project-navigation
Personal tools

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Bashar

Pages: [1]
1
Discussion / Re: Feedback and impressions after 1 campaign
« on: February 03, 2012, 08:01:24 pm »
2A) Generic Super-Stats

Speed and Accuracy, while they function differently, both result in improving an agent's overall effectiveness.  Speed increases the time units available while Accuracy increases the chance of scoring a successful hit, both of which directly and universally improve the.  As they stand, these stats don't really contribute to an agents unique identity except as an indicator of longevity or innate ability.  In other words there's no motivation for the player to groom an agent as "the speedy guy" or "the accurate guy" because these are things that the agent will develop naturally just by participating.  To put it another way, Speed and Accuracy don't contribute to specialization whereas other stats are defined in their scope my a limited but clear set of parameters.

I would suggest limiting the scope of these stats so that agents will value them differently based on their designated role.  Take Speed for instance.  Instead of granting the agent additional Time Units, perhaps instead use it to reduce the TU cost of movement, either running or crawling.  This would define Speed as a stat useful for front line agents who are responsible for scouting and weaving between cover but be less attractive to an agent in his sniper nest or a machine gunner providing suppression fire.  Thus rather than being a general skill that is desired and attained by all agents, the player can focus agents on becoming "the speedy guy" and have that contribute to the agent's specific role in the team.

I haven't looked at the code yet so I am basing my information on what I've read on on the forum but Accuracy seems to be mainly a measure of overall effectiveness.  Whatever weapon the agent is wielding, however the agent is wielding it, accuracy imparts a linear bonus.  As a stat it doesn't provide any functionality that isn't already provided by specific weapon skills.  As such it's redundant except as a measure of "cross training" between weapons.  There are more direct means of doing that, such as giving individual weapon skills a floor increase at the end of a battle, based on a percentage of the increase that was accrued by the skill that incurred the greatest improvement.

What I would suggest is changing Accuracy so that it impacts the player based on the fire mode of their attack.  Automatic fire would receive marginal or no benefit from a high Accuracy, burst fire, snap shot, and aimed shot would receive a respectively progressive benefit, and head shots (which should probably be renamed something like "critical" since there's no guarantee that alien physiology will model terrestrial life) would receive maximum benefit of a high Accuracy score.  This would allow Accuracy to supplant the proposed Sniper skill while being versatile enough to apply, to varying degree, to most weapons and still provide a unique benefit that will allow agents to specialize in certain roles.

The stat would be less a matter of overall effectiveness as versatility.  For example an agent with low Accuracy would be just as effective as a trained sniper if all they're interested in is laying down firepower; however, if a sniper wants to take a deliberate shot, even with a short-ranged weapon such a pistol, he'll see some degree improvement in his chance to hit over his trigger-happy team mate.  Should an inaccurate agent choose to pick up a rifle, the fact that he was a low Accuracy score would mean that while he's effective at burst fire, he won't see as much of an improvement if he used that rifle to take an aimed shot.  Thus this proposal of implementing Accuracy would help define an agent's combat role rather than act as a generic improvement skill.

The algorithm could look something like:
Code: [Select]
(base_accuracy + fire_mode_bonus * agent_accuracy) * agent_weapon_skill
This is not to say that there shouldn't be a stat that improves an agent's overall combat effectiveness, which is what Speed and Accuracy currently do, but I would suggest that such an effect be consolidated into a single stat, possibly called "Experience" or "Discipline" if you wanted a label with less of an RPG connotation.  Have it based the number of missions the agent has participated in and the quantity of aliens encountered and felled in those missions.  Basically, make it as simple as possible but no simpler.

This would also seem to correspond a little bit with the proposed Mind stat, since it was states that this would correspond with the agent's level of experience.  In my opinion, and I'm just throwing this out there for your consideration, but I would have two separate stats: Discipline and Psionics.  In terms of defending against psionic attacks (mind control, hallucinations, panic attacks, etc) the game could pick the higher of the two (perhaps unevenly favouring Psionics) to determine resistance while normal shocks to morale would be handled solely by Discipline.  For instance, a psionic warrior might prove to be a pansy when bleeding from a wound while a battle hardened veteran might be able to withstand the effects of a pisonic attack even though he has no such gifts himself.

2B) Encumbrance

I admit to personal bias here but for my part I generally don't like encumbrance rules.  It's not that I don't like the concept but often the implementation results in tedium.  I spend enough time managing inventory for my Skyrim avatar, the thought of doing the same for eight Phalanx agents when they go in to battle makes me wary.  The proposal page was kind of non-specific in terms of how encumbrance would be implemented so I'm assuming you were just leaving this for another date.

From my perspective, the most straightforward approach would be to add more inventory space based on the proposed Strength stat.  Of course, this is more a measure of volume than weight; however, it has the benefit of being very easy to telegraph to the player and provides a demonstrable benefit without increasing complexity.  You could then base movement modifiers on the space left remaining in the agent's backpack.  Leave so many tiles open and you get full use of your Time Units at the start of the turn, for each space filled beyond that the amount of Time Units diminishes.

What I have trouble wrapping my head around is how to improve strength over the course of the game, particularly how rationalize strength increases from combat actions.  Normally a person would improve their strength with exercise and training, lifting weights and such.  The only way I can think of reflecting that in the combat view would be to improve strength based on the agent's level of encumbrance through the course of the battle.  Each turn the agent suffers an encumbrance penalty, the more points are contributed to increasing his Strength stat at the close of battle.

2C) Experience progression

I also want to talk about how stats are improved through the experience system.  At present most stats are dependent on the frequency of hitting a target.  I'm not sure this is the way to go about it for a few reasons.  First, this method creates a positive feedback loop where in hitting a target increases an agent's skill, which in turn makes them more likely to hit their target, where upon they'll increase in skill even faster, and so on and so forth.  This means that agents would progress slowly at the start of their career but as they participate in battles and improve their stats, they progressively become more proficient and accrue stats are a faster rate.  This would seem to be contrary to what I've interpreted as the developers intentions.

The other issue with tying stat increases to hits on a target is that it unfairly awards agents experience based on their weapon choice.  Let's assume that we have a weapon that has an 80% accuracy rating and does 25 points of damage.  Compare that to a weapon that does 50 points of damage but only has an accuracy of 40%.  Statistically these weapons are equally effective, on average they will both output the same degree of firepower.  But because the experience system is tied to hits, the agent using the former weapon will improve his pertinent stats at twice the rate as the agent wielding the latter weapon.

And finally, the system unfairly awards experienced based on the Time Unit cost to fire it.  If you have two rifles of equal accuracy but the first requires fewer time units to fire a round than the second, then the agent wielding the former weapon will progress his rifle skill faster than the agent wielding the latter weapon.  This is because both agents accrue the same experience award regardless of how much time they are spending.  The agent with the faster weapon will progress faster than the agent with the slower weapon.

This leads me to what I think would be a good solution for these issues.  Take accuracy out of the picture altogether and instead base experience instead on the expenditure of Time Units.  After all, a person learns just as much from their mistakes as their successes.  It also gives the developers much finer control in shaping the experience system as well as a clearer picture of its impact.  If experience were based on time units then you could look at the end of battle statistics and divide the numbers by the duration of the battle in turns to see the average time expenditure an agent used a particular skill.  Divide that by the agent's TU pool and you get a very close approximation of what percentage an agent used his skills in relation to one another.

You mentioned balance before and I appreciate how important that is.  I think basing experience on the expenditure of Time Units would would make skills on a whole easier to balance and tweak.  It would eliminate the bias toward fast, accurate weapons and mitigate some of the guesswork in determining the "value" of individual skills.

2D) Stat Proposal

Here I've included for your perusal an alternative list of skills to that posted on the proposal page, based on what I've talked about in this post.  Note that I'd include stun-grenades with explosives since it seems a more appropriate category.  If you want a non-lethal weapon for the pistol/specialist skill then I'd suggest implementing a tazer or shock prod since they would seem to have more functional relevance to the skill in general.  Also I'd separate shot guns, giving "sawed off" variety to pistol/specialist and including long barrel or automatic shot guns with the rifles skill.  As for the flame thrower, it just seems more appropriate to include with Strength since I imagine that fuel tank to be pretty heavy and space consuming.

Discipline: Overall determination of an agent's combat experience and training.  Has a strong impact on morale but might also improve the agent's pool of Time Units, hit points, and combat effectiveness.
Speed: Determined the efficiency of movement actions.  Having a high Speed rating means an agent can cover more tiles with the same number of Time Units.
Accuracy: Determines how much of an accuracy bonus the agent receives from choosing a deliberate/slow firemode.  Minimal impact on spray-and-pray automatic fire, major impact on time consuming aimed shots.
Specialist: Weapon skill for single grip firearms and melee weapons as well as a catch-all for non-combat packages like medkits and motion sensors.
Explosives: Weapon skill for grenades, grenade launchers, and -maybe- RPGs if only to fill it out.  Includes mines and demolitions, if implemented, just for the sake of consolidation. 
Rifles: Weapon skill for double-grip firearms including both carbines and sniper rifles as well as long barrel shotguns.
Strength: Dual-purpose skill.  Determines encumbrance rules determining how many inventory slots an agent has available, and how many of those slots may be consumed before they start to earn Time Unit penalties.  Also a weapon skill to determine the effectiveness of large/heavy weapons such as the rocket launcher, flame thrower, and anything that ought to be mounted, like Rambo's M60 or Terminator's minigun.
Psionics: Mind control attacks and defense, though defense may be supplemented or over-ridden by a high Discipline stat.

2
Discussion / Re: Feedback and impressions after 1 campaign
« on: January 29, 2012, 07:52:12 pm »
Thank you for replying.  Hertzila, all your responses sound great.  Glad to see that the terrestrial side of research is being represented and that each tech class of weapon has its own unique characteristics.  Can't really call them tiers anymore.

One point on which I wanted to clarify myself.  When I talked about research into refitting alien weapons to what which could be used by humans, I was suggesting it as a separate line of research from the study of the weapon's technology.  Let's say we come off the battlefield with a nice, not-quite-so-shiny alien plasma gun.  The player would have a choice between researching the theory of how plasma weapons work or instead learning how to refit this specific type of gun to human physiology.  The difference is that the former, while costlier, would open up more avenues of applied research and the opportunity to manufacture the weapon, while the latter is an inexpensive means of fielding new technology, though narrow in its scope and limited in available to the quantity of alien materials captured.

This goes in tandem with what I was saying about upgrading equipment, though this in some way shape or form may already be implemented.  Let's take for example a blaster.  There might be four different types of plasma blasters in the game as follows:

Alien Blaster: The weapon that the aliens use against the humans.  Effective in the hands of aliens but either useless or incurs substantial penalties when wielded by a human.
Refitted Alien Blaster: This is the alien blaster after researchers have learned how refit it for human physiology.  Limited in availability by the number of alien blasters captured and clunky to handle (manifested by increased time cost and reduced accuracy) but this is a relatively inexpensive means of getting high tech equipment onto the field quickly.
Human Blaster: Human manufactured weapon only available once the player has invested costly research into the theory of the weapon.  Being a young technology, it might not be as effective as the alien blaster in the hands of an alien (reduced firepower) but it's more effective than the refitted alien blaster because it was specifically designed for human physiology (normal time cost and accuracy).
Human Blaster mk.2: If the player so chooses, he can continue research into blaster technology and develop an even more advanced version that can match, or perhaps surpass, the alien technology.  The ratio of research cost to the increase in combat effectiveness might be high, making it an uneconomical choice except for those players who have a reason to to specialize in this particular technology.

So you have a single weapon but four different models depending on how the player chooses to progress on the tech tree.  This is what I meant by lateral research.  Depending on how the player values a particular weapon, they may choose research it differently.  It also presents another opportunity for the player to react to variations in the AI's activity (what we were talking about before in terms of making the game more dynamic).  If the AI is throwing a lot of one type of weapon at the player then the player might decide that it would be better in the long run to invest research only in refitting that weapon and save on research points at the expense of limiting the weapon's effectiveness.  By contrast if the player recognizes that a particular weapon is dearly acquired, or if they plan on investing heavily in that particular technology, they might forego researching how to refit the weapon altogether and invest in the costlier but more pertinent theory technology.  Or the player might want to research both, refitting to get the weapon on the field quickly and then theory to get access to all the additional applications; however, this redundant investment would come at the opportunity cost of researching other technologies.

So as opposed to each technology being "fund and forget", this would introduce an additional level of complexity where the question posed to a player isn't just a matter of whether or not to invest in a particular technology but to what degree and whether the player is focusing on short or long-term application.  Whether that's too much complexity is another question but I wanted to suggest this as a means of enhancing the strategic part of the game.  I think it would also address the "intermediate techs" that Samuel was talking about in another thread without having to introduce new equipment but rather different versions of existing equipment.  I completely agree with the philosophy that fewer, diverse types of equipment are preferable to many, similar equipment types.

---

I looked at the stats proposal, H-Hour.  I'm glad you brought that up because I had some thoughts I wanted to share on that as well. <g>  I'll add that later to break up my post into smaller(ish) chunks.  Is there a dedicated thread to which I should write about stats or would here be fine?  I did a search but didn't find a recent thread and was reluctant to bump something that was out-dated.

Also, I saw that high level of alien activity has been reduced so I plan to download the latest version and look forward to trying it later this week.  Not sure that'll reduce the quantity of things I want to say, but I'm sure it'll improve the quality. <s>  Thanks again for the opportunity.

3
Discussion / Re: Feedback and impressions after 1 campaign
« on: January 24, 2012, 11:57:53 pm »

Hello.  I should admit right up front that I haven't yet played UFO:AI for myself.  That's because while I thought X-Com was one of the best games of the 90s, I didn't find it as enjoyable as I had hoped.  It was very unforgiving and put more emphasis on tactical combat over strategic planning than I would have liked.  So when I read this thread and learned that the ratio of tactical battles to strategic window planning is perhaps even higher in UFO:AI, I decided to wait and see how things turn out in the next version.

But reading what people have been saying here on the forum, I thought I would throw in a few ideas of my own from the perspective of someone who is more interested in strategic rather than tactical gaming.  I looked through the list of proposals on the books and it doesn't look like any of these were addressed there so perhaps a new perspective will be welcome.  And sorry for writing a really long post.  I write big.  That's just the way I am.  Sorry about that.  I did try to divide the post into sections.

---

In terms of pacing, which seems to have become the focus of this topic, it seems to be one of the biggest issues brought up here has to do with technology progression.  The progression of alien technology in particular.  Judging from what Solver (I like that name, BTW) has said, it sounds like there's a linear progression of tech, from terrestrial firearms to lasers to plasma to particle beams.

While this vertical line of research makes sense in that it follows the X-Com model, I suggest that you could make the game more dynamic by putting greater emphasis lateral research.  Instead of being a race to get from point A to point B, the player would be encouraged to think strategically and weigh the value of techs based on their own, personal long term strategy and style of play rather than intrinsic values determined by the developers.

In short, give the player a choice between upgrading existing equipment and researching new ones.  Both options have benefits and drawbacks.  Upgrading an existing tech might be quicker and cheaper and allow the player to field more effective unit in short order; however, each research point spent on upgrading an existing technology means it's going to take just that much longer to get the fancy new toys.  It's a matter of opportunity cost.

But this leads us to the question of equipment diversity.  Is there really much of a choice between researching an advanced laser rifle when a basic plasma rifle is functionally the same?  Solver mentions that laser rifles are more accurate than plasmas but on a whole it sounds like once you research one technology level, it obsolesces the previous one.  What I'm saying is that optimally each technology "tier" (e.g. laser, plasma) would have its own unique characteristics in the same ways different weapon types within that sphere (e.g. rifles, pistols).  Instead of tiers replacing one another, they could be used to complement eachother.  This would transform the tech tree from a race to advance to the next rung on the latter to a platter where the player has to strategically determine what is the best choice to make given the circumstances of the situation at hand and knowing that whatever choice he makes, it will come at the exclusion of others.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any linear progression at all.  It makes sense that a plasma gun might be on a whole "better" than a laser gun, and that a particle gun might be on a whole "better" than a plasma gun.  If you want to research the big fancy guns, though, you're going to have to pay for it.  What I mean to encourage is that be some drawback to correspond with that intrinsic superiority of more advanced weapons so that each tier's utility has as much to do with the circumstance in which they're used as it does with the value of their stats.  For example, one weapon might have a substantially better magazine capacity than another, that would make it ideal for battles you expect to be time consuming, where logistics may ultimately play a larger part in determining victory than firepower.

To an extent this seems to already exist as per Solver's anecdote regarding the equipping of his grunts with intrinsically accurate laser rifles while arming his snipers with the less accurate but damage intensive plasma rifles.  What I'm suggesting is that you go all-in with this trend and establish more of a paper-rock-scissors model where the particle weapon might be superior in most cases, but not all, while the lower tiered laser weapon might not have much to show for itself but is still effective in particular circumstances even at the end of the game.

On a macro scale, this would allow the AI to diversity its tactics.  It won't be as much a matter of transitioning from one tech tier to the next so much as choosing specific weapons for specific purposes.  This would open up the opportunity to create different AI "personalities" which would eliminate, or at least reduce the level of predictability that Solver is talking about.  "Reactive" gameplay shouldn't just be a matter of the AI responding to the player, but should also be about the player responding to the AI.  If the AI behaves the same in every game, the player will soon pick up on the "one best choice" to counter them.  If the AI diversifies its activities, then the player must analyze his opponents actions, deduce his motives, and plan accordingly to counter them.

For example, if the player sees his opponent introducing plasma weapons earlier than expected, before lasers, then the player will adapt his strategy to find a means of countering those weapons.  If the equipment is sufficiently diversified as suggested above, then plasma weapons will have a weakness that the player can exploit.  In turn, the player's strategy will have its own weakness which his opponent will try to exploit, and so on and so forth to create a dynamic gaming experience.  Success becomes not so much a matter of who is the first one to get the big, shiny weapons but who is better able to adapt to their circumstances.

---

UFO:AI's research tree seems to be focused researching individual applications rather than theory.  Toward the idea of enhancing lateral research, I would suggest creating more research topics that would separate theory from application.  Let me explain.  Let's take for example a plasma pistol.  The reason we don't have plasma pistols today is because we haven't figured out how to effectively weaponize plasma.  It's not because we haven't figured out the use and manufacture of pistols.  We understand pistols, what their function is, how they work.  It's the plasma part that stumps us.  Therefore it's going to take us much, much longer to figure out how to effectively weaponize plasma than it will to apply that knowledge to pistol form after we've figured out the theory.

The way the tech tree appears to be set up now, research on all the different types of alien weapons within a technology tier is treated as independent of one another.  If you've researched the plasma pistol, that doesn't make researching the plasma rifle any easier.  What I'm suggesting is having all initial research into a weapon tier first focus on theory.  This theory stage of research is very intensive on captured alien technology; however, it doesn't distinguish between types of that technology, all equipment within that tier can contribute.  Once the theory is discovered, then the player can focus on individual applications.  The applications are much less intensive in terms of both research and captured alien equipment; however, only specific pieces of equipment can contribute (e.g. pistols to pistols, rifles to rifles).

In addition and as an alternative to researching theory, the player could also have the choice of researching the means to refit captured alien weapons for use in the field.  Alien weapons weren't designed for human physiology and thus not may not be immediately useful; however, it's relatively inexpensive to refit captured weapons as you don't have to understand how the technology works, just take advantage of its functionality.  Of course, this means that you would be unable to manufacture your own such weapons and be dependent on the supply that you can scavenge, but it creates a strategic quandary that the player must figure out on their own.  Basically it comes down to one of three options:

A) Invest the alien weapon toward researching theory, which will eventually allow much greater flexibility in manufacturing and utilizing that technology.
B) Sell it on the open market for cash which can be invested on other, different technologies and equipment.
C) Refit the weapon for field use.

Whichever of those options the player chooses will be determined by their preferences as an individual and the circumstances they face in the game.  It's not a matter of choosing one "best" strategy, though some strategies may have greater overall viability than others, but of adapting to circumstances.  Obviously it would be great to get the research boost, the cash, and to be able to field the weapon all at once, but the player must instead determine which option will best serve his immediate interests.  That's strategic decision making at work.

---

A final point on technology is that the tech tree seems to focus on the study of alien technology.  At first blush this would make sense; however, it seems to neglect fields where alien technology can advance human understanding of its existing technologies.  For instance, reverse engineering a UFO doesn't just improve your knowledge of that UFO but also allows you to advance the development of human engineered detection systems.  After all, once you have a good idea of what you're looking for, it's a lot easier to find it.  For another example, research into alien alloys and propellant might open up the opportunity to produce advanced projectile ammunition that could improve the late-game utility of terrestrial firearms that might otherwise be discarded.

This is technology that is distinctly oriented toward humanity but could be advanced with the introduction of knowledge gleaned from researching alien technology.  Therefore I see an opportunity to develop a whole branch of the tech tree that is human/player oriented but rationalized in the fiction of the game as being derived from the research he is performing on the aliens.

On a whole what I would like to see is a technology tree that enables the player to pursue diverse strategies rather than focus on particular game-winning lines of research.  The key here is diversity, establishing a set of complementary rather than conflicting or exclusive technologies.  As to -how- to go about doing that, I can't rightly say.  I haven't taken a look at the code yet.  But I'm throwing the idea out here to see if it's a direction the developers and community are interested in pursuing.

---

Next topic I want to touch on is the game's market economy.  It's been mentioned that cash is very dear at the start of the game but plentiful toward late game.  At first blush the obvious solution would be to make the market value for alien technology very high at the start of the game but gradually diminish as more and more pieces are introduced to the world market.  Look at it in terms of an auction.  You put your first alien blaster for sale on the market, the only one of its kind available on Earth, and you're going to get the highest bidder.  Put another alien blaster on the market, though, and it's no longer one of a kind.  The first bidder isn't really interested since he already has one so the second blaster goes to the next highest bidder at a reduced price, so on and so forth until alien blasters are commonplace and don't fetch much more than a terrestrial weapon.

This would change the dynamic of the economy as the player progresses in the game.  At the start, he can get by supplementing his income by selling off the occasional captured item; however, over time the player will be required to provide more and more quantities in order to make the same aggregate income.  That will force the player to either focus on capturing and recovering more exotic technology, which means the player will have to take care to use less destructive means when combating the aliens, or focus on manufacture which, pursuant to the section I wrote above, would have to be the result of a dedicated strategy and research plan.  And, of course, there's always the alternative of sucking up to nations for grant money.

How the player seeks its money is up to them, again I don't think there should be any "one best choice" but a combination of strategies based on an overall plan and the circumstances of the moment.  With declining prices based on the quantity of goods that have been introduced to the market, though, you establish a system that would inject more capital in the beginning of the game without inflation rending it worthless at the end.

Additionally, you could make nations more reluctant to fund grants if Phalanx has a lot of money on its hands.  If the player is regarded as particularly wealthy, nations might not see the point in continuing funding when they can put that money toward internal budgetary concerns.

---

Finally I wanted to say a few words on auto-calculated battles.  For my part, I think these are a good thing because when I started playing X-Com I was excited to invest myself in the strategic game.  I enjoyed the tactical game, too, and really you couldn't have a game based on X-Com that didn't emphasize turn-based tactical combat; however, for me it got to be tedious having to counter every single terror mission or raid every single downed UFO.  Base missions, either attacking the aliens or defending your own, those I could always understand as being pivotal moments worthy of my attention; however, the other missions tended to become mundane and tedious after you accomplished the first couple ones.  The terror missions in particular were annoying because you couldn't skip them lest you get your funding cut, lose support, and eventually lose the game, and a successful terror mission always left me feeling more like I was treading water than having had accomplished some achievement.

Based on what I've read on here, though, I infer that auto-calculated battles are regarded as a kind of exploit.  Or that the mentality is that since a player has chosen not to invest the time in playing out a battle that they shouldn't be rewarded or penalized accordingly for the outcome as if they had.  I can kind of understand this since any X-Com inspired game -ought- to have tactical combat as its foremost priority; however, I don't believe that means players should be denied options to place greater emphasis on the strategic game.  X-Com didn't have the balance I was looking for and it sounds like UFO:AI even more strongly favours tactical combat.

So what I would suggest is integrating auto-calculated battles as part of the game.  The means by which I would suggest doing that is by introducing a system of NPC leaders or "officers".  I don't know if UFO:AI has the same system but I recall the agents in X-Com achieving a higher military grade as they earned experience and the population of your agents grew.  When agents reached commissioned officer status, there wasn't a whole lot of use for them anymore since having one die in combat would incur a greater morale penalty than the bonus they imparted while they were alive.

So I'd like to see the opportunity to take these officers and assign them to lead missions on the player's behalf.  Each officer would have a set of unseen statistics that would nudge mission outcomes in terms of success, captured equipment, captured aliens, civilian losses, and Phalanx casualties.  This way each NPC officer would have his own "leadership style" that would determine how best they could be used.  In some cases an NPC officer might prove superior to the player, in other cases weaker.  Some might be suited to some missions while fail at others.  You might have an officer who is very effective at operations but have a tendency to get the agents under his command killed where another officer might be inclined to surrender the field to the aliens but bring his agents home safely and some fancy new alien tech to boot.

Because these statistics are unseen, the player understands that he is taking a risk by using an NPC leader; however, over time, the player will be able to judge from the officer's record what his strengths and weaknesses are and come to employ him optimally... if he wants.  If the player wants to focus on tactical combat, more power to him, this suggestion regarding using officers to auto-calc battles is a means of de-emphasizing tactical combat for players who are less interested in it while simultaneously making the strategic game more engaging.

Employing officers would also come at a cost.  First, because you're drawing your officer from your ranks of agents, that's one elite agent that you're not using in a combat capacity.  Additionally there could be a cool-down period before an officer can be used to lead a subsequent battle (darned paperwork!).  This will force the player to consider whether they want to use an officer right away or hold them back in reserve with the expectation that another, more appropriate mission will crop up soon after.  That's just more strategic decision making at hand.

Moreover, you could have it so that the player is required to invest in "command post" base modules.  This would mean that officers would come at the expense of using that base slot for something else, such as a research lab or warehouse, while also potentially limiting the area you can deploy that officer to battles to within a certain radius of their base.  You might have another Caesar on your hands, but he can only be in one place at a time.  The player would have to determine where his officers would be most effectively utilized and why.  If the player wants to focus on playing out the important tactical battles, he might assign an officer to a backwater base to mop up skirmishes.  Alternatively, if the player prefers leaving the large battles to his officers, he can assign them to bases that see plenty of action.  It's an in-game means of allowing the player to tailor the game experience to suit their preference.

---

Alright, in closing, I want to say that pretty much every thing I've said has been more with regard to X-Com than with UFO:AI.  Some of the above might not really apply, in which case, I hope you'll forgive me.

I think it's great that this project is in development and that it has advanced so far.  Games like this, labours of love rather than profit-driven enterprises, are really an inspiration.  Thanks for the opportunity to get my gears spinning and write this post.

Pages: [1]