Andeerz

I hope the time between turns speeds up more, but I was pleasantly surprised with 17.1 as things seemed to happen A LOT faster during the hidden movement screen. I also really like that sometimes shots seem to happen in close succession during this time, making things actually sound a little like a fire fight!

Just in case anyone is interested... I just played the game with aliens and humans having view ranges beyond the size of the map... I can definitely say it's more difficult, with the aliens definitely having the upper hand as soon as they bring their elite units to bear, at least in the maps I tried! Modifying the game in this way creates quite a bit of anxiety (in base defense missions especially) and doesn't break the game... but I think in order for it to actually be interesting and proper, it requires some sort of way to determine whether or not a unit sees another unit in their line of site instead of it being 100%.

Personally, I feel the art direction is excellent. The look of the soldiers' equipment is quite appropriate for the time period. I also like that there is none of this ridiculous, grossly disproportional Gears-of-war-esque aesthetic that so many games use nowadays (I'm especially pleased that the women don't have stupid boob-plate armour and the like and that people ACTUALLY HAVE HELMETS). The faces look great; maybe a little flat in terms of shading, but really, I think it's a charming art style. I mean, seriously, look at real-life soldiers you know; they look like everyone else minus perhaps regulation haircuts. Actually, the haircuts are the only things that I think are weird. The intro screen is phenomenal; I don't know why anyone thinks the expressions look weird. The technical skill of the artist is superb, and the piece itself sets a pretty darned appropriate mood for the game. I'm not accusing anyone of thinking this, but I wonder if people are put off by the fact that the art in the game doesn't follow cliché near-future sci-fi and fantasy tropes people have come to expect. This is among the major things I love about the art direction of the game. Game mechanics wise, I see myself agreeing quite a bit with the OP. I see this game as trying too hard to be the original UFO in terms of game-mechanics, but really I think the tactical aspects of the game would be stellar with some changes to visibility and how enemies are sighted, as well as a lot of the streamlining that will undoubtedly happen as the game is developed further. The mechanisms necessary for terrain destruction and everything else other games like JA2 and Silent Storm have are there or could potentially be there (keep in mind this game is nowhere near feature complete). This game has tremendous potential, and the kickstarter demo is much different from the alpha versions currently available.

Hmmmm... I think the other thing with both day and night missions is, too, that there are still issues as to when you can see incoming fire or fire passing through revealed tiles between turns that you should. Anyway, I'm pleased that view distance can be edited as things are now, so I can test out some hypotheses... I feel, though, that realistic sight ranges wouldn't remove tension at all nor require larger maps or anything like that, provided there was a mechanism for calculating whether a soldier or enemy sees someone in their line of sight (like if there is an alien behind an obstacle in the line of sight of a soldier, there would be a calculation made every turn to see (provided the soldier keeps the same facing) if the soldier actually sees the alien, thus revealing the alien to the soldier and perhaps all the others on the soldier's side... just think of spot checks in D&D... calculations could be modified by distance, cover, light level, size, camo, etc.). The only time in the game the view distance as it is now actually makes a some sense is during the night missions, and then only when the enemy is not in direct light from lampposts and the like. Also... no amount of increasing view distance would take away the tension of fighting indoors or anywhere else with a lot of obstacles obscuring view (which I think includes almost all completed maps). Here's what I suggest: Make sight ranges realistic, as in pretty much unlimited. Make the revealing of aliens (or humans if we are looking from the alien's POV) not a 100% thing if within line of sight, making it instead something that is calculated, taking into account factors such as light, distance, angle from center of view, and cover. Bonus: Combine it with the aesthetics stuff Gorlom linked to, which are awesome ideas Also, maybe have all terror and landing maps start off like the Xenonaut base maps; completely revealed, with the exception of the interiors of structures. What do I think would be gained by something like this? Immersion, and through this, more convincing tension. I think there is a difference between the tension one feels due to limitations imposed by some metagamey contrivance than the tension one feels due to limitations imposed by something that seems emergent from the game universe itself. In other words, it's better for a limitation to cause you to think about the setting more than about the fact that you are playing a game.

Awww maaaan... I was looking forward to the T-80...

Yeah... that's what I do now anyway. I mean, it still doesn't make sense to me why I shouldn't be able to have as many planes as I want arrive when I want at a target, but this is an ok workaround... the cap is still arbitrary, though, in any case, and in my opinion it is not very reasonable. Meh, I can live with it. But it detracts from the game by frequently highlighting (what I consider) a cop-out game mechanic. I still think HWPs suggestions would pretty much make everything better.

Yeah. That would make some sense. I don't know, though. The only aircraft I could think of that might be able to carry everything would be a C-5, but how would the logistics of all that play out?

I never said I thought swarms of aircraft would be verisimiltitudic (I'm in the dark as you are about that word! ). And I didn't ignore what you said. I'm with you and HWP and others... huge swarms of aircraft generally don't ever make sense, especially in a cold-war era or later combat scenario, and especially in the context of Xenonauts. And if you look at how modern air-to-air engagements occur (like during the first gulf war), the engagements were like two aircraft vs. two aircraft most of the time (from my understanding... thanks wikipedia!). BUT!!! The fact that there is a hard cap is my problem, not the squadron size per se. I'm fine with not ever having a squadron bigger than three throughout the entire time I play the game if it is because that's how the cards play out, so to speak; like I'm never in a situation where it would make sense/I could afford to send more than three of my planes to intercept something at any time. Squadron size should be an emergent phenomenon of the system, without the need of hard caps. But as the game stands now, there are very frequently situations where it would make sense for me to send more than three aircraft (ignoring verisimilitude here) within the context of the game, but I cannot, like when an escorted landing ship is approaching my base and I have 4 or 5 aircraft at the ready. Perhaps what could change instead of the cap, in addition to the suggestions HWP states, also have the game give you more control over the angle at which your aircraft engage the enemy (as in the angle at which the battle minigame starts). That's assuming no such control exists in the first place... I haven't really experimented with this while playing the game as it is now...

I agree in general with you HWP. To be fair, though, (and I'm not necessarily saying you said otherwise) words can be as traumatizing as physical injury in some cases. In those cases... I'd be willing to consider treating it even as a physical assault in a way if the message was given person to person and depending on some very special circumstances. Like if someone intentionally said something to someone with PTSD that they knew would trigger that person to go through a flashback, I'd be willing to accept that offending individual being arrested for the equivalent of having punched that person, or even a full on physical assault. And if that person who had the flashback then got in a physical altercation with the individual who said the offending phrase, I'd consider it self-defense on the part of the person with PTSD. That's an extreme case, though. And, to me, that's fair. But it's still fundamentally different by many orders of magnitude from what the Brits arrested that one guy for and almost arrested that footballer for. The offended people should have just called on whatever service served as a distributor of the message to land the banhammer on those assholes. All that law for arresting people for making harmful comments is doing is feeding the trolls (and through that encouraging bullying and assholery), as well as compromising free speech.

Though... that chinook is full of quite a bit of fuel. A normal Chinook can carry 50 soldiers and then-some. Only being able to carry less than half of that, that must be a LOT of fuel! More than double, methinks! Even with 3x it's real range, though, it wouldn't even be able to cross the US, and that would be one-way only! And there IS mid-air refuelling for Chinooks IRL! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_CH-47_Chinook#MH-47D)

Oh god... I've pressed it by accident several times. WORST EVER.

Especially with the improvements coming with AI, I think TrashMan is right. There is a substantial trade-off going back to the Chinook, and presents a valid tactical and logistical challenge. Just think about how risky it is sometimes, even with the crappy AI in v15.1, to send just one or two people somewhere, especially to an open area like where the chopper normally lands. I've had my fair share of instances of running into those fast melee aliens, even when backtracking through areas I thought were cleared... and if I had less than three people encountering it, I would often lose someone. Regardless, I don't see any game-breaking reason why this shouldn't be available provided there are reasonable limits to how much extra you can carry. Perhaps if the game could have it so that the more you load on the choppa, the less range it may have and may not be able to take off if you put too much weight on (like RL) ... And when there are multi-part missions, you sure as heck better be able to carry some extra gear on the chopper, or send in a resupply somehow.

All I'm saying is that if we want to model something (like tactical ground combat or air combat) and make it seem like something even the slightest bit based on reality, and want stuff to be balanced in a way without seemingly arbitrary restrictions and that is robust and amenable to future development or implementation of new features (which would be quite beneficial for the future of Xenonauts), it might be good to consider how things work in real life. And just because you BASE a system off of real life doesn't mean it has to have every single little parameter that real life has. I'm all for abstracting crap out that makes things too complicated that aren't necessary to achieve verisimilitude and robustness. And if there is a better system than one based off of real life that works, then go for it. That said, I will beat a dead horse here and say that what should determine squadron size is not some contrived arbitrary cap; it should be the decision of the player. I have nothing against me having three fighters max in my squadron if it's for a reason that makes sense in the context of the game setting. Like, for example, if HWP's suggestions were in the game, there would hardly be any opportunities in the game that would merit me sending a large number (as in greater than 3 or 4) of aircraft against my enemy; by the time I'd have enough resources to routinely send out squadrons of 5 F-17's, it would be made pointless, as I will likely have better options at my disposal for the same resources and my F-17's would be largely ineffective in any number.

Well, I imagine the costs of things just being representative anyway... might as well replace the $ with some made up currency symbol. But, anyway, HWP, in your rant in small font (which shouldn't be ignored, darn it!), that's sort of what I was trying to get at with my initial suggestions in a way; model things well enough, and the system will self-balance, rather than having to rely on some hard cap to whatever feature. And when balance emerges from the system without needing to resort to hard caps, suspension of disbelief and immersion are able to be much better maintained. This is where sometimes modeling things off of real life can be good, especially if you are trying to represent something from real life in a convincing, immersing way. To me, those kinds of limits like the three squadron limit that are in there for "balance" and no reason that makes sense within the context of the game's setting are cop-outs for not having a robustly designed game (which is a kind of simulation at heart) in the first place. I'm not trying to say Xenonauts is bad, though! It is going in an awesome direction, regardless.

Well, seeing as how there will likely be multi-part missions in the future, it would make sense to be able to have some sort of storage on the chinook. And the case of UFO:AI, such limits as they have are as garbage and too artificial as the sort of rock/paper/scissors mechanics mentioned by TrashMan.

Oh, my hopes for videogames are typically low to nonexistent, though this game has surpassed all my expectations. I just hope the creators make the game extremely moddable. And the tidbits about missile lore are awesome. You guys have gotten me to research a whole bunch of stuff for funsies... and think of plausible, balanced ways to implement some of you guys' suggestions. I think some of them could be done even with the game having limited moddability. How much can we mod so far in terms of properties of equipped stuff on aircraft? Are there accessible parameters for hit chances for weapons, as well as parameters for how(if) weapons modify the stats of the aircraft (like range) they are equipped to? The main suggestions I see as requiring probably more access to the inner gutty-works of the game than the creators want people to have are HWP's suggestions of having aliens increase jamming capabilities with time and adding to the alien AI the capability of using jamming during combat. In those cases regardless of proposed mod... I wonder if a modder were to submit a generalized framework for the coding involved and how it would integrate with what is likely already in the code if they would consider giving implementation of it (as a specialized mod, of course) to an intern or something...

OMG... this thread is awesome... And I would love to see this game be very mod friendly so that ideas like those presented by HWP and others could be developed and implemented at whatever level of detail. I would LOVE to see this kind of stuff be more realistically represented, allowing for a more nuanced air combat system and gameplay overall. And the stuff about aliens learning to deal with our stuff as we learn to deal with theirs is a great idea... You guys are thinking in a great direction, methinks. And this discussion is hella-educational. Also: We can speculate as to the intentions of the aliens and stuff, but I think we can't make any assumptions about what they originally came to Earth for and what they were expecting. They may have decided to invade, but that may not have been their original purpose. I like that this is left up to you, the player to decide! And I hope the game leaves this all a mystery. As for me, I like to think they came here for colonization or something and didn't expect to find us, and had very little military equipment and aircraft to begin with or preparation, having to jerry rig stuff. ...at least, that's how I'm able to sleep at night.

@Trashman Oops... derp. It was SoloA. Stupid me. @HWP Ooooooo... that puts things in perspective. Good points.

For the record, I love your post and your ideas... but how is it unrealistic for something that outranges you to shoot you down before you can get to it? And I thought the aliens still had a significant range advantage over you in this game. That's great to know... I mean, I could imagine a single generation 5 fighter being pretty much unable to be touched by much older aircraft in any number... just unload ordinance, destroy what it can, leave without being touched due to superior range, jamming etc... right? Well put. How about all of the above? Regardless, all of the options you present make total sense and would make for MUCH more interesting air combat in terms of considerations of loadout, how to allocate research and other resources... Provided it doesn't get too ridiculous, increasing ammo would be cool! I mean, can't an F-16 carry like 6 sidewinders? Regardless, I think what you said before would take care of things on their own, though this could also be a great thing to do. However, if this was in, I'd give the aliens maybe more missile capacity, too. I dunno. Well frikkin' put. After a point, the "very small" alien fighters become almost pointless, and pretty much are from the get-go if there is 1 basic starting F-17 for each alien fighter. HWP, yours ideas are awesome, and I'd prefer them to what we have now by a long shot. You also have given me some perspective... And your ideas would make any sort of arbitrary cap on squadron size not at all necessary for any sort of "balance" issue (which, in my previous posts, I tried to make clear don't even need to be in there even with the game as it is now, as costs of things would self-balance stuff) in a much more elegant and (BONUS) realistic way! And I definitely like it way better than my suggestion, though mine is likely easier to implement. Seems like things being more realistic (I trust what you said about aircraft carriers, realistic aircraft maintenance expectations, etc.) actually would make for this aspect of the game better and the setting of the game make all the more sense! It really should be a tech race, and not a numbers race.

Haha! Nice! A few questions: What's the toughest craft you've tested it against? Is it possible to make range of aircraft affected by weapon loadout? And is it possible to mod the UFOs?

Trashman, I love your mod. You caused me to waste so much of my time today looking at cold-war-era experimental aircraft, some of which were just recently declassified. Anyway... I am all for being able to do whatever you want mod-wise. And I think it would be cool to be able to adjust how weapon loadout might affect range of aircraft. That would be a sweet detail to add that might make things more interesting!

And I'm sad the F-104 starfighter isn't included... that's my fave plane :3

This mod is pretty BA. AWESOME JOB! And you guys mentioned the YF-12 (which I think would have been a much better choice than the Mig-32 in this game! )... I had a professor who used to work for the US Air Force on some pretty neat stuff. He said one of the reasons this plane was abandoned was that by the time it made a 180 degree turn after an interception, it would have passed over several countries (given the places it would have possibly seen some action)! And at least for this craft, it would only have three hardpoints...

Gauddlike, you raise very valid concerns. Yeah, it would break the game if the alien squadrons got too big too fast, or were very big too often. But I don't think this is too hard to fix if it indeed is a problem; just tone down alien strength growth over time such that the player is able to (through successfully meeting the fun challenge of skillfully managing resources) actually meet or surpass the increased threat. And I understand the your second concern... late game would be pretty unforgiving if in one of your larger engagements or a series of smaller ones you lost a substantial portion of your total planes. But if that happens, it should be because you made the wrong choice in how to meet incoming threats and distribute your limited airforce. And if you don't have enough resources to replace your lost planes, that's your fault for not managing resources well. A defeat should mean something. But it's not like you would necessarily lose the game in that case, just as losing all your craft in the game as it is now doesn't. And presumably later in the game, you will have (provided you do a good job playing) increased your revenue and sell-able stuff such that you can recover from such set-backs or at least minimize the damage from such a set back. And I do see this as a fun challenge, myself. That is why I liked the original X-com and Xenonauts and games like it: it's pretty darned unforgiving, especially at higher difficulties, and is a game of calculating risks. To balance this, again, just have people play through the game and see if costs for thing should be altered and/or alien threat growth should change. Then the developers can change a few numbers and, voila. More balance without sacrificing the sense of the game mechanics. And the kind of sense I am arguing for doesn't mean the game has to "make sense" in terms of absolute realism. I just want the gameplay to make sense within the context of the given setting, and basically all that would require really is (among maybe a very very few other things outside of the scope of this thread) removing these ridiculously low numerical caps on certain things when other aspects of the game (like management of resources and gradual increase in alien strength) can place those limits on their own in a way that comes naturally and emerges elegantly from the system, which I think it would with out changing any mechanics of the game fundamentally. And the setting makes enough sense to allow me to suspend my disbelief. The game does a decent job of not drawing attention to the fact that you don't obviously see the Soviets and the US fielding their sizeable airforces and stuff to combat the alien threat. While playing, you can assume they are doing their own things, getting into engagements themselves, sometimes winning, sometimes losing (hence the random info that pops up around the map detailing incidents of military casualties, etc.). For all you know, they could be having air engagements all the time with UFOs you don't detect; you just don't pick up on it other than the occasional white box things that appear on the map because it is not critical to your mission or any of your business as the Xenonauts. And, also, the game tries to make it clear that the Xenonauts are needed and are in fact effectively an extension of the militaries of all the nations of the world (they are paying you!), filling the role as the most elite, technologically advanced combat troops available in the world. I mean, look at the F-17; it's super advanced! That thing has a range an order of magnitude greater than just about any other plane in real life and is one of few aircraft capable of catching up to a UFO in time to intercept it before accomplishing whatever its goal is planet-side or leaving for orbit. The jackal armour is pretty advanced for back then... The troops you have are supposed to be mega awesome and come from all parts of the world. Whatever the case, the game does a good job of making the setting able to get you immersed and in the mood... and it doesn't have to be realistic at all to do that; hell, no story does. I just think there are a few things that occasionally get in the way of that; the three plane limit being one of them. So, basically, sense in the setting-sense is sort of already there (it at least makes enough sense to not bring attention to the things that might not). Sense in the gameplay sense is almost entirely there (in my opinion), but not quite, due to the things we've been talking about. And my suggestion would not affect the sense of the setting other than making the game less likely to draw you out of immersion. And if there is a Xenonaut squadron of 5 planes about and there are 10 enemies in the area, you need to make a decision, which would be a fun challenge every once in a while but only be frustrating if it happened too often (again, this can be balanced by tweaking alien strength progression and other things as mentioned before). The decision would be to continue on as planned or back off after seeing the 10 enemies in the area (keep in mind, you do have the option of engaging or disengaging before any encounter...). If you assess that they would likely be able to form together to neutralize you and appear to be mobilizing to do so, then you would want to back off before meeting them (pretty easy to tell). If you assess that you could probably get to your target in time before they come together, then you would want to go on ahead. I like the idea of having to make such decisions (and you already have to make similar decisions sometimes!). It adds excitement and tension and makes sending your forces around the world more of a chess game.

Yeah, I wasn't saying we need more aircraft in a squadron because that is how it is IRL. I was saying that I wanted more aircraft allowed in a squadron because it makes sense that if I have four grounded craft at my base and a landing craft with two heavy fighters is coming towards my base, I should be able to send all four of those aircraft instead of having to send three (where one will almost certainly die) and then one. Or two and then two or whatever. It just seems forced and contrived and breaks the feel of the game.