UFO:Alien Invasion
Technical support => Feature Requests => Topic started by: White_Cat on August 31, 2009, 08:10:30 am
-
You can only build 4 missile batteries and 4 laser ones. Together these occupy 8 spaces... 25-8=17
17-9(1 access lift, 1 command center, 1 power plant, 1 general stores, 1 living quarters, 1 radar, 1 hospital, 2 hangar)=8. Not much left for me to add anything to the base...
I know people will yell at me for suggesting this, but...
I really think I should be able to mount 4 laser turrets on a missile battery and be allowed to only build one of these per base... It should still cost 4 times the maintenance if 4 weapons are mounted. Same goes for the missile battery.
I actually think base defenses should only be built at the 4 corners of the base (outside of the area you fight when aliens try to attack your base). The restriction of 4 defensive structures would make sense then...
-
We will have Larger Bases (http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Proposals/Larger_Bases) later. But I disagree. You shouldn't build that much defences to a base. If you do, yea you won't have space for anything useful. That's game balance..
-geever
-
We will have Larger Bases (http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Proposals/Larger_Bases) later. But I disagree. You shouldn't build that much defences to a base. If you do, yea you won't have space for anything useful. That's game balance..
-geever
I guess you are right... but I can't think of why I am restricted to only having 4? I'd like to see base defenses (built in the base) to be like in xcom3. It would make more sense... As for anti-air... That should probably be an installation exclusive...
All this is of course merely an opinion... Like it or not its there... :P
-
I know you would like to see xcom here but you won't. These base defence buildings are anti-air defences only. You don't have to build them in-base, you can build samsites. It's up to you. As for only four, it's scripted, see basemanagement.ufo (http://ufoai.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ufoai/ufoai/trunk/base/ufos/basemanagement.ufo?view=markup). You can change it but it's also a cheat. :P
-geever
-
I know you would like to see xcom here but you won't. These base defence buildings are anti-air defences only. You don't have to build them in-base, you can build samsites. It's up to you. As for only four, it's scripted, see basemanagement.ufo (http://ufoai.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ufoai/ufoai/trunk/base/ufos/basemanagement.ufo?view=markup). You can change it but it's also a cheat. :P
-geever
Umm.. My proposals here are over the potential of them improving the game. I do not see why you are so defensive...
-
You can only build 4 missile batteries and 4 laser ones. Together these occupy 8 spaces... 25-8=17
17-9(1 access lift, 1 command center, 1 power plant, 1 general stores, 1 living quarters, 1 radar, 1 hospital, 2 hangar)=8. Not much left for me to add anything to the base...
I know people will yell at me for suggesting this, but...
I really think I should be able to mount 4 laser turrets on a missile battery and be allowed to only build one of these per base... It should still cost 4 times the maintenance if 4 weapons are mounted. Same goes for the missile battery.
I actually think base defenses should only be built at the 4 corners of the base (outside of the area you fight when aliens try to attack your base). The restriction of 4 defensive structures would make sense then...
why no built 2 sams around base to strenghten firepower?
i sometimes even no build battery to save base space just 3 sams around its enuf to take out all except harvy
-
Umm.. My proposals here are over the potential of them improving the game. I do not see why you are so defensive...
I'll ask BTAxis about your suggestions but a little change can unbalance the game that's why I'm so strict.
The current state: 1 battery per building max 4 of each type, allow laser and missile in different buildings only was agreed.
-geever
-
Greetings,
Sorry for interrupting your conversation, guys.
Speaking about defensive systems, Geever would It be possible (Do not know if it's planned, If it is don't pay me attention) to "upgrade" the external base installations? Specifically the "SAM Sites"?
About base defence systems, I find 2 laser batteries do suffice for the moment, Their range is a bit short but it's compensated by the RoF (Rate of Fire). Also, White_Cat, remember that too many Base Defence Systems give out your base location.
Maybe, Add particle beam weapons Defence? Electromagnetic Defence?
-
External beam (laser, whatever) defences won't happen, it was decided. About new type of rocket launcher well, we don't have model for this one either...
-geever
-
External beam (laser, whatever) defences won't happen, it was decided. About new type of rocket launcher well, we don't have model for this one either...
-geever
Maybe I haven't explained what I proposed well... What I suggest is each base starting with 4 anti-air slots. These aren't like external sam sites... The player can mount any defensive structure on them. These would be placed at four corners of the base (automatically). Maintenance system would be the same. Each mounted weapon would cost more in maintenance. The 4 structure limit would make sense then.
-
Maybe I haven't explained what I proposed well... What I suggest is each base starting with 4 anti-air slots. These aren't like external sam sites... The player can mount any defensive structure on them. These would be placed at four corners of the base (automatically). Maintenance system would be the same. Each mounted weapon would cost more in maintenance. The 4 structure limit would make sense then.
We won't change the base layout for this neither the maintenance system. It makes no sense. Why would we restrict where a building can be built (this way)? What if the corner is blocked?
If you read the Larger bases article I linked you know what our plans are.
-geever
-
We won't change the base layout for this neither the maintenance system. It makes no sense. Why would we restrict where a building can be built (this way)? What if the corner is blocked?
If you read the Larger bases article I linked you know what our plans are.
-geever
I know of the plans. :)
What I propose is
D1 D2
| Base |
| Base |
D3 D4
The
| Base |
| Base |
Is the current build able area... So they'd be outside of it at the four corners. Wouldn't use the build space... Player would only be able to build 4 defenses (not 8 or more). It doesn't make much sense to have defenses within the base. That was something I found stupid with xcom... Why have explosives that could wipe out the entire base within the base... And not just that but to pop them up for the aliens to shoot it... The reason I am trying so hard is to propose something I feel makes logical sense more...
-
We would have to reduce the range and firepower to balance that. In XCom base defences had other purpose. Our defences fire any craft flying over..
Still don't think we should change it.
-geever
-
Base weapons are an option, not a given. You can build your base full of defenses if you wish, but then you can't build much else (as stated). This is good game design, and there is no reason to change it.
-
Base weapons are an option, not a given. You can build your base full of defenses if you wish, but then you can't build much else (as stated). This is good game design, and there is no reason to change it.
You are missing the point though. Why would anyone in their right minds keep base defenses within the base? That is what I am ultimately inquiring...
-
I got kind of lost. I thought the initial point was a complaint about being restricted to build 4 defensive systems in a base.
If I understand correctly, the point of the Base Expansion is to give the player more space to build. Yet the player will be somewhat restricted since the "Top" Level is the only one that can be used to support structures such as hangars or base defence systems (Which makes sense, since this is the "Exposed" part of the base)
Now, my humble suggestion is that 4x in-base defensive systems is just too much. Come to think of it. It occupies space that could be used for other useful facilities. Don't get me wrong, defence is not useless, it's essential, but there are other means to defend your base.
2x or 3x External SAM Sites around your base do help, too. The only thing strong enough to support 3X SAM Sites + 2 Laser Defence Facilities is a Harvester.
Maybe it would help if you expose what is your main concern. What do you want to achieve with base defences? Your goal is to shot down any UFO stupid enough to fly by it? Or your main concern is to avoid any chance of a UFO Attack? (Any chance of an UFO actually landing in your base)
-
I got kind of lost. I thought the initial point was a complaint about being restricted to build 4 defensive systems in a base.
If I understand correctly, the point of the Base Expansion is to give the player more space to build. Yet the player will be somewhat restricted since the "Top" Level is the only one that can be used to support structures such as hangars or base defence systems (Which makes sense, since this is the "Exposed" part of the base)
Now, my humble suggestion is that 4x in-base defensive systems is just too much. Come to think of it. It occupies space that could be used for other useful facilities. Don't get me wrong, defence is not useless, it's essential, but there are other means to defend your base.
2x or 3x External SAM Sites around your base do help, too. The only thing strong enough to support 3X SAM Sites + 2 Laser Defence Facilities is a Harvester.
Maybe it would help if you expose what is your main concern. What do you want to achieve with base defences? Your goal is to shot down any UFO stupid enough to fly by it? Or your main concern is to avoid any chance of a UFO Attack? (Any chance of an UFO actually landing in your base)
What I had done is a poor job in expressing what I propose... :(
I think all anti-air defenses should be built outside the base. You would not want to have anti matter missiles piled up in the middle of your base... Also putting defenses outside of your base would make it harder for it to get detected...
Now we have two kinds of defenses currently in the game.
1) Independent external defenses (SAM sites)
2) Dependent internal defenses (Sam sites, Laser defenses)
I have no quarrel with #1. Players can still build these around their bases... Or all over Australia if they desire...
My complaint is about #2. Putting such defenses inside a base makes little logical sense. An attacking UFO (or one flying by) could easily shoot the sam site or laser battery making a mess all over the base... Such defenses would also expose the very location of the base! Realistically it is retarded to build such base defenses with high explosive and/or extremely lethal chemicals in the middle of your base. Realistically at least the firing mechanism would be kept way outside of the base... The xcom1&2 way was quite retarded :) I do not believe that is something we should copy. A more creative solution would work better.
-
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with your last paragraph.
Having defenses in a base would probably cost less because all the personnel, tracking systems, power and such are right there to support it, and for the same reasons I would expect it to be easier and quicker to build.
Also, only so many external facilities can be built, while those internal to a base are only limited by free squares to build on.
Besides, would you rather have players not be able to defend their base directly when a UFO approaches to attack?
...And if you're worried about dangerous materials being damaged, I'd be more concerned with the antimatter and other things.
-
I'm sorry, but I can't agree with your last paragraph.
Having defenses in a base would probably cost less because all the personnel, tracking systems, power and such are right there to support it, and for the same reasons I would expect it to be easier and quicker to build.
Also, only so many external facilities can be built, while those internal to a base are only limited by free squares to build on.
Besides, would you rather have players not be able to defend their base directly when a UFO approaches to attack?
...And if you're worried about dangerous materials being damaged, I'd be more concerned with the antimatter and other things.
I think what you are opposing and what I am suggesting are different things...
The facility inside the base should have the targeting systems. It can be connected to the outside unit through a fiber link :P For example a 2x1 facility could control all base defense... Just like how a 1x1 facility controls all detection. The radar dish is off base somewhere...
The firing mechanism would be off base keeping the explosive/hazardous components off the base. When aliens attack the base they can destroy these "external" parts. That way player would have to rebuild these... If aliens attack with multiple ufos they can break through the barrage of defenses...
It is always cheaper to keep something above ground than underground... It is also easier to build something above ground... Are you sure you aren't thinking this backwards?
Antimatter storage is buried underground... It doesn't have a "blast me up" sign on it...
-
OK, now I'm starting to get it - You're right, I misunderstood you, sorry.
Whether or not what you're suggesting would get implemented I don't know, I don't know how difficult it would be to code such a thing or anything close to it when the base layouts get re-vamped in the future.
-
I think what you are opposing and what I am suggesting are different things...
The facility inside the base should have the targeting systems. It can be connected to the outside unit through a fiber link :P For example a 2x1 facility could control all base defense... Just like how a 1x1 facility controls all detection. The radar dish is off base somewhere...
The firing mechanism would be off base keeping the explosive/hazardous components off the base. When aliens attack the base they can destroy these "external" parts. That way player would have to rebuild these... If aliens attack with multiple ufos they can break through the barrage of defenses...
It is always cheaper to keep something above ground than underground... It is also easier to build something above ground... Are you sure you aren't thinking this backwards?
Antimatter storage is buried underground... It doesn't have a "blast me up" sign on it...
I have disagree with you. Internal defences are more dependable, safer and more usable in emegency then external stuff. If bomber strikes, they can simply withdraw back to the rockshield. And they are camouflaged when underground (and to extent on the surface, enough to keep it safe when there), while external stuff is extremely visible and prone to surprise attacks. And those radas dishes are scattered all around the scanning area and a setup like that would not be good for defending the base (or it would be an overkill) and if instead they have external stuff near the base, it blows the cover immediatly, unlike the defences now.
The hazardous stuff is not that big issue, as stated it's a target of opportunity and while its ammo is dangerous, they are well shielded and since the aliens are already inside they don't have much use to blow it up, since it takes too much time (and if the player does his job they don't have too much time). A reactor or a command center would be much more logical target. It's also most likely blast shielded from the other base. And if it gets destroyed, I can still imagine that the lift is operable and the rebuild can be done on the surface. The laser defences might need more work though but I think a blast door airlock would be enough.
Besides, isn't ammo usually kept in the storage before taking it out and readying it for firing?
Also, no one in their right mind would use antimatter missiles. Besides the dangers of launching possible miniature nukes, every microgramme you use would be directly drawn from your fighters fuel reserves. Couple that with low accuracy and... :-\
-
I have disagree with you. Internal defences are more dependable, safer and more usable in emegency then external stuff. If bomber strikes, they can simply withdraw back to the rockshield. And they are camouflaged when underground (and to extent on the surface, enough to keep it safe when there), while external stuff is extremely visible and prone to surprise attacks. And those radas dishes are scattered all around the scanning area and a setup like that would not be good for defending the base (or it would be an overkill) and if instead they have external stuff near the base, it blows the cover immediatly, unlike the defences now.
The hazardous stuff is not that big issue, as stated it's a target of opportunity and while its ammo is dangerous, they are well shielded and since the aliens are already inside they don't have much use to blow it up, since it takes too much time (and if the player does his job they don't have too much time). A reactor or a command center would be much more logical target. It's also most likely blast shielded from the other base. And if it gets destroyed, I can still imagine that the lift is operable and the rebuild can be done on the surface. The laser defences might need more work though but I think a blast door airlock would be enough.
Besides, isn't ammo usually kept in the storage before taking it out and readying it for firing?
Also, no one in their right mind would use antimatter missiles. Besides the dangers of launching possible miniature nukes, every microgramme you use would be directly drawn from your fighters fuel reserves. Couple that with low accuracy and... :-\
First off, where do you think I want to put the defenses?
Anti air ammo is always kept at the shooting unit. How else can it fire multiple times... Only access lifts and hangars should be visible from above ground. Even those can be hidden... However you can't hide a platform thats shooting...
Let me ask you this: while you are firing at a UFO, why doesn't it retaliate...
-
First off, where do you think I want to put the defenses?
Um, what? I don't know where you want to put it but if you want external stuff, use it but please don't come and tell it's the only way to play and remove the internal defence. I think I have understood you wrong but that's how I understand your stance.
Anti air ammo is always kept at the shooting unit. How else can it fire multiple times... Only access lifts and hangars should be visible from above ground. Even those can be hidden... However you can't hide a platform thats shooting...
When it's shooting, yes. However, when it's not shooting, like in base attack or without any targets, would it still have its ammo in it? And of course as few things as possible should be visible (with lifts and hangars being camouflaged by their disguised/rock ceilings) but when you're shooting it's way too hard to camouflage the missile trail. Lasers don't have that problem however and could only be found after two attacks minimun. Besides, if you use any aircraft they are bound to find you anyway.
Let me ask you this: while you are firing at a UFO, why doesn't it retaliate...
It might but how? Bombers would of course bomb it and should not be engaged with ground installations and troop carriers might try to attack the base but fighters and others really can't do that much and most likely everything is also going to have a couple of angry PHALANX fighters shooting at them.
-
Um, what? I don't know where you want to put it but if you want external stuff, use it but please don't come and tell it's the only way to play and remove the internal defence. I think I have understood you wrong but that's how I understand your stance.
When it's shooting, yes. However, when it's not shooting, like in base attack or without any targets, would it still have its ammo in it? And of course as few things as possible should be visible (with lifts and hangars being camouflaged by their disguised/rock ceilings) but when you're shooting it's way too hard to camouflage the missile trail. Lasers don't have that problem however and could only be found after two attacks minimun. Besides, if you use any aircraft they are bound to find you anyway.
It might but how? Bombers would of course bomb it and should not be engaged with ground installations and troop carriers might try to attack the base but fighters and others really can't do that much and most likely everything is also going to have a couple of angry PHALANX fighters shooting at them.
Okay let me clarify. I want to put the shooting mechanisms slightly off of the base. That is different from external defenses as these structures will depend on the base. They can't be placed too far! And these shouldn't count as "installations" either... Not sure what your concern is about that.... :) If anything this would not affect the actual game play...
In really military weaponry you keep the missiles (particularly anti-air) in the launchers. It takes too much time to drag a missile out of its storage area and mount it on the launcher when you have an imminent threat flying towards you. Also in the game, you do not get to store these missiles in storage. You have an infinite amount that magically appears... As for your other point PHALANX bases supposed to be concealed. The most basic tactic in establishing that is burying the base underground to camouflage it, move more detectable objects such as radar dishes, anti-air turrets off base. Just far enough though. Putting a dish too far away would make it difficult to power it from the base...
There are no bombers in the game so far... Most base attacks happen when a fighter or harvester lands near your base... Same craft can attack external sam sites and destroy them (the installations you can build). They should be able to do the same for internal base defenses... But if they do that the base would be mostly destroyed or heavily damaged due to a chain reaction with the ammunition... Right now if you build 4 laser defenses and 4 missle batteries aliens can't touch your base easily. Rarely can they land... But if they sent say 3 UFOs to hunt you down... You'd have two of them thinning the base defenses and third one landing... Sending one UFO to take out a base feels lame...
-
If they behave exactly as now, I don't have any gamepaly issues then. :)
Allright. But you must realise that base defences are not any more visible than hangars... Okay a little more visible but mainly they are not any different than them. When underground they are undetectable and to an extent, even laser defence when surfaced. Only missiles really show up in radar. The radar dishes are on top always which makes them far more riskier than defences and hangars (and they have more chances of finding an UFO if they don't rely on one dish). And even then they can occasionally expose the base.
If you want ext-internal defences I have to say that they should too be possible to lower underground for safety and camouflage.
I could have sworn I have seen a Bomber UFO...
Edit: Well at least the wiki has one.
Edit2: Exactly what I meant by shielded ammunition Destructavator.
-
I don't quite buy the "chain-reaction with exploding ammunition" idea, As far as I know in real life ammunition is carefully stored - whether it is inside a battle-tank and for the cannon mounted on it, or for some type of launcher at a base - so that this doesn't happen, in some cases between heavy, fire-proof and/or blast-resistant walls, although it depends on what you're talking about.
In a realistic setting, if a military force invades a base I don't think they would target one single exposed missile or rocket and expect destroying it to wipe out the whole base with any "domino effect."
-
I don't quite buy the "chain-reaction with exploding ammunition" idea, As far as I know in real life ammunition is carefully stored - whether it is inside a battle-tank and for the cannon mounted on it, or for some type of launcher at a base - so that this doesn't happen, in some cases between heavy, fire-proof and/or blast-resistant walls, although it depends on what you're talking about.
In a realistic setting, if a military force invades a base I don't think they would target one single exposed missile or rocket and expect destroying it to wipe out the whole base with any "domino effect."
My point is that I am not too happy with how base defense is handled. I proposed a few suggestions to improve it which was almost unanimously opposed. I do not get why I got such a fierce opposition. Please pardon my ignorance but I just can't see the "why". From my perspective I see people opposing for the sake of opposing. I really would like to know the "why"
As for your points...
Yes and those aren't exposed to advanced alien particle weapons. :). And no.. Ammo loaded is always dangerous. They will not even let you smoke near them for a reason... As for "Heavy, fire-proof and/or blast-resistant walls" all of that are safety measures that takes up a lot of space... Base defense missions do not represent that... Ammo explosions were implemented on xcom3. On warehouse missions you could shoot aircraft ammo lying around and observe a nice explosion. If I were the aliens I would do my best to do maximum damage as I am preparing to attack a base. Aliens do not want to capture it. They want to destroy it!
In any case not keeping such defensive structures away form your base power plants, antimatter storage, or living quarters at the moment has no effect so all the stuff said here doesn't matter right now. It would matter when and if such a thing is implemented. If we are aiming for realism, it should be... We do not even have aliens bombing our bases yet!
-
Yes and those aren't exposed to advanced alien particle weapons. Smiley. And no.. Ammo loaded is always dangerous. They will not even let you smoke near them for a reason... As for "Heavy, fire-proof and/or blast-resistant walls" all of that are safety measures that takes up a lot of space... Base defense missions do not represent that... Ammo explosions were implemented on xcom3. On warehouse missions you could shoot aircraft ammo lying around and observe a nice explosion. If I were the aliens I would do my best to do maximum damage as I am preparing to attack a base. Aliens do not want to capture it. They want to destroy it!
Safety measures, including proper storage of ammunition, is not only assumed but also standard practice, exactly for such reasons that they don't chain-reaction blow-up or cause damage. This is very true and fact in real life military and law enforcement. Before you argue against that, I need to clear up a few things: I've had two family members who had full-life military careers, including one who fought on the battlefront through two major wars and was also an engineer who designed a good deal of this stuff, I've seen some of this stuff up close and even the inside of armored vehicles up-close and firsthand, and in my own experience I was in a law enforcement job for about three years, my old job.
Point being, I know enough to know that a good deal of your wild and outlandish scenarios that you are detailing, especially about ammunition, are not realistic, and sound like they came from a typical, run-of-the-mill war-themed cheesy action movie, far from reality.
I'm sorry for getting nasty, but every time you turn around and post another what-if mental depiction of how you think these things would work in the real world, you fall increasingly farther away from realism and get more and more silly.
I don't claim to be an expert in military gear, but I know enough that I really can't agree with you on a lot of your arguments.
Edit: Alright, I admit it: I'm cranky, I'm mad now, and I've flipped. - But I still find myself increasingly in disagreement with your points and so-called realism, and I'm irked about having to fight against increasingly silly arguments. I'm sorry, but there's still a lot of your points I still don't buy...
-
Safety measures, including proper storage of ammunition, is not only assumed but also standard practice, exactly for such reasons that they don't chain-reaction blow-up or cause damage. This is very true and fact in real life military and law enforcement. Before you argue against that, I need to clear up a few things: I've had two family members who had full-life military careers, including one who fought on the battlefront through two major wars and was also an engineer who designed a good deal of this stuff, I've seen some of this stuff up close and even the inside of armored vehicles up-close and firsthand, and in my own experience I was in a law enforcement job for about three years, my old job.
Point being, I know enough to know that a good deal of your wild and outlandish scenarios that you are detailing, especially about ammunition, are not realistic, and sound like they came from a typical, run-of-the-mill war-themed cheesy action movie, far from reality.
I'm sorry for getting nasty, but every time you turn around and post another what-if mental depiction of how you think these things would work in the real world, you fall increasingly farther away from realism and get more and more silly.
I don't claim to be an expert in military gear, but I know enough that I really can't agree with you on a lot of your arguments.
Edit: Alright, I admit it: I'm cranky, I'm mad now, and I've flipped. - But I still find myself increasingly in disagreement with your points and so-called realism, and I'm irked about having to fight against increasingly silly arguments. I'm sorry, but there's still a lot of your points I still don't buy...
Oh and please do not get angry. I am merely discussing a few ideas here... Have a cup of coffee and relax :). Unless there is an agreement here it wont be implemented in the game anyways... All I wish to do is make the game better; that is my intention. Not everything I suggest will make the game better despite my intentions. That is the point of discussions like this one. So please relax... Both of us want the same thing!
As for the case at hand:
Look we aren't talking about some puny tank rounds that can blow a hole through a bank safe with trivial ease (very explosive indeed)... Or bullets, CS grenades, shot gun round and other light weapons (which can blow up nice if you don't properly store them)... I agree with all of your points on those. One key objection though... According to the game AA51 missiles are the most advanced weapons 2080's has to offer. More destructive than anything we have and the best missiles 70 something years from now... Or laser turrets that has enough punch which was a breakthrough by the game's standards (so it must be really dangerous). In fact the lasers are so toxic even in game story is complaining about this :). No one is an expert on this military gear as it is future tech. :D
According to the Ufopedia http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Base_Facilities/Missile_Battery (http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Base_Facilities/Missile_Battery)
It may be a tempting target of opportunity, however, because while our missiles are well-protected they will detonate if subjected to enough abuse. An explosion in the missile battery could have disastrous effects on the facility and the base at large.
My point exactly!
My key problem is having the base defenses within the base. It creates a lot of problems... Aside from the chain reaction hypothesis above...
For example it bothers me to see:
Each launcher carries 20 of the AA51 "Cicada" SAM
Where do those missiles go? The Missile Battery is a tiny object that can only hold 9 missiles IIRC
The battery consists of 4 launchers that 'pop up' to the surface when engaging a target.
Really? But I have to build 4 of those to place 4 SAMs! Not to mention installations only support 2!
Most of my arguments can be fixed by editing the ufopedia entries... But I think that won't be the correct approach...
-
Oh and please do not get angry. I am merely discussing a few ideas here... Have a cup of coffee and relax Smiley. Unless there is an agreement here it wont be implemented in the game anyways... All I wish to do is make the game better; that is my intention. Not everything I suggest will make the game better despite my intentions. That is the point of discussions like this one. So please relax... Both of us want the same thing!
Sorry, it really isn't you, it's just that I got about zero sleep last night, literally, and I've realized I'm a bit unclear and very cranky, snapping at just about any trivial thing. :P
I'll return to this debate later - you're fine though... ;)
-
"With enough abuse." I think this means that it takes time to set enough explosives to detonate the ammunition in a way that damages the other base (they are shielded with solid rock and if the player is doing anything they should not have that time) and most defianetly not that it can be detonated with particle beams. They are not really explosive or hot and only pierce the object. Think of it as shooting at a cars gas tank, normal rounds don't do anything. And naturally against properly equipped Bombers you should only use fighters.
I actually remember them having five each.
Battery is not the same as launcher. Battery usually consists of multiple launchers that are used together.
The change you talked about removes the trade-off aspect. Right now you can alter between no defences through medium (2) defences to max defences with each step removing a little bit of room. With your change we would only have no defences and max defences.
PS. Every type of non-explosive round using a single explosive for thrusting the bullet out of the barrel is relatively harmless (compared to shooting it) when detonating it outside of the chamber/barrel. This is because when outside, most of the energy is going to go to the cartridge instead of the bullet.
Also a SAM is not all just fuel and explosive. As it said in ufopedia it is packed with huge amounts of electronics inside that also take a lot of space.
-
I know enough that many warheads and such are actually designed to survive abuse and damage without an explosion or catastrophe of some kind, to prevent nasty accidents. Many such warheads and explosives of the type used in such a way in real life can be dropped, thrown around, and in some cases even set on fire without exploding. We have real-life technology to make explosives safe so that they only detonate with a specific trigger - I know of some explosives and bombs that can be burned in a fire, or melt, without blowing up. Warheads of missiles and rockets are also designed to survive accidental and/or unintentional abuse.
Many years ago, yes, there was a time when explosives were very dangerous, back before we had modern technology to make them safer. Yes, there was a time when they had to be handled very carefully - but since then things have changed. I'm not an expert, but I've heard that the chemicals in modern stuff are mixed with other chemicals to stabilize them so that they only blow up under just the right trigger/condition, done by the proper detonators.
-
I know enough that many warheads and such are actually designed to survive abuse and damage without an explosion or catastrophe of some kind, to prevent nasty accidents. Many such warheads and explosives of the type used in such a way in real life can be dropped, thrown around, and in some cases even set on fire without exploding. We have real-life technology to make explosives safe so that they only detonate with a specific trigger - I know of some explosives and bombs that can be burned in a fire, or melt, without blowing up. Warheads of missiles and rockets are also designed to survive accidental and/or unintentional abuse.
Many years ago, yes, there was a time when explosives were very dangerous, back before we had modern technology to make them safer. Yes, there was a time when they had to be handled very carefully - but since then things have changed. I'm not an expert, but I've heard that the chemicals in modern stuff are mixed with other chemicals to stabilize them so that they only blow up under just the right trigger/condition, done by the proper detonators.
Like I said a particle beam from an alien spacecraft that intends to destroy the base would make a mess... All the precautions you mentioned are indeed intended to make ammunition safer to store.
For example 200 years ago they'd store gunpowder in barrels or bags. A little spark (or an enemy cannon ball) could blow up the entire armory. A little spark doesn't have that kind of effect today. If you take note of incidents like the 1967 USS Forrestal fire which started because a safety feature malfunctioned... Despite the safety measures, "with enough punishment" ordinances started to ignite left and right (or at least the fuel). Indeed the ship didn't sink because of the very safety measures... No safety measure today is 100% safe. We can assume the safety measures will improve in the next 70 years... All is fine.
But how do you develop safety measures against particle beam weapons that basically shoot near light speed particles. Enough to take out the most advanced aircraft of that era with a few shots...
All I am saying is it would be unwise to keep high-explosives in a manner that would pose a great risk to the base should the safety measures fail... It would be unwise to build the HQ next to the armory...
-
I wonder why Aliens don't have to research us. I mean, if I were an alien.. Err, maybe that's the wrong way to think of it..
If I were a human commander invading an alien world, one of the first things I'd be doing is researching their defenses, and trying to see if I can do something to cause their defenses to work against them. Exploding munitions would be great if I could design some way to trigger them.
In today's world, sure, we have safety precautions against accidental triggers and stuff, but what if I were making a device that would intentionally trigger these things? It's something I sure would try to do if I were human.
-
I wonder why Aliens don't have to research us. I mean, if I were an alien.. Err, maybe that's the wrong way to think of it..
If I were a human commander invading an alien world, one of the first things I'd be doing is researching their defenses, and trying to see if I can do something to cause their defenses to work against them. Exploding munitions would be great if I could design some way to trigger them.
In today's world, sure, we have safety precautions against accidental triggers and stuff, but what if I were making a device that would intentionally trigger these things? It's something I sure would try to do if I were human.
well that out be kinda like training the US cavalry to train bears to kill Indians. sure you can do it but why bother a rifle bullet makes them just as dead with much less effirt
actually thats a fairly good comparison for the entire game, the human race is the natives and the aliens are the invading whites.
-
It would be far easier to simply build a device that explodes with enough force to take out a base in one shot - We have such an invention of course, the bomb. Just load it onto a bomber (aircraft), and drop it on the base.
Besides, the "safety precautions" are more than just shielding or how it is stored, but the whole design of munitions and such. It isn't like you could take ammunition out of a storage case and expect it to suddenly become sensitive and dangerous just because it isn't in a case anymore. Such a device you're talking about really wouldn't be very possible, I would think (no offense).
-
there are 2 sort of explosive these days High and Low, low explosives (ignoring nuclear) don't explode they burn fast. so if you don't contain them they just burn and don't explode and high that will always explode if triggered.
black powder and nitroglycerin are high explosives, where as modern gun powder is low
modern explosives like C4 require so much energy to explode that only another explosive can trigger them
bullets use low explosives as there propellant as it is easier on the barrels and much safe to store mecause as was mentioned above with out the barrel to contain them they just burn so it is much saver to store the detonator with the explosive. it is the same with missiles. the fuel is a low explosive so usually burns rather than exploding (especially as to get it to burn or explode you need to introduce the oxygen that completes the reaction into the mix, which means that the containment it broken) so is unlikely to trigger the high explosive warhead. and the detonators for the warhead are either removed or mechanically separated from the explosives and need arming before they can explode.
so evening if you did find a way of sypathetically detonating the detonators all that would happen is that you need to insert a new detonator before they work
-
Aye, perhaps it just wouldn't work right, even with all the technology the aliens have.. It's just easier to build things that simply blow up bases rather than build things that take away effective means of defense or offense. It just would have been interesting to see in the late stages of the game, the most commonly used offenses or defenses be rendered unusable, and would cause the player to need to use different strategies nearer the end.. But, maybe that's a bit off topic. It is pretty crazy to create a way to counter the way the players keep using. It makes much more sense for humans to create ways to counter what the aliens are doing, since they're the ones with the more advanced technologies.
My suggestion originally was, given enough time, if the humans only used one way to attack or defend, to 'remove this one way, but leave other ways open. This would require the humans to change strategies eventually to keep defending and attacking as time went on, and this would be different for each player.
In other words, if one player favoured using sniper rifles all the time, to remove that.
If a different player used explosives mainly, to remove that.
If another ... oh wait... there aren't many other ways to effectively stop aliens.
Mmm, I guess it's a bad idea. There really aren't many different ways to attack the aliens to remove near the end of the game, and encourage a different tactic. Ah well. Weird thoughts while they lasted I guess. I guess it's a bad idea to research alien ways to stop specific attacks based on what certain humans might come up with, to encourage players to come up with completely different ways to fighting in the end. I guess we encourage one straight forward way of fighting..
Aka: X-Force
Sorry, X-force way of thinking. I've been playing that game too much lately, and my thoughts have obviously gone that way.
-
Aye, perhaps it just wouldn't work right, even with all the technology the aliens have.. It's just easier to build things that simply blow up bases rather than build things that take away effective means of defense or offense. It just would have been interesting to see in the late stages of the game, the most commonly used offenses or defenses be rendered unusable, and would cause the player to need to use different strategies nearer the end.. But, maybe that's a bit off topic. It is pretty crazy to create a way to counter the way the players keep using. It makes much more sense for humans to create ways to counter what the aliens are doing, since they're the ones with the more advanced technologies.
My suggestion originally was, given enough time, if the humans only used one way to attack or defend, to 'remove this one way, but leave other ways open. This would require the humans to change strategies eventually to keep defending and attacking as time went on, and this would be different for each player.
In other words, if one player favoured using sniper rifles all the time, to remove that.
If a different player used explosives mainly, to remove that.
If another ... oh wait... there aren't many other ways to effectively stop aliens.
Mmm, I guess it's a bad idea. There really aren't many different ways to attack the aliens to remove near the end of the game, and encourage a different tactic. Ah well. Weird thoughts while they lasted I guess. I guess it's a bad idea to research alien ways to stop specific attacks based on what certain humans might come up with, to encourage players to come up with completely different ways to fighting in the end. I guess we encourage one straight forward way of fighting..
the best way to do that would be to tweak the AI, so the aliens use different tactics depending on the your pasted actions, but that is quiet alot of work to change
-
Aye. If we exclude the fact it's a bad idea since it's completely ripped off from X-Force, the idea I had is very easy to implement... But that's about the only thing really going for it.
No AI changes needed.
A simple way to keep track of what is killing aliens the most.
At a certain time, suddenly some new technology the aliens get prevents you from doing damage via the way you've been killing them so far.
And that's about it. Perhaps some of your own research telling you what the aliens are immune to now, but not much else.
But, if we include the fact it's stolen from X-Force, well... Sorta stolen. They didn't actually do this anywhere, in any way actually... But the idea feels more X-Forcish.
-
But improving the AI really would be the best solution here criusmac ;)
If I am an alien who regularly walks into his own death because of a stupid AI, I dont come over as a very smart alien... but lateron I manage to completely neutralize the strategy which killed most aliens (i.e. by disabling snipers)? Hmmm