X-COM XCOM 2 + War of the Chosen Expansion Thread

2 rockets and 4 grenades? Good lord, how do you even cope? I would feel naked and unarmed if my squad was that badly-equipped!

 

Yeah, I too prefer old xcom to nuxcom, that doesn't change the fact that this watered down version is balanced with 6+ explosives per map... Hell, rarely Vanilla had more than 8-12 aliens on a single map!

 

There is a heavy ability not tied to items/consumables that destroys terrain in a wide arc. There's going to be a lot of destructability.

 

Zeriel have they said/shown if it's long or short ranged?

 

Jake mentioned it in passing so there wasn't a lot of details. I'm also one of those people who thought there was enough explosives available to you in EU to level all the cover the aliens were using, so maybe I just have the wrong perspective. (I still think stacking heavies trivializes the early game.)

 

See Matalarata you retard, someone can read afterall and understand what we are talking about.

 

don't worry, never again I'll waste my time with you

 

Unwatch thread.

 

Cities look a lot better than previous screens

 

They do, but it still looks a bit off.
I thought the maps in EU looked better. Maybe its only the Advent city maps that are like that; it could be that they are meant to look off.
Then again, I prefer my future cities to look like below, so ymmv

 

Well, i can say that they look good for being procedural, at least

 

Nice edit. That was only for later game Xcom1 with 6 members in team. At start you have one rocket guy, maybe two. And we still don't know if we are going to have 6 member teams in Xcom 2, I don't remember that being mentioned.
And still it changes nothing, in original Xcom you could just lay waste to whole map from outside of your skyranger and then move out and have easier time fighting. Here you will only use explosives to blow up enemies AFTER you find them and never tactically just to make passages or remove cover, that is a waste of limited weapons that can normally kill enemies.

 

So are we talking about meaningful gameplay, or are we just complaining about XCOM and X-COM not being identical?

 

I don't know what you are talking about, I am talking about how that change is just a marketing trick that means little tactically if you don't have access to enough explosives to use them even if you don't do any damage. Or better to say, the value of explosives and building destruction will not change much between nuXcom1 and nuXcom2 as people will still only be using explosives to kill aliens first and destroy buildings/cover second.

 

C'mon. What about realistic future cities?

 

For all the shit Firaxis did to X-Com, art design is the least of my complains. If they want a setting with clean and sterile cities - it's their right. Like I said - they are consistent artisticly, with angel-like aliens, who have to aapeal to human population etc. My main concern is overall mechanic. Interception, missions, pace of the game and level of difficulty on the field, plus rebelanced skills.

 

Then shut the fuck up and stop replying to me.

XCOM 2012 starts you with 4 grenades in the first mission. There is a grenade icon on the screen in the first instant of gameplay. The ability to change the tactical situation 4 times in 20 minutes is not "meaningless".

Oh, so now you're not only an expert on how "people" play the 2012 game (just like you I guess, huh?), you're also an expert on how "people" will play the sequel when new mechanics are introduced (they'll "only" use the old mechanics, because you don't plan to ever change your tactics).

 

I think it's true you very rarely use cover destruction in XCOM2012 to modify the terrain, as opposed to destroying the cover an enemy is using at this very moment so you can crit the shit out of him. You could probably count the times I used explosives solely to open up a sightline or pre-emptively deny the enemy some cover with two digits even though I played the shit out of Long War.

That's partly because the way activation worked in 2012 having longer sightlines is almost always bad. You generally want to fight in closets, and using explosives that would incidentally open sightlines was usually a tradeoff, not an advantage.

 

I think you have no clue what you are talking about. Grenades mean shit for destroying cover. They were used to finish off enemies, only on impossible difficulty where you cannot kill 4 HP sectoid with 3 damage grenade you would use them to destroy some weak cover so another soldier could get a flanking shot. Grenades without additional perks could not even destroy most cover. That is why I didn't really count them, only rockets were reliable to be used for destroying cover.

 

What? Are we playing the same game, because in my games, unmodded, grenades can destroy most cover.
And I don't mean alien grenades, I mean the shitty 3 damage grenades.
And yes, they are useful for exposing a tough enemy.

In fact, earlier in this thread I do believe that I lamented that cover was too easy to destroy, with any non explosive weapon having a damage value of at least 5 being able to wreck anything from stone walls to UFO hulls.
Any explosive weapon can destroy any bit of destructible terrain.

In Enemy Within you have MEC troopers, who can destroy cover at will as well.
Only needs about half its ammunition.

 

Most covers are cars or heavy walls, Grenades cannot destroy those. They can only blow up low weak cover. Rockets can blow up anything and that is why I only count them. Later you can have 6 guys and alien grenades but that still not close enough to blowing shit up without damaging enemies being a useful tactic because you fight on large maps (big ships, alien bases).

 

So when they ADD MORE WAYS for explosives to remove cover and open sightlines, as they are talking about doing, that's "meaningless" because those ways didn't exist in the previous game?

I think you have a problem talking about the same thing for 2 posts in a row. You started off by saying cover destruction is meaningless because you won't have enough explosives to waste on it. Then when that was refuted you moved on to how things were different in the original X-COM, as if the existence of another game means that there can't be interesting tactics in this one. Now you're talking about the mechanics in XCOM 2012 as if they will be identical to XCOM 2016, even though the fundamental conversation is about the devs' announcement of NEW mechanics. Each new point you try to make is stupider than the last. What foolery will be next, I wonder? It's horrible to watch, but I must admit I'm fascinated.