XCOM

Enemies pick moves by scoring every reachable tile. Each enemy considers every tile it can move to and scores it by distance, flanking, angle, cover bonus, visibility and proximity, then moves to the best one.

It is the same needs-based utility AI used in The Sims, showing the approach works for tactics as well as life sims.

Tactics and base strategy suit the same fans and feed each other. XCOM pairs turn-based battles with a strategic base layer that draws on related skills. Base upgrades change the battles and battlefield decisions feed back into the base, so neither part is forgotten.

Sid Meier saw the opposite in Covert Action, where long action missions made players lose track of the mystery: "you had no idea of what was going on in the world." A rhythm-based boss fight would be the kind of jarring skill switch to avoid.

Lost soldiers compound into a snowball that leaves players stuck or steamrolling. Surviving veterans keep getting stronger while dead soldiers are replaced by weak rookies, and players cannot return to easier missions. Tom Francis calls it "an unfortunate positive feedback loop" where players on either side of the difficulty curve have little fun.

It works like Monopoly's bankruptcy spiral: each loss makes you less able to compete. Most singleplayer games hide this downside because you retry after dying; XCOM's persistent campaign does not.

Missable shots test contingency planning, not just luck. Because shots can miss, output randomness becomes the next turn's input, and "the best XCOM players are those who have a backup plan if their shots miss."

It also simulates mistakes in an abstract system where you order units rather than act yourself. The all-or-nothing roll can feel punitive when a shot misses completely.

Visible hit odds turn luck into a decision. XCOM displays hit percentages that change with position, so players can weigh which risks to take and see how moving closer to an enemy improves their chances.

Enemy pods deliver new information in spikes so plans last. Plans stay viable for several turns until a new pod of enemies appears and forces a regroup. This matches Ethan Hoeppner's idea of high-impact information arriving in discrete spikes with a slow, steady flow between them.

Rolling new random input every turn would pull the information horizon so close that players could not make lasting plans.

Phoenix Point simulates each bullet so misses feel less punishing. Phoenix Point, from original XCOM designer Julian Gollop, runs every bullet through a ballistics system so some hit and some miss, which is far less annoying than XCOM's all-or-nothing shot.

Keyboard shortcuts help, but mouse-only play is still unsupported. XCOM's keyboard shortcuts cut down on moving the mouse across the screen, and the game is playable with keyboard alone. It does not work with mouse alone.

Even praised games miss things, so test with disabled players or consultancies like DAGERS, and support external devices and a windowed mode that does not lock the mouse.

Harsh carry-over punishment pushes players to save scum. Because losing a soldier means fielding feeble rookies on harder missions, players reload to keep favorites alive. If a mistake makes the rest of the game significantly harder, players will reload the moment they screw up.

Cosmetic rewards for perfect play, like ranks or achievements, are fine because they stay aspirational rather than punishing.

Lost soldiers compound into a snowball that leaves players stuck or steamrolling. Surviving veterans keep getting stronger while dead soldiers are replaced by weak rookies, and players cannot return to easier missions. Tom Francis calls it "an unfortunate positive feedback loop" where players on either side of the difficulty curve have little fun.

It works like Monopoly's bankruptcy spiral: each loss makes you less able to compete. Most singleplayer games hide this downside because you retry after dying; XCOM's persistent campaign does not.

Low-profile missions and variable squad size could break the snowball. Tom Francis suggests low-profile missions that force you to use rookies, and making squad size a per-mission variable so you cannot bring the maximum units every time.

Both stop veterans from carrying every mission and give struggling players a way to rebuild their roster.

Players crept slowly and spammed overwatch because risk rarely paid off. In the first XCOM, players moved slowly across the map and overused overwatch, so most missions played out the same risk-averse way. Jake Solomon felt the game was best when players took risks: "Risks are what lead to loss and what lead to triumph."

Soren Johnson's line fits: "given the opportunity, players will optimise the fun out of a game." The lesson is to know the experience you want, then check whether the easiest route to winning actually delivers it.

Hard turn limits fixed slow play but felt like punishment. XCOM 2 gave missions limits such as 8, 6 or 12 turns, and missing them meant failure. It got players moving, but many who enjoyed cautious play in the first game hated the timers and modded them out, and Firaxis cut them back in War of the Chosen.

Solomon admitted "I didn't expect people to have such a strong reaction to the timers" and suspected a clumsy thematic wrapper on the turn timer. Failing a mission for slowness read as a penalty for a valid playstyle.

Discourage a tactic without making it impossible; reward the style you want. In XCOM 2's timed missions, playing fast became not just the best way but "basically, the only way to play." The better aim is to keep a tactic valid in some situations so players neither abuse nor rely on it.

Alternatives include grenades or destructible cover against cover-hiding, or points for fighting in the open. World of Warcraft turned a hated experience penalty into a rest bonus with essentially the same numbers, showing a reward lands better than a punishment.