Improve Aircraft Ranges

[Patupi]

I'm not so sure. How soon would it be realistic to build a new base on the other side of the planet in game? To begin with the aliens aren't going to be heavily affecting the nations, right? If you affect your initial zone around your first base better, then so be it. You just strive to get a new zone around a second base as soon as possible. I admit not being able to chase UFOs a long ways can be annoying, but primarily in comparison with XCom. As long as the short ranges don't adversely affect early game play it might be more of a strategic problem than a game breaker.

In the same line I would think the chopper should have a longer range than fighters. For starters craft designed for speed wouldn't neccessarily have the same fuel efficiency as ones designed for reliable heavy load transport. If it's bigger it'd use more fuel, true, but still should have a longer range as it should carry more fuel onboard. Most other games use this ethos and I'm not sure why it's different here. I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind that

[Chris]

How would you detect over such long ranges? I don't quite understand the utility of having vastly increased range.

I'm not necessarily averse to bumping it up (we started with realistic aircraft ranges and then threw them out the window and doubled or tripled them) but I don't want you to be able to protect the entire world with a single base really....

[TheTuninator]

How would you detect over such long ranges? I don't quite understand the utility of having vastly increased range.

I'm not necessarily averse to bumping it up (we started with realistic aircraft ranges and then threw them out the window and doubled or tripled them) but I don't want you to be able to protect the entire world with a single base really....

Oh, I agree. I'm simply raising a concern as the aircraft ranges are an area in which Xenonauts deviates significantly from X-COM. I have no problem with deviation from X-COM in general, and I think it's great that Xenonauts is trying to carve out its own niche as a unique game, but in this case I think it's a deviation which hurts player enjoyment of the game when compared to X-COM.

My main concern is not detection, but rather pursuit; where in X-COM you could give chase to a UFO for quite a considerable distance, in Xenonauts you're pretty much out of luck if it heads away from your base at all. To use the example of the East Coast US base again, in X-COM you could chase a UFO from over Texas or New England to the tip of South America or well over Europe. In Xenonauts, you can get maybe 2/3rds of the way down South America (and have no fuel left for the fight) or maybe midway over the Atlantic most of the time. If I pick up a UFO over the Atlantic and it heads in the direction of Europe, I'm pretty much powerless to stop it.

At the end of the day it's nothing I can't cope with, but I would definitely urge you guys to examine aircraft ranges again during the beta, as they are currently maybe 1/2 to 2/3rds that of X-COM aircraft.

Edited February 19, 2012 by TheTuninator

[iamkyon]

At the end of the day it's nothing I can't cope with, but I would definitely urge you guys to examine aircraft ranges again during the beta, as they are currently maybe 1/2 to 2/3rds that of X-COM aircraft.

Just for the record, I prefer it this way.

[TheTuninator]

And, if the majority of players seem to prefer it that way, then I'd agree that the aircraft ranges should be kept as they are. I just think it's something that warrants some more scrutiny once the game is feature complete and a bit more polished.

[Patupi]

One other reason to have larger ranges was patrol. In XCom I routinely sent aircraft into foreign countries to patrol, both to find any UFOs nearby (very unlikely) and also to make the country I'm patrolling feel that they are being protected. Can't protect the country if it's so far away that you can stay in the air there for 2 seconds before having to return to base to refuel!

[TheTuninator]

One other reason to have larger ranges was patrol. In XCom I routinely sent aircraft into foreign countries to patrol, both to find any UFOs nearby (very unlikely) and also to make the country I'm patrolling feel that they are being protected. Can't protect the country if it's so far away that you can stay in the air there for 2 seconds before having to return to base to refuel!

This is definitely another important consideration. Patrol is a key way to find alien bases, and as it stands if you put a base in northeastern NA you can't even reach the southern end of South America with interceptors, let alone patrol there for an appreciable length of time.

[anotherdevil]

I think it all comes down to balance, especially the increase in UFOs throughout the game, and how quickly or slowly the player can build and maintain interceptor bases. If that is all balanced, then I am perfectly happy with the current ranges, and increasing them might be something awesome for next-gen fighters etc.

[AradoX]

Re. the OP: I agree with anotherdevil, that if the balancing is right, then it's fine. I just haven't played long enough to know if it is.

Re. Friendly Geoscape Fighters

I think it would be great if the nations of the world would fight back with whatever means possible. IRL if I put my base in Europe and couldn't reach USA, I'm certain USA would scramble fighters of their own to intercept any hostiles over their territory.

I don't really think the aliens should be able to just destroy the nation's airbase - how many airfields do USA have? How many fighters do they have? (rhetoric questions)

The friendly geoscape fighters won't have much effect later anyway, as bigger alien ships start appearing. They would probably only engage smaller ufos, and not go on suicidemission against big ships.

Along this line, I like the idea about upgrading the friendly geoscape forces with e.g. lasers. Then you could let them handle the small ufos, and concentrate your forces on the real dangers of bigger alien ships.

[KOKON]

May be with 3d globe you had a feeling that your interceptors have a good coverage. I don't like superlong ranges personally.

May be ufos shoul behave in a different way during initial phase of the game. It is simple to achive regulating average time ufo conducting it's mission. For example interceptor can fly 6 game hrs. Then ufo should be shot down, land, escape into space, or tracking lost during 3-5 game hrs.

Edited February 19, 2012 by KOKON

[Gorlom]

Is the fuel consumed to fly back considred when determening aircraft flight time before it returns to base? To clearify can a plane fly for longer if it's just circeling the Xenonaut base then if its flying in a single direction straigt away from the base?

Personally I'd probably prefere the game did not reserve fuel to be able to return to base, even if its not realistic to return to base on an empty tank =P

[TheTuninator]

May be with 3d globe you had a feeling that your interceptors have a good coverage. I don't like superlong ranges personally.

Nah, I measured the distances and the X-COM craft do indeed go much further.

The relative map sizes may be different, of course, but that still results in less coverage.

[anotherdevil]

craft RTB at 50% fuel

[Gorlom]

AD even if they are right next to the base? ok good to know.

[anotherdevil]

AD even if they are right next to the base? ok good to know.

I believe so. It's just easier for the player and the computer all round, and plus engaging at less than 50% doesn't give you much time to do combat anyway, unless you are right next to your base (in which case why are you only at 50%??)

[Chris]

Nope, planes actually RTB when they reach the minimum fuel level needed to reach their base. They can't take off below 50% fuel though.

[anotherdevil]

oh you changed it! Awesome, cheers for the clarification =]

Sorry about misleading everyone! =s

[ploertendoder]

I'm actually not sure; I'll have to check.

I think this is actually quite important if you don't want to fight at night. There is no way to wait for daytime before engaging. The option you're given is engage or abandon. X-Com had the option to hover above the target before engaging.

[NoIdidnt]

at this stage in development you still have that option by abandoning then selecting patrol for the dropship but you need to watch the fuel.

best bet rite now is to time the mission, dont send the drop ship until it will be daytime when it gets there.

also after you start getting a lot of fighter ufos on the map it wont be a good idea to hang around much even if you send your drop ship with escorts.

Edited March 3, 2012 by NoIdidnt

[blassty]

Can reconnaissance be left out of the player's hands? (as in manually sending interceptors to a region) Why send interceptors to do ground or air recon anyway, isn't there dedicated non-combat support aircraft to fill that role (AWACS)? And every nation has radar networks couldnt they relay that information to Xcom? Also, can the interceptor disengage not because of 50% fuel, but based on how much fuel it will take to land at a friendly air base? I.E. it can circle around a friendly air base until it reaches 5% fuel which is the required amount to get back and land.

[Gauddlike]

The only reason to send your craft to recon an area would be if you suspect an alien base is nearby.

That is instead of adding another mechanic to locate bases but still reward the players who are actively looking for them.

Radar systems would be unlikely to pick up an enemy base, especially if it is below ground.

Also, can the interceptor disengage not because of 50% fuel, but based on how much fuel it will take to land at a friendly air base? I.E. it can circle around a friendly air base until it reaches 5% fuel which is the required amount to get back and land.

From 4 posts above yours.

Nope, planes actually RTB when they reach the minimum fuel level needed to reach their base. They can't take off below 50% fuel though.

[RotGtIE]

I think this is one of those issues where the old style of playing X-Com rears its ugly head in players when testing new X-Com remake projects. Certainly in the old X-Com aircraft had very long ranges, at least the starter aircraft did. Unrealistically long ranges. Laughably long, even. But that was born out of necessity because it was just plain unfeasible for a player to have more than one base providing map coverage in the early months of the game. Some X-Com games could go from start to finish with only one base for the whole playthrough.

I think this ties in with the range issue - the problem could be addressed not by directly bumping up aircraft ranges up to old X-Com levels, but rather by making it feasible in Xenonauts to have two or three interception bases from the outset of the game. With the current ranges in Xenonauts, a player could conceivably cover most of the world with a base in Latin America, one in North Africa, and one in China. Not all bases have to be full-blown main/primary bases of operations - one primary base could be supported by smaller bases whose roles are simply to house interception aircraft and their own UFO recovery/terror response teams.

I think this would be a more realistic approach while still preserving gameplay quality. Certainly an international organization like Xenonauts could argue for enough funding to at least have two, if not three operational bases running just to provide the bare minimum of global coverage so that the organization could at least respond to events anywhere in the world, if not optimally so.

Perhaps at the outset of a game, the player could be given a limited number of base facilities to place in three locations of his choice, such that he is allowed enough facilities to immediately have one major primary base with his initial research labs, alien containment facilities and whatnot, and just enough remaining facilities to outfit two other bases with the basic amount of hangars, storage facilities, radar detection, and living quarters. Some way to have the instant startup similar to the old X-Com, but not exactly down to the point where the player is getting exactly one pre-designed base to work with. Since Xenonauts is, in the end, a new and different game, I think the startup could be adjusted to reflect the greater degree of realism we've seen in its atmosphere.

[Gazz]

I'm not necessarily averse to bumping it up (we started with realistic aircraft ranges and then threw them out the window and doubled or tripled them) but I don't want you to be able to protect the entire world with a single base really....

Fuel tanks instead of weapons would be a trade-off.

Early on when you can't afford to litter the world with fully developed bases, you can opt to go with the (longer ranged) MiGs, mount two fuel tanks, and get some chance of an interception - at least a partial one.

Eventually the alien threat will pick up to a point where you need the full firepower of all weapon bays... but that's later... when you should be expanding into more bases anyway.

Drop tanks (automatically installed if no weapon is in the bay) would take the sting out of that early transitional period.

[KOKON]

Yeah i would also like to have optional fuel tanks. But that would be more fun to place them in equipement part of the fuselage. Ie you can place radar, targeting system, fuel tank or a coke tank and a toilet for american crews.

P.S.: i would like to have more hardpoints and more hp/manuverability for ufos to make battles much longer if you engage 1vs1

Edited March 12, 2012 by KOKON

[Picard]

Hello, everyone - first time poster here, just wanted to offer my 2 cents on the whole aircraft range discussion.

First of all - I think it is quite important to strive in maintaining a plausible, realistic figures for all game entities; it's arguably one of the things that made X-COM initially so great: it makes suspension of disbelief so much easier.

Now, seeing range interception envelopes such as they are, it is obvious they're overestimated: a typical F-16 combat radius is about 550 km (300 nmi), and judging from the interception range from the Xenonauts youtube interview, the combat range of F-17 is about 2500 km (1450 nmi - why is Xenopaedia entry saying their range is 15 000 km?). I'd agree with Chris - I think that's the maximum range increase we should even consider. The original X-Com interceptor range is absurdly large even with KC-135 tankers factored in and I think that's not the proper way to deal with design/balancing issues, so let me throw in a few of my ideas:

1) I really liked the idea of replacing weapons hardpoints with fuel tanks - range/firepower tradeoff seems like a logical choice. Also, why not simply having two additional hardpoints for fuel tanks only? When equipped, the aircraft would suffer a penalty to manuverability (increased chance to hit by UFO) and/or combat performance (increased chance to miss with on-board weapons)? The tanks could (optionally?) be automatically jettisoned (with penalties removed) when reaching 50% of maximum range, so no need to micromanage this from player standpoint. Also, jettisoning tanks would incur a price penalty (the tanks cost money).

2) I don't fancy the idea of initially giving the player X bases (where X > 1). There should be an atmosphere of helplessness, isolation, inferiority, dread and general unpreparedness against the alien threat - I think additional X-COM bases on the very beginning would undermine that feeling.

Instead, let's consider the following game mechanic: additional national stationary assets. I think someone mentioned something similar to this, so let me just build upon the idea.

Essentially, the idea is to strategically place refuelling airports on the globe and a few static anti-aircraft defences on the globe (a good example is the famed Moscow Air Defence, a.k.a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Purpose_Command).

The refuelling airports would serve to extend the range of the interceptors. A player would have the option of using these assets during interception so that, e.g. a low-fueled F-17 in a UFO chase would land on the airpoirt, lose 10-15 mins of interception time and then, fully refueled, carry on the interception. The player couldn't control/relocate the airports, the airports would always be available and refuelling would incur a small fee to monthly budget. Algorithm for interceptors shouldn't be too difficult to implement: if interceptor is in the air, each time tick check what's the nearest airport for in the remaining range. If an X-COM base is in range, mark it for use and continue flight until fuel reaches point of no return. If not, mark the airport. If multiple airports are in range use the one that gives maximum interception range (admittedly, there are a few possible chokepoints in design, but generally this could be the pseudocode).

Regarding static anti-aircraft defences, these areas would serve to either make the smaller UFOs avoid these areas or make the bigger UFOs slow down a bit. They could also serve to augument the interceptors - if air combat is occuring inside anti-aircraft defences' weapons range, they could assist the interceptors (by providing an additional damage per time tick or we could factor in an additional damage percentage to each successful hit by interceptor weapons).