Messages

16

Feature Requests / Re: request: soldiers start out in same place

« on: August 16, 2008, 10:29:41 pm »

Random positions only make sense for off duty, unarmed and unarmoured troops.

To suggest that they heard the alarm, ran to the armoury, got their armour and weapons, and THEN wandered off to a random position in the base is stretching the suspension of disbelief to breaking point.

Plus, we know exactly how long they have to get ready - you can time it on the geoscape as soon as it becomes obvious that the UFO is headed for your base...  the warning may only be a few mins but it is not an "out of nowhere" surprise.

17

Feature Requests / Re: request: soldiers start out in same place

« on: August 16, 2008, 07:24:46 pm »

Not really.  it's a leisure facility, so if they were in their your soldiers wouldn't be armed.

That being the case, the soldiers that were off duty really ought to start in the store-room, as that is where all the weapons and armour are kept and where they would have had to go to get geared up.  There are no real facilities for "on-duty" guards, at the moment, which is a shame.

I personally think that the entrance ramp should include a guard post.

18

Feature Requests / Re: Small Hangar base only

« on: August 16, 2008, 09:21:02 am »

Were they intact or crashed?
Did you get the screen that asks you whether you want to store, sell or destroy the UFO?
Did you choose one of the options or just press OK?

Which version of UFO:AI?

If 2.2, did you have a lab?
If 2.3 did you have a workshop?

19

Feature Requests / Re: new feature

« on: August 14, 2008, 08:16:38 pm »

- Ability to push a civilian : for example, when he/she blocks the path, would be good to be able to swap position with a friendly unit, with TU cost. No more stupid civ blocking the doorway or stairs.

Malick

Heh, that's what stun-rods are for

20

Feature Requests / Re: New feature proposal : Base building

« on: August 14, 2008, 08:13:57 pm »

Without being able to tell how much damage is being done, or how much the target can take, thats kind of hard to judge.

***

But I agree - I'm running a 2.3 game at the moment and habitually put two MLs in each base, but the don't appear to fire 2 missiles, and they don't fire very frequently.  The launchers depicted are twin multi-launchers that out to be putting out a hail of fire - 1 silo should be able to pump out 30 missiles in quick succession.

***

That said, the descriptive text does say that kills with sams are very unlikely, and rely on quantity rather than quantity.  So they should be blasting out the aforementioned 30 missiles but still only scoring the occasional hit.

Hopefully improved silo weapons will soon start appearing on the tech tree.

21

Tactics / Re: interceptor weapons

« on: August 12, 2008, 10:29:25 am »

In my current 2.3 campaign, there is a bug preventing me from fully loading up my Stilletoes.

But my standard tactic of launching one Saracen (with armour and 2 ECMs, plus at least one missile launcher and either a 2nd ML or a rocket pod)) and 2 Stilletoes (no armor, no ecm, 1 targeting computer, I shiva in the nose, one ML) still gets me reliable kills.

As long as I don't let the saracen get too far ahead, that is.  Sometimes it wins one-on-one but its a lot more reliable if the two stilletoes are creeping nto ML range as the saracen 1st gets the UFOs attention.

22

Discussion / Re: Can't capture UFO and other questions: need help

« on: August 11, 2008, 07:28:52 pm »

1. Is there something to do with alien materials, propulsion, astrogation, detection and antimater. I have tons of all of those but can't seem to use them. (maybe we should need them to build new ships because we cant replicate them or it makes the building of ship faster because the parts already exist in storage)
Thanks again

The primary purpose of possesing them is that it allows you to research them - can't carry out research without the object being researched.

The research then leads to the ability to produce better aircraft (though I don't think you can use them yet).

23

Discussion / Re: Base design

« on: August 10, 2008, 09:16:21 pm »

The point of base assaults is that aliens have a considerable chance of damaging your facilities or vehicles. Base defence missions aren't about the player easily holding down the fort. By that token, I wouldn't assume the missions would be short if I were you.

Having just run another tedious base defence, I'd like to revisit this point.

Base defence currently takes to long.

The reason it takes too long is purely because you generally spend the last 10 minutes (or more) very carefully moving through the base, eventually discovering that the last alien is bumbling about amongst the no-access buildings on the surface, on the opposite side of the map.

If base defence took a long time because of the succesive waves of  aggressive aliens trying to rush my defences, then " a very long time" would not be "too long".

But when, during that "very long time" nothing exciting happens, as you cautiously inch your way through your base and then out accross the surface, looking for that one last alien who is making no attempt at all to invade your facility - well, that "very logn time" becomes "too long."
 
Players should not be tempted to press "auto mission" because conducting the defence otherwise is a dull, painstaking activity.

24

Discussion / Re: Base design

« on: August 10, 2008, 10:01:15 am »

I'd really like to see the base models includ no open doors anywhere - its a secure facility, right?

But on generating the map, 1, 2 or 3 areas with a surface opening (depending on the size of the invasion) are replaced with a damaged model where the doors have been blasted open and the aliens are starting inside.

So, no doors at ground level at all in the hangers, for example, but if thats the area chosen for the alien starting point the model is replaced with one in which the vulnerable hanger doors have been blown to shite and the alien shock troops are inside already.

Entry points would then be any of the hangers, the missile bays, the main entrance and (possibly, though the current design seems odd to me) the workshop.

****

It would make checkpoints less valuable - sure, you can put all your surface stuff on one side of the checkpoint, but unless you actively go hunt the aliens they'll have free range to destroy everything on that side - all your hangers and missile bays.  Even if they are subsequently unable to break through the checkpoint, they have made your base much easier to reach for the next wave, who can enter at no risk of being shot down en route... 

****

Of course, this is easy to blithely trot out but it is additional work for the modelling team, and as I've said before, I am unable to contribute.

25

Discussion / Re: Base design

« on: August 09, 2008, 01:46:35 am »

....by the time the PHALANX defenders arrive to back them up. 

Heh - that assumes the base defence teams are managed by a latter day Sir Francis Drake.

"The alien armada is on radar, and heading this way?  Well, lets at least finish this game of bowls before we go rushing of to man the defences, eh?"

26

Offtopic / Re: News Story: "Astronaut Says Government Covering Up UFOs" (USA)

« on: August 09, 2008, 01:43:36 am »

A nice point on this subject from the creator of the Bad Astronomy Blog, Phil Plait:

(Re, "Why not to believe in UFOs")

"Why dont amateur astronomers report them in record numbers? After all, who spends more time looking at the sky? The fact that few if any amateurs report them is a pretty clear case that the vast majority, at least, of all UFO reports are misunderstood mundane objects like airplanes, satellites, reflections, meteors, and Venus. Sometimes even the Moon, amazingly."

27

Feature Requests / Re: I think we need to have more types of aliens.

« on: August 08, 2008, 08:58:47 pm »

Heh - you typed "hat" but I bet you were thinking a different word.

More alien variety would be nice, but as somebody without the skills to make any real contributions I'll be content with what we have.

28

Discussion / Re: Base design

« on: August 08, 2008, 08:53:05 pm »

If anything, I'd like to see the above ground area shrunk entirely, with just about enough room for the facilities that require surface access plus a landed UFO.  This, combined with sensible base-building to provide defensible chokepoints, would make base defence missions quite short.

29

Discussion / Re: Base design

« on: August 07, 2008, 06:39:30 pm »

Frankly, a defensive position ought to be included automatically as part of the entrance.

30

Discussion / Re: Can't capture UFO and other questions: need help

« on: August 06, 2008, 11:20:40 pm »

All shot down UFOs are too damaged to fly - by definition, really, if they cpuld fly they wouldn't crash.

Captuing UFOs can only be done on "Landed UFO" missions, but these are not common in 2.2. (in 2.3 they are much more frequent)

You must make sure you have a free UFO hangar (not a normal hangar).  I usually build a couple of small ones early on, and later build a larger one.  Make sure they is a lab in the same base (or a workshop, in 2.3).