Overwatch, cover and aim balance in general

[Malidictus]

So as we all know, XCOM 2 hates Overwatch and cover and wants you to just rush headlong into slugfest fights!

I kid, I kid! However, I've heard that assertion often enough to make me wonder where that's coming from. Why do some people feel justified in largely ignoring cover, or at the very least not paying that much attention to it? Why do so many people take low-percentage shots through cover as if that's just the cost of doing business in XCOM? Why does it feel like we're expected to expose our own soldiers in an effect to outright KILL everything before it has a chance to fire, thus rendering cover pointless?

Well, I've thought about this and experimented some, only to discover an unpleasant truth - cover isn't as importent as the game would like us to think. It's not pointless, of course - far from it. Characters out in the open will almost always eat critical hits and die, but it's very obvious that XCOM 2 doesn't want us to stay in cover. From the turn limits to overwatch accuracy penalties to Squad Sight penalties to how many enemies can auto-hit us through cover or pull us out of cover or run up to us and melee us in cover or destroy our cover, it's pretty obvious to me that the game would like us to keep moving constantly... And that's a problem.

I'll freely admit that camping on Overwatch is dull as dishwater both to play and especially to watch. Individual preference, obviously, but I don't fault the game for trying to be more dynamic. However, in attempting this, it seems to have gone more than a little overboard and made cover just... Not very good. I played Enemy Within and Enemy Unknown, and I remember the firefights that game used to offer, especially against Sectopods. I'd find decent cover for my soldiers, put the thing under constant Suppression and whittle away its health as a couple of soldiers guard our flank from encrouachers. That doesn't seem to happy so much any more. Enemies die pretty fast in the end game, because they have to. If you let them live, they'll hurt you through cover in one way or another.

This is especially true when you consider Overwatch. Riddle me this - what's the point of Overwatch? Specifically, what's the point of going on Overwatch if you can instead take a low-percentage chance shot at an enemy behind cover? Now I freely admit to not remembering what the Overwatch shot penalty was in Enemy Within, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't a 30% dock from aim, 40% if the enemy dashes. Now that doesn't really equate -40% aim unless your aim is at or above 40%, which once again just ends up hurting Snipers, who also have to contend with a severe Squad Sight penalty.

So say my Snuper has a good vantage point but her best shot at an enemy is 45% through low cover. That's the only enemy she can see, so what's the point of putting her on Overwatch? Even if said enemy leaves low cover, her aim will still be lower than if I'd just had her take the original shot. So why do it? Why shouldn't I just roll the dice and shoot through cover when my alternate option is literally worse?

XCOM 2 is so afraid that we're going to camp that it outright guts any kind of defensive strategy we might otherwise have been capable of. Any enemy not suppressed or firing against a Hunkered Down soldier is likely to hit and deal damage. Worse - is likely to move, flank and deal critical damage, or dash and melee-attack my soldier potentially knocking her out for the rest of the fight. Cover doesn't help me all that much because enemies can ignore it in several different ways and Aim Angles make it much weaker. Suppression and Overwatch don't help all that much since the AI will run through Overwatch anyway, and those overwatch shots will likely miss due to the steep penalty. Moving also breaks Suppression, as well.

This entire thing is a roundabout way of saying that I feel the balance of cover and overwatch is far too conservative, kneecapping any kind of defensive strategy and leaving extremely aggressive offense as the only really decent tactic. I'm reminded of the old Long War mod for Enemy Within. I don't remember the exact stats, but I believe that mod boosed cover bonus by quite a bit, as well as lowered the Overwatch penalty. I'm not a huge fan of difficult game,s but that specific change made the game feel a lot more tactical to me, personally. Cover became not just important but VITAL.

While in cover, you were relatively safe - relative enough to rely on it. When someone went on Overwatch, that actually meant something. It wasn't a guaranteed hit, but it was very likely so actually moving through Overwatch was a bad idea. The ability served its purpose - to lock down movement and force lateral thinking. Shoot the enemy on Overwatch, suppress them, grenade them, dash or use someone with Lightning Reflexes. The aliens, too, kept their heads down and would often hunker down or shoot back rather than repositioning constantly. It worked.

---

XCOM 2 is very mod-friendly, and tweaking basic stats like cover and Overwatch bonuses is fairly trivial. As such, I'd like to get your opinions not just on the matter of overall balance, turtling vs. aggression and so on, but also on the more direct stats: If you could change cover and overwatch stats, what would you change them to? Right now, the stats are as follows:

Low Cover: +20% defence
High Cover: +40% defence
Overwatch vs move: 70% aim
Overwatch vs dash: 60% aim

Do you like those stats? Would you change any of them? I would. If I get around to messing with ini files, I'd change them to:

Low Cover: +30% defence
High Cover: +60% defence
Overwatch vs move: 80% aim
Overwatch vs dash: 60% aim

[AteBitGamer]

I would have to agree that you are in some ways forced into an aggressive playstyle with XCOM2. For the reasons stated above. As a result it does feel less tactical than EU/EW.

Timed missions make this especially evident and with the amount of these throughout the game defensive abilities again take a hit in viability.

EDIT; I would endorse those changes to cover/overwatch.

[Malidictus]

I actually feel that turn limits are a very small part of what makes XCOM 2 a more aggressive game than Enemy Within. The cover system has remained the same between the two games, but defensive skills are now both rarer and less potent while offensive skills are much more numerous and have a tendency to ignore or destroy cover. When you up the ante on offense as XCOM 2 has while reducing the power of defence, what you end up with is a much more aggressive game.

In Enemy Within, I swore by my suppression. Enemies were too tough to just outright kill in a single move, so I would hang back and kill them over several turns, where survivability counts. Enemies are - bizarrely enough - not as tough in XCOM 2 and the game penalises you if you mess around with them for too long, either dropping reinforcements or just running down the timer. I barely used my suppression this time around because I couldn't afford to. Double Shot, Rupture and just the plain old shred capacity of Grenadier LMGs is too vital to not use in a turn. Besides, I'm better off killing that Sectopod than I am fighting it to a standstill, because I CAN kill it in one turn. I killed the very first one I met the same turn I met it.

People cling onto the turn timers because they're the most obvious change in this regard. They're something you can point to and say "This is something I don't like!" Viper tongue grabs are similat, in that they're easy to single out as something which makes cover less useful. The Overwatch aim penalty isn't as obvious a culprit, however, nor the Squad Sight aim penalty, nor the propensity of melee-capable units, nor the much greater numer of enemy AoE powers. Just consider that almost the only AoE in Enemy Within came in the form of Plasma Grenades as thrown by Mutons. XCOM 2 has a lot more explosives and a lot more AoE psychic powers on both sides.

Game balance is just less obvious of a thing to point to as the cause, but I feel game balance is at the centre of the issue much more so than Turn Limits. Cover just doesn't protect us as much as it used to and enemies are much harder to keep pinned down. As a result, firefights just aren't as... Interesting, I suppose. Cover, positioning and the ability to move freely should matter more than they currently do.

[Mojo Amok]

Post-concealment overwatch combined with a Phantom Ranger to spot on the untimed missions or in situations where the timer isn't too pressing is still absolutely devastating in XCOM 2.

The Sharpshooter(s) will proc the pod with the initial long watch shot, which causes them all to rush into your death trap of a further 3-4 overwatch shots.....at which point its your turn again.

"Flawless" victory is the default result from the Blacksite, Forge or Facility missions and you can definitely sneak this in on some others like Retaliation missions.

As for the cover changes, I'd consider them as I liked the cover tweaks in Long War, but the thing I'd be most interested in with cover would just be having it more durable, especially versus explosives. Right now its a bit ridiculous how easily things blow up and it leads to grenade spam being and obvious move and rather OP.

[Aircool]

XCOM 2 is far more tactical because it's far more dynamic. The game is far more interesting than XCOM because there's more to it than turtle up with a flanker.

I don't have a problem with this game at all, and I'm a through and through turtling hedgehog. It was pretty clear in the tutorial and first few missions that I would have to adapt, quickly.

I'm on my second playthrough and I've cut back on the mines etc... this time as I'd rather recover loot.

However, I still use grenades to make my own doorways; in the original UFO:EU I loved making my own entrance into the large UFO's with the demo charges.

[Darzil]

I think I'm less bothered about the scale of the bonuses than the destructibility of cover, and on many maps full cover is rare.

Some stuff seems indestructable, though. The Reinforced watchtowers roofs stay in place even with all their supporting structure removed!

[Darzil]

Originally posted by Aircool:

However, I still use grenades to make my own doorways; in the original UFO:EU I loved making my own entrance into the large UFO's with the demo charges.

Heh, yeah, did one of the story missions and there was a trail 12 squares wide straight up to the target. No where for the aliens to hide!

[Ofan]

Whats the point in going on overwatch?

Because the 2 specialist with guardian I liek to run with can kill an enemy pod each on a good day for free during my turn as I activate them. Meaning I can move safely long distances and very quickly to push on an objective.

These boys and girls can take 2-3 shots each (average) and often triggering execute. they are a terror for the aliens. Overwatch is an incredibly powerful tool when used in your own turn and great for catching bugs out in the open before they get a chance to flee for cover. ALso they get the overatch aim penalties removed, good times

[sheep from hell]

to be fair, overwatch got a big boost at the same time because no more "all soldiers shoot at an already dead enemy".

[Soirana]

Originally posted by Malidictus:

So as we all know, XCOM 2 hates Overwatch and coverLow Cover: +20% defence
High Cover: +40% defence
Overwatch vs move: 70% aim
Overwatch vs dash: 60% aim

Do you like those stats?

at 65 aim (rookie) overwatch is as good as shooting guy at low cover (45% for low cover, 45.5 for non-dash overwatch), so picking shooting is better due to being udner control.

at 85 aim (rookie on the roof) shooting guy in low cover is better than overwatch (65 vs 59.5).

So unless enemy is in high cover (or has defense bonus) overwatch is pretty useless.

[BGK]

Overwatch can also be used when you do not have LoS and you are out of moves; or when you are just waiting for a patrol to show up: you'll shoot thanks to overwatch and then have a full turn against them.

[Malidictus]

Originally posted by Ofan:

These boys and girls can take 2-3 shots each (average) and often triggering execute. they are a terror for the aliens. Overwatch is an incredibly powerful tool when used in your own turn and great for catching bugs out in the open before they get a chance to flee for cover. ALso they get the overatch aim penalties removed, good times

Right, but Specialist with Guardian don't suffer the same aim penalty as ordinary soldiers, though. It's the aim penalty which concerns me, personally since oftentimes it's worse than shooting at enemies in Cover. I can see shooting at aliens in your own turn as they're discovered, but your soldiers would need to have line of sight of them to shoot at them. Sometimes you can chase aliens into your own Overwatch, sure.

My issue stands, though - it's once again mostly useful in offensive strategy. A defensive strategy like what you coudl do in Enemy Within is less practical here. Overwatch is great to intercept unexpected enemies, but its function as a movement suppressor doesn't seem to work as well this time around. Enemies ignore it for the most part, and it often misses, as well. If I see an enemy and have a low-percentage shot on them through cover, I really shouldn't have an even lower percentage shot if that enemy leaves cover.

There need to be dangers involved in random repositioning, and I just don't feel Overwatch is dangerous enough with the penalty that it has. I don't want to sit and camp in Overwatch - of course not. However, I want to know that enemies running out of cover are taking a risk. How I used to play in Enemy Within is I'd flank multiple enemies with the same soldier and take one shot. I'd put someone else on Overwatch to force the enemy into a no-win situation - either reposition and risk overwatch, or stay and eat a flanking shot. Back then aliens would Hunger Down or use mental powers or supporess me or go on Overwatch themselves. Now they just run out of cover and squeeze by the reaction fire.

Basically, I want being in cover to be safer and being out of cover to be less safe, simply because being in cover is currently not as important as it was in Enemy Within. Which is a shame, since that's where a lot of the game's actual "miniatures board game" tactical aspect comes from and what makes it fun.

[Ofan]

Originally posted by Malidictus:

Originally posted by Ofan:

These boys and girls can take 2-3 shots each (average) and often triggering execute. they are a terror for the aliens. Overwatch is an incredibly powerful tool when used in your own turn and great for catching bugs out in the open before they get a chance to flee for cover. ALso they get the overatch aim penalties removed, good times

Right, but Specialist with Guardian don't suffer the same aim penalty as ordinary soldiers, though. It's the aim penalty which concerns me, personally since oftentimes it's worse than shooting at enemies in Cover. I can see shooting at aliens in your own turn as they're discovered, but your soldiers would need to have line of sight of them to shoot at them. Sometimes you can chase aliens into your own Overwatch, sure.

My issue stands, though - it's once again mostly useful in offensive strategy. A defensive strategy like what you coudl do in Enemy Within is less practical here. Overwatch is great to intercept unexpected enemies, but its function as a movement suppressor doesn't seem to work as well this time around. Enemies ignore it for the most part, and it often misses, as well. If I see an enemy and have a low-percentage shot on them through cover, I really shouldn't have an even lower percentage shot if that enemy leaves cover.

There need to be dangers involved in random repositioning, and I just don't feel Overwatch is dangerous enough with the penalty that it has. I don't want to sit and camp in Overwatch - of course not. However, I want to know that enemies running out of cover are taking a risk. How I used to play in Enemy Within is I'd flank multiple enemies with the same soldier and take one shot. I'd put someone else on Overwatch to force the enemy into a no-win situation - either reposition and risk overwatch, or stay and eat a flanking shot. Back then aliens would Hunger Down or use mental powers or supporess me or go on Overwatch themselves. Now they just run out of cover and squeeze by the reaction fire.

Basically, I want being in cover to be safer and being out of cover to be less safe, simply because being in cover is currently not as important as it was in Enemy Within. Which is a shame, since that's where a lot of the game's actual "miniatures board game" tactical aspect comes from and what makes it fun.

Of course they dont suffer the same penalty; specialists have been designed for overwatch, that is where they are highly effective. Other units have their own specialisations.

As for saying strategies from the last game don't work - of course not. Forgive me but you are stating the patently obvious. It's a different game, with different themes and gameplay focus. It's akin to you saying "this square peg will not fit through this round hole".

Also, you don't have a lower % shot if it leaves cover, because it no longer has a cover bonus only the overwatch modifier.

The original post you made seemed like a sensible discussion about a gameplay mechanic, but it is rapidly turning into a "I want to play the game differently" vibe now,

Adapt your strategy, and tactics. The old sluggish boring style of play has no place in this sequel, it's a harder game and better for it. It gives you more than enough tools to diversify your approach.

As a final point if your team misses overwatch shots then give them aim buffs, you have weapon mods and ammo types that can more than offset any overwatch penalty. Even my non specialists have no problem being overwatch killers if set up correctly and placed properly.

[Baywatch]

I could be wrong but, I'm fairly certain I remember at least some penalty to overwatch in EU/EW. I know the cover bonuses are identical.

What really alters the game and what ultimately makes overwatch fairly useless (with the exception of a few high level abilities), is the AI plain and simple. Even in EU/EW you never put someone on overwatch with the intention of actually hitting something. What it did do in EU/EW, that it doesn't do in Xcom 2 is effectively pin enemies in place because the AI, like any sensible player, didn't want to risk giving you a dice roll whenever it could avoid it. That's why you typically saw fights lasting much longer with clear battle lines that forced you to make flanks while in Xcom 2 the AI will happily roll the dice and hope that it works out in its favor.

The game is now much faster paced but, considering the goal every round is simply to kill as many enemies as humanly possible or flashbang/mimic beacon if you can't, I'm not entirely convinced it's a beneficial change.

[Ofan]

Originally posted by Baywatch:

I could be wrong but, I'm fairly certain I remember at least some penalty to overwatch in EU/EW. I know the cover bonuses are identical.

What really alters the game and what ultimately makes overwatch fairly useless (with the exception of a few high level abilities), is the AI plain and simple. Even in EU/EW you never put someone on overwatch with the intention of actually hitting something. What it did do in EU/EW, that it doesn't do in Xcom 2 is effectively pin enemies in place because the AI, like any sensible player, didn't want to risk giving you a dice roll whenever it could avoid it. That's why you typically saw fights lasting much longer with clear battle lines that forced you to make flanks while in Xcom 2 the AI will happily roll the dice and hope that it works out in its favor.

The game is now much faster paced but, considering the goal every round is simply to kill as many enemies as humanly possible or flashbang/mimic beacon if you can't, I'm not entirely convinced it's a beneficial change.

I know this is offtopic but are mimic/flashbangs that good, I don't use them lol

As for the change being beneficial, in regards to what? It's not beneficial if people want to play in a way that takes 70 turns to complete a mission.

It's very beneficial to the persuit and rapid development and application of tactics under pressure. Very beneficial also to the theme of risk reward decision making that is now present in the game.

[Roflberries]

Originally posted by Malidictus:

Do you like those stats? Would you change any of them? I would. If I get around to messing with ini files, I'd change them to:

Low Cover: +30% defence
High Cover: +60% defence
Overwatch vs move: 80% aim
Overwatch vs dash: 60% aim

I'm currently using 30/50 for low/high and it makes a noticable difference. 60% on high cover might be too high, shot percentages are usually in the 15-20% range. It would be 1% if you hunker or have aid protocol.

I didn't see any point to tweaking overwatch as I rarely use it as anything other than a dump action, or if I know a unit will move from its cover and the shot % will be higher than what I currently have. That said, your change doesn't sound game breakingly overpowered.

Just note, that depending on your playstyle, these changes can and will drag out fights longer. So you may want to consider using the timer increase as well. Nothing crazy, just a slight bump to account for extended fights.