One can be hardcore with just a few hours into a particular game. Hardcore is how one approaches games, not how many hours they put into it. At least that is how I am using the term. I’ve invested 10x as many hours into PP and I am far from being a hardcore gamer, just have too much free time at the present.
Sorry, Br’er Walan, did I hear you say not to throw you into the briar patch? 
One can play the game in self imposed Ironman mode, if they can manage self control.
Which is it, I hear once per turn, and now it needs to be once per mission?
I have no idea what to answer. 
Just because I would like to have a difficulty level tailored more for the classic lovers I am somehow trying to lock out different playstyles? Oh, come on.
Good for you. I have over 20y of pen & paper RPG experience but story telling shit never hooked me up. Game should provide the rules, not me restricting myself for some challenge. I could play with half of the screen covered by blanket, but that is not the point.
this looks like an endless loop, some people love those OP soldiers/combos, others ( me included) don’t
cheat or not cheat, or game core, allowing combos(aberrations) Multiclass like Berseker/Technician where you have Electric Reinforcement x 4 using Adrenaline Rush if you have enough WP
and as soon as you have extra turns using unlimited Rally and extra killing shots with Rapid clearance, things get unbalanced
it’s not like Quick Aim or Extreme Focus, those skills are moderate, gaining 1AP and you can use those once per turn only
You can get enough OP soldiers/combos without cheating, sorry, allowed chained skills
But of course. However, the system - however near to perfection - can be yet slightly mproved. How about giving unlimited SPs and unlocking all skill levels from the start? More freedom for players to decide how to play.
This doesn’t fix the fact that enemies in the game are fundamentally unfun trash mobs. It’ll help with some of the lost time investment that comes with losing a soldier though since you’re assigning skills in one go instead of having to re-evaluate stat sheets 30-40 times, but that in turn would invalidate progression.
I think you can only fix the current system by taking one of two progressions. The first is embracing the rambo RPG mechanics and eliminating character death entirely. Just have them become disabled, and need to spend some time at a medical center base. Possibly you could have crippled soldiers that need to have a mutation or augmentation preformed on them before being useful. I don’t like the removal of permanent death at all, but having to modify crippled soldiers does give some moral depth to the game. This path does beg the question on why I’m not playing final fantasy tactics or whatever though. I don’t know any modern tactics RPGs because that’s not what I want to play.
The second option is to do away with as much of the active skills as possible, and embrace x-com’s roots by adding more soldiers and tying progression to equipment. This massively reduces the time spent in skill menus, and thus the investment in individual characters. Losing a character then becomes a minor annoyance progression-wise, and doesn’t hamstring you on the battlefield since you have more soldiers. It gives the research and manufacturing system depth. Most importantly it addresses the massively imbalanced power level each team has on their respective turn. PP has 10-20 soldiers worth of AP on their turn, but only 6 soldiers of HP on the enemy turn. Pandas meanwhile have 10-20 soldiers on either of their turns thus willpower becomes the only relevant mechanic for most of the game since before you can make any interesting trade-offs you first have to pare down the pandas so that they only have 6 soldiers on their turn. If you can’t manipulate willpower that well then you lose.
Please don’t bring such suggestions as there would be big audience which will clap to this idea. Limbs replacement should be only viable option when there would be too strong viral infection, not the standard damage to body parts.
although I agree about losing trained/skilled soldiers, huge impact in your strategy
I can’t about facing 10-20 Pandas, you have not to deal with them at the same time,
and your soldiers would kill 2-3 in one turn, for example, Heavies with Boom Blast using 2 grenades and 1 missile (one turn)
or Assault using Rapid Clearance
Of course you want to neutralise Acid/bombs Chirons in one turn, or find cover(buildings) asap
Anyway, skills scheme + Multiclass is open to exploiting too much
that’s the reason why I proposed cooldown options:
Dashing : 1 time per turn per soldier
Rapid Clearance: 1 time per turn per squad
Rally The Troops: 1 time per turn per squad
Electric Reinforcement: 1 time per turn per squad
Mind Crush: 1 time per turn per soldier
and still just combining Rage Burst or Adrenaline Rush with different classes you have a lot of power
Legolas skill
fixed, 
We need Legolas with more Powers, yes, lol
What does this offer over just giving the player one or two more soldiers though? Besides more clicks?
Without abilities it takes what 5 clicks to finish a units turn?
With abilities you’ve got those 5 clicks, then you’ve got to click the ability, use the ability, if rally the troops you’ve got to cycle through 6 soldiers now and click them 2-3 more times. You might have to deal with the stupid end turn dialogue popping up for even more clicks if you didn’t plan things out.
What are abilities offering? I think the naive view is that maybe they reduce clicks, but critically looking at it they don’t. They increase the number of clicks. Consider what happens when a soldier dies. You can reload and shamefully replay the last 3-4 turns, or you can accept the loss and now you have to fetch another soldier, equip that soldier, play another 3-4 missions to get the SP for that soldier, and then go through the skills menu another 10-20 times, and finally go back through the equipment menu once you’ve dual-classed and gotten up their strength.
This is exhausting for the player. It takes away from the action just for you to fiddle with what are ultimately generic characters. It’s too much setting up your equipment and stats, and not enough time getting through the game. This is a big problem for turn-based games like this. Utmost attention needs to be paid to avoiding tedious tasks else it’ll ruin the pace of the game. By playing neither hot nor cold with the character design you end up with a lukewarm game.
Look, I loved X-COM : TFTD, I spent countless hours playing that game, and we had lot of soldiers and vehicles there, different approach
But Devs don’t like that, whatever the reason. You have max 8 soldiers for regular missions using Tiamat (snail) aircraft.
And I would like to use 10 soldiers and 1-2 vehicles, but map should be bigger, and skills seriously reduced, and removed OP soldiers, then you have a different game
I would be happy with cooldown measures, vehicles occupying 2 slots.
Just look at this soldier, imagine 10-12 like this:
Just one is enough to get me depressed 
It depends who likes what. I like to set my team equipment. I lake to plan their training. I like to manage storage and supplies including manufacturing. I like to manage and equip air crafts. I like to plan bases… All of that could be considered by someone as tedious. But that is management. That is planning. For me that is part of strategy and game. Turn base game are not (or should not be) only action in tactical part.
I agree those things are all great if they’re rewarding and meaningful, but limited soldiers means that they’re not. You build what? A basic set of armor and weapons for 12 soldiers, and then you build the 12 sets of armor and weapons that you actually want and then you’re done. No checking the elerium stockpile. No excitement to roll out the new line of plasma rifles, just rifles that do what you want 5% better. No filtering out the new wave of recruits for who has good enough strength to handle the auto-cannon, who can do reaction shots, and who’s gonna panic once shit hits the fan. Maybe you build a vehicle for one or two missions and then throw it in some base to never touch again. There’s 10 whole bases to find just to equip 12 soldiers twice and that’s it.
You spend more effort clicking plus speed and willpower and you’re more rewarded.
That was sarcasm. My point was that if Snapshot had intentionally decided to create a virtual sandbox for playing with toys, rather than a tactics game, they should have fully committed to the idea by leaving character progression entirely in the hands of the players. And also market it as such.
Why players who don’t use and don’t want to use what are quite obviously game breaking exploits, insist that they should stay in the game is something I don’t understand, but that’s a different topic.
Since I have never heard anyone from Snapshot saying that players are expected to self-regulate their behavior to enjoy the game I will assume that they didn’t design the game with that in mind and stop worrying about it.
What’s baffling here is that it’s the same game designer behind both games. This is really quite a mystery to me.
–
Gave the thread a deeper read and I enjoyed it. It’s overflowing with excellent points. Glad to see most of the community is actually on the same page.
When I mean by setting equipment - I mean that it should get damaged during missions, and should be replaced with fresh on next missions. Those damaged go to manufacturing plant for repair. What is reward? My soldiers goes into battle with repaired weapons and armors, so have better chances to survive.
What I mean by planning their training - not all skills should be selectable - there should be some choices to make. That would mean buildling different soldiers for different tactics (also affects what you give to your soldiers). What is reward? Different approaches to enemies with different equipment. Some will deal better with Arthrons, some better with Tritons, and some better with Scylla. You have diversity.
What I mean by managing stockpile and manufacture? - I ensure that there are resources to run production, to repair equipment, to equip soldiers and vehicles. To set queues what should be repaired or build first. Reward? You keep rolling and still have a chance to win against enemy. Without it you are lost.
What I mean by managing ships? You decide what setup they have. What will be their range, what will be their capacity for soldiers and/or vehicle, if they will heal your soldiers, how much fuel would it cost to fly on max range, or how fast you will get there, and what spare equipment you will take with your soldiers to keep them equipped in the sequence of different fights. What is reward? You have teams specializing in different tasks on the geoscape, you can deal with different threats in different parts of the globe with different time of reaction and capabilities of such team. Otherwise you are unprepared and you go blindly betting on luck.
What I mean by managing bases - you decide if base is more like transport hub, or more like research center, or manufacturing hub, or your main point of escapades with all your fighting teams, and you do it by focusing on different set of buildings and supporting facilities. What is reward? You specialize your processes around the globe having better outcomes in production, research, people management, or even goods distribution.
That is how this game should behave if it pretends to be 4X game with tactical battles.
I also wonder why damaged weapons don’t lose some of it’s accuracy and damage.
It could be part of a game which is heavily focused on tactical part. But I suppose that single possibility of loosing weapon is enough punishing to care about weapon durability.
