Development > Design

Design: Soldier stats

<< < (2/5) > >>

Killertomato:
My 2 ct:
Well, Strength definitely influences the ability to fire heavy weapons and heavier assault weapons and TUs in terms of encumbrance while
endurance IMHO influences TUs and perhaps hit points.

But Endurance IMO does not influence the ability to wield ANY kind of weapon.
Just because I can run a Marathon in 3 hours I can't handle any assault weapon or such better than anyone else.

Also the use of explosives or precision weapons (sniper rifles) is not influenced by either agility or intelligence. A total dumbass can throw a grenade in the right direction with enough practice and I don't need to be an NFL wide receiver to hit my target with a sniper rifle. That takes concentration and the right breathing technique.
Granted, a sniper needs to know the effect of wind, distance n such on the flightpath of the projectile, and  someone who sets up an explosive trap needs to know what he is doing so it wont explode in his face, so a certain level of intelligence is needed, but that's it.

Personally I'd say that keeping the accuracy bar is much more important.
And that -with the exception of strength- primary stats should only have a very minor impact on weapon proficiency.
But that's just me.

Hoehrer:
There will be a (dynamic) morale modifier in the future depending on the rank of the soldier.
Ranks are currenly unter development by me and there are four of them implemented right now: "Rookie", "Squad Leader", "Commander" and "Captain".
My plan is to boost morale of lower ranks if one/or more higher ranks are on the field and decrease it if a higher rank dies. Simple and efficient.
Ranks will be gained when a certain number of enemies are killed, only a very low number of civilians&team-members have been killed (-> more sane) and the soldier has a high enough "mind". There may be more/other conditions in the future.

For details on ranks see the file "base/ufos/medals.ufo".

Concerning the rest of the stats-discussion here: I had no time to read it all and fully work out the existing stuff.
Alot of stats _do_ work already (e.g accuracy influences the aim) although i do not know what exactly is changed after a finished battle/etc... yet.
Just a hint: Keep your suggestions as simple as possible (not the single ones, but the overall complexity), we do not want to create a replacement for stats-driven rpg games or something similar.

There is also a "medal" system in the works which will be used to modify the basic stats (as opposed to the rank-system that work the other way around), but this is not of high priority right now since the implemention still needs alot of work.

Werner

PsyWarrior:
I'd like to see a rank system based off a realistic army chain of command - for instance, there's no rank of Commander in the army, that only exists in the Navy. This doesn't necessarily mean that I'd like to have 20,000 ranks - I'd be happy with Private/Rookie, Corporal, Sergent, Lieutenant, Captain, Major, Colonel.

But stats... I'd say that you need a reasonable degree of intelligence to operate a rocket launcher or sniper rifle - fine, you don't need an MIT education, but you do need to take into account things like wind shear, distance to target and how much you need to lead your target and elevate your weapon.

I don't see why each attribute needs to affect two weapon classes... Endurance doesn't directly affect your ability to wield an assault rifle, unless your position requires you to stand still and hold a weapon aimed for a long period of time. Certain weapons benefit from high attributes (like strength or intelligence), but intelligence won't make you able to run for longer.

Less gibberish, more developed concept:

Five weapon classes as basic attributes, related to the basic skill of the soldier, can be developed by training (geoscape), and experience (actually operating the weapon, battlescape). Thus, if someone uses an assault rifle all the time, their Assault skill will improve.

The basic attributes, which all affect SOMETHING ingame.
-Strength: Affects ability to manipulate heavy weapons. Stronger soldiers can carry more things with less impact on TUs?
-Endurance: Soldier recieves more TUs. Modifiers for health.
-Intelligence: Affects ability to manipulate 'complex' weapons (alright so most weapons are complicated in their own way, you know what I mean), but not as much as the specific weapon-class skill bars. Modifies leadership ability?
-Agility: What would this directly affect ingame?
-Psionic Strength: Obviously affects proficiency at Psi warfare. Unlike the Psi weapon class skill, it also affects inherent ability to resist Psi attacks.

In this way, the Primary attributes affect the things you'd expect them to - not just weapons, but the performance of a soldier in battle as well. The Weapon attributes reflect specialisation, and skill with certain weapons. This adds just a little bit of an RPG element, and encourages commanders to be a little more careful with his troops - when you've paid lots of money to train your Sniper, you'll want to make sure he doesn't get killed in the first round.

-PsyW

BTAxis:

--- Quote from: "PsyWarrior" ----Agility: What would this directly affect ingame?

--- End quote ---

Agility would cut the TUs used for walking and changing direction, I suspect. It might also reduce damage taken from falling. You could even make it reduce reload times, although that technically should be a function of dexterity, which isn't a basic stat in the model so far.

What are your views on specialization? As I put it, I didn't allow for a soldier to become expert in all weapons. Would you impose a similar restriction, or do you think having supersoldiers who excel at everything is not a problem?

Hoehrer:

--- Quote from: "PsyWarrior" ---I'd like to see a rank system based off a realistic army chain of command - for instance, there's no rank of Commander in the army, that only exists in the Navy. This doesn't necessarily mean that I'd like to have 20,000 ranks - I'd be happy with Private/Rookie, Corporal, Sergent, Lieutenant, Captain, Major, Colonel.
--- End quote ---


Number of ranks:
Some of  reasons why that many ranks will not help anything:
1.) We do not have that much of a soldier-hierarchy to justify them all.
3.) More ranks will be harder to balance... as everything else.
2.) It's probably better to have only a few ranks, that are further apart, so the ranks make a greater difference .. visual- and influence-wise (morale).
3.) One Soldier going from one rank to the next one every battle (because the steps would then be much smaller) just seems a bit strange.

For now i'll leave it at 4 ranks in total. If this proves to be good/bad we can adapt it later on.

Rank names:
We are not in any existing army here, so please do not try to force existing schemes into this game.
The rank-names can be changed though and replacement-suggestions for "commander" are welcome. But if nothing better comes up i'll just use "Sergent" since it seems to fit exactly.

Werner

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page