Waladil

When I first read about the doing stuff takes a % of TU instead of a static number deal, my immediate reaction was "who in their right mind would ever think this is a good idea?" However, I wasn't playing Xenonauts much then, and I didn't try it myself. Loaded up the game earlier, and was reminded of how stupid that idea seemed to me. But I insisted to myself, "Waladil, you gotta give them a chance. Try it and see how it works." After playing a bunch of missions with it, my reaction is... "Who in their right mind would ever think this is a good idea?" It almost completely negates an entire category of soldier skill, and relegates the usefulness of TU growth to "wonderful, you can run a little bit further now." If I want a rifle-bearing soldier to take an accurate shot, they have to spend 55% of their TUs. So a soldier with low TUs (50) can move 7 tiles and shoot, or a soldier with maximum TUs (98) can move 14 tiles and shoot. An entire game's worth of progression... reduced to 7 tiles of movement. You know, I remember a lot of discussion on these very forums about how much better a TU system is than XCOM 2012's "two action" system. And yet, now it's basically the same system. You can move a bit and shoot once, or shoot twice at lower accuracy. Am I the only one who can't stand this system?

Among the starting gear, I typically only use AR's and PR's, just because they match my style of play. I attempt to avoid getting into situations where my soldiers have to ever use reaction fire for various reasons. So I don't think about reaction modifiers much, with one exception: The precision rifle has a .5 reaction modifier to the assault rifle's 1.0. While this makes perfect sense on the offensive side (a long rifle with a telescopic sight is much harder to rapidly aim than a short rifle with iron sights), it makes almost zero sense on the defensive side. My snipers are essentially guaranteed to have the aliens reaction fire against them if they ever move within alien LOS. However, the PR only weighs two extra kilograms than the AR and the extra length wouldn't effect a soldier on the move that dramatically. So I propose that the initiative calculation be split into two, one for offensive (taking reaction shots) and one for defensive (having reaction shots taken against you). Offensive initiative: Reflexes * reaction mod * % total TU (exactly as current) Defensive initiative: Reflexes * % total TU When a sniper runs around with a pistol in his/her hands instead of a rifle, it's because he/she thinks the pistol might need to be fired, not because holding the rifle would make enemies three times more likely to shoot at them. (Also, why would moving around with a pistol make you harder to be shot at than moving around with nothing at all in your hands?)

Were you trying to use Xenonauts as suicide bombers? ...I salute your lateral thinking and hope this bug is fixed with alacrity, allowing anti-alien kamikazes to begin.

I just got this in 21.4 (balance 1). It's a little bit random. Twice I had soldiers teleport and the aliens got reaction fire, but only the second time did the game freeze. Differences between the time it froze and didn't: It didn't freeze when the soldier got hit. It did freeze when the teleport destination tile was also on fire.

I just cleared a small base and walked away with 20 alenium and 30 alloys. My entire game up till now (Early December) has only yielded 25 alenium and about 150 alloys. While the base could certainly use some more valuable loot, doubling my alenium reserves certainly seems to fall under the definition of "anything else."

That sounds like less a bug and more a neat trick. Flashbangs do actually deal damage (10 stun 10 health), and I guess C4 on the ground has HP that if it drops to 0 it detonates like an alien power core. I actually would not recommend fixing this. I don't feel like it can be exploited too ridiculously, but people aware of it can use it for a small tactical advantage.

I don't know what Max_Caine's original post was but Chris, probability doesn't work like that. I don't know how mathematically smart the AI is, but you CANNOT simply add the accuracy values and call them cumulatively equal. Simple proof for this concept: Take a simple six-sided die. Then roll it six times. Count the number of times you rolled a 3. Do this 5-10 times. You'll notice that you usually get about one 3 per six rolls. However, you do not ALWAYS get exactly one 3. Sometimes you get zero. Sometimes you get two. It's even possible you might get six 3s. Now, take that same die, and set it down on the table so that it shows a 3. How many 3s did you get? One. So six iterations of a 1 in 6 chance is different than one iteration of a 1 in 1 chance. I'll provide some better XenoNumbers now. A sniper, who is aiming at a Caesan guard in cover, has 90 TUs and doesn't need to turn or move before shooting.* She has the following shot choices: Two aimed shots for 42 TUs each (46% chance to hit per) Three snap shots for 30 TUs each (31% chance to hit per) In addition, there are a few sub-par options such as two normal shots. We don't need to deal with those. Since a sniper rifle has 100 accuracy for snap shots, and 150 accuracy for aimed shots, they have exactly the same cumulative accuracy. The two aimed shots are marginally more TU efficient, costing only 84 rather than 90. Therefore, AI calculating merely cumulative accuracy and TU costs will choose the two aimed shots. Percentage analyses: 2 iterations of 46%; P(0 hits): 29.16% P(1 hit): 49.68% P(2 hits): 21.15% Average # of hits: 0.9198 (0.92) 3 iterations of 31%; P(0 hits): 32.85% P(1 hit): 44.27% P(2 hits): 19.89% P(3 hits): 2.97% Average # of hits: 0.9296 (0.93) Discussion: The two possibilities resulted in extremely close average hit numbers. Certainly closer than I expected. However, there is still a distinct difference between them. In addition, the shot choice that is likely to produce the greatest absolute damage is to fire three snap shots, which is the TU-inefficient choice. While the two choices resulted in similar average results, they are different in ways that are important to a discerning player (or AI). Taking the two aimed shots will hit more reliably; if the target is weak and you're more worried about DEALING damage rather than MAXIMIZING it, then the two aimed shots are a superior choice (being about 3.5% less likely to result in no damage at all). Contrariwise, if the situation is bleak and the player needs a miracle, then taking three snap shots has a slim chance of hitting all three times, perhaps just providing that very miracle. Also of XenoNote is the suppression system which encourages making more shots rather than less, even if that results in less accurate fire. So in summary, anyone with the goals of doing as much damage as possible while suppressing as much as possible (read: everyone including the AI) would choose to fire three snap shots. *This is a 100% real situation EXCEPT that I increased the sniper's TU count to 90 in order to allow for that arrangement of shots. Her %chance-to-hit values are completely unchanged from what the game calculated.

Dunno if this was intended but current balance allows for a single baseline Condor to eliminate a single Light Scout while taking 0 damage. (Order Condor to slow to 500m/s, allow Light Scout to get into range, fire one missile to miss, wait a second, fire second missile to hit. Finish with cannon. Combat results: Condor undamaged, 21 rounds remaining on cannon. If you lose track for a little while the Condor might get shot a few times.)

More important issue (to me) is that AC autoresolve allows for outright impossible victories. Like sending a single baseline Foxtrot against a Scout on Veteran difficulty (dunno if difficulty level matters ATM). Two Avalanche torpedoes knock a Scout to 80% damage, meaning a baseline Foxtrot CANNOT defeat a Scout in one-on-one manual combat. Autoresolve, however, gives the Foxtrot an 85% chance of destroying the scout. I ordered a Foxtrot to auto-engage; it destroyed the scout and took 34% damage. I guess ramming is an option if I'm not looking. I can accept an argument that fuel management can be ignored for autoresolve. I cannot accept that autoresolve should allow the player to output more firepower than he/she ordered into the air. P.S. I would have made a new thread for this because it is a different issue, but for some reason I can't post new threads ATM due to some weird technical thingy.

So what you're telling us, Chris, is that they're in the the walls? Maybe they're even going to be coming out of said walls? 100% feature not bug.

Are you certain you got all of them? Sometimes you can miss one or two. Especially if they've got Wraiths who teleport to rooms you've already cleared.

These balance changes seem to nerf the LMG to high heaven. As of right now: Rifle(burst) 3rds @ 30 dam, 5 mit. AP cost 40, acc 60. Suppression 60, radius 4. Additional abilities/disabilities: non-burst fire options, including accurate single shots. LMG(burst) 5rds @ 30 dam, 5 mit. AP cost 35, acc 40. Suppression 40, radius 4. Additional abilities/disabilities: Significantly heavier, firing-after-moving penalty*, low-strength firing penalty*, SUMMARY: At long ranges, the rifle burst is superior due to greater accuracy. In charges to short range, the rifle burst is superior due to not having mobile firing penalties. At moderate ranges, when the enemy isn't in cover, or when attempting to suppress numerous tightly-but-not-TOO-tightly-packed enemies, the LMG is superior due to high volume of fire and greater suppression radius. When trying to suppress individual targets (or very-tightly-packed enemies) the rifle is superior due to greater suppression strength**. Suggestions: Raise the LMG's accuracy to 60 (to match the rifle's burst accuracy) or damage:mitigation to 35:20 (to match the sniper's damage:mitigation). Have not examined post-ballistic weapons to see if trends continue. *If either of these penalties were removed at some point, I didn't notice. ** Unless suppression strength is per bullet, but that wouldn't make much sense since it would mean that a rifle's burst suppresses 9x as much as a single shot.

Pretty much summed up by the title. If you have a soldier with insufficient TUs (<12) to pick up an item and you order them to pick up an item to either their hands or main inventory, the game makes an angry beep and the item disappears. This does not occur when attempting to move items within your inventory from one location to another. Only when moving items from ground to inventory. I don't know (and don't desire to test) if this has strategic-level effects or if the despawned items are recovered post-combat.

They look like they're guys from The Bureau. The sweater-vests and arm-things.

Thanks for the update! I do love reading about this kind of stuff.

Conceptually, I disagree with that. It undermines the point of ironman entirely. However, the reason that I'd understand something like that is when some sort of bug causes the deaths. It's happened in my ironman runs in Xenonauts, and even in XCOM2012. Heck, sometimes I'm not even sure what happened. Literally. I'll be sitting there, surveying the battlefield, literally unsure of what events just occurred that caused three of my people to be dead. Or sometimes it's more obvious and the aliens are just wall-hacking cheatyface bastards.

I second StainLess above me. It's been a month since v19 stable and we've not heard anything for a while. No new experimental versions or patches, starting to wonder whats been going on. You know, aside from all the big parties. With hookers and blow. That's right, Goldhawk. We know what you're really up to. I is watching you.

Victorix, I watched a friend play GTA V for a reasonably short amount of time (1 hour? Maybe 2, tops), and I have to admit the game is not "repetitive, bland, and depressing." It's got interesting characters with differing personalities, good interpersonal relationships, humor (including body language humor, which is hard to find in video games), and a couple really unique systems. The way heists are set up, which is completely new, at least among GTA games, is pretty awesome, and puts some control into the hands of the player. My friend got to pick his team, pick his strategy, and lead the team through the heist, often switching characters at scripted points so that he was controlling whomever was doing the most "interesting" thing. So he started by climbing the building and tossing gas into the air vents to knock everyone out as character #1. Then, as character #2, he broke into the building (wearing a gas mask) and started smashing containers and bagging up the jewelry. The thieves got onto three motorcycles and drove away. My friend, still playing as character #2, watched as the driver HE chose to hire crashed out on his bike, and we saw the potential payout plummet. If he'd hired a better driver, then that wouldn't have happened. Finally, he switched to a THIRD character, who was driving a big old cargo truck, and that character forced cop cars to crash until they were no longer pursuing. So if you were paying attention, in ONE heist he played FOUR different games. Climbing/puzzling, smash&grab, driving (evasion/maze), and driving (combat). It was AWESOME. And apparently the list of confirmed features for the upcoming (next week) multiplayer is also quite extraordinarily extensive. Now, if you're willing to actually think about what makes games different rather than blindly saying "Xenonauts #1!", you'll notice that in Xenonauts there is only one personality, and only one source of humor: The head researcher. Even X-COM: EU had three major personalities, as thin as they were. So yeah, EVEN IF half the budget was marketing, the other half was still enough to build an amazing game. I'm not a GTA fan, but that is a very, VERY well made game.

You know, unless you've played on that map before. And the player knows the layout of the map, the alien spawn points, the location of the crash, the size of the crash, the number of aliens, and the approximate armament of the aliens. Really, when I start a mission my only question tends to be "I wonder which alien races I'll be fighting." Really, that mechanic just means that experienced players have yet another advantage over inexperienced players. If the developers wanted, I'm sure they could get something in to allow the map to be revealed without taking away the "real" questions, I.E. revealing terrain and buildings but not the UFO itself.

My favorite exploit is that aliens pretty much never patrol much. So you can keep 8 TUs in reserve on your scout, and if he spots an alien just about-face and take one step back. Even if the alien saw you

Responding directly to Aaron, not reading entire thread so far: If the mission is timed, I don't like the aliens "teleporting" away. I'd rather have them run to the edge of the map and leave that way than just poof. (In terms of lore questions, the aliens having a magic escape teleporter is a harder question with bigger implications than "why can't we pursue.") For rewards: They're gathering information on you, so if you do well you gather information on them. Some UFOs currently in the sky are painted on your minimap, and you'll have some UFOs from the next wave revealed (from picking through alien notes, especially if you captured rather than killed.)

My last run through I started to discover similar things. Setting up a bunch of bases reasonably early really brings in the big bucks. And when you want to establish say a new research or manufacturing base, you've already got the base prepared! This is going to get even worse later, when you can "donate" crashsites for most/all/morethan the value of clearing them...

...Yeah, that looks pretty serious. Skimmed the page's source, and at least it looks malware-free. So it's just pro-Muslim propaganda. (Note: I'm not saying everything pro-Muslim is propaganda. But this is both pro-Muslim, and propaganda.) They uploaded their image files to Tinypic, and a polite request for information might yield uploader name in case Chris wanted to press charges. (Don't assume that Muslim = Middle Eastern, folks!)

I've got a question: Why, NOW, do all the laser/plasma weapons use the same batteries? Originally they all used the same batteries because the player had to manufacture them, and manufacturing 10 sniper batteries, 30 rifle batteries, 5 LMG batteries, etc would be a huge headache so it just became 45 batteries total. Instead of doing this debate about whether or not batteries have similar amounts of efficiency, the art can just be changed and batteries diversified (possibly keeping a few cross-compatibilities: shotgun/rifle/sniper seem like they should use the same batteries at similar efficiency). That way we have the realists (Ishantil) satisfied by different levels of power coming out of different batteries altogether, and the gameplay purists (Gorlom) satisfied by the game remaining balanced in gameplay terms. EDIT: Possibly also make LMG batteries larger and/or heavier, and pistol batteries lighter (can't make them smaller, unless someone figures out a way to make clips fit 2/space)

It's also horribly complex for the dev team to create, with no doubt thousands of complaints about people understanding it.