UFO interceptions

[altugi]

As for the actual event itself, I would recommend something simplistic for the player. One can't really turn air combat (are all "UFO" flying? do some swim, or dig, or walk, etc?) into strategic combat. Perhaps "combat" like in the old rebel assault games, where the player doesn't really fly the craft, but just aims the weapons?

Non flying UFO's wouldn't really be UFO's, would they?
Though there will likely be landed UFO's, I don't think there will be any digging, walking or swimming ones. Why bother when you can fly? Besides, how would you shoot down a submarine UFO? Or start a tactical mission on one? There'd need to be tons of extra underwater maps, and support for underwater combat as well.

Dunno. Sure they all would add variety to the game. But I think coders and artists would have the saying here, since these features would require some extra effort to be implemented. I think BTAxis concern regarding "how to make that" is right. However, having different alien vehicles, not jut "UFOs" could be interesting.

One thing that might be nice, if it is implementable, would be to include pilot characters.

I like this idea. Maybe we don't need a seperate class called "pilots". Every soldier could have combat AND pilotage skills. A good soldier would be good in all. Some would be only good in combat, some only good in pilotage. Also pilotage could be a training subject, just like the other skills that can be improved. Flying hours could count as experience etc etc.


Pilot stats... Thought's and Malick's suggestions make up the following:

Maneuver/Dogfight - how good is the pilot to place his aircraft in good position when pursuing an enemy
good targeting capabilities-how good is the pilot at getting a successful shot at his target
Fuel Management - the pilot may know how to optimize his aircraft range
Speed - in the same fashion, he may know how to get the best out of his aircraft's propulsion system

Also, as Malick said, "why not apply the same system that already exists for soldiers: promotions, medals, wounds and heal times etc?... Kills could be recorded, number of sorties, etc.. "

For pilot ejection, it may be possible to add a value specific to the aircraft type, which would reflect the chance of survival of the pilot. This value could improve over time with better technology discovered.

Yeah, that's possible. The engine has to be capable to calculate the status of damage and how it affect the ejection. Keeping BTAxis concern in mind, a pilot cannot eject himself if his vehicle explodes due to damage, but if it goes down, then ok.

With a shot down pilot that you have to save (Combat Search And Rescue missions) before the aliens capture it, if that sounds credible.

I also like the idea to extend the ejection case into a rescue mission. That would add versatility. However, one thing here is, that after an air mission you could have, say, 4 pilots ejected. And you play four rescue missions in a row... That could be boring. On the other hand I like the idea to have a map at the location of a plane crash and one unarmed man next to his parachute... and you have to protect him from aliens until he makes it into the rescue vehicle.

Would I risk all the time a squad for one man? That is another question. Option is you just let him starve.

[Thought]

Search and rescue missions might be nice, however don't forget that usually the player's craft will be shot down over friendly territory (i.e., Earth). It would waste a lot of Alien resources for them to stop what they were doing and try to kill the pilots (and passengers, if any). It certainly would add a nice element to gameplay, but at the same time it also makes perfect sense for it not to be present in the game.

Crossing over from the Storyline threat, it would be doubly interesting if turncoat humans were the ones to search for downed Phalanx craft. Since these organizations wouldn't be part of Phalanx support, they probably wouldn't have access to Phalanx technology. Thus, they'd want to salvage downed Phalanx craft just like the player salvages downed UFOs.

As for non-flying "UFOs" (yes, if they didn't fly then they aren't UFOs, hence the quotes), I just thought I should make sure. After all, TFTD had alien subs, and I think Apocalypse had one (or more) supersized aliens that walked around the city, so it seemed better to be sure that similar things weren't included, rather than to assume.

Just a,

Thought

[BloodMagus]

I think you're right. The only game to offer a search and rescue mission for downed pilots was UFO aftermath, and in that case most of the planet was hostile territory with not so native fauna. It was never aliens who were hunting the pilots.


If its possible, I think if the crash occurs in a hostile area (like a nation controlled by aliens) then a rescue mission would be needed. But if you landed in friendly territory, then they'd send the pilot back on the next available flight.
You'd then have to employ strategies as to where you choose to intercept your opponents. IF a UFO crashed in hostile areas, you'd have to deal with the local forces PLUS the alien survivors.


I think this could become really interesting if you had individual pilots whom had to be hired, trained and selected for craft.


Another interesting feature would be to attack landed UFOs, i.e a bombing/strafing run. You could then send you team in for salvage.

[BTAxis]

If its possible, I think if the crash occurs in a hostile area (like a nation controlled by aliens) then a rescue mission would be needed. But if you landed in friendly territory, then they'd send the pilot back on the next available flight.

Maybe you'd still need to recover the pilot with a dropship, only without having to do a tactical mission?

Another interesting feature would be to attack landed UFOs, i.e a bombing/strafing run. You could then send you team in for salvage.

A player generally never wants to do this. It's a rare occasion where you can capture a landed UFO intact, so you'd jump on any opportunity to do so. Damaging the UFO beforehand would be like shooting yourself in the foot.

[Malick]

Regarding pilots' skills, here is a quick list of possible ones:

+ Maneuver/Dogfight - how good is the pilot to place his aircraft in good position when pursuing an enemy
+ Guided Weapons - determines how the pilot handles weapons such as missiles, modifying precision (hit ratio), range and rate of fire.
+ Unguided Weapons - same thing, for guns
+ Fuel Management - the pilot may know how to optimize his aircraft range
+ Speed - in the same fashion, he may know how to get the best out of his aircraft's propulsion system

When a pilot is forced to eject, the player could be given a choice:
a - let him handle the situation and hope he'll be able to come back.
or
b - go and get him.

If the player choses (a), the program checks if the downed pilot is in friendly or unfriendly territory. If he is in friendly territory, he will get back to his base, but after xx days, depending on distance to his home base. If he is in un-friendly territory, he has y% chance of coming back, depending on the level of "unfriendliness" of the region towards Phalanx.

If the player choses (b), the program checks for the region friendliness. In friendly territory, success should be automatic. In enemy territory, a mission is generated, where human opponents should try to capture/kill the pilot or secure the crashed aircraft. Number and level of the enemies could depend on the level of "unfriendliness" of the region.

The CSAR mission could happen this way: the enemy's objective is to (in order of priority) capture the pilot alive, seize as much of the crashed aircraft as possible or kill the pilot. On the other hand Phalanx objectives are: save the pilot, keep the enemy from getting sensible technology, either by blowing the wreck or by blowing the enemy    

The mission could then have different outcomes, like, you managed to destroy the wreck, but lost a valuable pilot. Or, you managed to save your pilot, but enemy forces were pressing you so hard you couldn't get to blow the wreck.

Note that this principle may be applied to crashed UFOs, with an alien rescue mission that can get in your way if you do not act quickly enough.

Brainstorming

Malick

[BloodMagus]

Another interesting feature would be to attack landed UFOs, i.e a bombing/strafing run. You could then send you team in for salvage.

A player generally never wants to do this. It's a rare occasion where you can capture a landed UFO intact, so you'd jump on any opportunity to do so. Damaging the UFO beforehand would be like shooting yourself in the foot.

This is true in past games. But if the option was there, I'm sure it could be worked into the gameplay. I.e you're faced with a large battleship which you're just not capable of tackling. Be it because its early on in a hard difficulty game, or your soldiers are all recuping from injuries.
I'm sure players would quickly find a way to utilise such an option. The fact that its never been implemented is why we can't see how the option could be used, because we've never had the option before.

On that point BT, you've given me another idea. What about weapons that disable rather then destroy a UFO. I.e Tachyon Disruption Missiles, which cause a UFO to lose 90% of propulsion and are forced to make a landing to repair.
Or prehaps the option to target certain parts of a UFO. Say for example you wish recover the engines, so you only aim for the weapons and then for their cockpit. Or prehaps you want the weapons so you aim for the engines or cockpit in hope of the UFO dropping like a fly.
I've seen this used to great effect in other games (4X types).

[BTAxis]

I think targeting subsystems would make for a great addition ot UFO interceptions. I'm not too sure about disabling weapons though - that might make it too easy to capture a UFO intact. IMO, it should be hard to get a fully functional UFO (including the engines and power core etc). Any disabling weapons should include a high risk to the interceptor, for example by taking relatively long to disable larger ships, giving them more time to destroy the interceptor.

[kable]

Multiple interceptor long battles would be nice.  Even if shooting down UFOs isn't a big part of the plan at the moment, it gave UFO a sense of an unstoppable onslaught, rather than a sequence of set missions.

[pbernardi]

Hello,

  As my first post here, I have to say I am enjoing the game very much. Good work!

  Reading this topic, I have some ideas and want to contribute to this discussion. I think the UFO/Humans interceptors action should be seemed, to balance the MP game. For this, I see two alternatives:

   1 - When a aircraft is intercepted, there will be a chance of surviving, dependig of aircraft damage. If there are survivors, all they have to do is wait. If Aliens send a "mission aircraft" to kill then all and take human technology - and they will - the humans must defend herselves  :twisted: . If humans win, in singleplayer, might be better if we suppose that they were rescued, but in multiplayer they could continue in the same place for a time - it will be hard the aliens have a reserve team to try again.

   2 - Another more elaborated one, could be if we send a "rescue mission", as posted previously. Then, the rescue mission would stop at the crash point, and wait for X hours (to rescue, get the plane and technologies, etc). If the aliens arrived before the rescue arrive, the humans has to defend as they can. If the aliens arrive after rescue, they have to confront both teams the crash and rescue team. And, if aliens don't come, the rescue is automaticaly well succeed. :wink:

   This suggestions open a interesting option - after a aircraft crash, we could send another interceptor to defend the position. It might be the rescue team too. But I don't know if with these rules will make the game more boring - but will put the humans in a more defensive position.

   Another interesting thing would be if UFOs interceptors tries to knock down our mission craft, but it will  make the game difficult for humans.

[Noone]

Difficult game isnt that bad if it doesnt only depends on enemy stats, i like the idea that fast alien interceptors try to shot down mission craft to give a landet or shotdown ufo time to repair, evacuate, destroying the craft...
Would be more realistic. You will have to send interceptors as escort and equip your troopship i like the idea very much and it wouldnt be that hard to implement.

Moreover i would like the idea of Master of Orion - Style of Ufo interceptions where you can move your craft Round based, it could use the same engine and much animations (Rockets, Beam Weapons) as the normal tactical missions which will it make easyer for the developers and you can figth battles with more than one craft on each side. Complex maps are not needed, some Textures (Cubemap) would do it (Clouds, Ocean...). With some more expense Volumetrics can be addet to the map (cloud, fog) where you can hide behind but this isnt a need at all. This would add very much fun to the the game without that much work for developers.

[captbbq]

I first played the game yesterday, and let me say, it's quite impressive. Though there be rough edges in the user interface, compared to whats been done, that is not so significant.

The obvious route to go would be a moo/moo2 combat interface.  AI excluded, it would be quite easy to design and implement such a 2D interface. A cute thing to do would be to implement boarding of ships, which would then launch player into the current turn based tactical combat engine, with a pre-made ship boarding map of course...

But I wonder, being that the current tactical interface is (quite impressively) modified from the Quake2 engine, it would not be such a stretch under some *constraints* to implement a bare bones 3D flight sim, asuming that Quake2 bsp and quake3 bsp are anything similar, if they are, please hear me out (if they aren't, calling me a stupid and educating me would also be appreciated).

1. Intercept will take place between two craft (interceptor + UFO)
    -One object to track and render(UFO) should allow a larger map required for #2
2. Intercept will be exo-atmospheric (in space) *ONLY*
    -eliminates the need to deal with ground
    -eliminates any 3d objects on the ground
    -map consists of .bsp starfield+earth as a background image rendered onto the .bsp (can there be a simpler map?)
    -interceptor only moves orientationally versus the UFO (eliminated any run off the map for the player)
    -upon the UFO leaving the map, the object is instead temporarily destroyed leaving a dot on the starfield as if it is too far to be rendered
    -Perspecive fixed behind the interceptor
3. Conflict will end upon the destruciton of a ship, or disabling and boardingof one ship by another, which will terminate the current 3D engine and lauch the current ground tactical 3D engine.

my heart breaks at the fact that this project is in C (plus asembler?!), its been quite a number of years since I moved from my C++ roots and down to scripting languages.

[b_e]

Hi I have to admit that I am not impressed by the idea of a MOO or MOO2 combat system. They do a poor job of rendering a 3d combat enviroment (space) into a 2d plane. That said I think that the way forward is to do it our own way and try to find something better than the other games mentioned.

I also found a topic not yet mentioned here. The aliens are going to have a variety of ship sizes, functions, and accessories. They will be using these options to defeat us in our efforts. When they make a better space ship, they are not just going to change anything they can and hope it does better than the last one that was just shot down. No they are going to research, review, and think about what is being done to bring them down and respond to that threat.

This means that if we are using our ‘primitive’ weapons to shoot down the first few ships they will react (upping armor or shielding, etc). If we continue to knock them out of the sky, they would respond again (additional speed or firepower, etc). Eventually they will invent or arrive at an option or set of options that renders our ‘primitive’ options useless.

We then either have to design weapons specifically for them, up the power in our existing weapons, or start using their weapons (that they likely already know how to defend against) and again we get into the war cycle of.

I hurt you. -> You learn to take it. -> You hurt me back. -> I learn to take it. -> Repeat infinitum.

The point here is that whatever combat system we arrive at needs to have the ability to reflect their latest response to our response. I also feel that what ever their response is it will not be picked at random, it will be calculated as their most successful response possible. This means that there should be a way to experiment with the combat system in a simulation system setting. This could tie into the AI and allow it to test options out against what it knows we are dong.

One response I personally would like to see thought over is ‘aversion to contact with greater firepower’. If I had a ship shot down and I knew what weapons were used to do it, I would do the following: start keeping every thing else that would be easy pickings out of the area until I get something larger, better, or safer than what they have into the area to protect my property and people, and to take them out if possible.

That said this comes down more into the area of linking the use of improved ships to the player’s ability to down the ships they have (AI) but we should keep in mind that everything in the game will be connected to everything else in some way, fashion, or form. The combat system should reflect this too.

BTW, just because they use technology ‘x’ does not say that we have to use it too. We could always as they would say ‘reinvent the wheel’ and do it our own way. In fact it may be quite fun to say that we found some other way (just different not always better) to do the same things they do. Then we could have them find out about our way and they could either improve it for use on us (we could then steel the improved version and use it on them again), or they could invent a way of preventing our invention from working (or both). This gets into the cat a mouse life again, and I hate admitting it I think my mind is pulling me into another thread (AI).

[Agrajag]

It's been silent here for some time (>month), is there a new thread somewhere, because I would realy like to know if there's any progress on this point, because having to hunt UFOs on their own missions (harvesting, infiltration...) in order to get tact. missions and to recover alien technology, was some of the best in old xcom games

My opinion (so far):
The UFO interception system is not very important, i think, should just be a minigame-simulater like in xcom 1 and 2, making it the weapons and armor you equiped on the aircraft which mattered.
The important thing is to get crashsite missions when UFOs are shot down over land. Is there any chance this will soon be in the game?

[Mattn]

ufo interceptions will be incliuded in the upcoming 2.2 release

[Agrajag]

Is it already certain how the interceptions will work? If it is not decided how it is going to be like, ask people what they think - if it is, I would be glad to know

I know there are already crashmissions in 2.2 dev, but they are not related to downshot UFOs. Is it on the 2.2 TODO list (will it be integrated when the interceptions system are ready)?