4241

Actually, it runs back into the fog of war and takes cover until one of his buddies dies. This is only on Easy and Normal, mind you. On Classic this limit does not exist.

And only on Terror missions do enemies do things during fog of war, otherwise yes, it’s kind of an “aggro the pre-placed pack” mechanic. This may or may not break immersion for you. I see how it can be bothersome to some people.

But mechanically, this is the best turn based strategy game in an evolutionary sense in a long, long time. There is enough in the game that is done right that the things that seem wrong just don’t matter that much. Worth a playthrough, even if some people don’t see its re-playability (I’m waiting for some DLC, personally, but I did play Ironman Normal, and also Classic with mods).

4242

Huh, I was wondering why my memory of alien behavior didn’t match with what was being said here about the cap.

4243

What’s interesting is to see how the various aspects have cascaded to result in the current game mechanics. Actually, the new game mechanics seem fine; it’s really just the replayability that has suffered.

4244

Honestly, the only real problems I had with replaying XCom were the story missions. The Temple ship in particular is terribly boring the third time you play through to that point.

4245

Yep, I agree with this. I was fine with a lot of the simplification they did to Xcom, and I did have a lot of fun for a while, but the non-randomized maps and the council missions really bring me down when I try replaying. There are even some instances where “Different maps” play exactly the same which is the case with 99% of all crashed/landed UFOs. About the only differences you get out of those are there’s maybe one or two slightly more open maps, and then if it’s a larger UFO it’s slightly different just because they’re less common.

Then there are cosmetic annoyances like the time in the mission not matching up with geoscape time for the mission area. I can live without it, but since X-com from 1994 could do it it seems ridiculous that Xcom doesn’t. It’s not even really something you can wave away as a change from being a reboot/re-imagining of the game either, two actions per-unit per-turn is a deliberate gameplay decision, “Well our maps are disconnected from the geoscape except for a few vague text changes” isn’t. Harumph. Really do hope they scrap the canned maps and put a random map generator in there since despite my bitching I did like the game, I just mostly liked it for one run through and I’d prefer it to be a game I play more regularly.

4246

Yeah it would have been nice to at least have day/night versions of each map. While real-time lighting is a non-trivial thing, rendering two lightmap versions of each outdoor map would have been pretty trivial.

4247

That seems like a real shame to me, and I guess I’m just so surprised because it sounds like a giant leap backwards in design. I realize the TB tactics genre hasn’t had many games in recent years, but I think part of the reason is that it was partially replaced by tactical FPS. And in tactical FPS games, the design initially started with (mostly) static opponents that waited to be aggro’d, but it’s since evolved into a much more dynamic experience with AI directors or exquisitely-scripted action sequences (that appear/feel dynamic) or open world designs with roaming packs and NPC faction battles, or, of course, multiplayer.

Aggro-the-pack gameplay is something that I expect from MMORPGs or other games with a lot of exploring, but in most such games you can still aggro a whole herd of opponents if you’re foolish/bold enough. This aggro limit just doesn’t seem like a necessary conceit for a single player tactics game where various story and stealth/intel mechanics (probably) could have provided much of the same pacing and balance.

Anyway, I’m obviously just spinning my wheels here without having played the game, so I’ll let it go. I just listened to the 3MA podcast where they listed Enemy Unknown as a best of 2012 game (which is why I came here, looking for news on new DLC). And despite this weird (to me) wrinkle, you guys have all offered a ton of praise for the game, so I’m sure I’ll still enjoy it.

Thanks for the detailed reply. I’m keen to try the game on Classic Ironman mode now. (Of course, if the game is balanced around the mostly-sleeping-aliens system, an all-awake aliens game might be painful–oh well).

4248

Wow, what tactical FPSes have you been playing? Arma, I guess? The last tactical shooter I remember enjoying was SWAT 4, many years ago :(

To be clear, in XCOM classic the sleeping enemy mechanic still exists, it’s just that when enemies are awoken they join the fight rather than retreat.

4249

It’s what it is: the game is more on the “gamey” side than in the realistic/immersion side. It will good or bad or just indifferent, depending on the player.

You also have to account that the scenarios are small, if you could alert the enemies with the combat, you would alert all the enemies of the scenario and all would converge in your position.

4250

I played the game twice on normal and classic (no iron mode) and I don’t think the replayability goes for more. I had a fucking good time though and I don’t remember to be so addicted to any game since, well, probably the original XCOM.

That doesn’t mean it has no flaws of course. Alien awakening is in fact a big problem and restrict a lot what you can do on the field. But on the same level is also all the timing of the game. The pace is really bad when you consider research time, building times and so on. For instance you will hardly use laser weapons because you will probably build the plasma weapons first. Some parts of the game should be stretched so that some technology can be really explored. It is also great that economy is always in danger zone but sometimes the game don’t really give you options to face these dangers. You always have to choose missions and in the end you are loosing trust from the council countries more than winning it, even if successful in your missions.
A couple mods seem to tackle these issues and rebalance it quite effectively but I didn’t try them yet.

Regarding difficulty, normal is not a piece of cake but is not too demanding for most veteran hardcore tactic players. Classic is difficult but only the first missions. First terror mission is really a turning point, if you can get it done it will be easier from that moment, otherwise you’re doomed.

All in all, I hope that more content is added to the game in the near future, and also that there are future XCOM and more games of this kind from now on.

4251

What? That’s not my experience at all. There’s a period of a couple months where you can easily afford laser weapons, but trying to construct plasma weapons is prohibitive financially. Going plasma-first only makes sense if you’re quite adept at capturing them so you don’t have to build them, and that’s much more difficult in this iteration than the original XCom.

That’s a core part of the strategic game. You get abduction missions because you don’t have satellite / interceptor coverage over that nation. Getting an abduction mission means you’ve already failed part of the strategic game. Thus a high priority is to get coverage of the entire globe. It’s also important to note that you get a substantial panic reduction over a nation when you launch a satellite, so using that fact to manage panic is part of the strategic game.

The +2 net increase in panic per abduction is also pressure to get the Alien Base mission done, because that reduces panic worldwide. Finishing the game without losing any nations is quite doable on Classic if you plan ahead.

4252

Precisely because of the economy pressure I rather kept normal weapons as long as possible and then went for plasma. Only snipers, being always a priority, are upgraded as soon as possible. The rest of guys will have to manage with the weapons captured from aliens and minimal laser additions manufactured by myself. Building full laser AND plasma equipment was just not possible at all.

Anyway, my point remains the same. There’s technology I couldn’t afford at the pace it was offered to me, as the tanks (whatever their name actually is). Usually investigation was way ahead of production and economy, and the pace seems too constrained to really explore all of the possibilities that the game offers. By the time you can afford to produce some technology, it has no relevance anymore.

Also because you have to focus too much on satellite coverage in production, because of the reasons you pointed, and then I go to your second remark.

You’re not failing at anything, you just can’t handle it with the resources and timing at your disposal, even if you do 100% perfect missions. I did focus heavily on satellites on my games, and even that way I lost 2 or 3 countries at least. Not the end of the world certainly, you can finish the game even with those loses, but this means that if you don’t focus on satellites it will lead you to loose too many countries and thus to loose the game. I don’t like mandatory paths in strategy games so that’s why I complained.

By the way greetings from a long time NWC and Heroes of Might and Magic fan :)

4253

Laser rifles are much more effective than assault rifles, and quite affordable. Laser rifles will reliably one-shot both Sectoids and Thin Men, which isn’t true of assault rifles, and lasers are accurate at much longer ranges. Honestly, lasers are a much higher priority than body armor, because equipping your squad with lasers really early means you can reduce enemy return fire substantially.

I had no difficulty doing it. 1 plasma rifle costs as much as 4 laser rifles, or 6 if you factor in the the value of selling Elerium and Alloys. You’re trading at most one plasma rifle for equipping your entire squad with lasers.

I agree, SHIVs are definitely questionable through most of the game. The issue isn’t so much that they’re expensive, it’s that it’s impractical to build a Foundry and research SHIVs early enough to make them a practical alternative, and SHIVs of course don’t gain experience. If I were to tweak things, I’d make the basic SHIV available at game start, and move the upgrade research (laser weapons, plasma weapons, floaters) to the regular research track.

As I said, careful play can avoid the loss of countries. For example, engineers as mission rewards are important for satellites, since there are limits to how quickly you can expand your engineer population through workshops, and engineers limit the number of uplinks you can support. There’s also the tactic of deliberately letting a country hit 5+ panic because you’re going to launch a satellite over it at the end of the month.

That said, losing a country is largely an emotional issue. Lost countries are a much smaller setback than you might imagine. Short of losing 8 (which loses the game), you’re losing potential income, not present income, and possibly a potential continent bonus, though you can pick easily enough pick missions so that you’ll only lose one such bonus. The aliens don’t get any bonuses for controlling a country.

I personally strove for 100% coverage when I played, but there were people on the official forum who did quite well while largely ignoring losses. There comes a turning point where you’re absolutely swimming in income, so losing even the full 7 you are allowed won’t cripple you financially in the long run.

4254

I find SHIVs are really valuable early in the game. Portable cover that cannot be 1-shot no matter what until much, much later in the game. SHIV + support with cover perks = easy mode.

4255

This is one of my issues with the game. You have to go satellites early and throughout. There is little flexibility in the way you can approach the strategic game. The whole strategic wrapper is less interesting because of it.

4256

Totally agree, and then alloy SHIV’s that I used to the end of the game. That moveable cover that takes a ton of punishment…priceless.

4257

I never used SHIVs in my early playthroughs, but in the Classic Ironman I finally won (no countries lost!) I found them really useful. I lost all of my high ranking soldiers multiple times, and in the mid game you have a much better chance of success if you can support a team of rookies with a SHIV or two.

I don’t really like Alloy SHIVs, though-- too expensive and a waste of alloys for what’s ultimately an expendable unit. They also only provide half cover, which makes using them for that purpose an option of last resort.

4258

Well I think sectoids and thin men are not a big threat at the time you can produce lasers. And anyway that’s easy job for snipers (that in this case I update to lasers as soon as possible). In any case if you go for laser fast you’ll be short of money for getting plasma later which I consider the real improvement.

Well yes it’s possible, after all you can stretch the game as long as you want, but I just don’t think it’s as effective to pay for lasers when my research already allows me to produce/use plasma.

Well I think any money loss in this game is a big loss more than emotional ;) (at least in early phases). But yes you can afford to lose a few of them, but my gripe is that the game is forcing you to focus too much on not losing the countries.

I’ll force myself to use the SHIVs and see what they can do if I replay the game once more ;)

4259

I completely disagree. Even a sectoid or thin man can one shot an unarmored trooper early on, and the best protection against that is killing anything that can take a shot at you before it gets a chance. And as previously mentioned you can equip your whole squad with lasers for around the cost of 1 plasma rifle.

I was originally in the “skip lasers” camp too, but the research time for lasers is negligible, and they give you an important boost to firepower that makes the late opening stages of the game much easier to deal with.

4260

Yep. If you’re still using assault rifles when the first terror missions appear, it can get very ugly.