🚀 go-pugleaf

Actually, there is still demand for turn-based games. The problem with Apoc
was primarily that they concentrated on the RT aspect of the gameplay. It
would be extremely tiring to manage all your agents on the huge maps that
Apoc had.

Having 50 X-Com agents may sound cool, but isn't X-Com about small unit
tactics? Getting to know your individual agents rather than queing up a
whole group of agents? Just a thought.

Talos skrev i meddelandet <199809291...@zetnet.co.uk>...
>Hmm. These points you have raised, are very interesting, but I think
>you are looking at things, from YOUR point of view. Sadly, TBG's are
>becomming things of the past, with the "new generation" of gammers,
>looking for a RTS game, that require no thinking nor very little
>time. And, you must admit. The idea of having 50 X-com agents running
>around a battlefield, with their Plasma guns balzing away, does seem
>pretty cool. I like TBG's, but sadly the younger generation don't.
>Although, I can see your point, that you don't want these classical
>games to simply fade into the background. But it is inevetable. I
>think that became apparent in APOC, with the option the RT or TB.
>Anyway, I hope more people express their opinions on this topic, and
>look forward to seeing them.
>Talos
>
>Detonate Wrote
>> Hmm.... I think Talos, you're probably on your own when wanting a RTS
XCOM
>> game, judging by the posts to the group.
>> There are several definitive aspects which give XCOM - UFO/TFTD it's
>> uniqueness and long term appeal;
>> The myth which is now XCOM
>> The fact it was small unit tactics and strategy
>> It was turn based and not RT.
>>     Taking those points and lumping them together has created a series of
>> games which has a) grabbed the long term interest of gamers, and b) given
>> MPS a sure fire success, due to the XCOM licence.  However, the
fundamental
>> point remains - most of us gamers are hankering after a game which goes
back
>> to its roots, but with the benefits of 4 yrs of technology and hindsight
of
>> other XCOM titles being somewhat diverse [not necessarily a bad thing]
and
>> moving further away from our interest in the original.  Clearly, both
>> Interceptor and Alliance has and will gain its own followers, who will
>> probably have the same fanatical interest in those games as we do in the
>> originals.
>>     Most of us still keep coming back to the originals - UFO/TFD, with
Apoc
>> coming next, judging from the posts - an assumption, btw.  With the
advent
>> of Interceptor and Alliance, MPS has pretty much used the XCOM licence to
>> cover most of the gaming genre's going, so I for one would not be
surprised
>> to see an XCOM game which caters for your needs - simply to milk the
licence
>> for all it's worth.  However, in an ideal world, we would see a
>> representative from MPS contributing to this ng and we would be involved
in
>> the next incarnation of an XCOM title.  This, I feel I can say in
absolute
>> certainty, would definitely be a game which improves on the original
game -
>> not diversify into another area.
>>     When considering games such as Diablo and Commandos, you only have to
>> look at the graphics alone to see how far technology has moved on.  Added
to
>> this is the fact that online gaming - multiplayer and email games - has
>> skyrocketed.  XCOM - A had grand ideas at attempting the latter, but was
>> ultimately axed.  My own personal view is that during the projects,
gamers
>> were left out, which meant the design and specifics were left to the
>> developers, who had a passion for the game they were making, but left
little
>> room for the consumer to add their own opinion - another assumption, btw.
>> Checking through dejanews articles for XCOM threads will uncover a huge
>> supply of ideas myself and other regular contributors have added, to the
>> issue of a new XCOM game.
>>     Ultimately there are two issues which will shape the next XCOM game;
>> 1.  MPS being motivated purely by profit, which results in an XCOM game
>> which will cater for mainstream gamers - we've had FPS, Flight sim and
the
>> turn based/RT affairs of UFO/TFTD & APOC.  This leaves the RTS large unit
>> genre left uncovered at present - add to the list as required.
>> 2.  MPS actually open a dialogue with us and we have a game which does in
>> fact offer what we want, instead of a perceived, and clouded idea based
on
>> market trends, idea of what we need.
>> However, business is rarely a democratic process, so I would imagine some
>> form of No. 1 taking precedence - ultimately, MPS wants profits to
survive,
>> keep the shareholders happy and so forth.
>> The last issue contends with the actual demand for such a RTS game
wrapped
>> in the XCOM format.  How many RTS games are on the market at present?
>> Definitely into double figures.  Would another RTS game be of any
interest
>> to gamers?  Take a look at the D2K threads in the strategic forum to
gauge
>> the response.  People remembered and really liked the original Dune 2,
but
>> the remake... New gamers expected an RTS game which was wrapped up in up
to
>> date technologically and even surpassed it, but were disappointed, but
the
>> older [and original players of Dune 2] gamers were more forgiving.  It's
a
>> relevant point worth considering when it comes to the next XCOM game.
>>     If there is going to be a remake, it requires some hard thinking by
us,
>> the gamers, as well as the developers and management of MPS.  We
obviously
>> don't want a D2K scenario, but do want to keep the uniqueness of the
>> original titles intact.  I believe it will take a leap of faith from MPS
to
>> actually become involved with us and create a game which reflects our
>> desires.
>>     MPS are in a bit of a sticky situation at present, financially.
Hasboro
>> has bought the company, and their agenda may be totally different to what
>> the current MPS management and developers have.  Ultimately, Hasboro will
>> have the final say on matters and it depends on how perceptive their
>> management are to consumer demands, hard core fans and related issues.
>> Well, a bit long and involved, but hopefully some food for thought for
>> everyone.  I admit my examples have been somewhat 'black and white',
which
>> has been intentional to induce debate.  Please refrain from flaming
though -
>> I am open to debate and have no doubt my own personal perspective may be
way
>> off the mark of the overall situation - that includes any MPS who are
>> reading, btw.  I am simply trying to open a dialogue which explores the
>> issue, nothing more.
>> Detonate

W. Schnitzel wrote in message ...
>It
>would be extremely tiring to manage all your agents on the huge maps that
>Apoc had.
>
>Having 50 X-Com agents may sound cool, but isn't X-Com about small unit
>tactics? Getting to know your individual agents rather than queing up a
>whole group of agents? Just a thought.



Hi friend,
               I agree 100% with you on the subject of smaller units.  I
think for me it was this "getting to know my squadron"  thing that really
got me hooked. how i weeped out loud when one off my men, whom i nurtured
and trained from the begining took a nose dive from one lousy  accident.
Also on the subject of small units, I agree again that this is what makes
the need for good tactics. This can not be done with large armys, fifty or
so more, then it just becomes 'gung-ho',  you can't build that relationship
with your characters in that type of game.    I think that this is why x-com
has such a cult following, because you get to know your individual soldiers
strength's and weakness's and you become drawn into the game.  You feel,
weep, laugh and jump around like an idiot when you meet different situations
.  anyway i won't bore you any longer. I think you get my point?

Remember it's (JMHO)

<snip>
Simon Trowman skrev i meddelandet <6urkff$jdh$3...@eros.clara.net>...
>
>W. Schnitzel wrote in message ...
>>It
>>would be extremely tiring to manage all your agents on the huge maps that
>>Apoc had.
>>
>>Having 50 X-Com agents may sound cool, but isn't X-Com about small unit
>>tactics? Getting to know your individual agents rather than queing up a
>>whole group of agents? Just a thought.
>
>
>Hi friend,
>               I agree 100% with you on the subject of smaller units.  I
>think for me it was this "getting to know my squadron"  thing that really
>got me hooked. how i weeped out loud when one off my men, whom i nurtured
>and trained from the begining took a nose dive from one lousy  accident.
</snip>

Now... if we could only make MicroProse agree *grin*

I think Turn-based still has a chance. Currently, popular RTS hasn't
gotten past "attrition-based" strategy, where the AI is dumb, and the
winner, more often than not, is the one who simply has the bigger mob,
and can move the mouse at light-speed. Star-COM is not something I
want to see.

More options. I've never seen a game fail because your character had
too many things to choose from. This is different than too many things
to get. (ie micromanagement) I've never heard anyone complain that
there where too many things you could put on a ship in MOO II.
 
   a) Ship Equipment: being able to alter your aircraft was an
improvement in APOC. However, more equipment options should have been
availible. For instance, the uselessness of much equipment (land
vehicles, Retribution missiles) cut into the options. If a ship is on
the ground, it should get some ground support weapons as an option.
(Remember your guys getting potted in the back by some sectoid
standing right in front of the plane?) If game balance these should be
weaker/less armored than realism would dictate, and the ship can take
damage from ground fire.

   b) Soldier Equipment: In a new classic type X-Com, night vision
equipment would be nice. I heard that such equipment becomes useless
where there are bright flashes (weapons fire). Alternatively, you
could get a spotlight - at risk of making the poor sap holding it a
target. Options of adding secondary weapons onto rifles. (Heavy Plasma
or Plasma Rifle w/ grenade launcher?)  High Accuracy/Low RTF(high MP
cost)  variants for snipers. A HTH weapon that you could use to cut
through walls (Laser Tech?). Breaching charges to enter UFOs (hack
into UFO and boost Hi-Ex damage a little). Claymores, shotguns,
flamethrowers, grenade launchers, and alien versions of the same. "Hey
scientist-guy! Build me a proximity fuse for that alien grenade will
you?" 

   c) Tanks. We all love 'em. Customize tanks as in Mechwarrior. Extra
armor cuts down on MPs, and it's bulk cuts down on weapons space.
Special-tanks only weapons: Sub-muntions rockets: like a normal
rocket, but goes on a ballistic tragectory, and everything caught in
the blast takes the full damge. Build tanks with nothing but front
armor. Hide your troops behind it as you move your mobile wall. Run
over Crysalids with your wall, too.

   d) Things to shoot. Try to get an engine that can handle more
aliens. Then put in cannon-fodder aliens: guys that don't lower morale
if they die. (Oh, boo hoo. our attack dog-bug died. Send in the other
30.) These mooks should-swarm attack, making area-effect weapons
nesscessary. Get a better AI, with aliens who don't stand around
blithely while you make a racket killing his buddies in the next room.
Of course, you could be making a racket to get them to walk into your
gunsight....

   e) Options in shooting them: in TB, set a squad to concentrate fire
on a target, depriving it of reaction fire (which should be more
dangerous). Heck, syncronize weapons in each hand for 2-fisted John
Woo action. :)

-------------------------------------------------------------
It can't be! How... How is this possible? No one can defeat me! 
I'm invincible! That's right honey, keep telling yourself that.
- Jazelle, Gold Digger # 36
-Paul Jan-<plj...@hotmail.com, @ignmail.com>--ICQ 18014273---

Agree totally with giving your craft support weapons. I mean, c'mon, even
today with our "primitive" (compared to X-Com) technology, we arm our
Assault helicopters with side machine gun mounts, what more in the future?

Glad to hear you're also against having hoards of your agents running
around. There's just something great about knowing your squads. I can
remember getting really frustrated when one of my captains got killed after
a turn just because some rookie missed a shot - hehehe.

Oh yeah... MOO2 rules too! =)

Paul Jan skrev i meddelandet <36121424...@news.sprint.ca>...
>I think Turn-based still has a chance. Currently, popular RTS hasn't
>gotten past "attrition-based" strategy, where the AI is dumb, and the
>winner, more often than not, is the one who simply has the bigger mob,
>and can move the mouse at light-speed. Star-COM is not something I
>want to see.
>
>More options. I've never seen a game fail because your character had
>too many things to choose from. This is different than too many things
>to get. (ie micromanagement) I've never heard anyone complain that
>there where too many things you could put on a ship in MOO II.
>
>   a) Ship Equipment: being able to alter your aircraft was an
>improvement in APOC. However, more equipment options should have been
>availible. For instance, the uselessness of much equipment (land
>vehicles, Retribution missiles) cut into the options. If a ship is on
>the ground, it should get some ground support weapons as an option.
>(Remember your guys getting potted in the back by some sectoid
>standing right in front of the plane?) If game balance these should be
>weaker/less armored than realism would dictate, and the ship can take
>damage from ground fire.
>
>   b) Soldier Equipment: In a new classic type X-Com, night vision
>equipment would be nice. I heard that such equipment becomes useless
>where there are bright flashes (weapons fire). Alternatively, you
>could get a spotlight - at risk of making the poor sap holding it a
>target. Options of adding secondary weapons onto rifles. (Heavy Plasma
>or Plasma Rifle w/ grenade launcher?)  High Accuracy/Low RTF(high MP
>cost)  variants for snipers. A HTH weapon that you could use to cut
>through walls (Laser Tech?). Breaching charges to enter UFOs (hack
>into UFO and boost Hi-Ex damage a little). Claymores, shotguns,
>flamethrowers, grenade launchers, and alien versions of the same. "Hey
>scientist-guy! Build me a proximity fuse for that alien grenade will
>you?"
>
>   c) Tanks. We all love 'em. Customize tanks as in Mechwarrior. Extra
>armor cuts down on MPs, and it's bulk cuts down on weapons space.
>Special-tanks only weapons: Sub-muntions rockets: like a normal
>rocket, but goes on a ballistic tragectory, and everything caught in
>the blast takes the full damge. Build tanks with nothing but front
>armor. Hide your troops behind it as you move your mobile wall. Run
>over Crysalids with your wall, too.
>
>   d) Things to shoot. Try to get an engine that can handle more
>aliens. Then put in cannon-fodder aliens: guys that don't lower morale
>if they die. (Oh, boo hoo. our attack dog-bug died. Send in the other
>30.) These mooks should-swarm attack, making area-effect weapons
>nesscessary. Get a better AI, with aliens who don't stand around
>blithely while you make a racket killing his buddies in the next room.
>Of course, you could be making a racket to get them to walk into your
>gunsight....
>
>   e) Options in shooting them: in TB, set a squad to concentrate fire
>on a target, depriving it of reaction fire (which should be more
>dangerous). Heck, syncronize weapons in each hand for 2-fisted John
>Woo action. :)
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------
>It can't be! How... How is this possible? No one can defeat me!
>I'm invincible! That's right honey, keep telling yourself that.
>- Jazelle, Gold Digger # 36
>-Paul Jan-<plj...@hotmail.com, @ignmail.com>--ICQ 18014273---
>

Talos, to continue with the debate, and chew on some of the points in your
reply...


>Hmm. These points you have raised, are very interesting, but I think
>you are looking at things, from YOUR point of view.

Firstly, to reiterate my closing piece...

>> Well, a bit long and involved, but hopefully some food for thought for
>> everyone.  I admit my examples have been somewhat 'black and white',
which
>> has been intentional to induce debate.  Please refrain from flaming
though -
>> I am open to debate and have no doubt my own personal perspective may be
way
>> off the mark of the overall situation - that includes any MPS who are
>> reading, btw.  I am simply trying to open a dialogue which explores the
>> issue, nothing more.

I think I stated this clearly enough.  My view is subjective and therefore
open to constructive debate - which has been achieved.  Nothing was implied
nor intended about my opinion being conclusive, final and unquestionable.
    I offered a viewpoint, which I thought, given its length and purpose -
to expand on the subject, the pro's and cons etc, would invite and encourage
debate - mission accomplished, as debate continues :-)

>Sadly, TBG's are
>becomming things of the past, with the "new generation" of gammers,
>looking for a RTS game, that require no thinking nor very little
>time.

Actually, I think if you enquire on the strategic ng, you will find a lot of
heated debate to oppose this view.  For a _real_ turnbased game which offers
email capabilities, try Stars!  http://www.webmap.com/stars/ or the
newsgroup rec.games.computer.stars for some idea of the length and bredth of
discussion and topics regarding the game.  Abosultely nothing like XCOM,
even remotely, but nevertheless an indepth [too indepth at times] game which
has been going for some years, continually gets in top 100 game polls and
has yet to see any decline in its following.


And, you must admit. The idea of having 50 X-com agents running
>around a battlefield, with their Plasma guns balzing away, does seem
>pretty cool.

Each to their own, which I have no desire to contest.  Personally, give me
small squad based games any day.  I've both Starcraft and Commandos, but out
of the two, Commandos wins hands down, IMHO, of course.


 I like TBG's, but sadly the younger generation don't.
>Although, I can see your point, that you don't want these classical
>games to simply fade into the background. But it is inevetable. I
>think that became apparent in APOC, with the option the RT or TB.

Why is it inevitable?  Stars! is one such game which goes against current
trends and yet still maintains a massive following.  UFO/TFTD et al, all
have their own following, but still I feel the hankering of the group
remains with the originals.  There is little chance of TB games fading into
the background, due to the cyclic nature of entertainment, be it music,
films or games.  Compilation CD's with Space Invaders and all the original
coin op games are now available, so this proves that someone, somewhere
wants nostalgia and retro games.

Debate continues!

Over to the group...

Detonate