Jump to content

[Gameplay Suggestion] Chinook Range


TornadoADV

Recommended Posts

From a quick read I both agree and disagree.

From a realism standpoint the Chinook speed and range is already excessive (although from a game play perspective I understand why). IF the desire is to have the ability to transport farther earlier in the game and no development hurdles exist then my suggestion would be to add the option to buy C130's, unlike some of the other aircraft mentioned these don't need either a lot nor an especially "good' runway to land and offer the best fixed winged flexibility comparable to a helicopter landing. Also in keeping with the game timeline C130's have been in extensive operation with numerous countries since the 50/60's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From a quick read I both agree and disagree.

From a realism standpoint the Chinook speed and range is already excessive (although from a game play perspective I understand why). IF the desire is to have the ability to transport farther earlier in the game and no development hurdles exist then my suggestion would be to add the option to buy C130's, unlike some of the other aircraft mentioned these don't need either a lot nor an especially "good' runway to land and offer the best fixed winged flexibility comparable to a helicopter landing. Also in keeping with the game timeline C130's have been in extensive operation with numerous countries since the 50/60's.

I thought about that too. The reason I went with the Chinook and troops being airlifted then doing the last leg of the mission with the chopper was that even a C-130 might not be able to land within a reasonable distance under all conditions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...The reason I went with the Chinook and troops being airlifted then doing the last leg of the mission with the chopper was that even a C-130 might not be able to land within a reasonable distance under all conditions.

I'm all for realism as long as it does not interfere with game play (fun). I think the reservation I would have about airlift, then chopper, is the added logistical time constraint. A C-130 certainly doesn't have the landing flexibility of a Chinook so maybe for the missions with small-medium crash sites you have to parachute, large crash sites you land.

Since I am wishful thinking I will also take the option to upgrade to a AC-130 Gunship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The C130 is quite a large aircraft.

What is the balance between using that or the Chinook?

I still think if you are going to have a long ranged option then there should be some significant trade off.

That was why I suggested a small fast aircraft for long range missions.

You get to respond to long distance missions, you also have a nice fast transport to reduce your chance of being intercepted on the way but you have to make do with a reduced squad size and no vehicles.

If your only two options are a big craft with a full squad or a big craft with a full squad that can travel much further there isn't a big choice to make.

I also think it unlikely that any more artwork will be added to introduce an additional landed dropship.

That was a large part of why I suggested parachute drops.

Much less artwork required if all you have is your troops stood round a flare with a couple of wrapped bundles on the floor nearby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would you explain the range increase when the Chinook is passing over a non funding nation?

pay for the fuel in the same way we do returning from any conflict zone that is not partaing in the war we are undertaking or indeed pay for fuel the same was as an airline pays for fuel when it travells around the world.

Its simeple, logical and no different to what aircraft are doing round the world and always have been.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pay for the fuel in the same way we do returning from any conflict zone that is not partaing in the war we are undertaking or indeed pay for fuel the same was as an airline pays for fuel when it travells around the world.

Its simeple, logical and no different to what aircraft are doing round the world and always have been.

And enter having to program the pain in the ass points on the map where the helicopter must fly to to refuel, and making a mechanic that will take some money when X distance that has been traveled overa non funding nation. And for what? For not wanting to deal with limittions of the 70's technology? Well tough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And enter having to program the pain in the ass points on the map where the helicopter must fly to to refuel, and making a mechanic that will take some money when X distance that has been traveled overa non funding nation. And for what? For not wanting to deal with limittions of the 70's technology? Well tough.

FYI, Chinooks could mid-air refuel from C-130s in the 1970s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The C130 is quite a large aircraft.

What is the balance between using that or the Chinook?

I still think if you are going to have a long ranged option then there should be some significant trade off.

That was why I suggested a small fast aircraft for long range missions.

You get to respond to long distance missions, you also have a nice fast transport to reduce your chance of being intercepted on the way but you have to make do with a reduced squad size and no vehicles.

If your only two options are a big craft with a full squad or a big craft with a full squad that can travel much further there isn't a big choice to make.

I also think it unlikely that any more artwork will be added to introduce an additional landed dropship.

That was a large part of why I suggested parachute drops.

Much less artwork required if all you have is your troops stood round a flare with a couple of wrapped bundles on the floor nearby.

I'd be happy with the C-130 only being an option for terror missions, not UFO recovery. That would solve a number of issues regarding balance and realism I think; both your concerns about how to balance the C-130 against the Chinook, the concern about the Chinook having an unrealistic range, and the original concern of the Chinook not having the range to reach terror missions in the early game.

A terror mission is manifestly different to UFO recovery, or even assaulting a landed UFO; it's a scenario in which the aliens have put humanity on the back foot, and the threat level to civilians is much higher. Therefore it makes sense that in this scenario additional resources would be dedicated to the task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI, Chinooks could mid-air refuel from C-130s in the 1970s.

But that assumes you must have c-130 in the air all the time, which is:

1. Really expencive

2. It's a brick that you can't scramble at a moments notice.

I know where your coming from, when saying that having world wide range is awesome gameplay wise, i really do. But having the glaring interception limitations will only add to the games "hopeless" motive and it might provide interesting research strategy play. For instance in the original XC you just blitzkrieged through the weapon reaserches first and all else second. Here you might have a difficult choice of better weapons vs interception capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize I must have missed this part, but can someone explain to me how the trade off of soldiers for range is giving the player a choice?:confused:

I guess there are 2 options on paper. But how is it a choice? (There is no additional choice compared to the normal chinook)what would the purpose be of passing it up?:eek: would there be ANY situation where you pass it up just because can't reach it with the normal chinook? I can honestly not see a choice. I only see reason for confusion in how to balance the other aspects of terror missions, the difficulty, penalties and rewards.

Edited by Gorlom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that assumes you must have c-130 in the air all the time, which is:

1. Really expencive

2. It's a brick that you can't scramble at a moments notice.

I know where your coming from, when saying that having world wide range is awesome gameplay wise, i really do. But having the glaring interception limitations will only add to the games "hopeless" motive and it might provide interesting research strategy play. For instance in the original XC you just blitzkrieged through the weapon reaserches first and all else second. Here you might have a difficult choice of better weapons vs interception capacity.

The whole premise with wrong though. The Chinook can only cruise at about 140 MPH and have 220 mile range in the first place. Does anyone really think that it would be useful to fly one 12,000 miles to a terror site? Simple math will show you that that trip would take 85 hours assuming there were no mechanical problems and there almost certainly would be. Helicopters are simply not designed for that much continuous flying. Packing the helicopter and Xenonauts in the C-5A and sending them off 3x - 4x faster and way more doable. There is no reason that the Xenonauts can't have a dedicated C-5A in the starting equipment or at the use of one when needed. OR the penalty for not taking care of a terror site outside your operating range could be drastically reduced OR maybe cleaning up a terror site should help you a lot (heros, etc...) while not cleaning one up does no harm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize I must have missed this part, but can someone explain to me how the trade off of soldiers for range is giving the player a choice?:confused:

I guess there are 2 options on paper. But how is it a choice? (There is no additional choice compared to the normal chinook)what would the purpose be of passing it up?:eek: would there be ANY situation where you pass it up just because can't reach it with the normal chinook? I can honestly not see a choice. I only see reason for confusion in how to balance the other aspects of terror missions, the difficulty, penalties and rewards.

I am struggling to understand that post but I will try to answer.

You can choose between:

A slow, short range transport that can carry more troops and a vehicle.

A fast, long range transport that carries less troops and no vehicle.

Both the Chinook and the fast transport will carry 8 troops as standard.

The Chinook will benefit from also being able to take a vehicle or a few extra troops.

The fast transport will be able to get to and from sites faster so will be in less danger of interception, it will also have longer range.

If you like to have troops and dropships at all of your bases you might want to take a Chinook at each.

If you prefer to centralise your troops you might want the long range transports to cover your outlying bases from the central point.

It may get to the point where you are unable to handle ground missions with only the 8 troops on a fast transport.

If that is the case you should think about using a Chinook or researching the next tier of dropship.

I don't see why any additional balancing of missions would be required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can choose between:

A slow, short range transport that can carry more troops and a vehicle.

A fast, long range transport that carries less troops and no vehicle.

I was assuming Terror missions outside the range of the chinook meaning the "slow, short range transport" isn't an option any more.:o The options I was talking about were To go there with a reduced team or not at all. The later not really being an option either.

I don't see why any additional balancing of missions would be required.

I think this is a problem.:( That it is assumed that the Terror missions are feature complete and completely balanced. That they are in their final incarnation and will not change anymore until retail. (which is just silly since we know the AI isn't done yet and terror missions will become harder) That we need to find some other mechanic to change and then it's settled that it's the transport mechanic that gets changed. :rolleyes:

would you mind looking at what this would be telling (new) players? what kind of signals this proposal are sending them.:( You get a full team to take out 2 sebillians in a crashed small scout. but when you need to save a city from a terror strike team, a much more difficult task, you get a reduced team? It lessens and cheapens the effect of the terror missions imo. :(

I still consider the sacrificing soldiers for range option to be the absolutely worst option out there. (Yes, even the unthinkable option of giving the chinooks infinite range IS better then this faux choice imo) The proposal is asking to have the terror missions difficulty balanced around 8 soldiers (or how many you can fit in the reduced capacity ship) instead of around the soldiers you can fit in the chinook.:eek:

what happens when you can reach the terror missions with your regular sized teams? when it is in range of a chinook or when you get an upgraded transport?

I am seriously wondering what purpose does the trade off have (over increasing chinooks range) other than the preservation of some perceived balance? How does it change anything in the game play (other than difficulty of terror missions)? what situation or triggers is altered by making the chinook have less capacity if it needs to go a bit further outside the radar? IS there ever a situation where you would want to use the less capacity ship INSIDE radar range? Is the micromanagement of assigning troops out of the chinook and into the less capacity ship and back again for every time you need to go outside the radar that interesting?:confused:

The trade has NEVER made sense to me. It just looks like someone is trying to mimic real life a bit too hard. :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That it is assumed that the Terror missions are feature complete and completely balanced. That they are in their final incarnation and will not change anymore until retail.

No that is not assumed at all.

You suggested that multiple dropships would require additional balancing for missions.

I replied that this additional balancing would not be required.

If that was the case they would also need rebalancing every time you gain access to a new dropship, or a new set of weapons/armour.

I am assuming there that newer dropships will have the ability to field more troops and/or vehicles and that new gear for troops will shift the balance in your favour of course.

Would it be more difficult to do a terror mission with a basic squad (i.e. removing the vehicle)?

Of course it would so it would be a difficult decision to attack a terror mission half way around the world.

At least it would be a choice.

would you mind looking at what this would be telling (new) players? what kind of signals this proposal are sending them.:( You get a full team to take out 2 sebillians in a crashed small scout. but when you need to save a city from a terror strike team, a much more difficult task, you get a reduced team? It lessens and cheapens the effect of the terror missions imo. :(

Assuming there that the terror mission is always out of range and the crash site is always within range of the Chinook.

Also assuming that the player doesn't choose to primarily use the small fast transport , for example from a central site, in which case quite a few of the crash sites would be out of Chinook range as well.

I think you are focusing too much on a second transport as purely a way to reach a terror site.

If you want a single manned base and several radar/interception bases then a long ranged transport gives you an option.

Without it all you can do is give the Chinook a massive range increase or force a dropship in every base.

Some people have said they would like to have an option there so that's why the suggestion was made.

If it is one you don't like feel free to make a counter suggestion.

IS there ever a situation where you would want to use the less capacity ship INSIDE radar range? Is the micromanagement of assigning troops out of the chinook and into the less capacity ship and back again for every time you need to go outside the radar that interesting?:confused:

1, Yes if the radar range you are looking at doesn't have a hangar, dropship, and troops attached to it.

2, Not to me, that's why if I was using the fast transport for assisting other bases it would have a dedicated team, I am lazy like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The C130 is quite a large aircraft. What is the balance between using that or the Chinook?

I also think it unlikely that any more artwork will be added to introduce an additional landed dropship. That was a large part of why I suggested parachute drops.

Much less artwork required if all you have is your troops stood round a flare with a couple of wrapped bundles on the floor nearby.

A C130 is actually a rather small fixed-wing aircraft vs a Chinook which is a very large helicopter (both about 100 feet long). They both hold more/less about 5 dozen troops, so from a game perspective I think you could keep the number of squad members you are transporting the same - one of the reasons I believe this presents the best option for another dropship if we are wishful thinking.

The advantage for me is one of range/speed and flexibility, 200mph/450 miles/VTOL vs 350mph/2,500 miles/parachute/can land on the smallest and poorest of runways. In the game you drastically cut the Chinook range from what it is now and you extend the C130 range beyond what the Chinook is now.

Although I agree I don't see the artwork/development will come from this for the tactical map. But, maybe for the world map a C130 icon vs Chinook icon with parachutes and flares on the tactical map (which I think would also add to the game play by having to work with your squad spread out over the map vs being deployed from a single location - in addition to not having the option of taking a vehicle).

Edited by jars_u
Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least it would be a choice.

which you would still have if you made the chinook reach that far.;) The soldier for range trade off is arbitrary and unnecessary. The only reason for it as far as I can see is that some people think that realistically it makes sense, even though it doesn't make a lick of sense as a gameplay mechanic.

That the fighters can't escort outside radar range is already a trade off. Make the chinook go even slower or something and it should be sufficient risk/reward.

If it is one you don't like feel free to make a counter suggestion.

I have, but the discussion seems to default back to the trade off since everyone else seems to think drop tanks are the greatest idea since sliced bread. So I'm reduced to arguing against that proposal to even have a discussion. :(

-Make the first upgraded transport available before Terror missions appear. (If it's early enough it can still allow for that centralized base that some people are looking for)

-Make an estimate on how fast normal players expand to second or third base and make the terror missions appear in range of your primary base before that time. (Explain it away by saying you don't get to hear about terror sites too far away because the information network isn't fully established until you get a few bases up and running. or whatever)

-Make it clear to the player that the first few terror missions are impossible to reach and the penalty for not reaching them is greatly reduced and incorporate it into the narrative. (should motivate the player to either expand or research a better transport asap)

-Make the chinook able to reach the terror site without trading soldiers for range.

Including the arbitrarily drawback in the trade off proposal is a pointless forum trick to make it look less overpowered and therefor hopefully more attractive to devs.. It is not a good mechanic. It does not bring anything to the table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again your whole thought train is focused on terror missions.

They are an important part of the game but only a part.

I can't tell if your suggestion list is all part of the same idea or different options.

1, Assumes everyone in every play through will get the items and research needed for the transport by the same ticker level.

Either that or you want to lock terror missions out until after the research is done which is a bad idea.

2, Define a 'normal' player.

I assume by this you mean one who follows your play style.

3, I think this was suggested earlier, it is a solid idea that works without bothering with increased ranges.

4, Surely that depends on where the terror site is?

I don't understand how having a second dropship with improved range but lower capacity is an arbitrary trade off, a forum trick, or overpowered.

Please explain your bolded underlined statement as it is clearly important to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again your whole thought train is focused on terror missions.

They are an important part of the game but only a part.

I can't tell if your suggestion list is all part of the same idea or different options.

True, I am is focusing on the terror missions because that has as far as I can tell been the reason and the focus for the suggestion in the first place. I have no idea what the implications will be of making the kind of centralized gameplay you talk about available, or if Goldhawk is even interested in it. That being said I don't understand why you have to reduce the capacity to make that gameplay viable. Surely either only increasing the chinooks range or making the first upgrade available in the early game solves that?

The list is 4 different suggestions.

1, Assumes everyone in every play through will get the items and research needed for the transport by the same ticker level.

Either that or you want to lock terror missions out until after the research is done which is a bad idea.

It does neither of those things imo. You don't need to time it to coincide. the suggestion is to give the upgraded transport before terror missions show up, not at the same time as they appear.
2, Define a 'normal' player.

I assume by this you mean one who follows your play style.

Nope, I tend to avoid "normal" play styles. It's up to the design team to define "normal" player progress.

That way you can potentially fail at it and be left behind. I understand that to be a strong point in X-com likes?

3, I think this was suggested earlier, it is a solid idea that works without bothering with increased ranges.
-Make the chinook able to reach the terror site without trading soldiers for range.

4, Surely that depends on where the terror site is?

I'm not sure I follow number 4. what depends? :confused:

Are you suggesting there has to be a drawback for reaching everywhere? (and being unable to protect it all the way is insufficient as a drawback?)

I don't understand how having a second dropship with improved range but lower capacity is an arbitrary trade off, a forum trick, or overpowered.

Please explain your bolded underlined statement as it is clearly important to you.

what specifically does the reduction in soldiers provide to the gameplay,? why is that better then to simply allow the chinook the range without the trade off?

or overpowered
It wasn't the reduced capacity ship that was overpowered. I assume that it was the unrealistic superrange of a chinook able to reach anywhere around the world that was too overpowered for the person that made the original suggestion. So he/she tried to apply the arbitrary drawback of reducing the amount of soldiers the ship can carry to compensate. (because that allows that fictional freed up space in the fictional vehicle to be used for fictional fuel drop tanks, thus increasing it's fictional fuel. which seems very realistic) Edited by Gorlom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I agree on a lot of points.

Some people felt they needed another option though which a second dropship seems to provide.

what specifically does the reduction in soldiers provide to the gameplay,? why is that better then to simply allow the chinook the range without the trade off?

For me it provides an additional option and caters for different play styles.

It isn't the only way to do it and it certainly isn't the easiest but it is more interesting to me than a massive range increase.

I don't see it as a reduction in soldiers so much as it would have the same basic squad size as the Chinook, you would just have to do without the vehicle.

You may need to be more careful but I am always up for a challenge :P

Personally I would be quite happy leaving the range as it is and making adjustments to how sites outside possible interception range are handled.

If there is no possible way you could reach them then there should be less fallout (well political fallout at least) than not bothering to deal with one on your doorstep.

I think I will add a second transport to my list of 'nice to mod' things for when I get a chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me it provides an additional option and caters for different play styles.

It isn't the only way to do it and it certainly isn't the easiest but it is more interesting to me than a massive range increase.

I might agree to that if the faster reduced capacity craft also have shorter range. This would allow the slower craft with normal (or comparably larger) capacity and longer range to be an alternative even within radar ranges.

Then it really would be a choice instead of just dressing it up as one.:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really?

Because if you give the Chinook the range advantage and the capacity advantage then it would clearly be the better craft.

I can't see a reason to use the second one using your set up.

At short ranges speed means very little unless it is a huge difference.

A speed increase is only really to cut down on the time the player would spend watching the dot move on long trips.

It does have the advantage of making the transport slightly safer from interceptors as well.

If the site was close by then the speed would make a difference of an hour maybe real time or a second sped up.

If the target site was at long range you would need the long range craft.

If the target site was close then you might as well take the Chinook as it has larger load capacity.

Your other option is to take the craft that gets you there a second earlier with reduced load.

Not much of a choice there.

This would allow the slower craft with normal (or comparably larger) capacity and longer range to be an alternative even within radar ranges.

With my suggestion both craft are useful within radar range but the smaller one has a niche outside of that range.

What is the role of the small transport in your suggestion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed there would need to be a (larger) difference in speed.

some situations where you have multiple crash sites on the map and they are about to disappear could benefit from the faster transport. but I think landed crafts would benefit from it the most. Either have it be very random how long a landed craft stays grounded or make it take off quickly so that the slow craft doesn't reach it in time unless it is very close to the base.

That way you would actually have the choice between trying to get it on the ground with a swift response or let it take flight again and shoot it down so you can take the slower ship.

Technically you could add another mission type that requires swift response, but that isn't very likely t this stage though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still like the idea of having a long range jet that can drop a full team into a terror site sans vehicles. In my opinion that is the best, most realistic way, to address out of range terror sites. I see no need to reduce the team size or their individual stores/armor. Having no vehicle is a sufficient trade off and it makes a lot of sense. In my mind it basically goes like this...the troops land, gather at a rally point (the deployment zone on the tactical map) then execute the mission. All captured alien stuff is automatically UPS'ed back to Xenonauts HQ after the mission assuming someone survives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of parachuting troops. The soldiers would be at the destination quickly, but they would need some more time to get back to the base because they have to get to the next airport to fly back.

Refueling the Chinook could perhaps be done in the cities that are showed on the map. If the Chinook has not enough fuel to fly further, there could be an option to fly to the next city instead of back to the base. Or you can set waypoints at the cities for refueling. The refueling could cost something, depending on the reputation in the country the city is in. And perhaps you could not reach the whole world from one base with refueling, because sometimes distances of the cities are very long (crossing ocean, etc).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're talking about realism I can't understand why Chinook and fighters can't land at local airports for refueling. The earth isn't empty and your group of troops aren't the only ones left alive. Why other countries aren't trying to intercept UFOs or struggle with them? Why your base possesses the only radar on earth? Why other countries are giving millions dollars to fund you, but don't give you the cruicial information about UFOs that are being detected? Why a single police officer killed an alien from a scout UFO, but only after 5 hours when I reached the crash site, but if I didn't reach it the site was considered lost? Why all these civilians are still alive 8 hours later when I reach the other crash site and die *only* when my troops come?..

Back to the topic. Much been discussed but I'm against such tricky solutions of the problem as: terror sites only spawn near your bases or have more probability to spawn closer and so on. No, it's just cheating. The game isn't over if you lose a terror site or two. You aren't supposed to win all the time, to intercept every UFO you meet in the game and so on. Moreover, later in the game when aliens discover location of your bases, I suggest their tactics be to only attack places that are as far from your bases as possible.

However I support the idea of refueling at local airports (which can be found in major cities). Don't forget that refueling takes time too and you might not be able to reach given terror or other site in time. The life is just like that: you can't have everything and at once, it's a part of a realistic atmosphere to not be able to do something. IMO, the solution to the problem it's only a matter of balancing the penalty. And also a realism: make everything as realistic and as simple as it may be, but not simpler than it must be done.

Edited by Wormer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...