Talk:Saving

I wasn't aware that anyone played any X-Com game without saving and reloading. Why would you do that? I don't think it makes the game fun at all if you can expect your soldiers to die every few missions at the start of the game where your technology sucks hardcore. In fact, at the start of a game I will tolerate only minor injuries. By the early-mid stages of the game, whether the first, second, or third, I tolerate no injuries whatsoever. I use all ten save spots and save every time a significant event happens, which could even be moving a few of my guys before I'm going to move another one into a potentially dangerous, unscouted area. Or it could be after I kill an alien. In Apoc, I won't accept even a deflector shield going down. If a shield fails, time to load to an earlier saved game. Those things take too long to manufacture, so I look at them like health, and if the health reaches 0, time to reload.

I don't spend all kinds of time building up a guy into a super-soldier just so that he can be killed by one bad turn, haha, that seems funny to me. I didn't even realize anyone would play an X-Com came without this technique. It just seems wasteful otherwise.

JonathanLB, think of it as an ironman playstyle if you like. There's an entire genre of games (rogue-likes) where save-load is explicitly cheating. Here, it's merely an out-of-game "difficulty switch".

To put things mildly, as long as you're playing against the default AI, and actually understand the default AI, the only thing preventing almost never losing supersoldiers is that there's no in-game roster swap utility. It's a fairly common deficiency for savegame editors to address for XCOM1/XCOM2, and I suspect it will be figured out for Apocalypse before long. -- Zaimoni, 13:49 4 August 2008 (CDT)

P.S.: on talk pages, leaving a signature is generally good style on (almost) any wiki.