Jump to content

Indestructible interceptors?


Recommended Posts

If losing an aircraft is an automatic endgame event then the aircraft should simply be cheaper. If cheap aircraft seem strange because they are cheaper than vehicles I think the vehicles are likely too expensive. I'd expect that it's just about as easy for the aliens to destroy a vehicle as it is for them to down an aircraft in this game.

I don't like invincible soldiers, vehicles or airplanes at all. I'd rather see their prices tweaked until they are nicely balanced.

Edited by Akavit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could using the wrong logic here. Why not raise whole pricing structure so things are more real world priced? Losing a $25M jet doesn't sound as bad if the Xenonauts budget is in the $100M dollar range. Then lowering price of jets to $10M seems a lot more reasonable. If everything costs more the proportional costs start to look a lot more realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly would prefer not to have to be restarting the game while developing air combat skills. If I mismanage my resources, or become impatient in ground combat that's one thing. A learning curve for air combat with a hefty and inevitable penalty for failure is another entirely.

People are talking about dumbing down the game, but however much some people may like the air combat as it currently stands, I doubt very much that "difficult air combat with significant consequences for failure" is a major selling point for the majority of X-Com veterans.

Sable Wyvren- indeed, while originally the air combat wasn't a selling major point of the original game, this is actually something that Xenonauts got so much better! This is a big part of the reason why i am very much against the indestructible planes thing, cause it would take a very fun aspect of the game (as is) and turn it into a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm I know that it might be a bit late for this, but how about making aircrafts FREE (the basic ones, just the order time, while the advanced would cost you some manufacturing time and other resources), but instead focus on pilots? hiring pilots, would be in range of these amounts that are shown, and it could also perhaps an additional level if these pilots could get experience and thus enhance the stats of any aircraft they are flying? (defense, dodge, speed, fuel usage, aim, dmg - as a factor of knowing weak spots)

To add some spice, once in a while a shotdown pilot, could make a successful roll on eject attempt and that would trigger search and rescue misson.

The vehicle crew could also be in here, if these vehicles are not unmanned.

Edited by Phoenix
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah bit late for that. Interesting idea though, with the PILOTS being the major thing, with the aircraft being a minor side to them.

Air combat is meant to be a minor part of the game though, with the meat of the game being the ground combat.

That's part of the reason Chris brought this up, as the current state is that air-combat is crucial and very painful.

Not having enough Corsairs midgame can really screw you up, as can (though not as much as previously) losing a condor early on. MiG's are still big cost items, but generally they don't even get shot at.

Edited by Sathra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm kinda on the fence on this one.

The problem right now is that something that is supposed to be a minor part of the game is currently the most crucial one. The air combat is brutal and unforgiving compared to the ground combat. Although i don't see losing a plane early one to be that bad since you can buy the basic ones very cheap and as long as you don't stay really low on planes by default losing one and waiting for the new one to arrive shouldn't be that much of a problem.

However later on in the game when you start seeing tougher ships and you have built your own better interceptors things can quickly escalate if just a single one dies. I mean with the long time to rebuild and the uselessness of the basic planes it's pretty much impossible to recover without ending up just doing nothing at all till you have been able to rebuild.

Personally I would rather see a change in the difficulty curve. Maybe give us an extra hangar from the start to signal that you need a lot of planes and then make the curve for new alien ships a lot smoother instead of the spike we see now. It doesn't make sense that you encounter corsairs with escorts at a point where it's only slightly likely that you have even gotten the research needed for the corsair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Air combat is simple enough.

I personally don't like the "infinite supplies of everything" approach, but that's no surprise by now, is it?

As for the aircraft being expendaable - and soldiers aren't? You could say tehy aren't because of skills and experience - so why not add experience to aircraft? A far simpler mechanic with 1 or 2 stats (evasion, attack)... and presto! That Ace pilot is something you want to keep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think going with cheaper interceptors is more fitting for the game than making them indestructible. One of the core elements of the XCOM games is the element of risk and the potential that any person/vehicle/aircraft you deploy against the aliens can (and probably will eventually) be destroyed, and that's generally ok. Losses are acceptable (this is a war where we're horribly outgunned), but an effective commander can mitigate them enough to come out ahead in the long run.

For reference, I looked at how the OG and EU dealt with this. In both the air combat is fairly trivial, and aircraft are relatively cheap. In the OG to make a Firestorm in one week takes only two workshops, and four for an Avenger, both of which you're usually well past by the time you're building them. And the monetary cost never goes beyond double the cost of a basic interceptor.

Admittedly we can justify/explain aircraft costs at either the high or low end, but inexpensive aircraft are a bit less intuitive. Who exactly would Xenonauts be paying large sums of money to for construction of higher tech aircraft? Xenonauts have the exotic materials (alien alloys and alenium), the manufacturing center, and the construction/fabrication staff. If we accept that premise, then Xenonauts can inexpensively (with a high labor investment) build the airframe itself while remaining the only ones able to do so. They will still need to spend money on other parts that can be built/modified from existing technology, which doesn't seem like it would be that much greater than the cost to retrofit/modify the major systems on existing aircraft (which we do for the Condor/Foxtrot).

Additionally, we could add a "Get out of jail free"/Abort Mission button to the air combat UI that causes all aircraft to immediately disengage and ends combat (with a 2-3 second delay after activation). That would be a boost to survivability, but to be balanced would probably require those aircraft to be unable to do anything other than return to base before re-engaging. Maybe add a text pop-up saying they dropped all their ammo to reduce weight for a faster retreat which caused the aliens to cease viewing them as a threat, but also forces them to return/rearm before taking any other actions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be a simple compromise to include the auto-disengage system, as described before. You could then have a toggle for "hardcore aerial combat", which would still have the auto-disengage system, but applies an X% (50%, 75%, and 100% for the masochists) chance that the aircraft is unsuccessful in the maneuver and is destroyed instead. It makes the game harder, yes, but that's the point. And if funds turn out to be an issue, have a small multiplier towards aircraft purchase depending on how much risk you're willing to take (for example, and not doing any real math, a multiplier of only .9x for 50% damage, .7x for 75% and .5x for 100%).

Edit: I like the idea of aircraft being an investment rather than something disposable, and this gives flexibility to the player based on how important they feel aerial combat is to their experience.

Edited by Jaimdall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my current 18.51HF3 run (the all-LMG run I've been doing) has so far been arguing against indestructible interceptors. I've reached Marauders now and while I have had notable aircraft losses, none of them have "broken" me. I mean, losing a Marauder now would be really painful, since they take 90 technicians 10 days to make, but Foxtrots and Condors are essentially disposable (250,000 hurts but it's not THAT bad), and Corsairs... I actually never really got a Corsair fleet going. I got a couple and they died pretty quick, so I've been making do up till Cruisers with Condors and Foxtrots.

I've probably lost 4 Foxtrots and about the same number of Condors, plus two or three Corsairs. So you can take some air losses without it being TOO bad.

P.S. I love Marauders. They are so fun to use. 100 degrees/sec turn rate? Yes please!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I don't want indestructible items in the game, I often, often, get totally smashed in the air at some point, in almost all games. I don't know what is missing, I only ever get that one aircraft upgrade, and after that I can't research anymore so I don't know what comes. But I do get banged up and after that it's game over really. I do feel some sort of re-balancing could come in handy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking along the lines of Stinkspray. They'll have invulnerable soldiers next, I thought to myself. Look where that got UFO:ET.

I much prefer that your organisation can actually suffer some sort of loss, in all areas of the game. Whether it's ground combat, interceptions or building 12 radars in your base and throwing away all your money.

As noted, the issue seems to be in the costs of aircraft and balancing of same.

Take another extreme. All aircraft are free. There may be a delay in getting them to you, plus some extra time for modifications perhaps, but essentially free. This represents the research of Xenonauts going out into the wider world and the engineers out there, picking up the methods used by your organisation.

This can be modified if people feel the need to have all those alien alloys etc contribute more or less. But with a stunted game economy and so many other areas either free or auto-upgraded, I see it as a better option than never losing anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They've got a wide-arc machinegun thing I think. Doesn't work directly behind though. Does alot of damage very fast so it'll shred an unluckly or poorly directed Condor.

They will fire their main gun if you fly onto them though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, aside of balance the only thing I wonder is why we need to build the Mig interceptor while we get the F-17 just by putting money on the table? Shouldn't the Soviet Union be better prepared to churn out the Mig interceptor than my tiny organization?

I'd like more two sided flavour (Soviet + NATO) anyway. If I slab my first base in the middle of Eurasia, why do I use M-16s and no AKs?

I'd just think if the only limitation to the start aircraft were some money and time since they are provided by the sponsor countries, things may be already less troublesome. Putting down 50 000 for a Condor is not that tragic, make it 75 000 for a Mig since it's a larger interceptor and maybe needs more mods and you could already balance losses this way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Instead of interceptors dying, they quit battle heavily damaged.

The cost of this is 2-5 days without interceptors, which in itself involves a big loss of income because of missions and funding.

This is instead of 3-45 days without interceptors (depending on level. if you lose a high level interceptor it's pretty much game over) and an added penalty of up to almost a million $ (supposing you lose high level interceptor and its high level weapon), or normally, a loss of around 250k (foxtrots die easy, no roll).

The losses of losing interceptors currently are completely detrimental to the game, and it's obvious the mechanic needs to be changed.

It's a balance difference.

Instead of getting beat in aircombat costing you the game, or then needing to make all interceptors real real real stupidly cheap in order to make up for the silly insistence that interceptors get blown up, you change the penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You see it as silly that your aircraft can get destroyed.

I see it as illogical and slightly ridiculous that they could be invulnerable.

If the build time is too long then you change the build time.

If the cost is too high you balance the cost.

If you cannot justify it using the current research/manufacturing explanation then change the bit of flavour text to one that does justify it.

Quick and rough example:

Research Complete - We have developed the Corsair interceptor.

This craft is very tough (although not indestructible) and will be expensive to build.

To make this aircraft viable it is modular in construction.

We have distributed parts of the technology to several of our funding nations.

The Japanese are putting together the electronics, the UK is constructing the new style engines, US facilities are building the basic airframe and factories in the USSR have started work on the avionics, all to our specifications.

In line with our funding agreement we are able to requisition these parts at cost to be assembled on site.

Due to the release of this technology improvements will filter down to the conventional air forces of the world in time, we should start seeing an improvement in their performance against the alien vessels.

The quick fix of making something invulnerable doesn't cut it.

It is an illogical break from the rest of the game.

The planet is in jeopardy and no airforce can defeat the unstoppable alien menace.

Well maybe they could if only they had thought of indestructible aircraft!

How silly of them to bother building and flying those old fashioned aircraft that can be blown up.

Would dropships be invulnerable as well or would they still be at risk?

After all they would have an even larger price tag attached.

If they are invulnerable what about the squad on board?

Losing several squad members or a ground vehicle to a poorly executed flight would be a problem so they would have to be invulnerable when they are in the air as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue isn't easily addressed by reducing the cost of fighters. The fact that extremely cheap fighters is unrealistic isn't my main point, I'm just using that to illustrate that the alternative solution to fighters automatically performing an emergency combat disengage also requires you to test the bounds of possibility by twisting the setting so funding nations can build advanced interceptors in days, but are somehow incapable of building their own ones or providing other important services (like bases) for free too. This means "it's unrealistic" doesn't cut that much ice with me as a counterpoint to the automatic disengage feature.

The key point is that most people who are against this feature speak of "dumbing down" the game by implementing it, but having planes with reduced cost also makes the game substantially easier as the planes essentially become expendable at that point - which they are certainly not at the moment. So why is that not also "dumbing down"?

As I see it, having the planes cost more upfront and not be fully destroyable rather than it being a monthly drip-drip of replacing (cheaper) plane losses doesn't actually make the game any easier...it just makes skill at the air combat minigame significantly less important relative to the strategy and ground combat layers of the game, which is how it should be (the air combat is nowhere near as deep or interesting as the other parts of the game).

Ultimately I'll think on the issue and make my own decision on what the final solution will be, so thanks for the views everyone has put forward. At least I know know it apparently isn't the slam-dunk of an idea that I thought it was.

Chris, I think I might have a nice compromise idea. In the early stages of the game losing interceptors is as you say a huge deal and they are not easily replaced so they can be pretty game breaking. However in the later stages a good player would be expected to be able to build and maintain a good fleet.

Instead of indestructible interceptors, why not have countries donate new planes to you if you lose one? Instead of lengthy repairs you could have the donated interceptor be inactive for a period while its systems are being upgraded to Xenonauts specs. In the beginning stages this would make sense as you are flying mostly planes that already exist. In the later stages of the game you would not get any donated planes anymore as you would have to build them yourself.

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...