Unlimited ammo a good thing?

[Gauddlike]

With the improved research and small enough Alenium power sources most ground combat weapons could probably be self sustained.

You could argue that something will always need to be added but that addition is not necessarily power or traditional projectiles.

For the lasers maybe the 'ammunition' you need to load up is actually a coolant vial to allow the weapon to continue operating, with plasma weapons it may be an inert container of the material the internal reactor converts to the weaponised plasma.

What I am trying to say is that the weapon would probably be expensive and use Alenium to manufacture (for internal power generation) while the ammunition could be fairly cheap and easily replaced, or even ordered from off site once you know what is needed.

Once the basic container is created then attaching it to a pump and refiling it after a mission is the easy part.

Only the ballistic tier, and possibly tier four, would need specially constructed ammunition, and ballistic ammunition is already manufactured in numerous locations and easily available to the military.

Rockets should still have costs attached in that system.

They are big and powerful so having to worry about the collateral damage and cost implications makes sense.

For aircraft weapons it is just a pity that you went with missiles as main weapons instead of backup big hitters.

If you had gone with beams then ammunition wouldn't be as big a problem.

You just allow a set number of charges per weapon and allow it to recharge slowly over time or be fully recharged quickly on landing.

In fact that would have followed the x-com system nicely if you left some big hitting Alenium missiles in as backup weapons that you had to pay ammunition costs for.

[TrashMan]

@waladil - I really don't see that making much sense - just build two clips for everyone you make? Why not just increase the cost of the weapon and be done with it.

Because guns and ammo are not the same thing?

I personally just don't "miss" manufacturing ammo, it's not really a decision,

Then what is a decision? Building a laser rifle? A no-brainer there.

You build things that you need.

Frankly, I can pretty much handwave everything as "not really a decision" and have the game AI do everything for me.

you're just spreading the cost of ownership out. I guess you're just trying to troll, but it should be pretty obvious that taking away all the clicks to manufacture ammo over the course of the game has a very different strategic impact than restricting the player to one base.

No, I'm not trolling. I'm campaignign for my preferences, like everyone else.

Or do you think you're the only one allowed to try to nudge the game to be more to your liking?

@ TrashMan - I'm pretty sure I knew what your stance was before I started reading your posts

Am I that predictible?

Overall, yes, I think in the hotfix I'll set the ammo to be unlimited on research as I guess there is a bit of a logic disconnect there. The initial reason why missiles were unlimited and the ammo clips not is that air combat is a much more lightweight and throwaway part of the game, but I guess the principle still applies.

That makes me a sad panda... but you can't please everyone, right?

[zolobolo]

Zolobolo - I think you can transfer much of the cost to the aircraft or the weapons themselves, rather than the ammo. Tied into an improved carrying capacity system, I think that you'll have a similar effect with much less fiddling.

Correct me if I am wrong but if I understand correctly, the idea of this is to have the cost of ammunition included within aircraft and weapon manufacture cost. If so, the cost of these items would increase and there would not be a variable part in them. They wouldn't be dependant from usage which would lead to overuse of ammunition. e.g.: As I played the Beta I was always firing all missiles of the planes, and purged the ground with rockets. While the later is deffinitely fun , it would be more tactical if the player was to be forced to think twice before firing off some high value projectile and when to reload (bullets remaining in the weapon are lost). I understand this could be balanced with the carrying capacity at least in the ground, but that would restrict the possiblities of the player loadout in order to balance another aspect of the game. Capacity would also not resolve the issue of a basic plane firing all 2 missiles on the smallest enemy ship each time (making fights more predeterminded), and the exclusive usage of the more advanced missiles every time they come available (except if someone wants to take a crashsite mission maybe).

EU chose to go an even more streamlined way and hasn't included ammo (except for rockets) at all. Weapons lost their charm this way, since one only brings the most advanced gun into the fight, shoots everything that moves and reloads after each packet of aliens has been killed. This has made the whole matter more unrealsitic and weapon management boring though this is a quetsion of style I suppose.

The possibility of auto manage stocks sound great since it is an approach which leaves all the benefits of the original concept intact while giving the player an option to streamline it if chosen so (with less efficiency), but if one would have to chose an option I would always go with manual management of ammo (even for laser - was missing this part from the original - Thank you ), since this type of micromanagement just suits this type of game very well in my opinion.

Edited April 24, 2013 by zolobolo

[TrashMan]

I for one would want to marketplace to be more active.

As it is you can't buy anything (except for veichles). There is no need to keep stocks.

Now imagine if along the game an improved human misssile would come. The rest of the wrold isn't sitting idly by. Better than stock, worse than allenium. But it can be bought and doesn't have to be produced.

Now you can stock up on them, at the expense of money - but you don't waste workshop time.

On the other hand it's not as good as the allenium missile - but your workshops are busy.

[lightgemini]

Production and stock is a must for an Xcom game , nerfing it with full unlimited ammo is plain wrong IMHO.

There was a nice feeling when you produced your first batch of guns and ammo, using it in battle to wipe the floor with aliens as reward for the effort it took. After that it was more like "rutine work" than joy for me (talking more of TFDP).

Why not keep that sense of achievement producing your guns and ammo, relaxing it a bit so it doesnt become boring?

To be more xenonauts lore friendly I believe a mixed aproach is possible.

Energy weapons ammo (made with Alenium):

- Alenium is mainly an awsome battery.

- Used energy clips leave a "depleted clip" item.

- Depleted clips are recharged at base. You only need to produce it once then it gets refilled again and again.

- (Optional) Recharge takes time (rather long due to crappy human tech), limiting your reaction time for multiple missions. Produce more to be more flexible.

- Lost or destroyed ammo in combat forces you to produce some more. Be careful and be afraid of wasting your gear.

-(Optional) The recharge equipment needs to be researched, untill then you cant recharge ammo but will keep depleted clips in stock.

-(optional) Research "ugraded recharge tech" for halving recharge times, or making it instant.

Alenium warheads:

- Awsome Alenium battery is used to make a big booom, not depleted not recharged.

- You need to produce each and all Alenium warheads you will use.

- (optional) grenades & rockets may be unlimited, as it problably uses a very tiny chunk of Alenium and 1 unit of it may produce a hundred of this small warheads.

- For planes, you get new warhead: small tactical nuke. (if a corvette needed nukes to down it, this should be the xenonauts first choice when the invasion begins). This nuke missiles/torpedoes can only be bought and are EXPENSIVE ( say 20K sidewinder, 200K Avalanche).

- Alenium warheads are powerful but way less than nukes, but are produced a lot more cheap.

- Cant speak about other warheads since i didnt get past Alenium warheads yet...

Tie all this with scarce Alenium loot and you can surely get a nice balance.

Final Notes:

Q.Why unlimited ammo EU2012 style is bad?

A. Because Xenonauts allows to target terrain. Nothing stops you from using 10 turns or more blasting a whole area ahead inside FOW, just because you saw some shots coming that way in hidden movement phase. And you know you all tried some times in OG with lasers, now imagine doing it with top tier guns and the ghost of the "blaster launcher" is half here.

Q. Why unlimited ammo in arming screen is bad?

A. Its not really bad, but it takes away some fun and tension as you struggle against time and funds to keep your squads supplied. So not a bad thing, just an oportunity of more fun missed IMHO. Once you produce a new gun, paying extra for unlimited ammo or not, thats the end of it. And keeping those guns running should cost something as no one is giving you support for them like they do with normal weapons. So a "produce & use again and again" aproach would work best for both worlds as I see it.

Feel free to agree or disagree

[Chris]

The intent with the updated carrying capacity system is that you might actually run out of ammo if you don't bring enough. And if you're bringing enough, then you're not bringing as many grenades or as much heavy personal armour etc.

I think that's a more interesting choice than the choices involved in how many magazines of ammo you want your workshop to make.

[zolobolo]

Energy weapons ammo (made with Alenium):

- Alenium is mainly an awsome battery.

- Used energy clips leave a "depleted clip" item.

- Depleted clips are recharged at base. You only need to produce it once then it gets refilled again and again.

- (Optional) Recharge takes time (rather long due to crappy human tech), limiting your reaction time for multiple missions. Produce more to be more flexible.

- Lost or destroyed ammo in combat forces you to produce some more. Be careful and be afraid of wasting your gear.

-(Optional) The recharge equipment needs to be researched, untill then you cant recharge ammo but will keep depleted clips in stock.

-(optional) Research "ugraded recharge tech" for halving recharge times, or making it instant.

I have actually observed the very same thing in Beta FP2 with laser clip. I thought it was intentional (and still do), and think it is a great idea, just like the above options for it. This would still retain some of the ammo management aspects while not taking too much micromanagement.

I agree with TrashMan that MM is a large part of the game, though it may not be everyone's cup of tea.

Looking forward for the tuned equipment management Chris has mentioned, it will surely improve on the experience, I fear that the scourged earth method mentioned by Lightgemini would cause an exploit though. Queue 8-16 rocket troopers firing Alenium rockets on poor defenseless aliens - actually this would both solve the LOS as well as the too few flares in night mission topics

It may be worth to consider at least the missiles on the planes to have a price, or an additional cost added to maintenance per usage, since unless I was missing something the improved warheads were better in all aspects and could be freely given to all planes- so I just gave them to all planes (which basically could be done automatically at this point if there is no point in reverting back to previous missile tiers). A monthly cost for missiles+fuel+spare parts for repairs would have a single bang impact on beginning of month finances and the player would thus be encouraged to think carefully how many planes to send out, missiles to shoot and damage to take. Such a cost would have to be clearly visualized of course so that the player could asses the impact.

[erutan]

I think recharging tier 2-3 clips is the simplest solution (e.g. current system that doesn't multiply) - I'd agree with Chris that equipping the soldiers is more interesting than manufacturing dependencies.

re: "it's not really a choice" - as stated ammo takes little time and money. If you're buying jets and building bases / staffing laboratories affording ammunition for small arms isn't a big deal. You could make it significant by gating it with alenium (balance distribution better), but then your choice is going back to ballistics. XCOM got around having gated tier3 ammo by keeping tier2 unlimited.

Making a plasma rifle is a choice as there is a larger upfront cost + resources required. Depending on alloys/alenium you might not be able to make tier3 armor + weapons for everyone. If replenishing clips cost 2 alenium each, just add a 10 alenium cost to making the weapon and it's the same difference. If ammo replenishes itself then I really don't see there being a huge difference between it replenishing or being infinite, you just have that initial startup cost to cover that could be bundled into the weapon, but I suppose it "feels" a bit better.

The quartermaster idea could work out well, though that's more of a question of programming/UI resources.

The infinite grenade/rocket upgrades should be attached to a high alenium cost research option. This would make a bit more sense as that money/alenium trickles into your stores in the future. I totally agree with Chris that I'd rather focus on ground combat than air, but it does feel really strange to get missiles for free - maybe a GIANT research cost? Maybe increase plane maintenance costs a bit? I'd be for free grenades but having to manufacture to make rockets, it might help balance rocket spam.

Current thoughts:

* Laser either has replenishing clips or an internal reactor/battery (based on % TUs).

* Plasma either has replinishing clips from the start or can only use repurposed alien clips until xenonauts one can be manufactured (replenishing or not).

This would give a little bit of friction on being able to use plasma, while still keeping laser as a viable fallback. Laser is more rookie friendly anyways.

@trashman - Everyone has their opinion, but you go out of the way to be inflammatory at times, not just this thread. If you want your preferences in game, think about how they'll be received.

Edited April 24, 2013 by erutan

[Gauddlike]

Thought of a quick solution that may work if you want ammunition to have a cost without the hassle.

On the mission summary screen have ammunition costs totalled and that amount deducted from the cash rewarded by the mission.

This rearmament cost would be deducted from the mission profits after sales of alien weapons and so on have been totalled.

This may push you into negative figures if a mission has gone badly of course but that is the price you pay, literally.

It won't be a cost you worry about too much because it won't be money you ever actually have to spend as it will be deducted before you even see it.

As long as you make sure the game doesn't charge you for shots fired by civvies or aliens you have a cost attached to ammunition and reduced management in one easy (to type) step.

An advantage to having shots tracked to allow this deduction is that the game could be able to give you other info on the same screen.

For example it could list shots fired, type of shots (rockets, AR, pistol or ballistic, laser, plasma etc) as well as cost per kill and so on for a bit more flavour text.

Not essential for the idea to work though.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Gauddlike

[TrashMan]

The intent with the updated carrying capacity system is that you might actually run out of ammo if you don't bring enough. And if you're bringing enough, then you're not bringing as many grenades or as much heavy personal armour etc.

I think that's a more interesting choice than the choices involved in how many magazines of ammo you want your workshop to make.

I consider BOTH interesting.

Edited April 24, 2013 by TrashMan

[TrashMan]

@trashman - Everyone has their opinion, but you go out of the way to be inflammatory at times, not just this thread. If you want your preferences in game, think about how they'll be received.

Inflamatory?

I have a strong prefference. That is it. I don't "go out of my way" to do anything. I'm sorry if you think otherwise (read: less of me), but it ultimatively doesn't bother me.

[Gauddlike]

I also would prefer both choices rather than one or the other

[lightgemini]

If ammo replenishes itself then I really don't see there being a huge difference between it replenishing or being infinite, you just have that initial startup cost to cover that could be bundled into the weapon, but I suppose it "feels" a bit better.

Theres not big diference indeed, but replenishing ammo gives you the chance to lose it and having to produce more again as penalty/punishement. Its not important in a heavy save/load style of play, but in Iron Man mode losing a battle or retreating means losing that precious and expensive equipment you will never get back, contrary to just grabbing more from an infinite pool.

[Moxar]

you could also make us build launchers (for planes) and rocketlaunchers tier 2, 3, 4. This way, the upgrade isn't automatic, because we need to spent some time and money preparing it.

[lightgemini]

Just saw v18.3 hotfix 1 changelog, ammo is now unlimited.

Adding to that more limit in carry capacity will mean big nerf to the "mule" soldier class? I dont like having my options "streamlined".

Balancing by nerf is not always cool.

[erutan]

Gauddlike's replenish after mission is interesting, it's essentially a quartermaster you can't control/turn off. It does make things more interesting - if you use a lot of missiles / rockets those are more directly linked as impacting your profit, but you incur more risk by not using them. It is a lot more appealing to me than endlessly maintaining stockpiles, but I worry it's not flexible enough. Then again death spirals are supposed to happen in XCOM.

@trashman, if you don't go out of your way, perhaps you should take some time to think about how you're phrasing things. if you're fine with people not reading your preferences then why take the time to type them?

[crusherven]

In its current state, making ammo is only a money sink--the time is completely trivial. Isn't it $5k per laser cartridge? Make 10 of 'em and that's one less weapon you can make.

lightgemini, I personally don't consider a "nerf" to the mule "class" a bad thing. Having a soldier focused solely on carrying things for other soldiers to fight with is completely boring to me. It's not even a nerf--if you needed a mule before, and now you don't, that's one more soldier you can equip with whatever loadout you want.

@trashman, if you don't go out of your way, perhaps you should take some time to think about how you're phrasing things. if you're fine with people not reading your preferences then why take the time to type them?

Honestly, I just skip his posts lately. The content usually amounts to "added complexity is good" and I can do without the condescension toward anyone who disagrees.

Edited April 24, 2013 by crusherven

[Gauddlike]

Can we try to keep on topic please, the side discussions are bringing nothing useful to the thread and may detract from it.

Does the system need to be more flexible?

If you use a lot of ammunition then you pay more to replace it.

Each ammunition type would be assigned a value.

Laser ammo < Grenade 1 < Rocket 1 < Plasma ammo < Grenade 2 < Rocket 2 < MAG ammo < Grenade 3 < Rocket 3 or whatever costs work best to balance it out.

If you are not making much profit try using less explosives as this will mean less expenditure as well as more gains from enemy gear (due to the overdamage system).

If it is still not enough then maybe risk taking a few lower tier weapons to cut back further, the risk being you will be facing enemies you cannot handle.

If the weapons are quite expensive then you will not be likely to suddenly go from a full squad of lasers to a full squad of plasmas.

It is more likely that you would start adding in a weapon or two as you can afford it so there wouldn't be a sharp ramp up in costs.

*edit* This could tie in with Waladils suggestion if you wanted it to.

The cost is for reloading/recharging the Eternal Ammo Clip in that case.

How would you make it more flexible?

Edited April 24, 2013 by Gauddlike

[Gazz]

I think Waladil's suggestion has merit.

If you give a soldier a freshly produced weapon, it comes with a full magazine.

It will have one full magazine mission after mission.

If you want reloads, you have to produce "spare magazines".

Much more expensive than current mags but once the soldier has 2 spare mags, he will have them for however many missions he goes on.

You still have the decision. You have the cost. You have limited ammunition on the tactical level. You do not have the micromanagement.

And eventually all those reloads become useless when you upgrade to the next weapon tier. =)

Once you get to the highest tier and have everything... cost stops mattering anyway so why bother the player with it?

IMO, rocket launchers don't come with a free reload because there are multiple options.

[lightgemini]

Gaudlike solution is interesting doesnt burden the player and still makes you pay for your cool fireworks, keeping your options still wide.

If you dont want to risk a soldier life in risky flankings/ movement drills you risk your profits plainly "nuking" the entrenched aliens.

It gives a direct cost to the firepower you want/need to deploy wich I think is also the point in having to produce all your ammo (apart of the simple joy of micromanagement).

[erutan]

@gaudd - it's a minor issue over the quartermaster approach, but say you blew all your rockets on a mission and didn't want to make more due to cash flow, using a quartermaster you could pause refilling rockets, whereas in your system you get billed at the end of a battle. Again I'm not sure it's a real problem or not and I like the directness of how it impacts your profits post mission.

I personally feel that having some kind of gating research then lore on refilling/re-energizing ammo makes more sense than lifetime replacements that come with every clip made, but that's a detail. You could have an expensive research for new missiles, then say that you use the alenium/alloys/money to upgrade all the current missiles being supplied... vs having to make a missile that regenerates itself (explosives obviously can't just be topped off at the reactor after a mission).

[TrashMan]

@trashman, if you don't go out of your way, perhaps you should take some time to think about how you're phrasing things. if you're fine with people not reading your preferences then why take the time to type them?

Obviously you did read. And if poeple are interested tehy will read. I can't force anyone to read nor do I have any plans on doing so.

As for being condensending - I'm not. But it might appear that way to people with differing oppinions. That's what happens when 2 strong oppinions clash.

Have you asked me if you (or someone else) appears condensending to me? Did that thought even cross your mind? Maybe, maybe not. But it's kinda irrelevant, since I generally ingore tone and focus on the content.

"Honestly, I just skip his posts lately. The content usually amounts to "added complexity is good" and I can do without the condescension toward anyone who disagrees."

See what I mean? Wouldn't this also qualify as condesending?

..

Ultimatively it's Chrises game. No matter what decision he makes someone out there won't like it. But it's fully in his right to make any decision he wants. Staying focused and true to a vision - even if that vision is something I might detest - is something I can only respect.

What the thing with manufacturing and ammo ultimatively comes down is fine control and managment.

Some people like to manage every bullet and control the workings of the organization to a detail. Some don't.

For some X-Com might be about running around with soldiers and pew-pew, and all the managment is boring.

To me, personally, X-Com was about tiny details.

Either way, it's too late in the dev cycle now to change it, even if Chris was up for it. Well, maybe not, but it would be extra work and would pave the way for new bugs.

Edited April 25, 2013 by TrashMan

[Chris]

And here's the linked post on the carrying capacity: http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/4754-Soldier-Carrying-Capacity-Strength?p=59890#post59890

[thothkins]

When the mission ends, the Xenonauts aren’t the one’s taking back the artefacts to the Xeno-base. They are investigated on the site, dismantled, and the key research components taken to the Xeno-Base. The remaining parts stay in the funding nation where they crashed.

Once the research is completed at Xeno-base, manufacturing can begin. But also, this manufacturing knowledge can be sent out to the funding nations where a number of artefacts form the various crash sites are already stored.

The result is that those nations can now supply a number of missiles and ammunition. In addition to beginning to arm themselves (as seen later in the game), they can equip Xenonauts to a level that means you don;t have to worry about it. In effect infinite for game purposes.

Why no unlimited aircraft? Because there’s a finite number of aerospace engineers at the skill level to build them, compared to a manufacturing process to generate ammunition.

Likewise, it’s the Xeno-base research team who have the skills and knowledge to unlock the artefacts. The funding nations can’t do it independently.

Why only the one base to start with? Because the facilities require a certain skill level to manufacture. The labs and workshops are there to reverse engineer alien technology. Despite having seen Star Wars a couple of years before, the local builder simply isn’t up to it.

So, there's a requirement to have alenium and alloy stores on base for the big ticket items. You could even argue that those big ticket items need the purest alenium available, so that's why it;s limited. The rest of the world can produce ammo and related items form the what's left.

I think having an additional logistics layer of reorder points just to keep yourself in ammo is too complex. It seems a little like overkill for the issue to me.

Now imagine a scenario. You never develop plasma weaponry. You keep it at laser. Suddenly you’re at a stage in the game where the local forces are all using laser weapons too. If laser cells had a manufacturing cost, why couldn’t you buy them from the funding nations? Would you consider shooting the locals just to rob them of their ammo, if you were really short of funds?

Didn’t repair costs come up somewhere? Someone made the point that it’s like a double penalty: losing your craft for X amount of time and having to pay out to repair it.

As for the challenge in keeping your squad equipped. That is still there in getting to manufacture the weapons in a tight economy, never mind the ammo.

If equipment can be destroyed on missions, this could be even more of a challenge.

I do still like erutan's idea of having older tiers having tactical value and hence longevity. For me, that ties into Chris' point that what to bring is more interesting than how much of it you have back on the ranch.

@Trashman: You keep your inflammatory comments to the Buddhist Civilian thread where they belong

[TrashMan]

The result is that those nations can now supply a number of missiles and ammunition. In addition to beginning to arm themselves (as seen later in the game), they can equip Xenonauts to a level that means you don;t have to worry about it. In effect infinite for game purposes.

Why no unlimited aircraft? Because there’s a finite number of aerospace engineers at the skill level to build them, compared to a manufacturing process to generate ammunition.

That only applies if it's simple to create the new ammunition.

And skills aerospace engineers? Once you build one you can always mass-produce.

The starting aircraft are normal craft, but modified. Technicly not infinite, but since the airfoces of the world are bound to have thousdands of them and sicne industry is put into overdrive during wartime, for all inents and purposes it could be.

Now imagine a scenario. You never develop plasma weaponry. You keep it at laser. Suddenly you’re at a stage in the game where the local forces are all using laser weapons too. If laser cells had a manufacturing cost, why couldn’t you buy them from the funding nations?

Indeed, why not. I don't recall anyone saying you shouldn't be able to.

You'd expect them to trickle on the market slowly anyway.

@Trashman: You keep your inflammatory comments to the Buddhist Civilian thread where they belong

Duly noted and completely and utterly ignored.