Ishantil Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 (edited) So I just got to a Terror Mission and I wasn't able to get to it. In X-COM, if memory serves, the Skyranger could go anywhere in the world...eventually. This is not the case with the Chinook. Was wondering if that was intentional. Mainly, it serves to increase the costs by necessitating more than one strike team. EDIT: Now that I think about it, I might need to check to see if the Chinook was fully refueled. Now I'm not sure it was. Edited September 8, 2013 by Ishantil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyscreech Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 The range of fully fueled charlie was increased to cover the whole map. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max_Caine Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 The range of the Chinook was originally continental, rather than transcontinental. The idea was that you'd have several teams stationed across the world. That idea died under the demand for transcontinental dropships. The Chinook should be completely trnascontinental, but it might not stretch from one edge of the map to the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchoFourDelta Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Man, I think that continental Chinooks and transcontinental Shrikes and Valkyries would be great. I mean, people want transcontinental assault transports... research them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thothkins Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 I thought that was the way the game might be going at one stage. Continental Chinooks, Multiple Bases, Multiple Squads (minimising super troopers), having to keep a presence near or in all funding regions, using the build new base button more than twice. But there was enough of a call for the ranges of everything to be increased. Pros and cons on both sides, but it would have been interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max_Caine Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Yeah, I remember the avalanche of complaints that lead to it. 'Tis a shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thothkins Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Do you mean a lot of comments, or that they used Avalanche missiles to make their point? You can see how the game changed either way I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elydo Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 (edited) If I wanted to be mean, I might mention that such people using an Avalanche to make their point wouldn't really be all that effective, as Goldhawk would either suffer survivable damage or simply dodge the criticism. If I were mean. : > Edited September 8, 2013 by Elydo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobbzn Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 This is very easy to mod to your taste. Just open "aircrafts.xml" in some excel-like program (like OpenOffice or LibreOffice) and set the range to whatever you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchoFourDelta Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Pfffffffffffffffffff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GizmoGomez Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 I like the idea of a continental Chinook and unlimited ranged Shrike and Valkyrie. Terror missions would be difficult, though. I mean, what if they show up outside of our range? We'd need a fix for that. Ideas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobbzn Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 They used to show up outside your range, but to be honest, it just motivated building a second base sooner. Sure, the nation that got the Terror mission wasn't pleased, but they're not pleased with normal UFO activity either. On my current playthrough, I've actually been successful enough with my interceptor coverage from two bases that I haven't had a single Terror Mission yet - at the end of December. The issue would instead be Local Forces-downed UFOs at the start, but since those are kind of cheating to get you access to a UFO anyway, I'm sure they could be spawned closer to your base without upsetting game balance too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchoFourDelta Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 If you're just kicking around your own gameplay, it might be possible to kick back the appearance of terror sites. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josip Broz Tito Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 Only one I could think of is allowing the chinook to land at cities to refuel...but that's basically like having unlimited range except with more annoyance. Other option is letting you place 2 bases at the start of the game: a main and a small interception base. They would have to be within chinook range of each other. The chinook could stop at the 2ndary or any other base you set up as a stepping stone to the destination. Obviously, the terror mission would need to stay up while targeted. I really don't know what the best decision is here or even what my opinion of this is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusherven Posted September 8, 2013 Share Posted September 8, 2013 I did not like terror missions showing up out of range--at least not early ones. It wasn't unusual to have two or three unreachable terror sites before you ever got one you could reach, and IMO that was crap. Even if you built a second base, you would still have parts of the globe you couldn't reach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elydo Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Hmm, you could have terror missions being auto-reachable somehow. Like, when clicking it it'll state that your team will be flown to within range of the site before inserting through the usual vector (Chinook), or even just taken to the site, if there's a way of having a mission without a dropship on map. Or, Terror missions are so important that the host nation gives you situational carte blanche access to mid-air refueling, allowing the Chinook to go to the site and back, though you can't re-target it. The idea of a continental Chinook is fun, but you can't have terror missions automatically out of range. They're too significant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thothkins Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 I always thought the inability to get to terror missions was one of the main reasons that the Chinook ranges started to push upwards in the first place. I'd always see more, and earlier, posts about those sites than the crash sites. This wasn't helped by the locals nuking the site, saying that thousands had died and that they were less than impressed with the Xenonauts. So I thought we were going to see a combination of 1) Revised text downplaying the terror site outcomes. 2) Smaller earlier terror sites that had less of a bearing on funding. 3) Pushing back terror sites until you had got a Shrike or something with global reach. 4) Making sure that early terror sites were always within the range of the first base. 5) Making sure they stay on the screen long enough for the Chinook to get there. Particularly 4) I thought was coming. Instead, it's still an issue, despite all the other changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchoFourDelta Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 (edited) Wait. If the Chinook was originally continental, in order to incentivize some additional gameplay decisions and base placement until we got advanced transports (triage) and the issue was terror missions... Wouldn't it have been easier (or at least made more sense in preservation of the gameplay) to push terror missions back a bit, or to localize them somewhat, rather than do away with that whole idea? Edited September 9, 2013 by EchoFourDelta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thothkins Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 As with everything, it's never just the one issue. There were comments about not getting to crash sites as well as the terror sites. I noticed the terror site one more. Likewise the ability to get more bases and chinooks with troops was combined with how difficult the economy was back then. This spawned all those free facilities and upgrades you see all over the place. It's fiddly stuff, but I certainly think that some of the above would have removed at least that issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crusherven Posted September 9, 2013 Share Posted September 9, 2013 Yeah, part of the problem back then was definitely that funding was tight. A second base was a massive sacrifice. I liked #4 as well, at least for early sites so that new players would get a chance to see what a terror mission meant before being forced to skip them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SalsaDoom Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 The solution is to FedEx your troops. Moving cargo between bases has unlimited range and always arrives within 24hrs :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elydo Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 Remember to put air holes in the box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 (edited) Remember to put air holes in the box.And don't let Pvt. Thothkins do the packing and shipping. We're still trying to explain to the relatives of the last batch why "saving shipping costs" by using Amazon's Super Saver rate was more important then the Xenonauts having weapons when they arrived at the terror site. Edited September 12, 2013 by StellarRat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thothkins Posted September 12, 2013 Share Posted September 12, 2013 "They died serving the planet " or at least serving the bank accounts of those in charge of deployment. Don't forget! If you are the family of one of those tragically lost Xenonauts, Thothkins Tours are offering great "package" deals on visiting their remains!* *subject to availability. air holes will cost extra. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.