Urban Strife - turn-based zombie survival RPG - coming to Early Access on December 10th

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

 

[Fenix]

To be honest, I'm pretty tired of the pandemic trope right now - we've seen the "oh no someone's infected" story a million times, nothing new to be squeezed out of it. That said, it is a staple of the genre and the gameplay doesn't sound too bad. I like that you can spend 500g at the temple and stop worrying about it.

Girl looks nice.
Maybe thrope could be inverted?
Like, everyone is healthy and all, but for Some Reason (tm) they will die of only you won't spread the virus!
Or something.

 

[Abu Antar]

 

[USG_Mucifikatorul]

We should say that the above sequence is from a trailer so to save precious seconds the fire spread is very much accelerated. A normal fire goes from tile to tile, looking for fuel to burn, and it takes a bit longer (especially in turn-based mode).

 

[ERYFKRAD]

We should say that the above sequence is from a trailer so to save precious seconds the fire spread is very much accelerated. A normal fire goes from tile to tile and it takes a bit longer (especially in turn-based mode).

That's pretty fair, after all fire has to roll initiative and wait its turn like everyone else.

 

[USG_Mucifikatorul]

We should say that the above sequence is from a trailer so to save precious seconds the fire spread is very much accelerated. A normal fire goes from tile to tile and it takes a bit longer (especially in turn-based mode).

That's pretty fair, after all fire has to roll initiative and wait its turn like everyone else.

Lol, I guess you can put it like that too.

But to clarify - a molotov has a splash radius in first turn like in any other game. The twist in USG is that the fire doesn't stay contained (if it has combustible stuff on nearby tiles).

 

[Abu Antar]

 

[PanteraNera]

It's really hard not to get excited about Urban Strife for me. Mentioning my personal holy trinity (Jagged Alliance 2, Fallout and UFO:EU) gets me quit excited. On the other hand the last games I was looking forward to, Dead State and Phoenix Point made me lose hope in good new games.

Can we expect JA 2 1.13 inventory management and weapon modifications?

Is there a chance that you will implement prone? On steam I read that US will not have prone stance because of technical limitations / problems with tiles. Especially with realistic ballistics it would be a real shame to not have a prone stance.
Honestly I do not get the problem of the implementation (even Jagged Alliance Rage had it!)

 

[toro]

"Magazines stacked as armor plates" reminded me of that one situation in the TV show (or was it a movie?) about a prison where an inmate (or an undercover cop posing as one) used a few books and a tape to create a shank-proof vest.

The Wire

 

[USG_Mucifikatorul]

Can we expect JA 2 1.13 inventory management and weapon modifications?
Is there a chance that you will implement prone? (...) Honestly I do not get the problem of the implementation (even Jagged Alliance Rage had it!)

1. If not in USG, then in USG v1.13 for sure. We can only promise to do our best to help anyone trying to emulate what v1.13 did.
2. When your cover is a roll of the dice, you can have any stance you want. In a world of real ballistics, if an animation leaves your feet exposed just a bit, you can kiss your feet good-bye. And kissing feet sucks.

Also, most cover is high enough to protect you while crouched in USG. None of the alpha testers who played the game complained about the lack of prone. But maybe they were wrong. We'll see when the public demo will be out and more feedback will come in.

 

[Alienman]

No prone :/

 

[PanteraNera]

Can we expect JA 2 1.13 inventory management and weapon modifications?
Is there a chance that you will implement prone? (...) Honestly I do not get the problem of the implementation (even Jagged Alliance Rage had it!)

1. If not in USG, then in USG v1.13 for sure. We can only promise to do our best to help anyone trying to emulate what v1.13 did.

Well in Bear's Pit they were always looking for an new engine to move on. Actually Urban Strife could be a good base for an JA 2 remake.
There is a thread over there, maybe you should go there and post some stuff .

2. When your cover is a roll of the dice, you can have any stance you want. In a world of real ballistics, if an animation leaves your feet exposed just a bit, you can kiss your feet good-bye. And kissing feet sucks.

Also, most cover is high enough to protect you while crouched in USG. None of the alpha testers who played the game complained about the lack of prone. But maybe they were wrong. We'll see when the public demo will be out and more feedback will come in.

I agree kissing feet sucks.
Know what sucks even more?
If someone like us who agree that kissing feet sucks, do not implement the option for kissing feet in our imaginary game, so people can not decide for them self if it sucks or not.

Seriously, what was the last good to mediocre game that let you go prone? Silent Storm? Fallout Tactics? Why?
I mean if it is about "muh realsim" (and Urban Strife seems to go that route) there is no reason not to have prone.
When I was in the army the most common stance for shooting a rifle was prone.
You know what the recoil of an 7,62 mm rifle (or machine gun) feels like? It is way more manageable when you are prone. Especially with an bipod. Well you probably won't have bipods, cause there is no prone stance

 

[Zombra]

USG without prone will be fine, it doesn't need to clone JA2 1:1.

I'm reminded of the people who complained that CDPR "forgot" to put a jump button in the Witcher series, when it would have served no purpose.
Realism is nice, but if there's no gameplay purpose, it won't be missed except by

 

[Alienman]

Going by the videos I see a lot of mid-high objects that would conceal you if you could prone - maybe for stealth or avoiding damage completely. Not sure why so many devs are allergic to prone. Same thing in Phoenix Point and Xenonauts. So many casualties because I couldn't hide my men properly.

 

[Zombra]

Fair enough, but then the question becomes: is it good for gameplay if every intelligent unit can be in 99% cover 99% of the time?

 

[Harthwain]

"Magazines stacked as armor plates" reminded me of that one situation in the TV show (or was it a movie?) about a prison where an inmate (or an undercover cop posing as one) used a few books and a tape to create a shank-proof vest.

The Wire

Thank you.

Not sure why so many devs are allergic to prone. Same thing in Phoenix Point and Xenonauts.

The original X-COM didn't have prone, so it isn't surprising for XCOM, Phoenix Point and Xenonauts to not have it also. The UFO series had prone mechanic.

 

[Alienman]

Fair enough, but then the question becomes: is it good for gameplay if every intelligent unit can be in 99% cover 99% of the time?

You could have different kind of AI, reckless, sniper etc, or just have the AI not crawl around on the belly that much. Or you have them taking cover most of the time, and force the player to suppress and flank. But I mostly find it frustrating from a player perspective (regarding your own soldiers). If I dude decides to open up with a machine-gun I would prefer if I could let my men hit the deck. In both games I mentioned the only way to avoid fire is to stand behind a tall wall, mostly at least. In the case of Phoenix Point the walls don't protect you 100% since your characters have a tendency to stick their head out of cover in idle animations which the AI use to its advantage. But that is another issue I guess.

The original X-COM didn't have prone, so it isn't surprising for XCOM, Phoenix Point and Xenonauts to not have it also. The UFO series had prone mechanic.

So because the original didn't have it, it can never evolve to something more? By the way X-com Apocalypse had prone.

 

[Togukawa]

Prone does have gameplay purpose, it's a tradeoff between mobility and flexibility on the one hand, and defense+accuracy on the other.

I think that adding a prone stance would improve the game from tactical flexibility and combat immersion point of view, but there are many other more important things to get right too.
Some things have to be cut to save on development resources .

 

[Harthwain]

So because the original didn't have it, it can never evolve to something more?

In all honesty that's not the question for me to answer. All I can say is this: they all decided to emulate it and not included the option to go prone.

 

[PanteraNera]

USG without prone will be fine, it doesn't need to clone JA2 1:1.

I'm reminded of the people who complained that CDPR "forgot" to put a jump button in the Witcher series, when it would have served no purpose.
Realism is nice, but if there's no gameplay purpose, it won't be missed except by

Hey Zombra long time since we have "seen" each other <3.

I guess it is about personal tastes.
When I was younger I was amazed by games like UFO:EU or Jagged Alliance 2 and I dreamed what games would become like once they got higher budgets and better hardware. But to me, games started to get more and more streamlined. While I got older too and have not the time I had when I was single and hadn't had a kid I still dream about complex games with a simulation-like approach. After all games are based on real-life mechanics and physics.

So what is the big gain one would have to be able to jump in Witcher?

In an tactical game going prone gives you several advantages and disadvantages:
- lower silhouette: with realistic ballistics, lower chance to be hit, also higher chance if you do get hit that it is lethal (headshoot), also lower chance to being spotted (stealth)
- more stability while shooting: increased accuracy, better recoil management
- movement: you are moving way slower and have to spent AP/TU to get up (and down for that matter, so maybe one less shoot for the current turn)

 

[Zombra]

In an tactical game going prone gives you several advantages and disadvantages:
- lower silhouette: with realistic ballistics, lower chance to be hit, also higher chance if you do get hit that it is lethal (headshoot), also lower chance to being spotted (stealth)
- more stability while shooting: increased accuracy, better recoil management
- movement: you are moving way slower and have to spent AP/TU to get up (and down for that matter, so maybe one less shoot for the current turn)

This is all true, but the game already has a function that does 100% of this: crouching. Prone stance is nothing more than "crouching, but moreso". I mean, okay, it wouldn't be bad to have one more option, but you're not selling it as adding anything substantial to gameplay.

After all games are based on real-life mechanics and physics.

If you want we can get into a huge argument over this. The assumption that realistic simulation is the alpha and omega of game design always burns my beans. Imagine if you tried to tell a painter that "After all, all visual art aspires to photorealism." Real-world simulation is one way to design a game. Hell, if you want more realism you must want to get rid of turn-based and make it a real-time game, right?

 

[PanteraNera]

This is all true, but the game already has a function that does 100% of this: crouching. Prone stance is nothing more than "crouching, but moreso". I mean, okay, it wouldn't be bad to have one more option, but you're not selling it as adding anything substantial to gameplay.

It does not?
Earlier you said:

Fair enough, but then the question becomes: is it good for gameplay if every intelligent unit can be in 99% cover 99% of the time?

To me it is good because a unit might be in 99% cover from being shot but than the player has to think what other options are there. Throw a smoke grenade to close the distance. Suppress the enemy and flank. Sneak and kill him with melee. Just run straight at him hoping he misses and throw a grenade at him. Or use a rocket launcher. The same could be said to crouch true, but more options lead to more problems/solutions, what makes an game more interesting, at least to me.

If you want we can get into a huge argument over this. The assumption that realistic simulation is the alpha and omega of game design always burns my beans. Imagine if you tried to tell a painter that "After all, all visual art aspires to photorealism." Real-world simulation is one way to design a game. Hell, if you want more realism you must want to get rid of turn-based and make it a real-time game, right?

The question is about the balance.

See for example if a game simulates an economy, it gets more interesting. Whipping an group that produces ammunition? Whoops less ammunition in the gameworld. The AI has to gather resources as the player has to? Let's scout em and lay an ambush. This all would feel more organic/real and not like a scripted mission. And opens up options.

Sure it would be a chore for example to feed everyone in your group manually, but that is where intelligent automatism would be needed. Same as in Jagged Alliance 2 moving all your stuff from one sector to another was a chore, not fun, but realistic. They could have made the militia or someone else to do it for you, would had been better.

I am not wanting realism so a game gets more tedious, but to make it more interesting. It has to have good gameplay solutions on how to make it not a chore.

To go further not only would it need to be real-time but also First-Person. Virtual-Reality where it tracks your every motion. I would be interested in it. But yeah I also loved playing paintball .

 

[USG_Mucifikatorul]

When I was in the army the most common stance for shooting a rifle was prone.

In an urban warfare scenario, going building to building, you would go prone how often during your time in the army? We're not saying prone is 100% useless, we're just warry of spending a lot of our limited time and budget on a feature most people will misuse or ignore.

We appreciate feedback, even if it doesn't agree with our views.

 

[Darth Canoli]

In an urban warfare scenario, going building to building, you would go prone how often during your time in the army?

I'd go prone on a rooftop with a rifle while the meatbags go from building to building.

 

[PanteraNera]

In an urban warfare scenario, going building to building, you would go prone how often during your time in the army?

In the urban warfare scenarios I was in, we were plenty of times prone, on defense as well as on the attack.
On the attack machine gunners and dedicated sharpshooters were giving fire support mostly from an prone positions, while the rest was on the move.
There is quite a lot of open spaces in (real) cities.
On the defense we moved tables to windows to lay prone, for better accuracy but more so for not being spot easily.
On an elevated position, like flat rooftops or containers you were almost always prone.

Room to room is another story. But even than it is not uncommon for the defending site to lay prone.

We're not saying prone is 100% useless, we're just warry of spending a lot of our limited time and budget on a feature most people will misuse or ignore.

If there are only CQC fights in Urban Strife, I can understand that decision.
Kinda leads to other questions, like are all the maps in big cities crowded with buildings with next to none open spaces? Why would you limit yourself to that?

We appreciate feedback, even if it doesn't agree with our views.

Thanks for the seriousness .