Jean-Luc

I knew about the blackout but totally missed any sites going down. But yeah, this needs to be cut down at the root. And I bet "they" will try to re-introduce this bill under different names, wordings and covers.

Hey there Matt, hope your testing goes smoothly. Q&A can oftentimes be a nasty experience from what I hear.

You'll be able to "click away" small time missions that you don't want to deal with. It's (most likely) going to be rationalized as having sent a cruise missile (tactical nuke?) to provide a final solution to localized alien menace. You're not going to gain any benefits doing this but it's going to prevent a PR hit from having ignored a mission site. It's basically meant to cut down on mid/late game chores so, as you said, you don't have to deal with every little crash site and such when there's bigger fish to fry. However this isn't going to allow you to avoid ground combat, not by a long shot. Not sure if some kind of auto-resolve is planned but I doubt it.

Never after myself but sometimes after friends and such.

Do you honestly believe this is what he wants? Isn't arguing against "easy" kinda the point here? The reason why X-Com works in this regard is because the soldiers have that perfect balance between personal attachment and genericism/expandability. They have custom names and a few rpg elements (their stats) that allow you to get emotionally invested in the fate of individual soldiers but at the same time no single guy stands out that much from the others and with a little discipline one is able to "let go" when a soldier dies. Having a fairly large number of them helps a lot as well as the game balance that assumes a decent number of fatalities. On the opposite side you have something like Jagged Alliance. It also allows for deaths like X-Com but can you imagine losing mercs in that game? Your small elite force of guys with numerous hard-to-level skills and attributes, not to mention all the backstory and character? While it's certainly possible to allow for a fatality in JA (I'm sure there's a small minority that does) neither the nature of the mercs nor the game balance allow for much leeway here, both from an "emotional" and practical viewpoint. Playing a self-imposed "iron man" mode is way more difficult and excruciating in JA than X-Com and the game isn't really meant for it with its low tolerance for fatalities. Now XCOM: EU isn't JA but it's quite close to it in this regard. Relatively small number of soldiers, levels, perks, classes. If you have like 6 guys and you lose your pimped out sniper with a bunch of abilities it's highly unlikely you'll be able to get over that. More so, the smaller number of soldiers means that each death will hurt your combat potential a lot more meaning that the game balance will require you to reload or quite likely lose the game. Imagine losing, let's say, 3 guys in Jagged Alliance. 3 deaths would easily count as crippling loses in that game. That's simply how game balance works, it's a mathematical fact. Compare unit values in Supreme Commander vs. Warcraft 3. Losing 20 units in SC is nothing, losing as many in WC3 means you're screwed. This isn't so much about difficulty, both can be hard or easy in their own way but in the case of X-Com or XCOM it's a matter between having the kind of difficulty that is compensated for by continuous reloads or the kind that encourages getting through the hard times and adapting. Like you said, it's each individual's choice whether they reload or not but if the game balance is such that you need to reload almost every time then that affects everyone. We know that the players will start with 4 soldiers. Let's assume that number can go to 16 (twice over what Chris predicted and it's very doubtful it'll go that high). That's still going to put you around JA2 numbers. The only way to get around this is if the training facilities allow you to efficiently level-up rookies or of they end up coming pre-trained to mid/late-game levels (once that's appropriate). However, depending on how it's implemented, it could really devalue the soldiers. In best case scenario you'll be able to afford losing 1 or 2 guys once in a while and than re-train replacements at a cost. With a low number of soldiers it's simply impossible to retain the same balance between value and expandability that X-Com has. It's not a matter of opinion but numbers.

Yeah and they take up soldier spaces or so I've read.

...1 If random "mercs" could fight the invasion than why not regular armies as well? The whole idea of Xenonauts (or the X-Com organization) is that they are specially geared and trained to do this one thing that conventional armies are unsuited for. However, since Xenonaut members (well, soldiers) come from all sorts of military backgrounds some of them may very well have been mercenaries. In fact it might not be a bad idea to incorporate this into the "prior military experience" list. It could help with nations where coming up with more standard military backgrounds is difficult. The French Foreign Legion comes to mind or even made up organizations like Ravenwood (from the Jericho series). Secondly, Xenonauts doesn't have multiplayer and definitely isn't an mmo so going f2p isn't really an option. Except in maybe, like, 20 years.

Wicked looking cabbages.

It's basically an urban redneck which makes them worse because instead of living in remote hills and trailer parks they're right in your town.

AJ was overjoyed at XCOM as well. I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him. He feels like an advertising puppet.

You can't honestly believe that. For one, difficulty will be appropriately scaled to take into account the fact that you only have 4 guys. There isn't going to be any inherent extra challenge. It's not going to be like playing X-Com but with 4 soldiers instead of 8. Secondly, perks, classes, level-ups, bonus xp for 0 deaths, lower number of troops, all this very much steers the game towards lower lethality and strongly encourages reloads. Make no mistake, assumptions are assumptions but same are safer than others.

Because it feels consoly, lessens tactical options, appears contrived and unjustified, lessens soldier expandability and fear factor and makes one wonder just how high (or low) does the squad cap go. Probably other stuff as well. How so?

It has now. http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34197659&postcount=374 https://twitter.com/#!/abiessener/status/157239805049184256 Edit: Ugh, getting ninja'd up the ass here.

Pretty much the same here. I've always been kinda fascinated by EVE and its darker, edgier presentation (compared to other cartoony mmos) but I am 99.9% sure that I'll never try it, much less play it. I've read about some of the large scale scams that went on in the game and I found them both horrifying and amazing. I can definitely see the unique appeal EVE has for certain kinds of players.

Small squad sizes and absence of TUs (oh, and the "abstracted ammo") are fairly obvious console influences. With the D&D-esque "move action" + "standard action" style and hexes the game is probably going to resemble a table top wargame somewhat. I don't mind this much but 4 guys is way too little (regardless of later upgrades). Allow for at least 6 ffs. Even Jagged Alliance which is all about micromanagement and not letting anyone die still allows for more. Even though they claim perma death is in I have a feeling the game will be geared towards a very low death count. I say this because of both the small squad size but also the rpg skill tree allowing for specialized roles. These guys obviously aren't meant to die in battle to nearly the same extent as X-Com's "gray shirts".

Why must there be so many threads for this game? It was mentioned that players might be able to choose between a predetermined setup (a good one) or being able to set the initial buildings for free. None of this was confirmed, mostly just speculative, but the general plan is to not have to put up with a nonsensical starting base.

The speed settings could be called something like Standard - Interception - Super Sonic or I dunno. Standard would be used in dog fights and during initial approach. Interception would be for catching up to targets over medium distances, getting your dog fighters ahead of the heavy missile carriers in the initial charge and for certain evasive maneuvers. Super Sonic would come into play in more extreme situations, either for a quick desperate get away or for catching long distance targets like UFOs that begin to run away as soon as the battle starts. The faster you go the less fuel efficient you are. Accuracy of rapid firing guns could also suffer at higher speeds.

Countries whose traditions are based on Orthodox Christianity celebrate Christmas according to the "old calendar". You'll find the same in any Slavic country and, I assume, Greece.

Don't like the idea of a plane that only uses missiles and fights at longer range having more HP while the one that takes most of the fire has less (with or without a defensive roll). It's the F-17 that needs to "tank", makes no sense for the MiG to try and take such a position. But there are other ways to deal with these problems the most obvious one being having the AI use the roll better. I might agree about the speed though. Atm one plane is classified as "interceptor" while the other is a dog fighter where in fact both planes need to be able to intercept, catch up to UFOs and get them into weapons' range. I'd argue that the F-17 which uses shorter range weapons needs the speed boost more than the missile spewing MiG. Both planes should either have similar speeds or the F-17 might even need to be the faster of the two. Instead of "interceptor" the MiG should prolly be classified as "heavy weapons platform", it's the F-17 that has the interception issues chasing those small fighters and what not. The MiG is mostly for taking out the bigger, less maneuverable ships and it can usually afford to stay behind the F-17s and do its thing at a more leisurely pace. It would be nice if we could control the planes' speed a bit more. For example, instead of just afterburner there could be speed settings, sort of like: slow - medium - afterburner. The faster you go the more fuel is burned. It would allow one to switch between combat and interception speeds and control which planes go in first and which ones take the rear.

I noticed the same one base comment. Don't want to call it but it's definitely a possibility.

Pretty sure there won't be larger squadrons/combat zones (except maybe for special missions) since air combat is supposed to be resolved very quickly (else it'd get too repetitive) since you'll be fighting a lot of interceptions. The design philosophy is that ground combat is still the "meat" of the game. Air battles are supposed to be improved over X-Com's but still remain a quick "mini game".

^Not being presumptuous, just commenting on what he saw like everyone else. Doesn't mean premature conclusions or assumptions are being made. As for the screenshot, are those guys in blue suits the bad guys? Cultists? "Evil agents?"

Hmm, I like the look of the base but not so much the soldiers and the battlescape. The visuals are probably very much wip though. Reminded me as well.

There are circular arguments on your hands too Mr. Sathra. You could have prevented this but in your naivete you did nothing. The world isn't some kind of fairytale where things sort themselves out to good effect Sir Oz. Remember that next time you see a restated restatement. Since Xenonauts is on a fatal collision course with 2K's marketing freight train I think Chris' only hope is to release it as a table top game or maybe a crappy ccg. Any ideas? Disclaimer: Post not to be taken srsly.

Of course it does, quite a but, Otherwise there'd be no reason not to use it (except the lower turn rates maybe).