TrashMan

At normal infantry engagement ranges laser diffusion/diffraction shouldn't be a big issue. That said, at high altitude because of thinner atmosphere/less dense air laser would be more effective... but so would the distances.

Nah, the problem isn't power, it's ammo. Modern miniguns have a rate of fire setting, since 6000RPM is overkill, but even 3000RPM eats trough ammo like crazy. Caseless bullets would reduce weight a BIT, but a minigun basically requires everyone in the squad to carry extra ammo for it, otherwise it's only good for 2-3 bursts. Those 2-3 burst will obliderate anything that isn't heavily armored, but still. http://www.emptyshell.us/xm556-microgun/

Unfortunately Xenonauts2 suffers from the same problem as Xenonauts1 - stale progression. All weapons are mechanically the same. You'd think laser weapons would behave different than projectiles, but they don't. It's boring, predictable "Tier 2 is just tier1 weapon with + damage and a different icon". It's even worse that every tier has the same weapons. How cool would it be if lasers acted like lasers (highly accurate and long ranged, but damage falls off with range, smoke greatly reducing damage) OR perhaps damage depending on TU's spent?

Personally, I' don't like the look of that aircraft. But it's easy enough to mod I guess. I recall in Xenonauts 1 I added more aircraft with somewhat different stats, so there was more choice. For example, at start you could choose to build a modified MIG or a modified F-14 and it felt much better.

It appears later and it's extra tanky from the front. And will always face a source of sound. Use that to have it turn. You want to flank this one.

Shouldn't the player be required to build a containment facility before he can capture aliens? And if they are kept in the lab, should alien invaders be able to free them during invasions is they reach a lab?

I kinda agree. You should get something. At least generate a drone crash site (the one that gets automaticaly looted)

I think fully auto should also be an option. Spends ALL TU and the number of bullets depend on how many TU you had compared to the averge number of bullets fired. I'd also kill for a gattling gun that fires a burst of 50 bullets (but requires you take a huge and heavy ammo backpack to use it). Just look at this:

We can customize name, but please, PLEASE let us be able to select/change other aspects - sex, face, nationality. It would be perfect for let's plays and re-creating specific individuals (like for example if you want your friends or family) P.S. - asian females could use a few more faces that don't look ugly. But I guess mods will fix that.

Are there any plans to add the ability to edit character? We can edit their names, but editing their sex, portrait, and nationality would be a god-send.

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.