flyingdisc

I had/have great hopes for UFO:EU. Not because I intend to play it (my AMD E350 laptop would bulk at that task) but because I had hoped that if it succeeds, that UFO:EU would populize the tactical turn based genre for the masses - thus marking more likely, studio originated tbs games in the future. So, it sounds like on some levels it hasn't lived up to everyone's hopes for a UFO: enemy unknown successor - but do you think it will succeed in populizing Turn Based Strategy with a new/wider audience?

Thanks Thothkins - no I hadn't come across it. I've had a read (trying to avoid the spoilier bits). Its interesting to see that UFO: Extraterrestrials is still being developed by the Greyfriend mod. The current version uses a very different system for exprience which is more recent than Jetau's manual (ditching RPG in favour of X-Com like "gain as you do" system, with some big twists). It took me 4 game months staring at my soldiers stats as they gained promotions, trying to detect whether the stats changed at all (they didn't), before I found that there was a training centre you can build.

In a bid to satisfy my x-com itch - I went out and brought a copy (UFO:extraterrestrials) and installed GreyFriend's UNIMOD last weekend. Man, it is intense. I feel out of my depth. Lost. Intimidated by the aliens, research tree, my month on month capacity to continuously loose support from the nations. Just when I get a new technowledgy online that helps me feel a little less out of my depth (e.g new Beehive armour in tactical) and the game shifts up a gear in another area and I am back to flounding for air again. Brilliant! And I am on easy! I love not knowing if there will be a new type of alien on each mission. I am enjoying every minute of it (just not winning yet, which maybe the point). One thing I am noticing is there is NO DOCUMENTATION. Normally this is cool - you just google it. But UFO:extraterrestrials, with UNIMOD is so far underground that google doesn't know the anwers! How do your soldiers gain experience? Can you keep alive soldiers (you can but I think I lost about 20 soldiers over 20 missions before I figured this out) with critical wounds before medipacks get invented (who knows when, not found them yet)? Is it normal that every month every country rates me as poor or worse - or am I missing something crucial?

I think the only ones who really notice (and object to) thread necromancy is those of us who are long term residents and contributors to the forum. We are though, only the tip of the forum's readership - most people will get excited and hang out for a week, or dip in and out or just come in response to a problem or publicity. For them, a done conversation doesn't exist. I've been on the other side. I remember I got excited by Fall from Heaven (Civ 4) and fired questions at a number of forums and got told off from the perment residents for ressurecting dead threads and that A, B and C had been answerd at 1, 2 and 3, and why didn't I bother reading the threads before posting! I don't think this is fair to expect of the infrequent visitors (to take the time to read up on the historically conversations, which has taken us days of our lives so far, before posting). So now I am the other side of the fence with xenonauts, I think thread necromancy is just an emergent property of forum life where there are a mixture of residents and visitors - and just something we need to live with.

I quiet like Conquest of Elysium - not going to suck you in, drain you of your life and spit you out after 72 hours of playing - the AI is not deep, but I've found it a great wee turned based strategy game to pick up for a couple of hours at a time. I love how each fraction has very unique abilities and hence play style.

Hi Legandian - I don't have the save file to try and replicate (at one stage deleting saves was seen as a work around for the ground combat crashes). Interesting that you can't replicate it. Thanks also for pointing out where the HP is listed. I'd not thought to look there.

Thank for your feedback Chris. What I took from your email is that you're open to redrawing the blocks, especially over Europe and that you are keen that areas are not fragmented. Given that you are going to think about this, I thought I would kick it off with some ideas. I think there are lots of ways we could come up with maps which fit this. I came up with this (I coloured in a blank map, blocks justified below): It shows: NATO North America (blue, USA and Canada) NATO Europe (blue with horizontal black) (with all European neutral countries (Austria, Finland, Ireland, the Swiss and Sweden) wrapped into NATO). U.S.S.R (red). Warsaw Pact countries (brown, not including U.S.S.R): may want to combine this into a larger Warsaw Pack block with the U.S.S.R Pacific Rim (pink): Australia, New Zealand, Papa New Guinea, Philipeans, Borneo, Taiwan, S. Korea and Japan. All countries with Western/capatilist leanings during this period. East Asia (orange): China, Mongolia, Ex-French IndoChina (Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia). Grouping countries with a left leaning governments. (Non-Aligned Members) South Asia (Green): Containing many principle members of the Non-Alignment Movement. Including Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Afganistan, Syria, Lebonam, Iraq, Malaysia. Historically almost all of this grouping were prominant Non-Aligned Members (NAMs) even if they quarelled amongst themselves (e.g. India and Pakistan) so this grouping seems to make sense. South America (Blue, horizontal bars): With the exception of British and French Guiana and Suranam, other South American countries were all controlled by military juntas or regimes (most fighting marxist rebels). It seems appropriate to group them. (Non-Aligned Members) central Americas (yellow): Historically played quite different roles (e.g. Cuba, Mexico and French Guyana) but many were prominant in the Non-Aligned Movement (including both Mexico and Cuba, despite differences in political outlook). Seems sensible to group Central American states, Carribbean and northern S. American states into a large NAM block. Africa I found difficult - as there was a real mixed bag. Southern and Central/East Africa (and Arabian Peninsular) (pink, horizontal bars): contains many countries with very different histories. Most of these countries had Western backed goverments (e.g. White minority led Rhodesia and South Africa, US backed DRC and Zaire, English speaking central African countries (Uganda, Kenya). The challenges are countries like Angola (civil war between US and Zaire backed UNITA against USSR and Cuban backed MPLA) and worse yet Mozambique (who supported anti-apatheid movements) was leading a shadow war with South Africa and what was then Rhodesia. I've left Mozambique and Madagascar (socialist-marxist republic) out of this group - but if leaving groups broken up like this is not possible they could be combined (using TheUbiqutous' argument for regional convegence in the face of Alien threats). (Non-Aligned Members) North and West Africa (green, horizontal bars): Contains prominent Non-Aligned members (Ghana and Egypt) and most of this region have been active members of NAM. BTW: I would love to see Yugoslavia added to this grouping as it was one of 4 founding members of the NAM movement (but resigned to it being foldered into Eastern Europe/Warsaw Pack). This gives us 11 country blocks, which (outside Africa) I think reflect mostly the alignment in the late 1970s (10 if eastern Europe and the USSR are merged into a greater Warsaw Pact grouping). They broadly keep similar sized groupings to Chris' current map (East Asia becomes smaller). With exception of the large blocks (USSR), most blocks can be covered by a centrally placed base (including the Pacific Rim - using the Philipines as a base). What do you think? I am sure others have knowledge of regional 1970s composition. How would your map look? I'd be interested to see what others came up with. EDIT: It took me so long to put this together that I didn't see thothkins' post. Nice to see another map idea. I like a lot of thothkins Geopolitical mod ideas (recomment reading - follow his link). I think I see getting a map out in the default xenonauts build to be key, whether this is extended in modding or not

I really like Xenonauts' 1970s cold war setting. In the turn based combat, this really comes through (and will be helped by the coming inclusion of Soviet achitecture). In the geoscape though, the country blocks feel much more like 2010 than 1970. The boundaries for Europe for example, combine NATO's UK and France with the Warsaw Pack's Romania and East Germany. IndoChina combines Western leaning Japan, with soviet leaning mongolia and Non-Aligned Indonesia. Chris, I know you said in the past that you intend to retouch the countries in the geoscape map (such as include the philipines, sort out some land sea mask issues). I think it would make a big difference to the feel of the game if the country blocks could be revisited at that time. What I would like to suggest is blocks which match power blocks that existed at that time. The easiest solution is to ensure NATO and Warsaw Pack blocks fit as they were in the 1970s - and leave the other blocks almost as they are. I think it would be fun (better) if we could take it further and include blocks based around political alignment at that time, including Non-Aligned Member countries. These new blocks could be based around a Nato block; Nato leaning block(s); WARSAW Pact block; USSR leaning block(s); Non-Aligned Members (NAM) blocks and Neutral countries. NATO: USA, Canada, many countries in Western Europe, Turkey NATO leaning group(s): Could be group geographically: Oceanania, Japan, South Africa, South American and African countries with US backed strong man governments WARSAW Pact: Boundaries of WARSAW Pact countries USSR leaning block(s): Could be grouped geographically: Could include countries like Mongolia, China, Cuba, South American and African countries with socialist backed strong man goverments. Non-Aligned Members (NAM): India, Yugoslavia, Egypt, Indonesia, Ghana. Many African and South American countries could logically be placed within this block (based on historical alignment). Neutral: Swiss, Sweden, Ireland, Iran, amoungst others. Benifits: A geoscape which does not immediately clash with the cold war setting. There has been lots of great discussion about possible Geopolitical changes. I think this one change would go along way to help set this scene (our imaginations will do the rest). Risks: Geographically seperated blocks. Yugoslavia, India and Ghana don't exactly share borders. So, unless care is taken, players may loose the sense that it is important to locate bases in certain parts to sure up block support. I think actually there is a lot that can be done to mitigate this risk by coming up with blocks which cluster nations together. Outside the core blocks (NATO, USSR and core NAM countries) almost all the other nations could be justifiably placed in one of a couple of blocks (e.g. Cuba could count as a NAM member, but more flavour might be had in placing it in a USSR leaning block, with other similar Central/South American nations). The most difficult blocks would be core-NAM (including Yugoslavia with south Asian or African nations). To some extent, I think we can get away with some mixing (beyond making the map maker's task more difficult) - while protecting most of the NAM nations - I would understand NAM member countries being upset if they percieved that Xenonauts weren't protecting fellow member Yugoslavia. As long as most of the land area for the various blocks is clustered together, I think the players can coupe with the occasional bad event that happens in the small country isolated from the main area (the small area would mean that the risk of lossing the block with you base in is small, even though the occassional event may happen in the isolated outlying country that is uncovered). In short, clustering similar countries between NATO, USSR or NAM aligned blocks should mean that we get geographically clustered blocks for most of the world (I imagine we're aiming for about 10 blocks in total). Neutral block - to include or leave out? Neutral block countries could justify their inclusion as a block due to the financial weight of their members, but I think it would be almost impossible to think of ways to geographically cluster them (as some are completely surrounded by NATO and/or Warsaw Pact countries (which can't be changed without completely jarring). While it might be interesting to have one block, whose finacial support couldn't be guarenteed by appropriate base placement - if this was thought to be a deal breaker they could always be merged into NATO or Warsaw pack neighbouring blocks. I'd be interested to hear what you, and others, think Chris? I think there is a little bit of work that would need to be done in coming up with suitable clusters (building 1 or more NAM blocks; clustering other countries into NATO leaning or USSR leaning blocks - trying to make them as geographically clustered as possible. The map would also need to be redone). If this was a go-er - I'm happy to help out with the map region drawing. I currently do not know enough about 1970s alignments in C. and S. America and Africa - so I'd need to do a little research, but I am sure that there is enough expertise on the news group that we could come up with something workable. What do you think?

Kudos! Great work Orumo. Fantastic to play with random maps - I'd forgotten how scary it is to scout out a new place at night, when I have no idea where that ship is or whether I've just marched my primary marksmen out to his death, while trying to see what is the other side of that car park.

Stepping back from some of the discussion, I just wanted to respond to Chris' original blog post. I personally think that pirating games is morally wrong. I would admit that I have copied stuff when I was younger (eye of the beholder II?). I don't think I was in the moral right when I did so. From what I gather, Chris has put his life savings and future financial security on the line, where he could have stayed with that safe salaried job. I respect those who have ideas and who risk this to see their dream realised. To think that those like Chris may fail more often than otherwise, because people thought it was ok not to pay, annoys me. We would be in a much, much poorer world, where this happened (one where only the big AAA publishers with their partial DRM protection, and endless repeats of the SAME boring formulas, would survive). And that sucks! I hate the increasing imposition of DRM (stopping my playing without the cd in the actual drive, stopping me moving my copy over to my new machine when the old one dies, etc) and admit to grudging respect for those who work around these restrictions. But when it comes to small indies - I want them to have protection because I want them to exist. Leaving aside those who pirate because they can't afford anything other - I suspect that most games are pirated because a torrent is the least hassle way to play a game (no credit card needed for random website, no long wait for Amazon's copy to be posted). I think Steam (who's principles on restricting how I use games that I own, I dislike) can actually be a good thing as it minimises the barrier to buying the game => more people pay the developer. Ultimately, if we want a culture where small indies make interesting games than I think we each need to be clear that not paying for a copy of the game (while very easy) is morally wrong. That I was morally in the wrong when, yes, I did this too.

Yes. (Not sure about progress, encountered game ending crashes in ground combat prior to reaching 10 days) I am using the vehicle. In the last game, the one thing that was different from the previous 2 successful ground missions was that I dropped the wounded soldier to "unassigned" and replaced him with a soldier from the pool of 4 extras. If assignment is potentially playing a role, then this might have influenced it? I keep coming back to Winterwolves first post, that suggested that a ground mission failure would not always occur from the start dump just before a ground mission. If this is correct, doesn't it suggest that there is something slightly more random going on? I've not tried to test whether my ground mission failures are reproducable failures, though.

I think (was it reading the release notes?) that the ground shield is automatically equiped to any squadie who's primary weapon is the pistol. It is just there (or not) when you start a ground mission (You can't see it in the soldier screen accessed from the base tabs). At 13.1 it was hit and miss (some missions would carry it, some wouldn't). At 13.2, of the 7 missions I tried (4 crashes, 3 successful) the 3 missions I could play all equiped a shield to my pistol carrier. Try the quick battle, with any luck the pistol carrier should have one there too.

Definitely in the amusing rather than game destroying category. I've found that using the first aid kit on my shield carrying pistol holder failed to heal. Discovered that I needed to apply first aid while shield holder was facing away from the first aid carrier. I suspect that the mechanic with first aid is: thrown projectile from adjacent box. Automatic hit, but otherwise treated in the same way. Damage is negative (i.e. is added to the target rather than subtracted). In this case is the shield also being healed in a similar way? I suspect it is. I think Chris said that the shield has 80 hit points - but as we can't check its status I couldn't confirm whether this was the case. First aid can be supplied from a diagonal box that is partially obscured by cover. Would this partial cover also limit first aid? [bTW at version 13.1, there were some missions where the pistol holder was carrying the riot shield and some missions where it was just the pistol and grenade (as was standard pre-version 13). I haven't managed to play as much with 13.2 to confirm this (due to the fatal exception error in sister thread), but the shield was used in all 3 missions I did play. I am really enjoying playing with the shield - it makes breaching ship interiors much easier (too easy?). ]

I have tried bloodlazio's work around. I tried it having deleted all save games prior to today and the core dump. Started a new game. Repeat of the crash, first mission. Went back and repeated delete of new coredump and all save games (including today's autosaves) and restarted a new game. Crashed on the 3rd mission this time. Same error. I suspect that the crash isn't related to the presence of save game files in the Documents folder. There is a chance that it crashes each time. Does not Winterwolves' finding (that the crash isn't always reproducable on reloading the save file) suggest that it isn't predetermined by something in the launch settings?

I can confirm the same crash. Initial turn loads up as normal, but soldiers/tank are not interactable. Doing anything else (such as switching away from xenonauts) reveals the fatal exception message. I discovered this first on an Industrial tileset. Having just instralled Orumo's industrial maps, I was worried that some incompatability was arising from this. However I've since started a new game and managed to replicate this error on my second crash mission (farm map).

Is this the correct place to mention Islands - or is it just cities? I know Chris as said previously that the land-sea mask with the current map was a place holder and he intended to return to it before release once the code for the game was all in place, to include contries like the Philipines. There are a number of other Islands that it would be good to include: Mediteranean: Add Cyprus, Malta Make Land: Crete (all would be useful for placing bases with Europe, Middle East, Russia and North Africa overlaps).

Yep. Just checked and I can also reproduce the Technician's role on the soldier's increment. So, same bug. Thanks LeftRighty

On hiring additional soldiers from the personal screen - after selecting the number we are usually presented with a hiring screen (a list of names and soldier stats). This screen now returns a blank list (no names, no stats). I am running Xenonauts from a saved state - previously (when running from a new game state) this hire screen returned stats as expected. I can reproducing the error - by closing xenonauts, restarting, and reloading the save. I can make the save state available is useful. Only thought about blank hiring state is that I had previously attempted to hire additional soldiers when running from the New Game state - I saved the game prior to their arrival.

I can confirm this bug. 3 casualties in 2 sorties. Yet casualties appear (healthy) for duty for subsequent sorties within the same day. I've also noticed that (in at least some occassions) experience awarded during post sortie debrief is not carried over to the stats in the next missions. Does this point to some post mission accountancy bug? [Note in my case, I was running xenonauts from a save file I made on a previous day]

I can confirm and identical crash in identical situation. I also have a crash state if that would be useful.

OK. I've now backed the project via kickstarter (only a little over 2 grand and just under 4 hours, to go to NPCs!). How do I find Chris's email details to let him know to link up my pre-order with my kickstarter amount?

Chris, sounds like you've thought through the options. All I would say is that a $50 level would grant a DVD copy of the game, digital copy of the game(?), a copy of the Novelette on the Iceland Incident, gold forum medal, a digital copy of the Xenonauts soundtrack, official desktop wallpapers, plus a lengthy digital write-up of our development diary This sounds pretty bloody brilliant to me. Not sure if leaves you very far you can then go to tempt people to higher tiers. Relative uptake of people for a $60 vs $50 level is a difficult call. Personally I think the two entry levels have far more stuff for $ than any of the other Kickstarters. Higher tiers are not all a cost vs benifit assessment for backers, but rather a nice thank you for supporting a project that we'd all love to see made.

$50 sounds very cheap (+$20 on premium level for disk plus postage). Factor in your hassle for handling this, designing the cover material, cd design print and shipping lists - while it might give you more pledges, it doesn't sound like it will return much in the way of income to further develop the game. Why not go for $60. $65 - still in reach for most people, but it might mean more for what you can do with it game resourcing wise. I like Mithron's idea of being able to name sicientists. Given that you are overhauling the UI, being abe to view your list of scientists names and nationalities (even in pop out) might payoff very well, without seeming to sell out xenonauts (it feels like an extra layer of immersion).

Glad to see that the Soviet city scape is set at one of the easier to reach stretch goals I imagine that this tileset would be a better fit for 1970s terror missions in Coventry (UK) than the current American one.

One other thought - putting in there a language translation option I think would pay off hansomly. On the face of it, it looks like a lot of hassle. The majority of your current core backers probably don't see the value in it (most of them are likely to game in English or they wouldn't of found the KS). However, it may be a great way to generate interest in other countries. Have a look at the "Banner Saga" stretch goals. They had a level above which they would release a translated version (1 language) and polled for favourite language. This sounds like a great way to get visiability in non-English speaking countries as it encourages those people who would like to see xenonauts in their language to poll and get all their mates, and their mates mates to also poll, increasing visibility. Particularly if you could combine this with a press release timed to go with the poll so that game news outlets in those countries would cover it (the original KS press release was picked up well in a number of countries). This might be a great way to broaden your audience beyond the KS faithful. It might worth contacting the Banner Saga group to get a feeling for whether this paid off for them. My impression is that there is not a lot of text involved (it means redoing all your UI screens, but this is an intern level job rather than requiring your main artist, and dealing with xenopedia/research descriptions). I know some under employed Spanish translators and my impression is that quality translation doesn't cost too much (I can make enquires to get a rough idea of the cost, if this is useful?).