Search the Community

So since the beta is out I've been enjoying it massively...Only had one crash mid combat...(Accepteble).But i find that aliens are very trigger happy...It seems like they do not think ''complex strategy's''.To me it seems like most aliens strategy is to be a camper and just stay there pulling incredible accurate reaction shots.Also once let's say I evade the reaction shot and i move closer to him(obviously kneeling next to the fence) and ending the turn...I know that aliens are supossed to be powerfull but they are to harsh at the moment like you are guaranteed that the alien is gonna fire a normal shot(if not supressed) and a burst shot...I don't even understand why are they having burst with a pistol...that just seems dumb to me...Not sayin the plasma rifles burst...I can take out cover in 2 shoots then the third will shoot your soldier and then you are left with a bleeding/20 hp men in the middle of the battlefield... I personally think that burst shoots should be more rare... Also Sathra you remember I had problems with power sources?I finally got one!! Also I'm interested in installing your mod but i hear the Xeno-Menu mod install is broken.So how do I install your mod and Xtended Soldiers?

Iv been considering making a minor weapons balancing mod but iv tested numerous times and have gotten some rather odd results. I dont quite understand how the accuracy system ingame works. If its flawed and still being improved theres really no point at the moment until its been fixed. I just figured id release what i really like and think works well for a particular class or group of weapons, could give devs some new ideas for balancing. My question is how the game handles accuracy currently working as intended ? Also, iv never seen the AI use its grenades. Does it just not see them as weapons ?

Wow. I finally got to my 1st downed UFO, and the 1st 4 shots fired by my team ALL impacted other members of the team. I don't know where these folks went to boot camp but even the greenest cherry won't shoot a teammate by accident on his 1st op, much less supposed 'elite' operators. If this is by design, I am EXTREMELY disappointed.

Forgive me if this is a dead horse topic, my search didn't find anything. In Jagged Alliance 2:UB or was that Silents Storm... can't remember at this point (I'm leaning toward SS). Anyhow, each consecutive shot slightly increase your accuracy if you did not move. This helped to further diversify the types of shots used. You could use a less accurate shot that still had a decent hit % to boost your next shot a few % points. From my limited target practice with firearms I find this quite reasonable, as I can hone in my consecutive shots quite a bit after the first. Is this something that would complement current ground combat? Is it too much work to add in at this point? Or is this a dead horse that I'm just kicking around?

Not sure if this is intentional or a bug. I did a quick search of the forums and didn't find this being talked about, so forgive me if it's already been dealt with. When I have my troops take cover behind a fence or somesuch, they suffer accuracy penalties from it when it is directly next to them. This just doesn't make sense to my brain. Are my troops unable to peek out from cover? What kind of sense does that make? They literally suffer the same to-hit penalty that aliens firing at them suffer from my troops being in cover. This makes cover largely useless for it's usual purpose; to have a safe spot to fire from. The way things work right now, I have to use TU to run out from behind my own cover to fire. It's just bizarre. Additionally, they simply can't peek out around corners or tall cover at all. Is there a fix coming for this, or is this the way it is meant to be? If the latter... please reconsider.

This is something that is brought up regularly on the forums - the when a shot misses the target, it often does so in an unrealistically extreme manner, so a soldier aiming at a target may fire his bullet up to 45 degrees away from it. I agree this is an issue, and it's something we'll be looking at fixing in beta. This thread is intended to discuss how it can be handled, as there's been about six thousand threads on the issue and I can't be bothered to read them all. One of the previous problems with a narrower scatter arc is that sometimes a shot would "miss" and then scatter into the target, hitting them anyway. We can ensure this doesn't happen in the code, so I'm sure we can even have bullets passing through the tile the target is standing in and not hitting him. There are two things the new systems has to bear in mind: 1) It should look reasonably realistic. The wild shot scattering at the moment is not realistic. 2) It still needs to preserve the X-Com style "hilarity" where you can accidentally hit your own soldiers. Not to the same degree as you can at the moment, but I don't think I'd be very happy with any system that didn't model the shot missing and hitting something nearby - whether it be terrain or a civilian or even an entirely different alien. To be honest, it might actually be as simple as narrowing the scatter arc to 15 degrees on either side or something and treating the target as having a (projectile) stopping chance of 0 if the shot is calculated as a "miss" before the projectile is drawn. Happy to listen to alternatives though.

First of all, since this is my first post: LOVE this initiative to bring 'alive' good old UFO. Downloaded Xenonauts yesterday, and is thrilled to see the way you have reconstructed this brilliant game - thanks! Second, I got one suggestion, that could improve the sense of reality in combat. When bullets miss their target, they oftentimes miss it by quite a lot! Typically it strays more than 3 tiles to the side of the target. It would seem, that even imperial stormtroppers shouldnt be able to be that unprecise ) My suggestion would therefor be to change the calculation algorithm a bit, so that instead of straying completely of, a missed shot simply strikes next to (or follow a trajectory nearer to) the missed target, making the shot a lot more probable, while still missing the target. I accept that grenades and handguns probably would follow more 'off' trajectories, but surely long-barelled rifles would never miss their target by more than a few feet? (it also bugged me a bit in old UFO). My 2 cents! Best Regards

I know there is/was a discussion of this, anyone can provide a link?

Some of the wild shots that happen in this game are too unbelievable. I am not asking that actual accuracy be improved, but it should not be possible for an aimed sniping shot to even be anywhere near 45 Degrees off so much that a friendly was capped in the bum. Not even a child shooting for the first time in their life has aim that bad, so make missed shots look realistic instead of like a clown juggling a loaded firearm. Not even a 0% chance to hit should solicit that level of clown accuracy.

The accuracy calculation seems wrong to me. The calculation is: Shooter Accuracy * Accuracy Modifier * (Range to Target / Weapon Operational Range) = Unmodified Accuracy Shouldn't the bolded section be: Weapon Operational Range / Range To Target ?? The way I read the current calculation the weapons would get MORE accurate as range increased. That can't be right.

Is there a modable xml file that allow me to change the % chance to hit at different ranges? I'm not talking about the weapons XML. I need to mod the actual formula that determines how range affects accuracy. I'm trying to mod the shotgun for buckshot. I guess the other question is can it be weapon specific? Also, is there moddable formula for range vs. damage?

Great game from the demo. Love it. But I do notice one thing that's waaay off. Namely the accuracy cone. It seems like there is NO limitation to just how badly you can miss. The way bullets fly around is redicolous. I end up hitting (and killing) my own guys who are no way in the line of fire. The shot goes 45° off it's intented trajectory. Burts shots also spray in redicolous deviations. I have two hiting the ground 10 degreees to the left of the target, and the 3rd one going 60° right. Just a idea, but you might want to put some limit there..like 20°-25° (on either side). And a small diviation between shots in a burst. Also, not sure if this is what you are going for, but 9 times out of 10 the UFO you attack will end up destroyed, it won't crash. Oh, and civilian AI. It ends up walking right into the fire (as in burning, smoking fire). I realise right now it probably just wanders around aimlesly, but i just tought I'd mention it.

X-COM 1 - burst shooting was the choice, really good accuracy X-COM Apocalypse - accuracy was terrible, the choice was to walk very near to the alien and then shoot him from blank distance Xenonauts - quiet bad accuracy, i takes almost all the team to kill one alien in one turn, while many times if a civilian or a soldier stays not so near to the line of fire he gets shot (and often dies). I would suggest shooting would be more accurate, only the body part what would be shot would tell the percentage the shot deals damage. You could aim for head/body/arms/legs. Head would receive 100% damage but would be difficult to hit (like 20% hit, 5% hit body instead, 75% miss) Body would be easy to hit but would be really armored on many aliens thus reducing damage largely (like 70% hit, 1% hit head instead, 2% hit arms instead, 2% hit legs instead, 25% miss) Arms would not do a lot of damage to the alien but would largely affect its ability of firing (30% hit, 25% hit body instead, 45% miss) Legs quiet a lot of damage, affects the ability of the alien to move (50% hit, 10% hit body instead, 40% miss)

- Feels like weapons got *too* inaccurate in one specific way: The 'spray' on a miss. I think the current percentages are good; but for example, I had a sniper take a snap shot at ... roughly 12 squares, 31% chance to hit. The angle of the miss was something like 30 degrees off target. Even with a 'no scope' shot, that seemed excessive; it might actually be OK for a 'from the hip' shot on the automatic weapons though. Perhaps a max deviation for the precision weapons? - Troops don't seem to gain APS unless they use up their total - or at least, more than the amount you'd reserve for a snap shot. Is this deliberate? As it stands, I don't like the choice being between "overextend" and "don't increase in AP". Ideally you'd get a very modest bonus (1 or maybe 2 AP) early on if you spend most rounds with a snap shot left, and maybe 1-2 more if you used up your AP in several rounds. Having said that, I think the early game is shaping up great. I love the wider variance in early ground maps.