Pilots taking up space.

[Corporal Hicks]

The whole point of those drones would be them being cheap and disposable, this would end the pilot/vehicle experience drama...

[ChAnKoEr]

Also drones could be used as a method to combat the eventual addition of Caesan psionics

[Stromko]

The whole point of those drones would be them being cheap and disposable,

I think that's the best reason. You could send them in to dangerous situations, and if they got blown up, it should impact your score a lot less than losing a life. Right now if you lose the armored vehicle you lose several points, and since it can be destroyed in just a couple hits what's the point?

Aside from its ability to run over fences, I don't really see any point for the armored car right now. If they buff the durability, it could act as mobile cover. As for offense I'm not sure how to make it useful. I'm able to put a rocket launcher and more ammo on a soldier: he's harder to hit, doesn't taking up four spaces in the transport, and I'm pretty sure he fires with less AP cost.

It could make a lot of sense to give it longer sight range. We often imagine tanks and the like as having poor visibility, but modern tanks are much better about that and what we have here is essentially a scout car with plenty of view ports for an entire crew. It could definitely fit huge bulky optical systems like thermal imaging and night vision. Maybe it should have a sight advantage only in a narrow cone based on where the turret or chassis is facing.

Really I could see the vehicles as having a lot of cool bells and whistles that would make them really useful, like smoke dispensers and floodlights, but it depends how much time the dev team wants to invest in it.

[Corporal Hicks]

Yeah, replace the armoured vehicles by drones campaign starts right now!!! lol

But seriously... They occupy 4 spaces, I'd rather have 3 more soldiers and 1 drone.

PS> It would be cool if the drones were charged with C4, when they die they go boom! But obviously you could explode it remotely too.

[ChAnKoEr]

Shouldn't we just start another suggestion thread for drones?

[Corporal Hicks]

Shouldn't we just start another suggestion thread for drones?

You're right!

[Oathbreaker]

There should be pilot's in the game - fighter pilots. They should get experience in the same way as soldiers. Thus you can have expert pilots for harder alien aircrafts.

And it should also be crew in the Hunter - for the same reason.

I think this is a great idea. But there's limited amount of developer time, and the more features that get packed in, the more bugs and the longer it takes. So there has to be a trade off somewhere. Not having pilots in the game isn't that big of a deal. It'd be cool if it was just a name and a nickname and maybe three to four different ranks, with "Ace" after so many kills. No need to even have a picture or implement anything graphically other than

"MiG-32 Piloted by CDR John 'Bones' McGriffinovskzy".

This way you would really care if you lost a fighter. It would matter, in a very small, very immersive manner.

[Vivoune]

I most certainly would enjoy a Pilot/driver branch, I actually was surprised there wasn't any Pilot/Driver in this game when I bought it. The more I have to manage the happier I am, and to me that kind of game is made of ground combat just as much as base/resource/crew management. I guess it varies given anyone's taste but in my mind the success or failure of a ground mission is only the result of good or bad management beforehand, and not the other way around. Moreover, air combat is a huge part of the game, you basically spend your whole game fighting for air superiority and I really think it would add a lot to it if pilots/drivers were implemented.

To me lack of any possible gain of experience for anything else than my soldiers is a bit of a disappointment, or rather, as much as I enjoy the game (oh boy I do), sending planes makes me feel neutral since it doesn't feel like I'm risking anyone's life, and vehicles wells.. I just don't use them at all, I prefer my guys to grab all the xp they can get.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Vivoune

[mace6442]

Silly idea IMO.

[Gauddlike]

I don't play that way.

I am not going to avoid taking a shot with the support vehicle just because the soldier following it might be able to kill it and might possibly gain a stat increase from it.

I wouldn't argue against vehicles gaining experience, as long as it was slower to compensate for their increased survivability.

It would turn them into just another trooper in a bigger suit of armour which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Aircraft I couldn't care less about.

Air combat would need to be much more complicated to make that worthwhile and I just don't feel it is important or interesting enough to justify it.

Adding experience gain would also increase the complexity further.

If the aircraft can get better then you need to make the fights tougher or your experienced craft have no challenge.

You then need a way to make sure that fresh replacement craft aren't completely overwhelmed by enemies balanced to be facing experienced craft.

That sort of balancing takes additional time that would be better used elsewhere for me.

Now if it wasn't too late to strip the air combat out and use one based on FTL I would be much happier for experience to be part of it...

[Gorlom]

Now if it wasn't too late to strip the air combat out and use one based on FTL I would be much happier for experience to be part of it...

[Vivoune]

It was in the Kickstarter feature list people voted for, at a decent position at that (even number 1 if you combine the 6.45 of vehicle combat experience and the 6.15 of pilot portraits & callsigns.) So I'm still hoping, when the time is right and/or that the resources are sufficient that it gets added. Fingers crossed.

Hehe FTL is a nice game yea, though way too based on luck for my taste. I kinda like the current air combat system, I'm sure there must be plenty of different ways to approach that aspect of the game but the current one imho, does its job.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Vivoune

[Gorlom]

It was in the Kickstarter feature list people voted for, at a decent position at that (even number 1 if you combine the 6.45 of vehicle combat experience and the 6.15 of pilot portraits & callsigns. So I'm still hoping, when the time is right and/or that the resources are sufficient that it gets added. Fingers crossed.

How are you counting now? Everyone that voted got to rank each option in the order they preferred them the most.

If you combine the 2 options you would either get 6.45 as it's the largest number, or 6.30 as the average number between the 2.

They got ranks 11 and 12 out of 14 (not counting linux and mac since it's falsely represented due to no windows user cares about that) I'm not sure how that is a decent position... o.0

Link to the kickstarter update

[Vivoune]

Oh I thought people had to vote once for their preferred feature and that the numbers were the % since the numbers roughly looked like about right, my bad then for misreading that update. My fingers are still crossed, not holding my breath though I guess.

[Gauddlike]

You may be able to simulate vehicle xp in a mod.

It wouldn't be perfect but you could remove the existing vehicles and add them back as a type of armour for troopers.

Then when you assign the Ferret armour that trooper would look and act like the vehicle on the field but gain xp like a soldier.

Downside is that he would have his own AP etc rather than the set stats of the vehicle.

It may also not be possible to make a person wearing armour take up multiple spaces in the dropship so you may end up able to take a Chinook with 12 Ferret equivalents.

Worth thinking about though

Edited September 23, 2012 by Gauddlike

[thothkins]

I use the vehicles either as scouts or support fire. But if at all possible I make sure that a soldier who can claim the XP does so, before using the vehicle.

While it would be nice to have skills and pilot/ drivers etc i think it's beyond the current scope. So I'm happy to pretend that the drop ships are piloted by the soldiers and that the vehicles are on remote.

[ElTee]

Really, you should also have to build toilets in your bases. But we've not included them because though it would be more realistic I don't really think it would add much to the game.

The air combat is not meant to be as involved as the ground combat, so the pilots are basically invisible in game terms. Just like the vehicle crews (and the toilets).

You're making a strawman argument. People don't necessarily want crewmen just for 'realism'. I don't think anyone expects military simulation levels of realism or micromanagement down to bathrooms.

People want it for the sake of depth so they could have say, ace pilots. Or the ability to put soldiers inside vehicles. Vehicles as is don't really have lasting appeal of they can't give experience. If you made it so soldiers had a reduced experience rate when using a vehicle, that would work. People are asking for more depth not for the sake of more depth, but more fun and a slightly more personalized experience.

[Gorlom]

You're making a strawman argument. People don't necessarily want crewmen just for 'realism'. I don't think anyone expects military simulation levels of realism or micromanagement down to bathrooms.

People want it for the sake of depth so they could have say, ace pilots. Or the ability to put soldiers inside vehicles. Vehicles as is don't really have lasting appeal of they can't give experience. If you made it so soldiers had a reduced experience rate when using a vehicle, that would work. People are asking for more depth not for the sake of more depth, but more fun and a slightly more personalized experience.

I don't think that is a strawman. Focus on what he says in the second paragraph rather than the first one. He doesn't want to give the minigame too much depth. It's a design choice to focus on ground combat more then air combat.

Personally I don't think vehicles should have a lasting appeal. You are going to replace them when you can make better vehicles. Also if your vehicles are affected by pilot experience you would have to make them crappier to begin with to leave them room to grow. I think they would be less appealing then than if they are fixed like now.

[ElTee]

I don't think that is a strawman. Focus on what he says in the second paragraph rather than the first one. He doesn't want to give the minigame too much depth. It's a design choice to focus on ground combat more then air combat.

Personally I don't think vehicles should have a lasting appeal. You are going to replace them when you can make better vehicles. Also if your vehicles are affected by pilot experience you would have to make them crappier to begin with to leave them room to grow. I think they would be less appealing then than if they are fixed like now.

Well, I suppose choosing what to focus on is a valid decision.Gold Hawk is just a small indie developer. I'm sure that they would allow us to have as much complexity as we want if they had the time or resources, but they don't.

Looking at the FAQ, it said that making air combat more in depth would make it feel like a chore. I think it'd feel more like a chore if there isn't much to it in the first place.

Could you clarify what is the point of vehicles, then? From a gaming perspective, I don't see a reason to use them when I have soldiers that can actually advance in terms of stats where as vehicles are completely static.

If you allowed soldiers to be emplaced in vehicles, you could simply make the individual soldier progress in rank at a much slower rate to counter balance what vehicles are capable of. To me, it'd make vehicles an option I'd consider. I'd choose between deploying a vehicle over roughly 4-6 more soldiers who could cover a wider area. That tactical choice does exist right now, but it's not something I consider when vehicles are completely static.

[Gauddlike]

Could you clarify what is the point of vehicles, then? From a gaming perspective, I don't see a reason to use them when I have soldiers that can actually advance in terms of stats where as vehicles are completely static.

Vehicles are support platforms for me.

They will generally be tougher and have decent firepower but ultimately be expendable.

I use them for situations where I don't think the risk to my troops is acceptable.

I send in the vehicle to make it safer.

If the vehicle is lost I can pick up a new one that will be exactly the same.

Five minutes after the delivery arrives the squad is back up to strength.

If I lose a veteran soldier it would be a much greater loss.

I then have to hire a new rookie and get him trained back up to fill the role of the dead team member.

It could potentially be weeks or months of game time before the squad is back at peak effectiveness.

[Gorlom]

Vehicles are support platforms for me.

They will generally be tougher and have decent firepower but ultimately be expendable.

I use them for situations where I don't think the risk to my troops is acceptable.

I send in the vehicle to make it safer.

If the vehicle is lost I can pick up a new one that will be exactly the same.

Five minutes after the delivery arrives the squad is back up to strength.

If I lose a veteran soldier it would be a much greater loss.

I then have to hire a new rookie and get him trained back up to fill the role of the dead team member.

It could potentially be weeks or months of game time before the squad is back at peak effectiveness.

^ what he said

[Thann]

Like Gauddlike said, vehicles are expendable support platforms. At the moment I play UFO:Extraterrestrials and there I often use the vehicles to scout the area or to absorb some shots, that would hit soldiers if the vehicle wasn't there. And sometimes I didn't have enough not wounded soldiers for a full 8 soldier team, so I used 4 soldiers and a vehicle. And I lost the vehicles really fast sometimes. Average survival time: ~2 missions. Just bought a new one for the next mission.

[Swe_Racoon]

the truth is that the funding nations have found a way to simply clone the rookies. They are popped out with rubbish stats and red shirts and sent off to fight the alien hordes. They have no need of food or toilets or rec rooms or sunlight. Heck, most of them don;t live long enough that it's an issue. The base map says 'living quarters' but when you go in the door, it's just a line of vats.

Kinda like the bioderms in Cyberstorm. Poor buggers are cloned, integrated with a mech (probably in a painful manner) only to be sent of to die at the whims of some corporation. They also have a life span measured in weeks, IIRC.

Maybe the pilots actually are their craft? Being cloned and integrated in it? Conspiracies ahoy!