Its ok to fail a mission

[Black Raven]

I think people have idea in the head that in order to beat they game they have to win every mission.

This is not the case, you don't need to succeed in every mission.

.

When I started out I was pushing my rookies to hard to meet objective timers, and i was suffering heavy losses as a result, naturally my campaigns never lasted long (Commander Ironman).

.

After a while I realised my tactics simply wasnt working, so i changed my priority to basically surviving, sure i push objectives best i could and most time i succeeded, but few occasions it was clear if i pushed on timer i was gonna suffer, so I played safe.

Sure i might not of got the intel/reward for beating timer, but far more importantly my team lived and leveled up.

.

Once my team was more experienced, and better geared, you find that you can do SOO much more in single turn, and you soon find it so much easier to compleate objectives when you have more tools at your disposal.

As soon as we realise we don't need to win every mission, the game become much more fun and interesting.

[jeffy]

no its not

gotta keep that A+ mate

[Black Raven]

Originally posted by delta 38:

no its not

gotta keep that A+ mate

Thats the phycolgy thats getting people wiped and angry, keeping A+ with rookies on high difficulty is almost impossible without lot luck.

Once you have some skilled troops, then you can roll in the A+ as much as you like, but you not going get those skilled troops if you throw them into the fire with no hope of coming out.

[bukkie661]

There's simply no way Advent gets a free ride. My team either gets the job done or they die trying. The volunteers left in the Avenger are always ready to step up to fill in the open spots.

[Black Raven]

Originally posted by Merdakah:

There's simply no way Advent gets a free ride. My team either gets the job done are they die trying. The volunteers left in the Avenger are always ready to step to fill in the open spots.

Sacrifice is one thing, and sometimes nesseacry, even if they are high rank Vets, but throwing everything at task thats clearly not goint to work is a foolish waste of resources, both human and material.

Tactical retreat and come back stronger and hard for the next round

[bukkie661]

Originally posted by Black Raven:

Originally posted by Merdakah:

There's simply no way Advent gets a free ride. My team either gets the job done are they die trying. The volunteers left in the Avenger are always ready to step to fill in the open spots.

Sacrifice is one thing, and sometimes nesseacry, even if they are high rank Vets, but throwing everything at task thats clearly not goint to work is a foolish waste of resources, both human and material.

Tactical retreat and come back stronger and hard for the next round

It eventually levels out. Agressive commanders may take the blows over cautious commanders, but we're not holed up in a mountain anymore. Every mission you forfeit bolsters the Avatar Project so it stands to reason that cautious commanders will see themselves confronted with an endgame that's way harder than it needs to be.
Whereas agressive commanders stay ahead of the curve and will have learned how to dispatch enemies quickly and efficiently.

My troopers want to kill Advent. It's why they're here. Weapons free, go get them, tigers!

[Greek]

"I think people have idea in the head that in order to beat they game they have to win every mission.

This is not the case, you don't need to succeed in every mission." Well, I just failed at a mission where a window poped-up and gave me the options to "restart the mission", "load a saved game", or "quit to menu." Only happened once so far, but that sure seems like you have to win at least some missions (and I do note you said "every", but it is not clear if that was really what you meant).

[MinenSpecht]

Thats exactly why Gothic 1 & 2 sold so bad. People dont even think about retreating.

Oh yeah.. my Base just got shot down. Cant retreat this one.....

[Turbobuddah]

I hate failing missions more than losing a member of my team! It's an awesome feeling seeing a Flawless rating but then i'm playing on normal :) i'll go for an ironman playthrough after i've steamrolled through this one, such a good game so far

[Jeckenn]

Better off just to get the No Aim penalties mod ...me thinks...

[Protonic Flux]

I would say that after you've beaten the game a time or two, then yeah. Failing a mission isn't such a bad thing. But I have always been a Alpha male personality type. I was that way since I was 12 years old. I always had to jump my bike the farthest of all my friends, I always pushed myself to be the best, and when I wasn't. I beat myself up far more then anyone else ever could. But it's ok, I got blessed with a understanding of my personality at a young age, so it was never that destructive for me.

Now all that aside....I don't think people today learn to handle failure as well as they should. Just look at little league where they don't keep score, or there are no outs, and everybody wins.

This is a society problem, and not one that will get solved here. But I do appreciate the point your trying to make.

People are going to hate Xcom2 much more then they did Xcom because things are different now.

Same reason why people hated Fallout 4 so much more then they did 3, and New Vegas. People are just different now.

Same reason why people hate new movies so much more then they hated movies that came out 5, 10, even 20 years ago. Yes, I am looking at you Star Wars people!!

It is what it is. *steps off soapbox, grabs popcorn and waits for the blowback*

[Black Raven]

Originally posted by Merdakah:

Originally posted by Black Raven:

Sacrifice is one thing, and sometimes nesseacry, even if they are high rank Vets, but throwing everything at task thats clearly not goint to work is a foolish waste of resources, both human and material.

Tactical retreat and come back stronger and hard for the next round

It eventually levels out. Agressive commanders may take the blows over cautious commanders, but we're not holed up in a mountain anymore. Every mission you forfeit bolsters the Avatar Project so it stands to reason that cautious commanders will see themselves confronted with an endgame that's way harder than it needs to be.
Whereas agressive commanders stay ahead of the curve and will have learned how to dispatch enemies quickly and efficiently.

My troopers want to kill Advent. It's why they're here. Weapons free, go get them, tigers!

Id say its much more complexed than that, the guy who rushes too aggressively can find himslef short of 'dependable' manpower.

Where as the cautious type will find themselve lagging behind with no hope of catching up.

The real stratergy come from the descion making, what are you will to sacrifice, and is the reward worth it.

[Black Jesus]

Originally posted by Merdakah:

Originally posted by Black Raven:

Sacrifice is one thing, and sometimes nesseacry, even if they are high rank Vets, but throwing everything at task thats clearly not goint to work is a foolish waste of resources, both human and material.

Tactical retreat and come back stronger and hard for the next round

It eventually levels out. Agressive commanders may take the blows over cautious commanders, but we're not holed up in a mountain anymore. Every mission you forfeit bolsters the Avatar Project so it stands to reason that cautious commanders will see themselves confronted with an endgame that's way harder than it needs to be.
Whereas agressive commanders stay ahead of the curve and will have learned how to dispatch enemies quickly and efficiently.

My troopers want to kill Advent. It's why they're here. Weapons free, go get them, tigers!

Aggressive commanders also end up going into endgame with few to no vets. You need to strike a balance between aggessiveness and caution. Being too much of either one is detrimental. You just need to learn to move, kill, and stay alive. Easier said then done. You also need a strong strategic game as well.

It's not enough to kill and win missions you need to do all of that and manage your strategic time well, optimize research and development time, and have an effective campaingn plan. Cause you can win all missions, complete all objectives, keep all your vets alive, and still lose the war cause you didn't destroy the Blacksites. And you need the intel and personnel rewards to keep you going as well.

And you have to expand so you can find and reach the Blacksites.

[Black Raven]

Originally posted by Black Jesus:

Originally posted by Merdakah:

It eventually levels out. Agressive commanders may take the blows over cautious commanders, but we're not holed up in a mountain anymore. Every mission you forfeit bolsters the Avatar Project so it stands to reason that cautious commanders will see themselves confronted with an endgame that's way harder than it needs to be.
Whereas agressive commanders stay ahead of the curve and will have learned how to dispatch enemies quickly and efficiently.

My troopers want to kill Advent. It's why they're here. Weapons free, go get them, tigers!

Aggressive commanders also end up going into endgame with few to no vets. You need to strike a balance between aggessiveness and caution. Being too much of either one is detrimental. You just need to learn to move, kill, and stay alive. Easier said then done. You also need a strong strategic game as well.

It's not enough to kill and win missions you need to do all of that and manage your strategic time well, optimize research and development time, and have an effective campaingn plan. Cause you can win all missions, complete all objectives, keep all your vets alive, and still lose the war cause you didn't destroy the Blacksites. And you need the intel and personnel rewards to keep you going as well.

Exactly this, basically what I said but said much better here lol

[bukkie661]

Originally posted by Black Raven:

Originally posted by Merdakah:

It eventually levels out. Agressive commanders may take the blows over cautious commanders, but we're not holed up in a mountain anymore. Every mission you forfeit bolsters the Avatar Project so it stands to reason that cautious commanders will see themselves confronted with an endgame that's way harder than it needs to be.
Whereas agressive commanders stay ahead of the curve and will have learned how to dispatch enemies quickly and efficiently.

My troopers want to kill Advent. It's why they're here. Weapons free, go get them, tigers!

Id say its much more complexed than that, the guy who rushes too aggressively can find himslef short of 'dependable' manpower.

Where as the cautious type will find themselve lagging behind with no hope of catching up.

The real stratergy come from the descion making, what are you will to sacrifice, and is the reward worth it.

You seem to think that agressive commanders lose all their operatives on a mission by mission basis. That's hardly the case. Stuff that you kill first can't kill you and once the survivors from the early missions rank up, get the weaponmods and PCS', soldier downtime declines considerably.
It's very possible to be agressive and to bring everybody home. Many times in my Xcom career I have wondered how in the world I was going to pull a mission out of the fire, but I always seemed to manage somehow.
Two other things that are in the game and pay of in spades if you build them first at the start of a new campaign in Xcom2 are the training center and the advanced warfare center. Buy your squad skills, keep them geared and be bold when under fire.
The rewards should be obvious.

[Studio Ghibli]

OP speaks the truth.