All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Today
  2. Trying to answer some of your questions. 1. I personally would skip plasma. In my playthrough I only used (in phase 2): shield guy - MAG SMG rifles: MAG rifles sniper: laser sniper (I preferred the large range over the better damage of MAG/pulse). carbines: MAG carbines heavys: Laser minigun (MAG does way more damage, but has only 4 rounds per magazine - laser minigun magazines let you shoot 10 times, which was more important for me than damage) There are other good weapons too - but for me this was the best combination. 2. It is possible to capture all Xenomorphs. For example (capturing a xenomorph warrior, using stun baton and laser carbines): 3. I would recommend my playthrough see signature. It is done in German language. 4. Sounds well. 5. For me only one landing party was ok, at least until the end of phase 3 (which is my current playthrough state). 6. No. 7. It is just time. Basically. Your research doesn't matter. But time can be shortened by letting aliens performing well - like let them build and supply bases. 8. I played my playthough without airgame most of the time (used mod easy/no airgame). You can down most enemy ships (= all with the exception of some terror ships). I raided not more than 2 per wave (you need some time for flying to crashsites and back and for healing between the waves).
  3. "The Septillians left the colony ships, walking onto a planet basking in sunshine, with rich acidic oceans, and warmly enclosed in a thick envelope of CO2. The last remaining humans would have made good hunting sport but gasping at the low levels of oxygen they couldn't run very fast."
  4. @Ninothree In your terraformation idea, a game loss could poke at the fourth wall and explain that the aliens now begin to terraform the planet and are responsible for our/2018's climate issues we are facing. A little cheeky!
  5. Good thought process Drakon. I didn't know the thing about 100 strategic nukes being enough to cause nuclear winter (I just looked up the paper, I think they would have to detonate in specific urban areas for it to happen). I like the idea that the aliens would mainly be trying to interfere in international affairs and that such a game plan would lead to your four conclusions. Though I'd suggest that you could alter them a little: option three could be a 'score' achievement, whereby the effectiveness of the xenonauts leads to some fraction of the Earth remaining habitable (not a total loss). Also, I think that you are dead on with the second assumption. The idea of alien colonisation always falls a little flat in my opinion. That stick-our-flag-in-another-planet kind of sci-fi was all the rage decades ago but it doesn't hold up now. 300 years ago some parts of humanity were quite happy to invade and colonise but today there is a lot of guilt and retaliation to that, in another hundred years our species hopefully wont be so merciless. Even in relatively old ideas like Star Trek there was a non-interference directive for the Federation. However, I take your point that the aliens are only doing it because they are being forced to but I still feel that there is scope for a much more solid rationale, especially one that works with the notion that the alien's attack is incremental (else the game would be really hard). If you can assume that aliens are capable of interstellar travel, you can probably assume that they can wait thousands of years to terraform a planet. Yes, you could find a caveat here - maybe the aliens can only do such travel once and so arriving at Earth they have no choice but to settle here - but making use of a caveat is not solid reasoning. The aliens could still be aiming for control but not necessarily to disembark their civilisation and find a new home (which also runs into the additional issue of environmental incompatibility, likely they'd not enjoy 1g of gravity or 1 bar of air at 21% oxygen). Control, in a more sophisticated sense, can come in many ways: subverting government, owning core economic actors, or even by continually destabilising humanity so that we never make it into space. Even those forms of control are the basics of neocolonialism. Advanced aliens may have even more subtle forms of domination and manipulation. Eliminating every aspect of Earth that aliens could find elsewhere (land, minerals, energy, position in space), the only thing I can think of that would draw them here would be our species and society. Possibly they'd want us for some inscrutable purpose, like using us as a card in galactic politics, or something heartless, like studying our behaviours when under attack.
  6. Yesterday
  7. @Drakon I like the thought put into your ideas. I would like to think that, even if a billion+ aliens were coming to Earth, if they were rational, they wouldn't start with violence. I could be convinced that 4000+ years of travel, forced by the nuclear destruction of ones planet, might radicalize the colonists. Generations were indoctrinated to believe that nuclear power is bad, and those who wield it are bad. Thus arriving at Earth with "no other option" but to save the Earth from the humans. I think most of these alien invader games have a hard time answering the question "why are they shooting first, and asking questions later?".
  8. I’ve recently had a little bit of time on my hands during a train ride, so I thought a bit about the “secret war” concept that has been discussed in the forums. Firstoff, two assumptions: The aliens are basically bound to the physical laws known to us. This is necessary to have any discussion at all, else anything becomes a question of tech-mcguffinism. The aliens have a solid reason to take over the Earth. If they just eventually want a habitable planet, it would probably be more effective to just terraform mars, if they already have the energy necessary to travel from one solar system to another with a sizeable fleet. If they merely want “the superiour human race” (*cough-Firaxiscom-cough*) it would be less effort to just get a couple of specimens and work with cloning / genetic engineering. The entire concept of aliens wanting to cause a nuclear war seems a little absurd: if all they want is to render Earth uninhabitable, just redirect a couple of asteroids from the asteroid belt to hit Earth. That way you don’t even have to worry about thousands of years of nuclear contamination before Earth becomes colonizeable again. Since the aliens come from another solar system, doing this should be no technical challenge to them, and to this day we do not have any reasonable defense against such an incident. A few real life facts: In 1990 the US had in excess of 20 000 nuclear warheads, while the USSR had more than 30 000. These were mostly strategic nuclear warheads, since the INF-Treaty from 1988 forbid short and intermediate range nuclear warheads for land forces (reducing the total number of nuclear warheads significantly). Current estimates state that as few as 100 nuclear explosions from strategic warheads would probably be enough to render Earth uninhabitable – granted, the aliens likely would have more effective ways to deal with some of the primary problems, like getting rid of the particles that would cause nuclear winter, so let’s multiply that number by 10. That means that either the US or the USSR might loose 90% of their nuclear assets and could still easily render Earth uninhabitable. A second issue to consider is that for this strategy to work it is not necessary that the warheads are launched or delivered to a specific target – they can be detonated inside their bunkers or right after launch. Even if intercepted, there would be a non-negligible chance for the weapon to detonate regardless. As such it can be stated that even if the aliens possessed the capability to intercept every single missile fired at them, the US and USSR governments would be in a position where they are capable of rendering Earth uninhabitable. During the Cold War, the official stance of politicians was that they were willing to accept complete annihilation rather than domination from a different political power. As such, even if the humans had no effective way of attacking an alien fleet in orbit, they could essentially take the planet Earth hostage and threaten that if they loose the war, no one will win. As a practical example of this strategy actually working, consider Sweden’s neutrality during WW II. The Swedes threatened that if invaded, they would flood their ore mines, which proved an effective deterrent given that all parties of the war were interested in trading ore with Sweden. Now off to speculation. The aliens probably have received radio signals from Earth for a while, and if they are capable of infiltration, they must have been capable of understanding what was communicated. They would be well aware of Earth’s nuclear capabilities (politicians kept bragging about them, in part to produce a scare in their own populace that would keep them in power, and in part to hopefully keep other nations too scared to attack them), and the then popular concepts of mutually assured destruction and the like. If the aliens consisted of a party of just a couple of thousand individuals, they could just request a bit of land as an autonomous nation, and any bigger nation in the world would gladly grant it to them in exchange for technological advancements. So we know that the aliens need Earth intact, they need Earth NOW, and there’s quite many of them. All this makes the following scenario likely in my opinion: the aliens have a significantly sized colonization fleet. Maybe their original survey data from Earth is a bit older – if they looked 4000 years ago and happened not to inspect Mesopotamia or China, there is a good chance they figured Earth had no intelligent life. Given how long interstellar travel is likely to take, that is not that absurd a scenario. While approaching our solar system, an initial crew is awoken from cold slumber to assess the situation, make necessary adjustments and prepare Earth for colonization. To their shock they find Earth occupied by militaristic powers with nuclear weapons. If they actually lost their own planet to a conflict between such powers, their threats of total annihilation would seem even more credible to these aliens. The aliens are probably smart enough to realize that a small number of them will be welcomed in exchange for the technology they bring, but a large number would cause concerns and possibly a panic, so they would like to pacify the situation before it escalates. A small number of individuals is sent ahead to take control of Earth’s nuclear assets and ensure safe landing of the colonists. Interestingly enough, the Cold War actually presents a bit of a dilemma to the aliens: if they offer technology to either the US or the USSR, the other might see themselves pushed to initiate aggression out of fear of becoming completely out-teched. As such, interestingly, the aliens would actually want to stabilize and pacify US/USSR relations, trying to come to terms with both of them. At the same time, the aliens want to get in positions of power in the human military, in order to be able to eventually take control of the nuclear weapons. For this purpose, some paranoia between the US and USSR is actually beneficial for them. Conversely the Xenonauts would want to disrupt the alien infiltration and hinder agreements between the US and USSR that would benefit the aliens. If both the US and the USSR agree to allow a large number of aliens to land and claim territory in for instance both the South American jungles and the Mongolian steppes, the Xenonauts would simply not have the manpower to stop further alien operations. This also leads to several different end game scenarios: The aliens took control of Earth’s nuclear arsenal, and colonized the planet. A small number of humans are kept in something similar to zoos for study. The aliens decided to take the risk, and the humans launched all nukes. Earth is devoid of higher life now. The Xenonauts were a tad bit too effective in stirring paranoia between the NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Nuclear war erupted between humans, and Earth became uninhabitable. The Xenonauts managed to foil the infiltration efforts by the aliens, and facing a unified Earth the alien fleet grudgingly turned away in the slim hopes of reaching another colonizeable planet before their resources run out. Humanity is propelled forward in science and technology due to captured alien technology.
  9. Restart whole mission >> saving repeatedly throughout
  10. Last week
  11. Dear all, I’m very excited to have discovered Xenonauts and to see that a second part is planned. I must admit, that I have not had the chance to play Xenonauts 1 yet, but I purchased it from GOG and am looking forward to discovering and playing it! :-) About the upcoming part 2, I am old ‘connoisseur’ and lover of properly ‘ripened’ Tactical Turn Based games. Over the years I have played some of the best and I have thought a lot about what makes these games so darn gripping and addictive - especially compared to real-time games, which is not self-evident and I think really worth contemplating and thinking about. Right off the bat, my two all-time favorite turn-based games are probably Jagged Alliance 2 and, before that, The Bard’s Tale IV (on C64). (Of course, XCOM original and Shadows over Riva (Das Schwarze Auge 3) were awesome too!) Never mind the Bard’s Tale, that’s probably too old for today’s gamers (but do check it out if you want to see the appeal and great identification happening with first person view combined with a multi-character party and turn based tactical combat). I would very, very strongly suggest to everyone EVER developing a turn based tactical game to have played Jagged Alliance 2 at least once in their life. Really, if you haven’t done it yet, you really, really should do so now! Why? Because in that game, a lot, lot, a lotlot of things were done right. Especially and most of all, under the hood! And unfortunately, these are things which many modern turn-based games, such as the new XCOM 2 have forgotten, simply because their developers seem to be too young to ever have played it and learned from it! I think there are a lot of things learnable from other great turn-based games such as JA2 which the new Xenonauts 2 could profit of tremendously. In that regard, I would like to suggest to “Dare to be Different” from the original XCOM and the first Xenonauts (although as said, I haven’t even played that yet), and to shamelessly copy some of the very best things from other great games. And by that I don’t mean just superficial things, but most of all, core game and (game) combat engine design decisions. If you have ever played Jagged Alliance 2 (and don’t bother with part 1), and then play the new XCOM 2, you will be GREATLY disappointed by the sloppy, half-baked and just generally lacking in every division but graphics combat engine of XCOM 2. Sure, it looks nice, but there’s nothing under the hood compared to Jagged Alliance 2. And make no mistake: The combat engine is the heart of every turn-based combat or tactical game! So it’s the most important thing. Mark these words. Let’s take a look at some of the differences: At first view, you might only see on the surface, that in Jagged Alliance there were not only tons more, different weapons, where in XCOM 2 there seem to be only 4 different weapons. Namely the ones of the Ranger, the Specialist, the Grenadier and the Sharp Shooter. In JA2, there were I think, without exaggerating, at least 50 or probably more likely about 100 different weapons, modeled after real-world weapons. AK-47’s to weird hybrid British prototypes and secret US military sniper rifles, everything. Really, the Terminator (in part 1) would not have been able to ask for any kind weapon which the game didn’t carry! And that’s not all. Not be fare. After all, what’s a name if there’s nothing beneath it to back it up? The weapons were so elaborate like characters! They had a whole set of characteristics which really made them behave VASTLY different in the field / Game!! The had characteristics like: - Weapon range - Weapon accuracy (close range and max range) - Percentage to jam (those cheap Asian guns just suck!) - Chance (%) and time (Action Points) to unjam a jammed weapon - Reload time (in Action Points) - Type of Ammunition needed - Damage (single shot and burst shot) - Clip Size - Firing Time (Action Points to fire, single and burst fire) - Automatic Mode (Single and Burst Shot) - Addons (silencers, etc.) - etc. This really made weapons the second protagonist in the game. And the angry exclamations of characters missing a shot, like Bobby Gontarski, such as “There is limit to what I can do with these goddamn cheap supplies!!” *really* had a real-life or real-simulated background! And finding something that really was of good quality really felt like Christmas. Currently I am playing XCOM 2 with the Jagged Alliance 2 voice packs and it really shows, or *tells*, what XCOM 2 is missing! Where weapons in Jagged Alliance 2 were like women, some a little unpredictable perhaps, but if you treated them good, they rewarded you with good service through an entire life, err game-time, in XCOM they are just bland and boring pieces of cardboard. Without any character or personality, or background or life of their own. But that’s just the surface... If you dig deeper, you will find much more things which make XCOM 2 not really work. Things where Jagged Alliance 2 shines. Really shines, as in The Shining ;-). One of the worst things about XCOM 2 is, that it does not feel realistic. Jagged Alliance 2 is the PURE opposite of this! Where XCOM 2 feels like it is totally and shamelessly CHEATING on you, always processing hidden numbers, which the computer players should not have access to, Jagged Alliance 2 *never ever* feels that way. The pure opposite! Like have you ever had your guys set up an ambush with ‘Overwatch’ and then have the computer move a guy precisely to that square where your invisible visibility supposedly stops, only to throw a hand grenade at you without triggering your overwatch? The AI is CHEATING!! And that’s by far not the only time XCOM 2 does this. You can just feel it doing it all the time and in all kinds of circumstances. The sad thing is, kids of today who never played classics such as Jagged Alliance 2 which did not do this kind of cheating or peaking behind secret game data don’t know any better. They believe, that’s just the way turn-based games were... Jagged Alliance 2 *always* feels totally realistic and predictable and it never ever feels like the computer or AI is accessing game data that the real enemy would not have (it if were an equal other player). That’s what makes combat, and thus, because combat is the heart of every turn-based game, the entire game so believable and therefore so damn fun, realistic and great! This feeling of the game cheating on you really has a bad impact on XCOM 2. I’m talking just for starts, for instance about the to hit percentage numbers. Sometimes you have a to-hit percentage of like 90%, but every time you take the shot you miss. Ten times in a row! Of course this has a lot to do with the random seed, or the dice roll that is stored within in the Save Game. When you miss a shot and load a Save Game, you will miss it again, because the to-hit rolls have been pre-rolled and stored inside the Save Game. How stupid and messed up is that??? So those fancy hit percentages lose any and all of their believability and credibility, when you miss an 90% hit 10 times (or infinite times) in a row. And besides this, a lot of calculations are also just flat out false. Sometimes you can shoot enemies right through solid walls, were the hit chance should be 0% and sometimes you’re standing right next to a big alien, and the hit chance is like 36% for no apparent reason. This kind of stuff totally wreaks havoc on the initial trust you have in a combat engine, in the believability and realism of a game. Is very bad. Now, let’s look at why Fireaxis went to such a pain of storing pre-rolled to hit chances inside the Save Games: The problem was, Fireaxis did not want people to be able to simply re-load a Save Game when they missed an important shot. Why not? Good question. Probably because even Fireaxis understood at least partially, that you cannot have a good and exciting game, if that same game is not at the same time also capable of frustrating a player (Fireaxis just didn’t understand, that this frustration must be perceived to be “fair” or realistic). If players can just walk through a game without any effort and simply re-load every time they miss a shot, why bother for upgrading your weapons? Or your characters? Etc. The problem is, Fireaxis, like many other modern games, goes about this the entirely wrong way. I said previously that Jagged Alliance 2 and The Bard’s Tale IV are my all-time favorite turn-based games (along with XCOM original). Now both of those games did something very, very important to create realism: They both disallowed saving games during combat entirely (or JA2 at least was built with this as the way it was supposed to be played and later added a weanie-non-ironman-mode for beginners). And frankly, I am convinced, that this is mandatory to create a really good turn-based combat engine. And since the combat-engine of a turn-based tactical game is it’s heart, this I believe is also MANDATORY for a good turn-based tactical game. At this point, many people will probably ask why this should be so important? ESCPECIALLY those who have never played games that disallow saving during a turn-based combat. These kinds of people always argue, that you can have BOTH, if only you build-in the possibility of saving games during combat, because then, supposedly, those people who don’t want to load or save games during combat could simply abstain from doing so. – Or, a little more limited, you could add different difficulty levels which would allow such or disallow it. The whole problem, however, as can be seen with XCOM 2, is *NOT* the players, but the developers!!!! If a game such as XCOM 2 is DEVELOPED, right from the start, with the possibility to save and load games during combat, - even if it’s just for beginner players – then the whole combat, and thus the whole game will be built around that! And this, in such a manner that it becomes fun / playable ONLY WITH that feature! On the other hand, if a game, such as JA2 is built right from the start WITHOUT the option of saving or loading a game during combat, then the whole combat system and thus the heart of the game, the most important part of the game and thus the whole game will be developed and built around that. In such a manner, that the game becomes fun / playable WITOUT that feature! And the big thing about this is, that the second option, a game that is PROPERLY built without allowing saving during combat is A HELL OF A LOT MORE fun to play, because the combat engine, the heart will be made so much more fair, predictable and realistic, if the developers had to play test it and play it like that all the time, as opposed to being able to load and save during combat all the time. In this sense, really, the developers ARE the most important players of a turn-based tactical game. That’s why you, as an independent developer have EVERY possibility to make your games exceed, where big commercial games such as XCOM 2 by Fireaxis must fail: Because you can actually take the time to play test your game, and just like in Jagged Alliance, re-build the combat engine from scratch 3 times (!!!) if you see that the game would profit of it! (I think this is mentioned in the book “Jagged Alliance 2 Boss Fight Books #5” by Darius Kazemi.) Look at it this way: Compare turn-based combat to chess: What is chess, if you look only at individual moves? Isn’t that as crippling as looking only at an individual frame of a movie? Say you drop in a chess game in the middle, with half the figures already gone. It becomes a stop-motion type of deal. That’s what happens when you allow saving during combat. Turn based combat, just like chess, or a movie, can only start moving, can only star writing its own glorious story, can only come to life, even more, can only become poetry, when the individual moves of all turns in a combat become one inseparable and entire entity that goes down into history and memory as a whole piece that is not, and must not be hacked into pieces! Only then turn-based combat can become more than the sum of its individual components, only then can turn-based combat become poetry, and create a life of its own. If you keep saving and loading during combat, as you must if a game has been developed with this feature in place, combat becomes a stupid succession of individual freeze-frame puzzles or pictures, that lack the correspondence and interdependency of previous and later events / frames. Only if turn-based combat is NON-INTERRUPTED, can it really shine. I felt this very strongly in JA2 and in Bard’s Tale IV. The suspense which you experience during combat, while it may be great even in games such as XCOM 2, literally becomes almost unbearable when you know, that you cannot save or re-load, until the conflict is fully resolved (and your guys dead or alive). And, this is only possible, if a combat system was designed and developed from the start, to be like this. Which is so clearly not the case with the combat engine in XCOM 2, which feels so extremely unfair and cheating. Just play about 5 – 10 good fights in Jagged Alliance 2 (after rolling up your main character) and you should start to notice the difference! Yes, not being able to save or load during combat may require re-playing a few combats from scratch one or two times. And yes, that will make the game take a little longer to complete. Just a little. But it will add TREMENDOUSLY to the overall game quality. Why? Because it will FORCE the developers, even against their wills, to make the combat FAIR, PREDICTABLE and REALISTIC! Which XCOM 2 fails at miserably and what is missing so direly in XCOM 2 (everyone agrees, less randomness, and thus more predictable realism in XCOM 2 combat is the most important thing to want to get more of). And if the combat is forced to be developed more fair, predictable and realistic, then, the *ENTIRE* combat engine will be better, much more honed out and filed to greatness! And if the combat engine is the heart of turn-based games as I said it is, then that makes the entire game so much butter. So you see, you must disallow saving during combat, not as much for the players, but most of all for the developers and the development process. And when the game has been developed to greatness without the option to save during combat, really, nobody can add any fun by putting it back in. So, long post short advice: Do not allow saving the game during combat. Don’t add the option, don’t plan on adding it, don’t even think about it. Make a game, that is fair, realistic and works great, if you like with different difficulty levels, but WITHOUT any option whatsoever to save or load a game during combat! Believe me, the game will profit of it. Tremendously! More than anybody, not even the developers can possibly *ever* forsee or imagine! I believe that’s what happened with JA2 and Bard’s Tale IV. Remember, Jagged Alliance 2 re-designed their combat engine from scratch 3 times! They took their combat engine, and thus combat very seriously. And you can’t take a movie seriously, if you are only looking at it frame by frame. You *must* look at it in motion and most of all, develop it, from scratch, to be looked at and experienced only in motion by everyone. Otherwise you should perhaps produce and sell photographs, not movies. That’s why JA2 is so good and XCOM 2 is so poor (below the glossy graphics). Bobby Gontarski
  12. I actually meant proximity grenades and a motion detector or some other device that allows you to detect hidden units even if it's just a camera that can look around corners or under doors. Sorry I wasn't really clear on that. A recon drone would be really cool! I also really hope we'll get some more chemical or bio weapons other than just stun gas and smoke. Fire weapons didn't make it into the last game, <hint, hint> . Of course, that assumes that the alien AI is smart not to just sit in one place and just die and also that the will aliens have similar capabilities or at least defenses against them. One could argue that the Reaper is a bio weapons I suppose.
  13. I had a few questions i was looking for answers to. 1. I'm starting to get plasma weapons and i believe i'm in phase 2. Is this ok or about what ships/weapons should i have? 2. I've encountered the xenomorph that explodes with very little damage...i've tried using stun battons and alien lightning weapons but no luck capturing it before it explodes, is it supposed to be able to be captured? 3. Are there any youtube series of this that anyone might recommend for me to watch for tips? 4. As i said previously i believe i'm in stage 2. I have 3 bases for interception and a fourth in the works, is this ok? 5. Should i have multiple landing parties? Currently i only have one base that with a chinook(still haven't found an upgrade) that i send a team out from, should i run multiple teams? Should i have better then the chinook? 6. I've researched all the lightning weapons i've found but still stuck with batons, do i ever get lightning weapons of my own? 7. Are stages dependent on time or by research you perform? 8. Per wave of enemy ships, about how many are we expected to shoot down/raid? Loving the game so far though
  14. Hello everybody, I'm playing the very latest version of the mod installed from scratch and I've got some problems: 1) I have a soldier (not very experienced, 3 kills, 3 ground combats) that cannot reload his weapon. I tried it with the laser shotgun mk3, rocket launcher, and now he carries a plasma cannon mk3 and the reaper armor and he is not overloaded so he has enough TUs. After he is out of the ammo, I have to let him drop his weapon and have it reloaded by another soldier. 2) The plasma cannon mk3 (I didn't try previous versions) has VARIBLE amount of ammo. Sometimes I see 6 ammo, sometimes 4. 3) Smart weapons of aliens (e.g. smart rifles) don't seem to deal any damage to soldiers. And to aliens as well when I let my soldiers take and use it.
  15. You, my friend, are magic...
  16. It's not fixed because it's impossible to fix in Xenonauts 1, unfortunately - I agree that the font size we picked was too small but the UI was designed around having font that size, so once we realised the mistake we found there's just no room to make it bigger without breaking the UI. Don't worry - there's been enough complaints about it that it's something we're definitely bearing in mind for the sequel.
  17. Yeah, so for the sake of clarity here (no doubt I'll lay this out again in a proper post later) the first draft of the Geoscape contains all of the same mission types as the original Xenonauts, so: Crashed / Landed UFO site Terror site Alien base attack Xenonaut base defence In addition, we now have the following new mission types working in the game: Capture resources (a mission where you have to pick up a couple of specific items and get them back to the dropship, currently used to recover Alenium) VIP Assassination / Capture VIP Rescue We're not currently using the VIP missions but we can hopefully integrate them later, as they are already fully functional - I just don't know where they fit into the strategy layer yet. In terms of the setting, we still have the whole "secret war" thing going on but ultimately I can write the final setting around the mission types we choose to include. We're getting close to having it functioning so you might see something soon. I'm a little reluctant to show it off though because it looks quite similar to the first Xenonauts even if the mechanics are somewhat different ... mostly because we re-used some of the same art to save prototyping time and have yet to properly replace it. I'm open to tweaking the Alenium system once it's in the game, but for now I'm planning to keep it fairly simple so the effects are predictable and I can evaluate it in semi-isolation. Once we know how all the new systems all work together we can try expanding them out and developing them further.
  18. This is actually something we're looking into this time around, although it'd be a relatively simple system that allows you to make minor changes to each piece of gear if you want to - e.g. do you want to pick a close combat scope for your rifle, or a long range one? Do you want extra ceramic plates in your armour to make your soldier tougher at the cost of lowering his TU? Do you want a rebreather on your helmet at the cost of reduced vision range? That sorta thing, hopefully.
  19. Afterblank didn't use that until Aftershock, and is probably the only reason why you didn't simply produce only one weapon and nothing at all. Add to that the various resistances that are a staple of the series and you're forced to haul multiple weapons because there isn't one 'powerful' weapon. Addons can even change the capabilities of these weapons like adding sniper scopes to precision rifles makes them able to be aimed at a body part after the user gets a skill. 'Accelerators' make kinetic weapons far more effective by improving muzzle velocity while silencers make it hard to pinpoint the shooter. Then there is the shit that some mods would add in like a giant fuck-off AMR that kills pretty much anything one-shot but required sniper and heavy weapons training to use and power armor to wield. That really isn't a problem with the Afterblank series as the KISS principle really applies there. There you've got your basic and advanced variants of equipment that generally modifies how they work in a general straightforward way.
  20. i don't think too many people are old enough to have played xcom apocalypse back in the day, but this was the idea that they shot for. financial issues meant that everything but the xcom side had to be scrapped. the inner politics of the earth side made the xcom faction weaker than the aliens, and while the aliens had a good deal of resources, getting their forces to earth was a bit of an issue. the idea was that the aliens were inter dimensional aliens attack from a different dimension, so they had to only send a transport or two at a time, and they had to learn how to travel and operate in our dimension better in order to be a bigger threat. working with certain factions and corrupting others was how you were supposed to defeat xcom. of course xcom wasn't your only opponent as well, so you were outnumbered. in fact any faction you were going to play was going to be outnumbered, and have some sort of edge over the other factions. there is some talk that phoenix point ( is going to try and do that again (sort of) from the same creator.
  21. jagged alliance 2 (1.13 mod) did a bit, it wasn't a big difference so you probably didn't notice a difference. xcom and most remakes have done stuff with vision cones and light. as for gamey trade offs for scopes, there has been a few squad games (JA2 included) that have it take a bit longer to take a shot, for increased accuracy or range. as for why not equip everyone with scopes, the same could be asked as to why not cover the entire game with bases on day one? cost often times is used to limit things that seem really good. personally i prefer extra costs to far outlandish downsides to equipment in order to keep balance. but of course if the downside (what ever that is, cost or otherwise) is too great then their isn't much point in even having it in the game. in the end weapons are pretty gamey in all games. JA2 which models things closer to reality than most games still has pistols being about 1/4 of their range and rifles about 1/15 of their range to prevent pistols from being completely outclassed. in reality the draw time is a big factor in their usefulness (one reason they are popular for guard duty), as well as the deficiencies of the human element. a rifle can reach well out beyond what you can see, so scopes are a no brainer for any military, but they aren't used much due to the tunnel vision they cause and their problems at close range. all of this is coupled with durability in the field and maintenance of the device. iron sights are very reliable, while a scope needs some attention to ensure it stays zeroed in. training new shooters also have issues if they learn on a scope instead of learning on irons, and then learning to use a scope. they tend to time their shots to hit their target instead of learning to keep their sights on target, which results in greater inaccuracies as they get better (glass ceiling essentially), and their inability to handle things too far away or too close with a scope, in addition to not being able to use iron sights effectively. these issues are something people not only don't realize exist, but consider to be artificial feeling when simulated, and thus disliked. think of it like fatal injuries, in real life medieval weapons cause fatal injuries far more gently than modern weapons (little concussive shock to your system). this means that if you stab a person in the heart, he will die, but not for a minute or two. if you put that into a video game people would tend to dislike such stuff very much and call it fake. balancing reality with people's expectations is an art that is delicate, too much realism and people call it fake, not enough and people call it fake.
  22. I like gear customisation, but felt sometimes it got out of hand. I wouldn't mind seeing a simpler, more streamlined version.
  23. While playing as the alien invasion would be fun as a "what if", I think the truth is, for most players, it wouldn't be very challenging. I mean, if the human (played by the computer) never shot your ufo's down, or killed your aliens to capture your tech, their tech tree would not improve much. They would have more beginning resources than you...but if you were to play realistically, the alien invasion seems to have near limitless resources to throw at you when you're the player... so having that ability as an alien player would be ridiculous. If you mod that out to make the game challenging...then you lose credibility to be the invading aliens... then you lose the feeling of the game. You'd also start with a ridiculous tech advantage that would make the game absurdly easy, especially if computer defender faction was limited the same way a player defender is... and if it wasn't, well, then you'd question why you don't get those resources and abilities as a player. For balance, you'd have to be inconsistent. But if you're inconsistent, then the setting fundamentally changes, and with it, the game. Like a possible balance would be letting the computer defender have more troop[s on a mission (a wave of 24-32 xenonauts... entire platoons, rather than squads). But then as a player, you're limited to sending 1 Chinook with 1 squad, rather than a wing with 24-32 inconsistent and unfair and changes the styles and feel of the game. I can see the appeal...I just think it would either be too easy, or else, require so many changes as to make the setting and background of the game seem completely different to the point of being an entirely different and new game. But that's just my thoughts and opinions.
  24. I do like the idea of recovering objects and choosing whether to keep or sell. Especially with alien weapons and grenades. Even alien power systems and such. I would say the simplest solution would be: If the player can use it in some form (even if not the most ideal way)...give it to them, don't auto sell. If it has no in game function for the it. I'd suggest the same with alien corpses and captives to be honest. maybe have different alien leaders and commanders have different info, so random lottery of what your interrogation turns up? Or other alien classes to get other info? (Alien engineers, medics, navigators/pilots etc.)
  25. I'd definitely like to see more dynamic air combat, with more realistic weapon loadouts, more interceptor and fighter types and more weapon variety. I'd also like to see one where damage to enemies carries over from one interception to the next... as well as to the tactical map. Maybe an option to target specific areas of an alien ship, or random hit location allocation. Then check to see what alien crew are in that section and apply damage to them (to kill them or have them start wounded). Different weapons might have different penetration and/or effects. Same procedure for components. Thus destroying the engineering section in air combat would likely end the combat quickly, causing the ship to lose power and engines and crash...killing the engineers onboard, but also destroying power systems and engines, so no chance of recovering those or fuel sources in the missions. Targeting the enemy crafts weapons would mean they can't shoot back, making it safer to attack, but stands little chance of downing the enemy craft and means you can't recover alien craft weapons. etc. etc. Base this on the damage done to the ship, maybe by section/compartment. Damaged, breached, destroyed values maybe. Then of course, this damage would be reflected in the ship model for tactical combat, both exterior and interior and create more dynamic entry points. Maybe options to bomb or strafe the site and continue the attack as the craft goes down, or has already crashed...which would cause more damage and kill more enemies, making more breaching points, more options and an easier the cost of more aircraft ammo, less experience for troops on ground, and less equipment and components that can be recovered in tact (less alloys from the hull too, obviously). Give more strategic and tactical options and flexibility, at the cost of more choices...balance your needs.
  26. At the start of a new game, the first placed base is empty, as in, only the command center is there, noting else other than that, the game runs "normally", and I can eventually build everything Even if I deactivate all my mods just in case, only leaving the base X:CE, the bug keeps happening If I start the standard non CE game, it works normally Attached are a screenshot, and a save litterally made after placing the base, with only the base mod on Save.sav
  27. I do like the idea of some close range, static heavy weapons on the transport ship (maybe make them automated, reaction fire only? And probably just HMG's/miniguns... or grenade launchers with HE or Smoke grenades... but MG's seem more likely. Intact alien ships might have point defence too... but they'd have to be destructible (which might cause collateral damage to capturing systems... or taking the alien craft with them in tact adds research options for better ones for the player).
  28. Hey, sorry for not helping you, but somehow my starter base appears empty, so I thought I could use something like this to maybe fix it so, where is that suppossed to go? like in which of the files is that supposed to be?
  1. Load more activity