Improve Aircraft Ranges

[Jean-Luc]

Just so you guys know, the above is not an alt account of mine.

[Gorlom]

=P JL

Picard: have you played the game or just theory crafting? I'm just asking because your ideas of how aircombat works seems slightly off to me.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Gorlom
sorry typo was supposed to be played.

[Picard]

Just so you guys know, the above is not an alt account of mine.

OMG

Sorry, I had no idea that there was such a similar account. I apologise for the confusion - if necessary, I'll create another account.

=P JL

Picard: have you platedd the game or just theory crafting? I'm just asking because your ideas of how aircombat works seems slightly off to me.

I am not sure what you mean - I just proposed a sketch of what I regard as a possible middle-of-the-road measure to introduce a level of realism and depth to air combat without introducing *any* player micromanagement (original UFO was always shallow in this regard, though it may have been on purpose).

I dislike blatantly beefing up aircraft ranges, air tankers would potentially complicate things too much (would we have to defend them? If so, how? Who would manage their operations, costs and their flight routes, etc....), so I just took the ideas proposed and slightly thought them out. Note that my propositions actually incur almost zero player management - they just slightly alter the way strategic game behaves.

If you have any resentment toward these ideas, I'd like to talk about them.....it could be they're disastrous for the game, I just don't see them as such.

[The New Romance]

Wouldn't such refuelling stations pretty much allow the craft to permanently stay in the air, with only minor delays caused by landing and refuelling every odd hour? I think it might quite beef up your air superiority "score" and lead to major differences in comparison to what is now possible.

[Chris]

Maybe we'll look at drop pods at some point in the future (I'd prefer them to building non-base structures on the map tbh) but right now we've got to balance the invasion speed etc before we can really see how much of a need there is for this sort of thing. It's difficult to hypothesise too much about WIP systems and I guess this is something for the beta.

[Gorlom]

I meant played where i typed platedd.

I don't really have any opinion either way untill the game hits beta and we need to start blanaceing. But I am going to prefere gameplay over realism when I do.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Gorlom

[Picard]

Wouldn't such refuelling stations pretty much allow the craft to permanently stay in the air, with only minor delays caused by landing and refuelling every odd hour? I think it might quite beef up your air superiority "score" and lead to major differences in comparison to what is now possible.

Well, in theory they could, but there are a couple of things that would render such scenario unfeasible:

1) consider that we could only refuel at these airports and couldn't re-arm. These would be regular military installations at best without access to state-of-the-art weaponry such as Avalanche missile. While we could realistically throw in Sidewinder/Vulcan cannon re-arming at such bases, the further player advances along the tech tree, the less chance that player will do anything else but refuel at these stations. Additionally, one should factor in the time needed to refuel AND rearm the plane. It would take something in the range of an hour or two at minimum to perform these and by that time, we could lose the radar lock on the UFO, so perhaps we could present a this choice to the player?

2) be advised that each landing should incur a cost (secret emergency landings don't come cheap and complicate things at the airports, aircraft fuel cost is also an issue). This cost could be considerably higher than regular aircraft maintenance at the base and would hurt financially player to do so (especially at the beginning, when the need for these airports is the greatest).

So, generally, it would be possible to do so, but it would strategically (and fiscally) be quite inadvisable. These emergency landings are exactly that - an emergency and should not be taken lightly. Also, if your air superiority score skyrockets in the area, if I were an alien, that airport would be one of my prime targets. They couldn't be destroyed but could be put out of commission for a period of time - and prices at an airport would go up after a successful UFO attack.

A thought just cropped up - since these airports would diminish their usefulness as the player expands and progresses, we could consider "upgrading" them with, e.g. expanded weapon supplies (more advanced weaponry?), progressive lowering of the time needed to refit the aircraft, airport infrastructure upgrades (airport maintans a longer radar lock to the UFO, permitting a longer refitting, if needed), etc. That way, the airports would still retain some of their importance at the later stages of the game.

We could actually get a whole different strategic dimension with these stationary objects - without invading at the core X-Com experience or adding tedious micromanagement. A player could totally ignore these objects, if he wishes or currently lacks the resources to use them.

Maybe we'll look at drop pods at some point in the future (I'd prefer them to building non-base structures on the map tbh) but right now we've got to balance the invasion speed etc before we can really see how much of a need there is for this sort of thing. It's difficult to hypothesise too much about WIP systems and I guess this is something for the beta.

Agreed, drop pods could be an alternative, but I had the idea of using "famous" military targets as potential X-COM additional airports - for example, Vanderberg AFB in USA, Kapustin Yar in Russia....

That way, we don't have to build anything. The airbases are there - period. Since X-COM is a top-notch supra-national military organisation with excellent ties to all militaries of the Funding Nations, wouldn't it be logical for Nations to give use of their prime military installations to X-COM?

Also, I was thinking these bases would be rare. How rare - is a matter of balance, but I certainly wouldn't litter the map with them. Perhaps 1 per continent if the continent is small (Europe, Australia); 2 for a medium-sized continent (Americas, Africa); 3 for Asia? Perhaps randomize locations from a list of available locations so as to promote game replayablity?

I don't really have any opinion either way untill the game hits beta and we need to start blanaceing. But I am going to prefere gameplay over realism when I do.

I agree with you - I am not proposing to convert Xenonauts to TOAW. But adding non-invasive strategic options and enriching the game.....why not?

Edited April 9, 2012 by Picard

[Jean-Luc]

OMG

Sorry, I had no idea that there was such a similar account. I apologise for the confusion - if necessary, I'll create another account.

That's alright captain, those alternate realities are there for a reason.

[Gauddlike]

I really don't see a need to add this sort of refueling system.

It is a complication that doesn't add anything like an interesting game mechanic.

If you don't have control over when the fighters use these emergency landings then you could find yourself incurring costs unintentionally.

If you do have control over them then you are adding additional management for minimal benefit.

What does this system add that tweaks to the craft ranges doesn't do?

[jamoecw]

in pretty much every xcom game i build extra intercept bases asap. in xforce fight for destiny, they have a limit to how many bases you can have in each region, and several different type of bases you can build, one of which is a bare bones type base which is super cheap, good for interceptor bases. in original xcom i rarely ever went to maximum range in my interceptors, as sending a squishy transport half way around the globe was recipe for disaster should even the weakest ufo happened to see it. in the original it took me only about 6 months game time in order to have full radar coverage, which meant that i would find alien bases simply by observing ufos repeatedly spawning/disappearing at a specific spot. early on you are jumping up the tech tree fast, and so building anything means that it will be obsolete by the time it is built, therefore pumping money into bases is generally a better investment. later on you can turn them into manufacturing plants as well (though not in this game) and have plenty of money to replace losses, as at around mid game the money tends not to be enough to keep up with expenses.

as far as realistic ranges go, chris is right, the f-17s are about triple what f-18s do assuming the f-18s have drop pods in all of their heavy missile hard points (undercarriage), and having two light short range missiles on their wings (where you can't have drop pods). the load out is what one probably should do for long range interception. i felt that having the world using it's own military might to fight was an great idea, as both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. were capable of shutting down significant air power in certain regions (which is why the US pushed so hard for stealth).

in the original it was odd that when some country decided to cut funding from you, you just accepted it, when they apparently unable to defend themselves. if major powers competed with you for alien tech and such, they could decide that they were better able to handle things than you. which would mean that if a country cut funding, it might not simply be because they were turning on humanity, which would make it plausible as to why you didn't just consider them an enemy and start strikes against their leadership.

[Buzzles]

Personally, I think the range on the MIG and F17 are fine, although I'd not say no to drop pods as an accessory.

However, I think range on the Chinook is maybe a bit too low. I know it's a heli and they don't have amazing ranges, but in a recent game I went off and built an intercept base over in the USA. Turns out I couldn't actually fly my Chinook from my (roughly located) Swiss base in West Europe. So while I had lots of crash sites, I couldn't actually get to them (eventually lucked out and got a couple of scouts in Europe, allowing me to expand the USA base with a new hanger, Chinook and some soldiers). Obviously, this was near the start of the game.

That said, I'd be happy if expanding the range of the Chinook came at a cost of internal space (basically, same idea as drop pods), then at least near the start of the game, I'd be able to get to landed or crashed UFO's easier, albeit at a cost of men/armoured cars. In fact, this would be my preferred option as just giving it a range boost steps on the toes of the better dropships you end up making, so having to choose between distance or capacity keeps it somewhat on an even keel.

Edited April 9, 2012 by Buzzles

[Picard]

I really don't see a need to add this sort of refueling system.

It is a complication that doesn't add anything like an interesting game mechanic.

If you don't have control over when the fighters use these emergency landings then you could find yourself incurring costs unintentionally.

If you do have control over them then you are adding additional management for minimal benefit.

What does this system add that tweaks to the craft ranges doesn't do?

Several things, as I see it, mostly doing with increasing the number of possible gameplay approaches and increasing replayability:

1) it introduces possible new strategic and tactical decisions - e.g., do I let that UFO go, or do I continue the pursuit *knowing* I'll pay a higher price for refuelling? Do I patrol the area longer, scouting for landed UFO's (possibly rewarding me for persistence with a chance for ground assault) or do I RTB immediately? Do I rely on my own research to increase range of my fighters and general presence in the area (slow, but perhaps more efficient in the long run) or do I rely on the nation's existing infrastructure to bolster up my presence? If an area flares up in UFO activity, how do I react to it - do I have the ability be instantly present in the area even though I have no X-COM base in the area or do I have to build a base, possibly losing the spoils of war (and/or region!)?

2) it introduces resource distribution challenges - do I allocate resources to my own research or do I save credits for airbase upgrades? If this airbase is under attack simultaneously with e.g. a terror site, do I assist in repelling it (possibly garnering artifacts AND nation funding) or do I ignore it? Which one? Do I have the resources to hit them both?

3) it adds an increased level of realism thus (arguably) increasing suspension of disbelief and game enjoyment - it is partially true that you could abstract away the whole system by simply increasing the range of interceptors, but then again, you could play the whole game on an cleverly laid-out Excel spreadsheet dealing with a numbers and statistics. I think we can agree on which one is more enjoyable.

I am certain one could provide a much more exhaustive list of added benefits.

I believe this goals could be achieved without complicating the game experience at all. Tricks are to make these additions non-invasive to the player (that is - we don't force the player to take any particular action; the choices are there, it's the player which has to make the decisions) and to make them transparent, i.e., the player should have ideally no (or at least, very minimal) micromanagement when using the system. The first one is esentially a question of game balance (each possible route the player selects is equally rewarding and there exists a possiblity to mix approaches as desired); the second one is the question of system design (we should keep the new system as simple and powerful).

Again, all these points are up for discussion so let's explore whether something like this even could fit in - if it could, in what form? If it couldn't, why not? What can we do deepen the strategic component of the game instead?

[Gorlom]

I still dont know if picard has played the game yet =P

[winterwolves]

I think the ranges are actually pretty good as they are. I think it adds to the feeling of being overpowered by the alien invaders at the start, and is very good incentive to get more bases up and running asap.

I have played quite a lot now, and I don't find that all that many ufos escape to space, and I don't think it is realistic to expect to be able to catch every one from the very start of the invasion.

[Bibidibop]

The ranges are so long that the only way either starting aircraft could possibly reach them is if every hard point had a fuel tank, if they had conformal tanks, and larger wings with more tanks or weaker engines that drink less fuel, and if they were topped off by in-flight refueling just after take off, and again just before going over water. Even then, then range should be lower. It makes the planes over armed. I'm not arguing to change anything in the game, although, it would be very interesting to see the game fully tackle that issue more completely.

The description of the helicopter somewhat covers that issue in how it says the forward part is dedicated to additional fuel. However, with the greatly improved second helicopter interior, that dead zone ahead of the crew compartment is now more crew compartment and the cockpit. That's one thing worth changing so the graphic is cockpit, dead zone for fuel, then crew compartment. Otherwise we're left with a plot hole of sorts, of, why aren't four more soldiers being carried into combat?

[Picard]

I still dont know if picard has played the game yet =P

What game are we talking about - original UFO: Defence or Xenonauts?

The ranges are so long that the only way either starting aircraft could possibly reach them is if every hard point had a fuel tank, if they had conformal tanks, and larger wings with more tanks or weaker engines that drink less fuel, and if they were topped off by in-flight refueling just after take off, and again just before going over water. Even then, then range should be lower. It makes the planes over armed. I'm not arguing to change anything in the game, although, it would be very interesting to see the game fully tackle that issue more completely.

The description of the helicopter somewhat covers that issue in how it says the forward part is dedicated to additional fuel. However, with the greatly improved second helicopter interior, that dead zone ahead of the crew compartment is now more crew compartment and the cockpit. That's one thing worth changing so the graphic is cockpit, dead zone for fuel, then crew compartment. Otherwise we're left with a plot hole of sorts, of, why aren't four more soldiers being carried into combat?

Just to give everyone an idea of the aircraft combat range in the game, some of the today's finest aircraft are still well short of distances displayed in the game. F-35A has a combat radius of ~1100 km and Sukhoi FGFA is projected to have it ranges of 1500 km, and these are aircraft that are at least 30 years ahead of F-16 and Mig-31 in aircraft engineering.

So, I agree on both points, though I have to admit that I can't see how could we possibly implement realistic aircraft ranges without adding too much complexity and/or micromanagement (the same goes for, e.g. aircraft cost).

We would need to have many more bases and many more aircraft - and that number would explode when globalising the war. To manage it all would radically change the strategic part of the game and I am sure majority of players wouldn't like it. Current aircraft range is really over-the-top, but I say - keep it but don't increase it any further. If needed, introduce additional game concepts (such as fuel tank pylons, airbases or something else) - perhaps these could enable alien invasion to be more brutal, especially initially, thus adding to feeling of helplessness and overpoweredness?

[Gauddlike]

Several things, as I see it, mostly doing with increasing the number of possible gameplay approaches and increasing replayability:

Well the system as you have described it would seriously alter the balance of the air combat model used.

At the moment you use up fuel at a faster rate while actively engaging the enemy.

Using your afterburner burns off your fuel faster still.

If you could top up your tanks before and after engaging you would be removing the tactical choices required in the combat.

The strategic choice that you suggest to replace it feels contrived and would disappear completely once you are no longer using the fuel available to those nations low tech airports.

I don't see how any of the points you have mentioned bring much to the game that would add to my enjoyment of it.

The decisions about how to spend your funding are already there, as are the decisions about which combat sites to prioritise.

When I send out a dozen interceptors to defend against a wave of enemies I feel that the last thing on my mind would be worrying that my fighters aren't stopping on the way to refuel.

If I have twenty contacts on the map would it make it more fun to have to work out if my interceptors will be able to follow their target past enough air bases to keep in contact?

I think no.

I understand some people feel it would add something but I am struggling to see it.

[Moonshine Fox]

I tried hard to come up with something intelligent to say, but it all comes down to my own personal feeling:

Don't give airplanes ridiculus ranges. It's honestly a bit disruptive. I'd rather have better in-game support for what players of the original X-Com did anyway: Interception and detection bases.

[Gauddlike]

I think this type of topic is always going to come down to personal play style and opinions.

What do you think of the current ranges considering they are ridiculously long by realistic standards, even if they aren't huge in relation to the game area?

[Moonshine Fox]

I think this type of topic is always going to come down to personal play style and opinions.

What do you think of the current ranges considering they are ridiculously long by realistic standards, even if they aren't huge in relation to the game area?

I have no problem with the current ranges game play wise, since they'll improve with newer airplanes, and I don't expect to be able to catch every UFO. By realistic standards, they're passable.