@dasakamov: I know a lot of people seem to be enjoying this one for sure.
It's more of a reflection on myself that somewhere in my head there is a virtual hand brake that's developed over my gaming lifetime when it comes to this issue, that's never going to go away, no matter how well designed the game in question is.
I mean for example: I don't like playing shooters with a controller, but I get it, I get it, I've tried it and I get how getting used to playing well designed shooter on a controller can be a good experience. Character action games with a controller? Awesome just perfect, love it!
But in case of an RTS it's like imagining myself crawling on all fours for miles along the sidewalk rather then just walking on two legs, it's equated to a bizarre and an unnatural perversion of the natural order that should never see the light of day. Like, why would I want to do that when there is a clearly a better, more efficient and easy to use method by orders of magnitude? Just can't do it. I do the mental equation in my head and the math is just not working out.
@foodmonster: Xcom percentages are accurate over a wide sample, unless you are playing on lower difficulties, where they are loaded in favor of the player behind the scenes.
Reloading the same save and re rolling the same % action like a shot or a hack will not give you different results because it uses a seed table that is determined at the mission start, whose values then get used one by one against the % of the action you are taking. If you are missing that shot you are always missing that shot, and visa versa. It's done to specifically limit save scumming.
Not that it can't still be done to a degree. If you want to try a different result on your 30% then you need to use up that seed value with a different action, to then have the 30% hack use a value that is next in the order. And even if you're doing that a dozen tries is a tiny sample size.
I'll leave answering your specific question to someone with more recent experience with the game, but the thing I'll say is that the line of sight rules in this game are insane and plain buggy most of the time, which is partly why Squadsight is so broken. Remember that shot Swery made when the Mutons first appeared that went through an entire building? Okay, now imagine that happening any time aliens show up anywhere on the map. It's not uncommon for snipers to even land reaction shots through multiple bulkheads of a spaceship.
The shot Swery took is actually 100% legit, it just looked weird on camera because he didn't do the move animation. The way it works is when you are behind full cover the soldier is treated as being able to step/lean left or right one space (if that space is available) in order to take the shot. So in this case the Muton crossed over the line of sight Swery had along the side of the building.
The game honors the LOS rules mechanically first, regardless of how it looks visually.
Same for squad sight snipers, visually they might be shooting through walls, but it is because they were able to draw a direct uninterrupted (by cover) line of sight from one of the squares available to them to the one where the enemy was at the time, through breaks, windows, doors etc. Which true can make the shots look insane sometimes but they check out on paper in the end.
Xcom2 has the same rules for example but they cleaned up the camera animations and soldiers doing the lean/step properly when shooting so that you get way less of that visual insanity, it still happens but not as frequently or to the same degree.
@tennmuerti: you're right but they use overwatch so much that I don't think they will be broken of it. In that case, Covering fire can be fine I guess. They don't flank much so sprinter isn't as useful.I agree with you though.
Eh, yea I guess they have more fundamental rules to understand first, before even considering thinking about skill choices. Even just fully reading them first without misinterpretation would already be a plus.
I think I'm just hardwired into the "get in range of enemy and fire" strategy. I'll give squad sight a shot in my on-and-off playthrough sometime.
Squad sight is incredibly OP in this game. You definitely should try it because it can make a well positioned sniper an unstoppable killing machine.
Didn't they nerf it in the expansion? They were broken in vanilla, I remember 2 of them basically beating the game for me; but the way they're playing, move+shoot would be better :)
They did nerf it in EW a little bit. It is still incredibly strong tho. It basically went from broken to just very powerful.
I know the result is now moot due to events, but just for future reference, to help out:
Sprinter > Covering Fire.
The important part is not to make a perfect choice, but to understand why one is better over another, (ie overall learning of how the game works). Covering fire sounds neat, but in reality you are taking an overwatch shot that you do not control, with an aim penalty, versus someone in cover (if they are shooting at you) so even less chance to hit, when the simple alternative is instead of covering fire is to just shoot them. In essence you are loosing out (at best you are even with other synergies) instead of getting a better soldier. While Sprinter, +3 to movement is tactically very advantageous, especially if you don't want to sprint, you are able to move further and still shoot or do other actions, generally get to be more flexible with your positioning get to better cover or flanking shots. And specifically for Support class it's even better because when you need to heal somebody getting to them is that much easier in one turn.
When you start to think and analyze minor stuff like this is when you start becoming more aware of how the game tics and thus be less at a mercy of the RNG gods and more in control yourself.
Tennmuerti's comments