What will happen to all currently out of base aircraft when a base is destroyed?

[crusherven]

I think the solution from the player's point of view is simply don't send all your troops out on a mission. Leave some men at home. This really is an avoidable situation of you play a little more cautiously, as I suspect any iron man game would be played.

[Jean-Luc]

I want homeless aircraft to fall in love and fly off into the sunset. Is THAT too difficult to code in Chris, you cold-hearted villain?

[Max_Caine]

[thothkins]

In addition to my repatriated post above, It should also go towards pushing the funding nations towards handling the UFOs better themselves. I've other suggestions too, while we wait for something form Chris on the subject.

[GizmoGomez]

Well, he already said that it's basically a waste of time, since there are so so so many more things that need doing. I wouldn't count on anything, besides {base gets destroyed} = {everything associated with the base gets lost}

(Curly brackets are fun. Reminds me of Mathematica and LaTeX; which are also fun. )

[thothkins]

that was me trying to be dead pan through typing.

[Chris]

Yeah, I got it. It made me smile.

[HWP]

I suppose the workaround is just to keep regular autosaves and keep the ironman checkbox clear.

[GizmoGomez]

@thothkins

Oh. I feel dumb now. I was wondering why you had been so unobservant.

[radister]

Doesn't need a workaround as it won't crash, just something that happens.

If you need some lore to give you a reason, just say once the aliens destoryed your base they found your computers and found the location of your aircraft and destoryed them. how? I don't know but i think we can think of many ways they could have done it, once we find a good one that fits then we have our solution.

[Gauddlike]

Maybe all Xenonaut craft come fitted with a remote self destruct in case of mind control or falling into enemy hands.

The aliens wander into the smoking command centre, spot a big red button marked 'Do Not Press' and push it to see what happens.

Two little puffs of smoke and your lovely new interceptors are gone, it's a tragedy.

[HWP]

how? I don't know but i think we can think of many ways

I suggest Magic. We can think of many ways, but only one that makes sense.

Seriously speaking, this is a fault or shortcut rather than a design solution, so the correct player response is to, if attacked while crew is sent out, exit to main menu and load latest save. If you want to play completely fair, move crew to a backup base in advance.

This may incur loss of some game elements. But losing your main squad past early stages is game over. Escape, Main Menu, Start New Game. Losing your main base isn't. Balancing the game such that main squad loss != game over would make it impractically easy when TSL doesn't occur.

Such an occurrence does not require a coincidence. The only way you would lose a base defense mission in the first place is when your main squad is out on a mission.

Yes, UFO worked the same way, but it didn't have ironman mode, so that. TSL in combat is a fair way to lose the game, TSL due to the technical implementation of object trees isn't.

[Gauddlike]

losing your main squad past early stages is game over. Escape, Main Menu, Start New Game. Losing your main base isn't.

I would disagree.

I generally play with at least two squads covering different areas of the globe but one base tends to be the main while the other is less well outfitted.

For me losing one squad, even if it was my strongest, would be a surmountable loss.

Losing my main base and being left without its extra facilities could well be a game ending event.

[thothkins]

@thothkins

Oh. I feel dumb now. I was wondering why you had been so unobservant.

Apologies GizmoGomez. It never works. I should just stick to smilies like everyone else.

I generally play with at least two squads covering different areas of the globe but one base tends to be the main while the other is less well outfitted.

I haven;t been able to afford two bases, let alone two squads. Most of my Xenonuats have had to move back in with their parents after the v19 budget cuts. Mind you, it's pretty much just like the end of the '70s in that respect

Edited March 22, 2013 by thothkins

[Gauddlike]

Yeah I haven't had much playing time recently so my tactics are outdated.

That is generally the way I try to play though so just pointing out that the statement will not necessarily be true for everyone.

If I was stuck with a single base I would still use two squads though, cycled to build experience for everyone.

They are ready to defend or to get a new base off the ground quickly if I need them.

That may not be possible once the funds are balanced the way Chris wants them but I hope it is.

I don't like being forced into a particular playstyle by a game, I prefer to think around it and play my own way.

[HWP]

I generally play with at least two squads covering different areas of the globe but one base tends to be the main while the other is less well outfitted.

Just two bases?

Well, the full game isn't out yet.

Presumably if all is done right, endgame craft range will cover the whole globe, and endgame content will be hard enough to be only-just-doable with a maxed squad.

For me losing one squad, even if it was my strongest, would be a surmountable loss.

If loss of your good squad is surmountable, it only means it never needed to be that strong in the first place.

I.e. that you had a significant difficulty headroom and probably could be doing the game at one difficulty higher.

Losing my main base and being left without its extra facilities could well be a game ending event.

Because in alpha players are essentially stuck in midgame.

Later in the game, in X-COM at least, you get more bases, but focus on one key squad that's getting increasingly less replaceable.

Edited March 22, 2013 by HWP

[GizmoGomez]

If loss of your good squad is surmountable, it only means it never needed to be that strong in the first place.

I.e. that you had a significant difficulty headroom and probably could be doing the game at one difficulty higher.

Not necessarily. It could be that he's capable of recovering from it, due to superior tactics, management, and grit. Just because an event is game ending for some people doesn't mean it is for everyone.

I've (somehow, I really don't know how) never experienced a total wipe before (I've always had at least a few guys to help the new team start up), so I don't know what I'd do in that situation. Hopefully I don't find out.

[thothkins]

In the EU1994, particularly the long untweaked games, losing my Alpha Squad would have been survivable. This would mainly have been because I'd have farmed out the veterans with low psi skill elsewhere. They would have been very combat ready, if slight less effective against mind control to varying degrees.

[Gauddlike]

Just two bases?

Well, the full game isn't out yet.

When the game is stable enough to allow longer play then I imagine I will continue to build more bases and use more squads.

Presumably if all is done right, endgame craft range will cover the whole globe, and endgame content will be hard enough to be only-just-doable with a maxed squad.

You are still assuming everyone plays your way with just one strong squad.

I also disagree that the game is only 'done right' if you only need a single craft and squad to cover the whole globe and missions can just be picked up and completed one at a time with the same squad.

It has always been possible to max out more than one squad in earlier x-com games, I don't see why you should be limited to just one here.

If loss of your good squad is surmountable, it only means it never needed to be that strong in the first place.

I.e. that you had a significant difficulty headroom and probably could be doing the game at one difficulty higher.

Or it means that my other squad or squads could take up the slack until I had fully replaced the lost one.

If a fully maxed squad can take on a mission then it is likely that a fully maxed squad with one weaker member could do the same, especially if you play cautiously and have that member in a role where his inexperience is less important.

I would suggest that if you can chain through missions with the same squad, never needing down time for medical leave etc then that would be cause to move the difficulty up a notch.

Because in alpha players are essentially stuck in midgame.

Later in the game, in X-COM at least, you get more bases, but focus on one key squad that's getting increasingly less replaceable.

No YOU do that, not everyone plays the same way as you so the game would not be as fragile for other play styles.

It is a blow when you lose a squad for sure, mainly for me because they are troops I am attached to, not because I have all my eggs in one basket.

It may take a little longer to get two powerful squads but the benefits are worth the time for me.

[HWP]

It has always been possible to max out more than one squad in earlier x-com games, I don't see why you should be limited to just one here.

Because Xenonauts is a race against time; there's no playing for years on end.

(and no 8-bit unsigned rollover)

I would suggest that if you can chain through missions with the same squad, never needing down time for medical leave etc then that would be cause to move the difficulty up a notch.

Certainly. But you are going to lose that reserve as well in a base loss event. Unless you keep at micromanagement sending them away to other bases and back.

If the maximum difficulty is possible to finish using suboptimal strategy or especially still possible to finish after losing both the main base and main squad, then either: 1) such an event should be very common (so that everyone has to plan for it), or 2) the game isn't correctly balanced (excessive headroom left at maximum difficulty).

No YOU do that, not everyone plays the same way as you so the game would not be as fragile for other play styles.

It's the min-max strategy. Min soldiers you don't plan to keep, max ones you do. It's a universal strategy for this game genre. Unless something is done to make it different.

[Gauddlike]

Because Xenonauts is a race against time; there's no playing for years on end.

(and no 8-bit unsigned rollover)

I still don't see why racing against time should mean you are only going to be able to max out a single squad.

Unless the game is going to be balanced so that you only get just enough squad experience to max out one squad over the course of the whole game then your argument doesn't make sense.

Certainly. But you are going to lose that reserve as well in a base loss event. Unless you keep at micromanagement sending them away to other bases and back.

Or not all of your squads are housed in the same base?

If the maximum difficulty is possible to finish using suboptimal strategy or especially still possible to finish after losing both the main base and main squad, then either: 1) such an event should be very common (so that everyone has to plan for it), or 2) the game isn't correctly balanced (excessive headroom left at maximum difficulty).

If the maximum difficulty is balanced so that only one way of playing will allow you a chance of surviving then I feel it is a poorly designed game, might as well be a quick time event where only the correct button press at the correct time allows you to progress.

You say suboptimal strategy and appear to assume any way of playing that differs from yours.

I would see training up a single squad and keeping all your eggs in one basket as suboptimal.

If you fail to plan for losing your squad then it will indeed be a game ending situation.

Not all of us play that way though so we can in fact recover from it.

It may not be easy to recover but where would be the fun if it was?

It's the min-max strategy. Min soldiers you don't plan to keep, max ones you do. It's a universal strategy for this game genre. Unless something is done to make it different.

I understand the concept, in fact it is the same used with multiple squads.

You concentrate on a wider range of troops but you are using the same concept, especially where the single squad would be unable to respond to a situation, for example with widely separated bases.

It may take longer to max out two squads but then you have double the potential.

[crusherven]

I have to agree with Gauddlike. For one thing, people have done Cydonia with all rookies. I would argue that it's LESS devastating to lose all your good troops at the end of the game because powerful gear makes it easier. In XCOM that was certainly the case: a squad of rookies with a sergeant or two, all in power armour with heavy plasmas and blaster launchers could take on standard missions. You wouldn't send them against an ethereal terror mission, but that doesn't mean game over. The loss of the base, with all of the gear, supplies, elerium, scientists, and facilities was much more devastating.

I'm a min-maxer myself. Having played a number of MMO's, though, I've learned the hard way that you can't do anything when you're dead. If min-maxing puts you in a position where a single unlucky event can end your game, you're probably doing it wrong.

[HWP]

Unless the game is going to be balanced so that you only get just enough squad experience to max out one squad over the course of the whole game then your argument doesn't make sense.

Hopefully it will be balanced so that you don't get enough squad experience to max out a squad over the course of the game.

Level caps in single player are hated universally and deservingly.

If the maximum difficulty is balanced so that only one way of playing will allow you a chance of surviving then I feel it is a poorly designed game,

Actually, the maximum difficulty should be balanced such that only the best 1/10-1/4 of players can complete the game at all, and not at first attempt, and only if they follow the best possible strategy.

Given what your nickname is, have you completed Unreal Tournament (any chapter) on "Godlike" difficulty? If yes, you know what I'm talking about WRT proper balancing. If no, well, it's never too late.

You say suboptimal strategy and appear to assume any way of playing that differs from yours.

I would see training up a single squad and keeping all your eggs in one basket as suboptimal.

If you fail to plan for losing your squad then it will indeed be a game ending situation.

It's still suboptimal. Keeping backups "just in case" goes against the doctrine of min-maxing.

The doctrine is to maximize your performance in the most important aspects for the most likely scenario. The most likely scenario is that you'll never have a TSL.

And see above about balancing. Put simple, if the game can be completed on maximum difficulty after a TSL event, all it means is that difficulty needs to be increased. Max difficulty should be borderline doable *without* handicaps. That's why it's called "maximum", not "only".

It may not be easy to recover but where would be the fun if it was?

Where is the fun in losing your main squad without firing a single, just looking for them and realizing they've been deleted because that was easier to code?

It may take longer to max out two squads but then you have double the potential.

If you can bring them together on one mission, like the 26 in Avenger, then yes.

Otherwise you won't be able to complete endgame content that is balanced to be only-just-doable with a perfectly concentrated squad.

[Gauddlike]

Hopefully it will be balanced so that you don't get enough squad experience to max out a squad over the course of the game.

Surely that would then invalidate your earlier points that the game should be balanced around a single maxed out squad?

If that was the balance aimed for then no squad, no matter if it was your only one or just one of many, would be able to survive the missions required to conclude the game.

I still cannot agree that the only way to win the game (on any difficulty) should be by following an 'on rails' type strategy where stepping away from the path set out means you will fail.

That is not balanced but difficult, that is follow the leader.

It doesn't take tactical skill or talent to play a game like that, you just have to take the steps the devs set out for you.

Back to the quick time event.

You still assume that the game will be balanced and built to fit your play style.

If the game content is as tough as it should be but your uber squad cannot reach every part of the globe in time to complete the missions then you will lose.

You may need at least two squads in order to even make it as far as the endgame content.

If the missions are also balanced for powerful squads then you need multiple powerful squads in order to compete, pretty basic stuff.

Your blind insistence that you will only use a single squad does not mean that it will in fact work the way you imagine or that your preferred strategy will even be viable.

Where is the fun in losing your main squad without firing a single, just looking for them and realizing they've been deleted because that was easier to code?

I never claimed it was, I was discussing recovering after losing a squad, not specifically how the squad was lost.

Losing a single squad should be a challenge not instant game over.

If it is insurmountable by design then it should just give a game over screen and leave you free to start again quickly.

If it is not intended to be an instant loss but your strategy has made it so then I would suggest the strategy is at fault.

However I would say that if they wanted to play with a flawed strategy that they enjoyed then that is up to them.

I don't assume everyone plays in the same way I do and hope the game doesn't penalise anyone for straying from a set path.

[crusherven]

It's still suboptimal. Keeping backups "just in case" goes against the doctrine of min-maxing.

The doctrine is to maximize your performance in the most important aspects for the most likely scenario. The most likely scenario is that you'll never have a TSL.

I'll say it again. If your strategy involves leaving yourself vulnerable to instant loss from a random event, it's a bad strategy. It's like a player in an MMO who insists that he has the best gear setup, having maximized damage at the expense of everything else. Unfortunately, he doesn't have enough hitpoints to survive certain events, and gets one-shot in 1/3 of the boss fights. The raid leader is going to drop that player pretty fast if he doesn't wise up and get some more health--"Just in case."

It's not about gimping yourself. It's about actually having a good strategy that doesn't fall to pieces if something unfortunate happens. If the game is balanced so tightly that you HAVE to send a single squad on every single mission, it's poorly balanced. In that situation, the developer doesn't know how many missions you've gone on, how many UFO's were shot down, or what kind of casualties you took.

If you follow what you're saying to its logical conclusion, they player has to not only send one squad on every mission, but have 100% survival rate. Because, you know, you need to maximize experience, so you certainly can't afford to have one of those first soldiers killed. Also, there's no point in putting soldiers at other bases, because base defense missions will be so hard that you need your best squad to survive.

Let's not go that route.