StellarRat
-
Posts
4,465 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by StellarRat
-
-
No one expects the1) At what point does the crash occur? Straight after you click retreat? At the point where the airplane exits the "map"?2) Does this bug occur for every type of UFO, or just some. If just some, which ones?
3) Does this bug occur for 1, 2 or 3 F-17s? For more than 1 F-17, does it occur if you click retreat for just 1, more than 1, or just 1 and more than 1?
4) Does this bug also occur for MiGs? and if it does, is it the same conditions?
5) Does this bug occur for a mixture of MiGs and F-17s? And if it does, is it the same conditions?
6) Do you get a crash dump file? If you do, please attach it.
7) Can you reproduce this, and what steps would a developer have to take to reproduce the bug?
Spanish Inquisition!
Dude, I gave the information necessary to repeat the bug. If I thought more info was needed I would have given it. Who appointed you the police bug report police?
-
The title is pretty self-explanatory.
-
I had the same problem. I couldn't buy soldiers. I could click the count up, but no soldiers were listed.Thanks. Just to check, this was a new game and this was your first base (the one you build at the start of the game)? -
Good point. For all we know it could have mini-guns and rockets. That would be a really nasty warm-up for the aliens. Either the team would have to go in a good distance from the alien ship OR X-Com would take measures to secure the landing zone before the troops landed. That would be gunships/fighter-bombers and foward observers in aircraft laying down suppressive fire and killing anything they see before and during the troop landing. Something like the Cobra or AC-130 would have been available in the timeframe of the game. Even the F-17 can lay down suppression with the 20mm it carries.Of course, you could counter-argue that real military helicopters (including the Chinook) have mounted machine-guns (and door gunners) to deal with enemies who pull just such shenanigans at a landing zone. -
Well, I can see the "fun" factor....however really to me it seems like a waste of time and frustrating. Maybe others feel differently. Besides, even if you know where the UFO is you don't know where the bad guys are. So there's plenty of searching and suspense either way.
-
Yes, vision is much more limited on the ground, but they would have map coordinates and a bearing and distance from the landing zone.
-
If the weather is good enough to land in the middle of a city or forest then they wouldn't have a problem seeing the UFO from the air before they land. They aren't going to be landed miles from the objective and have to search an entire city or woodland. That would be stupid and impossible for such a small team. Also the crash location would undoubtedly have been carefully noted and reported by the interceptor pilots. We have to assume that the searching is basically completed before the ground team goes in.
-
They should know exactly where UFO is before landing. If they can't see it why would they land at all? Also, if the weather was so bad they couldn't see it they would have no business even attempting a landing specially in a city or forested area.
-
I hope your hosting company doesn't charge a lot. :-)
-
Yeah you are. Unfortunately, my not so smart phone didn't clear the entry, so when I looked at it after lunch I thought it hadn't sent it, so I pushed submit again. Doh!
-
I'm sure you're busy, but you really should update the Kickstarter page to show the final outcome. Potential new customers will feel better about buying if they know the project is fully funded and they're going to receive a good product.
-
I always assumed the cost was for "non-alien" materials. Also, there are other costs when you build anything besides materials and wages, machine tools, electricity and other energy, clean-up costs, finishing materials (paint, coatings, etc...) and there is also a substantial amount for specialized test equipment and specialized design equipment (computers, software, etc...)
-
Flanking also allows you to shoot at the target while he's facing away from you. This allows you to take the time to line up the shot more carefully than if you needed to watch out for him firing back at you. It also means he isn't going to be ducking or dodging your shot, because he doesn't know it's coming. This can easily justify the bonus to hit from flanking.
Seems like a backwards way to do this. Why not apply a penalty to accuracy if the enemy has cover And take it away when they don't or they are surprised?
-
I think we said the same thing. :-)I thought the increased accuracy through flanking was because the guy being flanked didn't have cover from the flanker? In the example Firaxis showed the flanker didn't get any bonus while being 90 degrees in a different direction then the other soldier (from the aliens point of view) she had to hop a gap so that there was no obstruction what so ever (in the 90 degree position there was like half a corner 2 degrees from going parallel with the soldiers line of sight.. in practice it didn't obstruct anything) between the alien and the second soldier.The idea behind flanking is primarily to circumvent defensive fortifications/positions/formations is it not? Not to simply divide someones attention.
-
I agree that increased accuracy because your flanking the enemy makes sense in some games (specially if the game is larger scale), but not X-Com. The fact that X-Com has objects you can hide behind makes it possible that you can get a clear shot if you fire from a direction that voids the enemies cover and concealment. So, there is no need for a "bonus" to hit. The bonus is that you can hit in the first place without worrying about the enemy ducking behind their cover. I'm making the assumption that a fighter in this new X-Com does have a lower chance to be hit if they have cover from the direction the fire is coming from, if not, than giving a bonus for flanking may be the only way to address the concept. However, that is a cheesy workaround vs. just doing it right in the first place.Indeed. The target is caught in a crossfire and has no adequate cover nor is it able to keep its attention on two assailants coming from different directions. Also, one shouldn't overanalyze it in terms of reality. It works well as a gameplay mechanic (rewards tactical positioning) and can also be rationalized quite easily.A lot of games have flanking mechanics where the target becomes easier to hit.
-
Increased accuracy through flanking?? Why? Flanking works because the enemy has to find cover from two directions of incoming fire and because it's difficult to concentrate firepower in two directions NOT because your soldiers suddenly start shooting better. OMG! Where are they getting these ideas!?!?!I think I can get behind what they're doing here. Increased accuracy through flanking should promote more tactical thinking. If you want more favourable shots you need to work on your positioning, setting up crossfires and such. Doesn't sound like a bad change.As for the research and the way missions come up I have a feeling much of the campaign is going to feel very scripted but hopefully that won't be the case. It's like people today don't know what to do when left to their own devices and instead need to be fed these binary choices to provide an illusion of decision making. At least the Firaxis devs seem to think so but we'll see.
-
What possible basis in reality does getting an extra shot have to do with killing the first target??? If anything acquiring a second target would take MORE time than putting another round into the first target. This is just hokey perk better left to Skyrim or some other fantasy game.
-
Does anyone know the scale of tiles. Is one tile supposed to be 10 feet , 10 meters, what?
-
Yes, well I'll try them the way I think they ought to be and post.
-
Are the Devs open to changing the "official " numbers if my tests are good?
-
You are assuming buckshot here right? Except that the slug is chosen so that people doesn't whine about unrealistic in game representation of buckshot (cone spread of buckshot was unreasonable as I understood it)
I assume there's also the higher tiers to consider. It's not just buckshot vs slug for the shotgun but for all the weapons in that role (I think).
Anyway It's just a preference you have and there are most likely going to be people on both sides whining about the other option.
Maybe. But what's the point of even having a shotgun in the game if your going to use like a rifle? The only advantage they have is excellent close combat damage when loaded with shot and less chance of over penetration killing civilians. That's why the police use them instead of rifles. Really they ought to lose effectiveness very quickly past about 40 yards, but be devastating with 10 yards. As far as firing rate its no better than a rifle.
-
Actually, the civilians ought just hit the dirt, crawl for the nextest cover then stay put unless directly threatened by an alien. I've not seen many situations in real life where even untrained civilians ran around in circles in the open during a firefight.
-
I disagree on the damage numbers. The damage should be higher than a machinegun, but the penetration should be much lower. There isn't much point in using slugs in the shotgun when high-powered rifles are available. It's a much better close range weapon with buckshot loaded.This is one hell of a necro'd thread, but anyways. The shotgun as it stands:Does as much damage as a machinegun bullet (40pts)
Has the highest armour penetration of all ballistic weapons (20pts)
Has a higher reaction fire modifer than most other weapons (1.6 modifier)
Is cheap to shoot (17 snap, 19 normal)
Job done.
-
That's an excellent point. Only a shotgun would heavily affected by the ranges in most maps.
[13.1] CTD if F-17 ordered to retreat during engagement.
in Xenonauts Bug Reports / Troubleshooting
Posted
If Goldenhawk needs more than I posted I'm sure they'll ask me. My original post is exactly what happened and all the info I could remember. An F-17 (1) was engaged, I pressed X and it ejected me to the desktop. I'm not a tester or a programmer for Goldenhawk. I have no desire to run through every iteration of problem because it's time consuming. I just want to play for fun. I get enough debugging and code tracing at work to last a lifetime. You came across as Sgt. Friday questioning a suspect if you want more info try the retreat button yourself. If you work for Goldenhawk let me know.