Komandos

If I need to play a small team, then I will take any RPG game, or I will put a small number of soldiers on the ship "Avenger" (X-COM: 1). I can also edit Xenonauts 1 so that one soldier is enough for me to win the final mission. However, I prefer to change the game so that I have a full platoon under my command, which is only available in the original X-COM:1-2-3 and nowhere else. However, I can't change the Xenonauts to command as many soldiers in combat as they did in the original X-COM:1-2-3 game.

I have said this many times and I will repeat it again: small group tactics (1-12 soldiers) are present in all tactical games. (And also in all RPG games). The choice of games is huge, the competition is big. Platoon tactics (16-36 soldiers) are only present in X-COM:1-2-3 (which are still popular). It is enough not to make barriers to increase the number of soldiers in personal modifications of the game (to keep the maximum number of originals) - and fans of platoon tactics will be added.

I only played Xenonauts 1 because I could modify the game to my liking. Without modification, I managed to complete only two dozen combat missions, after which I realized that the original game settings make Xenonauts not interesting for me. The field of view is too small. The range of the weapon is too short. The platoon is too small. The firepower of an individual soldier is too small. As a result: the soldiers walk in a dense crowd (Like hedgehogs in the fog), killing each other with "friendly shots".

The 1994 X-com game has very poor graphics. Bad balance. However, thanks to the addition of the ability to modify the game widely (openXcom), people still play the 1994 game. Thanks to the modification - each player gets what he wants. (not what the developer wants).

If you look at the playability that openXcom has to offer and look at the Xenonauts' software limitations (which will make it harder for players to create new mods), it's safe to say that the game is missing its chance. Personally, I don't care what balance the game will have: good or bad. I'll make the right one myself. But it is important for me whether the game will be convenient for modifications and whether the game will forget the software limitations that Xenonauts 1 had (for example, I could not create my own transport and recruit a team of more than 16 people). If anyone is interested in my opinion.

Soldiers in the army are "sorted" by platoons, squads, branches of service (other). Why is the player not allowed to sort his soldiers into squads, platoons? Or like this? Selecting soldiers with a gray, red, green, blue (other) marker - and when sorting the general list - the colors of the groups in the list do not mix. Or the ability to view and sort the list of soldiers of only one color.

I really like your reasoning. They are very promising for increasing tension (escalating conflict) during the game. In fact, the most acute stages of the conflict (at the moment) are present only at the beginning of the game and gradually (over time) fade away. I will think about your ideas and express my thoughts a little later.

I don't know if the developers read the whole forum or not, so I duplicate the following post: https://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/index.php?/topic/19643-random-thought-about-the-importance-of-the-main-squad-storywise/&do=findComment&comment=183330 here: The problem is that while one (single) player's battle group flies around the globe for several days to eliminate 10 "crash sites", the alien battle groups sit motionless all these days and do nothing. If the "UFO crash site" gets the opportunity to cause damage to the region (at the crash site) every hour (every half hour), then the player will think: What is more profitable? 1. Use one battle group that (on average) gets to the crash site in 10 hours (for example), but the region takes 1000 damage. 2. Use five battle groups that (on average) will reach the crash site in 2 hours (for example), and the region will take (in 2 hours) 200 damage. Total: "UFO crash site" every hour (every minute) should cause damage (damage) to the region in which it is located. There is also a "UFO landing site": every minute it must inflict damage (damage) to the region in which it is located.

The problem is that while one (single) player's battle group flies around the globe for several days to eliminate 10 "crash sites", the alien battle groups sit motionless all these days and do nothing. If the "UFO crash site" gets the opportunity to cause damage to the region (at the crash site) every hour (every half hour), then the player will think: What is more profitable? 1. Use one battle group that (on average) gets to the crash site in 10 hours (for example), but the region takes 1000 damage. 2. Use five battle groups that (on average) will reach the crash site in 2 hours (for example), and the region will take (in 2 hours) 200 damage. Total: "UFO crash site" every hour (every minute) should cause damage (damage) to the region in which it is located. There is also a "UFO landing site": every minute it must inflict damage (damage) to the region in which it is located.

My endgame theory is this: Xenonauts infiltrating the main alien base ship and killing the general manager on it is like fighter planes shooting down the "last" alien UFO. The player won the dogfight. UFO defeated. There will be no more new UFOs. Victory !!! But: Three functions are still available to the player: 1. Wait a few days for the Last UFO crash site to disappear and celebrate. 2. Command the bombing "Last-UFO crash site" and celebrate the victory. In these two versions with "Last-UFO crash site", artifacts will also be destroyed. Humanity will not be able to get new technologies. Third option: 3. After the "Final battle" (the destruction of the alien leader), the player should be able to: "collect artifacts." Just like after air combat, the player has the ability to capture (save) artifacts in ground combat at the crash site. Total: After the final battle (destruction of the alien leader), a list of UFO "crash sites" appears in the game: in orbit, on the moon, on Mars; "crash sites" of the Alien Base: on the moon and on Mars. The player can direct nuclear missiles at them (bombardment) or send a tactical group to obtain unknown artifacts and knowledge about aliens.

You can use this part of the vehicle as a navigation bar for soldiers in ground combat. It already contains information about: fighter's specialization; serial number. It remains to display the percentage of health in color; Fighting spirit; number of AP. In addition, we will know the location of a soldier in a combat vehicle, which in one way or another affects his functions and determines his rank in the team.

The top view is not the most difficult drawing. Even simple graphics programs can handle this. For example: Illustrator. You can use the same deployment principle as the D-54 Valkyrie to deploy troops on the ground. Also you have a set of tiles and an editor for creating a UFO (as in the screenshot). In the first minutes of the battle, the shuttle serves as a fortress for the xenonaut soldiers. Its design, capacity, door placement are very important. Therefore, the background for the soldiers in the hangar will not be a problem for the fans of the game (mod creators). Shuttle-fortress for "OpenXcom" for battles on the map with many aliens.

Either the UFO controls the entire airspace of the planet, or the player. In X-COM: 3 Apocalypse, the air defense also consisted of local self-defense forces and law enforcement (army). You can add the following to the game of xenonauts: some UFOs will shoot down not only xenonauts, but also the air forces of states.

Bribe the pilot? I agree. The shuttle should also have pockets for additional equipment (shields, first aid kits, etc.). A useful idea. + In order to protect the interests of all players and to obtain a wider window of opportunity in the game, the player may be given the opportunity to select the appropriate item in the settings of the new game. (Just like we choose the difficulty of a new game). Do not forget that the player has the opportunity to bomb the crash site while losing artifacts. Is it advisable after that: to prohibit the player from "bombing" the crash site in a real battle and at the same time lose artifacts? (force the player to take a limited amount of ammunition and equipment into battle, heavy weapons, heavy equipment)

Useful thing. Saves time.

I noticed that I have not played games for a long time, the resources of which cannot be edited by customizing the game for yourself. Sometimes I spend more time editing games than the actual game.

In X-COM: 3 Apocalypse, despite very tight limits on the number of construction sites on the base and the total number of bases themselves (6-7), all the usable rooms (which could be filled with labor) could easily fit into two or three bases. There were many graphical, tactical and strategic innovations in the game, but artificial restrictions on the player's freedom and concern for him did not make X-COM: 3 more popular than the first two games. There was no balance in X-COM: 3 Apocalypse, which made many innovations and restrictions meaningless.

Not all players are satisfied with the small size of the tactical group (10-12 soldiers at the beginning of the game) - this is a fact.

In fact, in the event of a war with aliens, no one will demand money for renting land for the construction of defensive structures. And the soldiers will not demand huge fees to save themselves and their families from death. If you look closely at the financial side of the issue, then the earthlings have a typical mercenary army, which was created for colonial wars, coups, and not for protection from external aggression. For example: in the new version of X-COM (which was never created) the Gollop brothers were going to provide the soldiers with food rations. And all of this. The number of personnel at the Bases was limited by the food supplies at the Bases. In fact, there is no reasonable limit on the size of the Base, other than the size of the interface window. The base, like the city, could potentially grow many kilometers. And the only limitation of its growth is economic and military expediency. It makes no sense to build thousands of airfields for thousands of aircraft in order to shoot down (for example) one UFO accidentally flown over Antarctica. In X-COM 1-2, the economy (market) of planet Earth had no saturation limit. With an infinitely large Base, the player could build an infinitely large number of laboratories (for the development of new technologies), build an infinitely large number of workshops (factories), hire an infinitely large number of workers, produce an infinitely large number of laser cannons, sell them on a market with infinite purchasing power, and make an infinitely large amount of money. Base Size in X-COM: 1-2 limited the player's production and trading options. (Profit from trading). If initially the game will have a limited number of engineers and scientists (living on planet Earth); a limited number of cities in which you can produce and buy a limited number of goods, then an artificial limitation of the size of the xenonauts base in the game will not be needed. In "X-COM: 3 Apocalypse" the Gollop brothers tried to create an economy similar to the one that now exists in many Strategies, but limited themselves to "stubs": the player could not hire more than 25 biologists, more than 25 nuclear scientists, more than 50 engineers , more than 100 soldiers. There was no explanation for this. The city's economy was so shallow that it resembled a rural one. The sale of ten rifles dramatically saturates the market, and the purchase of 10 rifles creates an acute shortage in the market.

If it weren't for the ability to edit xenonauts to my taste and play style, I would have stopped playing them after a dozen missions. I agree.

If you make the size of the Base not 6x6, but 12x12, then outwardly nothing will change. Living quarters that used to be 1x1 will become 2x2. Hangars that used to be 2x2 will now be 4x4. However, it will be possible to make 3x3 rooms; 3x4; 2x3 and even 1x1 (small warehouses, small radars, garages, etc.).

I agree. If the Base is not built on an island, then nothing can limit its size. (Nothing, for example, limits the size of cities.) If you make the size of the Base not 6x6, but 12x12, then outwardly nothing will change. Living quarters that used to be 1x1 will become 2x2. Hangars that used to be 2x2 will now be 4x4. However, it will be possible to make 3x3 rooms; 3x4; 2x3 and even 1x1 (small warehouses, small radars, garages, etc.).

If a player in the game can bombard a UFO crash site, why not give him the same opportunity in a ground operation? In addition to artifacts, the player will not lose anything, but have fun. I support the idea: boxes with additional equipment (ammunition) on board the helicopter.

1. In mods for "OpenXcom" combat platforms (tanks) are used as "donkeys" to transport goods. (Two Stage Missions). Also in the mods there are robotic units with a large carrying capacity and a roomy backpack. 2. In Jagged alliance 2 mod 1.13, soldiers have "combat backpacks" and "hiking" backpacks (filled with all kinds of supplies). Before the battle, the "traveling" backpack with all the equipment is dropped to the ground. (by pressing just one button). The soldier fights without an AP penalty for being overweight. After the battle (when all the enemies on the map are destroyed), by pressing just one button, the "travel backpack" reappears on the soldier's back. Backpack removed. Backpack dressed. 3. In some games (Men of War), each platoon of soldiers has a portable crate full of supplies. Two soldiers carrying this box make up a single "combat unit" 2x1 or 3x1 (Soldier, box, soldier)" which moves around the map just like two soldiers carrying a mortar or two soldiers carrying a heavy machine gun.

If a player buys on the market an aircraft equipped with a radar for detecting UFOs, then it is logical that such a radar should be in every city.