• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About James

  • Rank
  1. I agree with Gauddlike's point. The suppression should be based off of ammo not weapon fire. The weapon firing multiple shots is were the effect of suppression fire comes from. Example: an M16 use 5.56 rounds the same rounds that a SAW(M249) uses the difference comes in where a M16's suppression fire is 3 shot burst (first round ok accuracy next 2 crap accuracy) and a SAW's full auto is usually around 750 rmp with a 200 round drum. I think coding wise that is probably the easiest and best way to go about implementing it.
  2. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan kicked off Dec 1979 so with the game starting before that no one would have Afghanistan as combat experience.
  3. I noticed while digging through the forums that Pinetree has a post with a good collection of said information already http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/1081-Xtended-Soldiers-Backgrounds?highlight=regiment So other than the Afghanistan invasion dates my post is a mute point.
  4. Like I read some of the beginning of the thread but skimmed over a few parts here and there on it, so I may be talking about a point that is no longer in question or a concern in the suppression mechanics. People were initially talking about having a suppression shield for suppression and having machine guns do less damage and more suppression while other weapons doing normal damage with little or no suppression. That over looks the fact that machine guns can still be very accurate on point targets with controlled bursts and the fact that assault rifles using burst fire work more like machine guns for suppression. I'm not sure if that is still the current concept of suppression. To clarify what I was saying is suppression fire would have a reduced damage but higher suppression while single shot or controlled bursts on machine guns would have normal (higher) damage and lower suppression. Example: a SAW firing a single round (yes you can squeeze out a single round although its usually done in 2 - 5 shot bursts) is technically the same thing as a 16 firing off a single round, they both have the same muzzle velocity and mass.
  5. I was doing a lot of hires and dismisses and i looks like I as mistaken on the Americans having combat experience in Afghanistan, unless it was a bug I noticed but have yet to recreate.
  6. Gorlom you math is correct. I started reading the suppression mechanics threads and was thinking of adding my 2 cents, but the thread so long I read some of it. So excuse me is what I'm suggesting is already been covered. Suppression fire is as much reactive as it is proactive, and assault rifles are capable of suppression fire as well as machine guns. Three shot burst on a assault rifle is for suppression fire in game that could translate into single shot being higher damage low suppression, while burst fire high suppression lower damage. Machine guns with controlled bursts would be lower suppression higher damage while full auto would be high suppression lower damage. As far as the suppression fire goes I also think there should be a suppression mode for reactions. Basically if a soldier is intended on doing suppression fire as a reaction to an alien(or vice versa) poking his head from cover or concealment a mode should she be toggled. Reaction shots while in the mode would be at a reduced AP and a reduced accuracy to balance each other and to throw more bullets down range. This would help to give the feel of suppression fire.
  7. I agree fully its what they do and get its just flavor text. I just happened to be looking through some new recruits and noticed a few Americans and Soviets with combat experience in Afghanistan and was thinking to myself I should see if they could put Iraq and Afghanistan for the combat experience on my soldier info in the game along with my name nationality and portrait. Shortly after that though I though hey those wars haven't happened yet, that the soviet invasion, which starts a few months after game start.
  8. First I will start off by saying so far the game is looking great! I think this game will still do well despite Firaxis's Xcom Enemy Unknown being released Oct 9th, due to the access to beta. Also, the preservation of the basics of combat and action points remains so the game play is familiar and already well loved. The "modernization" of the new Xcom by Firaxis is yet to be seen if it will be considered a true xcom game by fans. I'm holding my fingers crossed that you guys do well on this game and decide for the first major upgrade/expansion/sequel of the game will include multi-player in much the fashion of xcom tts. I know its been said that multiplayer is not in the scope of the current game and that the general feel is that it will add nothing to the game, but I feel that it is one of the things that will keep the game alive and kicking in the long run along with the obvious of good game play and modding capabilities. Obviously I don't speak for everyone but I do believe that many will agree with me. Multiplayer in this fashion even is not balanced for "fairness" is still a load of fun for the alien player even when its a generally speaking loosing battle. Now to get actually on topic. One of the things things that has bugged me about the game currently is the combat experience flavor text on the recruits. The game takes place in 1979 and soldiers with different nationalities can have combat experience in Afghanistan. The ONLY soldiers that should have Afghanistan combat experience are Soviet Soldiers from the Soviet invasion of Dec. 1979. In the current game world technically no one at the start would have combat experience in Afghanistan. As a flavor note with the Red Bear having to deal with all the UFOs the invasion may not even happen. I would start to compile a list of possible combat experiences with date ranges for soldiers of different nationalities in this thread if it is something of interest. **Edit: Sorry I just realized I posted this in the Goldhawk general forum instead of the Xenonauts.