[BackerBuild1] Things which I think are missing

I played about 20 games on a random map. I like the game and how its playing in this stage.

  1. I miss the opportunity to order a soldier to LIE, KNEEL or STAND (Of course, this would not be without the pros and cons, because otherwise everyone would let his soldiers lie until the next turn).
  • In all positions you can go without spending time units or will points. The Soldier remembers its last position and when you move it hi will stand up end go other locations and goes back to its previous position.
  • If a soldier is in LYING position, he is the smallest target end in the open he sees only up to 60% or until the first obstacles(coverage) of his surroundings. In this position, he can not shoot or overwatch, is meant only for defense purposes from enemies.
  • If a soldier is in KNEEL position, he is the is the middle target end in the open he sees only up to 80% or until the first high obstacles(coverage) of his surroundings. In this position, he can shoot or overwatch from half coverage but always stands up, because he has such a best shot to the enemy. If a full cover is in front of him, hi ist able to kneel and can attack enemies in front of him, but hi can not use overwatch in same direction. Overwatch will only be activated when enemies are parallel or behind him.
  • If a soldier is in STAND position, he is the is the largest target end in the open he sees up to 100% or until the first high obstacles(coverage) of his surroundings and has no limitations as the other two position.
  1. Currently, this game allow you to activate boxes, heal and exchange inventory in only 4 positions (at a angle of 90°), the way of the game would not change if this matter could work in a angle of 360° (you would have all eight positions around the object or soldier to your disposal).

I completely agree with at least two stances(standing tall and crouched) should be introduced. I however disagree with the idea of changing stances not costing APs. As you pointed out yourself, there would be no downsides of going crouched/prone at the end of the turn to gain the stance’s benefit. OGXcom, Apocalypse and JA games all had the stances with AP cost associated with stance change and it worked very well in those games.

In the same note, facing should be a more deliberate thing. By default, soldier should face in the direction of his last movement with turning requiring APs as well with turning while crouched/prone should be more costly.

I also disagree with shooting being completely impossible while prone. Shooting while prone is one of the core infantry tactics, as long as going prone will be introduced, shooting from that position should not only be possible but also provide improved aim for some weapons(mainly pistols and long arms). At the same time, heavy MGs(like the one heavy trooper is using in alpha), launchers and other similar weapons as well as some items however may not be usable from the prone position.

1 Like

While I see the appeal of kneeling/lying stances, one has to be wary of their impact on gameplay and general feeling, as these tactics tend to promote a static gameplay where the player takes and holds a position. It is a valid tactic and can be entertaining, but can quickly turn into the only valid tactic. FXcom and even LW suffered from the “crawling overwatch squad” meta, and I hope PP will offer more diversity.

So, yes for stances, but there should also be incentives to promote a more mobile and dynamic gameplay (different objectives, map configuration, enemies designed to siege and entrenched position …)

I can imagine some small bonuses rewarding the player for more offensive battle style:

  • killing an enemy in one turn: +50% XP gained for the kill,
  • killing an unaware enemy: +100% WP gained,
  • one-shot-killing an enemy from close range < 3 tiles: +5% on Assault skill tree, and so on.

As for stances, I’m all for crouching even in the open terrain - this is a distinctive feature of the original X-Com and it makes sense to do while in combat.


I think that crouch stance would be very important especially in open terrain, but even if missions will be more tight (like in XCOMs) with more objects to cover behind, it’s always nice to have a choice. But I agree with Vathar that it’s something more than just “let’s add it” as much of gameplay mechanics would have to be built around it.

I would like to have additional key for taking cover, so by pressing soldier could lean toward any wall. It would nicely replace existing automatic system.

1 Like

The thing is, “crawling overwatch squad” is not only valid but also rather important tactic for real life urban combat. And while I am not saying that realism is always better, in some situations is makes sense to take a hint from real life; I see no reason to artificially punish the use of such tactic. The whole “it’s slow” argument seems kinda silly to me. I mean, it’s a turn-based tactical squad combat game, it is supposed to be slow and deliberate. For those who want something fast-paced, Mario Kingdom Battle already exists(it’s a great game BTW, no irony here). But with PP’s gritty and hard-ish sci-fi style, I see no need for artificially speeding up the combat just for the sake of it.

Seriously, what is there so bad about watching your squad slowly advancing into the abandoned military complex full of mutated monstrosities with soldiers covering each other, peeking around the corner and letting the heavy machine gunner keep up with the squad? Surely, watching them all run like headless chicken with no consideration for possible ambushes is a good way to at least ruin the immersion, if not get the whole squad killed. I would very much preferred to have less “trash” fights and make the important ones really stand out and be worth spending 2-3 hours on.


I think the keyword was “meta” and “diversity”.

I personally have no problem with “one tile a turn” being viable, as long as it’s not THE BEST or the ONLY viable choice.

So far I have faith, if reconnaissance really can be important, with stealth kills (infiltrator for example), you don’t have to go “that slow” (though running around will still be a risky choice hopefully), because in theory you can know where most/some of the enemy is, if you play your “scout” good enough, and you can (in theory) spot them before they can sense your scout.

1 Like

I understand your point but the problem is, “slow and steady” tactic being one of the few most viable ones is not artificial. It’s not so much of a balance issue as it is a reflection of what urban infantry combat is really like. I agree that having stealth mechanics implemented would open up a differently-paced approach but as you yourself mentioned, it will still not be a run-and-gun.

Just to be clear, I am not against differently-paced play styles being viable. What I am against is creating those styles by introducing artificial limitations. Design decisions like “crouching is too good not to use all the time so let’s have none of it in the game” or “players will take their time cautiously moving through the map so let’s add a strict turn limit to every mission” indeed speed up the gameplay but not only such solutions are artificial(and thus immersion breaking), they ultimately fail to prevent a “single viable playstyle” problem as well, they simply change which playstyle the player is locked into.

So to add more options to player’s choice, what playstyles could be naturally introduced? I’ll list some I had in mind, starting with what was already mentioned.

~ Slow-and-steady, aka overwatch creep aka tactical advance. As long as player is not in a hurry to complete the mission, this will be viable. Having more defensive options(crouched/prone positions, being able to stick to cover, peeking and shooting around the corner, directional overwatch) will give this playstyle all the tools to put this playstyle to good use.

~ Infiltration aka stealth action. With proper stealth mechanics introduced(vision zones and alertness levels for enemies, stealth kills, silent movement options), stealth infiltration in preparation for the final simultaneous strike, covert op style enemy elimination or even pure stealth with complete enemy avoidance could be viable.

~ Full frontal assault. This one could be one of the fast playstyles we are looking for. With aerial recon and even direct fire support(i.e. a gunship or a heavy drone), players will be able to identify and suppress enemy targets, giving their soldiers an option to advance quickly and finish off the enemy resistance. Limiting factors might be the gunship upkeep(i.e. taking it on a mission might leave a huge hole in the budget), presence of the enemy AA, terrain(high-raise urban or subterranean environment) as well as other mission conditions(drawing too much attention from the main enemy forces might be inadvisable).

~ Shock troop assault. A swarm of drones or a fireteam of combat droids, vat-grown combat mutants or even psionically-controlled enemies could be used as disposable shock troops to provide a “meat shield” for the main squad, creating another option for the faster paced battles.

None of the options above rely on artificially limiting each other but rather, if balanced correctly, provide a set of equally appealing approaches to combat and give players freedom to choose whichever playstyle they prefer.

Keep in mind, those are just examples I came up with, feel free to brainstorm all these ideas further and come up with new ones to add to the mix.


Urban infantry combat isn’t the only scenario and source of inspiration. Think about units like SWAT, SEALs and hostage rescues, wet works. Scenarios where speed matters.

I know FXCOM’s timed missions were unpopular, but this is mostly because EVERYTHING was timer based, even if it didn’t make sense.With a smarter mission design, you can create different scenarios requiring different tactics and different pacing.


And not just stealth, but “scifi/magic” abilities too. If a game has supersoldiers who can do things “our” (RL) soldiers can’t, that can in theory introduce other viable, or even better strategies than “one tile a turn overwatch”, depending on game design.

And agreed with Vanthar, if missions desire speed for some reason (like the enemies wanna do bad things and you have to be faster), it’s better if the game has “viable” tactics for it, and not just “get used to more losses”. (That’s not really a tactic, and may not even need a big change in your strategy either…)

Sure, if you go to a speedy mission with your “overwatch” squad, you may have problems, just like how you might have problems on a “non-speedy” mission with your other squad. Getting intel on a mission and choosing the right composition sounds cool to me, and makes having just one alpha team worse.

Reiterating TL;DR: I have no problem with urban tactics working in urban environment, I just hope they are not the dominant/only viable tactic during a playthrough (because I got somewhat bored of it).


I’m not well-versed in “modern” military tactics, but the ones you (@Siilk) mentioned seems to have some in-game support (though nothing for sure, still in alpha etc. etc.)

We have not only Overwatch (even if it’s limited, it’s usable) but return fire too, and I don’t doubt that we will see more tools at release to support this.

There were plans for almost “all” of this (infiltrator update mentioned it having 360° vision, which means others didn’t have that by default, perception range is there, stealth kills by melee/arrows was mentioned), if it will remain in the finished game or not is something I can’t know, but some of it will probably, the only question is if a “full silent” playthrough is viable or a challenge. (I’m sure someone will do it regardless, because we’re on the internet…)

I think the “vehicle with mountable weapon” provides this on missions you can have that (and that’s not every mission, to say nothing about actually scavenging a working one), you can (in theory) destroy walls to surprise enemies, retreat “fast” if you are in a bad position, have additional, potentially deadlier weapon to take out enemies faster.

Enemies already have shields, probably the player will have some kind too, which is while not exactly a disposable meat shield, depending on the design, can provide “enough” extra defense to make a similar strategy possible. (For me it really depends on how long can a shield function under enemy fire, if it breaks from enough pistol fire it’s more of an emergency item than if it can be broken only by high-caliber/explosives.)

1 Like

LOL everything is missing! It’s version two of the initial backer build. Everyone seems to be acting like this is the final product. SMH.

Not even that. Still version 1 in terms of content. The update to v1.2 was purely bug fixes.

The biggest problem with this thread is that PP’s planned features aren’t being taking into consideration. The fact that enemies are meant to evolve to adjust to your strategies and tactics “should” make it so that a specific methodology will only work for just so long, before needing to be adjusted or out right abandoned.


Plus the way to attack an enemy that is very well dug in is to lob in a few grenades behind their cover. I see no reason why enemy aliens couldn’t do that if they are having problems with soldiers crouching/lying down.