[Gameplay Suggestion] Chinook Range

[Max_Caine]

I have to ask some questions, TornadoADV. Firstly where does it say that dropships will be armed? I'm intrigued. Yes, the later dropships in X-Com were armed and the dropships in UFO:EX were armed, but that doesn't follow suit that dropships in this game will be armed.

What kind of a strategic base structure are you after? One actual base and a bunch of radar/fighter-interception installations, or a series of working bases? Because once you give the starting dropship unlimited range, that's what you get. That's what both Chaos Concepts and Firaxis recognised had happened and was one of the reasons why Firaxis went with the one base (it's in one of their E3 interviews).

What kind of a game were you playing in X-Com? The adage "You need to build more bases to cover all potentional spots" was as true in X-Com as it was in this game. If you didn't build a base in Europe, you could loose a clutch of funding nations. If you didn't build a base in North America, you could loose the biggest funding nation. If you didn't build a base in Australia, there was no other base whose radar or interceptors could cover it. The base budget pumped up in X-Com just as it does here, and the degree of choice wasn't one of convience, but of necessity. The sole difference between base building in X-Com and in Xenonauts is you need an extra hangar for the dropship. But if your complaint is centered around not being able to reach terror sites, then well! Have the game pick terror sites that start off within reach of Xenonaut bases, but then have them progressively get further and further away. Or introduce terror missions later in the game, when the player has more bases built.

[Gazz]

But you did not need to have soldiers and dropships stationed in all those bases. It was perfectly viable to have those in one base only.

[Max_Caine]

But you did need to have soliders stationed in all those bases. Unless you liked battleships invading those bases and auto-winning because there wasn't anyone to defend them. (fusion balls, grav shields and mind shields arrive after battleships had been introduced).

[TornadoADV]

That choice should be up to the play to defend their extra bases because those bases were their choice. I chose to expand my bases in XCOM to extend my radar range and to make it easier on my Firestorms. But if I needed to, I could always fall back onto my plasma cannon equipped Interceptors in my Main Base in the USA to pull legwork for cross globe interception. As far as base defenses go, I had troops at each base, but Skyrangers only at my main base and it worked great.

[Buzzles]

I don't understand the arbitrary trade off of less soldiers for more range... how is that a good decision? Is it because that is the only trade that can be done for longer range, that makes sense "realistically"? what about longer flight time? what about.... ... .... I can't think of anything else to trade. It's the only option for a trade isn't it? Doesn't mean the trade idea is a good one.

I'd rather let the chinook have the range be able to circumvent the globe 2 times from the start, than giving it a boost through sacrificing soldier space.

I can't get over the feeling that no one has thought through this idea beyond the brainstorming part? why would you tempt the player with the possibility to let him reach a harder mission then standard UFO retrievals with less soldiers? This just seems like poor balancing or bad mechanics to me.

I think this trade idea just leads to counter intuitive gameplay. Does the player really need to always need to be able to reach every mission? Does the missions need to show up this early in the game? If so does the missions need to show up outside radar ranges in the early game? Why is the chinook range increase/change so important?

/ranting

The reason why such a straightforward trade off is actually probably the best solution is because it doesn't tread on the toes of the improved dropships that you get later on and actually creates a solid option for the player to use.

It's also neither and upgrade or a downgrade. It's a sidegrade. It also doesn't take options away.

You're *still* left with the option of deciding that "No, I don't think my squad can handle this unless at full strength, so I won't go" or you can go for glory and take the risk if you're feeling brave and/or lucky. Currently you've just got: "No, can't reach. Ah well", which takes away a decision from the player.

It also opens up more opportunities for dropships from one base to help out with crashsites in the area covered by another base's aircraft, something which doesn't exist. It also doesn't then make having a dropship at another base a waste of money, as that other one will not be making the sacrifice of troops to deal with crashes/landings in it's own range.

With regards to giving the Chinook global range from the start, you run into the same problem Enemy Unknown has in that the Skyranger can be used all game up until you need the Avenger for the final mission. I often do play throughs where I never bother moving away from it until late game. It's a pitfall which does need to be avoided.

Personally, I think the game is fine as-is as it's a hard limit on the capabilities of your starter craft and a good incentive to upgrade, but I'd be quite happy to be given more options in the forms of trade-offs should Chris decide to go down that route (as it could be useful).

Edited September 13, 2012 by Buzzles

[Max_Caine]

Let's consider Buzzles' proposal in the terms of less soldiers. What can you give up instead of soldiers? The Ferret. In fact, you can give up the tank and add an extra solider. I'd consider that a reasonable trade-off.

[Gauddlike]

Chris has stated that no dropships will be armed.

If you want to protect them then you need to send fighters as escorts.

When you play a new game you adapt to the new tactics and problems posed.

Have you seen the ranges on the later dropships?

Do you know that the problem you see as such a big issue is going to be all the way through the game or is it an intentional drawback of the starting craft?

If you have no radar coverage in an area you can't detect enemy ships so can't react to them at all.

If you have a base in the area then it will probably need troops to defend it.

If it has troops to defend it then a dropship and hangar aren't going to add much to the cost.

If you have more troops and dropships you can react to more missions and generate more income from salvage.

[TornadoADV]

Excuse me? Dropships and Hangers add a hefty fee in monthly costs in Xenonauts. Also, you made a huge leap from Radar base to needing protection. Radar Bases don't need protection as they don't attract alien attention. Only Interceptor bases need protection. And no game should EVER make the player feel helpless, I can't tell you how many times playing the alpha, I've had Alien bases and terror sites well outside my Chinook range, constantly draining my funding and swarms of every alien ship under the sun swamping my meager ability to counter act them, slaughtering thousands of civilians. So even if I expanded to a new base, driving me even further into the red, my Chinooks, even with escorts, would never make it to the site and back.

As alpha testers it's also our JOB to ensure that the finished product is an enjoyable experience to play for everyone, not just for Grognards.

[Gauddlike]

Also, you made a huge leap from Radar base to needing protection. Radar Bases don't need protection as they don't attract alien attention. Only Interceptor bases need protection.

I see no reason why radar bases wouldn't need protection.

Maybe they didn't in x-com but that doesn't mean that would be the case in Xenonauts.

I can't tell you how many times playing the alpha, I've had Alien bases and terror sites well outside my Chinook range

To me it appears that the balance for that would be to make those advanced missions appear later in the game rather than simply increasing the Chinook range.

swarms of every alien ship under the sun swamping my meager ability to counter act them, slaughtering thousands of civilians. So even if I expanded to a new base, driving me even further into the red, my Chinooks, even with escorts, would never make it to the site and back.

So how would a Chinook with hugely increased range help with this?

I think balancing the spawn rate, types of ships in the waves and the mission types they undertake would be a better idea.

As alpha testers it's also our JOB to ensure that the finished product is an enjoyable experience to play for everyone, not just for Grognards.

The suggestion of increased Chinook range doesn't address your own concerns so why use it?

In fact it would potentially make the game harder as your dropships would be at increased risk of interception for longer.

I am suggesting balancing changes that would address your concerns and hopefully make the game challenging but not impossible.

[Gauddlike]

Ah I forgot to address your first point.

Excuse me? Dropships and Hangers add a hefty fee in monthly costs in Xenonauts.

Those costs are not balanced yet, they can easily be adjusted if it is found through testing that they are too expensive.

The income generated from funding nations is not balanced, this can also be increased if income is too low.

You failed to address the point about increased income generated by increased ability to react to missions.

This is also a financial balance to the cost of hangars and dropships.

If you can react more quickly to more missions you will have more salvage and therefore more income.

I will also add that the amount of salvage generated by crash sites has not yet been balanced, neither have the prices you can get for selling it.

[Gorlom]

The reason why such a straightforward trade off is actually probably the best solution is because it doesn't tread on the toes of the improved dropships that you get later on and actually creates a solid option for the player to use.

It's also neither and upgrade or a downgrade. It's a sidegrade. It also doesn't take options away.

You're *still* left with the option of deciding that "No, I don't think my squad can handle this unless at full strength, so I won't go" or you can go for glory and take the risk if you're feeling brave and/or lucky. Currently you've just got: "No, can't reach. Ah well", which takes away a decision from the player.

It also opens up more opportunities for dropships from one base to help out with crashsites in the area covered by another base's aircraft, something which doesn't exist. It also doesn't then make having a dropship at another base a waste of money, as that other one will not be making the sacrifice of troops to deal with crashes/landings in it's own range.

With regards to giving the Chinook global range from the start, you run into the same problem Enemy Unknown has in that the Skyranger can be used all game up until you need the Avenger for the final mission. I often do play throughs where I never bother moving away from it until late game. It's a pitfall which does need to be avoided.

Personally, I think the game is fine as-is as it's a hard limit on the capabilities of your starter craft and a good incentive to upgrade, but I'd be quite happy to be given more options in the forms of trade-offs should Chris decide to go down that route (as it could be useful).

This respone is boggeling my mind. It's the WORST solution. It doesn't give the player a choice. It FORCES a player to attempt a harder mission with reduced force or not at all in a way i consider utter stupidity... If you make terror sites appear in range or post pone them to later in the game THEN you are giving the player a choice.

You are penalizing the player either by not letting him have the intended/needed amount of soldiers or by losing resources because he was intelligent enough not to go undermanned. (yes, I'm making assumptions about the difficulty of terror missions)

Unless ofc you just make the terror missions easier in which case they shouldn't be called terror missions anymore they should be called playdates.

I still don't understand why altering/balancing the conditions for terror missions to appear and/or where they appear to be so out of the question? It seems to solve your problem without causing the issues I have with your solution.

With regards to giving the Chinook global range from the start, you run into the same problem Enemy Unknown has in that the Skyranger can be used all game up until you need the Avenger for the final mission. I often do play throughs where I never bother moving away from it until late game. It's a pitfall which does need to be avoided.

.... I didn't actually mean that the chinook should have that range. I thought the mention of circling the earth twice would indicate that it was just a "I'd rather have anything else then that!" kind of thing.

I fail to see how your solution does not cause that problem, to an even greater extent than any other solution.

And no game should EVER make the player feel helpless,

Bullshit! If used intentionally and in the right way it can be a very powerful tool to enhance the gameplay experience.

And your gripe seems to be that it drains your funding. If the game is balanced in such a way that it either doesn't or if it is supposed to drain it because you would be über if it didn't the problem is solved.

That being said making the sites reachable, increasing the chinooks range or balancing the negative impacts aren't the only ways to go. You can remove the sites from the early game as well making them appear later when it is feasible that a standard player has expanded to more bases with hangars. You are staring yourself blind on a "solution" that causes more problems then it fixes imo.

It seems to me that you are somehow trying to fix the game with as few alterations as possible despite the fact that during beta everything is going to be rebalanced and all the conditions you are trying to preserve are going to change.

So even if I expanded to a new base, driving me even further into the red, my Chinooks, even with escorts, would never make it to the site and back.

I don't get this part. why would the new chinook and escorts not make it? why would the hypothetical unescorted ship that trade soldiers for range make it? what kinds of assumptions have you made that I've missed?

Edited September 14, 2012 by Gorlom

[kbronct2004]

Let's consider Buzzles' proposal in the terms of less soldiers. What can you give up instead of soldiers? The Ferret. In fact, you can give up the tank and add an extra solider. I'd consider that a reasonable trade-off.

What about a drop fuel tank? The only restriction is to use it is that you can't carry any APC because of the weight.

It could render the Chinook slighty slower but with you get improved range.

I wish I had more option to configure my planes/choppers...

I would like to change one sidewinder for another drop tank in my fighters if I wish.

If it's a bad idea using those options (trade fighting power vs range) it's my problem.

The game should be open, configurable to a point but not too much so it gets overwhelming.

That's my idea.

[donald007duck]

as game and timeline is not balanced for terror sites i will say this.

why even show a event and make it avalible if nothing can be done(*well outside chinook range),however,

once the game is balanced some players are going to be better than others ,the view of a good game is giving players options (good or bad) as long as it doesnt ruin the general gameplay.

so one person plays ironman mode on insane, and another plays on easy. one person has their tech tree done well in advance another dosnt. giving the (*fuel tanks range) option for chinooks would allow the better players as well as inept players a choise

so you've mastered the game and play with less soldiers anyway, or you just have really poor managment of resources having a way to increse (*not worldwide) chinook range would allow players to allocate resources differently

i like the fuel tank option. every 3 slots= 1 tank = (more range) and you can add as many as you want untill all the slots are full.

at that point its pointless to send but again its the players option not a forced option.

you only want 1 main base then you take the penalties. you dont reaserch fast for the high priced dropship then again you face penalties. but being able to produce research to add fuel tanks in place of soldiers allows flexability.

you want realism then look at dulies raid on japan. they dumped guns and equipment off the planes so they could add more fuel.

you complain about not enough soldiers on an impossible mission thats xcom in a nutshell(overcoming the odds)

sure the gameplay should be balanced but players should have a chance to play (win,lose) mabey 1/2 load soldiers will die on a terror mission but its the players choice to *try* not sit there knowing only way to play is build bases asap first month or you will lose game(or suffer) being unable to do anything just outside your chinooks rang.

one other thing, you could also make it so that you can buy drop tanks that you have to equip on your chinooks every mission out of normal range(with limits). this would leave soldiers alone and have a monetary penality to reach the normal just out of range area. it would work just like the gun mounts on fighters but all you can do ie eq. extra fuel tanks (which dissapear after every mission you eq them)

to sum it up(sry for length) let me play terror site with 1/2 chinook(with fuel tanks) at least i can try and lose rather than not do anything.at all. ((note: in my opionion maximum range(with max tanks) should be 3/4 of the globe keeping in mind that ufos can still shoot it down. if i dont do air cover ((chinooks should be able to fly farther than fighters))

[StellarRat]

I've been thinking about this whole Chinook out of range problem. I have two points to make.

1. Concerning terror missions in general: Why would any government use nuclear weapons to take out a few aliens? Think about it. The XCom team sends 8 guys and a AFV to clean up a terror site. Don't you think that the local government could muster a force 100x, 1000x, as large to deal with the same problem? Especially at the start of the game when the XCom is no better armed than the average militia. Granted XCom might be better and faster, but I'm sure the local military, militia, and police could take of the problem too. Saying that a nuclear weapon was used just seems silly to me. In the old XComs terror sites just went away eventually and you got penalized. That makes a lot more sense. One can imagine the politicians saying, "Why are we funding XCom when we have to get our own people killed to do their job?" not "We're pissed because we had to nuke our city because we're idiots." Also, if the limited Chinook range is kept, I think the penalty for not going to a site that is out of range should be lower than ignoring a site that IS in range. Even politicians are smart enough (barely) to realize that penalizing a group for not doing the impossible is a bit stupid.

2. XCom's troops should have global reach from the beginning. You don't fly ANY helicopter 2000 miles to engage in combat. Even if a helicopter had adequate range it's so slow and unreliable compared to a jet that it makes zero sense to use it this way. What should happen is a C-17 (this has global reach from the start of the game) transports your equipment and troops to an airport or airbase close to terror site and then the Chinook is used to fly in for a tactical landing. I would have NO problem with a C-17 leaving the XCom base then having the icon change to a slower Chinook when you are close the landing site.

Edited September 14, 2012 by StellarRat

[kbronct2004]

I've been thinking about this whole Chinook out of range problem. I have two points to make.

1. Concerning terror missions in general: Why would any government use nuclear weapons to take out a few aliens? Think about it.

Yes, nuking is not an option.

I've been thinking about this whole Chinook out of range problem. I have two points to make.

2. XCom's troops should have global reach from the beginning. You don't fly ANY helicopter 2000 miles to engage in combat. Even if a helicopter had adequate range it's so slow and unreliable compared to a jet that it makes zero sense to use it this way. What should happen is a C-17 (this has global reach from the start of the game) transports your equipment and troops to an airport or airbase close to terror site and then the Chinook is used to fly in for a tactical landing. I would have NO problem with a C-17 leaving the XCom base then having the icon change to a slower Chinook when you are close the landing site.

That's a pretty good idea!! You could fly a C-17 with your squad to any major city in the map and from them a chinook to the mission.

Anyway fuel pods for fighters and/or chinook is something to consider and I think it's a good addition to the game (more flexibility)

BTW: The C-17 Globemaster is somewhat anachronic, isn't it?

[sledge]

I've been thinking about this whole Chinook out of range problem. I have two points to make.

1. Concerning terror missions in general: Why would any government use nuclear weapons to take out a few aliens?

[...]

The average cold war politician would oh so gladly jump at anything that is a what so ever remotely possible excuse to nuke something I guess

In general I won't argue against any of the ideas in this thread some of them sure sound interesting. Just think about the original problem and cost-benefit ratio.

[Gauddlike]

I agree with the first part, not so much the second part.

I don't really see how it is any different from global Chinook range apart from the icon used.

Global range can be done, I just think there are better ways to make the game enjoyable than sticking hugely increased ranges on dropships by default.

Giving the player options to increase his range at the expense of other things isn't as bad an idea as free global coverage.

Deciding if that choice should be spending cash, reduced manpower on missions or some other factor is the difficult part.

For example I would always reduce the number of actual troops before affecting vehicles.

People are more likely to worry about not having three of their best troops along than they are about not having a vehicle that is easily replaceable and doesn't gain experience.

I would prefer to have two dropship options though personally.

If you want to tackle a nearby site with maximum firepower take a Chinook.

If you need to fly halfway round the world you could have something like a modified Gulfstream C-20A (launched 1979 ish).

You could reduce the number of passengers easily by claiming increased fuel tanks and modifications for parachute drops etc.

I say parachutes because at least then you wouldn't need much in the way of artwork, or a runway for that matter.

Allow 8 troops max, no vehicles.

Advantages are fast response, longer range.

Drawbacks are fewer troops, no vehicle support, will probably out range your interceptors.

Maybe even limit the size of the armour allowed.

The bulkier suits don't fit through the hatch and have no leg room etc.

A choice like that would be something I could support.

You could primarily have fast response teams if you wanted to run from a single central base.

You may want to have multiple bases with Chinooks to maximise your coverage and firepower in missions.

Or you could combine the two.

[StellarRat]

BTW: The C-17 Globemaster is somewhat anachronic, isn't it?

Yes, the C-5A would be more appropriate the the 70's. It could perform the same mission. For your enjoyment I have included a link with picture of a Chinook being loaded into a C-5A. Look down towards the bottom of the article:

http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/JulAug00/News.htm

[StellarRat]

I don't really see how it is any different from global Chinook range apart from the icon used.

Global range can be done, I just think there are better ways to make the game enjoyable than sticking hugely increased ranges on dropships by default.

Giving the player options to increase his range at the expense of other things isn't as bad an idea as free global coverage.

Well, they appear to already have free freight shipping with an aircraft (C-17) that is capable of transporting huge loads including a Chinook. I don't see why you have a problem from a historical/plot continuity stand point. Also, I wouldn't be opposed to CHARGING $$ XCom for long range transport when they need it. It's not cheap to fly big loads around the world. That way it wouldn't be "free". Your idea about parachuting into the terror site has a lot of merit too. I can see restricting that to only soldiers, but I can't see restricting the armor or weapons they can take with them or limiting them to a small squad. They should be able to send a full 12 man team. Realistically (I know how much you hate word), even a light armored vehicle like the Hunter can be used in airborne operations. But, I could live with that restriction as a balance though I don't any logical reason for it.

[TornadoADV]

I love the paratrooper idea, though I suggest the C-141 Starlifter. I could see restricting the Colussus from paratrooper operations, no way they are fitting through a hatch! (Or treat them like a vehicle in that regard and they have to dismount via rear ramp then side hatch.) Perhaps we can do something special with Buzzard and Sentinel suits where they can use some sort of supersonic high-tech dropship and then VTOL down to the ground for extremely quick situation response!

Edited September 15, 2012 by TornadoADV

[Gauddlike]

I can see restricting that to only soldiers, but I can't see restricting the armor or weapons they can take with them or limiting them to a small squad. They should be able to send a full 12 man team. Realistically (I know how much you hate word), even a light armored vehicle like the Hunter can be used in airborne operations. But, I could live with that restriction as a balance though I don't any logical reason for it.

The Chinook would remain unchanged but the longer ranged intercepts would use a different craft.

If you re read the post you will see I mentioned squad size, armour type, and vehicle restrictions as part of the balance for having a long range but smaller transport alternative.

The aircraft I suggested to provide this ranged capability would not physically fit vehicles and would probably struggle to fit bulkier armour.

[hullwykearlfc]

How do you stop your Chinook being intercepted and shot down?

How are you expected to foil alien attacks on cities etc which are well outside the Chinooks range? sorry haven't read all this thread..in case it has been already answered

cheers

[crusherven]

But you did need to have soliders stationed in all those bases. Unless you liked battleships invading those bases and auto-winning because there wasn't anyone to defend them. (fusion balls, grav shields and mind shields arrive after battleships had been introduced).

I completely disagree. Other than North America and Europe, I never saw a point in putting troops or any of that stuff in another base. Focus on capping a navigator early, do the research, get the hyperwave decoder, and put radar bases all over the world with one of those. I can afford to lose a number of cheap radar bases like that before I build an additional armed base. Remember, a base typically cost under 1 million, but an interceptor was 500k a month and 10 troops cost 400k a month.

As for the OP, I can see some logic in an option that automatically transports your troops to the terror site. You'd get charged some fee based on the distance. The player still has a lot of incentive to build additional bases, since you'd want to be able to intercept UFO's and take out alien bases.

Just as a side note, on the nuclear option... if Chryssalids are taking your city over, it starts looking smarter by the hour.

[Toonami Fan]

If Chryssalids were invading, sure. But the other alien species (less than 30 members in any mission) don't warrant nukes surely. Instead of nukes, the old X-COM method of just failing a terror mission is better in the sense, no body knows what the local military had to do to get the invasion under control. But the people are pissed at you and that means less money. For Xenonauts, you could put up a dialog box with a picture of civilians fleeing aliens, being all terrorized and what not, and words to show you failed. Just to make sure you really understand how much you screwed up.

The current text about thousands dying by nukes is ok but very dry and doesn't make a lot of sense. A graphic aid and dropping the nukes would help atmosphere and make it more open-ended/believable.

[My 2 cents]

[StellarRat]

If Chryssalids were invading, sure. But the other alien species (less than 30 members in any mission) don't warrant nukes surely. Instead of nukes, the old X-COM method of just failing a terror mission is better in the sense, no body knows what the local military had to do to get the invasion under control. But the people are pissed at you and that means less money. For Xenonauts, you could put up a dialog box with a picture of civilians fleeing aliens, being all terrorized and what not, and words to show you failed. Just to make sure you really understand how much you screwed up.

The current text about thousands dying by nukes is ok but very dry and doesn't make a lot of sense. A graphic aid and dropping the nukes would help atmosphere and make it more open-ended/believable.

[My 2 cents]

Even if Chryssalids attacked the authorities would cordon off (shutdown mass transit, put up checkpoints, barricades, etc...) the area and prevent them from spreading too far. Since the transformation happens instantly there wouldn't be any sleepers popping up in other parts of the city after a long train ride, etc... Now, it might be true that the area taken over would leveled by combat up to nukes, but my bet would be massive conventional bombing/artillery followed by massive sweep on the ground would be good enough. Edited September 17, 2012 by StellarRat