Aircarft Squadron Size

[HWP]

Making it more complicated without significantly increasing the interest just does not appeal.

Is it really more complicated? There are no new buttons, no option to plug in a HOTAS. The only change is that missile (and weapon in general) avoidance capabilities are determined based in larger part on your technology rather than the maneuvering choices that you make.

And I think that making combat less predictable does add some interest.

Having said that I would oppose adding AI to the air combat that removed need for the player to actually play.

Why do?

What role does the player occupy in the game's world? My assumption was that you are the commander of both the X-Com project and their assault team. Through some game logic you get to command secondary assault teams as well.

The game doesn't make you aim through iron sights, win minigames to complete research, or do fast-repeat keyboard action to dig out dirt for your base modules. In air combat you have an input. But these planes look like they have cockpits and everything, they are not mindless drones. I don't see anything wrong with letting the player to choose to micromanage his planes or watch them fight how they can. And make no mistake, this micromanagement is already there, making it a bit longer or a bit shorter is nothing compared to the fact that it is there and it determines your success with the game.

Making it incredibly difficult to lock and fire would be frustrating and you would be unlikely to get anything out of it anyway.

That's the point. Not turn them into Uberjackals - rather make them resistant, at least, to your bog-standard F-17 or Mig-32 with mil-spec missiles. Make it a good chance that you both go your separate ways if you attack them with substandard equipment.

It's only going to get hard to lock and fire if you choose to spam old fighters instead of building latest-tech ones.

If that is the case a single shot in return would have to destroy your interceptors.

Realistically it definitely should, at least for Earth mil-tech ones, although I'd replace "destroy" with "take out of combat" (damage and force to disengage). Assuming that the hit probability against interceptors isn't 100% either.

The final point assumes that one volley is enough to take out a spacecraft armoured with the best alien manufactured alloys that are so tough we can barely reshape them enough to be able to use them at all.

There are bigger problems with that already. It's said that the alien battleship is so large that it takes a whole map. I have doubts as to whether it would go down if we fired every AAM in the world at it.

More importantly, I doubt if 40 missiles would really take down a craft that 4 missiles can't.

If your missiles penetrate the skin, even one is going to make a big mess inside. Enough for anything short of a capital ship. If they don't penetrate, it could probably stand up to a few weeks of non-stop attacks, till food supplies aboard run out.

[TrashMan]

Is it really more complicated? There are no new buttons, no option to plug in a HOTAS. The only change is that missile (and weapon in general) avoidance capabilities are determined based in larger part on your technology rather than the maneuvering choices that you make.

And I think that making combat less predictable does add some interest.

How would it make it less predictable if you already know that your missiles arne't good enough?

There are bigger problems with that already. It's said that the alien battleship is so large that it takes a whole map. I have doubts as to whether it would go down if we fired every AAM in the world at it.

More importantly, I doubt if 40 missiles would really take down a craft that 4 missiles can't.

If your missiles penetrate the skin, even one is going to make a big mess inside. Enough for anything short of a capital ship. If they don't penetrate, it could probably stand up to a few weeks of non-stop attacks, till food supplies aboard run out.

I don't see it happening.

[HWP]

How would it make it less predictable if you already know that your missiles arne't good enough?

It's for the times when they are good enough. There still is a probability of failed lock, so instead of it playing out the exact same way every time, it can add at least some variety, with choosing to do a second pass or retreat, etc.

I don't see it happening.

Taking it down or surviving?

Well, imagine having a go at a battleship with a shotgun.

If alien ships' armor is this good, and our missiles can't punch through, that's what is going to happen. They'll be sitting in a metal box and experiencing a discomforting but otherwise harmless hail of shrapnel.

[TrashMan]

Assuming the armor is of uniform thickness everywhere? Hardly.

There will always be gaps in armor, as nneessitated by the drive systems, sensors, doors/hatches, etc...

I don't see nothing strange about a notion that 4 missiles can't bring it down by 40 can. History is full of examples like that.

[Gauddlike]

Is it really more complicated? There are no new buttons, no option to plug in a HOTAS. The only change is that missile (and weapon in general) avoidance capabilities are determined based in larger part on your technology rather than the maneuvering choices that you make.

And I think that making combat less predictable does add some interest.

That is replying to a general comment on adding to the air combat rather than a specific reference to your suggestion.

Although it does actually make it more complicated if you add in new systems and counter systems.

Not overly so though.

The game doesn't make you aim through iron sights, win minigames to complete research, or do fast-repeat keyboard action to dig out dirt for your base modules. In air combat you have an input. But these planes look like they have cockpits and everything, they are not mindless drones. I don't see anything wrong with letting the player to choose to micromanage his planes or watch them fight how they can. And make no mistake, this micromanagement is already there, making it a bit longer or a bit shorter is nothing compared to the fact that it is there and it determines your success with the game.

As I said, adding an AI system that plays the game for you makes your decisions superfluous.

If you add an AI system that responds to your commands and executes them as best it can then the player has a role as the commander.

That's the point. Not turn them into Uberjackals - rather make them resistant, at least, to your bog-standard F-17 or Mig-32 with mil-spec missiles. Make it a good chance that you both go your separate ways if you attack them with substandard equipment.

It's only going to get hard to lock and fire if you choose to spam old fighters instead of building latest-tech ones.

I really don't get why you would want to penalise the player for sticking with older tech beyond it being slower and weaker than the better gear.

Anyone who took a bit of a beating would stand no chance at all of ever getting back on their feet if even the light scouts were suddenly beyond their ability to deal with until they build and equip a whole new set of high tech craft.

If enemy fleets were also allowed to grow to large sizes then you wouldn't even be able to fill out your own squadron with a Mig or two as they would be worse than useless.

[HWP]

As I said, adding an AI system that plays the game for you makes your decisions superfluous.

If you add an AI system that responds to your commands and executes them as best it can then the player has a role as the commander.

Not necessarily makes your decisions superfluous. Just makes them optional. Gives your craft a basic tactic, at least some fundamental self-preservation. You can come up with a better plan, you can alter their tactic for the better. But if you don't, they won't just kill themselves, so the game is still playable.

I'm quite confident that if no way to circumvent the need for micromanaging air combat makes it in by the final version, this is one decision that will come to bite this game in its back. It will start with reviews, some reviewers will like it, others will hate it, and the haters will be vocal.

Myself, I'll play the system either way, I like to get my advantage everywhere I can. But I know that a lot of people won't feel that way. Every time there is a mini-game that doesn't fit in perfectly with the main the game, it's a flak magnet.

I really don't get why you would want to penalise the player for sticking with older tech beyond it being slower and weaker than the better gear.

Mostly I want to address the problem you've mentioned - that if the game allows squadrons 3 large, then it forces you to have squadrons 3 large for balance reasons.

Reducing the importance of numbers in favor of tech will relax that issue. You won't automatically buy 3 of everything new, because it's expensive, because more of the same brings little extra utility, and because the new thing will be better than spamming old ones, for 1-on-1 engagements at least. So that it only makes sense to bring squadrons against UFO groups or big UFOs.

Ignore this rant:

It wouldn't be an issue if aircraft costs weren't so out of sync with reality. Thing is, the reality is inherently balanced, since any imbalance in it is quickly exploited. When you intentionally deviate from it (rather than try to make your elements fit in with it), you break that balance, and it stays broken until it's explicitly fixed.

Want an F-16? Well, if 30 million for a new -C is a bit rich, you could get a used -A for about 5 million, of course there's another 2 mil a year in spares to spend. A Chinook actually costs about the same.

You say you only have $100,000 to spend? I guess there should be an old Mi-8 sitting somewhere, even got a whole new tranny and left engine after she took a stinger in '85, yeah, a few holes corroded through from sitting under the rain for five years, but we patched her up and she ran good for another 20, still takes off most of the time.

That's the kind of stock you'd be flying if you spent as little as you spend in the game. So the idea of swarming ten planes... you get it. Even with other costs adjusted up, you'd be saving up to buy one decent plane, or to build it, not throwing them around like rocks from under your feet. At least original X-COM came up with an explanation that you are renting them rather than buying.

[Gauddlike]

I see it as you getting your craft provided by the funding nations and paying for transport and the upgrades you make, that's why they are so cheap

That justification only really works if the craft you build are incredibly expensive though which they won't be.

It's no fun after all to have designed the best interceptor that anyone from Earth has ever dreamt of then not being able to build it until you re-mortgage your country

[Andeerz]

Well, I imagine the costs of things just being representative anyway... might as well replace the $ with some made up currency symbol.

But, anyway, HWP, in your rant in small font (which shouldn't be ignored, darn it!), that's sort of what I was trying to get at with my initial suggestions in a way; model things well enough, and the system will self-balance, rather than having to rely on some hard cap to whatever feature. And when balance emerges from the system without needing to resort to hard caps, suspension of disbelief and immersion are able to be much better maintained. This is where sometimes modeling things off of real life can be good, especially if you are trying to represent something from real life in a convincing, immersing way.

To me, those kinds of limits like the three squadron limit that are in there for "balance" and no reason that makes sense within the context of the game's setting are cop-outs for not having a robustly designed game (which is a kind of simulation at heart) in the first place.

I'm not trying to say Xenonauts is bad, though! It is going in an awesome direction, regardless.

[Gorlom]

To me, those kinds of limits like the three squadron limit that are in there for "balance" and no reason that makes sense within the context of the game's setting are cop-outs for not having a robustly designed game (which is a kind of simulation at heart) in the first place.

In response to this I want to quote GGE from another thread:

Realism isn't bad, too much realism is. An advanced military will always crush a military force that is lagging behind by centuries. How about this realistic scenario. So:

Aliens arrive, attack with everything they got, the 70's military technology is helpless against them, and you lose on day 1-7. FUN!

[ElTee]

Eh. I don't see the point of increasing size at all just for the sake of 'immersion'. Aircraft combat right now is very simple so there's no real benefit for adding more of them.

[Andeerz]

In response to this I want to quote GGE from another thread: stuff

All I'm saying is that if we want to model something (like tactical ground combat or air combat) and make it seem like something even the slightest bit based on reality, and want stuff to be balanced in a way without seemingly arbitrary restrictions and that is robust and amenable to future development or implementation of new features (which would be quite beneficial for the future of Xenonauts), it might be good to consider how things work in real life.

And just because you BASE a system off of real life doesn't mean it has to have every single little parameter that real life has. I'm all for abstracting crap out that makes things too complicated that aren't necessary to achieve verisimilitude and robustness. And if there is a better system than one based off of real life that works, then go for it.

That said, I will beat a dead horse here and say that what should determine squadron size is not some contrived arbitrary cap; it should be the decision of the player. I have nothing against me having three fighters max in my squadron if it's for a reason that makes sense in the context of the game setting. Like, for example, if HWP's suggestions were in the game, there would hardly be any opportunities in the game that would merit me sending a large number (as in greater than 3 or 4) of aircraft against my enemy; by the time I'd have enough resources to routinely send out squadrons of 5 F-17's, it would be made pointless, as I will likely have better options at my disposal for the same resources and my F-17's would be largely ineffective in any number.

[Gorlom]

All I'm saying is that if we want to model something (like tactical ground combat or air combat) and make it seem like something even the slightest bit based on reality, and want stuff to be balanced in a way without seemingly arbitrary restrictions and that is robust and amenable to future development or implementation of new features (which would be quite beneficial for the future of Xenonauts), it might be good to consider how things work in real life.

How does things work in real life?

Judging by this post I'm not so sure that the cap is as arbitrary as you think it is, or that those swarms of aircrafts you think should be verisimilitudic (?) really makes sense... Granted that is if they are launched form an aircraft carrier.

I already commented on why the aliens wouldn't move in fleet formation when trying to complete secret missions, but that was either overlooked or ignored.

[Andeerz]

I never said I thought swarms of aircraft would be verisimiltitudic (I'm in the dark as you are about that word! ). And I didn't ignore what you said. I'm with you and HWP and others... huge swarms of aircraft generally don't ever make sense, especially in a cold-war era or later combat scenario, and especially in the context of Xenonauts. And if you look at how modern air-to-air engagements occur (like during the first gulf war), the engagements were like two aircraft vs. two aircraft most of the time (from my understanding... thanks wikipedia!).

BUT!!! The fact that there is a hard cap is my problem, not the squadron size per se. I'm fine with not ever having a squadron bigger than three throughout the entire time I play the game if it is because that's how the cards play out, so to speak; like I'm never in a situation where it would make sense/I could afford to send more than three of my planes to intercept something at any time. Squadron size should be an emergent phenomenon of the system, without the need of hard caps. But as the game stands now, there are very frequently situations where it would make sense for me to send more than three aircraft (ignoring verisimilitude here) within the context of the game, but I cannot, like when an escorted landing ship is approaching my base and I have 4 or 5 aircraft at the ready.

Perhaps what could change instead of the cap, in addition to the suggestions HWP states, also have the game give you more control over the angle at which your aircraft engage the enemy (as in the angle at which the battle minigame starts). That's assuming no such control exists in the first place... I haven't really experimented with this while playing the game as it is now...

Edited October 13, 2012 by Andeerz

[Gorlom]

well you can send more... You can send how many airplanes you want at the enemy UFOs. They just won't engage in the same air battle. Probably because they wont reach the UFO at the same time. Ofc you can always disengage with one squadron after damaging the UFO a bit and then let the next squadron have a go at it. That way you'd end up fighting the same UFO with 4+ airplanes.

So technically there is no arbitrary cap..... It's just the (semi)logical* cap at 3 at a time.

*(logical from a game mechanic, game setting and verisimilitude point of view.)

[Andeerz]

Yeah... that's what I do now anyway.

I mean, it still doesn't make sense to me why I shouldn't be able to have as many planes as I want arrive when I want at a target, but this is an ok workaround... the cap is still arbitrary, though, in any case, and in my opinion it is not very reasonable. Meh, I can live with it. But it detracts from the game by frequently highlighting (what I consider) a cop-out game mechanic.

I still think HWPs suggestions would pretty much make everything better.