Post campaign feedback

Post Reply
mudhut79
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:28 pm

Post campaign feedback

Post by mudhut79 »

So here is my feedback after completing my last campaign-perhaps not worth much but offered in the spirit of helping to improve LW2!

Overall
I think LW2 is an awesome game. Each mission presents a deep (and varied) set of tactical problems that are rewarding to solve (albeit that sometimes there isn’t a solution to be found – that’s Xcom baby!). I think the strategic layer supports and enhances that tactical experience. The effect of the RNG, to me, is not overwhelming but helps to increase the strategic depth because of the range of outcomes you need to consider. I have limited gaming time, so I try to spend it wisely – LW2 is the only game I’ve played in the last 5 months. So if I mention negative things below, please remember that is me talking about the 5% that (in my opinion) might be improved, rather than the 95% that is fantastic already.

Setup stuff
I played vet ironman. Some UI mods (gotcha again, perfect info etc) but nothing touching gameplay. HP and NCE but no red fog. SLG and AH DLC on. I did turn AWC trees on. Oh and towards the end I had the tactical Killcounter mod that showed me number of enemies on map (mostly because of interrupted gaming sessions where I couldn’t remember how many I had killed previously!). This was my third campaign (real life times - first campaign in Jan-Feb 2017 (lost), second campaign from March to May (won), this one June to October(won))
I estimate that a dozen times (across five months remember) the game crashed. I think that’s pretty good for a modded game! I was taking backups of the ironman save but never had to use them, the standard save reloaded fine.

Big picture
I won 12 January. Had avatar easily under control this time, so to be honest I was cruising a little to try and finish the tech tree – but it takes so long I still gave up. Lots of proving ground stuff I never researched either, a lot of it seems no point? The late game grind for necessary corpses was definitely a downer. Overall, I echo the sentiment that some of the late game tech/gear seems like it isn’t really intended to be used (or needed).
I found that all classes were useful and had particular places to shine. In fact, about halfway through I began to impose upon myself strict barracks equality – had to promote equal numbers of each class (including psi but not sparks). So if you have six soldiers of every class except for assaults and technicals (five each), your next two GTS trainees have to be assigned to those two classes. I actually recommend this if there are some classes you often overlook, forces you to think about how best to use each class. Also I allowed mission reward soldiers (but not bought soldiers) as an exception to the strict equality rule (so that makes them slightly better rewards).
I ran specialist officers on most squads – two exceptions were trial by fire officers (one psi, one holosharpshooter).

Campaign progress
I tried to spread as wide as possible at the start, rather than progressing up the objective chain. I found that smash and grabs (+ avenger excavation) were enough supplies for the first few months – but once liberated I was 100% supplies in that region. I didn’t rush psi, but did it after lasers (I think this is standard?) and so had them much earlier than my previous run. I also paid more attention to the recruit job, couple in each region generally, and jailbreaks kept giving me rookies it seemed. So it was really noticeable how much broader my barracks was, compared to my previous run. By three months in I had eight teams in the field at once (none smaller than 4, most at 5-6). All with some old hands and noobs, spread equally. This changed when I sent 8 of my 10 top soldiers to the first HQ, I think this was four months in. From then on I did try to have somewhat streamed teams (alpha team with best gear etc) and match missions to team ability.
There came a point though where junior soldiers (like Sgt and below) were just a liability, even for ex light/ very light missions. I squadwiped a seven strong team with a two squaddies but the rest old hands on a v light mission (reasonable gear too). It became hard to find suitable Trial By Fire missions (long infil, low alert), then it became impossible. Basically, I drew a line and said ‘no more new soldiers’ because there was no reasonable way to promote them up to be useful. Still, this was OK because I already had a deep enough pool to draw from (68 soldiers at max I think?).
Maybe two months after that, I hit the point where the elite mutons and naja elites and superheavy mech balls and gatekeepers and hive queens and sectopods made pretty much every guerrilla ops a potential deathtrap, even for a good squad. So then I had the alpha team infiltrating the major missions (very long infil times of course), the beta team on standby (ufos hunting avenger, plus retals), and then the rest of the barracks sitting around twiddling their thumbs cause I couldn’t send them out on any sort of mission. This period feels… wrong. I know part of it is that you’re meant to be in a race (aliens getting to force level 20 etc) but when you have avatar under control (I had lots of vigilance slowing avatar) then the optimal play is to not do missions (bar the golden path of course). It just feels very gamey!? I was just sitting around praying for troop columns with enough infil time so I could send half the beta squad (+ extras from C grade squads) to try and find those precious corpses.

Difficulty via obscurity
I felt this time (more than the previous run) that unclear mechanics (or interactions between mechanics) caused me to lose soldiers. Sure I misplayed stuff (and ironman, had to live with it), but there are just so many areas where it’s not clear exactly how things work. On the tactical map it’s usually because of border cases or uncommon perk interactions that you rarely run in to – but there are lots of these individually so they do happen a fair bit in aggregate! The only solution is to play an awful lot (not an option for some of us) and remember the last time you came across this particular weird scenario many months ago (I struggle with that too). Pop quiz: which aliens can still melee attack you while burning? Which passive perks are still active while burning? What is the full list of actions you can take that won’t set off that covering fire overwatch? Most of the time, of course, these details won’t matter – but when they do, they really do.
Difficulty by obscurity is also a problem on the strategic layer. I have read pages of stuff on this and I still have no real clue about pretty important strategic mechanisms like mission generation – e.g. what missions will be available to spawn, what the likelihood of the various ‘hidden’ missions will be. I have never seen a UFO mission, for example. Beats me how XWynn knows where supply raids or troop missions are about to spawn. Of course, you can beat Veteran without this stuff – but it does have the feel that the barrier to going up to Commander/Legend is this sort of difficulty by obscurity.
I am aware that this is somewhat unreasonable criticism – the nature of a game with so many different perks/weapons/equipment etc is that there will be lots of potential complicated interactions. The primary thing would be to have better documentation/tooltips, but I know LW2 needs to support many languages and the additional localization is really tough to do. At its core, I guess, you just try and reinforce clear rules and systems so that it is possible for someone with a moderate amount of experience to work out in advance what will happen when encountering a rare interaction. This also means looking very hard at ‘exceptions’ to the normal rule which are great in isolation, but need to be carefully considered in aggregate because of what they do to the accessibility of the game.
mudhut79
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:28 pm

Re: Post campaign feedback

Post by mudhut79 »

Detailed class notes
As noted above, I had a class-balanced barracks. At game end I had 2 MSGTS of every class except for assaults (3), rangers (3), technical (3) and psi (0). I think that for each of the base classes (bar one), there are 2 or 3 viable builds. I think this is amazing and a huge credit to the dev team. So below I spend more time on the ‘problem’ areas but please remember that this is because 95% of the perks and trees are working really well.

Base classes

Sharpshooters. This is the class where I think there is one optimal build (save you can choose DT or Serial at final level). I tried really hard to make a holobot sharpshooter and a snapshot sharpshooter work. Neither did – my campaign would have been better served if I had gone standard Death from Above (etc) build on both.
Snapshot - On a small proportion of guerrilla ops the snapshot was really useful – I am going to estimate the percentages:
20% of gops, snapshot would have outperformed a DfA sniper on that mission. Basically where I could send her up the side of the map to get the flank shots. But you don’t know in advance when that will be possible (relies on map config and scouting etc) and so..
60% of the time the sniper is with the main squad, shooting through cover rather than around it, and there is elevation available so DfA is the better choice.
20% of the time the sharpshooter is with the main squad and can't flank but there is no elevation (so DfA and Snapshot are roughly equal)
And then obviously on untimed missions DfA rules the roost (come Waterworld or HQ, my two best snipers were the first two soldiers locked in on the squad loadout screen).
Holotargeting – the assigned soldier didn’t have great aim stats to begin with (NCE) but ended up pretty good aim (thanks to HP). The holotarget buffs just don’t seem worth it. On guerrilla ops you’re taking a small squad and it is a big opportunity cost for a soldier to just buff others. On big squads (usually untimed HQs etc) there are more to benefit from the bonus, but even more need for actual shooters! Several times I weighed it up and at critical turns (the turns that matter!) had him shoot rather than holo – and all those holo perks felt like a really poor investment. I then made him into a Trial By Fire officer and this was OK (big boost to aim stats with lead by example). But my psi op Trial By Fire officer still outshone him in ability to babysit the squaddies and bail them out when it went wrong (you holo first; but you stasis last!). Plus the officer training time really favours Psi. Holobot never reached MSgt – has been noticed elsewhere that this is a big drawback for this spec, the absence of kill XP makes them really stall out post tech sergeant.

Rangers. I think this is a great example of 3 viable builds – classic ranger (LHS walk fire, crit stack, rapid fire), reaction fire (RHS all the overwatch skills) and also the middle tree (use the sawn off early is very effective!). They shine at different times (oh how long we wait for rapid reaction) but that’s still good balance I think.

Shinobis. I split shinobis 1/3 pure stealth, 1/3 sword and 1/3 flanky shooters. I found all three had a particular role and so applaud the balance of the class. Sword was my go-to for the biggest missions, reaper is still the most important skill here (and you are better off having it buffed as strong as possible for the most combat-heavy missions).

Grenadiers – I split 50% support (RHS tree) and 50% damage (LHS). Early game the support outshines (sting grenades, oh what a difference when you first reach them) but late game direct damage takes over (specially with all the high level aliens who resist flashbang and have abilities to damage you through smoke).
I will say that the tension with grenadiers is always around their reliance on limited-use items, which makes it tough to justify their role on larger (untimed) missions. Also gas grenades are useless of course. I did try hard to find a use for acid bombs, one vaguely passable approach was to put it on the stealth shinobi and only bring it out if I needed to shred the gatekeeper or sectopod. But overall acid still wasn’t worth it. (Fire is still the king of grenades, plasma yes as well for cover removal. Support just took flashbangs and smoke and freeze bomb if available).

Assaults. I had success with both stun gun build and more standard direct damage builds. They just explode in damage potential with either H&R or Close Encounters. Crit stacking is awesome. I did get my very first Chain Lighting assault (is a bit of an issue that the stun guns specialists don’t level as well because they miss out on kill XP) and found it slightly underwhelming though (codexes being stunned for 0, which is worse than a disorient!? What is the go here?) I love the risk/reward balance with potential activation (and the need to scout to avoid this)

Specialists. I find combat hackers, medics and overwatch specialists all have their niches. Combat hackers (e.g. combat protocol, trojan, failsafe, full override) felt useful the entire game. On longer missions the medics specs felt more useful (as you would expect), not so good on timed ops. Specialist overwatches felt lacklustre late game though – why wouldn’t you take an overwatch spec ranger instead? Overall I do think the specialist trees are a touch weak compared to other classes - I still struggle with combat protocol and medical protocol being on the same tier. BUT I made them my officers, so in a sense that makes up for this (they always have many useful things to do with the officer perks as well). If you were running shinobi officers, I think maybe you would have to think seriously about dropping your specialists from your squad...

Gunners. These were the other class that felt ever so slightly underpowered. I ran a strict overwatch build (RHS) but also cooldown based (HoB and Demo being key). Struggle a little bit with speed in GOps and then I had them a little under-leveled for untimed missions (I guess cause they also weren’t getting as many kills directly? If they are suppressing and destroying cover).

Technicals. I used two builds: basically all RHS on flame perks; or taking fire in the hole then all middle perks to buff shooting (and defence). The flamers were super useful all game (need good speed so they can get into position) but the real surprise was how useful the shooters were. They were my source for shredder and the rocket was basically used on the ‘oh crap’ multi-activation turn. Suitable for being on the front line with good defence, so helpful.

Extras
Sparks. I never built a spark, so when I lost the SLG one (like 80% of the way through) I didn’t rebuild. I went tank build (I feel that’s the only real place Sparks shine). But look, I didn’t really try the others so it’s not like I can claim I practical evidence for the idea there is only one build here.

Psi. The promotion speed for psi might need to be looked at – I got psi at a normal time (I think) and only had one just reach the second-top level at game end.
On that note, I think the whole ‘MSGTs donate one-third of XP to rest of squad’ might need to be looked at (bugged?). Or at least better explained. If I send 6 x MSGTs and a Psi (who I am specifically trying to promote, obviously) then it should get 3 times the normal XP right? This should make a real difference to getting those psi (or late recruits with excellent AWC options) to level up, but I didn’t see any effect.
Other than my complaint about getting them to the highest levels, I am OK with their available perks. I mean I took one non-max level psi (stasis + dom + null lance + soul merge for kubikiri crit boost) to waterworld and didn’t regret it. I didn’t get a single one with void rift offered though (had the prereqs)
Psieye
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:27 am

Re: Post campaign feedback

Post by Psieye »

Gratz on your win. Regarding the class notes, a lot depends on playstyle, tech choice and what the rest of your barracks is up to. For instance, DfA is only viable when you can safely take high ground. If you do something silly like V.Heavy GOps and need to clear the map fast against near-sight-range detection radius, taking the high ground is suicide. If you actively prevent most of your squad from being seen, OW specs are better than OW rangers because a ranger is useless unless they see an enemy.

Oh and I think you got Psi relatively early. After Mag seems like the more natural place to research it. Certainly, after EXO.
My three 8-man GOp squad Commander campaigns:
1st
2nd
3rd
SamXjones
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 11:34 am

Re: Post campaign feedback

Post by SamXjones »

talking about Sharpshooters build, I usually only get holobot by respec a MSGT, and get snapshooter if a rookie get like 81 aim and 17 mobility, then this rookie will be trained as snapshooter. The rest of the rookies with high aim and trained to be a sharpshooter will just become Snipers (the left tree) with some pristol training, no doubt.
The best canditate for holobot are usually those MSGT sharpshooter with
1. quick study, so you can get him/her officer ability training faster
2.1. low aim (usually via bad hidden potential RNG or/and your first batch of sharpshooter earned their rank before GTS is built), becasue they don't need to shoot most of the time
2.2 of course if the MSGT quick study sharpshooter also happen to be good at aim, and Fanfire happen to be in the first 3 level of gunslinger tree, get him/her some pristol training
3. covert is a bonus, because, although you may use holotarget from squadsight range, officer ability (focus fire, get some) do not enjoy squdsight range benefit, so you may have to park your stealthy holobot officer closer to frontline, and covert helps to mitigate the risk of holobot officer being detected to some extend.

Snapshooter is a trickly, if not gimicky one, as they work a bit like an Assult, but in long range. They need mobility to stick with the team (but not too close, for lonewolf to trigger) so range pentaly don't eat up aim too much, and move to flanking position. However, those with high mob and high aim usually come with low dodge and def, together with the low hp progress of sharpshooter, make this build extreamly riskly to use. Sadly, this build can only 'work' but not 'shine' even in the right situation. To balance Snapshooter a bit more, PV may need to consider putting more bonus into the snapshoot perk, such as increase aim/damage/crit chance on exposed enemy, rework lonewolf so it get a base bonus and more bonus for snapshooter stand further away from the team up to a number (e.g lonewolf provide +5 to aim and def, and +1 for each tile, up to +15).
Dwarfling
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 12:16 pm

Re: Post campaign feedback

Post by Dwarfling »

I think in the end if you want to make a Holotarget Sharpshooter, you actually have to pick a rookie with extremely high aim so that he can overcome low cover and not use them as a pseudo scout as the middle tree would suggest. Pair them up with Sappers and Demogunners so that they can clear the high cover. Use them to mostly shoot with the added benefit of having Rapid Target to help out himself and others, and maybe toss out regular holotargets if no other shots can be taken. You can pair them with the DFA Sharpshooters built for crit so that they can Precision and Kubikiri more reliably.

As far as low aim Sharpshooters go, you can make them DFA and pick all the aim bonuses the tree gives you (DFA, DGG and Lone Wolf), plus scope/stock and together with the class aim progression they will get good enough aim to get good shots at everything but high defense targets behind high cover. It's gonna be a painful road at the beginning and they're gonna be finicky to use, specially if you can't gain high ground, but I think they're waaaay more useful than the holobot scouts.
Psieye
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:27 am

Re: Post campaign feedback

Post by Psieye »

All squads (except 2-man stealth) need a certain amount of "DPS" before they can think of adding support. In that sense, a holo guy is useless in a small squad unless he's shooting a lot. Mind, any sniper is useful in my playstyle because squadsight is amazing for fucking up the AI: it's not too hard to arrange for the sniper to get flank shots when they don't have ridiculous Aim stacking. Since the sniper can't move and shoot (aside from snapshot at close-ish range), everyone else (including the enemy) has to move to give the sniper the flank shots. The AI never thinks about squadsight flanks so it will cooperate very easily if you make those moves.

A holo guy in an 8-man GOp squad levels faster than assaults or rangers in ordinary squads. There, the holo guy is great for being able to mark targets for 2 other snipers while keeping a concealed eye on the flank. In my current campaign, I made my 4th sniper a holo build even though he'd have made a great snapshot sniper - I needed a holo.
My three 8-man GOp squad Commander campaigns:
1st
2nd
3rd
Swiftless
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:31 pm

Re: Post campaign feedback

Post by Swiftless »

I have a late game snapshot sniper on my current campaign that's working out pretty good. I ended up with a rookie at 71 aim and 18 speed and decided to give it a try since I had a pretty full barracks already. Power leveled him and he's been working awesomely. The biggest difference for me in particular to his success in my game is that I'm using Tactical Suppressors and he's specced with Phantom. I can't see it working nearly as well on a normal vanilla LW2 setup.

So I can send him out on the edges both as a scout but also to complement whatever shinobi I also have and at opposite directions on the map; that way I find it much easier to get flanks. Getting flanks means he gets more reliable high damage shots with perks like Hunters Instincts and therefore more likely to maintain stealth. Generally once concealment is gone his capability tends to drop a bit unless I spent enough time scouting I can feel confident enough to move him without activating another pod to get a flank. Without a strong concealment mechanic like Tactical Suppressors I'd feel that snapshot snipers are less capable compared to something like a Ranger since flanking moves tend to be discouraged because of the risk of pod activation.

I do want to start my next campaign with a snapshot sniper officer though and see how it performs from early to mid game.
SamXjones
Posts: 36
Joined: Mon May 15, 2017 11:34 am

Re: Post campaign feedback

Post by SamXjones »

While I concur that the tactical suppressor mod (or anyother mod such as grimy's loot) do make many gimmk build (i.e. snapshooter, SMG assult, saw-off rangers, etc.) work and add killing power to stealth build without breaking concealment (i.e. stealth holobot with ability to fire support, stealthnobin, shootnobin), therefore adding a lot of fun into the game, adding a mod shouldn't be a way to fix/rebalance a class. I would like to see more of the perk from snapshooter and holobot (and other gimmk perk trees) get more rework and buff so the risk/return of these build will finally worth the investment/pre-request it underline.

May be we should just start a new topic about perk rework and rebalance (again) =P
Last edited by SamXjones on Tue Oct 17, 2017 6:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Psieye
Posts: 829
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2017 12:27 am

Re: Post campaign feedback

Post by Psieye »

SamXjones wrote:more of the perk from snapshooter and holobot
I keep seeing this opinion from various posters who don't want to engineer situations where snipers are OP. LW2 is designed to be hard. Stop trying to ruin the game by making snipers (of any build) even more OP than they currently are.
My three 8-man GOp squad Commander campaigns:
1st
2nd
3rd
gimrah
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 422
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 12:25 pm

Re: Post campaign feedback

Post by gimrah »

Nice write-up.

You may be simplifying your actual builds for the sake of brevity but I would recommend playing around with some hybrid builds. Specialists can take most of the OW perks and still take key medic and/or hacker perks. Grenadier flashbang/fire hybrid is by far the most success I've had with the class. Rangers and technicals can mix and match quite a lot - no need to min/max those (my best tech is mainly rocket build with shredder and rapid fire and is end game A team).

The other thing I'd observe in some threads on builds (not necessarily this one), is that people assume things will go perfectly according to plan. "My technical will flame ambush one pod and rocket another, job done." "My DfA sniper will murder everything without the enemy ever seeing me." Well maybe, and then those powerful situational abilities will really shine. But sometimes you get a troop column or supply raid where the high ground is awkwardly placed and the DfA sniper struggles. IMO versatility is an under-rated quality when considering classes and builds.

I agree some builds are carry builds. At end game my Gatecrasher OW ranger has the most kills but was a bit sucky for the first half of the campaign. OW specialists similarly (joinrbs maintains they are gamebreakingly good throughout but that has not been my experience). My high aim arc thrower assault was distinctly underpowered until rapid fire, at which point I felt I could switch her up to being a rifleman, she became good and now at MSGT she is probably my most valuable soldier for big missions.

Some builds are good early but fall off later. Snapshot sharps. Cover destruction grenadiers. Maybe flame techs.

My experience with Sparks is they are fun but probably not worth the resources. They are great in retals particularly. But I just got mine to max rank having built it as soon as I libbed and was able to do robotics. But if you haven't played with them it's worth it just for the Julian voicepack, which is hilarious. The gun is also very satisfying.

Psi may be a similar story really. You did it pretty early I would say. Bit surprised you got none to max rank in that case. You may have tried to develop too many possibly. You may not have dedicated enough scientist time. Even so, while they compare well to other classes of similar rank, they spend the game several ranks lower, so yeah. A good option though if you find yourself in mid game with a small roster and need new soldiers who can contribute from low rank. Also they are cheap to equip: don't need upgraded weapons (amps) until late / mid game, those are expensive but that's it until the very end game when you might have a gatekeeper corpse for a T3.
Tac1
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:49 am

Re: Post campaign feedback

Post by Tac1 »

Fun read, hit the nail on the head pretty nicely.

Easily one of my biggest peeves in for Long War is the lack of information. A lot of this game is simply unexplained, even if it's extremely vital the player know and understand the mechanic to have any hope of dealing with it effectively. I had to surf the Wiki to figure out what missions were required to progress the story, as the game gives you next to nothing to tell a Liberation mission apart from any generic hack workstation opportunity.

I think the Avatar project and Dark Events are a good example of withheld information being a good thing. It's tense trying to hunt these things down to learn what and where they are, to decide if I should dedicate resources against them or prepare to endure them. It added a nice touch to the campaign. Worrying over how far the Avatar project has gone is stressful, and it can be a nice relief to uncover it's not gone as far as you thought, or horrifying to realize you don't have as much time as originally expected and be pressured into aggressive moves.

'Snapshot' takes a penalty five tiles beyond Sightrange, but I had to get a mod and surf the Wiki for more information to actually calculate this by hand in game. The Graze mechanic, again, was not explained at all and remained a massive unknown element to me for the longest time, until finally I Googled it and found a forum posts explaining it. It wasn't a particularly good feeling, and while I know now, I'd have played better if the game had just given this information at day 1.
Swiftless
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:31 pm

Re: Post campaign feedback

Post by Swiftless »

Tac1
Posts: 69
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2017 9:49 am

Re: Post campaign feedback

Post by Tac1 »

With appreciation for development limitations, my point stands.
Jacke
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:10 am

Re: Post campaign feedback

Post by Jacke »

Tac1 wrote:With appreciation for development limitations, my point stands.
Completely agree with you, Tac1. I will never quite understand LW2 to the point that many who comment here do. My knowledge is based on what the game UI tells me, not on what I know about the guts of the game under the hood, like what generates what missions. And I've kind of learned how to play LW2 with that info. But I'm still frustrated by the game in many little ways.
mudhut79
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 12:28 pm

Re: Post campaign feedback

Post by mudhut79 »

gimrah wrote: Psi may be a similar story really. You did it pretty early I would say. Bit surprised you got none to max rank in that case. You may have tried to develop too many possibly. You may not have dedicated enough scientist time. Even so, while they compare well to other classes of similar rank, they spend the game several ranks lower, so yeah. A good option though if you find yourself in mid game with a small roster and need new soldiers who can contribute from low rank. Also they are cheap to equip: don't need upgraded weapons (amps) until late / mid game, those are expensive but that's it until the very end game when you might have a gatekeeper corpse for a T3.
On none reaching max rank - I always had the two scientists in Psi lab. I had seven Psi troopers, so maybe that was indeed too many? But then again I pretty much went Specialist (officer) + Shinobi + Psi as the first three positions on every G Op. And for the middle section of the game I had at least five teams in the field at any given time.

Maybe I am misremembering how early I started? I am really sure I teched Psi post Laser (and pre Mag) but maybe I had researched some side things (and armour) before Psi as well? Is a bit hazy so long ago. I left Psi way late the previous campaign so I was trying to avoid that mistake this time.

Oh - maybe it was that I was too tempted by AWC- I only made one Psi officer but every Psi had at least two AWC perks at least by the end game (the training time is so short, is so tempting!). That might have been a strategic misstep perhaps - I do recall one Psi got all 6 non-pistol AWC perks (not the highest ranked Psi, she had three AWC perks IIRC). Even with quick study, that is a fair time away from the battlefield I suppose!
Swiftless
Posts: 59
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 4:31 pm

Re: Post campaign feedback

Post by Swiftless »

Tac1 wrote:With appreciation for development limitations, my point stands.
Wasn't indicating it shouldn't, the point is valid. I just know that for me it changed my perspective and how I approached the game.
Post Reply