Print

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

[Aqizzar]

On the other hand, they seem like they have a design philosophy that would find the optimum number, whatever it is. It looks like team sizes will definitely be smaller, though.

You never know what they might change - they're certainly trying to cut down on the tedious micromanagement that X-COM was built from, but by doing so, it makes managing twenty soldiers a lot more reasonable.  They do seem to be going for a more "personality centric" design though, fewer soldiers but more investment and customization in each of them.  Kind of like a tactical RPG, which X-COM sort of was, just kinda primitive.

[Cthulhu]

I almost never used more than twelve guys.  Even when I did I never had more than six I actually cared about.  The rest were reaction fire sponges.

[Werdna]

Did anyone really enjoy the large squad sizes in the original?  I thought it was ultra-tedious to manage more than 8, and I frequently just left spare "redshirts" behind in the shuttle if I brought them at all.  12 guys to hunt down aliens spread out all piece-meal all over a map was just overkill.  Now, 12 guys to face off against an organized defensive position, that would be another story and a mission type I'd welcome.

[Mephansteras]

I enjoyed the large groups, especially on terror missions. They let me split up into decent sized teams to explore the map effectively. Especially when you were fighting enemies that might need more than a few hits to take out.

[Gunner-Chan]

For me more than 6 + a tank was annoying to control. So I don't really think I'd personally miss the big squads. More men after a point just meant more misfires anyway.

[Darkmere]

I generally stuck with 12. Squad of 4 for big objectives, 2 squads of 3 for flanking and building sweeps, psionic and blaster launcher guarding the ship. Tanks as needed.

However, that many were rarely always useful. After my sniper found a good place to hide, his/her escort squad didn't do much. More than 8 tended to stumble over each other, even on intact battleships. I'd be open to smaller squads, especially if end-mission mop-up were more concentrated.

[GlyphGryph]

6-8+tank or 2 soldiers with blaster launchers that lived in the ship was my standard "maximum" team size.

4-5 seems far too few, but more than 10 was just dreafully tiresome and most would stand around twiddling their thumbs until they got blown up by stray grenade.

Since they have said there will be tanks and stuff, I'd like to imagine that, once again, we'll be following the Valkyrie Chronicles sort of system, and the tanks won't count towards your unit totals. And who knows - you may have situations, like terror missions, where more soldiers are allowed simply because its a bigger map. 4-6 man teams might just be the standard response to a UFO or alien sighting.

[MrWiggles]

Everyone is bitching about this troop limit, and I dont really understand why.

First, you always end up with about 4-5 really good troops. With the rest being just cannon fodder, near worthless individuals. In my play throughs, I dont even bother to bring them along.

Heck, even in the early game, you only have 4-5 good to really good troops, just due to the RnG of the various troop stats.

It sounds like its cutting down fat, cutting down mgm., cutting down resources and time to equipping your squad with the better equipment.

[Cthulhu]

4 is a little on the low side.  I would be happy with six.  Any more just becomes tedious.  If that means individual soldiers are more resilient, so be it.  Games like Jagged Alliance and Silent Storm have shown that a game doesn't have to kill everyone in a single hit to be unforgiving and difficult.

Remember:  A game's design is perfect not when there's nothing left to add, but when there's nothing left to take away.  So far all the decisions I've seen about this game are to that end, and I'd expect nothing less from Sid Meier's outfit.

[Mephansteras]

It's really personal choice, though. I love running around with lots of troops in the original, and early on I burn through a ton of them. Later on, yeah, it's not as big of a deal for most missions despite the fact that you can bring a lot more troops in the Avenger.

My real concern is scope. With only 4 troops, the number of aliens has to be equally small to make the menace seem reasonable. If your 4 or 5 guys can blow away a dozen aliens, they stop being scary and more just a minor threat. That's ok when you have Flying Powered armor and the best weapons in the game, but early on? That's just sad. And taking 4 guys in to deal with 2 or 3 sectoids just seems a bit lame.

To be clear, though, I'm voicing this as my concern with the game. We haven't heard anything definite yet so I'm not really passing judgement. But it's the one area that hasn't been covered well in the interviews and the one point that I'm watching closely. Smaller teams may be great with how they set up the missions, but it's just to soon to tell.

[Virtz]

4 is a little on the low side.  I would be happy with six.  Any more just becomes tedious.  If that means individual soldiers are more resilient, so be it.  Games like Jagged Alliance and Silent Storm have shown that a game doesn't have to kill everyone in a single hit to be unforgiving and difficult.

Remember:  A game's design is perfect not when there's nothing left to add, but when there's nothing left to take away.  So far all the decisions I've seen about this game are to that end, and I'd expect nothing less from Sid Meier's outfit.

Silent Storm was pretty easy, barring scenarios where it stuck you in a position surrounded by enemies at the start. And the offset of both those examples was that the units weren't generic goons. They had personalities (especially in JA2).

More valid comparisons would be to Apocalypse, or the UFO: After* series, where you controlled a limited number of generic, unexpendable mooks. Those got totally tedious and boring to me after a dozen or so missions. And the aliens' inability to kill my people ruined any sense of them being a threat. It just made them look like the most inept invasion force ever.

[lordcooper]

Starting off with a limit of four makes a hell of a lotta sense when the enemy is, in fact, unknown.  They don't even know there are aliens at the beginning, according to that video.

[nenjin]

I prefer the illusion that every playable character is at risk. When you're stuck with the same guys growing ever better, it doesn't feel like a simulation, it feels like a story where you happen to be able to fuck up and try to get the story right. Having better characters survive/rise to the top from among their peers makes it seem like they achieved something. Rather than having their success plotted before hand.

[lordcooper]

I prefer the illusion that every playable character is at risk. When you're stuck with the same guys growing ever better, it doesn't feel like a simulation, it feels like a story where you happen to be able to fuck up and try to get the story right. Having better characters survive/rise to the top from among their peers makes it seem like they achieved something. Rather than having their success plotted before hand.

He explicitly stated at several points that characters can and will die.

I'm also seeing that all that freaking out about TUs was a little silly too.  We have a limited number of actions per turn, so players still need to decide whether to risk shooting again or move to cover etc.

E: Oh, and Firaxis know of DF.  Awesome!

[Aqizzar]

I don't suppose there's been any mention of sending more than one transport to a site?  That was one issue I had with the original X-COM, and was one of the most important changes in Apocalypse.  If you could do that here, all of these questions would be resolved instantly.