UFO:Alien Invasion
Development => Design => Topic started by: eleazar on January 30, 2008, 08:21:37 am
-
Ok, my personal preference is for a minimum of micromanagement, but i think i have an idea which should be relatively easy to implement, simplify the beginning of the game for newcomers, and most importantly minimize the part of the game that (i expect) few people enjoy.
It's easy to understand having a limited supply of high tech weaponry which your tech guys just invented a few days ago. When you've just invented the plasma rifle (for instance), it's easy to care about how many you have, and it's not too burdensome to route it to make sure the right people have it.
However the same can't be said of the mundane items you start the game with-- combat knives, gunpowder weapons and ammo, etc. It's also harder to understand why there is a severely limited amount of this stuff. For me, at least, it seems burdensome to have to make sure all my bases have enough of this basic stuff, which any decent military base should have crate-loads of sitting around.
Why not simply eliminate the non-researched gear & equipment from the Production, Buy/Sell, and Transfer screens?
This mundane gear could be available when equipping soldiers on an unlimited basis. Which is essentially how it would be in an actual, efficient military base, but more importantly it saves more time for the fun parts of the game.
-
Absolutely right.
There is no good reason for a global economy to run short on knifes or assault rifles.
The price for standard ammunition seems also to be merely irrelevant to me. Maybe a "symbolic 1 credit" would do it for a mag of 7.62mm NATO bullets (or whatever lead balls they ever use there).
Another point is the instant buy/sell option. I think this way you can have some kind of express transfer if you have enough money (selling in one base, buying in the next).
-
I'd be open to changing the ordinary human weapons to have unlimited stocks for sale (and eliminate them from production) but they would still cost money. High-tech weapons -- even for infantry -- have a price tag attached.
Regards,
Winter
-
Completely agree with the idea of unlimited stock for conventional weaponry. A restricted supply is just silly. Random price variations (mostly upward) within a limited range every couple of months might make for an interesting touch (crude simulation of changing supply/demand/market conditions).
-
Well I agree that the guns should cost money (but of course related to bolter rifle and laser guns a comparatively small amount since they are in mass production). The aggregated demand of standard weapons should merely decrease and therefore the price also because the world does now have a common enemy. It might increase a bit because of the alien threat (uncle Bob wants a gun, too).
I disgree with "mostly upwards" because the standard weapons will become technologically out-dated (by yourself) during game which will make them less liked since there are advanced alternatives on the market.
What if PHALANX would have a contract for standard weapons delivery at a fix price? This would reduce some kind of luck factor (ok, it would be a small one).
I think inflation simulation or something like this is too complex and too much effort for too little effect.
Standard weapons are your beginning equipment and your last resort if running out of resources. It should not be a gamble in my opinion.
-
Actually, gradually upping the price of conventional items (and perhaps produced items as well, to a lesser extent) within reason and due to a decent in-character cause (reduced supply because of larger world demand) might make finances more interesting in the mid-to-late game, as the player will have a lot more money at his disposal. He ought to be moving away from most conventional weapons, but some are viable throughout the game (grenade launcher for example), and allowing their prices to remain stable in the face of ever-more-expensive alien weapons doesn't seem like a brilliant idea from a gameplay standpoint.
I think increasing costs would add an element of complexity, and might even be an avenue of long-term investment for the player, where you can buy loads of weapons and sell them later at a small profit.
Regards,
Winter
-
This is of course a matter of balancing.
In late game standard weapons are no way first choice (better plasma ammo for grenade launcher will be more expensive as I guess?). On the other hand I do not feel like having money left to store extra amounts of -at this stage of the game- expansive (in relation to my income) standard guns at a early stage of my campaign. ???
If you feel it is more balanced this way, ok. But I would not like to see a stock market simulation. Just keep it simple and if possible long-term predictable at least for choices I as a player can influence like budget decisions.
My view: If the prices of new/alien weapons (in terms of money as well as production time) and their use in missions are well balanced there is no need to bring in another variable to adjust balancing. They will be first choice anyway and the usability of standard items will be inflated by introduction of new armour types and enemy weapons as well as difficulty anyway.
-
But I would not like to see a stock market simulation...
Random fluctuations would, i think be bad. But prices altering according to a relatively stable rate or according to how well PHALANX is protecting earth would be understandable.
But if we are trying to solve the problem of too much money in the mid-late game, IMHO the simplest thing to do would be to make it harder to keep the various super-nations happy.
-
Or to keep the high-end stuff expensive. I think the adjustment needs to be on various levels.
Market simulations seem to be to complicated to decide in my opinion. Why not let PHALANX grow slower with less funding at the beginning and sufficient funds to keep the pace in middle and late game? There must be a way without making it to complicated to understand and plan for a noob. :)
Another idea: Make some things more expansive in late game. For example laboratory upgrades. If you want to keep up with fast research you need to invest.
There are many things possible. Why should we make the standard weapons more unattractive in comparison at a different time in the game anyway?
If at any means a steady inflation rate -without luck factor- could be a good compromise.
-
Hi everyone, hi Winter,
I'm back after more than a year, and I'm glad to see that this project is still alive. I've lost it for a while, but now I'm curious to see what's new.. there are loads of new posts and stuff :o
Back to the topic Yes, I found the micromanagement annoying as well, and it's a misconception that people hate micromanagement, however, people get to hate it when it's silly, like this kind of low end weapons supply. As a commander, you shouldn't worry about ammo, and spend time buying bullets! I think that common issue weapons should be available by default, without any need to buy them, same for ammo. Probably you should have a magic button that pops up a pistol and magazines, and when you don't need them, you could just send them to scrap. OK, maybe they could cost very little.
What I loved in the previous UFO (XCOM) games was the micromanagement related with developing new weapons from alien technology, and the fact that I needed elerium to make things work. Buying ammo clips was boring though :)
-
I don't see the complexity in minor monthly price variations as I've suggested. It's simply a flavourful change that caters to realism without adversely impacting gameplay, even those variations with an upside bias.
-
Well I'm not a weapons market expert. ::)
But I do have some experience in economics.
And standard products especially on b2b markets or so do not change their prices monthly for a great variety of reasons (so calles "menu cost" is one of them).
That's neither realistic nor do I see the gain of random price increase(/decrease). Just because something CAN be done does not mean it MUST be implemented.
If you do not want the player to get drowned in money just don't let him be.
As mentioned before there are tons of possibilities to change this. More money to start with and less money per month or a higher administrative overhead or a fix inflation rate or... whatever.
The "economy" in the game is an extremely simple model (not even that) of the real world economy. In simple economic models you do not even need an inflation rate. You can just say there is a so called "present value" which takes price varieties into account.
My point in summary is:
It is not going to be realistic at any means. There are no markets (it's a list of items, no variety of trade partners, no profit margin whatsoever...). There is no real gain of randomness but a loss in the ability to plan things in detail. It is not that important to focus on standard guns because you are not going to loose because you are going to run out of assault rifles or 7.62mm NATO ammo if we want to let it look a tiny little bit realistic.
Anyway I would say the price of standard weapons should be that low in comparison to plasma guns, UFO fighters and so on that it should not even matter in late game. And therefore we do not NEED any price variation. That's just needed if we fail to adjust prices in the first place and if we do so chances are we fail to adjust price settings correctly anyway. Randomness will just add a chance of "wrong" prices int he long run or it will be that small that it does not matter anyway.
Just look at prices today.
Standard assault rifle? $3000-5000 if you want a good one? Ammo prices - lol?
In comparison standard jet fighters in huge amounts? $20-60 mio?
So if you want realism - prices for standard guns are marginal in comparison to everything else used in the game. Taking this into account I would vote for "standard gear for free" ;)
I hope you enjoyed my overlong article once again. ::) ;)
-
Common weapons will become obsolete quite fast by alien technology, so the old rifles will serve only as a backup solution or a quick one if you want to quickly equip a new squad.
So the price tags of these items is quite irrelevant (you won't trade them for long)
I think they should have a fixed price, and everything should have a fixed price, because this isn't an XCOM tycoon game, or PHALANX clerk simulator. Buying and selling stuff should be very simple, and the focus should be put on production, because the workshop will be the main source for good gear, and not the black market. I find it unrealistic (and silly) that 10 workers need several days to make one rifle, with all the modern equipment at their disposal. I don't think that a laser rifle is handmade and painted by a professional artist. It's logical that the research process to take days even weeks, but the production should go faster. Sure 10 workers building a UFO from scraps would take quite some time, but building weapons and equipment should be faster.
-
Well I'm not a weapons market expert.
But I do have some experience in economics.
And standard products especially on b2b markets or so do not change their prices monthly for a great variety of reasons (so calles "menu cost" is one of them).
That's neither realistic nor do I see the gain of random price increase(/decrease). Just because something CAN be done does not mean it MUST be implemented.
I agree that monthy variation (initially opted for as months are major temporal intervals in UFO:AI) is a bit much in so far as we're gunning for some loose semblance of realism, but really, to add some degree of variation and inflation (bi-annual/annual perhaps) would make for a flavourful addition. Ultimately, what'd be the downside? A couple of minutes to add a short code snippet? Personally, I'm not looking to make it directly relevant to the gameplay (never was) so much as the overall experience and immersion without getting into micromanaging of contractors and other such burdensome complexities. It'd be a small enhancement in those respects, but a welcome one.
Further, the caustic tone of your response is entirely uncalled for.
-
I agree that monthy variation (initially opted for as months are major temporal intervals in UFO:AI) is a bit much in so far as we're gunning for some loose semblance of realism, but really, to add some degree of variation and inflation (bi-annual/annual perhaps) would make for a flavourful addition. Ultimately, what'd be the downside? A couple of minutes to add a short code snippet? Personally, I'm not looking to make it directly relevant to the gameplay (never was) so much as the overall experience and immersion without getting into micromanaging of contractors and other such burdensome complexities. It'd be a small enhancement in those respects, but a welcome one.
Further, the caustic tone of your response is entirely uncalled for.
Well, if you like it and it is not of big influence I cannot disagree. The randomness should nevertheless be carefully adjusted (i.e. very low if any) as I think you will agree.
I did not intend to let any of my posts sound harsh. Please take my apology if it did. :-X
-
I think they should have a fixed price, and everything should have a fixed price, because this isn't an XCOM tycoon game, or PHALANX clerk simulator. Buying and selling stuff should be very simple, and the focus should be put on production, because the workshop will be the main source for good gear, and not the black market.
Full agreement.
Ultimately, what'd be the downside? A couple of minutes to add a short code snippet?
More significant is the time spend testing and adjusting the model so it has no undesirable/unexpected effects.
-
I'm not interested in random price fluctuations, they wouldn't do anything to help the game at all -- the only viable thing in my mind is the slowly rising prices as the campaign goes on and global demand for weapons increases while supplies decrease.
Regards,
Winter
-
I completely disagree. It'd make for a more immersive game, even if it wasn't especially impactful from a gameplay perspective, and I don't think anyone can dismiss the value of prudent cosmetic enhancements. Either way though, income is never an issue as time progresses. Even if prices went up signifigantly over time it wouldn't matter. I regularily max out my cash within the first year without any problems whatsoever.
-
I regularily max out my cash within the first year without any problems whatsoever.
Uh, that is not a situation that will persist. Prices and income values will be adjusted to be sane.
-
Good luck with that. Alien technology would have to sell for almost nothing in order to preclude this sort of situation, because not only do I max out my cash, I can roughly do so several times over. Downgrading the prices of the alien gear in response to the frequency of selling might work, but realistically, would the market for such novel weaponry consign them to the bargain bin after the sale of hundreds, even thousands? I think not (the world market is huge, that's less than a drop in the proverbial bucket). Even assuming that the rest of the world learned how to mass produce such technology, it would always command some sort of premium over conventional gear at least, and given the amount of weapons you recover per mission, coupled with inflation, which would also work in your favour, this is not a particularily viable solution to the issue. Inflation regardless of the amount is also for this reason rendered insignifigant. These problems readily exist even discounting profits from manufacturing.
The way I see it, you'd have to completely overhaul almost everything about UFO:AI's economics. Nerf national contributions, alien weapon yields, and increase non-equipment expenses (because increasing expenses for conventional gear means you have to increase yields for superior alien gear accordingly). Either way, inflation isn't going to have much of an impact, because you deal in alien tech, which always benefits from it, which you receive in copious amounts absolutely free, and which is always more lucrative than its conventional counterparts.
Basically, no matter how you slice it, inflation fades into complete irrelevance in terms of gameplay.
EDIT: Added minor clarifications.
-
Yeah, the economics need to be completely rebalanced. Volunteers?
Ideally, the player should be able to run up a profit from nation contributions and equipment sales, but at a steady pace, offset by production costs, monthly expenditure and replacement of equipment and personnel. Building a new base should be within the player's financial grasp, but should be expensive enough to warrant a careful consideration of where to build the base, and later on make construction of non-base SAM sites a financially attractive alternative.
I think finding a good balance in all that is hard enough as it is. Price fluctuations or increases over time will only serve to complicate it more for only a small, if not insignificant, gain. That's why I support fixed prices across the board.
-
Price fluctuations or increases over time will only serve to complicate it more for only a small, if not insignificant, gain. That's why I support fixed prices across the board.
With all respect, I must disagree with you. Floating prices allows player to play the "secondary", FOREX-like game.
BTW, should I sell something, and its quantity on the market will eventually increase, regardless if it is X-Com developed weaponry, or alien tech, even if they're no researched yet. So, Earth's factories are capable to reroduce alen tech WITHOUT prior research it?
Well, we're - govermental organization, so, if the buyers of unknown technologies reasearching them, why can't we receive their results without wasting our time?
Getting results may be paid. For example, if some researchers (i.e. in Area-51 or in Kapustin Yar labs) already invented heavy lasers, we may BUY the blueprints of their invention and use latter to produce the guns we need. And the price may be calculated as a "distance" between our level of research on given tech and 100% multiplied by some quotient. Than closer we to final result, then lesser we'll pay.
Partly that idea become from the famous Civ-1 economic system: if you want to speed-up the building of something in your city, you pays twice than number of shields needed to finish the building normally. But if you will build something from scratch during one turn, you pays four-fold.
-
Well it may not be as hard as it seems.
First make a rough rewamp of costs, make it a sort of beta release aivalable for download with binaries as many contributors may not be able to compile the code like myself.
I my opinion the current economy is not that bad in terms of complexity and realism, something should be changed for the first step:
1. Aircrafts cost is too low, make them ten times more
2. Buildings maintainance should cost more than personnel using them, there are so many "hidden" costs running a base that 20 scientists should not be the major cost compared to 2 research labs
3. reduce the monthly income, any way you prefer, ie: reduce the base amount for each nation, make them less happy.
This could be enough for the first step.
Second collect feedback and correct major inconsistences.
Then, only then, change the small items costs like weapons and ammo.
I whould not implement prices changes during the campaign, but if you like it, it could be done like in Age of Empires where when you sell any resource its price drops, when you buy it the price increase. Nothing more complex than that.
Please consider also to shift to weekly income vs month income so players don't have to wait a full month before being able to build or buy something may save the campaign from failure.
-
By the way FrancoC, weren't you working on an economy rebalance?
-
:)
Yes, I will post the scripts as patches in SF, please consider them good only for 2.2 as it may be obsolete if you introduce some changes in the code for the new version.
-
Scripts are on SF, I can't test more because my home computer decided to take a break and I can't fix it soon.
-
I'll give them a whirl, since I've only just started the game. The first month was a bit weird, since I had just enough cash to start with to build the base I wanted, and yet on April 1st I ended up with over 3 million credits :-\ Anyway, I'll give those scripts a try and report back...
nemchenk
-
Within a couple of days I sould be able to post a new version including changed prices for aircrafts and buildings, maybe personnel costs.
Always consider it at alpha stage.
-
Hi, I posted on SF the new scripts.
Major changes:
- increased costs for aircraft and building maintainance;
- decreased costs for most human weapon and personnel;
- increased starting cash value;
- decreased monthly income.
Altough I did some playtest, please consider those only as a demonstration of what in my opinion should be the economy of the game, it could work as is, it is more likely that some adjustments are required.
Use the script and change any way you like. Please, just drop me a note if you like it or not.
-
Some initial thoughts:
* Assault Rifle/MG vs Sniper Rifle seems wrong. Rocket launcher seems too expensive -- balance should be via its ammo, which is already expensive?
* IR Goggles seem dirt-cheap.
* Flashbang vs Frag Grenade prices seem the wrong way around.
* Fuel Pods seem overly expensive for what they are.
* I'd also lower the price of the TR20 and Sparrowhawk Launchers, and up the price of their ammo. Also the Shiva ammo -- expensive gun, but should be cheap ammo. At the moment, they are pretty much the same for ammo costs.
* I think the Stiletto should not be buyable, as it's a Phalanx-only kind of unit as per 'pedia.
I'm going to have a quick think about how I would adjust these, and post back to see if you think so too...
-
In regards to the economy discussion, I think a lot of the problems of excess income will disappear when the game incorporates the increased tempo of alien activity as time progresses. At first there are relatively few incursions. After a few months there will be a significant number each week to deal with, more with slightly larger groups of aliens. Hence the pressure is on as you are hiring to keep enough combat capable troops and supplies on hand combined with satisfaction levels dropping as more chance of missions failing, etc.
Right now it seems there are a fixed number of missions per month or even diminishing as time progresses. And hence the excess cash flow for many players.
Brett
-
Bret, what you describe can be simulated in campaign.ufo. I think the campaign is the way it is because UFO:AI is a different game :)
I am kinda tinkering with writing a more "1990s UFO:EU" campaign as we speak, which starts more slowly and leads up to the "Mumbai Incident", as it were.
As regards funding, I would say the player should get enough money to build one base, and then funding to upkeep it. Any growth should be through player action, i.e. increasing the happiness of nations, researching and manufacturing equipment, and selling off loot.
Some of the costs of equipment still seem a bit strange to me, though.
Just my 2p,
nemchenk
-
@Starship_Yard: that will probably be true in the future, but now the game has no use for the large amount of money you receive. You will reach 10Mil soon even with 6/8 full bases loaded with interceptors, soldiers, scientists and everything you like. Money is not a concern after few months.
While I think that it sould not be the biggest problem for a player in this game, you should at least think: Should I spend those credits building a new base or upgrading something I have?
@nemchenk: you can play with it and if you find any value that work let know.
That is what BTAxis told me (not actual word but that was the meaning:)
Those values are far from being final. My goal was to reach a macro balance at least.
Quoting my own post:
"Second collect feedback and correct major inconsistences.
Then, only then, change the small items costs like weapons and ammo."
I made more than I suggested as I felt that it needed some work also, but it was a bit rushed.
If you don't say "WTH is this, how can one play with these values" I'm more than happy :)
More in detail:
- I gave some items (i.e: ir googles) some weird values as they are not functional in current 2.2 release, they need to be changed when they do something.
- I feel alien technology could have a little higher costs, think of alien astrogation or alien engines.
If I'm correct they have no use today, they can only be researched, you can't install in one of your craft. When they do, you will have to choose: you want some easy cash or you want to upgrade your interceptors?
- Stiletto may be a Phalanx only technology, but today even an ammo clip can take serious time to be produced, if you have to produce each and all components for an interceptor you will have them readyed too late for the Aliens may already be sleeping in your own bed.
There are many questions I can't answer because the game is in progress, I read the final game will have 100 missions, now it ends with 25/30, it will need a serious rebalance for the prolonged and maybe harder campaign.
Edit: corrected some misspell.
-
FrancoC, I hope I did not offend you -- I greatly appreciate your work on this, and am only trying to help. :)
That's why I posted my list of thoughts -- to find out if you were thinking the same way. I will post some concrete numbers soon -- I'm a little overwhelmed with work at the moment :(
Yours,
nemchenk
-
Yes, this is definitely some well-needed and appreciated work.
Another idea is just to increase the cost of items all around the board, such that it really does feel like you're running a multi-million dollar international organization. Base modules could cost millions to build, instead of a few hundred thousand. Aircraft would cost several million each.
But I haven't given that enough thought to see if it would balance well with other, lesser things, such as weapons and ammo, and salaries. You'd have better experience to know. :)
-
Another idea is just to increase the cost of items all around the board, such that it really does feel like you're running a multi-million dollar international organization. Base modules could cost millions to build, instead of a few hundred thousand. Aircraft would cost several million each.
Blech. Adding several zeros to the cost of everything simply makes it harder to quickly understand and compare costs. The eye can be boggled by when comparing 71200000 with 9810000 much more easily than when comparing 712 with 98.
If you want the flavor of large amounts of money then lets simply define the "$" (or whatever symbol is used) as thousands or millions of dollars (or credits, or bottlecaps...). But spare the player the trouble of dealing with large, complex numbers.
-
No. The more 0s the better. I want particle beams that cost a hundred million bazillion dollars and fill the screen with them. THINK OF THE INFLATION!!
-
It's true, more 0s make everything harder to read. But then again, the player ends up buyng bases and interceptors on the same "scale", as it were, as flashbangs and pistol magazines :D
Perhaps as someone suggested make pistol ammo cost 1c and work prices on a scale from there? I might give that a try, post some figures here, even if all it does is make it clear that the idea is of no practical use :P You never know...
-
The eye can be boggled by when comparing 71200000 with 9810000 much more easily than when comparing 712 with 98.
Would you have trouble comparing 71,200,000 with 9,810,000, though?
-
Would you have trouble comparing 71,200,000 with 9,810,000, though?
Certainly commas (which 2.2 doesn't use) make it easier to compare large numbers. But there's no question that 712 and 98 are much easier to compare and understand than the two in your quote.
When designing a game GUI "is it possible to get the necessary information?" -- is the wrong question.
Rather "is it as easy as possible to get the necessary information?" should be asked.
We throw a ton of information at the player, and generally the player will have something a lot more complex going through his mind than simply comparing two prices... I.E. he'll be comparing prices to see if it's possible to buy that base upgrade, and a couple new fighter planes while leaving enough left over to....
-
Or, to make everything incredibly confusing, use metric suffixes! :P
$71,200,000 becomes 72.2 Mc (megacredits),
$512,000 becomes 512 Kc (kilocredits), and the yearly expenditure of
$8,987,559,000 becomes 8.987559 Gc (gigacredits)!
And the sweetener for the morning coffee adds an extra 300mc (microcredits) to the price of a 1.5c (credit) coffee.
Those numbers become fun to compare. :D
Nah, seriously, I do think that the player would be more immersed if the numbers were either on the low end or the high end. On the low end, a state of the art laboratory cost of 120 credits is obviously not $120, but representing something like $12,000,000 or even $120,000,000. In the middle ground, a player might just believe he's buying that laboratory for $12,000 or $120,000.
But on the other hand, using denominations such that the cost of the cheapest purchasable item (pistol clips) is in the single digits, to me that reduces believability. "Why is pistol ammo conveniently at $1.00, and Assault rifle ammo $2.00?" I'd wonder. Better to leave Terran firearm ammo (or even most guns themselves) free and subsidized by the U.N.
-
A higher price scale is appropriate both because of the actual costs of items commonly purchased in a game of UFO:AI, and because of inflation. Seriously, 60 or more years into the future, that stuff is going to be signifigantly more expensive than it is now (assuming 2-3% inflation per year).
Seriously though more zeroes, lol.
-
"Why is pistol ammo conveniently at $1.00, and Assault rifle ammo $2.00?" I'd wonder.
Admin overhead? :P
-
@nemchenk: none offence taken, I hope the same is for you. English is not my first language so I apologize if my post sounded harsh.
I wanted to say that I have no special right on such work because I'm just a player, so anyone can be free to post any solution as I was.
Anyone using my "work" as starting point is welcome, I could say it is GPL :)
BTW: it made it somehow in actual trunk code, the "spirit" is in the game now even if the values are not exactly what I suggested. That means, for me at least, I will give them a try and eventually give my feedback.
-
It is not necessary to have many 0's, the game uses Credits not USD as currency, so any number would fit as long as an ammo clip cost is proportional to aircraft or building cost.
1.000.000 for stiletto
1.000 for a rifle
is the same game-wise as
1.000 for stiletto
1 for a rifle
note that I used " . " as currency format because many countries (i.e: Italy where I am from) use the comma as decimal separator.
If you use small numbers you can avoid the jungle of format for currencies.
-
I've done a bit of work "from the ground up", as it were, on basic equipment and facilities. The results are here (http://lunarlollipop.co.uk/private/UFOAI/ufoai_production.ods), if you want to have a look :)
The basic idea was first to assign each item a "tech level", to indicate how advanced it was. 1 - past, 2 - present, 3 - near future, 4 - sci-fi. I then looked for the most basic item, for me the Flashbang, and used it as the basis of the economy. Everything else stems from that one item, so all prices and manufacturing costs/times are in proportion. This prevents odd situations like an AA51 SAM taking the same time to produce as a Pistol clip, or TR-20 rockets costing nearly the same as an Assault Rifle.
This is not the same as the work that FrancoC has done, as his was to do more with the player budgets etc. I believe that the next step should be to impose the spirit of FrancoC's suggestions onto these "rationalised" prices.
But before we do that, I thought I would ask for comments from the forum.
/me ducks for cover ;D
-
That link doesn't work, sorry.
cu
-
I've corrected the link above -- sorry about that :( It seems the forum doesn't like HREF's in "" ::) Ah well, learn something new every day :)
-
Nemchenk, I can't wait to give a look at your work, but since I'm a Win... I just can't open with Excel :)
Will OpenOffice open it?
-
Yes, it's an openoffice document.
Some comments:
The Stiletto is the smaller, cheaper knife-fighter developed by Phalanx. The Saracen is a long distance, hypersonic interceptor developed by another country. Their prices should probably be switched about.
Similarly, the cost of a Firebird seems a bit cheap to me. Most bases will only have one, maybe two, Firebirds, with few replacements as they're not meant to come up against UFOs. I've always seen transport ships as a significant investment to bring a base up to mission-capable status.
Actually, squeeze the three aircraft's prices together so the most expensive is no more than $10,000,000 or so than the least expensive. The Saracen could be maybe 4 to 6 million more than a Stiletto, which is again 4 to 6 more than a Firebird.
The grenades seem too cheap by about an order of magnitude, compared with the gun prices. Maybe values like:
Flashbang: $175
IC Grenade: $275
Frag: $225
Smoke: $200
Maybe squeeze the ammo prices together a bit. $60 for a pistol round (old, but with super-high-velocity powder) vs. 450 for a SMG mag (which is a 50 year old design). Maybe reduce the spread a bit to $80 - $240, and drop the SMG to fit in the middle-lower end. Sniper and MG ammo should be good at the high end of $240. Flamethrower ammo might drop down around $260-$320, just to keep it competitive.
The combat knife could be halved or even quartered - it's a last-resort melee weapon, and forging a solid blade of steel/ceramic should be incredibly cheap for postmodern production.
Weapon prices themselves seem pretty good, along with base facility prices.
Maybe increase the cost of missiles a tad, and double the ECM and ECCM (Raven and Targetting Computer) Aircraft expansions - those are likely only bought once per each aircraft. Maybe also decrease the cost of Shiva rounds.
*I should note that I'm basing these modifications based on feel, not game balance, unlike FrancoC's work.
Aside from that, everything looks nice. I really like seeing those lots of zeroes at the tail end of aircraft and base facilities :D.
Something I noticed when seeing the big lists of numbers, was that it actually isn't hard to compare between the numbers. Numbers can be divided into their approximate magnitudes, and comparisons are only valid within a single bracket. For example, it's useless to compare something that costs $2,000 with something that costs $42,000, because unless you're doing work that'd need a calculator, you can just assume that $2,000 is as good as zero compared with the higher order number.
Some other things I was noticing about a number scale like this:
Aircraft costs, while realistic at the multi-million dollar range (and I love seeing those big zeroes), may make the cost of losing aircraft in interceptions so expensive as to discourage any interceptions at all - a single lost aircraft might be most of the monthly budget. Aircraft may need a Rent/Lease system (much like the original X-COM), so the loss of an aircraft you only spent $600,000 on for the past few months is easier to swallow than a lump sum of fifteen million dollars. This also provides an incentive to switch to researched aircraft - much lower monthly fees, at the cost of an up-front manufacturing cost and the requirement of antimatter to fuel your planes.
The costs are divided into 3 groups matching the three areas of gameplay: Tactical ground combat, Tactical air combat, and Strategic Base Management. The player will likely make no cost comparisons between any item in one group with an item in another group. Only Strategic Base management has single prices that exceed $1,000,000. Under that ceiling, it's easier to estimate the magnitude of a price by simply glancing at the number's length. Ie: 5200 vs 51000. There aren't too many zeroes to confuse the player.
Columns, and comma/decimal separators, make the price comparisons almost trivial.
Having the prices divided into three groups like this does make troop equipment practically free. Combined with unlimited stocks as suggested in the first post would mean the player hardly has to worry at all about making sure the equipment for the troops are there, with the exception of planning ahead for transfer times. Different people will probably see this as a good thing or a bad thing for gameplay.
Expensive tactical equipment is not listed. UGVs and alien weapons will likely cross the price group lines.
-
Yes, it's an openoffice document.
Ok so I have to remove the dust on my Linux partition ;D
-
Ok so I have to remove the dust on my Linux partition ;D
Or just install OO for windows. :) Took me less than 5 minutes.
-
Guys, I've put up an Excel version as well (http://lunarlollipop.co.uk/private/UFOAI/ufoai_production.xls), in case you don't want to get OO.org installed (or don't have disk space or something :) )
Psawhn, thank you for your comments :) Allow me to respond:
* In general, I have done the bare minimum of game balance-motivated adjustments on these figures, mainly because I believe these should come last :) Not because they are unimportant, but because I think they can make for a cascade of "suspension of disbelief"-type issues if done too early on.
* Re the relative costs of the three aircraft, I sort of agree with you, but let me explain my logic. The Firebird is a sub-sonic converted cargo plane, which is why its cost is lowest in my 'sheet. The Stiletto is a Phalanx-only craft -- I don't even think it should be buyable! :P It is also described in the UFOPedia as being significantly more advanced than the jet fighters of the 2080s, hence its cost being higher than the Saracen. Would you agree?
* The fact that these craft are so expensive does make for a different game dynamic -- before, bases were by far the most expensive XCOM (and by extension, Phalanx) resources. With these numbers, aircraft may become maybe as important as bases (once you count losses from base loss through staff and items in storage), probably even more so. I would not mind it so much if I had a chance to break off interceptions -- at the moment, it seems very much instakill: you target a UFO, you fire and it does too, and you hope your missiles stay on course and its veer off. I very much preferred UFO1 and 2s way of popup windows and 3-4 shot battles :)
* I did dial-down grenade costs, mainly to reflect that they were one-shot, throw-away items.
* I forgot that the pistol ammo was relatively high-tech, and the SMG was low-tech :( The SMG is actually 375c, the MG (with it's vacuum sealing) is 450c. Given these, I agree that their prices should converge. How about 250c for the SMG (5c per round, as MP and Assault Rifle), and 90c for the pistol (7.5c per round)?
* I priced the flamer to be cheap, but the ammo expensive. The UFOPedia seems to imply the "magic" is in the fuel, not the delivery system :) Perhaps I should drop the price of the flamer some more, to something like 2.5-3k? The rocket launcher was also meant to be cheaper -- I think I messed up there a little :D
* Agreed on the Knife -- the "ceramics" bit was making me think it was more expensive than it should be ;) How about 225c, 30% of the pistol price?
* No problem increasing the price of aircraft electronics :) Shiva rounds could go maybe to 40k or something? 10,000 rounds for 4c a round is pretty cheap ;)
* I did try to keep the various types of items in separate price brackets -- three figure sum, five figure, etc :) Glad to see it has worked!
Keep those comments coming -- I will post an update spreadsheet tomorrow or the day after :)
nemchenk
-
Or just install OO for windows. :) Took me less than 5 minutes.
That was something I did consider, sorry if I go a little OT, how OO behaves with Office already installed? I need that too.
-
Never had any problems with both of them. I guess issues would be disk space and opening MS Office documents in MS Office -- just ask OO not to set itself as the MS Office doc viewer.
-
Never had any problems with both of them. I guess issues would be disk space and opening MS Office documents in MS Office -- just ask OO not to set itself as the MS Office doc viewer.
That was my assumption too, but is better not to assume too much when you deal with software :)
BTW the excel version is welcome :)
So I can look those BIG numbers of yours, without going into details: good work, we could argue on some item price but I think that is not the point.
One thing that as a player I would say is: why should I bother buying/selling stuff that costs 100c ? It is a waste of time in micromanagement when I have to deal with stuff that costs 10Millions, I'm the chief of this organization not the employee that manages the finances.
That leads to two different solutions:
1. all basic equipment sould be free and unlimited to the player, or simply hidden in general maintainance costs.
2. you should consider to reduce the differences in terms of price between items.
While it make sense to compare ammo clips with weapons or buildings and aircrafts, 2813c for an assault rifle is irrelevant compared to just the entrance to the base that costs 1.000.000c.
IMHO the developers took the right way not having real-life prices on items thus giving each part of the game its own dignity, I'm not saying all the current prices are ok for me.
So Aircrafts MUST cost much more than a simple rifle, but it must have a relevant cost in the game or is better to have them for free.
I think you have done a great work but I think that will remain unusable if you don't scale them down to fit into the game.
-
That leads to two different solutions:
1. all basic equipment sould be free and unlimited to the player, or simply hidden in general maintainance costs.
2. you should consider to reduce the differences in terms of price between items.
While it make sense to compare ammo clips with weapons or buildings and aircrafts, 2813c for an assault rifle is irrelevant compared to just the entrance to the base that costs 1.000.000c.
Actually both solutions could be applied.
It makes sense to me that the pre-alien equipment (not including aircraft) should be unlimited and free, after all there's already enough of that stuff produced to equip hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of soldiers. 8 bases with 8 squads of 8 soldiers could never make a noticeable dent on the world supply of hand-grenades or combat armor. And as mentioned in the opening thread it's not very fun to micro-manage mundane pistol clips. If we must account for it, lets just assume that the cost of maintaining each soldier includes all the mundane equipment they could ever need.
But even if we take mundane personal equipment out of the equation, the difference in cost (and/or production time) between an alien tech pistol and an alien tech fighter craft would be absurdly massive. We can't try too hard to be realistic here, or we'll break the game.
So we certainly need to do #2.
But i think #1 would also be a good idea, and it would allow #2 to be done a little less drastically.
-
Hi FrancoC, thanks for your feedback.
For me, some of the specific prices are a major issue that ruins suspension of disbelief :( I guess I am particular or something :P Thus, I think it is very important that prices of everything are in proportion to each other, because otherwise they seem just random!
-
What about the idea of restricting buy/sell to "normal" stuff and building to special equipment?
I can't think of a small workshop working on a nightvision or pistol as efficient as a professional weapon manufacturer. It would simply be to cost intensive in reality. On the other hand a world market for alien blasters would also sound a bit absurd although some military contractors might be willing to offer lasers and ufo fighters.
I oppose the ability to buy everything but standard weapons in large amounts and the only equipment that makes sense to produce on your own is new/experimental/alien tech. Here the cost diversion (measured in credits or time to produce) between a laser pistol and a complete ufo fighter should be immense.
The only question is would this hurt gameplay? It would not hurt gameplay to give standard equipment for free (military equipment stocks are available at any amount PHALANX might need) if the standard weapons are generally worse than the nasty alien guns imho.
What's the problem with comparatively low cost in production time for plasma guns in comparison to an ufo fighter? I think that is just balanced. You need to carefully watch your fighters with a technological edge while a laser rifle more or less should not make any difference.
-
Yes I agree they must be proportional to each other, you also have to consider this is just a game. When it becomes too real it looses its fun :)
So yes an aircraft cannot cost the same as 2 assault rifle (in 2.2 Stiletto = 20.000 Ass.Rifle ~8.400) and a base cannot cost 50-80 Mil because you will loose interest in manage any other item that costs "only" 3000c.
I suggest you to round down the big numbers, start from the higher and go down, reduce the difference between them.
If you want big prices, an idea could be to have a lower initial price and pay more for them in monthly maintainance cost (there is already a maintainance cost for buildings and aircrafts, but you could develope a new model). Phalanx could have some special offer a sort of leasing for expensive items.
You will still pay cash (no rental or leasing) the less expensive items.
-
Yes, I like the leasing idea too.
I will be looking at the spreadsheet again, soon :) I'll try both reducing the spread a little, something like:
Tactical Items: <10,000, e.g. "hundreds"
Aircraft Items: <1,000,000, e.g. "thousands"
Bases: <10,000,000, e.g. "millions"
Bases should still be the most valuable stuff, IMHO, as it would change the gameplay too much otherwise. I think the answer for aircraft is: Financing! ;D "Yes, you too can fly away in this state-of-the-art Saracen for just 500,000 a month, 30% deposit, pending credit approval!"
-
Then some testimonial would be needed... someone to say "Yes I fly Phalanx too" or "I fly Phalanx business class" ;D
-
Here's a couple ideas:
1) next-generation aircraft cannot be bough, but must be constructed by PHALANX, in a special air-craft construction facility
2) Alien and next-gen technology can be sold on the open market, but can't be bought back. Thus instant sell/transportation isn't a problem
With these 2 steps the cost of various next-gen items would not be so apparent, and more emphasis is placed on production. In some ways this will might make the game harder, but i also think it improves the atmosphere. Being able to buy up the next-gen and alien gear sorta makes it seem like you aren't fighting a lone war against the alien menace. If there are so many other scientists who can build this stuff, why can't you hire them?
I feel more sure about #1 than #2
-
I absolutely agree with #1.
About the second point I would say this is not that much of a problem. If alien tech is hard enough to reproduce and you cannot buy it back you will very likely keep it anyway for your own purposes.
That would definitely support the urge to use the stuff you conquer rather than selling it like a pirate organisation.
I myself would like to see a focus on production and stealing from the aliens more than buying everything I need in the supermarket.
-
Have a look at some of the build times in my spreadsheet, let me know what you think :) They are for 1 single Engineer.
-
I know UFO: Alien Invasion != to any X-Com title, but if I can throw a idea out there from the X-Com series...
X-Com, being a outside contractor, not being a branch of any armed service derived 95% of their in come from the sale of alien artifacts. What they where funded was a pittance of their expenses. Both as part of the game play and story, your checkbook lived or died off the success of your missions and it's swag.
Granted you could build your own alien equipment and sell it, purely that it wasn't enough. The story pick up on that in the following X-Com titles as most of the alien swag got crated away to some dark corner when X-Com went under the first time, the artifacts sold by X-Com pop up from time to time in the lore or later tech based on it.
It still has the possibility of directly controlling things in AI. Not just in how happy people are with you. If you don't do many mission you don't have billion dollar check books to wounder if you should build your next base in Maui or the Bahamas. Where as if you've been a busy little para-military group you'll have a spike in income, as well as expenses.
-
So, I've had some more time and am looking at the numbers again.
The idea of basic equipment being free brings up for me two points:
1) If both both a Pistol and an SMG both cost 0c, how do we balance the two weapons? The same applies to other equipment -- in my current thinking both cost and availability are part of the balance, not just Battlescape stats.
2) Perhaps a better approach would be not to make that equipment free, but rather set up some sort of "monthly standing order" for items. So that, given enough cash and supplies, the base automatically orders some mundane items for the player. This would be a sort of mix of the "basic items are part of the monthly upkeep" and "cost and availability is part of the balance" ideas. Or even have it ordering enough ammo to replace the ammo used during the month?
What do you think?
nemchenk
PS. New version is up. (http://lunarlollipop.co.uk/private/UFOAI/ufoai_production2.xls)
-
Basic weaponry could be free... if you are supported by every nation on the planet, military resources would be overly abundant. Monthly allotments make no sense as these items would be readily available. More so than micro management concerns, could you really see the only force on the planet that is actively trying to fight the aliens running out of primary weaponry and fighting with pistols and knives due to budget shortage? I think not.
What would keep someone from using sub-machine guns instead of pistols? Well weight limits or movement restrictions might keep a player lightly loaded. Why carry a pistol at all if ammo supply is plentiful, which it is, but it should be... an assault rifle at close range is just as effective at medium range...better actually since you now get a 95% chance to hit an alien on full auto... which is much more damaging than a pistol.
You could make medium and longer weapons less effective within one or two squares... making a player carry a back-up weapon for close combat, but you are still left with the question of, "Why use a pistol, much less a knife, when a sub-machine gun will do even better"? The flamethrower has a limit of 8 squares.... some weapons like the sniper rifle should be restricted like that...except they should be required to be 8 squares away to get full use of the weapon.
Cost might affect the first month, but after that you have enough money that weapon selection of the standard earthly varieties are unlimited. you get paid a few million per month and can buy aircraft and buildings, so why would a
1) You could make a pistol cost less to unholster than a sub-machine gun.
Technically speaking... pistol ammunition is usually of
higher caliber than sub-machine gun ammo, although a sub-machine gun can be created that can use any pistol ammo, examples are the most commonly used sub-machine gun in use today is the H&K MP5, which uses a 9mm pistol round. A .357 magnum has much more power per round fired, but loses out to the fact that a sub-machine gun can fire 30 rounds (H&K MP5 single magazine limit) in a fraction of a second. The new sub-machine guns use a high velocity assault rifle round that uses less powder to fire the round than a conventional assault rifle would use... the result is a round that doesn't travel as far, but has the same armor rendering capabilities.
2) You could put in a weight limit system.
Pistols with a full magazine weigh in anywhere from 4 to 9 pounds (ammunition limit, and construction materials, and of course size factor into this) A sub machine gun weighs only about 12 to 15 pounds, and a 7 round shot gun coming in around 9 to 11 pounds. Newer materials could lower these numbers drastically. Ammunition is another matter... pistol magazines weigh a bout a pound per magazine, sub-machine gun magazines weigh more due to carrying 3x the ammunition, and shotgun rounds being very bulky.
3) There's still the argument of a one-handed weapon vs. two-handed weapons, although pistols are much more accurate fired with both
hands.
Pistols can be fired one-handed with little loss of accuracy, a sub-machine gun is almost impossible to fire accurately one-handedly due to its weight, full auto is difficult to keep on a target 15 yards away with both hands and the weapon shouldered, due to muzzle climb.
4) You could make the sub-machine gun a primary weapon and limit soldiers to one primary weapon per soldier, thus making back-up weapons pistols and other smaller arms.
-Burns77
-
I don't feel like it is an obligation to make every weapon equally useful in its role.
A pistol is inferior to nearly every automatic gun. In nearly every situation. An assault rifle will always provide more firepower and accuracy. Why change that? Design and balancing of weapons should serve the game (playability, realism...) and not the gun itself.
The pistol has its role. If I equip my soldier with a rocket launcher I should have to consider weight. The semi auto pistol is useful here (and that should be reflected in the game mechanics, it should have an impact on mobility if I decide to give my soldier two "main weapons" and especially when one of them is already overweight).
If I can substitute the semi auto pistol by an automatic weapon I will do so as I will likely substitute the assault rifle with a laser rifle or bolter. They are superior.
The combat knife is a weapon of last resort as is the semi auto pistol. If you try to attack an overpowered enemy with a melee weapon you SHOULD die for this in most cases.
My two cents ;)
-
Hey folks, I thought I'd just weigh in on the issue by reminding everybody on perhaps why the equipment is limited in number for standard Earth stuff. If you remember, PHALAX is supposed to be really top secret so the list of suppliers would be smaller to preserve this secrecy. It is true that a global economy could likely outfit more troops than the game would be able to support easily, but that would likely leave an obvious paper trail for anybody to follow (I assume the future would still have investigative journalists). So to preserve that critical secrecy, only a small number of weapons and ordinace could be diverted from normal channels. This way your team looks just like any other of the thousands of private security forces that would have sprung up in the aftermaths of the attacks.
Thus I think our solution to fixing equipment in general is to bring the production system back in line more with the spirit(or at least how I read it to be) of the game. As it stands now, just getting weapons and ammo produced for basic loadout takes nearly all month for just a few items for even a fair number of techs. These folks are supposed to be the best of the best, working in a lab with the most modern production lines avalible to man, yet they work like molassas. With 10 techs in the lab, you've got 840 man hours in play each week (12 hour shift per day * 7 days * 10 men), so I'd think they'd be able to slap together most items you'd need in a hurry.
So my overall take is this, standard weapons in short supply is more in line with the story, however the fact that your techs can't make things very fast is the reason why this is going from immersive to irritating. If it is adjusted so that your techs can build a near full loadout of standard weapons for the team in ~ 1 week most of the irritation of the global market is gone. This change will impact the gameplay as the game stands currently by invaliding the market from a buy perspective, but, as more side research lines are opened for useful gadgets the game choice becomes buy from market (gadgets) / production (no gadgets) assuming the the overall gameplay is adjusted so money becomes tighter (and and single workshop at that point in the game is it)
There's my take,
Hope it helps,
Guildenstern
-
PHALANX is supposed to be really top secret so the list of suppliers would be smaller to preserve this secrecy.
I agree too, at least about the organization and it being secret(secretive). Exposing too much info means that the aliens could
get the info as well... launch sabotage attacks etc.
But on the other side I also agree about stuff like the knife. It makes no real sense to have a shortage on knife (okok
a knife right now is basically useless but you get the idea)
If anything, then I think weapons should rather get (much) more expensive than hitting a supply cap too early.
On black market if you have enough money you'd normally get the stuff you want to buy, and it doesnt matter
much for what purpose :)
That being said though, I think the supply cap is only a problem in the beginning of the game. Lateron in the game
you normally have a lot more cash available too.
Also, i think we could need more equipment or flying stuff. Right now, especially the flying stuff, and their weapons,
is kinda limited.
-
Please bear in mind that I have only read about 1/5 of this thread, consisting of the beginning and end portions, so if I ramble about something covered in the middle, I apologize beforehand.
I love the thinking around the secrecy of the PHALANX project. The manufacturing of conventional arms is an issue which greatly irked me while playing. The issue with secrecy and equipment availability seems to me less of an issue for the organization as a whole, however, and more of a regional matter, to be handled on a regional basis. I do notice that many of the conventional arms are associated with a specific region, if not a specific country, and it would stand to reason that bases in those areas would have more supply available for purchase. For example, the SMG is Chinese, correct? Then Asian bases would likely have more available, while South American bases would had more trouble acquiring them.
Another matter would be transportation. As it is now, purchased arms appear in base instantly. While this works for the sake of expedience, I do hope it will be changed down the road. I remember X-COM Apocalypse addressed this, but delivery times in that game were capped at 5 minutes. On a global scale, I would assume deliveries could take hours, depending on location.
With regards to the impact of the deliveries themselves, shipping visibility could be turned into a game mechanic. Whenever a player makes a purchase, the armaments need to be transported to base. Once the presence of PHALANX becomes known to the Aliens, they would obviously start looking for bases, and detecting/following supply vehicles could be one such method (as well as whatever, if any, espionage methods the Aliens may pursue). However, as shevegen pointed out, the media would likely pose a bigger detection risk than direct Alien surveillance. Thus rare, single shipments would entail relatively little risk, as I can't see the equipment for one relatively small force taking more than one or two trucks, plus protection (against human raiders, not Aliens). Repeated shipments, especially close together, would have a larger footprint. Also, there are the aircraft part shipments to consider, as they either fly in or are driven in, both of which have a larger footprint.
I have to run now. I was going to inflict more text upon you lot, but my time is exhausted for now...
-
I don't think there should be any more difficulty to supply standard issue weapons and ammo than there would be to supply fuel for the craft, i.e., none. ;) Arms dealers are going to be selling trainloads of gear to every police department and security company around. In that environment, the small needs of a few squads of PHALANX troops are just a drop in the bucket. Since having to purchase gas for the interceptors is currently considered micromanagement, i believe the same should be true for combat gear that can be bought "off the shelf". As we discussed above, the cost of standard weapons and armor is only a tiny fraction of aircraft costs. So why should we have to finagle the pennies when we don't even look at the dollars?
-
Hi, I had a look at the game a year or so ago - and I'm impressed with your progress.
Concerning the discussion:
Some highlights of the storyline: there were massive clashes with aliens in Mumbai, several cities (among them the metropolis of Bonn :D ) were flattened. If you thought 9/11 was bad, this, is worse.
Phalanx may be the most capable and most important part of the resistance, but not alone. The obviously rather dormant weapons industry will come alive in a flash, but it will take time to develop new equipment. Now, new custom-made equipment is EXPENSIVE equipment and this should solve the problem. Semiregular infusions of new technology in the standard fare of weapons would provide a steady stream expensive new gadgets that you are going to be waiting for. You should get new weapons for old ammo and new ammo for old weapons, while gradually phasing out the old, cheap stuff to avoid clutter in the menus (and keep the prices up). I think it would also make sense to leave the research of strictly human technology to the rest of the world - stuff like railguns, laser weapons, better armor, better ammo (based on "old" hightech or even alien tech after it is known for a year or two) would just be announced and be available a month later or so (with a hint in the description as to what is next 8) ). Yes - you'd just buy your laser guns, for a HIGH price. Same goes for SOME new aircraft, while others would have to be built. (If you remember X-Com: Apocalypse - you couldn't just buy the Lineage Plasma Cannon, the Hawk fighter or the Small Rocket launcher right from the start, but they'd be available later on. On the other hand you couldn't buy your anti alien guns and x-com aircraft like the retailiator and annihilator) Lots of artwork, I know.
If you do this, you should also make sure that Phalanx starts on a low budget and that the first weapons are impressively inefficient against aliens (they just wiped out a conventional army - if you remember Mumbai) - the aliens would come in ones and twos to start with (the first 3-5 missions). At first, human equipment should be a FAR CRY from adequate against aliens. You'll want to have soldiers fire several salvos at aliens to make a scratch. Later, the number of aliens should increase with the new, more efficient and MUCH MORE expensive gadgets. This should go a long way towards making the game more dynamic and avoid that point when your equipment is perfect and you are just doing one mission after the next to finish the game. (The game should end just before that point.)
This would leave Phalanx to concentrate on understanding aliens and their technology (the lack of experts in the field explaining the shortage of scientists). And it wouldn't feel like you and a handful of people were out alone to safe the world. (And please, let those new weapons have a firm grounding in human technology. Where are those light high range antimatter grenades for the grenade launcher? Or plasma warheads (better vs. alien armour) for your rocket launcher? Or ultra light alien alloy launchers that can also use conventional rockets?)
-
If the world is at war, I don't see two or maybe three crates of SMGs (hold 50-100 each) going missing as anything more than a oddity then a clerical error, quickly fixed by someone with a few stars showing up and saying "Uncle Sam says you did get those crates, isn't that right."
Also considering if we are at War any reporter trying to actively expose a Top Secret project during war time could rightfully be charged with treason, and...I'm sorry, who was I talking about? That's just the nicer version for US consumption. Other contraries don't even always maintain that pretense.
Having enough conventional arms to pull a Matrix type fight scene where you fire half a clip, discard that weapon, and pull out another, wile wasteful, doesn't seem far fetched. It could also be nice to get the weapons a little sooner then we do, and turn around and upgrade them under the geese of "working out the bugs" would be nice.
-
I really like tp1024's idea that the market should gradually provide stuff on a time basis, leaving PHALANX scientists to specialize in researching the alien goodies. Especially since there are some complaints that players are researching this stuff too quickly {http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Gameplay_Proposals/Scientist_Cap_Per_Research_Project (http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Gameplay_Proposals/Scientist_Cap_Per_Research_Project) - hopefully this idea has died a well deserved death}. Also because starting gear all comes from museums - most is WWII era.
-
New weapons are spiffy, but the standard guns you get are still very effective.
Remember they are "standard" for PHLANAX, but represent the best weapons humans built so far. It's nothing to sneeze at.
Mid game I put together a new team, equipped them with standard weapons/armor and sent it off to clear the alien-infested subway, as my high-tech armed team was taking some R&R. The mission was a success with only one casualty (due to my oversight).
I dont' see any problem with buying a stock of standard guns and ammo. I was never short of money and it's only a few klicks. A real base commander wouldn't deal with that you say? A real base commander wouldn't deal with half the interesting stuff in-game. So that's not really a great argument.
-
New weapons are spiffy, but the standard guns you get are still very effective.
Remember they are "standard" for PHLANAX, but represent the best weapons humans built so far.
NOT! Bazookas went out of fashion in the 1960s, and flame-throwers haven't been used since the '70s. They were all replaced by special purpose rocket launchers. In particular, the range that U.S. infantryman can ignite things with an M202 'Flash' rocket is WAAY better than what can be done with the flame-thrower. Why get so close you can hug the Bug Eyed Monsters when it's more survivable to 'reach out and touch' them from behind cover? There's not a single weapon available to PHALANX that wasn't in use during the era of the Korean War. Specifically, weapons available right now have about ten times greater range than what PHALANX uses [this is intentional] and much greater accuracy [not sure if this was intentional]; i'm not even bringing in bonus features like laser sights, etc.
-
Dude, you use flamethrowers for urban combat - on maps where there's lots of buildings and cover, or inside buildings. Same goes for shotguns.
With the flamethrower you can fry a alien for only 8 TU's...use inferno and fry several in a row! It's devastatingly effective.
In wide open spaces? Use something else. Some guns are more specialized than others.
-
wow, i am amazed that so many people can get worked up about an economical market... : O
I don't really see how changing the price of the starting weapons will make much of a difference at all, i mean in the originals they cost money, and no matter what happens the weaponry will cost. That's part of playing the game, you might as well say, lets help the newbies out by killing the aliens for them... = /
It's a pointless excercise which will take away from the game, you may consider making the starting weapons free on the easiest difficulty settings or something like that.
As for flamethrowers, they i believe were outlawed by the geneva convention. For the simple fact that the sound of someone burning to death causes severe trauma to those in range to hear it, and understand what it is that they are hearing.
-
As for flamethrowers, they i believe were outlawed by the geneva convention. For the simple fact that the sound of someone burning to death causes severe trauma to those in range to hear it, and understand what it is that they are hearing.
The aliens weren't there to sign that Geneva Convention or any of the Biological Weapons Geneva Conventions, so it's legally fair to use those weapons against them.
Do you really want to give up the gas grenades? It really is easier to use them than the stun rods.
-
The whole point of the geneva convention was that those who signed it would stop using those weapons, so the aliens are free to use them, but the human sides aren't, under the convention.
The whole point of discontinuing their use, as it put in my previous post was that the result of using the flamethrower resulted in traumatised soldiers on all sides.
Although it depends on what you're going for in the game, if you want realism then take them out or make it so that using the flamethrower reduces the morale of those in LOS, or if you're going for the more arcady feel then leave as is.
I love the gas nades... :D
-
The whole point of the geneva convention was that those who signed it would stop using those weapons, so the aliens are free to use them, but the human sides aren't, under the convention.
The whole point of discontinuing their use, as it put in my previous post was that the result of using the flamethrower resulted in traumatised soldiers on all sides.
Although it depends on what you're going for in the game, if you want realism then take them out or make it so that using the flamethrower reduces the morale of those in LOS, or if you're going for the more arcady feel then leave as is.
I love the gas nades... :D
Why on earth do you think the Geneva Convention applies in a conflict where a) the attacking side (i.e. EVIL ALIENS FROM SPACE) is entirely not covered under it, b) the defending side is an organisation of UN-sanctioned paramilitaries operating outside of any national military, and c) it's 80 years into the future, when the convention is already 'open for interpretation' today (thanks, George!)?
Anyway, the only thing the convention actually forbids is their use against or near concentrations of civilians. There's perfectly plausible cause for the use of flamethrowers and other incendiaries by PHALANX, all of which are covered by the same act. As far as we're concerned the Geneva Convention has no relevance on the game and this will not change.
Regards,
Winter
-
Why on earth do you think the Geneva Convention applies in a conflict where a)... b)... c)...
I feel that any conventions established that involve human morals and empathy eg: flamethrowers outlawed because of excessive mental or physical trauma (to either civilians or soldiers since I'm not totally familiar with these conventions) would need to be strictly maintained and applied to any foe, especially to "evil" aliens
"Be careful when you fight the monsters, lest you become one."
Where Gameplay concerned forget ethics. They're evil aliens! ;D
-
Well, you don't HAVE to use those weapons.
-
I hardly think that humanity has such respect for paper that it would resign its whole to extinction to preserve a document...
-
I haven't heard that flamethrowers are outlawed, but in either case all warfare conventions are limited to usage against our species only. E.g. it's forbidden to use toxins against human opponents, but its okay to spread them to ged rid of cockroaches or locust.
-
I hardly think that humanity has such respect for paper that it would resign its whole to extinction to preserve a document...
That may be the case, but in the game do the governments think they're facing extinction (and if they do would the use of flamethrowers and gas grenades really make such a large difference)? If that were true I think Phalanx would be a much larger operation with larger donations from it's supporting countries (I'm not suggesting that needs to be changed, far from it, I think the gameplay is good as it is)
I haven't heard that flamethrowers are outlawed, but in either case all warfare conventions are limited to usage against our species only. E.g. it's forbidden to use toxins against human opponents, but its okay to spread them to ged rid of cockroaches or locust.
Granted these only cover our species, because we are the only sentient creatures we have encountered (as far as I know :) ) but If another sentient life form was discovered, I would hope basic warfare conventions such as weapon usage types and prisoner of war treatment would be applied since ignoring these "rights" is a step down a slippery road, even if they aren't human. And yes, I do realize that hope isn't at all a solid argument, but defending a theoretical species' inclusion into a convention for physical or mental protection has a surprising lack of available supporting material ;D
-
Personally, I've only used the Flamer once in a mission, and it was a waste of time because I don't seem to get clumps of aliens all in one area.
IMO, shotgun is better for urban maps, but flamer has it's uses for some situations.
Besides, if your planet was under attack by aliens, would you want to limit your retaliation options?
Look at Independence Day, they eventually used Nukes on their own country to try and take out one of the big saucers.
-
Why place limitations and rules upon yourself unnecessarily? I could be wrong, but with agreements such as the Geneva Convention, one nation breaking it could result in sanctions and condemnation from the other nations in the world, and perhaps the U.N. being mad at you. This is nothing comparable to the setting of the game, where there isn't any galactic council of various races or anything, no higher authority or collection of races/worlds to answer to, etc.
Further, the aliens are already being treated differently anyways, being cut open and studied when dead, etc., and they don't follow ethical rules either by going after civilians.
All things considered, it just doesn't make sense for humans to contrasensically limit themselves with self-imposed rules and give hostile aliens "rights."
"Rights" make sense when fighting one's own kind, such as humans vs. humans, but not against an alien threat that itself won't play by "rules."
-
more than once i have felt that the game should not be set in 2084 but in 1950.
i see the 2084 is probably from x-com apocalypse, but there seems to be little reason to stick to that date.
is that date meant to make the game more believable?
many games use past dates as the starting point, and they don't suffer from the believability issues at all.
if the game was set in 1950 (or maybe 1961 would be a nice symbolic date), the stereotypical weapons that we would like to use, would not feel so awkwardly out of date.
-
In reply to Destructavator (not quoting or the post may be a little too long): But in your scenario those countries condemning the one nation would continue to adhere to the conventions? They wouldn't abandon ethical beliefs because someone else did. Now what if instead of country A breaking the "rules," it never agreed to them in the first place and went to war with country B that did? B would still adhere to those "rights" even though the enemy doesn't use them.
If a single person murders another, he doesn't immediately lose his rights! He is taken to court for a sentence. If a country mistreats enemy soldiers/civilians it isn't forfeiting it's soldiers/civilians to being mistreated (assuming it's opposition signed those conventions).
Now apply that idea to invading aliens (ok, it's stretching it a bit...). If we didn't "place limitations upon ourselves: In the aliens eyes our soldiers and civilians have no rights and because of this are waving all they're own? That isn't the way it SHOULD work.
As for
"Rights" make sense when fighting one's own kind, such as humans vs. humans
One's own kind?? I think that's a dangerous thing to say. If you simplify it you get, "if it's not like me, it doesn't have rights." I believe history has heard that before somewhere?
To homunculus: That's not a bad idea, but then you'd lose the ability to back engineer much of the alien technology, and in case that was referring to this little flamethrower and gas debate, I never (at least I think I never) said that the GAME should be altered to my viewpoint
To Talon112: I haven't really thought about nukes but I'm under the impression that the vast majority of deaths are near-instantaneous and would therefore not result in excessive mental or physical trauma? Weather the genocide of all the aliens in retaliation to the attack was either necessary or right is another question... but it was just a film
-
I think that's a dangerous thing to say. If you simplify it you get, "if it's not like me, it doesn't have rights." I believe history has heard that before somewhere?
Well yes. That's the case with quite a lot of rights. To name an example, in democracies, citizens of a country have the right to vote for the leaders of that country. Non-citizens don't.
It makes perfect sense to restrict rights.
-
To name an example, in democracies, citizens of a country have the right to vote for the leaders of that country. Non-citizens don't.
But everyone has the right to become a citizen! (at least as far as I know, in USA, Britain, Europe etc) As far as I know the only requirement to take the test (can't remember it's official name) to become a citizen is a site at which you live eg: house and that is for administration purposes.
Edit: And before someone says that the "Home" rule is a "lack of rights" or discrimination against the homeless, it can't be considered discrimination if it applies to everyone. Example: If I were born in a country and lived their my entire life, I would probably be a citizen, but If I then lost my home (and therefore my address) I couldn't vote or apply for a passport or any other acts unique to a citizen
-
But everyone has the right to become a citizen! (at least as far as I know, in USA, Britain, Europe etc) As far as I know the only requirement to take the test (can't remember it's official name) to become a citizen is a site at which you live eg: house and that is for administration purposes.
Tell that to all the Mexicans who get stopped at the border. It's actually pretty hard to get a greencard for the US. Look it up.
-
Well, I'm not arguing about how it is or should be in real life, but my points were about the fictitious setting of the game plot, and how much of the real-life "rules" we have among ourselves shouldn't apply to hostile aliens that are invading and don't care themselves about any such rules or self-imposed limitations.
And yes, BTAxis is right, immigration into the U.S. is very difficult to do legally, although I'm not going to go into depth on that discussion - I could, but I won't.
-
Well, I'm not arguing about how it is or should be in real life, but my points were about the fictitious setting of the game plot, and how much of the real-life "rules" we have among ourselves shouldn't apply to hostile aliens that are invading and don't care themselves about any such rules or self-imposed limitations.
I got the impression that you were arguing points on how real life should be if a scenario such as the games plot occured. In which case mine is that any sentient being should have the same laws, rights and conventions applied. If my dog was sentient at the same level as humans, I would expect/hope that human rights would be applied. :)
Tell that to all the Mexicans who get stopped at the border. It's actually pretty hard to get a greencard for the US. Look it up.
I wasn't aware it was difficult to get into the US. I apologize if I was wrong. But if someone did it would be easy to apply for citizenship? My view was that It SHOULD be. I know for a fact that my country (England) is easy to both get into (since a passport isn't needed to travel between countries in the EU) and easy to become a citizen of. I would hope that right is present everywhere.
-
Wow...
I was just making a point as to how the game could be made realistic in game...
I wasn't trying to start a theological debate, personally i love setting people on fire in games... Great fun in the sims... : p
-
If we are going to stick to conventions, captured aliens should be treated respect for their persons and their honour and may not be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment.
But aliens here are far different from any human opponent: they didn't make any demands, ignored all negotiation attempts and won't stop hostile activity unless killed or incapacitated. Aside from that, each alien doesn't show much intelligence on individual level, so it's not quite correct to treat them as "persons". The only sentient thing among them is XVI virus, but unless we are going to respect virus' right to infest and devour all living things on Earth, the alien invasion is much like a natural disaster and should be dealed with appropriately.
As for human morale damage - it's quite possible, as with each war. I remember the plot of the Incoming game series - in the first part you fought alien invasion as usual, but in Incoming 2 you took the side of some other alien race defending against humans, which became technologically advanced and xenophobic after the first war with aliens. Something similar could happen after the destruction of alien mothership here - not knowing if there are more XVI motherships or ET threats of other kind, having a number of unidentified XVI hosts on Earth which can form undercover common intelligence cells and provided with alien war technology, Earth goverments can unite under more totalitarian, suspicious and warlike one. In this case the final titles could show an armada of FTL ships being built on Earth orbit, saying "Now we must be prepared" or similar.
-
But aliens here are far different from any human opponent: they didn't make any demands, ignored all negotiation attempts and won't stop hostile activity unless killed or incapacitated.
I don't recall negotiation attempts? Even if they occur in the storyline later then what's been implemented and they refuse or ignore they shouldn't be mistreated. An example: if terrorists hijacked a boat and refused to negotiate, they don't lose rights. (It may be rare for them not to "state their demands" but it could, and I think has happened)
Aside from that, each alien doesn't show much intelligence on individual level, so it's not quite correct to treat them as "persons". The only sentient thing among them is XVI virus, but unless we are going to respect virus' right to infest and devour all living things on Earth
Well you've brought up a good point. I would normally say that:
ANY entity capable of cognitive thought should be given human "rights" (started using this term a lot haven't I? :D) and that includes both the virus and the "hostages." Striking a proper balance is difficult since the virus needs hosts to exist. If the infection were curable, I might side on the hosts side because of the majority argument but that doesn't mean the virus is losing rights. In an ideal world an artificial machine incapable of thought but capable of supporting the virus would be developed.
I'm not going to say that here though... I fear it may be even less popular then my previous statements about just "aliens"
The virus doesn't have a right to kill or "infest" but by doing so isn't waving it's own rights
alien race defending against humans, which became technologically advanced and xenophobic after the first war with aliens... "Now we must be prepared" or similar.
That was what I was suggesting with my quote (from Friedrich Nietzsche?) but it might not happen out of fear from aliens, but because we sacrificed a part of us when we fought, ignoring the human rights of aliens, which bleeds over to sacrificing rights of the humans infected, which bleeds over to ignoring the rights of ordinary "citizens" "for their own protection." Of course that wouldn't occur in the games setting because from what I understand of the plot, Sol and a few others are the only star systems left with natural resources. In the future, without room to expand, civilization would most likely collapse.
-
I don't recall negotiation attempts? Even if they occur in the storyline later then what's been implemented and they refuse or ignore they shouldn't be mistreated. An example: if terrorists hijacked a boat and refused to negotiate, they don't lose rights.
Ignored negotiations are taken from official storyline (http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Storyline/Final): "Some nations attempt diplomacy, sending messages in a thousand different languages to the aliens ravaging across the countryside. Their words are ignored. Within hours, all three cities are emptied of human life."
Human terrorists are at least capable of negotiation because of their human nature. To my mind, negotiation is a must if a mutual coexistance is to be achieved. Ability to negotiate makes the difference between SkyNet and Matrix machines. And XVI is more of SkyNet type - both were artificially engineered for military purposes, but gone out of control and for both of them the only acceptable form of coexistance with humans is their enslaving.
ANY entity capable of cognitive thought should be given human "rights"
This point is the most arguable to me. You consider the terms "human rights" and "moral" to be all-sufficient and universal through all possible sentient life forms. I consider them to be sorts of behaviour rules that humanity agreed upon to optimize our social attitutes. E.g. do not kill in order not to be killed yourself, help the weak in order to be helped if you become weak too, etc. And these are based on our historical experience of human vs. human interaction, so adding some intelligent indederminate in current relationship scheme would eventually require tweaking our moral principles.