This is something we saw a lot in the initial marketing materials that there is a “constantly evolving enemy reacting to player’s decisions and tactics”. How true is this in the final game? Do the enemies really just get stronger as time pass by regardless of what we do? Or do they really get better armor only because we use better weapons and do they start using better weapons only after we get better armor?
How does this really work? How are the enemies progressing in the final game? Any idea?
Good question, from a single play perspective it’s hard to decipher any adaptation to my playstyle, or is it why the game seems more and more bothering?
I don’t like those short range poison attack ignoring cover, and they seem have been more frequent. But that I manage them less well is no way obvious, it’s more healing kit used but more easier kills.
I also don’t like grenades attack and they seem have increase somehow, for that I have no counter but mainly only use long range and use more overwatch. If I’m fine with more overwatch when it suits, I’m not fine with sniping shooting gameplay overused, this is always tedious gameplay.
But one clear effect of this mechnanism is enemy diversity. Does players complain in JA2 that there’s only one type of enemies, humans? No because they admit their diversity is through their equipment.
Some players complain lack of diversity of enemies in PP, but then they should complain on that too in games as JA2. Because in PP if the mutation system isn’t clearly a mechanism to counter players abusing using same tactic, at reverse it increases quite a lot the enemy diversity, mutations is their equipments. At end enemy diversity seems quite higher than in XCOM2, and this is coming from this mutation aspect.
For enemy design, I’m less sure it compares well to XCOM series. I think Fireaxis have a better and deeper understanding of tactical design, alas I don’t like much their focus in design on gambling and gambling temptation, but their enemies design seems better overall.
But I have also the feeling from evolutions of the series with XCOM2 and the 2 extensions that their designers feel cornered by tactical design with shooting, and at this point if there’s any XCOM3 they should better endorse a design that is more Fantasy like.
Interesting… could that be why I have been seeing almost 100% pincer and shields lately due to my team full of heavy armor and non piercing weapons? Earlier on, I did see some machine gun athrons but since those machineguns failed to penetrate my heavy armor, I start to see pincer and shields with skinny legs almost all the time now and they are SCARY, closing in VERY quickly and every strike breaks through my heavy armor. Is this evidence of that evolution? It is that or pincers and grenades which also hurts my heavy armor bad. In previous playthroughs which I used much much lesser heavy armor, I saw A LOT of machineguns around this same time stamp.
Mmm are shield reserved to pincers? I don’t remind. What’s sure if I never felt much troubles from shield, nor needed piercing weapons, overwatch and shoot at side or back are efficient tools. But yeah its possible I have them less and less.
And yes machinegun seem have increased gradually, and I don’t use much heavy armor. But with one play it’s hard to figure anything.
Yeah, in my previous playthrus where i tried many diff types of soldiers without heavy armor, I got A LOT of machineguns by now (week 4). In this playthru, I use 100% heavy armor only and I suddenly dun see any machineguns hahha (love to raid synedrion and watch their useless laser rifles bounce harmlessly off my armor)
