Why does it seem to me that the new XCOM is a ported board game?

^{Old and new bases: on the new there is a room with a holographic globe}

Once upon a time, thanks to the good uncle Obryashchikov from Tula, I piled a couple of exams. It seems still in school. Then the first UFO returned to the DOS emulator a couple of times, which cost me at least one session. The new XCOM killed only a couple of days off, but did it very clearly and competently.

Later I found out that there was a heated debate on the forums that the remake could have been better: in the new game there are few fighters of the detachment, not very rich tactics, strange inventory, one base ... And then I realized that all this time I was playing in the desktop. Seriously, if I suddenly wanted to move the first UFO to the desktop version, I would have done exactly the same thing that Firaxis did with the new XCOM. Moreover, they have an excellent experience - “Sid Meier's Civilization” - for several years one of the best-selling strategies in the Western market.
')
So let's take a little walk through the mechanics and see what has been done.

First, the board game is completely controlled by people. In 99% of cases, she has no lead, that is, there is no one to play for AI. Accordingly, all environmental effects, all randomness and other conditions are also manually calculated by players using different game mechanics. This means that we can not automate anything, so we need a maximum simplification of the interface of interaction with people.

In UFO-1, there was an indicator of time and energy per turn: for example, the fighter had 80 units that he could spend on running, shooting, and so on. At the same time shooting took a percentage of time, and running - fixed 4 units per cell, that is, a trained member of the detachment could run half the card, but would still shoot as many times as a recruit.

Naturally, if you transfer it to the desktop view, you would need to significantly change the mechanics, saving players from sitting with a piece of paper. The easiest way is to break the field into cells and say: the fighter has 10 action points, the aimed shot costs 6, the fastest is 4, the movement to the next cell is one. A bit like Fallout, right? Further, if the board game were to occupy a wide market (and not just cover hardcore geeks), then a simplification chain would also be required. And in this regard, the mechanics of XCOM is brilliant: move to any place in the radius or shoot. It is clear that you can move 1 cell to look around the corner and move back - and this will take a whole turn - the error of the transfer. But on the other hand, the simplification that came out immediately saves a lot of time.


^Landing

Now look at the AI. He, too, behaves quite strangely. If you have been playing the new XCOM for a long time, then you know that the enemies do not walk on the map when you don’t see them. That is, if you don’t see a single stranger at the end of the turn, you don’t need to worry, they will not shoot at you during their turn. Moreover, if a fighter in invisible armor goes to a bunch of aliens near the plate, you can see a cool effect: at the end of the turn, they teleport to the next “patrol” point, and will not get there with their feet. This is the classic mechanics of simplifying the fighting of the desktop: for example, in the old Space Hulk, according to Warhammer, there is such a thing - blips. There, the Space Marine player sees only the marks of the presence of the enemy - and you need to approach such a mark so that it becomes a pack of enemies.


^{An old fighter crouches, shooting a sectoid. New hiding behind the wall.}

Secondly, the less micromanagement, the better. It is a question of determining what is most interesting in the game: the mechanics should give the maximum of the interesting and simplify everything else. In a computer civilization, each move is a fairly small action, most often requiring attention to a pile of cities, buildings, and so on. In the desktop "Sid Meier's Civilization" (there are actually two, Serge Laze is still there) the move implies a lot of actions. So that you understand the difference of scales, I will give another example: in the “Game of Thrones” there are only a dozen moves to complete the game. And this ten moves can take 2-3 hours quite calmly: a lot of diplomacy, 5-6 battles per turn and so on. Each turn is a significant event that changes the course of the game.

Remember, in the old UFO knocked plates by the end of the game was under a hundred minimum? This is realistic, but in places it is very annoying. The new XCOM assault plates will be just under a dozen, but each will meet something new: either the new architecture of the ship, or a new type of alien. Each assault will be an event for the player.


^{Interception: very beautiful inheritance}

In the same way, at the level of getting rid of micromanagement, the issue with inventory is solved. One grenade, one medpack, one stunner is terribly unrealistic, but playable. In the desktop, the strong inventory simplification phase begins before release, so that there are fewer components and they are unified. In combination with the class of the fighter (defining his main cannon), this made an extremely simple configuration of the team. Two clicks - and all landed. Beautiful, convenient, fast and flexible. Again, of course, with a decrease in realism - but playable! Plus, a wonderful role-playing branch of the character’s character’s abilities is the very thing needed for the desktop.

Thirdly, the combat system. This is one of the most holivarnyh moments in the desktop: on the one hand, it should be realistic, and on the other - not to turn into a championship in laying out chips. The possible ranges are from a simple attack on a cell with an enemy in the "Jackal" (where the enemy is defeated without options) and to inhuman miscalculations, for example, in the "Fiery Arc".

In the new XCOM gun deals a fixed amount of damage. If a critical shot falls - again fixed, but higher than two times. This is very angry at first - perhaps the very element of “cardboard” that would be easily solved by a simple randomization. With the patch came and the mode of "accidental damage", the decisive question. But for some reason, the rejection of one extra chance convinced me that the XCOM authors first played some desktop on it for a long time, and only then transferred everything to the computer, and not just simplified the interface of the old UFO.

Fourth, the focus of attention. In a board game, player attention is one of the most important resources. If I carried XCOM to paper, I would also make one common base and a bunch of outposts for fighters. Although no, I would rather reduce the number of modules, for example, leaving the laboratory, workshop, radar, isolator and protection. Each base would be equipped with hangars, residential modules and warehouses - also by default. The radar would be upgraded to hyperwave, for example. But with one base is even easier. Simple science? From the same place.


<sup>For example, a simplified base desktop Starcraft


And this is the base from the unofficial port on iOS (called AvH, the management, by the way, is very inconvenient)</sup>

The same with the ships: only one "Ranger" for the delivery of fighters in place. Hellishly wrong after the experience of the first UFO, but playable. And here - a system of simultaneous abductions in different parts of the continent. On the desktop, I would simply ask the player to choose which country he is helping - and I would count on the buns at the end of the turn from this. By the way, pay attention: countries do not lower or increase funding, but simply exit the project. Also quite a simplified thing - and also, perhaps, gives a desktop origin of mechanics.

But the inability to shoot plasma into the walls just like that or a curve of control over an alien (without the ability to shoot him with one’s own) is most likely an attachment legacy that simplifies management.

There are still a lot of not so obvious moments - but, I repeat, the feeling about the desktop is very clear. It is clear that the game came out on consoles with a different control (explains the theory of six soldiers and other simplifications), but in my opinion, the development scenario could be like this: the guys came up with the game, made a prototype on paper, turned it into a desktop, played for a couple of years , and then just moved without any changes. Then other guys came, did a bunch of talks between the characters, story missions (but not randomized cards), script scenes, and so on - this layer is typical only for a computer game, and it was obviously built a higher level.

And all this time I remembered a conversation with one social game developer: “You know, I always look at the desk. All good mechanics come from there. ”

Well, yes, what else gives a direct connection to the desktop with the original? Of course, rethinking the plot and communication with familiar things. The same links the remake with the original. For example, it is interesting to look at the siege tank in the desktop Starcraft, to see, finally, what's in the cab of Wraith on the model. The new XCOM has all the same beautiful moments: the similar architecture of the middle scout, the storming of the base with the capture of the commander of the sectoids, cool sorties to terror (though not very scary), the same laser rifles, analogue of flying armor, psionics ... would also be solved in approximately the same way: for example, in “Twilight of the Empire” by Master of Orion (without a license, therefore the names of the races are different) there are almost all the key points of the “plot” of MOO.

I hope I did not tire you with my love for the desktop and XCOM.