Jump to content

va_ghost

Members
  • Posts

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by va_ghost

  1. Simply put, sometimes I do not have a lot of time and sometimes I don't want to do yet another fight I have just done I like clicking auto-resolve. Yes, I know it is supposed to give less than going all out and less rewards but it has gotten ridiculous. I do not like the game forcing me into behavior when it givces the appearance of options. How does one vary the success % chance for aircraft to auto-resolve fights? I mean via modding... Two of my fighters plus Foxtrot versus a medium and two fighters should not result in a total loss when my fighters can go toe to toe with theirs. Any way to tweak the auto-resolve $$$ reward for air-striking landed craft? Thanks.
  2. I just started playing this evening and I am getting crash every time visible alien goes to teleporter. 1.02 HF 5/6/14 Mission 4.sav Mission 4.sav
  3. I vehemently disagree in that one is forced to expand even before one can be successful as a proof of concept. Funding should come from eliminating aliens - in the sky and ground. Expanding even before one can effectively have some control in one sector is an artificial game concept. In the real world we expect results before anteing up again. Again - we all have to play the exactly the same way? And what research variation? X armor before Y weapon - big deal. A month of better armor vs a month of better available weapons to build. "Strategically you must do the same thing every play-through" I disagree with that concept in a strategy game of world defense. One workable strategy is not made for replay-ability nor is it realistic as a military strategy.
  4. I disagree with the concept (not effect) of having to have two functioning bases immediately. Having two weak bases instead of one strong one and expanding from their is artificial. A great Napoleon quote after a colonel described how he'd defend France from attack by small groups of forces spread over the border. "What are you trying to prevent, smuggling?" The game shouldn't force us into a single defense strategy else it looses its ability to be a dynamic defense of earth instead of being a linear and static play-through. "You MUST do X, then MUST do Y"
  5. Getting unlucky with RNG should not overly punish the player because, at the moment, an unrealistic baseline is in place. Do not punish the PLAYER for not adhering to a one size fits all strategy. I'm just staring month 3 and my North America funding is less than 100K. Month 1 to month 2 the drop was <100K. Let's analyse that shall we. I can only be in one place at one time unless I stretch myself so thin as to be unrealistic. A few UFOs appear over N.A. and their funding drops to Zimbabwe levels? Are you kidding me? I'd rather go back to lower initial funding levels that are not completely broken because a UFO few over a continent of 1/2 a billion people and scared a few farmers in places and abducted a whole 20 people. I do not see any funding MODS to address this. I guess reading the forums where people are discussing three bases in three months is the only viable strategy instead of a space for time strategy. I just had a -500,000 month because of alien missions over NA and Australasia even though I am in process of building and supplying a second base. The funding drops WAYYY too rapidly. It's like the governments of the world went "you haven't completely cleared every ounce of sky as you just began.." XCOM: "But out range of out fighters.." "We don't care.. I have important constituents in places and they saw a single UFO and we have to completely give up our funding and spend our money instead on x,z,z" XCOM: But to go from 1/2 million to less than 100K in 60 days is unrealistic. "You didn't follow our undocumented and unrealistic strategy of a three minimalistic fighter bases with just radar and fighters, as we only give out points for shooting down aliens, not successfully clearing the wrecks and surviving - who cares out success there.. only results in developing new technologies to fight them" Zero alien bases Zero terror missions Complete success in round missions. But suddenly the politicians care most about air superiority missions? They result in: Zero industrial capacity damage. Zero infrastructure damage. Zero major civilian losses. ..and game design wise only your shortest range fighter can stop them and their range absolutely is godawful so naturally we make the missions hardest to stop the most damaging though the civilian governments would care about those the least.
  6. Is there any way to walk back a patch? I, honestly, like the description of the fixes overall but the utter crap morale is now makes playing the game tedious. Lose a single person and your soldiers start shooting each other. Unrealistic and breaks immersion. I have no idea how the heavy fighter fix works as I view it as a chore to get there instead of fun. Having the game make my people all run or shoot each other instead of it being a rare but tramatic event means I'm watching the game (and people dying) and not playing said game.
×
×
  • Create New...