Messages

31

FAQ / How to submit text modifications?

« on: October 16, 2016, 11:58:07 am »

Hello,

Having reviewed UFOpaedia French translation, thus having appreciated the English text from an outsider's point of view, I'd have modification suggestions for a few .po English entries (v2.5 file), either typo corrections, disambiguation, tech/sci developments or corrections, or more lore-related proposals (mainly about self-consistency).

I intend to suggest them all as a feature request on Bugtracker, and I'd like to know what would be the best format for the joint file:

• a special .po file with all corresponding entries marked as "dubious translations" (bold, yellow, easy to sort out text), full suggested English text in place of the translated text, and a short comment to give some reason why the proposals;
• a text file with only MSGID#, '--' line, '++' line, and a short reason why;
• a spreadsheet with 4 columns ans same infos as above.
• no need for a feature request on Bugtracker, just report them on the forum.

I guess that first format would allow for fast copy and paste but the suggested modification could be "lost" in the middle of an otherwise untouched long text.

Of course, if typos are fast to be checked and corrected, some other proposals should imply some decision process from the Team. Also, the proposals are not intended to be adopted as a whole; as they are only suggestions, the purpose of them is more to trigger a reflexion about the English text than to teach the truth.

32

Design / Re: A better reaction fire system

« on: September 06, 2016, 06:50:17 pm »

3.3 Any already TUs spent that are eligible for triggering reaction fire would count when a new unit acts inside an enemy field of view. Once the new unit starts acting (moving, firing, etc.), it wouldn't start at 0 TU but at a fraction of all the already TUs that have been spent before the enemy's eyes (e.g. 10% to 25% ?). This would somewhat address the concern of several units showing and acting in turn, as the last ones would be more prone to reaction fire than the first ones, because surprise effect would have been partly canceled. E.g. unit A enters field of view and acts without triggering RF because it only used 10 TUs; when unit B begins to act, it is considered as having already used say 1-3 TUs, and thus a 10 TUs real action would count as a 11-13 TUs virtual action. [...]

The arbitrary percentage should be replaced with 100%, because the defender has all this time to a) notice motion at a specific location, b) look thither more intently and spot the enemy c) take aim, and d) shoot.
A necessary correction. Accumulating the time spent by units of the active team within the LOS of the reacting unit seems wrong because an event of an arbitrarily small duration is enough to alert the latter and cause him to aim in the direction in which he saw motion.

Now that I think again about this, it seems more evident to me that current model should be improved, even if this makes the game departing more from traditional TBS action games. While I'm not sure about, and I'm not committed with the above idea of mine, I want to elaborate better, in case it would be of some interest for this topic.

Currently:
1/ As long as no RF has triggered, the attacker's (moving player's) turn "looks" like simultaneous for a defender (not moving player) with reserved TUs. His RF capital is not spent at all. When RF triggers, some reserved TUs are spent and this is of sequential nature as far as next RF opportunity is considered. But thereafter, we return to a "simultaneous" phase until next RF triggers (during the same enemy move turn). I mean that obviously, as long as no RF occurs, the moving player do what he wants with his soldiers, and this is the model of such turn based action games.
2/ As for the attacker's point of view, time flows sequentially because next move order depends on what just happened during previous moves: spotted enemy, RF experienced, canceled move, ...).
3/ Hence, the idea is/was to introduce a kind of sequence from the defender's point of view, on top of the current RF spent TUs account.

Accounting for all the previous actions performed in LOS with a 100% weight may be too much, as you say, and 10%-25% is certainly not enough.

A 100 % weight probably would:
- leave few chances to the next to move soldier (as he would trigger certain RF);
- offer the same cheat option as currently, when a player may draw RF to a purposely heavily armored soldier (he would learn to know that with a new RF model without reseted TU each time LOS is lost, the second moving soldier would trigger RF, as accumulated TUs in LOS would grow steadily).

If we take a "4 TUs wide"-window as an example, and a "8 TUs RF mode"-weapon ready:

• Currently, no RF is triggered ever because each passing-by soldier spends 4 TUs only while in LOS. A full squad may pass by the window to no consequence, as I pointed out.
• With a 100% cumulative RF time, 1st passing-by soldier spends 4 TUs in LOS, and is unharmed, 2nd soldier spends 4 TUs for a cumulative 8 TUs in LOS, and triggers a RF. If not (border case?), 3rd soldier triggers RF, anyways.
• With a 25% weight,
  - 1st soldier passes by the window unharmed.
  - 2nd soldier starts passing by the window as if he had already spent in LOS: not 0 TU (as currently), not 4 TUs (as with 100% case), but with 1 TU (4x0.25). Then he spends 4 TUs (for real) for a cumulative time of 5 TUs, not enough to trigger RF.
  - 3rd soldier starts passing by with 2 TUs (8x0.25) (not 0 nor 8 TUs). He's left unharmed because he ends his move in LOS with a cumulative 6 TUs.
  - 4th soldier is left unharmed (cumulative 7 TUs).
  - 5th soldier may trigger RF because he's still in LOS with 8 cumulative TUs.

In this example, it looks like a 25% weight is too small. Or not? Granted, a "4 TUs wide"-window is a small opportunity to pull the trigger of an assault rifle. Perhaps it's correct (or acceptable) that four soldiers may pass by unharmed. If you take a "6 TUs wide"-passage on the other hand, 3rd soldier would trigger RF from an assault rifle (2x6x0.25 + 6 = 9).

As we see, it needs some tweaking and balancing between realism and  playability.

33

Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: Position Error: Solar Power Plant with Herakles

« on: September 06, 2016, 05:23:12 pm »

I'm not sure. I never experienced this with v2.5 and Heracles with 12 soldiers.
Granted, this is not a valid statistical answer. But as the map is not a RMA one (isn't it?), why doesn't this always happen ?

 

34

Design / Re: A better reaction fire system

« on: September 01, 2016, 01:15:27 pm »

I strongly object to this approach because with it reaction fire depends on the average parameter instead of on the specific tactical situation at hand. The introduction of the arbitrary percentage is bad practice as well.

And yet, this should simulate the fact that:
- a warned and ready shooter is able to foresee the next location of a constant speed running enemy, even if running between trees, whereas current UFO:AI resets RF each time LOS is lost, even if during only one single map square worth of movement.
- once said shooter is alarmed in a general direction (with LOS), such as next to a corner, by a door, etc, he could have his weapon ready and pull the trigger more rapidly than if he had to be alerted again by peripheral vision, turn his head and upper torso, etc. In current UFO:AI, you can have a full squad pass in front of a wide door (3 squares for 6 TUs worth of movement), without triggering a 8 TUs RF. You might say that a slow shooter wouldn't be able to shoot at quick passing-by targets, anyways, even if warned by some signal (cf. clay-pigeon shooting). But if 8 TUs account for all the RF process, shouldn't it take a little less after one or two soldiers have already passed by the door, and the RF process has already been initiated? Perhaps a fixed number instead of a fixed percentage?

Note however that I write without any irl fighting experience.
I hope that your proposals may address those cases as well, somewhat, somehow.

35

Feature Requests / Variable civilian death toll impact

« on: August 30, 2016, 12:31:32 pm »

Hello,

This feature request is twofold (gameplay on v2.5).
It's about how desirable some missions would be more or less populated by civilians, and the civilians considered more or less as "expandable", depending on the very circumstances of given ground mission.
This topic is closely related to another, that of having a more detailed pre-briefing/loading ground mission screen.
It's then about how to make the civilian death toll at the end of the mission count for more, less or nothing, when player returns to the battlescape (including, perhaps, death by friendly fire).

• What's a variable civilian death toll impact, and what for:
  
  • It's already the case that the civilian population depends on the localization on the geoscape, based on a density of population world map.
  • Perhaps, the number could be adjusted based on the map proper (already the case, too?), and on the Alien mission type (or circumstances of the UFO's landing): recon (landed), harvest (landed), terror (landed), any (crashed), deserted suburbs, crowded city center, etc.
  • Currently (v2.5) I don't feel like letting many civilian dying is very punishing anyways, on difficult settings, provided any ground mission is played and won, any detected Alien base is stormed as soon as possible, and most of the UFOs are shot down... though I remember a critical time window around month 2-4 (when I couldn't shot down any UFO and had to use the SAM array trick). Perhaps the game makes a difference between any survivors and no survivor, instead of considering the death toll?
  • As it seems, the game is scheduled to evolve towards a more refined tactical gameplay, such as more diverse mission objectives (not only: Kill all the Aliens), added, "AI" teams during ground missions (e.g. Civilians, Local forces), and even perhaps some fancy features like static "corpses" to add to the thrilling atmosphere.
  • Furthermore, I'm currently giving a try at writing some mission pre-briefing short texts, even if we get to know how maps are like after several hours in the campaign (it's mainly to add to the atmosphere).
  • Then I wonder if the civilian death toll impact on PHALANX diplomacy should be made variable, and the player duly notified on the pre-briefing/loading screen. For instance, saving as much as possible the eventual trekkers around a campfire on a deserted forest crash mission should not be as important as saving as much as possible the urban dwellers targeted by a terror mission.
  • We could extend this "tolerance" to the impact of friendly fire by PHALANX, given some circumstances. After all, while I won't comment, friendly fire occurs on nearly every bombing mission in the irl Middle Eastern operations. At least, there could be a difference between a friendly fire with LOS or without LOS, or through direct or indirect fire (even if those tolerance rules could be well abused by a human player, such as when he can't see a civilian but heavily suspect his presence behind a wall).
  • The game could even be more subtle and varied, with a pre-briefing text, mission (sub-)objectives, and civilian (and other teams) population based on a random factor, on top of the localization, map, and Alien mission type/grounding circumstances (crashed, landed, terrestrial). That is, for any localization/map/mission set, one mission occurrence could have more civilians and a more stressed demand to save them all, while another occurrence could have less civilians and less or no demand on them. For example, the High Rise (big tower) map pre-briefing text could well say that the Alien have already killed most of the trapped workers in the offices, "cleaning" the tower from 1st floor up, and contained by local forces slowly following them with heavy losses, and that PHALANX must now destroy them while they are in the last, top three floors, all remaining souls deemed already lost. On the other hand, the next High Rise map (a terror mission?) could stress on the fact that all the VIP of this well know corporate have gathered on the last floors and that PHALANX has to exfiltrate them with as less as casualties as possible.
• Some thoughts about how having such variable civilian death toll impact:
  I wonder if the way the civilian death toll or number is currently handled during and after a ground mission could/should be modified right "now" (v2.6?) for the sole purpose of preparing the above implementation suggestions, should they eventually become a game feature, later. Other said, is current implementation ready (or could be made ready with "little" extra work) for varied mission objectives (and pre-briefings/tolerances). What should be made if not the case?
  
  • How mission parameters are passed on the Battlescape module, before map/mission generation, and how mission data are passed on the Geoscape module in return.
  • How having a modular civilian number. Currently, I think that the min-max range is read in one .ufo file (map properties, the map being chosen according to the location on Earth). It then should be associated to other file readings (mission types) (or otherwise preset ranges), and another, final random roll, and closely linked to the pre-briefing text generation, if any (in case the pre-briefing text is not fixed as a map property, see above). Perhaps the engine is limited by a max number of actors on a given size map?
  • How to assign a weighting factor to any generated mission, to be applied when leaving the Battlescape module. This factor would be applied to the civilian death toll or number before diplomacy impact computation (range: 0.1-1.0, with 1.0 possibly more punishing than current setting).
  • How to assign a likewise weighting factor to a mission, to be applied to any non-PHALANX friendly fire number, before it's added for good to the soldier's stats. This factor is necessary as I figure that the Battlescape engine can't simply handle those LOS or indirect fire test before assessing a friendly fire. Perhaps I'm wrong. This factor would be binary: either 0 (friendly fire not accounted for) or 1 (as currently).

36

Artwork / Re: Herakles-class Heavy Lifter Redesign

« on: August 22, 2016, 06:45:02 pm »

If I may give an opinion, I like first icdeadpeople's, and aa_'s, pod shape more because they look closer to modified containers.

Now, the two inner plans we have are:

Symetrical, longer:

XXSSSSSSXX
UUXXXXXXUU
UUXXXXXXUU
XXSSSSSSXX

and asymetrical, shorter:

SSSSSSSS
UUXXXXUU
UUXXXXUU
XXSSSSXX

Perhaps, a short, symetrical one could be:

XXSSSSXX
UUSXXSUU
UUSXXSUU
XXSSSSXX

that is, the four soldiers not spawned against the walls are screened by UGVs (if any), instead of being spawned at the doors.

37

Artwork / Re: Herakles-class Heavy Lifter Redesign

« on: August 21, 2016, 08:35:23 am »

Actually, raising the platform above ground grants some kind of field awareness the moment your scout steps on the ramps (or before). They can sometimes spot on Aliens otherwise under cover (when cover is 1 map level high, I figure).
Due to the visibility system, and the turn based nature, they keep being targetable (e.g. by indirect fire weapons) when the scout moves further.
This could be one of the Heracles's assets. Or we say it's just a lame game exploit, not worth to be kept.

Another result I'd see of having ground level lower than platform level is that sometimes with non plane walls (such as the pod's "beak" frontal part?), a crouched soldier may find a "walkable" square to take cover (under the "beak"). Or we may say this is only marginally useful.

38

Artwork / Re: Herakles-class Heavy Lifter Redesign

« on: August 21, 2016, 12:13:21 am »

This shape is better imo than the more futuristic one on previous page.
You achieved a more compact frame with 30% less free inner space at max payload (12 soldiers and 2 UGVs), with only 20% less total walkable squares.
And yes, seats may be only textured, as could be done for the back supports visible against the C-17 walls.

Only questions for me are:

- the thickness of the walls. There are perfect for a container. Shall we have thicker walls? (given one square of pathgrid seems to be wasted anyways?) Double the thickness? Do we want a "bunkerized" container (with some explosive reactive plating)?

- the total height of the pod and the floor level above the ground. I don't know how many map height levels the pod should or shouldn't take. Given the actors' height, you should already take 3 level (or only 2?). In either case, do we want a slightly rised pod floor (perhaps not as much as with the current model), or go on with your horizontal ramps?

- the pathgrid around the exits. I believe it's related to the two preceding points. Can we leave the ramps laterally from the first two squares, or do we have to step once more if we want to leave them laterally? Indeed, what is the shortest path to turn around the pod?

39

Design / Re: Alien Teams

« on: August 20, 2016, 03:05:37 pm »

TL;dR
Above is a proposal to develop the current Alien Team generation system (without totally breaking it).
For a minimal added complexity, and a few lines more in a script, this could lead to a very versatile generation system.
However, it depends on the capacity to change the way current alien teams are defined, namely their  fixed equipment, composition, number, and mission assignment.
It would be nice too if spawning areas on the maps could be assigned to given sub-teams, so that the mapper wouldn't have to manually define each actor's spawning location.

40

Design / Alien Teams

« on: August 20, 2016, 02:47:31 pm »

Hello, this topic follows on another one where I questionned on last year the alien team generation as guessed by reading the .ufo files.
This is sketched at http://ufoai.org/wiki/Proposals/Alien_Team_Selection
One year later, here are my feedback, and a refined proposal.

There are already several Alien equipment categories: workers and soldiers, several Alien mission types and teams, and several Alien units (Taman, Taman light, Taman armoured...), all of them depending on the alien_interest variable, i.e. the campaign advancement.
However, for any given alien_interest, mission type, and UFO, we end with:

• only one category (either workers or soldiers, not both);
• a random number of any possible species as written in the .ufo files (e.g. a nearly all-biological or all-robotic team);
• some early units are dismissed from mid-game on: Bloodspiders (BS) and Hovernet (HN);
• one species, the weakest but presumably the most psi-capable (?) doesn't seem to be necessary anymore when terror, XVI, harvest and assault missions are scheduled;

The ideas developped thereafter are:

• the crews of the UFOs are increased, quite reallisticaly in order for the alien mission to have any chance to be conducted;
• the larger crews have a (greater?) chance to be lessened due to a crash: there would be a greater difference between a crashed UFO mission and a Terror mission, for instance, leading to strategical choices (to shoot down an UFO or to wait?);
• through we'd need several alien teams for an automated spawning system (a team spawned in town, another one around the UFO, another one inside it), as I don't know the engine limitations here, all that follows has but one goal: to generates only one alien team that is manually spawned by the mapper;
• the randomness is quite kept, but without impacting realism;
• each alien unit has a goal throughout the game: a gunship would not be piloted by an Ortnok in heavy armour;
• once a more complex system has been developped, alien teams, thus battlescape mission may become very diverse and tailored.

The mean used here is to generate the final alien team through a modular system and the sum of several (1-3) components or sub-teams, each depending on the alien_interest, and each having specific spawning points (if possible during map design/generation):
In short,                            alienTeam = teamCrew + teamMission + teamDefense
where:

• teamCrew: the crew assignated to the UFO when performing an athmospheric flight. It's always the same whatever the mission, basically pilots, navigators, techs, gunners. One could have versatile crews that act both while in the air, and on the ground, but we can figure that the Ennemy's behaviour is more specialized and stereotyped, thus separating the actual crew from the team needed to conduct the mission (especially for ground missions). A crew would usually stand in or by the craft, ready to take off (if not automated), and this could lead to some interesting map missions (to storm a large UFO while only defending against outside Aliens).
  However, the UFO's crew should include any mission team member who are not deemed to leave the UFO, in order to make it easier for the mappers to place the spawning points (?). I mean that in any mission, a Corrupter would have presumably more Tamans than a Harvester, but those Tamans would not be running at civilians, and rather staying in the Corrupter's wing housings. Such Tamans (not really needed to fly) could be included in a Corrupter's crew, an not in the XVI mission team (presumably spawned outside of the UFO).
• teamMission: the team that is likely to conduct the mission on the map when everything's gone good for the Aliens. They are mostly deployed outside of the UFO, often far from it, or as sentry around it.
• teamDefense: a special guard team, mostly robotic and always soldiers, that is only there in case the UFO is assaulted while landed, or has land crashed, and its crew is not potent enough to defend itself. This would ensure that a valuable UFO is no more abandonned by its defenders, and that a house-large UFO get more defenders than currently, without necessarily implying that a given mission would be conducted by a large number of ennemies (balance concern).
  All in all, that would mean that the Alien team on the map would depend on the UFO's status (far away, landed, crashed), and the mission type, allowing for more diversity in game. Also, the player would experience a kind of "endurance" concern (no more large map won with one ammo clip per soldier, durability of the medikit), but the fact the alien team is now fragmented in two or three prevents the player to be overwhelmed during the first turns (whereas the number of enemies has increased).
  An added benefit (?) would be to increase the number of ennemies on the map without necessarily increasing the time needed to win the mission, because of (possibly) new mission alternative objectives, such as:
  - to clean a map but the UFO from any hostiles (and waiting for an aerial strike to finish the UFO off)(thus saving any civilians still alive);
  - to storm an UFO (to prevent it from taking off) while leaving the Alien survivors still outside to the local forces.

1/ A quick remember of current (v2.5) state:

Current appearance order and team strength (approximative data because I took them from this forum and not the game files, sorry):

• Beginning: 1st month; alien_interest 20-49: Scout, Fighter(50?), 3-4 Tamans / BS
• Early game: 2nd-6th month; alien_interest 50-199: Scout, Fighter(50?), Harvester(80), 4-8 Tamans / BS / HN(50) / Shevaars(80) / Armoured Tamans(110)
• Mid-game: 7th-10th month; alien_interest 200-309: Alien Base, Scout, Fighter, Harvester, Supply(200), Corrupter(200), 4-12 Tamans / Shevaars / Armoured Tamans/CBS(200) / (Breeder(200)) / Ortnok(250) / CHN(280)
• Late game: 11th-13th month; alien_interest 310-399: Alien Base, Fighter, Supply, Gunboat(310), Bomber(310), ..., 6-18 Shevaars / Armoured Tamans / CBS / Ortnoks / CHN / (Breeder) / Armoured Ortnoks(310) / (Alien Tank(310))  Particle weapons

I remember that there's a last stage "Finale" that would run from 400 to 10000.

2/ UFO's crews:

teamCrew is declinated as many times as there are Alien assets (UFOs and bases) and alien_interest categories (let's say 5 as for now).

teamCrew_scout(alien_interest)
teamCrew_fighter(alien_interest)
teamCrew_harvester(alien_interest)
teamCrew_supply(alien_interest)
teamCrew_corrupter(alien_interest)
teamCrew_gunship(alien_interest)
teamCrew_bomber(alien_interest)
teamCrew_base1(alien_interest)
teamCrew_base2(alien_interest)
teamCrew_base3(alien_interest)
teamCrew_ripper(alien_interest)
teamCrew_battleshipBridge(alien_interest)
...
Developping assets, such as bases on Earth may be described as several assets depending on their size.
Largest assets, such as battleships, motherships, etc, may be described as several assets, each one for the corresponding map (in case other assets can't be reused).

This crew don't usually leave the asset, except it's a crashed UFO. Perhaps one unit would spawn in the hold near the exit and ready to look outside.

Examples:

teamCrew_scout(alien_interest=1) = 1 Taman
teamCrew_scout(alien_interest=2) = 1-2 Taman
teamCrew_scout(alien_interest=3-5) = 1 Taman + 1 Shevaar
For all the early UFOs, Tamans tend to be replaced by Shevaars: perhaps they are less "costly", but this could impact the "smartness" of any non-linked ground team.
teamCrew_corrupter(alien_interest=4) = 4 Tamans + 2 Shevaars
Note that 2 of them are actually "medics" in each wing.
teamCrew_gunship(alien_interest=4-5) = 1 Taman + 2 Shevaars + 1 Ortnok
(2 in the cockpit, one on the upper deck, one in the hold; they could be even less given there might be a Defense team as well)

Of course, anybody could argue that such a tiny UFO should be manned by but one unit. Why not. It's fully tweakable and reallistic.
Note that there are no Ortnok, to heavy and to unfit, and no robotic units, totally useless to man an UFO.

3/ Mission teams:

teamMission is declinated as many times as there are mission (sub-)types (scheduled missions) and alien_interest categories.

teamMission_scoutingAerial "flying-by scouting at medium to high altitude"
teamMission_scoutingRemote "ground robotic exploration with no landing craft"
teamMission_scoutingLand "non-remote ground scouting"

Note that as Hovernets (HN) are not encountered at the beginning, only aerial and "no-return" land recons are possible at this time.
The second type would then be the only one conducted with early, smallest craft such as Scouts and Fighters, because they are not deemed to land (and take off).
They would hover near their target and launch Hovernets. Later, they would retrieve them and return to orbit. Thus, this mission wouldn't have any UFO to retrieve.
The later type would be of no use with a non-land-and-take-off-able (and not com-linked) craft. It could be used by early Harvesters, and Gunships, however. But we can figure that an automated Harvester is scheduled to exfiltrate the scouting party when mission is over.
Their goal would be to precisely assess a position, to retrieve materials or specific objects, etc.
All of this becomes non-pertinent if Scouts and/or Fighter have a VTOL or a very low altitude hovering capability (such as a chopper without a landing gear), enabling them to drop and retrieve non flying units.

teamMission_escortSmall "Fighter"
teamMission_escortMedium "Gunship"
teamMission_escortLarge

These types would include any non-ground mission, such as bombing run on Phalanx assets, and aerial retaliation. There are a mean to tailor the size and composition of the Alien team found on a map when such UFOs are shot down.

teamMission_terrorSmall "terror against civilians with a small craft"
teamMission_terrorCiv "terror against civilians"
teamMission_terrorMil "terror against local forces" (or team_mission_retaliation?)

The first one would only occur whenever a Fighter is used for first Terror mission.
The later replacing the second as alien_interest increases and it becomes frequent that any terror mission is opposed by PHALANX forces, and this would trigger an additionnal memo.
"terrorMil" could be the only mission conducted by a Bomber, except in the first encounters, when they only bombing run (and gunning) strategic targets (thanks to their superior ordinance), hence the name they are given.

teamMission_harvestBiomass "to collect biomass, anyhow"
teamMission_harvestBodies "to collect human (dead) bodies"

The later replacing the former as alien_interest increases, and triggering an additionnal memo. The need for full bodies means more Ortnoks (to handle them) and less BS.
No Combat Hovernet (CHN) for the harvest task, as heavy plasmas aren't quite compatible with fresh biomass.
The harvest team should have non-bleeding, non-plasma, and non-heavy weapons, rather incapaciting weapons, to not spill the biomass and organic fluids.
Remember that there should be a Defense team near/inside the Harvester too, to fry any opposition.

teamMission_supplyFundation
teamMission_supplyBuilding
teamMission_supplyManpower
teamMission_supplySupplies

Those missions would obviously result in Alien base fundation, Alien base development (growth), Alien base reinforcement, and Alien base/Local allies supply, respectively.
Payload would be workers for the first ones, Soldiers and Breeders for "Manpower", given that a payload of workers would still correspond to "Building" even if the base is built already.
The last one would need only a few handlers (mostly Ortnoks) but could host robots, and even a tank. Possibly, the value of the captured craft could depend on the mission as well (more alien materials?).

teamMission_xviMass "to infect a large number of civilians, without any selection"
teamMission_xviVip "to infect a few high-ranking, highly influent, VIP humans"

Both types would be conducted until the end of game, the later one triggering an additionnal memo when it becomes evident that the Ennemy is able to target VIP for a purpose.
The difference would be that "xivVIP" would have more soldiers to deal with the VIP guards, and more "ninjas" to infiltrate a small bastion; maps would be specific (Mansion, Villa, UNO base, ...).

teamMission_baseAttackSmall or teamMission_baseAttack1
teamMission_baseAttackMedium or teamMission_baseAttack2
teamMission_baseAttackLarge or teamMission_baseAttack3

The first base attack could be operated through a "suicide" Fighter mission (as it seems possible in v2.5) that would "crash" land right amidst the targeted PHALANX base's buildings.
Hence, attack team would be rather small.
Next base attack would be conducted by medium class UFOs such as Harvesters, then Gunships.
In late game, base attack UFOs would shift to Bombers.
Also, to emulate a multiple waves assault, there could be several chained baseAttack maps with different-size alien teams.
Moreover, these missions could be used on certain maps where PHALANX has to rescue a stormed UNO or local military base.

teamMission_baseDefense1
teamMission_baseDefense2
teamMission_baseDefense3...

There could be several mission sub-types depending on the size of the alien base, if there's no other mean to render this.
Also, this would help in designing staged maps such as alienBase_entrance and alienBase_innerBase.

teamMission_diplomacy

This mission is used when the UFO (or a localized ground convoy) hosts an embassy, presumably a linked or numerous party.

Examples:

teamMission_scoutingRemote(alien_interest=1) = N/A (no Hovernet at AI=1, and BS would be useless for that purpose)
teamMission_scoutingRemote(alien_interest=2) = 1 Shevaar + 2-3 HN ?
teamMission_scoutingRemote(alien_interest=3) = 1 Shevaar + 3 HN + 0-1 CHN ?
This is to stress that the "controler" should be rather included in the UFO's crew, because he's not deemed to land (Scout, Fighter).
teamMission_scoutingLand(alien_interest=4) = 1 Taman + 2 Shevaars + 3 HN + 1 CHN
teamMission_scoutingLand(alien_interest=5) = 2 Tamans + 2 Shevaars + 3 HN + 1 CHN
teamMission_terrorSmall(alien_interest=2) = 2 Tamans + 1-2 Shevaars + 2 HN + 2 BS
teamMission_terrorSmall(alien_interest=3) = 1 Taman + 2-3 Shevaars + 1 Ortnok + 2-4 HN + 0-1 CHN + 1-2 BS + 0-1 CBS
In such a "non-return" terror mission conducted by a Fighter UFO, total crew could exceed 6 : the units are simply packed together inside.

4/ Defense teams:

This allows for mixing soldiers with otherwise workers inside the UFO.
Those specialized teams are only there in case the asset is assaulted, and the normal crew (e.g. the only gunner) is not enough to defend it.
I'd see them too like "life buoys" as when a scout is shot down, and is considered as valuable enough (sensible data?) to be defended if this situation occurs.
They don't usually man the craft, nor venture outsides.
Note that the provided numbers depending on alien_interest are quite fantasist as I didn't check up the real triggers appearing in the .ufo files (e.g. when given missions, UFOs, Heavy Tamans, Ortnoks or CBS start to appear, ...).


teamDefense_none(alien_interest) "2 HN at most for aerial recon/decoy, and for scouting a crash site"
teamDefense_small(alien_interest) "Scouts, Fighters, and possibly Supply Ships, all disposable crafts"
teamDefense_medium(alien_interest) "Harvester, Corrupters, Gunships, and possibly Supply Ships, all valuable crafts"
teamDefense_large(alien_interest) "Bomber, Ripper, Battleship?"
teamDefense_base(alien_interest)
For small crafts, only robots are assigned as the hold is most probably already crowded, and they may be carried outside.
The later is used if required through it may be redundant with "teamMission_baseDefense".

Examples:

teamDefense_medium(alien_interest=5) = 2 Shevaars + 1 Ortnok + 2-4 HN + 4 CHN + 2-4 CBS


5/ Forming the final Alien team:

During the mission generation, all the teams are summed up.

As for the relation between assets (UFOs) and mission (sub-)types, we'd get:

Scouts -> teamMission_scoutingAerial teamMission_scoutingRemote teamMission_scoutingLand
Fighters -> teamMission_scoutingAerial teamMission_scoutingRemote teamMission_scoutingLand teamMission_escortSmall teamMission_terrorSmall teamMission_baseAttackSmall
Harvesters ->  teamMission_scoutingLand teamMission_escortMedium teamMission_terrorCiv teamMission_harvestBiomass teamMission_harvestBodies teamMission_baseAttackMedium teamMission_diplomacy
Supply Ships -> teamMission_supplyFundation teamMission_supplyBuilding teamMission_supplyManpower teamMission_supplySupplies teamMission_diplomacy
Corrupters -> teamMission_escortMedium teamMission_terrorCiv teamMission_terrorMil teamMission_xviMass teamMission_xviVip teamMission_diplomacy
Gunships -> teamMission_scoutingAerial teamMission_scoutingLand teamMission_escortMedium teamMission_terrorCiv teamMission_terrorMil teamMission_baseAttackMedium
Bombers ->  teamMission_escortLarge teamMission_terrorMil teamMission_baseAttackLarge


Example:

A Corrupter is sent to perform a XVI mission on Earth during mid-game:

teamCrew_corrupter(3) = 3 Tamans + 2 Shevaars
teamMission_xviMass(3) = 3-4 Shevaars + 2-3 Ortnoks + 1-2 HN + 1 CHN + 2 BS
teamDefense_medium(3) = 1 Shevaar + 0-1 Ortnok + 2-4 HN + 2 CHN + 0-1 BS
Total Crew: 3 T 6-7 S 2-4 O 3-6 HN 3 CHN 2-3 BS / 11-14 bio-units (for an AI level of circa 14 if com-link is destroyed), 8-12 robots
of which: 5-7 Aliens & 4-5 robots are spawned throughout the map, 5 Alien "workers" stay in the landed UFO or hide in nearby cover if a crash, and 1-2 Alien "soldiers" & 4-7 robots are spawned in the lower bridge or around the UFO, to guard it.

This illustrate both how the team could be tailored (by tweaking the spreadsheet which those figures come from), and that there's some work before something satisfactory comes out, for any combination of alien_interest/asset/mission.
This isn't necessary to have three different alien teams, but the spawning locations or areas should be different for each team component (crew, mission, defense).

41

Design / Re: Question: Why no bleeding

« on: August 19, 2016, 03:49:33 pm »

Hello, I'm purposely bringing this topic up because there's no related TODO entry, as it seems.

I figure that BTAxis'answer is still correct, but what about Destructavator's?


Disclaimer: I only want to put the topic on the board again. I figure that I'm not a gore addict, both irl and in games (I'd rather install a realism mod on Dragon Age, for instance).
I'm neither a weapon specialist nor a forensic as well, so that some of the proposals or allegations below might prove erroneous.

Current state of gore effects:
- a "pool of vital fluids" texture is added below the dead model(s): either red blood (Humans, Tamans), or green blood (Ortnoks), depending on the character's definition.

Why adding more gore effects?
- to add more realism and thrill, for those sensible to the scenery. It's not a gorey death animation that is requested here, rather a gorey evidence of death.
- to give clues to the weapons used (on top of the firing/hitting sounds).

Why not adding more gore effects?
- it's got a very low priority level. Nobody currently wants to commit.
- it's more complex than just adding a few texture files, if the texture to be displayed depends on the weapon's type and some randomness as well (body part?), on top on depending on the dead species.
- not to mention the death animation between a normal, living model and an altered, dead model. Currently, living and dead models are the same.
- it's something not really wanted nor useful in an adult tactical game where we have to remain focused on the real threat, and not disturbed by fancy and obtrusing visual effects. Besides, rather no effect (or the symbolic, current one) than a poor-done one.
- likewise, the maps should remain as "light" as possible.

Type of possible gore effects (on dead bodies only):
- ballistic weapons: as currently (no visual effect besides blood pool).
- needlers: either as ballistic weapons, or added "punctuated" texture.
- explosive weapons, small: half-burned (texture), twisted (broken) (model) body. No blood?
- explosive weapons, large, or direct hit: small remains on a area, plus a mishaped torso-like mass (not accounting for body displacement). No blood?
- plasma weapons, small charged bolt: "small" burning on the body (partial incineration).
- plasma weapons, medium/large charged bolt, or continuous beam: member-size flesh stripping (bones visible).
- plasma weapon, ball/grenade/rocket: only bones remain.
- plasma weapon, splash damage: as incendiary.
- incendiary weapons: cumulative effect (?) with any other effect. Right after the hit if an explosion, after one or two rounds if an incendiary field. Blackened (texture) body. Killing flamethrowers and incendiary fields would also alter the model (collapsed, curled body).
- laser weapons: as ballistic weapons? Or a small blackened spot on a random body part?
- particle beam weapon, pistol/riffle: as ballistic weapons? Or a large spot of exposed flesh on a random body part? Blood pool.
- particle beam weapon, heavy: dismembered/severed body (on the spot), blood pool.


What do you think?

What would you want?

What could be done? (including a TODO detailed wish list)

42

Artwork / Re: Herakles-class Heavy Lifter Redesign

« on: August 16, 2016, 01:23:32 pm »

Cargo pod:
I guess that the mappers would spawn each inner UGV facing forwards at each front door.
As for the circulation inside the landed pod, it is currently possible with your (thin) model, but only at the rear doors (provided all the UGVs are spawned in the front half of the pod). It's better than with the Firebird anyways, and could be enough? It's true there are plenty of room inside the current in-game Heracles pod, but only one exit severely limits the tactical opportunities.

First sketch on picture is to illustrate what I meant, because I'm not sure where is the "front" of the pod!

What about an asymetrical pod? (second sketch figures a central,"rear" door, and the three claws of the carrier (in grey).

43

Artwork / Re: Herakles-class Heavy Lifter Redesign

« on: August 15, 2016, 07:12:46 pm »

Cargo pod:
Modeled or only textured, there should be 12 seats, but each one may be less wide than a square (as per current Heracles model?). 4 seats could be integrated to the doors, indeed, and not displayed on the Battlescape model).
I guess that the mappers would spwan each inner UGV facing forwards at each front door.
As for the circulation inside the landed pod, it is currently possible with your (thin) model, but only at the rear doors (provided all the UGVs are spawned in the front half of the pod). It's better than with the Firebird anyways, and could be enough? It's true there are plenty of room inside the current in-game Heracles pod, but only one exit severely limits the tactical opportunities.

Carrier:
Last model features a cargo pod beneath the carrier. If possible, I'd have the cargo better embedded under/inside the carrier, perhaps half its height. This would lower the drag during flight (even if alien propulsion provides the required power). What happens if you just shift the pod upwards when it's attached to the carrier? I guess that the carrier's model should then be adjusted to hide those cargo parts that would emerge through it.
Also, the carrier's model could display a kind of VTOL capability, perhaps conventional thrusters? Or should we say that the pod itself hides those thrusters (unlikely)?

By the way:
Additionnal hardpoint for external 2x2 UGV could be featured on the rear of the carrier (or only textured), but the loaded UGV doesn't need to be modeled on the cargo+carrier models (in base, UFOpaedia and Geoscape models), of course.

44

Design / "Zoe", Alien AI levels, and the campaign

« on: August 07, 2016, 12:59:08 pm »

Hello, let's talk about "Zoe", our real foe in game.

1 Based from v2.5 infos (UFOpaedia), we may infer that:

- Zoe's intelligence and battle awareness depends on its size. A size of 10 roughly correspond to a human intelligence.
- When Zoe is held inside a PHALANX base, it's alone, and not very smart.
- A small zoe doesn't seem to know other zoes may exist. It exists and that's all.
- Small UFO have no apparent communication systems, and aren't meant to land on Earth.
- Alien Bases contain a device called a Psi Amp for a purpose.
- Zoe seems to be able to partly use past memories when it focuses on a host; on the other hand, a non focused on host looks like zombified.
- Likewise, a formerly member of Zoe may be left into a helpless state (catatonic), especially if it spent all its life inside Zoe, as guessed by Doc. Connor.


2 Now, we have a few inconsistencies, AFAIK:

- How the small crew of a small crashed UFO manage to oppose coordinated resistance to PHALANX S&D teams whereas the same amount of aliens stay passive when prisoner?
- How the large crew of an alien base or a large, landed UFO may suffer morale checks whereas a Psi Amp could (presumably) link them to a greater Zoe? To a very large Zoe, one killed member should count for naught.

3 Extrapolating a little:

Zoe's smartness and awareness grows logarithmically with its number. We can use different AI levels to represent this.
Depending on the number, AI level would be:
1:     animal -> catatonic state, self-defense if threatened (mostly returning fire and throwing things), non-coordinated moves.
2-3:   beasty/child -> catatonic/berserk behavior, self-defense if a potential threat is detected, coordinated moves.
4-10:  sub-human -> possible morale effect, coordinated moves, simple task handled in team (kill, gather, defend).
11-30: human-like -> no morale effect, coordinated tactics (e.g. go to target location), use of any weapons at hand.
31-100:super-human -> more AI "cheating" as currently: more TU? Improved reaction fire? See-through or short range detection, etc.

A single Alien which is separated from Zoe is left in a "childish", catatonic state of awareness and smartness, because all its life was within Zoe and it doesn't have any personnal memories and experience.
A separated Human should not be left in such of zombi state, rather returning to its pre-Zoe life, and loosing any memories and experience while inside Zoe. That would help detecting infiltrated Humans if a severing mechanism may be found. Infected Humans are still detected through XIV test.


4 Zoe's extension in space:

Generally speaking, the largest Zoe is, the longer distance one of its members can go without leaving it.
However, there's a distance where the link between Zoe and the member is lost. The member becomes helpless (AI level = 1), and may be assimilated by any other zoe it may cross the way.
Mighty Zoe has devised com-links between spacecrafts that enable much larger distance between members (crafts).
Also, the Psi-Amp found in Alien Bases on Earth enable the base to be linked to some orbital or extra-orbital relay, and to hold a grasp onto any members on Earth, a few hundred kilometers around.

5 Division and assimilation(growth):

Zoe is able to lose parts of it, and to grow by assimilating (intelligent) life forms. In order to be assimilated into Zoe, a life form must first be infected by Zoe or by a cousin (former part of it).
Life forms into Zoe may be controlled quite well if Zoe is large. Their brain is used more efficiently than Nature does. A large Zoe knows how to use its members most efficiently, using the nimble for agile tasks, the strong for demanding tasks, the smart as computers and memory banks.
Indeed, a Taman could count as 2 Shevaars/Ortnoks/Humans to estimate Zoe's strength.
When Zoe loses members, it virtually loses only strength, so that the loss may be neglectible. An exception is when the lost members had been severed from Zoe for a while, and thus didn't had time to be re-assimilated and to share any new data they might have collected in the meanwhile.
Even so, it's doubtful that any Zoe would engage SAR missions to retrieve the surviving crew of a crashed UFO. They are quite worthless.

Division procedure:
Division of Zoe in two parts may occur either voluntary or involuntary.
Involuntary division happens when a Psi Amp is neutralized, and a part is isolated from the other (this may happen when an Alien Base is assaulted, or sometimes when a large vessel has crash landed), or the distance between the parts becomes accidentally large (such as when prisonners are brought inside a PHALANX base).
Voluntary division happens when Zoe send a craft or even a squadron on a course that lead them out of its range. It should be the case for any small UFO, and some early or desperate "no-return" assault missions.

Assimilation procedure:
Two zoes can't exist next to each other. As soon as range allows, the largest start assimilating the smallest, and the smallest won't try and defend itself (perhaps, it "knows" what is good for it).
Assimilation depends on the relative strength of both collectivities. The assimilated zoe ceases to exist as an entity as soon as the process is over. The assimilating zoe gains in size, plus all the memories and any experience from the assimilated one.
When powerful enough, Zoe is able to elaborate plans to test the capabilities and usefulness of new life forms (species) and the usefulness of given individuals from a well known species.
It's why, from the mid-game on, Zoe is able to target VIP on Earth and infect them, in hope to assimilate them later on.

6 Zoe and the UFOs:

At the beginning, UFOs are Scouts, Fighters, all crafts without any com systems nor psi links.
The crew is naturally separated from Zoe as it enters the athmospheare (or perhaps, before this happens).
Most of the mission is automated but Zoe in craft is potent enough to conduct routines and to react to new events such as departing from a scheduled course, fighting incoming Terran crafts, etc. It knows what "escort" means as well. Perhaps, there is a kind of briefing mechanism to educate it after the severing.
When mission is fulfilled or otherwise terminated, Zoe "knows" what to do, e.g. actionning a button that engages an automated return flight.
When the craft flies back to greater Zoe, it's re-assimilated and delivers all of its bio- and electronic-data.

We may consider that Supply Ships and Harvester work on the same principle, only that Zoe is large enough to have a kind of autonomy sufficient for the mission's purpose. A Supply Ship is a heavily automated craft anyways, but the crew knows what to do when it lands on a bare patch of land (to found a base).
Crew-size Zoe is able to conduct harvest missions because they are assisted by robotic units, and it's only a matter of killing and retrieving living things (or humans, specifically).
Even an early terror mission may be conducted by a disposable Zoe: the crew is educated to kill as much as possible and to defend itself. The UFO could have a count down mechanism that triggers an automated take-off and return (that never happens in game, save with certain ground missions without UFO?).

Corrupters, Bombers, and even Gunships, on the other hand are valuable and large enough to have kind of a com-link, a special point-to-point psi-amp indeed, that prevents the crew to be separated from greater Zoe. When the UFO lands on Earth, the link still ensures that Zoe is at its full potency (to the demise of any PHALANX team).
However, crashed UFOs have a chance to have the com-link unit destroyed, so that Zoe on Earth is barely more potent than a smaller UFO's crew.

As for the Alien Base, the Psi-Amp room serves not only as a point-to-point, long range link to keep contact with greater Zoe, but as a surface broadcast, medium range link that enable Zoe to control ground forces all around the base (up to several dozens of kilometers or several hundreds?), either Alien teams from the base, or Human XIVs.
During a base attack, PHALANX team is able to disable the Psi-Room device when they occupy the room for several turns (e.g. winning the mission). There is no point to go on fighting the surviving base defenders because, perhaps, PHALANX learned how to use the Psi-Amp to incapacitate nearby small Zoe.

7 Zoe and the Humans:

A Human must be infected before it can be assimilated into Zoe.
Infection takes a few days with a primo-reaction akin to a flux, due to our immunity system.
To keep infected Humans into it, Zoe needs either a nearby landed, linked UFO, or an operationnal Alien base. Of course, other infected Humans may be part of this chain of influence.
Humans focused on by Zoe may behave quite the same as the non infected ones. However, as with the Aliens, whenever Zoe doesn't focus anymore on them, they perform only routine tasks and may look strange to relatives (colleagues, familly, friends).
Zoe is perfectly able to use many members at the same time, but it needs to focus on them for this to happen, a little like sea anemones would violently react at each stimulation, retracting one or several "arms", and would otherwise let their "arms" passively feed from whatever floats in the water.


8 Consequences and suggestions in game:

- Alien Containment: memos and research proposals by Doc Connor, each time a AI level is reached (e.g. at 1, 2, 4, 11... 31?). Currently, there are only 3 stages (?), and beyond 10 prisonners, it isn't worth capturing more Aliens.
- Battle Debriefings: memos by Col. Falkland or the TACOPS, to recall how the Aliens' behaviour changed during the battles when their number shrinks. Also the unexplained difference in the enemy tactics between a landed crew, and a crashed crew from a medium-size UFO.
- UFO Com-link: add in the post-research report that an unknown, yet clearly separated unit is found in the Corrupter, the Gunship , and the Bomber. Perhaps, delaying its understanding (after proper research) until the first Alien Base Psi Amp is retrieved.
- Ground Missions: the game is able to dynamically adjust Alien AI level, depending on the size of surviving Zoe. This allows for finishing maps faster(?).
- Morale effects: Aliens are no subject to morale effects the same way as Humans are. If the smallest zoe would hardly strive to control its hosts and occasionnal morale effects could randomly occur because of this (only with Aliens), greater ones would be impervious to this, and the loss of one or several members shouldn't have any consequences, besides reducing the overall strength, hence the AI level..
Perhaps, a kind of sideration could be achieved when a member is severely wounded (or stunned?): Zoe would briefly (one turn) loose its grasp (contact) and a morale effect could occur as well.
- Alien Mind research: the research tree should be revisited a bit (to compile the overall behaviour of Zoe).
- XIV research: perhaps, Doc. Connor and teammates could devise a mean to temporarily disrupt Zoe inside a Human member (electric+chemical shock?) while still under range of influence, and see what happens. The electrolaser could be used for that purpose.
- Severed Alien crews are more important if mission objectives are more complex. No more terror mission with only two organic aliens and half a dozen of robots. 2 such aliens would be so unuseful, is severed.

45

Artwork / Re: Herakles-class Heavy Lifter Redesign

« on: August 07, 2016, 12:17:57 pm »

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that UGV pods will share the same mount points as weapons?

This can't be for the Heracles, which only weapon mount is a light one under the nose, and weapon mounts are rather on the front, or symetrical under the winglets, so that I'd think these pod mounts are special, super heavy mounts beside or behind the main cargo pod, and on top of any usual weapon/fuel tank mount. Heracles carrier would have only one such pod mount.

@icedeadpeople:
Imho, the only facts you really need before working on the pod alone without wasting your time nor skill, are the size of the doors and ramps: 4 or more for the rear one, 1 or 2 for the lateral ones. Ramps as current one or smaller. Overall form is that of a container; depending on wether the carrier encompasses the pod or not, an aerodynamic outframe should be added (see picture below, where it's not needed).
All the other facts are already in the Heracles spec. page, and in the current model:
- inner room for 12 soldiers and 2 UGVs: 20 squares.
- cockpit-like and controls texture on the fore;
- seats, as you wants;

For the rest, you're free. Even the current height above ground is not mandatory.



As for the carrier, Alien tech could be some horizontal thruster embedded the same way the current Dragon's are.