TrashMan

Heck, lets get a bit more detailed. Air combat (and dogfighting) all rests on a set of simple rules that could be simulated, but that also requires roughly modeling plane performance. It all comes down to speed, detection, manouverability (a broad category) and range. What manouvers you want to employ and at which range you want to engage would depend on your an enemy craft and capabilities. Capabilities of an aircraft would be things like nose authority (how easily/quickly you can bring your nose up), turning speed (air speed and air density at which your aircraft turns the best), climbing speed, endurance, thrust/weight ratio and weaponry. If your aircraft has long-range missiles and good detection, you want to fly high (in thin air, good for missiles) and lob missiles while maintaining distance. IF not, you'd want to close the range while evading missiles (by going low, pulling the missiles into dense air where they will loose energy fast), and so on. It sounds complicated, but it really isn't, as there aren't that many factors that go into it. Anyone who puts a few hours of research into how air combat works could make a decent and interesting system.

If an "optimal solution" made playing games pointless then no one would paly anything. There's always an optimal choice. Complaining that there is na optimal solution seems very weird to me. Of course there will be. There are ways to spice it up visually and tactically (I talked about it before), but at the end of the day, there will always be an optimal approach. Same holds true for ground combat. Should we drop ground combat completely because of that?

It makes no sense to sell for one simple reason - the countries of the world are already financing you, they are your boss. Any piece of alien tech you recover is already theirs. Why would they buy it from you? Sending excess items to a country for bonuses makes sense. Selling does not.

Why not simple send some equipment to a country for a boost at the end of the month (which would not only be a money boost, but also boost the AI soldiers from that country/block?) Makes more sense than selling.

You can apply logic to a game that has logical mechanics. For example, why NOT allow multiple dropships/squads? Would make a game too easy? Only if you're unimaginative and don't program the alien response of them responding in kind. As long as you make sure that are prices to pay for everything, and consequnces, you can go really wild. Your appeal to authority/number falls on deaf ears here. Especially YouTubers that usually have the attention spawn and skill of a goldfish. The idea that having a single supremely optimal solution contradicts the notion of experimentation with different setups. Not building proper teams for you major bases is a failure on the player side and is indicitave of poor human resource managment, not a failure of the game. After all, resource managment IS what a proper commander would have to deal with. Simply removing the need for making such choices rewards lazy players with no attention spans, since they will always have everything they need (personel and materials) available at all times - this is in complete contrast with the basic concept of logistics AND in complete contrast to the whole "global strategic defense simulator" Base attacks were the least fun? Sez who? You jus have to do base attacks good with variosu degrees of severity, and not having it be an instant game over. I belive I posted a decent proposal of how to handle it, but so oyu dont' have to look for it, here: Every base should be attackable by the enemy. And not just by troops, but also air bombardment. This wouldn't destroy the base outright (since most facilites are underground), but would damage it, take it off-line for a while. Either the entire base could be unusable for a while (burried entrance?) or there could be a random dice roll to see which buildings were damaged, depending on how strong the attack was (how many alien craft and of which type were involved). Some buildings like hangars and airstrips would have a higher weight to get damaged, since they are more exposed. To me this seems like a good balance as it's not TOO punishing, especially early on. You could also make it so that a base can be fully destroyed if bombed twice (again, giving the player time and opportunity to stop it with air intercepts) EDIT: WTF is it with this forum and constantly messing up quotes? I can't even edit them after. Why can't I see the post in code, with tags?

So you want small attackable bases and a single main base that is unattackable? How does that make sense? Why would the alien refuse to attack the most important place? Seems to me you just want an easy mode that does look like one. Every base should be attackable by the enemy. And not just by troops, but also air bombardment. This wouldn't destroy the base outright (since most facilites are underground), but would damage it, take it off-line for a while. Either the entire base could be unusable for a while (burried entrance?) or there could be a random dice roll to see which buildings were damaged, depending on how strong the attack was (how many alien craft and of which type were involved). Some buildings like hangars and airstrips would have a higher weight to get damaged, since they are more exposed. To me this seems like a good balance as it's not TOO punishing, especially early on. You could also make it so that a base can be fully destroyed if bombed twice (again, giving the player time and opportunity to stop it with air intercepts)

Teleportation was a solution to the terrible 1-base decision, since you had to reach every apart of the globe from 1 location. If multi-bases are in, then teleportation is not needed. I despise teleportation, not only because of narrative and world-building reasons and the the massive can of worms it opens, but because of the mechanical implications. (Also, Stargate turned to trash, the only thing saving it was good cast chemistry and banter. And the elder race tropes are in my opinion generally terrible - anything that treats science as magic is) X-Com games have NOT been just about squad-level tactics. If that is what one is after, there are many games that do it a LOT better (Jagged Alliance 2 for example). Planning and logistics on a grander scale are - to me - the defining aspect of X-Com. Hence, when such is trivilized with magitech teleportation that makes logistic utterly irrelevant (base location does not matter, travel time does not matter, local resource managment does not matter) it leaves a poor taste in my mouth. Also, having a single base, a single point of faliure is a really bad idea for any military group.

Now that you mention it, this should be a mechanic. Lower-level soldiers get an EXP bonus when deployed with higher-level ones. Like mentorship. Makes sense and would make recovering from losses easier.

I don't see a need to centralize research, since scientist working in different bases can easily coordinate over the internet. Ergo, dumping all research into one base yields no real benefit. I guess what you could do is have it so that labs and engineering rooms are affected by a region or give a bonus to a region. A lab in Asia might increase the speed at which new tech is researched in a region, and engeneering could increase it's spread (so ally solder might get laser rifles sooner and have more of them). Or placing a lab there gives YOU a bonus of somekind. Or both. Additionally, you could make it so that 1 engeneering bay can only make 1 thing, thus stacking multiple in one base does not increase the speed at which you build that thing, but you can build several of the thing. If it takes 5 days to build a laser rifle, it takes 5 days. Throwing more money and men wont' speed it up. OR you could make aliens target the biggest base we have, even bomb it from orbit at some point, making sure that putting your eggs in one basket is a REALLY bad idea. Ideally, even a good player should loose a base or two, but the game should provide a good player with enough resources to be able to bounce back. The fight should feel desperate.

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)