UFO:Alien Invasion
General => Discussion => Topic started by: Tasoth cmdr. on February 23, 2008, 08:11:58 pm
-
Will there be a minigame or something like that for the dogfights like in the very first ufo games.
it's quite sad, than nothing more than pre equip depends on me. of course i don't want a full-fledged flight simulator :) but most of times i helplessly behold my interseptor and alien ship shot down each other with the rockets and shey just silently disappear from the radars. it's a Dogfight! there should be just something.
-
I see rockets flying on the geoscape, but I remember the combat window on X-COM. This method we have here is by far superior ;)
-
Me, I prefer the mini-game :) It allowed you to have more control on the dogfight, and was more exciting as it was in real time.
-
I see rockets flying on the geoscape
that miserable one pixel dots?.. Oh well... ))
Maybe minigames in ufo 1,2 wan't that good, but it Was more exciting.
And by the way, does anyone use shiva cannon or particle cannon or T-sometheng rockets?
shiva's range is to small and other two slow you down. so all we've got is good old one-pixel-rocket fighting.
-
Stileto whit 3x Rocket launcher range7 and computer/ecm. Fire 3 rocket at 1 and load/save to kill ufo. 1hit-kill. Ufo or stileto >:(
-
load/save to kill ufo.
bleh!! :-X
-
Stileto whit 3x Rocket launcher range7 and computer/ecm. Fire 3 rocket at 1 and load/save to kill ufo. 1hit-kill. Ufo or stileto >:(
load\save is a "good" tactic, yeah... ))
And the only one effective equipment is 3 rocket launchers. And all othe stuff is total unusable. So why this tons of research, hours of production?..
We need much more balanced and playable aircraft management and air-to-air battle system
-
that miserable one pixel dots?.. Oh well... ))
They are some 10 pixels long and some pixel wide if you zoom in to them on Geoscape. I think they are already too big and unrealistic in such way, but surely armor and weapons will be worked on and combat will change much. You know - 2.2 was first version with ship combat introduced!
-
Hey all,
Yeah I agree with Tasoth Cmdr. on this one. The Geoscape battle thing is a bit of a pain in the ass. Plus, ridiculously unrealistic (and contradictory to given info). Repeating rockets shooting thousands of miles? Well, okay, that's at least possible, but the cannon!! What is going on there?
I don't really think the old mini-game was that exciting though. Maybe an updated UFO:AI mini-game could be made? You could go as far as a 3D real-time air-chase, with trees/desert/farms/etc. flying by underneath (if the UFO was moving of course). You could target sections of the UFO to strike (wings to bring it down, or weaponry first to disable it, that kind of thing) ...That might be a little too much work for a mini-game. But still, maybe?
-
Repeating rockets shooting thousands of miles? Well, okay, that's at least possible, but the cannon!! What is going on there?
Interesting that you point that out - In real life, we have and have had for some years rockets and missles that fire from fighter aircraft that go very far, many miles in fact, and if you actually read through manuals for some of the fighter-jet-action type games out there, the ones based on real aircraft that is, many of the simulations actually shorten the range of such missles by very drastic amounts in the simulation/game. They typically do that for such games so that combat in those simulations are more exciting, allowing the player to close in on enemy fighters and actually see them and engage in dogfights, etc. After all, if the player in one of those games could take out an enemy fighter jet from very far away (as in real life), they wouldn't get into as many close-range fights and such games would be boring.
Further, this game takes place years in the future, with even better technology.
You are very right about the cannon, however, as in real life such weapons have, relatively, very short range and are used in air-to-air combat as last resort from what I've heard.
Regarding the current combat system in this game, I will say that one thing that's nice about it is that multiple aircraft can be involved in combat at the same time. Several of the player's fighters can persue a UFO at the same time, while that UFO is after one of the player's transports headed toward a ground mission.
-
Mmm, yes I see about the rockets. But the cannon-fire is still a no-no, right? So, how about getting rid of the cannon altogether (seeing as the UFOs and fighters don't go close enough to each other for that) and replace it with something more... long range?
-
I agree - I know that in real life they do have these strange things - I forget what they're called, KEMs or something, that are kind of between a missle and a cannon, and they go rather far, as well as having small size so that many of them can be carried in a (real-life) aircraft. I'd imagine such things, or things based upon them, would still be around in the future.
Again, I don't remember much about them, I heard about them several years back, and back then they were very new, one of those new technologies.
I think one of the other forum users here was an ex-air-force guy, I don't know if he's still here or not and could shed some light on this... (I could be remembering wrong.)
-
Cannons will not be removed.
-
that miserable one pixel dots?.. Oh well... ))
Actually, the one pixel dots ARE the cannon shells.
-
Cannons will not be removed.
I agree, they are useful in real life as a backup when missles miss and aircraft become very close and engage in short-range combat, manuvering around each other, From what I've heard in the past when fighter aircraft get that close they can actually be much safer than missles, which do have a minimum range.
I also seem to remember wacthing footage several years back of real aircraft using cannons on ground targets, although how common such usage is I don't really know as I'm not an expert on the subject. I saw in the videos cannons being used on both vehicles on the ground as well as individual people, although I don't know off-hand if they were the same type of cannon, and again, I'm not an expert.
This may actually be a good addition to the game, as last resort calling in airstrikes on targets if a ground mission seems too difficult. It would only work for some maps, as some tactical parts are not out-doors in open areas (for example, the mine map), although I'd imagine it would be easy to add a flag or variable so that some maps could have an airstrike available (as last resort) and some could not, and I'd imagine it wouldn't require re-making any existing maps, it would just be attaching a variable along with the list of maps, and it could be reflected in the text in mission briefings/loading screens. Just an idea!
As for the things that were in-between missles and cannons, the new technology, I remember they were smaller than missles (I think several dozen could be loaded in an aircraft at once), but they were larger than cannon shells and were fired from some kind of laser-guided device for accuracy, and punched holes in targets via intense kinetic energy force, but I don't recall if they actually had any kind of explosive warhead or not. Again, I'm not fully sure about those points, I'd have to do some digging and research, although they might be a nice addition to the game. I think those things also had a much longer range than cannons, although not the many miles that missles would go, but again I'd have to research it.
-
One good aspect in the "mini-game" was that you got feedback how efficient your weapons were (more or less...)
Right now you dont get this feedback, its mostly just shot down ufo, or be destroyed. Missing suspension here :-)
-
Perhaps expanding the dog fights to be similar to the regular missions would work? Replace the soldier icons with the planes/UFOs and require changing direction to cause a unit to move x # of forward squares in it's current direction (depending on speed) and the crouch option replaced with "afterburner" or some such that increases the # of squares you can move forward, but also increases the # of squares you must move in the direction you're facing before you turn.
(One could also incorporate the ability to move between three height levels as well with a shift command if one really wanted to represent the z aspect of dog fighting)
For maps one could do a basic blue terrain with cloud banks that would break line of sight and provide cover for units inside them. (and maybe some storm clouds that would damage units that entered them) You could even go as far as to add in a mountain peak taking up a portion of the map.
This would make the air combat much more rewarding/exciting than it is currently. (adding in an option just skip the battle and auto resolve it would be good for people that get tired of the missions)
-
Right now you dont get this feedback, its mostly just shot down ufo, or be destroyed.
The minigame as seen in the original games is not practical due to the fact that we allow multiple interceptors to engage the UFO simultaneously, which didn't happen in the original. While it could perhaps be done, it seems like it would be fairly involved to code.
I agree that we do need some form of feedback, however. I would like to propose that after every dogfight we get a debrief screen or email stating how many rounds of each type were fired, hit rate, etc. Optionally this could include data on rounds fired by the UFO. I'm assuming this wouldn't be too hard to code. The question then is what event triggers this report: i suggest that every time an interceptor or a UFO is shot down the report is generated.
As to the kill-or-be-killed nature of dogfights, every craft currently has an effective hit points of just one. There is a TODO about implementing craft hit points. After this is done, we will see craft being damaged rather than destroyed. Hopefully then the Shiva will be useful to bring down smaller UFOs without obliterating them, or lightly damaged UFOs to be grounded and captured for research.
-
The minigame as seen in the original games is not practical due to the fact that we allow multiple interceptors to engage the UFO simultaneously, which didn't happen in the original.
What did you call "the original"? Current game, old UFO:EU, or real world UFO persuasion?
-
The minigame as seen in the original games is not practical due to the fact that we allow multiple interceptors to engage the UFO simultaneously, which didn't happen in the original.
Except it did. I get the feeling we've had this discussion before...
-
I noticed that there is now a button (in the SVN version) that highlights nations, would it be difficult to add another button that would be used for aircraft details? In other words, perhaps the player could stay on the geoscape during dogfights, and the button would allow small pop-up information that would follow each aircraft (perhaps a small, partially transparent box) that would display remaining ammunition, armor levels, etc., (as numbers or bars, or both) as well as have one for enemy aircraft that shows known data about it. The small floating boxes could again perhaps be toggled on and off with a button.
This idea would give feedback on how well fighters are doing in combat, and it would also allow the player to stay on the geoscape to launch/coordinate additional fighters, etc, and because it wouldn't be a separate mini-game I'd imagine it wouldn't be a (relatively) big deal to code.
-
Except it did.
Multiple interceptors could gang up on a UFO in XCOM: Enemy Unknown? I guess it's been so long that i don't remember details like that. My bad!
-
Multiple interceptors could gang up on a UFO in XCOM: Enemy Unknown?
Yes! I do remember at least THREE green radar windows with three interceptors launching "avalanches" and "plasma balls" into UFO's tail
-
I never had multiple interceptions in UFO:EU But I never got far due to errors.
I think there should be something. Implementing craft HP would probably sate me, at least for a time.
-
Damn forum timeout. Yeah you could use multiple, you just had to use the minimise button and wait for the others to arrive, then maximise again (button in one of the top corners of the intercept window).
When I played UFO:AI it just felt like they'd transferred save/load gameplay to geoscape with how random the intercepts felt. There's little feedback about whether that interceptor should be faced off against the different types of UFO that appear. In EU/TFTD you soon learned whether a UFO was too much for your interceptor when it was at 90% damage after the first second.
-
After some reflection, i think we really could use more control over the interceptor. If the dogfight is over the ocean, it might be nice to lay off and just tail them until we get over land. ;)
-
It may work to simply be able to click on an interceptor in-flight and select from a short list of behavior settings, such as "follow" (useful for chasing a UFO over water but keeping distance until it nears land), "assault" or "attack" (to try to shoot it down), "destroy" (In an attempt to blast it out of the sky, if a ground mission isn't desired afterwards), etc.
It would then also be nice to have a "guard" or "escort" option for following friendly transports to protect them and also to patrol near a player's base if the player thinks one of their bases might be attacked soon.
...And of course, also an option for sweeping areas looking for an alien base or other special (potentially plot-related?) activity.
As a final note, I think there is already an option to send a fighter back to home base if it isn't doing too well. (I admit I've been busy lately and haven't fired up the latest SVN version in a while.)
I'd think this would be easier to code than a complete mini-game that pops up.
EDIT: If pilots are ever added to personnel, (that could be hired/fired, have various skills, etc.) then a "eject" option would also be nice as a last resort to save a good pilot - whether or not a ground extraction mission would result would depend on if the pilot landed in a friendly territory (that supports the player) or not, or if the pilot landed in the middle of the wilderness - or even the ocean! (I could very well imagine a pilot surviving a *short* time after landing in the ocean, hoping for a quick rescue before their supplies run out.)
EDIT (Again!): If pilots were added to personnel, one of their potential skills related to quick-thinking and reaction could affect their chances of successfully ejecting automatically if they think their fighter is about to be destroyed (They are damaged badly and they see that plasma blast or whatever from a UFO coming at them with their name on it...)
-
It may work to simply be able to click on an interceptor in-flight and select from a short list of behavior settings, such as "follow" (useful for chasing a UFO over water but keeping distance until it nears land), "assault" or "attack" (to try to shoot it down), "destroy" (In an attempt to blast it out of the sky, if a ground mission isn't desired afterwards), etc.
It would then also be nice to have a "guard" or "escort" option for following friendly transports to protect them and also to patrol near a player's base if the player thinks one of their bases might be attacked soon.
...And of course, also an option for sweeping areas looking for an alien base or other special (potentially plot-related?) activity.
As a final note, I think there is already an option to send a fighter back to home base if it isn't doing too well.
I really like the idea of a context sensitive menu ["guard" for dropships; "follow", etc. for UFOs]. The devs have spoken out against the idea of allowing patrols of any sort, however. Apparently it'd make it too easy to find alien bases.
Yes, you can send an interceptor elsewhere at any time. The problem being that the fighter goes from brand new to destroyed in a single tick of the clock. When the new system of craft hit points arrives, hopefully we'll get some good feedback as to the status of our crafts.