bills6693

Would like to say I also have this issue, and here's a save game if it would help at all. I know nothing major happens (by what you're saying above) but its still an annoying issue. Using latest version of CE (.28) I tried this once before, same mission but loading off an earlier save (after I finished the mission and got the crash, starting again roughly 25% through the mission), and then twice off this save, all three times it crashed. [ATTACH]5478[/ATTACH] OE Evac.sav OE Evac.sav

Hi there, hopefully you see this. I'm getting this problem still. I'm on the latest version, on steam, with the latest Community Edition installed (I believe its .29) EDIT: To clarify, what happens is I've finished the mission, all soldiers alive. I get the end-of-mission report (aliens killed, get medals & stat ups etc), and then when I click to continue the game crashes to desktop.

If this were the case, I'd like the ability to use flares even during light sections. This way a cautious player could leave a 'trail' of flares along their route. If you planned ahead, and used the TUs for flare-laying, you get rewarded by having areas you covered in flares lit up already

I was thinking you could basically us a button to say 'split group' and choose how you wanted to split. Then you split off the aircraft you want to return, and return it. Alternately, there could be a 'return to base' button for each aircraft as well as a general one. However I think splitting the group manually would be fine. If aircraft are returning automatically (low on fuel) it will just be the relevant aircraft. If you want to tell them to return manually, as I said, split off ones you want to return if you want some to stay out. When an engagement finishes, instead of the automatic action being to return to base, it should be just to stay in the area (apart from troop transport which should auto-return). This way it means after every combat you don't have all your group splitting up and returning (if from different bases). However I also do not forsee aircraft from different bases being mixed together too often. They only have a limited fuel range and unless you are building bases close together, by the time an aircraft arrives from another base its almost time to go back again. However the ability to mix them should still be there - it could be situationally useful - just not used too often.

Ok I think I understand the problem. I don't understand what you mean with having a squadron with some aircraft in the air and some on the ground - I meant that aircraft both had to be in the air and within proximity of each other to 'meet' and form a squadron (in the same way an aircraft must be in proximity with a UFO). However, there could be an issue with aircraft from different bases being joined into squadrons together upon needing to return to bases. I would say the system would need to track which aircraft were from which bases, and automatically 'return' them as and when they ran out of fuel (bar that needed to return to their base), at which point the aircraft would automatically return to the base. I have no experience in how the game currently handles aircraft and minimum fuel needed to return to base, so it would be difficult to say exactly how this would work behind the scenes. However I can attempt to come up with something. Fuel = F Fuel use/km = U Distance to base (km) = D Base (number) = B1, B2 etc (imagining that bases are numbered to differentiate them). So when a plane launches from a base, the game keeps track of which base it is from (B1 etc), how far it is from the base, and the minimum amount of fuel it needs to return to the base (which will constantly be changing based on D*U). Minimum fuel needed can be called Fmin Every time unit in the game, the game calculates these units for each plane, and if F≤Fmin, the plane will detach from the current squadron and return to its base. This is just a guess - basically calculate this for each plane (rather than squadron) like the game does, when it has to return to base. In combat, if a plane hits Fmin, that individual plane will break off combat with a forced retreat command. This means for each individual plane, the game will have to check if F≤Fmin to know if it needs to break off the combat. When a player orders a squadron to return to base, planes will split up based on the bases they are at. Basically the squadron will reform based on base number - so planes marked B1 will create a new squadron, planes marked B2 will create a new squad, etc. They will then return to their specific bases (unless commanded otherwise). Does this make sense? I'm afraid as I have no real programming experience etc myself at all, I can only be of very limited use explaining how such a mechanic may work. I've probably left gaping holes in this too, I'm afraid.

Hi there, first off sorry if this has already been covered, I must have missed it. Basically what I ask is that it be possible to split up and add together air groups - by this I mean groups of interceptors. For example, when you don't know what a threat is, you may send two planes (one with faster missiles/gun, one with torpedoes) to try to take it down. When you fight it, it may turn out to be a scout for instance, and taken down by plane 1 with plane 2 not being involved. However plane 2 is still bound to the group and has to return to base before being able to go out again, even if it has fuel left and missiles still ready to be fired. If another threat appears, even though you have this functional aircraft already in the air, you can't split it off to do something. Similarly, you may send two seperate aircraft off on different jobs, then find there is a larger enemy and want to attack it with both aircraft. However this is just not possible to do. Logically, it makes sense. You have two planes, you should be able to give them different orders even if they launched at the same time. Or you have two planes, you know where they are, you can direct them to group together and form an air wing. But this is not possible in-game. I don't think the lack of this feature really adds anything to gameplay other than restricting your choices and forcing you to take unnecessary gambles that make no logical sense. So all of this is why I ask that, if possible, the makers of the community patch add this into the game at some point. Many thanks for reading

What if regular damage also added half-again stun damage? As chris says, it makes sense for an alien who is wounded to be subdued/pass out easier. Blood loss, pain (and biological pain-killers), physiological effects from being wounded. If a person gets wounded severely, they're also likely to pass out, or at least not be as alert, due to blood loss and shock. I would say the aliens should go through a similar process. Therefore, it would make sense that when you wound them you also subdue them. But to avoid doing 95hp of damage to your 100hp alien then hitting them with a flash-bang grenade to stun them, instead when you do 95hp of damage they receive 47 stun damage, so you still have to do a fair amount to subdue them (and not injure them in the process).

Yes, and therefore the 'ideal' spread of scientists, to get the most work done, is to be equal between all possible projects. However then you'll get nothing fast. Thus I'd recommend, personally, a balance (and that is what is intended, I imagine). I would say don't assign more than about half of your scientists to one project, and assign your other ones split between other projects. That way you can get things done that you need, quickly - but you are not wasting too many man-hours rushing that tech, and are getting better progress on other techs instead.

Awesome to hear this especially. While I'm sad the game will not be seeing any more UI, feature work etc, and probably no more balances, its good to hear that there will be steam workshop hopefully soon!

Scientists have diminishing returns? Did not know that, thats awesome to know. Now I actually have a reason to spread them out, before this I thought it was just pointless.

I believe (from earlier patchnotes, like 1.01 or 1.02) that the module had been tracking play and bugs/crashes etc during the beta and they didn't even realise it was still in there.

I have to agree with Tiktaalik on this. The added layer of 'strategy' seems to me nothing more than the strategy of how to deal with a missing feature in the game. It is a random nature. The reason you should be allowed to is not some arbitrary whim, it is because it would make a better gameplay experience, and is based on a very basic element of realism. You're still sending multiple fighters, burning up fuel and having them out of the way if something else happens or out of fuel. To me the limitation currently placed means you generally need to send all your fighters to one UFO in case you need all, which is akin to how in the new Firaxis XCOM Enemy Unknown you could only pick one of three abduction sites (which added a layer of 'strategy' to the game as you had to choose which one to do). I think we can all agree that was a stupid limitation and the same gameplay (nations having panic increase) could have been achieved in better ways, like here with more attacks than you can handle, and I think this one is a stupid limitation too for the same reason. The 'mechanic' of choosing where your fighters go and who to intercept is still there - missiles still used, fuel still running out - but a small QOL addition that stops me losing immersion in the game and makes it slightly easier to manage your interceptors? Yes please!

Nice. As a brand new player (who never played original X-Com, and is playing on normasl), most of my problems should probably be fixed now. When 1.05 goes to the stable branch I'll probably jump back in tbh. Airstrikes giving more and ground missions less will help cover more of the world with air-only bases early on, and along with the other changes it will hopefully reduce the damage being done to nations causing them to leave me before I could possibly protect them (in my eyes... unless I spent NO money other than new bases?)

I wish civilian AI was slightly different. I want them to run towards soldiers (locals or xenonaut), and back to the helicopter. They're not terrible (they do hide) but they seem to be indifferent to the soldiers helping them out, if they fled to me I could protect them much better.

One mission was very strange, I think local forces killed ALL aliens but one. I killed one guy on turn 2 and won the UFO crash site. Odd. I've had local forces kill (and seen it happen) aliens before too. As said, shotguns can be deadly in their hands.

Its probably worth it for your snipers as it means they can shoot a long way over intervening terrain, instead of having to get up close and personal to get a clear shot. They can be out of harms way (and thus not need armour) and still shoot in support of your guys. Machine guns too, to an extent. That is only from my very limited experience over the last few days though...

Yes, I thought new UI elements were unlikely. Thus as I've said in my posts, the manual - which must be inteded to be written, as it is in the launcher but currently a placeholder - could go leaps and bounds to making things clearer. The quickstart guide gives an alright overview of combat, but very little on the world map, and how to play the actual campaign. I might well do as you suggest, create a new post critiquing the quickstart guide.

I agree that it DOES NOT seem affected by saving, at least for me. Also I've now just been playing a very long strech, inc alt-tabbing, loading the game, going to the screen soon and longer after doing other things, and not had a crash. There seems to be no consistency as far as I can tell on any of the ideas raised. I feel if we are able to replicate the bug reliably, we'd be much closer to fixing it, but I for one can't see much common ground between instances of it happening.

Look, its great and thanks for answering our questions. However its missing the key point is that we shouldn't have to ask these if the UI explained things well and was more clear. As it stands, there are a billion things that are completly opaque to a first-time player. I would consider myself a fairly competent player of games, I don't need to be held by the hand all the way through. But there is literally no explanation of what is going on in this game. No indication of what to do. Heck, it never even tells you that countries have a relationship with you and that they fund you. Even the most basic of mechanics are not clear to the player unless they ALREADY KNOW, i.e. they've played X-Com or trawled through the forums finding things out. It should not be like that at all, and I hope that as part of this 2 weeks of pre-launch, they actually add some UI polish and explanation along with the manual (which is currently a placeholder). Fixing bugs is good but people need to understand your game and I feel that if many elements are very unclear to a player like myself, who I would consider pretty average, its going to alienate a lot of players and reviewers when it launches properly.

Ah, I have found a way! The order you put them in the squad - i.e. from unassigned to the squad - is the order they are in for hotkeys BUT not the order they appear in the loadout screen. Its very odd they are in a different order in the loadout screen but it DOES seem to work for in the actual missions (and for sorting out placement in the helo), who is bound to which key/number

The point of the OP seems to have been missed. There are lots of things which literally make no sense to a new player (who hasn't played X-Com I suspect, as I imagine lots of things are the same as X-Com). For one thing, an individual shouldn't have to come ask on the forums what things do and how to do things which should be basic functionality. There is no manual yet - hopefully that is coming before the 1.0 release, but maybe that would explain everything. There are lots of his comments not mentioned (esp what the soldier stats actually mean), plus loads more. How does research work? (More researchers make it go faster? Or just get the the next 'progress' level?) . I had to search the forums for how to use medpacks. What does the belt do better than the backpack? Can interceptors patrol an area without having been given an alien aircraft to target? Can you split interceptors mid-flight? Why does throwing a grenade or shooting cost more for some soldiers than others? Can I change my squads order (so the hotkeys map to different soldiers). There are probably a billion things that I just have flat out missed. I don't need all these answered here (although it'd be nice), these need answering in-game for all players to know, especially as general release may see a lot of new players like myself who have never played the original X-Com. But the game hardly explains anything, only the most basic of things and only some of those. As I said, maybe the manual will help and I hope its coming before general release, but at present if you didn't already know, there's tons of things that make no sense whatsoever or you don't know to do or how to do.

I just had it a third time. This is making the game unplayable almost. Dropship in base. Just finished a mission. No injuries again. Basic kit still. It was just before launching the helicopter to tackle a scout my interceptors were en-route to.

Click-on-loadout CTD, just read to share any info possible so doing so now: Had this crash twice, including just now (still on v 1.0). Time 1: All basic equipment still (v early in game), following my very first ground mission. Was on storage screen (seeing I had alloys), took no action, clicked on loadout screen. Normal diff, ironman off. Time 2: All basic kit once again, just back from a ground mission. No soldiers had been injured in combat, but I had one soldier still injured (in sickbay, not on my active squad) from a previous mission. Normal diff, ironman off. Had been on hangar screen (I think, its defo not the storage screen like the first time though).

As in remove them from the squad, then re-add them? I do not think this works but may not be what you meant! This seems like quite a basic feature that seems odd to be missing. Wonder if its on the cards before full release, can't imagine it'd be hard to implement but I'm no programmer!

My problem is thus - the soldiers in my squad (and therefore assigned to the hotkeys) is in a seeminly random preset order. I want to be able to reorder my solders so I can cycle through with the hotkeys relating to the soldiers I want (e.g. assults first, sniper next, riflemen next, support last etc). I cannot find any way to do this - you cannot drag soldiers around in the loadout screen, or drag portraits around in the aircraft positioning screen (although they don't appear in order for some reason!) Am I missing some option/icon/toggle/way to reorder my solders in the squad or is this not a feature? If the latter then oh well, but if the former it'd be very useful to know what it is! Many thanks. Lack of a tutorial (more than a small number text pointers) and manual yet-to-be added makes this difficult to fully get into as a player who's not played X-COM! I do enjoy learning and discovering how to do things but at the same time its meaning I miss how to do things. But I'm loving this game, don't get me wrong and its been created amazingly! First forum post too (I could not find any information on this, if it already exists I'm more than happy to delete this thread)