TrashMan

No. Not ammo. It should work like guns do. In other words you'd get missile with 2(3) charges and you'd go back to base to re-arm, just like a gun does. OR you could have each missile be produced individually. But resource balancing have to be take into account. Either BOTH need to be produced or NONE need to be produced. They half-half system feels random and senseless. The problem is that infantry and aircraft are on a completely different scale of cost and resources. A rifle costs a few thousand tops. A missile? A rotary aircraft canon? An airplane? In any realistic scenario, for the price of ONE airplane you could equip an entire battalion of soldiers. In this, with completely opposites scales and costs (small squad level vs army level, at which aircraft operate), a realistic balance is simply not possible. That does not mean aircraft weapon should be free. Sure, their cost would be laughable compared to what is should be, but it already is, so its fine.

1. The idea that I have to produce pistols one by one, but I get free airplane missiles and gun is absurd. IT would make far more sense for it to be opposite, since those BIG guns would be far more resource and time intensive. Actually, the MOST sense would be for you to have to produce everything - all aircraft weapons included! 2. Missiles should have ammo and a fire cooldown. 2, perhaps 3 missiles, depending on missile. Naturally, aliens should have their own missiles, at least the fighters. Some balancing changes would be required. Perhaps even more missile types. Right now, the offerings are poor. The torpedo doing less damage than the regular missile, but stripping armor doesn't sit well with me. The closest analogue to the torpedo in Xenonauts 2 would be the AIM-54 Phoenix, and it vaporizes whatever it hits. Big missile = longer range and big boom. So I'd propose a shorter range, light missile (you can carry more of them), and a medium range missile (more powerful, longer ranged, but you can carry less) As for torpedos, they are loooong ranged and you'd have two - one that is designed to strip armor and one that just does insane damage. 3. The first time I actually met a hazmat cleaner was in the mission to destroy their main base. From the beginning I've been fighting aliens. So the progression is kinda whack. 4. Aliens jumping from single UFO to 3 is too big of a jump. Start with one escort, because when two flights of 3 fighters start terrorizing a continent on the other side of the globe, you can do nothing about it without re-locating every single fighter you have there, an it still won't be enough. 5. More destinctions between weapon types (laser/plasma/ballistic). Upgrades to keep all famailies useful and competetive. 6. Selling stuff with actually being able to choose which nation you sell it to. And depending on how much you sell, allies on the field might be get better armor/weapons. 7. For crying out load, please make civilians LESS suicidal. Every mission I see them running INTO the ufo to be gunned down.

Fusion grenades sound utterly silly. You can't throw it far enough to get outside of the nuking radius.

Not an argument. It's not a binary 0 or 1. It's a scale. And you can choose where you are on that scale. There's a big difference between science-fiction and fantasy, in that one tries to keep things believable/within certain bound. Not necessarily real, but also not outright breaking every scientific law 100 times over. I mean, if "it's fantasy" is justification, then ANYTHING can be justified. Literally everything. Humans could fart lighting. 2+2 = fish. You can become thin by eating more. Aliens could be literal space wizzard complete with pointy hats and beards and magic chanting. Even in something like 40K (which is hillariously a thousand times more grounded than Marvel or DC), there's clear limitations. Space marines cross large distances by leaping bounds, because moving your legs faster in heavy armor just doesn't (and wouldn't) cut it. Super-heavy armor (Terminator) feels sluggish, not because it's slow (a space marine can run in it faster than a human can run), but because momentum due to it's sheer size and weight makes changing direction/turning rather difficult. A Repulsor (hover) tank crushes thing it flies over like it had tracks, because it's kept afloat by repulsing itself of the ground, not magically hovering. But even when you write aliens doing incredible things, you can write them in a way that breaks less physical laws for the exact same effect. For example, the alien ship jumps out (hyperspace/subspace/wormhole instead of super-duper acceleration). Tough, to be fair, insane acceleration could be possible if you could generate a field that uniformely applies the acceleration to everything. Maybe.

Timeout for not liking something? Are you sure I'm the one acting inappropriately? Also, I have no idea what lines you are referring to, but I don't idolize Arthur C. Clarke or anyone else for that matter, so I wouldn't refrain from criticism. No sacred cows for me, thank you.

I hate this bit. Not only is it unnecessary (you don't need super-acceleration or impossible manouvers to alter trajectories, and the UOO-1 changed trajectory before that without it), it is also stupid. Acceleration that would MELT STEEL for a 200km object? This isn't science-fiction it is pure techno-magic fantasy. Even for a tiny object hat would be insane, and for a big one, it's insane squared.

That doesn't make much sense. If the aliens have point defenses capable of shooting down 100 missiles instantly, how can any aircraft missiles (you average fighter will only carry 4-8) hit? Why aren't they vaporized?

FYI, the Exploration aspect of Phoenix Point is getting a complete overhaul (for the better) with the next patch: https://feedback.phoenixpoint.info/ https://feedback.phoenixpoint.info/feedback/p/base-discovery-and-activation-rework https://feedback.phoenixpoint.info/feedback/p/exploration-rework

Any game that requires resource X will always have a preference for getting as much resource X as possible. It is common sense. And you cannot really get rid of resources. It is not money, it will be something else. You CANNOT get rid of the "optimal ways to play" thing. At beast you can muddy the waters. There will awalys be a best play to do in any single scenario. But I do agree, offering multiple solutions to a problem might be a good idea to spice it up. Personally, I think that maybe having aircraft and aribases as a separate thing (built on the geospace as a standard template, NOT like a regular base, you don't build specific facilites), so interceptors would not be housed in your regular bases at all. Just troop transports.

This is one argument that I never undestood. That a common sense strategy is bad. It's like saying that puling a trigger on a gun to shoot people is boring because it's such an obvious thing, so everyone does it. There is an old saying, amateurs talk about Tactics, Experts about Strategy and true Master about logistics. War IS logistics. There's a reason Roman armies were so good - they had excellent logistic chains. How would you even define expansion? Globe coverage? Advancement? Discovery? Now I'm just rambling here, but I'm not really sure what IS the problem or if it IS a problem at all. There could certainly be ways around it. Start with a base on each continent? Have reduced/no penalites from continents without a base in the early stage, with some expected expansion goals you are expected to meet (you have a goal of 1 new base by the end of month 2, for example), or else you face penalties. Kinda works like a timer as well.

Did you try the new update that just released? And another one with even more great changes is also coming. The Devs listen to the community and have tracker of all features. It's getting better and better. As to JA2. I consider it as a gold standard. You can say Xenonauts isn't trying to be that, but if you're making a squad-based tactical game, there is no better benchmark. No game does the "team of humans with guns" better. So any time I see a so called squad-based tactical game that misses 90% of the tactical options, my heart sinks. Climbing on roofs, different movement speeds (sprint, run, walk, sneak), stances (standing, kneeling, prone), tons of equipment, fatigue/breath, proper bleeding and wounds, etc..

I prefer to custom-design each base according to my playstyle and needs. Travel time alone should be a big factor in why multiple bases are needed. You're defending the entire planet. Having ONE team in one base is beyond retarded, even conceptually. If anything, I think you should START with 2-3 bases, tough minimally equipped (as in, mostly unbuilt).

Phoenix Point is actually pretty good, especially with the new updates, so it utterly demolishes your point. And funny you should mention JA2, since all it's opponents were human (unless you turn on the sci-fi mod, which adds the crepitus), and at no point was I ever bored or though the game lacked anything (despite laying the game many times). Probably because the core combat mechanics were so damn good. Still the king.

No need to push an argument into extreme. No one said all enemies should be clones and act the same. But why should the aliens be a circus collection of super-different creatures? Yes, it is visually more diverse, but everyone and their grandmother does it. You might as well say humans are boring because we all have 2 arms and use guns. I guess a sniper and heavy machingunner are the same. It doesn't, but for a species to form a space-faring civilization, certain requirements have to be met. Developed brain and visual sensors, flexible and strong manipulators, enough strength and endurance, etc...

Uniquness for uniqueness serves no purpose. Trying to create "original" aliens can backfire. No, I don't think every alien needs unique mechanics/skills/powers. In fact, I hate that concept, as it feels too game-y, too artificial. Then again, it depends. On the setting/universe, the feel and so on. For Xenonauts 2, given it's setting/atmosphere, I'm more for the down-to-earth, believable aliens. Everyone and their grandmother does the organic, body horror aliens these days. Shape shifters, mutations and transformations? MEh. Garbage IMHO. And yes, the CODEX was EXTREEMLY stupid.

How is what I described a random status effect? It's not random (depends on what is hit and how hard) and it doesn't last a turn. A crippled arm doesn't heal itself in a turn or two. That is a terrible way. Not only is it less coherent and sensible to have random, pointless limits like that, but it also screams ARTIFICAL. OR are you telling me you wouldn't have to explain that to the users, but something as natural as bleeding or broken arm is too complex to understand?

Yes there is. There are plenty of other games that had such system, it's simple in how it works. You either use 3D collision detection to determine which body part is hit (my preference), or a simple probability modifier depending on body part (I.E. - first roll to hit, then if it's a hit roll to determine which body part is hit). So, for example you'd have a 50% chance to hit torso, 10% head, 10% left/right arm and 10% left/right leg. If you want to go the extra mile you can add the abillitiy to target specific body parts, which would increase the odds of hitting. Fallout had that a million years ago and it's an ancient game. It also had specific body part damage consequences too. Damage to limbs and body parts can range from bleeding, AP loss, daze/confusion, accuracy loss, blindness, immobilization, inabiltiy to use two-handed weapons (if arm was disabled), etc. All of these are interesting because they add more variable to the battlefield. Having to drag one your knocked out/immobilized/wounded men into cover, having to switch to pistol because your arm is shot. All of these are interesting and ad more gravitas to the battle.

I'll also add that turned-based games with too many troops are a slog, and that squad sizes shouldn't be too big. I'll never bring more than 12 troops.

I am going to LOUDLY object to this patiently false statement. There's nothing complex about it. Every turn you are going to be selecting and moving your troops, so you are going to be seeing the armor of every trooper. Not that the detailed armor info is THAT important, since limbs are less likely to get hit to begin with. It is also a false assumption that a player needs to have ALL the information and that it has to be super-accurate.

Max, I don't want to sound confrontaional, but I do not care. I'm telling you as it is, weather you believe it or not is not my concern. These boards are slow so I generally only drop by 1-2 times a month (or when I'm bored) to see what's new. I have no idea how I missed that discussion. There was nothing to draw my attention to it I guess. Perhaps because the armor thread itself was so inactive. Either way, you checking my posting history... assuming I'm a liar even tough I have been here from day 1 and never lied nor do I have a reason to lie....you sure aren't earning any trust points from me.

I would have commented... IF I KNEW THE THREAD EXISTED. How the hell was it even up for 2 months with so few noticing? Lul in activity? Corona? Then again, I'm not camping on those forums 24/7, such important things should be advertised. Especialyl if there were few replies, the devs should have gone and placed a big "Look guys, we need feedback on this, please take a look" message on the top of the forums.

That the entire system went by without enough feedback from the community is dishartening. Reading that description, I can't say I like that system. Still better then nothing.

Is what I proposed really that complex? 7 armor pieces (or 5, if left/right arm and left/right leg are mirrored, but that make asymetrical armor impossible), each with 2 protection variables. I don't see what is hard to understand, if the armor has 50 protection and 70 coverage on the arms it simply means the armor covers 70% of the arm effectively with 30% being a weak spot, hence a 30% chance to hit a weak spot if the arm is hit. I don't think it is possible to simplify this system further without loosing all the good part about it.

Speaking of Mind War, I can think of 3 different ways to spice it up/make it better, since 1 turn to activate it seems cheap: The soldiers fighting back during the Mind War. 1) The higher his willpower, the higher the penalties on all attributes while the soldier is MC'd. Even if he cannot fully break out of it, he can shoot worse than a star wars stormtrooper 2) The solider under MC gets a semi random TU cost increase for all actions (dependent on willpower) 3) The soldier under MC can at semi-ranom intervals (depending on willpower) simply suddenly stop and loose TU's All of these simulate a soldier fighting back.

It doesn't fundametally change much. Weather you research a weapon upgrade/addon like a stabilizer/silencer/scope or whatevr, you build a new gun. It is still new research and new production. The difference is aplicability. While a completely new gun would be self-contained, a scope might be fitted on different guns.