site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   3265 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for August 22, 2025

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I enjoyed myself playing the XCOM 1 remake, and especially XCOM 2. I even tried Xenonauts, which is a spiritual successor to the original XCOM, but just didn't like it very much. I guess the 1980s aesthetic and the clunky mechanics weren't to my taste.

(Why hasn't someone made Phoenix Point but good? You can actually aim the weapons yourself! There was granular destructible terrain and cover piercing!)

...

?

The guns have stats. Your soldiers have stats. You have Time Units, which forces a choice between movement and action, but in the manner of the old XCOM games as opposed to the ridiculous shoot or move but not both (without perks) in the newer ones.

You bother to aim the guns when you need a sniper to dome someone, or a shotgunner to aim around a shield, or an MG/grenadier to ruin some cover. Each gun has an accuracy stat that governs its accuracy in minutes of arc. Soldiers can tighten that with experience or weapon proficiency.

Would you object to aiming grenades or RPGs in XCOM? Then why not guns? Especially with the ridiculous amount of flexibility it adds.

the ridiculous shoot or move but not both (without perks) in the newer ones.

That's not a thing in general. You can both move and shoot, unless you are using a sniper rifle.

You can't shoot then move, even if you use only half your movement range. Once again, in the absence of specific perks.

Ah, yeah that is true.

You can actually aim the weapons yourself!

In a grid-based turn-based tactics game! It's a profoundly shitty idea!

It's optional. You can just order your soldiers to shoot normally most of the time. Fine-aim is complemented by the limb-damage system, where you can wound or incapacitate enemies or destroy their weapons. The accuracy of a sniper makes sense beyond just having long range. I think it's great. Even modern XCOM lets you aim rockets and grenades, this just takes it to the next level. Tactical positioning makes sense on a far more physical level than arbitrary cover or angle bonuses. Enemies with shields actually need to be flanked or chipped away. You can shoot the facehugger mind-controlling your soldier, but make sure you don't use a sniper unless you want to give them another face-hole.

It's, pardon me, superfluous in idea and idiotic in practice.

See: Heavy troopers being unable to fire from rooftops because they hold their guns at hip level. See also: Sniper being unable to take his shot because there's a lamppost halfway in between him and his target, and leaning left or right isn't possible because it's grid-based, dammit.

You can't actually fine-control where things stand relative to each other, yet first-person shooting depends on exactly such fine control. It's the wrong genre for it!

Those are edge cases. Since Phoenix Point has rather granular time units, it is easy enough to make a soldier move a single tile to clear the line of fire, then shoot and scoot back to cover.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats