Air Combat Auto Resolve: Add an "Aggressive Attack" option

[GizmoGomez]

Hi all!

So, in a couple threads now I've seen that there's a desire to have small UFOs show up throughout the game, instead of them all disappearing and being totally replaced with the current generation of higher level UFOs.

This is because:

a) We need a way to train new recruits, and having weaker UFOs show up throughout the game gives us an opportunity to train new recruits without needing a base training system.

b) Sometimes it's a nice break from the hard core missions to have a nice easy mission where you can dominate the enemy easily. It would show you how far you've come since the early days of the invasion, and boost your spirits a bit.

Anyway, some people won't/don't like this idea because they don't want to have to do the super easy (and sometimes repetitive) ground missions for light scouts and scouts. This is why I came up with this idea:

As a part of the air combat auto resolve, why don't we have a "Normal Attack" option for the regular auto resolve, and an "Aggressive Attack" option for when we want that UFO completely destroyed, with no ground mission?

My idea wouldn't change the main auto resolve at all, it would simply add another option:

Under the normal system:

If Xenonauts > UFO(s), then UFO crashes, creating ground mission.

If UFO > Xenonauts, then Xenonauts Lose.

Using Aggressive Attack:

If Xenonauts >>> UFO, then UFO is destroyed outright, creating no ground mission at all.

If Xenonaut > UFO, then UFO crashes normally, creating ground mission.

If UFO > Xenonaut, then Xenonauts Lose.

Of course, this is somewhat simplified, seeing as it doesn't take into account individual aircraft taking damage, or part of a squadron being destroyed, but that's not exactly relevant to this post.

My main idea is that if the UFO is insanely outmatched (like a trio of Corsairs armed with plasma missiles vs a single light scout) it can be destroyed using the Aggressive Attack button. (Obviously this would need to be balanced somewhat, the example above was just an example.)

Destroyed UFOs would give half of the normal Alloys and no alenium, I'd say. This would cost the player a little amount of resources for the luxury of not having to do the ground mission. If the player wanted the money, all the alloys, and the alenium from the UFO, they'd have to do the crash site themselves. This would be to encourage doing ground battles and not simply spam the Aggressive Attack.

Honestly, Aggressive Attack wouldn't even be all that useful for current UFOs, because they'd be pretty evenly matched and would therefore not be destroyed. It'd be a function for lower level UFOs.

Perhaps it could also effect what damaged state the UFO crashes in, if not destroyed outright. Like, if Aggressive Attack had a higher chance for major damage than Normal Attack would.

Also, maybe Aggressive Attack could have a greater chance of Xenonaut craft being damaged/destroyed if the sides are more evenly matched.

Anyway, sorry for the lengthy post.

Thoughts?

[Grazgul]

I do think an alternative to leaving crashes 'unattended' would be a great step in helping players get to the later invasion stages.

I've played 40-50 hours, with maybe 5 different games of Xenonauts and haven't gotten to the large craft yet.

I would prefer to see an autoresolve for ground missions.

[thothkins]

Could the removal of the small UFOs be tied directly in with the local forces abilities to take them down?

Once the game is ready to move past the small UFOs, the intercept screen changes, giving options to to either intercept yourself or leave to local forces.

The numbers of small UFOs would have probably reduced by that point, as the aliens aren't getting much mileage form them or their scouting/ research missions are nearly done. But even a few would give you that option for training rookies.

Proactive squad management reduces the need to have lots of rookies trained up quickly.

The downsides are that you only put out your best team for special missions as you're always carrying a rookie or two. Also that by shifting the team around so everyone gets mission time you find that soldiers take longer to develop. Possibility that the game's requirements will outstrip the soldier's advancement.

Upsides are that you have personnel who slot right into the mission, without having casualties following on from the ones that made you have to pick rookies in the first place.

[ClaytonCross]

I love this idea!! Let the local military handle the little ones, your the elete force after all and who is to say you didn't sell some of your gear to them so they could handle it way? Beats having to wait for them to fly over water like I did in the original X-com, lol

I did have a though, you can attack a UFO with more than one interceptor, will there be a launch squadron button in the final UI? right now you have to line them up one at a time I believe and wait like the original, but if they can both attack, why not launch them as a squadron? maybe send the drop ship too so its half way there when it get shot down for faster response time, the risk being if another UFO shows up you may not be able to respond because all your ships are out, but I like that.

[Sathra]

You can select more than one interceptor to attack at a time. Up to 3.

[thothkins]

yeah, you should be seeing up to 3 on the air combat screen if you select them from intercept. Let us know if that makes sense. If not screenies will be somewhere to link to.

[ClaytonCross]

You can select more than one interceptor to attack at a time. Up to 3.

Tried it, it worked, Im a noob. thanks for the help!

[a_beorning]

It works just fine when all three are from one base.

Why three interceptors from different bases tailing same ufo could not attack it together?

Only thing needed is in-flight joining and disbanding squadrons.

It will help not only in attacking UFOs, but in patrooling too - when one plane of squadron is low of fuel, you will send home only this plane, not a whole squadron.

How difficult is to implement such a feature?

It depends of how sane designed and implemented data structures and procedures already in game.

From "it's a two man*day work" to "we cannot sum 2 and 2 because of 2D tileset engine".

I hope game innards are designed sane enough.

[thothkins]

Generally my bases are so far apart that wasn't a need for having interceptors from different bases coming together to for squadrons. Even now, it's something of a rarity.

but there's obvious advantages for closer bases, or for combats with advanced craft or for UFOs that stray right in the middle between bases etc.