Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Since I HATE teleportation, that would be a big YES from me.
  3. EDIT: WHY the frak can't I edit the quotes??
  4. I guess I'm wondering if we go back to top-down view, will we still be plucking scientists and engineers up 2 by 2 by 2 from the global hotspots missions? That'd be fine by me. Actually, either the top down or the side view is also fine by me I don't think you'd need to be limited to 'just one main base' because of the use of side-view, though. You could tab through pages of the bases, with a side-view for each, much like we tabbed through the top down views of each base in X1. As for base invasion feasibility on a side-view base, you could simply leave only the exposed top / surface section available to the aliens for invasion, having the rest of the base go into 'full and automatic lock down' with huge slabs of steel-reinforced concrete dropping down over all the other entrances and exits (animated, if you wanted to get a little crazy about it, lol ...) and then your troops are either already in the top level to defend or they come up through the primary elevator shaft on a turn by turn basis, maybe. If you wanted to get super creative, you could expand this map to include where the alien invasion ship touches down in relation to the Xenonaut base as well. Just to think outside the box a bit. Oh, and on the click box that shows your hangars and radars only, you could add space HERE to include your anti-aircraft batteries, since there won't be any room left on the current topside to do that. Those batteries could also get included (gutted and in need of repairs) in any invasion taking place on topside. As for multiple drop ships - Chris, you're gonna hate me for adding to the clamor, but YES, we seriously could use more than one drop ship in the game. The new XComs really had me holding suspension of disbelief with their explanation that only One ship and One group of soldiers could solve any and all of the world's growing extraterrestrial problems. I would hope X2 doesn't go that same route. I used to make up 3 to 4 bases at least in each X1 game I ever played, with Base 2 getting the 'hand me down' gear from Base 1, and Base 3 getting the 'hand me down gear' from Base 2, whenever Base 1 got a new upgrade again. I'd basically end up with 2 really good, well - defended basis by the time it was all said and done, and ... well .... 2 or 3 red-headed stepchildren for the other bases ... ahem ... but yes, please allow us to build more than one 'main base' - regardless of which view you decide to go with. P.S. I voted for the decision to be left with the designers, b/c the other 2 choices don't accurately reflect my real choice - which is for you to go with EITHER view you guys prefer, but to allow multiple bases either way (this choice was not an option on the poll, lol ...)
  5. Quite like the idea here, one base but with the extra floor options like this is very appealing.
  6. Today
  7. @GlobalHawk, what was the original idea behind the single base/dropship? Attempt to follow simplification of xcom2? I thought you guys were following initial x-com ideas before it turns into boardgame under Firaxis. We can play ad extremum))) Lets limit to 1 soldier and one enemy alien and one button to press to pay respect))))
  8. I initially was not a fan of the side-view base, but I went "well I'll try it" and it grew on me. But not anywhere near enough that I would "hate" changing back either. Not at least from aesthetic concerns. But if you go top-down, are you going to then decentralize manufacturing? I'm not sure you should. I mean, what's the point? Decentralization for the sake of decentralization is basically just being inefficient for the sake of inefficiency. Previously there was a reason to decentralize, and that reason was workshops couldn't share work between multiple bases. Well that and that it took a day+ to transfer stuff around the world, so a four-workshop base could make stuff very quickly but would lose much of that savings in transporting raw materials to it and distributing stuff from it around the world. Now, though, why do it? Sure things can now port around the world instantly such that you can easily decentralize, but why do so other than merely for the sake of decentralizing? Granted if you do decentralize manufacturing then you kinda have to decentralize storage. And power. And then soldiers fit right back into the decentralized model so easily that it's seamless. It fits. I see the appeal, especially for the folks who are missing their multiple dropships so badly. But I don't agree. And if you aren't decentralizing science or manufacturing nor soldier pool, what else IS there to decentralize that isn't already covered by the current model? (i.e. planes and radar already are decentralized.) Soldier training? Nope. Generators? Storage? Housing? Medical? None of those seem to fit. What else is left? I don't see anything. There were a lot of things about the original X1 that I really liked. The defense missions were definitely one of them. But if the only point of going back to top-down is for the defense missions, then I don't think you should do it. Those were fun. But we can easily live without them.
  9. There’s been considerable discussion about the possibility of several dropships, but I don’t believe that everyone is reading from the same playbook. From a mechanic and (if I understand correctly) a narrative perspective, the current model is that the dropship is teleported close to where the crash site lands, then the pilot lands the dropship and we proceed directly to ground combat. This instantaneous transportation of troops knocks the legs out from several reasons for having more than one dropship. If the time spent travelling between a base and the crash site is trivial, then the only limit on getting to all the crash sites are wounded soldiers and any accumulated stress and fatigue on both soldiers and the dropship. You don’t need several dropships to visit all the sites when you can teleport effortlessly backu-and-forth, picking up a fresh load of troops between each site. Currently there are no mechanics to prevent this from happening (no stress/fatigue or at least none that I have experienced). The dropship doesn’t have to worry about being intercepted (teleportation) and doesn’t have to worry about being late to crash sites (teleportation). The only value a new dropship would bring is increased capacity. To make using more than one dropship viable, there would have to be a deliberate effort to sabotage the teleporter, either through the introduction of mechanics that make the teleporter less and less valuable, or by scrapping the mechanic all together. Is that really what people want?
  10. I'm 51 yo and and been around awhile. Played the original XCOM when it came out like many of you. Been around XCOM and this game too. Ive read the above. In short, as a supporter and fan, here is what Id like to see one day... Multiple bases: Each base with their own soldiers and staff, vehicles, and supply. Some bases might be outposts or later developed by the player into larger bases. I think having one soldier pool that somehow warps to remote bases under attack or one drop ship limit is not good at all IMHO. Id like to see bases be constructed with defenses in mind that the player can build such as sealing or strong doors, turrets, AA etc. Thats just me. That is what will set this game apart from just a graphics redo. Needs to add a lot and be something more.
  11. Yesterday
  12. There was a game in these series of alien invasion ( UFO Aftermath ) , that had a ground level combat, and then you would enter the underground complex to destroy the alien base, could not this idea be used in the defence of the xenonauts base or bases??
  13. I have like the top down aspect of the last games, with multiple bases, but I would have wished that their was a little more variety with the choices of buildings. 1. Storage buildings could be general, and ammunition, that are keeps separate. 2. Living facilities could be upgraded as the game progressed, 3. Research facilities could like wise be upgraded and diversify, as new technologies are discovered. 4. Manufacturing plants could also be upgraded, as in research, and new plants could be built, to make new weapons and devises. 5. Power generation, looks like it will be in the next base infrastructure, and that to could have a number of upgrades. 6. Aircraft hangers to provide for the number of different types of craft. 7. Internal defence, such as sentential posts to combat invading aliens, gas filled corridors, and airlocks, to name a few. 8. Medical facilities for advanced healing and regeneration. Possibly bionic upgrades in the later game. 9. Training Facilities, to improve skills, with weapons types, and leaderships bonuses. 10. the Command centre, and HQ These are just to name a few, but it would need a larger base tile model to incorporate it. Just a thought!!
  14. Multiple bases only really matters from a gameplay perspective if one of two things is true: Base assaults actually matter You want to impose expansion costs that have a sudden jump In X1 base assaults didn't really seem to matter. Downing every UFO wasn't that hard compared to the costs of letting them do as they pleased, and base defenses seemed pretty strong. I think base attacks that are actual threats would be interesting, since they are by far the least seen form of mission, but they also need to be recoverable from. If you lose it needs to not be grounds or just reloading or resetting. The other possibility is that the costs of securing a new base act as a expansion cost at a particular level. From a world perspective it is kind of silly that you have just one X-com base. I suppose you could theme it as having teams of troops, interceptors, and weapons in many military locations but one central R&D/C&C location.
  15. I put my faith in you. I love the top design most because it's easy to keep aircrafts and buildings, but I also like the side part too. For the multi base it's ok to be there but it is not a must for me. I voted the third option in the pool, my fate is in the team I'll not be disappointed :)
  16. Description: When I launch on a terror site mission it sticks at 99% for upwards of 5-10 minutes. I have replicated it twice now after I have to use Ctrl-Alt-Del to pull up the task manager and stop the game and then restart from the beginning menu. I have not tried to skip a terror site mission yet. This is happening within the first 2 months of in game time. What Happened: I clicked on the terror site mission and assigned my troops and launched on the mission and the game hung up for anywhere from 5-10 minutes. Further information: Using the autosave I loaded the last save and then proceeded to send small teams on mini-missions as I call them to gain money or scientists and engineers. When they return there is a terror site mission that will pop up and I click on it and it hangs up the game. Save files located here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/81kk4rry27mlr8e/Autosave03.json?dl=0 Playing in Windowed mode at 1920x1280 on an i7-8700k with 32GB of RAM and a GTX1070 video card using Windows 10 64bit OS.
  17. Base building isn't that complex in these games. It is not like in FTL where those decisions about build determine your overall strategy. However, if multiple bases can be built, there is more room to play like that. I'm pretty confident that the 'best' tactic will still be to consolidate yourself in a main base, with other bases acting as annexes - but it doesn't matter what the optimal tactic is. The game will be more fun if you have the choice to do something suboptimal, like make a research base defended by one soldier and 30 rocket launchers (that base is in the USSR and that one soldier is certainly called Crazy Ivan). I vote for trusting the devs at the end of the day. But, I think the game would be richer for having multiple bases. Yet, I'll probably stick to one base in X2, unless there are some clever mechanics to make those additional bases less time- and resource-consuming to develop.
  18. The game enters the game menu, but when I try to load the game, the game closes without giving any message. I have formatted and reinstalled the operating system and still giving the same error. I have windows 10
  19. Thanks for giving us this update as it is a very important and critical choice, which is going to effect a LOT of the game. I will do this reply in point form. - Multiple bases are my ideal as you can have different listening posts all over the globe. This would be even better if the transporter moved troops and supplies between bases. - As much as the side on esthetics look nice, to me it looks like it would be too complicated to know which is which. The top down or good ol 3D Isometric (for us older gamers out there) is a lot easier to say, oh that is the toilet, that is the kitchen sink etc. There should be a kitchen so we can have some of our troops get frying pans and cleavers out to fight! - If there is going to be dropship for the entire bases, then you should have the base teleporter option available, so that you can say story wise, that you need specialist from here, here and there to do this particular kind of mission, whereas in another mission, you might need a totally different team. This would also allow the option that if you have say 5 bases, and there are say 40 soldiers at each, and you needed say 4 from each base, there is still a sizeable defence for as it always seemed to happen that you'd be out on a mission with 2/3 of your troops, and an alien assault team of snakemen and ethereals would come and attack your base and you'd be down your base, troops and chopper... which in my train of thought, could just then fly back to a base that has an empty hangar available. - I do like the whole shared equipment and researchers idea. Since there were computers and the internet available, it has allowed universities as well as governments to have research done by multiple labs at once because they are able to share results. Looking forward to seeing what comes up next. There was something else I wanted to add, but lost it ah... right is there a potentiality for there being more power at one base, and then having it wirelessly transmitted to a base that needs some extra? Please keep up the good work, and thanks for the updates that you have been posting. I am looking forward to seeing myself in the game. :) With gratitude and happiness, Jim.
  20. Hey, Been quietly watching the progress this time around, but I felt I should voice my cents in this topic. On Single-base setup Single-base setup is simple and works beautifully. Has problems, like said base defence. Some ideas: - Leave base defence out completely: Instead focus on aliens' terror affecting your funding etc. and choices and consequences between having to choose between simultaneously placed missions' adverse effects. Like what Xcom2 TNG did. Some brutal civilian defence missions etc. - Add in base security as a factor: Deploy security forces in various place of your base, maybe have some security buildings etc, automated defences etc. Then handle it more like tower defence in Realtime 2D, with a more statistical approach. This could btw be very good for both Single- and Multi-base... - Ground level Base Defence only: If players engage base defence, make the defence mission only on ground level. This way you could have a map with large outdoor sections and some inside sections. The layout need not exactly match the side-view, you can add whatever to make it more interesting. You could randomize the base defence once per game - or just stick with the one premade. could be good, for more tactical and better thought-out invasions... - Rare, but meaningful Invasions: With a single base, alien invasions should be very rare, because losing one base means losing the game, while with multi-base setup, it might not... Rare invasions would support hand-made and more carefully considered levels, as opposed to randomly generated. Sure the coolness aspect of seeing your own layout in action is lost, but that feature really only works if the other features of multi-base management work really well. - Support Staff and random events: Now this would be something new in this genre: events that occur within your base that you have to resolve via a simple narrative choice-driven interface. I'm thinking events in games like Stellaris, which are drawn from pools of events. Different events require different solutions, e.g. a reactor is breaking down so you need to assign some engineers, and then you find an alien infestation lurking in there and need to assign some security to take care of them, maybe losing some staff in the process. Or a conflict between your chief engineer and one of your soldiers forces you to sack one of them etc. Maybe even add some new support staff to maintain the base. With proper pacing of events it could make things more interesting. Anyway, anything to make you care more for the people in your base is better. Could also work well with arbitrary RPG stats and traits on the random staff, maybe one guy is especially good at killing bugs, so you want him to be your exterminator, while another excels and boosting morale and resolving social conflicts. On Multi-Base Setup I think that If you're going to do multi-base, make sure you get a fresh spin on it, instead of just re-iterating with some - albeit welcome - simplifications. - Make base locations unique: I love the nuclear missile silo in the side-view. Why not have access to nukes?! Why not make each base location unique in the sense that they each provide something extra for you. And make number of base locations also limited. There would be many options to consider between randomized and static base locations, but most importantly this can give you important game design leverage to give players meaningful decisions - that's what made X-COM TNG such a successful franchise IMO. You could even have unique story sections related to each base, maybe some sort of small quest in order to get the special facility operational 100% - Make basic base grid unity much smaller: Allow building corridors, to manufacture really unique layouts; choke points, security checkups, otherwise just beautiful layouts etc. In addition with the unique base effect concept, you can add rubble and junk that needs to be cleared, or just unbuildable areas. Special Effects could be static base tiles that can't be removed, influencing how certain places could be built. With Power as a requirement, you could even go as far as add Power Nodes that need to be placed manually, to improve distribution of power between Power Plants and facilities. - upgradeable facilities: Facilities could use some upgrading mechanics. Especially with base invasion, I could easily see some room for base upgrades between security and efficiency - maybe something else as well. Maybe upgrades could be unique modifiers that need to be chosen from a certain list, but you only have room for few - again adding another layer of choice. - Multiple dropships: Yes, if multi-base then this. You could also do several spins on this as well, maybe add some massive troop carriers, and some lightning fast but smaller ones, for stuff that require rapid responses for less-threatening missions that still have adverse impacts you'd like to avoid. Also, not all missions need be combat missions. There can be mission that require investigation and some small narrative-based decision-making. Maybe you don't really know the threat unless you go there or scout around etc. Maybe even some kind of black ops missions that allow you to sabotage enemy, without engaging, with some risk of getting into combat. This would also support in having crafts with more roles. --- Yes, I realize what I suggest all requires more work, some a lot, but those opinions were thrown out in the name of making the game feel better with some new interesting twists in this department. Overall, I will vote for single-base setup because doing the multi-base proper this time around would take a ton of development time, and I'm afraid a half-done version would just reduce the overall quality of the game. Of course, if you guys have the muscles and the bucks, then do it! Just don't screw it up, and for frack's sake give it a new, fresh spin Cheers! PS. Also realized I haven't checked the demo in a while, so i should probably play a few rounds with it...
  21. I have equally just signed up to the forum to reply to this thread, because breaking a sweat trying to respond to various threats is challenging, but makes it a much more rewarding (if sometimes frustrating!) gaming experience. Having only one dropship makes absolutely no sense to me, although I understand that's how the code has now been written (although I thought it was always a better idea to have multiple, even with just the one base), I don't mind having to kit out multiple squads - in fact, one of the things I loved about Xenonauts 1 is that you always felt like your soldiers were expendable and easily killed, so you never relied on any one soldier too much (at least I didn't, was always leveling up rookies alongside more experienced squaddies). In XCOM, when you lose a few high-level team members everything just breaks down and you feel like you have to start all over again just because of that. Unlike Mister Maf, however, I don't like the idea of making pools of staff global, at least not from the get go - if you want to do that, make the "stargate" a researchable project at the very least, and perhaps even a building for bases. Considering the low tech you start with, it makes zero sense to have teleportation gates at will. I've voted for multiple bases, I like having the choice and I always thought it was cool how the bases in defence missions were exactly how you built them - thanks for for letting us have a say on this!
  22. I'd just be happy with an improved version of X1 - if it can be improved any more! X1 took over from UFO - Enemy Unknown as my favourate game of all time. I trust Chris with any changes because X1 was spot-on in so many ways. I think the way bases are handled in X1 is more realistic of how things would go though - if you station and rely on auto defences at a base (missile systems/robots), there may be a chance the ailens will defeat them etc. (possibly like the 1 player mode in Rebelstar where you get to watch your automated ground defences - robots etc. make good/bad choices in fighting the ailens who get through to do a ground assault, but having no interaction unless you also have human soldiers stationed there). Auto-defences would, of course, be cheaper to maintain than stationing soldiers there. Many didn't like the ending to X1 much though. I suppose the endgame should be about attacking a huge alien base containing traps and a mixture of all alien types.
  23. To be honest, most of the secondary bases will probably continue to be Aircraft Hangars and Radar Outposts, while Atlas Base will become the Research/Manufacture/A-Team Hub, since unless having certain structures in the other bases will be better than having them in the main base, they simply wont be built. Maybe to encourage more variety, there could be buildings that have an effect on the region where the base is built, like shortening the duration of Resource missions, or increase local force presence/give bonuses to local forces, or even spawning an "ambush mission" where with help from the Xenonauts, local authorities lure Aliens into a prepared site, where (almost) any mission type can occur, except with all civilians replaced with local forces. Or being able to construct a purely defensive structure, with more defensive deployment options (more places for turrets or other such things), which would do nothing outside of base attacks. In any case, I thought the Side-Ways view of the main base was a nice take, as well as having the Hangar/Radar Bases, and it justified only having one dropship at any time, but being able to construct more full bases makes the One dropship rule kind of arbitrary.
  24. To clarify - by "a multi-base approach" I didn't mean what we have currently in X2. Having mini-bases which are basically just interceptors + radars makes a lot of sense to me. But having the full base-building mechanics "multi-base approach" of X1 without actually making multi-dropship viable doesn't.
  25. Signed up to the forum just to reply to this thread because this is really important to me. One of my favorite features of Xenonauts 1 is the ability to send out multiple dropships at once to respond to multiple threats at the same time. It makes absolutely no sense to me in the XCOM reboots that you can only respond to one threat at a time when you have enough soldiers to cover everything. The global manpower pool is fine; just stick an alien-looking teleporter gate in the hangar on the base maps once you build your second base so players understand what's going on without breaking suspension of disbelief. I like having to manage everything separately but understand why people would rather it be global. But for the love of the stars, please allow sending out multiple simultaneous dropships.
  26. Well, the shooting (and camera) mechanics in the game are much better suited to fighting along a horizontal plane rather than a vertical one. Line of sight and shooting between different vertical levels is always a bit of a nightmare in this sort of game. Additionally, a side-on base view would lead to a map that was rather narrow ... a top-down base has no depth but plenty of length and width, whereas a side-on base would have plenty of length and depth but not much width. It'd be a lot like fighting in several corridors stacked on top of one another. So you're right that it wouldn't actually be impossible, but I think the results of a base map generated from a side-on layout would be a lot worse than one generated from a top-down layout.
  27. I voted that you guys should decide what to do. I voted that because I am not in a position to say what will work better with how the game is turning out. I personally would like multiple bases if for nothing other than being able to suffer the loss of that base without the game ending.
  28. Having played all the original x-com games (even Interceptor) and the new Firaxis games, I can say that I MUCH prefer top down base building. Single base side view limits base building so much it may as well not even be in the game. Additionally, I'm not sure how other people played X1, but as the difficulty was raised, I found myself needing more bases more urgently than on easy/normal. Aliens become ruthless about rooting out your fire bases and shooting down dropships on the hardest difficulties and maybe i'm just not as skilled, but I always seemed to lose 1 dropship on Ironman no matter how safe I played it in late months as ships would pop out of areas with no radar. On the subject of base defence: X-Com games had multilevel alien bases, couldnt that same principle be used to make side view bases have multilevel maps to defend if we absolutely must have them? Trying to squeeze X2 into the fancy looking hipster pants of the single-level-only Firaxis maps can only make X2 worse. Stick with what worked in X-Com!
  1. Load more activity
×