EchoFourDelta

In a manner of speaking. You're not going to change how the armor or anything actually looks unless you re-draw literally every frame of animation over again for every armor with every weapon you want in iteration.

Looking good, dude. Can't wait for the finished soldiers pack.

The motion carries. StellarRat, please call the vote.

Changing weapons and armor should be iffy, but it makes perfect sense to be able to re-fit and re-arm.

Is there ever going to be any mod-ability for the inventory in and of itself, or is that a black box?

If you slammed one into a living target at close range, about maybe 5-10 meters, it'd be similar to hitting them with a slug; that's basically what breaching rounds are, after a fashion: a little container with a bunch of powdered/sintered metal inside. When it hits something hard, it bursts open, and the powder inside disperses. All that said, you're looking at a round that would travel most of the way through a human body. As to the second part, you're loading the shotgun for breaching. The first few rounds are for breaching; the last few are buck or slug more or less as insurance. After you knock the door's hinges off, you're transitioning to your rifle or getting out of the way for other people to move in.

Oh, they'll still utterly wreck the hell out of a living creature, and you don't load the whole thing up breaching rounds, nor is that usually the only sort of round carried.

That's pretty well correct; shotguns are pretty common issue to combat units as breaching tools, as well, so a few random guys with rifles will more than likely be packing a shotgun as well, and as many grenades and magazines/drums/shells as they can practically fit and carry on their bodys.

> Now what could be fun and realistic is having different inventory layouts for different kind or armors Or, just, you know, wear the LBE over it like the rest

Being able to edit the size and shape of the inventory would be amazing. "Also, rotating items in the inventory is something that we absolutely need to have. Really, it makes so much sense." A thousand times yes.

Nah, like a bride through the threshold.

I think the soldiers should give up on backpacks, and just sling their weapons and wear a load-bearing vest

Trufax, if you get the OG, go to openxcom.org, get the 0.9 version, then get the most recent nighly build. Run the installer, merge the patch in. It gets rid of literally every bug and DOS limitation that was present in the original game, and has a host of advanced options on the front end that range from enhancing the UI to making the aliens sneakier and more dangerous to integrating novel things from the newer one like having their weapons self-destruct if they're killed. You need an actual copy of X-COM for it to work, but all it does is sample some data from the original X-COM install, and runs completely independently after that. Also, compared to digging at Xenonauts, modding and content creation on it is an absolute dream.

That's likely done to provide distinction as compared to other aircraft that could, in fact, carry external fuel containers.

They're stored horizontally, with the front of the round facing toward the rear of the turret.

Now you're simply trying to pick apart word choice; you know what he meant And that said... this is true of any tank constructed in a similar matter. Can it happen? It's a possibility. But most Abrams that - through whatever means - suffer a catastrophic kill simply stay intact; even when you have one run over some thousand-pounder platter charge or some shit, it's usually a tank hull sitting there. There's a hole, a burnt-out compartment, but it's not torn to pieces.

The vehicle, or the Colossus? Colossus wasn't so much a "mech" as a heavier suit than the Predator. There was apparently a walker sort of vehicle earlier on, though.

Someone would have to go through and draw every frame of animation for every action for every weapon by hand...

Laser, Plasma, and MAG weapons are in place, with analogues existing for the pistol, shotgun, assault rifle, precision rifle, and machine gun on each tier. As for armor, you've got the Jackal, Buzzard/Wolf, and Sentinel/Predator. Colossus will apparently not be making an appearance.

Excellent observations, and accurate calls (for what I assume is a layperson [thumbs up]), and yeah, none of those feature the blow-out protection common to later revisions of T-80s (or equivalent first-run generation-3s of Western tanks).

I think the C4 does. Also, yeah, on the MGL, design started in '80; they didn't have a functioning product until late '83.

The biggest reason they don't blow off nowadays isn't so much because of ammo load; it's because of protective measures most tanks have these days. The magazine is isolated, and there are blow-out panels in place, so that a sympathetic series of detonations generally just destroys ammo reserves, with the bulk of explosive force being vented relatively harmlessly outward. They're basically the equivalent of "crumple zones" in this context, an in-built fail-safe mechanism. That said, in the applications tanks are used for in modern combat, the majority of their tasking is destruction of unarmored or lightly armored vehicles, hardened emplacements, and structures in support of infantry operations; most of them roll with a fair complement of HE. Not exactly a lot of tank on tank happening these days.

I just had the thought, with all the talk of inventory space and the stuff they're carrying... Someone needs to tell these soldiers they can wear LBE and a backpack at the same time, that you can sling weapons without putting them in a backpack, and that it's a lot faster to reach for something on your chest than it is to dig through a backpack.

Well, all that said, I'm talking about something that actually exists and could be reasonably safely carried and used with existing flamethrower design principles; something that can boil iron isn't going to balk at flesh. You very quickly hit a point where the overhead isn't really necessary for what you're trying to do (like using a 20-kilo block of C4 as a blasting cap).

One could be forgiven for thinking that it wasn't trying to do anything besides keep the basic framework; the devs alternately state "it's like this because it was like this in X-COM," and "just because it was like that in X-COM doesn't mean it should be done here" in various and sundry places. "It's like this/not like this in X-COM" is used for and against in so many places as to be nonsensical as a reason at this point. Xenonauts is, by and large, a re-interpretation/re-imagining to almost the same degree as the original AfterBlank.