Tempelton: I on the other hand hated this in Afterlight/Aftermatch/Afterwhatever clones. At the level of command we had in X-Com games, soldiers should be just names and ranks and rookies should be available in unlimited numbers. There shouldn't be any enforced clasificatioon on machinegunners, snipers or riflemen. A player should decide what role a soldier should carry and in what direction should he develop, no matter how skilled he is in a specific weapon type.
I hope we won't have any perks, like -2 AP on MG reload cost for level 2 machinegunner or shit like that.
ktchong: Soldiers in real world are specialized. In real world, soldiers *are* classified into gunners, snipers, heavy, etc. In real world, soldiers are good in different things, and they are specialized in different things according to their strengths and weaknesses. Most importantly, the classification actually
adds to strategic and tactical consideration.
The new version
does have different perks and skills. That is how players get to specialize their squad members. Snipers can get different skills, different perks, and become good in different areas, and you pick and choose your squad members for missions based on their strenghts and weaknesses. The different specialization is why I think the new remake is superior to the original one.
Dear Ktchong.
Sure, I agree that soldiers eventually do specialize in certain areas. But in X-Com games (IIRC), it's said in the manual that those rookies are a chosen bunch from special forces of various contries worldwide. But considering how much room the series give them for improvement, they look like real rookies that have just left the basic training. Meaning - they might not have yet discovered their talents. And it's perfectly fine by me.
I don't like dictating the player how he should play the game. This is a common thing that isn't limited to modern computer games only, but reaches even beyond them, to say, monitor manufacturers, who know better than their customers and enforce them to buy the shitty reflective displays, because of some f***** great experience that supposed to come from vivid colours of their great (glare) LCD screens.
Having average (in all aspects of combat) an not classified to certain roles soldiers, does not hinder the "strategic consideration". It enhances it. What if Firaxis reduced the number of recruitable soldiers as it is in UFO: Alien Invasion for example? What if you have only, say, five recruits to hire in the initial month and their classes are either (pesimistic case:) predetermined by the game producer, like three riflemen + one machinegunner + one marksman, or is (in optimistic case:) pretty random and you get four heavy weapon specialists and one rifleman in your game (=bad luck!).
CASE 1: Limited recruits per month, specialization determined by Game Producer or random:
What a great "strategic consideration" you have. You are a commander of a GLOBAL defence force, having access to EVERY single grunt or officer within the ranks of every country's military force, and not only you get only five (or x - limited) bloody soldiers, but also they're specialized in areas you don't want them to be. You wanted to employ a shock squad consisting of ten troops? Like nine riflemen and one machinegunner for support? Or perhaps for this particular mission four riflemen and one marksman would be enough? Or if it's a defence mission, perhaps you should employ a force of four machinegunners and eight riflemen? Bad luck, because you have this marksmen (or sniper, yay!) in your time who can't do shit with the AR (or better - is penalized when using other weapons! Hah seen this once in some game) and only four other troops defined by the mission creator.
CASE 2: Unlimited recruits, specialization randomized.
You calmly complete your team from rookies from all over the world. You arm them the way you like (partly by looking at their, slightly different, initial statistics, partly by your own preference), you buckle them up and launch the Skyranger. Some of your troops won't come back, but some will begin to specialize in a certain area (depending on what weapon you gave them) or... perhaps they suck with the weapon you gave them and won't improve in it a bit (additional depth level). In the latter case, you'd try to find a purpose for this trooper (like assign him a different weapon class or whatever - perhaps he sucks in everything).
The thing is, you've got a total freedom in what tactics you use in your missions and it's not hindered by some stupid classes system. And frackin' perks!
Oh, and about perks.... Haven't you noticed how unnaturaly and superhumanly they affected the team in UFO (A/A/A) series? Reloading weapon in a fracture of a second and shit? Heh...
P.S. Somebody said about the X-Com game being made by fans is a good thing. I'm sceptical about it. In my life, I've seen far too many productions, be it computer games or films, that supposed to be made by so-called fans, but turned out to be disasters for real fans (=the people who praised the original creations). Be it Fallout 3, Star Wars-or-The Thing prequels.
Action/death or whatever they call it-camera thing. We had it in Fallout 3 and it grew old very fast. Tactical strategy, like X-Com/UFO, should not have it as it has hundreds of missions. Just imagine how tiring the close-up of an, be it alien or human, character being killed might be. And most of the UFOs don't comprise of a single alien, no (except for a scout UFO that is). So it's like ca. 5-10 aliens, multiplied by... how many missions...? 100-200? That gives like, 500-2000 close-up death cams (plus those from the X-com operatives killed), not to mention shooting cams... Ugh.... I'm out. I think I'll pass and pick Xenonauts instead.