Dropship storage space and worldmap structures

[HWP]

Yes. Exactly! It IS a strategy and tactics game.

And do you know what a valid tactic is when you're presented with an overwelming threat, lots of casualties or one you just can't deal with?

Retreat and abort.

Okay.

And what is the valid tactic when you're presented with a manageable threat, no casualties as of yet, and you can deal with it if you just have enough rounds to put downrange?

Do you:

A, want a challenge and to have to think about what you are doing or

I want a challenge and I want that challenge to be the one that a respective situation would present if it occurred in real life.

Let's have the game make you solve a crossword puzzle each time you try to shoot an alien.

Would that make the game harder? Yes.

Better? You tell me.

[Buzzles]

And what is the valid tactic when you're presented with a manageable threat, no casualties as of yet, and you can deal with it if you just have enough rounds to put downrange?

You'd start shooting, but your example isn't finished as it's not reached the point where the proposed mechanic matters. That point is "Nuts, I'm running low on ammo, what shall I do?".

With the proposed locker, all you'd do is send a trooper or two back to grab ammo, then continue shooting once they've resupplied the rest of them. Repeat until threat is neutralised as you've got plenty of ammo in the flying truck.

Without the locker, you're faced with the scenario of keeping tabs on ammo, knowing you've only got a limited amount and the notion that the choice to give your soldier that extra grenade/heavier armour/stun rod at base rather than an extra magazine or two could have been the wrong decision.

You're also faced with the options to pull back before you run dry incase you encounter something else, or to risk using it all up on the chance you may actually have enough to do the job. You might also decide to charge some troops forward on suicide runs to try and lob grenades, or engage in melee (being added to the game soon!) as a last ditch method.

All of those situations appear when you're not given the chance of using the most obvious route and mearly restocking your ammo to continue shooting.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Buzzles
Spelling and sutin.

[Shuichi Niwa]

All of those situations appear when you're not given the chance of using the most obvious route and mearly restocking your ammo to continue shooting.

Yes yes, exactly, this is what I mean. Making the game harder by limiting logical things. And you know what ? Some people like it, some do NOT. So we must play it that way because you like it that way ? Funny.

Don't misunderstand me, I like that hardship too. But I would choose that myself, not by forcing every other who play the game must endure that hardship with me. I play the new XCOM without looking at enemy health. It's harder, better and makes more sense. So every others who play with the enemy health visible is retarded ? Losers ? Nope. The same problem here. Showing the health / allowing the locker would help people that want them. And us who don't want to ? Play it our way and experience the game the way we like best. Don't force it on people, and most important, don't say it harm the game and vote against it just because you don't like that kind of playing.

I'm not trying to be offensive. Just state the truth. Hardcore gamers and especially in this type of game can be a bit of a masochist [yeah me too]. So let's not let that limit other people's options.

[Gauddlike]

Ammunition is light and small, there is very little reason for not carrying enough to get you through a ground battle.

If you do manage to run out try picking up one of the alien weapons to use.

Playing a game is about adapting to the challenges and limitations it presents.

I would agree that some extra storage space would be a useful touch for some, what I don't agree with is the posts suggesting the game is somehow broken because it doesn't have it and will be far superior in tactics, strategy and realism when it is added.

It is a 'nice to have' feature that would have a minimal impact on the game either way if it was done properly.

Personally I don't see the point but some would find it useful.

Its impact would be directly proportional to the amount of carrying capacity you gave it I reckon.

If you followed up on the 'Chinook is a huge aircraft it could carry half your stores' type posts then it would be too much.

If it had space for a pistol and two lots of ammo it would be pointless.

[Shuichi Niwa]

I would agree that some extra storage space would be a useful touch for some, what I don't agree with is the posts suggesting the game is somehow broken because it doesn't have it and will be far superior in tactics, strategy and realism when it is added.

Agreed, sorry if I misunderstood you somewhere in my post. However, it would indeed add more realism and a bit more strategy though. Since your options is larger - you got an emergency stocks in your dropship - the strategy you can take will increase compare to don't have it, no ?

About design for the locker I think it wouldn't be that complex design-wise [since I don't know much about coding]. I would limit the lock by size and give each dropship a weight limit. For example the size would be 4x8 and you can put anything in it, that is the dimension limit [storage room]. And then, calculate your soldiers [assume they're more or less the same weight, use a default number for human weight x number of soldier] + all of their equipment weight + HWP weight + [things in locker] weight. Now compare it to the dropship weight limit and if it exceed then you will either

1] Unable to go. Must reduce weight [simply and easy to do].

2] Have reduced dropship range [not realistic in game design sense. Since it will involve lots of other things].

That's all, I think. And we already have weight of items so not much work need to be done.

EDITED : i just realize one more thing. Having the locker and thus having the dropship weight limit would stop you from bring too many heavy things by putting them on your soldiers and then throwing them somewhere when you arrive at the mission location [thus creating a pill of emergency stuffs for use yourselves]. Moreover I don't know but maybe it will add more to realistic and strategy by limiting your equipment not only to your physical capacity but consider the ship's weight capacity too.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Shuichi Niwa

[HWP]

Ammunition is light and small, there is very little reason for not carrying enough to get you through a ground battle.

If so, I don't see how would having more degrade the game in any way.

Playing a game is about adapting to the challenges and limitations it presents.

So why fight aliens with guns? Wouldn't it be more limiting and challenging if you had to beat them to death with German sausages?

If you followed up on the 'Chinook is a huge aircraft it could carry half your stores' type posts then it would be too much.

Why would it be too much?

You are taking your best guns with you either way.

What's in the aircraft is either more the same or inferior guns, which might still have some use.

So how is that too much? Remember, there's all that inconvenience of going back to the LZ.

From a balance standpoint, I'd like to see the locker as a complete "ground" grid. That would be about right, not too much, not too little.

From the standpoint of gameplay streamlining, eliminating pre-mission equipping and having anything from your stores available in the landing craft would work too.

Too easy you say? Well, let's make the game harder in other aspects, start with making aircraft costs at least believable if not realistic. Maybe power the aliens up, whatever. Real challenges, not made-up crossword puzzles.

[TrashMan]

By that very logic you're using there, the idea of running back to the dropship to swap out weapons IS ridiculous, because you're right: There are aliens about, they are going to move around and yes, you don't know where they are and they could flank you.

Because that's what's being proposed by the weapons locker idea. The ability to run back and change things out.

And that's a risk. A tactical decision to be made.

Do you fall back and risk loosing ground and civilians or do you stay and fight with weapons that aren't suited for hte job?

Running back to the dropship isn't a redicolous idea.

Yes. Exactly! It IS a strategy and tactics game.

And do you know what a valid tactic is when you're presented with an overwelming threat, lots of casualties or one you just can't deal with?

Retreat and abort.

That option is still there.

After all, you only carry SOME spare equipmetn in the dropship, and if the mission is going really bad, then the better option might be to leg it.

And retreating TO the dropship is also a retreat.

It might be because I'm a big fan of rogue-like games, such as FTL or Dwarf Fortress, but I'm *very* much in favour of putting the player in situations where they're not always going to come out on top.

Having a several spare weapons = player will always come on on top?

Now that is redicolous.

I really do feel that adding a weapons locker to the dropship is simply going to reduce scenarios where retreating and bugging out is the sensible option, and it's going to reduce the chances of a pyrrhic victory, as the locker will help to ensure you've pretty much always got the right tool for the job. It will tip the balance of the game more into the favour of the player.

And I feel that you are very wrong.

About EVERYTHING.

Also TrashMan, I'll ignore the personal attack implying I'm an idiot this time.

What personal attack?

Meh.. Don't know what you're talking about and I don't care.

[TrashMan]

I think this is quite reasonable arguments.

And this is not. Please, think before you type. I can't understand why you try twisting logic just to make your point. Why would it be bad or heavily-affect the game strategy-wise just because you can bring some more equipments with you to the mission ?

With a calcualted-size locker put in my dropship, I wouldn't worry about lacking one or more bullet clips in some unlucky mission with a long dogfight going on. And as well my soldiers won't need to be burden with too much "back-up just-in-case" equipments that may never been use. Instead I know I had them and can use them I I think the direction of the battle is going bad and I need them.

Strategy-wise, the thing about running back and fro to take your equipment from the dropship shouldn't even be mentioned here. Each person have their way of doing it. Your way of playing does not make other ways nonsense. I can just have one of my less useful lower ranking soldier go back for the equipment while the others holding back the fort, or I can even have someone with the "Courrier" written on his back that state his role in the combat. Problem ? No, cause that's other people way to play, and why should you have the right to tell people what how to play their game ?

Please look at the main problem here - if the use of the locker would help add to the gameplay or not. And if it would harm the gameplay or not. I say I like that idea and surely there msut be other people who think so. About harming the game with your "decision" and "what-to-bring-tension-atmosphere", sorry, I think they are not actually harm but just your opinions. You may not want it, may not use it, but if others do and it is logical, good for playing experience then don't be so negative.

Did you mis-quote or something?

I am arguing FOR the locker. Not against.

[Buzzles]

And that's a risk. A tactical decision to be made.

Do you fall back and risk loosing ground and civilians or do you stay and fight with weapons that aren't suited for hte job?

Which is what I've said in multiple posts! Not having the locker, as the game currently stands, should actually make you make tactical decisions like that more often. Which is important is it not?

That option is still there.

After all, you only carry SOME spare equipmetn in the dropship, and if the mission is going really bad, then the better option might be to leg it.

And I've asked you before, define "some"? From how I understand it from your posts, you'll either have enough space to store stuff that it's always going to give you the upper hand, or you'll never have enough due to being small and therefore you could argue that it's not worth adding to the game.

Having a several spare weapons = player will always come on on top?

Now that is redicolous.

I never said that, so don't twist my words, as you can never guarantee the player will come out on top. But the general point is valid as you've giving people more ways to deal with a situation.

Take a scenario where you need a missile launcher, but you didn't equip a soldier with one before you set off:

• Version A (No locker):

  You'll have to make a decision as to how to deal with the threat with the resources you have.

  Run up and grenade? Mass volley fire to knock it down? Melee?

  You might lose. You might win. All depends on what other stuff your soldiers brought and the enemy in question, plus the environment.

• Version B (Locker):

  Pull your troops into cover to keep everyone out of harms, send someone back to the ship to get the missile launcher stashed there. You easily destroy the target. Whatever decisions you made regarding troop setup hardly mattered.

So, yes actually, allowing the carrying of a few more weapons can indeed ensure the player comes out on top of most, if not all, situations.

And I feel that you are very wrong.

About EVERYTHING.

Well? Don't just say I'm wrong. That's pretty bad debating form. Offer up some substance why I'm wrong.

Why am I wrong to want the player to deal with situations in more creative ways, rather than giving them a single stock option of just going back and getting the correct weapon every time?

@Shuichi Niwa

Yes yes, exactly, this is what I mean. Making the game harder by limiting logical things. And you know what ? Some people like it, some do NOT. So we must play it that way because you like it that way ? Funny.

Try looking at it from the other side. I'm not arguing to make the game harder as I'm not saying something should be removed or changed from how it currently works.

I'm arguing to not make it easier by adding something that I feel will do just that.

Semantics, but important ones.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Buzzles

[HWP]

Pull your troops into cover to keep everyone out of harms, send someone back to the ship to get the missile launcher stashed there. You easily destroy the target. Whatever decisions you made regarding troop setup hardly mattered.

So if you feel it's such a super-awesome thing, why not give everyone missile launchers in the first place? Locker or no locker. I fail to follow.

[Buzzles]

So if you feel it's such a super-awesome thing, why not give everyone missile launchers in the first place? Locker or no locker. I fail to follow.

My point was that in a situation where you need a specific tool for a job, but you haven't got it, you have to deal with it or work around it. This may mean you cannot complete said job.

Use of the weapons locker could mean, that more often than not, you do have the correct tool for the job. And always having the correct tool makes life easier.

In the context of a game, I'd rather have the higher variety of outcomes given by the former over the lesser outcomes offered by the latter.

The missile launcher was just a specific example, could have easily been grenades, stun weapons, medkits, hyper velocity weapons (ie, sniper rifle).

As an aside, I have done a mission where everyone had missiles and launchers. Was hilarious. Lots of explosions

Edited October 13, 2012 by Buzzles

[HWP]

Use of the weapons locker could mean, that more often than not, you do have the correct tool for the job. And always having the correct tool makes life easier.

So crank the difficulty up to the limit.

Not enough?

Within a month of the game's release, I'll be publishing a partial realism mod. Aircraft will cost like used, beaten-up, but still real aircraft. Aliens will no longer shoot like Stormtrooper Marksmanship Academy graduates. Research projects will take time and effort. More changes, depending on what the final version allows one to change.

These are real challenges that you should really face. You tell me if the life is still easy for you at max difficulty, my mod and any others that make it harder, rogue/ironman mode.

If it's still too easy, then yes, I'll concede your point.

And on the subject of tools, what would you consider more interesting: building a garden shed using a wrong tool, or building a cathedral using an assortment of right tools?

[Buzzles]

Easier was perhaps not the right word to use there, as I meant it in a figurative sense not a literal.

To take your tool analogy, the shed would be more interesting I think as you'd be figuring out how to use the tools you've got in different ways. Ignoring the amount of work, the Cathedral would be more straightforward due to having the correct tools.

Although I certainly would be interested in that mod of yours, sounds like a fair amount of work though to actually have some semblance of playability.

[TrashMan]

Which is what I've said in multiple posts! Not having the locker, as the game currently stands, should actually make you make tactical decisions like that more often. Which is important is it not?

And having a locker also makes you make tactical decisions.

With the original tactical decision (waht to giveyour squaddies) intact.

And I've asked you before, define "some"? From how I understand it from your posts, you'll either have enough space to store stuff that it's always going to give you the upper hand, or you'll never have enough due to being small and therefore you could argue that it's not worth adding to the game.

Balancing is it's own issue.

And I really don't agree with you on your other two assesments. Even if the storage space was huge, it doesn't guarantee victory.

I never said that, so don't twist my words, as you can never guarantee the player will come out on top. But the general point is valid as you've giving people more ways to deal with a situation.

more options = better

You want to limit optiosn to force "important decision"

Take a scenario where you need a missile launcher, but you didn't equip a soldier with one before you set off:

• Version A (No locker):

  You'll have to make a decision as to how to deal with the threat with the resources you have.

  Run up and grenade? Mass volley fire to knock it down? Melee?

  You might lose. You might win. All depends on what other stuff your soldiers brought and the enemy in question, plus the environment.

• Version B (Locker):

  Pull your troops into cover to keep everyone out of harms, send someone back to the ship to get the missile launcher stashed there. You easily destroy the target. Whatever decisions you made regarding troop setup hardly mattered.

So, yes actually, allowing the carrying of a few more weapons can indeed ensure the player comes out on top of most, if not all, situations.

I don't see a problem. What if you didn't equip a missile launcher in the dropship? Same dillema.

What if the trooper you sent back gets shredded by aliens?

What if by the time he gets back half of your troops are dead? Or the VIP you were supposed to protect?

The locker space doesn't remove tactical options. It ADDS them.

Just because you think some of those (relistic) tactical options are cheasy/too easy is no concern of mine.

Well? Don't just say I'm wrong. That's pretty bad debating form. Offer up some substance why I'm wrong.

Why am I wrong to want the player to deal with situations in more creative ways, rather than giving them a single stock option of just going back and getting the correct weapon every time?

Cretive?

You're stiffling creativity by forcefully taking away options.

[HWP]

To take your tool analogy, the shed would be more interesting I think as you'd be figuring out how to use the tools you've got in different ways.

Trust me, I've done both. Well, not a cathedral, rather a big military machine. The latter is much, much more interesting.

Cutting wood with a cordless drill, pulling nails out with pliers, carving slots with a knife, it gets old even before you get into it. Not entirely unenjoyable, but less so than with proper tools.

Although I certainly would be interested in that mod of yours, sounds like a fair amount of work though to actually have some semblance of playability.

Well, I believe that proper game balance is when 1% of players can finish it on the first try, 5% on the second, and 50% on any of the subsequent attempts.

Though ADOM had the last number only around 15%, so I think anything between 10% and 50% is fine.

[Buzzles]

And having a locker also makes you make tactical decisions.

With the original tactical decision (waht to giveyour squaddies) intact.

Really? What other tactical options does it ADD?

A tactical option implies you're making a *choice*, with tradeoffs, to do something. Simply deciding to go back and get a better gun isn't a tradeoff as it's the correct decision to make as it'll allow you to destroy the bigger threat.

Yes, there's a small risk to that soldier going back, but it's so obviously the correct decision to take that it's not a decision, it's a no-brainer.

Balancing is it's own issue.

And I really don't agree with you on your other two assesments. Even if the storage space was huge, it doesn't guarantee victory.

No, it doesn't guarantee victory, but it can and will certainly help towards it.

I don't see why you can't understand that having extra equipment available will swing the favour towards the player as the game currently stands.

more options = better

You want to limit optiosn to force "important decision"

No, not true.

I've seen it in far too many games where people when presented with too many options just pick one and stick with it. More options isn't always better. Never has been, never will.

I've also seen plenty of games that have limited mechanics result in some very creative use of the mechanics.

So, yes, having a limit on things like that can indeed make people make decisions as they can look more closely at the limited options they've got available.

I don't see a problem. What if you didn't equip a missile launcher in the dropship? Same dillema.

What if the trooper you sent back gets shredded by aliens?

What if by the time he gets back half of your troops are dead? Or the VIP you were supposed to protect?

The locker space doesn't remove tactical options. It ADDS them.

Just because you think some of those (relistic) tactical options are cheasy/too easy is no concern of mine.

The ones I've highlighted are not tactical options. They're simply events that are happening. They're not a decision you can take. They could and do happen if say, you decided to try and flank the enemy. The decision you've made is to send someone off on the own into an area they can't see.

Please, again, tell me what tactical choices are being added by the locker? All I can see is that it gives you the ability to deal with any threat, which isn't a tactical choice, as if the option is there, of course you're going to bloody well go get the right weapon.

Although, yes, you are right regarding the missile launcher. If I didn't put the missile launcher in the locker, I'd be in the same situation I would be in the current game. Which has the result that I'd still have to fully explore what options I've got.

However, if I didn't have a missile launcher on my troopers because I'd made sure they've got everything else they could need, and there's space on the ship, I'd take one, as I know it has it's uses. Same as if I decided to not give my troops a marksmans rifle, I'd make sure there's one on the dropship. Or the MG. Etc etc.

It basically means I'm not making a compromise. It would let me have my cake and eat it.

Cretive?

You're stiffling creativity by forcefully taking away options.

Again, I'm not taking away anything. I'm against adding a feature, of which thus far, there hasn't been an example given which could improve gameplay in my view.

If anything, you're the one who is forcefully taking away options from people by making it so their equipment decisions in the base matter less.

Edited October 13, 2012 by Buzzles

[TrashMan]

Really? What other tactical options does it ADD?

A tactical option implies you're making a *choice*, with tradeoffs, to do something. Simply deciding to go back and get a better gun isn't a tradeoff as it's the correct decision to make as it'll allow you to destroy the bigger threat.

It is a tradeoff.

You loose time, you risk loosing more men, defenable positions.

The enemy won't be standing still. Loosing the initative is a big thing ya know.

Yes, there's a small risk to that soldier going back, but it's so obviously the correct decision to take that it's not a decision, it's a no-brainer.

So it 90% of the decisions you make in most games.

so are most manuvers in combat (such as flanking). A no-brianer.

Doesn't stop it from being a tactical option.

No, it doesn't guarantee victory, but it can and will certainly help towards it.

So does a more advanced gun.

You say we shouldn't be using more advanced guns?

I don't see why you can't understand that having extra equipment available will swing the favour towards the player as the game currently stands.

So what if it does?

I want logical options that any normal military force would have. Why is that so hard to grasp?

No, not true.

I've seen it in far too many games where people when presented with too many options just pick one and stick with it. More options isn't always better. Never has been, never will.

I've also seen plenty of games that have limited mechanics result in some very creative use of the mechanics.

So, yes, having a limit on things like that can indeed make people make decisions as they can look more closely at the limited options they've got available.

That only appliss if options themselves are pointless.

As a genral rule more options for player is better.

Let people find their own playstle, don't force one on them.

The ones I've highlighted are not tactical options. They're simply events that are happening. They're not a decision you can take. They could and do happen if say, you decided to try and flank the enemy. The decision you've made is to send someone off on the own into an area they can't see.

I never said they were.

They are risk one has to have in mind when maing a tactical decision. Events that shape the battlefield.

Seding someoen back IS a tactical option.

Just as staying and fighting is. Or throwing a grenade.

Please, again, tell me what tactical choices are being added by the locker? All I can see is that it gives you the ability to deal with any threat, which isn't a tactical choice, as if the option is there, of course you're going to bloody well go get the right weapon.

The same options that existed before. Plus more flexibility.

It basically means I'm not making a compromise. It would let me have my cake and eat it.

You are making a compromise. A weapon in the field, or a weapon in the locker.

The one in the field is readily avialable.

The on in the locker isn't.

Again, I'm not taking away anything. I'm against adding a feature, of which thus far, there hasn't been an example given which could improve gameplay in my view.

In my view it does improve gameplay.

If anything, you're the one who is forcefully taking away options from people by making it so their equipment decisions in the base matter less.

No, you are the one who wants to take options away from poeple, by trying to force them to play your way and only your way.

[ElTee]

It is a problem solver though is it not?

Cost of turns in a game where you have unlimited turns and time is a non issue.

And yes, the AI will move about. That's probably going to make it *easier* to get back to the dropship as they use their AP moving and chasing rather than shooting your troops.

Do I not? Why not? What limits are you imposing?

Besides, depending on the alien in question, you only need one missile launcher and one or two missiles.

Apart from saying that you want it, you've still not said what the actual benefit is going to be to gameplay. Which is what I'm objecting to, and the fact it takes away a large amout of the importance of how you fit your squad up before a mission.

So what if it's a problem solver? That doesn't make it bad. There's still the fact that you don't have to use the Storage Locker if you feel it takes so much away from how you outfit your troops. We can't choose not to use it if it doesn't exist in the first place, though.

The fact a storage locker would be beneficial will not make the game significantly less difficult IMO.

I think if storage lockers worked in XCOM, it could probably work on a game meant to be a close remake to it.

[Gauddlike]

The original didn't have a storage locker as suggested.

It didn't allow you to equip your troops and gave you an overflow for additional gear.

It just dumped all of the selected gear onto the dropship and forced you to equip everyone from that pool at the start of every mission.

It also didn't have enough capacity to give everyone the best loadout if you had a large squad.

It certainly didn't have enough for multiple additional loadouts on top of your standard gear.

That was an annoyance that fortunately we don't have to put up with.

Fortunately you were able to take a lot of troops anyway so you could usually cover the roles you needed to.

You may not have to use the storage locker if the game remains balanced for not using it.

If you increase the amount and types of equipment the player has access to though then it would be only natural to increase the variety of situations they would encounter on a mission to maintain the same level of challenge.

If that is the case then you would be putting yourself at a disadvantage by not using it in the same way you would currently be disadvantaging yourself if you chose not to take along a heavy weapon operator or decided you didn't like carrying grenades.

Just pointing out that the argument 'if it is there you don't have to use it' is not always true.

If a feature is added other changes to make that feature useful/balanced are usually needed and once said feature becomes part of the game balance you tend to not be able to do without it.

[Buzzles]

@Trashman and HWP, I've got two questions for you:

1) Would adding the equipment locker, and therefore allowing you access to more weapons and ammo, improve the chances that you've got the right item for the task at hand?

2) If the overflow wasn't present in the original games, would you be arguing so hard for it's inclusion into Xenonauts now?

[HWP]

Just pointing out that the argument 'if it is there you don't have to use it' is not always true.

If a feature is added other changes to make that feature useful/balanced are usually needed and once said feature becomes part of the game balance you tend to not be able to do without it.

I could accept that argument in the case of air combat, but here it just doesn't apply. And it doesn't apply in general.

Out of all strategy games out there, I can't remember one where I'd use more than 50% of the options it presents.

Let's take Civilization or Master of Orion. There is an optimal beeline through the game, find it and you'll win on max difficulty.

But against AI, no one except for newcomers goes for that beeline every time. People theme their play, try a particular suboptimal strategy, ignore 3/4 of their options and win with the other 1/4.

You can complete these games without ever using whole large chunks of the game.

A storage locker isn't a large chunk of the game. It's not like never building settlers or never using beam weapons. It's one extra chance to correct your gear loadout decisions. You can exploit it, to small effect, or you can develop more flexible loadouts and spend less time guessing what you'll need for every mission.

Finally, frankly, there's always the difficulty control. You don't have to use a feature you don't like, if you find that you can't complete the game boycottting it you can turn the difficulty down as play how you like. It's not a super-hardcore puzzle demanding perfect decisions where 1% aid to the player makes completion a walk in the park and 1% aid to the opponent makes it impossible.

Hell, people complete Doom using fist alone. And you're telling me Xeno will become impossible if a storage locker is added and someone doesn't use it.

I bet some people will find inventory at all a bother and play without ever accessing it, not as a challenge, just as a convenience.

[TrashMan]

@Trashman and HWP, I've got two questions for you:

1) Would adding the equipment locker, and therefore allowing you access to more weapons and ammo, improve the chances that you've got the right item for the task at hand?

Somewhat, yes.

2) If the overflow wasn't present in the original games, would you be arguing so hard for it's inclusion into Xenonauts now?

Yes. I like things that make sense.

Weapon lockers make sense.

[Gauddlike]

Did I say that the game would become impossible?

Did I even insinuate that?

I try to avoid over dramatising my examples.

What I said, quite clearly as far as I can see, is that the argument does not always hold up.

You can try to muddy the waters as much as you like but that cannot be changed.

[HWP]

I understood "tend to not be able to do without it" that way.

In reality it's a very tiny change in difficulty and I'm sure most players will just use it to speed up their gameplay - less fiddling with loadouts before every mission because you can change on arrival.

I'm also quite sure that the overwhelming majority of the time that function is used, it won't be running back to the chopper, it will be by soldiers who haven't even left the chopper.

There is an alternative, of course: you can save before a mission, land, look around then reload if you need different equipment. I think I've done that in TFTD a couple times, because I wasn't sure what exactly to expect on arrival.

Or you can have a storage locker.

1) Would adding the equipment locker, and therefore allowing you access to more weapons and ammo, improve the chances that you've got the right item for the task at hand?

Yes. And that is a good thing. Aliens at max difficulty should be tough enough without using wrong tools.

2) If the overflow wasn't present in the original games, would you be arguing so hard for it's inclusion into Xenonauts now?

Being an option in XCOM is a small factor. I'll also add that the XCOM inventory held more than Xeno inventory.

But the real reason is that you fly in a big helicopter with plenty of space and weight allowance for extra equipment.

[dorphin]

i dont get why you want the locker i mean you have a team of soldiers each one has a pretty big inventory not the right tool for the right job you say

i say make a balanced team you have one tank with misles at the start of the game there my need for miseles should be coverd if i think its not enough i take one soldier with bazooka, one sniper 2 assault one shotgun etc.

also ammo is not realy a problem if one soldier runs out and another soldier has one extra magazine in his invetory just toss the mag to him i realy doubt all of your soldiers will run out of ammo

in reality strike teams have their loadout and not an entire armory on their heli

those helis can carry alot indeed but those are supply choppers who drop of the ammo at the base and the soldiers on the field dont have an armory with them

and if all else fails just make one soldier carry a pistol and fill his inventory with ammo and grenades he will be close to your troops most of the time unless he got killed but then you go to his corpse and just loot the ammor from there