Safe-Keeper

Wouldn't mind the chopper being "transparent", myself, or at least, if your soldiers could look out the windows. No need to be able to shoot through, your troops should be fairly safe one inside the chopper, but I would definitely want to be able to look around without having to move troops outside.

I, too, wouldn't mind at least pilot face pictures rather than just faceless fighters, I suppose, but I agree there might not be a good way to implement pilots gaining experience. Which is in a way a pity, because it would be awesome if implemented well.

Agree.

In my only base defense mission (v19), the aliens rushed forward, sometimes running past my soldiers, but did little in the way of actual shooting. Was a weird experience .

Love both the music and the artwork (the latter reminds me of World in Conflict's art approach, which, incidentally, also received mixed reviews ), personally. I suppose it's a matter of taste. Mostly agree with you on the sounds, though, and yes, it is difficult to target enemies behind walls, you mostly have to aim for their heads, but even then it's difficult to hit the right pixels to get the crosshairs to "lock on". My personal biggest problem is that the aliens don't look very scary/menacing at all, but that's been brought up already.

I love posts like these. They're a great jump-off point for discussions on all sorts of things and they always make me think. My two cents, having played the game for a relatively long time (though of course not nearly as long as many others here): 1. yup, fighters die easily and you need tactics to take down UFOs. Having played the original X-Com, where all you did was hit the "Cautious attack" button and watch the enemy go down, this is a huge, huge improvement in my eyes. In fact, my personal main problem is that the dogfight AI could use improvement. My favourite tactic is to use one fighter as bait while the other shoots the UFO down. IMO, if an AI craft is being threatened by a fighter while trying to reach a target that is out of range, it should switch targets and defend itself against the Condor that is about to shoot it down. Things like that. 2. I'm not sure what you're asking here. If you want to be able to choose what stats soldiers improve, however, then I'm voting no. This works in D&D-style role-playing games and such, but I don't feel it fits a realistic title like Xenonauts. Come to think of it, though, I would support the option to prioritize certain stats when sending units to training (for example, "okay, I'm sending you off for a 10 days training course, and I want to prioritize your TU and Bravery training). 3. As far as I understand, "classes" are just different presets intended to make it less time-consuming for you to equip your troops. 4. Nothing to add, except, please of course the "Don't make me shoot out windows before I can fire through them" issue . 7. Actually, I find this a very, very good way to balance the sniper rifle. If we're going to have a 95% accuracy weapon, it needs some sort of shortcoming to not be overpowered -- and either way, sniping in reality is far more complicated than just lining up a target and pulling the trigger. The fact that you have to be careful to put the sniper in the right spot, because he's the most effective when he does nothing but fire, adds a lot to the game in my eyes. 8. This has been discussed endlessly, but personally I like it the way it is now. In the original X-Com there was virtually no reason to build laser weapons because you could start using plasma weapons recovered from the battlefield pretty much right off the bat. Either way, the devs have said that money is meant to be in short supply, forcing you to make some strategic decisions on how to spend them. I actually like the unlimited weapons thing, too, now that I've gotten used to it. The Xenonauts are a tiny force, not a global army, and keeping them supplied with all the gear and weapons they need shouldn't be difficult at all. 9. Uncertain on this one, so I'll pass. 10. I use flashbangs a lot, of course they don't remove reaction fire entirely, but popping off one or two before storming a room or moving troops out of cover does increase their chances of survival. I suppose the game would be too easy if you could just throw a flashbang and then let loose without fear of being shot at in return.

Upgrade the AI, too, so that the aliens don't walk into fires and kill themselves .

Simple fix: tell the game not to generate terror missions outside of interceptor range. I personally love the fact that transports now require escorts because UFOs will try to hunt them down otherwise, and just allowing you to land the chinook completely removes that feature from the game. Other than that, I've suggested the ability to add drop tanks to fighters, and that, too, would fix things nicely and be realistic at the same time. Edit: I support the idea of splitting and merging formations in-flight. Would make a lot of things a lot easier.

I want time compression, personally (especially for when I've called a retreat and have to sit there and wait for the fighters to reach the edge of the map ), but the ability to slow down time would be appreciated, too.

Because each to their own, that's why. See above. A very wise woman once taught me never to look at answers as "obvious". It blinds you to alternate explanations. I don't know if it's good business practice to pay an artist to do something for you only to throw out his contribution, which there's nothing wrong with, and substitute it for the work of someone else, who may not be willing to give up his artwork for a commercial project free of charge.

On the one hand, I want it to really hurt to lose a plane so that you do the utmost to keep them intact, and it should take time to "drag a plane back to base" and piece it back together, but I still don't think it's a bad idea to have idle workers give you a small boost to repair speed. Bottom line is, though, that I want it to smart to lose a plane. If you lose a plane to enemy fire or fuel shortage, it should be a major setback, and the very fact that you can recover planes and don't have to buy new ones is a major improvement from the original X-Com game.

Never had a problem with the Hidden Movement image in the original X-Com games, honestly don't see why so many people are all of a sudden complaining now. Was it like this with the original games, too, or is it something that the overly long "alpha turns" of Xenonauts has brought about?

This depends entirely on how the game is balanced. UFO Defense became ridiculously easy once you got your hands on Heavy Plasma and other high-end weapons and gear, not because those weapons were overpowered, but because there were no restrictions on them. Players could capture, research and use them with no limitations.Games can have pretty much any feature imaginable as long as it's balanced correctly.

This does sound like a good mod basis , but as Gorlom explained, Xeno tries to limit the number of weapons in the game as much as it can (ie. only one weapon per role, so only one machine gun, one pistol, etc.). I kinda like the idea of surpassing the aliens in terms of tech, however. Don't know how realistic that is in itself, but maybe we could make some sort of alien-human "tech hybrid" that built upon alien technology with human knowledge. Don't know if that made sense, but it'd be a cool "final tier". As for your other ideas, it's not that they're bad ideas, it's just that Xeno is already nearly finished, so it's a bit late to come with ideas like this. Having said that, many of your ideas are such that I wish would be implemented into a mod of some kind. I like this. Like when you board that "abductor UFO" for that first time and suddenly there's a random dead cow hanging there .

An even better solution would be a Hearts of Iron 3-style system that let the player himself choose, at any time, how messages would be presented: either in some sort of news ticker along with the alien attack messages, or as dialogue boxes, or as events that brought up dialogue boxes and automatically slowed the game to 5 secs. Right-clicking a box, or accessing a specific Game Options menu, would let you change the settings for that type of message. So that if I know a lot of facilities are being built that don't require interaction (such as alien containment and radar facilities), I can just temporarily set those to show as news ticker items.

Moot point. Was this a strawman attempt of some kind ? I know many large-scale terrorist actions (as well as other types of activism, of course), have consequences and never stated otherwise.Oh, wait, we were discussing tiny teams stranded in enemy territory, so what was your point again? ...and given that the Hydro bombing wasn't my only example...But let's get back on topic, shall we? You stated that mindless killing of civilians and assassinations was the only way for a tiny team of isolated individuals to make a difference. This is patently false. Care to provide evidence to the contrary when you're done dodging?

I can't read every suggestion in every thread, but now that I've checked -- no.

This reminds me a little of Stars!, if anyone remembers that. Intriguing . The fact that you can fly freely for ones instead of having to rely on stupid "warp lanes" alone makes me want to chip in and support this :3 . Never understood the point of limiting the player to only travel along set paths in space. It's ridiculous. Imagine if a naval simulator did the same thing. Or, heck, if Xenonauts only let your ships travel down set flight corridors. Seriously, why? Yeah, 'cause that's totally how the ships are going to look in-game . wut. I never thought I'd say this, but: it's a game.Are you going to protest the building of Death Stars in Star Wars, too? "Oh my god, a moon-sized battle station with the ability to destroy planets with one shot?! Totally unrealistic! What is this, some kind of sci-fi movie?!" I'd rather have tonnes of content, Dominions 3-style, and modders and patches to balance them, or a small amount of features, to be honest.Gorlom: I'm amused by how your avatar is a head saying "that's awesome", and yet you seem to be the most grumpy and negative person on here..

The more I think about it, the more I feel the game would SWAT-style police action. Because, well, that's basically what the game is already, but also because I played way too much SWAT3 up until 9/11 . Like, sneak into a building where alien sympathizers have taken hostages and barricaded themselves. At the same time, I'm playing Xenonauts to shoot down UFOs and kill aliens, and I don't know if I want too many "side missions" that don't directly involve aliens. So, encountering civilians as well as friendly and hostile human combatants on missions, fine, but I don't want too many special missions other than perhaps the classic stuff like base raids, base defense, alien terror missions and whatnot. Also, a hostage situation would require a pretty different AI for the enemy combatants, which in turn would take a lot of work to code. wut.Please, contact some of the surviving European saboteurs, underground activists and commandos of WWII they were doing it wrong. "Heavy water sabotage? Secret newspapers? Gathering intel for the Allied invasion of Normandy? Why didn't you just go on a German bus with a rucksack bomb or fire homemade rockets into cities full of civilians like normal people? No wonder you guys got yourselves occupied". Er, no .

The more I think about it, the more I feel the game would SWAT-style police action. Because, well, that's basically what the game is already . Like, sneak into a building where alien sympathizers have taken hostages and barricaded themselves. In part because I played way too much SWAT3 up until 9/11. At the same time, I'm playing Xenonauts to shoot down UFOs and kill aliens, and I don't know if I want too many "side missions" that don't directly involve aliens. So, encountering civilians as well as friendly and hostile human combatants on missions, fine, but I don't want too many special missions other than perhaps the classic stuff like base raids, base defense, alien terror missions and whatnot.

Okay, so in the early game we typically have only one base, without the funds to lay down a second or third one too early. At the same time, we want radar and interceptor coverage over as large an area as possible -- we're tasked with defending the whole world, after all . A possible solution to this dilemma could be the ability to build "mini and micro bases", or Forward Bases and Outposts if you will. FBs and outposts would work like conventional bases, but they'd be smaller in terms of "grid size" and have less maintenance costs. A forward base would be 4x4 tiles or so, while an outpost would be 2x2. So, you build an outpost, which measures only 2x2 tiles and won't ever be able to grow past that (except perhaps if we implement a "Base Expansion" system where you can "upgrade" a base at a high one-time cost). You put a radar down and decide you'll build a second one later on when you can afford to. If you're worried about enemy invasion, maybe you also decide to place a defense system or living quarters and general stores, or you could turn it into a secret science facility/factory by adding living quarters and a workshop or lab. Either way, you now have a cheap, affordable listening post, but on the flip side, you won't ever be able to expand it into a proper large-scale base of operations; if you want a proper stronghold at that site later, you will have to build a second base and/or demolish the outpost. I feel this will fit the "chronically short on cash" approach the game is taking, make the early-game a bit more interesting and fun, and also add some strategic depth by forcing players to decide what kind of bases they want to build at various locations.

Ooooh. Pardon me for being thick .

If that had a relevant point of some kind it went way over my head. What?

Agree fully. I don't know how you reach that conclusion, nor for that matter, what "pushing a political correctness agenda" means in English, so I can't help you there, sorry. Either way, I don't see suicide bombing as part of the doctrine of an organization that is as critically short on manpower as the Xenonauts will most likely be throughout most runs. A major part of the game is that you have to take care of your soldiers, in part so that they will grow in experience, in part because new recruits can be expensive (in a game that also happens to be made so that you will chronically suffer from a tight budget), and while suicide missions made sense to a degree for, say, the Imperial Japanese, who had lots and lots of expendable men and machines and a fanatical loyalty to their Emperor, or the Germans during the later stages of the war, in which they were also desperate enough to arm retirees and children, or crazed terrorist organizations who can brainwash their recruits into thinking that Gods will reward them in an after-life if they kill lots of innocent people......I don't see how it would fits the "theme" or strategic situation of the Xenonauts in any way. Yes, civilian death and property damage happens, and is punished, in the game. This is collateral damage and and unfortunate byproduct of any armed conflict. It also happens to have absolutely nothing to do with deliberate massacres of civilians, or, for that matter, suicide bombing. If there were missions where your goal was to massacre as many people as possible you might have had a point. I'm afraid I don't see how. As others have pointed out, if you use explosives you do more damage to property and destroy loot you could otherwise have taken with you home. Explosives also generate fire and smoke that can work both for and against you.

What he said.