Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/04/2020 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    I think it would be a good idea if whenever a transport is deployed to a mission there is a opportunity to review the squad before it is despatched, either automatically or with a pop up (similar to what happens in the new XCOM games). Ideally this would enable a player to quickly check the squad that has been selected and adjust the soldiers selected, their loadouts, position in the dropship etc. I think this would be very helpful in making sure that a mission is not launched with an incomplete or wrongly equipped squad epically in ironman games where the player can simply reload a saved game if they discover they have sent someone on a mission without the latest weapons available( or any weapons) by mistake.
  2. 1 point
    I think we’re seeing the dynamic between a vocal minority and a silent majority here. Rather than making the efforts to complain on the forums, they would just not buy the game. I still remember how heated about air combat discussions was on the feature threads, where a lot of people only make accounts just to make backlash against the turn based system to stem the tide of a few people making constant comments supporting it. This only died down when Chris decided to brought back both the original base system and real time air combat. Even the biggest thread on the general discussion on how X2 stayed too much similar to the first game was also defended by the silent majority. Your argument on how real time doesn’t fit really, it’s just your bias showing. You have given no concrete reasoning to why having a small real time section to break up the monotony of turn based combat is not a good thing (something a lot of people addressed and complained about during the first implementation). Not to mention it’s extremely hard to create a fair system of autoresolve of a turn based combat system, forcing the people who already hate it to play it in order to even follow, a huge problem with games like Total War: Warhammer and it’s terrible siege combat. How it fits or not is entirely based on your opinion of the first game. The whole point of the mini game to be fast, short and easy to autoresolve is that the main focus of Xenonauts is the ground combat, not the air game. Making the air game taking 50% of the game is not really the point at all. Your comparison of Xenonauts and the Subset games is also extremely jarring and thematically unfit as well. The entire point of Into the Breach was to have the gameplay portray the lumbering methodical movement of giant mechas and kaijus and because of that it is turn based. While FTL wanted to have the gameplay represents the frantic combat and movement flow of space ships. Just seeing this we can see that the fast movement of the air game should be closer than FTL than anything else. The planes and UFOs are not gigantic lumering robots but dynamic fast moving machines that are extremely unpredictable. The X-Division mod has already demonstrated that this could work, X2 will only need to deepen this. Like adding more equipment for movement like boosters, teleport pack, anti-missile point defense, energy shields and different weapon setups. Also locational damage for UFOs. The insertion of Starcraft like mechanics of replacement for aircraft is also annoying. The planes and more importantly the pilots should be irreplaceable assets like in real combat to represent the already established atmosphere of the game. Loosing one pilot after a failed rescue mission should be punishment enough. The role of Xenonauts should be the only elite force that is capable of downing UFOs, let the dying and loosing to the NATO and Soviets.
  3. 1 point
    That is a really interesting argument for removing the pause button. My gut reaction is that I enjoy the perfect-or-die split-second timing of air combat - but then I'm the type of gamer who will reload until I nail it. There are a couple of points I think worth pulling apart. Fit. Opposition to real time is usually pretty vocal. The slow-intellectual strategy style of play doesn't chime too well with a mini-game that calls for quick reactions and button bashing. Any air combat system has to fit in well with the game as a whole. The pause button doesn't fit. But then a real time strategy, even without a pause button, doesn't fit either. Using Subset Games as exemplar, the goal should be Enter the Breach rather than FTL. A turn-based mini-game, even with a very simple rock paper scissors basis would make a good fit, even if it lacked excitement. Punishment. I think you're dead on here. Personally, I prefer the game to pit me against difficult challenges rather than severe punishments. A hard battle is great, even sustaining losses. But any losses that take an hour (in the real world) to recuperate are just not worth the effort. I don't want to invest that much into the game. So, on reflection, I think the air war should basically be unwinnable through the majority of the game. Instead of dominating the skies, the player merely manages to fight for a small corner of them. Losing a bunch of planes is fine, so long as you down a couple of UFOs in the process, or fend off the worst of the bombing runs.
  4. 1 point
    @Chriswill there be another hotfix prior to the next big-number upgrade? Is there a current rough date for the next update or hotfix?
  5. 1 point
    Sorry Alienckiller, it might be my own problem for reading posts or i haven't played any X-com games, but I still can't get exactly WHAT problem lies within the Circle-system, I read that the problems exist throughtout the series but just don't get what EXACTLY is the problem and limitation that kept the devs away. Nor do I understand that how Air Combat minigames related to such geoscape system, to me these 2 systems are completely separated and unrelated things and i don't think Air Combat system would be affected no matter the geoscape is.
  6. 1 point
    So I've been playing these games since I was a child. Somehow this basic observation has never occurred to me. My stance is always gameplay before realism, but I think it is worth re-examining the original game for what elements should actually be rebooted. I've seen Chris defend the rectangular geoscape projection because the globe version has the fault that you can't see all of it at once. Similarly, I think it is worth pulling apart the conventions around base building for the same reason. One of the problems with removing stuff is that some bits of the old school game have nostalgic value. I kinda liked spinning the globe around whilst having the time set to fast forward. But how much did it add to the game overall? Not a lot. Same with the access lifts in base building. Does it actually make building a base more interesting or challenging? Not really, it just feels like it has been carried forward by default. But if it doesn't even make a lot of conceptual sense, then that bit has no reason to be left in. (Having said that, I do remember base defence missions in xcom did have the aliens dropping in through the hangar bays, implying a cargo lift or something). Overall, I think a problem with thinking about base design is in figuring out what that part of the game is meant to do. As @Alienkiller says, how to make the current system more interesting. In XCOM, it was mostly about getting engineers for satellites. In Xenonauts, it was more about the radar and interceptor coverage. I think it'd be really nice if the game were balanced so you could make a choice between your base builds: labs, workshops or even training centres and additional hangars (so you could try to outnumber and overwhelm the aliens).
  7. 1 point
    From the beta video i watched recently, the Orbital Bombarment lore stated that the Earth launched 100 ICBMs towards UOO-1 but all got incinerated immediately. This lore might change afterwards but i guess the devs currently won't think about utilizing ICBMs into xenonauts arsenals and just stating that ICBMs are useless. Though i do hope that nuclear weapons would play a greater role lore-wise, relating them further with the Cold War settings.
  8. 1 point
    I think it’s just an early build where the map was still tailored to a “30 minutes into the future modern world” rather than the alternate history scenario Chris presented in the recent thread made regarding revisions in the lore. I suspect the geoscape will change a lot in the upcoming builds. On the difficulty in making the geoscape less complicated, we can fully utilize the alternate history to our advantage. Let’s just say that after the Icelandic Incident, both sides of the Cold War made multiple gains in technology that is crucial for continuing the conflict into modern times. The Soviets implementing a version of cybernetic planning with OGAS, preventing them from stagnation like in OTL. Without the stagnation, India got closer to the Warsaw Pact and officially joined in the 90s, never actually privatized their economy. Yugoslavia and Greece also fell right after Tito died. They won the Afghan War. While on the same page, all of mainland South East Asian countries also falling into the Soviet Camp. On the opposite end, the US now have an even bigger control on Latin America than in our world, to the point of making Puerto Rico their 51th state. All of Central and South America except for Cuba became NATO aligned (there will be an event to change Cuba if the player choose to do it). All of the Middle East also got friendly with the US, Theocratic Iran got overthrown. Australia and Indonesia formed a western ally block in the Pacific. Both sides also continued the space race. The moon having multiple mining operations for Helium-3 to fuel huge fusion reactors on Earth. Mars also having a small base built with cooperation of the US and the Soviet Union. The invasion starts when suddenly all of these bases stopped their communication and the International Space Station disappeared out of the sky (presumably abducted by the aliens).
  9. 1 point
    From the beta video i watched recently, only “Berlin, Germany” appears on the map. There's no East or West Berlin, nor “Bonn, West Germany/Leizpig, East Germany”, this may rather be a oversight or the Berlin Wall still collapses in this settings. Also, we should notice that apart from a single “Soviet Russia” region, their were no Cold War faction on Geoscape in the first place, European countries are Europe, Asian-Pacific countries are Asian-Pacific, Middle Eastern countries are Middle East. Personally I did hope the Continous Cold War settings could be demonstrated in game, but Geoscape-wise it would make the regions extremely complicated if based on Cold War factions, considering Europe taken apart as NATO, Pact and Yugoslavia, Middle East as Isarel, Gulf cooperations, Iran and Iraq, Asian-Pacific as China, ROC, Japan&ROK, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Thai, Indonesia, Australia..... the map would be an awful mess.
  10. 1 point
    This would open up different strategies for territory expansion. So you could go in hard and dominate, or go in soft and make alliances. I like that. Maybe in terms of the original idea of the thread: have the option to make missile bases. These would be part of the 'dominate' strategy as they would give a range of coverage over ground targets, providing influence over those territories (see Cuban missile crisis). Or alternatively, you have the choice to make those bases radar+airfield facilities. These would boost your alliance scores. Missile bases would have the added benefit of deterring any alien ground bases, but they wouldn't be so good for shooting down UFOs. As far as I'm aware, ICBMs aren't often aimed at aircraft.
  11. 1 point
    In that this is an alternative timeline, there is quite a lot of freedom as to what bloc each country exists in. Probably best to go with what is easiest. I suspect that the territory lines and country names used for the geoscape will have been pulled out of some standard map pack. Personally, I'd love to see some engagement with the Iron Curtain, but I think that space aliens are the theme of the day.
  12. 1 point
    My issue with this, particularly in the case of XCOM, was that every playthrough would start the same. Rush satellites. And yeah, there was something interesting about figuring out how to get a few more $$$ additional funding to squeeze out another array a month early, but it doesn't feel like a novel problem you're solving. In X1, the issue was that there was a obvious strategy to get sufficient radar coverage with three bases - that was the optimal choice. And if there is an obvious optimal choice, you don't ever pick the other choices, so the whole thing stops loses all strategy around trade-offs. I'm not saying a strategy game with an expansion phase is bad. Just that I'd appreciate it if there were multiple routes to expansion. Eg, instead of building a whole new base with radar and hangars, you hire those facilities from the local territory. This is cheaper, helps to keep the panic down in the region, but the spoils go to the host so you don't earn a profit. There is a meaningful choice there because both options are viable. Similarly, your idea about starting with a base on each continent could work. As that is the optimal choice, it may as well be the default setup. The problem is that that would remove the expansion phase of the game, so you'd need something in its place, e.g. you expand effective air coverage either by building loads of hangars, or by rushing the R&D for better aircraft (or a combination of the two). That would give some element of trade-off. But, this is getting off topic. The original question was about specialised bases. With that, there could be a lot of meaningful choice around base building. Even if you were going with the optimal three-base configuration, you'd still have freedom to choose what those bases would specialise in. However, crucially, those specialisations would need to be critically different to effects of just constructing lots buildings in a regular non-specialised base.