XCOM: Enemy Unknown

[Piemax2]

I find that the multi-level maps work much better for me in the Xbox version than on the PC: level selection is easier and I also have an easier time understanding the map, though this may just be that I see better farther from the screen :)

[Stepsongrapes]

Yeah, I’d say engineers or money – scientists don’t seem to be a problem, at least on Normal – I get enough without building a single laboratory to research fast enough to keep up with the aliens. On Classic, maybe this is different.

That being said, I usually have to decide based on who is most in danger of leaving the council…

Note that engineers also equal money, to a degree: more engineers reduce the cost of manufacturing (and building?).

[Savillo]

Note that engineers also equal money, to a degree: more engineers reduce the cost of manufacturing (and building?).

Just manufacturing, but you need more engineers to build additional facilities of the same type.

[Teiman]

OUCH mechanical spoilers, seems dificulty level in a game scale with your science level, so the more science, the harder enemies.

Then game want you to get more engineer, not scientist :-(

[Stepsongrapes]

Just manufacturing, but you need more engineers to build additional facilities of the same type.

Anyone notice if the manufacturing cost reductions are money-only or are material costs (e.g., alien alloy) also reduced?

[Giaddon]

Material as well.

[deanco]

I must be weird but with this game I have more fun watching other people play than playing myself.
If anybody have any good video, please share.

[Giaddon]

I like labs more than most. Even one lab increases your research by 20%, which I find worthwhile. The engineer cost reduction is pretty small.

[Woolen_Horde]

I like labs more than most. Even one lab increases your research by 20%, which I find worthwhile. The engineer cost reduction is pretty small.

I generally find one lab to be enough. The problem is that it doesn’t matter how fast you research; everything is gated by production/resources end.

[Stepsongrapes]

I generally find one lab to be enough. The problem is that it doesn’t matter how fast you research; everything is gated by production end.

That’s what I find, too. I mentioned above the possible need for a cost-saving research (e.g., “nano-replication”) type research that would provide cost savings.

Admittedly, research can allow you to use the weapons you salvaged, if you go for a stun strategy. I might try a research heavy game where I race for plasma weapons and use all salvaged items. Teiman’s gating comment on the point is interesting as to that point.

As it stands, the engineers being gatekeepers to satellites make them too tempting.

[Reldan]

That’s what I find, too. I mentioned above the possible need for a cost-saving research (e.g., “nano-replication”) type research that would provide cost savings.

Admittedly, research can allow you to use the weapons you salvaged, if you go for a stun strategy. I might try a research heavy game where I race for plasma weapons and use all salvaged items. Teiman’s gating comment on the point is interesting as to that point.

As it stands, the engineers being gatekeepers to satellites make them too tempting.

The thing is that even in a salvage strategy, Engineers lead to Satellites which leads to South America which leads to the equivalent of a hell of a lot of research time savings and instant research credits. So Engineers effectively can speed up early-game Research too.

[TimJames]

Science labs aren’t required on Classic. (They might matter on Ironman.) At the end of the game, I had to excavate the lower level of my base and build a lab just for the achievement. On the other hand, I didn’t have much time to enjoy the late-game tech before it was over.

[Grifman]

Alien reaction move, not being able to target cover, unbalanced abilities, reliance on teleporting enemies, bugs, inability for the game to handle multiple height levels, piss poor LoS

Explain how each of these is a “cut corner”. You just calling them so does not make them so. Some of these are simple design choices, other bugs, UI issues. I don’t normally see these called “cut corners” when encountered in other games so I’m wondering they are now called that.

[Grifman]

Actually, they were talking of real cut corners, not if the game have bugs or not, of if some abilities are unbalanced (it’s subjective, it could be fixed on patches).

Bingo. I don’t see these called “cut corners” for other games.

Like… the maps. Number of maps, and their size. Cut corner there? Or it was part of their design?

Cut corner or just making the best of the resources you have? You can’t have an infinite number once you decide not to have generated maps. So what it the right number? 10, 50,80, 500? I don’t know.

[Savillo]

Cut corner or just making the best of the resources you have? You can’t have an infinite number once you decide not to have generated maps. So what it the right number? 10, 50,80, 500? I don’t know.

Whatever the number, clearly more than 80. Firaxis severely underestimated how many maps you’d play in a single game. On several occasions, in interviews, members of the development team said you wouldn’t see the same map in two consecutive playthroughs and that a campaign would average about 30 missions.

Every game I’ve played that’s neared the end has always gone beyond 30 missions. Hell, in my most recent, I’ve actually reset the UFO counter back to UFO-0. Did they not think you’d intercept more than 9 UFOs in a single campaign?

[TurinTur]

Nitpick no. 2
I was going to commend the game for having a bit more of mission variety than just killing every alien, like for example with the rescue missions. I changed my mind. They did the “cheap” thing and made the alien appear out of thin air to in your return travel to the skyranger. I understand the need of having appear more aliens (because you could clear the whole map, and then do the “return” part without any risk) but doing that way… it’s doesn’t feel good.

[TimJames]

I think the root of the issue is that with only 4-6 troops the design would be unfair if aliens could kill you sight unseen.
…
The result is that the best strategy is to peel the aliens off slowly and murder them before they get a chance to ever shoot. This would be resolved if the aliens did get first strike capabilities and were generally more active, but the design would need to allow for a lot more troops. To me this is the fundamental difference between the combat in XCOM and X-Com - moreso than the cover system, skill system, or action/TU differences.

This is what I meant by how challenging it must have been to design this game. Start with one reasonable premise of modern game design and pretty soon you’re trying to force something 5 or 6 steps removed.

Your example is right on. Start with fewer troops for streamlining (reasonable). Now you can’t take reaction fire because that’s unfair (also reasonable). Now you need enemies to wake up in groups so you can’t pick them off one by one. Now flanking is limited because it’s dangerous to wake up so many enemies. Now you need to give straight shots at full cover a reasonable chance of success. Now you’re abstracting genius commandos who politely lean out of cover to take 3 plasma shots to the head. Now players are frustrated while taking fire from enemies in a cover system.

The premises are reasonable. Everything follows logically. But they didn’t stumble on any brilliant solutions to the challenges those premises impose. I can see why Jake was in Sid’s office banging his head against the wall! It’s also why I don’t hold any of the design decisions against them even if I don’t enjoy them as much as I’d like. It works well enough that it was good to ship the game as is.

[Stepsongrapes]

ThiBut they didn’t stumble on any brilliant solutions to the challenges those premises impose.

I think this is the issue that makes me a bit of sad panda.

I suspect, as you guys have, that the numerical difference between the aliens and troops is at the root of these issues. If they made flanking much stronger/a necessity it would seem that the aliens would have a tremendous advantage on that front due to numbers alone as your flanker would be triggering enemies willy-nilly.

So, their solution is to have the battles be a series of small, equal numbered battles that sum up to being outnumbered. The player can mantain this if he avoids flanking and merely overwhelms a full-cover alien.

Abilities like the one that forces the target to break cover offer some opportunities to crack this, but they frankly seem like nothing more than a modern version of destroying the cover.

Basically, the final result is a bit disappointing, but I don’t think that clearly points to cutting corners. It does raise the question of whether the aliens need to outnumber the troops, but that’s a big core design decision.

[JM1]

Whatever the number, clearly more than 80. Firaxis severely underestimated how many maps you’d play in a single game. On several occasions, in interviews, members of the development team said you wouldn’t see the same map in two consecutive playthroughs and that a campaign would average about 30 missions.

“Severely underestimated”. Ehehehe. Right.

Edit: Tim, you’ve nailed my exact complaint with the game. Anyway, it’s not that I’m not enjoying it, so I don’t feel ripped off or anything, but it is a bit of a disappointment.

[MikeJ]

In some cases you can use skills like battle scanner to get an idea of whether it is safe to go for a flanking move. Also, if you rotate your line of advance, you can often ensure that one enemy flank is in pre-cleared territory. I agree that the overall setup tends to make big flanking moves pretty dangerous.