TrashMan

Reading everything you wrote so far and honestly... I'm dissapointed. I'm going to be perfectly honest here, so excuse some harsh criticism, but you DEFINITELY started building Xenonauts 2 by copying the Nu-Com, which is/was a terrible idea and a giant red flag for me, since that is a big departure from the original Xenonauts and original X-Com. And now because of that you're running into problems with the code and big chunks having to be re-written. I realize companies want to earn money and you want the game to be "accessable" (corporate speak for so simplified everyone can play.. or in other words, dumbing down for the lowest common denominator, which Nu-Com was), so I guess people like me are a dying breed. The second issue I have is you seem to think micromanagment is a bad things, when that is the core of the game. You're running a global operation. Bases, personnel, research. It's supposed to be a lot of micromanagment. You'll find plenty of old-school players that like that. But a lot of new "gamers" have no patience for it. So you really need to decide who your target audience is.

Since I HATE teleportation, that would be a big YES from me.

EDIT: WHY the frak can't I edit the quotes??

CAS could be added (a helicopter/VTOL vehicle that you can periodically call in - but that again comes at a cost - another hangar space, another aircraft to maintain, and it wouldn't be of use on many maps), but at the same time, what about alien CAS? Just because you were able to land troops, doesn't mean you have air dominance. Basically, there are 3 scenarios: 1 - you have a support craft, the aliens don't: Every X turns you can call in support 2 - you don't have support craft, the aliens do: Every X turns, the aliens can call in support 3 - both side have support craft - the support craft duke it out, air support is either unavailable or sporadic Then comes the question of power. If CAS has the big guns, then regular cover is NOT going to keep your troops safe, and suddenly the entire dynamic breaks. Loosing your troops to attacks you cannot counter is no fun. Thus there would have to be a way to keep your troops safe (perhaps a way outside of your own CAS). Soldiers with AA missiles that project a BUBBLE inside which the enemy CAS cannot operate? It becomes a complicated issue or how do I make it fun, engaging AND make sense?

I'd say it is balanced by the need for two hangars, two dropship and twice as many troops (and $$$ to pay for it all). I find it is bad design when the player has the resources, but the game does not let you use them.

I do know programming, which is why I'm saying it. If altering this require massive work on multiple layers, then that would speak very poorly on the initial implementation of the system. There shouldn't BE multiple layers to a simple string display.

Given that rank is not tied mechanically to anything, re-writing it should be simple. As well as adding promotions. The mechanics behind it are simple enough. A promotion bottun that appears on eligible xenonauts (level being the measure) that changes their rank. SHOULD be a quick and simple job. But every hour of work time is precious, so the eternal question of allocation of time and resources and worth rears it's ugly head.

If something doesn't have a mechanical purpose, then the only purpose it can have is aesthetics/clarity and worldbuilding/sense.

I'm aware of the definition. But I'm also aware of a colloquial/free/common use. Also, I don't think Ruggerman mentioned aesthetics. He simply said the rank feel odd and make no sense, and I agree. That's good enough of a reason for the simple reason there there IS no reason for them to be like they are in the first place. It certainly isn't for clarity, because while most people have heard of miltiary ranks, most also don't really understand those ranks.

Sorry, I don't have photographic memory of every conversation I had on every forum (have you any idea how many game/modding forums I'm on and how many discussions on mechanics I had?). Right now, I don't recall that discussion at all. That you went trough all the trouble to search and dig up all those threads is very....autistic? Either way, if a simple level number is too bland, how about special badges? Does not have to be real-work rank badge, but something made-up. Would be nice if one can track stats for soldiers - total aliens killed, kills by types, times wounded, average accuracy, etc..

Rank is not a proper representation of potency, so if THAT was the reason back in X1, it was a really stupid one. No offense to the devs, but what's wrong with simple levels? A number is even MORE informative than rank, because your average player won't know the military rank structure. Level is a soliders level (actual power), Rank is their Rank (and in small squads there would be only a few anyway).

Most things are "not a big deal", but the devil is in the details. Heck, those little tiny things you can pul off are the best things about games. Anyone remember the live c4/grenade hot potato trick you could do in some old games?

All the walls of texts, and nothing really changed in the end. Geoscape is still real-time by any sane, workable definition. Either way, planes work very differently for humans, so even if you made air combat turn-based, it would STILL require a separate set of mechanics anyway. Same holds true for geoscape. The time, scale and requirements of all 3 are completely different.

Something like extra protective plates that a soldier can carry? You can go that route...or you can have encumbrance affect AP's. That way a stronger soldier does get a benefit. Something like AP = Max AP - MaxAP*(carried weight/optimal weight*10) If a soldier has a standard max carry/optimal weight of 100 (before becoming encumbered), but is carrying 150, then his AP are reduced by150/100 = 1,25*10 = 12,5% Conversely if he carried 50, then his AP penalty would be 50/100 = 0,5*10 = 5% Or both??

So it doesn't really have turns then? You do realize that by that definition, everything is turn based, since the computer calculates things in intervals. Might be 10miliseconds or however small, but it does. Time itself can be cut down into minimal intervals (Plank time, the smallest measurable time unit in which something can happen), so you can say Reality is turn-based by that logic. Turn-based games have distinct phases that are recognized by the system and part of gameplay. And while there are some hybrid systems, what is and is not turn-based is not rocket science. The Geoscape is NOT turn-based by any definition.

Have ranking be separate. Have the player be the one to pick and promote. You don't need a rank to indicate the power of indivudual solider. You can just show level. OR maybe a different badge for each level (NOT a rank badge, a completely separate badge)

How do you figure that? Since when can Diablo be considered turn-based? There are no phases in it, no turns, no breaks in the action or execuation.

I would be against it. There is no sense to having them. Dogs have no reasonable way to damage an alien that has armor resistant to rifle rounds. They also have to close the distance which would just result in dead doggos. And I absolutely cannot stand that. I still have flashbacks to DogMeat. Dogs just have no place in combat scenarios. In various support roles, sure. They can be used for therapy, guard duty, detection of dangerous substances, search and rescue. But all of those come AFTER the area has been secured. As for scouting, you have drones for that. Especially todays tiny flyer drones. Dogs have no way to relay back information. Unless you want to stick a camera on their head, but even then you cannot give them instructions on where to look. As much as I love dogs, I just don't see a viable and rewarding way to add them.

Most air defenses today aren't static sam-sites, but vehicle mounted systems. They can move around and are not tied to a specific location. So no issue there.

There are several fan-made projects to make a sequel. You might want to look at Supremacy or BOTF2. I haven't look at them in a long time so I have no idea what state they are in. And I hope Chris considers this. This method, or back to real-time with pause with proper dogfighting. It's actually far simpler than people think, as there is a limited set of things you can do. It also depends if you long-range fighting or dogfighting. So it boils down to: - your planes strengths - the enemy planes strengths - type of battle (high or low alititude, long range or short range) For example: The F-14 is a long-range interceptor. It excells at long-range missile fights, since no plane can match it's AVG-9 radar and AIM-54 missile combo. While it is a big airplane with a lot of thrust and great fuel efficiency, it was not made to dogfight. But it CAN dogfight real well if it plays to it's strengths - at low-speed and low-altitude it can turn REALLY well, and it's high trust and variable wings means it can climb well and high loop better than most fighters. How do you fight it? Let's say you're a F-18. If at high altitude, missiles have longer range so it WILL be able to shoot at you LONG before you can shoot back. To beat the missile you dive down into denser air and notch (try to move at 90° to the missile) - this will slow the missile down, require it travel a greater distance and make it have to correct it's course more often, robbing it of energy. Also chaff. You can out-turn the F-14 at higher speeds and you try to keep the fight higher up. All of this may sound complex but it can be easily simplified into several stats and manouvers.

Turn-based is defined by having fixed turns, by having specific actions phases. For example, in D&D a turn is EXACTLY 6 seconds. Simply having the abilitiy to pause doesn't make it turn-based. Hell, I can play Baldurs Gate right now and "pause" but it's almost meaningless, since all orders are only carried out within those 6 seconds (meaning I can order my guy to cast a spell, but he will wait his turn before he does it). Basically, real turn-based not only gives you as much time as you want to think about what you are about to do, but both you and the enemy fight in very specific phases. While real-time with pause does give you time to think, it does not have phases.

It's not different, you just want it to be. So the "don't argue for the sake of it" goes right back at you. Ground play is turn-based. Geoscape is real-time. Fact. Air combat in X1 being more time sensitive is irrelevant it's still the same time system. And if you say "because it makes sense" then I'll say it back to you. Because it makes sense. In geoscape the happening time is in hours/days/weeks/MONTHS, and the game auto-pauses when important things happen. Otherwise an UFO might raid you base or bomb a city before you can react. So yes, a fraction of a second can be REALLY important evne there. And in air combat- it's air combat. You damn right a second can make or break a fight. But to offer a solution to YOUR problem - partitioned turn-based combat. If you ever played Birth of the Federation you'll know what I mean. For those that never played that game - it's basically a mix between turn-based and real time. The game auto-pauses every X seconds and gives you the opportunity to give new, broad orders (flank, evade, assault, circle, Charge, etc..). But within those X seconds you cannot pause or give orders (to individual ships or groups). Different manouvers have different strengths and weakneses and ships have strengths and weaknesses that makes for an interesting battle. All of this could be applied to fighters in a simplified way. You can order a fighter to perform a specific manouver, or let the AI handle it (higher pilot skill picks better). As fighter have different performance stats, you can get engaging results. One fighter might excel at low-altitude turning at slow speeds. Another might be a great climber (making it a perfect candidate for a vertical loop manouver). There are several basic fighter manouvers and methods than once you understand them, you can model an actual dogfights in simple terms. It doesn't take much.

While I ADORE dogs, I don't see the value of a K9 unit here. They are used for searching for contraband and light support roles, not front-line combat. And since most aliens will wear body armor, a dog would be just a short-lived (literally) distraction. Lastly, I don't wanna see doggos getting killed. I have enough of RPG's forcing me to kill wolves.

So does the geoscape. Are you suggesting we get rid of it? Or make it trun-based? What you are describing is NOT mechanical inconsistency. Why should two different game parts, that take place in completely different time scales, have the same mechanic?

That's like saying don't make games hard because people will complain. And since when it does not fit? By what logic? If the issue is repetition, then there is no solution other than autoresolve. Besides, if you're complaining about repetition, try doing 20 attacks on small UFO's. Everything can become repetitous easily. The thing with air combat is that there is no cover in air, no things to spice up the battlespace. Unless you fly low altitude. I can think off a few things to spice things up, like 3D combat. DCS TacView style. Example: TacView starts after 3 minutes