Thoughts on Stealth & 5-6 man missions

Post Reply
Denniz
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:11 pm

Thoughts on Stealth & 5-6 man missions

Post by Denniz »

First off, I like doing stealth missions with 1-3 guys and would hate to see them totally nerfed.

Stealth vs. non-stealth:
  • Add additional rewards for killing all enemies (excluding reinforcements) on mission types that are normally stealth (Jailbreak, hacks). Some Supplies, Intel, or a few of the bodies; maybe some additional experience (2x kill experience?) Edit: The True Concealment mod's timer approach would dovetail well with these kind of missions.
0% raids:
  • Under-infiltration (<100%) penalties on supply raids and troop columns. Only get percentage infiltrated of rewards (bodies, alloys, crystals, supplies) when below 100%. (i.e. 0% would get nothing; 50% would get half of normal bodies, alloys, crystals, supplies) You always get your experience, of course.
The problem with 5-6 man missions is you are under-powered against the numbers and quality of enemies as you get later into the game. Increased Advent strength and DEs limit what you can do without stealth. The missions you most want to do are the hardest to detect.
  • Allow intel from liberated regions to be divided across adjacent regions. This might help with some of harder to detect mission types sooner. You can give up supply to help other regions with intel.
  • Scale up map size as enemy numbers increase. This would allow for more, smaller pods rather than just bigger pods all close together. Timer would have to be adjusted upwards as well to compensate for bigger maps. The idea is to keep things more manageable for 5-6 man squads if played carefully.
Expand mission boost options:
  • Options to boost to 100%, 125%, 150%, 200% with proportional intel costs when no time remains for infiltration. If I understand the current boost logic, if I am at 50% then the boost of 75% for 25 intel (veteran) would get me to 50 + (50 * .75) = 87.5. So I would need another 25 / 3 = 8.3 intel to get to 100% infiltrated. After I pay the 25 + 8 = 33 intel, I could then pay more for 125% and then more for 150%, etc.
Starwatcher162536
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 5:54 pm

Re: Thoughts on Stealth & 5-6 man missions

Post by Starwatcher162536 »

I propose only even increases in baseline enemy activity too increase pod sizes. Odd increases could instead increase force level.
JoINrbs
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 61
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 6:43 am

Re: Thoughts on Stealth & 5-6 man missions

Post by JoINrbs »

I think that if you're finding 4-6 soldier missions to be difficult later in the game it's more a strategic failure than a tactical balancing issue. With accurate navigation of the strategic layer it's possible to generate a lot of light through moderate troop columns, extremely light through light destroy relays, and extremely light through light destroy monuments to keep squads busy. Generally my L/I lategames are very heavy on these sorts of missions.

I'm not sure that there's an easy fix for that. Currently the strategic layer is largely based around expanding rapidly and getting ADVENT Strength "stuck" in regions which you're alright with abandoning; leaving 10 strength somewhere will leave the rest of the map with less on it than liberating that region with 10 strength in it would have. If players do this they can get lots of good missions throughout the game, and it's genuinely interesting to try to navigate the strategic layer in this way. On the other hand it's not very intuitive and players who don't know how to do it won't get the same sorts of easy missions.
H1v3m1nd
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 2:48 am

Re: Thoughts on Stealth & 5-6 man missions

Post by H1v3m1nd »

Nice work Denniz, I was just about to create a post about the same topic. So I'll contribute here instead!

C/I is my preferred difficulty and 5-6 man missions are my preferred style of play. Sneaking reasonably close to the objective. Setting up a quick ambush. Crushing a pod before it knows what hit it. Sending a Shinobi/Specialist/Someone to accomplish the objective. Then fighting towards/defending the evac. It's fun and intense. Every. Single. Time. It's why I love XCOM, but the risk of running a squad like that in LW2 can become crazy, very quickly.

I'll expand of some of Denniz's suggestions, then add a couple of my own...
Stealth vs. non-stealth:
  • Add additional rewards for killing all enemies (excluding reinforcements) on mission...
I like the idea of a bonus reward for clearing the map of enemies. I see it working like capture or kill the VIP missions, possibly displaying on the strategy map before the mission is infiltrated. This way you decided in advance how large, and how well equipped, of a squad to launch before hand. Not every mission would have a bonus reward, but could make for some interesting choices when they do.

A few of my own suggestions for rewards: X% of corpses recovered (RNG which corpses are recovered), Data Pads (at a low % chance), a low chance of a random grenade or ammo type (could vary up the load out of early game squads).
0% raids:
  • Under-infiltration (<100%) penalties on supply raids and troop columns....
If Pavonis Interactive want to eliminate 0% raids altogether, I think implementing your idea of no recovered loot would definitely do it. Not sure I like the idea though. I haven't run any myself, they're far too risky for how I try to play. But if someone wants to sit on overwatch for an hour and a half to get the job done, that's fine too. Perhaps -50% to loot, under 50% infiltration would be enough deter instantly launching the mission.

A few of my observations and suggestions for early game 5-6 viability...
  • First of all, I don't mind permanent DEs. I view it as watching the enemy progress, as you do the same. That said, I feel the temp DE, Vigilance is too strong (works on all enemies, rather than the usual some) and/or appears too early (literally the first DE in my current C/I campaign, mid May). I assume it is supposed to counter stealth ops. But it feels more punishing to 5-6 man squads, since they're getting further debuffed from not all carrying SMGs. 1-2 man (sacrificial) stealth teams, with a perk or two, is one of the best counters to a DE that tries to reduce stealth teams.
    Suggestion: Break Vigilance into 3 (or more) smaller DEs that apply the same effect, but only to specific unit types. Some units will still betough to get round, but others would be easier. Guess it might not work since Vigilance is a squad debuff, not an enemy buff, but just a suggestion. At very least I'd like to see it anytime later in the campaign then first DE proc. :D
  • Rapid Response is another temp DE that I'm certain everyone loves, and another that is best dealt with by not activating at all (i.e. small stealth squads). I'm not sure when this DE procs in the timeline, but feel it should, at very least, be tied to the Jammer Officer skill. Once you have an Officer at that skill level, this DE gets add to the pool. I realize this could be exploited, but if someone wants to miss out on cool later skills to avoid 1 DE, so be it.
Well this has gotten plenty wordy, so I'll leave it there. Best of luck to the Pavonis team in polishing up what's looking to be a very promising Long War.

TD;DR - Rewarding killing good, 0% supply raid = 0 supplies bad, Vigilance: 1 to 2 man stealth squads are one of the best ways to counter a DE that tries to reduce stealth squads, Rapid Response: same problem, could be tied the the Jammer Officer skill, to ensure at least one hard counter.
Raven496
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 11:52 am

Re: Thoughts on Stealth & 5-6 man missions

Post by Raven496 »

on reducing rewards for less than 100% infiltration on a raid...meh...not a fan...but if less infiltrated why not drop additional reinforcement pods (the number in relation to the amount not infiltrated) along the flanks instead?

But detecting raids needs to be made ALOT easier...so that a one eye'd deaf mute wouldn't miss one.
bountygiver
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:33 am

Re: Thoughts on Stealth & 5-6 man missions

Post by bountygiver »

1 way to discourage stealth but encourage small squads is to DECREASE POD SIZE instead of the current decreasing pod numbers as you infiltrate. I have seen plenty of 8 man large pods on 150% infiltrated missions when I am training my new squads, forcing me to bring proxy mines to every training missions, and then I just need to kill 3 pods and the mission ends. If the map is filled with 6 2-4 man pod when you 150% infiltrated it will make it very doable for 4 man squad to go through, while discouraging stealth because now you have a lot of different patrols to reveal your shinobi instead of a big lump of overlapping detection square that a stealth squad can easily skirt around while laughing at their stupidity.
Denniz
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:11 pm

Re: Thoughts on Stealth & 5-6 man missions

Post by Denniz »

JoINrbs wrote:I think that if you're finding 4-6 soldier missions to be difficult later in the game it's more a strategic failure than a tactical balancing issue. With accurate navigation of the strategic layer it's possible to generate a lot of light through moderate troop columns, extremely light through light destroy relays, and extremely light through light destroy monuments to keep squads busy. Generally my L/I lategames are very heavy on these sorts of missions.

I'm not sure that there's an easy fix for that. Currently the strategic layer is largely based around expanding rapidly and getting ADVENT Strength "stuck" in regions which you're alright with abandoning; leaving 10 strength somewhere will leave the rest of the map with less on it than liberating that region with 10 strength in it would have. If players do this they can get lots of good missions throughout the game, and it's genuinely interesting to try to navigate the strategic layer in this way. On the other hand it's not very intuitive and players who don't know how to do it won't get the same sorts of easy missions.
I don't disagree with your comments about the strategic layer. I tend to run only stealth hack missions in higher strength regions, if any. I have found that gravitating towards the lower advent strength regions yields the best missions/results.

I was trying to contrast the preference for stealth over 5-6 man missions. Running a 5-6 man mission seems to be a loosing proposition most of the time. It is too easy to get out-manned and take serious wounds or deaths. 5-6 man squads don't have enough CC and damage to effectively handle big enemy squads quickly. Draw a small map and things can get really dicey. Getting trashed and having to cut and run is un-fun and to be avoid, IMO.

I pretty much cherry pick missions where I can bring 7-8 man squads with good infiltration. Sometimes with boost assist. Those tend to be supply raids and troop columns in mid to low strength regions. Those and Haven missions tend to occupy my big squads. Everything else is 1-3 man stealth missions.
Denniz
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:11 pm

Re: Thoughts on Stealth & 5-6 man missions

Post by Denniz »

H1v3m1nd wrote: I'll expand of some of Denniz's suggestions, then add a couple of my own...
Stealth vs. non-stealth:
  • Add additional rewards for killing all enemies (excluding reinforcements) on mission...
I like the idea of a bonus reward for clearing the map of enemies. I see it working like capture or kill the VIP missions, possibly displaying on the strategy map before the mission is infiltrated. This way you decided in advance how large, and how well equipped, of a squad to launch before hand. Not every mission would have a bonus reward, but could make for some interesting choices when they do.

A few of my own suggestions for rewards: X% of corpses recovered (RNG which corpses are recovered), Data Pads (at a low % chance), a low chance of a random grenade or ammo type (could vary up the load out of early game squads).
I like the idea to show a optional reward on the mission briefing. Grenades or ammo would be nice. Not having it every time would be nice for variety.
Jacke
Posts: 623
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:10 am

Re: Thoughts on Stealth & 5-6 man missions

Post by Jacke »

bountygiver wrote:1 way to discourage stealth but encourage small squads is to DECREASE POD SIZE instead of the current decreasing pod numbers as you infiltrate.
There is some point to this, but it's a bit more complex. As xwynns has shown, with a good ambush even a 5-6 soldier squad can handle a 8-enemy pod and it's often best to tackle it first. What's often turns things bad is activating further pods by accident and new pods coming before the current one is dealt with. Even 4-enemy pods can be bad this way, especially if they are in different directions and make taking cover difficult.

This can be used to improve things too. If lower infiltration lead not just to more enemy but more enemy in larger pods, even starting on yellow alert, that would up the challenged beyond the benefit of more copses and experience. Of course, this needs to be balanced by allowing missions to be discovered with enough time before expiry to allow 100% infiltration by 5-6 soldier squads.
Denniz
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:11 pm

Re: Thoughts on Stealth & 5-6 man missions

Post by Denniz »

Raven496 wrote:on reducing rewards for less than 100% infiltration on a raid...meh...not a fan...but if less infiltrated why not drop additional reinforcement pods (the number in relation to the amount not infiltrated) along the flanks instead?
I don't run 0% supply raids but I think that would just provide more corpses once you setup your killing field. Taking away stuff seemed like a better disincentive to serious abuse.
Raven496 wrote:But detecting raids needs to be made ALOT easier...so that a one eye'd deaf mute wouldn't miss one.
I don't have trouble detecting missions. It is a just question of getting enough rebels on intel in enough regions. Early liberation of a region or two plus rapid expansion seems to be the key. It helps to stealth as many jailbreaks as possible to get rebel numbers up. I tend to run 100% intel plus scan in regions I want to farm for missions.
Sporadix
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:27 pm

Re: Thoughts on Stealth & 5-6 man missions

Post by Sporadix »

I think that if you're finding 4-6 soldier missions to be difficult later in the game it's more a strategic failure than a tactical balancing issue. With accurate navigation of the strategic layer it's possible to generate a lot of light through moderate troop columns, extremely light through light destroy relays, and extremely light through light destroy monuments to keep squads busy. Generally my L/I lategames are very heavy on these sorts of missions.
These missions exist, yeah, but it's very difficult to justify sending B or C team soldiers to these missions while the A-team is away. And the longer you wait to start training these soldiers, the more difficult it becomes to ever use them at all. But like you, I am also not using Black Market soldiers. Getting these back in working order will probably help significantly.

And let's not pretend late game enemy dodge values aren't ridiculous. I saw Xwynn's GRAZE episode! So I know I'm not taking crazy pills. Pretty sure I saw JL say he was lowering these though, somewhere.
Denniz
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:11 pm

Re: Thoughts on Stealth & 5-6 man missions

Post by Denniz »

bountygiver wrote:1 way to discourage stealth but encourage small squads is to DECREASE POD SIZE instead of the current decreasing pod numbers as you infiltrate.
Sort of what I was going for in one of my points but you said it better. I would add that unless you have a bigger map to spread out the pods then it doesn't much matter as you will still activate multiple pods at once. Also, I don't think discouraging stealth is necessary. I think we want to encourage 5-6 man missions to add variety.

Also, one thing I don't think I emphasized enough is that different types of missions may need different/separate tweaks rather that some universal change. For example, big pods on some missions where you are able to bring big squads are fun. (Supply raid, troop ambush, HQ, etc.)
mattprice516
Long War 2 Crew
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 12:49 am

Re: Thoughts on Stealth & 5-6 man missions

Post by mattprice516 »

JoINrbs wrote:I think that if you're finding 4-6 soldier missions to be difficult later in the game it's more a strategic failure than a tactical balancing issue. With accurate navigation of the strategic layer it's possible to generate a lot of light through moderate troop columns, extremely light through light destroy relays, and extremely light through light destroy monuments to keep squads busy. Generally my L/I lategames are very heavy on these sorts of missions.
Now that is quite interesting. My last campaign to get that far this certainly wasn't the case, but I'm also not fantastic at managing alert either.
bountygiver
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:33 am

Re: Thoughts on Stealth & 5-6 man missions

Post by bountygiver »

Denniz wrote:
bountygiver wrote:1 way to discourage stealth but encourage small squads is to DECREASE POD SIZE instead of the current decreasing pod numbers as you infiltrate.
Sort of what I was going for in one of my points but you said it better. I would add that unless you have a bigger map to spread out the pods then it doesn't much matter as you will still activate multiple pods at once. Also, I don't think discouraging stealth is necessary. I think we want to encourage 5-6 man missions to add variety.

Also, one thing I don't think I emphasized enough is that different types of missions may need different/separate tweaks rather that some universal change. For example, big pods on some missions where you are able to bring big squads are fun. (Supply raid, troop ambush, HQ, etc.)
the maps are actually big enough, but a lot of parts are unused due to how pods converge and crap like that (especially in 0% supply raids, where all the action always take place in 1/8 of the map), if the spawn points and patrol paths are tweaked properly you can make them spread out evenly across the map and only converge once the objective is completed.
Post Reply