Managing Mundane vs. Cutting Edge Gear and Equipment

[Doctor J]

I really like tp1024's idea that the market should gradually provide stuff on a time basis, leaving PHALANX scientists to specialize in researching the alien goodies.  Especially since there are some complaints that players are researching this stuff too quickly {http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Gameplay_Proposals/Scientist_Cap_Per_Research_Project - hopefully this idea has died a well deserved death}.  Also because starting gear all comes from museums - most is WWII era.

[TrashMan]

New weapons are spiffy, but the standard guns you get are still very effective.
Remember they are "standard" for PHLANAX, but represent the best weapons humans built so far. It's nothing to sneeze at.

Mid game I put together a new team, equipped them with standard weapons/armor and sent it off to clear the alien-infested subway, as my high-tech armed team was taking some R&R. The mission was a success with only one casualty (due to my oversight).

I dont' see any problem with buying a stock of standard guns and ammo. I was never short of money and it's only a few klicks. A real base commander wouldn't deal with that you say? A real base commander wouldn't deal with half the interesting stuff in-game. So that's not really a great argument.

[Doctor J]

New weapons are spiffy, but the standard guns you get are still very effective.
Remember they are "standard" for PHLANAX, but represent the best weapons humans built so far.

NOT!  Bazookas went out of fashion in the 1960s, and flame-throwers haven't been used since the '70s.  They were all replaced by special purpose rocket launchers.  In particular, the range that U.S. infantryman can ignite things with an M202 'Flash' rocket is WAAY better than what can be done with the flame-thrower.  Why get so close you can hug the Bug Eyed Monsters when it's more survivable to 'reach out and touch' them from behind cover?  There's not a single weapon available to PHALANX that wasn't in use during the era of the Korean War.  Specifically, weapons available right now have about ten times greater range than what PHALANX uses [this is intentional] and much greater accuracy [not sure if this was intentional]; i'm not even bringing in bonus features like laser sights, etc.

[TrashMan]

Dude, you use flamethrowers for urban combat - on maps where there's lots of buildings and cover, or inside buildings. Same goes for shotguns.

With the flamethrower you can fry a alien for only 8 TU's...use inferno and fry several in a row! It's devastatingly effective.
In wide open spaces? Use something else. Some guns are more specialized than others.

[Drayd]

wow, i am amazed that so many people can get worked up about an economical market... : O

I don't really see how changing the price of the starting weapons will make much of a difference at all, i mean in the originals they cost money, and no matter what happens the weaponry will cost. That's part of playing the game, you might as well say, lets help the newbies out by killing the aliens for them... = /
It's a pointless excercise which will take away from the game, you may consider making the starting weapons free on the easiest difficulty settings or something like that.

As for flamethrowers, they i believe were outlawed by the geneva convention. For the simple fact that the sound of someone burning to death causes severe trauma to those in range to hear it, and understand what it is that they are hearing.

[Chriswriter90]

As for flamethrowers, they i believe were outlawed by the geneva convention. For the simple fact that the sound of someone burning to death causes severe trauma to those in range to hear it, and understand what it is that they are hearing.

The aliens weren't there to sign that Geneva Convention or any of the Biological Weapons Geneva Conventions, so it's legally fair to use those weapons against them.

Do you really want to give up the gas grenades? It really is easier to use them than the stun rods.

[Drayd]

The whole point of the geneva convention was that those who signed it would stop using those weapons, so the aliens are free to use them, but the human sides aren't, under the convention.
The whole point of discontinuing their use, as it put in my previous post was that the result of using the flamethrower resulted in traumatised soldiers on all sides.
Although it depends on what you're going for in the game, if you want realism then take them out or make it so that using the flamethrower reduces the morale of those in LOS, or if you're going for the more arcady feel then leave as is.
I love the gas nades...

[Winter]

The whole point of the geneva convention was that those who signed it would stop using those weapons, so the aliens are free to use them, but the human sides aren't, under the convention.
The whole point of discontinuing their use, as it put in my previous post was that the result of using the flamethrower resulted in traumatised soldiers on all sides.
Although it depends on what you're going for in the game, if you want realism then take them out or make it so that using the flamethrower reduces the morale of those in LOS, or if you're going for the more arcady feel then leave as is.
I love the gas nades...

Why on earth do you think the Geneva Convention applies in a conflict where a) the attacking side (i.e. EVIL ALIENS FROM SPACE) is entirely not covered under it, b) the defending side is an organisation of UN-sanctioned paramilitaries operating outside of any national military, and c) it's 80 years into the future, when the convention is already 'open for interpretation' today (thanks, George!)?

Anyway, the only thing the convention actually forbids is their use against or near concentrations of civilians. There's perfectly plausible cause for the use of flamethrowers and other incendiaries by PHALANX, all of which are covered by the same act. As far as we're concerned the Geneva Convention has no relevance on the game and this will not change.

Regards,
Winter

[GopherLemming]

Why on earth do you think the Geneva Convention applies in a conflict where a)... b)... c)...

I feel that any conventions established that involve human morals and empathy eg: flamethrowers outlawed because of excessive mental or physical trauma (to either civilians or soldiers since I'm not totally familiar with these conventions) would need to be strictly maintained and applied to any foe, especially to "evil" aliens

"Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one."

Where Gameplay concerned forget ethics. They're evil aliens! 

[BTAxis]

Well, you don't HAVE to use those weapons.

[Sophisanmus]

I hardly think that humanity has such respect for paper that it would resign its whole to extinction to preserve a document...

[Zorlen]

I haven't heard that flamethrowers are outlawed, but in either case all warfare conventions are limited to usage against our species only. E.g. it's forbidden to use toxins against human opponents, but its okay to spread them to ged rid of cockroaches or locust.

[GopherLemming]

I hardly think that humanity has such respect for paper that it would resign its whole to extinction to preserve a document...

That may be the case, but in the game do the governments think they're facing extinction (and if they do would the use of flamethrowers and gas grenades really make such a large difference)? If that were true I think Phalanx would be a much larger operation with larger donations from it's supporting countries (I'm not suggesting that needs to be changed, far from it, I think the gameplay is good as it is)

I haven't heard that flamethrowers are outlawed, but in either case all warfare conventions are limited to usage against our species only. E.g. it's forbidden to use toxins against human opponents, but its okay to spread them to ged rid of cockroaches or locust.

Granted these only cover our species, because we are the only sentient creatures we have encountered (as far as I know ) but If another sentient life form was discovered, I would hope basic warfare conventions such as weapon usage types and prisoner of war treatment would be applied since ignoring these "rights" is a step down a slippery road, even if they aren't human. And yes, I do realize that hope isn't at all a solid argument, but defending a theoretical species' inclusion into a convention for physical or mental protection has a surprising lack of available supporting material 

[Talon112]

Personally, I've only used the Flamer once in a mission, and it was a waste of time because I don't seem to get clumps of aliens all in one area.

IMO, shotgun is better for urban maps, but flamer has it's uses for some situations.

Besides, if your planet was under attack by aliens, would you want to limit your retaliation options?

Look at Independence Day, they eventually used Nukes on their own country to try and take out one of the big saucers.

[Destructavator]

Why place limitations and rules upon yourself unnecessarily?  I could be wrong, but with agreements such as the Geneva Convention, one nation breaking it could result in sanctions and condemnation from the other nations in the world, and perhaps the U.N. being mad at you.  This is nothing comparable to the setting of the game, where there isn't any galactic council of various races or anything, no higher authority or collection of races/worlds to answer to, etc.

Further, the aliens are already being treated differently anyways, being cut open and studied when dead, etc., and they don't follow ethical rules either by going after civilians.

All things considered, it just doesn't make sense for humans to contrasensically limit themselves with self-imposed rules and give hostile aliens "rights."

"Rights" make sense when fighting one's own kind, such as humans vs. humans, but not against an alien threat that itself won't play by "rules."