5punk

That pretty much matches up with my thoughts on it.

... I suspect this is the biggest game ever, I've been downloading it for a year now. AT LEAST.

Right, so a few restarts and a good chunk of missions down and I have to say the action system isn't actually a good replacement for the old TU system.

Don't get me wrong as it's easy to use, fluid and actually helps to retain tension in the missions but it's inflexible in how it's been implemented, sadly resulting in it pushing you towards turtling your team forward using overwatch, which really I think is down to most soldiers only getting one shot per turn.

I think if Firaxis had set it up so you had the options of:
(1) Move twice (dashing)
(1) Move once + shoot/action
(1) Shoot/action twice but don't move

It would be on par if not better than the TU system, as I think shoot+move is a an action which can easily be sacrificed to ensure you have to make some choices.

Didn't you always turtle with overwatch in the original? I did.

Dog Pants wrote:Didn't you always turtle with overwatch in the original? I did.

I use turtling too, and when your squadmembers advance in rank you get the option to do two actions per turn, like snipers getting a 'in the zone' thing where you get two shots instead of one. It's been a match winner for me on a few occasions.

Oh yeah, I do turtle to some extent in xcom games anyway.

I think I'm just lamenting the fact in a TU system you can do rapid advancement if you so wish due to having more control over your actions (ie, shoot then move, shoot twice etc.. on *everyone*, and free TU being used for reaction shots), whereas the action system seems predesposed to pushing you into turtling with overwatch as you can't take advantage of the fact you've just pushed squaddies forward and spotted the enemy.

Overwatch is also something I'm musing over, as I can understand why the devs would want to move away from automatic reaction fire due to how it can be min/maxed in the older games, but I can't decide if it's a good being an active choice rather than just something done if choose to end the turn with actions available.

Also, as an aside, whoever designed the abilites really half arsed it. Some abilities, notable ones being the treble medkit, squad sight, revive and lightning reflexes are not options as you'd be at a big disadvantage not picking them.

However, just so you don't think I'm doing my normal griping, I'm still having quite a bit of fun with it so they've obviously done quite a few things right.

Finally got round to beating this. I'd started again on Ironman mode, first on Classic difficulty a few times, then on Normal because I kept losing all my troops. Really enjoyed it a lot more on Ironman. Made it more tense even though it was easier, and it flowed a lot better. I was playing on regular Classic mode before and re-loading a lot, which made me get bored of playing the same bits over and over. Moment of the game for me was being ambushed by three squads of Mutons with only cars for cover. I lost half my squad, all officers, and it really shocked me.

Ironman is definitely the way to go. The game is at its best when you are slightly scared it will all go wrong.

Just started having another game of this, after completing it on Normal/Ironman with an initial few second wave stuff on a few months back.

This time, classic/ironman, with all but two of the second wave stuff on. The game is kicking my arse, some of it is down to Nuffle, but holy shit it's a massive jump in difficulty.

Yeah, same. After a couple of false starts I managed to stomp Normal Ironman fairly soundly. Classic Ironman is repeatedly handing me my own buttocks.

Right, this is hard.

Classic is a bit of a step up, nothing too bad, but the Second Wave option called Red Fog makes it incredibly hard to get traction when starting the game. Probably had about 20 restarts within the first month now, maybe more.

For those who've not completed it once and unlocked it, Red Fog's sole effect is that when one of your soldiers get damaged in a battle, they take a massive -30 aim penalty for that battle. Edit: Oh, might be variable depending on health, as I've just had a chap with -15 rather than -30.
This means unless they've got 80+ aim to start with (Randomised starting stats+randomised stat boosts at promotion means you can't horse it), then it effectively takes them out of the fight and snookers you.

As a result, at the start it's often better to have a soldier die (which incurs further costs) due to the aliens focusing fire on him, than it is to spread damage out amongst the ranks.

This causes it to be entirely possible in the space of one or two turns to have your entire squad rendered ineffective, even if they take a measly one damage each, thus forcing you to retreat if the option is there, but more often just results in a squad wipe.

It also appears to be bugged. Healing someone back to full health removes the text and warning from their information pane, but doesn't restore their aim stat. Could be a design decision that the stat reduction stays, but in that case the text shouldn't go.

I also think it's far too harsh being a flat -30 aim penality. It should reflect a % of the total health lost by that soldiers, reflecting that smaller injuries are less damaging, which would result in Rookies not all ending up with an aim stat of ~30 against targets in no cover, and then going down to 10% or 1% if they're in cover.

Possibly going to be turning it off if I have to restart a couple more times, as it's just far too penalising until you can run 6 soldiers.

So, RPS rather like the sequel. For once, I'm glad I pre-ordered it as I'm really looking forward to this game

Ditto. I've played through XCOM probably three times and still have to resist going back in because I have new games I should be playing.

(Figured I should reply here, rather than derail the XCOM2 thread)

I too tried many times to play the first game, got it on the PC on release, then later free on the PS3 and later bough the expansion for the PC version, each time trying and failing to do more than a couple of missions.

I think it was partly the difficulty, partly my reluctance to settle for anything less than a perfect mission outcome, but there were other things too.

I never found it anything less than very hard - your soldiers start out totally crap, can't hit anything and die quickly. The enemies know where you are, you don't know where they are, so they pop out of nowhere and immediately flank you.

I really didn't like it when my soldiers died, particularly scripted ones like in the tutorial and also when they had finally gotten promoted and a bit better. I lovingly went through them all and gave them clown hair in an attempt to get to know them, so it was tough not to reload whenever things went bad.

The game wasn't great at explaining - letting you know that you don't have to do what it's saying right away - like attempt to capture a grey when you don't actually have the means to do so and end up queuing up your entire squad for execution in the attempt.

I was impatient. No story seemed to happen. Rushing around was usually fatal. By the time I'd finished a mission rather than be keen for the next one, I dreaded another interminable crawl towards an objective. I really liked the way the base was built and was looking forward to creating my own underground lair, but the missions felt like a punishment you had to endure to achieve that.

Apparently I have this but have no recollection of buying it
Must have been a drunken purchase.

Yeah, I've felt that pain on the really fucking hard ones. They're traumatic and need to be spaced out between a few milk runs where you can breathe while blasting aliens apart. The early missions are always tough, until you get lasers and some armour, and that creeping towards objectives is pretty vital to learning how the enemies move and where they like to lurk. In Enemy Within they put timed objectives in to try to bring people out of that habit, and in XCOM 2 apparently that's even more pronounced. I don't like that, personally - it just felt like forcing reckless risks rather than changes in tactics because I never found a viable alternative. That said, creeping forward becomes fire-and-manoeuvre and feels very tactical once it clicks. I enjoy just sweeping the map like that, finding safe routes, taking the odd risk.

Last year Anery was giving it another go after having a similar experience, and I used Steam Stream (or whatever) to watch and give him some direction. It could have been annoying as shit for him, but if it was he didn't admit it. It was interesting to see the little tactical errors though, which are instinctively avoided after a while. Most of them are caused by impatience.

If I had one piece of advice over all others, it's never double move into an unsecured area.

Dog Pants wrote: I don't like that, personally - it just felt like forcing reckless risks rather than changes in tactics because I never found a viable alternative.

I dunno. I think the alternative is leaving the bonus magical goo to time out. I liked that change; games are all about interesting decisions and for me "is risking the life of my dude worth it for another glowing box of super goo" was always an interesting decision. Especially when you look at it, conclude that the answer is no, then look a bit more and work out an alternative, slightly safer approach that maybe makes it worth trying for.

Personally, I always play XCOM in ironman mode. Not because I want to show off my big gaming balls, but because I think it makes it a better experience. I would absolutely save scum my way to a perfect game if I were given the option, and I think it would all be less interesting as a result. Knowing that if I mess up a mission I might pooch that entire play through makes the whole thing a lot more exciting for me. I have come to realise that I am a bit of a masochistic gamer though: My favourite games are all ones where I fail, a lot, but each time learn something that makes me go a bit further before I fail next time. Its only games where I fail and have no idea what I could have done to not fail that annoy me. PLaying with saves enabled means I dont have to learn, because if I fuck up I can just rewind time and go again. No risk = no excitement.

Joose wrote:My favourite games are all ones where I fail, a lot, but each time learn something that makes me go a bit further before I fail next time. Its only games where I fail and have no idea what I could have done to not fail that annoy me. PLaying with saves enabled means I dont have to learn, because if I fuck up I can just rewind time and go again. No risk = no excitement.

I can see that appeal and do like a number of games where you learn via repeated failure, but I'm not sure XCOM is a great example of iterative learning. For example, games where you didn't press the button quick enough aren't to me an example of learning, but of practice, or memory (muscle or mental). In XCOM do you learn where the bad guys spawn on that particular map, or do you slowly develop a sense of where they might spawn? The first is merely a memory test, whereas the second would qualify as learning. Similarly, is their spawning triggered by crossing some invisible threshold, or from line-of-sight of your characters?

As far as having saves on or off, I guess it's down to how much you trust yourself with them on vying with how annoyed you would get if the game suddenly goes irreversibly wrong for you. Also I guess impatience again - do you want to immediately correct your mistakes, or live with them and try and recover from them?

I guess it's kinda sounding like I fundamentally don't enjoy the game at all and wish it would be over as quickly as possible and just let me win already, but I'm sure I could cheat my way to a fully-kitted out base if that is truly what would gratify me. I think I'm just waiting for something in the gameplay to click so the battles become the game's draw rather than a bothersome chore.

FatherJack wrote:In XCOM do you learn where the bad guys spawn on that particular map, or do you slowly develop a sense of where they might spawn? The first is merely a memory test, whereas the second would qualify as learning. Similarly, is their spawning triggered by crossing some invisible threshold, or from line-of-sight of your characters?

Well, as the maps are semi-random, its certainly a case of sensing where they might spawn as they dont always spawn in the same places. That's not really what I mean though. When I first started playing XCOM I under used cover, frequently double moved when I didnt need to and never bothered putting people into overwatch until right near the end of the turn. I learned that not only is cover vital, but that half cover is shite and you need to protect the cover you have so you dont get flanked. I learned that double moving needlessly is a great way to get a guy ambushed by surprise aliens whilst he is too far from the group for a rescue. I learned that having a couple guys on overwatch before moving forward into a new area can mean a couple freebee alien kills as they scatter on being discovered. Thats the sort of learning I like, where I do a thing, it gets me killed, but next mission I do a different thing and get less dead.

As far as having saves on or off, I guess it's down to how much you trust yourself with them on vying with how annoyed you would get if the game suddenly goes irreversibly wrong for you. Also I guess impatience again - do you want to immediately correct your mistakes, or live with them and try and recover from them?

I do get annoyed when things become irreversibly fucked, but that's part of the appeal to me. If my getting it wrong doesn't come with the risk of things being irreversibly fucked then there is no pressure, and if there is no pressure then there is no relief when things go right. I dont think I would have the fist pump, holy shit that was awesome moments at the end of a successful mission if I had known the whole time that any error can be erased by loading a save. The story of limping my star soldier, heavily wounded, into the evac zone as enemies swarm around him, making it one square into the zone on the very last turn available to me and therefore pulling an otherwise failed run out of the fire would be meaningless if I knew that had he not made it I could just keep reloading until he did. And I think the important thing here is that if I can load a save it kills the suspense *even if I never load the save*. The mere option being available makes the whole thing less exciting.

Im not saying that this is the only or correct way to play, mind. Im sure other people get just as much enjoyment from it playing it in a very different way, with a very different mindset. This is just what makes it work for me.