Print

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

[Furtuka]

I always saw the autocannon as being a portable minigun.

mee to, something firing small shells instead of large bullets

I remember seeing an interesting theory on tvtropes that the auto cannons were Gyrojets

[Ozyton]

The autocannon seemed more like some kind of hybrid between a grenade launcher and a large caliber rifle. From what I remember, there was actually a regular 'cannon' weapon you could use, but you never used it because you had access to the autocanon which was the same thing with auto fire but was heavier and harder to aim or something. Large caliber rifles do exist, but they probably wouldn't destroy a whole section of wall in one shot. Then again, a couple shots from the assault rifle could take down a wall in game too, so...

Didn't really resemble much of a rifle though, which is where the 'grenade launcher' seems to fit in.

Speaking of grenades, I hope they have smoke grenades, and flares.

It would also be interesting if rocket launchers had HE and AP rockets too, so you would need to be more careful with oh wait infinite ammo lululululul

[Kolbur]

I wonder how this Move+Action system is supposed to work in regard to scouting. This was a pretty important part of the original and I moved my scouts in many little steps in tense situations (like turning corners etc.) to make sure they don't get reaction fire to their face. This was due to the simultaneous spotting rule that meant the aliens don't get reaction fire in the moment the agent gets into their vision if the agent faces their direction (and thus spots them). Or how to make a step and change their facing to scout out corners and then move on to the next corner, change facing again to scout all possible directions and then move back into cover. Or advancing out of a smoke screen with my agents simultaneously...
I can't imagine this without a TU system other than by removing facing and giving all around vision which would be the dumbed down thing to do.

[a1s]

removing facing and giving all around vision which would be the dumbed down thing to do.

Oh, that's coming- the game would be througly broken if you could only face one way per turn (at least during your own turn- reaction fire could have cones)

[Domenique]

removing facing and giving all around vision which would be the dumbed down thing to do.

Oh, that's coming- the game would be througly broken if you could only face one way per turn (at least during your own turn- reaction fire could have cones)

I don't know, It may just cust nothing and that's all. It used to cost 1 anyway.

[Cthulhu]

I was okay with facing until I cleared a room in Silent Storm only to have a Nazi literally pop out of thin air (I'm guessing he was in, like, the one square I never had in my line of sight or some bullshit) and gun down the Irish girl.  It was stupid.  It made no sense.  She walked all the way through that room and never saw a guy standing right there in plain sight.

[LoSboccacc]

facing is an abstraction and does have it's limitations.

it's better than nothing however. there should be some penalty somewhere if you screw up your 360 coverage.

[Aqizzar]

Yes, if there's a trend I'm picking up in X-COM here, and this is all based on little more speculation at this point obviously, its that Firaxis is trying to maintain the spirit of the old game without total adherence to mechanics.  I see very little wrong with the (theoretical!) abstraction of facing and viewpoints - instead of having to micromanage which direction every guy in the squad is facing, like a bunch of robots, you can assume they are acting like human beings and checking over their shoulders once in a while.

The main problem I could see with a design like this (if it indeed is what's happening, which we don't know), it's that it makes sneaking up on an alien from behind essentially impossible.  But then, as everyone who's played X-COM of yore knows, if you are lucky enough to find an alien who's facing away from you (usually because they're panicking), you get about one turn to act on it anyway, since they know which way they're being shot at from.

[a1s]

the game would be througly broken if you could only face one way per turn (at least during your own turn- reaction fire could have cones)

I don't know, It may just cust nothing and that's all. It used to cost 1 anyway.

Think it through, if they make it cost nothing, then the smart way to play would be to face every direction in turn, every turn, for every agent. This is not fun. So they'll just abstract it away in the "let's not and say we already did" fashion. Now facing after your turn (especially for overwatch,) that could matter.

[Domenique]

Yes, if there's a trend I'm picking up in X-COM here, and this is all based on little more speculation at this point obviously, its that Firaxis is trying to maintain the spirit of the old game without total adherence to mechanics.  I see very little wrong with the (theoretical!) abstraction of facing and viewpoints - instead of having to micromanage which direction every guy in the squad is facing, like a bunch of robots, you can assume they are acting like human beings and checking over their shoulders once in a while.

The main problem I could see with a design like this (if it indeed is what's happening, which we don't know), it's that it makes sneaking up on an alien from behind essentially impossible.  But then, as everyone who's played X-COM of yore knows, if you are lucky enough to find an alien who's facing away from you (usually because they're panicking), you get about one turn to act on it anyway, since they know which way they're being shot at from.

Sneaking from behind was crucial in TFTD (drilling the lobsters), also the armor in the back is usually lower so shooting in the back has it's uses in EU too. If an Ethereal notices your plasma pass by it doesn't necessarily mean that he will be able to psi-something you.

[Vherid]

The only thing I'm really worried about that I can't seem to figure out is if we will be able to use more then 4 people at a time per mission.

[Aqizzar]

The only thing I'm really worried about that I can't seem to figure out is if we will be able to use more then 4 people at a time per mission.

I'm going to take this wild guess that the tech-demo they ran for a press-demo was not indicative of every single aspect of the final game.

Think: Why would they decide to only use four soldiers per mission?  What possible reason could there be for such a design decision?

[sluissa]

I'll agree with Aqizzar here. Don't worry about the 4 people thing for now. I'm guessing if it was a press demo, they were cutting things down so that people could get an idea of how it played without having to devote too much time to it. 4 is a good enough size for a quick demo of a tactical game. 8+ could slow things down if you were trying to give a group of people equal time with the game on a few computers or had other things for them to look at as well.

The only thing I might be worried about is copying the UFO:After* series' pattern where you were limited to only 6 or 8 per mission. (I believe. It's been a while since I played those) I'd like to see 20-30+ soldiers possible for some of the more difficult missions. I know the Avenger from the original could hold well over 20.

[LoSboccacc]

I've no problem with streamlined mechanics and what not, and loved ufo aftermath and aftershock (yes I'm pretending the mars 'toony one doesn't exists)
 
the point is not the streamlining. it's the name stealing. call it ufo whatever, and I'll be fine. call it enemy unknown 2, enemy unknown: modern ages: electric boogaloo, but don't pretend to call it a remake hoping that I'm stupid and won't notice the differences.

most of the stuff that we know up till now are game changing, for better or worse.

[Domenique]

I'll agree with Aqizzar here. Don't worry about the 4 people thing for now.

It was stated that at the beggining you get 4 guys squad and can upgrade it to more. I hope it's just an idea they're trying, I mean the game is still pretty much a pre-alpha. I am also worried by this though.

Sauce: http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread.php?117098-New-info-from-game-informer!

The sauce may be wrong though, it's not a direct statement from the devs.