A new look at a fair RB?

[MichaelIgnotus]

@VOLAND

What I disagree with is using alpha-strike to refer to any OP attack by the player, or even the AI, which can’t alpha-strike because it moves second.

I think your definition of alpha-strike is too rigid, because there are several different ways that alpha-striking can occur:

1. Exploiting Skill combos to win the mission on Turn 1 or 2.
2. Crippling the other side in 1 turn so that it cannot strike back effectively.
3. Inflicting so much damage on the enemy that it has no long-term chance of survival in the mission.
4. Hitting an individual target so hard that it is taken out in a single turn.

Definitions 1&2 conform to your rigid interpretation of alpha-strike and should be rendered impossible.
Definition 3 is what everyone is complaining about with Acid Chirons and should also be nerfed - it’s just as much of an alpha-strike when 1 or 2 Chirons suddenly appear out of nowhere and pepper half your squad with acid before they have any chance to react.
Definition 4 is a perfectly legitimate way of dealing with a Siren/Chiron/other Nasty, and should be possible if you know how to do it right.

The thing is, as the game currently stands, Definitions 1-3 completely overwhelm Definition 4, turning the game into a mess of Mutually Assured Destruction that satisfies no-one (or very few who have a voice). The way you and I limit ourselves does away with 1&2, but probably exposes us quite badly to 3 - though I was lucky enough to avoid any massive acid attack on my playthrough, partly because I apply strike 4 religiously to the most dangerous enemies on the map.

@VOLAND

“Fast and furious” is different from alpha-strike. From the Q&A my understanding is that the devs do want something “fast” or without the fluff, as I would put it.

I agree with that approach. The way I think about it is that when I’m playing any short turn based match in almost any game, usually there will be just 1-3 really decisive turns. The rest I could really do without.

Really? I find a mission that lasts only 3 turns deeply unsatisfying. It feels like an anti-climax. But then, I like LW2 so I’m invested in deeper, longer play. I’m not saying all missions should drag out to 10+ turns by any means, but 3 turns simply isn’t enough time to have an interesting tactical engagement - it just feels like a hit-and-run, rather than a skirmish.

It also contributes significantly to the lack of any sense of menace that so many people miss in this game. Take XCOM as the obvious benchmark - on most missions, you would have a couple of turns at the beginning where nothing much happened as you were getting yourself into position and reacting to the noises off-screen. And it was great! The sense of tense anticipation it generated before everything kicked off was exhilarating - and is completely absent in this game.

@MadSkunky

A simple question:
What should they nerf on the panda side? Making scyllas or chirons even more weaker? These are the most called cases where RB is needed.

1. Get rid of Acid Chirons on all but the highest difficulty settings, and nerf acid damage to Health, but increase it against armour.
2. Adjust the DDA so that Arthrons get more armour (making them harder to kill) but do less damage. Atmo, mid-endgame Crabbies are essentially 1-shot killing machines if you’re not careful, so you have to alpha-strike them. Make them less dangerous but more durable, and you immediately have a more interesting encounter.
3. Sirens should only be able to MC with LoS.
4. OPPOSITE TO NERF: Make the Scylla less of a glass-jawed boxer: We have to talk about the Scylla in the room