number of starting soldiers

[TrashMan]

IMHO, it's not something that should change with difficulty..New recruits per month...maybe even the quality of recruits..


but on game start you should be presented with a good pool of soldiers. Why? So you can select those you like the best..Not only stat-wise but appeareance wise.
Maybe it doesn't sound important to some, but for some people it is incredibly important.

Now I'm the kind of player that will drop the Sword of Demons +30 and keep his Sword of Frost +5 if the Sword of Frost looks better 8and more functional) or simply "feels" better. (If I play a palading, no way I'm wielding a demonic sword).
Similar with every other game, I like to be picky with who I put in my team/fleet.

that's why I think a player should be able to either create at least 1 or 2 soldiers himself (set apperance and stats) or start with a bigger pool of soldiers. Let's face it - 8 soldiers to start with? For a elite, multi-government organization?

[DanielOR]

"because you needed the best of the best of the best, Sir!"

[TrashMan]

I'm saying 8 is too few to pick a team you might like, both apperance-wise and stats-wise.

[Sacrusha]

It is expected that during the course of the game you will lose lots of soldiers, if you play at an appropriate difficulty level. If the player becomes too attached to the troopers a loss will merely be more frustrating than it has to be. Thus, I personally don't think allowing "customizable" soldiers will improve the game.

What I'd like to see is a constant limited pool of recruits which is "preselected" from a larger pool that is invisible to the player, to avoid having to scan through dozens of soldiers in order to replace one loss.

[TrashMan]

It's not advisable to try to force a play style you like to others.

Yes, I lost soldiers during my game, but those were all from my "lesser" teams.
I don't tolerate losses of important team members (5-6 of them are critical, the deaths of others I can tolerate), and I'm far from alone in this regard.


On a side note, I actually found myself recreating my team from JA2 without relizing it.
My military-hair & cigar smoking heavy weapons expert - "Grizzly"
My blonde expert sniper - "Scope"
My close combat grunt - "Bull"

etc...
LOL

[Falion]

Have to agree with you Trashman, I get completely attached to my team...too lose the good ones is "unacceptable" in any scenario. I'd replay an engagement from start to finish 10 times, if it meant not losing the team members I deem "core". I don't / won't to lose them...they are just too hard to replace...and they become like old friends after awhile.

[TrashMan]

Yup...and that's why you need a good starting selection..so that you can build that "core" team you like.

[Aiki-Knight]

Of course, the best commander (from a soldier's point of view) is the one who finds all losses unacceptable, even if they are unavoidable.

[TrashMan]

I kept trying to start a new game several times, but the starting soldiers were so horrible (awful skills, terrible looks) that I still havent started a new game.

[shevegen]

I think he has one valid point - there should be at least 8 soldiers available from the very beginning.

Whether he buys them, or gets them for "free", doesnt matter. How are we supposed to fight
aliens if noone is there to fight them :-)

[TrashMan]

One way to go about it is to either create your first 8 soldiers yourself OR (and maybe better) is to have 100 initial recruits, BUT you an only select 8 and the others vanish after that, and the recruitment pool is filled normally after that.

[DanielOR]

TrashMan,

I like your idea of having a ton of soldiers available but only 8-10 can actually be hired - gives some flixibility.  Stands to reason that, depending on a commander's style the pick a different team - some might want a sniper-heavy group for slow-and-methodical approach, other want people with HE and Close skills for "grenade saturation + rush in" style.