NoirWolf
-
Posts
146 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by NoirWolf
-
-
Did someone other a emperor-sized dose of purging with holy fire?
Bring out the consecrated prometheum brothers!
she didn't like the notion of her blood being used as a purifying agent so she went a bit... local.
-
It should be for 5 million dollars. It's probably not going to be replaced for a very long time. Tanks really aren't needed for fighting irregular forces and terrorists. IMO, the only mistake they made on the design was giving it a gas turbine engine. Granted it is very fast, but it is a huge fuel hog even compared to other tanks and the engine is complex to work on since it is, in essence, a jet engine. The German's have the Leopard II which is just fast but uses a diesel engine and has the same gun.
Uhmm.. when it comes to quality and its direct relationship to money things can get a bit...hazy with the US army at least... I mean there are quite a few past blunders that cost allot of cash for the US and took several iterations to get right in the end ( I think the Bradley still isn't that good for the amount of money thrown on its R&D and the M3 Lee in World War 2 was also a steaming pile of crap compared to its contemporaries).
-
Right.... wait... the first one still means that if you don't complete both you fail...
Either case my second question: Is it possible to fail to "complete at least one of the objectives" by any other means than having all your soldiers dying or aborting the mission?
I'm still wondering a bit about that particular choice of words. I find it a bit odd and get the feelign there is more to it that I'm missing. Why talk about how to fail the mission rather than how to complete it?
Because it's how I view things (glass half empty) and the mission in question would be one where it isn't for fun or for a "treat"-type reward, it's basically just to maintain the status quo a little while longer (thus granting you a better chance to cobble together a defence strategy and place assets to accomplish it) and to save god knows how many thousands or even millions of people from getting nuked. In essence it'd be a mission where the reward is intangible and the atmosphere itself would be dark (your mission objective wouldn't be "Accomplish the mission by doing x" it would be "Mission failure is failing to at least one of two objectives" which in itself gives you a hint that this mission might be one way for whoever went on it).
-
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2684[/ATTACH]
Pretty good design then ^^.
-
I'm sorry but to me "Mission failure is if you fail to achieve one of those two objectives." means that if you do NOT complete both you fail the mission. As achiveing one would mean that you fail to do the other if they end the mission.
I can't get that to be "either or" kind of deal. You would have to have said "mission success is if you acheve one of the objective" for that to be "either or" in my opinion.
Mmm now I see where the confusion is from, yeah that's a typo on my part (I was thinking both of the phrase "Mission failure is if you fail to achieve at least one of those objectives." and the one you mentioned, "mission success if you achieve one of the objectives." at the same time so it got jumbled a bit) so the correct form is "Mission failure is if you fail to achieve at least one of those two objectives." , sorry.
-
Is that some awkward phrasing or do you mean that you must complete both objectives for victory? As in you must destroy all the control rooms/silos before killing all lthe aliens? As you would fail to achive the second objective (sabotage) if the mission ends because you completed the first one (killed all the aliens). (It sounds like a mission that could become impossible to win)
If it is awkwardly phrased how would the mission end without you completing one of the objectives? (Aborting the mission excluded from consideration for obvious reasons.)
It isn't awkwardly phrased, it's 1a and 1b, IE finish one you don't have to do the other (it's a "do A or B" type logic system).
The 1b option is in case you are getting overwhelmed (the mission could be so designed such that 1a is only possible with a veteran team of troops and good tactics while b is the lemming option).
-
I think that may or may not have been part of my original point.... Ywp I belive it was.
I have no idea what an infomorph is, but I calmly disagree. I think you are making a far too rigid and in my opinion uneccessary distinction between the two, possibly in an effort to place a hybrid into either class.. We are talking about their purpose and not their construction. Or at least I was.
A infomorph is a term I borrowed from EVE-Online, it's basically a human being that has the ability to exist, at least for a short while, within a computer (in EVE there are rumours of true infomorphs, IE human beings who no longer have a body, cloned or otherwise). The point I was trying to make alluding to them is that once humanity reaches the point at which a human being can opt to shed his physical form and download into a computer or, more on topic here, a synthetic body there's not real need for drones or clones (and the point at which that will be possibly is estimated to be within the next 50 years). In this case you could have both a drone (the body) a human (the infomorph) and that cloudsaving feature all on one platform.
-
Yeah, but the "ammo storage area" aka magazine in the M1 is covered by blow out panels. That's the whole point. Inside the turret, the loader has to hit a button to open the magazine, grab ONE round for the breech, then a very thick steel hatch closes automatically and isolates the magazine again. The whole system is designed to idiot proof
. So, the worst case scenario is that the turret gets penetrated at the exact moment the loader is reaching in for the next round, very unlikely. If the magazine gets hit, it's isolated from the rest of the turret and the blow out panels vent powder fire out the top of the magazine. In theory this gives the crew enough time to evacuate the tank before the situation becomes lethal. The tank, of course, is ruined, but the crew survives.On the M1 shells are stored horizontally or vertically? ( in either case: is the tip of the shell pointing away from the tank? I ask because if the rack does get hit and one of those puppies is pointing inward...yeah, you get why I ask).
-
Hmmm... all this talk about alien attacks has given me a idea for a mission sub-type which would be a variation on terror missions:
Strategic Sabotage (or something along those lines)
Basic idea: The aliens sent a heavy attack group to assault a ICBM site with the goal of neutralizing the site or even using the missiles to attack a random country within a continent.
Rewards: None directly (you get reputation with the respective country) but if you fail the mission you lose quite a bit of funding from the country hit by the alien controlled nukes.
Objectives:
1a) Neutralize all aliens within the area.
or
1b) Destroy the the base's control room and/or sabotage the silos to prevent the aliens from using the missiles.
Mission failure is if you fail to achieve one of those two objectives.
Doesn't sound like a mission you'd like to do eh? Well Commander, war doesn't always give you shiny gifts for being the guy with his internal organs still mostly intact.
-
What so you can't build a biological robot and then clone it? and put some computer parts into the clones to make them cyborgs with cloudsave capabilities?
Surely if one wanted to do such a thing it would be somewhat similar to the concept of cylons? Which was what I thought I was talking about rather then the minute details.
PS: being only tentative aware of battlestar galactica and cylons I still think it is semantics.
But then you'd be straying into independent drone territory and not clone territory (it being a self-aware biological robot and all) . You can't really have it both ways here you know because clones are clones (with their own bonuses and drawbacks) and drones (remote controlled or terminators) are drones, middle grounds between the two require advanced knowledge of a species and advanced cybernetics which could be done but by that point you also have the option of turning volunteers into infomorphs.
-
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.
Scant comfort I'd guess for tank crews
. Though the whole remaining intact part can also be claimed by any tanks built after the HEAT round craze went down ( when I was looking for links of T-72s getting hit and having their turrets pop off I found very few instances of the tanks actually being wrecked when hit, allot of them just turned into furnaces destroying internals but the hull was largely intact for the most part and this can be said of most tanks though more modern ones have a greater likelihood to stay intact even after the crew dies due to advanced armour, like the M1's Chobham). -
Trashman that is the finest norris pic ever im currently burning it onto my drive ......
Commisar..i'm currently experincing random communications erros due to unessacary herectical tampering so you and Thothkins may have to hold down the thread..be strong brothers...the emperor will grant me strength and the foul spawn of chaos will not succeed..the fire of devotion is in my heart and those bt contractors will burn...
-begins summoning slaaneshi succubuses to further aid in thread derailment-
I wonder how long you can last foolish mortals
.[video=youtube;xfJUi4cB4oc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfJUi4cB4oc
-
Right, I'm aware that cylons are not clones (although it ss kind of semantic with the biological versions that has infinite backups that looks exactly the same?). I wasn't refering to their construction but rather the way their experience got saved to the cloud and uploaded to the next body.
Anyway.. what was my point? Tbh I forgot. nevermind.
It isn't semantic as cylons aren't true organics, they're manufactured organics with probable integrated cybernetics thus their backup mechanisms might not work for true organics which weren't engineered for such. This neglecting the fact that the organic cylons were created by machines obsessed with getting closer to their God while the Aliens in-game look more like the Eldar from Warhammer 40.000 lore just before they decided that it's time to orgy into existence a new chaos god.
-
It is better to sweat for the Emperor than relax for yourself.
Hard, heretic-burning work is it's own reward!
Burn them all and let the Emperor sort them after.
-
breaching suits were in the plans at one stage. These were mechs. Like the flamethrower, they won't be making the final game.
-sheds a tear silently-
-
How easy would it be to change the visor tint/colour of the Wolf armour helmet? That peachy orange is not what I would have made my first choice.
Although realistically speaking I guess it is the best colour to counter the hue of alien plasma bolts.
Realistically speaking hue don't do jack, it's the, assumed, polaroid membrane which protects the eyesight of the xenonauts (and polaroids realistically speaking give a dark grey-black tint not a orange one unless otherwise desired).
-
Someone would have to go through and draw every frame of animation for every action for every weapon by hand...
Unless extraordinarily difficult someone with a love of mechs and the knowledge and artistic inclination to do so could do that should the game allow such ( you see weekly videos on youtube with allot of animations put in, granted some using tricks to ease things, so someone with enough investment in seeing a mech in Xenonauts could still do it, wouldn't be easy but could).
-
I would too but unless Chris has changed his mind about research he doesn't want fluff research. Everything is supposed to unlock something afaik last i heard.
They'd be fluff you'd be rewarded within the form of a item with a longer description or something like that (ex: a old diary of a former Xenonaut containing a small snippet of information or a eyewitness account of the Icelandic incident, etc). No research required, just information for the Hell of it
. -
They are still automated combat drones even if they aren't used exclusivly.
What if they use Cylon clones?
Keeping the genetic material from degrading can easily be prevented by not converting the whole population to clones but rather just the vat bred soldiers. As long as you have a healthy renewing and untouched base you can allways repeat the soldier program. The degrading issue sounds like a dcifi story plot point to me. Surely anyone that advanced would set up safeguards to prevent the dumber stuff from happening.
I thought you said completley automated? What is this about piloting and controlling?
Not argueing that. I was just a bit curious about the argument that you proposed, didn't seem all that solid
Cylon clones aren't clones, they're something between terminators and cyborgs that have been genetically engineered into the role, not evolved or were adapted into it.
A healthy base of material requires thousands of individuals living, breathing, going about their lives, at a bare minimum to maintain genetic diversity and thus maintain clone genome integrity (somewhat). The aliens in Xenonauts have no healthy base as evidenced by the signs of extensive genetic manipulation and atrophied sexual characteristics in at least one of the species of soldiers (you may say the atrophied sexual characteristics were intended but that's going a long, long way in terms of gene manipulation and it hits the issue of dicking with the fundamental instincts of a organic species, which are eat,sleep,procreate).
I also never said the drones would be independent, I said they would be unmanned (fully automated, IE not requiring on site assistance from a organic being, that's not independent as it can still be remotely controlled, just that it would have sub-routines built into it to facilitate ease of control such as automatic ammo magazine exchange upon depletion, unless ordered to replenish beforehand, automated tracking of targets to facilitate user target designation more easily, sub-routines to control movement to a degree such that it reduces user load, etc).
-
Noirwolf: please adhere to the topic/theme. You're going offtopic all the time and cooling this thread down each time you do so, making TrashMan work all that much harder to heat it up again.
I just expect everyone to have my magic touch that sets the mood ablaze should it be required
. -
I have substantial doubts that any smart country or terrorists were surprised by any of these supposed "revelations". I've always taken as a given that nothing sent electronically without some type of one off code is secure. I mean is anyone really surprised that the NSA has cracked all the commercial encryption schemes or that they have huge capabilities to monitor the internet and phone traffic, really? Only a stupid terrorist or a stupid government would let themselves get hurt by any of these means of communication.
One thing I remember quite fondly is the story of a US citizen that got detained on charges of being a suspected terrorist by the FBI. The guy was perfectly innocent but he was also a sly man when it came to data security: The hard-drives on his computer were password protected with two 512 bit keys with an added layer of encryption underneath of (I believe) 1024 which required the second key to be unlocked. The guy got a simple choice: Either he puts in the passwords and would get reduced sentencing, for what they believed was on the disks, or the FBI would crack the hard drives themselves and prosecute him to the full extent of the law. He refused, legally allowed to of course, and they detained him for a week while they tried to crack into his hard drives... after that week the let him go and he went merrily home, ordered a couple of new hard drives and went back to business as usual. A full year goes by and the FBI calls him up and asks him, not demands, to come to their office, curious he goes down to their office where he's greeted and asked politely to surrender his passwords for the hard drives, they hadn't managed to crack them in over a year, he said no and told them they could keep them as he had nothing to hide.
-
A Fallen?
How appropriate:
http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/Knights_of_Vengance
BUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRN
They're not of the Unforgiven which means they do not hunt the Fallen
. -
ErvJ, there are several strategies that others have suggested for doing this. I'll repeat one of the more popular (I take no credit for this strategy).
This works best for light scouts, scout and landing ships.
Step 1). Have a solider with an LMG or holding an alien plasma gun (this helps speed up step 3).
Step 2). Line up all soliders away from the door of the UFO.
Step 3). Start shooting the door. The door can be individually targetted, so keep shooting even if it looks like it isn't taking any damage.
Step 4). When door is destroyed, take advantage of open inside layout. The aliens will be very visible, and very vulnerable. Blaze away in safety.
Never forget step 5) Rescue hot purple chicks (with or without tails, whatever floats yer boat) from the alien harem that's onboard.
-
"Exterminate! Exterminate!"
-pours water on you to see if you burst into flames or at least melt-
.
.
.
-few moments pass-
Awww
.
Energy Weapon Analysis
in Xenonauts General Discussion
Posted
Actually the M3 Lee wasn't supposed to be a stop gap measure but due to interdepartmental "small dick" syndrome the artillery department demanded that the only cannon on the initial tank schematics (the long 75) be put in the hull lest it encroach on their area and their designs (because apparently 75 mm guns were artillery only back then ) and the designers of the tank then put a the 40 mm gun (or whatever calibre it had) in the now empty turret because it's not really a tank with only a hull mounted gun.
As to the US track record...there's failures and then there's armouring a APC with aluminium armour years after it was proven that aluminium couldn't stop most things with even slight AT capacity and burned like a mofo while producing highly toxic smoke and quite a few different types of missiles and vehicles which also didn't really work ( the M26 was a disaster in terms of medium tank mobility and couldn't really engage anything higher than Panther 1 tanks on equal footing, the M48 in its initial batch was a roman torch due to flammable hydraulic fluid and a fragile hydraulic system which would douse the interior of the tank when a penetration occurred, the M103 in its initial batch, the T43E1 if memory serves, was even worse than the IS-4, the M551 couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with its 152 mm missile most of the time, don't get me started on the M-16 rifle and the rampant misinformation with that thing in it initial runs, etc). I don't mean to sound contentious of course but I wouldn't call the US's track record with military development good either (it's decent with both excellent innovations but also absolutely appalling failures).