Both UFO and TFTD are presented as 2D games, that is to say, all the images on the screen are made up of sprites. In the battlescape, everything is shown from an isometric perspective.
However, the games are only presented in 2D - much of the actual processing is done on 3D objects (albeit primitive ones). These are defined by stacking the LOF templates stored on this file on top of each other.
When a soldier crouches next to a short wall, for example, he may no longer be able to see over it if his head is now below the top. Likewise, he may or may not be able to see through the slats of a picket fence, depending on what angle he views it from.
Likewise, these 3D objects also come into play when bullets fly though the air. If a unit is hiding behind a tree, the thick foliage will likely protect his head from a bullet aimed high - but a low flying shot may easily go past the thin trunk and get him in the legs.
A soldier’s head is positioned slightly higher then the barrel of his gun. For this reason, it is possible for him to be able to see an alien (that is, he has a valid “line of sight”), but not shoot it (because he has a blocked “line of fire”).
If what you’re saying here is that it was pointless to do the 3d stuff under the hood when the user was just viewing a 2d map, I think there is something to be said for the results of this system feeling more intuitive for the player when interactive with geometrically interesting obstacles such as fences or trees or windows. Pretty sure Xenonauts just uses a straight 2d line for their projectiles and always felt off with those interactions. I also recall them having to add additional tweaks to try to work around that somewhat.
Oh I won’t seriously defend the different levels for eye vs gun, that seems like a dumb choice. I will defend to some degree the benefits of having a rough 3d system under the hood since even though the game interaction is in 2d the player will project their knowledge of 3d space and 3d objects onto how they expect a bullets trajectory to be affected by those 2d objects on the map.
The Firaxis games place a tile on the map that is defined as “low cover” and say “this is a -20% To Hit”. The old X-Coms, and Phoenix Point, try to physically simulate combat, just like they take a more simulationist approach to the strategy layer.
You can see the shared DNA even if the resulting gameplay may feel different.
You’re not mentioning the suspense of watching the projectiles slowly progress over the map wondering if or what they’d actually end up hitting. It could be agonizing.
I have a copy of Monsters in the Dark, I still need to read it, but I have skimmed it, and I was totally unsurprised to learn that the original was inspired by nerdy WW2 war games.
That feeling is also exactly what I’m missing from nowadays-XCOM. I loved Tom’s review featuring 1994 Tom so much, because I felt the exact same way playing it.
Only it didn’t connect with 2012 Peter. I’m still over here playing XPiratez.
I played a bit of Phoenix Point (maybe a couple of hours) on the Xbox Series X but somehow wasn’t feeling the tactical combat as in OG X-Com or in the Firaxis games. Maybe it was due to being far from the screen?
This is a wild take, the manual aiming is one of the game’s best features. It makes the limb system relevant and makes shooting way more interesting than just choosing between different percentages.
Psst, Meles, tell him about the rule in Fantasy Flight’s Imperial Assault about AT-AT’s being able to fire over obstacles if they can trace LOS from their lasers to the target. It’ll blow his mind!
I don’t really play boardgames. I like it when the lady from the PC version of Wingspan talks birdy to me, that’s about it. I think that’s partly why neo-XCOM didn’t connect with me, and why I like Phoenix Point better. It’s more videogamy.
But I do remember watching wargamers using rulers to decide how far they can move (kinda like time units!) and using a couple of sticks with red string between them to line up shots from one unit to another (X-Com did it without the string) and then doing a bunch of calculations on a piece of paper (which X-Com did on a computer that could also visualize the shot).
Knowing these guys, those calculations probably included a lengthy discussion about where the ammunition was produced, how humid it was inside the depot that year, and how that might affect its performance in the field.
If they weren’t modeling shots, then I have no idea what they were doing.
Alas, I’m not gonna waste a single second for people who carry themselves like half-baked, mustache-twirling villains from bad movies. I feel like they should be off somewhere tying James Bond to a table.
You’re absolutely right about all of this. I have no idea what point @justaguy2 is trying to make, but plenty of wargames have modeled 3D space, bullet trajectories, physical distance, armor penetration, and so on. Anyone telling you otherwise has no idea what he’s talking about. To wit:
“I’m just here to tell you your favorite band sucks even though I’ve never even heard it!”
Anything you’ve seen in a western film you can do in the game, and that includes that quick draw scene between James Coburn with the knife and the other guy in the Magnificent Seven
That dial thing on the right calculates modifiers for range, cover depending on weapon, ability with a gun etc and spits out a percentage chance to hit and then depending on the roll tells you the location and severity of the wound. It also tells you if there was a misfire. If you miss there’s a bit more of a rough and ready calculation to work out if anybody behind might get hit. It’s actually a really clever bit of kit…
