n4rf

I agree with the original idea. I'm unfortunately not able to spend too much time gaming these days, so I'd sort of like to streamline what I do in the game a bit more than I used to (though as a kid playing x-com I would just obsessively complete every mission possible.) Maybe the option for completely destroying a ufo could be an at cost or relationship based option to have that particular nation waste the ufo with a tac nuke. Perhaps even offering an at production cost option to deliver one with a foxtrot later on that will impact local relationships if you unilaterally down a ufo with one. The last would be more work, but the first could be done seemingly in code and small ui changes. I'm just a sucker for options.

After reading a bit of this, here is my input; The aircraft used in x-com were not based on real world platforms, and as such were not restrained in our minds by realism boundaries. Using aircraft from the real world pulls a realism aspect into the game, which is both good and bad; good because its easier to take, but bad in this regard because the current weapon schemes aren't all what those aircraft are capable of. Example - the mig 25 and 31 could carry four missiles, but could only attain their maximum speeds at the sacrifice of their engines (the 31 had a cannon, though usage of it was rather temperamental), and the f-16 could carry far more than the few two sidewinders and the cannon even in an interceptor role. However, even by the times Xenonauts were to take place, the primary western interceptors would be f-15's... (built specifically in the shadow of fear caused by the development of the mig 25.) This being said, I understand the game design reasons to use the Foxtrot and the Falcon, so I digress. Perhaps later you can add more initial conventional aircraft choices with their own advantages, but it doesn't particularly matter now. The point is, the realism causes a blur between design choice and keeping up with those of us who know these little historical things, and thusly I would suggest simply offering the capability over restricting the arms. Keep the performance, add the weaponary, up the endurance of the ufo's to compensate, similarly increase the later interceptors in their capabilities, and I think thats stroking enough of the realism without destroying your balance. The air game would appear to be more of a fight, but admittedly take a bit longer. Considering you are literally using the aircraft in an interceptor role, the foxtrots are going to be your go-to before the alien fighters show up, so why change how it was? If the only reason you need agility and close in weapons platforms is for fighters, its then punishment enough if the foxtrots are downed by fighters later trying to engage in a close combat role they were never designed for. You could then make later ufo's more likely to be escorted, making your response in a wave (I think the maximum wing size should be increased, but again, I think I can understand the design decision here) of fighters and then interceptors. Remember, real world air combat is standoff, and has been for decades. Foxtrots in the game only do what Foxtrots in the real world do. I would think it would be incredibly hard to hit a fighter or a small ufo with a standoff missile, so perhaps you can simply make even a scout dodge them at a high chance, and keep their use down to the corvettes and such. Keep the sidewinders for the more agile targets, or add the capability of a medium range missile that is between (like an AIM-7.) I would personally like to see the ability to produce/buy a tactical nuke to just destroy groups I either do not want or can not send a ground force to at the time. Suppose this would return a negative relations tack if over a country, but there have been quite a few times i'd have taken that over sending wounded soldiers in to get them (because the fresh meat had not arrived.)