man ended up
running back to my ship.
I never did get to kill it. I never even saw it.
And thats why I love XCOM/TFTD. Furtive aliens lurking in the dark, or
lying in wait in second story buildings. Shots from the dark. Knowing
that at any moment a favourite squaddie can be instantly killed.
Knowing that regardless of how good a player you are you will take
casualties. Hunting down that last hidden alien. Combat in XCOM is
intense and gritty, and closer to the realities of small unit combat
than just about any other game I can think of. In three years its
never left my hard disk and I have played both XCOM and TFTD to
completion several times. I prefer TFTD to XCOM for having more lurky
aliens and being generally harder, even if the undersea bit never
really did it for me. Some of the most intense gaming experiences I
have ever had have come from these games. Remember your first terror
mission? Of course you will. Remember being on the 2nd level of a
ship-terror mission in TFTD, down to 3 men and knowing that you just
have to keep on going? God knows I do.
And so I have waited for XCOM 3 with great anticipation. As a grumpy
old purist I was appalled when I heard that Microprose was going to
make it real time to add 'excitement'. Adding excitement to XCOM!
Its like saying I want to liven up the script of Reservoir Dogs or to
make Winona Ryder cute. If you dont already find it there maybe you
should be looking elsewhere. I was greatly reassured to hear that
turn-based play would still be available.
And so yesterday I purchased the game and began a campaign. In turn
based mode naturally, I'm totally uninterested in real time mode so
I'll leave that for others to review. Horses for courses.
Some comments on the non-essentials
Game manual - Long and generally comprehensive if dull
Graphics - quite attractive, certainly much better looking than either
of its predecessors. I would have preferred the larger scale figures
of the earlier games over the midgets you get here but thats just a
personal preference. Lots of little graphic flourishes, interceptors
fly over the streets chasing UFO's, civilian traffic moves through the
air etc.
Music - XCOM for its moody ambience music was the first computer game
in which I didn't turn off the music for good after 5 minutes. This
is even better and adds to the overall feel of the game right up until
the moment the shooting starts when a hideous techno soundtrack begins
instantly destroying the previously cultivated atmosphere,
Fortunately this 'action' music can be turned off from the options
screen and the main music will continue in its place.
Interface - improved, but a bit of a clickfest, soldiers remember
their weapons load now and their doesn't appear to be anything like
the 80 item limit now. No summary screens for soldiers or stores.
It doesn't look like its possible to treat another soldier's wound,
at least I couldn't find a way. So soldiers need to treat themselves
which is odd considering possibilities of unconsciousness. However in
6 missions I have had one wound only so hardly a problem
And the all important gameplay?
Starts off with the same basic elements as XCOM; buy stores limited by
what suppliers have in stock; hire staff again limited by who is
available, no longer can you order 20 soldiers and scientists on day
one; and begin research, this time in two different spheres
biochemistry and quantum physics. Supply space seems initially
generous this time around and so there's no annoying storage problems
from the word go like before. All in all the same basic structure
that made XCOM work so well but considerably improved, broadened and
less irritating. XCOM as we know and love, only more so.
Before too long you will receive the first 'alert'. This will be a
UFO requiring interception or a spotting of aliens within the city.
Interception works essentially as before but is now graphical.
So you are faced with the first mission. At this point I was greatly
enjoying the game and contemplating missing work today. 6 missions
later I decided that work held more temptation than a day of XCOM3.
The problem not to put too fine a point on it, is that combat in real
time mode sucks. To be more specific, its poses no challenge and is
simply easy and tedious. Aliens lurk no longer in darkness, they
fight under full neon lights in the open. There is no longer firing
from unseen enemies. The aliens rarely shoot and usually do no
damage when they do hit. In 6 missions I had one soldier wounded and
no fatalities. In the first 2 missions no alien fired at all.
It appears that the stats for the aliens are set woefully low as their
reactions are quite atrocious and their opportunity fire basically
nonexistent. Your starting armour is surprisingly effective and
defeated all but one hit upon my squaddies. Perhaps it is intended
that the early missions be easy and become harder later, but these
missions were so pathetically easy (this is on average level), and in
such marked contrast to your starting situation in XCOM/TFTD, that it
almost seems an unrelated game.
Another problem is that the time units required to fire weapons are
considerably more generous than before which results in you being able
to pump out much more fire in a single turn. The machine gun can be
fired on auto for 1 time unit. This does not fire a burst as before
but 1 round which means that any soldier equipped with this weapon can
fire 50-60 times in a turn requiring 50-60 clicks! Most of these
shots will miss as your soldiers starting accuracy scores are much
reduced (often below 20) and most aliens require being hit several
times before expiring. The net effect is that you fire much more
often for much less effect than before, and it takes a lot longer.
Even so basically anything you see is dead the same round.
The overall result is that combat lacks any tension and doesn't feel
dangerous. The aliens lack any menace. Nothing I have encountered
gives me anything approaching the dread I experienced when fighting
chrysalids or, God forbid, tentuclats. I felt more like a pest
exterminator than a XCOM leader.
The one critter I have found which has any potential is a giant slug
which ejects little slugs when you kill it. This was the alien that
inflicted the only wound my squad suffered. It was dead in the midst
of one of my squads so they essentially had little slugs crawling over
their feet. Just to see what would happen I had a rookie equipped
with an auto-cannon loaded with high explosive shells fire point blank
at a slug by his feet. The explosion of the shell engulfed the squad,
inflicted considerable damage on the surroundings, and instantly
killed all 3 slugs. Not one of my squad was as much as scratched.
This is ridiculous. The auto-cannon has since become my standard
weapon for close-quarter work. See that rookie with an alien that
looks like a lemon camped on his head? Open fire with the
auto-cannon! The rookie says thanks Jim and the squad moves on.
Combat now lacks the vital XCOM ingredient, atmosphere. I could
probably forgive them looking so ridiculous if they could fight.
Remember opening a door in XCOM and the poor unfortunate in the
doorway being greeted with a hail of alien fire? No longer. Open a
door, find 5 aliens within. None of them fire. Fire 30 times (30!)
with the MG and then still have enough time units to move out of the
way. Repeat with another soldier as required until all aliens are
dead.
Thus it came to pass that I went to work today.
RASPUTINXS
Before I purchase the game, does anyone agree with this assesement.
Timothy Burke
Hm. One small point and then to the main issue.
I have had the same problem you have had with first aid--it doesn't
seem possible for one soldier to treat another one. And for me this
was a problem, as I had a critically wounded soldier knocked out by
gas. Fortunately I cleaned out all the enemies before the soldier
died.
As far as your experience with tactical combat goes, I can only say
that it's different than mine. Keep in mind the first two missions are
in fact really easy and you're facing the aliens who are easiest to
eliminate. Play a bit more. I've had the blue guys (anthropoids, I
think) shooting at me from under cover and also sniping at me from a
walkway far above. I've seen Cult of Sirius worshippers use an
interesting variety of tactics--they've thrown grenades, tried to
flank me, retreated to a lower level and set up an ambush position.
I've had two of these big worms pin down a squad from opposite
directions.
I confess I haven't quite yet had the kind of intense, "oh, I'm in BIG
trouble full-of-dread" mission yet that I had in XCOM 1&2, but I feel
like it's entirely possible that I will. One thing that may be
affecting your reaction is that the general tactical skills applicable
in XCOM 1&2 remain somewhat applicable in 3, though I'm finding I'm
using specialist squads and so on in some different ways than I did
previously.
Part of it is also that you don't start with the same kind of relative
disadvantage that you did in 1&2. There's more technological parity at
the start of the game, I think. I'll see if tonight (I'm in my second
week) I don't begin to hit missions and UFOs that outstrip my current
technology to some extent. I'm almost sure that's going to happen at
some point.
cyphron
Chris Glover wrote in article <33cf5b46...@news.netspace.net.au>...
>Initial Impressions - XCOM 3 Turn-based mode
>
>First a small memory from a disastrous TFTD mission in TFTD and why I
>liked it and XCOM so much.
>
><
<long post snipped>
>Thus it came to pass that I went to work today.
So it seems that your only problem is that its easy. Well, to alot of
people, including me, TFTD was ridiculously hard. However, that game seems
to be to your liking. So why don't you fire up Superhuman difficulty before
you pass judgment that it lost its "flavor"? That's why they gave you the
difficulty level. I'm constantly amused at the number of people who claim
that a game is no longer fun after only a couple hours of play without
exploring the full range of options that the game provides. Everyone has
their own opinion, but an opinion would be worth more if you'd played the
game longer. If on Superhuman level and on the later aliens and you still
think it's easy then I'm sure that's a real good gripe for Microprose.
Oh yeah, did I mention I love this game? =)
T
<snip XCOM3 turn-based mode is too dull and easy commentary>
>
> Before I purchase the game, does anyone agree with this assesement.
>
though I have taken some heavy casualties (down to under 50% strength at
one point). Explosions are much harder on the aliens than on armored
troops, it appears. The aliens' aggressiveness seems to vary by alien
type; some (like worms) have chased my squaddies through doorways and down
halls, while other types stand farther back and take shots. Does not
losing any troops make it easier? Given the low rate of recruitment (a few
a week), one would be out of business taking UFO-style fatalities. As for
atmosphere, there are no lighting effects that I have seen, which certainly
removes the tension of the old night terror mission.
My opinion of the game, however, is a little higher than the original
poster's. I guess it depends what you are looking for, a UFO SVGA add-on
pack or a new game, based on UFO but taking it different directions. Only
time will tell if this game will stick on my HD as along as UFO has, but
for now I'm having the most fun I've had with a game in months playing
XCOM3 just as it stands, a brand new game.
Tony "anyone wanna buy HOMM2 off me?" B
Buz
Sorry to hear this, Chris. I was looking forward to playing Apocalypse turn
based as well, but it looks like maybe the only challenge will be to try
and master real time play. <sigh> I did so hope it would be like X-Com/
X-Com 2, and have that element of a desperate struggle against seemingly
overwhelming odds at times. Let's just hope the middle and end game
sections hold more challenge than the beginning.
=============================
Chris Glover <o...@netspace.net.au> wrote in article
> Initial Impressions - XCOM 3 Turn-based mode
>
> First a small memory from a disastrous TFTD mission in TFTD and why I
> liked it and XCOM so much....
<much excellent writing snipped here>
sharvey
Chris Glover <o...@netspace.net.au> wrote:
: I never did get to kill it. I never even saw it.
: And thats why I love XCOM/TFTD. Furtive aliens lurking in the dark, or
: lying in wait in second story buildings. Shots from the dark. Knowing
: that at any moment a favourite squaddie can be instantly killed.
: Knowing that regardless of how good a player you are you will take
: casualties. Hunting down that last hidden alien. Combat in XCOM is
: intense and gritty, and closer to the realities of small unit combat
: than just about any other game I can think of. In three years its
: never left my hard disk and I have played both XCOM and TFTD to
: completion several times. I prefer TFTD to XCOM for having more lurky
: aliens and being generally harder, even if the undersea bit never
: really did it for me. Some of the most intense gaming experiences I
: have ever had have come from these games. Remember your first terror
: mission? Of course you will. Remember being on the 2nd level of a
: ship-terror mission in TFTD, down to 3 men and knowing that you just
: have to keep on going? God knows I do.
Yeah, I remember this scenario all too well, and boy, did it piss me off.
Squaddie moves forward - ZAP - dead. Someone else moves forward, time
units reserved - ZAP - dead. Other squaddies fire at alien, miss. Alien
turn. ZAP - dead squaddie.
Personally, this frustrated me to the point of tears. I wanted so much to
enjoy this game (XCOM1), but it drove me off. It's supposed to be a game;
I don't really need to experience the total nerve-wracking torment of the
futility of combat. I need to have fun. I need to be entertained.
I'm hoping others agree with me; the XCOM universe is really cool, and I'm
considering giving XCOM3 another chance. I hope that the difficulty
settings make a difference; I don't feel like a wimp for playing on "easy"
mode - I feel like someone who's being entertained.
Scott
--
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Unsolicited commercial email | people who believe in politics are |
| will be immediately sent | like those who believe in god - they |
| to abuse@host and also to | are sucking wind through bent straws |
| postmaster@host - NO SPAM! | - Charles Bukowski |
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+
Matthew Glanville
o...@netspace.net.au (Chris Glover) writes:
>Another problem is that the time units required to fire weapons are
>considerably more generous than before which results in you being able
>to pump out much more fire in a single turn. The machine gun can be
>fired on auto for 1 time unit. This does not fire a burst as before
>but 1 round which means that any soldier equipped with this weapon can
>fire 50-60 times in a turn requiring 50-60 clicks! Most of these
Just hold the mouse button down and it will continue firing. (and missing)
>shots will miss as your soldiers starting accuracy scores are much
>reduced (often below 20) and most aliens require being hit several
>times before expiring. The net effect is that you fire much more
>often for much less effect than before, and it takes a lot longer.
>Even so basically anything you see is dead the same round.
With the beginning aliens, this is true, but...
Matt G.
Neil Fradkin
The aliens don't start to become dangerour until the thrid week. Go
raid the Cult of Sirius. Once you get wiped out by a couple of enemies
with marsec heavy launchers, you won't be compaining it's so easy.
Lars Deutsch
Did you even play the first two parts of xcom ?
I don't think so. You are probably one of
those guys who call diabolo a rpg :-)
And if a game does not catch me on fire
after several hours of play it outright sucks
and is a waste of money ....
I could not agree more to the original poster
that this game has lost its bite.
BTW: Pest exterminator describes my feelings fairly
well when fighting a xcom3 battle ...
Too bad one can not return opened games
in germany :-(
Lars
cyphron <@cyp...@pacbell.net> schrieb im Beitrag
<5qo9ua$hs1$1...@nnrp3.snfc21.pbi.net>...
>
>
> Chris Glover wrote in article <33cf5b46...@news.netspace.net.au>...
>
> >Initial Impressions - XCOM 3 Turn-based mode
> >
> >First a small memory from a disastrous TFTD mission in TFTD and why I
> >liked it and XCOM so much.
> >
> ><
> <long post snipped>
>
> >Thus it came to pass that I went to work today.
>
Lars Deutsch
Yes, YES , YYYEEESSS !!!
This game has lost its bite !
I suggest you wait till you can get it for 9.99$
in a few months. That's what I should have done :-(
RASPUTINXS <raspu...@aol.com> schrieb im Beitrag
<19970718180...@ladder01.news.aol.com>...
SUMMON
First it's apparent by your amazement with the slug that you are still
early in the game and the aliens get LOTS tougher, not only in types but
they get heavier weapons and lots of area effect weapons(and they don't
mind toasting an entire factory-that you have to pay for- to get you.)
Also while the machine gun auto fire is nice you only hae 40 clips
available per week and if you use 20 on one mission your guns are going to
be good for clubs by the 2nd day of the week. Thats right, the second day
of the week! I'm in the 3rd week and have run 14 missions and I'm only
on the 5th day of the week! You are forced to research the alien weapons
just to have ammo to fight with(they also have more power).
sc...@scam.xcf.berkeley.edu
:>Thus it came to pass that I went to work today.
:
:So it seems that your only problem is that its easy. Well, to alot of
:people, including me, TFTD was ridiculously hard. However, that game seems
:to be to your liking. So why don't you fire up Superhuman difficulty before
:you pass judgment that it lost its "flavor"? That's why they gave you the
:difficulty level.
The problem here is that even though the game has many aspects to it,
they lamely only provided one kind of difficulty adjustment. Had the
designers been smart about this, they would have had difficulty
parameters for tactical combat, city combat, political struggle,
research, and economics (instead of just varying them all at once).
Anyway, with regard to tactical combat, in week 3 the bugs are starting
to get somewhat more dangerous (devastator cannon, boomeroids, multiple
poppers). Also, I've heard some horror stories about some of the
nastier bugs that show up later. Finally, when they get shields, they
are apparently pretty tough to bring down.
Now, I've heard more than one person griping that the new aliens aren't
as tactically smart as the bugs in XCom 1 and 2. I must say, everytime
I hear this I am astounded at the small powers of observation some people
have. Without question the new bugs are smarter. The old algorithm was
essentially: individual walks around randomly until an XCommie is spotted,
then it takes two steps out of visual range and waits with opportunity
fire. By contrast the new bugs swarm to you when you are spotted,
they employ cover, they retreat when under heavy fire, they deliberately
try to outflank you, etc.
However, there are still serious flaws in their tactics. For one, it's
too easy to find and contain them in rooms and then pick them off as
they come out. Part of the trouble is that countering the intelligence
and adaptability of a human who has learned basic small-arms tactics is
very difficult on a game project sized budget. The pentagon may be
able to fund the development of a smarter computer opponent, but it
seems to me that the problem is too difficult to be tough against
humans based on wits alone. The result is, the easiest way to provide
a challenge to humans is to give the bugs an edge in technology and
sheer toughness.
Nevertheless, I am impressed with how cohesive the alien's tactics are
in the new XCom. I think Mythos did an impressive job on the new
tactical game. Combat is lively, fluid, and seems to give a good feel
for what real small-arms combat must be like... good job guys (if you're
reading).
Scott
Ichabod Kagass
On Sat, 19 Jul 1997 02:48:04 GMT, se...@worldnet.att.net (Sens) wrote:
>I just got X-COM3, and am trying on Medium. Overall, it's a better
>impression than the one I got from the demo. There are some problems.
>One is play balance. You can get as much money as you want by raiding
>the temples, at least for the first week before the price adjustments.
>The temples are like a combination of a piggy bank that you break into
>every so often, and a training ground to get your puddies' rank and
>accuracy boosted.
I haven't been doing this myself, but it seems like the risk of
casualties, not to mention the time required to heal wounds, would
balance this out. If you want to spend your time on the combats that
don't futher the game, that's perfectly acceptable. Into the third
week, I haven't run into money problems yet (playing on Medium), so I
don't feel like I missed out by not looting the Temple of Sirius.
>MGs on auto, the suckers have almost zero chance to pop your head. I
>killed two big mama slugs with just two puddies and took no damage
>(one has an MG and the other got an AC), something that would be
>impossible in TB mode.
Yeah, I really don't like the idea of certain creatures (Brainsuckers
and Poppers) being inherently more powerful in TB mode.
>I've found lots of minor problems and bugs with the game. One bug is
>that when you kill the Barney guys. If they were carrying the
>brainsucker pods and drop them when they die, then those pods
>automatically become active and change into regular suckers. That
>shouldn't happen.
And you say this because...? FWIW, I haven't found any bugs in the
game yet, so I take issue with you calling this a bug. If I were
carrying around a sack of brainsucker pods waiting to be fired, I set
them all to hatch and go hunt the nasty humans down if I were killed.
I'm sure there are bugs in here somewhere, but I doubt that's one of
them.
-Ichabod Kagass
*** ***
*** No .sig for me, thank you. ***
*** ***
@pacbell.net
On 18 Jul 1997 19:55:32 GMT, "Lars Deutsch"
<Lars.D...@darmstadt.netsurf.de> wrote:
>Did you even play the first two parts of xcom ?
>I don't think so. You are probably one of
>those guys who call diabolo a rpg :-)
Oh his that a new insult nowaday? I never played Xcom1 even though it
was my favorite strategy game of all time. Hey whatever. If you can
find a new strategy game that's more fun than this one please let me
know.
cyphron
Please remove @ in front of email address to reply.
Chris Glover
On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 10:42:04 -0700, "cyphron" <@cyp...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
>Chris Glover wrote in article <33cf5b46...@news.netspace.net.au>...
>
>>Initial Impressions - XCOM 3 Turn-based mode
>>
>>First a small memory from a disastrous TFTD mission in TFTD and why I
>>liked it and XCOM so much.
>>
>>
><long post snipped>
>
>>Thus it came to pass that I went to work today.
>
>So it seems that your only problem is that its easy. Well, to alot of
>people, including me, TFTD was ridiculously hard. However, that game seems
>to be to your liking.
Indeed it was. And to lots of others. After all the success of the
first two is why there is now a third. I'm not convinced we will see
a fourth...
>So why don't you fire up Superhuman difficulty before
>you pass judgment that it lost its "flavor"? That's why they gave you the
>difficulty level. I'm constantly amused at the number of people who claim
>that a game is no longer fun after only a couple hours of play without
>exploring the full range of options that the game provides. Everyone has
>their own opinion, but an opinion would be worth more if you'd played the
>game longer.
In case you might have missed it, the subject line of my post is
XCOM3: ***FIRST*** Impressions. I explicitly stated in the post that
it was based upon a game I purchased a day earlier, and upon the first
6 missions. Just how much time do you want people to devote to a
game before you think they are entitled to a FIRST impression?
I will play the game through to completion before I "pass judgement" ,
to use your expression, on a FINAL basis.
PS I'm continuing with my first XCOM3 campaign (average level) and am
still to experience the tension of its predecessors. I note your
suggestion of Superhuman difficulty level, but personally I believe
that any game that should require setting to the highest difficulty
setting upon first play before becoming challenging has serious
balance problems.
Chris Glover
On 18 Jul 1997 21:31:32 GMT, "T" <ben...@gvsu.edu> wrote:
><snip XCOM3 turn-based mode is too dull and easy commentary>
>>
>> Before I purchase the game, does anyone agree with this assesement.
>>
>After about eight or so missions, I haven't lost any squaddies yet either,
>though I have taken some heavy casualties (down to under 50% strength at
>one point). Explosions are much harder on the aliens than on armored
>troops, it appears. The aliens' aggressiveness seems to vary by alien
>type; some (like worms) have chased my squaddies through doorways and down
>halls, while other types stand farther back and take shots. Does not
>losing any troops make it easier?
Does not losing any troops make a battle easier? I cant believe that
anybody can even ask such a question. Of course it does.
>Given the low rate of recruitment (a few a week), one would be out of business
> taking UFO-style fatalities. As for atmosphere, there are no lighting effects that
> I have seen, which certainly removes the tension of the old night terror mission.
And this was my point, the tension that was the centrepiece of combat
in XCOM/TFTD hasn't translated across into XCOM3. XCOM was designed
for heavy combat and heavy casualties, in a fight against elusive
lurking enemies. This was the flavour of the game. Now thats changed
and the system seems designed to give low casualties hence the low
rate of recruitment as you rightly pointed out. Thats fine if thats
your preference and clearly thats pleased some people as quite a few
of the respondents to my original post complained of finding XCOM and
particularly TFTD too hard. But all that really means is that they
simply didnt like XCOM and would have been better off with a different
game.
I'm starting to think that opinions on XCOM3 will fall into 2 camps,
those people who are attracted to the topic (squaddies vs aliens) but
found XCOM/TFTD too hard will probably like it. Those people who
loved XCOM as the game it was will probably dislike it. It may be a
good game in its own right but as an overt sequel to XCOM I think it
will probably flop. It certainly doesnt start like the other two,
previously the early missions were nasty and cost a lot of blood, now
they are simply a walkthrough. I, for one, happened to like that
feel of fighting against the odds and I'm sad that its gone.
Some posters have said that the games become challenging later on. I
hope they are right because I have a lot of allegiance to the XCOM
system and I wanted this game to be good.
>My opinion of the game, however, is a little higher than the original
>poster's. I guess it depends what you are looking for, a UFO SVGA add-on
>pack or a new game, based on UFO but taking it different directions. Only
>time will tell if this game will stick on my HD as along as UFO has, but
>for now I'm having the most fun I've had with a game in months playing
>XCOM3 just as it stands, a brand new game.
Its a tired cliche but its still true; if it aint broke dont fix it.
XCOM was one of the best systems I have seen and I think Microprose in
jumping on the real-time bandwagon has forgotten why people liked it.
Some questions for those people who are further ahead in the game than
I am.
Are there ever night missions?
Can I expect total disasters on occasion and getting squads decimated
or is the game structured so the human will always win?
Chris Glover
Actually I wasn't amazed with the slug at all, I just said it had more
potential than the other early beasties. The point of my slug story
wasn't the slug but the fact that firing an autocannon at your feet
was a successful game tactic. Its just ridiculous.
Somehow I dont think I'll be running out of ammunition. I keep
picking on the Cult of Sirius and my ammunition supply is actually
increasing, along with many juicy rocket launchers.
David Thompson
I think that there are a couple of very different viewpoints on
this game. First there's the hardcore Xcom fan who loved both the
first and the sequel, and who are there for the thrills of turn based
tactical combat, everything else being peripheral. Then there's the
more moderate fans of the original, people who thought the second was
a cheap knock-off that offered nothing worth playing. These folks are
hopeful that the game will revitalize the series by concentrating on
the more interesting aspect of Xcom, such as the research and general
strategic aspects, and by providing a real time mode that will make
the tactical combat more fun. I fall into the latter category.
So ask yourself which group you belong to and decide based on
that.
On 18 Jul 1997 19:57:28 GMT, "Lars Deutsch"
<Lars.D...@darmstadt.netsurf.de> wrote:
>Yes, YES , YYYEEESSS !!!
>This game has lost its bite !
>I suggest you wait till you can get it for 9.99$
>in a few months. That's what I should have done :-(
>
____________________________________________
'Give me back the Berlin Wall,
Give me Stalin or Saint Paul.
I've seen the future, baby,
It is murder.'
- Leonard Cohen, "The Future"
To email me, remove the capital letters from my address.
@pacbell.net
On Sat, 19 Jul 1997 19:41:51 GMT, o...@netspace.net.au (Chris Glover)
wrote:
>
>In case you might have missed it, the subject line of my post is
>XCOM3: ***FIRST*** Impressions. I explicitly stated in the post that
>it was based upon a game I purchased a day earlier, and upon the first
>6 missions. Just how much time do you want people to devote to a
>game before you think they are entitled to a FIRST impression?
>
Okay, my fault.
>I will play the game through to completion before I "pass judgement" ,
>to use your expression, on a FINAL basis.
>
>PS I'm continuing with my first XCOM3 campaign (average level) and am
>still to experience the tension of its predecessors. I note your
>suggestion of Superhuman difficulty level, but personally I believe
>that any game that should require setting to the highest difficulty
>setting upon first play before becoming challenging has serious
>balance problems.
Here's my experience after playing through to the second week.
First week was a cinch. All the UFOs I fought didn't shoot back. I've
killed all of the aliens that infiltrated with only one casualty. Hmm,
although there was some moment where I had to think, overall it wasn't
overly difficult.
THEN came the second week. 7 advanced UFOs came out, and I proceeded
to release my squadron of hover cars and my valkyrie. This should take
care of them, I thought. BAM, they damaged 6 of my cars, and destroyed
my valkyrie with 4 xcomies in them. What?!? But I did manage to down
one UFO.
Cool. I usually send 4 xcomie to take of the aliens before, but this
time, I think it'll be more prudent to use 6. So I went to the crash
landing. Immediately, I met up with 7 of those purple guys and 3 green
slugs. I had my guys run up to those purple guys and proceeded to
dismantle them at close range. But what the heck? They fired back and
even ran away? That never happened before? I managed to kill 4 of
them. On their turn, they promply threw a grenade my way and killed
two guys. Hmm... One of the brain sucker got a hold of another guy.
Things are not looking good. So I threw a stun grenade and stunned the
brainwashed agent. Then I see this two legged dog like creature that
seemed harmless enough, so I ran up and fired away. And wouldn't you
know it, he blew up when he died and took my seasoned xcomie with him.
Damn, there goes the run up and shoot strategy. I spotted another of
those creatures, but this time I decided to stay back and snipe away.
And wouldn't you know it, he ran up to me and self destructed anyway.
There goes another of my guys. So I'm down to one, and somehow with
careful strategic plannings II managed to take about 5 more of those
ugly creatures down until I met up with my brainwashed friend again.
He apparently wasn't so stunned any more. He walked right up to my
agent and blasted away. Game over. Never will I underestimate them
again.
Imagine that. The game gets harder the longer you play. Imagine that.
Dale Hight
David Thompson <NOS-me...@netcom.caPAM> wrote in article
<33d124c9...@nntp.netcom.ca>...
<snip>
> hopeful that the game will revitalize the series by concentrating on
> the more interesting aspect of Xcom, such as the research and general
> strategic aspects, and by providing a real time mode that will make
> the tactical combat more fun.
Good post. I think this game has revitalized the series. This is a
totally new experience within the more or less same game system. It's all
happening all over again<g>. The aliens are here. Need to stop um. Many
things interest me in this new version of Xcom. New research is required
on new aliens. New weapons and equipment need to be sorted out and
discovered. The city and all the places and affiliations. The battles on
the city scape. The manual, which does not tell you everything. SVGA. RT
or Turns. All of this and more, make this a great new game based on an old
but revitalized game system. Few designers achieve success in this kind of
endeavor. It is just usually more of the same. This is the same but
different enough to be a winner IMO.
BTW, I just started week three and really got a bath of fire in the slums
with the first battle of week three. I could not stop the UFO's with my
pitiful airforce and they landed about 4 supply ships in the slums! What
a battle! I also have converted to real time mode and so far am liking it
better, but more guys are getting hurt this way!
Dale
SUMMON
Excuse me for being a bit obtuse here but several people have stated that
they run raids in less than a minute on the cults. My one and only raid
on the cult was a 20 minute battle with 16 guys with 9 rocket launchers.
I recoverd 2 Psi-clones and 6 rockets(total of all types) about 6 clips of
mixed ammo plus a hand full of small arms(so few I wonder if all the guys
were even armed-although they certainly dumped enough abuse on me). This
seems a far cry from 25-30K per raid at several raids per minute(at first
I thought this was a figure of speech but at least 4 people have said it.
Do the cults not fight back after the first time?
Timothy C. Gion
In article <Pine.SUN.3.96.970719...@viking.cris.com>,
I just raided Sirius for the third time, this time during week 2. I think
I got four psi-clones, but I lost my only soldier who looked promising on
the psi side. I believe at least three of them had launchers which really
damaged my squad.
From reading this group, it sounds like everyone else is having a cake walk
when they go on these raids. What difficulty are you all playying on and
are you using real time or turn based? I'm playing on medium difficulty
and using real time.
PS - I love watching Megapol and Psyche have running gun battles thru the
city. That's a nice touch.
Tim
--
Tim Gion Computer Vision Group
tc...@virginia.edu or gi...@virginia.edu University of Virginia
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~tcg3j
Ichabod Kagass
[temple-raiding stuff snipped]
RE: hatching Brainsuckers being a bug:
On Sat, 19 Jul 1997 19:14:23 GMT, se...@worldnet.att.net (Sens) wrote:
>>>that when you kill the Barney guys. If they were carrying the
>>>brainsucker pods and drop them when they die, then those pods
>>>automatically become active and change into regular suckers. That
>>>shouldn't happen.
>>
>>And you say this because...? FWIW, I haven't found any bugs in the
>>game yet, so I take issue with you calling this a bug. If I were
>>carrying around a sack of brainsucker pods waiting to be fired, I set
>>them all to hatch and go hunt the nasty humans down if I were killed.
>
>Sure, I suppose you can view any occurence in whatever possible way
>you please. My view is that the pods are only activated when launched
>from the launchers, since that's what launchers are for. If I were to
>follow your view, then if all unused alien ammo were to explode upon
>the alien death, then that wouldn't be a bug either. As it is, only
>certain ammo are set off by aggravating circumstances, such as being
>in a fire or HE blast. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinion.
I'm not sure this is a matter of opinion, Sens. Just becuase something
doesn't work the way you think it should doesn't mean it's a bug.
That's my only point.
Ian
sharvey <sha...@enteract.com> wrote:
>enjoy this game (XCOM1), but it drove me off. It's supposed to be a game;
>I don't really need to experience the total nerve-wracking torment of the
>futility of combat. I need to have fun. I need to be entertained.
>
>I'm hoping others agree with me; the XCOM universe is really cool, and I'm
>considering giving XCOM3 another chance. I hope that the difficulty
>settings make a difference; I don't feel like a wimp for playing on "easy"
>mode - I feel like someone who's being entertained.
Well, if it's any help, in X-Com and TFTD the secret to victory is
aggressively sweeping out in a giant circle from your craft, zapping
everything you see. I _never_ reserved time units for opposrunity fire, I
often ended turns with squaddies in the open, and my basic tactic is "an
alien is there... I guess I'll rush a lot of squaddies at him at once, no
matter how many die". This _works_, and I waltzed through Terror from the
Deep on superhuman. Sitting around and sniping at an alien, or waiting for
him to come around a corner at you, or cautiously advancing at him one
squaddie at a time, are usually bad ideas... he is tougher and has faster
reactions (generally), and thus will win a one-on-one shooting match.
The weakness of the aliens are generally that they are all spread out while
you do not have to be, and they tend to move more randomly while you can
move very purposefully. A fast-moving, cohesive squad of X-Com agents will
be able to shoot the alien first more often than the alien gets first shot,
and if he kills one or two with reaction fire, others in the group can blast
him. Keep moving, secure areas before moving much into the next, and attack
alien positions with multiple agents at once, and you shall succeed in
tactical combat.
Ian
se...@worldnet.att.net (Sens) wrote:
>Yep, this was my sentiment of X-COM2, where MPS basically changed the
>graphics, jacked up the armor ratings of the aliens, and that's the
>whole challenge. I remember one scene where I just disembarked my
>full team (14 guys) off the ship, and there was this lobster guy
>staring at me. The whole squad unloaded everything they had on the
>lobster, not even needing to move, and it was still standing after the
>turn. On the computer turn, it took out about two or three X-COM
>puddies with the spitwads for weapons. I suppose that's called fun if
>I were an S&M fan, but I'm not one, then it's just stupid.
They made it harder because a lot of people found X-Com too easy.
Personally, I purchased TFTD and immediately started a game on superhuman. I
lost half my squad on the first mission, and though WOW, this is COOL, it is
now actually possible to lose. I even found that terror missions were almost
beyond my skills early on (lesson: you can't win all the time, so choose
your battles). I then proceeded to beat the game, although now that I've
become even better at it, I wish there was a difficulty level somewhat
harder than superhuman.
Iron Parrot JIIM
SUMMON <Sum...@cris.com> did say:
>Excuse me for being a bit obtuse here but several people have stated that
>they run raids in less than a minute on the cults. My one and only raid
>on the cult was a 20 minute battle with 16 guys with 9 rocket launchers.
>I recoverd 2 Psi-clones and 6 rockets(total of all types) about 6 clips of
>mixed ammo plus a hand full of small arms(so few I wonder if all the guys
>were even armed-although they certainly dumped enough abuse on me). This
>seems a far cry from 25-30K per raid at several raids per minute(at first
>I thought this was a figure of speech but at least 4 people have said it.
>Do the cults not fight back after the first time?
>
Well, in one raid, I picked up about 6 psyclones. Probably a fluke, but
worth quite a bit of money. I also sold the guns I captured, so the raid
ended up being really profitable. It varies wildly, I suppose.
"Iron Parrot" JIIM
"fear the vOIDbEEST"
Timothy Burke
On Sat, 19 Jul 1997 20:16:37 GMT, o...@netspace.net.au (Chris Glover)
wrote:
>Are there ever night missions?
Yes. But I confess they're not quite as creepy as night missions
against downed UFOs in XCOM1. In fact, downed UFO missions are
generally not as creepy--so far, the aliens have always come out to
meet me. But that's still early going--I know there are tougher types
of UFOs on the way.
>Can I expect total disasters on occasion and getting squads decimated
>or is the game structured so the human will always win?
Total disasters, absolutely. I just lost my whole squad, pretty much
and decided to start from my last save. I may be flattering myself,
but I was a pretty good XCOM1&2 player. I certainly wouldn't say that
I found them "too hard". And through my first two weeks in XCOM3, I
was doing pretty nicely. But I've had a couple of rough missions
lately.
What I like about tactical combat so far is that it has the same
feeling of narrative behind it that XCOM 1&2 had. What do I mean by
this? Well, you know how each combat in the previous games had a story
to it, and you were never sure how it would turn out? The kinds of
stories we were all sharing over the Net--things like squaddies
surviving ten shots, or missing badly with a grenade, or getting
ambushed, etcetera? The lovely thing about tactical combat in the
earlier games was that it never had the hideous predictability of most
strategy games. You certainly learned patterns and got better, but
every mission was a rule unto itself.
XCOM3 is the same. In my disaster mission, I went in with three squads
against a downed UFO. (one of the purple disk-shaped ones, I haven't
researched them yet). One squad was machine-gunners, one squad my
stunners and psionics, one squad demolition + snipers. Machine gunners
get into position up close to the door--can't get too close because
there's scattered brushfires near the door. Stunners hold back--the
only thing I really still want to capture is a live popper. Demo and
snipers stay back but with good LOS to door. Nothing happens. Ok, I
decide, I'll send one of my stunners down to open the door and run
like hell back to cover, see what that stirs up. He gets within one
pace of the door (real-time) and then the door opens--anthropoids,
lots of them. Shit. So I have the stunner prime a stun grenade and
toss it while he runs back. As the stunner pulls back, he throws the
grenade--throws it one space, way short. He's unconscious. The
anthropoids, two of them out the door, throw grenades. Whoa, they
haven't done that before, just launched brainsuckers! Incendiary
grenades in fact. Now the anthropoids are unconscious and engulfed
with fire as well, since their grenades were aimed at my dying and
unconscious stunner. At the same moment, my demo guys fire two
incendiary rounds. One misses and engulfs the machine gunners. Machine
gunners are on fire, and they pull back. What I don't know is that
there's a popper running through the holocaust of flame at the
entrance to the craft and it's barely gotten past the stun gas. BOOM.
No more machine gunners. And so on, until I had one or two guys left.
The one detriment to real-time combat that I'm discovering is that
it's much harder to identify with individual troopers. With
turn-based, you tend to each and every individual, and you get to have
your aces and your idiots. With real-time, working in squads, there's
less of a sense of individual squaddies.
Rob Johnson
>
>PS - I love watching Megapol and Psyche have running gun battles thru the
>city. That's a nice touch.
>
Yes.
Until they take out the elevated road along with your stormdog and 4
squaddies who are returning from a raid. Looked good though.
Tim Chown
Ichabod Kagass wrote:
>
> I haven't been doing this myself, but it seems like the risk of
> casualties, not to mention the time required to heal wounds, would
> balance this out. If you want to spend your time on the combats that
> don't futher the game, that's perfectly acceptable.
If you just use your androids for cult raids it can be quite easy.
I generally take 3 or so in with a rookie or two (for the "free"
training) to get the merchandise to sell.
Adding androids is a neat touch.
Having been a TB fan of I and II I'm using RT most of the time,
except when I want that bit of extra control (eg. to catch a few
live aliens to research). RT is so much faster to play, yet
still has a lot of suspense. The music is superb.
Can you change squaddie names in III? Clicking the name doesn't
seem to do it...
--
Tim Chown | The Games Domain Review 900+ reviews!
Strategy Editor | http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview (USA)
stra...@gamesdomain.com | http://www.gamesdomain.co.uk/gdreview (UK)
Tim Chown
SUMMON wrote:
>
> Excuse me for being a bit obtuse here but several people have stated that
> they run raids in less than a minute on the cults.
I think Sens means one minute of game time - you can raid, return,
reload and run back as often and as fast as you like. The cult
always generates more guards and stuff to take. The balance is
the casualties you take, but I use 3 or 4 well-spread out androids
and they take a lot of punishment. Don't cluster up as the guards
use grenades a lot. In RT mode a raid can be done in 5 minutes
of "real" time, or less.
Dean ODonnell
In article <33d0ffb7...@news.pacbell.net>, <@cyp...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>On 18 Jul 1997 19:55:32 GMT, "Lars Deutsch"
><Lars.D...@darmstadt.netsurf.de> wrote:
>
>>Did you even play the first two parts of xcom ?
>>I don't think so. You are probably one of
>>those guys who call diabolo a rpg :-)
>
>Oh his that a new insult nowaday? I never played Xcom1 even though it
>was my favorite strategy game of all time. Hey whatever. If you can
>find a new strategy game that's more fun than this one please let me
>know.
Well _I've_ never played Diablo but it's my favorite rpg of all time.
So there.
<g>
Dean
Patrick
On Sat, 19 Jul 1997 18:00:42 -0400, SUMMON <Sum...@cris.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Do the cults not fight back after the first time?
>
How "hard" they fight seems to be a function how much
money they have (check in the organizations screen of the
ufopedia). Raiding them reduces this, so the relatively
poor cult of serius can only fight 1 or 2 good battles.
The rest should be combat training for the rookies!
Pat
T
> >After about eight or so missions, I haven't lost any squaddies yet
either,
> >though I have taken some heavy casualties (down to under 50% strength at
> >one point). Explosions are much harder on the aliens than on armored
> >troops, it appears. The aliens' aggressiveness seems to vary by alien
> >type; some (like worms) have chased my squaddies through doorways and
down
> >halls, while other types stand farther back and take shots. Does not
> >losing any troops make it easier?
>
> Does not losing any troops make a battle easier? I cant believe that
> anybody can even ask such a question. Of course it does.
>
tactics from UFO & TFTD are now needed. For example, I used to run wounded
squaddies right into a ship, hoping to take out one alien guarding a door
so the rest of the squad could clean up. No more; I take troop wounds a
lot more seriously, forcing a more realistic plan and essentially taking
the wounded out of the fight.
You and I beat UFO and TFTD many times, and learned a lot of little tactics
to keep squaddies alive, maximize LOS, and so on. For the most part, those
tactics still work in TB and make the combat a little easier. Mistakes
I've made, though, cost me dearly. I guess for me the changes have
required enough adjustment to make combat interesting again (unlike TFTD).
As far as starting out on medium, I sort of thought they designed
superhuman for those of us with two or three years of UFO/TFTD experience,
leaving the lower levels for newcomers.
> I'm starting to think that opinions on XCOM3 will fall into 2 camps,
> those people who are attracted to the topic (squaddies vs aliens) but
> found XCOM/TFTD too hard will probably like it. Those people who
> loved XCOM as the game it was will probably dislike it. It may be a
> good game in its own right but as an overt sequel to XCOM I think it
> will probably flop. It certainly doesnt start like the other two,
> previously the early missions were nasty and cost a lot of blood, now
> they are simply a walkthrough. I, for one, happened to like that
> feel of fighting against the odds and I'm sad that its gone.
Well, I'm in the third camp, having never found the first two too hard but
still happy with this game. Perfectly happy? Not by a long shot; I can
relate to all of your points. I miss the buildup of a team from scratch.
I miss the fear of being forced to face the aliens with puny rifles and no
armor. I _really_ miss the night missions and challenge of fighting in
shadow. I just haven't found those shortcomings fatal to this game yet...
maybe after expecting too much from new games for so long, this one just
disappointed me far less (hardly at all) than anything I've bought of late.
> Its a tired cliche but its still true; if it aint broke dont fix it.
> XCOM was one of the best systems I have seen and I think Microprose in
> jumping on the real-time bandwagon has forgotten why people liked it.
A big problem for me in the big picture, to be sure. If only they had
directed all that RT development energy towards further enhancing TB...
Jake Reczek
> Notes: You don't always get all the goodies (psiclone candies) unless
>
> you pick it up. There were raids where I saw the stuff lying on the
> ground/table, but didn't bother to pick them up, thinking that's
> automatic. At the end of the raid, I counted and saw that I got a
> couple less than what I saw.
>
How do you check exactly what you found/recovered on your last raid??
Do you have to just wait til you get back to base and then do the
buy/sell to check your list of items at base ? (assuming that you
memorized what you started with)
--Jake
T
> Can you change squaddie names in III? Clicking the name doesn't
> seem to do it...
Clicking on the name in the Equip Agent screen will let you change the
name.
Tony
Jake Reczek
> as tactically smart as the bugs in XCom 1 and 2. I must say,
> everytime
> I hear this I am astounded at the small powers of observation some
> people
> have. Without question the new bugs are smarter. The old algorithm
> was
> essentially: individual walks around randomly until an XCommie is
> spotted,
> then it takes two steps out of visual range and waits with opportunity
>
> fire. By contrast the new bugs swarm to you when you are spotted,
> they employ cover, they retreat when under heavy fire, they
> deliberately
> try to outflank you, etc.
The major problem with their tactics is that ALL the aliens "actively"
seek you out!
In other words, in some of my missions, I don't even get to explore
those wonderfully rendered buildings because I only get as far as the
stairs and have all of those buggers come running down and getting
slaughtered ! .. Why couldnt they just sit up there and wait for me?
Or atleast, have SOME of them up there.. it seems wierd that you would
send all of your troops (aliens) into an open field of fire such as
stairs in order to succeed in the battle.. you end up just getting cut
down..
--Jake
dearmad
@cyp...@pacbell.net wrote:
> Imagine that. The game gets harder the longer you play. Imagine that.
>
> cyphron
Yeah, now the real trick for you: DON'T RESTART FROM A SAVEGAME...
--
"And Lo, I created life one... frame... at... a... time...
And on the seventh frame... I REALIZED I HAD 8,633 more to go!"
La Musique Petite Challenge and the DORK page
(Dearmad's Official Raytracing Krud) are at:
http://www.europa.com/~dearmad
Jeremy Reaban
You can change the name of your vehicles, too. By adding the name of the
base to their name, it makes it easier to remember which is where.
T <ben...@gvsu.edu> wrote in article
<01bc955a$41363c80$ad44...@river.gvsu.edu>...
RASPUTINXS
>Well, if it's any help, in X-Com and TFTD the secret to victory is
>aggressively sweeping out in a giant circle from your craft, zapping
>everything you see. I _never_ reserved time units for opposrunity fire, I
>often ended turns with squaddies in the open, and my basic tactic is "an
>alien is there... I guess I'll rush a lot of squaddies at him at once, no
>matter how many die". This _works_, and I waltzed through Terror from the
>Deep on superhuman. Sitting around and sniping at an alien, or waiting
for
>him to come around a corner at you, or cautiously advancing at him one
>squaddie at a time, are usually bad ideas... he is tougher and has faster
>reactions (generally), and thus will win a one-on-one shooting match.
>
>The weakness of the aliens are generally that they are all spread out
while
>you do not have to be, and they tend to move more randomly while you can
>move very purposefully. A fast-moving, cohesive squad of X-Com agents
will
>be able to shoot the alien first more often than the alien gets first
shot,
>and if he kills one or two with reaction fire, others in the group can
blast
>him. Keep moving, secure areas before moving much into the next, and
attack
>alien positions with multiple agents at once, and you shall succeed in
>tactical combat.
True. True. True. This is how I did it.
RASPUTINXS
>They made it harder because a lot of people found X-Com too easy.
>Personally, I purchased TFTD and immediately started a game on
superhuman. I
>lost half my squad on the first mission, and though WOW, this is COOL, it
is
>now actually possible to lose. I even found that terror missions were
almost
>beyond my skills early on (lesson: you can't win all the time, so choose
>your battles). I then proceeded to beat the game, although now that I've
>become even better at it, I wish there was a difficulty level somewhat
>harder than superhuman.
>
>
>
All I can say is, I must really suck. Because I have problems with
average, much less superhuman.
Mark Asher
iadm...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Ian) wrote:
snip
>Well, if it's any help, in X-Com and TFTD the secret to victory is
>aggressively sweeping out in a giant circle from your craft, zapping
>everything you see. I _never_ reserved time units for opposrunity fire, I
>often ended turns with squaddies in the open, and my basic tactic is "an
>alien is there... I guess I'll rush a lot of squaddies at him at once, no
>matter how many die". This _works_, and I waltzed through Terror from the
>Deep on superhuman.
snip
Did you play it with Scott Jones' XCOMUTIL program? The difficulty
setting in 1 and 2 doesn't work right and resets to normal (easy?) as
soon as you save your game for the first time.
If you play it with his utility at superhuman, it's a different game.
The aliens are snipers and will pick you off if you rush out. I can't
survive without lots of smoke grenades -- each squaddie carries at
least 2.
@pacbell.net
On Sun, 20 Jul 1997 15:51:18 -0700, dearmad <dea...@europa.com>
wrote:
><snip his surprise at a good game getting better: 6 xcommies dead>
>
>> Imagine that. The game gets harder the longer you play. Imagine that.
>>
>> cyphron
>
>Yeah, now the real trick for you: DON'T RESTART FROM A SAVEGAME...
>--
I wasn't the one complaining that the game is too easy. It was a reply
to another poster.
>"And Lo, I created life one... frame... at... a... time...
> And on the seventh frame... I REALIZED I HAD 8,633 more to go!"
>
>La Musique Petite Challenge and the DORK page
>(Dearmad's Official Raytracing Krud) are at:
>http://www.europa.com/~dearmad
cyphron
Tim Chown
Iron Parrot JIIM wrote:
>
> Well, in one raid, I picked up about 6 psyclones. Probably a fluke, but
> worth quite a bit of money. I also sold the guns I captured, so the raid
> ended up being really profitable. It varies wildly, I suppose.
What I would like is some screen like the alien containment one
which lists exactly what I recovered when my ship gets back.
This would also ease my worries that some things do not get
recovered...
Tim Chown
Sens wrote:
>
> Notes: You don't always get all the goodies (psiclone candies) unless
> you pick it up. There were raids where I saw the stuff lying on the
> ground/table, but didn't bother to pick them up, thinking that's
> automatic. At the end of the raid, I counted and saw that I got a
> couple less than what I saw.
The problem is if you have a cargo bay it's not clear how much of
what will fit in it for the trip back... and of course you can't pick
what you want to take (though the option would be nice, it may also
be one level of detail too many for some).
Can you tell if your cargo bay is full from a trip?
I'd like to be able to see the contents on arrival back and sell
from that screen too, just as with alien bodies/etc...
abrd
Sens wrote:
> Jake Reczek <jre...@eecs.tufts.edu> wrote:
>
> >The major problem with their tactics is that ALL the aliens
> "actively"
> >seek you out!
> >In other words, in some of my missions, I don't even get to explore
> >those wonderfully rendered buildings because I only get as far as the
>
> >stairs and have all of those buggers come running down and getting
> >slaughtered ! .. Why couldnt they just sit up there and wait for me?
>
> That bothered me, too, until I thought about the alternative of having
>
> to search all of those hundreds of different layouts with up to 9
> levels each and each level with 9 or 10 or more squares of nooks and
> crannies. I don't want to spend half my life to play one single
> campaign. The AI is stupid however way you slice it, either charging
> at you or walking back and forth in a room until you get into LOS.
I agree. I don't want to be forced to search every corner, but wouldn't
mind being ableto look around. It seems as if the aliens know your exact
location from the start (perhaps to compensate for the stupid ai). I
haven't been able to really explore much, just sit there and before you
know it, they come running at you without taking cover. Can this be
corrected in a patch? Aside from that the game is fun.
Al
Dale Hight
Tim Chown <stra...@gamesdomain.com> wrote in article
<33D31F...@gamesdomain.com>...
>
> The problem is if you have a cargo bay it's not clear how much of
> what will fit in it for the trip back... and of course you can't pick
> what you want to take (though the option would be nice, it may also
> be one level of detail too many for some).
>
> Can you tell if your cargo bay is full from a trip?
>
> I'd like to be able to see the contents on arrival back and sell
> from that screen too, just as with alien bodies/etc...
I agree, I would like to see this list added to the game. It would be a
great improvement as this is your reward for the mission.
Someone posted the idea that one may not have enough cargo space to carry
all the equipment available after a raid. Has anyone tried using two cargo
bays? Does that net you more equipment?
Dale
abrd
I hate Spam
Chris Glover wrote:
>
> On Sat, 19 Jul 1997 02:36:00 -0400, SUMMON <Sum...@cris.com> wrote:
>
> >First it's apparent by your amazement with the slug that you are still
> >early in the game and the aliens get LOTS tougher, not only in types but
> >they get heavier weapons and lots of area effect weapons(and they don't
> >mind toasting an entire factory-that you have to pay for- to get you.)
> >Also while the machine gun auto fire is nice you only hae 40 clips
> >available per week and if you use 20 on one mission your guns are going to
> >be good for clubs by the 2nd day of the week. Thats right, the second day
> >of the week! I'm in the 3rd week and have run 14 missions and I'm only
> >on the 5th day of the week! You are forced to research the alien weapons
> >just to have ammo to fight with(they also have more power).
> >
>
> Actually I wasn't amazed with the slug at all, I just said it had more
> potential than the other early beasties. The point of my slug story
> wasn't the slug but the fact that firing an autocannon at your feet
> was a successful game tactic. Its just ridiculous.
>
> Somehow I dont think I'll be running out of ammunition. I keep
> picking on the Cult of Sirius and my ammunition supply is actually
> increasing, along with many juicy rocket launchers.
Okay guys give it up....
I've raided the cult many times, and have NEVER gotten the high value
items you mention...
I'm playing SUPERHUMAN level (it seams size is basicaly the only
difference)
I'm craft have cargo hold...and I only use mgs
So whats the trick...
Neil Fradkin
Occasionally, especially on downed ufo investigations. Some aliens will
be waiting to snipe at you. Later on ther aliens have a "cloaking"
device that allows them to snipe more effectively (and shortly after
that they get the Disruptor missile launcher, ehgad!).
If getting slaughtered is what you're looking for, just wait till week
5-6. You'll be crusing along feeling mighty in your flying suits and
disruptor shields, when from out of nowhere a green missile come flying
toward you, homing in, and BOOM! agent no more.
Chris Harding
abrd wrote:
Yes, I agreed absolutely ! My (very successfull) tactic for pretty much
evey mission is now (week 2):
- assemble a firing squad (using cover of course)
- have rookie run around and find the aliens
- rookie finds aliens and draws them to firing squad
- firing squard blows aliens to pieces (stun granade for bystanders and
aliens)
- repeat until finished
OK that's a bit too simplistic, but I found this really helps against
the running bombs and most of the aliens.
Chris
--
Chris Harding - Virtual Environment Technology Laboratory
University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204-3475
Voice: (713) 743 1284 Fax: (713) 743 11 98
email: ch...@metropolis.vetl.uh.edu
Neil Fradkin
> All I can say is, I must really suck. Because I have problems with
> average, much less superhuman.
I wonder if the people complaining that superhuman is too easy are the
people who save every second and load if they don't do perfectly.
Neil Fradkin
-snipped question about how to get cool stuff raiding the cult-
> So whats the trick...
The trick to to keep explosions to a minimum. Explosions will destroy
equipment.
James Dusek
Chris Glover wrote:
> And this was my point, the tension that was the centrepiece of combat
> in XCOM/TFTD hasn't translated across into XCOM3. XCOM was designed
> for heavy combat and heavy casualties, in a fight against elusive
You can still take heavy losses in XCOM3. It appears the Aliens
are in the same boat as you, they are new at this game. They are working
on new tech just like you are, except this time YOU have the lead. The
aliens are advancing in my game, hell, on one of the latest missions the
aliaens had some sort of force shield, and they wasted three of my
troops.
Now on every mission I go, I have to wounder just what will I
possible be facing!
> and the system seems designed to give low casualties hence the low
> rate of recruitment as you rightly pointed out. Thats fine if thats
I think rate of recruitment changes. The more people killed, the
more people that show up to be recruited. After all, why would 20 people
show up in the recruitment list if you can only recruit 2.
> I'm starting to think that opinions on XCOM3 will fall into 2 camps,
> those people who are attracted to the topic (squaddies vs aliens) but
> found XCOM/TFTD too hard will probably like it. Those people who
> loved XCOM as the game it was will probably dislike it. It may be a
> good game in its own right but as an overt sequel to XCOM I think it
> will probably flop. It certainly doesnt start like the other two,
> previously the early missions were nasty and cost a lot of blood, now
> they are simply a walkthrough. I, for one, happened to like that
> feel of fighting against the odds and I'm sad that its gone.
Wait, you'll start taking the damage.
My two camp would be as follows.
CAMP 1:
These people LOVED XCOM1 and XCOM2. They still play it, eventhough
the engine is dated, and they solved it a million times.
CAMP 2:
These people felt ripped-off by XCOM2. It wasn't a new game, it
was XCOM 1 with minor changes.
Camp 1 will have a hard time accepting XCOM3, camp 2 less so.
I am in camp 2. I ahve full accept XCOM3 and feel it's ALOT better
than 1 and 2. XCOM 1 with the new look and combat ( i.e. real-time)
would be
great, but "been there, done that!" I traded XCOM a long time ago, and
don't
want to pick it back up. What I do miss is the mentioned battle between
the
Aliens from 1 and the humans over other parts of the galaxy. This would
have
make a cool game, maybe they are working on it.
> Its a tired cliche but its still true; if it aint broke dont fix it.
> XCOM was one of the best systems I have seen and I think Microprose in
> jumping on the real-time bandwagon has forgotten why people liked it.
It was broke, they did fix it. I prefer the real-time mode and
will not touch TB in XCOM3. TB is great for board wargame translations,
but for this type of game RT is the way to go.
> Are there ever night missions?
There are day and night, and you can have night missions if you
attack a downed UFO at night.
> Can I expect total disasters on occasion and getting squads decimated
> or is the game structured so the human will always win?
Yes, you can loose. I've had squaddies "throw" grenades 2 feet
from themselfs. Later, there is something called the popper. A blue
little alien that leaves a smoke trail when it runs. It explodes when
it gets new you. This will cripple a squad.
James Dusek
Scott T Jones
Most people who are complaining about XCOM3 seem to think that turn-based
is too easy or tedious. I have to agree. I played the demo only once in
turn-based mode. Then I tried real-time mode and everything changed.
I have long been a believer of turn-based over real-time. I always thought
that turn-based equalled control while real-time equalled chaos. XCOM3
has changed me to a true believer in what can be accomplished by a real-time
game. Mythos (the actual designers) has come up with a masterpiece of
tactical combat. Simultaneous combat with full control. It embodies the
best of both worlds. This is not a click-fest like Warcraft or C&C. This
is realistic combat with fire-fights that must be seen to be believed. I
can not say enough good about this game. Try the real-time mode and you
will never want to play it in turn-based mode again. I won't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott T Jones | "Outside of a dog,
Author of XCOMUTIL | a book is man's best friend.
------------------------------------------| Inside of a dog,
http://members.aol.com/stjones/xcomutil/ | it's too dark to read."
http://www.comland.com/~stjones/xcomutil/ | Groucho Marx
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Hight
Scott T Jones <stj...@aol.com> wrote in article
<5r0hmo$15de$2...@ausnews.austin.ibm.com>...
This
> is realistic combat with fire-fights that must be seen to be believed. I
> can not say enough good about this game. Try the real-time mode and you
> will never want to play it in turn-based mode again. I won't.
>
Yep, I'm pretty heavily biased to turn based games also, but I am taking
the extra casualties I tend to get in the real time mode just to see and
participate in these fire-fights.
Sometimes it really gets wild. Stuff blowing up _everywhere_. Men and
alien running in all directions. Passing each other running through smoke.
Passing out from mis-thrown stun granades. Guys with a gun blazing from
each hand. I love this HE missile gun. 5 shots that seldom miss. Brews
up those tough to get a shot at skeleton flyers. What a riot this is. My
hospital is always full! I am adding another one.<g>
Dale
Dale Hight
Dale Hight <dale...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<01bc9636$e92d6d00$e5c993cf@world>...
>>
> Sometimes it really gets wild. Stuff blowing up _everywhere_. Men and
> alien running in all directions. Passing each other running through
smoke.
> Passing out from mis-thrown stun granades. Guys with a gun blazing from
> each hand. I love this HE missile gun. 5 shots that seldom miss. Brews
> up those tough to get a shot at skeleton flyers. What a riot this is.
My
> hospital is always full! I am adding another one.<g>
>
Oh yes, I forgot to add. Since the introduction of alien shields in week
4, I am adding more GRAVEYARDS too (for my side)<g>. Gezz, this is getting
hard. Reminds me of Xcom1 when I was first learning how to play it. That
was an unforgettable experience and so is this. Great job by the
designers.
Dale
PKrie74967
One thing that was missing in the first two was enemy crossing fields of
fire. 90% of the time in the first two, the aliens were so spread out as
to be isolated from one another. They were more like snipers than
coherent squads. This allowed for Xcom agents to gang-up on them and take
them out piece-meal. In Xcoma, enemy squads stay close to one another
and give each other supporting fire. S.t. there a little too close...
This makes for some terrific fur balls, especially in real-time. Most of
the aliens in the early portion are better close quarter fighters, but the
gang squads are very much like rival Xcom squads-a very cool addition.
Ian
ma...@cdmnet.com (Mark Asher) wrote:
>iadm...@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (Ian) wrote:
>
>snip
>
>>Well, if it's any help, in X-Com and TFTD the secret to victory is
>>aggressively sweeping out in a giant circle from your craft, zapping
>>everything you see. I _never_ reserved time units for opposrunity fire, I
>>often ended turns with squaddies in the open, and my basic tactic is "an
>>alien is there... I guess I'll rush a lot of squaddies at him at once, no
>>matter how many die". This _works_, and I waltzed through Terror from the
>>Deep on superhuman.
>Did you play it with Scott Jones' XCOMUTIL program? The difficulty
>setting in 1 and 2 doesn't work right and resets to normal (easy?) as
>soon as you save your game for the first time.
>
>If you play it with his utility at superhuman, it's a different game.
>The aliens are snipers and will pick you off if you rush out. I can't
>survive without lots of smoke grenades -- each squaddie carries at
>least 2.
There was NO difficulty bug in Terror from the Deep, only in X-Com. This is
one reason many people found TFTD "too hard", because when the picked
Superhuman in X-Com they actually just got Easy, and in TFTD when they
picked Superhuman they really did get Superhuman.
Incidentally, I have used XCOMUTIL to play X-Com on Superhuman, and it is
still not as hard as TFTD on Superhuman.
Ian
Neil Fradkin <nfra...@secant.com> wrote:
Well, I complained that it was too easy and the only time I reload from a
saved game is if I lose my entire squad (which is very rare). Using
consistent aggressive sweep tactics, I'd usually lose 4-6 out of 14 men
every mission in TFTD on Superhuman, but I'd seldom lose more unless I was
very unlucky, and at any rate one can always recruit replacements (the more
you fight the more replacements you need, but the more money you make, so
that you end up financially ahead). Since even experienced soldiers tend to
die off fairly quickly, until I got to psi powers, I was actually beating
TFTD on Superhuman without reloading and while using squads that were mostly
rookies.
Ian
James Dusek <du...@cadsun.corp.mot.com> wrote:
>> Are there ever night missions?
>
> There are day and night, and you can have night missions if you
>attack a downed UFO at night.
Personally I won't miss night missions... because I almost never played
them. It is very seldom (usually only on terror missions, and then only
about 1/3 of the time), that you _have_ to fight a tactical battle at night.
Hence, since it is much easier to fight in the day, I fought during the day
95% of the time.
The ability to fight at night was a cool feature, but since it made things
more difficult, it was a feature I seldom used and hence was unimportant.
@pacbell.net
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 05:29:19 GMT, se...@worldnet.att.net (Sens) wrote:
>"Dale Hight" <dale...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>Someone posted the idea that one may not have enough cargo space to carry
>>all the equipment available after a raid. Has anyone tried using two cargo
>>bays? Does that net you more equipment?
>
>I have 2 cargo bays. Nope, about the same measly amount for each
>trip.
Did you blow the aliens? If you use explosives, many time the
explosives will kill the aliens but will also take the weapons with it
into one big explosion. I've seen equipments getting vaporized alot so
don't use too much firepower.
Ye Chen
Tim Chown (stra...@gamesdomain.com) wrote:
: Sens wrote:
: >
: > Notes: You don't always get all the goodies (psiclone candies) unless
: > you pick it up. There were raids where I saw the stuff lying on the
: > ground/table, but didn't bother to pick them up, thinking that's
: > automatic. At the end of the raid, I counted and saw that I got a
: > couple less than what I saw.
: The problem is if you have a cargo bay it's not clear how much of
: what will fit in it for the trip back... and of course you can't pick
: what you want to take (though the option would be nice, it may also
: be one level of detail too many for some).
: Can you tell if your cargo bay is full from a trip?
No matter how much equipment you capture, your only cargon module will
bring them all back. Once I returned from alien hatching chamber, my
biotrans had 1457/50 cargo.
BTW, anyone who has been to hatching chamber knows if I can kill all the
alien there? They seemed to pop up all the time. I had to abort the
mission at turn 120, killing more than 100 bugs in the course.
Fortunately, I got to get all the equipment back.
: I'd like to be able to see the contents on arrival back and sell
: from that screen too, just as with alien bodies/etc...
: --
dearmad
And why everyone thinks raiding the Cult is a good idea I dunno- waste
of time- go to the sources- Psyke or Diablo- they got TONS more Psiclone
than the measly Cult. At leasi it's been my experience so.
--
Neil Fradkin
> And why everyone thinks raiding the Cult is a good idea I dunno- waste
> of time- go to the sources- Psyke or Diablo- they got TONS more Psiclone
> than the measly Cult. At leasi it's been my experience so.
Only because the cult starts out unfriendly with you. Also they seem
less able to retailiate than the gangs. Someone here posted a good story
of a gang strike on their base, I believe it involved lots of fire and
explosions :)
@pacbell.net
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997 12:38:19 -0700, dearmad <dea...@europa.com>
wrote:
>
>And why everyone thinks raiding the Cult is a good idea I dunno- waste
>of time- go to the sources- Psyke or Diablo- they got TONS more Psiclone
>than the measly Cult. At leasi it's been my experience so.
>--
That's because Diablo and Psyke is far more dangerous. Piss them off
and be prepared to get raided at your own base everyday.
>"And Lo, I created life one... frame... at... a... time...
> And on the seventh frame... I REALIZED I HAD 8,633 more to go!"
>
>La Musique Petite Challenge and the DORK page
>(Dearmad's Official Raytracing Krud) are at:
>http://www.europa.com/~dearmad
cyphron
Russell Webb
In article <33D522...@secant.com>,
Neil Fradkin <nfra...@secant.com> wrote:
>> And why everyone thinks raiding the Cult is a good idea I dunno- waste
>> of time- go to the sources- Psyke or Diablo- they got TONS more Psiclone
>> than the measly Cult. At leasi it's been my experience so.
>
>less able to retailiate than the gangs. Someone here posted a good story
>of a gang strike on their base, I believe it involved lots of fire and
>explosions :)
I only wish the cult was meek. They certainly can attack you even with
no provocation. When I first booted up X-Com:3 I tried the 'novice' level
just to see the new real-time mechanics of the game. 17 game hours after
the game start the cult had cycled to 'hostile' and attacked my base! It
wiped out nearly half of my troopers, but at least I didn't lose the base.
With some trepidation I then restarted the game at 'average', expecting a
bloodbath. So far at 4 weeks into the game the cult hasn't done a thing.
I suppose attacking them five minutes into the game and at least twice a
week has helped, though. Usually I do get a casualty now and then when
heavy-launcher cult members jump into my ambush, but I'd rather take a few
casualties that way instead of letting the cult gain some finances and
raid my base--my hand-picked group of skill 90+ quantum physicists don't
defend well!
The senate seemed to get angry that I attacked the cult at the beginning,
but soon returned to 'allied' status. Metropol, OTOH, jumped to 'allied'
immediately when I attacked the cult.
--
Russell Webb
rw...@panix.com
Chris Glover
On 21 Jul 1997 20:44:08 GMT, stj...@aol.com (Scott T Jones) wrote:
>Most people who are complaining about XCOM3 seem to think that turn-based
>is too easy or tedious. I have to agree. I played the demo only once in
>turn-based mode. Then I tried real-time mode and everything changed.
>
>I have long been a believer of turn-based over real-time. I always thought
>that turn-based equalled control while real-time equalled chaos. XCOM3
>has changed me to a true believer in what can be accomplished by a real-time
>game. Mythos (the actual designers) has come up with a masterpiece of
>tactical combat. Simultaneous combat with full control. It embodies the
>best of both worlds. This is not a click-fest like Warcraft or C&C.
Call me old-fashioned Scott, but I regard a rebuttal as requiring
something more than you saying in effect "O NO IT HASN'T"!!!
My original comments about the thrill of XCOM having vanished in XCOM3
related solely to turn-based play. I made no comments on how well
real-time combat is handled, good or bad, as I am simply uninterested
in it. You wrote above that you agree that turn-based play is now
easy and tedious so there is actually no difference in opinion on this
issue in any case. TB play in XCOM/TFTD was neither easy nor tedious
so it's a pity that Microprose has stuffed it.
>This is realistic combat with fire-fights that must be seen to be believed.
You have got to be kidding. Even leaving aside the science fiction
scenario XCOM combat in either mode can hardly be described as
realistic.
>Try the real-time mode and you
>will never want to play it in turn-based mode again. I won't.
I did try it, it didn't interest me and surprise, surprise I do want
to play in turn-based mode.
The funny thing is that a friend and I were bemoaning the sorry state
to which XCOM (TB) has sunk and we said we were sure that you, the
Great Saviour of XCOM, would with a little of your magic make XCOM3
what it should have been. Alas it now looks like, with you as a happy
real-time player, that this wont be the case. Heavy indeed is the
burden the turn-based purist must bear in these sad days.
Chris Glover
On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 13:49:31 -0500, James Dusek
<du...@cadsun.corp.mot.com> wrote:
>Chris Glover wrote:
>> I'm starting to think that opinions on XCOM3 will fall into 2 camps,
>> those people who are attracted to the topic (squaddies vs aliens) but
>> found XCOM/TFTD too hard will probably like it. Those people who
>> loved XCOM as the game it was will probably dislike it. It may be a
>> good game in its own right but as an overt sequel to XCOM I think it
>> will probably flop. It certainly doesnt start like the other two,
>> previously the early missions were nasty and cost a lot of blood, now
>> they are simply a walkthrough. I, for one, happened to like that
>> feel of fighting against the odds and I'm sad that its gone.
>
> Wait, you'll start taking the damage.
Yes, the damage I'm taking is definitely picking up. I've done
probably 30-40 missions now (mainly raids) and am in early week 3.
Total casualties to date 5 KIA and maybe 4-5 times that many wounded.
First KIA was on about mission 18 at which time I was seriously
considering dumping the whole game as a joke compared to its
predecessors. I was very glad to have that first poor squaddie killed
and even gladder to see little yellow dudes with shields...
I cant say that I'm not enjoying the game now, as I am, but it just
doesn't compel me like the others did. How should I put this? XCOM3
is a game with which I can still get sleep. I suppose I should be
grateful really.
>> Its a tired cliche but its still true; if it aint broke dont fix it.
>> XCOM was one of the best systems I have seen and I think Microprose in
>> jumping on the real-time bandwagon has forgotten why people liked it.
>
> It was broke, they did fix it. I prefer the real-time mode and
>will not touch TB in XCOM3. TB is great for board wargame translations,
>but for this type of game RT is the way to go.
This is obviously a case of differing personal opinions, I certainly
didn't think the XCOM system was broken, and I dont agree that for
this type of game RT is the way to go. However I seem to be in a
minority here and I think the wave of realtime games under which the
world is drowning will leave me behind. Ever felt like a dinosaur?
>> Are there ever night missions?
>
> There are day and night, and you can have night missions if you
>attack a downed UFO at night.
Yeah, I've now done a few night missions but night just isn't scary
anymore. XCOM was a great 'lets turn out the lights and play' sort of
game. I miss very much those elusive aliens hiding in the dark and
that whole feel of creepy combat rather than just combat.
>> Can I expect total disasters on occasion and getting squads decimated
>> or is the game structured so the human will always win?
>
> Yes, you can loose. I've had squaddies "throw" grenades 2 feet
>from themselfs. Later, there is something called the popper. A blue
>little alien that leaves a smoke trail when it runs. It explodes when
>it gets new you. This will cripple a squad.
>
>James Dusek
Actually the popper is one of the objections I have with the current
incarnation of TB play. In previous versions of XCOM the popper would
have been fine, and apparently it poses little threat at all in
realtime. However given the greatly reduced accuracy of XCOM3
squaddies over their earlier counterparts, a popper can now penetrate
your squads defensive perimeter with ease. I like to preserve lots of
time units for reserve fire but its not nearly as useful as it was in
XCOM/TFTD. A popper appears, my squad opens up with a volume of fire
that would make a Stalingrad veteran feel nostalgic, and more often
than not it reaches the squad totally unhit and does it's popper
thing. It just seems unfair. I've suffered several wounds from this
wretched beast, no KIA as yet but I can see it happening.
Timothy Burke
On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 13:34:42 GMT, o...@netspace.net.au (Chris Glover)
wrote:
>Actually the popper is one of the objections I have with the current
>incarnation of TB play. In previous versions of XCOM the popper would
>have been fine, and apparently it poses little threat at all in
>realtime. However given the greatly reduced accuracy of XCOM3
>squaddies over their earlier counterparts, a popper can now penetrate
>your squads defensive perimeter with ease.
Try playing against poppers in real time. If it has to cover a lot of
ground and you've got massed cross-fire, you're pretty safe. In close
quarters, they can be quite deadly even in real-time. There's nothing
I hate worse than sending a squaddie towards an elevator and suddenly
spotting a popper just below him in the shaft. Unless he gets very
lucky, he's going to get badly wounded.
I don't think the XCommies are substantially less accurate than XCOM1,
by the way. You're probably forgetting that your guys improve over
time. I remember many early missions in XCOM1 where my squad missed
and missed and missed.
dearmad
>
> >
> >And why everyone thinks raiding the Cult is a good idea I dunno- waste
> >of time- go to the sources- Psyke or Diablo- they got TONS more Psiclone
> >than the measly Cult. At leasi it's been my experience so.
>
> That's because Diablo and Psyke is far more dangerous. Piss them off
> and be prepared to get raided at your own base everyday.
>
-ahem- not after you've levelled two of their city blocks, and raided
them 5 times in the space of two game hours- they hardly ever come
around anymore- haven't seen them for days. And with the spare $200,000
I crapped my base and built security stations in line to the entrances
two deep- when they do bother to come, they basically drop their weapons
at the door and die. I sell the stuff for a cool $10,000 usually. Then
I send my specialy trained "Revenge Squad" out to bring them some
homemade cookies.
Dang, who needs aliens, this turf war is FUN! :)
--
dearmad
> >> And why everyone thinks raiding the Cult is a good idea I dunno- waste
> >> of time- go to the sources- Psyke or Diablo- they got TONS more Psiclone
> >> than the measly Cult. At leasi it's been my experience so.
> >
> >less able to retailiate than the gangs. Someone here posted a good story
> >of a gang strike on their base, I believe it involved lots of fire and
> >explosions :)
>
> I only wish the cult was meek. They certainly can attack you even with
> no provocation. When I first booted up X-Com:3 I tried the 'novice' level
> just to see the new real-time mechanics of the game. 17 game hours after
> the game start the cult had cycled to 'hostile' and attacked my base! It
> wiped out nearly half of my troopers, but at least I didn't lose the base.
>
> With some trepidation I then restarted the game at 'average', expecting a
> bloodbath. So far at 4 weeks into the game the cult hasn't done a thing.
> I suppose attacking them five minutes into the game and at least twice a
> week has helped, though. Usually I do get a casualty now and then when
> heavy-launcher cult members jump into my ambush, but I'd rather take a few
> casualties that way instead of letting the cult gain some finances and
> raid my base--my hand-picked group of skill 90+ quantum physicists don't
> defend well!
>
> The senate seemed to get angry that I attacked the cult at the beginning,
> but soon returned to 'allied' status. Metropol, OTOH, jumped to 'allied'
> immediately when I attacked the cult.
>
mean the game designers INVERTED the difficulty levels, so me playing at
Hard is actually -oh.... easy?- I hope they got the difficulty ratings
correct! :)
Timothy Burke
On Wed, 23 Jul 1997 12:58:56 GMT, o...@netspace.net.au (Chris Glover)
wrote:
>The funny thing is that a friend and I were bemoaning the sorry state
>to which XCOM (TB) has sunk and we said we were sure that you, the
>Great Saviour of XCOM, would with a little of your magic make XCOM3
>what it should have been. Alas it now looks like, with you as a happy
>real-time player, that this wont be the case. Heavy indeed is the
>burden the turn-based purist must bear in these sad days.
There's a delicate point at which purism becomes fundamentalism. I do
not particularly enjoy real-time wargames in the C&C mold--they don't
seem at all strategic to me, they make for lousy multiplay, and so on.
I also disliked the real-time mode when I played in the demo. But
honestly, I'd have to say that it has won me over, and I approached it
with presumptive hostility. It's very well-implemented, is completely
clickfest-free, and actually enhances tactical game-play. I'm really
surprised to come to this conclusion, and it by no means cancels out
my general hostility to the rampage of C&C clone games through the
marketplace. But this is a very different kind of "real-time".
David Lamb
se...@worldnet.att.net (Sens) wrote:
<snip>
>Alien weapons: Looks like they make all the early weapons organic so
>you can't strip them off dead aliens as early. I'm cranking out those
>pink tulip bulb pistols to sell to rich kiddies.
Well, I chose Psyke as my gang "target." I only hit them, and an
interesting benefit is that I am now allied with Diablo and Osirion
(sp?). Anyway...after I researched the Disrupter Gun, I did make a
few extra and sold them. But guess what? When I hit Psyke later to
make a little dough, imagine my surprise when one or two had them!
I'm afraid to sell any Devastator Cannons for fear of them popping up
in Psyke's hands!
In general, I haven't been messing with the UFO's. The police downed
three so far, and I recovered them, but I haven't been taking them on
myself. I have mainly been watching the UFO's "beam" their stuff
down, then investigating the building. Also I watch the Alien
Influence graph. It may be cheap, but any organization with a rising
line, I save, try out all of their buildings, find the bugs, then
restore. I want to finish the game first, THEN I'll worry about
playing fair on my next go through.
Darren Hensel
Chris Glover wrote:
> On 18 Jul 1997 21:31:32 GMT, "T" <ben...@gvsu.edu> wrote:
>
> <big snip>
>
> Its a tired cliche but its still true; if it aint broke dont fix it.
> XCOM was one of the best systems I have seen and I think Microprose in
>
> jumping on the real-time bandwagon has forgotten why people liked it.
Uh, play the turn based version instead of real time.
>
>
>
James Dusek
Chris Glover wrote:
> This is obviously a case of differing personal opinions, I certainly
> didn't think the XCOM system was broken, and I dont agree that for
> this type of game RT is the way to go. However I seem to be in a
> minority here and I think the wave of realtime games under which the
> world is drowning will leave me behind. Ever felt like a dinosaur?
When a crysloid comes running down the street in front of
5 xcom agents, converts one of them, than runs back into the night
untouched, than somethings broke. Squad tactics are much better in
real-time. People say XCOM3 lacks excitement, well try opening a
door and seeing a popper a few squares away running at your squad.
> Actually the popper is one of the objections I have with the current
> incarnation of TB play. In previous versions of XCOM the popper would
> have been fine, and apparently it poses little threat at all in
> realtime. However given the greatly reduced accuracy of XCOM3
The popper does pose a threat in real-time. If you have a
nice field of fire than the little guy won't make it. There are places
where it'll come running around a corner and wammo, you troops are
bathed in fire.
James Dusek
Mark Asher
o...@netspace.net.au (Chris Glover) wrote:
>On 21 Jul 1997 20:44:08 GMT, stj...@aol.com (Scott T Jones) wrote:
>>I have long been a believer of turn-based over real-time. I always thought
>>that turn-based equalled control while real-time equalled chaos. XCOM3
>>has changed me to a true believer in what can be accomplished by a real-time
>>game. Mythos (the actual designers) has come up with a masterpiece of
>>tactical combat. Simultaneous combat with full control. It embodies the
>>best of both worlds. This is not a click-fest like Warcraft or C&C.
>Call me old-fashioned Scott, but I regard a rebuttal as requiring
>something more than you saying in effect "O NO IT HASN'T"!!!
Well, if the game plays out in an exciting manner for him and he says
so, doesn't that mean that "the thrill isn't gone?"
>My original comments about the thrill of XCOM having vanished in XCOM3
>related solely to turn-based play. I made no comments on how well
>real-time combat is handled, good or bad, as I am simply uninterested
>in it. You wrote above that you agree that turn-based play is now
>easy and tedious so there is actually no difference in opinion on this
>issue in any case. TB play in XCOM/TFTD was neither easy nor tedious
>so it's a pity that Microprose has stuffed it.
But there's more to this game than turn-based mode. If RT is exciting,
it means the game can still be thrilling. Surely you can see how your
comments would spark a response like this.
>>Try the real-time mode and you
>>will never want to play it in turn-based mode again. I won't.
>I did try it, it didn't interest me and surprise, surprise I do want
>to play in turn-based mode.
>The funny thing is that a friend and I were bemoaning the sorry state
>to which XCOM (TB) has sunk and we said we were sure that you, the
>Great Saviour of XCOM, would with a little of your magic make XCOM3
>what it should have been. Alas it now looks like, with you as a happy
>real-time player, that this wont be the case. Heavy indeed is the
>burden the turn-based purist must bear in these sad days.
Hmmn, seems to me like we have the first two X-COM games, Jagged
Alliance and Deadly Games, and Wages of War. Jagged Alliance 2 is
still going to be turn-based, btw. Now we have an RT game. Are things
really that bad? We realtimers have patiently waited. Surely you don't
begrudge us this.
jeff...@inetport.com
In article <33d800c8...@news.netspace.net.au>,
o...@netspace.net.au (Chris Glover) wrote:
> Actually the popper is one of the objections I have with the current
> incarnation of TB play. In previous versions of XCOM the popper would
> have been fine, and apparently it poses little threat at all in
> realtime. However given the greatly reduced accuracy of XCOM3
> your squads defensive perimeter with ease.
While we're on the subject of popper experiences... ;)
Aliens are prowling around the Marsec Munitions factory. XCOM sends out
six capable agents to investigate the scene. The team breaks up into 2
squads of three agents each, and enters the factory at two nearby
entrances. Squad 2 begins walking up a long hallway to meet Squad 1.
Agent Timjin of Squad 1 had just walked into the building and hasn't even
finished adjusting his chinstrap when he looks up to see a popper across
the room. Timjim takes another quick glance around and sees that the
room is filled with exposed warheads on the left, boxes of munitions on
the right, and a pissed off popper in the center. The other agents of
Squad 1 are quick to evaluate the situation, and begin a rapid retreat
away from Timjin. Timjin guesses that his only chance at survival is to
kill the popper quickly. Unfortunately, he only gets off three MG shots
before the popper begins his attack run. Two more shots later, the
popper is still up and running, but time has run out for Timjin.
The popper impacts Timjin and explodes, sending a wave of flaming popper
gasses through the room. The doomed agent feels the heat begin to sting
him as the inferno builds and punctures his armor. His brain has barely
detected the beginning of the pain when the poppers legacy reaches the
warhead 3 feet away. Marsec is not known for making duds, and this
particular weapon does nothing to dispel that reputation. It explodes
and quickly causes the detonation of 3 other nearby warheads.
The mission is taking place on the second "floor" of the factory,
although the first floor is solid. Or rather, it _was_ solid. Marsec
now has a 6 by 6 basement, carved out by the blast from their products.
Into this new pit, Timjin's body now falls. But thanks to the superior
craftsmanship of its MegaPol makers, Timjin's mangled armor has saved the
agent's life. His salvation is to be short lived.
As Timjin falls through the flames into the newly made crater, his
remaining faculties pick up a flash of blue beyond the boiling red and
yellow of his torment. Two more poppers eagerly following their leader.
Being bred for their single purpose, the poppers never waver from their
course into the pit. Timjin's squadmates can only watch in horror as both
blue beasts dive into the hole and explode. The fire from these poppers
causes other secondary detonations among the closely packed Marsec
inventory. The surviving agents of Squad 1 can only hide, heal their
wounds, pray for an end to the popper nightmare, and wait for their
reinforcements.
If only they knew...
Squad 2, hearing the explosions, rushes down the hallway. They reach the
storage room and line up behind a large door, preparing to mass their
fire against the aliens on the other side. They open the door. Seeing
the devastating result of a firefight in an ammo storeroom, the agents
wisely pause. Agent Pinchot then has the brilliant idea of throwing a
gas grenade near where the remaining aliens are grouped. He pulls out
the grenade, thumbs the control for impact detonation, cocks his arm and
hurls the device.
The agents of Squad 2 are soon reminded why Pinchot isn't in the Big
Leagues. His grenade hits the top of the doorjam and bounces back to the
floor between Pinchot's legs. A fall of 6 feet is plenty to set off the
grenade's detonator. Squad 2 is rapidly engulfed in the powerful green
cloud. Pinchot and the others make a futile race for the edge of the
cloud before collapsing.
As this narrative is getting long, suffice it to say that the 2 remaining
agents were not pleased with the turn of events. The skulking aliens
(now hiding away from the munitions) quickly became the victims of XCOM's
high-powered fury.
At the conclusion of the mission, XCOM was pleased to present Marsec with
a check for $18,000 as a token of XCOM's continued good will, along with
assurances that XCOM agents will try not to destroy entire floors of
Marsec buildings in the future.
- Jeff -
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Chris Glover
Uh, I'm talking about it the turn-based version. Try reading before
posting.
James Dusek
Chris Glover wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 1997 11:18:51 -0500, James Dusek
> <du...@cadsun.corp.mot.com> wrote:
> > When a crysloid comes running down the street in front of
> >5 xcom agents, converts one of them, than runs back into the night
> >untouched, than somethings broke.
> fire? Soldiers firing in XCOM/TFTD were much more accurate than
> XCOM3 and Chrysalids got zapped long before reaching my troops. Did
I didn't have troops with high enough accuracy until later
stages in the game. CHrysaloids still took multiple hits to go down,
so even if one got a hit, it still kept comming.
> relation to XCOM3 (TB) than it ever was to XCOM/TFTD. In XCOM3
> poppers dont even need darkness because soldiers cant shoot
> accurately. I assume this was done so that RT combat would look more
> exciting with lots of firing all over the place. Now, in XCOM3 (TB),
> the opportunity fire system is broken because the combat model
> preserves the same soldier and weapon statistics as used in RT mode
> even though they are no longer appropriate.
Even in realtime the accuracy sucks if you got an inacurate
weapons. Poppers only go down when a trooper hits them with either
a sniper rifle or the big alien cannon. Try setting you guys on aimed
shots with sniper rifles, that should solve your popper problems.
> possibilities of hitting in a limited number of shots. Endless firing
> and endless missing is pointless. The tortuous opportunity fire
> sequences in XCOM3 (TB) take considerably longer than the more
> integrated sequences of XCOM/TFTD and yet they are still much less
> decisive. You get fewer hits yet need more. This results in XCOM3
> (TB) with the most effective tactic being to run full pelt at the
> enemy and fire full auto at point blank range. This works because the
> alien opportunity fire is a joke and because you need to be adjacent
> to hit effectively. This is an absurd tactic which is effective in
> game terms because the basic game structure is flawed.
No, you need the higher accuracy weapons. Firing the machine
gun on full auto yields alot of chances to hit at a low accuracy,
firing a sniper rifle from the kneeling position with aimed fire gets
you alot better chances at longer ranges. It appears your trying
XCOM tactics with XCOM3, these won't work.
Have more guys with sniper rifles and keep the machine gunners
back to nail anyone who charges your squad.
> > Squad tactics are much better in
> >real-time.
> Very debatable. I think this just comes down to personal preference.
Not even close to debateable. In TB you don't have civilians
ducking in and out of the firefight screaming in terror ( esp when they
catch a round) nor are flanking manuavers as effective, esp if you
reserve time units for op fire. In real life, you don't take turns,
nor do you in real-time.
James Dusek
Chris Glover
>Chris Glover wrote:
>> This is obviously a case of differing personal opinions, I certainly
>> didn't think the XCOM system was broken, and I dont agree that for
>> this type of game RT is the way to go. However I seem to be in a
>> minority here and I think the wave of realtime games under which the
>> world is drowning will leave me behind. Ever felt like a dinosaur?
>
> When a crysloid comes running down the street in front of
>5 xcom agents, converts one of them, than runs back into the night
>untouched, than somethings broke.
Your tactics perhaps? Perhaps you weren't using enough opportunity
fire? Soldiers firing in XCOM/TFTD were much more accurate than
XCOM3 and Chrysalids got zapped long before reaching my troops. Did
you throw flares or create fires to illuminate the night? Use heavy
weapons? Fly? The situation you describe is much more relevant in
relation to XCOM3 (TB) than it ever was to XCOM/TFTD. In XCOM3
poppers dont even need darkness because soldiers cant shoot
accurately. I assume this was done so that RT combat would look more
exciting with lots of firing all over the place. Now, in XCOM3 (TB),
the opportunity fire system is broken because the combat model
preserves the same soldier and weapon statistics as used in RT mode
even though they are no longer appropriate.
I mean by this, that in a TB game you want to minimise the time spent
in between player turns and the time taken within a turn to perform
particular actions. In firing you want possibilities of missing and
possibilities of hitting in a limited number of shots. Endless firing
and endless missing is pointless. The tortuous opportunity fire
sequences in XCOM3 (TB) take considerably longer than the more
integrated sequences of XCOM/TFTD and yet they are still much less
decisive. You get fewer hits yet need more. This results in XCOM3
(TB) with the most effective tactic being to run full pelt at the
enemy and fire full auto at point blank range. This works because the
alien opportunity fire is a joke and because you need to be adjacent
to hit effectively. This is an absurd tactic which is effective in
game terms because the basic game structure is flawed.
> Squad tactics are much better in
Timothy Burke
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 08:08:46 GMT, o...@netspace.net.au (Chris Glover)
wrote:
>My impression from recent playing of TFTD and XCOM3 is that many
>*starting* squaddies in XCOM/TFTD are considerably more accurate than
>many *experienced* squaddies in XCOM3.
I just think in terms of actual gameplay that this doesn't match my
experience. I have several high-accuracy experienced squaddies who, if
they see an alien, will hit it most of the time (and I always pray
that these are the guys who spot brainsuckers and poppers)--in either
real-time or turn-based. I don't think the numerical values from the
two games match up. But there may be a disparity at the start of the
game, I think they're you're right. Around week 6, I feel that the
routine of XCOM3 has a gameplay feel that's pretty similar to the same
point in TFTD, with the exception (in my case) that there's no base
raids, yet. (Just as well--they were the most dangerous and tedious
TFTD missions..)
> If you disagree consider this, in XCOM/TFTD if you
>used the right tactics, watched for fields of fire, knelt, and
>reserved time units for snap or aimed shots, a great many aliens would
>be killed during opportunity fire. Doing the same how many aliens do
>you kill now during opportunity fire?
Lots, *IF* the layout of the terrain allows for it. Some UFOs, for
example, crash with their doors facing the trench that the ship digs
out as it crashes. If you move fast, you can position troopers in a
crawling position on both sides of the trench. Whether you're playing
turn-based and using opportunity fire or real-time, this mission now
becomes a turkey shoot--you get a beautiful cross-fire that kills most
aliens before they can do a thing.
In close quarters, it's a lot harder. But then, that was the case in
TFTD and XCOM as well. Even opportunity fire with high-accuracy troops
couldn't always save you if you met an alien in the wrong location.
Some of the maps in XCOM3 are really dangerous--I particularly hate
warehouse missions, since you often start with poor cover, few ambush
positions, and catwalks above you. This may be part of the difference
you're running into.
Greg Muir
> >> found XCOM/TFTD too hard will probably like it. Those people who
> >> loved XCOM as the game it was will probably dislike it. It may be a
> >> good game in its own right but as an overt sequel to XCOM I think it
> >> will probably flop. It certainly doesnt start like the other two,
> >> previously the early missions were nasty and cost a lot of blood, now
> >> they are simply a walkthrough. I, for one, happened to like that
> >> feel of fighting against the odds and I'm sad that its gone.
> >
> > Wait, you'll start taking the damage.
>
> Yes, the damage I'm taking is definitely picking up. I've done
> probably 30-40 missions now (mainly raids) and am in early week 3.
> Total casualties to date 5 KIA and maybe 4-5 times that many wounded.
I can't remember if XCOM1 had difficulty levels or not but at whatever
level I played at, I always went through the entire game with ZERO KIAs.
Of course, that's because I replayed each turn each mission until I got
through it with no hits. That could take some time, usually a matter of
getting lucky and the alien missing. Cheap, very cheap, I know. But my
squads were grateful. :)
Ah, nostalgia time. Nothing I've played since compared to that feeling I
got on my first mission. Downed UFO, nighttime field. My squad marches
out, ready to whoop ass. Green shit starts flying and they start dying.
At the bloody end I look at my half-dead ass-whooped troops and then
back to the two corpses that had done so much damage. Sheeit!! And of
course, that feeling when you first caught a glimspe of a heavily armed
Grey lurking behind a stump . . .
>
> This is obviously a case of differing personal opinions, I certainly
> didn't think the XCOM system was broken, and I dont agree that for
> this type of game RT is the way to go. However I seem to be in a
> minority here and I think the wave of realtime games under which the
> world is drowning will leave me behind. Ever felt like a dinosaur?
The only other real-time game like this I've played is the first
Syndicate. That was a damn fine system but I don't think it could have
handled the complexity of the X-COM missions. You neeeed that thinking
time during those turns to figure out just what the hell you're going to
next. :)
The thing I'm not sure on is their entire setting. In the first game you
roamed the world looking for aliens to kill. You built bases, shot UFOs
out of the sky, and hunted down little green men in various locations.
In the second game you did exactly the same thing, this time with an
aquatic theme. What to do in the third game? Why not confine the player
to a signle city. To me it throws off the entire scale of the game. Does
it feel that way in actual play? From the sounds of it the AI is so weak
I think I'll pass.
Chris Glover
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 14:23:19 GMT, tjb...@op.net (Timothy Burke)
wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 08:08:46 GMT, o...@netspace.net.au (Chris Glover)
>wrote:
>
>
>>My impression from recent playing of TFTD and XCOM3 is that many
>>*starting* squaddies in XCOM/TFTD are considerably more accurate than
>>many *experienced* squaddies in XCOM3.
> I have several high-accuracy experienced squaddies who, if
>they see an alien, will hit it most of the time (and I always pray
>that these are the guys who spot brainsuckers and poppers)--in either
>real-time or turn-based. I don't think the numerical values from the
>two games match up. But there may be a disparity at the start of the
>game, I think they're you're right. Around week 6, I feel that the
>routine of XCOM3 has a gameplay feel that's pretty similar to the same
>point in TFTD
I hope you are right, I'm in early week 4 now and I'm finding that the
balance and flow of turn-based combat still feels considerably
different (poorer) than the earlier games. I look forward to week 6.
>> If you disagree consider this, in XCOM/TFTD if you
>>used the right tactics, watched for fields of fire, knelt, and
>>reserved time units for snap or aimed shots, a great many aliens would
>>be killed during opportunity fire. Doing the same how many aliens do
>>you kill now during opportunity fire?
>
>Lots, *IF* the layout of the terrain allows for it.
Hmm, my experience has been that for the amount of fire that the squad
puts out, the proportion of kills that my squad is getting during
opportunity fire is less than XCOM/TFTD. The overwhelming majority of
my kills are being made during my turn. Additionally I dont seem to
be taking any significant damage during alien opportunity fire. None
of my fatal casualties have been killed by alien fire. Causes of
death were:
3 by brainsucker
2 by worms (which I at first dismissed as a joke)
1 just tonight by a wretched popper
What springs to my mind about this is that all these creatures must
come to you. They rely upon launching a bodily attack or blowing up
in your face, they do not have ranged attacks. Thus they are the
creatures that should be the most vulnerable to opportunity fire, they
should not be the most dangerous opponents. By contrast, in my most
recent TFTD campaign I must have lost 60 or so KIA almost all of which
were due to alien ranged weapons and grenades. This causes me to
regard with suspicion the entire XCOM3 (TB) firing/opportunity fire
system. It doesn't *feel* right to me.
It results in XCOM3 (TB) with the aliens that I identify as priority
targets and devote the most attention to killing are those that must
come and get me to do any damage, and those that are capable of
killing me from a distance are relegated to secondary target status.
This is of course the reversal of logic and recorded history. Clubs
after all have given way to rifles.
I have, as you have read, attributed this situation to reduced
accuracy on the part of XCOM3 soldiers (and for the aliens for that
matter). I still believe this to be the case. What do you think?
>Some UFOs, for
>example, crash with their doors facing the trench that the ship digs
>out as it crashes. If you move fast, you can position troopers in a
>crawling position on both sides of the trench. Whether you're playing
>turn-based and using opportunity fire or real-time, this mission now
>becomes a turkey shoot--you get a beautiful cross-fire that kills most
>aliens before they can do a thing.
What I really want is for my squad to be subjected to an alien turkey
shoot like the good old days. I hope that will come later in the game
as I'm a little sick of catching the aliens out. There's a scene in
the film 'White Mischief' where a woman gets out of bed in the
morning. The Kenyan sun is shining, and there isn't a cloud in the
sky. "O God", she says, "Not another f***ing glorious day." Thats how
I feel each time I defeat another doomed alien horde. "They came on
in the same old way, and we stopped them in the same old way."
>In close quarters, it's a lot harder. But then, that was the case in
>TFTD and XCOM as well. Even opportunity fire with high-accuracy troops
>couldn't always save you if you met an alien in the wrong location.
>Some of the maps in XCOM3 are really dangerous--I particularly hate
>warehouse missions, since you often start with poor cover, few ambush
>positions, and catwalks above you. This may be part of the difference
>you're running into.
I'm taking equal fields of fire as a given. It doesn't bother me if a
squaddie is bounced by a brainsucker in a confined area by himself.
It does bother me if a popper runs across open space through my squads
fire. TFTD maps were at least as confined as XCOM3, remember those
alien bases? The catwalks on the ship terror missions?
@pacbell.net
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 08:09:49 GMT, o...@netspace.net.au (Chris Glover)
wrote:
>
>I no longer use either the MG or the sniper rifle, in the main my
>squad is equipped with devastator cannon which IS an accurate weapon.
>You are correct that using XCOM tactics doesn't work (as well) in
>XCOM3 but you might have misunderstood what this means. In XCOM my
>preferred tactic was to leave lots of TU's for opportunity fire, and
>I rarely if ever used auto fire at all. Now this no longer works
>nearly as well because the the base accuracy of a soldier starts so
>low. I think from memory that the highest accuracy score of one of my
>starting troops in my campaign was *24*. The highest score now is
>about 66, in XCOM/TFTD I have had soldiers start with a higher score
>than this, and after a similar number of missions they have had
>accuracy up to the low 90's. Now those guys could shoot.
>
What you fail to realize is that the accuracy numbers are different.
In XOM1/2 255 is your max accuracy. In Apocalypse, 100 is your max.
At 90, aim and auto fire are almost the same as accuracy is like 80%
for both.
Chris Glover
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 03:26:12 GMT, tjb...@op.net (Timothy Burke)
wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jul 1997 18:53:45 GMT, o...@netspace.net.au (Chris Glover)
>wrote:
>
>>Soldiers firing in XCOM/TFTD were much more accurate than
>>XCOM3 and Chrysalids got zapped long before reaching my troops.
>
>Are you just basing this impression on your memories of XCOM/TFTD?
>Because I'd have to say that this is not my experience. Squaddies who
>are adequately trained and experienced in XCOM3 seem to me to be just
>as accurate as well-trained XCOMmies in the first two--whether I'm
>playing turn-based or real-time.
My impression from recent playing of TFTD and XCOM3 is that many
*starting* squaddies in XCOM/TFTD are considerably more accurate than
many *experienced* squaddies in XCOM3. In terms of the base accuracy
number given to soldiers in the respective games this is indisputable,
The only uncertainty is how translatable this number is, and whether
it is used identically in the two systems. In XCOM/TFTD I developed a
stable of soldiers who were particularly fine shots and who I could
rely upon to consistently kill their target. "Yo Lizardboy, up there,
on the second floor, see that aquatoid, kill it!" And Lizardboy would
dutifully raise his Sonic-Blaster rifle and with one aimed shot
despatch said aquatoid to its maker. I have yet to develop anyone in
XCOM3 with marksmanship capable of reliably hitting his target with an
aimed shot (the issue of killing it with that shot is a separate
matter). This is despite the fact that squaddies in XCOM3 do many
more missions than their earlier counterparts (as the early missions
are easy and they survive, and also they have to as your force pool is
smaller due to low rates of recruitment), and recieve additional
training to boot. If you disagree consider this, in XCOM/TFTD if you
used the right tactics, watched for fields of fire, knelt, and
reserved time units for snap or aimed shots, a great many aliens would
be killed during opportunity fire. Doing the same how many aliens do
you kill now during opportunity fire? I bet more shots are fired now
in opportunity fire than before, it will take longer, and the result
will still be less. Even allowing that aliens will often require
multiple hits to kill, greater volumes of fire would still kill them
if accuracy levels were comparable.
@pacbell.net
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 08:08:46 GMT, o...@netspace.net.au (Chris Glover)
wrote:
>My impression from recent playing of TFTD and XCOM3 is that many
>*starting* squaddies in XCOM/TFTD are considerably more accurate than
>many *experienced* squaddies in XCOM3. In terms of the base accuracy
>number given to soldiers in the respective games this is indisputable,
>The only uncertainty is how translatable this number is, and whether
>it is used identically in the two systems. In XCOM/TFTD I developed a
>stable of soldiers who were particularly fine shots and who I could
>rely upon to consistently kill their target. "Yo Lizardboy, up there,
>on the second floor, see that aquatoid, kill it!" And Lizardboy would
>dutifully raise his Sonic-Blaster rifle and with one aimed shot
>despatch said aquatoid to its maker. I have yet to develop anyone in
>XCOM3 with marksmanship capable of reliably hitting his target with an
Okay, lets end this stupid debate. In XOM 1, your agent can start
with 66 accuracy points. 66/255 = 22 % of the max. In apocalypse, lets
say your agent starts with 22. 22/100 = 22% of the max. No difference.
The only difference is in your mind and also that distance is taken
into account in aiming. At point blank, you will hit EVERYTIME. But if
you have a weapon with a short range and you shoot at an alien, a full
screen away, it hardly matters what accuracy you have, you will still
miss 2 out of every 3 even at 90 accuracy.
Markus Stenberg
o...@netspace.net.au (Chris Glover) writes:
.. snip ..
> Your tactics perhaps? Perhaps you weren't using enough opportunity
> fire? Soldiers firing in XCOM/TFTD were much more accurate than
> XCOM3 and Chrysalids got zapped long before reaching my troops. Did
> you throw flares or create fires to illuminate the night? Use heavy
> weapons? Fly? The situation you describe is much more relevant in
> relation to XCOM3 (TB) than it ever was to XCOM/TFTD. In XCOM3
> poppers dont even need darkness because soldiers cant shoot
> accurately. I assume this was done so that RT combat would look more
> exciting with lots of firing all over the place. Now, in XCOM3 (TB),
> the opportunity fire system is broken because the combat model
> preserves the same soldier and weapon statistics as used in RT mode
> even though they are no longer appropriate.
I see no such a problem at all ; using 3-6 squadie groups, I haven't had a
popper or brainsucker go *boom* on me in TB mode in LONG time. Of course,
accuracy 96% and devastator cannons have something to do with this - my
fellows haven't missed much, esp. when kneeling.
> I mean by this, that in a TB game you want to minimise the time spent
> in between player turns and the time taken within a turn to perform
> particular actions. In firing you want possibilities of missing and
> possibilities of hitting in a limited number of shots. Endless firing
> and endless missing is pointless. The tortuous opportunity fire
> sequences in XCOM3 (TB) take considerably longer than the more
> integrated sequences of XCOM/TFTD and yet they are still much less
> decisive. You get fewer hits yet need more. This results in XCOM3
> (TB) with the most effective tactic being to run full pelt at the
> enemy and fire full auto at point blank range. This works because the
> alien opportunity fire is a joke and because you need to be adjacent
> to hit effectively. This is an absurd tactic which is effective in
> game terms because the basic game structure is flawed.
Haven't noticed that ; MG autofire from screen off hits about 1/3 of time
or more when your accuracy ratings go up, and more when kneeling ; all
you need to do is get your guys'accuracy up.
>
> > Squad tactics are much better in
> >real-time.
> Very debatable. I think this just comes down to personal preference.
I agree ; RT mode reminds me mostly of 'pointless blast-em-all' fest, where
I usually just form up and wait for aliens to come to me. In TB mode, I can
usually come for aliens, which is quite a bit more fun (although now and
then bit risky).
--
Only in the silence voice, Only in the darkness light,
Only in dying life; The hawk's bright flight on the empty sky
-- Ursula Le Guin / (the) Earthsea Quartet
Chris Glover
Nice try O Strident One, even if a little simplistic. As you may have
read above I recognise that accuracy values may be handled differently
between the two systems. I think you are probably oversimplifying
matters by trying to equate XCOM accuracy values (X out of 255) to a
percentage system as you have done above. Doing this means than an
accuracy of 91 in XCOM equals an accuracy of 35% in XCOM3. If you
really believe this to be true you simply do not know what you are
talking about. I suggest you need to revisit XCOM (I'm assuming that
you have played it) where you will be reacquainted with the meaning of
particular accuracy values in that game. Despite a theoretical
maximum of 255 you would be hard pressed in XCOM in the course of a
normal length campaign to get accuracy values of much over 100. In
the last campaign I played, I *finished* the game with *91* as the
highest accuracy value. And let me assure you that man could shoot
much better than an XCOM3 man with an accuracy of 35%!!!
More food for thought. As I said in a response to Timothy Burke last
night in my campaign *all* of my dead in XCOM3 have been killed by
creatures requiring physical contact to kill. No one has been killed
by ranged weapons. This is very much in contrast to XCOM/TFTD even
allowing for the fact that you now start off with armoured troops.
Even armoured troops in XCOM/TFTD were mainly killed by alien fire.
I attribute this to reduced accuracy on the part of XCOM3
troopers/aliens as:
a. Squaddies do not hit aliens rushing at them enough for my liking.
b. Aliens cant shoot
You clearly disagree so what do you think explains this? Are you
playing TB? I expect not. And if you are playing RT you can hardly
claim that the success/failure of a particular shot is as noticeable
(or as important) as it is in TB. Were you taking many casualties to
alien fire prior to week 5 (I'm in week 4 so all my comments apply to
week 4 and earlier)? I doubt it.
Maybe this, like you say, is all in my mind. And maybe Earth really
is being visited by little Green men.
But somehow I don't think so.
@pacbell.net
On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 06:08:50 GMT, o...@netspace.net.au (Chris Glover)
wrote:
>>
>>Okay, lets end this stupid debate. In XOM 1, your agent can start
>>with 66 accuracy points. 66/255 = 22 % of the max. In apocalypse, lets
>>say your agent starts with 22. 22/100 = 22% of the max. No difference.
>>The only difference is in your mind and also that distance is taken
>>into account in aiming. At point blank, you will hit EVERYTIME. But if
>>you have a weapon with a short range and you shoot at an alien, a full
>>screen away, it hardly matters what accuracy you have, you will still
>>miss 2 out of every 3 even at 90 accuracy.
>
>Nice try O Strident One, even if a little simplistic. As you may have
>read above I recognise that accuracy values may be handled differently
>between the two systems. I think you are probably oversimplifying
>matters by trying to equate XCOM accuracy values (X out of 255) to a
>percentage system as you have done above. Doing this means than an
>accuracy of 91 in XCOM equals an accuracy of 35% in XCOM3. If you
Where in my post did I state THAT? It reads 22% of the MAX. That
means the percentage of the maximum attainable, NOT the accuracy
percentage. I may be wrong, but an accurate rebuttal is better than
once just for the sake of rebutting..
>really believe this to be true you simply do not know what you are
>talking about. I suggest you need to revisit XCOM (I'm assuming that
>you have played it) where you will be reacquainted with the meaning of
>particular accuracy values in that game. Despite a theoretical
Oh yes. I must be not have played XCOM1 because I am obviously wrong
and you are right.
>maximum of 255 you would be hard pressed in XCOM in the course of a
>normal length campaign to get accuracy values of much over 100. In
>the last campaign I played, I *finished* the game with *91* as the
>highest accuracy value. And let me assure you that man could shoot
>much better than an XCOM3 man with an accuracy of 35%!!!
>
Again, reread what I posted. In XCOM 1, even at point blank, the
agents sometimes STILL misses. Huh? Obviously, distance was not taken
into account. The system to calculate hits and misses are different,
so why are you taking xcom3's system and comparing it with XCOM1? Why
don't you explain to me why in XCOM1, agents misses at point blank
range?
>More food for thought. As I said in a response to Timothy Burke last
>night in my campaign *all* of my dead in XCOM3 have been killed by
>creatures requiring physical contact to kill. No one has been killed
>by ranged weapons. This is very much in contrast to XCOM/TFTD even
>allowing for the fact that you now start off with armoured troops.
>Even armoured troops in XCOM/TFTD were mainly killed by alien fire.
>
This is your experience. I've been killed many times by range weapons
such as boomeroids and grenades dropped from above and getting shot at
by by disruptors. This is even more true in RT although I play mainly
in TB. Maybe it's because I am inferior at strategy games than you.
Doesn't matter, for the scenario you described above does not apply
in MY games.
>I attribute this to reduced accuracy on the part of XCOM3
>troopers/aliens as:
>
Which you base on not getting killed by ranged weapons. Our
experiences contradict.
>a. Squaddies do not hit aliens rushing at them enough for my liking.
>b. Aliens cant shoot
>
In my experiences, if I put my agents on agressive, their opportunity
fire is more like XCOM1. And yes, my agents can shoot, and the aliens
on week 4 and later can shoot quite well.
>You clearly disagree so what do you think explains this? Are you
>playing TB? I expect not. And if you are playing RT you can hardly
I almost exclusively in TB.
>claim that the success/failure of a particular shot is as noticeable
>(or as important) as it is in TB. Were you taking many casualties to
>alien fire prior to week 5 (I'm in week 4 so all my comments apply to
>week 4 and earlier)? I doubt it.
>
Sometimes I have missions where I breeze through, and sometimes the
aliens wipe out my whole squad by unfortunate circumstances. If you
claim that you've lost less than 5 agents in your first 4 weeks then
you are some kind strategy game god. And therefore, you might as well
stop playing this game because its much too easy for you.
>Maybe this, like you say, is all in my mind. And maybe Earth really
>is being visited by little Green men.
>
Little green men with a capital G at that. From reading your many
rants, it would appear that you hold a deep resentment at this game
for not being more like XCOM1. Any thing that differs from 1 is
sacriligious (sp) and should not be tolerated. Nevermind that XCOM1's
system may be (no!) flawed and XCOM3's system is superior (no!).
Nevermind that had you not played XCOM1, XCOM3's system makes alot of
sense and works better than XCOM1 if you think about it. Alas, XCOM3
is not a carbon copy of XCOM1, therefore it is inherently flawed.
>But somehow I don't think so.
Oh yeah, try and keep this civil. If you're going to be offensive, be
subtle about it. Thank you, oh Obstinate One.
P.S. XCOM1 was and still is my favorite strategy game. So don't hurt
me again with that remark. *snicker*
Chris Glover
On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 07:49:45 GMT, @cyp...@pacbell.net wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Jul 1997 06:08:50 GMT, o...@netspace.net.au (Chris Glover)
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>>Okay, lets end this stupid debate. In XOM 1, your agent can start
>>>with 66 accuracy points. 66/255 = 22 % of the max. In apocalypse, lets
>>>say your agent starts with 22. 22/100 = 22% of the max. No difference.
>>>The only difference is in your mind and also that distance is taken
>>Nice try O Strident One, even if a little simplistic. As you may have
>>read above I recognise that accuracy values may be handled differently
>>between the two systems. I think you are probably oversimplifying
>>matters by trying to equate XCOM accuracy values (X out of 255) to a
>>percentage system as you have done above. Doing this means than an
>>accuracy of 91 in XCOM equals an accuracy of 35% in XCOM3. If you
>
>Where in my post did I state THAT? It reads 22% of the MAX. That
>means the percentage of the maximum attainable, NOT the accuracy
>percentage.
You gave an example of 66/255=22% of MAX in XCOM1 and another example
of 22/100=22% of MAX in XCOM3. You then used the words "No
difference". I take this as meaning you believe that the systems
function the same in this regard. I took the accuracy value of 91
(which in XCOM terms is highly accurate) and did your same calculation
for it, which gives a figure of 35 (ie 91/255=35%) in XCOM3. I
believe this demonstrates the fallacy of your argument because you
would be drawing a very long bow if you were to claim an accuracy of
35 in XCOM3 is even remotely comparable to a value of 91 in XCOM1.
Yet in percentage terms of the max 91 in XCOM1 and 35 in XCOM3 are the
same. Personally I suspect that its a fairer comparison to compare
the numbers on a direct percentage basis, ie in XCOM3 35=35% and in
XCOM1 91=91%. I think this because XCOM1 seemed to me to operate on a
de facto percentile basis anyway. I know that in repeated playings I
never had a squaddie with an accuracy of over 100 regardless of the
theoretical maximum of 255.
>I may be wrong, but an accurate rebuttal is better than
>once just for the sake of rebutting..
Please do not attribute my motivations for me. I also may be wrong
which is I why I asked you for alternative explanations.
>Oh yes. I must be not have played XCOM1 because I am obviously wrong
>and you are right.
I didn't say you hadn't played XCOM. In fact I said I'm assuming you
had. Not knowing you, I had no idea either way. I'm happy that you
have played the game, it doesn't affect the matter at issue.
>Again, reread what I posted. In XCOM 1, even at point blank, the
>agents sometimes STILL misses. Huh? Obviously, distance was not taken
>into account. The system to calculate hits and misses are different,
>so why are you taking xcom3's system and comparing it with XCOM1?
I read what you posted. My perception is that starting troops at
least in XCOM3 are less accurate than in earlier games. I dont know
the extent to which hits and misses are calculated differently now.
It was (is) a concern to me because I perceive the flow of TB combat
as inferior to XCOM1. Another poster said that by week 6 the gameplay
feels the same as XCOM/TFTD so maybe my perception will change. Its
just a opinion on a game which I think I will play through once and
then discard. You can pay as much or as little heed to that opinion
as pleases you (which will be not much I suspect).
One point that has occurred to me as I write this is that in XCOM3 you
get rapid increases in the accuracy score. I have had one squaddie
*triple* his score, and even though he only started at 18, all the
squaddies have had substantial increases. The relative rate of
improvement is much greater than in XCOM/TFTD where increases were
more incremental. To me this is further evidence that early XCOM3
soldiers are less accurate than their predecessors. Of course where
they end up I have yet to see.
> Why
>don't you explain to me why in XCOM1, agents misses at point blank
>range?
Because its an issue of interest to you and not to me. Its never
actually given me any problems so I dont see it as a concern myself.
Many close range shots throughout history have missed.
Why do you feel a need to justify your pleasure from XCOM3 by
denigrating XCOM1? If you like, you like it.
>I attribute this to reduced accuracy on the part of XCOM3
>>troopers/aliens as:
>>
>Which you base on not getting killed by ranged weapons. Our
>experiences contradict.
Well, we all base our opinions upon our experience. In that tired old
Nettism, your mileage may vary.
> If you
>claim that you've lost less than 5 agents in your first 4 weeks then
>you are some kind strategy game god. And therefore, you might as well
>stop playing this game because its much too easy for you.
For someone who takes offence as quickly as you appear to do, you are
quick with the sarcasm. You might care to think about that.
Regardless of your overall assessment of XCOM3 I think it is pretty
well obvious that in the early weeks at least its less bloody in
terms of your men killed, than its predecessors. Whether you like
this or not is just a personal preference. I must have lost 60 or so
soldiers in my last TFTD campaign and have now lost 6 in XCOM3. I
suspect a real strategy god whatever that may mean could do it for
less and maybe none.
> From reading your many
>rants, it would appear that you hold a deep resentment at this game
>for not being more like XCOM1. Any thing that differs from 1 is
>sacriligious (sp) and should not be tolerated. Nevermind that XCOM1's
>system may be (no!) flawed and XCOM3's system is superior (no!).
>Nevermind that had you not played XCOM1, XCOM3's system makes alot of
>sense and works better than XCOM1 if you think about it. Alas, XCOM3
>is not a carbon copy of XCOM1, therefore it is inherently flawed.
Oh dear. Who's the one ranting? As it happens I dont resent XCOM3,
in fact I'm enjoying it. But I am disappointed in elements of it, so
my enjoyment is that of a game I will play once and then delete. You
might have noticed that my post which first started this thread said
both good and bad things about XCOM3.
>Oh yeah, try and keep this civil. If you're going to be offensive, be
>subtle about it. Thank you, oh Obstinate One.
Need I remind you that you were the one who joined in an existing
civilised discussion with the word 'stupid' and dogmatically declared
you could solve the issue, which you regarded as existing only in my
mind. I also note your use of the word 'rant' within this post which
is neither language helpful to civilised discourse nor matching the
tone of my posts. I further note that the sarcasm you exhibit in your
response and in your previous posts in response to me considerably
exceeds the mild sarcasm of my last. Personally I regard your
response here as more offensive and disproportianate than my comments
to you. It all depends upon what side of the fence you're behind
doesn't it? In any case this is hardly appropriate for global
consumption and I suggest it be moved to email if you wish. Or not,
for myself I'd rather drop it.
Anyway I'm a lurker by disposition, and the only thing that made me
write my original post was that I had wanted another XCOM sequel for
so long. In a week or so I'll be bored and you wont have to read my
'many rants' anymore! Nothing is forcing you to read them in the
meantime.
Cheers.
Klaus
On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 14:07:04 GMT, o...@netspace.net.au (Chris Glover)
wrote:
>Initial Impressions - XCOM 3 Turn-based mode
> (...)
>
>The problem not to put too fine a point on it, is that combat in real
>time mode sucks. To be more specific, its poses no challenge and is
>simply easy and tedious. Aliens lurk no longer in darkness, they
>fight under full neon lights in the open. There is no longer firing
>from unseen enemies. The aliens rarely shoot and usually do no
>damage when they do hit. In 6 missions I had one soldier wounded and
>no fatalities. In the first 2 missions no alien fired at all.
This is only the case in the first week. I'm playing in real time mode
and lost two squadies yesterday when a skeletoid poped up and fired
two shots with his disruptor cannon. This was in the third week. In
the first week the anthropods have only brainsucker launchers.
> (...)
>Combat now lacks the vital XCOM ingredient, atmosphere. I could
>probably forgive them looking so ridiculous if they could fight.
>Remember opening a door in XCOM and the poor unfortunate in the
>doorway being greeted with a hail of alien fire? No longer. Open a
>door, find 5 aliens within. None of them fire. Fire 30 times (30!)
>with the MG and then still have enough time units to move out of the
>way. Repeat with another soldier as required until all aliens are
>dead.
>
Face it, the game was developed for real time. In real time mode, if
you can shoot so can the aliens. You can't run to them, fire on them
and run away without getting fire in return. It's much harder to play
in realt time mode than turn based.
There may be one solution for you: Wait until there is an editor to
change the stats of the aliens and the weapons.
Klaus
Rickenbacker
Some thoughts on the accuracy issue...
I kind of have a feeling that factors like personal skill, morale, range and
the weapon accuracy modifier all go together and make up a "hit percentage" in
Xcom 3, where in the other two games it was a little more simplistic. MG's are
damn effective close up, but at long range, even a good squaddie can't hit shit
with them, while Laser rifles aren't worth much in close combat (poor rate of
fire), but a few aimed shots across half the map can ruin any aliens day, even
if the guy firing is a near-rookie.
In all, I like the way it's done in Apocalypse. At least it _looks_ realistic
:).
--
Rickenbacker
Mats Erik Axel Anders Nylund O-
Email: op...@mbox300.swipnet.se
Homepage: http://home1.swipnet.se/~w-11503/index.htm
Timothy Burke
On Sat, 26 Jul 1997 19:13:12 GMT, o...@netspace.net.au (Chris Glover)
wrote:
>What springs to my mind about this is that all these creatures must
>come to you. They rely upon launching a bodily attack or blowing up
>in your face, they do not have ranged attacks. Thus they are the
>creatures that should be the most vulnerable to opportunity fire, they
>should not be the most dangerous opponents. By contrast, in my most
>recent TFTD campaign I must have lost 60 or so KIA almost all of which
>were due to alien ranged weapons and grenades. This causes me to
>regard with suspicion the entire XCOM3 (TB) firing/opportunity fire
>system. It doesn't *feel* right to me.
Huh. Early in the game, poppers and brainsuckers were definitely the
chief cause of casualties among my troopers, especially if I was
playing turn-based. Brainsuckers just are plain old more dangerous
because of their movement. In real-time, you usually scrag them.
Poppers too if you've got enough space--for me, that's true in both
real-time and turn-based.
But in the ongoing arms race, there's a point where anthropoids and
skeletoids acquire some very deadly weapons and if you haven't
researched certain effective counter-measures, you're going to take
the bulk of your casualties from them, especially from explosives and
from a certain type of launcher they've got. (I won't give away some
of the unpleasant surprises...) In week 6, I had some rather
experienced squads get pretty badly hurt by a combination of these
weapons. This is particularly difficult if you're trying to keep
damage to buildings down to avoid stirring up too many organizations.
Nathaniel Gorham
On 27 Jul 1997, Rickenbacker wrote:
> Some thoughts on the accuracy issue...
> I kind of have a feeling that factors like personal skill, morale, range and
> the weapon accuracy modifier all go together and make up a "hit percentage" in
> Xcom 3, where in the other two games it was a little more simplistic. MG's are
> damn effective close up, but at long range, even a good squaddie can't hit shit
> with them, while Laser rifles aren't worth much in close combat (poor rate of
> fire), but a few aimed shots across half the map can ruin any aliens day, even
> if the guy firing is a near-rookie.
>
> In all, I like the way it's done in Apocalypse. At least it _looks_ realistic
> :).
Yep. Altough, you have to agree that it was fun in X-Com 1 & 2 to
kill the aliens with one bullet each. XCOM 1 and 2 felt like you were
sniping at each other back and forth, but XCOM 3 in real time feels like a
big firefight. Personally, I love them both. I'm not sure if XCOM3 is
actually more realistic, but I remember some statistic like for every
person killed in an infantry (sp?) you shoot about 1000 (dunno big number
might be like 500, 10000?) misses. Don't know if that takes into account
for big machine gun type things doing surpressive fire, but the point is
most shots are misses, especially with automatic weapons. BTW I really
like the new realtime system, and I have a neat little war story to
relate. It was one of my first missions, and like usual, I had my two
main fireteams and 2 one man scout teams. Anyway, one of the scouts spots
the alien just a few feet from the other scout, but not in his FOV. I
have the other scout run for the ledge by the arthy, jump down and
completly waste the blue bastard with dual pistols blazing on full auto.
Needless to say it looked neat. :)
Dearmad
Jake wrote:
>
> I hate to start this up again, but I must protest!
>
> > life. The two concepts have four letters in common. In real life you
> >
> > dont have a pause button.
>
> BUT, you have soldiers that can think for themselves and dont need to be
> given orders every other second to be effective.. Pause just makes up
> for faulty AI..
>
> > In real life the enemy doesn't stupidly
> > rush at you because its more 'exciting' that way.
>
> Umm.. Ever watch Aliens?? How can you predict how aliens react and what
> tactics they use? Maybe these guys are all for altruism and sacrifice
> is equated with glory?
>
> > In real life
> > soldiers are individuals who may or may not attempt to follow a given
> > order. They are not automatons who act in perfect unison because
> > their commander has chosen to move them in group mode with the click
> > of a button. In real life soldiers refuse to follow orders, or
> > misunderstand them.
>
> I dont mean to get offensive, but PLEASE! Jesus... you have obvisously
> never served a day in the military.. REFUSE orders? This ain't Vietnam
> anymore.. and especially if you're talking about a theoretically elite
> group or even close to elite.. Lemme tell you this, you only refuse an
> order once . . . And misunderstand also doesnt work well as a
> counter-argument to realtime.. Orders in real life are issued in such a
> way as to zero out any misunderstandings..
No misunderstandings?!?!? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! -sniff- hehehe...
point needs no addressing...
Whoa dude, calm down. You've obviously never been in a combat that went
bad. Men not only disobey orders, they lose morale and retreat helter
skelter, even if they know leaving their position means exposing the
flank of a squad in the same platoon in the cente- this happens
especially after a succesful advance that meets an unexpectedly stiff
counter-attack and your positions are ill-suited to communication and/or
mutual support. Also, even before an advance: I know of a few NCO's who
saved the lives (thank god) of the men in their unit or squad when they
told the Lt. to stick it, we won't go- it means death and no gains.
After you watch an entire platoon get wiped out marching into dug in
positions in a forest and your advance means 200 meters of field before
you even get to the forest, your Lt. can have his medal in his ass.
You refuse orders when they are bad. And in a real war there are bad
ones. You forgive men who were honestly terrified and pull back-
especially if its a majority of the men and they are willing to fight
but were in a bad situation- and I mean bad.
> Later! --Jake
Jake
I hate to start this up again, but I must protest!
> life. The two concepts have four letters in common. In real life you
>
> dont have a pause button.
BUT, you have soldiers that can think for themselves and dont need to be
given orders every other second to be effective.. Pause just makes up
for faulty AI..
> In real life the enemy doesn't stupidly
> rush at you because its more 'exciting' that way.
Umm.. Ever watch Aliens?? How can you predict how aliens react and what
tactics they use? Maybe these guys are all for altruism and sacrifice
is equated with glory?
> In real life
> soldiers are individuals who may or may not attempt to follow a given
> order. They are not automatons who act in perfect unison because
> their commander has chosen to move them in group mode with the click
> of a button. In real life soldiers refuse to follow orders, or
> misunderstand them.
I dont mean to get offensive, but PLEASE! Jesus... you have obvisously
never served a day in the military.. REFUSE orders? This ain't Vietnam
anymore.. and especially if you're talking about a theoretically elite
group or even close to elite.. Lemme tell you this, you only refuse an
order once . . . And misunderstand also doesnt work well as a
counter-argument to realtime.. Orders in real life are issued in such a
way as to zero out any misunderstandings..
Sure soldiers are not as automated and robotic as they are in this
realtime game, but thats why we have the pause button..
> In the absence of a genuine and *unique*
> AI given to each squaddie it cant be anything else. If you like RT
> well and good. If operating in that mode gives you a perception of it
>
> being more 'real' well and good. But dont kid yourself that it means
> anything other than you enjoy playing that way.
see above in reference to realtime realism
Later! --Jake
M. Keane
In article <33DC24...@europa.com>, Dearmad <dea...@europa.com> wrote:
>Whoa dude, calm down. You've obviously never been in a combat that went
>bad. Men not only disobey orders, they lose morale and retreat helter
You've obviously never played the game. Troops lose morale, panic, run
away, go out of control, etc.
>skelter, even if they know leaving their position means exposing the
>flank of a squad in the same platoon in the cente- this happens
>especially after a succesful advance that meets an unexpectedly stiff
>counter-attack and your positions are ill-suited to communication and/or
>mutual support. Also, even before an advance: I know of a few NCO's who
>saved the lives (thank god) of the men in their unit or squad when they
>told the Lt. to stick it, we won't go- it means death and no gains.
>After you watch an entire platoon get wiped out marching into dug in
>positions in a forest and your advance means 200 meters of field before
>you even get to the forest, your Lt. can have his medal in his ass.
And then you can get executed for disobeying a direct order from a
surperior. Well, only if they want to make an example of you to the rest
of the troops. Happened in WW1(on the Allied side no less)... Undoubtedly,
questioning orders got you killed in Nazi Germany. Elsewhere probably
too..
--
Micheal (Chris) Keane - Associate Professor of Gravitational Morality, UofE
Dungeon Keeper Hacking -- http://weber.u.washington.edu/~aexia/dkhack.htm
Join the Church of Last Thursday and worship Queen Maeve! E-mail me to join.
http://weber.u.washington.edu/~aexia/thursday.htm
Chris Glover
On Mon, 28 Jul 1997 00:01:08 -0400, Jake <jre...@eecs.tufts.edu>
wrote:
>> In real life the enemy doesn't stupidly
>> rush at you because its more 'exciting' that way.
>
>Umm.. Ever watch Aliens?? How can you predict how aliens react and what
>tactics they use? Maybe these guys are all for altruism and sacrifice
>is equated with glory?
Yes, I loved the film 'Aliens' and 'Alien' even more so. I have
however rarely found it a useful analogy for real life :) Note I said
the 'enemy' in my post and not the 'aliens'. Personally I prefer a
enemy that is cunning than one that just runs at my guns. Thats one
reason that as much as I liked 'Aliens' the film, I preferred 'Alien'
where the beastie seemed more cunning and kept on the move.
Have you seen the director's cut of 'Aliens' where Ripley and Co have
an automatic weapon system defending a corridor? Its a scene that
wasn't in the original cut. The alien tactic is to pretend its not
there and rush down the corridor, and it just annihilates them until
it eventually runs out of ammunition. Whereupon the surviving aliens
move past. While that weapon system was certainly a funky gadget,
somehow that scene took a lot of the menace away from the aliens, at
least for me. It just made them seem so totally DUMB.
>> soldiers are individuals who may or may not attempt to follow a given
>> order. They are not automatons who act in perfect unison because
>> their commander has chosen to move them in group mode with the click
>> of a button. In real life soldiers refuse to follow orders, or
>> misunderstand them.
>
>I dont mean to get offensive, but PLEASE! Jesus... you have obvisously
>never served a day in the military.. REFUSE orders? This ain't Vietnam
>anymore.. and especially if you're talking about a theoretically elite
>group or even close to elite.. Lemme tell you this, you only refuse an
>order once . . .
You haven't offended me, but you have a somewhat idealistic notion of
human nature if you don't know that soldiers from all nations at all
times and in all wars refuse orders at times. Reading military
history, which I am prone to do, will soon tell you that. The fact
that you even mention Vietnam shows that you know this already, you
funster, you.
> And misunderstand also doesnt work well as acounter-argument to
> realtime. Orders in real life are issued in such a way as to zero out any
> misunderstandings..
ROTFL. I dont think I can respond better than to quote you on this "I
dont mean to get offensive, but PLEASE! Jesus... you have obviously
never served a day in the military..". I work in the Australian DOD
and I can assure you from personal experience that soldiers are human
beings just as prone to mistakes and confusion as anybody else. And
in combat, under danger, possibly even more so. The training of
military officers, is in part, designed to minimise such confusion in
battle, it most certainly does not eliminate it.
A Second World War anecdote about a very costly mistake.
"Brian Clark regretted a runner's mistake. When adjutant of an Irish
battalion in North Africa, he sent for two company commanders: 'The
runner brought the COMPANIES up a wadi; 45 casualties from 2 SP gun
shells.' "
- Richard Holmes, "Firing Line" p399.
Chris Glover
On 26 Jul 1997 12:38:15 +0300, Markus Stenberg
<mste...@cc.Helsinki.FI> wrote:
>I see no such a problem at all ; using 3-6 squadie groups, I haven't had a
>popper or brainsucker go *boom* on me in TB mode in LONG time. Of course,
>accuracy 96% and devastator cannons have something to do with this - my
>fellows haven't missed much, esp. when kneeling.
I think your right that 96% accuracy has something to do with it. I
have no one approaching that figure and most of my squaddies are half
or less than that. I'm still finding brainsuckers and poppers enemy
number one.