Binoculars

[Goetikmagus]

Just a thought, but why don't any of these troopers carry binos? While only moderately effective at night, they would be a big help during daylight hours. Obviously, it would take some AUs to check out the scene, and the recently-scanned area would be greyed out again as soon as the binos weren't in use anymore, but you'd get a quick feel for the landscape and be able to more quickly identify areas of tactical importance. Indeed, it would make sense that the platoon commander would hang back, assess the situation, and direct your troops based upon what he sees through his binoculars.

[Sathra]

Its either AP or TU, not AU (which is used for money in some games). Just nit-picking.

Unlikely to make it in, its pretty late in development and they don't really fit most of the combat which is pretty close-range rapid response.

[Goetikmagus]

Nits picked (thanks for keeping me in line!).

My concept of "close-range" is a single building. Given how many turns it take for a single soldier to book it from one end of the map to the other AND given that there are windows in a typical Chinook, it also makes sense that (at least during daytime hours) the only place a landing airborne soldier wouldn't be able to mentally map out would be building interiors. Binos are out, eh? Well, the terrain should at least be greyed-out, instead of completely black during daytime missions. Every soldier gets a birds-eye-view of the area coming in, after all...

That having been said, I think that having the map revealed but greyed is probably a poor idea - especially considering the "Sci-Fi Horror" atmosphere of the game. I just don't think that, during hours of full visibility, my troopers shouldn't be able to see everything within their LOS. Vision ranges during the daytime should extend the length of the map, especially if combat is considered "close range". If it's not considered "close range", then binos would be of some help.

[GizmoGomez]

One thing to ask, does the Charlie actually have windows? Since it's been super-heavily armored as part of it's modification from the standard CH-47 Chinook (to the much fancier CH-48 Chinook "Charlie"), would they include windows for the troop compartment? It's impervious to small arms fire (and this includes plasma cannons), so I think that windows would be removed. I dunno what the photos and UI stuff shows though, I haven't checked. It'd be a good explanation as to why the soldiers start off blind.

[Xenomorph]

Nope. I'm quite sure the pilots can still see their surrounding and where they land, meaning you can see stuff from the cockpit.

Also quite easy to slap a camera on the chopper's belly.

[GizmoGomez]

The pilots can, but can the soldiers? Obviously, (or maybe not? whoops) I was talking about the windows for the soldiers.

As far as pilots telling the soldiers what they see, there's simply not enough time for a pilot to convey a good enough description of the area to the soldiers before they actually exit the chinook.

The second they arrive onsite, they land and the mission starts. There's no time for a briefing in the few moments between the pilots seeing the crash site and the soldiers exiting the chinook.

A belly camera would also be mostly useless, at least as far as crash site recon goes. I'd imagine that the chopper would go in low and fast, and it would Not fly over the actual UFO, but land a distance away, to avoid getting shot at from the ground. Because the camera would be so close, relatively speaking, to the ground, there'd be little point to it, as all you'd see is trees, fields, buildings, etc blurring by, with no real chance to see anything useful. At least, nothing useful enough to warrant getting rid of the blackness.

[GizmoGomez]

Here's a post, I haven't read it all the way through yet, but the photo it shows has no windows for soldiers. It's a MH-47, used for SpecOps stuff and the like.

http://www.soc.mil/160th/Chinook.html

Cool reading, it's interesting.

[Xenomorph]

Civilian helicopter pilots may be idiots, but not military pilots. They can brief soldiers within the minute about relevant terrain features, because, after all, they need to spot a place to land, and they need to know where the UFO is. The Charlie is quite big.

Fact: landing spot is never kilometers away from the crash site.

Fact: sometimes, the landing site is at spitting distance from the crash site.

Fact: there is no such thing as aliens attacking the charlie from the ground, so no need to fly low. Besides, we know the charlie can shrug small arms plasma shots no problem.

Coming up with lore for FOW or no FOW is pointless it's just a matter or design decision, really, then factored in with personal preferences.

The only advantage of not having FOW is quicker fights because we don't have to waste unnecessary time exploring.

Fact: in flat terrain, range of view (not FOV) is higher then detection range. If you are in one side of a field and have a woods area on the other side, you can see it. But if there's someone crouched in the middle blending with tall grass or some terrain feature, you might not perceive it. In game, it's the same, and it shouldn't be. Not having FOW would balance this.

[GizmoGomez]

Well, it's a moot point in all honesty, because Chris is not going to get rid of FOW (if I remember correctly he came out and said that at one point). It adds to the tension of the game.

[Goetikmagus]

I realize that this thread is starting to meander into a general visibility discussion, but I've really got just one more point to make: No matter how many times you come in hot, you ~never~ land in that LZ without some kind of landscape briefing.

What about a military map? Looking at it would give you major landmarks, long-standing buildings, and the dimensions of your Area of Engagement respective to your LZ - but small details, such as terrain details, crates, and equipment wouldn't be noted... nor of course would the alien craft.

[GizmoGomez]

Well, at least they tell us the terrain type when we shoot down the UFO. That's something.

I guess the Xenonauts are all hotshots and don't need proper recon, then.

[thothkins]

As said, you can justify the FOW. visibility from the Chinook and including the OPs binoculars (along with such things as night vision goggles) as design decisions there to maintain a degree of uncertainty, tension and additional challenge. Sometimes the maps herd you a little too much to take advantage of this, but that's the idea.

Adding binoculars for Xenonauts begs the question why the aliens don't have such things, or don't release little waves of recon probes.

My personal handwavium, and that's pretty much all it is, is that the battlescape represents an abstract of the actual battle. Terror sites, farmland and whatever are condensed version of the actual battle to make missions compact and more fun to play. It's not necessarily literal that the Chinook lands next door to the UFO with neither side beig aware of the other. Other people's handwavium is just as valid.

[Goetikmagus]

It would also probably make more of a difference if the battlefields were procedurally generated, rather than static. In my mind, random or semirandom battlefields were also a part of the combat tension.

While I'm on that subject, I might as well troll a bit, too - and perhaps this has been addressed elsewhere, but the game is going to suffer tedium if it uses pre-generated maps. One of the shining stars of the OG came from the idea that every battlefield was different. So far, I'm only seeing a handful of pre-gen maps, and even if there are hundreds of pre-gen maps to play, it will eventually become predictably dull.

Now, battlefield intelligence is absolutely vital to winning any combat. I can respect areas where absolutely no intelligence is available - such as the interior of enemy ships and bases. In those situations, you really ~are~ moving forward in a last-ditch effort to save the human race. "Home turf", however, should at the very least outline the Area of Engagement, so you have a sense of the turf you have to clear and protect. More reasonably, an obscure, outdated military map or a savvy combat pilot should give you the barest idea of what's in the area. "I thought I saw the ship to the North. Be careful out there!" or "You've got a honeycomb of industrial buildings in the East. Clear with caution." would be perfectly acceptable indicators, and would not mess with FOW. The concept that everyone is dropping into a situation blind is sketchy, and the concept that there is a platoon that is plopped in the middle of Chicago, without a gas station to call a checkpoint is absurd.

Oh... and in these situations... binos would be helpful. :3

[StellarRat]

Several people have suggested some type of "pre-landing" spotting, detection, maps, etc... and I think it's a good idea, but the main problem is that I think we're way too far along in development to add such a major feature. I'd be really surprised if it happened at this point. But, of course, I can't see what's in Chris's mind. All I know is that the longer the game takes to finish the less money will be made. Every feature has to add X number of sales to make it worthwhile.

[Goetikmagus]

Well, I'm not necessarily putting these out for the developers. I'm throwing out ideas for modders, too - and that community adds features to the game all on its own.

[thothkins]

But, of course, I can't see what's in Chris's mind.

Only because he doesn;t allow human psionics

FOr me any pre landing spotting should have an alien equivalent, where they see your chinook coming in, and get the equivalent of X free turns while the mission loads for the player to set up a defensive (or otherwise) position.