Indestructible interceptors?

[ciago92]

a situation where planes are presumably going to cost less and be faster to manufacture than a vehicle and not much more than a suit of advanced armour.

I am okay with this situation because like Flashman suggested, you could add in text that says you're piecing together parts from the funding nations. Obviously the later tier planes will still need to take a while as you're presumably doing more/most of the manufacturing yourself, but for the lower tier(s) I have no issue with a plane only taking a couple days to put together since most of the stuff is pre-existing material from the funding nations.

[flashman]

I think the key is the hook, if you hook in a believable way and you invest UI and player feedback changes then it is more believable.

Examples

Once you return to geoscape, a Charlie is sent to collect the wreckage.

Invest in some voice commands- . 'Disengage, disengage' - or 'Foxtrot going down, send recovery', 'its over send rescue' etc.

Change the damage indicator to be less about colour and % - maybe list combat effectivness and maybe change it so it says disengaging, have the fighter script a barrel roll and after burn it away for 5 seconds before it returns to geoscape

[Gauddlike]

http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Buying/Selling/Transferring#Manufacturable_Prices

Price list from the wiki on the original x-com for interest and comparison of their price balance.

Interestingly the main cost of the Avenger compared to other (non-aircraft items) items appears to be the construction time and material requirements rather than actual cash.

It may cost a bit more money to build but as long as you have the alloys and elerium/power supplies available the cost is not hugely significant, compared to a ground vehicle or a top tier weapon at least.

[Gazz]

But if we vastly reduce the cost and production time of aircraft, then you've got a situation where planes are presumably going to cost less and be faster to manufacture than a vehicle and not much more than a suit of advanced armour.

So either you'll have to have planes be unrealistically fast to manufacture and cheap to build relative to other manufacturable items (making them essentially expendable), or you have to balance the game around the fact that you're expected to lose a few expensive planes along the way.

Realism is a terrible argument for (or against) a game rule.

One basic problem is that the currency in Xenonauts is $. A real currency.

If you use a real currency then a real fighter jet like an F-16 does cost upwards of $15 million while you get a Ferret for under $100k.

Ingame, their cost would be on the same scale, though, instead of being off by a factor of 150+.

XCOM:EU solved this by not using a currency at all. In that game you use credits.

It symbolises prestige, actual funds, political considerations, and trading favours, all rolled into... credits.

That way a soldier can "cost more" than a fighter jet if that's what game balance demands.

It's not illogical because it's not a legal currency and has no exchange rate to any real currency.

If you change a single character in the game frontends, immortal fighters are not necessary because you can adjust the cost of a fighter to below that of a tank if you want.

That also cold-stops the inevitable follow-up request for immortal soldiers. Or clones. Or whatever you want to call them. =)

And no, having "$" in the game does not make the game more realistic. Not if a fighter jet costs a couple hundred thousand dollars. You would get a great RC model for that price. =)

[raziel1981]

And being good enough in air combat not to lose planes is a bad thing?

[StellarRat]

But if we vastly reduce the cost and production time of aircraft, then you've got a situation where planes are presumably going to cost less and be faster to manufacture than a vehicle and not much more than a suit of advanced armour.

So either you'll have to have planes be unrealistically fast to manufacture and cheap to build relative to other manufacturable items (making them essentially expendable), or you have to balance the game around the fact that you're expected to lose a few expensive planes along the way. But if you go for the latter, you're in a situation where if a player is good enough at the air combat not to lose planes, he won't have any money problems throughout the entire game because planes are expensive and it's not a cost they have to pay.

If you're going to make planes expendable, I don't see why you wouldn't make them expensive but immune from permanent destruction. It's not like having expendable planes wouldn't make the game easier too.

Chris, all you have to do is change some wording in your description to something like "Requistion F-17" or "Requistion F-32". Seriously, anyone with even the slightest knowledge of aircraft knows that there is no way you could buy a jet for the prices XCom pays for them even before you lowered the prices last time. Your price is already off by a factor of 100. If you want to penalize the player for losing too many planes just make the funding nations show their irritation by taking away "funding points" if the player loses a plane just like we get points for successful missions. I really think it's important that the player be able to recover from AC losses at the start of the game without have to reload a save, but I'm definitely against "indestructible AC." Level 1 and 2 AC should arrive very quickly as the airframe should arrive within HOURS of being requested then the engineers just have to slap in some mods (probably pre-made no less.)

As for the custom built jets (level 3 and higher) they should be cheap because your building them out of salvaged alien parts anyway. So, your really only talking about engineer man hours to assemble them not money.

If you really want "indestructible" AC you ought to make it an option or part of the difficulty system, IMO.

BTW, I like using dollars as the pricing mechanism. It makes the game feel in line with the timeframe.

Also, like the suggestion (above) that higher level AC could be salvagable. Since they are build out of alien materials they should be tough like the alien ships. This may not be doable, but it is a good idea.

Edited May 28, 2013 by StellarRat

[Lightzy]

But if we vastly reduce the cost and production time of aircraft, then you've got a situation where planes are presumably going to cost less and be faster to manufacture than a vehicle and not much more than a suit of advanced armour.

So either you'll have to have planes be unrealistically fast to manufacture and cheap to build relative to other manufacturable items (making them essentially expendable), or you have to balance the game around the fact that you're expected to lose a few expensive planes along the way. But if you go for the latter, you're in a situation where if a player is good enough at the air combat not to lose planes, he won't have any money problems throughout the entire game because planes are expensive and it's not a cost they have to pay.

If you're going to make planes expendable, I don't see why you wouldn't make them expensive but immune from permanent destruction. It's not like having expendable planes wouldn't make the game easier too.

Making planes emergency disengage is the best solution. If cash balance is the problem then it's not a problem. just give the player less cash. That way you don't need to mess too much with the relative costs of production items (unless you want to), and their consequent cost-effectiveness. Or make everything cost a certain % more.

People are very change resistant. If right now the game had disengaging aircraft and you decided to change it to have them die, some people who are now crying against change would be complaining just as hard, just because they're used to something already. Make the best game you'd like to play yourself and don't listen to noone

Edited May 28, 2013 by Lightzy

[raziel1981]

Lightzy - thats so convinient for you as the general direction that Chris is talking about aligns just with how you want things regarding this issue. I'll remember that in the future when perhaps a change to the game might pop up that you won't like and this time, the team's idea will be different from yours.

[Lightzy]

Which is why I'm hoping chris would make the game he'd like to play and not listen to anyone

[StellarRat]

I don't see logical reason to implement indestructible fighters when the issue can easily be addressed by changing a few cost variables. That will require the least amount of coding and makes the most sense. Magic Emergency Disengagement WILL require code changes and really is not in the spirit of the original and doesn't make a lot of sense from a realistic perspective either. Also, since Chris thinks repairs will take a long time it partially defeats the purpose which is to maintain the capability of XCom to continue to bring down UFOs. Chris should make the game that the most number of people want to play not what he wants or you want. I certainly am not interested in dumbed down game. If I wanted that I'd just play EU.

Edited May 28, 2013 by StellarRat

[GizmoGomez]

Personally, I love Waladil's idea, with the overdamage.

This would let the player decide whether or not he wanted to have a minor damaged crash site, a major damaged crash site, or no crash site at all. I've wanted to be able to do this for a while now, ever since I shot down a corvette with friggin machine-guns and somehow got it heavily damaged.

Here it is again:

http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/5193-Indestructible-interceptors?p=63721&viewfull=1#post63721

EDIT: Now, granted, this isn't exactly an easy fix, but I think it'd be worth it. Of course, it's Chris's game. He can do whatever he wants to it.

Edited May 28, 2013 by GizmoGomez

[StellarRat]

Personally, I love Waladil's idea, with the overdamage.

This would let the player decide whether or not he wanted to have a minor damaged crash site, a major damaged crash site, or no crash site at all. I've wanted to be able to do this for a while now, ever since I shot down a corvette with friggin machine-guns and somehow got it heavily damaged.

Here it is again:

http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/5193-Indestructible-interceptors?p=63721&viewfull=1#post63721

EDIT: Now, granted, this isn't exactly an easy fix, but I think it'd be worth it. Of course, it's Chris's game. He can do whatever he wants to it.

That would be OK, but it seems overly complicated to me and I think would take quite a bit of coding. Compared to some of the other solutions.

[Cwell]

But if we vastly reduce the cost and production time of aircraft, then you've got a situation where planes are presumably going to cost less and be faster to manufacture than a vehicle and not much more than a suit of advanced armour.

This is because, in my opinion, the choice of having each project based only on a "worker days" number is not ok.

Also some values simply don't make sense :

Jackal Armor = 20 days

MIG-32 / Hunter Scout = 30 days

A single armor upgrade (since it does not use any alien tech or material, just adaptation after alien weapon study/discovery) would take almost as long as modifying/building an aircraft ? There is a scale problem here imo.

That is why i like the Project approach, with each projects having a set minimum number of workers to start.

We can define those by theme or scale :

Soldier Items : Armors, Weapons, Equipment

Vehicle Items : Weapons, other

Vehicles : Ground, Air

Of course, a "full-body-mechanized armor" requires more than the basic Jackal armor both in personnel, time and resources, but it should not come close to a "tech equivalent" aircraft.

Overall, it really does not take that many people to work on an armor upgrade or a single weapon, when it does on an aircraft.

The build time of a single weapon and an aircraft should not be on the same scale (on a worker's day basis).

For early game figures, we could have something like :

Soldier items : minimum requirement of 1 Worker, base time 2 days,

Vehicle items : minimum requirement of 2 Workers, base time 3 days,

Vehicles : minimum requirement of 5 Workers, base time 6 days.

You can accelerate the construction by adding more workers, but to a maximum (double for half time ?). Overcrowding becomes a hindrance, and you cannot "insta build" things, you still have to actually do some work

The "workers" do have a hidden cost : building Workshops (or Labs as it could be used there too) and hiring Engineers do cost cash and Time. Maybe that is where you need to scale better (require more when you go up the tech tree) and then lower the flat cash value.

The overall build time does not need to increase drastically. It would help in overcoming a bad loss later in the game :

- A MIG-32 requires 5 Engineers for a 6 days build time, doubling the team (10) will make it in 3 days (current game value for those set conditions).

- A late-game Aircraft could have a build time of 10 days and require a team size of 45 Engineers minimum (random numbers, i haven't see the tech tree depth yet). You could bring it down to half that time with a team of 60.

It does add a parameter and modify the structure on your side, but i think it would benefit game-play.

It also serve as a direct indicator for the player that he has to build Labs/Workshops and hire non-fighting personnel on a regular basis where there are none atm.

Maybe i should have started a new thread to discuss this suggestion in the adequate forum

[Lt_Parsons]

We already have emergency disengage and afterburner - if you can possibly save your craft, you can order it to do so. If you can not - then you cornered yourself in this situation most of times.

Significant difference with the indestructible proposal - saving craft is not automatic but in your own control and is your direct responsibility.

If only real problem is losing your craft being game-braking downer, count me in on trying to balance it out instead of hand-waving craft recovery.

I like idea of Condors and Foxtrots being cheaper and faster to build and, upgraded with new weaponry, still being viable, but very risky choice in later game. But it countered somewhat by fact that craft weapons are now just direct damage upgrades.

Another variant - craft remains recovery missions. Just send troops to secure crash site and return remains to rebuild craft instead of building new one. Also has good ties to idea of having overdamage for own airships, can be linked to rebuilding time.

Also, IRL main loss of having interceptor being shot down is the life of the pilot - flying complicated and experimental aircrafts is a rare skill, not mentioning amount of time and resources needed for training. But, sadly, idea about hiring pilots was already discussed many times and dismissed iirc.

P.S. Everything said here by Jean-Luc and a333 can be quoted for truth.

P.P.S. Aerial combat in Xeno is outstandingly done imo.

Having more tactical choices, overall variety and features for it, so craft engagements are not only minor mission spawning minigame, but its own full-fledged part of the whole game, is what i support anytime.

[Chris]

The issue isn't easily addressed by reducing the cost of fighters. The fact that extremely cheap fighters is unrealistic isn't my main point, I'm just using that to illustrate that the alternative solution to fighters automatically performing an emergency combat disengage also requires you to test the bounds of possibility by twisting the setting so funding nations can build advanced interceptors in days, but are somehow incapable of building their own ones or providing other important services (like bases) for free too. This means "it's unrealistic" doesn't cut that much ice with me as a counterpoint to the automatic disengage feature.

The key point is that most people who are against this feature speak of "dumbing down" the game by implementing it, but having planes with reduced cost also makes the game substantially easier as the planes essentially become expendable at that point - which they are certainly not at the moment. So why is that not also "dumbing down"?

As I see it, having the planes cost more upfront and not be fully destroyable rather than it being a monthly drip-drip of replacing (cheaper) plane losses doesn't actually make the game any easier...it just makes skill at the air combat minigame significantly less important relative to the strategy and ground combat layers of the game, which is how it should be (the air combat is nowhere near as deep or interesting as the other parts of the game).

Ultimately I'll think on the issue and make my own decision on what the final solution will be, so thanks for the views everyone has put forward. At least I know know it apparently isn't the slam-dunk of an idea that I thought it was.

[StellarRat]

...I'm just using that to illustrate that the alternative solution to fighters automatically performing an emergency combat disengage also requires you to test the bounds of possibility by twisting the setting so funding nations can build advanced interceptors in days, but are somehow incapable of building their own ones or providing other important services (like bases) for free too. This means "it's unrealistic" doesn't cut that much ice with me as a counterpoint to the automatic disengage feature...

No, they can build the base airframe in days (actually they probably have dozens or hundreds of the base AC in stock.) XCom still has to put the special sauce on them to turn them into UFO interceptors. F-16s and Mig-25s were everywhere during the time frame of the game. Shipping one or 20 to XCom to be modified would have been no big deal. We have an "airbase" in Arizona desert out here where there are literally HUNDREDS of surplus AC in mothballs. Some are quite modern others older. Enough to build probably one of the largest air forces in the world if they were put back in service. My assumption is that XCom is like NASA, anyone can supply the parts in whatever quantity is needed, but only they have the engineering and scientific know how to get to the Moon. Your gamers are not going to have a problem with cheaper/faster Level 1 and 2 AC if that premise is communicated somehow. The level 3+ AC are built from UFO scrap, again cheap, but labor intensive. A couple small changes to the selection boxes and Xenopedia and you're there. I would have no problem accepting this premise. Edited May 29, 2013 by StellarRat

[nutbarz]

(the air combat is nowhere near as deep or interesting as the other parts of the game).

Agreed. It's my least favorite part of the game and I dread it at times.

[Gauddlike]

The level 3+ AC are built from UFO scrap, again cheap, but labor intensive. A couple small changes to the selection boxes and Xenopedia and you're there. I would have no problem accepting this premise.

Sounds like Xenonauts have developed a 3D printer.

Put the plans in one end, some scrap in the top, and it extrudes the proper shape alien alloy.

Running on free energy from an Alenium power supply no less.

Just need to pay someone to press a few buttons and put the parts together once they are finished.

@Chris any chance that if you implement the invincible fighters it could be done as a percent chance of survival?

Preferably set individually for each difficulty level.

The vanilla game can use 100% and balance the game from there but modders can easily make adjustments to have the game as punishing as they like.

[StellarRat]

Sounds like Xenonauts have developed a 3D printer.

Put the plans in one end, some scrap in the top, and it extrudes the proper shape alien alloy.

Running on free energy from an Alenium power supply no less.

Just need to pay someone to press a few buttons and put the parts together once they are finished.

@Chris any chance that if you implement the invincible fighters it could be done as a percent chance of survival?

Preferably set individually for each difficulty level.

The vanilla game can use 100% and balance the game from there but modders can easily make adjustments to have the game as punishing as they like.

Exactly. Anyway, I've stated my opinion so I will quit flogging the horse now.

[Andeerz]

So long as everything is moddable and configurable and not hard-coded, I'm cool with whatever. For what it is worth, I like the overall framework of how things are now; I like having to manage risk and resources, and establishing a stable presence in the air is, in my opinion, an awesome aspect of the game. I've never felt it to be bad that losing a plane is a huge setback. Plus, it's never ended the game for me.

And StellarRat's post (#66) is spot on with regard to how I think things should be interpreted. Reduced cost makes much more sense than indestructible planes. That would just break the setting for me entirely.

[Infinitum]

Just having the Tier 1 planes come in infinite supply strikes me as a sensible approach (with a small delay to simulate transportation and allowing the offending UFO to escape). It's easily explained as the founding nations slowly building up their own fleets of modified interceptors, and simultaneously handwaves why they will be able to suddenly deal with the popcorn spaceships later on. Losing income and goodwill due to lack of missions is penalty enough early on, and it would still allow the player to interact after losing everything in a bad encounter lategame (until the good planes can be replaced that is).

I guess its too late to rebrand the Xenonauts as a heavily armed joint aquisition and R&D operation rather than the last spoke of earthling resistance, but that's about the only way I can suspend disbelief given the setting.

Edited May 29, 2013 by Infinitum

[StellarRat]

Just having the Tier 1 planes come in infinite supply strikes me as a sensible approach (with a small delay to simulate transportation and allowing the offending UFO to escape). It's easily explained as the founding nations slowly building up their own fleets of modified interceptors, and simultaneously handwaves why they will be able to suddenly deal with the popcorn spaceships later on. Losing income and goodwill due to lack of missions is penalty enough early on, and it would still allow the player to interact after losing everything in a bad encounter lategame (until the good planes can be replaced that is).

I guess its too late to rebrand the Xenonauts as a heavily armed joint aquisition and R&D operation rather than the last spoke of earthling resistance, but that's about the only way I can suspend disbelief given the setting.

I was actually going to suggest that, as we also get free unlimited ballistic weapons at the start too. It's an idea that might be worth exploring. I'm really mostly concerned about losing planes at the start of the game specially for new players that are probably going to make mistakes or don't realize how deadly the UFOs can be. Losing planes that the beginning is probably the most likely thing to derail your whole game. By mid-game you should have better aircraft than what the conventional forces are using. If you don't at least you can fall back on the Level 1 equipment and try to shoot down scouts and light scouts until you can build replacement level 2 - 4 AC. Edited May 29, 2013 by StellarRat

[GizmoGomez]

The little UFOs disappear, though. There's no need of lesser planes once the better UFOs come. Chris himself said that lower tier aircraft can't even hope to compete with the later UFOs, even with the most advanced weaponry.

[StellarRat]

The little UFOs disappear, though. There's no need of lesser planes once the better UFOs come. Chris himself said that lower tier aircraft can't even hope to compete with the later UFOs, even with the most advanced weaponry.

Yes, they do. But I'm more concerned about a new player getting screwed at the beginning and not having a way out other than to start over or reload. Easy replacements would fix that. I can survive past that stage now that I've had some practice. Also, don't forget that multiple sorties are effective. One sortie can blow up the escorts and the next wave can destroy main UFO. So, lesser AC can bring down tougher ships if your patient or willing to take losses. Damage is cumulative on the UFOs until they bug or die. Edited May 29, 2013 by StellarRat

[Sable Wyvern]

Yes, they do. But I'm more concerned about a new player getting screwed at the beginning and not having a way out other than to start over or reload. Easy replacements would fix that. I can survive past that stage now that I've had some practice. Also, don't forget that multiple sorties are effective. One sortie can blow up the escorts and the next wave can destroy main UFO. So, lesser AC can bring down tougher ships if your patient or willing to take losses. Damage is cumulative on the UFOs until they bug or die.

I certainly would prefer not to have to be restarting the game while developing air combat skills. If I mismanage my resources, or become impatient in ground combat that's one thing. A learning curve for air combat with a hefty and inevitable penalty for failure is another entirely.

People are talking about dumbing down the game, but however much some people may like the air combat as it currently stands, I doubt very much that "difficult air combat with significant consequences for failure" is a major selling point for the majority of X-Com veterans.