Grotesque

I am surprised to read that it was a much discusses feature because now it limits your strategical choices in thegame. As long as the plane has fuel, I should do whatever I want and manage them freely. Sending more planes than necessary lowers damage taken by each plane. I play on veteran difficulty and is important the management of damage taken and the waiting time involved. Also there are ufos that get away because I cant split the planes= missed opportunity

Example: I form a squadron of 3 planes an they're intercepting an UFO. Another bigger threat appears on the map and I want to leave one plane to fight the first ufo and redirect two planes to intercept the newer threat. Is it possible to do this? If not, it would be a nice improvement to the game.

A brofist to TrashMan for a eloquently post Suspension of disbelief is very important in a game and omitting details are no help to that. Details that enforce this are scrapped and more, are seen as the enemy of gameplay fluidity in nowadays games. Losing an airplane should be a big deal and just having it in the hangar after being destroyed by a UFO feels like cheating. I could live with conventional ammo for weapons and aircraft but never with the nonconventinal that requires advanced techniques for manufacturing and scarce alien materials. If the game economy is balanced properly, anything is possible.

Thank you for the link! It made my day.

Would you please care to explain what do you mean by indestructible aircrafts and auto research? Indestructible aircrafts and auto research are in the game?

Now everybody talks about how the original is flawed and this and that. But instead on proper balancing those aspects and increasing them in complexity, unlimited ammo is fine and streamlines the gameplay. All I have to say is enjoy!

Partially funding yourself in my opinion is where the economic core of the game is . That's the economic part of the game that I really enjoyed. Selling, careful management of resources and manufacturing to fund yourself late game. And of course funding nations are important and really matter in the begining and mid game. And also in late game because without the support of the few more lucky nations that remain by your side you can't resist the cost even if you manufacture and sell. Resources are limited. And If you are able to retain all the nations funding and keep everybody happy, the game its really messed up. So its a question of game balance. And that's a simplification of the gameplay thats cuts into the complexity of the economic/management part of the game.

I remember manufacturing ammo and selling it just to keep my bases alive in X-com Terror from the Deep I remember that I had to really manage this process and ammo was a strain on my resources. And even sometimes ran out of ammo during combat and had to improvise. I had to carefully balance inventory space: more ammo for peace of mind or other gadgets/weapons? Sometimes I was caught offguard with almost no ammo because the workshops were busy building something else. Advanced ammo in TFTD for interceptors war expensive/time consuming and missing a UFO was money down the drain which is a good thing in a game like that.

I just registered on this forum just to express my disappointment about the infinite ammo thing. I never looked too closer to this game development process but when I saw this I couldn't hold down my frustration. What I loved about the x-com series was that it had a good combination of a tactical and economic simulation. Firaxis X-com had infinite ammunition so this game had to do it!? And that game is a poor railroaded joke regarding economics and resource management. What shall I hear next? That air combat is not as important as in the past games? There is an infinite ammunition for aircraft too? And I thought this game will be a sure buy on release date...