From: San Diego CA
I've registered here to comment on this thread. I've purchased the game the day it was released, without following much of it's development. It just looked interesting.
Going over the OP and responses, there are some valid points. However, I must say that I find it odd that people are complaining the game does not do what they expect it to do. Are you guys so conservative that a bit of change is so odd?
Indeed, there is no interrupt in the game. A turn is a "hard turn". Maybe you're not used to games that do it that way, but this is how the devs chose to make it. Maybe they made it in the image of board games, where a move stays yours. It requires planning - strategy, not tactics. I choose to adapt to the game, and find it a rewarding experience.
You have to use cover (lv2 or 3) and FOV optimally to see the enemy well in advance. If the enemy uses a FOV blocking approach and camouflage gear, he'll end up right next to you. How is that not realistic?
Even if an interrupt is built in, half of the ingame weapons are too heavy or cumbersome to fire accurately after moving anyway.
This makes the game a bit slower paced then others. Exactly what draws me to turn based.
Please, don't push the devs into making it into some other game you like. The gaming world is messed up enough with all large studios copying each others success formula. I've played Jagged Alliance and liked it's interrupts, and Fallout Tactics without interrupts.
Or just admit the game is too difficult for you and play something else
In Re: to the realism / historic accuracy: Ingame loading screens mention "we chose game balance over realism". Giving all calibers the same penetration and stopping power might be more realistic, it could as well break the weapon types balance.
The modding capabilities seem extensive, I guess you could alter weapon stats yourself if it's that crucial.
I've played some single- and multiplayer sessions rather successively. If you need gameplay tips, just ask. Some of my pointers:
- Fielding a large squad isn't that productive, as suggested. The game is balanced for squads of 2-5 soldiers. More cost more, you may lack points to be able to field a large troop. Aim for 450-550CR squads.
- Get a high ranked commander to be able to play early in the turn.
- Specialize your squads. Eg: Sniper team of 2, recon/capture of 4 with SMG and rifles, support of 2 with MG and assault rifle. Possible additions: close quarters / mass damage squad with bazooka and flamethrower / all assault rifle squad to suppress enemy.
- Balance gear. Para gear gives more ammo capacity and limited camouflage. It also allows your men to start the game further from the drop zone, and later in the game to drop mid-field. Essential for those quick captures and reinforcements.
- Experiment with disciplines. Endurance makes your MG squad sprint further and not wheeze for air after 2 runs. Recon helps in counter-camouflage.
Thank you for your post. I am pretty much exclusively a TBS-oriented gamer, so the pace of the game is just fine. What I object to so far has to do mostly with the poor documentation of precisely what the game expects players to do in order to survive and to win. The lack of a passive reaction fire segment is bothersome but I suppose it could be justified by the programmers as being what they wanted and not an oversight. Since the original X-com and similar tactical TBS games, saving points for a passive reaction fire response to enemy moves has been part of many games. This one takes exception to that, which does not please many, myself included. But oh well, have to adapt or get out of Dodge, right?
As for the game's being optimized for smaller squads, that is one thing that I do take issue with. WW2 infantry squads varied from 8 to 12 men. I suppose you can call a 4 man fire team a squad and let it go at that, but the game then goes and assigns leaders up to the rank of "major" for these teams, which is totally unrealistic. That sort of patent lack of realism is what sticks in my craw perhaps most of all. It rather spoils the suspension of disbelief that I like to enjoy while playing. I'd rather they had another way to add initiative to certain squad members other than rank - unless, of course, they get the rank system correct. A proper 4 man team might be led by a corporal, not a lieutenant or captain and certainly not a major.
These are perhaps piddling complaints of an old military history buff who happens to enjoy these computer games. But if a game is in part sold on the basis of its historical accuracy, then it is only fair to take the developers to task when they fail to deliver on that part of the game.
Like I said earlier, I'm being patient and seeing what develops in this game and its patches, DLC and follow on releases.
"Things are getting better!
...Well, maybe not as good as they were yesterday, but much better than they will be tomorrow!"
-Old Russian saying