Pre-spotting the UFO...

[Vivisector 9999]

It's mostly just an immersion thing, but it's kinda weird how you don't know where the crashed UFO is when you start a ground mission (unless it's on fire and throwing up a lot of smoke or something). Even after the briefing screen tells you something like "After preliminary recon, the alien craft appears to have suffered minor/severe/whatever damage". At the very least, you'd think the Xenonauts could spot it from the air flying in...

I don't think it would be a big deal, because even if the UFO's location was revealed at the start, you'd still have to use caution moving towards it, since you still wouldn't know exactly where the aliens are on the map. If you don't want to have quite that level of info given to you, it could be toned down, too - for example, a pop-up message at the start that says "The UFO crashed somewhere to the NW" or whatever.

[Gorlom]

I think that would impact on how many maps you need and shorten the lifespan of any map design by the Goldhawks level designer or the community.

This is imo a case of where immersion conflicts with fun. I'd rather have it to be fun so I'll just see it as an acceptable break from reality

[Orumo]

I think is part of the challenge don't know the ufo location because a victory condition is secure it for five turns. As Gorlom said, I think is a gameplay vs. reality fight, where I like to see the game winning.

Although, from the context, you are right about the ufo seems to have been spotted in the aerial approach to the zone.

[Quartermaster]

I can't seem to recall if an area map will be available for the game (I'm meaning the top down view of the area), but if so I think it would be appropriate to have that show where all of the buildings and the UFO are located regardless of whether or not your soldiers have been there yet (albeit lacking a bit of detail). Seeing buildings on the area map will also be useful when we have secondary goals, like protecting civilians in a hospital. Since there is the dynamic where we can capture UFO by occupying it, it seems appropriate that we should be able to select tactics that suit our needs rather than being forced to fan out and sweep the map every time. For example if we are facing a more advanced enemy than the soldier's tech level could handle, it would be more appropriate to bee line for the UFO rather than risk being spread out and losing soldiers due to them being isolated and lacking power individually.

[thothkins]

I like to think of not seeing the UFO and the buildings as a balance for not having the aliens shoot your chinook down as it lands, or setting themselves up to kill all your troops on getting out of it.

In a more abstract way, think of the map as a representation of a larger urban or rural area. That means you don;t quite know what's out there and the aliens can't pick out your landing. Since playing on a map big enough to actually have that would be tedious, it's reduced to what you have in the game, to make it more fun.

Just some thoughts...

[StellarRat]

They should know exactly where UFO is before landing. If they can't see it why would they land at all? Also, if the weather was so bad they couldn't see it they would have no business even attempting a landing specially in a city or forested area.

[thothkins]

Although they can't see it, it's their job to clear out the aliens and protect the civvies. They have to go in. It's what they're paid to do, not to mention to protect the planet.

I'm not sure where weather came into it as I didn't see it in a quick scan of the above. If the Chinook can land, then it's pretty much the same as the above. They have to go in or the pesky aliens will infiltrate the countryside/town and cause mayhem. So, they land in the best available spot.

This is why all the soldiers look so miserable.

[Max_Caine]

If we're applying that kind of logic, going for "realism" then people should know there is a tremendous difference between looking at something in the air, and looking at something when back on the ground. Let's use a good example of the disconnect between viewing something airbourne and viewing something on the ground - Battlefield 3. I'd like people to look at the following video, which is someone getting into a helicopter and mucking around. Please watch the start for around 20-30 seconds (to get some idea of looking at things airbourne), then fast forward to around 13:50 where we can get a good idea of the kind of panorama the airbourne has, then watch where the player dismounts at around 14:09, and then is ground based from then for a short while.

Now, can you see that the field of vision for this player is tremendously limited when he is back on the ground. Where are the points of reference that a solider would need if looking for a UFO he saw on briefly the fly-by in? How does a solider tell where, in reference to himself, the UFO is? How? He can't see it from the air any more. If there isn't a landmark (a gas station, a water tower, something distinctive), then what does that solider have to work with? Perhaps they could do that roughly "Okay, the UFO is to the north-east of the drop point", but that would depend on the pilot telling them that. And it certainly isn't super-accurate. Or perhaps the pilot drops coloured flares over the crash site so soliders can see at a glance what they may not see when on the ground. Provided of course, the pilot is crazy enough to fly over a UFO where the aliens with their advanced tech are itching to put holes in it! You want to go down that route, then you have to understand the solider sees less on the ground then he does in the air, and the points of reference change massively when ground-bourne as opposed to air-bourne.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Max_Caine

[StellarRat]

If the weather is good enough to land in the middle of a city or forest then they wouldn't have a problem seeing the UFO from the air before they land. They aren't going to be landed miles from the objective and have to search an entire city or woodland. That would be stupid and impossible for such a small team. Also the crash location would undoubtedly have been carefully noted and reported by the interceptor pilots. We have to assume that the searching is basically completed before the ground team goes in.

[StellarRat]

Yes, vision is much more limited on the ground, but they would have map coordinates and a bearing and distance from the landing zone.

[Gorlom]

They should know exactly where UFO is before landing. If they can't see it why would they land at all? Also, if the weather was so bad they couldn't see it they would have no business even attempting a landing specially in a city or forested area.

Maybe they heard a commotion? Maybe they saw laser flashes in the distance and are too cautious to fly closer? Maybe they got a landing zone appointed to them by the local forces on site?

Or maybe its for gameplay reasons and the pilots/soldiers are selectively blind on the approach to make the game more fun.

[StellarRat]

Well, I can see the "fun" factor....however really to me it seems like a waste of time and frustrating. Maybe others feel differently. Besides, even if you know where the UFO is you don't know where the bad guys are. So there's plenty of searching and suspense either way.

[thothkins]

Going by the original, I would have thought a fair number of the bad guys would be with the ship, especially when the larger craft start appearing. To know where that is right from the start allows you a tactical advantage in setting out your troops.

I'd then argue that the aliens should see the Chinook coming a mile off and set out snipers to kill everyone stepping out of the Chinook.

That would be a fair and balanced response. The battlescape turn one would be of an approaching Chinook allowing the aliens to set themselves up and employ mind control in the craft. By say turn 3 the Chinook has landed and has to get into cover under enemy fire.

Perhaps not every mission, depending on the damage to the UFO and casualties, but enough to be a real pain. Now that would be frustrating (although sending out a fresh lot of rookies every mission would be like old times)

[Vivisector 9999]

Going by the original, I would have thought a fair number of the bad guys would be with the ship, especially when the larger craft start appearing. To know where that is right from the start allows you a tactical advantage in setting out your troops.

I'd then argue that the aliens should see the Chinook coming a mile off and set out snipers to kill everyone stepping out of the Chinook.

Of course, you could counter-argue that real military helicopters (including the Chinook) have mounted machine-guns (and door gunners) to deal with enemies who pull just such shenanigans at a landing zone.

Even without that, though, I'm not sure sniping the helicopter is an optimal strategy for stranded aliens. The helicopter is stated to be armored against small arms fire (apparently even alien guns, since their shots ping off it). Also, at that point, the Xenonauts are all together and can pool their fire against any enemy that shows itself. Sniping the craft was more annoying in the original X-COM (when your starter craft only had one exit), but now the Xenonauts can pour out in a few different directions and deal with it.

If I were the aliens, I'd wait for them to split up, and then make with the sniping. Or I'd start massacring the civilians left and right, forcing the Xenonauts to come to me (if they don't want a score reduction), rather than letting them proceed at their own pace. Or I'd set an ambush near the downed UFO, as the strike team will probably head right for it. Now it's an AI issue, but I think those would be some ways to counterbalance pre-spotting the UFO.

Just offering more thoughts. This thread has some decent arguments on both sides.

[Gorlom]

Of course, you could counter-argue that real military helicopters (including the Chinook) have mounted machine-guns (and door gunners) to deal with enemies who pull just such shenanigans at a landing zone.

Even without that, though, I'm not sure sniping the helicopter is an optimal strategy for stranded aliens. The helicopter is stated to be armored against small arms fire (apparently even alien guns, since their shots ping off it). Also, at that point, the Xenonauts are all together and can pool their fire against any enemy that shows itself. Sniping the craft was more annoying in the original X-COM (when your starter craft only had one exit), but now the Xenonauts can pour out in a few different directions and deal with it.

If I were the aliens, I'd wait for them to split up, and then make with the sniping. Or I'd start massacring the civilians left and right, forcing the Xenonauts to come to me (if they don't want a score reduction), rather than letting them proceed at their own pace. Or I'd set an ambush near the downed UFO, as the strike team will probably head right for it. Now it's an AI issue, but I think those would be some ways to counterbalance pre-spotting the UFO.

Just offering more thoughts. This thread has some decent arguments on both sides.

If I were an alien seeing a helicopter about to land in a turn based game I'd run my ass of stand outside the doors as they open and toss a grenade yelling "HOT POTATO! into that bitch asap! After that I'd watch the pretty fire works listen to the deathscreams and watch the "mission failed" screen. (assuming I stood by a side door and not by the ferret... or if i could toss the grenade over the first guys.)

[thothkins]

Of course, you could counter-argue that real military helicopters (including the Chinook) have mounted machine-guns (and door gunners) to deal with enemies who pull just such shenanigans at a landing zone.

Yeah, we went through this one elsewhere. If the Chinook has a M60 on it, then the aliens should get craft weapons too, in order to provide balance. So again, it gets messy very early on.

Sniping, or simply spraying the chinook with fire, is simply one option of suppression until the big guns can come up or as Gorlom said, until you get some alien grenades in there. the point being that, instead of the Xenonauts being able to get out of the craft in reasonable safety, the whole alien strategy would be able to wait for them upon landing.

Is the Chinook indestructible on the battlescape? That would have to change if the aliens started pounding it with heavy plasma fire most missions.

[StellarRat]

Of course, you could counter-argue that real military helicopters (including the Chinook) have mounted machine-guns (and door gunners) to deal with enemies who pull just such shenanigans at a landing zone.

Good point. For all we know it could have mini-guns and rockets. That would be a really nasty warm-up for the aliens. Either the team would have to go in a good distance from the alien ship OR X-Com would take measures to secure the landing zone before the troops landed. That would be gunships/fighter-bombers and foward observers in aircraft laying down suppressive fire and killing anything they see before and during the troop landing. Something like the Cobra or AC-130 would have been available in the timeframe of the game. Even the F-17 can lay down suppression with the 20mm it carries.

[Gauddlike]

Two options there for me:

The Chinook is a pretty fragile aircraft so you don't want to fly it over an enemy armed with high tech weaponry when it is full of your finest troops just so you can have a peek at them, they may object to that quite strongly.

The enemy are an unknown force with unknown potential.

You try to keep them unaware of your presence until you are ready to engage.

You come in low to a reasonable range, one that is close enough to move to the target but not close enough to risk the dropship.

You then proceed towards your objective and remove any threats you encounter.

With skill, and a bit of luck, you manage to take out the enemy before they can get organised enough to hand you the plasma cooked remains of your own backsides.

Or:

You fly over the landed ship in a big, relatively slow, and poorly armed helicopter playing ride of the valkyries through the external speakers.

You take plasma fire from multiple enemies.

Sometimes the helicopter survives long enough to drop your remaining uninjured troops near the enemy ship.

All of the enemies have now retreated to strong positions and you end up in a huge firefight against superior weaponry.

Sometimes you win but the aliens usually destroy anything useful inside their ship, just as they did on Iceland.

After a few weeks you run out of helicopters and troops then the nations of the world stop funding you.

From a gameplay perspective knowing where the enemy ship is, and to a lesser extent the other buildings on the map, takes away the suspense of the maps for me.

It would be like removing the fog of war in jagged alliance.

Unless you have another mechanic in place to build the suspense back up then why remove the existing one?

[Quartermaster]

I do not agree with the notion that knowing where the alien craft is would significantly reduce the suspense. What builds up suspense in my opinion is not knowing where the aliens are and being unable to anticipate their location. To a certain extent knowing where the craft is does reduce the number of places that a certain proportion of the aliens might be, but not to a great enough extent to eliminate suspense. To clarify, I am only talking about the large overhead map (which is not developed yet) rather than the current view which should remain as is.

Regardless of the reality of whether or not one "saw the map on the way in," I feel that knowing the general location of buildings on the map would add to the strategic nature of the game. It would add to the game because it encourages squad movement rather than the sweep method of looking at the whole map. If the sub-objectives are added to the game, like protecting the civilians in the hospital from the alien invaders, the commander would have the option of splitting his forces to deal with each threat appropriately (the hospital assault and the alien craft). Not knowing where things are only makes one waste time examining the whole map. Personally I feel like there should be a pressing reason to assault the alien craft (something like the Iceland Incident) to create more suspense.

[Gauddlike]

As long as taking the ship is the primary objective then you have no reason to ever split your squad once you know exactly where the ship is.

Where is the strategic nature in a game where all you have to do is load up the map, march your whole squad to the objective then overwhelm the enemy with numbers?

Scout armours?

Useless, might as well load up on all big guns so you arrive at the same time with the heaviest fire power.

The least interesting maps in previous games were the ones where you load them up and can see part of the ship already.

The pressing reason to assault the enemy ship is that it is the whole point in the mission.

You are there to take that ship and the items that might be left in it.

The secondary objectives would need to give a pretty decent reward, or a very harsh penalty, to compensate for the ease of making a bee line for the enemy ship every time.

I can understand you knowing where the local hospital might be for a secondary objective though, they tend to be on maps.

You could even make a case for lighting that area up like the landing area.

I am not sure what difference it would make having an overhead map that displayed where everything was or just removing the fog of war completely.

Either way you know where you need to be and you know where you need never bother going.

Might as well cut the maps down to a straight path and save time making areas no one will ever see.

[Gorlom]

I still think that showing any indication of the UFOs location will severly limit that particular maps life length and cause people to feel that maps repeat more then they should.

[Vivisector 9999]

I wonder if a compromise wouldn't be possible. You know, like a "Show UFO" option that could be toggled, allowing both sides to play the way they like.

[StellarRat]

I still think that showing any indication of the UFOs location will severly limit that particular maps life lengthwise and cause people to feel that maps repeat more then they should.

Can't the UFO land in multiple locations on the map? As long as the aliens can be anywhere I think the maps will not get boring. One of the flaws of the old game was the aliens tended to position themselves in the same spots if the map was the same. Hopefully they've fixed that.

[Khall]

Can't the UFO land in multiple locations on the map? As long as the aliens can be anywhere I think the maps will not get boring. One of the flaws of the old game was the aliens tended to position themselves in the same spots if the map was the same. Hopefully they've fixed that.

In the level editor you can designate several different landing sites for the UFO (and the chinook) and the game will choose one randomly when the map loads up.

[StellarRat]

In the level editor you can designate several different landing sites for the UFO (and the chinook) and the game will choose one randomly when the map loads up.

That's good. Just to clarify a bit, in the old XCom the alien crewmen tended to hide in the same spots on the map. If I saw a certain map I could predict fairly well where the alien troops would be hiding. Hopefully, the AI Programmer will address this issue. Obviously, you don't want them standing out the open saying "shoot me", but hopefully, they won't always appear in the same buildings, etc...