CellNav

A work around might be setting the snap shot to a lower TU cost ... You can simulate a "double-tap" with an ending cost that is equal to a normal shot. I know accuracy would suffer between the two shot types (snap vs normal), however, when your odds are low (16%) you have a 1-in-6 chance of hitting the target "twice" compared to a normal (single shot) with odds at perhaps 32%.

They would also have to give the m79 a different scatter formula ... 50% chance to go long/short as opposed to a random scatter in any direction. A longer range shot might tend to lean towards an overshot. Also, they would need to have a min range which should be about 10 tiles since that's about average throwing range for a hand grenade and the m79 was developed for use beyond throwing range. The min range would be helpful for the AI when using a weapon with a damage radius unless of course we all think the AI doesn't care about self preservation.

I would like to see the AR with a 5 round burst and less damage per round. In Vietnam, when the M16 (5.56mm)was issued, troops complained about the damage being mainly "bleeding" damage compared to the knock down power of the M14 (7.62mm). If the AR had a lower snap-shot cost and they added a consecutive "shot-on-target" bonus (to all weapons actually) then we would experience that first shot as we do now, but the next volley would be corrected with a better hit chance.

Yes ... I thought I read an idea where cover would be negated (chance-to-hit-it) up to a certain distance from the shooter? The chance to hit that intervening prop would be less the closer the prop was to the shooter. Did that idea make any head way with Aaron/Chris?

Agreed ... reminds me of the G3SG1 ... EDIT : Agree with Gomez too, a G3 marksman rifle ... ... I dunno what to think now!

Default sight range is 16 now, but squad sight allows us to see beyond that with no modifier to accuracy except for the inherent weapon range and soldiers accuracy. This makes the dropoff for a weapon op if it's beyond 32 tiles. If default range was doubled (32) and they added a detection range of 16, then any soldier (in that turn during initial detection) firing beyond detection range will get hit with a negative modifier until he spots the target in question. Spotting a target can be simplified by adding extra TU's to the first shot only. If we wanted to increase detection range (beyond 16), the soldier will have to enter a "Search Mode" toggle in the UI. Any movement action doubles the TU for the soldier. The biggest problem with accuracy is that there are no modifier's for the Target and the Shooter with the exception of heavy weapon and reduced accuracy for reaction fire ... Modifiers like ; - target moved (walk 1-4 tiles, trot 2-8, run 9+ ... the more it moved the harder to hit) - shooter moved (same as above) - shooter pinned (suppressed, yeah we get less TU but the shot doesn't get modified further) Another factor to accuracy would be Fatigue ... There is no model for that. If we run around the battle field recovering our full TU each turn it's op because we can aim fire every turn. If weapon drop offs were modeled correctly and based on a stationary shot, then there wouldn't be a problem during a real firefight when everyone is having a tough time trying to get off a good aimed shot no matter which weapon they had. Imagine if we could only take an aimed shot every other turn? It would cost 100+ TUS but the shot will be true ... risky but true on target.

I view a semi-auto precision rifle (in-game) as inherently less accurate than a bolt action because of all the harmonics involved. Indeed, both types of precision rifles (semi/bolt) are more accurate than an assault rifle but you'll have to agree that mounting a scope on any weapon negates the chance to hit any object in between. It's just that I'm viewing the games precision rifle as nothing more than an assault rifle with an extra bonus to hit, that's all ... It should be able to thread needles.

Well, I didn't intend to suggest flipping the model around to that extreme. I view the current combat range to be the deadly range. The mapping guidelines have big maps at 70x70 ... If all the maps were that size and sight range half of that (35) then weapon accuracy could be tweaked to give reasonable results between 15-35 tile range. Once the engagement range drops below 15 then we should expect "one shot, one kills" results. I view ground combat in this game as akin to miniature rules that have been out there since the '70s .. Those rules have been tweaked for 40 years with a very good balance for realism/game play. One rule I never see is "sight restriction" ... if you can see it, you can shoot it ... get close enough, frag it. I firmly believe that sight range is the problem, once sight range increases then we have more room to tweak "any" weapon effectiveness easier than now.

I bumped this up because I agree ... The devs need to increase our sight range and mod the weapons to fit the increase which means ranges below 15 tiles are very deadly combat ranges. If we get that close to an alien we should be proud of ourselves and frag it or stun it. It's been said before ... The precision rifle is nothing more that an assault rifle with a scope ... The only difference is that a scoped rifle can "thread the needle" to a target, meaning any intervening prop is negated for chances of hitting. Then we get to the point about everyone is going to field scoped rifles ... Indeed, it's natural that the player wants to field the best weapons to win a firefight ... Weapons such as the precision rifle, LMG and the rocket launcher should begin the game with it limited to one or two each of that weapon. If the player wants more then order more. Right now, I don't see a difference in a base assault mission and a desert mission except perhaps with more props to hide behind in the base mission. Look at what we carry ... frags and explosive. We'd all carry more rounds of weapon ammo in a desert mission if combat range was over 30 tiles than in a base mission. Anyway, bump the combat range over 30, adjust weapon accuracy to meet the new range and perhaps the issue would be over ... But the devs insist on combat range being 10-15 tiles and they are spending a lot of time balancing that to no avail (IMO). For once I'd like to see a test build with Stellar's change along with increased combat range ... Heck, it's a test right, the whole purpose of it is to solve a problem ... We can't solve the problem if players can't experience the change.

The problem isn't grenades and throwing range ... The problem is sight distance and combat range. If you increased sight range by 4x grenade range we wouldn't be running around with a pack full of nades, we'd be running around with packs full of ammo for our weapon. It was typical for a soldier to carry 100-200 rnds of ammo and a few grenades ... That should be the base model and tweaked from there. For the past months I'm reading balance issues and the developer is chasing their tail because we're stuck at such a low sight distance (combat distance) that it's one tweak forward then two tweaks back. For once I'd like to see combat range set at 40 tiles and weapon accuracy modeled for that change. Those topics are in constant debate where I see players wanting an increase. If everyone wants to chase their tails adjusting weapons and grenades to "fit" a low combat range then I wish them luck because in a few months you'll be debating again about the same issue but in reverse.

Actually, I was thinking about a tool not a weapon. If they gave us a big fat Alenium Drill that can be mounted on a vehicle then we can roll it over to the UFO and cut out a nice hole. Of course, if we cann't gain access to the UFO with a vehicle then we'll have to breach the UFO the old fashion way.

We wouldn't be technically blowing holes in the UFO ... we would be blowing off the armor plates. Besides, if the alien materials were so good then how did we shoot the UFO down in the first place? ... Perhaps because we blew off those plates and basically "made-a-hole". Same principle in the ground combat arena.

Never mind ... The UFO entrance already opens UP, so the door is an interior type which makes sense that it's destructable, perhaps with a more hp value ...

It would be better if the UFO door was on ground level under the UFO with a stairway, and the UFO one level higher. That meets the game settings cohesion because the door is interior while the entrance is the hull on a hinge ... see image below ; EDIT ... It doesn't have to be a stairway either, a simple one tile tube with a ladder for access.

+1 here Gizmo ... I could care less about rank "titles" ... With the old system, I can hear the conversation between two Major's in the barracks ; Major Cowboy says, "So, Major Nummnuts, how did you get promoted?" Major Nummnuts says, "Easy, during every mission I ran around the map increasing my TUS ... How about you?" Major Cowboy replies, "I ran up to an alien and hog-tied the grey sob!" Keep the ideas coming there Gizmo

Would it be too late in the design to trigger reaction fire based on how many TU's are spent in an aliens view? I can picture a soldier fumbling around in his backpack in full view of an alien and said alien can take a snapshot (if more than one enemy in view) or the alien can watch the smelly human and raise his weapon to take an aimed shot (assuming the soldier keeps fumbling about). I dunno ... it might involve a lot of book keeping but it would surely bump the player's pucker factor up a notch!

Chris, Allow me a moment to add something to the development of recoverable aircraft. My thoughts lean towards some feedback to the player and a choice by that player when the aircraft is lost. It's a few steps in the process : (1). Aircraft gets destroyed. (2). Returning to the Geo, the player gets a "pop-up" message with two choices; a. Recover Aircraft? b. Scrap Aircraft? (3). The Pop-Up will include ; a. % of material recovered. b. Cost to scrap. (4). The Difficulty level controls the % of material, ie, EASY = 100%, INSANE = 0%, (or random % for all levels). With the recoverable aircraft functionality switch ON, the player can still choose how he wants to manage it. He might not want to recover the Condor and wants to use that material towards a Corsair ... so he selects "Scrap" and gets some material back or sell's it to use the money towards a new plane. In the previous builds, I used to jump for joy when the Condor got shot down ... That opened my hanger up for a new model. Basically, the player will be able to choose the old way (scrap) or the new way (rebuild). With this new choice, I might find myself using both methods as the situation changes. Just my two cents ... In my mind, that's how I envisioned a recoverable aircraft.

I was able to duplicate it. It appears to be a UI problem. After clicking YES, unpause then select any weapon slot on the aircraft that is RTB (Condor-1 in this case) ... see image below.

I downed the UFO ... I have 2 saves, a geoscape save before gc and the gc save first turn.

Work around : If u save a TU for the soldier that threw the flare, u can rotate him 45 degrees and it will refresh the view.

Cake walk mission, clicked end turn on the 1st turn, captured UFO. I have the save for this one. I checked the map folder XML's and saw that "arctic_lightscout2" did not have a status for a "crashed" UFO, which was the mission against that kind of UFO ... I have no idea which map it loaded though. The date of that map goes back to the same date I installed v18 ... If it's an old bug I missed the memo but I can't find a thread that goes over known bugs. Thanks

Somebody reported a similar problem early but I cannot find that thread... In the middle of Air Combat game sequence, a menu popped up and told me one of those aircraft was short on fuel and needed to RTB. My choice was to accept, then it CTD. (I should have selected cancel ) I couldn't duplicate that exact condition because my save load was prior to initiating an intercept so the random UFO wouldn't cooperate. The fuel state of the aircraft was around 30% at the time of interception, but since "bingo" fuel can be any % I assume it can vary. I will definitely try to reproduce this error by running my squadron on low fuel beforehand. When I do, I can provide a save game ... if it helps. I have several suggestions on how to approach this ... The easiest is to freeze the fuel state during air combat (free fuel, don't say that! ) ... the other suggestions are a bit more involved. Thank you! UPDATE : ... I tried to duplicate but cannot. It was early in the game, Sept, 2 Condors vs light scout.

Somebody reported a similar problem early but I cannot find that thread... In the middle of Air Combat game sequence, a menu popped up and told me one of those aircraft was short on fuel and needed to RTB. My choice was to accept, then it CTD. (I should have selected cancel ) I couldn't duplicate that exact condition because my save load was prior to initiating an intercept so the random UFO wouldn't cooperate. The fuel state of the aircraft was around 30% at the time of interception, but since "bingo" fuel can be any % I assume it can vary. I will definitely try to reproduce this error by running my squadron on low fuel beforehand. When I do, I can provide a save game ... if it helps. I have several suggestions on how to approach this ... The easiest is to freeze the fuel state during air combat (free fuel, don't say that! ) ... the other suggestions are a bit more involved. Thank you! EDIT : forgot wrong section, reposted in experimental

You left out the fine print ... Only available in selected regions! Must have a base in that region!