Leaderboard

I enjoyed Xenonauts 1 immensely, but for Xenonauts 2, have the following: - soldier inventory similar to JA2 (specific slots) - weapon attachment (like in JA2) - friendly troops and missions involving them - localized soldier damage. Mangled arm that reduces aim, mangled leg that reduces movement, etc.. - to tie with the above, a comprehensive armor scheme (front torso, rear torso, head, left/right arm and leg). Each body part has it's own armor value and armor HP. - more organic weaponry - different weapon types behaving differently, rather then being clear tiers. So plasma has short range, but is powerful and deals splash damage.Lasers are accurate but not very powerful. Kinetics are relaiable and offer high RoF. So no tiers that go kinetic-laser-plasma, but rather technological progression within a tier. For example: TIER1: - continuous lasers (your basic beam. Since it's almsot impossible to miss, the %to hit affects damage done. "Will I hit it" becomes "how long did I keep the beam on the enemy?" as the enemy tried to dodge) - basic kinetic weapons (the "research" is actually searching for and selecting the best weapons that are available in the world at the start of the game. "Hey Xenonauts, we found that the HGK-416 is the best suited, sop ti will replace your M-16's's) TIER2: - pulse lasers (mechanically, works the same as a gun. Think lasrifle from WH40K: DoW) - advanced kinetic weapons (new guns, more modern look, better stats) - basic plasma (prone to overheating, bulky) TIER3: - UV(purple)/X-ray(blue) lasers (better stats, more modern look) - hypervelocity kinetics (coilguns/railguns) - advanced plasma - advanced kinetic munitions (HEA, HEAP, etc.. rounds)

I'm in charge for breaking things. Chris fixes them.

Yup. I think that there is a definite need for this. The game is not about grinding your soldiers' stats up. There is very little strategy in that. Obviously there needs to be a barrier to stop you deploying super-soldiers from the outset, and yes it is fun to see you squad gradually develop into a meaner fighting machine. But some kind of compromise would be welcome, one that would let you patch up a hole in your team if, say, your sniper bought it. In terms of the cost - that really depends on the economy of the game. What would be the trade off for a soldier being trained for +10 accuracy? Would it be worth 1/10th of the $ cost of a fighter jet or would it require resource x to be recovered from the mission site? Better barriers might be less in terms of economy and more in terms of built in limitations. To make a suggestion, I'd say that the base should contain a training room and that, like the lab/workshop of the first game, it would be given a multiplier which increases in the late game. If the training room were designed such that it couldn't improve something like bravery, then it wouldn't function to entirely replace a soldier (i.e. removing the punishment of death). However, it would provide another option for improving your soldiers that didn't require you to carry out a whole ground combat mission. This way, by the final mission you might have a bunch of artificially trained grunts standing in the shoes of your less fortunate squad members but there would also be a few hardened veterans (officers) holding the whole team together with their higher bravery stat.

I think that examples of stat/skill training are inseparable from the style of character development. XCom Apoc had soldiers defined purely by stats (even being a human/hybrid/android was effectively just a matter of stats), they weren't characters, just numbers. Firaxis XCOM has character classes with different stat progressions and skill trees - you could customise your style of sniper but they were entirely replicable. AfterX (from what I remember) had characters with unique bios and even family relationships, there were still classes but training was quite open ended. Put together, it seems like a scale. On the one end, it is a numbers game - on the other it is more like an RPG. X1, being a faithful reboot, was obviously on the pure-stats end of the scale. If a system were to be implemented whereby soldiers could be selected for training packages or given certain upgrades based on experience, then it would swing the game more towards that RPG style. This is quite a delicate issue, both in terms of what players want but also how Goldhawk would position their game in relation to their contemporaries (and I'd guess Phoenix Point is going to be close to Firaxis XCOM). Personally, I'd say that the versatility of Xenonauts is one of its advantages. Why shouldn't the shotgunner get expertise with smoke grenades or a medkit? But then, I'd also vote for a stat system as complex as pokemon where progression is based on the enemies you fight, the character's nature and even the genetic lines they are part of - though I feel that breeding soldiers in xenonauts would upset much of the core fan base. Whilst I concede that the realistic approach for X2 would not be that far along the scale, it is undeniable that a lot of the fun and investment the player has in the game (and the attachment they have to each play-through) is grounded in the development of the soldiers beyond just their weapon upgrades. This also highlights the flip side of the discussion, in how much punishment the player should take for losing a soldier. In AfterLight, it could even mean losing your R&D resource. Pretty painful really. But then, that game was based around the premise that players would tend not to permit with loses. Losing a stat-based Apoc soldier wasn't much grief at all though, their 'clone' would be waiting at base camp. Unfortunately I'd say that X1 kinda suffered from the disadvantages of both ends of the scale - highly trained soldiers were a chore to replace (esp if you wanted them to have a good reaction stat) but the ground combat mechanics weren't lenient to keeping every soldier alive throughout the game (e.g. one shot reaper kill). Training should be a a fun part of the game, not a grind. I'd say that a good compromise would be to have training packages that are unlocked via research, and that these could be given to any soldier. So your rookie with the top-tier-Acc-training-package could stand in for a veteran on the rifle range but wouldn't be an all-round soldier until they gained in mission experience. So what I'm saying is - should Xenonauts 2 lean towards the RPG style of character training and how can that remain interesting in a play through that can incur substantial loses?

It's interesting that training has been brought up in this thread, because training was something that was hashed over again and again during the development of X1, and it's something that has been tried in a variety of ways in other X-Com-a-likes. The fundamental assumption behind training appears to be: "I put X solider(s) into training. They are unavailable for Y period of time. Once Y period of time has expired,, they acquire Z bonuses". There are often things built upon that. Soldiers may need to acquire some form of resource before they may take training (experience points, training points, yogi master points, etc.). There are often rules about when they can take training (not wounded, not dead, not host to a bioweapon, etc.). There may be conditions to meet for certain kinds of bonuses, and requirements to meet to get training in the first place, but strip away all the surface layer stuff and each time training has been tried in an X-Com-a-like you have the same three postulates - take solider X, remove them from the game for time Y, acquire Z bonus at the end of time Y. X-Com Apocalypse's training only required the player to build a training room. When a solider was sent away from training, they improved their stats. As the bar to entry was so low, a decent strategy was to make a training base. Recruit soldiers directly to the training base and have them train all the time. They would improve their stats without the risk of losing them in battle. What training did in effect was to speed up the time needed to have soldiers with good stats and provide a pool of soldiers which had good stats without having to grind missions to do so. Depending on your perspective as a player, that could be good or bad. If you didn't do well, or experienced a party wipe (and party wipes in a game like Apocalypse are serious, when you can control 30+ soldiers in a fight!), then having a ready pool of soldiers with good stats and having the capacity to take more soldiers and prepare them without grinding missions is a good thing. On the other hand, if you're doing well, then having a pool of soldiers which can have comparable stats to the soldiers who you do missions with is a slap in the face of the player - what's the point of playing well and preserving your soldiers when you can just train a bunch of guys up for no risk? The AfterX series took training in the opposite direction. Training required three resources. Experience points, which were traded in for levels, which granted two other resources - stat increases and training points. Both stats and training points were necessary to acquire skills. In Aftershock, you selected a profession for your solider, based upon the stat requirements and the training points available. In Afterlight, you picked skills based upon the research you had carried out. Skills were mostly based around unlocking. Combat training did not usually provide stat increases. Instead they permitted to soldier access to something they couldn't do before, whether it was a special ability, a physical action, or something else. In Afterlight, for example, you could not crouch in a spacesuit without the appropriate spacesuit training. In Aftershock, you could not get access to entire weapon categories without training in the appropriate profession. Some skills in the AfterX games were considered mandatory. In Aftershock, if you wanted to heal someone in battle you almost always needed a solider who had the medic profession. In Afterlight, in order to perform certain basic movement actions, such as crouching or running, you had to have spacesuit training. Aftershock's system of training was closer to XCOM's system of class-based leveling up, in that without the appropriate profession, you did not have access to certain weapons, nor did you have access to certain special skills unique to the profession. Unlike XCOM, professions were not locked in from the word go, and a character could be trained in three different professions at once. This was a complicated system, First you took your soldiers into battle. Then if they earnt enough experience points, they levelled up. Then, if they had enough training points AND the appropriate stats AND the correct research you could select a skill for them to train in. Compare this to XCOM - earn enough experience points, get a level, get a skill. XCOM's system of getting skills is much more accessible than the After series, but the AfterX series created greater investment in the character. You had to work to get skills for a soldier, so every skill gained was that much more appreciated for it. In the Apocalypse model, training exists to get recruits up to speed quickly. Soldiers in Apocalypse are considered very replaceable. While it's good to keep soldiers between missions, it's not necessary as each solider is defined only by their stats and if you have a mechanism outside of running missions to improve stats, then loosing a solider is not that big of a deal in the cosmic scheme of things. In the AfterX model, training exists to act as a speed bump and a means of personalizing and investing a player in their soldiers. Each time a solider is able to train, they can then do something that they cannot before - run faster, jump quicker, use weapons they didn't have access to.....and crouch. At the same time, XCOM showed that it wasn't necessary to jump through the hoops that AfterX set up, by disposing of training and just allowing soliders to get something each time they levelled up. The feedback loop in XCOM is shorter because the intermediate stage of training is removed. What would the Xenonauts model be? Well, one must ask all sorts of questions. For example, where will the bulk of effort in improving soldiers come from? Does it come from completing missions? Ground combat is the meat of Xenonauts. The strategy section exists to serve ground combat, so it would make sense to put the most rewards into ground combat. However, if ground combat is where soldiers will progress, then the most effective strategy to improve soldiers is to delay the progression of the game while grinding out as many missions as possible and to behave in ground combat as conservatively as possible to preserve soldiers. That was seen during the development of X1 even though the grinding was boring, because people tend to prioritise the most optimal strategy to win over the most fun. Training then might be a tool to lessen the desire to grind out as much as possible by making alternate routes to progression available as in the Apocalypse model, rather than acting as a gatekeeper to progression as in the AfterX model. What kind of progression is there going to be? I can't find the post, but Chris has previously said that progression is going to be small increments to specific stats and equipment. E.g. getting a +bonus to shooting with rifle-class weapons, for example. If that's as far as progression is going to go, is it necessary to have a training mechanism at all? And another question to ask might be, is the accepted model of training (solider X goes away for Y days to get Z bonus) an appropriate model for Xenonauts? Would a different model better suit the game? Perhaps a more interactive model, such as a minigame? But would a minigame become tiresome? Would it be better to turn the training trope on it's head? Instead of sending a solider away, you bring a training officer to the solider. Perhaps you have to hire and schedule a training officer to turn up at home base. When the training officer turns up, any solider who stays as home base gets some training. Anyone who has to go out on a mission doesn't. That would work pretty well in a turn based strategy environment. What do you think? What would a good model for training in Xenonauts be? Should there even be one?

Heh, I've been explaining this concept for almost a decade now and I don't think I've ever managed to express it as succinctly or as effectively as you did there

Mi-24 is a gunship that also has transport capabilities. A groundbreaking machine at its time. However, I agree that pure transport chopper is a better choice. The vehicle's fighting capacity doesn't manifest in the game, especially not in the air to ground way which would be the gunship's mission. It's better to use a pure transport helo both from believability and thematic standpoints. A russian helicopter to use would then be Mi-17, but I think the Chinook is better here. Some scattered other points on the OP, using that convenient numbering: 1. Yeah, lack of nightvision always annoyed me too, but I guess the point is to have darkness have some meaning. It'd be just mood lighting otherwise. I'd be fine with that, though. 2. Those Altair games have a theme of last remnants of the humanity forming ragged bands to fight back. It makes sense that they would need training. In the traditional XCOM scenario, the recruits are already conventionally trained soldiers. The experience they gain in battle goes for learning to fight the aliens. Hard to believe you could have extensive training programs for that. 6. One of my ideas was stationary vehicles as on-site gun turrets. Maybe more feasible, but I bet people would be dissapointed that they couldn't move. 10. My personal pet peeve with both Firaxis XCOM and Xenonauts is that the weapon selection is same types of weapons repeated in tiers. First you have bullets, then you have lasers, then plasma and finally MAG. Easy to balance maybe, but banal. Mix it up a little. The original XCOM had this too, but it also had enough special weapons outside the matrix so that it wasn't so noticeable. FloridaBoy's point 3: It's hard to balance, but I love this feature when it's used in 4X games. It prevents the one true tech strategy you'll always use. Of course in the UFO genre there is some randomness generated by what you manage to salvage. Maybe playing that up would give you similar results.

I agree, as long as balance is not broken, that is the Alien are still a fearsome military force. I don't see this useful, as long as we accept that our rookies, who are special force veterans (or regular, able specialists), are just performing at the best of their capabilities when fighting the Aliens for the first time. Granted, accuracy could be better, except if we consider that they shoot very quickly. An accuracy bonus could be granted when they are not under fire (I figure that plasma projectiles over head are a very stressful experience) and have time to prepare (up to the point where a machine gunner cannot fire on the same turn he has moved, or even not before a full idle turn). On the other hand, scientists and engineers could perform better the more they work for the Organization, or rather (and more simply), their labs and workshop could upgrade one or twice during the campaign (not only cosmetically). Firstly, some player would be reluctant in defending huge bases for hours. Secondly, greater bases would mean better defences (provided money is plenty), and this would imply less or none base defence missions. However, I see a point here. Initial cost for new bases could be far less, which would make possible for the player to build outposts, radar bases, air bases, projection bases all over the world, for a more realistic coverage and strategy. When the player want to increase a given base, he would have to pay to enlarge the base grid and upgrade its Command Center. For example, we could have a 2x2 CC + 3 squares, a CC plus 6 squares, a 4x4 grid, and current 6x6 base grid. I'd say that the more customization and gimmick we need, we less attractive the game should be, or the more customization and gimmick we are offered, the more the designers have excuses to design poorly stand-alone exciting campaign and tactical modes. This shouldn't be a priority. See 4. Let modders have tools to complement the game. I'm not sure that heavy vehicles would fit to troop transports. Anyways, if the Terran put in the fight their heavy ordinance (and why not howitzers?), what would prevent the Alien to do the same? I'm not sure heavy tanks would not be sitting ducks, faced to cloaked armoured hovering beasts, for instance. Besides, isn't our Scimitar tank a smaller cousin to the M1? See 4. The initial equipment is not deemed to last for long anyways. Why not the Mi-24? Because it's a light assault chopper that would be torn apart by alien infantry weapons. It can take only 8 soldiers whereas our Charlie take... only 8 soldiers (say 12 with mods). What's the difference then? First read the data: CH-47 Chinook can take 22 soldiers or 9500 kg (as compared to 2500 kg for Mi-24) and has a one-way range of 2000 km (as compared to 750 km). Then read the Xenopedia: CH-47 was changed to CH-48 with added fuel tanks and heavy armour all over, in order to multiply by ten its autonomy, and to make it unto the immediate UFO vicinity and sustain a few infantry weapon hits. A modified version of MI-24 would only be useful if transports would be allowed to have a support fire feature in tactical mode, but the deployed team would be tiny (3 soldiers?) because of the added autonomy and armour. We could start by having more grenades and rockets (more simple to implement?). The point should be more clear if Xenonauts-2 is set in the 2000s. All those kinds of weapons exist in Xenonauts-1 (I can call "warper" the disruptor, aka Singularity Cannon, even if flamethrowers where not implemented in vanilla). So be patient! Again, play Xenonauts-1: some buildings upgrade automatically when technological advances are done: Defence Battery; some others upgrade automatically or are available when proper researches are done: Labs, Workshop, Communication decryption. Limited place buildings can be added: Medical Centre (8 beds each), Garage (3 places each), Hangar (1 place each). I agree. Should they be true, misguided humans, or alien puppets? Or both kind?

There are many X-com like games. And all of them give the answer to the question: why are the aliens attacking earth? Energy/mineral resources? - interstellar species do not need to fight over resources - there whole galaxy full of uninhabited star systems. Genetic material? Why do you need to fly so far when you can spend less time and resources making research using your own genetic material. And fully developed interstellar race will have the power to wipe out entire humanity without much effort. Why terror tactic by foot soldiers? Why not the orbital bombardment by giant space battleships? So i suggest some different view: All different alien races flee from more powerful and advanced civilization. This civilization (Great Enemy) destroyed their empires. Remnants of refugee fleets come to the solar system as they seek to hide from their enemy in uncharted region of space. Alien races come as few dominant races with their thrall races. For example: - Technologically advanced race group – with better weapons but no psionic abilities. This race will rely on tech. - Psionically advanced race group – with powerful psionic abilities and medium tech. This race will rely on biology/Psionics - Biology-oriented race-swarm (like zerg or tyranids) with big groups of weak units, strong officers but only medium tech/abilities. This race will rely on biology/numbers All these race groups have few unique technologies to research. Also leading race units will be fewer in numbers but stronger then thrall races units. These races seek to dominate Earth to survive, and form the fragile alliance. With only several damaged transport and military ships, they cannot conquer Earth in direct military operation, so they use raids and terror attacks to seed chaos and then to take control by forcing governments to surrender. Then they plan to enslave the population and establish the base to rebuild their strength, and make an outpost from which to begin to rebuild their empires. Aliens can build their bases on earth surface (or deep in the ocean depths), but their main bases are separate and not accessible by human technologies (Moon or Mars base, damaged mothership in space, etc). To defeat the aliens all of their main bases must be destroyed. To access main alien base all unique technologies for that race must be researched (for example: for tech race friend or foe identification device must be obtained and reprogrammed to open their base) and some spacecraft to deliver strike team must be built. There are also can be story missions to destroy/defeat thrall races. For example: destroying the factory where Androns being produced will severely reduce their numbers in missions or end their appearance in the game. All leader races will have one or two unique ufos, but other ufos will be the same for all races, constructed in the solar system specifically for invasion on Earth. Governments/regions on Earth can surrender to one leading alien race, and will be freed when this race will be defeated. This can be done without big changes in game mechanics. But more units/races can be added. Fro example: After some time when some Government/region surrendered to the alien race, there can be appearance of modified human soldiers fighting on alien side. For each leading race there will be different type of human soldier: cybernetically enhanced, mind controlled and genetically modified. There can be technologies to better fight these enemies, or to enhance player soldiers in similar way. To free Government/region from alien control there will be mission to destroy alien base on this territory. This base will contain at least one leader race commander (governor), his alien bodyguards, and some number of modified soldiers. Or there can be appearance of the Great Enemy units in the game. Great Enemy will fight the other aliens but will not try to conquer Earth, because we are too primitive for them to waste time on us. These aliens will be very few and extremely difficult to kill, but their tech will be more advanced then anything else. For example: in the mission there are downed UFO and several dead aliens on the map, some living aliens who will attack player soldiers, and one or two Great Enemy units, who will attack both aliens and humans. Great Enemy units can use stealth tech like the Predators or just be the tanks with a lot of armor and heavy weapons. This units must be strong enough to single-handedly wipe other aliens and player squad. Their tech is to complex to be understood and to be replicated by the other aliens or humans, but trophies (weapons, artifacts) can be used by human soldiers. There will be no Great Enemy bases and they will leave the solar system after all other races will be destroyed. Or their base will be the last base to destroy.

Why are the aliens attacking earth? ...falls ancient flying object, aliens need ancient technology, humanity has refused to return the aircraft, so there was a conflict.

The tiers were just an example. As for why pulse lasers would be more effective - the pulse effect? More energy delivered in a burst, and the shock effect? A comprehensive armor and limbs/body scheme would add to the depth of the game and produce more interesting scenarios and heroic stories. In X1, there was little difference between a heavily injured xenonaut and a full health one. Here, the difference would be visible and would affect tactical decisions. And it's not even that difficult to implement - it's 3D, so shot direction is easily calculated. All you need is to define body parts and how likely they are to be hit depending on surface area - and you can go even further by chance to hit a body part depending on facing(if you're to the left of a guy and are shooting him, chances are you're gonna hit his left arm and it's almost impossible to hit his right arm) Let me give you an example using some butchered Rimworld code: <BodyDef> <defName>Human</defName> <corePart> <def>Human_Body</def> <height>Middle</height> <depth>Outside</depth> <parts> <li> <def>Torso</def> <coverage>0.5</coverage> <HP_percent>0.5</HP_percent> <height>Top</height> <depth>Outside</depth> </li> <li> <def>RightArm</def> <coverage>0.05</coverage> <HP_percent>0.2</HP_percent> <height>Top</height> <depth>Outside</depth> </li> <li> <def>LeftArm</def> <coverage>0.05</coverage> <HP_percent>0.2</HP_percent> <height>Top</height> <depth>Outside</depth> </li> <li> <def>RightLeg</def> <coverage>0.05</coverage> <HP_percent>0.3</HP_percent> <height>Top</height> <depth>Outside</depth> </li> <li> <def>LeftLeg</def> <coverage>0.05</coverage> <HP_percent>0.3</HP_percent> <height>Top</height> <depth>Outside</depth> </li> </parts> <BodyDef> The beauty of this is obvious - you can go autisctically deep with this, adding internal organs, specific fingers, etc... The toughenss of each body part can be defined in may ways - as percentage of soldier HP (tougher soldiers have stronger limbs too) or a fixed value, or every part would have the maximum HP value the soldier has Within this, you could also define functions of body parts - a simple addition like: <affects>mobility</affects> and <affects>carry</affects> added to a leg would mean that leg injury would reduce both mobility and carry capacity. So now instead of Pvt. Bob being hit twice and still running a marathon, we have private Bob who's armor has been breached and lost use of an arm and has a heavily burnt leg. He shoots his rifle one-handed as he limps to cover, drop it since he can't hit jack s***, and kills the alien with a grenade/pistol. Note that this would also cause players to have secondary teams and replacements out of necessity - not only does healing take time, but wounded units simply do not perform well. Normally, people would bring soldiers with 50% health on missions, but give them heavy armor or use them as pack mules. But now you have a solider that is limping so is slowing everyone else down, can't carry as much or isn't as accurate until he recovers.

I agree that the proposals are interesting and may make for some interesting tactics, but I believe that X-2 (or at least the direction we are heading to) is not capable of supporting a sufficiently differentiated night combat mechanism. Head slot introduces micromanagement. I can think of NVG, Infrared, Sunglass (day bonus), Psi-shield, gas mask, wide vision helm. Even if we ignore that half of them steal variations away from armours, now imagine swapping everyone's head gear before every mission depending on time and enemies. We can expand the vision system, to create more sensors and keep the armours distinguished. Chris proposed motion scanner. Afterlight has normal vision, night vision, infrared, em sense, psi sense. Can also have heartbeat sensor. Each armour of each enemies has different signatures and texture in each system. Not a small task. An unarmored sebillian should not trigger em sense, but should it be hotter or cooler? Ends up the players just mix the sensors; as soon as anyone spots an enemy, squadsight makes sure everyone can shot it. The direct senses does not end up adding much to the game. The indirect senses are more interesting, but if you put them in an under-contested slot (the reason to create many visions), that's mostly just another squadsight sensor. Removing or weakening squadsight makes the aim even more complicated, requires adjusting of weapons, and amplify gear micromanagement, because you'd want the attacker to remove that infrared goggles before shooting that infrared invisible enemy. Should that "flash of light" gives players who have a big monitor (sees a bigger field) or a good dynamic vision some meta game advantage? It does not fit the idea of the "pure" turn based game. Signal pistol and floodlight are new items and new mechanics specialised for night mission (micromanagement). Have something works differently on the map is more complicated than adding a slot and adjusting spot distance. Code for a mission type that players avoid. Which includes AI. Should the alien be smart enough to grenade the floodlight? (after making sure destroying the floodlight will immediately stop the light, another piece of code.) Should the civilian be smart enough to know the brightly lit area is safe and is not the Xenonauts burning the whole field in a fighting retreat? How? Light as a weapon does not mean much as we have quick and unlimited flare. Which the consensus is it's a good design. And before it is being proposed, special aliens that require special equipment to dealt with may become a spike that force players to start a new game, instead of allowing them to catch up. For example if they come in a base defence mission. (Not flare. I mean like an infrared/floodlight visible Alien.) With a turn-based geoscape, should the game popup a box and ask you "Day mission or night mission"? If it is random, it is not only a lack of choice but a choice that is replaced by a forced penalty. If we remove the night missions - like Apocalypse and XCOM 2 did - we will have consistent vision, we can drop the unlimited & featherlight flares, we can drop the whole light subsystem, and we should see less night combat confusion. We can still have "time of day", done my adjusting lighting. As long as the battlefield is reasonably illuminated, it'd allow some variations while dropping rarely used mechanics (that the players need to know). What would make a night mission more interesting? How about a shadow system, that bring light source into most or every mission by shrouding tunnels, windowless rooms, dark alley, and have darkness generating alien (phoenix point style) - instead of adding to the night, bring the night to the day! But this actually does not change much of the game. You need to get closer to he alley or flare the beast, but ultimately that's exactly what it accomplish - make you use night tactic in the day. By itself it does not make night more fun, but may give other changes a border application. Perhaps we can introduce sound system and removing the sight advantage of aliens - i.e. Jagged Alliance? Something does not require special equipment to work, functional day and night, and work better at night for various reasons. This is obviously useful in indoor, independent from the night, and is being hinted at in an alternate form known as the motion scanner. The sound system can even be expanded to a full stealth system where you may gain or lost the sensory advantage, but stealth is unlikely to help with ufo and base assault, and how to implement stealthy weapons is another big question. Not to mention not very xcom. So at the end I think we should just scrap the night missions. Any other ideas?

I propose we just give everyone a night vision goggle in X-2 and removes the different mechanism of night missions.

@Solver Hit me up on steam when you have the time.