Jump to content
erutan

Unlimited ammo a good thing?

Recommended Posts

Trashman - you could get back the old game's ammo management by making ballistic weapon ammo manufacturable, but a proper market is a feature we don't have so it's a bit of a workaround.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly what I was thinking.

That, and the legal issues with the engine means the source code won't see the light of day, so modding will be limited to tweaking existing stuff.

It's cool tough. I am perfectly capable of enjoying the game as it is (I enjoyed the new XCOM for what it was too).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 for each tier being distinctive and not ever the best at everything. Much the same as I'd want the armour and the weapon types to be distinctive too. Adds so much more variety to the game.

Edited by thothkins
coherency :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really does. I mean, do I want uber desctuctive plasma? Or do I want uber accurate laser? Or do I want uber cheap/light ballistics? Or do I want uber armor-piercing MAG? They are all good questions, and it'll allow you to have more variety in your team, instead of straight upgrades, ballistics to lasers to plasma to MAG. You can customize your loadouts much more, allowing more options and choices for the player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Micromanaging ammunition supplies is the most boring part of the game.

If you really wanted to add something like that though, I would make it so that you're only micromanaging the latest tech level. For example, once you get all of the laser weaponry researched, then your sponsor nations, impressed by your progress, agree to waive costs for all conventional weaponry.

That could be arranged if there would be my proposed automated factory solution.

Automated Laser Ammunition Factory/Automated Plasma Ammunition Factory/Automated MAG Ammunition Factory

Each factory offers unlimited ammo of that ammo type to all bases. So you can outsource it to a pure production base or sth like that. This ensures that you won't have infinite ammo at once because you first need ressources (money and perhaps alien stuff) and building space and then have to wait until it is finished. Also it has a monthly cost so you can't argue anymore that ammo is free.

Another option would be to ad a new research project like "Technology Trade Treaty" which means that xenonauts start to trade their new technology with earth governments. In return they provide them with advanced consumables like ammo/explosives.

Edited by GreySciTe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still and always will think that making/purchasing ammo and all is the best, as its not really that cumbersome as it was in old xcom since its so easy to check your stores and ordering some more. Civ 5 is miles more cumbersome even being "streamlined" (yeah, dumbed down) and is fun.

BUUUUUUUUUUUUT, after playing last hotfix for long I admit I didnt care for unlimited ammo, really. I was so busy with all the other stuff and getting enough resources that I did not feel the game was being cheap and easy. Not at all. Keeping the pressure on the player and making him struggle to be on the edge gives enough management fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Made a mod that creates variation between tiers (among other things). Ballistics are cheap to fire but weak, laser is very accurate but low AP, plasma is high damage but inaccurate and MAG is high AP but high per shot cost.

Cover does screw with it a bit, so flanking is still very good (especially with laser).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making ammo cost to buy/produce is not necessarily about play-balance and difficulty.. it's more about immersion and the feel of the game, I think.

True it's a 'unnecessary chore', but then so is pretty much everything else from research to production to missions even. If you wanted to balance the game out perfectly you could just make all research linear, not need scientists but rather automatic, etc.

But because you're given stuff to manage, the game becomes a game to you, a fuller experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that there aren't any choices involved with constructing ammo - if you're running low the correct move is assigning engineers taking precedence over anything. Always. I guess you could call players forgetting to check and getting consecutively screwed a feature as well but I digress. Having the player perform manual tasks just for the sake of it might add immersion at the cost of always adding superflous padding. Not worth it.

Now, if there indeed were different kinds of ammunition available it could actually contribute to the managing part of the game. As it is now? I could do without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except that there aren't any choices involved with constructing ammo - if you're running low the correct move is assigning engineers taking precedence over anything. Always. I guess you could call players forgetting to check and getting consecutively screwed a feature as well but I digress. Having the player perform manual tasks just for the sake of it might add immersion at the cost of always adding superflous padding. Not worth it.

Now, if there indeed were different kinds of ammunition available it could actually contribute to the managing part of the game. As it is now? I could do without it.

Ufo Afterlight had that and it was cool ( for me) although in the end its just the same except you actually order 20 of each ammo for a rifle instead of 20 of a single type for that rifle. Balancing the game into NOT being able to have full stores of all kind of ammo (low resources, no time, no empty room etc.) forcing you to make choices would be a nice addition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno infinitum, I understand what you mean about pointless choice and I dislike pointless clicking too but I think if it worked well for me in the OG then there must be a reason... so if I think why I liked it in the OG (and why it's even an issue for people now that this is a 9 page thread):

1) Like lightgemini mentioned, you only have so much room in your store-rooms so it adds to that part of the game

2) You need to choose if you want to have an exra supply in case your base gets attacked, or possibly get attacked sorta defenseless (happened to me a few times in the OG, it was actually real fun.. I had soldiers running to bodies to scavenge arms for defense)

3) You only have so much storage and weapons cost money. It might be hard to afford an all rocket/sniper team, you may need to go for cheaper weapons en masse and only a few specialized powerful ones. Also, rockets are more expensive and take up more storage space than rifle bullets, for example.

4) making weapons and ammo takes time which is a managable resource as well as production workers/space and money, which in turn affects how you approach ground missions. Cuz u might want to conserve those alenium rockets (currently infinite/free) to where they're really necessary, etc.

All in all having something finite rather than infinite in this case adds some worry to the back of your mind which is exactly the best thing for a strategy/management game in my opinion :>

I know that others may disagree, but we are all brother xenonauts here :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that in all but a few rare cases ammunition was effectively unlimited in the OG anyways. Lasers had no ammo, plasma was available in vast quantities (unless you used plasma rifles/pistols for a long time) and ballistic was so cheap it could have just been free in the first place.

TFTD was pretty much the same. Gauss was the main exception, but skipping Gauss was a good choice to make much of the time anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like Guads? idea of being billed at the end of the mission for ammo used. It keeps the current clicks saved, but also encourages a certain thriftiness.

I'd be down for the OG behaviour for plasma then later being able to research infinite ammo, but I don't really see that happening. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I don't like the billing for ammo post-mission. It doesn't make any sense, to me at least.

I like the unlimited ammo; it's simple, unobtrusive, and it means we don't have to worry about lesser things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@gizmo, one can definitely pick away the logic, but it does a nice way abstracting out the purchasing/creating of ammo. Say that a tier x weapon is built with a reasonable amount of x ammo, but once you use it, it has to be replenished. This system would take away the clicks but still make firing rockets all over the place more expensive than small arms. You essentially have "unlimited" ammo to equip with because it get replaced after being used.

The issue I see is when shooting down UFOs that don't generate a landing site - it feels like a "loss" to shoot them down, but if you don't charge airplanes for re-arming it doesn't feel right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine returning form the penultimate mission having defeated the aliens, only to find out that you were defeated by the bean counters for using up too much ammo on the mission. Not a huge fan of that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think rewards from killing the aliens/recovering UFOs would be increased, so you'd always have a profit unless everyone in your squad was equipped with rocket launchers... it's just a question of how much profit you'd get.

If you need more money, use less heavy weapons, but risk your soldiers more. If you want to preserve your soldiers, use a lot of explosives, etc.

I think the game is fine without it, but I could see it adding some thoughtfulness to using explosives especially that doesn't currently exist, though tweaking carrying capacity would go a ways towards that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has to do with the overall balance of the game too, many systems feed in on each other and it's an interconnected analogue system like nature and society :>

If there are slightly too many ufos so it feels inconvenient, and if it takes slightly too long for purchased items to arrive/manufacture, etc, then it's suddenly really annoying to have to purchase ammo for your airplanes.. also the other way around; if say you have too much storage space or too much money, then likewise it's an annoying chore because there's no trade-off or strategic consideration.

I think the game should be masterfully balanced so that every choice has tradeoffs and is a strategic planning move.

That said I really like the idea of charging you after the mission or interception for ammunition used:)

It doesn't add anything to "do" really, but does add some, if not actual need for thrift, at least the consideration of the need for thrift in the back of ur mind.

It's enough that you ask yourself for half a second "hmm, maybe I can save some by not using this rocket right now?" before you do the inevitable and fire the rocket, so to have a deeper feeling of being the commander in charge of all aspects of the xcom mission :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@gizmo, one can definitely pick away the logic, but it does a nice way abstracting out the purchasing/creating of ammo. Say that a tier x weapon is built with a reasonable amount of x ammo, but once you use it, it has to be replenished. This system would take away the clicks but still make firing rockets all over the place more expensive than small arms. You essentially have "unlimited" ammo to equip with because it get replaced after being used.

The issue I see is when shooting down UFOs that don't generate a landing site - it feels like a "loss" to shoot them down, but if you don't charge airplanes for re-arming it doesn't feel right.

I think you still get some cash for a successful air combat kill, even if it is lower than the income from a ground mission.

I would balance the reward for shooting down a UFO with the approximate amount of ammunition that job would require.

You know how much health a UFO has and you have an idea of how much damage your weapons do so it shouldn't be impossible to work out a price/reward link.

Quick example with made up numbers:

Assume the UFO has 200 hp, your big missiles do 90 damage each, cannon rounds do 5 damage.

If you were to go in and fire off three missiles you would have to pay for three new missiles.

That would eat into your profits.

If you hit with two missiles and then finished it with a burst of cannon fire you would get a bigger relative reward because you had spent less on the munitions.

Now let's say the missiles cost $1,000, cannon rounds cost $2.

In the first case you would spend $3,000 to kill the enemy, in the second it would be $2,008.

If you set the reward for this particular UFO at $3,250 then the careful/tactical player would get a bigger reward while just opening up with the big guns would get a lesser one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would balance the reward for shooting down a UFO with the approximate amount of ammunition that job would require.

You know how much health a UFO has and you have an idea of how much damage your weapons do so it shouldn't be impossible to work out a price/reward link.

If I read this right you think the reward for shooting down a UFO shouldn't exceed the cost of the ammo. I don't think that's how it should be. I think cratering a UFO should be worth at least half of what a full recovery would get you. I mean, the political leaders are going to be happy that you killed them and not too concerned with how much of a mess you made. Planes are very expensive and there should be a substantial reward for the amount of risk you take just scrambling your fighters. Besides, we all know you can't win the game without ground operations, so don't think a good reward for blasting a UFO is going unbalance things much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No that quote states that you could decide roughly how much ammunition would be used to kill the UFO and that number could be used when calculating the rewards for a kill.

I never suggested that you should make a loss, or break even for that matter, on an interception.

In fact my example in the previous post shows that even if you went all out and fired more than enough missiles to overkill the target you would still get a reward.

It would not be as great a reward as a more cautious approach but it shouldn't be a penalty.

I guess if you were unlucky and missed with a few missiles then (using the completely made up numbers in the example) you may potentially not make a profit.

As I said though, it was purely an example of the idea, not a suggestion for actual profit margins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No that quote states that you could decide roughly how much ammunition would be used to kill the UFO and that number could be used when calculating the rewards for a kill.

I never suggested that you should make a loss, or break even for that matter, on an interception.

In fact my example in the previous post shows that even if you went all out and fired more than enough missiles to overkill the target you would still get a reward.

It would not be as great a reward as a more cautious approach but it shouldn't be a penalty.

I guess if you were unlucky and missed with a few missiles then (using the completely made up numbers in the example) you may potentially not make a profit.

As I said though, it was purely an example of the idea, not a suggestion for actual profit margins.

Thanks for clarifiying that for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH I'd rather have a system where ammo clips are a tactical decision "amount on the field vs weight limits" instead of a chore of manufacturing every single clip. Just make them infinite supply at base, but make sure that weapon cost is upped accordingly.

I guess the same logic applies for aircraft weaponry - you just produce "a slot", but once equipped you do not have to constantly manufacture missiles. It would be ok. enough given relative costs of aircrafts, facilities, etc.

I wouldn't mind adding also a resource cost on researches (for example if you want to research alien grenades you need to invest some allenium, captured grenades, alloys, etc.)

A good addition could also be carrying space on each armor type. For example the very light armor gives you more space in the backpack and belt, while very heavy limits you basically to a space for couple of clips and grenades plus your main weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@phoenix check the carry capacity thread, a page or two from the end re: armor and space thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TBH I'd rather have a system where ammo clips are a tactical decision "amount on the field vs weight limits" instead of a chore of manufacturing every single clip. Just make them infinite supply at base, but make sure that weapon cost is upped accordingly.

I guess the same logic applies for aircraft weaponry - you just produce "a slot", but once equipped you do not have to constantly manufacture missiles. It would be ok. enough given relative costs of aircrafts, facilities, etc.

I wouldn't mind adding also a resource cost on researches (for example if you want to research alien grenades you need to invest some allenium, captured grenades, alloys, etc.)

A good addition could also be carrying space on each armor type. For example the very light armor gives you more space in the backpack and belt, while very heavy limits you basically to a space for couple of clips and grenades plus your main weapon.

I agree, ammo should be a tactical decision instead of a strategic one. At the strategic level, the choice will always be "Make more ammo whenever I need it," which isn't really a choice at all. I'd rather see more expensive weapons and be forced to choose whether or not to upgrade weapons or invest my funds elsewhere. I think the planned reworking of strength will make soldiers less mule-like and require more thought/effort in layout decisions like ammo vs grenades instead of loading up on both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×