Ideas for new tactics & weaponry

[SectoidSam]

Hey guys, It's been a while since I have checked out how the game is going. I am currently downloading 2.2.1. Can't wait to see how much better it has become since the previous stable release! Would love to be able to offer some kind of contribution to the project in the form of programming or art-work or something, but un-fortunately I can't even get a dog to sit let-alone tell a computer what to do! But I do have some ideas to pitch to everybody. They may not gel with you all but it is a rare opportunity to possibly have some influence over a game that you intend to play.

Idea number 1. When on the ground in UFO Defence it seemed to be the same old search and destroy sort of mission time after time. Basically rounding up aliens that usually prefered not to operate in any sort of a team, or have any sort of a purpose, but would usually be found all alone hiding in a barn or right down the back of the map. I think it would be good to encounter abit more of a range of different tactical opperations like: counter-alien abduction where the behaviour of the aliens would be stealthy and more prone to cover, or counter-alien infiltration where the alien behaviour is super aggresive and tactically co-ordinated, depending on the nature of the race, they may do things like lay ambushes and set booby-traps in this type of operation. Abit of variety would be good.

Idea number 2. Once again in the old UFO Defence, when you brought down a "very-large" you started to think that you might be able to snag a commander or a couple of engineers and so long as they didn't die during the initial interception, they were pretty much yours with a small launcher. I think that the higher the security status ie. alien commanders and engineers, the harder they should be to capture. For example, if you spend too many turns trying to snag an alien who has a wealth of information then they should panick and blow themselves up. This would put you under abit of pressure if your ufo-pedia is abit bare.

And finally idea number 3. Proximity mines were great! You could clear out a barn, lay a proximity mine at the door and feel assured that anything trying to get in or out there-after was as good as dead. I say bring em' back. Also check this idea out, omni-directional perimeter mines, or ODP's! A mine that can be layed across an area you want to effectively close down. you don't have to step on it to activate it, you only have to cross it's linear operational path within say five squares for it to activate along that path. So you could be standing right next to it when it goes off but so long as your not in the direction of fire your safe. There are many tactical applications for such a device, creating a perimeter around buildings that have already been searched and cleared, blocking off ally-ways, laying ambushes etc.

[BTAxis]

Idea number 1. When on the ground in UFO Defence it seemed to be the same old search and destroy sort of mission time after time. Basically rounding up aliens that usually prefered not to operate in any sort of a team, or have any sort of a purpose, but would usually be found all alone hiding in a barn or right down the back of the map. I think it would be good to encounter abit more of a range of different tactical opperations like: counter-alien abduction where the behaviour of the aliens would be stealthy and more prone to cover, or counter-alien infiltration where the alien behaviour is super aggresive and tactically co-ordinated, depending on the nature of the race, they may do things like lay ambushes and set booby-traps in this type of operation. Abit of variety would be good.

We do intend to move in this direction. But you know how it is, so little to do, so much time... Wait, reverse that.

Idea number 2. Once again in the old UFO Defence, when you brought down a "very-large" you started to think that you might be able to snag a commander or a couple of engineers and so long as they didn't die during the initial interception, they were pretty much yours with a small launcher. I think that the higher the security status ie. alien commanders and engineers, the harder they should be to capture. For example, if you spend too many turns trying to snag an alien who has a wealth of information then they should panick and blow themselves up. This would put you under abit of pressure if your ufo-pedia is abit bare.

We don't have alien commanders or engineers (or in fact any other kind of hierarchy), so that's a no-go. We can still make big UFOs attractive in other ways, though.

And finally idea number 3. Proximity mines were great! You could clear out a barn, lay a proximity mine at the door and feel assured that anything trying to get in or out there-after was as good as dead. I say bring em' back. Also check this idea out, omni-directional perimeter mines, or ODP's! A mine that can be layed across an area you want to effectively close down. you don't have to step on it to activate it, you only have to cross it's linear operational path within say five squares for it to activate along that path. So you could be standing right next to it when it goes off but so long as your not in the direction of fire your safe. There are many tactical applications for such a device, creating a perimeter around buildings that have already been searched and cleared, blocking off ally-ways, laying ambushes etc.

This idea has been around for a while, but no real design has gone into it. I can't rightly say if we decided for or against it.

[blondandy]

Hoehrer wrote on the wiki FAQ (April 2007) that proximity mines "will be implemented for sure".

Unfortunately Hoehrer has had less time for UFO of late.

[homunculus]

well, the aliens might have an objective of their own, which is why they are there at all.
right now they are just staying there to be slaughtered.
maybe they should try to complete their objective and leave.

[...]We don't have alien commanders or engineers (or in fact any other kind of hierarchy)[...]

seems to contradict some current ufopaedia entries about alens, i guess those will be remade then?

[BTAxis]

Which entries are these?

[homunculus]

Which entries are these?

it is somewhat a matter of interpretation, but for normal people, i expect those quotes would suggest specialist roles:
http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Aliens/Ortnok
"Ortnoks do not seem to serve in many specialist capacities; they are never used as technicians according to our camera observations, and usually busy themselves handling perimeter security for the Tamans when not engaged in combat."
well, this one does not say they do have specialist roles, it just says they don't, which is, technically, correct.
as we know very little about aliens, this kind of assumption might be treated the same way as 'bug becomes a feature'.
http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Aliens/Taman
"Besides serving as soldiers, they fill many specialist roles in the alien war machine, positions in which Tamans seem to be the most numerous."
this one could be interpreted in the context of being able to wield more complicated weapons, and therefore tamans could fill specialist roles in tactical combat.
but in the ortnoks description there is text about specialist roles in the sense of technicians.
could be misleading, and end up in disaster for the player, and devs might get sued maybe and that could be annoying even if there is a technically correct interpretation.

heh, one more, this time it also includes a suggestion about hierarchy, however nebulous.
so, every single organic alien description includes something about specialist roles.
http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Aliens/Shevaar
"The Shevaar seem to be located between Tamans and Ortnoks in the nebulous alien hierarchy, in that they sometimes fill specialist or command roles, unlike Ortnoks, but these tasks are still usually taken by Tamans whenever the two races are deployed together."

[BTAxis]

Note that "specialist roles" is not the same as a command hierarchy. Furthermore, these autopsies are early-game articles, and some of the assumptions the researchers make may just be wrong.

[homunculus]

i do note those.
exactly why i originally said 'seems'.