No more positive points from ground combat - implications?

[RuskiVolkov]

Also I don't know if terror missions, bombing missions, and bases are working properly yet, but it seems like they're all good to go. And if that's the case, I don't understand the complaint for wanting improved relations for ground missions. From September to December I attacked 4 alien bases, stopped 2 bombings (most of them were out of range), and stopped 3 terror attacks. This is probably what gave me good enough relations to make it through rough times. I don't think I'm very good at this game but that hasn't deterred me from playing on veteran, and I make it pretty far in my playthroughs.

Edited January 16, 2014 by RuskiVolkov

[kraex]

From September to December I attacked 4 alien bases, stopped 2 bombings (most of them were out of range), and stopped 3 terror attacks. This is probably what gave me good enough relations to make it through rough times.

None of those bases or terror sites improved your rating a bit (other than preventing you from the loss of rating you'd have incurred for ignoring the terror sites). The only thing you gain relation for is shooting down UFOs.

[RuskiVolkov]

Kraex no way. I had no idea. If I'd known that I think I might've been a lot more discouraged from playing haha. Guess that makes that point moot

[StellarRat]

None of those bases or terror sites improved your rating a bit (other than preventing you from the loss of rating you'd have incurred for ignoring the terror sites). The only thing you gain relation for is shooting down UFOs.

You dislike that? Or are you just stating a fact about the game for informational purposes?

[Dranak]

None of those bases or terror sites improved your rating a bit (other than preventing you from the loss of rating you'd have incurred for ignoring the terror sites). The only thing you gain relation for is shooting down UFOs.

You gain relations from attacking landed UFOs, as well as getting triple the alloys/alenium. I can't confirm if it's working, but I believe it is also intended for bases and terror missions to give standings increases.

Edit: Just checked the XML, values for winning terror missions and alien bases are back in, so those should be working.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Dranak

[vaultdweller]

Why do you feel this way about ground combat missions, and not this way about UFOs? Why is the third, fourth, and fifth "small scout" that you shoot down so vastly more important than the third, fourth, and fifth "small scout" that you face in ground combat?

This got me thinking, so now I'm just spitballing an idea that I haven't fully thought through...

What would be the ramifications if the relational impact (both for ignoring and for intercepting) for a given UFO class decreased as the invasion escalates? In other words, nations are always very concerned about the larger and more advanced UFO's in their airspace, but become less concerned about smaller craft once greater threats emerge. Would this allow a player that wants the extra resources, or combat experience, or whatever to 'grind' some extra, smaller craft if they want to, without making players feel like they need to focus all of their resources on air superiority to avoid having their budget crushed?

At first brush, I think it would run the risk of causing some of the same arguments as airstrikes (where if the reward for ground combat is too great, then the player is compelled to do the GC even though the game provides a suboptimal bypass). However, unlike with the airstrike, it would be a bit of a balancing act as to whether you consider it worthwhile to field the extra planes to handle UFO's that don't have a huge impact.

[vaultdweller]

None of those bases or terror sites improved your rating a bit (other than preventing you from the loss of rating you'd have incurred for ignoring the terror sites). The only thing you gain relation for is shooting down UFOs.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. You currently gain relations for attacking landed UFOs. I don't recall if the relations bonus for base assaults and terror missions has been correctly implemented yet, but they're definitely planned to do so.

[kraex]

Sorry, but this is incorrect. You currently gain relations for attacking landed UFOs. I don't recall if the relations bonus for base assaults and terror missions has been correctly implemented yet, but they're definitely planned to do so.

If this is now "fixed", great. Dranak is reporting that it's back in the current build.

[kraex]

You dislike that? Or are you just stating a fact about the game for informational purposes?

Both, but apparently this is no longer true in the current build. Only crashes don't give any relation.

[Dranak]

If this is now "fixed", great. Dranak is reporting that it's back in the current build.

I think those were always supposed to stay, they just got missed with the initial change.

[StellarRat]

You gain relations from attacking landed UFOs, as well as getting triple the alloys/alenium. I can't confirm if it's working, but I believe it is also intended for bases and terror missions to give standings increases.

Edit: Just checked the XML, values for winning terror missions and alien bases are back in, so those should be working.

OK, that's good news then.

[kraex]

You currently gain relations for attacking landed UFOs.

I was not aware of that. StellarRat made this very suggestion on the previous page and no one mentioned that it was already implemented as such.

[vaultdweller]

I don't want to speak for him, but I believe his suggestion was simply stating that the relations bonus should be equal to (or greater than) interception. I don't know the relative value of each, so this may not be the case now.

Also, I suspect he brought it up here because a number of the people in this thread are also present in another thread, where Max_Caine suggested stepping up the importance of ground assaults by making the UFO's land more often, land longer, and generate more relation-impacting events while landed. Other suggestions in the thread included things like making the UFO's remain landed indefinitely if there are superior interceptors nearby, forcing the player to attack on land or risk letting the UFO escape.

[StellarRat]

Other suggestions in the thread included things like making the UFO's remain landed indefinitely if there are superior interceptors nearby, forcing the player to attack on land or risk letting the UFO escape.

I wouldn't be in favor of UFOs camping out indefinitely on Earth, but I certainly wouldn't be opposed to them hanging around long enough to be intercepted on the ground more often. The biggest problem I have is getting to them before they take off. What I don't want is for GH to straight jacket players into doing more ground combat than we already have.

Also, since Chris was talking about making Terror and Base missions come up with even 100% air superoirity: I've several aerial terror sites pop up that were totally out of the reach of my jets. How are we supposed to deal that? I took a relations hit for something I could do absolutely nothing about. The nation requested me to send fighters, but I had none that could reach site. It's already been stated blanketing the entire planet with air cover is difficult and undesireable. The reason I bring is up is that you can reach all land terror sites because even the Chinook has global reach, but your jets do not.

Edited January 16, 2014 by StellarRat

[vaultdweller]

The suggestion in question would only have them remain grounded indefinitely if you have a squadron circling above to shoot them down the instant they take off. Otherwise, they'd just go about their mission and leave when finished. The hopeful result of that would be that A) you can force the UFO to stay on the ground while your team is en route, and B) if you choose to wait for them to take off and fight them in the sky, you'll risk letting them escape before you can intercept (because you can't 'camp' them while you wait).

Edit:Personally, I don't think that particular idea is necessarily worth the effort of implementing, since I don't see it having a large impact. Giving more and longer windows to attack on the ground is more important; using interceptors to keep them on the ground seems like a very small detail in comparison.

[RuskiVolkov]

I avoid trying to catch landed UFOs early, because ten times out of ten right before the Charlie gets there they take off and destroy it. That's been happening to me since I got this game about a year ago and I chalk it up to my awful luck. However with the Shrike I don't have any problems catching landed UFOs, as long as they're near the Shrike's base. If I act fast enough I can usually get to the landed ship before it leaves. I've also seen a lot of UFO 'hopping' where one lands and takes off about 4 times, each time landing somewhere new.

@StellarRat I disagree with you about the bombers. The alien ships are appearing all over the planet and you can't always stop it, and people will be mad at you for not stopping it because I assume they expect you as the commander to do something. Maybe the relationship hit should be smaller? The rationalization being: Your job is to stop these aliens and stop them from hurting people, and you didn't do that. You couldn't get there for whatever reason and we respect that but are reducing funding due to the fact people still died.

[StellarRat]

@StellarRat I disagree with you about the bombers. The alien ships are appearing all over the planet and you can't always stop it, and people will be mad at you for not stopping it because I assume they expect you as the commander to do something. Maybe the relationship hit should be smaller? The rationalization being: Your job is to stop these aliens and stop them from hurting people, and you didn't do that. You couldn't get there for whatever reason and we respect that but are reducing funding due to the fact people still died.

I know, it's sort of a Catch-22. It seems to me that under such extreme circumstances your jets should be able to get there using mid-air refueling. After all, the site isn't going anywhere, so you have a lot more time to reach it.

[RuskiVolkov]

I know, it's sort of a Catch-22. It seems to me that under such extreme circumstances your jets should be able to get there using mid-air refueling. After all, the site isn't going anywhere, so you have a lot more time to reach it.

It isn't going anywhere and that actually makes a good point: why does it take like 4 hours to bomb a city? I feel like the majority of a bombing run is in getting to the target (which aliens can totally avoid by just dropping right onto the city rather than have a bomber fly across the planet). The bombing itself would have to be like 20 minutes maximum, if that. Such circumstances would actually be so extreme that only the nearest planes could respond of the city hoped to be saved! But that's all too realistic. Well actually when it comes to aliens and the fantastic realism is whatever you make it, until actual aliens invade and we have something to really base things off of.

[StellarRat]

Another point I failed to mention, not only are aerial terror sites sometimes impossible to reach, they also encourage the player to build even more airbases. I have no problem with having to build two or three new air bases, but I certainly don't think the player should be tempted into having to build six or more bases to deal with aerial terror sites. That would mean probably running a minimum of 18 jets, but more like around 24+ for truly good coverage. Then the air component truly would comprise too much of the game play, IMO.

[Skitso]

Yeah, aerial terror sites give nothing to this game... Just wish they were somekind of different ground mission instead.

[Ol' Stinky]

Aerial terror sites would be fine if there were non-interceptor heavy strategies. If you could go for a ground combat heavy strat, or a research heavy strat, or an engineer heavy strat, it'd be a way to punish a skeletal air force.

[Skitso]

Yeah, today I got to the large ufos for the first time ever and the number of targets on my radar went way through the roof. I have 3 bases: north Africa with 3 corsairs and 3 foxtrots, cuba with 3 condors and 3 foxtrots and Japan with 2 condors and 2 foxtrots and I'm so completely overwhelmed I don't even want to continue playing. I'd just want to do something else (ground combat!) than continuously shoot dozens if ufos down. Especially europe seems to get insane ufo numbers and my main base (n. Africa) is continuously struggling under heavy pressure. I play on normal and use auto resolve.

Meanwhile ground combat has become almost trivial. My experienced super soldiers (wolf/laser) are so accurate, fast and strong, enemies have absolutely no means to stop me. So GC is way too easy at this stage and AC is laughably hard and need lots of work in comparison.

well... went a bit off topic I'm afraid..

Edited January 17, 2014 by Skitso

[StellarRat]

Yeah, today I got to the large ufos for the first time ever and the number of targets on my radar went way through the roof. I have 3 bases: north Africa with 3 corsairs and 3 foxtrots, cuba with 3 condors and 3 foxtrots and Japan with 2 condors and 2 foxtrots and I'm so completely overwhelmed I don't even want to continue playing. I'd just want to do something else (ground combat!) than continuously shoot dozens if ufos down. Especially europe seems to get insane ufo numbers and my main base (n. Africa) is continuously struggling under heavy pressure. I play on normal and use auto resolve.

Meanwhile ground combat has become almost trivial. My experienced super soldiers (wolf/laser) are so accurate, fast and strong, enemies have absolutely no means to stop me. So GC is way too easy at this stage and AC is laughably hard and need lots of work in comparison.

well... went a bit off topic I'm afraid..

It's still a valid concern.

[RuskiVolkov]

Aerial terror sites would be fine if there were non-interceptor heavy strategies. If you could go for a ground combat heavy strat' date=' or a research heavy strat, or an engineer heavy strat, it'd be a way to punish a skeletal air force.[/quote']

I like what Ol' Stinky is saying. It'd be nice to have various strategies that could all work.

[kraex]

I like what Ol' Stinky is saying. It'd be nice to have various strategies that could all work.

My first thread here:

http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/8416-Such-heavy-air-focus

Was about the heavy air focus and tight UFO-shot-down based economy, and how it negated almost every alternative approach to gameplay. It devolved a little bit into a discussion about air combat tactics, so I let the thread die. A few things of value were discussed there, including the toning down of the number of UFOs per wave, which doesn't seem to have had a lot of effect, maybe it was pushed back up.

So I heartily agree that more ways to play, or focus your play, would be nice. However, this isn't really feasible as the game is currently designed. The pacing of the invasion doesn't seem to be linked to anything other than the date, which means you can't really hold out forever. You're forced to focus research up to at least alenium explosives to be able to destroy larger UFOs effectively. Etc.

As long as the econ is designed and tuned as it is now, you're forced into a whole lot of decisions that are absolutely required in order to maintain enough economy just to play the game.

1. Your initial base almost has to go in the middle east, with Cuba a fairly distant second.

2. Your initial purchases must include hangars and aircraft.

3. You must quickly expand to a second base, in either Cuba or the middle east, whichever you neglected.

4. You must find the right kind of UFO to research up through alenium explosives. If you fail to shoot it down, or the RNG screws you, you're done.

5. You must research alenium explosives and upgrade your interceptors by the second or third month. Failing to do so will render you unable to shoot down UFOs.

There are probably a few other things, but the above decisions are basically on rails. I don't think you can play a feasible game without following this almost as a script.

Edited January 17, 2014 by kraex