Bletchley_Geek

Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself, but I think Moxar would love that someone made variations on his maps as the ones you propose.

Thank you for this, especially for providing the novel in such a broad variety of e-book formats

That was very funny

On the other hand, certainly this Playground thing has some truly :facepalm: stuff in its C++ Coding Standards: That's quite hamstringing, for starters. From what I gather from other "suggestions", seems like the code goes through a third-party pre-processor which probably inserts OS-dependant #include directives and conditional compilation... this kind of big scale macro magic is bad, especially when the code generated gets mixed up with the code one writes (Qt, after 15 years, has got it almost right).

Well, but I guess you can get a hold on the documentation of the SDK, right? From what I gathered from the Reddit thread you're using the Playground SDK, which obscure or not, isn't as obscure as not warranting someone to upload the documentation to scribd http://www.scribd.com/doc/88352047/PlaygroundSDK-2#outer_page_30 Checking the Chapter "Playground Fundamentals" I quickly bump into this: If you have the SDK guys (headers, library binaries, and command line tools) you should be able to pack this stuff easily into these .pfp files. If anything, you might need to rewrite parts of code accessing sprites, etc. (which might not be a bad thing at all). Of course, this only applies to Playground 5.0.71. So cheer up Chris! :-)

Sounds like quite a plan to me, GJ :-) Godspeed to you and looking forward to that dev blog update!

Steps to replicate: 1) Set Reserve TU slider to Aimed 2) End Turn 3) Set Reserve TU slider to None Two slider knobs are visible, one on the 'Aimed' setting and another on the 'None' setting.

Really that. Back to the OP. It's hard to judge what I like/dislike from the game, since it's alpha status and no serious attempt has been made at balancing AP costs, damage, etc. I do however like a lot the tactical combat: it's just about perfect, taking the best features out of the original X-COM and Jagged Alliance 2 regarding the interface, weapons, etc. I also like the expanded air combat as well, it's a nice and welcome addition. The things I dislike are mostly buggy and/or unfinished features... so I can't really complain about them, other than just reporting them if I see them unreported

From the few missions I've seen before getting the farm crash, I'd say the aliens now run away when they're outnumbered.

In this, I agree with your post. I have some issues for the rest of it. Looking back at Xenonauts Kickstarter page I see the following "stretch goals" (which I think are what you refer as "features being held as hostage for Kickstarter money, link http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/69341191/xenonauts/posts/226254): The updated UI concept didn't ever make the cut of the polls. I found personally quite unnecessary - this is not Master of Orion 2. Some of the things on the list look to me as mere gold plating or chrome (tall grass, the memorial screen - I enjoy the bagpipes on X-COM:EU, but that's all I think it does add to the game, pilots portraits & callsigns, etc.). Other features I can see to be more interesting (such as the Motion Detector, the tile set specific allies, human psionics/blaster bombs, vehicle experience) but I can also see a few reasons for them being cut out on the grounds of balance concerns (human psionics on original X-Com were a bit unbalanced, in my opinion). The military base tileset not making the cut was sad, though - variety is extremely important in this kind of game and it's been one of the things which have marred most past attempts at rebooting X-COM (UFO: Aftershock for instance, where the "been there, done that" syndrome made me to walk away from the game). Indeed, X-COM:EU has little micromanagement, but attaching the adjective "tedious" to "micromanagement" can be quite of a problem, since what one gamer finds a chore, another sitting next to him finds to be extremely entertaining. For me, handling inventories on the previous X-COM could be a bit tedious indeed. But removing the soft constraints entailed by inventory "cells" and weight, by the main weapon/side arm/armor/special item thing, is a bit too much I think. Allowing soldiers to carry a frag grenade and medkit (for instance) would have hardly been a source of imbalance and/or "tedious micromanagement". And even with this "simplicity", there are other kinds of micromanagement which aren't obvious. When you get the squad assembling screen, the only way to browse between available soldiers (and their inventories) is via the add/clear unit buttons. The "detailed soldier view" that you can access from that screen doesn't allow you to navigate across soldiers, and you have to navigate back and forth between the two screens, say, to figure out who were the guys with the plasma rifles, put them back into the base inventory, and re-assign them to the soldiers you want to carry in that mission. Of course, you can Escape all the way to the base view and get to the barracks, where you can browse soldiers in a more comfortable way. But having to "backtrack" like this, is a bit odd, since I find, in general, X-COM:EU interface to be very refined. This makes me think that Firaxis playtesters didn't particularly rotate soldiers in squads quite often (which I think is one of the most important points in X-COM:EU and the original X-COM). And leaves me wondering why isn't the case that soldiers get their inventories emptied after a mission and pre-loaded with the best equipment that fits their "role" when selected. More so when "premium" equipment - i.e. that the player builds or loots - carried by injured soldiers goes back to the base inventory. If you mean, during the tactical combat, yes, it certainly makes each soldier more important. Not that in old X-COM every of your squad members could use properly equipment such as heavy cannons or autocannons because of poor strength/agility scores. On the other hand, if you mean that "premium" equipment carried by a dead soldier is lost, even when winning a mission, then I'm not amused (that's a quite arbitrary credits/alien alloys/weapon sink in place for the sake of game balancing). Could anyone tell me if this is the case? I have yet that to happen to me in my campaign. Here I don't see your point at all. Others have discussed this in depth. I don't see why having several "simultaneous" tactical missions in a game whose main component is, indeed, tactical combat can be tedious. If that's what you feel like, then I'd say: "Wrong game, mate". It's like complaining about Baldur's Gate II because it had too many "side quests". The choices related to the abduction sites seem to me more "strategic" than "tactical", to be honest. Do you go after the short-term reward given when finished a mission or you want to keep panic levels low in countries which are dishing a lot of dough on X-Com each month? On the original X-Com, there were quite a few mid-game moments where your resources where really stretched out and you had to make "hard choices", provided you hadn't prepared better. Most of the complaints about this new mechanic I think revolve about depriving people from trying to save everyone (and getting way, way better scores or accessing high-end high-tech equipment earlier than other players). That would have made an excellent storyline/plot device. It's a lost opportunity for Firaxis. Inded base design/foresight is important - you need to plan ahead, which is good - but the point is more about having the aliens feeling like more "intelligent". That is, if X-COM is the weapon and shield of Earthlings, it makes quite sense to target it directly, rather than just killing random humans (no matter how entertaining that might be for the Alien Hordes). To me it is more of making virtue out of necessity. Making big maps - the main reason for big squads - affects 'pacing' - it may be "tedious" for some to clear a big sized map -, involves a lot of artwork - since the real 3D nature of X-COM:EU makes quite hard to come by procedural techniques that produce big varied maps with a coherent "art direction". Here I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, it's obvious to me that whoever designed that, played a lot of the original X-COM. I used to have similar "classes" defined and kept track of who was suited for what on a notebook On the other hand, it's a bit too random - in my current Classic Campaign half of my non-Rookie troops are Snipers, which is way too high but could be a random fluke, indeed -, roles such as Support are a bit too useless because of the limited inventory (my "support" roles in the original X-COM being more like a "jack of all trades" right, more like a "rifleman" than anything else) and roles such as Assault a bit too focused on tactics relying on very short range high damage weapons. However, the "skills" indeed do give your soldiers some more personality (and some of them really make a difference). Well, I used a lot the reserve AP function, and it was quite a limitation of the original X-COM UI that you couldn't check how many AP's you needed to get somewhere (something which was introduced by Jagged Alliance, if I recall correctly). As with the "classes", the way movement/fire is handled is clearly a sign of having people who have played a lot the original in the design team. The one-move + one tactical action (such as shooting or reserving AP's for reaction fire during Alien's turn) vs. "strategic movement", was indeed an structure implicit on the original X-COM. I totally agree with that. It's really strong. And it's fair. I hate AI's which are "boosted" by playing by rules different than mine (such as being able to spot stuff I can't spot, for instance). Seeing the AI getting "surprised" by a smart move of mine is quite rewarding I'd also like a lot that kind of "extra movement" thing happen to my soldiers when they first spot an alien (or it's maybe a skill?) to get them out of dodge if possible or necessary. On the other hand, I think it's a clever ploy to hide the fact that the enemy NPC's spawn in "parties" and appear in specific parts of the map. X-COM:EU AI is good, but is basically reacting rather than pro-active (i.e. actively seeking contact with the player units and modifying his units locations as it gathers more info on what the player is doing). I must say that the AI is much more pro-active than in countless titles - it does seem to attack when it has superior numbers, and then chooses between frontal or flanking attacks, these two things being a hallmark for me of intelligent behavior. I think it will compete. I see Chris is being able - finally - to put together an stable and reliable team. In outfits as small as Goldhawk, this can be quite hard, where losing a key member of team at the wrong moment is a catastrophe. Classic mode is indeed the way to go for me on X-COM:EU.

That sentence really says it all. I personally knew this as soon as I downloaded my first alpha of Xenonauts back in February this year and I read the interviews/previews, saw the teaser videos, etc. I am just signing off XCom Enemy Unknown after 4 hours playing straight, enought to get off the tutorial and having more freedom in the game, and I must say I like it. Perhaps the AAA title I've liked the most since Dragon Age: Origins. And I do think that the way Firaxis guys have "streamlined" AP's makes a lot of sense - more to those like me, who are always reserving AP's for an aimed shot if possible - although it does indeed remove substantial depth, or rather, alternative approaches to the tactical game. Regarding other changes that seem to be driving people nuts: I think most of those changes are due to having a much, much stronger storyline on X-Com:EU. X-Com had a "sandbox" appeal that isn't in Firaxis game. There's a lot of rail-roading going on for players, I can't say this goes on until the end of the game, or not.

On your second item I can't say anything, but regarding the first one I think that pressing Esc works for canceling actions (it did in the demo).

It's really funny That's very true. Although I can remember one guy - Lewis? - ranting for years about the StuG's not being modelled properly. Yep. The point is to get a system which is interesting in itself from a tactical perspective but not too detailed either (otherwise, air combat would need to be turn-based). We don't need anything like Hornet Leader. In this respect I think Chris got it essentially right from the very beginning. Here I'm a bit guilty of being off-topic For your own units, yes, of course. That should be hidden from us by Fog Of War, indeed. However, the part I highlighted is not an uncommon way of handling troopers in a XCom mission

Found about this quite amusing easter egg (or rather, cheat) con X-COM:EU http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2012/10/sidmeier.jpg He has "deep pockets"

I don't see on what leads you to conclude it wasn't sponsored just on the grounds of 1) being written by a Finland national and 2) being written badly. Finland is quite a relevant videogames market - small, yet extremely demanding and nerdy - and to be honest, I've come across countless "blogging sweatshops" on the Internet featuring very bad writing Other than that, yes, I do agree with you. I also see a bit of that "ranting for the sake of ranting" on quite a few reviews. Not that it was unexpected: X-Com is really a cult classic. I have yet to see the game - OZ doesn't get it until tomorrow - but I hope all this is just picking at nits, rather that the quite right on the spot criticism of the "reboot" - or I should say "hard crash" - of a well-loved franchise, such as Jagged Alliance.