Author Topic: X-com's tactical inferiority  (Read 8077 times)

Offline Camalex97

  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
X-com's tactical inferiority
« on: April 24, 2014, 03:20:14 pm »
i meen seriously, its like they aren't even trying sometimes! they barely use any equiptment that could help them greatly improve their position over the alien threat, making their jobs way more dangerous and putting the lives of civilians at risk aswell! i meen they could be using fortified chokepoints in their bases, mounted machine guns, automated turrets (or operated from a distance), they could have tripmines, shotguns, sholder mounted flashlights, night vision, flamethrowers, and soooo many other things... anyone else ever feel this way too?

Offline kharille

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: X-com's tactical inferiority
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2014, 05:20:30 pm »
Maybe things weren't so good in 94'.  I remember they said there were really poor air to surface missiles, nothing like what you have these days.  Nothing like the surgical precision stuff, drones, uav technology and improved targeting systems... 

Oh and Julian Gollop said the last 3 months were hell when they rushed it to get it ready for release....

Offline Camalex97

  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
Re: X-com's tactical inferiority
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2014, 07:20:46 pm »
Maybe things weren't so good in 94'.  I remember they said there were really poor air to surface missiles, nothing like what you have these days.  Nothing like the surgical precision stuff, drones, uav technology and improved targeting systems... 

Oh and Julian Gollop said the last 3 months were hell when they rushed it to get it ready for release....

i know it was 1994 but even then they had sholder mounted flashlights in the movie alien (1970's), but i'm not really saying that its a bad thing, its just funny that they use so little of the inventions the human race had invented wich would be invaluable to the effort and how little they even try to do to defend their bases sometimes it seems because its not even fortified when its getting attacked 3/4 times a month!

Offline kharille

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
    • View Profile
Re: X-com's tactical inferiority
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2014, 07:27:58 pm »
A thought game to mind.  Even in laser squad, they had a video surveillance system....

Surely you can see all aliens attacking your base?  maybe they could create some 'command centre' like what they have in the 2012 game...

and there were no LED lights, impact resistant and efficient, unlike those primitive mercury filled fluorescent lights.....

Offline Solarius Scorch

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 11721
  • WE MUST DISSENT
    • View Profile
    • Nocturmal Productions modding studio website
Re: X-com's tactical inferiority
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2014, 08:22:09 pm »
Some defense turrets would be nice to see. On the other hand, the alien force would require a significant boost... ;)

Offline Camalex97

  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
Re: X-com's tactical inferiority
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2014, 09:08:32 pm »
Some defense turrets would be nice to see. On the other hand, the alien force would require a significant boost... ;)

maybe they could be like civilians in terror missions? but unable to move and stuck to overwatch spawning in places like hangars, elevators, and choke points?

Offline Solarius Scorch

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 11721
  • WE MUST DISSENT
    • View Profile
    • Nocturmal Productions modding studio website
Re: X-com's tactical inferiority
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2014, 09:35:32 pm »
maybe they could be like civilians in terror missions? but unable to move and stuck to overwatch spawning in places like hangars, elevators, and choke points?

- One turret in a hangar,

- Two turrets around the main lift,

- One turret per corridor section.

This should be balanced. :)

(Of course, all turrets are relatively easy to destroy, as they can't run and work automatically.)

Offline Camalex97

  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
Re: X-com's tactical inferiority
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2014, 10:10:22 pm »
- One turret in a hangar,

- Two turrets around the main lift,

- One turret per corridor section.

This should be balanced. :)

(Of course, all turrets are relatively easy to destroy, as they can't run and work automatically.)

maybe  have one turret above each of the rooms with doors in the hangar?  also maybe have them do different things? like maybe one in the hangar spams fire from an auto cannon esque weapons or another one shoots explosive rounds/ small rockets then the ones in the hallways shoot bullets/lasers.  also maybe we could have ones you could take out on missions with you? maybe they could be like corpses but you can pack them and revive them or something? would be invaluable for terror missions and guarding an LZ and chokepoints in alien bases (and save tons of time looking for aliens quite possibly)  if anyone wants to stick to a roleplay kind of thing they could make them moveable and just get them in position then trust themselves to not abuse that (i guess if they wanted anyways)

Offline Solarius Scorch

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 11721
  • WE MUST DISSENT
    • View Profile
    • Nocturmal Productions modding studio website
Re: X-com's tactical inferiority
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2014, 10:21:59 pm »
maybe  have one turret above each of the rooms with doors in the hangar?  also maybe have them do different things? like maybe one in the hangar spams fire from an auto cannon esque weapons or another one shoots explosive rounds/ small rockets then the ones in the hallways shoot bullets/lasers.

I don't know how to handle damage type and power, perhaps they should be updated automatically. And yes, I kinda like differentiation by room, makes things simpler.

also maybe we could have ones you could take out on missions with you? maybe they could be like corpses but you can pack them and revive them or something? would be invaluable for terror missions and guarding an LZ and chokepoints in alien bases (and save tons of time looking for aliens quite possibly)  if anyone wants to stick to a roleplay kind of thing they could make them moveable and just get them in position then trust themselves to not abuse that (i guess if they wanted anyways)

But we already have this feature! The turrets are called Heavy Weapon Platforms and even have threads to move on. :) X-Com is a lightning reaction force, which wouldn't make use of immobile weapon turrets, but they do have mobile ones.

Offline Camalex97

  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
Re: X-com's tactical inferiority
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2014, 02:34:50 pm »
But we already have this feature! The turrets are called Heavy Weapon Platforms and even have threads to move on. :) X-Com is a lightning reaction force, which wouldn't make use of immobile weapon turrets, but they do have mobile ones.

i mean like to secure the area around your ship when your team is outside if it or if you want to keep the e vac point in an alien base  safe also although it would mostly be used for base defense.  (also about them being a lightning reaction force, i kinda like to go slow and just move slowly down hallways to minimize casualties and maximize profit amount of useless plasma weapons i get)

Offline Ran

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 196
    • View Profile
Re: X-com's tactical inferiority
« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2014, 12:07:09 am »
Why only give XCOM the advantage?
To be fair, aliens should get these improvements for their bases as well. I mean - they don't even have any surface to air defense at all.

Offline Souljah1214

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: X-com's tactical inferiority
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2014, 03:12:11 pm »
i think the aliens should have all the advantages they can get... since they want to conquer Earth with highly advanced technology. And Earth has been caught with its pant down.... so i think we should make the early game phase more harder (on any level) to resemble the underdog feeling

Offline darkestaxe

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
  • Emissary of the Brain
    • View Profile
Re: X-com's tactical inferiority
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2014, 10:40:52 am »
So here's a list of things we had in 1994 that x-com somehow lacks in 1999

1. Flares that costed less then $60.
2. First-Aid
3. Long Range surface to air missles
4. handcuffs
5. bayonets
6. Sniper Rifles
7. Shotguns
8. Anti-Materiel Rifles (that don't care if there's a wooden wall between you and the alien)
9. Browning 50c Heavy Machine Guns  (that don't care what is between you and all the aliens)
10. Grenades that went BOOOM not puff.
11. CS tear gas
12. Flash-bangs
13. Grenade Launchers
14. And yes, the ability to call in an airstrike

Here's a list that even the most unrealistically optimistic futurists would never have hoped to have achieved by 2000 in 1994 and yet X-COM managed to do by 1999.
1. Mach 3.2
2. hand-held laser guns with unlimited ammo
3. A global range .5 mach VTOL troop and tank carrier that's too lightweight to mount a frikkin minigun (or Mavericks)


Oh, and they do have shoulder/forehead lights in X-COM. Why do you think it's lighter around your soldier then farther away? It's just that in a 1994 video game a high fidelity implementation of a head lamp in a realtime rendered 3d environment is a round lit area instead of a square lit area. X-COM went the full extra mile and even tapered the light off with distance to the light sources. Rendering directional lighting on top of all that would have been downright silly and would have alienated 80286 users like me.