is 2 better than 1? should I play first 1 and then 2? I got

>>388219485
I like 2 better, but you might want to start with 1 because most people find 2 harder. What did you do to lose countries that fast

>>388219881
can't remember man, I just did missions to prevent countries to panic but couldn't do everything at the same time

>>388219485
Stop being a fag and just play the damn games. You realize you can lose up to 8 countries before you lose right? If your playing on classic+ and you make it past the first 3 month hump you should be fine.
Personally, I like EU better than XCOM 2 and EW is just even better. I dont think its necessary to play them in order though. Its not like the situation that youre in at the beginning of XCOM 2 is fully explained anyways. So really, in terms of story you arent losing/gaining much by playing them in order/not order.

>>388220140
Yeah, thats XCOM for you man. Cant do everything at the same time, youre going to have to prioritize things.

>>388220140
You're always going to lose some countries iirc, just keep building satellites and you'll be fine

File: 1502440329649.jpg (229KB, 1280x963px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1280x963px

XCOM2 base is better than XCOM1 base.

XCOM with Long War however beats XCOM2. It's a load of fun in a way that XCOM2 can't replicate.

>>388219881

>2
>harder

If anything, 2 is too forgiving, at least on Commander. In 1, even a single loss can be campaign ending. In 2, you can always bail and you're never punished, just not rewarded. The only time you're punished for failure is on retaliation missions, and even then you can just always pay the intel and time cost to get the region back.

>>388219485

If you want to play 2, then just wait for the expac that's coming out in 3 days. It actually turns it into a full game.

thanks anons, I guess I'll buy 2 since it's on sale but finish 1 first, I really liked it when I played it

>>388221021
I agree it's easier, I just thought most people found it harder because of timers

>>388221278

So it seems like the game is both harder in terms of actual gameplay yet punishes failure less. This is good game design.

>>388220807
>Long War
OH BOY CAN'T WAIT TO FIGHT CHRYSALIDS WITH 50 HP!

2 has a lot of things refined such as better classes, psi Ops actually strong, and overwatch each triggers individually so you wont have 5 overwatch shooting the first alien like in xcom1. But the late game imbalance, timers, and annoying unavoidable missions are a step backward compare to xcom 1.

>>388223104

Yeah? You got people equally OP. Also they fixed some of the over-scaling the aliens got towards the end-game to not run away quite as far.

>>388219485
XCOM is a very very long running franchise. What you're saying is 1 is actually like 6 or 7 or something. Just play 2 and know that you lost the alien invasion from 1. There's very very little focus on narrative. Both games are far too long to warrant back to back playthroughs.

>>388223730

Overwatch is still kinda shit though since you can't prioritize targets. I love how overwatch ambushes were hyped as a core mechanics and then you never use them outside of month 1 because you NEED to kill certain targets first and can't have the whole team taking shots at generic trooper #4957843.

>>388223906
Do Thin Men still get infinite Lightning Reflexes?

>>388223104
Config.ini edited LongWar > Vanilla > out-of-the-box Long War

>>388223730
>>388223906

The rest of the classes scale well in power. It's just that rangers break the game wide open and output at least three times as much damage as anyone else can, meaning that with them you can kill even shit like sectopods in a single turn.

>>388224196

Thin Men are no longer in the gme. They've been replaced by sexy snakeladies who instead always have a chance to take half damage on a successful hit and pull your guys out of cover for some hot coiling action