Jump to content
Charon

[1.65/X.CE V0.35.0] X-Division 1.00 Beta (1.00.10)

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Mr. Mister said:

But justification aside, how would you feel about that tactically, Charon?

I feel about that that the proper solution is proper maps, not an abstruse AI.

If you want to know how all X-Division maps should look like you can take a look at mulligans mission here, and the X-Division Gold standart for maps below it. You should always go for the proper solution, if you can. Apart from that the AI doesnt have a simple slider of "go to the ship". So developing a different AI would propably take longer than anybody making all the maps necessary. If we dont have somebody to make the maps, we dont have them. All we can do is to be transparent about it.

 

Edited by Charon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets get the numbers for the Terror Crashsites.

Sebillian: 40 - 56 - 61 - 69
Caesan: 53 - 69 - 77 - 94
Androns: 34 - 51 - 58 - 69

A few things to note. As stated before there seems to be a massive increase in numbers between the first and second Phase. This is propably what kills off most campaigns after Phase 1. Looks like we can make improvements on that front.

Furthermore these are the 2 terrorcarrier i played:

Sebillian: https://youtu.be/1eoy0ROdHl8 20 enemies killed ? I dont know how this works together with the number 40, and i dont suspect that RNG went on a rampage ?
Caesan: https://youtu.be/HUXk9eMwCXA 87 enemies killed. That is in line because Xenomorphs are counted triple towards the final score.

The feeling in both missions was more than adequate, in terms of difficulty as well as lenght.

I ... have a suspicion. ... ... ... It could be that the reason why there were only 20 sebillians on the sebillian mission is because it was on a base attack. The damage dealt to a terror UFO while embarking on a base translates into a decreased unit count. Up to 50% less troops. So from 40 > 20. So this was the reason why there were only 20 units on that mission (and why it didnt get decreased further by the "casuality on impact" ). The 87 enemies on the Ceasan one were on a confirmed terror mission. This meant the "full" count minus impact casualities.

This makes setting the proper number for terror crashsites hard, as they can equally consist of either 90% of set troops, or only 50%. It is also not communicated with the player which UFO has "less" troops, as i just found out about that bug right now.

The proper solution would be for Solver to fix this, but i dont think he will get to it in the next 6 months, so we will have to make the best experience with the bug in mind.

 

Since i think that 20 units encountered on a terror carrier should be the minimum possible, we will take Phase 1 numbers as the master numbers and climb up from there.

Sebillian: 40 - 48 - 58 - 68
Caesan: 53 - 64 - 75 - 86
Androns: 35 - 42 - 49 - 56

 

 

@Svinedrengen @Dagar @PALU

@PALU Since we cannot a expect a fix from Solver anytime soon, could you communicate in the Xpedia that Damage on Terror UFOs which are on a base mission drastically reduces the numbers encountered on the Crash Site ? Something like "Due to units being already stationed in embarking cargos close to the hull damage that we do to Terror UFOs on Base Attack mission will drastically reduce enemy unit count in Ground Combat, if you choose to engage such a downed party." It should be added generally visibly AFTER you have raided a Terror UFO, so in the Datacore description would be a good place, but i dislike repeated lines. I will leave the solution up to you.

Edited by Charon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What strikes me as pretty arbitrary here is that from what I understood aliens raiding your base get their numbers reduced proportional to the damage the UFO sustained prior to the raid (hence why missile batteries are useful), while all other alien missions only suffer from the "crashed" decrease if you manage to shoot it down. More elegant imo would be a system where aliens encountered ALWAYS scaled with damage the UFO has taken, because it would make it good to damage UFOs that you do not shoot down for easier missions, be that ground missions, terror sites, base attacks, or Alien Outposts. At the same time it would give players some incentive to let a UFO do its mission for a higher chance of capturing a missing specimen.

The description "loring" over the bug is not really good imo, because for a terror mission the aliens would do the same, i.e. dropping troops in landing pods (the UFO is not present after all...)

As for game mechanisms and balancing, I can't really tell anything for the late game. Androns reviving over and over sound bad to me; maybe a restriction on how often they can do that either overall per mission or per unit would be good, especially since you often times want to preserve corpses for research and looting. For any other encounter I think that maybe we as the players should rather adapt to the mission and take weapons which have the necessary ammo capacity (i.e. machine guns and miniguns may not be the best option as damage dealers here because of high ammo usage), i.e. whose magazines are pretty well stocked and have a small footprint in the inventory. I am thinking of Shotguns, rifles and snipers, specifically.

Edited by Dagar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dagar i rather think the proper solution would be that only battery damage% actually reduces unit count. I dont like to lore over it either, but since we cant expect a fix what proper solution do you suggest ? Its definitely a bug, one of the numerous Xenonauts has/had.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Charon See edit above for an additional paragraph.

As for what to do, maybe it is time to leave X-Division in the state it is in. I honestly have many hopes for Xenonauts 2 with high moddability. Otherwise I'd love to look into what is possible with the source code, but I even lack the time to continue my LP right now, so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dagar said:

As for what to do, maybe it is time to leave X-Division in the state it is in.

No "development" is going on anymore. What i do is to improve on my own experience in X-Division, and share it with other people.

6 minutes ago, Dagar said:

Otherwise I'd love to look into what is possible with the source code

I dont have access to the source code, this is why we would need Solver. And Solver has a lot of other things to do. So ... .

Edited by Charon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Androns aren't EXACTLY reviving, but it has a similar effect in the end. You may or may not have encountered force fields yet. They act like shields with the extremely important difference that there's no way around them (no vulnerable backside, area effect do not bypassing them, nor do melee attacks [I think, I'm not sure I've tried]), so you have to deal damage to them until they're destroyed to get at the unit underneath, and it takes quite a lot to do that as they're generally stronger than current level shields (and you'd have to spend quite some time if you're using antimatter weapons, since they're dealing out comparatively little damage, and the ability to bypass armor that isn't present anyway doesn't provide any benefit). Once the force field is down you have to start to wear down the Andron itself (which isn't exactly weak either). Here antimatter works well (although the buggers still have a lot of HPs). Also note that you can't damage the Andron itself until the shield is completely gone, so an explosive of any kind will at best blow away the (remainder of the) force field, but won't hurt the unit underneath even if the shield had only a single HP remaining (A minigun can wear through both a force field and the unit underneath because each bullet is a separate attack [with the occasional odd situation where a unit reaction fires while being pelted with minigun bullets and then dies, potentially resulting in both units dying, but that's a side track]).

There's also a mechanism with multiple "skins", with each skin having different protective properties, and each skin has to be destroyed separately (again, overshooting explosive damage is lost, with the next "skin" being in pristine condition). Thirdly, there's a protective "spore" mechanism that causes select units to form into a "spore/pupa" on the cusp of destruction, to eventually emerge as a new unit. When all mechanisms are present in the same unit the maximum times you may have to destroy an incarnation of it is 5 (I believe it's possible to extend this cycle further, for extra pain, but 5 is the maximum number in the current version of the mod). If I understand it correctly, robosadists have to have a stake through their hearts to stop them from rising again. The maximum number of incarnations you have to take down in that case is 4 (assuming you "place the stake" in a timely manner). I haven't checked, but I wouldn't be surprised if you had to deal 10000 HP of effective damage to get rid of a top tier robosadist.

Concerning the comment about using weapons with large mags to work around enemy unit counts, the last Energy line of weapons has an incredibly poor mag size (and I'm still not sure they're actually better than the second last one. Rather different, yes, but better?), with the mags being filled with lead, judging by their weight.

Lore: I'll try to find somewhere to explain away why downed assaults suffer heavier casualties than other downed craft. As dead units tend to litter the interior of downed craft, it ought to be possible to count the ones not killed by your team the next time such a mission is performed (assuming you're sufficiently interested).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, PALU said:

Lore: I'll try to find somewhere to explain away why downed assaults suffer heavier casualties than other downed craft. As dead units tend to litter the interior of downed craft, it ought to be possible to count the ones not killed by your team the next time such a mission is performed (assuming you're sufficiently interested).

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have finished and edited the post about the new numbers. Here is the summary.

These are the old numbers.

Sebillian: 40 - 56 - 61 - 69
Caesan: 53 - 69 - 77 - 94
Androns: 34 - 51 - 58 - 69

And here we have the revised ones.

Sebillian: 40 - 48 - 58 - 68
Caesan: 53 - 64 - 75 - 86
Androns: 35 - 42 - 49 - 56

 

The things i changed are:

  • Smoothing out transition between phases
  • Big decrease in terror unit count
  • Substituted by their main race normal soldiers
  • Decreased secondary race count ( Harridans, Wraiths )
  • Increased harridans for andron crash sites
  • Terror and Assault Operators for both races were added for the androns
  • i made the unpopular choice of puting a few reapers inside of the actual UFO

 

I will now take a look at the actual Base Attack Numbers. Feedback is welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the progression numbers for base attacks:

Sebillian: 21 - 46 - 51 - 57
Caesan: 29 - 51 - 67 - 81
Androns: 23 - 39 - 35 - 38

We can again note the huge jump between Phase 1 and Phase 2. Additionally the rest is not smoothly distributed and the androns Phase 2 have more enemies than even Phase 4.

 

In this case i would like to to redefine the master numbers starting from Phase 2, and not touch Phase 1 too much.

 

Actually i dont have a clue where things stand in terms of base attacks. On one side you can have 16 soldiers, 3 vehicles and are able to reduce the enemies forces by 50% and on the other hand i dont want the make it too easy, but also not too dragging. I would like to call upon the community and especially the more experienced players on what they think about base attacks, the unit count, difficulty and lenght of base attacks in general. Please write me your oppinion about Base Attacks.

Here is an example of a Base Attack, Phase 2: https://youtu.be/KMacpylXplE

Edited by Charon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I've encountered Reapers hiding out inside craft occasionally (i.e. bigger craft, where you have to teleport between levels), although I can't say if they were terror ones. I've definitely encountered Roboreapers (a recent mission saw one teleport down, get shredded of of one layer with reaction fire (with the attendant cloud hitting 8 soldiers), and then get killed completely in the next turn (again, the second cloud hit, but all remained standing).

Base attacks:

- You only find out through experience that you can have 16 soldiers on base assault defense, as I don't think you're told anywhere except by the number of soldiers you get to equip for the encounter.
- While you may be able to have 3 vehicles, I'd expect most not to have that, unless they're teleporting troops and equipment around.
- Defense batteries often do very little damage, in particular in the very vulnerable phase transitions when the troops don't have new phase equipment yet, but the enemies are new.
- Enemies attack from multiple directions, so most defenders will be elsewhere.
- I've probably only done one or so actual base defense mission since the end of phase 2, as the enemies have been shot down. However, those who fail to shoot them down probably struggle with defending their bases too...
- While it's true for all missions, number counts is a major factor in base defense missions. It's only because of enemy ineptitude (coming in dribs and drabs, staying to destroy equipment, etc.) you stand a chance at all (a coordinated attack from all breaches would be impossible to stop).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mr. Mister this seems to be actually fairly simple, just in aiprops.xml make the change (change the internal values how you will)

<Civilian MODMERGE="update">
				<Pathing 
					Environment = "-20"
					Sight="0.5" 
					Sound="-0.3"
					Cover="-5"
					ShotPotential="-10"
					EnemyInfluence="-2"
					AlliedInfluence="-1"
					Ambush="-20"
					Trepidation="20"
					EnemyLOS="1.3"
					AlliedLOS="0.5"
					ProbabilisticSearch="-0.8"
					NearestEnemy="-0.5"
					Goal="-5" />
			</Civilian>

with this kept in mind

Explanation of the pathing weights:
				Environment:			Environment defines hazardous locations on the map; Dangerous objects {Fire, Smoke} get a negative values. A negative weight will make a unit avoid dangerous objects. If you want Buddhist Civilians, you can give this a positive weight.
				Sight:					Sight defines a raytracing of each location on the map; i.e. a general visibility of each location. The higher, the more visible. A negative weight will ensure that units stray to the open, positive they will seek hidey-holes.
				Sound:					Each action will cause a rippling, decaying function originating from the source. Negative attracts unit to the source
				Cover:					Cover defines the general cover value of each location, given the spotted enemies of a Faction. (uses AttackVector)
				Ambush:					To be balanced, leave at 0.0 for now. (Gives a value to locations which are near to a location with a very high sight value, but themselves have a low sight value; aka good pop-and-shoot locations)
				Trepidation:			Gives tiles on which units have died (and surrounding) a value. A more positive value will detract the AI from these locations.
											Also gives a higher value to tiles surrounding enemies (range 3). A more positive value will detract the AI from hugging the enemy.
				ShotPotential:			For all known targets, precalculates the value of a shot on it for a tile, for all surrounding tiles (to some range). A lower negative value attracts to potential good shots. Intent: Keep below 0.0
											Skipped by Civilians and Xenonauts (unnecessary calculations)
				EnemyInfluence:		    Decaying function from all known enemy units. Uses floodfill, so takes into account obstacles as opposed to NearestEnemyFunction. A lower negative value attracts to nearest known enemy.
				AlliedInfluence:        Decaying function from all known allied units. With a small (range 3) negative circle around allied units. This value should be negative; the higher, the more allies stay together (but never not too close, negative circle)
				EnemyLOS:            	Gives a positive value to all tiles which have enemy LOS. Positive will make the unit avoid the locations.
				AlliedLOS:				Same, but for Enemies
				ProbabilisticSearch:	Gives a value to a location which determines the chance a unit might be located there. 
				NearestEnemy:			(Don't give high values, less than 0.2 preferably; use Enemy Influence as it takes obstacles into account) Gives distance to nearest known enemy. Closer is higher (Negative attracts to nearest known enemy)
				Goal:					Rippling, decaying function from goal tiles. The goal is dependant on the mission and script type:
							- UFO Mission:
								= DEFENSIVE Script: UFO. Higher value makes the unit stick more inside the UFO. (Balance this with ShotPotential to make them pop out)
								= Allied attack requests. (Whenever a unit attacks a unit, it will make a request for others to help)
								= Civilians / Allied: Do not move onto UFO; Try to move to Xenonaut Spawn area
							- Xenonauts Base Defend Mission:
								- KeyProps, Command Room (both once detected at least once)

 

Edited by Dr. Ethan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've taken a look at the Xenopedia entries available, and I think the least bad place to provide base assault casualty info is in the two Early Assault Operator Interrogation entries (so, two instances of the same info), according to the logic that these enemies are responsible for that kind of operations. After all, the info is not critical, so it's not a big problem if it takes some time to get it.

Something along these lines:

"We did extract some information that's potentially useful out if the interrogation of this enemy operator: In order to assault the target base as quickly as (in)humanly possible to deny us the chance to deploy our troops closer to the breach points and to set up booby traps for them in our base, the assault troops are stationed in drop pods along the hull of the UFO well before reaching our base. This means that damage sustained by the ship is also likely to result in casualties among the crew, as opposed to the standard situation when crew is killed on a crash only, while well protected inside it until that happens. Our estimates indicate up to half of the crew may be eliminated if a base assault UFO is shot down, compared to about 10% killed in a regular crash. Similarly, engaging a landing base assault UFO without succeeding in bringing it down ought to result in a casualty proportion that increases more or less linearly with the damage up to about 50%, and we think we reap about the same benefit regardless of whether the damage is caused by engagement by our airborne forces or by base defense batteries.

Interestingly enough, the aliens aren't nearly as worried about regular ground forces as of the X-Divison ones, so terror missions are performed in the normal, more leisurely fashion, which means only an outright crash is likely to kill any troops. I guess we can take some meagre pride in being considered a harder nut to crack."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, PALU said:

when crew is killed on a crash only

when the crew

 

Its a very good entry. I talked with @Solver and he liked it so much that we are gonna keep the bug and make it into a feature. Even though the fix is literally writing false we are going to keep it. Even if nothing else, you can pride yourself by the fact that your lore is so good that it turns bugs into features <3.

I have another suggestion for the Lore part. The Lore+ Base Attack entry. First of all it only gets triggered AFTER a base attack actually happens, and secondly any Base Attack UFO triggers the entry. What do you think ? Might this be the right place ?

 

   <Row ss:AutoFitHeight="0" ss:Height="47.25">
    <Cell ss:StyleID="s69"><Data ss:Type="String">Researches.BaseAttackMission</Data></Cell>
    <Cell ss:StyleID="s69"><Data ss:Type="String">Xenonaut Base Assault Mission</Data></Cell>
    <Cell ss:StyleID="s69"><Data ss:Type="String">xenopediaimages/baseattack</Data></Cell>
    <Cell ss:StyleID="s69"><Data ss:Type="String">UFOs</Data></Cell>
    <Cell ss:StyleID="s69"><Data ss:Type="String">AC</Data></Cell>
    <Cell ss:StyleID="s69"><Data ss:Type="String">I've squeezed intel out of an old friend in the armed forces about a ground assault on a deep nuclear launch facility. A covert group of ETs were able to access the base despite most of it being half a mile underground, and beat the hell out of base security. It was only by deliberately collapsing the residential wing that the base commander saved anything. That worries me... if the ETs are doing it to the sponsors, sooner or later they’ll do it to us. &#10;&#10;The consequence of ETs successfully attacking one of our bases is the loss of all operational assets in the base and the particular area covered by the base will be undefended until we can construct a new one. Even if we drive them off ETs can cause lasting damage by wrecking hangars, destroying labs and demolishing workshops. Don’t sit about and wait for the ETs, Commander. Go and meet them in force! &#10;&#10;Without a way of intercepting and decoding alien communications, it’ll be hard to tell if a UFO is going to mount an attack on our base or if they’re intending to attack a city. Look for escorted medium-class signals and above. They aren’t going to make it obvious that they’re going for us, but sooner or later they will have to head directly to our base. The bases most likely to be attacked will be the ones they have the most operational data on – i.e. the oldest. It would probably be a good idea to station a garrison or erect defences at the bases most at risk. </Data></Cell>
   </Row>

Edt: @PALU you might have to repurpose the original text a bit as

  • nobody can shoot down a Base Attack unknowingly ( like you could in vanilla )
  • The entry says that something like that will happen, yet it clearly already happened. So i think the order of events needs to be revised a bit
  • "Look for escorted medium-class signals" - its always at least Massive signals
Edited by Charon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, that's a considerably better choice of an entry (and the type of entry I tried to find first). I failed to find it because it's labeled as "Xenonaut Base Assault Mission", leading me to think it concerned our team attacking the enemy, so I didn't look at the text.

Obviously it will have to be massaged slightly to change the source of the info to own observations rather than interrogation, but that shouldn't be too hard.

Concerning "when crew is killed", that's actually intentional. "The crew" implies everyone, while just "crew" means "some of the crew". The word "crew" is used as an uncountable in the same manner as e.g. "Fish was killed by the poison spill...". If you think it's too awkward I can change it to e.g. "parts of the crew".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, PALU said:

Concerning "when crew is killed", that's actually intentional. "The crew" implies everyone, while just "crew" means "some of the crew". The word "crew" is used as an uncountable in the same manner as e.g. "Fish was killed by the poison spill...". If you think it's too awkward I can change it to e.g. "parts of the crew".

No, if you say you want to use it as an uncountable its fine. But than i would subject to the use of "crew is killed on a crash only". Its on the typ of my tounge, but it sounds akward. Maybe "crew is killed on impact". Kinda sounds better than "crash only".

I have a new image. What do you say ?

baseattack.thumb.jpg.99abb8eb55571d3df9c37f588849c11a.jpg

Edit: Updated image

 

Edited by Charon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Charon said:

The consequence of ETs successfully attacking one of our bases is the loss of all operational assets in the base and the particular area covered by the base will be undefended until we can construct a new one. Even if we drive them off ETs can cause lasting damage by wrecking hangars, destroying labs and demolishing workshops. Don’t sit about and wait for the ETs, Commander. Go and meet them in force!

Just a small remark: in that block of text I am missing the link to what happened at the nuclear silo. It rather sounds like "this is what will happen" instead of "we observed this behaviour, it may be what the aliens will do to us".

Maybe @PALU can change that a bit if others feel the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a proposed version of the entry (and I realized the same thing Dagar did, that the entry contents didn't quite match the context):

"Commander, after that alien assault on our base we have frantically tried to analyse the event as well as collect any information we can on similar events happening to our sponsors.

To start with the latter part, I've squeezed intel out of an old friend in the armed forces about a ground assault on a deep nuclear launch facility. A covert group of ETs was able to access the base despite most of it being half a mile underground, and beat the hell out of base security. It was only by deliberately collapsing the residential wing that the base commander saved anything. Unfortunately, secrecy has prevented us from getting to prepare for this threat, as it was only by mentioning our own experience we were able to take part of theirs.

Back to our analysis of the event itself:
It's clear the aliens divided their efforts between destroying the base assets and trying to take over the base completely. The loss of a base will obviously mean the loss of all assets in it, and will leave the area it protected undefended until a new base can be built.
Even if we drive them off, the ETs can cause lasting damage by wrecking hangars, destroying labs and demolishing workshops, and it's obviously in our interest to prevent that, so try to take the fight to them, Commander, and go and meet them in force!

Without a way of intercepting and decoding alien communications, it’ll be hard to tell if a UFO is going to mount an attack on our base (and, if so, which base) or if they’re intending to attack a city. Look for escorted Massive class signals. They aren’t going to make it obvious that they’re going for us, but sooner or later they will have to head directly to our base. The bases most likely to be attacked will be the ones they have the most operational data on – i.e. typically the oldest ones, but don't rely on "most likely" overly much. It would probably be a good idea to station a garrison or erect defenses at the bases most at risk, and to ferry troops to bases suspected to be targeted. Also note that defensive base batteries won't do us any good if we can't see the enemy, so a base out of radar coverage (its own or that of another base) is a sitting duck.

As for the base assault craft, we have made some interesting observations. After action analysis of surveillance of the craft indicates it had mounted populated drop pods even before we were able to observe them. This implies they prepared for the assault well in advance and intended to launch it as fast as (in)humanly possible to deny us the chance to deploy our troops closer to the breach points and to set up booby traps in our base. While interesting in itself that they consider our bases to be something of a threat, it also provides us with a tactical advantage: Damage sustained by UFOs rarely if ever kills any crew members: all casualties usually occur due to the impact of a crash. In this case, however, damage to the UFO is likely to also cause damage to the troops in the drop pods. Our best estimates are that we may be able to kill up to 50% of the crew if we damage the craft to 100% (at which point it will crash), with the casualty rate essentially increasing linearly with the damage inflicted (20% damage to the craft = approximately 10% of the crew killed). We also estimate that damage inflicted by base batteries has the same effect as damage cause by our airborne forces when it comes to killing ETs.

Interestingly enough, the aliens don't seem to be nearly as interested in a rapid deployment on terror missions, where they mount, enter, and deploy the drop pods only at the last minute, which indicates they're not nearly as worried about local forces that they are about X-Divison ones, which we can take some meagre pride in. While the drop pod deployment strategy difference ought to allow us to determine if a mission is a terror or a base assault one, our current technology only allows us to determine that by examining surveillance images in detail back at the lab, which takes hours, at which time the attack has already taken place."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Dr. Ethan So by substantially increasing their Goal weight, they should prioritize getting to the X-Div's transport before anything else, hm? But there is no way to make that weight specific to terror missions I assume; in other missions it's still better to have the civillians find a good place to hide.

What's the Civillians-to-Aliens headcount ratio in terror missions by the way?

Edited by Mr. Mister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@PALU

Very good entry.

I would like to add a "Maybe if we could decode alien transmissions in the future ... but thats in the future." or something along those lines to the last paragraph, to indicate of such possibility.

I also lost the overview if we already explained how the emergency protocoll for overtaken bases work ? That is airplanes will try to find an empty hangar on all available bases, while engineers and scientists will only be transfered to a single base, and only as much people will be transfered as there are free spots available. This would be good to put in this or another entry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard of the emergency protocol before, so no, it's not in any other entry. This is probably the best ones, even though it gets a bit long.
Which base is chosen for engineer/scientist transfer? The closest one, the one with the most room, or something else? Do scientists and engineers always go to the same base as the other group?

I was considering something about decoding enemy intentions, but didn't get to it. I'll try to add something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, PALU said:

Which base is chosen for engineer/scientist transfer? The closest one, the one with the most room, or something else? Do scientists and engineers always go to the same base as the other group?

2 things happen.

1) All Aircraft try to find an empty hangar. The ones which arent transfered are destroyed, but you can lore over it by saying they take refugee on closeby airports, but the aircraft has been confiscated or so.

2) Then the game tries to find another base with the most needed room available. So if you have 20 scientists the game tries to find another base with empty scientist spots, so you will have to have the lab space and the living room space available. The game will only transfer personal from one base to another, all other personal is lost. Again you can lore over it with either slaughtered scientists in the base, or by making them take shelter in the surrounding country, but they will have to be rehired. Up to your morbid sense of story telling ;). I dont know if the game prioritisies scientists over engineers, but i suspect they always prioritise more people over less. If a base has 20 engineers and 20 scientists, and you have another base with 40 quarters and the same amount of free working space available, the whole personal will be transfered.

Also remember that overtaken bases will be repurposed into an alien base over the next 48 hours. So you can kinda make a connection to that as well ( im not sure if we mention that anywhere ) and the effects of taking back your own base.

Edit: I agree that i wouldnt want the entry to get too long, so if you can find a better place we can spread that information across.

Edited by Charon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hadn't heard of either a base takeover or a base recovery before either. Those things would have to be mentioned as speculations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×