General > Discussion

If "PHALLANX" troops are the elite of the elite...

<< < (5/7) > >>

Sacrusha:
What this question comes down to is the usual "realism vs gameplay" argument.

Yes, elite soldiers missing like that is somewhat unrealistic.

Yes, elite soldiers battling turn-based is even more unrealistic.

I dont' know if the story is just as unrealistic or slightly less, tough call. Nevertheless it's extremely unrealistic.

In game development gameplay is always more important than realism. However, depending on the details involved, realism can improve gameplay - altough often it does not. Currently the miss chance is intended make the game more fun. If soldiers would always hit and the aliens had more hit points it would make the game simpler and probably less fun, because you know you have to shoot an alien exactly 3 (for example) times before it dies. The miss chance brings a kind of action to this turn based game.
Right now you can miss and by taking a risk and moving closer you can lessen the chance to miss significantly, or you can hope you're lucky.
I've had multiplayer sessions where a soldier missed three times in a row, and despite being somewhat humiliating it was fun (damn stupid bastard, hit, him, HIT, damnit..). Of course it's even more fun if the enemy comes around the corner, you've got 10 hp left, he shoots, misses and is out of TUs (and it's his last soldier *evil*)

kable:
What about letting the soldiers go prone?  It could maybe triple sniper-rifle accuracy, but at the expense of a limited field of view...

Sacrusha:
Letting the soldier go prone was discussed before. The advantage is that it gives the player more options.
What speaks against it is the fact that going prone (assuming it gives dodge and hit bonuses) will reward sitting in a spot over moving, and once prone it will penalize you (cost TU) for deciding to move. This might make AI a less fast paced game.
Another reason against implementing going prone is the work for the animators.

 To know for sure how it affects the gameplay one would have to implement and playtest it, of course. But right now AI is designed such that moving close fast is high-risk high-reward and you will have to do it every so often if you want to win (at least against enemy players).

HighXplosive:
Well realism I think needs to have a certain grasp here imho. I mean, I wouldn't care about realism if it was giant bunny rabbits with machine guns, but your basing this on real objects (i.e. humans) in a fictional background.

Personally, I'm a realism nut, but thats a discussion for elsewhere. Regardless of what I am, you have all basically agreed its stupid how inaccurate your soldiers are. :) Thats the problem.

Irinami:
Not to dig up a dead horse, but well, I'm good at it. ;)

Game systems tend to be models of situations--they are representations with similar end results to what you'd expect in the real world, but the specifics are muddied. Hopefully that muddying makes an enjoyable experience.

For example, I wouldn't expect my soldiers to miss so much at close range. But I do expect poor planning to pay off in my men turning into bodybags, and I do expect good planning to pay off with alien corpses to. That works out in this game. Another example, external to UFO:AI: If I use the same tactics in Panzer General as I do in Steel Panthers, I get the same result, despite PG being a much more "Beer-n-Pretzels" game.

In the end, if I take UFO:AI as a simulator, it sucks. My troops can't hit jack, essentially; they couldn't qualify with any of the weapons I've given them. On the other hand, if I plan properly and don't get ahead of myself in the execution, my men do well. In aggregate form, the game is a good model even if it is a poor simulation.

As for elite... I was under the impression that this was some cockamamie UN-sponsored group that nobody really takes seriously at the start of the game. So you'd get misfits offered to you at first. Could be wrong there though.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page