Akavit

I thought I'd read that the autoupdater files were updated to v18. Am I mistaken on that? Desura informs me I'm up to date and I've got v17.91 showing in my launcher. I'm also getting hay bales in the chinook.

To the contrary, this is a strong indication of a highly advanced AI. The original X-Com AI simply cheated by breaking some of the rules. This new AI follows the rules but games the system.

What's the rational behind forcing a no save policy if the hardest difficulty level is selected? Ironman mode is available as an option for those that want it except in this case. I do enjoy extreme challenges but I seldom care to play long games that don't permit multiple saves. Inevitably, there's some bug that will corrupt a saved game or render it nearly unplayable. Power outages, cats on keyboards and external distractions also come into play here. I've lost too many games in the past to such things and decided I had enough of that. Basically as things are now, I'm either forced to play at an easier level or figure out how to mod the game to alter a feature that should probably be optional.

Is it possible to simply implement the dreadnought as an indoor mission? It could basically be treated like a giant, flying base. That would solve the issue of having to make larger maps. I haven't played any of the recent builds yet (waiting for beta) so I don't know how UFO crash sites are now implemented so my idea regarding the dreadnought may not be possible. I'm working off the assumption that treating dreadnought crash sites as indoor missions wouldn't require a new tileset.

Crashed when I drove a hunter into a haystack.

I encountered the same issue. When I clicked the OK button I crashed to the desktop.

It is definitely new. I've checked the site fairly frequently over the past year.

I suppose it depends upon which features are most important to you. The campaign in JA is better organized and presented. In Silent Storm, it seems to be little more than a collection of semi-organized notes that you can collect by finding "clues" and completing objectives during missions. Combat in JA is probably more realistic as well. My preference is Silent Storm though due to the Havok physics engine and the way it allows a player to really interact with the gameworld. Story elements and NPC interaction are less important to me than a really fun combat system. Heavy machine guns tear right through wooden walls and hit soldiers inside without actually destroying the walls. Extended shooting will eventually create some holes or level the wall. Blasts will throw soldiers around.

Last week Silent Storm was released by GoG for ten dollars. If anyone else has always wanted to try the game out but was deterred by the difficulty in acquiring a used, over-priced copy, now is the time to get it. This game is unbelievably advanced for something published in 2003. I'd say that this game is the only one I've played so far that has a better destructible environment than X-Com. Here's the link to the game: Silent Storm Gold Edition

I'd find this system useful if it were ingame. In my current game of UFO: ET I've taken to giving my men extra gear then dropping it at the start of the mission. If the dropship had the option to load it with some gear that would be easier and more elegant.

Hmm. Bit of a topic derail we have going on here. It is also a particularly annoying derail as well. It would be pretty hard to support that statement in America. Obsession with gore has increased dramatically over the past 50 years based upon the content of movies during that time. Yes, the whole thing regarding gratuitous violence being more accepted within the entertainment industry than gratuitous sex and foul language is weird. However, there is one thing even more absurd and that is the way of thinking that we should attempt to balance the first by adding more of the latter two. Perhaps a more reasonable suggestion would be that the American fascination with endless amounts of gore, guts and decapitated body parts needs some serious toning down (perhaps it's a European fascination too but I wouldn't know since I don't live there). There is a reason why I am supporting a game like Xenonauts and not Wasteland 2 even though I actually enjoyed Fallout 1 more than X-Com. That reason is largely due to the different vibes of their respective forums. When I started reading the Fallout/Wasteland related forums after I had played Fallout I noticed some rather disturbing trends I'd not seen before in other game forums. People were saying things like... "The more violent the graphics and descriptions are the better!" "The sequel better let me be a porn star!" "Killing children was the best part of the game!" "There needs to be swearing and cussing in every conversation!" "Violence done right is bleeping funny!" It is true that not everyone (or even the majority of folks) made statements like the above but such conversations were in general, pretty well accepted or even approved on many of the sites I was reading. Now most people I would assume play games for enjoyment. The question I've asked myself is, "Do I really wish to take pleasure in doing the above mentioned things in recreational gaming?" The short answer is no. I do not wish to be like that. I'll gladly enjoy the tactical challenges of of a strategy game like Xenonauts but I can see nothing good out of teaching myself to relish the prospect of watching a monitor display of chunky bits of people flying around. Having said that, I'd prefer that the thread stop derailing into a discussion of the less admirable trends of computer gaming and focus on Xenonauts instead. Regarding the Xenonauts update, I'm happy to see that the inventory portrait of the female soldiers is well done. The number one reason I'm leery of games including woman characters is because many developers insist on cladding Barbie clones in skin tight jumpsuits or armor (for sci-fi) or bikinis (fantasy). Getting a game where they have normal, sensible clothing is a huge plus. Kudos to Chris for his design decision.

Now we just need phosphorus grenades - smoke and fire in one handy package.

I see no reason why the game shouldn't be possible to play using starting tech for awhile. I'm currently playing a new game of UFO:ET and the majority of my tech is still the starting equipment. That's because I decided to invest in base infrastructure and can't afford to devote many resources towards upgrading gear. 5 months into the game: 4 bases, 21 hangers, one upgraded transport, 19 interceptors, expanded labs and workshops and improved radar systems are what ate up all of my money/research/manufacturing. I've finally gotten to the point where I can afford to research armor for the men and build better cannons for the interceptors. The soldiers have no special gear except for a motion detector and some mind shields (protection from psionics). They also had very short lifespans until I started using cheap tanks to absorb the losses. I often have to make two trips and lose 3 or so tanks to clear an alien fighter wreck. The scouts I can usually handle without losses by using the two tanks and a motion detector to locate enemies at a distance. A soldier with an assault rifle takes out some of the aliens from a distance and the tanks mop up the rest. My preference for game balance is to have the economy setup where it's not possible to equip a large team with the best gear. Players get the choice between a large force and assorted low quality gear or a small squad armed with the very best.

I hate to fan the flames of internet trolldom but... This is becoming an incendiary topic.

One tactic is to keep some men back and have them use sniper rifles. The men in the front should focus on staying alive rather than going for the kill. Forward troopers are for scouting, the ones in the rear do the killing.

The suppressive mechanics in the new X-Com are actually the only feature I've seen mentioned to date that I really, really like. It's as near to a believable representation of suppressive fire that could be put into a turn-based game. It should improve tactical gameplay quite a bit. I like it a lot better than the AP reduction methods that were suggested for Xenonauts. Unfortunately, it won't be possible to get full use from that ability. With such small squad sizes no one will be able to order a 6 man fire team to direct bullets into a building while another squad advances.

You have to spot the tiny font on their homepage to click on and get the news page. http://www.ufo2extraterrestrials.com/all-the-news/ The latest post was on April 2 and they basically said they haven't finished it yet and need more time. All this talk about UFO ET has me going through the config files of the original so I can lower the accuracy of enemies. One thing I found annoying is that later in the game is that enemies never miss. A challenge is good but there's no suspense in wondering if your soldier will die or not if you know the alien is going to score three hits for sure.

Hmm. I didn't know that about the UFO:ET defense missions. I must have been facing a bug because in one game I had a couple aliens start in the same room as the ship. I had to fight out of the ship as aliens rushed in to kill my squad. I'd assumed from that experience that the aliens started with the base in possession. I really enjoyed alien bases as well once I found a patch that fixed the Hallucinoid bug (Hallucinoids could use psionics without LOS and at any given range with full power) that literally made it impossible to beat a mission that had 20 of them on the map. Tanks couldn't hold back the 30 alien rush and any soldier would end up paralyzed. Due to that first alien rush I could seldom get through a mission with my tank intact. With some luck I'd be able to avoid a soldier's death but only by pulling back the injured ones as they took hits. By the mission's end I'd often be down to about 4 effective (and slightly wounded) combatants. The rest would be low on HP or out of ammo and grenades. That's what I call a lethal game.

It seems to me that most of these articles are constantly stressing how tough the game is but it's starting to sound like PR spin now. Like Xenomask, I'd never thought about the base defense as a punishment to make life miserable for the player. If base defenses are too punitive and it's possible to go through a game with just 22 losses I fail to see where the much vaunted lethality is. They'd have been better off saying that base defense missions don't make sense in a game with just one base. So X-Com will be lethal compared to a typical RPG but it still looks like most missions won't have fatal casualties. UFO: ET alien bases provided an extremely intense firefight - at least they did with the Uni-Mod installed. The aggressive AI had about 30 aliens rush the player's position as soon as they made contact. Base defenses were a little easier but what I didn't like is that the aliens started with control of the whole base and the player got one hanger to start in.

I agree they should lean proper marketing strategy. Even if they end up making the absolute best X-Com successor they'll probably fail to achieve large volume sales. Still, I'm pretty sure they're still working on the game in spite of their not paying attention to their e-mails.

I was under the impression that weapons needed to be upgraded on a per soldier basis. That's the part I didn't care to hear. It also calls to mind the question of whether or not soldiers can scavenge the gear of fallen comrades.

I liked having the option to take lots of soldiers. Managing 20 men was never an issue since I'd just replace some with HWP's. That would leave me with a couple tanks and a dozen grunts to manage. On smaller missions I'd just leave some of them behind to watch the flanks and go forward with about 8 or so. losing 22 soldiers in one game is pretty low. Either the new X-Com is very, very short or most missions won't have any losses at all. In my last game of UFO: ET I was losing 1-3 soldiers a mission (I was save-scumming too because there were serious balance issues regarding accuracy and LOS) when I first encountered destroyers and sentinels. It got so bad I had to do a lot of recruiting to provide meat shields to take the hits so my dwindling team of veterans wouldn't all be killed. I agree that 12 was just about right for me. That plus at least 1 tank.

I wouldn't have expected them to reply. From what I've read, the first game they made kept getting postponed until one day they released it without any warning whatsoever.

I don't know if I read it wrong but it looks like they've decided to put in unlockable weapons upgrades for individual soldiers. I'm guessing its purpose is to minimize the need for inventory and weapons stockpiling. I don't care for the idea though. Luckily they don't have to please me anyway since I'm not likely to get the game until it's cheap.

It's always the exact same mission every time. You'll have to play on normal mode to try anything else.