StellarRat

That's an excellent point. Only a shotgun would heavily affected by the ranges in most maps.

A shotgun at close range should be way more deadly than any normal rifle. Only a Barrett .50 Cal sniper rifle would be close. Every pellet of 00 buckshot has about hitting power of a 9mm round and there are nine of them in single 12 GA shell. Its like unloading a whole pistol clip instantly on the target.

TFD was a cool game, but I'd much rather see more added to Xeno then trying make another TFD. Having naval units in Xeno would be really cool. If you could launch interceptors from ships or subs that would be awesome. Plus using naval units as bases for radar and your assault troops would be very handy and cool. There really isn't a reason why you couldn't have a fully functional base on a ship. They're not that big.

Well, you can still hurt stuff MILES away. Take a look at this article:http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/04/08/navy-showboats-destructive-new-laser-gun/ The bigger problem is trying a make a laser man-portable powerful enough to finish the job instantly.

Ok. I built a base with no lab, no living quarters and no scientists were hired at the base. I forgot to switch to my first base (the one you get already setup) and I started "Alien Invasion". I immediately realized I couldn't assign scientists to the project at the new base. I tried to cancel the project there and go the "right" base. When I attempted select to "alien invasion" there all I got were "####" in the project name and when I added scientists to the project the counter turned red and wouldn't increment, then when I went back to projects screen (after leaving to the geoscape) it said I was making excellent progress with zero scientists assigned.

Not only does it allow this, it also completely messes the project at a valid base from what I can tell. In addition, it said I was making excellent progress, LOL.

Well, in an ideal world we would model the differences between the types of building construction, however, unless that's possible, I'd say the best compromise is bullets don't hurt walls and don't stop aka they go through and can kill things inside even if you can't see them, but everything else stops AND damages the wall (lasers, plasma, explosives, etc...) I suppose if there is a fire mechanism then it ought apply especially to lasers and plasma. Most people don't know that military lasers actually don't burn clean holes through things. That would require a long exposure and extremely precise aiming. A "real" weapon type laser dumps a ton of energy onto a target in microseconds and it causes such violent heating that it's basically a surface explosion on the target from the instantly vaporized material. It's NOT a nice clean hole burned in something.

Cinder blocks and bricks are way different than wood and siding. A wood house doesn't stop anything but won't collapse from gun fire.

It ought to takes hundreds of small arms rounds to bring a wall down. Really only practical way is to use demo charges or larger explosive rounds (like a vehicle cannon, or rocket launcher. ) I'm not even sure conventional grenades would do it in real life. Does anyone know?

I guess part of my back of mind reasoning is that I'm trying to make the game more realistic to increase immersion. I don't know of any frontline fighter that doesn't carry both radar and infrared missiles now or in the late 70's. I should also point out that the ATA loadouts a pitifully small even for a light fighter like the F-16. They really ought to be carrying x3 the number of missiles. Anyway, its still great game. :-) can hardly wait for a production version!

I've had the same problem, however, my game just locks up. I can use task manager to kill the game and continue using my PC. I'm running Win7 64 premium home, AMD quad core, ATI 4850 graphics card.

I'd like more talking. Even a mod hook triggered by flight events would suffice. As far as more missile types, again, your opinion. I like more options in games as long as they are balanced. I think it makes things more interesting when you have more tactical Possibilities. You aren't obliged to use any of them.

Sounds right.

More radio chatter would increase emersion even if it repetitive specially at the low volume that have it at now. As far as radar homing missile I was thinking of another weapon for the F-17 which only has two options right now. Original UFO had three conventional weapons for all fighters. I was thinking not more powerful just longer range than a Sidewinder. The fighter experience I can live without but it would be cool. Pilot quality is very critical in air combat. As far as the map rotation goes I'm surprised this wasn't built into the graphics engine. Modern software and graphics cards makes 3-D rotatable objects quite simple to do.

Agree completely.

I like idea of drop tanks that increase range at the cost of speed and / or weapons loadout. However I can pretty much assure you that pilot (if he/she is sane) will automatically jettison the tanks as soon as combat begins. So it will definitely increase the outbound range, but that's it.

1. Can we rotate the map so you can see your troops when they are moving along the right side of a wall? 2. I like the pilot chatter during air combat . I think you ought have them say "Engaging bandit", "I have tone ", "Fox Two" and "I'm RTB". At the appropriate times in combat. 3. Aircraft should gain experience with each successful combat. 4. There ought to at least one other missile option for all aircraft . Even in the 70's there were longer ranged missiles than the Sidewinder. Sparrow or AARAM would be good. 5. Please show a cone indicating the maximum range of the aircraft's missiles and gun.