Jump to content

FriarBob

Members
  • Content count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About FriarBob

  • Rank
    Rookie
  1. FriarBob

    UFO design

    I have had very limited numbers of times when the walls on a UFO came down so far in my plays, and in general I didn't like it. A time or two it made no real difference, at least once it got my soldiers massacred and I had to reload, and one time it let me have direct access to the back of a better ship and it almost seemed like outright abuse of the AI. Yeah yeah I know, in war if you aren't cheating you aren't trying hard enough. Duh. But it really seemed more like a bug than a tactic, that's how unbalanced it was. If I wanted aesthetics before function I too would never have bought X1 (or tried to talk any of my friends into buying it either). But it is nice to have both if you can. So on this point I VERY strongly do not like the butt-ugly current UFOs. But I also consider the ability to rotate the map a HUGE upgrade. One that the lack-of was a huge minus for X1. If the price of getting to rotate the screen is butt-ugly UFOs I suppose I'm grudgingly willing to pay it. But I won't pretend I like it. And while I won't angrily demand a refund or anything, I will say that if I had known about this (and a few other things) in advance I would not have backed the game. I very likely would still have bought it eventually, but I probably would have waited for a sale.
  2. Oh you definitely went (way) too far in my book. (Others of course will disagree.) But thankfully you made the game easy to mod too, so those of us who wanted to tweak it could do so. I'm sure 5 minutes after release (if even that long) someone will do so again no matter what you decide here. Indeed almost certainly some folks adding and other folks taking it away. That said, I also agree that making the economic side the primary as in XCom is 'meh' at best and dumb at worst. It shouldn't be the primary. And I agree that the 'unlimited' engineers did provide justification for your prior decision. But I also think there should be options such that when you don't have something better to do there is a reason to not fire all your engineers until you need them again. And now with firing them (or rehiring them) no longer an option with these recruiting missions this makes for a very good reason to revisit it.
  3. I initially was not a fan of the side-view base, but I went "well I'll try it" and it grew on me. But not anywhere near enough that I would "hate" changing back either. Not at least from aesthetic concerns. But if you go top-down, are you going to then decentralize manufacturing? I'm not sure you should. I mean, what's the point? Decentralization for the sake of decentralization is basically just being inefficient for the sake of inefficiency. Previously there was a reason to decentralize, and that reason was workshops couldn't share work between multiple bases. Well that and that it took a day+ to transfer stuff around the world, so a four-workshop base could make stuff very quickly but would lose much of that savings in transporting raw materials to it and distributing stuff from it around the world. Now, though, why do it? Sure things can now port around the world instantly such that you can easily decentralize, but why do so other than merely for the sake of decentralizing? Granted if you do decentralize manufacturing then you kinda have to decentralize storage. And power. And then soldiers fit right back into the decentralized model so easily that it's seamless. It fits. I see the appeal, especially for the folks who are missing their multiple dropships so badly. But I don't agree. And if you aren't decentralizing science or manufacturing nor soldier pool, what else IS there to decentralize that isn't already covered by the current model? (i.e. planes and radar already are decentralized.) Soldier training? Nope. Generators? Storage? Housing? Medical? None of those seem to fit. What else is left? I don't see anything. There were a lot of things about the original X1 that I really liked. The defense missions were definitely one of them. But if the only point of going back to top-down is for the defense missions, then I don't think you should do it. Those were fun. But we can easily live without them.
  4. FriarBob

    french version

    They don't have the on-staff fluency. But that's what fans are for. https://www.nexusmods.com/xenonauts/mods/30
  5. FriarBob

    [V5 General] Rank Structure

    I probably would rather like to see the rank system follow actual US ranks, or perhaps even actual Soviet ranks. (Hmm, maybe that would 'improve immersion' a bit if it was even in Cyrillic characters.) And I suppose for realism's sake I do agree that there should only be one 'officer'... if any. But I also think that trying to program special stuff for that is almost certainly overkill. Just use only enlisted and NCO ranks and be done with it.
  6. Agreed. I have had to use them that way quite a bit unfortunately. Although it hasn't really been a problem since I upgraded to lasers, but with basic guns it seemed like part B happened all.the.time. ... And part A is VERY useful against the sebilians when even 2 laser shots isn't always enough to put them down.
  7. Hmm. That's tempting. I didn't try that yet because 35 TUs meant I could only get one scoped shot per round and the stinkin lizards sometimes needed four to put them down. Which makes sense, BTW, not complaining about that. I just didn't have enough TUs to do it when two (much less four!, though that has only happened once) of them showed up in visual range of the chopper. I do question how ridiculously accurate their return fire was though. I could hit a lizard with a scoped shot and he'd BURST fire four shots right back into me from the same range. That seems a bit... off. Granted probably only two would hit, but when they did 50+ damage a pop my poor soldier was now a smear on the pavement. And it seemed like it was always *at least* 30+ damage on the return shots.
  8. Ah. Well unfortunately I wasn't around for that one. I just read through it and I agree with those who say this is going to be a major learning curve issue for folks. I'm all for trying new things. I do too in my (business) code. But when it doesn't work, I change it. As is this doesn't work. It's horribly counterintuitive in the first place, and not enough info to work around it. I do like the idea of being able to "autotransfer" the equipment. That's actually quite good. But you need a way to see that the replacement soldier is a good replacement choice. Again, my example on being able to hit the broadside of a barn. Some base soldiers probably have a 35 or 40 aim or something similarly pathetic like that. I personally don't think anyone under 50 can hit the broadside of a barn, but maybe I'm just trying to make too hard of shots. Or something. No matter what, if they have a 40 I'm not going to pick them for a sniper. I'd switch plans to go with a more assault folks or something. Or even abandon the mission entirely and wait for the recovery mission. Similarly, I would never waste a 60 accuracy (or 60 reflexes for that matter) guy/gal on a geoscape mission. Just ain't happening. They're too valuable in real combat. Even if they need a break (assuming stress becomes something to manage later on) they'll just take a break but remain available for the next time they are needed. But if you don't have a defined role, then you need the stats. You need something beyond just the name.
  9. At least at present it seems that there is no such thing as a soldier role and instead there is a "chopper slot role" that is taken by any soldier assigned to it. If so, I don't like this. It's actually somewhat useful if the intent is that the soldier moved off the chopper de-equips all 'special' items, especially early on while you have an extremely limited quantity of them. Of course that's only true until/unless equipment starts to make a difference in speed/success/etc. for the Strategic Operations. But even if that never is a problem I still prefer the way the newest xcom2s allowed you to CHOOSE to de-equip that stuff from soldiers not going on the current mission. (You may well want to most of the time, but then again you also might not. Especially if in late game you actually have excess and find it hard to manage the clutter.) I'm guessing/hoping this is just a temporary kludge to get people equipped and off to the ground combat without any real soldier management required. I hope so at least. Because the current system is not very intuitive to use for anyone used to x1 or xcom, and even if they are always/intentionally de-equipped I would really prefer the soldier's role to stick to them even when off-duty. X1 didn't have a 'perfect' soldier management screen of course, but it was trivially easy to see (and even assign!) the role to the soldier there. I really think being able to set the role to the soldier is important for managing your roster. Especially so if the way Stress seems to climb means we're going to have to use more than one "super team" (at least for those which survive long enough to GET super). The role you intend to use for solider X isn't going to change just because they aren't going on the next mission. Well they won't for me, at least, and I suspect they won't for most others either. After all if they can't hit the broadside of a barn I'm not going to make them a sniper. Or if they have pathetic reaction speed they won't be on assault role. Etc. Yes you can figure that out again from the soldier screen easily enough. You can not currently figure that out from the chopper assign screen or the strategic assign screen. Having the role tied to the soldier (and preferably displayed with their name when assigning to the chopper or strategic mission) would really help a LOT. Even if the intent both is and will always be for only the soldiers going out on a mission to carry gear, even then the role still should be on the soldier. This will really help when assigning crew to a mission as well, because there are going to be some missions (like sebilians) where you want different weapon mixes (in this case for getting through their annoyingly tough skin) than for the wraith (where you HAVE to get in reaction fire to avoid getting blown to smithereens). Being able to see both the weapons you are sending AND whether or not the crewman you selected is appropriately able to effectively carry it would REALLY be helpful. And unfortunately right now all you can see is what weapon you are sending.
  10. FriarBob

    Geoscape Strategic Operations

    I really like this idea so far. Of course I liked the infinite engineers (so long as you could afford them of course) of X1 too, but this is also quite interesting as a replacement. But did I misunderstand, or are your soldiers supposed to be locked out of crash site missions too? Because they currently don't seem to be... and when I get back from the crash they seem to all be (re)unlocked... lack of full implementation perhaps?
  11. FriarBob

    [V5.0] Aircraft vs UFOs

    I'm just glad to know that they have plans to improve this. I have to agree that the current version is very soulless, which stinks because I'm one of those rare few who actually loved the original air combat. (Of course I hadn't played it in a long time so after trying the new out I went back to trying the old and quickly realized it wasn't as good as I remembered either. But at the time I did truly love it.) That said, I'm also hoping the devs can find a way to keep it. If they can't make it fun then it truly is better to drop it, but I hope they can find a way. Because it really did make X1 unique and different (at least from any other xcom/clone I had ever played). And when X2 was announced the fact that it wasn't going to be in there almost made me write it off entirely. Glad I didn't, of course, but I came a lot closer to missing out on another good game than I should have. (Obviously I am NOT kidding when I said I loved the original!)
×