Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Strongpoint]

Your investigate is something like somehow get more info after victorious battles.

That is true, yes.

Investigatory Units in the short term will be good for getting a better idea of the situation during and after missions. So we're more aware of what the aliens were trying to do, if there's any alien influence, EXALT influence, and the like.

Well, it is exactly how I understood the intention from the beginning

And I think this approach is very impractical. Design action for a mission like that is quite expensive. We are always short on UP and the only scenario when I see us spending UP on that is when we have no other uses for NOTSOFTERS

Why I think my approach for investigation unit is far more practical

1) Yours spend tokens in a very illogical way. a) Hey, combat veterans, you train with each other sharing all experience you got in combat! BTW, you are better investigators now. b)We tell you, part of X-COM, what we, X-COM already know about Exalt. Hope it helps you.  Compare that to my a) Hey guys, we have some experience fighting aliens and want to share it with you, b) we got some very interesting data on Exalt guys..... I'd prefer your revision without tokens to your revision with tokens

2) IAC teams are a better source material for doing investigation work. NOTSOFTERS are trained to fight aliens. IAC teams is a mix of special forces and some of them are (counter)intelligence by design. They have legal authority. They know their regions.

3) Passive effect that I try to achieve far outweighs some mythical "NOTSOFTER+" unit investigates battle site and gets some clues. Actually, I think, X-COM sends actual investigators and scientists to the site after the resolution of the battle.

4) While importance of a single VP is going down, it is not nothing. Should we go investigation mission, (I think it is when we have no reason to send units to combat, like when enemy already launched) I prefer to not spend VP on them. You may ask "but what if we want to send investigation team outside of "IAC zone?" In that case we load them into a Skyranger. IAC can be used outside of their zone they just need transport for that like any other unit.

5) Further revision potential. After revising IAC teams that way, we can upgrade them further with the most obvious direction being decreasing their cost. It is harder to come with useful upgrades for NOTSOFTER

6) UP cost. There are non-zero chance that NOTSOFTER+ will cost more than 1UP. You are hand picking among already highly trained individuals and train them further that looks like more U for me. My revision just expands cooperation and nations have huge pool of specialists to pull from, I think it is far less likely to see U cost increase

7) I see only one reason to go for this NOTSOFTER+ over my proposal. By asking someone else to do intelligence work for you, you are increasing the chance of leaks and give them some power over you and it is always better to be independent. But it is the cost I am willing to take

[Chiefwaffles]

1.) Nope. I clearly explain it. We use our unit experience token to make our units better. We also use our EXALT token to make our units better at recognizing and fighting EXALT.
Wow. It's almost like I explained it in the design.

2.) Where do you think we get NOTSOFTER recruits from, and how do you know that IAC teams are different?

3.) "I think" is not a valid point here, and you try to achieve an ambitious passive effect among multiple other revision-worthy items all in one revision.

4.) "WE SHOULDN'T USE VP TO TRANSPORT TEAMS FOR INVESTIGATION," Strongpoint says, immediately before saying that we should use VP to transport his version of teams for investigation.
And there's a thing called "non-bleeding-edge-transport." The Skyranger is just used when time is of the essence. Like when we're dealing with quick alien incursions. Investigations would be low-enough priority enough that we'd never have to use the Skyranger. They can just take a regular plane or car or train or boat or whatever. Unlike upgraded IAC, which has to use the Skyranger --oh, wait, IAC teams can't use the Skyranger, that's right.
Because they can't. Have you read the description for them? It's "they can only be deployed in their countries", not "they can only be deployed in their countries UNLESS YOU HAVE A SKYRANGER READY THAT IS." And your revision does nothing to address this.

5.) Or we could just upgrade our NOTSOFTER instead and not try to turn IAC into "NOTSOFTER but worse".

6.) Actually, your revision explicitly sends XCOM personnel to train these guys. That's a huge expenditure worthy of a UP increase.

7.) I mean, sure that's a benefit to Investigatory Units, but you couldn't be more wrong about that being the only reason.
EDIT: Hell, actually, when thinking about that this is a really really really really really bad flaw.

"Hey, guys," says Director Strongpoint in an address to the new IAC investigation teams. "We know you're only indirectly working for us and actually report directly to your country's leaders, but could you do us a solid and investigate your country for us? Sure, your country's leaders may be alien collaborators and, well, sure, they may have direct control over your intelligence gathered and everything you do, and I guess it's only through their grace and good will that we can even have any influence over IAC teams, but hey, I'm feeling confident that there will be no betrayals whatsoever here. None at all."

[Strongpoint]

NOTSOFTEREST : Unit experience token
NOTSOFTEREST (EST = elite strike team) are the best of the best. Physically strong X-COM veterans gathered in a special unit specialized in a close quarters combat. Most of them were masters of some martial art even before joining X-COM. In addition to standard mission equipment they carry full sized melee weapons that fully benefit from modern metallurgy, (Titanium alloys with a tiny bit of alien influence) and modern plate armors designed to withstand Mimic's natural weapons (again what X-COM metallurgy can offer + some kevlar\ceramic\other modern materials where it is more practical). Naturally, they can equip more advanced armors instead once those will become available.
Because one of the key goals of the elite strike team is capturing alive aliens for interrogation they spend a significant time of their training with Xenobiologists learning about enemy physiology and ways how to disable (or kill) them effectively.


_____________

I prefer that both to "investigator-soldiers" and just spending revision on armor. You may say that I am greedy rolling unit revision and equipment revision but I think reinventing medieval stuff is that trivial. Suggestion are welcome, especially ones that can integrate more tokens.

[Chiefwaffles]

...what.


You...
...you want to design hybrid melee equipment, alien plate armor, train them in CQC and train a Unit in capturing aliens alive?

How?
How do you even think this is viable?
Are you doing this on purpose?

Seriously. What the hell?

[Strongpoint]

...what.


You...
...you want to design hybrid melee equipment, alien plate armor, train them in CQC and train a Unit in capturing aliens alive?

How?
How do you even think this is viable?
Are you doing this on purpose?

Seriously. What the hell?

Yes, I absolutely think it is viable. None of those looks like overly complex stuff. I won't be surprised if it will be a hard revision but that's fine for me.

[Strongpoint]

1.) Nope. I clearly explain it. We use our unit experience token to make our units better. We also use our EXALT token to make our units better at recognizing and fighting EXALT.
Wow. It's almost like I explained it in the design.

Aren't even trying to think about what tokens represent here, nice. I hope GM doesn't look at tokens that lightly and takes into account what they actually represent outside of game mechanics element called tokens

2.) Where do you think we get NOTSOFTER recruits from, and how do you know that IAC teams are different?

We are getting NOTSOFTER from training with various agencies, taking what we need from them and combining different models for the purpose of fighting aliens. IAC teams are our connections and friends in various spec ops that have various branches

3.) "I think" is not a valid point here, and you try to achieve an ambitious passive effect among multiple other revision-worthy items all in one revision.

*yawns* yep sure. 90% of your argument are in the "I think" category. Not that I think are bad argument in a game like arms race.

4.) "WE SHOULDN'T USE VP TO TRANSPORT TEAMS FOR INVESTIGATION," Strongpoint says, immediately before saying that we should use VP to transport his version of teams for investigation.

Of course we'll prefer to look in the three IAC regions first saving that VP. It is obvious

5.) Or we could just upgrade our NOTSOFTER instead and not try to turn IAC into "NOTSOFTER but worse".

Well, if you fail to see IAC potential that NOTSOFTER can't provide... I can't help that and I am tired explaining obvious things. They are not NOTSOFTER but worse.

6.) Actually, your revision explicitly sends XCOM personnel to train these guys. That's a huge expenditure worthy of a UP increase.

It is a one time investment fully represented in the revision itself

Have you read the description for them? It's "they can only be deployed in their countries", not "they can only be deployed in their countries UNLESS YOU HAVE A SKYRANGER READY THAT IS.

Inter Agency Cooperation teams : As part of ties developed through the NOTSOFTER training regime, we now have the capability of drawing upon special force teams. They're not as well suited to fight aliens as we're however, and nations will object if we keep losing them. Cost 1 Unit Point    [SPECIAL : Can't use XCOM GEAR, No vehicle needed for deployment when used in North America/South America or Europe]
One doesn't need much intelligence to understand that "when" here implies that they can be used outside of three listed regions but need a vehicle. So, HAVE YOU READ THE DESCRIPTION OF THEM? You need to train your reading skills if you did.

[Madman198237]

Anti mimic training of Inter agency cooperation teams (2): Strongpoint, Pavellius
Rockbreaker Missiles Mk. 2 (0):
XH-3 Railgun (3): Chiefwaffles, Happerry, Madman
ARC Thrower (0):
Investigatory Unit (3): Chiefwaffles, Blood_Librarian, Happerry
PLATE: (1) Madman

I hate to tie it up, but I think we need an infantry improvement more than we need immediate investigation ability. Also, I think that a unit type and a mission type could be combined into a design Soon^TM, so we don't have to spend additional UP (I can't imagine that we'd get both a combat-capable and investigation-capable unit for the same price, since we'd need one unit to do both to be worth deploying without a special mission).

[Strongpoint]

Anti mimic training of Inter agency cooperation teams (2): Strongpoint, Pavellius
Rockbreaker Missiles Mk. 2 (0):
XH-3 Railgun (3): Chiefwaffles, Happerry, Madman
ARC Thrower (0):
Investigatory Unit (4): Chiefwaffles, Blood_Librarian, Happerry, strongpoint
PLATE: (1) Madman

Lesser evil kind of vote

[Madman198237]

...

Lesser evil than letting our guys continue to get wrecked on the field because they're unarmored and improperly armed for close combat?

[Strongpoint]

...

Lesser evil than letting our guys continue to get wrecked on the field because they're unarmored and improperly armed for close combat?

I think this railgun revision isn't doing enough. Plus I am allergic to revisions that don't use tokens when we sit on a pile of them.

Also, I am curious to see how GM will interpret that investigation unit, while I think it is a bad idea in this form, at least it is not boringly straightforward.

[Chiefwaffles]

I'm going to re-tie it, sorry.

Because on second thought I don't think we can properly rely on having one more unit to help at ground. An Investigatory Unit would be really useful (and I agree with Madman's notion that we should do a combo Unit/Mission design soon™) but I think we almost desperately need something to directly help our infantry. Investigatory Units don't hurt our infantry, but at best they're no better than a different NOTSOFTER.

Whereas the XH-3 is easy. It takes advantage of the fact that we've been manufacturing and using the XH-2 for a while now, it takes advantage of the fact that we have made three different railgun designs. All for something that's somewhat minor in terms of complexity while being a huge advantage.
When we're fighting aliens that outnumber us at least 2:1 (if we deploy 3 units) and likely worse, and a good portion of those aliens prefer to fight at close range, we desperately need to stop giving every soldier a freaking sniper rifle and give them something that will massively improve performance.


Not that I'm rooting against Investigatory Units. I'd just slightly prefer the XH-3 over it.

Anti mimic training of Inter agency cooperation teams (2): Strongpoint, Pavellius
Rockbreaker Missiles Mk. 2 (0):
XH-3 Railgun (3): Chiefwaffles, Happerry, Madman
ARC Thrower (0):
Investigatory Unit (3): Blood_Librarian, Happerry, strongpoint
PLATE: (1) Madman

So to sum up what I just said.
- Investigatory Unit is nice but we really need better infantry combat right now.
- XH-3 is easy and should be extremely effective.
- We can use a design soon™ to make both the Investigatory Unit and a basic mission for them at the same time, eliminating the chicken-egg problem.

[Madman198237]

I point out that the easy solution to being outnumbered is to make it take them more effort to kill each individual soldier.

Vote PLATE, make those aliens regret trying to get medieval with their close-combat shenanigans!

[Strongpoint]

Or one can vote for a specialized close combat unit. It will work far better than armor alone. We got alien containment, getting guys that can capture those aliens alive is a good route

[Madman198237]

No, no it won't, because they'll STILL GET SHOT, but they'll have the added advantage of only being able to fight at close range, where it's even EASIER to shoot them.

[Chiefwaffles]

It'd be a really bad idea to have a close combat unit when right now every soldier uses a glorified sniper rifle and getting shot is pretty much a 100% death rate.

We should definitely have armor and better close-range weaponry before we try to do a close-range combat unit (and no, we cannot develop close-range weaponry in the same revision as a close-range unit because that's not how ARs work). I'd prefer it if the armor was something like Hunter Armor, but even Madman's plate armor would work.


Right now our gear leads to a strategy of "stand very very far away and pick them off." Our gun is - again - a glorified sniper rifle. Our armor is nonexistent. We even have a SCOPE for our gun. We have visors that highlight targets but are super unergonomic (and thus not great for mobility) and unreliable.
We should wait until we have gear better fit for close-range combat.