One more thing came to my mind with PP
Why can soldier have active 3 main weapons at the same time?
Is there any reason for it, which I miss? I can have active Sniper & Assault rifle and pistol always ready,
I think, that in Jagged Aliance 2 or Xenonauts (not sure), soldier has 1 slot for primary weapon, and 2 for equipment/ pistol
Would not be better to have this in PP? It would add more tactic to the game: more tactics = more sense = more fun
Ready slots are also for ammo, bombs and medikits. While late in the game, its more for 3 weapons, its not easy to get to proficient in all 3 or to develop them for a class / its likely because of multiclassing. I find it very useful, and would not change it.
How would removing the freedom to do something add more tactics to the game. Having multiple varied AP cost weapons at hand is itself a valid tactic.
Nothing is stopping anyone from equipping 1 primary weapon and 2 pieces of equipment or a pistol.
Take a look at this, also in the main post there are Big Examples.
The problem of this Forum for the game is not a few cool tips (+ Canny), but slow and unresponsive Devs.
Devs’ task is not to interfere with the “Light and Heavy” players, but to make the game comfortable/ Interesting for everyone. There are many tools for this:
Removing freedom (with realistic logic) = setting the rules of the game.
Tactics = correct sequence of actions in limited conditions (in strict rules).
Excessive freedom gives rise to Anarchy. (which breaks previously created rules).
You are wrong here, this is not the removing the freedom;
It is to set a meaningful rule to the game - the player needs to make a REAL strategic decision, how to arm soldier…
Where is a tactic, if soldier can have 3 main weapons ready all the time?
What do You think, why the other tactical games work with this concept?
Take a look at this, also in the main post there are Big Examples.
On the other side, this looks unnecessary complex to me 
sorry…
I agree, that, there is sense behind, but it is still computer game,
I would like to make the player strategic decisions, not to deal with micromanagement
You don’t like Devs’s solution, you don’t like my concept, what are the advantages of your solution?
As I wrote above…
In my solution (that concept is standard in tactical games)
The Player should deal with real strategic decision,
At the present state, The soldier can have ready weapon for every situation all the time, long range weapon, close range weapon, etc.
for me, this removes the tactical depth
And I did not say, that I do not like your solution, I see it unnecessary,
Is it possible to carry a spare / second (third) weapon in the Backpack?
Yes, it is
Then what is the difference with my concept?
I haven´t looked at differences in the proposed options, but I do agree with OP that from a “tactical/real-life simulation” perspective, it does not make any sense to be able to have at Heavy-cannon, another Heavy-cannon and then a Sniper-rifle “ready” at the same time without it at least costing some of your time/action-points to switch between it all. (Perk “Ready for Action” is special and perhaps broken for same reasons - maybe it should allow to use Medikits, Grenades, reload and some-such without extra cost, but not to switch big/main-weapon).
If you go into battle, you would most likely carry a somewhat bigger weapon that takes both of your hands and then you would carry a sidearm in your belt for easy/fast use if your main weapon fails, your limbs gets disabled (especially in this game) or the situation calls for short distance or holding/carrying something with your free hand, only in special cases would you take time to switch with the gear you carry on your back.
So I do agree with OP that it makes it more stratigic/tactical to have to choose which main and secondary weapon you carry and to have to spend Action Points to switch to another big weapon.
But this would also require that the devs have taken this into account to balance the game-mechanic …
It all depends on if the game goes for any “realistic”-feel or more Might and Magic …
There’s another aspect to this, which you mentioned but maybe didn’t realize all of its importance: gameplay balance. Simply put, enemies almost never have to change weapons and deal with readiness or not, specially pandorans, which are the main enemies.
So, for the gameplay to not feel unfair, this “realism” would’ve to apply to all sides. In the game’s current form and enemies, I see the option of “less realism” more beneficial to the gameplay and wouldn’t change it much.
An interresting game-mechanic could be if you don´t use all of your Action Points in a turn, by the “shot sniper-rifle 3 points draw pistol and shot once for one point” that the last point if you do not use it, you could carry it on to the next round. Maybe capped at just one point … ?
True … fully agree, but there are options.
Take 5 Armor and 10 HP from Pandas, then make me choose and spend Action Points to switch between weapons … I don´t know where the balance is, but what kind of game do you want to make?
It goes “behind the point”
There is Inventory limitation by weight, which is determines directly by Strength,
this works good, there are no issues with it, and is no reason to set rules like -only 2 large objects/boxes in the backpack-, it would not improve the gameplay
Here is the issue, that soldier can have ready 2 heavy cannons and Sniper rifle at the same time.
Please do not take it like “My idea vs Your Idea”,
this was not really “my idea” from my head, I just saw it in some tactical squad games (jagged alliance 2)
The problem is that you deny (you call - do not do microman-t) my option, without explaining your option in detail. I am Good, all are Bad.
Present your version in the form of a plan like mine, so that everyone is clear and understandable.
Go ahead and put everything together. 