Jump to content

Gorzahg

Members
  • Posts

    214
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gorzahg

  1. I made this mockup in literally less than 10 minutes just to show that you could make pretty convicing forest just by using the existing assets. I'm not going to do the tileset, but it's relatively easy to do if someone wants to take the time and colorize the props.

    8gjAVRs.jpg

    Looks awesome! Can make some wooden buildings like a hunting cabin out of the farm set?

  2. How difficult is it to mod in new map types? There's plenty of forest stuff like trees and stumps from the farm rural roads and train tracks from industrial. The army base buildings from desert maps could be used as well. Has anyone tried this before?

  3. I've found, that on that terror site your best bet is popping smoke and plodding around the back of the building across street from you and then heading towards the bank. Then, once you're at the bank, get a few men up onto the second floor and use your superior LOS to pepper aliens hiding in the park until you win. This strategy only works against Sebs though, Androns will charge you and since they can't be suppressed or die easily lots of Xenonauts are going to get pretty dead.

  4. I agree. But, I'm fairly certain that a high ranked soldier in the original XCom had to use more TU to fire. It was probably a hurried attempt to balance things before release. I always thought it was wrong. What makes more sense is to put the skill increases on a curve so they get harder as you move up. That's how it is in RL. It should be close to impossible to get to 100 in any attribute.
    In the original XCOM it was a percentage based system, and it was really annoying most of the time. That's one reason why I love love love xenonauts, it's gotten rid of that logical inconsistency.

    It's not an inconsistency. All soldiers pay the same percentage, rounding up or down fractions. Soldiers with more APs pay more because they have more APs, they still fire as much as rookies but more accurate. It's not heretical sorcery to make the game harder.

  5. I disagree with the % of TUs system, on the basis that it makes no sense.

    What's the point of upping TUs, then, by leveling your guys? I mean, it makes sense that they get multiple attacks later on, because they're better at it.

    You're recruits are supposed to be the best of the best... And makes balancing easier as you know how many shots it soldier will get with each weapon.

    It's like, an aimed shot takes more TUs by comparison earlier then later. This is because making a shot with an "aimed shot" level of accuracy has become easier and faster to do, due to the practice of doing it over and over again, then it was originally.

    If it's a percentage, then the top level commander would be taking more time to fire his weapon then the greenhorn rookie. That doesn't make any sense at all.

    Sure, balancing it would be easier, but are you willing to give up sense and practicality in the process?

    Besides, there was nothing like finding out that my snipers could suddenly fire two max-level shots (without moving at all) in the same turn after a dozen or so missions. It gave a sense of accomplishment, like my guys are actually improving and not just getting fancy medals for doing stuff.

    The mixture idea that Gauddlike suggested might work better, but I still disagree, because even if it's only the RL, a rookie would take less TUs to fire it then a high leveled veteran. It doesn't make any sense.

    I agree, the RL needs to have a TU limitation put on it, probably by upping the reload so that initially one can't fire and reload in the same turn, but has that option later in the game as the operator gains more TUs to use.

    Higher ranked soldiers have better accuracy. They don't really need to shoot more.

    The AP percentage system doesn't make APs crap, because soldiers with lots of APs can move a long way, making them good scouts. Right now, APs are overpowered because not only does having lots of APs mean you can move a lot, but also means you can shoot a lot.

  6. Well, I say we should keep the 16. I mean, if it's too difficult for some people to control 16 soldiers, then why don't they simply stop filling the dropship to capacity? They don't have to use all slots, they could have a tank or something take up space instead, or even leave it empty. Get what I'm saying? Just because it's unwieldy for some, doesn't mean it is for everyone.

    +1 I want lots of toys to play with.

  7. What do people think of allowing a mix of AP costs so some things can be set as percentages of max AP while others have set values?

    Would it make balancing easier if you could (just as an example) have rockets cost 75% of max AP to fire while assault rifles had a set cost so could fire more often as you got more APs?

    All weapons should use the percentage system because it will make balancing weapons easier. The MG should be able to fire twice per turn if you don't move, the RL should only be able to shoot and reload if you don't move in the same turn.

  8. Your not the first one to suggest these things...

    1. is not going to happen because the air combat isn't the main focus of the game.

    2. I believe the reason grenade launchers weren't put in was because indirect fire would make the ground combat easier.

    3. see 1.

    4. Characteristics already do something similar to this. Want some to carry a rocket launcher or machine gun, hire someone with high strength want a sniper pick someone with high accuracy etc.

×
×
  • Create New...