Not to return to our previous discussion, but you obviously like the simulation approach and you are happy to play what is basically the same game with marginal improvements. There is nothing wrong with that, but not everybody does.
I have very warm and satisfactory feelings while playing PP, and feel rewarded for my choices. Only at this time I have to exercise some self control to avoid using what are basically exploits.
There should not be any exploits. 
It’s not about it being a simulation or not. Battle Brothers for example is not a simulation, but it still delivers the level of depth, progression and continuous learning of new things because it is better designed. You don’t have to have research to have progression, neither some ridiculous powers to give you opportunity to deal with tough levels.
I don’t want a do whatever you want skill sandbox, I want a balanced game and if cooldowns helps I’m all for it! The will system is obviously exploitable as hell and I’m not sure if they can make it work.
Battle Brothers is a nice RPG rogue-like. So is Star Traders Frontiers. Actually, I like STF more because it can be played in Ironman mode by non-masochists.
The fun in PP is that the ballistics and the opposing force raise the odds so that you have to use skills, which come in a sandbox. These consume limited resources, one of which is renewed automatically every turn and one which is not.
I don’t necessarily agree that the game forces you into an alpha strike in every engagement. I think it’s more that it penalises any piecemeal approach.
IMO,
In Firaxis XComs (and clones) the first rule is that you decide when the engagement happens, so you should always look for the baddies where and when you want to find them.
Gollop XCom (and clones) heavily favor a meticulous approach; don’t overextend, go slowly, send scouts ahead, etc.
(Battle Brothers is prepare all you want, and then submit to the most merciless RNG ever conceived… Which is fine given the theme and genre of the game)
PP is go all out, or bunker all in. And you can bunker all in: overwatch works if you set it right (the problem atm is if you set it covering exits from cover), there are some defense skills (infiltrator’s spiders and decoy, the auto turrets, the priest’s armor boost), there is usually some cover available…
Yes, everything is normally decided in the first two turns. Either the alpha strike works or it does not, or the bunker holds and you get to strike back, or it doesn’t. But that’s not necessarily bad. Let’s face it, the “be meticulous” approach becomes a chore. At least in PP if the odds are overwhelmingly in your favor you can end the whole thing in a couple of minutes.
Also there are quite a few issues that have to be addressed, and I can imagine that for someone who has been playing the game extensively during development the game must have overstayed its welcome, particularly given the issues it still has.
At reverse the Citadels is an excellent example proving the point, the short very open map of citadels is a call for one/two turns mission, if not it’s an absurd amateurish layout design.
Are you serious, it’s basic obvious, common they aren’t idiots.
Ok still players tales they do missions in one turn with one shotgun have a serious credibility aspect knowing you don’t know where enemies are, at least not with scam loading.
Otherwise this inspire exploit are team based, I tried and if most team isn’t Assault I doubt it can be so OP. So it’s still not that basic.
Soldier controlled by a Siren isn’t end of combat. I had a defense Haven with A Scylla and 4 Sirens, I got 4 controlled soldiers, one turn two at same time, one get controlled two full turns, I still won.
Your comment could be right, but the more I play the more I find/feel that there’s a lot of work on feeling of difficulty up to extreme, but the real difficulty behind is lower. And this is how manage difficulty, it’s also a lot about how feel players.
I guess it’s feasible with some boosts to perception.
The combination, I believe, is heavy (for the inspire) + assault for dash and rapid clearance.
Haven’t tried it myself so I don’t how strong the loop is.
I agree that Citadels are supposed to be quick, but one shot kill is ridiculous. They are not idiots, they were people in a hurry.
But reduce combats/missions difficulty in PP is also by using rush only very very rarely, using scouting but cautious, defense Haven mission are no exception, you’ll get the full reward anyway, and will lost only a minority part of XP and global skill points. Lairs is no way a rush, nor Nests. Same for all special missions or at least most of them. Citadels are an exception, and Scavenging is a bit special, still rush in Scavenging is a very risked choice, at end better lost rewards.
Ha perhaps for Perception, I don’t master this aspect of the game.
Only one soldier needs Inspire, but for a good exploit you’ll need at least 4 with Rally for AP management, I don’t see any infinite loop here, some player need explain me more in detail, and Math based.
OK, I deliberately don’t play this game with the cheesy combos. So, while I find the Citadel a fairly easy turkey shoot, it takes at least 4 turns with 3 snipers wielding Synedrion Sniper Rifles to take a full Scylla down. You can get that down to 3 if you can get a Berserker into position to do an Armour Break with a shotgun, but that requires a certain degree of luck.
Personally, I think it’s way too easy even without the cheese, and I’m planning to propose a solution when I’ve thought it through a bit more, but unless you’re fielding 8 Snipers with a couple of Armour Breaks between them, 1 or 2 turns is only possible by cheesing it.
If it’s so basically obvious, how come nobody noticed you could do it in around 2 months of playing BB5? It only became apparent after 1 out of several hundred people hit on that particular combo something like 2 weeks into 1.0, and when they publicised it, they were met with a massive wave of scepticism until they posted a video showing what it could do.
It’s obvious after the fact, like a lot of these things are, but it requires hundreds of bright people experimenting with what’s possible for just one of them to come up with the idea in the first place.
And that’s the problem with the sandbox principle. It’s a great idea on paper, but there is no way that anyone bogged down in the detail of programming these things can possibly anticipate every weird and wacky combo that some inventive player will come up with - and they will come up with it if it’s there to be found.
Personally, I’m starting to believe that the only way you can keep a lid on the thing is by limiting every WP Skill to 1 use/turn. Makes them useful ‘get out of jail free’ cards, but doesn’t completely unbalance things in the players’ favour.
Nop, I downed a Scylla yesterday in one turn with 5 guys (she managed to get my scout first). Marked for death, 2 shots by berserker with laser AR (with armor break), 2 nades from GL, 4 sniper shots, only one from a synedrion sniper rifle, 1 cannon shot and couple of pistol shots. Not the first time I do it, too.
Mmm that’s surprising for sniper/assault, but then I wonder how the hell capture many enemies without Rage Burst, for many that would be insanely hard, I can’t count the number of Sirens I killed when trying to capture before have a Pistol to do it and with Rage Burst then.
I did it with a berserker using the melee thingy, no problem
In one turn? No way. You’ll get huge damages or you’ll kill it a lot more soon than paralyze it.
But ok mind control I hadn’t yet during this failed attempts phase.
Not in one turn. First I panicked her (shot her head off and killed some crabs), used warcry so she wouldn’t move around. Took 2 turns, if I recall correctly
Ok, I stand corrected.
There’s a reason I call it ‘The Great Citadel Turkey Shoot.’
Better get round to posting my suggested solution then - though I doubt it’s going to be popular 
I have to say I don’t feel like killing that Scylla wasn’t a feat, I mean it was close. And she did get my level 6 infiltrator first.
But no, I don’t think that capping skill use at 1 per turn is a good idea. I think incremental cost for WPs is, and some specific balancing