Game starting at 1979...

[tiger12348]

Professor Michio Kaku once stated that any extraterrestrial civilization that are capable of interstellar travel is at least thousands of years ahead of us in terms of technology. How on earth do we present a military challenge to such an advanced civilization back in 1979 is beyond me...

Everything else is fine tho, keep up the good work.

[Jean-Luc]

Professor Michio Kaku once stated that any extraterrestrial civilization that are capable of interstellar travel is at least thousands of years ahead of us in terms of technology. How on earth do we present a military challenge to such an advanced civilization back in 1979 is beyond me...

With the kind of scale you, or Mr Kaku rather, are talking about, being in 2012 or even 2212 (for example) makes little to no difference. Bringing this line of thinking (hypothetical real world analogies) to a video game is largely pointless.

[flashman]

Compare 1979 to modern combat. Air forces around the globe currently still use the same equipment. Some of it has been in service since the 70's. The 1980's marked the end of the cold war and lots of major cuts were made to military programs and you could argue that most countries experienced a period of military stagnation for about decade until funding resumed. The Eurofighter Typhoon is a craft of the 80's that has only just entered service in a limited capacity.

The US still uses harriers because it cannot get its JSF to operate properly.

US still uses similar weapons in ground combat, M16 rifles are common around the world even in 2012 after several failures to find a suitable replacement.

The USSR was also one united block capable of supporting Europe and America if world doom led to a realignment against the invaders. They had not yet got bogged down in Afghanistan, a war that tore their military infrastructure apart.

You have heat seeking missiles, aircraft had switched back from speed to maneuverability and the nuclear option is a real threat.

The major drawback I foresee with 1970 is the lack of mobile and Real time communications. However, the fact that they are not reliant upon satellite communications means that it would be harder to disable military channels.

The military's of 1970's are also larger, with a greater number of reservists. 1979 would have been a much better time for an alien invasion than the early 1990's. Whilst today you have US/UK military establishment exhausted by war. Germany/France anti-war. Russia dealing with internal problems and without the naval ambitions of 1979.

The Xenonauts lore also hypothesizes that the alien threat is struggling to deal with our unique atmosphere having built ships designed to cross the stars. Which is why the ship sizes increase as they are slowly adapted.

A vehicle in atmosphere is going to come up against the same external pressures/resistance be it alien or human. The major issue would be what kind of electronic counter measures do they have and does the concept of shields exist. It might be that they are so far advanced that their technology is designed to combat advanced weaponry and that a balistics based bullets/missiles is something that they are not prepared for. Watch Stargate and see how the Asgard in that lore rely on the more primitive human thinking to take on the replicators.

Edited October 21, 2012 by flashman

[HWP]

We present challenge to a force that we outnumber by about 50,000 to 1, and which, apart from their interstellar travel and psionics, doesn't seem to be really advanced in the field of weapons.

Not that we are. I mean, if you discount heavy stuff like nukes. Paint it black and 1916 Fedorov Avtomat with its 6.5mm round won't be so out of place in a modern gun show.

[tiger12348]

Compare 1979 to modern combat. Air forces around the globe currently still use the same equipment. Some of it has been in service since the 70's. The 1980's marked the end of the cold war and lots of major cuts were made to military programs and you could argue that most countries experienced a period of military stagnation for about decade until funding resumed. The Eurofighter Typhoon is a craft of the 80's that has only just entered service in a limited capacity.

The US still uses harriers because it cannot get its JSF to operate properly.

US still uses similar weapons in ground combat, M16 rifles are common around the world even in 2012 after several failures to find a suitable replacement.

The USSR was also one united block capable of supporting Europe and America if world doom led to a realignment against the invaders. They had not yet got bogged down in Afghanistan, a war that tore their military infrastructure apart.

You have heat seeking missiles, aircraft had switched back from speed to maneuverability and the nuclear option is a real threat.

The major drawback I foresee with 1970 is the lack of mobile and Real time communications. However, the fact that they are not reliant upon satellite communications means that it would be harder to disable military channels.

The military's of 1970's are also larger, with a greater number of reservists. 1979 would have been a much better time for an alien invasion than the early 1990's. Whilst today you have US/UK military establishment exhausted by war. Germany/France anti-war. Russia dealing with internal problems and without the naval ambitions of 1979.

The Xenonauts lore also hypothesizes that the alien threat is struggling to deal with our unique atmosphere having built ships designed to cross the stars. Which is why the ship sizes increase as they are slowly adapted.

A vehicle in atmosphere is going to come up against the same external pressures/resistance be it alien or human. The major issue would be what kind of electronic counter measures do they have and does the concept of shields exist. It might be that they are so far advanced that their technology is designed to combat advanced weaponry and that a balistics based bullets/missiles is something that they are not prepared for. Watch Stargate and see how the Asgard in that lore rely on the more primitive human thinking to take on the replicators.

This helps alot for me to get over the setting part.

[Snozy]

How do we stand a chance in 1979??? we take advantage of the smaller aliens ships and weaker scouts that we can take on and steal there technoogy early on!! there plasma rifles and there ship technoogy to help us against the worse aliens and there monsterous carriers.

[Buzzles]

Professor Michio Kaku once stated that any extraterrestrial civilization that are capable of interstellar travel is at least thousands of years ahead of us in terms of technology. How on earth do we present a military challenge to such an advanced civilization back in 1979 is beyond me...

Everything else is fine tho, keep up the good work.

The only problem with your conclusion is that you've assumed the aliens are actually capable of interstellar travel.

It's not a stretch to say they could have just found a wormhole or something similar in their home solar system, maybe at a Lagrange point or some other place of interest for example.

Just imagine what would happen if we (as in, 2012 humans) found a wormhole on the far side of Mars?

We've certainly got the tech to get there (the Saturn V would have just about been able to let us send people to it 40-ish years ago) and we could pretty easily send other stuff to it and through it like robots and the like.

It woudn't make us more advanced than we are now, but we could certainly "cross the stars" as it were. Same principle could be applied to the aliens in Xenonauts.

Of course, this is all fluff as it's a game with aliens. It doesn't have to be believable or realistic, just slightly plausible.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Buzzles

[HWP]

It has to be internally consistent. That's what matters.

You can have demons wearing black capes, but as long as you firmly set your setting's rules and don't have internal logical contradictions, it can be perceived as much more believable than a "historical" film with Vikings wearing Japanese wooden armor with no explanation.

[Khalan]

It also depends upon which way aliens have gone with technology. Imagine a bunch of average suburban humans of 2012 sent into the world of Aztecs 700 or 800 years ago - they (the suburbanites) wouldn't stand a chance if either party were hostile, even if they were armed with pistols etc.

For a modern real world example, look at Russia vs Afghanistan (funnily enough also in 1979) - the Russians were a vastly superior force, yet the Afghans were highly successful with sabotage and guerrilla tactics, managing to hold off the Russians for a decade.

[flashman]

1839 Afghanistani tribes held off British Indian forces despite superior weaponry.

History is full of examples where force doesn't always win. It comes down to strategy and luck. Vietnam was a war that proved technology doesn't win wars. There is an element of conviction and sacrifice that comes with winning.

Thats the one thing that nagged me the most about the new XCOM, despite its use of perma death. It never felt like a struggle for humanity.. all in at the cost of our future. It felt so limited in scope I might aswell have been dealing with global terrorism rather than an alien invasion.

Invasion= every man women and child makes themselves count- see terminator

XCOM = The SAS storming the Iranian embassy's of the world.

Xenonauts feels like you are taking the best of the best to lead humanities struggle, you are not 'The Struggle'

[HWP]

Thats the one thing that nagged me the most about the new XCOM, despite its use of perma death. It never felt like a struggle for humanity.. all in at the cost of our future. It felt so limited in scope I might aswell have been dealing with global terrorism rather than an alien invasion.

Well, I just pretend that I'm managing a satellite services company in a dark uncertain future, having to deal with punks and aliens stealing your services. It fits just perfect. You expand your coverage to increase profits, you respond to reports of cable pirates and toss grenades wherever they hide, sometimes you catch a truck full of aliens crossing the border, once even raid a topsite. And when you capture live ones, you perform inhumane scientific experiments on them to deter others, like RIAA taking away people's homes for listening to mp3s.

All that's left is to replace guns with walkie-talkies and the illusion will be perfect.

[ElTee]

Breaking News: Suspension of Disbelief is required to play any Xenonauts game since it isn't hard scifi!

[tiger12348]

1839 Afghanistani tribes held off British Indian forces despite superior weaponry.

History is full of examples where force doesn't always win. It comes down to strategy and luck. Vietnam was a war that proved technology doesn't win wars. There is an element of conviction and sacrifice that comes with winning.

Thats the one thing that nagged me the most about the new XCOM, despite its use of perma death. It never felt like a struggle for humanity.. all in at the cost of our future. It felt so limited in scope I might aswell have been dealing with global terrorism rather than an alien invasion.

Invasion= every man women and child makes themselves count- see terminator

XCOM = The SAS storming the Iranian embassy's of the world.

Xenonauts feels like you are taking the best of the best to lead humanities struggle, you are not 'The Struggle'

Technology doesn't always win only because the technology difference is within hundreds of years. However when we are talking about a force that is at least thousands of years ahead of us (could well be millions of years), we will have to forget about a human vs human conflict example, and instead start thinking about sending out a squad of soldiers to clear out a wasp nest.

[mordenkien]

also to remember is there alien not human...

humans constantly strife to improve everything even if it works for many varied reasons most emotional

ie jealousy/greed/compassion/hate/friendship etc

the aliens may not have these motavations. so even if they have been in space for 3000yrs, whos to say they saw the need of improving bits of tech like guns etc. which as far as they might be concerned ,once at a level where they work in space and kill stuff dont need to be improved, same for ships,personal armour etc.

they could have invented interstellar drives etc because they need them now but are happy to use weapons that they have been using happily for 500 years

[TrashMan]

How do we stand a chance in 1979??? we take advantage of the smaller aliens ships and weaker scouts that we can take on and steal there technoogy early on!! there plasma rifles and there ship technoogy to help us against the worse aliens and there monsterous carriers.

There is a notion that technologal advancemetn does not reach a point of diminishing returns. And that defenses will continue to become more and more advanced.

Frankly, I doubt we will have anything capable of tanking a nuke, even 3000 years from now.

A .50 Batter rifle? I want to see troop armor that stops that.

And if it can, we have even biger anti-material rifles.

Thing is, plain old kinetic weapons are simply deadly and we have reached the point where material resistence can't keep up anymore.

In other words, since super-armors are pretty much fantasy, then we can very well kill alines (if we can hit them)

[tiger12348]

also to remember is there alien not human...

humans constantly strife to improve everything even if it works for many varied reasons most emotional

ie jealousy/greed/compassion/hate/friendship etc

the aliens may not have these motavations. so even if they have been in space for 3000yrs, whos to say they saw the need of improving bits of tech like guns etc. which as far as they might be concerned ,once at a level where they work in space and kill stuff dont need to be improved, same for ships,personal armour etc.

they could have invented interstellar drives etc because they need them now but are happy to use weapons that they have been using happily for 500 years

I would assume aliens had undergone evolution just like us, keep in mind that all the emotional motivations you mentioned above are essential for individual survival. Competition within a species is what drives us from swords to nukes, because I don't think we really need nukes to kill “other stuff”.

[GoodGuyEddy]

The most pointless topic i've seen so far.

Unless the two sides start at relativly even technologicaol footing one side is fucked.(Which defeats the point of the game)

NONE of you can provide a SINGLE argument from a realism standpoint of humanity as it is now possibly holding a candle to a civilization capable of effective interstellar flight. Not HWP, not trash man. If the alien force is hostile - we lose.

How about realising that it is just a game.

[TrashMan]

If they don't care about nuking us from orbit? Yes.

If they want to keep it in tact and put boots on the ground? There's a chance.

[ElTee]

The most pointless topic i've seen so far.

Unless the two sides start at relativly even technologicaol footing one side is fucked.(Which defeats the point of the game)

NONE of you can provide a SINGLE argument from a realism standpoint of humanity as it is now possibly holding a candle to a civilization capable of effective interstellar flight. Not HWP, not trash man. If the alien force is hostile - we lose.

How about realising that it is just a game.

This. A lot of people here are talking out of ignorance.

[HWP]

NONE of you can provide a SINGLE argument from a realism standpoint of humanity as it is now possibly holding a candle to a civilization capable of effective interstellar flight. Not HWP, not trash man. If the alien force is hostile - we lose.

I believe we have provided such arguments.

You think if you and a couple dozen of your buddies stock up on gear and go back in time, let's say, 4,000 years, you're going to have no trouble conquering Ancient Egypt?

Well, if they bow down to the loudness of your boomsticks (fat chance), you might. The same might work for the aliens, but hardly direct force.

And if faster-than-light flight is possible at all, humanity might be as little as a few centuries away. I'll be very surprised if it happens within this century, though I'd need to live that long first, but I won't be eating my shoes as long as it's experimental.

Finally, in either case, you are not fighting a whole civilization migrating to Earth.

For all we know, you may well be facing its equivalent of a biker gang. What, you think any society advanced enough for interstellar flight is surely going to put behind such barbaric pastimes as unmotivated application of violence? That's what they said when Alfred Nobel invented dynamite.

[mordenkien]

I would assume aliens had undergone evolution just like us, keep in mind that all the emotional motivations you mentioned above are essential for individual survival. Competition within a species is what drives us from swords to nukes, because I don't think we really need nukes to kill “other stuff”.

although i dont completely disagree with you , i still say its possible to evolve from say a hive insect society with cooperation as the essential survival trait and or a world with (and i await the inevitable responses) a early devoloped unifying believe system

but i think the best way of explaining the aliens in game is simply number of star systems x number of basic element combinations x number of choices made x time elapsed

so thats how many possible combination of alien invasions?

[Sinfullyvannila]

I was in a roleplaying group where we did an alien invasion campaign. We effectively fought the aliens back, and I have what may be some solid reason that it would work.

1) SETTING DEPENDANT. The Aliens we fought were conscripted from conquered cultures. The ones we fought didn't nearly as bloody a history as we did, and weren't as well equipped culturally or psychologically to wage an effective war. The species that conquered them weren't the ones that fought us, so we were basically fighting an army who had no idea what they were doing.

2) Environmental issues. A big thing that comes into play in an alien invasion is the effects our environment has on their alien technology. Their equipment wasn't designed to function in our environment, ours was. Also, for a prolonged invasion, nutritional needs come into play. Supply and logistical issues come into play, which would be greatly exacerbated by the scale of the issue.

3) Technology works in a funny way, and more advanced Weapons/Armor is not necessarily more useful than old technology for a given task. The aliens armor was designed to defend against energy-based attacks, not kinetic ones, and their armor was woefully ineffective against bullets. For example, we use kevlar body armor today, because it is effective against small-arms fire(not ALL small-arms fire but some), but that body armor would be useless against pretty much any weapon used before the 16th century. Also, as someone brought out, you can only kill someone so hard. There is little point in wasting resources on "more powerful" weapons unless someone develops an effective defense against them.

4) Caveman fallacy, or, in other words, they underestimated us. Just because they had more advanced technology, doesn't mean they were any more intelligent than us, or that we couldn't effectively use their technology when it came into play against us.

[GoodGuyEddy]

And if faster-than-light flight is possible at all, humanity might be as little as a few centuries away.

Maybe, maybe not.

But for now as long as modern science FTL is impossible. Which means their knowledgeof physics go far beyond our own.

You know during the dark ages building a big metal bird able to carry a lot of people over continents was also imposible as long as their knowledge base was concerned. What could be a name of such a bird? How about 747.

Same here, a lot of their technology might seem as magick to us. Making our impossibilities their strengh and mundane life. Whatever you throw at them they have somethintg better.

Better medicine - release some super plague that kills us off quicker than we develop a vaccine for it.

Ignoring that.

Pushing some asteroids in our planet direction, and bye bye peoples. Nuking an asteroid is far less effective han most would think.

Ignoring that.

They come closer - we launch nukes. Even if they don't have anything that can withstand They probably are less restricted energy wise (can hardly see warping space and time with a duracell battery) and their computers are way faster then ours. Imploying lasers(lasers travel at light speed and have no recoil, the perfect point defence weapon) is easy for them and they shoot the nukes out of the sky. Even if they get overwhelmed by the sheer number of nukes. They'l just put their ships into reverse. I am assuming nukes don't have infinite range. And i am allso asuming that a much scientifically superior military also has a way to detect incoming missles fired from around the globe, like we do!

And even if their sub light propulsion is too slow for that.

They can send one ship to nuke a megalopolis or seomething, and see how we react. We launch nukes,if they blow up that one ship, they nuke our military installations from orbit and then step foot on the ground.

They're soldiers would be just better than ours.

Ants outnumber an exterminator a 1.000.000 : 1. Yet i don't hear about the ants being victorious. And again them coming to a conclusion that they can be overwhelmed,they would not engage us(see the next point).

You think if you and a couple dozen of your buddies stock up on gear and go back in time, let's say, 4,000 years, you're going to have no trouble conquering Ancient Egypt?

How will the egyptians stop a B-52 bomber again?(not this point)

I believe we have provided such arguments.

A lot of your points derive from the limitations of our military, reached the point where material resistence can't keep up anymore. yadda yadda. Yeah OUR has reached that point, their much less so. And that sheer numbers may be the anwser.

Having FTL means they are smart, if there is a chance of us overhwhelming them they'll not invade. Any being capable of thought would first evaluate things before going balls deep. Those are not a redneck with a machete thinking he can take on a dozen tigers. No, those are two heavy machine gun teams versus ten knights that are not on horseback, and not in melee

For all we know, you may well be facing its equivalent of a biker gang.

Even if so biker gangs have enogh sence to strike all at once. And Xenonaut aliens would devastate all of the military forces if they did that. And honestly how low is the chance of us lucking out on a small interstellar biker gang that will give us free technological advancement by headbutting our nukes and letting us analyze the tech?

And if that statistically impossible to happen event does happen, then congrats. Humanity is officially the luckiest species in the universe. Achievement unlocked. But lady luck is seldom so kind. And again i stress, the chance of me spontainuisly becoming god and then being shot with a minigun by a pony is higher.

The ONLY way to survive is starting off on a relatively equal technology base.

Which defeats the purpouse of the game. Xcom EU , Xenonauts, original XCOM have no chance in real life.

Be it 1976 or 2176 - game over.

That's why i said the post is pointles. As long as there is an extencive "research tree" between us and the aliens you most probably lose in life. If the game is good then just roll with it. Xeno and XCOM give the bare minimum to help your suspention of disbelief while you play.(''as you will play'' in xenos case, since the thing is not released yet).

And here is something else to ponder on.

500 years ago there were much less ways of waging war. No jetfighters, no carpet bombs, no nukes, no automatic guns, no submarines.

If the aliens have FTL, the thing that is our impossibility. What other ways of warfare does their techological prowess provide that we would not see coming?

Long story short: You guys can not convince me that the real life us stand a chance right now.

Well i'm going to go back to rest. See you later gentlemen.

Edited October 22, 2012 by GoodGuyEddy

[Sinfullyvannila]

You're making a lot of assumptions in that thread. And your counter-arguments are based on assumptions.

Would we be at a massive disadvantage, absolutely. But assuming that they aren't there to wipe us out or that they are unwilling to damage the planet(there really isn't much point in destroying us just to be dicks) we'd have a chance as long as their armor wasn't resistant to ballistics. At some point, the will HAVE to field infantry, and they will HAVE to deal with our overwhelming numbers, our most likely hostile environment and our familiartity of the battlefield. If they DID just want to win at all costs, no we would not stand a chance.

And there's absolutely no reason to assume that they'd have better soldiers.

The disease thing works both ways too, haven't you ever heard of War of the Worlds?

Edited October 22, 2012 by Sinfullyvannila

[GoodGuyEddy]

The disease thing works both ways too, haven't you ever heard of War of the Worlds?

Are you honestly telling me that you actually believe that a technologically superior race will not foresee germs? We get vaccines to fly to an exotic country for f^*@ sake.

Higher science level=better soldiers. Or is a guy with a long sword just as good as a guy with an assault rifle? If so then no one would switch from melee to firearms

You're making a lot of assumptions in that thread. And your counter-arguments are based on assumptions.

Oh i'm sorry, i did not know nukes have unlimited range. I did not know that only humans can invent a sensor. I did not know that a technologically superior military is technologically superior.

Yep, can't rely on the assumptions. The places where i posted the words "assume" was semi serious as those specific points have obvious anwsers. I did not assume "they will all have telepathy and then lobotomize all of us." I said that with superior technology they will have an advantage in those places where technology gives an advantage. Which is everything. And what's wrong with an idea that with extencive knowledge of biology and medicine and stufffs will let them engineer a plague? And if they cant then there are much more ways to skin a human cat.

In other words.

Extencive technological research tree = defeat in real life unless you win the ultimate jackpot.

And again you should ponder a bit.As history shows with advances in science more ways to kill are in the militarys arsenal. What would they hit us with that we don't know about?

Dun-Dun-Duuuuun!

Edited October 22, 2012 by GoodGuyEddy