Search the Community

hello folks, i have played xcom 1,2 and apocalypse and i loved every game. by a fluke i saw this game and it was love at the first sight. after preordering and downloading the v16 alpha, i started playing on veteran. and now, after some hours of gameplay there are some things that confuses me: * i shot with a sniper rifle on a large distance on an alien with 50% chance to hit. ->instand kill. this was happen everytime i used the sniper. * assault rifle was the same: max. 50% chance to hit: one shot one kill. everytime. * none of the alien-shots was a hit. it seems, the weapons are too acurate and have to much power and the aliens shoots to inaccurate. on easy this is ok, but veteran? another thing: i won 15 of 16 aircraft fights with one f17 in a row against small ufos. also, the ressources on the beginning are imho to big: 4 000 000$, armored vehicles and sniper-weapons? btw. how can i buy things? i cant find any "buy"-button. otherwise, the game is great, haven´t seen a better xcom-clone before. if the difficulty would be much harder, then the game was perfect. henry p.s. how can i add this "premium preoder"-badge?

As far as I recall, weapons that are tagged as Heavy penalise squaddies who move with an accuracy penality. This is quite appropriate - heavy weapons operate best when they are at rest. But players respond best when they are both rewarded for appropriate behaviour as well as when discouraged against inappropriate behaviour, so why not dangle a few carrots as well as wave a stick? For example: Add a small bonus to reaction fire when the isHeavy conditions are met - the squaddie is clearly preparing himself for targets of opportunity. Make it slightly cheaper to fire aimed shots - the squaddie has got himself in the best position he can when not in motion. Make it slightly more expensive to rise from a kneeling state - this represents the additional bulk and weight of the weapon. These don't have to be big things, just little positives or negatives that reflect the style the weapon requires.

Th plasma gun of the aliens is too powerfull. One hit and a character dies! Suggestion: - Lower damage of plasma gun - increase resistance, that at least the human survives and can run away. - Decrease the hit chance It's really no fun to see your characters die that quick....

RotGtIE in in this thread and Comassion in in this thread have both commented on how the machinegun is the de-facto choice of weapon for a solider due to a relatively low AP cost, a high rate of fire and an acceptable level of accuracy (given the no. of shots) with the weapon. The issue with having a de-facto weapon in alpha is that game features are harder to test fully if the best choice for the player is to equip all his soliders with the same weapon. This thread therefore proposes to suggest tweaks to ballistic weapons within the framework of the existing alpha, to enable all weapons to be fairly tested. So, without further ado. Having read Comassion and RotGtIE, I would propose the following changes to the machinegun. Increasing the AP cost to 45, while reducing the no. of shots to 4 The average AP of a corporal is between 55-61. The current AP cost of a machinegun is 25, so a machinegunner can get two bursts of 5 shots off with some change left over to move a little if necessary. It also has one of the higher suppression rates, and despite its low accuracy modifer, the sheer no. of shots almost guarantees a hit regardless of accuracy. Therefore, by increasing the AP cost to 45, the machinegunner has a between 10-15 AP to get into position (2-4 tile steps), but can only get one burst off regardless. It also "future proofs" the weapon, as the next time a machinegunner can get another burst off is when they get to 90 AP! By removing one shot from the burst, the overall accuracy of the weapon is also slightly reduced, as there are fewer chances for the machinegunner to hit a target, so a player is more likely to use a machinegunner to suppress a target than he is to kill it. However in doing this a machinegunner becomes vulnerable to suppression. With a 50% drop in AP, machinegunners in general cannot return fire the turn they are suppressed. Is that a bad thing or a good thing? I'm not certain. If you're not using Quartermasters weapon editor, look for weapon.machinegun and replace the BurstFire line with: <BurstFire ap="45" accuracy="35" sound="Weapon Machinegun Burst" shotCount="4" suppressionValue="50" suppressionRadius="5" />

i have been playing the game a lot now since i bought it last night and i don't regret buying it one bit and glad i have. there was one annoying part where i managed to ambush a guy with a shotgun point blank range not even a tile between us i shoot with the shotgun and the alien is still standing... i mean come on i was point blank range and i doubt at the very start of the game aliens have shields and that malarkey and what really fucked me off was i got to a point on my iron man game where i had done a load of missions and and 2 Sgt.s doing well really enjoying the game then the game goes fuck you and just only sent fighters, no scouts or other classes JUST fighters with loads 2 escorts i got this for 30 before i rage quit i mean come on i did not even get a ground mission for 30 minutes and then spent all my money on more planes to combat the fighters, i don't see why i was just getting fighter alien ships all the i mean none stop just them constantly apart from that i love the game and cant wait to see how this turns out im expecting really great things !

Looking around at costs and such, I feel like multiplying many of the existing money amounts by 10 would better bring them in line with the true financial cost of that item - for instance, the MiG would cost 2.5 million instead of 250K, which is still probably on the cheap side, but feels more like the cost for a modern aircraft than 250K does. As for salaries, it's probably fine to be paying employees of this organization exorbitant amounts - you're getting the best of the best.

Now that I've gotten enough playtime in, I feel I have a pretty good handle on the roles played by the weapons in the game's current build - enough of one to kick up another thread about them at least. Like in X-Com, I expected to quickly file down my equipment loadout to a uniformly effective one. Unexpectedly, this has resulted in the machine gun, and not the assault rifle, taking position as the standard weapon in my xenonauts forces, after giving most of the weapons a series of combat tests. My impression is that Xenonauts is intended to discourage uniform loadouts or at least encourage varied ones, so I'll try to help in that regard with a summary analysis of my experience with the various weapons, including their shortcomings and my reasons for removing them from use as well as my suggestions for bringing them into competition with the machine gun. First, I'll detail the machine gun itself, as that is the weapon which eventually made my uniform-loadout cut. The long and short of it is that the machine gun delivers to the Xenonauts player everything he was used to in X-Com. The machine gun brings back the hallmark of the usefulness of a high volume of fire, even when paired with an almost laughably wide cone of fire. It provides a very familiar feel to the X-Com vet when compared with the other weapon classes, fitting the old playstyle like a glove and doing so very effectively. It is a simple matter to overcome the weight disadvantage with this weapon, as one or two missions carrying it will give a soldier the necessary increase in strength to wield it in further missions without suffering any encumbrance. From then on, it's basically just a nice big rifle with hard-hitting bullets that can be relied on to fire at least one, and often two five-round bursts from a single operative in a single turn. With each bullet hitting harder than any other weapon save for the rocket launcher (including laser weapons!), the machine gun is more capable of one-shot kills than its competitors, and the large bursts make it highly improbable that at least one such shot will not land, and more likely than other weapons that multiple shots will hit as well. The only real disadvantage is the wild inaccuracy, which makes it much more difficult to safely fire this weapon when civilians or friendly operatives are anywhere near the line of fire, but again, this is a problem that any X-Com veteran will be very familiar with and he has no problem overcoming this issue with proper spacing and getting a good feel for the deadly cone of fire. Because of its combination of acceptable accuracy, high stopping power, and high volume of fire, this weapon is actually better able to serve as the de facto assault rifle than the actual assault rifle is. Unfortunately, this is not what the weapon was designed for. It seems to me that the machine gun in Xenonauts was supposed to be an excellent overwatch tool - something deployed in a location that would provide area denial to allow for a player to execute fire-maneuver tactics with a concept of suppressive fire in play. I have one simple idea for making this role come into the machine gun and its class of weapons - a significant boost to the reaction fire ability of an operative wielding it. In all other respects I feel that the machine gun has been very well designed and its inaccuracy as a fire-on-the-move weapon would be a more than suitable drawback if the other weapon classes were to pick up their own slack. If the player could reliably put a machine gun on a soldier knowing that he could make that soldier shut down an area to enemy movement, he would certainly use it in this role. A second idea for achieving this would be to allow machine gun users to significantly increase their range of sight in a small cone ahead of them when they crouch, but only for the purposes of reaction fire - no map reveal and no ability to take reaction shots at enemies moving in areas that are still covered by the fog of war. This would allow players to put their machine gunners in somewhat rearward overwatch positions to deny a meaningful area of the map to enemy movement. I have thoughts and ideas about many of the other weapons as they are currently implemented, but I'll get into those in the next few posts so as not to be too overwhelming in my first. I expect this to get pretty lengthy pretty quickly.

I don't know if this has been posed as a bug or suggestion. I have noticed some Laser Weapons balance issues..... Laser Pistol has burst, not a bad idea, just make it like a Laser Machine Pistol, lol there are Pistols out there in the world with Burst fire. Scatter Laser has a 4 round clip and only 3 round burst fire, you gotta carry tons of clips and its like the machine gun Big blalance issue there to me. at least give it like a 3 round burst per charge it takes up. and maybe you can make not a laser shotgun, but a laser that works like one with like a cone fire spraying lasers in several directions all at the same time rather than like a burst, lol

Since none of these weapons are "real" but just archetypes... drop the ammo on shotgun to 8 and the ammo on the sniper rifle to 12 (or 9 if it's heavy). Make ammo a little more precious and give the pitiful AR an advantage with it's clip size... I haven't had to reload yet in game (aside from the rocket launcher). Assault Rifle I still think burst on AR sucks. It never/rarely hits more than one shot at range (realistically) so I'm better off using a sniper aimed shot for more damage. It never/rarely hits more than twice at close range, so I'm better off using a shotgun and firing two shots for more damage. Even if it hits 3 times the only real bonus is there is no chance of reaction fire for 75 damage vs 35x2 on a shottie. I suppose it still can do both roles, yet not as well, so it has some value, but it's really not growing on me aside from doing a lot of aim level 2 potshots. Sniper If you are going to make it a heavy weapon, it should do more damage (50 cal?) and probably take a tiny bit more TUs. It might be worthwhile to drag one of the previous sniper soviet models out, because I can't see it being a heavy weapon if it's just an AR with a scope and longer barrel.

So there is one glaring thing that happens in all games related to the Xcom universe from the original, here to xenonauts, and from everything I've read also will be in the new Firaxis game. This same factor breaks my initial Immersion in the game. Or if you prefer the more technical terminology - something that breaks my suspension of disbelief. The item I am referring makes 100% sense from a gameplay point of view. It would DESTROY balance to not be the way it is now. With that being said however here's my issue. When the game starts your troops SUCK. There I said it. They suck. We ARE after all talking about the best Earth has to offer. Apparently we are $%#*ed in every Xcom game. The best of the best soldiers in the WORLD are awful at the start of the game. You can have two people stand next to each other and face the same direction - for example away from the main rear entrance to the chinook. These two genuises will somehow, despite years of specialized training and weapons experience, manage to say shoot EACH OTHER. If you throw grenades (thus far in any game) they clip into nearby objects. Like a box in front of you lower than your waist. How this happens just kills me with laughter every time something like that happens. I mean really? That's the BEST we can come up with? It makes me wish for a comedy movie to come out based on a spoof of this stuff (you know like a bad movie that becomes a classic because it's funny bad... like Tremors). I mean from a gameplay perspective sure, you want your soldiers to get more powerful as they fight aliens, they get more confidence fighting the strangers from other planets. I mean I get that totally. Like I said to do it any other way would break the gameplay balance early on to a degree if your guys were fairly competent (high APs, accuracy etc). That being said I think it's an aspect to these types of games that will always make me scratch my head the first few encounters of every new game I start.

Okay, I've just had the best ground combat mission to date, which involved my first and only loss. It was with the crew from my second base, and they'd had to respond to a crash site before I could transfer any experienced troops across from my initial HQ. There were only four of them, to investigate a crashed Sebillian scout ship. The smaller squad size, combined with their slightly lower stats led to the most tension I've felt in the game since I started playing. As much as I've enjoyed the game so far (and that's a lot) THIS was the first mission that really had me on the edge of my seat and which made me feel the same way I used to when I played UFO:EU. I've probably gone off on one a bit there, but it's left me buzzing and the reason was; because I had fewer troops, each one was that much more valuable. I think in the early game, landing with a crew of 8 semi-experienced guys right off the bat, to tackle a light scout seems like a walk in the park. Who cares if one or two take a hit? This time around though, I knew that if I lost even 1 or 2 troopers, my chances of completing the mission were greatly reduced. So, long story short (sorry!) Could we maybe only start with 4 or 5 experienced troopers. Then, for the first few missions it gives the choice of going in with a small but decent squad, or padding it out with rookies so you have the numerical advantage but they may be prone to panic, and generally not that effective to start with.

Overall -Normal is to hard because it costs to much to build new bases. Geoscape - Returning to base after mission results in equipped 2-handed weapons having weight doubled/counted twice. - Core topics (plasma tech, laser tech, etc) sometimes not showing up for research even with pre-requisites complete. Belived cause realated to saving or loading. Ground Combat - Forced flares during night missions weight to much. These are things that i find make the current game very unenjoyable... Mainly the fact that I have NEVER been able to research laser weaponry and wolf armor even after having researched everything I would recomend that you fix these problems before you send them to journalists to test.

Currently missiles do not consume on use, but this is a bug. Currently It might take me 9days to produce 10 missiles which is fine considering they last me forever. But if consumed I will use them up in 2 sorties. My suggestion would be batch building alenium missiles so that 1 day = 5/10missiles with 25 technicians. That way you can use down time to recover. My worst day so far has involved 1 base making about 10sorties over 24hrs with 9 interceptors. I used up about 40/50 missiles in that 1day. Technicians used for missiles also severely impact other production times. 25 sets of wolf armour can take 80days with 25 technicians. The other 25 are making missiles. Wolf armour also seems to have a rediculous build length for marginal gain. Made worse when wounded units lose all their equipment.

I was wondering if anyone here knows why the per-shot AP cost has been significantly raised in Xenonauts as compared to X-COM. Was there a specific rationale behind it, or have the weapon stats just not been heavily balanced yet? Just curious, as currently Xenonauts firefights feel less fun than X-COM firefights (though still enjoyable) because there's a whole lot less lead and energy bolts flying around due to the greater AP costs of shots in general, particularly auto fire.

On another forum I saw a very good set of proposals for how difficulty levels could work in a very innovative way. The best comparison is to the current implementation of how alien invasion escalates based on difficulty. Instead of buffing and debuffing stats, key features change in severity. I think some of this may already be in the works, but I'm not sure.