Tryphikik

I've personally encountered this bug where when playing a map it is just covered in white blocks, aliens/soldiers/things on the map can go underneath the white blocks. It's also buggy around the ship visually. An example of it is shown in this youtube video(not mine, but seems to be the same bug): Sorry if this was posted already I checked the last couple pages to see and didn't see anything about it.

If you find that there are too few maps and you are getting repeat maps, I would suggest downloading the community map pack and possibly other maps if you are so inclined(though I haven't). I had the same complaint and after downloading that i feel the variety is plenty and the game is much more enjoyable. Plus, on the positive side that type of stuff will only continue to grow so even if the developers didn't add random maps or as many maps as you would like, there is no limit to what you can get via custom maps as time goes. Personally, I don't mind set maps, I just mind repetition. I think we have an awesome community that will get only more awesome and help alleviate any potential repetition that might become bothersome. Even random maps can be repetitious because they often use the same buildings and stuff and it becomes well where is the same damn barn this time, so I think the way it is right now has about equal opportunity to avoid that feeling with the help from awesome fans and the additional maps devs will be adding themselves.

You're wrong, there are plenty of people who play only Veteran/Insane who think Xcom was and Xenonauts should be much more about the ground combat and strategic management w/ the ac playing a minor part. Including myself. Not liking Air Combat being the most important part of the game doesn't mean you only want to play easy and normal difficulty. I don't even know why anyone would think that, but that change wouldn't keep all people happy. I would force myself to put up with the air combat before I would go play easy/normal just to avoid it, because if i play easy or normal, the strategic/tactical level is faceroll and pointless.

I like most of your post as it makes me feel a bit more understood... Which I feel honestly in this thread there is a lot of misunderstanding and throwing around of labels that don't necessarily apply because of that misunderstanding. As for the above quote, I just wanted to clarify for many of us who don't like the AC, it isn't that mastering it takes too long and is too hard. It's that we just want to brush past it and get back into the tactics and playing with our soldiers and evolving our base/researching, etc. Even when you master it, it still takes time because you shoot down quite a bit of stuff in this game and if you are someone like me who is going to invest a ton of time into a game like Xenonauts, all that ac time will add up to eventually you spending days in AC if you add it all together. Which I personally am not a fan of so that's just my side of it.

Screenshot was taken June 7th(I don't even know if 19.2 was out then but I wasn't playing on it) this was back when I was playing on the stable build before I saw the announcement on how to upgrade to experimental builds... It's also a beta so being bugged isn't a huge deal but that is why I said "one more reason" aka that isn't the main or only reason. The main reason I would rather "auto" the ac is very simple. I play this game as do many others, for strategy and tactics. I love squad based tactics especially from the original xcom, to jagged alliance, to silent storm, to jrpg turn based tactics and so on. In none of those games did I have to play a air combat minigame that was extremely important, well, you can say you did in the original xcom but it was extremely easy and an irrelevant part of the game in my opinion. Now moving on from that we get to the point where well anything you do that makes the game easier is casual, even if it is reducing one mechanic that you think never should have been very important in the first place. But if you take that mentality you would have to accept and approve of everything a developer does that makes the game more difficult or else you are a casual. So if the developer added a block puzzle game everytime you construct a new facilty and if you fail you lose your building and money, it would be casual to say that is stupid and I want to skip it, because that would make the game easier. You could argue for the realism of construction errors just like you could for the realism of air combat and the list could just go on of things that could be added that interfere with the main reason the player base is playing and what all of us who enjoy this game have in common(a love for turn based tactics and strategy).

In this context casual is clearly being used as an insult... and I take it as an insult because i'm not a casual gamer, -especially- when it comes to tactics or strategy games, the word casual in this context is being misapplied -repeatedly- over something that comes down to preference and has nothing to do with being hardcore or casual. Wanting more this and less this has literally nothing to do with whether you are a casual or hardcore gamer. That is a preference. You can want more of the first and play nothing but insane ironman, play every tactics/strategy game that comes out and be a hardcore gamer. It's insulting to insinuate otherwise so people including me of course take it as an insult, because that is how it is being used. P.s. Yes the picture of the air combat is bugged, it's my only screenshot that i had to quickly grab... but it is an accurate representation regardless since like 50% of the air combat i play ends up bugged. One more reason why i'll gladly say good riddance to it and embrace having more time with my soldiers and the strategy and squad based tactics that I love and where i want to get my challenge from(i.e. not a minigame). That said I have no problem with those who do get fun out of and enjoy the ac minigame, which is why i'm really glad it is being made moddable to have destruction and fill what those players enjoy so they can spend more time in that part of the game.

How is that a peacekeeper comment? "If we arent going to pick on the several casuals wanting to Auto the entire game and play it as little as possible, lets not pick on probably the only person on the forum with balls big enough to play a beta build on Insane Ironman." That's like keeping the peace by kicking someone in the balls and elbow dropping them in the back of the head, implying that all people who want to auto the air combat are casuals who want to auto the entire game. Really, that's not condescending and an attack at all... lol so peaceful.

Fallout wasn't started by Bethesda by the way, it has been passed around quite a bit as well, another classic where the original creaters couldn't sustain and had to let someone else reap the rewards of their intellectual property. Infact... Fallout 3 so far is the only Bethesda Fallout, they loaned the rights for Fallout NV to Obsidian. So in that regard, they have Elder Scrolls, obviously extremely successful and i'm sure they are glad they clung to those rights and kept working on it. But for every success story like Bethesda there are multiple times more companies who clung to their rights tried to continue growing but ended up only reinvesting their money to see it disappear into bankruptcy and being sold off to someone else. Countless companies have clung to and run their series into the ground, not always because they sold out or whatever. Some just couldn't stay in touch and find what would continue to appeal as the years passed. The creators just as easily could have lost all their money by investing in and trying to keep the classic going if they made just a few bad choices.

How is this game or any of the other remakes making the original xcom creators more money? Maybe I'm misinformed but as far as I know the xenonauts guys aren't paying any rights to the original creators? Xcom has a ton of "Spiritual successors" you know what spiritual successor means... we're taking your idea and you're getting nothing for it, thanks! Not to mention, the intellectual property rights for Xcom were sold in 1998, they've been sold multiple times over. So even if people were doing it in a way that they had to pay for property rights the money STILL wouldn't be going to the original creators, it would be going to take-two the same people who own 2k who owns firaxis who owns Xcom2012. That's why 10 months matters more than 15 years in the gaming industry in terms of money making at least.

You are honestly drunk off your own bias. If they made XCOM:EU more true to its roots it wouldn't have been nearly as popular and would be much more forgotten than it is now. No offense to Xenonauts taking that route, it's a fun route that plays right into what many of us enjoy... but it isn't the glorious route to stardom. Xenonauts won't be forgotten, because for most of the industry it will never even be known to forget. I mean that in the nicest way possible as someone who loves this game, but that is the truth this is the kind of game close to the original xcom that is a labor of love, not a labor of riches and making history. Xcom: Eu is and will be remembered by the industry. The reason being is that it proved that you can still do AAA Turn-Based Tactics in a way that will appeal to a larger audience and have commercial success. XCOM: EU is still hovering around the top 50 sellers on steam at 40 dollars 10 months after release in a world where games are forgotten a month after release and the only games that stay there are those massively on sale or the cream of the crop in terms of popularity, this as a turn-based tactics game is nearly unheard of. This when most of the industry had forsaken and given up on TBT's being successful on that level. There will inevitably be more turn-based games trying to replicate that formula. So in that regard its impact will be felt for sometime. If you didn't enjoy it and thought it blew, that is fine and understandable if you wanted something true to the original. But if you think they were unsuccessful and would have been more successful if they tried to replicate the original, then you are delusional and extremely out of touch with todays gamers.

No... It blows my mind that people would rather make every excuse that there is for why people want air combat changed. From they are all casuals, to they are bad at air combat, to people want to win in 100% condition, etc... It's like people would rather bury their head in the sand or stick their fingers in their ears screaming "lalalala" rather than simply accept some people just -DON'T LIKE- the air combat... I don't even get why that is hard to believe or accept, is it so unbelievable that people are playing this strategy/tactics game because they want to play strategy/tactics and not a flight minigame? I don't get it, it's not that complicated to understand but people just seem to not want to accept that some people don't find the air combat fun(completely irrelevant of how hard it is).

Thanks for the info, this makes me very happy. I can spend more time doing the things I love about Xenonauts. Not to mention the air combat gave me more crashes than anything else in the game, so I can't wait for the skip feature to just skip through it and get more quality time with my squad.

I would liken it to say every time you build a new facility in your base you have to play 20 rounds of tetris, if you don't win every round your building implodes and you lose the money. Wow, now doing that would be HARDCORE, any "hardcore" player worth their salt would master it and not let it hurt their playthrough... but should they have to? Should they have to master and play a random minigame that has extremely little to do with why the majority of the playerbase plays the game. Why is nobody arguing for the addition of even more random minigames to make the game sooo "hardcore"? Because that isn't the point of the game, nobody is that delusional to think that would make the game better. It would be random and distracting from the actual point of the game(strategy/tactics), much like having the flight minigame be extremely important would be. If you want the game to be more hardcore come up with more immersive elements that impact your strategy choices in what you build at your base and what you do on the tactical level during missions. Those are the places where the game should be as hardcore as possible.

How is calling people against indestructible planes cry babies any more antagonistic than calling those for it casuals or saying that indestructible planes is what the "hardcore" players want. Yea, forget that some of us play ironman veteran/insanity only, the hardest difficulties on every game we get ahold on, are completionists... but we don't care about the air combat minigame being a big deal so we're casuals. Not liking the minigame being important isn't a casual view, it's a difference in philosophy. The philosophy being on whether you think air combat should be very important or not important. I personally view Xenonauts as a strategy/tactics game, I play it for a -hardcore- strategy and tactics experience. The air combat minigame is not strategy or tactics, it is a repetitive somewhat reflex somewhat pattern based minigame that has the potential to be -extremely- game altering for no good reason...

I would wager a guess that it isn't just "casual players" who enjoy having their playthrough less impacted by an aerial dogfight minigame... The one connecting factor between all old-school xcom/xenonauts lovers is a love of strategy/tactics... Both of which the minigame has very little to do with. If anything having the minigame be so impactful is a new-school twist on the classic...