1st Time Player - Cover in genreal


1st time playing in-depth. I love cover combat games and I was really interested in playing this with the “true line of sight” model. So far I think it’s great… but I have noticed some issues.

Mainly the distance that the characters “hug” certain nodes and distance themselves from others even though they are all “1/2 cover”. It seems very inconsistent and with your true sight model, stay with me here, it almost is better to ignore the cover node and just treat it as a visual blocker. Meaning I don’t even attach the soldier to the node most times completely ignore the cover system altogether. I don’t think that is what you want to happen.

In essence, objects are just visual blockers since I cannot see any aim reductions or damage reductions for being in cover. What is the bonus for being in cover other than blocking visually? Yet when the characters move up to them, sometimes the posture changes of the characters and sometimes it does not, this is the inconsistency I am talking about. You can see this by positioning a sniper up high, then with true aim, look at your own soldier’s positions.

For example:

1/2 cover railings - the character hugs the railing close up - there is a very small gap between, it looks like the soldier is trying to use it for cover

1/2 cover flat cement blocks - the character does not hug the object - there is a visible gap between, it doesn’t look like the character is trying to use it for cover

Now use true aim to look at both targets from the same distance - the one behind the flat cement block is much more visible from the waist up than the one behind the railing ( granted the railing has gaps in the bottom to see though but from the waist up more is exposed with the cement block ).

The taller cement blocks that look like triangles are also a good example, the characters do not hug them up close for “cover” and use them as a visual block instead.

I have found since it does not give you a defensive bonus or the enemy a harder to hit modifier (not totally sure on that)? I get better results with just positioning my troops behind objects that block LOS rather than use them as a cover node… if you follow me. I don’t feel that is the intent of the game, but it functions better in most cases than using the node, in my experience so far.

I have also found that certain nodes are practically useless and others are great, even though the are all 1/2 cover or full cover depending on their shape. But again I do not use them as cover, just visual blockers. That might even by design but it doesn’t seem like cover combat functionality, again just my opinion.

Now, however, the enemy usees the cover nodes very effectively, and even changes posture to a degree. and doesn’t have a spacing issue that I have seen thus far. Granted I have only fought crabmen and the squat guys with the mushroom head.

I strongly feel that this game needs a posture changing function from laying to squatting to standing once attached to a cover node. It would make the cover nodes more effective. Even squatting to standing would be outstanding.

Just my 2 cents on the cover mechanics.

Otherwise really enjoying the game.


1 Like

It is meant to be like that. There is no artificial bonus from cover. Objects that block Line of Sight block Line of FIre in the same way. So enemy can’t hit you if bullet can’t go through that object. This is realistic cover. Objects just differ with durability and shape. There is nothing more to them.

There are tips on loading screens. They explain why cover have half-cover and full-cover icon. With half-cover your soldier will duck decreasing his posture thus reducing probability enemy will hit. With full-cover your soldier ready himself to step out of a cover to shoot like that and hide so he is standing.

We can only wonder why soldiers use different animations for the same type of cover (ie railing vs concrete block).

+1 - Not even for just cover, but also when they’re in the open I do wish that I could have the option to tell my soldiers to crouch or go prone.

1 Like

Yes i do agree with this, right now you have no good defense options, ignoring cover is the best way to go right now, and it is really sad.

Can you explain why ignoring cover is the best way?

Ah ok, the whole 1/2 and full cover indicators really do not make you feel that is their intention. But that explains a lot. Thank you for confirming that, I have yet to see those tool tips/advice on the loading screens explaining cover, so I was kind of in the dark.

I hope they improve the postures while in cover, and hopefully better explain their mechanics in the tutorial on release. Its a bit misleading as it is now.

I think he means just ignore the cover indicators, which is what I am doing, because they really do not follow the cover combat rules that we are use to in other games. Its very misleading, using a symbol we are use to but not using the functionality.

Its even 50/50 if the soldiers will step out and shoot out of cover, most of the time I have to move them out of cover and shoot, then move them back in. And even in overwatch they do not always step out, even though they have LoS and the enemy steps in the red zone.

It really reminds me of old school Xcom, there was no cover mechanics, this plays a lot like that if you ignore the symbols.

Hoping next @UnstableVoltage video covers (eh!) the cover system. Reading this thread made me wonder if I’m doing it tje “correct” way

1 Like

I have noticed that the ‘hugging’ cover mechanics seem to be a little inconsistent. They are stepping out to shoot better than in previous versions for sure but when it says a lamppost with a concrete triangular base is suppose to be ‘full cover’ and your soldier is stood well away from it I can’t help but feel it’s offering very little protection to the parts that actually matter. They should at least crouch down for those in particular.

Now that brings up an idea, what if we had the option to “duck” or be “hug” the cover tightly or “loosely”.

Being tight to the cover option would decrease the soldiers profile making them harder to hit. But you would be giving up your lines of sight from the cover and wouldn’t be able to use overwatch. Or at least it would greatly decrease your overwatch angles ( assuming you couldn’t step out or wouldn’t ).

Using the cover loosely would give you a bigger profile to be hit but giving you better lines of sight and enabling overwatch. Maybe increasing your chances of stepping out to take the shot because your soldier can see the enemy coming better.

That would really give the cover a defined meaning/use other than visual blocking and stay true to the True Aim functionality.

I avoid the triangular concrete cover as much as possible, it covers the legs fine, but since the posture is standing and not squatting the upper body is too exposed from the front and the offers little to no side protection.

Just had my 1st ambush scenario, - very fun. I like the time aspect in case it’s too much to handle, yet a challenge to defeat all the enemies in that time frame.

About to go into my first nest mission, need food first and coffee… blessed coffee…


I totally agree with the Op. It doesn’t make sense to use cover directly… because character model just don’t use advantage of it (yet/it’s a bug?). Sometimes it does seem to use it like cover but 99% of time it’s only an obstacle of certain height in the line of sight.

For me it would be perfect if we could have crouch action (like 25% AP, maybe reduced to 0 with a skill, like with reloading). Character would “hug” the full cover and lean left or right while shooting, similar to Firaxis X-Com (that’s the aspect they did very well). And the half-cover would need the crouch action to be used (and AP spent) to use it as a cover. Without crouching it would behave exactly like it is right now, an obstacle that covers only part on model.

Crouching would also be usefull in open space, to reduce sligtly the visual signature of your model.

This is also an issue of highground advantage not used at all: BB5 Windows and top floor cover

Sniper on a crane (where the blue “strategic spot” area is), on a scrapyard-like map, can’t shot anything because floor is an obstacle and he refuses to lean out even a bit. Or maybe make lean left, right, forward manual with a keyboard while aiming? It could trigger Overwatch to not make it without flaws.

You guys have the same ideas which were already touched over a year ago when first Backers Build came out. But I doubt that Snapshot will change their mind and will add or change mechanics they didn’t planned to change or add in this last phase of development. Now we are supposed to look for bugs, not propose new animations, movements and functionalities. :wink:

I also was writing about manual leaning in different directions, but I suppose it is not interesting enough for developers.

Prone and crouch stances were also proposed many times the same as different firing modes (targeted, snap shot and auto). But this apparently doesn’t fit in the whole idea developers have for this game.

In response to this thread, BB5 - What would make useful feedback? Snapshot asked for feedback on both bugs and general feedback.

I’d say cover in relation to this thread comes under the area of ‘mechanics which don’t feel like they’re working the way they should be’.

I think there’s also an issue to be had with how cover works in protecting aliens, crabmen in particular, via the use of shields, are often behind cover, but given how aiming and zooming works this often makes no different as you only need to have a small area of their body visible in order to be able to still shoot them.

Regards suggestions of changes to game mechanics at late stages of development; it’s a hard choice for developers certainly, there’s an argument for following your vision, but also one for trying to put out a game that is well received. Time is sometimes a very limiting factor in that, however imho it’s better to find out the elements of a game that users don’t enjoy during pre-release rather than post-release, so at least there is then a choice to make before the game launches, as opposed to potential re-engineering once the game is out there.

It’s a real shame though, because at the moment “high-ground” sucks… which is pretty odd for a tactical game.

1 Like