Grenade/rocket accuracy

  • Last Post 4 weeks ago
  • Topic Is Solved
Mazy posted this 19 February 2018

In the final version of the game will grenades/rocket shots have variable accuracy? (based on distance/soldiers stats etc). In the recent demo it looked like grenades/explosions were using the Firaxis XCOM model of having 100% accuracy, landing precisely on the spot you select with pixel perfect godlike throw-able accuracy.


[Suggestion] Assuming that grenades wont have 100% accuracy in the final version. One way to make throwables interesting (especially in terms of a tactics game) is to incorporate the trajectory UI into the throw calculation so the player has to judge where the projectile will land after it bounces or rolls based on terrain/distance/height of toss (essentially making it physics based, just like the bullets). Using the tracer to aim in front of targets (or to the sides) whilst also factoring in the % chance to hit the selected target.

Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
Anjovi posted this 19 February 2018

please consider this! Apart from the dissonance of lobbed projectiles or rockets not following the same physics as bullets, having the chance of a grenade rebounding off a wall back at you when you risk throwing it throw a narrow window is all part of the fun

latemrdouglas posted this 20 February 2018

You're so mean to our soldiers!

UnstableVoltage posted this 20 February 2018

Grenades in PP explode on impact. Grenades and rockets alike will explode if they hit a wall or obstacle along their trajectory. It's already in the demo.


Snapshot Games Community Manager


Nerd and Gamer

Snapshot Logo

Anjovi posted this 20 February 2018

aha! That should make simulating misthrows easier Though having grenades bounce around could still be a worthy addition (making use of all of the terrain that's lying around heh)

Mazy posted this 20 February 2018

Yes, we know that the grenades explode on impact rather than have forward momentum. 'Always explode on impact' isn't too bad of a rule (if that's the definitive rule for explosions), it's just a bit basic, it means nades will never bounce/roll/ricochet etc, it might be more interesting/realistic if they could..


..However, topic is not solved yet lol rewind!.. the actual question was 'will throws have a chance to hit %?' (So that they won't always land exactly on a desired spot).. Shouldn't any (and all) ranged attacks have a chance to hit% ? 


It's cool how realistic bullet accuracies/ballistics etc are being used in this game, it only makes sense to apply the same (or similar) mechanics to grenades and rockets (both in terms of chance to hit% and ballistics.. if ballistics is too complicated then at least give it a chance to 'miss').


The grenade mechanic in the latest PP demo is a carbon copy of how grenades work in the Firaxis XCOM's. Now, I do quite like that PP is drawing directly upon some of the elements which Firaxis brought to the genre, I'm just not sure that the particular system they used for nade throws was particularly good or worth emulating..'s an odds with the rest of the games mechanics. I believe they even admitted as such, there were some circumstances behind its bad implementation.. either way, the next big game in the genre, PP, has the opportunity to correct the mistake.


Think of it this way.. XCOM introduced a system of 100% accuracy on grenades (everything else in their game had a chance to hit %) no one really questions the balance issues it causes, the game was a huge hit.. as such 100% accurate grenades are now pretty much the accepted norm for a strategy/tactics game..  common sense would suggest that aiming/tossing a throwable (with an arcing trajectory) is harder/less accurate than aiming/firing a scoped weapon..


..Now lets pretend for a moment that they hadn't come up with this system..


..What would the reaction be if a dev on the PP project suggested that 'all ranged attacks in the game should be realistic simulations and have a chance to hit%.. EXCEPT grenades. Soldiers can miss gunshots but when it comes to grenades soldiers should become super computers with bionic arms capable of hitting any mark on the board within one pixel, they should always hit their target, never miss'.. would players say 'yeah, cool idea, makes sense' ?


[suggestion] One possible solution for this could be to implement something similar to 'bloom' on the aim/targeting (much like cross-hair bloom widely used in shooters where RNG bullets can land on the reticle or anywhere around it)..

..A system where the grenade could land anywhere within the overall blast area shown (by the UI). How close the nade will land in the centre of that area depends on variables/stats (thus making the Firaxis style non-tactical mechanic tactical).

  • Liked by
  • SpiteAndMalice
Anjovi posted this 5 weeks ago

I like the idea.

SpiteAndMalice posted this 5 weeks ago

I really like this idea too - The potential accuracy range could be based on a player's throwing ability. You could have specialist grenadiers in your squad... and maybe some others who have the throwing ability of a high school gym class. 

  • This week I have been mostly playing Chaos Reborn.
Mazy posted this 4 weeks ago

I don't understand why this thread is still marked as 'topic solved'. Does it mean solved as in 'all ranged attacks are going to have an accuracy calculation'? (chance to hit%), or solved as in 'no, only some ranged attacks are going to have a chance to hit%'?

Obviously with the X-Com remakes there was a heavier focus on how the game looked, the lore/story and how it played generally, there was less scrutiny on the mechanics, tactics and balance..

..If PP is going to be a throwback to deeper tactical games it's going to be important to get the fundamentals right, so if one set of ranged attacks is not going to have a chance to hit% there might need to be a way of explaining or justifying, within the game, why the basic rule isn't consistent.

Borsukrates posted this 4 weeks ago

It's odd when grenades are the most reliable weapon type. They don't have sights or a crossbow(rifle) stock. Particularly in Firaxis X-COM, where they tried very hard to make almost everything a dice roll.

Comes Moesia posted this 4 weeks ago

Borsukrates said:

It's odd when grenades are the most reliable weapon type. They don't have sights or a crossbow(rifle) stock. Particularly in Firaxis X-COM, where they tried very hard to make almost everything a dice roll.

Making scatter roll is nothing new, and exists in table top gaming (where turn based strategies came from), namely older versions/editions of 40k. You have a direction dice and distance dice. Programing a 9-sided "dice" (8 directions and one for no scatter) and random number generator that picks number from x to z (already in game) is easy. Also important, as we do not want a roll of cheese that is grenade spam voltage guy calls "tactics" actually considered a fool-proof plan. No offense to Voltage guy, even though I am not a fan. Throwing all AoEs that you have at a target should be very dangerous (common sense, we move away from firecrackers, let alone from half a dozen lethal blast weapons), as it could scatter and kill your own troops, or just scatter harmlessly, and have you waste your turn/action. Point I am making is, explosives are opposite of reliable, and should be a "plan C", when you can't move, nor shoot, but have to damage/kill the target. I know how vague this sounds, but bear with me, I am doing this for good of the game, as too many turn-based games turn into pie-spam (aoe blast looks like pie) as blasts are "fool-proof and incapable of error".

SpiteAndMalice posted this 4 weeks ago

Comes Moesia said:

too many turn-based games turn into pie-spam (aoe blast looks like pie) as blasts are "fool-proof and incapable of error".


That begs an interesting couple of questions; what should happen in a situation where an explosive lands in an area which is enclosed on one or more sides? Would the force of the blast be absorbed by any structures/objects/creatures which are enclosing that blast? Would this protect anything which is being sheltered behind those structures/objects/creatures, and would the range of the blast remain the same in directions which aren't enclosed? (For example; if an explosive is detonated in a corridor, would the blast of that explosive run further than usual down the lengths of that corridor as a result of being funnelled by that corridor's walls?)

  • This week I have been mostly playing Chaos Reborn.
kompan posted this 4 weeks ago

As for the grenade accuracy, you could have the grenade blast radius of 2, but the grenade can land anywhere inside the larger area with radius of 5. With trained soldiers, make it radius of 3 which is more accurate, but still not very reliable, as described in comments above. This would prevent the infamous grenade-pixel-hunting.

The realistic physics of explosion in destructible environment would be awesome but I guess not easy to implement. I would be happy with the simple model: 1) the DMG fades away from the center of the blast and 2) units behind the cover take reduced DMG. This would make the explosive DMG values less easy to predict.

Spolokh posted this 4 weeks ago

I think that main value of (throwable) grenades is not their damage