Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Max_Caine

  1. You can't take something like Orbital Bombardment out of the context of waves of UFOs. Waves of UFOs form the bread and butter of the game, so a mechanic which reliably and periodically reduces the relationship HP (hereafter adddressed as R-HP) of any funding bloc has to be addressed within the primary mechanic of randomly scattered pixels that move in a semi random manner across the whole map and randomly cause R-HP damage over time to the funding bloc they just happen to be over. In that context, Orbital Bombardment doesn't have to be particularly powerful. It has to be a tipping pont - to be in the right place at the right time, in a similar fashion to the way a grenade doesn't have to be paricularly powerful - it just has to do enough damage that the next burst of shots will kill a squaddie. Now, one can argue that UFOs already do this, and yes they do. By the end of the first month, if you have a bad spread of waves the R-HP of a funding bloc you can't reach can be in tatters. However, it's possible to do something about UFOs, whereas it will be impossible to do anything about the space station - unless perhaps I can pay for something like fuelled ATLAS-2 rockets to be flung at the station to distract it. That is why I would ask for a period of grace - you just can't do anything about the space station, so it could feel disheartening to have the station start zapping away when the player is at their weakest. Concerning Signal Uplinks Would it be possible to roll it into strategic objectives? It seems to me that while one can set a high fee as a barrier to entry if the uplink can pay for itself fairly quickly then an early investment into uplinks would pay strong dividends and be a more optimal route to success. Each uplink purchased would roll into investing into the next one until you reach a critical mass where the uplinks you have, pay for the next one you're eyeing up. If it were rolled into strategic objectives then the type of resource required moves from money to human and perhaps you could set the bar a little differently. Perhaps the rank of the squaddie assigned to the uplink directly relates to the bonus you get from the uplink, so if you want the $100k, R-HP and human resources you need to assign Colonel or higher to the uplink. A private gets maybe $5k and a point of 2 of R-HP, so to get the big bucks, you have to put top flight squaddies in the driving seat, depriving you of squaddies you could need.
  2. The Orbital Bombardment idea has a lot of potential, but I think having it start almost from the get-go would cause some issues. Mostly because in the first 30 days, or even the first 60 days it's highly unlikely that I'm going to be able to get enough air coverage to prevent random ufos from damaging funding blocs that I can't reach. The random nature of waves is currently (mostly) absorable, because I can spread out to cover the most damaged blocs in an organic manner, but bombardments on top of random waves might create losing situations I can't do anything about. What I would suggest is give a period of grace before the shots start falling - narratively, allow time for the space station to be built and give some time for the player to get his feet wet. Perhaps bring back the DEFCON tracker, only this time it's affiliated observatories watching the progress of the space station's construction. EDIT: Thinking about it further from a narrative perspective, you could build that into a set of textbox-only vignettes - the building of the space station, the first shot fired, large spacecraft docking at the station, and so on and so forth.
  3. You've reported this bug in the wrong subforum. Report it here.
  4. Max_Caine

    Andron Analysis - how did I get that?

    Are you using the Community Edition?
  5. When X1 was in development, the map wasn't 100% correct - certain small islands were missing which upset people, and the way the map was divided up was perceived by certain people as also not being correct. Those particular individuals were enraged that the map did not match their perceptions, one individual in particular accusing Goldhawk of deliberately blotting out his nation and disrespecting his people. While this is an innovative idea, I can very clearly imagine the fallout from implementing it as people rise to take offense if the implementation doesn't match their perception.
  6. Max_Caine

    suggestion for air combat

    Do what? You've overheard a conversation in the pub, walked over and stuck your oar in, because you're not really interested, you just want to make sure that everyone knows your opinion. Fine, go and share that opinion on topics you actually care about and not on subjects you couldn't give a monkeys for.
  7. Max_Caine

    suggestion for air combat

    Ruggerman, your opinions on how air combat could be better balanced while clearly strong, are somewhat light on details. If you were perhaps to take the time to narrate your experience of air combat, your thoughts and reasons for the air strategies you take, and your opinions on air combat in general a more technical and detailed format, that would better inform Goldhawk Interactive than merely an impassioned plea to fix it.
  8. I think destroyers are the limit of Goldhawk's current designs, which is why there are so many issues post-destroyer. I'm also fairly certain that the stock configuration of each generation of Xenonauts fighter craft is intended to last X UFO types before they become sub-optional and you're encouraged to move to the next generation. However, I have in the files noticed certain utility addons - specifically a fuel pod and an afterburner. I think it would be helpful to open up utility hardpoint slots so the existing fleet can be upgraded some more.
  9. Max_Caine

    Maxim 56, please

    So Trashman, in no particular order. 1) If you're going to have the AI run away into the UFO, then you may as well start the game at the UFO, sans artillery. What's the point in walking across an empty battlefield, People get bored when nothing is happening. 2) If I don't always have the option of having artillery because reasons, I'm going to prepare as if I never have it. If I prepare as if I never have it, then why do I need it in the first place? So that the AI can run to the UFO? Anyway, people are going to point to the aircraft that Xenonauts have, and ask why they can't use those instead of unreliable artillery. In any case, you acknoweldge that artillery is unfair. Unfair when I have it, unfair when the enemy has it. It's an I win button when you apply it to a skirmish-level tactical game. It's why PP at least put the artillery on-map so the other side has half a chance of stopping it.
  10. Max_Caine

    Maxim 56, please

    Here's a good one, Sheepy: Two scary tanks in Jagged alliance being taken down by a mortar from a safe distance Multi mortar kill in Jagged Alliance - I wish I had invested in mortars when I played JA2! There are no bad examples. PP, JA2, Phantom Doctrine, these are all reasonable examples of what on-map and off-map artillery support actually looks like. Trashman, the theory does not stand up in practice. Artillery is unfair, off-map artillery would be especially unfair.
  11. Max_Caine

    Editing files question

    I'm pretty sure some of that data is hidden behind the files in the /assets/ folder. I have no idea how to unpack those files, but if you check the .manifest files you can see there are quite a few .json files bundled together. For unit recruitment stats I think the correct file is in /strategy/masters/actor/combatant/human/xenonauts/. Always bear in mind that files follow an object-oriened approach. Each child file inherits the properties of the parent. To find the weight of something, you may have to follow back up the parent-child string until you get to the data. E.g. in the strategy section, pistols have a generic weight which is established in /masters/items/weapon_secondary.json, the parent of ballistic.pistol.json. If you want to change this weight, you change the weight value in the file you want to change (ballistic.pistol.json), this will override the value they inherit from the parent file. Also remember that common values like weight are duplicated across strategy and ground combat. If you change the value in one, you must change the value in the other.
  12. Max_Caine

    Maxim 56, please

    People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. You clearly haven't played PP. The enemy AI can run and hide from my Scarab (the starting vehicle you get that's equipped with a long-range indirect-fire weapon) but it's so easy to crack a building with it. In fact, PP is another example of just how unfair artillery is, and that's artillery that's on the map instead of off it.
  13. Max_Caine

    Maxim 56, please

    You should play Phantom Doctrine then, and see what it's like to give and receive off-map support in a squad-based tactical shooter. It gets very boring, very quickly. The only saving grace is off-map support can't destroy buildings, no matter how ridiculous that would seem (e.g. you can hide in a straw hut and a fully tooled up Hind D can't wreck it).
  14. Max_Caine

    General release time

    @ComradeThe latest update 8 days ago on the progression of the project should give you some idea how things are going. I wouldn't know that GH are going to make any announcement on an EA release any time soon. The last time Chris said something definitive on that, he had to apologise because the proposed EA date has long overshot and they're still nailing him to the wall about it on the Steam forums. In GH's case, the less said about release dates, the better. So long as there's a stream of updates, wether new builds to try or posts on the progression on the project, that works better than setting a date then overshooting it.
  15. Phoenix Point is a good example of Comrade's fears made flesh. The Triton enemy type can emit a substance which I will, for the sake of argument, call smoke. This smoke does not go away. Left uncontrolled, Tritons can quite easily cover large swathes of the map in smoke that is hard to see through and is hazardous to the player's units. Alien smoke would have to be quite, quite temporary.
  16. It looks like the research tree changed since I wrote that inital post, as I was once able to get the research prequisites after downing an Observer, but not any longer. In any case, it's possible to take down an Observer with Falcons - you need 3 of them, and you need as many alenium missiles as you can get. Then you can just charge straight at the Observer - no fancy techniques needed, the Observer doesn't have the firepower to down a Falcon so you can dive straight through it and the Falcons turn faster than the Observer can, meaning their cannons can finish the job. However, to take down a Destroyer you need Foxhounds. Foxhounds as they currently are designed do not have the weapons to take down a Destroyer - you need to use the updated Skylance heavy missile that I have posted above. The update Skyance has a range that is slightly longer than a Destroyer's. In autoresolve, a squadron of Foxhounds will win, and in realtime combat a squadron will very likely win, but you have to turn immediately after launching the payload or the Destroyer will down at least one Foxhound.
  17. Having suffered thrugh some of PP's more egregious bugs, I think you'd be pleased that we get the chance to stamp and shout about the bugs in every release candidate that Goldhawk puts out so more, not less, the game is fixed.
  18. Max_Caine

    Misc Requests

    I'd like to see more hardpoints for aircraft, or at least more potential hardpoints. Having 4 potential weapon hardpoints can give an excellent number of combinations which you csan design a larger variety of aircraft for. Also I notice there are utility aircraft items which seem to be sitting doing nothing. An afterburner or fuel pod would be extremely useful, especially in the early game. Could the utility hardpoints be brought back, or rolled into the weapon hardpoints? I'd like more stuff to do with both engineers and alien artifacts. Namely: Allow engineers to be assigned to Hangars to boost the speed of rearm/refuel/repair. Allow alien artifacts to be broken down for parts. A "recycle artifacts" project which recycles X of a type into alien materials
  19. Max_Caine

    Discussions and things

    Pretty sure that streams still aren't officially allowed. Not that it's stopped certain people from making vids of every version (all yo have to do is type Xeonnauts 2 into Youtube to see what I mean.)
  20. Given the last prediction you were given, I very much doubt it'll be ready until the middle of next year earliest.
  21. ? In my previous post, I'm talking about the base tier heavy missile that comes free with every Foxhound. You build a Foxhound, you get the heavy missile with it. That's what that file is.
  22. For those people who are having issues with autoresolve, I'm pretty sure you're being held back because of Foxhounds. I'm fairly certain like in X1, Foxhounds are intended to be the foil to early capital-class ships such as Observers and Destroyers. However, the Sklylances are terrible even against larger ufos so I've made 2 adjustments to the Skylance which make the Foxhound more tenable. The adjustments need tweaking so Foxhounds aren't the primary pick every time, but following testing with a full squadron of Foxhounds verses Observers and Destroyers, I think you'll be reasonably pleased. Replace the torpedo_tier1.json file in xenonauts2/assets/assets/xenonauts/template/strategy/item/aircraft_equipment with the torpedo_tier1.json file attached. As always, back up any file you adjust so in the event of any problems, you don't have to wipe the whole game and start again. Do not replace the file when you have birds in the air - in fact you would be best off replacing the file on a savegame in-between UFO waves. This file was tested using a full 3-plane squadron verses destroyers and observers and a 2-plane squadron against Observers so test results are limited, do not expect single Foxhounds to flex hard. torpedo_tier1.json
  23. You should be able to research the phantom interceptor - do you have that?
  24. Vision, vision length and vision cones were brought up more than once during the development of X1. I believe the underlying reason it's brought up is all to do with what battlefield information the player has access to. The relatively short vision range with the relatively tight vision cone restricts what the player knows at any time. This is especially acute at the start of any fight as all the player's information points are clustered together in one place, whereas the AI adversary information points are dotted around the map, so the AI has a much more complete picture than the player has. Does having incomplete and restricted information about the battlefield add or subtract from gameplay? One might argue that the more complete a picture a player has, the better that player can formulate strategies. There are certainly plenty of games that present all the information to the player. Incomplete and restricted information then frustrates a player because they don't know what's going on. Equally, one might argue that an incomplete picture can mean the player can be surprised by the AI's actions, and the player can in turn surprise the AI - ambushes are only effective if there are gaps in information that can be exploited, and it is entirely possible in X2 to run around an enemy group and flank them. If having incomplete information is a beneficial asset to gameplay, how much and to what degree should that information be restricted? E.G. how far and how wide should vision cones be?