ooey
-
Posts
412 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by ooey
-
-
20 hours ago, Komandos said:
...
I don't know. I found Xen1 pretty taxing, but yes perhaps not as taxing as UFO. Did you think UFO: EU was taxing because of the Blaster bomb inclusion for the aliens? The player could also use it too though (along with Proximity Grenades).
What I would assume a decent end game mission to be would be to have all the different types of alien against you (including Reapers/Chrisilyds or thatever they are called here). If there's a timer involved there to then that would make it pretty hectic. The end mission in UFO was good - fight your way to the alien control computer and destroy it to win (like Rebelstar so many moons ago - 1986 in fact...). Actually, rather than a timer, since the end mission is on their planet, it would be better to fight your way in to the computer core and have to hold it until it's destroyed against endless reinforcements coming in from outside (at which point all the surviving xens become heroes of the earth). This may mean that you could not have brought enough equipment with you and will have to use dead alien weaponry against them as your ammo runs out (forces you to have proficiancy with their weapons beforehand, and also stops you from destroying them with HE weaponry since you need theirs undamaged. I would expect an Alien Armoury within the final stage too (capturing it will make the mission easier, but create another dilema - it would slow down the final objective of destroying the computer core.
Perhaps the final mission could start with a hoarde of Reapers running towards you. Not nice!
-
Ah that's where it went! If that's the case then it will probably be bug-fixed and brought back in. Maybe you are supposed to start with one of each like xen 1.
-
Doesnt that depend on how you play though? The timed missions certainly hurry you along, meaning you can't be cautious and are thus more likely to lose soldiers (especially if there are Reapers around).
Are there any "do or die" missions I don't know about (apart from the obvious one at the end)? That might spice things up a bit.
For me, killing alien Bombers in Xen 1 was a do or die mission as they could cause an awful lot of damage if you left them to their own devices.
-
So this type of mission is basically just the same as a ufo recovery mission? If so there's not much of a difference in mission structure, so what's the point? I had assumed the convoy would enter at 1 point and try to exit at another. Victory conditions being that the Xenonauts win if they kill a certain % of the convoy as it passes through the landscape, enemy wins if this isn't achieved by the time they exit the map or the Xenonauts are forced to withdraw before this % is met (anything else is a bonus).
On 12/13/2023 at 2:20 PM, Avaren said:They're all spawned in, and you can see where they are if you move a soldier around to look at the convoy before starting the mission.
This sounds a little dissapointing...
-
5 hours ago, Vitruviansquid said:
What makes the convoy ambush mission too easy is that you know where all the enemies are going to be. To make the mission more difficult (in a fun way), I could only think that you'd need to introduce some degree of randomness to the enemies' location, which would be reconcepting the entire mechanical basis of the mission.
So yeah, I dunno.
I always felt that in UFO: Enemy Unknown, the longer it took you to get to the crash site of a UFO, the more dispersed they were. Not sure if this mechanic was real or not, but it always felt like it.
An Ambush, on the other hand, should always give the advantage to the ambusher (otherwise it wouldnt be an ambush!). There will be plenty of times in the game when you will be up against it, so it makes a nice change when YOU have the advantage! You could set up accordingly but have it randomised as to where on the tactical map the convoy enters, perhaps (from one of 4 roads, from north, sout east or west). Once you spot which way they are coming from you would have to adjust accordingly, so yes. If you guessed right, the killing spree is in your favour. Guess wrong and you may not be as successful.
Since I haven't yet done one of these missions, I'm assuming the enemy has to enter/exit at certain points?
-
Bring back the F16 lol!
-
Don't look a gifthorse in the mouth!
-
The only thing I can think of is manouverability, since it mirrors real life. Better (later) aircraft are defined as those that are faster and carry better weapons and are more rugged physically and electronically. Unfortunately, the Angel, based on the Mig25, is not a good proponent of this trait :-).
-
Ah, but think of the Spitfire/F16 anology there. There may be some situations where having the ability to turn better may be more in your interests than firepower. Reminds me a bit of the I15 in War Thunder. It has a turn rate of 8 seconds, and weak but decent armament (you have to get in close). Combat against an alien interceptor with these characteristics may mean that you are too difficult for his weapons to hit you whilst you keep taking gnat-like bites out of him with your cannons.
This is a tier 1 aircraft, but it can sometimes beat tier 2 or even 3 aircraft if the player knows what he's doing. Nothing can really be deemed irrelivant or useless. Another example - squadrons of antiquated Swordfish biplanes destroyed most of the italian fleet at Taranto (with few losses)!
It can be done! There is a point, however, where it doesn't make sense to provide upgrades (more aerodynamic airframes etc.). One thing we have in real life is airframe lifetime for example, but that's getting too intricate methinks.
-
That's a good point, yes.
I think that upgrades in game as in real life are done to keep aircraft/weapons relevant for longer (keeping them relevent to the entire endgame doesn't make sense, however).
Perhaps include a certain amount of training/orientation time for pilots converting from the Angel to the newer aircraft you have built? Does that just complicate things a bit more? How far do you go down this line? All this really does is handicap the player a bit, forcing them to use the Angel for a bit longer.
-
1
-
-
Nope, quite right, the Mig 25 was built to intersept the XB70. But it IS the starting aircraft. I think we're thinking more of trying to keep the starting aircraft relevant in some way. If we had an F16 as a starting aircraft as well it would be more relevent as you say (as in Xen1). The Mig 25 is basically a flying brick.
With regards to your last point though, think about WWII. As aircraft got more powerful and held more weapons, their turn radius got larger... A Spitfire will out turn an F-16. Okay, it may not be able to do anything to it, but it can certainly out turn it :-)
-
1
-
-
Sure, as you control your soldiers, you would always want them to die heroically! I get what you are trying to say though.
As an aside, I don't happen to think that infested soldiers are easy to deal with. Your soldiers set up to guard against a reaper attack may indeed have high reaction ratings, but what if they actually miss as 1 or 2 come in? If I had an infested soldier, I'd probably want him to grenade himself as I know what he turns into!
Like I said, a single infested soldier can quickly turn a mission around. Of course, they can be totally negated by flying soldiers (or can they, I haven't got that far yet in Xen2 to know?).
-
I found that xen1 (ironman) had just about the right balance. And it does really affect you if you lose just a few elite troopers. I lost my best trooper unexpededly to a reaper who appeared to be dead but "woke up" somehow! The different game levels negate the too easy/hard comments somewhat, but I think this generally only boils down to having a bit more/less money and less/more aliens to fight mechanic somewhat.
Of course the trick is to make you feel that things arent a doddle, neither are they impossible; sometimes thats hard to get right.
Laval infestations can absolutely decimate a squad if you're not careful. That's why the suggestions of the OP are good ones I think.
-
1. Not if you protect your elite troops properly (you should be able to husband them up to good stats)! I find it's best to give your troops shields and make their weapons secondary (i.e. put them in the back pack). Also make the best snipers who operate to the rear. Keep them near the dropship and you should be okay as the others fan out (keep a shielded "Batman" to guard them and never take too many "elite" troopers on a mission). But sure, you are always going to lose some of them.
2. The different kinds of foe (flying etc.) help to keep the aliens competitive, but yes, there's no substitute for good AI. I think at current the aliens have psionics, don't they, but your soldiers don't? Nor should they be given this ability. It was real difficult to attack a Carrier in Xen1 because of this (powerful Psionic aliens would stay in the control room and make it difficult for your men to get to them)! It was a bit unfair though because if they were the last aliens, psionics should really work by line of sight, but I think Xen1 cheated in that respect.
-
At least we have the rotation option now, which is a major advance on xen1 ;-). Good idea though.
-
Can grenades go off accidently? I never knew that. It would certainly stop me from letting my best men carry them.
-
Yes, perhaps a bit more localisation would help! Maybe this kind of comment would better be posted in the bugs section as it is a kind of bug for non-english speakers. It would certainly bring it to goldhawks attention more :-).
-
6 hours ago, Conductiv said:
... or missile focused builds.
It's never a good route to go down the Vietnam F4 missile focused builds. Always bring a cannon!
As with the tactical weapons, I agree that each interceptor should have something unique about them that makes them worth keeping in your inventory - the Angel could always have the edge over anything you build with regards to manouverability for example. I like the bit where Chris told us that the Mig 25 was more immune than more modern aircraft against UFO interference because of its "valve technology" lol. A well thought out comment there and I think he would be closer to the truth than he thinks (this is why the airforces of each nation would seem to have so much trouble shooting down a single UFO, what with their modern systems being interfered with). Makes sense.
-
I wonder if you spam missiles, should they not be made to lock on and follow each other instead so that they kill each other rather than the UFO (so that you can't do this)?
-
I know, but 4 damage is a little pathetic for yellow don't you think? That's more like red.
-
The 'clear and unique' role thing is a good idea all around. You don't want samey weapons doing samey things. Mind you, most of them are already clearly defined, as they were in Xen1. Like I said, this would give the HMG a unique selling point over a flash-bang (which doesn't cause much actual damage if it hits an alien, and also doesn't have the range - you might get lucky and supress a unit way off in the distance with a HMG). Not sure if a Grenade causes too much suppression (it shouldn't really, since it 'detonates' altogether whereas a HMG fires over a longer period of time, allowing aliens to be supressed).
-
Earth fighters should always be superior in turn rate at least, because they are atmospheric fighters (alien fighters have to fly in space too and so should not be superior to them in this way). Remember that they also have unlimited weaponry while you don't.
I always liked the fact that xenonaut1 fighters always seemed to have the upper hand over alien fighters (if you were careful), but it was always difficult to deal with 3 alien interceptors if they appeared. I never liked or used auto-resolve as things could go badly wrong for you (at least if you fight the fights yourself you have no one to blame but yourself if you lose an interceptor). The worst thing the aliens could do in the air would be to launch an anti-dropship interception mission - you then had to make sure that you had interceptors ready and within range and fast enough to get to them before you lose your whole squad in one go! At least some had a chance of survival I suppose.
If you look at the premise of the game, the aliens have brought an invasion force assuming that earth would be next to defenceless because of the cleaners and lack of technology/disorganisation to withstand them. They never knew about the Xenonauts and their specially adapted equipment, so they would have to best counter with what they have brought with them! I doubt an invasion force would bring R&D elements with them just in case.
-
Perhaps air to air refuelling where you can rendezvous with tankers could be added (provided by friendly nations) to solve the range problem, or just stop off for fuel by landing? Not sure if range should be a problem, but I suppose pilots get fatigued etc. Sure, you could add external fuel tanks at the expense of weaponry.
I would assume the aliens would think their technology is superior to earths anyway, so why would they want to copy it? They are on a mission to invade earth anyway!
-
18 hours ago, Conductiv said:
I must have misunderstood the OP, I though the questions was: "is the MG better on high or low accuracy troops" with the reasoning for low accuracy being a larger suppression area. I didn't read a suggestion asking for a suppression cone on an MG. (reading "set 2 points" as the sides of the cone)
Ah no, you understood correctly. The question just evolved! I don't actually think it would take much to add a 2nd point to fire between for a suppressive weapon (perhaps it could be done via a mod). The idea just tends to make the MG more, well, flexible.
tbh I think you are both itching to play the finished product sooner rather than later; I tend to concur ;-).
Larval infestation should offer dilema
in Xenonauts-2 General Discussion
Posted · Edited by ooey
Regardless, we were having a nice discussion here (which even you contributed to) which is loosely based on what you were talking about. This is the kind of rudeness I'd expect from the rest of the internet, not intelligent people who play tactical combat games. Perhaps your comment seems a little harsh because English is your second language? We arent robots!
Don't worry. I shall not grace this topic again; I don't have an answer for you.