Technical support > Feature Requests

Reaction fire, I really think this is good advice...

<< < (4/4)

tembero:
My long post to reaction fire was mainly an aversion to reaction fire in the turn based strat - Silent Storm. You would get spotted by the enemy from a free roaming scenario without the Time Unit counter and then the Computer would then move 20 units across your field of vision, into a comfortably prone position a yard from your characters nose and death-kill your digi-starlet. All of this at the most meandering pace a game can move at ( and they say that patience is a virtue ).

The mechanics of reaction fire here, in UFO:AI are reasonable in the sense that your own reactions on the mouse are not registered as a component of the outcome of the simulated developing situation.

Using the breaching door scenario it is reasonable to believe that you would want your character to have the cover of the walls around the door frame to remain himself concealed + reduce the angle of incident to the target in this instance probably firing on contact if even a civilian waltzes through gap . But knowing the exact moment your character will attack eventually becomes predictable along with the enemy characters preferred paths ( generally speaking for all computer games ). The style of reaction shooting in UFO enemy unknown created an exacting unpredictability on boths sides of the fence so the maneuver was always an enlightened gamble, but invariably the quickest reacting and best tactic was the victor. Considering that all actions available to the human are available to the computer in a small scale environment ( without the ability to spring out of a broom cupboard dressed as an ironing board for example ) then the computer can randomly and unwittingly create tactics to counter the player on occasions, adding a character reaction ability leaves you only escaping the encounter from the skin of your pants.

Edit:- Occasionally in XCOM ( EU ) Huge firefights would uncontrollably escalate across the map with human player RF, and if you had trained your characters well, you may stop the terror attack gloriously. Appreciating that reactions are not premeditated by context will create it's own battles for wisdom in the mind. But like the Frozen Synapse endeavour it is nice to release a larger strategy all in one click. click click boom.

OK - I'll make a stand, I would prefer a reaction stat to a finite action point counter.

Edit edit:- and finally in the editing edits sections of the post it's good to see that UFO:AI will make it into the Debian Repo's, I have been using Wine to play most recently but now armed with the knowledge that I will soon apt-get some fried aliens invaders I have reached 10 action points on the build-from-source counter and have a fancying to pack a blaster launcher in the 'ol codeblocks... good luck commander, you'll need it. 

RealSpirit:
in my opinion - if there ever should be nothing else important to do - there should be a rework of fire and reaction fire. one of the better approaches to it has been presented by jagged alliance BIA, even though that game has many other faults.

in general shooting should be split into aiming part and shooting itself. while soldiers that are aiming into the correct direction already (small angle, may be 5-10 degrees) already should have reduced reaction fire cost, all others should have to turn into the right direction 1st, raising the weapon after, and only then they should be ready to fire/RF. besides that, RF itself should be dependent of speed and/or mind.

why do i think so:

- at the moment it doesnt make no difference (in case its your turn) if you are already aiming at the target, or if it is in your back, neither for time required, nor for hit chance.
- at the moment, facing an alien with an 8 or 9 TU weapon, the best way to kill is not to shoot at it, but to get 4-5 soldiers aiming at the target in your turn, then "end turn".

-A split into 3 parts could look like: aiming into right direction 1st (1 TU per 45 ° turn, raise weapon 2nd (depending on weight may be, like 1 TU / kg), shot itself (1 TU pistols, 3 TU snipers, 2 TU everything else)
-A split into 2 would put together part 2 and 3, but wouldnt be THAT nice
-a shot of the same class (no movement) should always be faster than the corresponding reaction fire

the problem is: all that needs a lot of time to implement. I know that. it still would be the best aproach imho. breaking the enemies turn for your reaction fire imho is not the best way, at least not using ALL the rest of the remaining TUs. May be i will add some thoughts when im awake again, am too tired now.

cu later

tembero:
 o
 |
/---  @ @ @ @ @             @ @ @ @
/\                            o-t-<     

This diagram was created with automatic blitz reaction fire, 1 tu to fire and 1 tu to reload.

zap zap

TBeholder:

--- Quote from: NicSO on January 25, 2014, 06:57:08 pm ---For all you who played prequel of UFO Enemy Unknown, Laser Squad you remember reaction fire from that game. Game would stop, you had certain number of Aps you left for reaction fire and you decided how to spend them: snap shot, auto fire or aimed.

--- End quote ---
And "Power Dolls" got a little popup dialog that allows to respond now or wait to let them move a bit more - of course, you may also hold too long, let an enemy close enough to detect your unit and get shot for free.

--- Quote from: NicSO on January 25, 2014, 06:57:08 pm ---I think this option would be great in the game so player can choose will his soldier shoot on auto, snapshot or aimed.

--- End quote ---
Well, yes. If a melee-range-only enemy like Bloodspider appears, may as well take a good aim instead of potshots.
Also, may want to let him approach closer for a sure shot, or veer out from the line to friendlies.

--- Quote from: Eegxeta on January 25, 2014, 07:42:46 pm ---This is something that is sorely needed because one snap shot is not enough to stop a alien from mowing you down.

--- End quote ---
This is something solved by selecting Burst for reaction shot in the first place.  :)


--- Quote from: Grug on January 26, 2014, 11:15:20 am ---Also, there are sometimes several soldiers that get the reaction fire simultaneously and the solider that is going to take the shot might not be the best option (they might be better placed to cover a different angle, etc and so keeping their reaction fire could be advantageous). Some way to select which of the available soldiers takes the shot would be handy.

--- End quote ---
IMO it reflects that in a quickly changing situation they don't have to coordinate activities, only to make individual decisions.
The other side of this, of course, is that when a sniper is stationed specifically to watch that one window, he should not waste the only shot on competing with two machinegunners covering other places and then allow the intended target to pass unchallenged. And the way it is now,  grenade launchers and reacion fire do not mix well.
But there may be a better solution for this problem (below).


--- Quote from: RealSpirit on June 16, 2014, 12:53:33 am --- in general shooting should be split into aiming part and shooting itself. while soldiers that are aiming into the correct direction already (small angle, may be 5-10 degrees) already should have reduced reaction fire cost, all others should have to turn into the right direction 1st, raising the weapon after, and only then they should be ready to fire/RF. besides that, RF itself should be dependent of speed and/or mind.

--- End quote ---
So, the conclusion:
it would be good to have functionality to assign firing arcs more narrow than "anything in sight". This would also allow to disallow risky shots - e.g. if you could tell a soldier with GL to take targets on the roof only, he won't see an alien elsewhere and kill nearby friendlies and thus RF with such a weapon could be useable.
Perhaps narrow arcs could give a little accuracy bonus, and if the selection is narrow enough (typically, one wants to cover a window, door, two squares near the corner), have part of TU cost "pre-paid",  making the actual reaction counter shorter, so the enemy cannot pass as easily through the place at which someone already took aim.
Correct?

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page