Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi!

I'm aware in the originals vehicles didn't gain experience (for some reason) but I think its a shame that they don't here too. Unless they are robots, but at least the Hunter and Scimitar aren't. Hell, the hunter even has a couple of poor sods inside the damn thing. I see many people comment they don't ever use them because they don't gain experience of any sort so.. that's too bad really. I'd rather that what I view as an oversight in the original not be carried over here for mere traditions sake. It made no sense there and I don't think it does here either. Part of the fun is risking the units you've become attached too, and as it is you just don't care what happens to your vehicles.

But actually more importantly.. anyone else find the Hunter missiles to be WAY more powerful and useful that then the pulse laser turret? Those hunter missiles are just a good time, let me tell you. When I got my scimitar the first time I was very disappointed to see there wasn't a missile turret for that since the pulse laser is basically crap. Its just too inaccurate, with the good old missiles you just have to get in the general vicinity -- also its great for blasting aliens hiding in thick cover, the pulse laser will just miss the alien and its cover entirely most of the time, even in burst fire.

I suppose its possible that some people might prefer the pulse laser, although I honestly can't see this because its awful, so it would be nice to have missile options on the later vehicles too. Anyway, yes, I'd like to see the vehicles be a bit more fleshed out then they are now in general, to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the experience thing. There is no reason behind vehicles gaining experience. What stat would you increase? Accuracy uses electronic targeting, HP and Armor are being determined by the construction material. Vehicles do not panic, so bravery is out of question. TUs are depended on the engines and vehicle construction engineering. In general, vehicles cannot gain experience because they have nothing that can improve by using it. They can only be upgraded by researching more effective components. The driver in the vehicle is already skilled in driving it and pushing the target->fire button ;).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About the experience thing. There is no reason behind vehicles gaining experience. What stat would you increase? Accuracy uses electronic targeting,

Do higher end solders with powered armor not use enhanced targeting? I think user skill could still make sense here, I don't see why not. Also the accuracy on any vehicle weapons are truly awful, so yeah. Maybe it could start out lower but work its way higher. Anyway, that's a fluff reason one way or another to be honest. I'm pretty sure even in modern day drones and tanks gunner skill still counts for something so I don't buy that as a reason.

HP and Armor are being determined by the construction material.

True enough, in this very particular case.

Vehicles do not panic, so bravery is out of question. TUs are depended on the engines and vehicle construction engineering.

Vehicles COULD panic. Actually manned vehicles anyway, although I don't suppose the scimitar would. I haven't gotten the later vehicles yet so I have no idea what form they take to be honest. TU's though, I think you could say that TU's should rightly and logically be a combination of both the equipment and the crew. Saying the skill of a crew has no effect on the vehicles performance is absurd on its face.

In general, vehicles cannot gain experience because they have nothing that can improve by using it. They can only be upgraded by researching more effective components. The driver in the vehicle is already skilled in driving it and pushing the target->fire button ;).

Yeah, I disagree or really, I think a lot of the reasons here are fluff that can be made to go one way or another depending. Look at the Scimitar, its apparently remote controlled. Ok, well, you could just as easily say its a two person vehicle without changing anything but the flavour text. Its big enough, after all. These last statements are bizarre, sorry. You could just as easily say the soldiers are trained to shoot their rifles so they shouldn't improve any. Driving -- especially driving armored vehicles -- in combat yet, is definitely a skill that can vary. Right now it doesn't but again, thats fluff hand waving and it could go either direction. Shooting, again, thats just more fluff. If the electronic targeting is so damn great why can't they hit a damn thing. A guy peeping through the iron sites of his rifle is far more accurate than the electronic targeting on vehicles and that's obviously a very silly thing.

No offense man, but that's all thinking very much inside the box here. Lots of people don't use vehicles because they aren't as interesting as the soldiers, why not make them more interesting? There just isn't a reason here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do higher end solders with powered armor not use enhanced targeting?

ehm...No? Weapons do have an accuracy modifier that reflects any electronic targeting they may employ. But, certainly, not armor.

Vehicles COULD panic. Actually manned vehicles anyway,

Crew panicking means, vehicle abandoned. I would be delighted to see it implemented but I seriously doubt it will.

If the electronic targeting is so damn great why can't they hit a damn thing. A guy peeping through the iron sites of his rifle is far more accurate than the electronic targeting on vehicles and that's obviously a very silly thing.

Because the technology is at a primitive stage, of course. Research should be able to produce upgraded targeting systems that would be installed on the vehicles improving accuracy. Still, it removes the need for gunners and is far more accurate than a person would be manning the weapons from inside a vehicle.

No offense man, but that's all thinking very much inside the box here. Lots of people don't use vehicles because they aren't as interesting as the soldiers, why not make them more interesting? There just isn't a reason here.

People do not use vehicles, yet, because the AI is crappy and they gain no tactical advantage by using them. I expect things to change when the death toll on missions without vehicles, usually by the aliens react-firing on the scouts, will make the early vehicles useful as scouts and the later vehicles by adding more firepower to the squad, in addition to scouting. Early vehicles intended use as scouts is relevant by the higher sight range they have. And they can, certainly, withstand more damage than soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ehm...No? Weapons do have an accuracy modifier that reflects any electronic targeting they may employ. But, certainly, not armor.

Irrelevant anyway. So? So what? It makes no difference to anything. Things work however someone says that's how they work. I think I made that point fairly clear already.

Crew panicking means, vehicle abandoned. I would be delighted to see it implemented but I seriously doubt it will.

No, it doesn't mean that. That's a weird assumption. That is a possibility, sure, but not the only one as you bizarrely suggest. I'm not sure what your point here is.

Because the technology is at a primitive stage, of course. Research should be able to produce upgraded targeting systems that would be installed on the vehicles improving accuracy. Still, it removes the need for gunners and is far more accurate than a person would be manning the weapons from inside a vehicle.

Again more nonsense here. Where are you getting this from? Its all fluff and can be said to work however the devs want it to work. So again, irrelevant. Accurate fire from within vehicles is possible. Modern tanks still use human eyes to target, after all. Once again I don't see your point, other than from what I can tell just to rain on my parade here. You don't like the idea, fine, but try and make sense at least.

People do not use vehicles, yet, because the AI is crappy and they gain no tactical advantage by using them. I expect things to change when the death toll on missions without vehicles, usually by the aliens react-firing on the scouts, will make the early vehicles useful as scouts and the later vehicles by adding more firepower to the squad, in addition to scouting. Early vehicles intended use as scouts is relevant by the higher sight range they have. And they can, certainly, withstand more damage than soldiers.

Strange, because I see them commenting in many places that they don't use them for the very same exact reason that I said they didn't, which would make sense because that's exactly why I said that. I've not, on the other hand, heard them not use them because of AI. Maybe we are looking in difference places, but probably we aren't. What AI on a player controlled vehicle is the problem here anyway.

Moving on here, I gather you disagree with me here. Totally fine :) But I'd like to hear some other opinions on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, right. All the arguments I presented are nonsense to you and this is a great argument, for sure. Seeing the way you countered my arguments, I can see that you have none to support your opinion.

At any case, the conclusion you have reached is correct. I do not agree with vehicles gaining experience the way the game is implemented. And, of course, I will grand your wish and remove myself from your thread. It is interesting to observe the "well, you disagree with me, fine, now get lost. I need to hear someone that agrees with me" attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want as many experience gaining units on my dropship as possible.

Taking a vehicle (with no experience) takes up the space of 2 soldiers who do.

If I could take all soldiers and a vehicle, then I possibly would.

If the game made vehicles a strong tactical advantage, then I possibly would.

If the game made vehicles utterly necessary to complete a mission without numerous deaths, then I'd have to take it, but I'd feel led by my nose every step of the way, and I wouldn't like it.

Another example would be X-Com Apocalypse. I've nothing against Androids my dear members of SELF, but as soon as I realised that I could survive without them, then I had none in my squad, because they didn't improve.

Vehicle options

1) Missions & kills only logged for each vehicle. Small thing but with a lasting impact.

2) Accuracy slowly improves, reflecting the crew's use of the vehicle in varying environments against alien forces.

3) Alien mind control and panic of tank crew enabled. C'mon! your tank could get mind controlled! Tank given a bravery stat (representing crew) that can improve. Panicked drivers stay in the vehicle, paralysed with fear.

4) Possible minor adjustments to the vehicle, such armour plating or weapon/ power enhancements. Goes into modular weapon territory and could not be as powerful as the next vehicle tier. Modular vehicles in Apocalypse were great (although none on missions)

5) The driver comes from your soldier pool. The vehicle has basic stats, but accuracy is influenced by the soldiers' stats. Bravery is the soldiers. Soldier can progress in certain stats as would any other on the mission. Vehicle is now one of the team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I want as many experience gaining units on my dropship as possible.

Taking a vehicle (with no experience) takes up the space of 2 soldiers who do.

I think that's a problem lots of people have, is that it seems inefficient to take a vehicle in terms of soldier improvement. If you think you can manage to scout ahead safe enough, vehicles large size and inability to use cover effectively makes them a bit of a poor choice in a lot of ways. Unlike soldiers, vehicles have to pretty much take all incoming fire right on the chin too. Even if they comparatively have lots of hit points and armor, they still tend to be fairly vulnerable.... although that actually feels about right here.

If I could take all soldiers and a vehicle, then I possibly would.

If the game made vehicles a strong tactical advantage, then I possibly would.

If the game made vehicles utterly necessary to complete a mission without numerous deaths, then I'd have to take it, but I'd feel led by my nose every step of the way, and I wouldn't like it.

Another example would be X-Com Apocalypse. I've nothing against Androids my dear members of SELF, but as soon as I realised that I could survive without them, then I had none in my squad, because they didn't improve.

I usually take a vehicle after I get the Shrike. Before that there isn't really room. Six guys and a vehicle isn't efficient in any way really... 10 guys and a vehicle on the other hand isn't bad. I completely forgot there were androids in Apocalypse, I think I probably didn't use them for the same reason. I doubt anyone used them.

Vehicle options

1) Missions & kills only logged for each vehicle. Small thing but with a lasting impact.

2) Accuracy slowly improves, reflecting the crew's use of the vehicle in varying environments against alien forces.

3) Alien mind control and panic of tank crew enabled. C'mon! your tank could get mind controlled! Tank given a bravery stat (representing crew) that can improve. Panicked drivers stay in the vehicle, paralysed with fear.

4) Possible minor adjustments to the vehicle, such armour plating or weapon/ power enhancements. Goes into modular weapon territory and could not be as powerful as the next vehicle tier. Modular vehicles in Apocalypse were great (although none on missions)

5) The driver comes from your soldier pool. The vehicle has basic stats, but accuracy is influenced by the soldiers' stats. Bravery is the soldiers. Soldier can progress in certain stats as would any other on the mission. Vehicle is now one of the team.

All of these would be sweet and go a long way to making the vehicles more fun to use and worth taking! 5 in particular would make one be a bit more careful with the fate of their vehicles if a soldiers life was involved too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, i can see ThunderGr's point here but i don't think i can absolutely agree with him. Tank performance as a whole depends a lot on experience of it's crew. One wrong order from commander, one mistake from driver, poor reaction of gunner and tank can be out of combat or destroyed. Yeap, modern systems do a lot of work but it's just assistance. All actions and decisions are still made by humans. So manned vehicles can level up and increase their stats in my opinion.

But anyway, the main problem with vehicles in X-Com series i see in that developers trying to put em in two roles at the same time: scouts and fire support. But this two are totally opposite things. For fire support you want something with massive firepower. That means it will be large in size and probably manned. Because of size it became a good target so you want to protect it. You can do it either by armour to withstand some punishment or by range (if it is far from enemy - he can't damage it). Because in our case range isn't an option armour is the only possible solution and that's basically your MBT (Main Battle Tank) description. As for scout you want something fast and agile to run away if needed. Also it must be small so it'll be harder to spot and destroy. That most likely make it unarmed (to save space). And probably you want it unmanned in case it will be destroyed. For that you have all that little remote controlled scout planes and helicopters in modern army.

So while X-Com and Xenonauts makes vehicles look like MBTs (large target, good firepower, decent armour) they want you to use it as a scout. But WW2 already told everyone that tanks in reach of infantry is an easiest prey (urban combat with all that soldiers armed with panzerschrecks). And like at WW2 times some poor lads have to take point and scout ahead. That's the first thing.

Second one about weapons. Tanks don't use sabot or HEAT munition against infantry. Good old HE rounds. Because you don't need an insane penetration rate to kill a rifleman. Also it's kind of hard to hit him with that rounds. While HE provides splash damage so you don't need to actually hit that rifleman - just hit something solid nearby. I'm disappointed in mounted machine guns realisation (more about it further) so only vehicle with rockets somehow feat that fire support role in my opinion.

So in my opinion you can still have use for vehicles without levelling it up. Just make em feat their roles. For example make a small unarmed RC buggy (1 spot in transport) with low hp and armour (1 hit equals death) but with good sight and a good amount of TUs. Make it cheap and fast to manufacture (or just purchase as an ordinary weapon). So we get ourself a scout that feats this role!

As for big fire support vehicles i can only suggest re-think the whole idea behind .50 cals, lasers and other weapons. Basically idea of machine gun type weapons is in throwing as much metal or energy in enemy general direction in short period of time as possible (moar dakka!!!). But currently M2 bursts are very short (3 short from each barrel of twin M2 Browning as far as i remember - half of a standard LMG burst), munition is very limited, accuracy is very low so it reminds me more shooting AT rounds from tank in advancing infantry. I said about dakka already and 72 bullets for main weapon of armoured car? That's a joke. As for accuracy some may know, some may not but scoped M2 was used as a sniper f***ing rifle during Korean and Vietnam Wars. Ok, that was in semi-automatic mode (some modification involved) while in full auto it is far less accurate but that 60 degree cone of fire it usually shows in game is absurd.

So while twin M2 Hunter is overall better than guy with a rifle (at the beginning at least) it takes 4 slots in transport. And that's it. Four guys with rifles are usually better and versatile than a single twin M2 Hunter.

Edited by Newfr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hunter is based on the Ferret IIRC, and they didn't have "electronic targeting" whatever that is supposed to be, afaik. The machinegun was a machinegun and was aimed like a machinegun and if we assume that the "rockets" you can mount are modified swingfire missiles, those things are either MCLOS or SACLOS (depending on version), which would certainly depend on operator skill. If we assume they are some fictional unguided rocket armament or something, then again operator skill would matter. This is based in the cold war era remember.

Edited by Person012345

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

×