anotherdevil

BSG anyone? Also definately Castle, and the walking dead

Well I'll leave the specific number of how it works up to the programmers, but yeah I agree with you there. Also, cover should be the preferred option over kneeling, well ever really! unless maybe you feel like you're going to be flanked, in which case you've played badly. This thread isn't to make cover less awesome, in my opinion it should be the best (for obvious reasons), but kneeling should be a close second defensively Well there is no additional turning cost which sort of plays into this. Plus you're more likely to hit anyone you fire at while standing if there are any obstacles in the way. On the down side you're also more likely to be hit, so...

That's a tad glass half empty isn't it? That sounds quite good, what is it in latin? Ha ha Sathra I thought you more for a "per pugnae victoria! per ignem laetitiae!" kind of man Through tactics, victory! Through fire, joy!

Was thinking about the Mascot thread, and it occurred to me that the Xenonauts have no motto! Now as far as I know, most armies, companies, etc. have a motto of some sort. I was thinking maybe some of the community might have some ideas as to what could be a good motto? I reckon it'd have to be one which isn't used by any existing service, and should probably be in English or Latin (one is quite universally spoken, and the game will come out in English, and the second is well known to add that extra touch to mottos and sayings) So if you can think of any cool/bad arse/motivational mottos, lets hear them! Happy posting!

That's the one where you throw the ball at people and hit them with big sticks right? Or is that hockey? Or polo?

While in theory I agree with this, there is the problem of the animation. If to recognise you are in cover, you have to lean against the wall, then if you turn diagonally clipping etc may become a problem... How about this, if you right click and turn your soldier first, then tell him to shoot, he'll stay facing the way you told him to face. If however he is taking cover against a wall, and you tell him to shoot over the wall somewhere, he will, but hen return to lean on the wall again. Lastly, if he is leaning on the wall, and you tell him to shoot somewhere not over the wall, (ie behind him) he will turn, shoot, and stay facing that direction and stay kneeling

No no I was, but the English are 'Le Roast Beef' and the French are 'Le frogs legs.' Don't ask me why =p

Ah ok, Hmm multi part answer here: Now for standing shoot crouch would cost no more than a regular shot, IF there is no cost to change stance. If there is a cost, well... Otherwise it wouldn't be intuitive. BUT if you stand, turn (so say the enemy isn't directly on the opposite side of the cover, but 45 degrees to the side), shoot, turn crouch (because you have to turn back so you're facing the cover you're taking cover against) then the additional cost of the two turn movements would be applied. Unsure how this would work if you were in the inside of an L shaped corner though, maybe no need to turn back? If you fire away from cover, they don't count as being in cover in any regards. They get no 'in cover accuracy bonus' only the kneeling one. Any objects between you and the alien get higher 'stopping values.' This is because you don't stand up to take the shot. Actually thinking about that, maybe the penalty for being considered as kneeling (and therefore higher stopping values) when firing any direction except over the cover is enough detriment, that the additional cost to turning should be scrapped? Will have to see how it works from balance, but it is an idea...

Ah good questions! 1. crouching in cover would give a slightly better accuracy cost in my opinion, because you have something which isn't wobbly like a knee. But at the same time, you're also standing up to fire, so maybe the same accuracy would be easier and fairer to implement. 2. when facing away, well it depends where they are getting shot from. if from the side of the cover, then they get the usual cover bonus. If from the side with no cover, they get the kneeling bonus. Can't get both. BUT, if you're next to cover, whether facing away from it or not, you still get the increased cost of turning (all that stuff in your backpack has got to be maneuvered without hitting the wall too!) 3. shooting from a standing position is no more expensive, however if you are kneeling then wish to stand up to shoot then that might cost, but obviously only if AP costs are made part of it. So essentially you play off kneeling = slightly more accurate, but harder shot; standing = less accurate but easier shot. Obviously this sounds like a moot point now, but it really depends on how much of an increase in accuracy and the stopping power of objects is, and how accurate your troops are etc. And sorry I should have made that evident in my last post (I missed it instead). If there is no AP cost assigned to changing stance, then it makes no sense for standing up to shoot while in cover costing more than just shooting normally. If an AP cost is given, then this should apply here as well, otherwise you're essentially getting the best of both worlds, and the negatives of neither (except for being flanked, which should be punishable by death, and suitably will be I'm sure) Also I agree on you about the burst firing accuracy boost, but whether that adds enough difference between each stance will be up to balancing

Yeah, having role badges assigned by the game rather than the player eliminates the chance that they'll get confused because they forgot to update something or another, which really just translates to 'more work'

Sorry for the long post... I’ve had a go at rewriting my idea from the old thread, with a bit of new knowledge from the wiki (in Chris’ first post), so hopefully quite refined. Now again I’ll start without any talk about AP cost, as this can be discussed at the end, and should also hopefully be irrelevant if my system is as balanced as I hope it to be. There are three types of stances your soldiers can take, kneeling in cover (aka in cover), kneeling out in the open (kneeling), and standing in the open (standing). In cover: -You get much better protection from the direction you are covered in (ie the direction the cover is in relation to you), as well as lesser cover in any other directions the cover might protect you from. -However, apart form 45 degree turns from the direction of cover (see brackets below), further turning of the soldier will cost extra, to represent the cover being in the way while your soldier is trying to remain crouched. (the idea of this is that when your soldier stands to shoot, he will be shooting over the cover, or close to the direction of the cover, so that should cost about the same AP wise. Shooting in a completely different direction however should be costly, so as to promote other soldiers protecting their flanks. If needs be, and it would be easier to implement and understand, all turning costs can be made the same) -Shooting costs a little more because you have to stand to shoot, but these shots are also a little more accurate as you have something to lean on (all shots or burst? sort that out later). This mode of firing makes any intervening waist high cover have no additional effects on the shot (see kneeling), only if the target is in cover themselves behind a waist high cover will it factor into the shot (cover save system, see wiki). Kneeling: -Slightly better protection due to the reduction in body size - slightly more accurate (burst or all shots? Again wait for balancing) - no additional AP cost to turn - However, because you are kneeling, any low objects (ie waist high cover), now affect your chance to hit the target. This can work 2 ways. It can either completely add the additional objects as potential disturbances to the shot, or it can make the amount of cover they provide (wiki = stopping value) higher. Whichever is easiest. Standing: -no extra protection -no extra accuracy -no additional AP cost to turn -regular stopping value for objects, no increases as your soldier will attempt to shoot over them at a much better angle. Now here is the wiki part on stopping values (heading ‘Modified Accuracy’): “The modified accuracy calculates the chance to hit, taking into account the intervening battlefield props. If the target is not in cover, this is the final accuracy value for the shot. The variables are: • Unmodified accuracy, from the formula above. • Stopping value attributes for each object along the fire path, as a percentage (this is set for each object in the terrain editor). The game traces the fire path for a successful hit on the target, and identifies any objects along the path. Each of these has a stopping value. For each object, the game compares its stopping value to the highest stopping value previously tested against the shot. The difference between the two is applied to the shot to see if the projectile strikes that item of cover. If the highest previously tested value is higher than the object’s stopping value, no test is performed. As stopping value is derived mostly from the height of the object, this is to prevent a shot flying over a tall wall and then hitting a small object on the other side of it (which would be impossible). Battlefield units of any description that are not in cover have a stopping chance of 100%. The only special case for this formula is units in cover. If a unit is in cover and the shooter is firing at them, the cover the unit is hiding behind is not taken into account in this calculation as it is covered in the Cover Save section (below). If a unit is in cover and the target is firing past them, the higher of the cover object’s stopping value and the stopping value for a crouching soldier (60%) is used for the combined ‘object’. If a shot hits the combined object, the cover save mechanic below is used to assign hits.“ By kneeling you get an accuracy boost, but it also increases the difficulty of hitting a target behind any cover, whether they are crouched behind it or not. How much more accurate your soldier is and how much higher the stopping value is, obviously would need to be balanced. Standing or being in cover (and therefore standing to fire) doesn’t have this problem because the stopping value would be lower. Even for characters in cover, it would still be easier to hit them as you should be able to see a bit more with that extra bit of angle. We could even go a bit further with this and say anyone on a first or second floor (ie. Not the ground floor for any Americans out there), would get reductions to the stopping value given to the cover someone is in, because they should have an even greater angle, and therefore be able to see even more of the enemy. This cover and kneeling system also rewards good tactics. You need to position your troops to cover the flanks of those in cover who can’t do it themselves, you need to position kneeling troops to minimize objects between them and their targets. Depending on the situation, standing to fire may well be the best option, but then reaction fire might get you, so make sure you’ve still got some walls /objects between you and the enemy, even if you’re not directly next to them. Hopefully this all makes sense, intuitively. There is a little picture below which hopefully will explain why standing gets you a better angle than kneeling, if you don’t get it (it’s not very good, but I think you’ll get the drift). Now to the cost of kneeling vs cover. I think that it doesn't really matter with this system either way, as everything has up sides and down sides, so there is no one position that is best all the time. It depends on how much cover you want for your soldier, and how the enemy are protecting themselves, and it can easily and fluidly change as any skirmish takes place... If I had to choose, I would say have a small (2AP) cost for kneeling, and have it automatically apply when moving next to an object that applies cover. So long as the amount of AP that will be used up is displayed prior to the player agreeing to move into cover, they cannot really moan about not having enough AP left... But this system, in my mind, could just as happily work without any AP cost attached to any change in stance.

Nope doesn't work. I tried double clicking and it just gave me your entire text again. I even clicked the little button for multiple quotes from one post. Did nothing as far as I can tell. And the reason I ask is because often people would say a lot, and I would often break it down and try and talk about each piece separately. Rather than having to delete stuff and then copy and paste the start and end of quote thingys, it was much easier in the previous system where you just highlighted what you wanted to talk about and then quote that. Then rinse and repeat.

Also anything from in game that has been revealed perhaps? Like the starting aircraft and weapons, etc. basically just stuff you already had on the last site, which can then be transferred over easily!

Sorry Chris! Did 'Le Roast Beef' as my girlfriends dad calls them, not perform to expectations? It's alright, if it makes you feel any better you can still support us, we are after all a commonwealth country!

Hope you're alright after our recent "close win" over the wallabies... =p

14 boots and lots of rookies at the front! Means more experience for the rest if they get taken over!

X-com had a random burnt cound for each tile depending on what it was made of. I think there was a minimum number of turns, counted as the fuel burning away on the ground

I forgot about those! They certainly brought a smile to my lips! I like this. But it should be the skull of whatever Chris' "worse than a chrysalid" is. That way wild tangents on what it really is could spiral throughout the forum, as the rumour mill gets up to speed Also how do you just quote part of someone's post?

Hmmm gonna be hard making a loveable alien character whose come to rip your guts out and steal the little ones for some anal probage! Wow, be careful of what you say here mate. Also you're a bit contradictory, why wouldn't visitors see it the same as you, which seems to be sterile, generic (and lovable?) I like the plushy idea though, or little interceptor toys. The problem is, Wolfpox, that we know so little of the aliens and their technology that it wouldn't be fair to try and make a mascot out of what we know (3 species...), rather leave it up to the professionals with their superior knowledge of the game. But that's me, go ahead and knock yourself out if you want to post something. I'll critique it! =]

Ha ha I can send you a little .jpg of that if you want it? THE CAKE IS A LIE! No but I do agree with you. Quite bright after the Xenonaut's forums... Probably to hide the subliminal messaging...

Just keep going from where we are, after all those who care will have been keeping up. You can always restart another one later! (TFTD? or Apocalypse?)

Cheers Buddy, will get onto that when I get home!

Ok well after reading the wiki, it appears that with some minor modifications my idea will still work. I will post more about it when I am not supposed to be working though, so have a gander later!

Ha ha too true! So that's how Sathra did it =p I posted this on the old one, but Cobra Commander wants to beat those inferior snakemen up!

Ha ha, you sure showed me! Man am I burned! =p