> I feel something similar could be used as a cover indicator when you put your cursor near cover elements (or already have an unit adjacent to cover), cause sometimes I'm unsure how good a certain piece of cover is since their looks can vary quite a bit.
Ok, I will think about adding such a feature in the future
>On that note, I forgot to mention before, but I feel you should be able to shoot through windows while crouched, they just don't look tall enough that standing up should be necessary.
Soldiers cannot shoot in any case where that would cause the arms to pass through solid objects, like this:
In that case the "can't aim" reticle is shown:
that's why they have to stand up (unless the window ledge is very low)
> That's fair enough, but I don't think it's necessary for them to be 1vs1 to be easy, and with 1vs1 there's still the problem that mistakes are much more unforgiving, and if you get your one unit stun locked there's nothing else you can do but just wait for him to die.
I think you are talking about a case where your soldier was hit by a grenade? In that case, I could just prevent enemy throwing grenades in initial battles where the player only has one soldier.
> I think you're selling such a feature short, I believe having to reload and limited ammo gives more depth to weapons, having to make sure you'll have enough ammo for a battle, making you consider if you will be able to reload when you need to without risking yourself too much, being able take advantage of the enemies having to reload in certain situations, allowing more differentiation between weapons with different mag capacities and reload AP costs, maybe even having to swap to a secondary if reloading is gonna be too costly and you need to shoot now, different ammo types giving you more reason to use different weapons depending on availability of ammo and whether it's worth using a harder to come by ammo instead of a more common one, rather than just obsoleting a weapon instantly cause you got one with better stats, maybe you will have to pick up some ammo off the ground if you run low, etc.
It always ends up that you have to allow the player access to nearly unlimited ammo, because if ammo runs out then the game becomes unplayable, so it's really doesn't make the game much more interesting. Having said that, I am not against the feature, just that I put it on a lower priority than other features.
> Well, I don't mean to say you should do it just because other games do, but rather show an example of a fairly simple and common solution to this problem, since diagonals give considerably more distance and therefore give more value to moving in a diagonal if the cost is the same, +50% AP cost is easy to keep track of and good enough approximation to the real difference. Without accounting for the difference moving in a diagonal feels like a constant exploit IMO. Makes me think of those glitches in some old games that allow you to move faster in a diagonal.
I haven't come across any situation where it causes a problem
>the sound is heard from the perspective of the currently selected merc, so his own footsteps will sound loud. I don't know what you mean by "weird"
> Well, they sound kinda muffled and low quality.
Ok, I will look into it
>the roof disappears if your soldier gets close to the building, or if he spots an enemy inside the building. Maybe that's what happened.
> That's probably what happened the second time I had it happen then, but the first time I had barely gotten into the map and didn't even have visual range into the building that was revealed.
I might be a bug. I will look into it
> As far as I've observed, enemies can diagonally move through the marked red lines without triggering an interrupt, and these are inconsistent since you don't have any dead zones if you aim straight north, south, east or west. The other levels don't have these dead zones (aside from having your field of view limited by cover). I'm not sure how you could solve this though, other than having interrupt be able to trigger "in-between" tiles.
I could just make interrupt wider, when it's diagonal
>You mean it targeted a different soldier than the one that moved? Yes, the code is set to do that, but maybe I should change that.
> I see, that wasn't very clear to me since AFAIK the player units can't do that.
Yeah, it's more logical that only the soldier that moves it targeted, so I will change that.
> I'm talking about how you can also automatically increase a skill by using it enough, which for me happened when one unit increased his auto skill after a battle, I had previously thought you had to always manually spend skill points. I think it's cool.
glad you like it ;)
> That would be good too, but my main issue with that case was with how my grenade was stolen, perhaps you could make it so they won't try to take items dropped by player units for one turn.
I can do that.
> I don't mean to say they always do exactly what I had said, but I find they do it way too often. In the screenshot example only a few of them got shot, and there was cover they could've used around them, a few did take cover eventually, but most of the time they barely moved while taking shots, and sat around around each other in the open, with the occasional lone unit rush, until they decided to retreat.
Fair enough. I am thinking about adding a better "seek cover" behaviour for the AI.