Realism Issues Center: Lets make this game make more sense

[Newfr]

This makes no sense. The missiles are guided by the launching craft to their target, or at least most of the way, so that would not be a limiting range factor. Just say that the sensors in the missile were much larger than traditional radar guidance, and as such took up some space for the fuel. Additionally, the warhead is expanded for the harder targets, also taking up fuel space.[/i]

Wait a second! That actually depends on missile homing system. Only semi-active radar homing (SARH) system and beam riding (BR) homing system need some kind of guidance from launching aircraft. Since both this systems target reflected radar signal and as we know UFOs don't reflect radar signals (invisible for radar) this systems are our of question. Our best guess is anti-radiation missile (ARM) that target radiation for its target (too early for electro-optical homing and infra-red homing doesn't work for some unknown reason (UFOs don't heat by the friction of airflow?)). That doesn't involve launching aircraft anyhow after launch.

And this statement is true enough for active-radar homing system because you are very limited (even more than in aircraft) with space inside your missile. Quote from Wiki about it's disadvantage: "Since the missile has to contain an entire radar transceiver and electronics, it was until recently difficult to fit all of this into a missile without unacceptably increasing its size and weight. Even with today's miniaturisation making this possible, it is quite expensive to make these missiles since the sophisticated electronics within the missile are inevitably destroyed upon impact". So why we can't say that our imaginary ARDA is even more sophisticated and requires a lot of space inside our missiles (and you have to tolerate it because you simply need a way to shoot down UFOs and have no other options)?

[DNK]

I suppose so. It's effectively ARM-based with the ARDA.

[GizmoGomez]

Yup. We've done our research.

I am more than happy people are questioning it, though. Every good system needs to be proved somehow. Thanks for the questions!

@ DNK

Here're some explanations to (hopefully) resolve, or at least assuage, your concerns.

Point 1: I didn't mention fuel tanks because the Xenopedia entry already does. I was only listing what we were changing/adding to the entry, not every point in the entry.

Point 2: We're not going to say "huge geoscape sensor range" in the entry (you can read the proposal, if you've not already). However, the planes do need some kind of sensor system to detect UFOs from any direction, track them from any direction, and detect alien bases. UFOs (and bases, I'm guessing) emit the xeno-radiation, so it makes sense that a radiation detection system would be used to do all these things.

Base ARDA: That's a good idea; each ARDA structure has additional arrays set up in the surrounding area, but you need a base structure to process the data (you can't simply make ARDAs out in the country side without a base, that'd be cheating. )

Point 3: Solved.

[Ishantil]

On the note of the missiles, the I was writing the ARDA seeker as a fire and forget (autonomous), not radar guided. Feel free to chime in.

Where are we with the writing for the ARDA System at the base?

I would be happy to take a stab at the initial writing and then the rest of you can poke it into submission.

And everyone interested, please feel free to chime in. I'm by no means perfect. And I'm certainly not an expert on everything.

And how about "ARDA Network" for the base arrays?

Edited September 4, 2013 by Ishantil

[GizmoGomez]

That sounds good, actually. ARDA System sounded kinda meh. Ideally we'd have the term Array in there, but ARDA Array is rather, well, redundant.

ARDA Network, Detection Array, maybe UFO Detection Array? Extraterrestrial Detection Array? I dunno, ARDA Network works. It's all up to Chris, though. I'd like there to be continuity between the entries, it'd lend credence to the game's lore.

Maybe simply "ARDA"? That'd necessitate a Xenopedia entry for the structure/technology, but I think we're going to have descriptions of base structures anyway. I'd hope, at any rate.

I've not written an entry for the ARDA. Go ahead and write one up, Ishantil. Since there's no existing entry to base it off of, maybe just read a bunch of Chris's work and try to match the style.

[Newfr]

Maybe simply "ARDA"?

Maybe something like "ARDA control room" (maybe too long) or "ARDA room" for building? I mean this base module only process data and controls all that field sensors out there just like radar control rooms at airports all over the world. While just "ARDA" sounds good for that sensors network in my opinion.

[Elydo]

"ARDA Hub" ? Perhaps sounds a bit too casual.

"ARDA Network" is probably the best option I've heard so far. Keep in mind the second A in ARDA stands for Array.

[GizmoGomez]

I kinda like "Detection Array" because it is simple and it tells the player exactly what the building does. It detects.

I mean, as much as I like the ARDA, the name without the description isn't, well, descriptive enough for a layman to understand what it means. "ARDA? Isn't that, like, a character from the Lord of the Rings or something?" (No, that's Varda. )

EDIT:

Exactly; if the term Array wasn't in there it'd be simple to call it ARDA Array, but like I said, too redundant and stupid sounding.

[Newfr]

I kinda like "Detection Array" because it is simple and it tells the player exactly what the building does. It detects.

I mean, as much as I like the ARDA, the name without the description isn't, well, descriptive enough for a layman to understand what it means.

No, no, no. Detection Array is too simple. You need more clever words for space magic to work

[GizmoGomez]

Well, "Adaptive Radiation Detection Array" is a tad too long, isn't it? Or is it?

Ideally, we'd be able to have long strings and whatnot, and that's what we'd call it.

How about this:

In the Base Structure Construction List thingy we call it "Adaptive Radiation Detection Array".

In the actual base's tool tips, we call it either the same thing if we have room, or if there's not enough room, "ARDA".

Thoughts?

I may just go into the strings.xml file and change the names myself, just to see what they'd look like. That'll have to wait for a bit, though, I've got work soon.

[Ishantil]

Scientists and military types love acronyms (like radar, notably). So I thought it was a cool idea to come up with a new one for our special UFO detection device. ARDA has kind of a nice ring to it.

I like ARDA Network and ARDA Hub, but we could also use ARDA Node, imlying it's but one of many.

I think your idea might be best, though, GizmoGomez, the buttons are pretty long, right?

I will take a look around at the in game lore and what we already have and try to whip up something. ARDA should be tied to the Alien Invasion technology.

[Chris]

OK, I've just finished the Xenopedia research project descriptions and I'm now starting to write the descriptions for the starting equipment. I've also had a read of the current thread...or at least the points listed on the front page. Here goes:

ARDA - No, it's a radar and it'll stay that way. People know what radar does. Changing it doesn't really give any benefit I see, but could cause confusion.

Aircraft armour - the two conventional aircraft descriptions don't refer to armour. They just say that the airframe is built out of something resistant to alien weapons...for example building the airframe out of steel rather than glass isn't adding more armour, but still makes it more resistant to combat damage. Would happily have updated any actual reference to "armour" for the first two planes though.

I've added the word "safely" to the roll description for the Foxtrot. I think explaining why it doesn't have a cannon even though the MiG-31 did is taking things too far, I don't see that as necessary.

Missiles - these descriptions were both old and will be rewritten. I'm not planning to give specifics on range etc in the description because that's still subject to balance, I'll just write vague stuff like "short range" or whatever.

Clips / Mags - I suppose at this point I should stop trolling everyone and just change this. Aaron and I both find it amusing quite how worked up people get about it, but with release coming up it's time to correct it. MAG weapons are still going to use "clips", though. I'm not letting the Xenonauts carry a "MAG mag" into battle.

[thothkins]

I'm not letting the Xenonauts carry a "MAG mag" into battle.

Not forgetting the monthly periodical where you can read all about ammunition for your favourite weapon tier - The Mag Mag Mag

[Ishantil]

@Chris: I am excited to see what you have for us.

@Thothkins: You just had to go there, didn't you?

[Elydo]

With an according lack of seriousness:

I'd argue that most people don't actually know what RADAR does, if they did it'd be apparent that the in-game depiction wouldn't work.

Aircraft: Fair enough I guess. Given how role-specific the Foxtrots are I'd have thought some justification for their specificity would be an idea though. Can I add that I really love the fact that aircraft under construction get an updating structural icon. That actually made me squee.

Missiles: Cool.

Clips/Magazines: It's become a dividing issue between between people who know the difference and people who don't care. Much like any other insistant terminology it DOES matter, but only to people for whom it matters. Everyone else can be wrong without it really mattering. Incidentally, MAG mag, heh. If the ammo icon actually looks like a clip no problem I guess. An en bloc clip would probably be suitable.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Elydo

[Chris]

Heh. Yes, Elydo, you're right - people have a perception of what radar does that fits neatly with what it does in the game, and I don't want to cause confusion.

For the clips / mags, I think there was a sizeable third category of people (myself and Aaron included) who knew the difference and also didn't care. When it got to the point where people were literally drawing me pictures of the difference I thought getting the popcorn out was more amusing. Anyway, it's been updated now....except for the MAG clips, which do still look like magazines but are just called clips. I'm sure people that get that far in the game will forgive me though.

The aircraft construction images were indeed a nice touch, I thought. Glad a few people have noticed them.

Finally, yes, the differing dropship speeds have been updated already and that will be reflected in the next build when it comes out.

[thothkins]

Much like any other insistant terminology it DOES matter, but only to people for whom it matters. Everyone else can be wrong without it really mattering.

Once again, this forum provides me with an argument to try out this week.

"You're only saying that because it matters to you."

[Elydo]

There's a trope for that: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect"]http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect"]http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheCoconutEffect

As opposed to: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AluminumChristmasTrees

Regarding MAG weapons, for technology you invented you can call it whatever you want. Hives maybe, or quivers if you want to be esoteric.

Edit: @thothkins - I'm an autistic pedant, accuracy only matters about as much as air does. Namely, it becomes important when it's absent ; )

Edited September 4, 2013 by Elydo

[EchoFourDelta]

Clips / Mags - I suppose at this point I should stop trolling everyone and just change this. Aaron and I both find it amusing quite how worked up people get about it, but with release coming up it's time to correct it.

The reason people were calling you out on it is because it's the same as if you were making a game about dinosaurs and called the velociraptors "triceratops," or if you'd called the airplanes "trucks." It's not people getting heated; they're just telling you that you'reappearing somewhat ignorant of what something is actually called.

Yes, they're both dinosaurs, and they're both modes of transportation, but there's a great deal of difference between the two.

Edited September 4, 2013 by EchoFourDelta

[Ishantil]

Just change all instances of "clip" or "magazine" to "ammunition" Then everyone loses. Muahahaha.

[Elydo]

@E4D - A better comparison might be akin to calling Pterosaurs or Plesiosaurs Dinosaurs (Or naming a theme park Jurassic when the majority of the animals came from either the Triassic or Cretaceous periods). They aren't, but that they aren't only matters to those who have to work with the information.

[Newfr]

ARDA - No, it's a radar and it'll stay that way. People know what radar does. Changing it doesn't really give any benefit I see, but could cause confusion.

I'll disagree with that. Radar rises a lot of questions and solve only one - most people know what it is. As for confusion I find fusion grenades a way more confusing. For example it's a Deuterium-Deuterium reaction D + D = T + p and that gives you nice beta plus emission. So you need aluminium pants in addition to darkened glasses. Plus there will be a fireball with temperature about 120 million Kelvins in it. Blast wave, extensive light emission... And all that in just a few meters from you.

I demand that only Japanese guys could use this grenades since they have a long kamikaze traditions.

[GizmoGomez]

As far as the ARDA goes, I just thought it tied in nicely with the missiles detecting alien radiation bit. Plus, explaining that the underside of the wings are full of alien detecting equipment explains why we only can carry two sidewinders on a craft that has around a dozen hardpoints.

Thanks for reading our ramblings, Chris, we all appreciate it.

(And I didn't draw that picture of the clip/mag thing, I just found it on the internet and thought it comical, so I shared it. )

[Ishantil]

Don't worry, I'll save the ARDA stuffs.

[GizmoGomez]

@Chris:

One last thing:

The way the Condor entry is worded, it implies that the alloy used for the airframe is used for some kind of armor.

I know it's not, but it sounds like it is.

(I will use spoiler boxes liberally because I don't want my post to appear really really long, and thus intimidate people too much. )

Let me explain:

See, if the enhanced durability from the new airframe is reducing the missile payload, the only logical assumption is that the alteration is somehow really heavy. The only reason it'd be heavy enough to actually affect how many missiles you're carrying is if it were really really heavy.

Simply swapping the material of the airframe wouldn't remove so many missiles from the payload; missiles are rather light compared to an aircraft.

Because the airframe is referred to as being really really heavy (heavy enough to actually remove missiles from the payload), it sounds like the reenforced airframe incorporates some kind of heavy armor plating as well, even if that's not even said.

Obviously, this is a problem.

The airframe isn't armor, and shouldn't sound like it is armor. However, because the new airframe is part of the reason why we reduced the payload, it sounds really really heavy and thus must be armor, because simply swapping the material wouldn't change the weight that much.

Solution:

If we disconnected the reenforced airframe from the reduced payload, however, then it simply becomes a reenforced airframe, no super heavy weight limits or anything involved. Because the weight wouldn't be mentioned, it wouldn't sound like armor.

Problem solved.

Personally, to fix this I'd simply remove the "(paid for via a reduced payload.)" bit, or at least rephrase the first paragraph as to mention the fuel and not the airframe as the reason for a reduced payload. Simple, really.

Now, we have another (lesser) issue:

This leaves the fuel as the only reason for reducing the payload. That's not the problem, though; it's the desctription, or implication, as to why we reduced the payload that I have issue with.

The way it's phrased it sounds like weight is the limiting factor. Extra fuel would indeed weigh more, but it wouldn't be a major limiting factor.

However, available hardpoints would be an excellent limiting factor.

It's the most concrete, undeniable way to explain why we can't have more missiles: "We needed the hardpoints for necessary equipment; we simply don't have the room for more than two missiles." No one can argue with that, really.

We'd have external fuel tanks under the wings and belly that take up a bunch of space. That'd make it sound much more plausible as to why we reduced the missile count. "We replaced the hardpoints used for missiles with much-needed permanent external fuel tanks."

While this explanation would be rather good, personally, I'd add a wee bit more. (optional suggestion, take it or leave it)

After all, you can't fill all the hardpoints up with fuel tanks.

(I'm not just saying that; they really, physically, cannot be used for external tanks. You need "wet" hardpoints to use external tanks with, but much of the hardpoints are "dry".)

To explain why all of the hardpoints are taken up, both wet and dry, I'd use one of two explanations:

First, and my favorite,

I'd say that UFO-tracking and alien base-detecting "sensor pods" (or comparable term) are taking up the remaining hardpoints (after the wet ones are used for fuel tanks). It's simple, it's believable, and it doesn't/shouldn't need to be detailed any more beyond that.

(As much as I loved the ARDA system, you are right Chris, it could lead to confusion. )

Not only would this answer the "what would the dry hardpoints be caring" question, it'd also explain why the aircraft have insane radar/sensor ranges on the geoscape. That's one reason why I love suggesting "sensors" as the answer to the "missing missile issue"; you could kill two birds with one stone by saying that sensors are taking up the missile hardpoints. Win win, right?

My second explanation is the "space magic" option. Simply say that "special xenonaut technology needed to fight UFOs" has taken the space of the missing missiles, and imply that the scientist is greatly dumbing it down for the commander's sake. It's also simple, it's effective, but it could be seen as an attempt to cheat your way out of explaining things by, you know, not actually explaining things and giving a non-answer. But, it'd be better than an unrealistic and false-sounding answer.

Whichever one you chose, the hardpoints would be taken up by both fuel and needed equipment. You can't argue against that like you can if you were to cut weapons for weight concerns. It's also more realistic than saying that all of the hardpoints are taken up by fuel tanks.

Tweaking this would remove all of the major "inconsistencies and unrealisms" that are still on my list:

• Aircraft having armor.
  I know they don't, but it's implied, even if unintentionally, that they do. If you remove the airframe as a factor in reducing the armament, and it's no longer implied to be super heavy (and therefore kinda like armor), then there's no longer an issue.
  
• The armament being reduced so much.
  Fuel is a good reason to remove missiles (provided it's worded right). A heavy airframe-that-sounds-like-armor-due-to-its-exceedingly-great-weight is not a good reason to remove missiles. If you can describe how the Xenonauts fill up the hardpoints with something other than missiles, like fuel (and/or sensor pods), then there's no longer an issue.