DNK

Not sure about the stable, but I did find terror missions in 21v5 to be slightly excessive in aliens. Though it made them quite challenging, especially when 3 separate plasma-explosive-gun aliens started firing on my guys from 3 different directions, it also was tedious, taking upwards of an hour to do a mission in that one case, and with minimal tactics since it was such a tiny map (basically just a looong shootout on a single small street submap). And that's with the alien drones being totally passive. Had they been active, not only would it have been longer but also near-impossible without suffering monstrous casualties (was bad enough as-was). Like 10-15% reduction would be nice, necessary once drones work properly, and the terror maps really need to be expanded. They seem to be the smallest maps we have currently, and given they're second in importance to bases, that's a bit odd.

For debris, brown dirt exists everywhere. Just sayin.

At least they could add some fire/smoke around the hulls. But full art would be preferable (or both).

Without corsairs, how do you deal with heavy fighters or interceptors, though? Foxtrots can't, and generally the condor casualty rate is too high (though I'm not an expert in them, but that shouldn't be a requirement).

Eh, it's a remake of XCOM, and XCOM was far from realistic. Many of the things people are complaining about here were either present in XCOM or worse. How about we go back to autocannon ammo counts for the MGs, heavily simplified (and easy) air combat, and infinite money manufacturing... Not that I disagree that realism can go hand in hand with fun gameplay, but given that Arma is a sandbox that lets users create their own balance/scenarios, where if you make things even then high casualties for the player result, it doesn't fit so well into a game where building up a force of experienced vets is a must-have, and where losing even a third of your encounters would be catastrophic (not to mention unfun for all but hardcore gamers). Making ground combat "realistic" here would be very unbalanced (for current build) and still unrealistic, in that aliens would suicide-charge Xenonauts to lob nades at them (since the AI isn't really good with cover or "knowing" how to pull off such a maneuver without being effectively suicidal most of the time). If you want suicidal AI charges that greatly increase Xeno casualties, then you also need to totally rebalance the game, again.

Really weird thing happened last mission: had a guy standing behind a house, nowhere near combat, panic out of nowhere on a terror mission. Definitely good this is getting tweaked.

Burst vs med acc single shot: 3 singles should be far more accurate, and their (combined TU):accuracy ratio should be lower than burst, though obviously shot:TU should be better for burst. Burst's advantage is: suppression and CQC (where accuracy is less important than TUs).

There's a problem with what you said: corsairS. Who gets 2 of those even?

You can always take on an alien base. Go to the command room - there's an officer in there. He's the odd looking one, the rest are guards or somesuch. I would assume the command room in landing ships also have officers. I'm not sure if smaller ships (eg corvettes) do. I'm sure it's in the asset files somewhere, who spawns where. Question for Chris: if you have an officer spawn on, say, a crashed landing craft ship but then a certain % of the force dies, does that mean the officer might also die randomly from the crash?

I would love to have the same pre-fight staging turn as we get for base assaults for all GC missions. Keep the doors on the chinook/etc up and let us rearrange. I know you can sort of rearrange already pre-launch in base, but this is probably the better approach. It's a lot easier to visualize who everyone is when they aren't a circle with a number on it. Also, why can't we add supplies to the chinook? I want to add extra shields/ammo, but I have to instead add them on to soldiers and have the soldiers drop it one the first turn.

That's a huge loss to just getting shot at and suppressed then. Are these soldiers or what?

Yeah, very strong panicking going on, even with full "blue" morale soldiers. Like, they get off the ship, first alien they see shoots and hits them (in the shield, no damage) one time and they panic like 50% of the time, especially if they were suppressed. That has to be rebalanced back a bit, though before the blue bar was basically ignorable unless shit really hit the fan, which might not have been the best balance either.

Regarding reactions: you have to remember that because this is turn-based, it doesn't look how it would as real-time. The turns, while to you being sequential, are in the game-world occurring simultaneously. So, when an alien uses up 50% of its TUs, it's the equivalent of it doing "stuff" for the first half of this simultaneous time. So when the fresh, full TU soldier runs out in front of it with 90% TUs, it's like he's doing that before the alien got to its location, sort of. The alien can't react because at that time it was already doing whatever took up the 50% of its TUs. Now, yeah, it's not perfect like that, since the 90% TU soldier can still shoot at the alien, even if when the alien was at 90% TUs it was in a different place. And, yeah, the turn nature of the game means they overlap both backwards and forwards. So it's all a bit quantum mechanicy in that there's superposition going on. But that's an abstraction required by a TBS game. And the reaction system is an abstraction based upon that. It makes sense, even if the underlying reality of the simulation doesn't quite, it makes sense within that simulation of reality, where turns are both sequential AND simultaneous.

Have to say I'm happy with reducing LMG capacity (along with ALL weapons). There's no reason we can't abstract ammo a bit, so that each round and shot fired is the equivalent of 5 in reality (though a single hit is still a single hit). I mean, real-world combat accuracy is a lot lower than in the game also. So it'd take way more shots to get each hit if this was reality (though suppression is then very weak in-game). Additionally, the time it takes someone to run as far as they do in-game is like 10sec or whatever per turn. You can easily empty a full clip in that time in reality. Point is, if shot time has been expanded to like 3x of reality, and shot volume per hit reduced by 3x from reality, then reducing magazine capacity by like 3x just puts it all in-line with reality. And making the game "reality based" for ground combat is making yourself deal with very tedious turns. Trust me, I've done it, and after each soldier sprays half a clip per round each round with the same number of hits as if they just were doing a couple single shots, you realize it's best to abstract things here and just make it all proportionate, as has been done (except for magazine capacity for non-LMG weapons).

I also agree that fuel consumption is too high for the air fighting minigame. It's far too often I end up watching my fighters run out after they've broken combat, as they have to take the long slow road out of the combat zone. And then get shot down because they've used up their supply. It's just frustrating that you have to sit there and watch for 30-90 seconds while your otherwise successful attack craft slowly get chased down and use up all their fuel after breaking combat. Also, once clicking outside the combat zone, you can't adjust flight paths any further. Why? This is extremely frustrating, and it didn't used to be like that I thought. And one more to upping recovery rates for materials. Seems odd that the amount of "metal" or "fuel rods" we get from a downed UFO the size of an office building is barely enough to mold into a single infantry weapon and armor or we need to down like 20 UFOs to get enough to build just one of our own. I like to airstrike about 50% or so of the time (basically, the smaller/older craft), but when resources become constraining the airstrike option is useless.

Sniper rifles are good for highly experienced troops for one main reason: They can be stand-off weapons, meaning their bearers are generally not in the line of fire. Put it this way: you can send up cheap PVT/CPLs with shields to find the enemy, then position the snipers far behind them, out of range of the target's weapon. The shield guys can pop out of cover, spot the enemy, then pop back in, and then the snipers take them out. Snipers are never in danger, shield guy is mostly out of danger. I've lost 0 snipers in like 20+ battles using these sorts of tactics. ARs will always require you to put the soldier in the line of fire and in a hot zone. Therefore, those soldiers are far more susceptible to dying. It's great for your middle-of-the-road vets, but for your top-tier guys you really don't want to lose, standoff is the key. ARs are OP for UFO clearing right now, I think. Snipers aren't really OP anymore, but with the right tactics they're essential for the longevity of your best men.

Have you guys considered making 3 tiers of burst shots also (inaccurate-medium-accurate) and scaling them just as you do for single?

Got around to playing this through 6 or so ground combats and a month on the geoscape. Seems far more stable than v20. I like a lot of the changes since V20 also. Particularly noted are the following: ground combat loading screen is nice (used to just hang or something) ground combat ending screen is much improved (nice to have it in once place and it looks good, though the UI is a bit off from all the others in the game) ground combat doesn't hang anymore after last alien is shot! ground combat overall feels well balanced, though xenonauts seem a bit overaccurate (perhaps just my luck) I'm liking the new UFO interiors, though the floor panels need some work and... wall panels ever? aliens still don't know how to stay behind cover properly, especially in UFO breaches. They turn into sitting ducks despite having cover all around. seems like there's a lot more care I need to put into loadouts regarding weight now newer maps look nice, especially the Middle East sets I like how the torpedoes don't home in on target anymore. Not perhaps realistic, but it adds some difficulty to the air game The personnel base screen is still a PITA to deal with. First, most of the screen is empty, while the long soldier list has to be scrolled through constantly due to being down on the bottom half only. Additionally, after setting someone to the Charlie or out, the scroll resets to the top, making mass reassignments a bother. It'd also be nice to have a choice to 'deassign all" at the top somewhere. I like to reshuffle troops after every mission. It'd also be nice to have "squads" you could assign troops to, which you could then select all at once and have another option to "assign to X ship". MG seems OP. I'm hitting a high % of shots at 10+ tiles, and I realize there's the whole "it needs to be setup previous turn to be shootable" balancing effect, but they're more "sure kill" weapons now than "area suppression" ones (their real-life role).

You're the only one that realized it was a "joke", probably because it didn't sound like one at all. It sounded like an entitled little kid throwing a tantrum. But hey, if that's how you want to come off to the world, more power to you, "man".I guarantee if you were to talk directly to a producer and say their movie was trash because of some minor detail in one scene, they'd be a lot less considerate than Chris was. The difference is you don't normally, because these other people don't want to put up with random insults and trolling from random people like you, so you get a PR guy or an automated response, if you get anything at all, after you e-mailed them your insulting complaints. You don't interact directly, you don't have a forum to share with them and a community. That's the real difference here. Additionally, my comments before had nothing to do with Chris' response and everything to do with how you originally acted in this thread, independent of anyone else's reaction. If you talk shit like that anywhere, to a dev or not, I'd still have a low opinion of you. The fact you're doing it directly to the guy making the game just makes it worse and something I'll speak to instead of just ignoring as usual. Are you going to contribute to this discussion at all or just keep flaming?

This is a great idea. It feels more realistic, balances the game out more, and still allows for progression. This, really. I think it was about that in TOG, and that felt right. Doesn't make sense that you have veterans being 100% better/faster/stronger/resilienter/accurater than rooks. Also a good idea.I also liked my ideas You could just be polite and nice. Yes, they 'owe' you a finished game along the lines of what was promised. They don't owe you the specific game you personally want configured exactly to your taste. And the rather small amount of money you sent them does not make them your bitch nor give you the right to treat them impolitely. Humans aren't sold so cheaply nowadays...Pardonnez mon Francais.

Additional idea: each weapon fire mode has an accuracy/strength ratio added to configs. So, like a standard rifle's single shot might be 3:1 (or 0.75), a sniper rifle might be 9:1 (0.90), an MG burst might be 1:2 (0.33), and a shotgun single shot might be 1:4 (0.20). We then have shot accuracy and time be based on both stats (this makes strength actually important beyond allowing someone to be an ordinance mule). Then you have the accuracy formula adjusted so that what was originally the accuracy stat's part of the formula is now: [ACC*ratio + STR* (1-ratio)] So if you have a sniper rifle with a guy with 65ACC and 50STR, you get the accuracy multiplier as: 65*.90 + 50*0.10 = 63.5 versus current 65 But that same guy with a shotgun is: 65*0.2 + 50*.8 = 53 versus current 65 Same for shot TU modifier (as discussed in prior post). This means that for each weapon and shot type, the actual user accuracy/speed of use can be more dependent on strength or accuracy skill, depending on config. Shooting an MG in full auto burst mode will depend more on strength and recoil handling (0.33) than being able to scope someone and fire accurately at range, while perhaps a single shot MG (hypothetically) will be a more even balance (0.50) and a single shot sniper rifle is almost all accuracy (0.90). One last thing: I thought strength was supposed to be changed to act as a multiplier for TU loss from weight, rather than just acting as a ceiling for how much weight you could add on before incurring TU loss. Did that not happen?

With all due respect (and it seems many here aren't giving that), I disagree with the weapon firing TU% change. It's a major part of leveling up soldiers to have that. I realize that TOG had it as a percentage, and that was one thing I was EXTREMELY happy to see changed in Xenonauts. Not only is it a lot easier to remember how much TU to save, but it actually makes leveling up TUs have a point. I see TUs as a sort of overall soldier skill/speed. It's not just running speed (represented by distance he can go in a turn), but also firing speed. A more veteran soldier should be able to shoot with the same accuracy faster - he lines up his shots faster, handles recoil better, etc. That was reflected by shots costing a decreasing percentage of TUs as a soldier's TU score went up with missions. Now, I might suggest it'd be better if TUs for shots was related proportional to ACCURACY in addition to being a percentage of TUs. So, the semi-accurate single shot is whatever, 40% TUs for someone with 50 accuracy. But someone with 70 accuracy has it be only 29% TUs (50/70 x base). Or you could adjust that so it's something like, where X is accuracy: Option 2: (( (50/X-1) / 2 ) + 1)*TU% So the two options for a base 40% TU shot would be: ACC - X/50 - Option 2 40 - 50% - 45% 50 - 50% - 40% 60 - 33% - 37% 70 - 29% - 34% 80 - 25% - 33% 90 - 22% - 31% This way we still get progression, but it's disconnected from TU progression, which effectively now only stands for agility/speed. Accuracy not only improves accuracy but decreases shot time (and I like the second, half option), which seems to me realistic. The second option prevents it from getting too overpowered, and is basically a 50% compromise with the current system (no leveling up of shot speed) and the old system (shot speed levels up 100% with TU increases). At least now it's related to the actually relevant stat of accuracy instead of the generic TU stat. P.S. I like having more limited magazines with higher shot counts for burst on MGs. I modded that into my own game already. I also mod all magazines much lower so ammo management is an actual issue. In reality, it is, and in reality firefights last a lot longer than in game and take up a lot more shots. We have to abstract some of that to prevent the game from getting tedious (I've tried reducing accuracy to more real-world firefight levels and it takes an eternity), so reducing mag capacities and just imagining that when we shoot a bullet, it's actually like 3 virtual bullets, makes sense to me.

Alright, thanks guys. I'll opt in then.

Can anyone on the experimental builds tell me if they're considerably more stable than "stable"? I came back to the game after a few months and v20 is just horridly crash/bug-ridden, so much so that I can't really play it.

Whatever the next game holds, I hope it does as good a job of combining TBS tactical engagements with a grand strategy map and also base/economic management. If someone would ever take a PI-style game and add a TBS tactical element plus provincial/city/base management to it, I'd just throw money at it like the world was ending. PI does this really great job of making grand strategy games and.... they just always end up feeling a bit flat and too abstract. I don't need Total War level of graphics for the tactical part, but I do want to do and see more when my armies get into battles than a "battle summary" screen popup and a laughable sprite animation. That's where PI fails: there's minimal visual feedback in general. This team seems to be more balanced between grand strat, management, and tactics, and I'd love to see another release that combines these things. I can't expect half the grand strategy component of HOI/EU, but that's fine if the compromise is more tactical engagements. I would, however, like to see more of a focus on that grand strategy element, since in Xenonauts it's definitely been sidelined for the tactical element.