Jump to content
cardboardMike

Has the community dragged this back to being X1 with a new coat of paint?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TrashMan said:

Nah, the annoying gameplay gimmick aside, the concept itself is what I hate.

The idea of data having a physical form, ignoring the laws of physics and being defeated with bullets is so utterly retarded it offends me on a deep level.

Very much this. The entire concept reeks of contrivances and nonsensical lore breaking just to replace a concept like alien commander interrogation (which can be done far better) with some more more mindless combat with an extremely annoying enemy. Seriously if the advent can do this, why do they even need to be a physical species at all? Why can’t they just transcend their physical forms and live out their days in gigantic matrioshka brains and live out their existence in perfect paradise to the heat death of the universe itself? Their design is also generic as hell, just another humanoid with a gun and some terrible techno textures pasted on. Even the Typhons from Prey were more visually unique.

1 hour ago, TrashMan said:

That would be an interesting mechanic.

The game has the alien mothership moving around the map, nuking big cities, with smaller UFO's hitting smaller settlements and doing terror attacks.

You would be in a race against time to find a way to stop the mothership while there's still something left to save (and before humanity surrenders, although technically, you could still keep the game going after that, since you refused to surrender)

That’s pretty much what I proposed on the secret war thread for the second phase of all out war for the game. At first, the aliens only try attacking in remote areas to test our defenses. Then they start building bases and assassinating key VIPs and supporting certain third world countries to increase the DEFCON level and hopefully induced a WW3 scenario where they rule over the survivors. When that got foiled by Xenonauts, they would declare all out war with the Xenonauts desperately leading the charge to find a way to destroy their mothership in orbit while protecting the last remnant of the new world government (which based on your choices can be the NATO, the Warsaw Pact or even a new UN puppeted by Xenonauts). This will lengthen the game considerably and make the end game much less boring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, Xeroxth said:

I think it would just be far better to just make a whole new enemy with tweaks to its AI, vision cone and weapon/skill load outs maybe different versions of already existing aliens. For instance an enemy that’s can fly like a Harridan but heavily armored and specialized on assault weapons like melee stun clubs, shotguns that can make fast attacks into the middle of your group of soldiers. Or an alien with a  beam weapon/heavy artillery that can kill you soldiers in groups but is extremely lightly armored and need a turn or two to lock on to target, basically our version of a Doom Archville. Hell just an enemy that have two stages with the first being ranged and the second being melee focused would change the game base considerably. Or even a healer/mechanic alien. Or a trapper alien. The variety of game mechanics for enemies are limitless.

The problem with that, of course, is that it takes time to implement! And the natives are starting to get restless for a release date. Perhaps it's the time for them to start thinking about putting in a bigger "bang for our buck" and this just strikes me as one simple way of doing so. Someone lamented the disappearance of the Foxhound earlier, and yes, I totally understand this generic new F-16 retro-fit type mechanic (i'm indifferent to it because, although it means less diversity, we all know that the F-16 can carry Heavy, as well as light missiles). But for me at least, the focus of the work should be on the ground combat since it is the core of the game and what we are all really playing it for. More variation and better AI. And if there's a simple way to get that then so much the better. That's not to say, of course, that the air combat bit should remain as flawed as it was in xen 1 (it gets a bit dull toward the end of the game). I think Chris is doing his best to address that though.

Edited by ooey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, Comrade has a point about the direction this thread has taken. If you want to discuss new and exciting alien types for X2, it would be super cool if it had its own thread then everyone knows where to go to discuss cool new aliens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Thanks Max_Caine.

To end this Discussion, yes the Game will be a Mix from working Elements from X1 and completely new Elements with many surprises for the Xenonauts 2-Baseversion. This have to be done to get not a to big Time-Difference to the originally Plan. With the Reworks of the Base and testing several Airfight-Systems the Devs lost about 5 Month Development and 3 more Beta-Versions with new Gameelements for an working Early Access.

In my Eyes (after I could test Phoenix Point and play XCOM EW / XCOM 2 Wotc) I can only say that Xenonatus 2 is the perfect implementation from both big Competitors. And that is only the Baseversion for Xenonauts 2. With planed DLC´s some of the makeshift things (like Base-Building) will then be overworked.

The only thing is, that UFO2Extraterestials comes in the next time, which will be the latest comparision, because XCOM 2 WotC gets slowly old for that.

Edited by Alienkiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In line with the original thread, I'm also kinda disappointed to see the game become less Xenonauts 2 and more Xenonauts the Remake. I'm not going to refund, I backed because I wanted more XCOM games in the world, not because I was sold on shadow wars and vertical bases. I was however, excited to see them in action and while the art shown off recently has been less than stellar compared to what was in the kickstarter, I believe there will be improvements. Games that reuse assets in development typically do so on a temporary basis after all.

Right now, though, my biggest hope is that Xenonauts 2 will be like War of the Chosen. It didn't fundamentally change XCOM2, but it did add on enough bells and whistles to be an excellent addition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I didn´t refound too, because I know that Changes in Alpha- and Beta-State are normal. But you are right, some Changes I don´t like too. My hope is that these Changes are only a makeshift to get the Main-Version of the Game running. That mean especally the Base Building-Screen. The orignal ATLAS-Base was great and most of the Testers loved her. Sadly she made Problems so that the Devs had to change to a makeshift similar to X1.

On the other Hand, Phoenix Point has an similar Base Building-Screen (it´s from the orignal Developer of the orignal X-Com). And I don´t think UFO2ET has an better System, which will come in September 2020. The only difference is that the Structures and the internals are better shown. 

Other Changes like a complete reworked Geoscape, the orbital Bombardement, Special Missions, Agents, Armor- and Weapon-Upgrades, Modulable Fighters and so on are great new stuff.

 

 

Edited by Alienkiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all,

   I don't often write on the boards, but I stop by every now and again to check up on progress.  I played the original Xcom when it first came out, as i suspect many others have.  I played the other versions and incarnates as they showed up over the years.  The Firaxis Games versions being the least enjoyable.  The OP asked if it was just xenonauts 1 with a new paint job and I feel that  so far Goldhawk has done as much as they can to put forth new challenges and implement new capabilities.   There are things like the base structure and operations that are reminiscent of xcom 1, xenonauts 1 and so I voted for this style of base building over the a single ant hill style.. like what Firaxis implemented.  To me, letting a base assault mission though every now and again to test my troops and defensive capabilities is fun.  The first time the orbital Bombardement went off I was impressed and I was started of thinking of ways that Goldhawk was going to have me deal with this new challenge.  The new panic geoscape system is another new and exciting aspect of game play. The armor and weapon upgrades so far are i feel like great additions and step fowards in the realm.  I don't like to play too much of Beta's and Alphas other than to see how the path is looking at the moment. Right now I'm impressed and glad I was able to help back this game.  For me X2 isn't just a X1 with a new paint job it has more meat where it needs it with the same great flavor I've come to know and love. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having done a little modding of Xenonauts 1, as much because of some of the critiques raised prior to this post, I can agree that simply releasing the same game again would be unwise.  However, having done a little modding, I can also appreciate just how difficult it is to nail down the exact contributions of each change made to each part of the game.  While riding out the uncertainty works when you are playing by yourself, it doesn't work when you are being paid to deliver a polished product.

It would be a lot worse if they released a broken game, full of new features that don't work and don't gel together.  Half-baked ideas and half-baked implementations can really hurt your player base.  There are a lot of players who aren't going to post their concerns on these forums or wait a year to see if the game fixes up.  They will move on.

What I would like to see is a handful of new, high impact, features that are well implemented.  To a lesser extent, I would like to see a few of the hard gameplay limits to do with terrain destruction, number of soldiers and aliens in a mission and the handling of reaction fire to be eased or removed.  However, as I discovered easing hard limits creates a world of uncertainty which might be exactly what has driven the developers to return to a previous game model.  For example, UFOs are central to the gameplay dynamic of each ground combat in Xenonauts 1.  Their indestructible property heavily defined, at least for me, the structure of the gameplay giving a clear beginning, middle and end to each combat.  Yes, it got a bit repetitive clearing the UFO again and again, but it gave my decisions about equipment and tactics a clear problem for my choices to solve.  It also gave each ground combat a distinct flavour from other tactical combat games I had played.

I think the issue that has arisen, at least from what I can gather reading people's various comments, is that some players can handle and even thrive on the repetition in the Xenonauts 1 game model more than others.  I'll admit, I don't yearn to play more Xenonauts 1.  I am looking forward to a more developed and varied experience.  I have breached and cleared a lot of UFOs and played tricks with the rule system more than enough to get victories.

The biggest challenge I had with Xenonauts 1 was that the tactical battles attracted me to the game but the strategic layers was far more important in order to get victory.  As my playthrough progressed, the tactical battles became more about not making mistakes than about really enjoying all the possibilities the system offered.  However, the strategic layer had not been given the same detail and attention the tactical layer had.  It really felt awful having to spend all my attention on the less detailed, less loved part because frequently I would lose if I didn't.  The killing blow for me was when I started to want to autoresolve the tactical fights because they just felt far too much work for far too little reward.  It led to me modding the game (quite significantly) to swing the balance towards the tactical combats and away from stressing upon the economic gameplay.

That being said, I understand that there is some element of personal preference involved in my analysis.  It has as much to do with my state of life and the time (or lack of aforementioned) I have to spend just grinding a puzzle contained within what is ostensibly a game, in order to then with that solution obtained replay the game and enjoy it.  What I really hoped was that Xenonauts 2 would bring the strategic layer into balance with the tactical layer and give a good transition between the turn-based small scale battles and economics-driven large-scale battles, whatever the time-system used might be.  I hoped that I would feel rewarded for both parts of the game in equal measure and that both parts gave a good account of themselves in terms of detail, progression, challenge and problem-solving.  I also hoped that the game would be a little less prescriptive in how you have to play it (i.e. less of a puzzle) and a bit more of a game (a somewhat skill-based activity infused with risks and rewards).

However, I can't blame any non-AAA gaming company for going back to the basics when they need to.  I would rather an incremental improvement over a revolution that fails.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Therfore the Game is still in the internal Betatest and not for Public. There are many Job Sites to be done, refited and overworked. The first big overwork of Groundmaps, UFO´s, Transports, Bases and much more get done in Beta 14. As well as the Special Missions should get playable which are atm only automatic.

The last 2 DevDirays here an in Kickstarter are very interessting and the complete Rework reduce the Problems the Game have at the Moment. If we get lucky an new Betatest with all new refits and overworks can start this Month, but from what I read it could be next month.

The Game has big differences to it´s predecessor.

1. You have less Materials to work with, you have to decide more to use upgraded Standardweapons (light Magnetic) / Magnetic Weapons / Standardlaser (Engergy Weapons) / Upgraded Laser (improved Engery Weapons) or Plasma Weapons (best Weapons at the End). The Same with your Armor, Vehicles and so on.

2. There are new Special Missions which more Materials, Snitches (Human / Aliens) and other things to find. Belongs on the Mission to eleminate or Caputre. That Mission are atm automatic.

3. You can help the Founders to reduce the Panic with special things (which I don´t name about the surprise). The new and secret Alien-Space-Station raise the Panic with her Orbital Bombardement.

4. Terror and light Terror Mission get overworked to come in more Eras. That will be done with Point 1.

5. You have Outposts which gives you Personal and more Money on the Geoscape. The Outposts have to be in Range of a Base from you with Aircover and have to be build up which costs Money and Time.

6. And many more which is comming, esp. for Research Reports, Production, Basemanagement and similar things.

Most of that we could test, but with the third refit / rework of some Main Game Elements we Betas have to beginn von 0 on again.

 

Edited by Alienkiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing I hope for is better native Linux support.  I went and bought another copy of Xenonauts 1 from GoG to try and get the community edition working on my linux box.  After a lot of messing around (and getting the firm belief that I need to do more online linux courses) I thoughtfully considered the fact that Xenonauts 2 Early Access will be Windows-only, that Xenonauts 1 doesn't run very well on linux (as the forum posts suggest there are often graphical inconsistencies and save game corruption) and that the Community Edition is apparently aimed at Windows-only, and as a result have got together a windows box to run Xenonauts-XYZ on.  I don't know how long I can justify such a set up, but for the near future I think it will work.

I appreciate that the majority of players, at least at the moment, are on Windows and that the development has to aim at the platform its core market is running the game on.  Unfortunately, the administration that runs Microsoft (I did a bit of research before I changed to linux) has profoundly changed since the Windows 7 days and I cannot agree with what they want for their company anymore.  I say this incase anyone misunderstands this post, it's not because I'm "that type of person" who wants to inflict a cost on everyone else because of their preference, but instead it is because I don't feel comfortable about where the Microsoft Corporation is going and what using their products will entail in the future.  

Edited by dasufo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep Windows is the System for Gameplay. If you wanna Play Computergames you have to use Windows or play on Consoles with a CD / DVD / Blu-Ray like the Playstation.

To import such Games for IOs or Linux is to heavy and costintensive, because you have to reduce contents or Graphics if you lucky. If not you have to rewrite the complete contents for IOS or Linux which no Devstudio will do, esp. the little and medium ones.

Firaxis tried this with the first XCOM incl. DLC. XOM 2 isn´t for Linux and IOs. You see what I mean. It´s easyer to make a Game for PC and Console about the same Programming Code.

So you have 2 decissions now:

1. You use a Console or a PC with Windows for Gaming.

2. The other way you can do is that you make on the same PC an Linuxpart for Working and an Win10 Part for Gaming. I did that long time ago, to play Games which were running in Win XP and Games which better run on Win 7.

 

Edited by Alienkiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, my recent playtime has been spent on Absolute Rally, Poly Bridge 2, War Thunder, Beyond a Steel Sky, Shortest Trip to Earth and Into the Breach and a number of other games on my linux box.  Some of this is through Proton (Steam) and some of it has been through the release of native support by both big and small developers.  I think you'd be surprised how many titles by small teams have been able to patch their games to support Linux and have them run flawlessly.

I'll admit, when your game is developed using the NET framework and XNA studio (Underrail), I appreciate why its a bit more difficult.  Into the Breach apparently made use of a lot of more modern open source libraries, for instance, which I would imagine made porting it much easier.  If I have read this correctly, Xenonauts 2 is on Unity and the Unity company officially released their editor on Linux this year.  I'm not sure what that actually means for extending support for Xenonauts 2 to Linux, in principle if Unity releases a package for building on Linux but a game that is already under production hasn't been built from the ground up with the package's specifications in mind, that may still entail a lot of work.

Once again I reiterate my point.  My trouble isn't strictly a technical issue.  I can't claim that the Linux community has produced a clearly superior product.  I think it is objective to say that the various brands of Linux have a number of serious and glaring issues, especially when considered from the standpoint of mass market desktop usage or large scale commercial adoption.  After all, I have used Windows and consoles for most of my computing life.  However, both functionally and legally, the major tech companies are implicitly claiming ownership over your hardware and over your data and are incapable of preventing governments and other entities from forcibly accessing, altering or removing what is yours without your permission or even your knowledge.  If this wasn't an issue happening to consul-generals of major governments in the world, reported even by the mainstream news outlets, I wouldn't be quite so motivated.  However, there are people out there who want to do each other harm and as computers are becoming so important, especially under this covid influenced economy, the stakes have become much higher.  As a result, I can't in good conscience leave myself wide open for the sake of entertainment.

If I have to do the legwork myself to get a piece of software to operate on Linux, then I'll do it.  If I have to spend more money to make it work, then so be it.  We live in an economic world.  Software isn't actually free to make.  But how can the developer know there is a customer willing to pay on a different platform if that customer never speaks up and says "Hey! I'm here! I'll buy!"

Edited by dasufo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2020 at 2:31 PM, dasufo said:

The biggest challenge I had with Xenonauts 1 was that the tactical battles attracted me to the game but the strategic layers was far more important in order to get victory ...  However, the strategic layer had not been given the same detail and attention the tactical layer had.

Personally, my inclination would be for the game to have parity in the importance of the strategic and tactical layers of the game. That said, the point you raise is interesting. When the player is losing interest in the tactical missions, that is a pretty bad sign. I think part of the problem is in the interaction between the two. In the strategy layer you spawn the missions and gear up your soldiers. In the tactical layer you complete the mission and bring back artefacts for research. But that is about it. Most of the consequential actions stay in their respective layers e.g. soldier survival, aircraft weapons tech. If there were more scope to play a ground mission in such a way that it would positively impact the strategic game, I think that would solve both problems. e.g. if you hit a certain secondary objective on the ground, then it would affect the spawning of the next wave of UFOs. That way, you have some flexibility as to which layer of the game you want to put more effort into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with that basic idea.  A stronger tie between the two parts would help with that issue, but, there are many ham-fisted ways of doing it (I tried them) which aren't suitable for a polished product.  Here are some of my thoughts.

Xenonauts 1 clearly presents a two part game: strategic and tactical.  The tactical part has far more content but is less significant, as long as you aren't getting everyone killed.  I'd expect a sequel to address the imbalance (more akin to differing weights on a scale than the game meaning of the word).

However, that isn't always feasible. The constraints of the intellectual conceit (the narrative you accept to bind the game's constituent elements together) can make it difficult to shoehorn in a game element that doesn't fit the narrative.  For example, if your story is all about the actions of individuals changing the fate of nations, then you shoehorn in an extensive game element about large scale battles or the slow and gradual effect of macro-economic processes, there is a good chance that the game will snap.  Likewise, if you are a macro scale story about the grand forces of history but spend a lot of game time on the drama of your small group of friends from when your character was at school, I think your audience will polarise over which part of the game they want to play.  I have a specific game in mind but I'll leave its name out.

The narrative is what helps to connect the parts of a game together, to help govern and emphasise the interaction between the two parts.  As a test I opened Xenonauts 1 up last night and left it running at the world map in the slowest speed.  I watched it over the course of the night inbetween the activities I was doing  (I have computers side by side, yes two sets of mice and keyboard, the works).  What struck me was how rigid the world actually was.  There are actually very few interactions you can have with it.

Now, part of this is because of the narrative.  Realistically, any organisation set up to counter a world wide invasion would have unlimited funding and more manpower than you could fit in a military base.  You wouldn't have to build bases, you'd be given charge of entire locations pre-established with extensive resources at hand for you to command.  Aliens would be fought with tanks and artillery, entire buildings would be demolished to stop some of the more deadly creatures that get sent.  Hundreds if not thousands of men would descend upon a group of 8 to 10 aliens and pile on top of them, literally, if required to stop them.  In short, you'd never bother with the absurdity of an international counter-terrorist-alien special forces unit.

However, the game's narrative constrains the game elements in two major ways.  Firstly, it is contrived that victory comes by capturing aliens.  Therefore a crack unit of commandos is required to get these aliens alive -- which is precisely incompatible with the tactics a military would use such as dropping large bombs on top of buildings and crushing them in the rubble.  Secondly, it is contrived that the aliens are implicitly using their magic (psionics, but without any real cause and effect, so magic) to demoralise and divide humanity.  The notion of getting driven mad (panic) by the magic powers of the aliens runs throughout the game.  Therefore your organisation and its members are implicitly meant to have some special courage or faith that overcomes the magical power of the aliens.  Consequently, these constraints make any connection between the strategic and tactical layers much harder to logically implement because the story itself is doing backflips to stop the chopper and its soldiers from becoming a side-show.

To make it clear, I am all for the soldiers and their chopper, going room to room, clearing alien baddies.  It's what I think the game is about, or at least, what I emotionally respond to.  However, it isn't lost on me that the game is forcing those soldiers to be important.  I think Xenonauts makes a stronger effort than most XCOM/UFO-Defense simulators to tackle this issue (you can airstrike a crash site for instance) but, I just want to put this out there, if Aliens invaded the world would go into a total war footing and people would work for free.  There would be no "buying planes" or "money".  The governments and groups that fight the threat would take whatever was around and conscript everyone who wasn't apart of their group to engage the threat, at gunpoint.  You'd have thousands of engineers and tens of thousands of soldiers thrown at you, just as a beginning package before the real resourcing came later, irrespective of whether you were succeeding or not.

To properly connect the two layers the narrative needs to be clever.  Really clever.  There has to be a clear reason why you want to send in small groups on choppers without it being just part of the initial game assumptions about obtaining victory.  Otherwise, you get some players really enjoying whatever reason you give and others spitting the reason the out and thinking you've jumped the shark.

For example, if you were going to work within the current premise of the game scenario and the air of mystery the aliens have, then you could start with having a segment of the world population that is relatively immune to the effects of the alien magic.  This segment of the population is too small to form numerous large armies, so instead, they are quickly drawn together into a single coherent organisation intent on interventions against high impact Alien activities, such as terror missions and what not.  It then fits that these humans have the potential for using magic too (human psionics).

For example, if you were going to go outside the premise, then you could start with adjusting the nature of the alien invasion.  Instead of it being a handful of UFOs that only are stopped by your intervention, you would establish all the nations as independent entities which are being attacked by the aliens.  They would have militaries and you'd see on the global map UFOs coming into their airspace and then being engaged, often with success.  However, there would be a simple dynamic that would give cause for a Xenonauts organisation to step in and solve the problem.  Firstly, some nations would get overwhelmed by focused alien attention and it would be after the nation's military has been exhausted that your aircraft, your soldiers, your assets (potentially tanks, artillery, naval ships, etc that are stationed in rapid reaction forces around the globe via your various bases) would transport across the world to provide reinforcement.  This would be the point of the strategic layer.  During this battle, you would then have opportunities for your special forces (the guys in the choppers) to attack or engage with targets of opportunity.  It wouldn't be there is a single UFO and a single crash site, there would be dozens of UFOs and battles but one or two would lend themselves to a good looting, an alien capture or some other small unit action.  This would be the point of the tactical battle.  Here the tactical combat you play is contextualised as part of a large scale battle happening over a large area where a highly mobile group of soldiers could get to where they are needed and do something small but important, like obtain Alien technology intact or an Alien soldier alive.

The number of logical connections between the strategic layer and the tactical layer, inclusive of how you use your strategic forces to create opportunities for tactical combats and how the tactical combats might then alter the outcome of the larger battle, increases dramatically.  I.e an alien jamming craft appears during a nation-invasion, it makes your radars useless and tracking the UFOs has to be done by masses of aircraft and ground observers with eyeballs, however, you find the alien jamming craft and take risks to knock it out of the air, with a specially equipped group of aircraft and then capture the jammer intact with your chopper troops, to later learn its secrets and develop a way to permanently defeat their jamming technologies in future strategic battles.  This is the sort of thing I would expect the current game scenario and game elements could be extended to with success.

Edited by dasufo
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh belive us hard working Betatesters. Surprises and many Type of variable Missions you will get enough. Not only like in the predecessor shoot down UFOs and getting Artifacts to research as well as Terror Missions.

There will be Missions like save him / her (politican, Soldier and so on), investigate an unkonown location, arrest an interrogate an human Traitor (Mind Controled or Voluntary) and so on to the normal Missions you have (big Terror, light Terror, UFO Crashsites, landed UFO´s, Alien Base and Defend your light to medium build up R&D and Soldier-Bases as well as the fully Main Base).

Then you have surprisses in the Ground Missions if you are to slow after doing some special things as well as in the Geoscape (which are announced in an other Dev Diray some time before).

Like said your Ressources are very very limited against the Predecessor so you have to decide wisely for what you use them. Build up better Weapons, Armor or the Tank / Airforce first after the Standard Upgrades for existing things are done at the beginning?

And more surprises for the R & D-System as well as for your Bases comes too. It´s more then a refit from the Predecessor. Everything the Devs couldn´t bring in in Xenonauts 1 is now in Xenonauts 2 as well as more Ideas and not finished thingkings from competitors. If we can show the Public some Vids with the frist new Impressions then you all know what we hard Working Betatesters and the Devs mean.

That means too, the Game need more Time of Development, because many more or less working things have to be reworked / refited and upgraded, like the fully Maps and the Mars / Fighters and UFO´s for example.

 

Edited by Alienkiller
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/16/2020 at 12:55 PM, dasufo said:

Another thing I hope for is better native Linux support.  I went and bought another copy of Xenonauts 1 from GoG to try and get the community edition working on my linux box.  After a lot of messing around (and getting the firm belief that I need to do more online linux courses) I thoughtfully considered the fact that Xenonauts 2 Early Access will be Windows-only, that Xenonauts 1 doesn't run very well on linux (as the forum posts suggest there are often graphical inconsistencies and save game corruption) and that the Community Edition is apparently aimed at Windows-only, and as a result have got together a windows box to run Xenonauts-XYZ on.  I don't know how long I can justify such a set up, but for the near future I think it will work.

I appreciate that the majority of players, at least at the moment, are on Windows and that the development has to aim at the platform its core market is running the game on.  Unfortunately, the administration that runs Microsoft (I did a bit of research before I changed to linux) has profoundly changed since the Windows 7 days and I cannot agree with what they want for their company anymore.  I say this incase anyone misunderstands this post, it's not because I'm "that type of person" who wants to inflict a cost on everyone else because of their preference, but instead it is because I don't feel comfortable about where the Microsoft Corporation is going and what using their products will entail in the future.  

I already play X2 on Linux, and it works fine despite the lack of official support. Unity games really tend to work quite well on Linux as long as they do not use any graphical features that are too fancy. DXVK takes care of getting the graphics working on Linux, while the core game code can be expected to work because it's .NET. Unity has for a long time targeted the Mono redistributable for .NET support, so that should work as well on Linux as it does on Windows (and of course MS .NET is also cross-platform these days).

I would have released Linux versions of X:CE if I could. That was never possible unfortunately. I have the source code to the game itself, written by Goldhawk, but I don't have the engine's source code. It's only available as a bunch of libraries for Windows (I think Mac versions exist), not Linux, and only in binary form. Goldhawk never had that source either. As a result, building native Linux versions wasn't possible, not easily at least. The game is finnicky enough as it is, and only compiles "as is" with a particular version of the MSVC compiler, too.

In fact X:CE was also the reason to keep a separate box for me - I released a small X:CE patch earlier this year, which required me to boot that box for the first time in over a year. This inconvenience is a major reason why there will probably be no more X:CE updates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2020 at 8:31 PM, dasufo said:

However, the strategic layer had not been given the same detail and attention the tactical layer had.  It really felt awful having to spend all my attention on the less detailed, less loved part because frequently I would lose if I didn't.  The killing blow for me was when I started to want to autoresolve the tactical fights because they just felt far too much work for far too little reward.  It led to me modding the game (quite significantly) to swing the balance towards the tactical combats and away from stressing upon the economic gameplay.

This is a really good point. I think the strategic layer of the first game had its faults in that it offered to little options in playing and because of that railroad many players who are not really fond of the dogfights into a dead end. I think their could be some good foundation for fixes already established in X2. For instance the ability to build non base structures. This can offer huge possibilities for players that hates the air combat by simply replcace air coverage with static missile bases that can be upgraded with more advanced weapons and defenses as time go on and relations with the regional faction improves (ie having soviet or Nato troops garrisoning or energy shiels to negate bombardment entirely). The biggest difference will be that the placement of these structures will not change at all and is bought from a friendly region. The air defense with static structures will then force the aliens to concentrate on attacking to missile platforms by landing troops and capture them which in turn will make the game more focused on ground combat. If you dislike such a thing then the structures can serve as debuffing for the alien vessel fighting above their zone of influence while buffing your own aircraft by showing the UFOs stats and health.

Even the secret agent mechanics at first teased by early versions of X2 can be further expanded as a gate way for special factional missions (assassination, protection, kidnaping VIPs; foiling alien deals; wiping out gangs smuggling of alien tech; sabotaging Nato/Soviet efforts to gain relations with their opponent or increase your control in the two factions,...). Or something as simple as adding another level of complexity in interogating alien prisoners which always disapointed me in the first game where redundant captured aliens were just unceremoniously put to death rather than used as moles, snitches,...

On 9/17/2020 at 9:56 AM, dasufo said:

Now, part of this is because of the narrative.  Realistically, any organisation set up to counter a world wide invasion would have unlimited funding and more manpower than you could fit in a military base.  You wouldn't have to build bases, you'd be given charge of entire locations pre-established with extensive resources at hand for you to command.  Aliens would be fought with tanks and artillery, entire buildings would be demolished to stop some of the more deadly creatures that get sent.  Hundreds if not thousands of men would descend upon a group of 8 to 10 aliens and pile on top of them, literally, if required to stop them.  In short, you'd never bother with the absurdity of an international counter-terrorist-alien special forces unit.

Ah but this is on the context of the setting comes in to play. The aliens pretty much have full space superiority and has used it to wipe out most of the two main super power's military with their orbital bombarments and any further mobilization is still crippled due to power play and paranoia of the cold war. Xenonauts was stuck in the middle of this and only proved their effectiveness at the first stage of the invasion but still looked at with suspicion by the two major benefactors. The aliens clearly don't want complete annihilation of Earth because they would have done so from the start, so maybe they only want to colonize Earth and subjugate the native populance the same way major British corporations started the colonization of India. Which mean the actual funding of Xenonauts is kept secret from the rest of world and the invaders. Which means any actions of the Xenonauts is disavowed by both powers. That's my take on the event anyway.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, the aliens would rapidly triangulate the location of your hangars and obliterate them, if they were engaging in that sort of orbital bombardment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If possible we show you pictures from the new Version and the refit / rework as well as other improvements which have been done after Beta 14 is stable as possible.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solver,

I think I appreciate the technical issues.  It also seems implied that at some point everyone wanted to move on from Xenonauts 1 and focus on the next iteration of the project.  It isn't the first game that has its core logic rewritten to make it robust, or the first product that needed to market itself as a sequel to achieve that.  It seems to be a common trend in software engineering these past few decades.

While modding the game, I did encounter some strange performance issues when I moved values towards their edge cases.  If I recall correctly, I could get the world map rendering to start 'chugging' when panning if I tried to render the names of the cities at too high a zoom.  This was on a highly performant gaming computer.  Ofcourse, if it isn't actually using the graphics card, I suppose the Big-Oh of most algorithms that lack parallel execution would be quite large and if those cities were being looped over multiple times to create the complete overlay, it is possible.  But, that is as far as half a degree in software engineering gets me.  I'm studying electrical engineering now and I think it will be a while before I get reverse-engineer-level familiar with graphing algorithms. ^_^

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

×