Jump to content

nremies1

Members
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by nremies1

  1. Regarding Reapers: "tank beats everything." Learn it. Live it. Love it.
  2. Agreed on the post above. Six bases will bleed you dry very quickly. And you really only need one assault team; for me, every crash that's not in the main base's radar range gets airstriked for cash until I get the Shrike, at which point I *might* consider sending them long-distance if there's a good reason to go. I usually put the main base in Egypt or near the Med, then put one fighter/radar base in Florida and another in Taiwan. That placement doesn't cover everything but it's good enough. I usually offload the science labs to one of those two bases and throw some turrets up to protect them, then increase the number of engineers stationed at the main base.
  3. Yeah the costs of manning and equipping troops at all your bases will be crippling. Way too much to invest on the slim chance that they decide to come for your base *and* get through your interceptors. One caught me off-guard the other day, but 3 plasma batteries splattered the UFO. Total investment of 150k capital to build them, and 37,500 per month upkeep. Compare to 10 soldiers sitting, each costing you 10k per month, plus equipment, barracks, storeroom, etc. If you're going to invest that amount of effort into them, they're not simply a defense garrison - at that point you'd better be having them raid everything you shoot down in their AO, just to pay for themselves. I'd say that if you're worried about it, build 3 turrets at the base and leave it at that. Depending on what you have based there it will be a PITA to replace it.
  4. Why did you decide to place the game in 1979? Serious question.
  5. I really enjoyed the hell out of this game but agree that you (Goldhawk) made zero use of the 1979 timeframe, other than a few scattered lines in the doctor's reports (Internetwork, lol). Nothing would be significantly different if somebody went into the game files and changed 1979 to 2009. Just look back at how many close-calls we had involving nuclear weapons, both real and fictional (Able Archer 83, Fail-Safe, etc.)...feels like you need to capitalize on that tension a lot more. In the game everybody just goes, "oh, aliens? Isn't that what Xenonauts was founded for? Cool, thanks guys, let us know when you win." Hawkish military brass on both sides probably would have read the initial unidentified air contacts and attacks as the handiwork of the other superpower and resulted in at least a brief shooting war. Nothing cataclysmic, but at least in the fiction I've read, authors like to ramp up the tension with a progression of initial provocation -> scattered air and naval aggression without actual shots fired -> isolated skirmishes -> one deadly battle -> nukes fly. Dunno how, if at all, that turns into an objective for the player to somehow prove the aliens are real or otherwise get the superpowers to look up rather than at each other. Then, to upvote the idea above, both the USA and USSR should basically be vying for your complete attention. Each should be able to offer you something the other guy can't: usually the difference has been represented as the USA having a tech advantage while the USSR gets a sheer numbers advantage (which isn't strictly true but hey, that's the popular conception of the era). You've already had the Foxtrot being an adaptation of the high-altitude, high-speed MiGs which were designed to catch and kill U-2s and SR-71s, but if you take things in the direction of exclusivity, maybe if you piss the Soviets off, they won't give you any more MiGs? If you ignore the USA, you lose out on advanced radar and electronics, or stealth tech? I dunno, just throwing stuff out there. How you conduct your operations should also have some bearing on it; the Soviets don't care if you cause collateral damage and killed a bunch of civvies as long as you stopped that terror site, but the American media will crucify you for blowing up half of Anytown USA even if you did get rid of the aliens. And those opinions could obviously influence how much support you get, how many troops they'll make available to you, etc. If you really wanted to take it to an extreme, maybe if you cuddle up to the Soviets, the Americans get so suspicious of what you're up to that they become outright hostile, and convince some of their NATO allies that you shouldn't be trusted, etc. But, you interject, wouldn't an alien invasion make everybody be friends and work together? For my money, I doubt it. Even if you don't want to implement any of the USA versus USSR stuff, you've got to think that there would be opportunists elsewhere in the world who saw their big chance to take over that disputed border territory that's rightfully theirs, or those oil fields that their infidel neighbors really shouldn't be allowed to keep, etc. China thinks: you know what? I bet we could expend a hundred fighter planes to shoot down one of those UFOs, take their tech, find a way to beat them, and become the saviors of the world. That would show those Yankees and Rooskies who's really in charge around here. TL;DR version: more Cold War politics/vibe, please.
  6. Hey gang, I have read up on the ways soldiers increase their various stats, but I'm curious if anybody has any specific tips on leveling up troops with certain roles. All my troops are leveling up along pretty much the same curve: high TU and decent accuracy. Those are obviously the two things you do the most often so it makes sense, but do people 'train' their heavy-weapons gunners differently than their shotgun assaults? Basically the schema I'm going with is this (still using ballistics at this point): Very high accs get sniper rifles, obviously Stronk soldier gets SMAW or M240. High reflexes are CQB specialists, either shields or shotguns. Soldiers not obviously excelling in one area over any other get assigned as riflemen and generally get the odd jobs like medkits and C4 duty. Here's the thing that's a bit strange to me - TU, strength and accuracy all go up very easily, so even though they have different combat roles, all their stats look pretty much the same at higher ranks. At this point I feel like could take the M240 and give it to the guy who's been carrying the Beretta and shield and nothing would be different. In fact I reassigned a rifleman as a sniper just because I wanted a backup sniper and she had the ACC to make the reassignment a non-issue. Is that weird? Do people 'spec' their soldiers more narrowly than that, and if so, how?
×
×
  • Create New...