UFO:Alien Invasion
Technical support => Feature Requests => Topic started by: Triaxx2 on May 15, 2012, 06:40:03 pm
-
I've noticed that the enemy likes to hide behind walls, and there is occasionally no cover to close in enough to throw a grenade, usually without exposing yourself to enemy fire.
Mortars as heavy weapons would neatly solve the problem, while being able to potentially punch through floors. They'd be very expensive to use, and possibly immobile within the battle space, so they don't step on the toes of grenade launchers.
Having multiple round types would make it a useful tactical weapon. Large area smoke rounds, incendiary, and naturally armor piercing. Possibly even a camera round to be dropped into an area you can't see. It doesn't have to last for more than a round.
-
What kind of mortar is that can't turn a wall into dust? -- And in UFO:AI walls are indestructible, you know...
-geever
-
in theory smoke grenades should provide visual cover which would help that issue but I belie there is an issue with the code {could be wrong there}
Having said that I have thought about bringing up the subject of mortars a few time. The problem I have found is as you say thinking of a way of using them that doesn't make them overpowered grenade launchers.
They defiantly need to be heavy weapons. but I don't like making them immobile in case the soldier spawns somewhere useless like inside the dropship but a penalty to movement I think should be considered especially if it proves over powered.
Might it also be worth making the weapon only usable when crouched and have a heavy TU cost to fire the thing
I think the thing should suffer from accuracy but compensate with large damage and blast radius so players have to think then using it or else risk friendly fire or hitting civilians.
-
I've thought of that as well but in my opinion realistic mortars wouldn't really "fit". Gameplay-wise, we already have the grenade launcher for indirect fire; perhaps it could be tweaked to be a little heavier weapon by adding range/damage/radius in exchange for removing burst mode and adding tu cost to become more "mortar-like".
-
iirc grenade launcher follow a flatter trajectory, useful for putting rounds through windows and the like.
A mortar tends to follow a higher/steeper trajectory useful for hitting objects behind tall cover which is what Triaxx2 was looking for
-
would it be possible to change grenade launcher's aiming to enable this, does the shot always need to use a similar trajectory?
-
Perhaps having an up/down arrow on the side of the fire options list to set the apex height and have the max range reduce incrementally beyond a certain height
-
Mortars count as artillery, though. And suggestions of fire support were already shot down since pretty much all of your operations seem to be happening in at least lightly populated areas and you're trying to avoid friendly fire as if it's the plague.
Though, some more heavy weapons would be nice.
Maybe a .50cal? :p
-
mortars are also man portable (the UK L9 light morter is in the 6-7 kilo range which is about the same as the FN minimi light machinegun) and are generally used for close range indirect fire support (750m for the L9) rather than of field support, there was consideration in the MOD to replace the L9 with L17A2 UGL (Under-slung Grenade Launcher).
-
I know, I know. Not like I'm against the idea. Especially if we'd be allowed to pack the shells full of CHOKE when R&D tells you how to make it.
Still doubt we'll get anything, though.
-
I can understand that they could very easily become stupidly over powered which is why I suggested them be inaccurate and large blast area so that there is a good risk of killing civilians if used carelessly, also buildings will probably provide good cover from mortars so it will still be necessary to take direct fire weapons to take out sneaky snipers.
Other things can be done are things like having each reload = 1 shell rather than 6 for the GL so the ammo is bulky meaning that if you want to take a decent backup weapon and medkit you will be heavily limited on number of shells that can be carried
Additionally if firing the weapon takes a very high TU to fire (near 100%) and combined with single shot reloads it means that they can only be fired every other turn and not on a turn where the soldier moves.
-
Having a mule or two should probably be essential as well.
-
Perhaps, perhaps not.
Remember that once 2x2 drones are implemented a Firebird will potentially be 1 drone and 4 soldiers making one mortar soldier a quarter of your squad, leaving 3+1UGV for direct hunter killer, you might also want to keep a soldier back to cover your mortar with them probably being unable to reaction fire.
But a Mule would also keep the mortar a significant lump of your deployable force when deploying 8 soldiers.
-
Alternative: Mortar UGV? Basically gives us a nice self-propelled artillery piece to play with.
I am also reminded of BigDog. Maybe have something in that direction as well?
Though, from what I heard, dropship capacity has a planned increase to 12 later.
Of course, that is for a later craft.
-
I would expect that alien armour would be much more resistant to explosives by then as well as larger squads of aliens so might not be so much of an issue.
A morter equipped UGV is an interesting Idea, it would certainly restrict the number deployed, though I tend to think UGVs as more spearhead units than back line support, but in it's advantage it would open up the opportunity for cluster fire modes.
-
Alternative: Mortar UGV? Basically gives us a nice self-propelled artillery piece to play with.
+1!!!!
-
A morter equipped UGV is an interesting Idea, it would certainly restrict the number deployed, though I tend to think UGVs as more spearhead units than back line support, but in it's advantage it would open up the opportunity for cluster fire modes.
It would have more ammo capacity than a grunt with three buddies. Though it couldn't last as long in a fight, though.
-
You can use grenades/GL to take high trajectory, just needs a little experience with it. Use shift to aim at actual level your view is at, not the floor under cursor. You can do a nice high lobs right into alien's face.
-
It all can be nice and cool, but:
1. It is not a war, so we have civilians shouldn`t be killed (and mortars, like other cover weapon can easy kill them).
2. We do not support destructible enviroment, so Big F** Gun that can not destroy thick wall looks a bit foolish.
3. It`s really hard to balance such overpowered weapons.
-
A lot of games like this really lack for indirect fire weapons. Mostly your options are grenade launchers, and hand thrown grenades.
I had a situation the other day on one of the Mediterranean maps, where I had a Civilian duck through the only passable hole in the wall, and the last alien on the map pop up behind him. Unfortunately, it was sufficiently early that I didn't even have my first bolter, so I had no way to penetrate the wall. And the grenade launcher doesn't have the high angle it needs to drop behind an obstacle. I finally managed to finish it off with a grenade toss up and over the wall, after getting shot because that was the only place I could throw safely to have it land behind the alien and kill it and not the civilian.
Balance is an issue, but it always is. Consider the Rocket Launcher. It's very useful, and capable of instant killing targets. However, it has to be reloaded after each shot, and it's got a huge explosion radius so it's not a weapon for shooting close to friendlies. The Grenade Launcher is similar, but the arc of the shot makes it useful for entirely different tasks.
I've never been a big fan of destructible environments. It's cool and all, but it ends up making extra work for the designers, without adding a huge amount. Besides, that's not what mortars do. Mortars provide immediate ordinance to individual units. 6 soldiers are dangerous, 6 soldiers and a mortar are VERY dangerous.
I'm not sure what role they have in mind for UGV's. It's an interesting idea, but it was a good one in X-Com and they seemed to blow up rather a lot. That said, a mortar UGV is not at all far fetched.
-
There is already a mortar proposal (http://ufoai.org/wiki/index.php/Equipment/Proposed/60_mm_mortar) in our wiki, along with about a hundred other weapon proposals (http://ufoai.org/wiki/index.php/Equipment/Proposed).
-
Looking at that list, it seems we do have a few models for some of that stuff.
HM..I think I have a normal minigun model stashed away somewhere.
Also, microwave and sonic weapons? Yes please.
A miniaturized pain ray would be a devious weapon.
And sounds cna be used to confuse as well as hurt. I saw some new technology where sound is projected via microwaves. You can make sound come out from anywhere and bounce it off walls. Great for confusing the hell out of the enemy.
-
Also, microwave and sonic weapons? Yes please.
Not to sure about microwaves given the social and political setting of UFO:AI but the sonic disorientation/stun device is interesting.
-
I don't think anyone will be worrying about alien rights..Especially given that they are mindelss husks anyway.
Cook em boys!
-
I'll be totally honest, I looked, but the Wiki is pretty hard to find anything on.
I'm glad to see it's there though.
-
I'll be totally honest, I looked, but the Wiki is pretty hard to find anything on.
I'm glad to see it's there though.
How to find something in the www (http://en.lmgtfy.com/?q=ufoai+mortar+proposal). :)
-
I don't think anyone will be worrying about alien rights..Especially given that they are mindelss husks anyway.
Cook em boys!
Taman medium or better a Ortnok rare?
-
Well done Sheevar, please.
-
an idea (probably not entirely new):
divide grenade launcher's role into "assault" and mortar-like "support" roles with different ammo; support rounds with high tu cost, long range/large blast radius, small capacity per magazine, assault rounds less powerful but faster to fire.
-
the existing launcher as the assault and perhaps a breach loader similar to an M79 for the support version?
Either way I could go with that idea
-
On the topic of mortars, it would be nice to get some additional projectile angles, at least a high-angle release for the GL and grenades—the contortions required to attack a target out of direct LOS on adjacent higher terrain, or on the far side of a wall or other obstruction, are pretty painful. It wasn't always a panacea, but the removal of airburst in favour of impact makes the problem worse.
Maybe an additional fire mode for grenades (change current "lob" to "throw", new high-angle mode called "lob") and two for the GL grenades (timed and impact—it's not clear to me that we need the ability to perform high-angle aimed shots, though if people aren't scared off by eight firemodes I certainly wouldn't complain)? Seems easier than finding a way to give the player more fine-grained trajectory control, even if that would ultimately be nicer.
~J
-
The only difference between Airburst and Impact is the name. I agonized forever to find a better name than Airburst, and now you have shown me that Impact can also be confusing, because it can explode without hitting anything.
I changed the name because Airbust always confused me: does that mean it explodes on target or that it will explode after a given time, even if it's in the air? It may seem obvious after learning the weapon, but I would really like to come up with names for each firemode that are clear and distinct. Any recommendations?
-
The launcher transmits distance from target to the grenade which then detonates in mid air at the set distance so this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_burst) happens.
Don't really see how the term could be confusing.
-
Don't really see how the term could be confusing.
Both firemodes detonate based on timers and both firemodes can detonate in the air. That can make it difficult to find names that make the distinction clear. Airburst may be better than Impact, but I'd still like to find something better.
-
An impact explosive impacts like it says on impact, triggers can be
- small amount of shock detonated explosive in the tip of the device
- plunger or other depression triggered fuse
Air burst explodes while in the air, triggers can be
- Timer (usually milliseconds)
- rotation XM25 uses this where by it measures the number of times it has spun using the spin caused by the weapons rifling
- In the case of aerially dropped weapons pressure sensors detecting the change in air preasure.
To add to the confusion timers/set length fuses are the traditional fuses for hand grenades which means they will only detonate after a set time
-
I propose:
- IMPACT (detonates when it hits something)
- TIMED (detonates after X seconds, and thus, can bounce around corners)
- AIRBURT (explodes in air above target. Larger radius, smaller damage).
-
Both firemodes detonate based on timers and both firemodes can detonate in the air. That can make it difficult to find names that make the distinction clear. Airburst may be better than Impact, but I'd still like to find something better.
Maybe, "Fixed range"? Or even "Preset range"?
-
Perhaps give IC airburst with an increased radius but a shorter effect (if they're ever going to last for a reasonable time span) and impact while HE gets impact and timed?
-
The only difference between Airburst and Impact is the name.
Wait, seriously? Confirmation bias strikes again—I had a distinct impression of a difference.
Thoughts in the morning, when brain working again.
~J
-
I'm stuck waiting for the cat to come back inside, so while I don't have the brainpower to look at how grenades work now and answer the question "what should this be called", I do have it in me to look at the two preexisting names and say what they should be.
Impact: launch a grenade that explodes exactly when it might otherwise bounce.
Airburst: launch a grenade that explodes, modulo accuracy concerns, at the location (including elevation) it was targeted at.
Now, that definition of "airburst" leaves undefined the case in which the grenade hits something before reaching its post-accuracy-adjustment target. Having the round fail to detonate is almost certainly not what the player would want in the vast majority of circumstances, so that leaves either detonating or bouncing on premature impact. I think detonating would be the superior choice, what with being more player-friendly (if they wanted to bounce, they could have used timed mode), but either would be defensible.
With the caveat again that my brain is mostly not working right now, the current mechanic feels closer to airburst—but I do note that when elevation is changed before firing, the shot travels significantly beyond the target point before detonating.
So yeah, more after sleep.
~J
-
Yes, there's some confusion in this thread, I think. Some of the ideas here are not bad, but they just don't match what our firemodes do at the moment, and I don't think we're likely to be coding a new firemode functionality soon (although I, too, would like some more control over grenade launcher angle at some point).
Part of the confusion is that our Airbust/Impact firemode does BOTH:
Airburst: It will detonate upon reaching target, even if it hasn't hit anything.
Impact: If it makes contact with something before reaching the target, it will detonate.
For ease of use, I think this is actually better than having two separate modes. It seems fairly intuitive to me and the grenade launcher already has the most complicated firemodes. I don't want to complicate it further unless it's really necessary.
The only problem I have is how to name it in a way that it can not be confused at all for the slow timer mode. Maybe timer could be called "Bounced"?
-
Remvte the burt modes from grenade launcher. Implement several different singel-shot modes and do them justice.
-
Remvte the burt modes from grenade launcher.
Already done.
-
That's kind of sad. I liked having the three-round burst available for engaging small groups. It means there's no way to deal with large groups other than wasting time by firing multiple individuals, or trying to throw hand grenades.
Having AirB/Imp as one mode, and Timed as another works quite well.
-
Part of the confusion is that our Airbust/Impact firemode does BOTH:
Airburst: It will detonate upon reaching target, even if it hasn't hit anything.
Impact: If it makes contact with something before reaching the target, it will detonate.
In my opinion there are two problems with using the GL in 2.5, one is the high trajectory thing and other is that currently there is no way to make it detonate in mid air at a given location with impact/timer firing modes. Also, the timer mode seems somewhat obscure; apparently the grenade will go off when some set time has elapsed, but I can't figure out what that time might be or if it can be set shorter or longer.
What's this airburst mode you're all talking about, was there one in 2.4? I think there was airburst mode in 2.3? Ufopedia still mentions airburst though.
-
It might've been an airburst in 3 (doubtful) but in 4, it has to hit something, I think.
An actual airburst would be awesome, though.
Maybe have it as 'airburst' and 'impact'?
-
airburst and impact would give no ability to bounce :/
-
What's this airburst mode you're all talking about, was there one in 2.4? I think there was airburst mode in 2.3? Ufopedia still mentions airburst though.
The mode that is now called "impact" was formerly called "airburst", and (apparently) the behaviour is unchanged.
Jumping back to something I'd missed before:
[…]Airbust/Impact fire mode […] will detonate upon reaching target, even if it hasn't hit anything.
It doesn't actually do this. You can confirm by elevating the target point—the grenade will detonate before reaching the ground (typically, depending on topography), but will consistently overshoot the target point before doing so.
That's kind of sad. I liked having the three-round burst available for engaging small groups. It means there's no way to deal with large groups other than wasting time by firing multiple individuals, or trying to throw hand grenades.
Although the three-round burst does both deal more total damage and vary the impact point, I don't think the change makes such a huge difference for crowd control—more significant is the reduction in splash radius from 4 for incendiary/HE and 5 for plasma to 3 for all.
~J
-
That's an even worse change.
-
But now it actually kills things when it hits them! And also has more range than a slingshot…
~J
-
But now it actually kills things when it hits them! And also has more range than a slingshot…
~J
Speaking of that, how much range is it supposed to have? I'm asking because I'm seeing the aim point indicator remain a crosshair symbol to long distances, but when I try to fire, it says "out of range". Indicator becomes an X only at very long distances, like 50% further than I can actually shoot. Is this normal behaviour atm?
-
I get broadly the same result, though it seems like the details of how far apart the red line/X and the last target point at which the GL will actually fire depend on something—terrain, perhaps? Elevating the target point in particular seems to make the gap larger.
~J
-
I've noticed this discrepancy between visible range and actual range. I'm not sure how to fix it but will continue to bring it up. A lot of the battlescape requires complex math and solutions are not always that easy to find.
-
I've noticed this discrepancy between visible range and actual range. I'm not sure how to fix it but will continue to bring it up. A lot of the battlescape requires complex math and solutions are not always that easy to find.
Isn't that difference related to different ammo for GL? Like wider range for HIT grenade compared to PB grenade. I thought that there is different ranges but visible range calculation done only for first type.
-
Isn't that difference related to different ammo for GL? Like wider range for HIT grenade compared to PB grenade. I thought that there is different ranges but visible range calculation done only for first type.
I'm getting this when using HIT grenades.
-
I've noticed this discrepancy between visible range and actual range. I'm not sure how to fix it but will continue to bring it up. A lot of the battlescape requires complex math and solutions are not always that easy to find.
CL_TargetingGrenade() is using velocity instead of distance to check the range, the attached patch should fix it.
-
Yay! I hope someone can get this into master soon.
-
CL_TargetingGrenade() is using velocity instead of distance to check the range, the attached patch should fix it.
great! now, all I need is to find out what do I do to apply that patch? =)
-
If you are using git:
git am path/to/patch.patch
-
thanks, I find it still shows 5 or so squares too much range :/
-
Really? Hmm... it works for me. You did recompile the game after applying the patch, right?
-
Guys, I know I've been away from this project for a while, but after coming back and reading through this thread, I have to admit I'm a little *against* mortars in the official game.
Much like proposals for air strikes, air-to-ground bombs, and other really heavy stuff, please remember that in the setting of the official game Phalanx troops are supposed to go into an area and more surgically remove a threat withOUT causing a huge disruption by blasting things to the Christian hell, withOUT drawing a lot of attention to what should be a secret or low-profile organization so aliens don't target them, and withOUT causing massive damage to a populated area of a nation that is expected to support the organization.
Yes, I realize that in video games it can indeed be fun to simply chuck a big A-bomb at a group of bad guys and just nuke the f***ers, but it kills the realism we fought so hard for in making this game - much like how this game tries to go for *hard* sci-fi stuff and not the soft fantasy-ish like material.
I'd also like to point out that real-life military veterans and experts that I've known and talked to (including one in my family, who fought in two world wars) who really know the practical consequences of blasting large areas with powerful weapons to root out enemy units often run into this type of mentality with inexperienced people who don't realize the problems with such an approach. Many "arm-chair" idea givers who have never been in the military favor this thing with blasting large areas like that, but the real experts are against it.
Yes, in the history of wars and fighting they have indeed tried that type of thing - It doesn't work as expected. I don't claim to be such an expert myself so I can't list all the reasons why, but the real experts who have really *been there* know that it is a BAD idea in many cases. Most actually prefer to go into an area and remove JUST the threat withOUT causing massive damage to the area while doing it.
All that being said, I think this would be better as a MOD, and should go in that section of the forum, and not show up in the official version of the game.
-
While I appreciate the sentiment, we are fighting aliens. But this isn't wanting to level the place. This is wanting to be able to land fire on a known target. I'm not suggesting super heavy ones. I'm thinking of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M224_mortar), instead of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/320_mm_mortar).
A specialized variety of grenade launcher, and not really more powerful than the rocket launcher. I don't think air-strikes fit the game that well, unless it requires a specialized bomber and uses it as a type of auto-mission. All I'm aiming for is versatility in weaponry.
In fact if we were going for minimum damage, we'd not be using explosive grenades at all, just smoke and flash bangs. And definitely no rocket or grenade launchers, and certainly not flame throwers. Nor Electro-magnetic rifles, which shoot through buildings.
I love realism as much as the next guy, but I'd much rather the game be fun first, and realistic second.
-
...I'm not suggesting super heavy ones. I'm thinking of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M224_mortar), instead of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/320_mm_mortar).
Ah, thanks for pointing that out - that's where I misunderstood. I apologize - I've been in and out of involvement with this game for so long that I've gotten used to (more like sore and somewhat desensitized in a way, I admit,) having to defend the way the game is designed and argue back against occasional people who come to the forum and ask for nuclear weapons, huge super-bombs and other crap that would destroy game balance and wouldn't fit in well at all, to the point where in this case I made a few assumptions.
Oh, that and the occasional request for a light-saber or some other silly bulls***. Keeping the game intact from that type of nonsense can also be "fun." :P
-
It's alright. I've seen those kind of requests as well. I always try to keep balance in mind.
-
the patch is applied to master now - thanks a lot
-
Really? Hmm... it works for me. You did recompile the game after applying the patch, right?
Oops, looks like I compiled first and then applied the patch =D
-
nuclear weapons, huge super-bombs
I totally need this ingame. :D
-
nuclear weapons, huge super-bombs
I totally need this ingame. :D
Oh, but there IS already a mountain-sized railgun mortar that fires huge nuclear super-bombs capable of taking down an UFO carrier from orbit with one hit :P
-
Oh, but there IS already a mountain-sized railgun mortar that fires huge nuclear super-bombs capable of taking down an UFO carrier from orbit with one hit :P
Ahh true ture! But i want to see the explosion! :D
-
Well, wasn't the idea to have a video showing the Carrier being shoot down?
-
Ahh true ture! But i want to see the explosion! :D
With the naked eye, hopefully.
:P
-
With the naked eye, hopefully.
:P
If it's really that big, you might want to consider sunglasses if you plan on ever being able to see anything afterwards...
-
Ahem. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xECUrlnXCqk)
-
[…]the occasional request for a light-saber or some other silly bulls***.
*Cough*Plasma blade*cough*
~J
-
*Cough*Plasma blade*cough*
~J
If you mean the Plasma Blade item in UFO AI, yes, I've known about that for as long as since it was added to the game - And unless things were dramatically changed lately and no one told me, it doesn't function the same as the light-saber weapons from Star Wars. It does have a few similarities in common, yes, but still distinctly different.
-
Clearly your experiences have left deep emotional scars ;)
~J
-
Plasma blade makes perfect realistic sense. Based from a plasma cutter, using a magnetic field arranged to attract the hot plasma down the length of the weapon, with the magnets protected by a thin ceramic layer to prevent melting. (Heat demagnetizes, so it'd have to be an electro-magnet anyway.)
Not a fast sword fighting weapon, but capable of cutting through a door.
-
Plasma blade makes perfect realistic sense.
That's going a little far, but the intention was to make a joke regarding Destructavator's choice of "silly bull****" [sic] being something that actually has a superficially similar item already in the game rather than to make any serious critique of plasma blades.
~J
-
Yeah. It's more like a chainsaw than a blade.
-
mmmm.... plasma chainsaw..... ;D
-
mmmm.... plasma chainsaw..... ;D
*cough*
(http://images.wikia.com/deadspace/images/e/e8/Plasma_saw_vandal.jpg)
-
nice 8)