stewpidbear
-
Posts
117 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by stewpidbear
-
-
14 minutes ago, Dagar said:
I agree to your statement. I think that if CAS is to become a thing, it would have to be well balanced in terms of costs (material and opportunity), precision, effects and use limits. I can only speak from X-Division experience, but in that scenario I would find it okay if I had to equip a fighter plane with a special one-time use air-ground weapon that costs materiel and time to build (binding engineers), send it alongside the troop transport (which means range limits as the fighter usually has less fuel), then have it shoot that stuff on demand, but with a one turn delay, and it likely doing more of a suppression effect than killing due to accuracy limitations and cover. Targets in buildings would not be as effected, even more so in the UFO. Also, you'd risk killing civilians, but that is always a danger present.
Basically, it would be a high cost larger radius rocket with high suppression effect.
You could make it even harder by having to have a soldier throw out a signal flare or grenade for the CAS to hit its mark.
Basically, it should come with costs appropriate to the effect granted.
Totally agree the cost does have a big part to play if this is used. It could be another tool in the tactical game as long as it’s not overwhelming.
-
Cheap shot I know............;)
-
2 hours ago, Decius said:
Laser target designation from ground troops is for when the opposing force has enough AA capability that your air support has to be under the horizon.
Would you want los to your aircraft from directed energy weapons in the 80’s! I would think even a crashed UFO still might have it’s main weapon systems on line.
-
Oh I don’t know, perhaps a tech tree that would allow laser target designation from off board support, the precursor of the Hellfire perhaps?
-
I would imagine any surviving troops would slap the pilots silly when returning to base!
-
Are there going to be call signs for your troops?
-
Ever thought about battery backpack? Different weights and sizes?
-
Looking at the video I now feel earth needs battle suits..................;)
-
1 hour ago, Decius said:
Yes, rewarding players for pulling enemies into an area where they have automatic suppression is a degenerate behavior.
Close air support is part of the dominant real-world tactics precisely because it isn't even remotely fair. Games are intended to be fair and challenging in a way that a well-planned military operation isn't.
Sorry mate, I totally disagree with you. If there is only one way, for instance smoke to get out of the dropship, that is a failing in a tactical game. Being able to suppress, which is a tactic in the game already, the area so your troops can engage the enemy with a reasonable chance of success ( not garanteed!) at the start kf the mission is just another option to be used. For instance the Los in the port/industrial zone would offer only a very small area of suppression compared to the size of the map. More tactical options so you can play different ways so your not shoe horned into doing it just one gaming way is better surely? I know don’t call me Surely!;)
-
10 minutes ago, Max_Caine said:
If gunners can only shoot what they see then that's fine, I can kite enemies back to the dropship. It's not hard because enemies are predisposed to behave aggressively - they will seek my troops out. This is especially true in raids and terror sites. If the issue is the LZ is hot, then the solution isn't to make special cases which are open to abuse beyond their intended value, but to re-jig the map so the LZ isn't hot.
Surely “kiting” (not quite sure what that means , sorry) could be described as a “degenerate” tactic as it’s playing to the way that the aliens are programmed to behave? I must admit to looking at this perceived problem through the real world view. Perhaps it’s me not looking at it as a game view.
-
The problem is getting out of the ship before being cut down by the enemy? There are various game changes that can be made to fix this there’s no doubt. Remember gunners can only fire at what they can see. My biggest bug bear is the port/industrial area where I’m often stuffed by being swamped within two turns. Having “turrets” would allow a safe dispersal but not effect the rest of the map/mission. Lmg gunners/turrets on the ship would be there primarily for suppression, after all the dropship in not a gunship.
Edit.....is an Lmg in game terms invincible?
-
2 hours ago, Decius said:
But enemy positioning can be controlled directly, and if the turrets are effective at their primary role then they will create the degenerate behavior of baiting enemies into their killzone for free kills; if the turrets aren't effective they will not accomplish their primary goal.
“Degenerate behavior”? I really don’t think that a legitimate real world tactic can be described that way. Another suggestion would be to change the Aliens behaviour by not approaching/retreating from the landing zone.
-
Just to say even Chinooks have door and ramp gunners............
-
Osprey door gunner
-
Perhaps the dropship could be equipped with door gunners as in “real” life? An MG either side that could suppress the landing zone?
-
-
An LMG going full rock and roll at short range should be an absolute killer, if an Alien is that stupid to either get that close or allow to get that close it should be toast. While a fully under stand it’s a game and there should be balance I think there should also be a bit of “realism”. And it also gives that poor trooper that has to lug the heavy thing around a big grin when it does happen!
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Pave said:
---
If you want to use a bit more robust PrintScreen-tool, there is one called "Greenshot" which allows to screenshot in all the various ways
( aside occasionally not the "dropboxes" that get "auto-pulled-back" with any non-slection-inputs ).
---
---I can honestly say..............I have no idea what you are talking about!!
-
Thanks for the reply mate, will try and remember those instructions!
-
42 minutes ago, Alienkiller said:
OK that´s a good Point for the LMG and Sniper.
Then you should have more TU´s to get in a new Cover after you shot with your Sniper.
What the LMG belongs there should be more Shots in 1 Burst and 2 Bursts for the TU´s about the lesser Acurracy.
Considering the sniper rifle, yes only allow one or two shots with it, but the shots should be far more deadly perhaps allow insta death headshots?
-
Actually one of the first first weapons in the Xenonaut armoury should be able to blast a hole if I’m not mistaken. The “missile” launcher which looks remarkably like an RPG7 would be an anti tank weapon in the setting of the Cold War period. Perhaps not for the bigger ships but certainly for the smaller ones.
-
If you could shoot down or capture on the ground a complete ufo couldn’t it be used against the invaders rather than disassembling it? Retro fit the hull with human missiles etc.
-
Human rifles seem a bit under powered when hitting unamoured aliens, still have n’t had a one shot kill. Worst thing I’ve found are the amount of aliens that surround the transport in the industrial/port zone (the one with all the containers). On more than one occasion have had to reload to an earlier save as my troops have stepped off the aircraft and over half of them have been shot. Personally I take off and nuke the site from orbit, that would get all the buggers.
Edit: The LMG as it stands is more of a liability than a useful tool. With the amount of rounds it fires shouldn’t there be a higher chance of a hit?
-
Reported through in game menu. Hope that was the right way to do it.
air support
in Xenonauts-2 General Discussion
Posted
Agree with everything above, though balanced and napalm in the same sentence did make me laugh........the scene from Apocalypse Niow and the line of palms comes to mind!