Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About jamoecw

  • Rank
  1. jamoecw

    Xenonauts-2: Soldiers

    for the discussion on potential advantages of single shot pistols vs. full auto pistols vs. shotguns etc. there is something called hyper velocity ammo that fires rounds at much higher speeds and thus more force. they tend to have cycling issues with some guns, so single shot guns (like pistols) could use hyper velocity rounds, while full auto pistols do not. this means roughly the same effective range, but more damage per hit. as for shotguns, they have much thinner barrels and thus would not use such powder for their ammo. while a bit of a stretch for real life (not all full auto have issues for hyper velocity ammo, and some could even be adjusted) it would give some justification to single shot only weapons have more damage per shot vs. burst weapons. as for shotguns, one could for different ammo types (different slugs), or one could just use the real life 7 shots per squeeze of the trigger. this makes them fire faster (as long as they aren't pump action) round output over SMGs, due to a higher burst count (7 for each shot). they would lack single fire mode, and each round would have less accuracy and they would have longer reload times. this means that the further away the fight happens, or the longer the fight drags on the worse the shotgun, while the SMG would be able to mitigate some of its drawbacks. so this make a pistol a close range high reaction weapon that you can use a shield with it that has a higher damage output for the ammo carried making it good for a sustained fight or fighting at ranges further away than intended. auto pistols are close range high reaction weapons that you can use a shield that does better the close the target is due to burst fire ability. SMGs are a high reaction weapon that can do mid range as well as close range fairly well, but you can't use a shield. shotguns are a high reaction close range weapon that gets better the closer the enemy is, and falls off much harder than the others at longer ranges, and it can't use a shield. so auto pistols are fill the role of a shotgun, but is weaker due to the ability to use a shield, and a pistol fills the role of the SMG, but is weaker due to the ability to use a shield. so for ranges it would be shotgun for the closest range weapon, then SMGs as they can partially bridge the gap between assault rifles and CQB. assault rifles are the mid range weapon, then LMGs for long, then sniper rifles for extreme.
  2. as a veteran who has deployed in a mixed unit i can safely say that a thin 62 inch person can handle a M500 or a M249 without trouble, even if they can only qualify the minimum woman's standards of strength. i have seen a couple of women having trouble with the M500 (not the M249) during qualification due to their size, but we are talking thin mid to low 50 inch range (and mid to high 80lbs. range). though that being said their strength via PFA was at the upper end, so the issue was mass (and that of all the military shotguns the M500 has the worst kick). all the veterans that i know that fought in vietnam or korea have the same story about how much gear troops get loaded down with based on their size. the smaller they are the more they are required to carry. there is a lot of false information out there in regards to carrying capacity and weapons handling in regards to what is realistic or not, but in regards to the topic at hand meaningful STR is not nearly as random in the combat troops of the US as people think. the biggest thing that affects carrying capacity and weapons handling is size, and the biggest thing size determines is how easy it is to mount a given roof. given that it is a game i am sure STR could have a place, but the argument for it is not to make things more realistic.
  3. jamoecw

    Xenonauts 2 Development Overview

    basically it has simpler economy, less of a strategy layer, no research or combat vehicles, and a simplified damage model. relative to XCom of course. with all of that being said it had just as many variables that mattered as XCom. this means that the detail in what it encompassed was incredible, and that is what makes people say that it is complicated, and why jagged alliance 2 is considered as good as it is. it also has copious amounts of humor and a decent storyline (at least for the time). some people are fine with the complication that comes with the level of detail, and some are fine with the amount of complication as long as it isn't due to the level of detail. if you are the latter then it isn't the game for you. there have been a few attempts to remake JA2 and to simplify it to gather a wider audience, and they have all met with failure. there is a rather popular mod called 1.13 (sort of like a patch) which boosts the complexity a fair bit as well.
  4. this is very attractive on paper, but in real world terms it isn't that great. the M4/M203 is a good example (which you brought up). on paper you have a rifleman, that can flip a switch and have his weapon become a SMG, or switch his hands and it becomes a grenade launcher. if he needs to breach a door he simply has to do an ammo swap. same with launching a flare for night ops, or laying down a smoke screen. he can flip up a magnifier and get the use of a scoped weapon for long range shooting. sounds great right? well let us take the extra duties that are needed for each of those roles and stack them all on a single person, now that person is way overburdened. take all the little compromises you get from using a multitool instead of a dedicated tool and now every situation your guy is in he under performs. now add on all the extra training to get your guy able to do all of that as well, and now the 9 month long training course for basic competency for your rifleman is 19 months (6 months boot camp + 3 months basic infantry + 2 months grenade school + 4 months advanced marksmanship + 2 months SRF school + 2 months CQB school). the training cycle to keep his skills sharp goes from 1 week every year to 7 weeks (1 week basic weapons qualifications + 2 weeks ordinance maintenance refresher + 3 weeks abbreviated marksmanship course + 1 week CQB drills). logistically it looks better, however once you get into the details you still have issues in that the extra cost of the tool (M4 w/ M203 and advanced ACOG) is down with any problem on any part of it, which means that you add all the problems you would have together to get the casualty rate for the equipment. it doesn't sound very good now. given how the military (US) has added extra 'all hands' training in the form of sexual assault prevention training, equal opportunity training, etc. as well as the scaling back of personnel and the scaling up of peace time duties, that means that the extra time needed to keep things running smoothly with such a set up just isn't there. the army has figured that out and has been looking for a way to shift things to keep the army functional (if your guy makes a mistake casualties skyrocket), and the navy has been having a pretty strong wake up call to similar SOPs. i don't know how they will solve the problem, but one answer is to go back to dedicated tools instead of multitools (at least for the army, for the navy it isn't nearly as simple, not that it is a good option to begin with).
  5. you did great work with X1, so i am sure you'll do great with X2. based on my own experience i can say that carrying a backpack into battle is unrealistic. that being said only having a belt is also unrealistic. we mount holsters for battle equipment onto our armor, and use slings for our main weapons. US snipers today carry both a sniper rifle and a normal M4 (assault rifle), though when the bullets start flying they use the M4. when they go off to do sniper activities, they carry everything with them, then they set up with their sniper rifle in a place and hand their gear (M4 and backpack) off to their spotter. given how the soldiers deploy in Xenonauts they are closer to SWAT than soldiers, so backpacks would not make sense. all of that being said being able to mount the equipment onto your body for quick and easy access would be realistic. the amount one can strap to your body is more than most people think. when i deployed last i had a radio, 3 extra M4 - assualt rifle mags (30rnds each), 2 extra M9 - pistol mags (10rnds each), 1 IFAK - single person first aid kit, 1 PFD - life vest, 1 multitool, and a flashlight strapped to my body armor. i carried an M4, and an M9, the M9 was in a holster attached to my belt, the M4 on a sling. in my pockets i carried a lot of extra stuff, most non-battle related such as keys and wallet, but also job specific stuff as well. if i was in the army and a grunt i would have grenades on me as well, and odds are i'd have some sort of job specific thing like breaching compound or a larger manpack radio. comparing what i took with me that i could access in battle (not in my 3 day pack) was about the same equipment accessible via the backpack in X1. SWAT carries far less gear than soldiers, even after the soldiers drop their patrol packs (backpacks). they load out for that specific mission, with advanced knowledge of the terrain. basically the loadout screen would fit perfectly for having advanced access to the map. for tactical flexibility maybe have a slot for hands? so the sniper can carry a shotgun or something like that, then drop it and pull out their sniper rifle and set up. when the exfill they can holster their rifle and pick up their shotgun. this would also allow oversized equipment like shields or your fallen brothers (for taking them back to evac).
  6. jamoecw

    X-com: Apocalypse 2?

    XCOM:Apoc was far more ambitious than what was released. this is the reason i think for the more varied alien structure from previous games. there was going to be a whole espionage and economics side of things that got cut. there was a lot of really cool things in the game, though parts of the game failed in execution as well. a real mixed bag.few games wanted to go the turn based strategy route, so the opportunity to try and do what they did properly was never really on the table. would have been nice to play a polished version of it. there are plenty of other games that really hit it out of the park and simply need a revamp on their engine/graphics that would be lower hanging fruit to get some interest in those old classics, but if there ever was a rush for remaking the old games i would really hope that apoc gets it day. edit: to answer the OP questions - the aliens they had were pretty good, though the dichotomy of UFO:afterlight was nice as well creating different enemies that were very different from each other requiring rather different weapons and tactics. the vehicles being very modular is a keeper, as it really is perhaps the most unique thing about the gameplay. the more complex economy and diplomacy that cut cut would be another thing to get in there. as for the real time part of it, i'd either make the combat similar to the UFO games as it lends itself to pausable realtime very nicely, or ax it completely. who works on it isn't very important, as long as it is done well.
  7. i'm guessing the damage types will be moddable as well? i am not sure how useful it will be to the base game, but putting in kinetic and hardness damage types can give some realistic diversity to ballistic weapons. AP ammo doing more 'hardness' damage and less kinetic would help it to 'penetrate' certain armors and do less damage against less rigid armor. HP rounds would be the opposite of such relative to normal rounds. what about having damage dependent on what another damage type does to the armor, like HEAP ammo? so if a specific type of ammo does more of one type of damage then causes more damage of another type. something like 5 hardness+(dealt hardness*2 explosive)+2 kinetic against 40%hardness armor, 0% explosive armor, 0%kinetic armor would do 3 hardness damage (.6*5), 6 explosive damage (3*2*1.0), 2 kinetic damage. against 40%hardness armor, 50% explosive armor, 0%kinetic armor would do 3 hardness damage (.6*5), 3 explosive damage (3*2*.5), 2 kinetic damage. against 80%hardness armor, 0% explosive armor, 0%kinetic armor would do 1 hardness damage (.2*5), 2 explosive damage (1*2*1.0), 2 kinetic damage. it probably wouldn't help the base game too much as it would add some complexity to the game, and aside from maybe some poison darts, tazer, or particle stream weapons i don't see it as having much impact overall. it would be cool for modders though.
  8. as for 2 they had an XCOM clone that made it so that you had to be damaged by the reaper to become infected, and then it took a little bit of time. XCOM apocalypse had the damage tied to psi i think, so that if you had high psi defense you could defend against it (which none of the lower level armor had, so it was a late game thing, and not that great either). it really all depends on how valuable your guys are. in XCOM the first 2 guys that walk off your transport were pretty much dead, so losing 1 guy to bad luck while clearing a room isn't that big of a deal, but in firaxis's XCOM you have 4-6 guys during the mission and losing 1 of them was a major setback for the rest of the game, so losing 1 of them due to bad luck is a big deal.
  9. i think you hit the nail on the head. a kill sweep makes things easy if the strategy and lore are about killing the enemy. if things are a complex machine, then tweaking something may bring about a greater result than just trying to kill everything. once killing becomes not feasible or not desired things have to become more creative. the problem i see is that in traditional XCOM you are fending off an alien invasion, and thus trying to prevent your machine from getting tweaked rather than disrupting another's. so either the battlescape needs to become a small section of a larger battlefield in which reinforcements just keep coming (and thus killing won't work), or you need to do subterfuge (which is rather silly given how all the important bits of the enemy is out of reach in space). in apocalypse you were going to tweak the machine to undo damage the aliens did tweaking it, unless you were playing another faction, in which case you would be infiltrating and doing the initial tweaking. too bad it was cut short. though i am not sure it would still have the same feel if the main game was not going against aliens doing 'clean sweeps' for most of the game.
  10. no. the first two of the three XCOM original games had you bring 14 soldiers, more than X1. the third is a bit more complicated as the vehicles are modular in design, so the main transport has a default of 8 passenger space with the capability to have an additional 12, though cargo space is a separate module, so you probably want to only add an additional 8, until you need to start capturing aliens and then you'll swap out passenger space for a bio containment module, reducing the extra PAX to 4 (12 total). you can repurpose the transport into a heavy weapons platform as well when you don't need it to be a transporter. the new XCOM games are different enough to not really be in the same vein as the originals, in fact the third game wasn't considered to be a true sequel by die hard fans back in the day.
  11. the more i think about it the more it seems that killing everything would be the easiest way to complete a mission, unless there was some non-lore friendly arbitrary constraints. unless of course aliens can spawn on the map in the middle of a fight. that way you could have say a terror mission and instead of killing all the aliens and being done you would have to take a control room to get the city defenses back up to stop reinforcements, then clear out remaining forces or leave them for the local forces to deal with. you could have a rescue VIP mission in which every X number of turns more reinforcements come from off the map to stop you from getting to the VIP, so getting the VIP and getting out of there would be the only way to really win. there could be a mission in which you have to destroy a certain device, but since it is important aliens constantly reinforce the defenders and thus you have to fight your way to the device, and killing everything will just spawn more aliens. as for downed UFOs, the score at the end if you held the UFO instead of killing them penalized you for every living alien, if this wasn't a thing then it would make such just as viable. though getting rid of that score altogether would be a mistake as it rewarded you more for tougher missions, which is important.
  12. jamoecw

    Make both site playable

    i don't think too many people are old enough to have played xcom apocalypse back in the day, but this was the idea that they shot for. financial issues meant that everything but the xcom side had to be scrapped. the inner politics of the earth side made the xcom faction weaker than the aliens, and while the aliens had a good deal of resources, getting their forces to earth was a bit of an issue. the idea was that the aliens were inter dimensional aliens attack from a different dimension, so they had to only send a transport or two at a time, and they had to learn how to travel and operate in our dimension better in order to be a bigger threat. working with certain factions and corrupting others was how you were supposed to defeat xcom. of course xcom wasn't your only opponent as well, so you were outnumbered. in fact any faction you were going to play was going to be outnumbered, and have some sort of edge over the other factions. there is some talk that phoenix point (https://phoenixpoint.info/) is going to try and do that again (sort of) from the same creator.
  13. jamoecw

    Aimed shots to unseen enemies

    jagged alliance 2 (1.13 mod) did a bit, it wasn't a big difference so you probably didn't notice a difference. xcom and most remakes have done stuff with vision cones and light. as for gamey trade offs for scopes, there has been a few squad games (JA2 included) that have it take a bit longer to take a shot, for increased accuracy or range. as for why not equip everyone with scopes, the same could be asked as to why not cover the entire game with bases on day one? cost often times is used to limit things that seem really good. personally i prefer extra costs to far outlandish downsides to equipment in order to keep balance. but of course if the downside (what ever that is, cost or otherwise) is too great then their isn't much point in even having it in the game. in the end weapons are pretty gamey in all games. JA2 which models things closer to reality than most games still has pistols being about 1/4 of their range and rifles about 1/15 of their range to prevent pistols from being completely outclassed. in reality the draw time is a big factor in their usefulness (one reason they are popular for guard duty), as well as the deficiencies of the human element. a rifle can reach well out beyond what you can see, so scopes are a no brainer for any military, but they aren't used much due to the tunnel vision they cause and their problems at close range. all of this is coupled with durability in the field and maintenance of the device. iron sights are very reliable, while a scope needs some attention to ensure it stays zeroed in. training new shooters also have issues if they learn on a scope instead of learning on irons, and then learning to use a scope. they tend to time their shots to hit their target instead of learning to keep their sights on target, which results in greater inaccuracies as they get better (glass ceiling essentially), and their inability to handle things too far away or too close with a scope, in addition to not being able to use iron sights effectively. these issues are something people not only don't realize exist, but consider to be artificial feeling when simulated, and thus disliked. think of it like fatal injuries, in real life medieval weapons cause fatal injuries far more gently than modern weapons (little concussive shock to your system). this means that if you stab a person in the heart, he will die, but not for a minute or two. if you put that into a video game people would tend to dislike such stuff very much and call it fake. balancing reality with people's expectations is an art that is delicate, too much realism and people call it fake, not enough and people call it fake.
  14. that is pretty cool. back during X1 development i came up with an idea using local forces for air/radar cover and local ground forces to cordon off and help with the aliens on the ground. the underpinnings of this was a balance between developing for them to boost their capability to handle issues on their own, diverting resources from making your own team strong or to try and blanket the whole globe in coverage. it was amid the discussion about air cover ranges, and how realistic ranges would be much smaller than the original XCOM. i also talked about picking what sort of transport and thus what sort of deployment you wanted. using the traditional (for XCOM) VTOL method or to parachute in a little ways away and fight your way in towards the craft. the VTOL method means the aliens don't get to set up for your arrival, but it also means potentially charging into plasma getting out of the craft, and of course shorter transport ranges for your crack troops. paradrop of course means that the aliens know well ahead of time and can bring what ever big guns to bear (mortar equivalent) while you work your way to them and of course can hit you from range or set up ambushes. it also means more civilians dead and more reliance on local forces. ultimately the game turned out pretty good so i am happy that the idea wasn't picked up on (as doing it wrong could have ruined everything). i do like the idea of helping out existing forces to combat the aliens, as it just makes a lot of sense lore wise. it isn't like a single (or a couple of) AI trooper is going to help out all too much anyway (at least not consistently).
  15. jamoecw

    Grenades suggestion.

    i am not sure if prone is planned to be in the game or not, but maybe the reaction could be to go prone, assuming the people see the grenade. this would mean that going prone reduces damage to you from splash damage. if the enemy can just run away from a grenade due to reaction fire then tossing a nade into an enemy hole could have them running into the middle of your men bypassing their reaction fire. if your men react then there could be a lot of friendly fire in that case. having things move for reaction can be fidly to balance and get right, especially if it is AI controlled.