Komandos

If the player has the right of the first move when attacking, then it is logical that the aliens should have the right of the first move when attacking. The saddest thing is that the aliens, when attacking the player's Base, have neither tactics nor strategies capable of damaging the player. The player does not even have a task: to minimize the damage that the aliens will cause. There are no serious tasks for the parties to the conflict in the mission to protect the base. The aliens don't even have a task they can solve. I think the game should alternate missions, with two types of tasks: 1. the player must strive to achieve maximum winnings. 2 - the player should strive to minimize his losses. And the initial conditions should vary in such a way that it is impossible to predict in advance: what is the maximum gain and what is the minimum loss. That is, in one case: the minimum loss in the battle to protect the Base will be the injury of several soldiers, in the other case - the minimum loss will be the destruction of buildings of half of the Base.

It is enough to add to the game one huge building "airfield complex" in size 6x4 (5x4 or 4x4), which immediately includes the foundation for all subsequent buildings, improvements of these buildings and makes it impossible to build other buildings (not related to the airfield) - then you can limit yourself to the functionality of existing bases. The game also has cities. The player can use them as locations for their airfields. These airfields can be made mobile.

I agree. I propose to make two modes of assigning soldiers to transport: 1: By profession. 2: The old way. (There should be two destination modes) 1 - A soldier with a certain specialty (for example, a machine gunner) can only be assigned to a seat on an airplane reserved for the role of a "machine gunner". If such a place is occupied, then the list of vacancies "by profession a machine gunner" for such a soldier will be empty. 2 - The old way.

Then the maximum size of one fleet will be determined by the maximum capacity aircraft of one Base. And that would be logical. I would suggest 2-storey Bases. Or Bases of two types: 1: Bases for radars and fighters 2: Bases for transport, personnel, laboratories, etc.. If the Airbase can accommodate only 3 aircraft hangars with a size of 2x2; one runway with a size of 6x2; and auxiliary rooms with a total area of 6x2, then the maximum size of the fleet will be 3. But of course I would add another aircraft, and increase the air fleet to 4 aircraft. So that they can fly in pairs 2x2=4.

The soldiers' sorting list is too small. And the size of the list of soldiers in transport is even smaller than the capacity of the transport itself. If you make a list of soldiers of sufficient size in the game, this will allow players to more fully see the result of sorting soldiers by list and it is more convenient to assign (reassign) soldiers for a task. It seems to me that the problem is that most testers have never kept more than three or four dozen soldiers on one base, and therefore have not encountered interface inconveniences when there are a lot of soldiers on the list.

The basic concept of Atlas is just a special case of the capabilities of the basic mechanics of X1.

Since the duration of the game is limited to a certain number of days (orbital laser), it is appropriate to consider these days as certain AP (strategic Action Points) spending which the player must achieve victory - open the final mission and go to it. If the initial conditions from which the game starts will always be the same, then this will allow you to quickly calculate the optimal strategy and follow it without any creativity, invention and imagination. How about the initial conditions have some variety, in which completely different strategies for spending your days (AP) in the game would be effective?

In general, I like the idea of three transports for the mission. The presence of additional transports adds new opportunities to your soldiers on the battlefield, and eliminates the urgent need for a more advanced form of transport.

I like the analogy of "Action Points". The player can "aim" for a long time and shoot accurately. (Confidently win the final mission). But if the "strategic" APS were squandered earlier and there are not enough of them, then you have to count on luck. "Strategic Action Points" are the days that the player spends on construction, research, and waiting.

If the player has the right to enter into battle (for example) 12 planes at the same time, then aliens have the same right. Instead of 3x3 battles, there will be 12x12 battles.

It's not a bad idea. Send not one transport to the task (mission), but several (1-2-3). Choose one transport that will land and start the battle. The second transport patrols in the air and can drop a special box of ammunition. At the end of the mission (task), this transport delivers trophies to the base. The third transport can land reinforcements, or can quickly evacuate the wounded from the evacuation point. Making up a squadron, you can get different bonuses on the battlefield: (If there is a "medical" transport in the squadron, your soldiers are treated faster after injuries, and they recover faster. You can evacuate wounded soldiers directly from the battlefield and during the battle. If there is a "cargo transport" in the squad, you can drop ammunition, as well as collect more artifacts at the end of the mission (depending on the results of the mission)). (Nothing is accidentally lost, burned or stolen).

But then what will prevent the aliens from visiting the Earth in huge groups of UFOs while you will have another 1-2-3 fighter? And what will prevent aliens from flying as large groups of UFOs as your planes?

In Xenonauts 1 (depending on how to position yourself on the UFO map) I could spend a different amount of different ammunition (when storming a UFO of this type). In one case (if the entrance to the UFO was far from the edge of the map) - I spent a lot of ammunition for sniper rifles. In another case (if there were many obstacles and trees) I spent a lot of cartridges for machine guns. In the third case (if the entrance to the UFO was close to the edge of the map) I spent a lot of explosives. Since I couldn't predict how close the UFO entrance would be to the edge of the map, I couldn't predict what stock of certain ammunition I would need. And therefore I tried to load the soldiers as much as possible.

Color-coded soldiers on the battlefield - would significantly improve the management of soldiers and would save the player from having to repeatedly view each soldier, trying to find the right soldier.

Get gaming experience: when a player loses a Base, it would be interesting (and the game can't provide that, because losing your own base is tantamount to defeat). If the game provides the player with a base that is not terrible to lose, then I would not refuse such a mission (task).

The game doesn't seem to forbid using multiple squadrons to attack. The first group of fighters (squadron) attacks, damages the UFO and immediately retreats. The second group of fighters (squadron) finishes off the UFO or also - only deals damage and retreats. The third group is already finishing off the damaged UFOs.

We are talking about a kind of "insurance", in case of unforeseen situations (which a novice player cannot predict). If I am playing the game for the first time (or using this difficulty level for the first time), then I cannot predict how much and what I will need in this mission (task), how "cards will fall out". Therefore, naturally, we need a "financial cushion", "insurance" just in case of an unforeseen event. Even you, when leaving home for work, take with you more money than you will need for the trip there and back. And when you go on a trip, you try to take more money than you actually need for living.

The penalty for the accuracy and peed of using alien weapons will make it impractical to use them as the main weapon for humans. But this will allow the player's soldiers to use alien weapons in case of a shortage of ammunition for their own weapons.

Then it's easier to create a mechanized suit (for your soldiers) that will allow your soldiers to take more inventory with them, but will make your soldiers move slowly and deprive your soldiers of protection (armor).

What items does the dropship carry? All items that soldiers are able to take with them on a mission. *** Does it get a whole copy of your Armory? It seems to me that it would be more logical to implement an interface like "objects lying on the ground", or: "individual inventory of soldiers". The player decides for himself what exactly will be there. "Does it get a whole copy of your Armory?" But this option is also interesting, if there is an opportunity to equip soldiers before the start of the task. *** If so, what happens if it gets shot down? The same thing will happen as if all the soldiers died on a normal mission or lost (used up) all their equipment during the battle. *** Or does it just have say a 10x10 inventory grid? There is a "box" object in the walls, interactions with it, the soldier gets access to the inventory of this "box". Or: On the adjacent tile with this object (next to the box), an additional switch button: "items in the box" appears in the soldier's inventory (next to the inscription "items on the ground"). By switching the button from "objects on the ground" to the button "objects in the box" - you can access the contents of the box. *** I think there's a danger it encourages even slower play, with people pausing halfway through the mission to go back to the dropship and restock. Might break the flow of the mission a bit. If: the speed with which the player completes the task (the number of moves that the player spends on completing the task) has absolutely no effect on the reward that the player receives at the end of the task (reward for completing the task). Or: while the player has the opportunity to save (get) more artifacts and resources, if he performs the task slowly and carefully. Then: the player has no reason to hurry somewhere. If: during each turn, the UFO will lose 1-2-3 units of fuel (burns in the fire), and the total amount of fuel on board the UFO will be no more than 25-50-75 units, then: the player will have a choice: either spend several rounds (time) to replenish the inventory of his soldiers, or grab more strategic resources (fuel) on board a UFO.

I believe that for the player (in the process of research), several options for the final mission should open up. For example: Big risks. Average risks. Small risks. Big risks - do not require additional scientific research. (Preparation for the task takes little time). Medium risks - require additional scientific research. (Preparation for the task takes some time). Small risks - it is necessary to conduct several additional scientific studies (Preparation for the task takes a lot of time). For example: The player in the final can choose: One very long and difficult mission. Two simpler and shorter missions, but with a time interval (break) between them, (necessary for one scientific study). Three short and fast combat missions, but with a long time interval (break) between them, necessary for many scientific studies.

What's wrong with other cities getting the right sound? After all, it is painful for all people to see when their cities are written in other languages differently than these names are pronounced in their native language.

To return to the old names of cities that have changed over several centuries (as a result of conquests, changes of power) - I think it's a good idea. There are many similar cities on the planet that have become the property of other countries and other peoples. By returning these cities to their old names, the game will provide comprehensive support to those peoples who have lost these cities. But won't it be an intervention in politics, and will it correspond to the period of time to which the game is dedicated? For example: is it appropriate to change the name of Istanbul to Constantinople (Κωνσταντινούπολις)? After all, the city changed its name as a result of military aggression many centuries ago.

And considering that over time there will be a transport with a larger capacity, then 12 positions in the list - this will also not be enough.

Why then does the whole world write Kiev?