Andeerz

Perhaps realism isn't the word I should have used. Regardless of whether or not realism is an option in a work of science fiction, verisimilitude sure as heck is. If what happens in the game does not make sense (not necessarily being realistic) within the universe of the game setting, then it breaks immersion and makes the effort put into making the setting compelling, at least in the way this game does, a waste. And with regard to alien ships crash landing; those ships aren't going back up. Also, they are made of ridiculous alien magic materials, so them not being completely obliterated upon crashing makes sense within the setting of the game. An F-16 (or 17) made of human derived materials surviving a crash in such a way as to be serviceable afterwards does not; it makes the threat of the aliens seem way less pressing and dangerous. Regardless, what I have a big problem with is that I feel there are much better ways to balance this without sacrificing verisimilitude and making it seem like the game is blatantly holding your hand. Oh, and at least this person who argues from the point of view of realism sure as heck is not just worked up about this. I am most certainly worked up about limited sight range etc., and not necessarily because it is unrealistic, but because I think it is a crappy feature of the original xcom as well as this game and its ilk (though these games are fun IN SPITE OF such a thing). But that is beyond the scope of this discussion... And the mystery behind why the aliens don't just blow us up from space, I think, is not comparable to what is going on here. In fact, I like it. With the way things are written and the game universe is set up, it does not seem like some absurd hole in the plot, but an interesting thing to ponder, even if it is never ever answered in the game and is simply there to give the game a reason to exist. Also, Stellar Rat's idea is an example of how this should be done if done at all.

I find the idea of aircraft recovery to be ridiculous from a game setting and game-feel standpoint. It would make sense for a few parts from more advanced craft made of stronger materials to have a chance to be salvageable following a crash, but having the whole thing recoverable is just plain absurd and really draws attention to the fact that this is a bandaid that only treats a symptom and not the causes of imbalanced gameplay. It's not an abstraction that makes sense; it's a poor game design choice that really makes the setting and the things the game tries to represent all the less believable and immersive. I hope I am making sense here... And if the air combat cannot be salvaged without making poor game design choices (and I'm NOT saying it's to that point... yet...), then I suggest that that entire aspect of the game be entirely redone from scratch. Is it truly impossible for the current problems to be addressed with changing funding from member nations, the costs of individual aircraft, and altering the pacing of the invasion?

Interceptor recovery? Really?

Yeah. If things were totally realistic, I could see shotties being useful as a breaching tool. It would be neat to have to negotiate locked doors!

Hmmm... do players really have no idea they would need to? I feel like the risk of sending an unescorted dropship is pretty darned obvious, at least to me. And I didn't know that non-fighter UFOs were made not to intercept anymore as I always send my vulnerable stuff with escorts or intercept threats beforehand and figured they didn't intercept me because of this. I do not feel that interception per se is too punishing and I think it really should be something that remains as a crucial part of the geoscape game. Stuff like repair times, ship costs, intercept-chaining bugs and stuff like that I think are what are unreasonably punishing. I feel it would really break the game-feel and dumb down the geoscape game to neuter alien air capabilities by making interceptions not happen. Maybe easier difficulties could have no interceptions, but, seriously, I do not think that interception is what is making things unbalanced.

You ain't the only one that doesn't like it. Personally, I feel like the minigame is pretty much impossible as it is with its current level of complexity (or lack thereof) to make into something that requires meaningful mental input to win, and is therefore quite meaningless to have, in my opinion. I don't think it's overly complex or even difficult. If you know how to play it well, you will pretty much always know whether or not you will win or lose and can decide whether or not and how to intercept accordingly, so to me the minigame is pointless.

These ideas are beyond excellent. I hope Xenonauts ends up being hella-moddable and able to incorporate at least some of this!

And I think that the radar ought to be handled differently anyway (though I wouldn't be too sad if it stood as it does now). It would be nice if nations could detect craft for you, but your radars have a much higher detection chance than those of the national militaries (especially if there is some tech to improve your own radars with alien tech). I assume that enemy craft are rather stealthy and have special technology/can fly super low even at ridiculously fast speeds to avoid radar.

I like to think that the base is underground with the hangars being elevators to some underground runway under a mountain. Following take off, the planes would be very low to avoid detection and would fly low enough for long enough in a random enough way to obscure their point of origin. That is what I like to think happens until the aliens discover your base location anyway.

True... but if the rest of the game is relatively unforgiving, they should expect that getting into firing range is a potential death sentence. Regardless, it shouldn't be a game breaker to lose a single squadron, and with the costs of condors and migs as low as they are now, I think it's getting there.

The accuracy dropoff with range definitely needs fixed... and should be as moddable as possible in the config files. And I think I agree with the idea of smoke grenades blocking vision.

This suggestion needs to be implemented, maybe not in the final release of this iteration of the game, but at least as DLC. If not, then someone should mod this in, and I hope that the game's structure is easily amenable to its addition. Something simple like what is in XCOM:EU would be pretty cool (which would cover a good part of the OP's points #1 and #2), but it would be nice to go a step further and try to nail points #3 and #4! Something like what is done in D&D with spot checking or whatever might work as a basis for #3. As an example, an entity that comes into sight of a soldier but is obscured by smoke and/or cover would trigger a roll of the dice. The result of that roll plus some modifier based on stats of the soldier minus some modifiers based on distance and perhaps other factors (like low morale, injuries, cover, etc.) would determine if the identity of the alien is made out. If the sum total is above a certain threshold, then the entity is identified. Otherwise the entity is represented by a generic humanoid shadowy figure. This wouldn't be hard to code at all, but how easily it would mesh with the existing code and game mechanics of the game might be a different story. This would also require making a new set of sprites for the generic humanoid shadowy figure... Also, I really like the idea of some aliens being particularly stealthy, especially the reapers. P.S. How does atmospheric plasma smell like?

Yeah! I like that idea. That with a FOV penalty as well (or at least make it easily changed in the config file).

Yeah. Suppression should make firing hideously inaccurate or outright impossible.

I think if a player swings and strikes out against a lone, unescorted landing ship, they might deserve to lose... A landing ship would be able to be taken out fairly easily without losing anything if one just uses common sense and retreats after firing missiles and, if necessary, using multiple sorties. The amount of damage the landing ship takes should be enough to indicate to the player that they need to up their game as better ships come along.

Thermals would be awesome...

The limited battery life of stuff IRL is substantial. They can last on the order of hours (for the PVS-4 or 5, I think it's like 10 hours!). Also, the batteries even in the generation 2 stuff that they would be using would be small, like AA battery small, and would fit within the unit. I think the disadvantage to this stuff in game terms ought to be limited FOV (like 60 or even 40 degrees), and an accuracy penalty for things beyond unaided night sight range, and an accuracy penalty in general with it engaged (if we are talking about the biocular night vision device on the helmet). Aiming down the iron sights with big ol' binocular things on your head would be very tough. That, and also an accuracy penalty for anything with light near it. For a night vision scope mounted on a weapon, it should only extend visual range when aiming (crouched?), and with that have a very narrow (40 degrees, tops) FOV. The general aiming penalty shouldn't apply, but the other penalties should.

I'm going to repeat some of what I said in the last balance discussion and related posts with regard to cover and penetration of projectiles and how to balance the weapons in general: We should do away with the simple hypervelocity tag and make penetration and damage to cover dependent on the weapon it is fired from and cover type. Having this kind of feature would increase the options available for balancing, as well as offer some cool, plausible pros and cons to the different weapons technologies that could enrich the tactical experience of the game. For example, perhaps ballistics would not be able to as easily destroy cover as plasma but would have superior penetration than the others. Lasers would not be able to easily penetrate even thin stuff (provided it's opaque) but could ignite flammable objects and cause a low to moderate amount of damage to cover. Plasma would have low to moderate penetration but have superior destructive capabilities against cover. Penetration power should be independent of damage for sure. And thin cover should be much more easily penetrated than thick cover. Just some food for thought...

;_; Those crash tails... I miss them so much!

Anyone with actual experience using these things? :3 From what I read, it seems to me that they are useful on the ground when sneaking around and getting awareness of the surroundings before any action or for someone acting in conjunction with someone else without them in order to act as spotters or something. During a firefight, I do not know if they would still be used, at least not by everyone.

I wouldn't even see the reason to make it fail miserably. Just have those ships come in only occasionally for a week or two before the real wave begins. Or they would only be over the ocean...

It's interesting to see what the state of the technology was at the time of the game! The kind of goggles used at the time were mainly used for aviation purposes, though I don't know much about how they fared in actual use by infantry. Check this out! http://www.usaarl.army.mil/TechReports/98-28.PDF FOV would be around 60 degrees, resolution would suck, and there would be a humongous problem anytime someone shined something bright. As soon as a fire, flare, streetlight, or any sort of sustained brightness came into view (at least somewhat close), the night vision goggles would likely become completely useless. So I'd expect that unless it was some advanced alien night vision technology, night vision goggles probably wouldn't be of much help (if not an impairment) to the Xenonauts on the ground in a well-lit setting. Then again, this is coming from someone who has never ever used them in real life. Actually... maybe they would actually be useful. I mean, they were used in ground combat operations in Vietnam... And if the night missions actually were darker (as in, the soldiers didn't have a radius of light emitting from them), and things could hide under the cover of darkness more realistically, then the night vision goggles might actually have some use. Night vision scopes on guns, though, for sure would not at all be useful for close range stuff like what this game has.

That's a neat idea! But, speaking as a biologist, I couldn't see us with the state of the science as it was in 1979 being even remotely close to understanding how to implement that sort of technology provided we could actually identify it as such and somehow reverse engineer it. We hadn't even come close to sequencing the human genome at that point, and I'd expect at least that kind of knowledge to be necessary before even thinking about manipulating the human genome. (On a side note, I have some big problems with some of the xenopedia entries detailing genetic modification and technology and stuff... I'll get to that in another thread sometime...) It doesn't take much effort to suspend disbelief enough to accept reverse engineering a plasma rifle (whose physics we probably wouldn't have to understand all that well to do) and creating our own useable prototype within a week or month or so, especially since doing so would involve physics we'd probably be close to understanding or already understand anyway, and we'd be utilizing scrap and fully functioning alien technology to base it off of. Manipulating a human at a genetic level at such a rapid time scale with predictable, reliable results would be impossible (for me at least) to swallow, as a living creature is infinitely more complex than a gun, bomb, or suit of armor. Cybernetic implants would be a lot more plausible within the setting of the game. I think that would be a really cool way to get at what you are looking for! That, and/or if Caesans were actually super modified humans and we were able to glean some of the genetic and technological information necessary to do that kind of modification from decrypting alien datacores...

Same thing happens to me. Also, during alien base missions, similar things happen. In fact, I think the aliens are able to see through walls, particularly when your troops are standing right next to a wall. Also... personally, I think the suppression mechanics are pretty good, though I feel like my own soldiers might not be getting suppressed as easily as the aliens. Then again, that could just be because I actually seek cover and play smart, unlike the AI. I think that many of those who complain about suppression being too good might change their tune if aliens started to fight smarter and not staying out in the open so much.

Oh! Well, that sucks for any aliens in range, then!