Kentaro

guess I haven't played long enough then..thanks

I have no idea how or where to start, but maybe some of you more xml-savy people can give a pointer or three? I am looking for a ballistic shield with alien materials. The "earth"-shield has 80 hitpoints and is made of steel and kevlar and whatnot...Seeing that we can eventually mold the alien materials into armor, why not also create updated ballistic shields? I am thinking maybe double the hitpoints to be useful (160) and/or add some damage resistance? Thoughts?

Just because the US Special Forces all have NCOs doesn't mean Xcom needs to have that. Let me pull a few pointers out of my rear (in no particular order) Stargate SG1: Almost all (military) members there had the rank of Captain or higher. Danish Special Forces: Most teams consists of officers, not NCOs. German Special Forces (KSK): a team (4 Soldiers) is lead by a Sergeant Major, being led by an officer is not uncommon. (regular german army infantry "team" consists of 8-10 men and is led by a corporal or lance corporal, as comparison) Just because one has a higher rank does not mean they have more command. a Corporal on duty still "outranks" a visiting Brigadier General. During guard duty I had to arrest a Lieutenant-Colonal because he was in a security sensitive area and forgot his credentials. You (not you) are limiting the concept of a rank hierarchy to the amount of people they can (technically) command. But, again, a certain rank does not automatically give one the right to assume command over a company, batallion or regiment. If you broaden your understanding to the very worldly aspect of paygrade, it will all make sense why these people deserve a promotion.

I'm rather curious about your assessment from a consumer's point of view...you know, those idiots that pay for the software instead of writing it themselves ;-) In particular in regards of time invested when going multi-platform with your software. Speed and/or performance isn't always a factor, let alone a deciding factor.

Do you have any substantial facts, articles, studies that support your claim? Or are you just talking out of your rear? Of course not. THQ produced a video console addition called "uDraw" which sold far below expectations, forcing a re-evaulation of their inventory value and overall a loss of 56 million dollars. and 240 for that year alone (2012) Management actually lowered their own salary by 50%, among other things. In the following Chapter-11 bankrupcy the "known" studios were all sold to promising investors (Sony, Crytek, Koch Media). Either way, you not buying their games certainly didn't help. Have you read the lawsuit against him? Or any articles around his arrests? The majority of traffic came from copyrighted material, his own bonus-program on megaupload promoted sharing "hot" items like newly released movies and games. But of course it's not valid in your lala-land where pirates are the good guys and not the petty little thieves they actually are Really? When? Where? got an URL? Or talking out of your rear again? Ubisoft blames piracy for their copyright protection (permanent connectivity to uPlay, for example) not their games. Because a publisher doesn't produce games, they publish them. Studios produce games. Ah...here's another, equally correct comparison: The roster crows, the sun goes up. Example for what?

The lack of common economic knowledge in this thread is amusing at best but generally it just makes me cringe. Yes, publisher CEOs get a huge salary because their salary is 10% fixed and 90% bonus. (Give or take a few percentages) One can argue whether or not a CEO (any CEO, for that matter) really deserves a multi-million dollar/euro salary per year or if that should be capped at some point, but that's neither here nor there. A Publisher like Blizzard-Activision or Ubisoft is, in essence, no difference than General Motors or HP, apart from the product being sold. So yes, publisher CEOs make a lot of money. The point shouldn't be *THAT* they make a lot of money but "How much more would they sell if it was impossible to obtain illegal working copies of the software". Because they are still selling enough games. I thought that much was obvious? You should google "Kim Schmitz" or "Kim Dotcom". He built his empire around distributing copyrighted material over his Megaupload sites. Also, here in Europe "kino.to" and "moviex2k.to" (or something like that) also earn their living by offering access to copyrighted material. Legitimate or not, Ubisoft's "Ghost recon warrior" is now a F2P shooter instead of a "real" game. Ubisoft blames piracy. Securom, DVD checks and all these "neat" things wouldn't be necessary if piracy wasn't a concern. oO Seriously? Allow me to break it down for you: Indie Devs have a smaller budget, less polished graphics and cater to a much smaller user base than Call of Duty 27 does. Because of these 3 factors (mostly the smaller budget) Indie devs can occupy niche markets and still get some money at the end of the day. Larger Publishers simply do not have the ability to create a game with a market of maybe 250k people because said publishers have investors sitting on their back that want to have a sufficiently high/fast return of investment. Indie Devs are NOT born out of piracy, they are born out of more and niche markets. I would be interested to read what made you think that.

I think the whole "The Unit" cast would be rather cool, including the Colonel and all. Although I wouldn't go with 20 soldiers, I think a squad of 6-8 would be better off. I'd be more interested how the plot would be line for a 2-3 hour movie.

The point of cover is not just physical protection but also visibility. You can't see if i'm crouching, standing, sitting, left or right behind that cover, which makes up the "defense" part in XCOM:EU. And you know that from first-hand experience with plasma weapons? Judging from the lore, plasma does damage because it's super hot. If that heat is not focussed and applied to a small area, it will disperse and, while being harmful, it won't be deadly anymore. Back on topic: I bought the game and finished in normal and i liked it. working on The issues I have: The research is a bit lacking in variety. In total i had 51 research projects. I guess one should add the Foundry projects to it, but still...missing a few things there Is it actually possible to capture any of the robotic things and gain something from them? Grenades are useless once Mutons show up. Better to use either more defense or scopes. At least on normal, the game was over too soon, but I have read classic rectifies that What i really like: No more micromanagement. Soldiers remember to take enough ammo with them and it goes without saying that the armory is always stocked with enough ammo. Squad sized combat. Probably personal preference than anything else, but the combat is just..spot on. 8, 12 or 20 soldiers would be overkill. Maybe it's not as dark as the original (although I don't remember it being particularly dark, back in 93 when I was a teenager), but overall there's a sense of urgency that's very appealing to me. Kind of like in Mass Effect 3. Building things. Some things like new airplanes takes time, other things like rifles do not. I also like how the technology is SECRET and cannot simply be dumped on the economy. Which makes sense...if you can churn out enough laser rifles to arm militaries around the world - what's the point of having Xcom? Yes, it's not the original. But it's still very much worth it. Movement has been "simplified", but let's face it - what's the difference between 100 time units and shooting your weapon = 35-75% of your TUs vs the system in XCOM:EU? you can still move and then shoot or just stay put and shoot. The XCOM:EU System won't work on the old maps, but we're not playing on the old maps.

To not sidetrack the discussion with RL experience (or lack thereof), I put the non-game relevant aspects in spoiler tags. Neither me nor any member of my squad have ever been issued a sidearm in my 8 years of service, regardless of which weapon they were assigned. Pistols were assigned when assault rifles were too cumbersome or..well..overkill (military police, traffic control and the like) Maybe some special force (capable) units would but, certainly not regular troops. TOW = tracked optical wire. the rocket itself weighs about 23kg (50lbs?) HMG = heavy machine gun, aka M2 with 50cal rounds. No soldier carries a TOW or a HMG around like that. These are mounted weapons. Are we still talking about sidearms or are you broadening the subject now to vehicle crews as well? Personally I don't use pistols in any game, as I find them ineffective when seeing the alternative - grenades (area) or melee weapons (much more damage/stun potential later on). I use the belt almost exclusively for grenades.

I don't know what long-term carrying experience you have, but you *do* notice 3lbs of weight strapped to your dominant leg (i.e. right leg for right handed people) after a while. Again, I have no idea what type of day that would be where you pack 4 9mm pistols with easy enough access in combat situations. Backpacks don't count. Xenonauts uses both weight and volume to limit the inventory. In real life you are wrong. Any soldier armed with a heavy weapon like a machine gun or RPG-equivalent has 6 or 7 squadmates with assault rifles protecting him. That's the whole point of a squad. Having the "honour" of carrying the MUCH heavier and inconvenient machinegun or RPG-equivalent is enough burden as it is. Edit: What is a TAW? Tactical Assault Weapon?! Back on topic: I could see having an extra pouch on the inventory screen for pistols, and ONLY pistols to make them a more viable option.

The limitations in armament are more a political than military necessity. As far as I know the XCOM project is a a *secret* organization. Ordering airstrikes or artillery barrages leaves a huge papertrail which makes it difficult for the governments (or power blocs) of this world to deny anything. Not to mention that artillery shells and bombs are very expensive..not to mention that it's nigh impossible to get an airstrike or artillery barrage in the lower saharan desert or Himalaya The reason your chinook is not armed is to prevent an international incident by entering the (air) space of another country with an armed craft, manned with soldiers (partially) from the opposing bloc (US soldiers in Russia and vice versae) for the sake of securing a crash site of aliens that officially don't exist. And above all else, not everything that adds more realism also adds more fun. To paraphrase a german comedian: "This is Xenonauts, not 'Game over in 5 minutes'"

a 747 is roughly 70x70x20meters. (length, wingspan, height) but doesn't need to leave or enter the atmosphere of a planet, unlike, for example, the Space Shuttle which can't go anywhere near FTL.