Jump to content

Doing Every Mission - Solution?


Chris

Recommended Posts

They wouldn't need to use any heavy weapons. The .50 cals or Bushmaster on a Bradley could mop up a UFO crash with no problems. Really, it would only take a platoon of infantry and one APC to do the job. We don't have enough troops to actually form a full airtight perimeter around a crash site, but any national army (or even a medium sized police department) would. After that happens the aliens are doomed. You could just wait them out even until their environment suits give out.

Edited by StellarRat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got to this thread. One suggestion: Perhaps the "Airstrike" (or "Local Ground Assault") option should automatically be taken when the crash site times out? In case one was hoping they'd have the time to get to one but missed the window slightly.

An alternate variant on this (and seriously something I would like) is somehow-visible time remaining indicators on crash sites/terror missions, to allow the player to better plan their Chinook flight paths and send in the locals if time is running out. Then you could leave the "Airstrike" command in the players hands and leave it up to them to watch crash sites' timers if their bird might not make it.

(Note: I'm aware that crash sites never time out if a dropship is en route. I'm referring to situations where you've got a Chinook trying to hit multiple crash sites in one run and/or refuel in between crash sites. Also if you were waiting for a day mission rather than a night mission. Or a night mission over a day mission if you were a true madman.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They wouldn't need to use any heavy weapons. The .50 cals or Bushmaster on a Bradley could mop up a UFO crash with no problems. Really, it would only take a platoon of infantry and one APC to do the job. We don't have enough troops to actually form a full airtight perimeter around a crash site, but any national army (or even a medium sized police department) would. After that happens the aliens are doomed. You could just wait them out even until their environment suits give out.

I like that better than just bombing the area, but I would assume that local forces would surround the crashsite anyway to contain the situation until the xenonaughts arrive and charge in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like that better than just bombing the area, but I would assume that local forces would surround the crashsite anyway to contain the situation until the xenonaughts arrive and charge in.
You would think. Of course, there are remote locations where the Xenonauts would probably be the only ones that know a UFO had crashed. They'd be first on the scene there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You would think. Of course, there are remote locations where the Xenonauts would probably be the only ones that know a UFO had crashed. They'd be first on the scene there.

Absolutely, and some regions would not have any kind of organised armed force anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really cannot see why the funding block would give xenonaughts money (or improved status) for blanket bombing a crashsite.
The alloys. They seem to survive explosions pretty well. The Xenonauts are saying, "here, take all the alloys you can find, and any additional tech that manages to survive your assault. We're willing to give you that for a fee and as thanks for shooting the thing down in the first place for you (since we're the internationally-recognized force responsible for this and otherwise have full claim of the technology and artifacts at the site)."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My response to this is that I don't see why the game needs absurdly easy missions for the purposes of training up rookies. There's other ways you could train up rookies without continuing to spawn exceptionally easy missions (e.g. take a few along with a more experienced crew or build a broader bench of soldiers from the beginning of the game), so for me it wouldn't be a loss.

But that's not what's up for debate, here, so I take your point.

I'm not saying that it's the most optimal strategy by any means; my argument was more that training rookies is the only reason they're staying in later on. It would be simpler and easier to simply remove them from the later game and replace them with a larger UFO than to have some kind of escalating difficulty on them.

I don't have a problem with choices that amount to strategic decisions. I have a problem with one choice allowing me to play a particular part of the game and another choice not allowing me to play a particular part of the game, especially when a) I want to play that particular part of the game and b) the better (strategic) choice is quite often not to.

To take your example - if I have a squad with great stats that I'm trying to get the best kit for, what I want is for the game to push me into using that squad to get the money/whatever I need to get that stuff. Because I want to play the tactical game. Allowing me to get the kit I want quicker/more easily by *not* playing the tactical game is therefore punishing me for wanting to play (part of) the game!

Yeah, that's a reasonable point. I could say that under those circumstances playing the game is its own reward?

You're right, of course - I shouldn't have written that as a generalised statement like I did. But I'd hope you're wary of the argument, not the person who made it :P

No, no problem with that. All we're doing here is trying to make the game better for us all; of course the problem is we all have different definitions of 'better' :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with the decision to leave Lt. Scout and Scouts in until the end of the game as a training option. I think the number of these flights could be reduced after corvettes appear. I just like the idea of being able to easily dispense with them if you don't need training. Airstrike is a good option for lazy players like me! :D Just like autoresolve for air combat. I just don't think that airstrike should ever be more rewarding then a recovery. It could be EQUALLY as rewarding, but never better.

The problem with this as a statement is that it is very difficult to determine what classes as equally rewarding.

For a UFO crash site I might* get

$20,000 for automatically sold equipment (guns etc.)

10 units alloys

4 units Alenium

9 stat increases for my soldiers

So where do we set the cash value for our airstrike?

If we set it at $20,000 (same as the direct cash) then it won't solve the problem we're working on here; there will still be a manifest advantage to assaulting with Xenonauts troops in terms of resources and skills, so the optimal strategy will always be to assault.

We could set the cash to $20,000 + resale value of the alloys and Alenium; the trade-off against the loss of soldier skill-ups could be argued to be the lack of risk of losing an experienced soldier. I think there is still a small edge to assaulting (by assaulting, you can choose to get the money or the resources; by airstriking you can only get the money), but hopefully small enough that if people are getting bored with the combat they will be prepared to skip it.

Or maybe set the cash to $20,000 + resale value plus a small percentage (5%) to make up for the skill-ups.

On a slightly unrelated note, I think the game should actively prevent a player from airstriking a UFO type they have not encountered before, or one with an alien species that has not been encountered before. This will prevent the player from missing out on things, and can be explained in the fluff with the governments being unwilling to make strikes against enemies with unknown capabilities.

*by might, I mean I'm not basing this on a specific UFO; all numbers are made up for the purposes of demonstration

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the problem with having assaults always being better?

The problem is that assaulting is so much better than not assaulting that people feel compelled for strategic reasons to always assault every UFO downed. If we just reduce the opportunity cost of not assaulting by enough, players won't feel the need to assault, or at least the desire to streamline their gameplay by focusing on important missions will override such a need.

So giving them 80% of the expected net profit and leaving it at that will probably accomplish this goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that it's the most optimal strategy by any means; my argument was more that training rookies is the only reason they're staying in later on. It would be simpler and easier to simply remove them from the later game and replace them with a larger UFO than to have some kind of escalating difficulty on them.

Yeah, that'd work too (although I'll admit to having a fondness for differing UFO sizes throughout the invasion).

Yeah, that's a reasonable point. I could say that under those circumstances playing the game is its own reward?

For sure. But I'd maintain the argument that designing the game so that you have to choose between 'playing for its own reward' and 'playing to win' is not - in this kind of game - a good design.

No, no problem with that. All we're doing here is trying to make the game better for us all; of course the problem is we all have different definitions of 'better' :)

Indeed! I don't envy the dev team one bit having to deal with so many divergent voices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem with there being an "Airstrike" button. I still get to go on all the missions I want to. The alternative is the local forces bombing the site or whatever.

What should get more reward?

1) Shooting down a UFO - not bothering with the site - clicking a single button to let the locals bomb it (and some civilians)

2) Shooting down a UFO - sending in your elite operatives - minimising civilians casualties (giving the civilians some hope)

I'd have thought 2) While I see the purpose behind the idea, it doesn't make much sense for it to be 1)

Fine if you want to compensate the player by letting the locals blow it up. After all you did shoot it down (although there's the question of landed craft). But it shouldn't be less than putting your soldiers at risk of death defending the country.

It should be a fall back position when you can't or won't do the battle, not a lucrative alternative. By all means make it close, as there's a small amount of money to be made from some sales.

EDIT - also, consider that any way of limiting the number of crash sites (rather than the number a player actually attacks) causes tech tree problems. What if a player is unlucky and doesn't get a Scout crash site for a month? That'll put them way behind other players in research terms at that stage of the game through no fault of their own.

Luck isn't meant to be such a major factor in your success / failure than it would be if you're heavily limiting crash sites numbers. Not much of a strategy game if it is.

- By kindly suggesting to the player that having a pool of soldiers and rotating them in missions was a good idea (something that was easier when you had a larger living quarters), you could look at minimising all the smaller UFOs.

Alternatively, as Kabill suggested, have the UFOs on a sliding scale of value based on size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really cannot see why the funding block would give xenonaughts money (or improved status) for blanket bombing a crashsite. Aside from the cost of replacement bombs and fuel, there are usually civilians in the area. I can just imagine the stink that would be kicked up if the UK government started bombing farms, villages, etc on their own turf. Damage control would more than wipe out any propaganda benefits.

I can see what Chris is trying to do but, from a lore or realism perspective, I cannot see any logic to it.

Yeah agreed, it sounds like a huge bandage to strap on, it would mean that the world governments are hiding the truth of the Xenonauts existence and paying you lots of money to keep it hidden, and that kind of propaganda layer isn't even in the game.

Not to mention that bombing the hell out of a salvageable craft means little benefits from recovered parts from the hulk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government issues warning to civilians... stay clear of crash sites as they are dangerous.

Risk of civilian casualties on an airstrike becomes less important than killing aliens, remember the context that this game is set in... its not a war, its not even a world war (by our standards) its resistance against humanities very extinction on a global scale. No price can be put on the survival of our species and the planet as a whole. If bombing the alien crash sites denies them recovering assets and fighting troops then I see no reason why any funding nation would hold back.

5 civilian casualties in an air strike amongst a war where the aliens are slaughtering thousands by the hour is nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, I wonder if the map type and region could be directly keyed into the weight of the values involved in letting local forces handle things? Letting the Russians take out a crashed ship in the Siberian wilderness? No problem. Telling the Japanese to deal with a crashed ship in the middle of an urban center? They wouldn't like that much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hard to imagine much of anyone dropping nukes of any size or configuration on a city for anything except Reapers.

"Sir! The eight Xenonauts that landed in New York were killed!"

"Mother of God. Authorize the launch."

"Uh, sir, we've got reports that there are only eleven combatants there. We could wait for SWAT and the local National Guard armory to mobil-"

"I can't believe nukes are the only option."

"But sir, we could get a Ranger or several Marine air alert battalions there inside of a few hours. It took the Xenonauts even longer than that to arrive on stati-"

"Jesus... it's finally come to this. Nukes on our own soil."

"But I just received word from the Joint Chiefs and MacDill. They can mobilize the entire ready component of USSOCOM with an armor attachment in have them here in forty-five min-"

"Launch. The. Nukes. And God help us all. "

Edited by EchoFourDelta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:)

I think that the game wants you to think that there's some sort of Chrysallid equivalent potential. I think the old snakemen had something similar too. Basically lots and lots of eggs and zombies.

That's why the delay to get the Xenonauts on site. If they are possessed/mind controlled/body snatched/ zombified/ replaced by Reaper/Xenonaut hybrids the authorities know that their new foes won't be able to hit a barn door with a combine harvester and will generally walk into walls a lot.

It would be terrifying for competent soldiers to be used :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:)

I think that the game wants you to think that there's some sort of Chrysallid equivalent potential. I think the old snakemen had something similar too. Basically lots and lots of eggs and zombies.

That's why the delay to get the Xenonauts on site. If they are possessed/mind controlled/body snatched/ zombified/ replaced by Reaper/Xenonaut hybrids the authorities know that their new foes won't be able to hit a barn door with a combine harvester and will generally walk into walls a lot.

It would be terrifying for competent soldiers to be used :)

Oh, yeah, that's the point of the Reapers, especially with the endgame, which I won't elaborate on. One makes ten, ten make one hundred, one hundred make one thousand, and then that original Reaper's "tree" burns out. Reapers would be a legitimate nuke target. Everything else... ehhhhhhh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, wasn't aware there was that kind of drama floating about in the fandom (aside from that one guy who keeps accusing the devs of preventing Russian troops from populating the recruitment lists, lol), I meant only that it would make sense for a militarily modest nation to be less enthusiastic about the prospect of having to take matters into their own hands versus one that was historically armed to the teeth during the height of the Cold War, further modified by how sensitive of an area the crash itself occurs. I'll make sure to keep any further ideas involving geopolitical differences to myself henceforth.

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...