ooey

There isn't much depth to console games compared with PC games - there can't be, simply because of the default control system. Not in terms of complex gameplay anyway. This is why xcom:eu is bound to be more simplistic than Xenonauts. This was expected since it is multi-format, so it was no big suprise. No turn-based revival? Well, thats what I was getting at when I said that players are getting bored of the same old type of gameplay. To them xcom is something new, and it may just get a good few of them to like it. As for Rebelstar - you really should try it via emulation or something. It really was a special game when it came out around 1986. Lazer Squad was great too - played it to death!

Oh I like Capris too, but the Granada... my dad used to drive a 2.0 and I remember pinning me into the seat when he took off from lights. He had a Capri too (which got stolen a lot). Personal preference really. Think Cortinas & Jack Reagan, Capri's & Bodie and Doyle!! "Sectoid, we're the Sweeney, and you're nicked son!"

In the past few days, it has become pretty clear to me that turn-based strategy games are back in-vogue thanks mainly to Xcom:EU. I'm not sure whether gamers are just crying out for something different from all the identi-kit shooters and racers that have plauged our PCs and consoles for the last 10-or-so years, or are rebelling against how modern games seem to have become very simplistic and easy in terms of their gameplay (when compared with turn-based strategy -most games these days don't seem to want you to figure out anything for yourself). If people had only looked, they never really went away (remember Advance Wars etc.); it's just that they were in the minority - but casual gamers never bother with such things. There is a great deal of love floating around for the new x-com game at the moment (just look at any games website), which can only be a good thing for Xenonauts and lovers of strategy games on the whole. Hopefully companies will see that as well as being fun whilst being complex, such games have very long shelf lives (the best £1.99 I ever spent was in buying Rebelstar for the spectrum, even though I didn't have a speccy at the time(!) - it STILL gets played today!). If all goes well during this critical time, hopefully we will see new Masters of Orions, Star Wars Supremacys and, of course, lots of Xenonaut updates (with Chris becoming rich enough to create his own Gollop Bros. dynasty!).

It's true though isn't it?! In the 70's about 80% of all cars on the road seemed to be Fords. How things have changed! Considering the lead is Chris, a fellow brit (and also a Londoner) why not have some Britishness imbedded into the game (yeah yeah - I know Ford is a US company, but I don't think they marketed the same models over there). There's just something I love about the squareness of the Ford Granada etc...

Surely no more so than the images of any other car. Who is going to notice if it's done in a mod anyway? It would give the game a more 70's feel. Nothing says 70s to me more than Granadas, Capris and Transit vans (we can't exactly put Disco and big hair into the game - maybe someone can find a way!).

I'd might be nice, considering the 70s setting, to have the lovely squareness of Ford Granadas, Capris & Transit vans on maps (a la The Professionals etc) :-)

Yes - the firaxis game does seem shallow in the ways you suggest. Thats why I'm looking forward much more to this. Not going to preorder though because I think this will spoil the suprise (I'm also keeping busy on my own project - that's the answer guys, keep busy until the game is finally released, but then I suppose there would be no bug reports...).

Yes vanattab - thats how I feel too. I think that xenonauts will be much better for the reasons you suggest. x-com is a good game in its own right though.

If you are looking for suggestions and can't include the Harrier because it is too slow (and can't incorporate its VTOL combat advantage) then there is no point in including it I guess. In that case, I vote for this quite beautiful-looking aircraft, due to enter service with Russia/India soon (if you are looking for an up-to-date A/C, that is). Where you are going to get reliable info. for it though is another question as it would be classified I guess. Pak T50: Isn't she beautiful?! Bet she's not as capable as the Raptor though! Still - love the camo...

The mig 25 and its missiles were primarily designed to combat this magnificent mach3 beast which, unfortunately, wasn't put into production.

Hello all. Loved UFO: EU, Rebelstar and Lazer Squad and most non-realtime turn-based strategy games - that's why I'm here. I'm writing my own epic turn-based strategy game based on WWII and the classic Arnhem/Desert Rats/Vulcan games on the Spectrum by R.T Smith. It's about 50% complete. I'm so glad to see so many still love & play UFO: EU and like you all, hope the new Firaxis/Goldhawk games do very well for themselves.

Perhaps they will release an AI patch soon...

Heh heh! V funny!

I played the 360 demo. The controls are a bit fiddly but not too bad if you get used to it i suppose. I'll go for the PC version too, but when it comes out here (fri)!

do you have the PC or xbox version? I think the PC version is probably best since you can use a mouse (much better suited to this type of game).

the firing pilots 12 (enemys 6). I think you are right about the Falklands (1982) though - the 9L was a vast improvement on older models, and the Falklands was really the only war of note the new-era missiles could be tested in (I remember they were rushed from the US to the Harrier fleet as soon as the war started).

Ha! Noisy beasts wern't they!? I remember seeing 4 of them together at Farnborough. I don't think they'd fit well in the game though as they couldn't carry much armament and they were very tricky to fly (i think the Luftwaffe lost around 70 just to mishaps). It wouldn't be nice to loose them to flying accidents in the game, having to fork out more $ for new interceptors due to this!

60s & 70s air-to-air missiles were actually quite rubbish (Vietnam era) when compared to today. IR missiles like the sidewinder B were short range (2-4 miles) and had to be fired @ close to 12 O'clock to the enemy to have a reasonable chance of downing it (around 20%effective). The accuracy rates of soviet A-A missiles (Foxbat/R23 Apex missiles) of that era are unknown in combat conditions - thank goodness, but considering they copied most US tech must be similar (worse probably, as their equivalent missiles were very large compared with the sidewinder). The Foxbat and its missiles were designed as bomber killers though, so didn't need to be manoverable. I think the Soviet equiv. of the Aim-9 was rubbish though.

See! Firaxis effort IS working out positively for Xenonauts. If StefanU & tohw are anything to go by, you will see a lot more xen noobs here shortly! That is what I am trying to do by continually mentioning it on GC.

What Gorlom said. It's not confusing if you name it as "Alien Weapon Artefact". It wouldn't help with any problem, just make the game more random (and harder) with regards to weapon research (i.e. you don't know what you are getting until it's researched whereas if you manage to recover a heavy plasma, you know once it's researched that you are getting the most powerful weapon and don't need to bother researching the rest). The heavy plasma would down any alien (upto 3 hits Vs Muton though) despite the fact there was some attempt in the original to have different weapon types be paticularly effective against different aliens - for example, the Reaper was supposed to be more vulnerable to incendiery fire than AP. I always found that HE/incendiery shells would kill a Reaper slowly (no good) where as a heavy plasma kills it stone dead.

That was one of the first things I was going to do in my xcom remake. Thankfully I don't need to now that there are TWO great xcom-type games coming out!! Is that what it's called then - Generated Stats? Who says the meek little alien pistol cannot be the powerful heavy plasma in another universe(!?) ;-) .

Well - suppose you choose to research an unknown weapon that looks like it may be powerful. Once you have researched it it may turn out not to be as powerful as it looks (plasma rifle) or doing it again in another playthrough that weapon might actually turn out to be the heavy plasma. Maybe the smaller alien weapons are more powerful in one playthrough (think Men in Black) whereas the reverse is true in another playthrough. IMHO it makes the game a little fresher evertime you play through it again from the beginning.

1. Well put simply, I never like to see too much of what a game has too offer too soon/before I've played it. I just like to see teasers. It's enough to know that the content is there and that you will come across it later. 2. Basically, once you had the Heavy Plasma in the original UFO:EU, that was a good enough weapon to take you to the end of the game (there wasn't a more powerful point weapon, so no point in researching the others). Once you spotted one ot those (alien artefacts) you would know to research it and not bother with the plasma rifle et all (basically a tech tree dead end).

It's good that Goldhawk havn't shown too much other than the early equipment in the game. I want to be suprised when I start to play it. That's what a good game should do. You unlock its secrets as you go along. Avoids the old "get heavy plasma quick" syndrome. Actually, considering this, I wonder if each weapon graphic will be assigned a different designation each time you play through? That is to say that the unknown weapon you are researching may be a plasma rifle or a heavy plasma depending on your playthrough. That would help with the heavy plasma syndrome, wouldn't it?

What a good sport you are Chris! I suppose that, just like us, you are a gamer after all. People should consider that you have a much smaller budget at your disposal when they compare the two - not that it's going to make it any less of an experience. Lookat the price though - £50 rrp. yikes!