Messages

61

Bugs prior to release 2.3 / Reaction fire - a question because I don't understand it

« on: December 16, 2009, 02:58:05 pm »

Hiho!

I don't understand the system of reaction fire that is used in 2.3.

This is how it feels if you play the game:

My round starts, I select my first unit, 32 TUs left. I spend 2-4 TU for movement, then the first reaction fire starts. Okay up to now. After that, every 2-3 TUs (every move I make, basically) triggers another reaction fire shot.

Hmmm... my reaction fire takes (depending on weapon) 5-25 TUs. I thought that this time is the time needed to ready the weapon, aim and shoot. 

So, how can aliens shoot once every 2 TUs if the fastest shot needs about 7 TUs? It doesn't seem to be logic in my opinion.

I thought I could spend e.g. 7 TUs in the line fo fire before the next shot is fired. Then another 7, until the enemy can fire again, etc... this would make short sprints between two covers possible but as it is now, you die every time you run into an enemy with full reaction. Even turning around is often impossible because every move means another needle (I hate the needlers!!! *g*) in your soldier's ass. 

Right now, reaction fire is absolutely deadly, especially in the first round if the enemy force is facing you at the spawn. You never even get into your plane (for cover) but you are reaction-fire-toasted in round 1.

I think it would be much better, if the reaction fire was slowed down.

Andy

62

Tactics / Re: silly question

« on: December 15, 2009, 11:29:09 am »

Just my guess: You have to "disassemble" an ufo in your workshop. Then you can research the bits and pieces.

Andy

63

Feature Requests / Re: Reducing fatalities - introducing incapacitating injuries+game play consequences

« on: December 13, 2009, 04:47:39 pm »

Interesting strategy, criusmac.

I tend to play the game differently, I realized.

My strategy is: attack with a small group (Close Combat Specialists with grenades+small arms) and keep the covered with heavy weapons (machine guns, snipers). If the enemy tries to engage my attackers, they face reaction fire from the 2nd fire team. If the cover team moves, attackers don't, so they provide cover (reaction) fire.

Works brilliantly until the enemy gets heavy needlers and the other ultraheavy guns (and I still have the lousy armour).

So perhaps I should try your less aggressive strategy.

Andy 

64

Feature Requests / Re: Reducing fatalities - introducing incapacitating injuries+game play consequences

« on: December 11, 2009, 04:21:37 pm »

criusmac, I still like the idea you are working at because bleeding-damage is an important part of game play in my opinion.

It wasn't my aim to leave out realistic aspects (like bleeding) out in order to decrease casualties... but to propose the introduction of another status which will - if implemented - increase the survivability again. So it is no problem to decrease chances of survival just now by your (sensible) changes.

Thank you for the direct link.

Andreas

65

Feature Requests / Reducing fatalities - introducing incapacitating injuries+game play consequences

« on: December 11, 2009, 02:51:05 pm »

I did a form search and it turned up no real hit. So I hope this hasn't been discussed to death before. Please don't flame me if is was mentioned before.

I am at a stage in the game where almost every hit means a serious wound for my soldiers, often death.

I personally find the death rate too high and I quit the game quite often after another frustrating loss of one of my really good guys. I started as the type of player who accepted losses but at that stage of the game I can't win with newbies and I simply don't want to lose my "almost skill 60" soldiers any more.  

This is my proposal:

I would like to have a status between "standing and able to fight" and "lying on the ground, dead": the "state of being incapacitated but alive". This status would mean that the injured soldier is on the ground, unable to move, unconscious but not dead yet.  

Reason1: Human beings are quite hard to kill in reality and combat wounds, if properly (and quickly) looked after, are often not lethal at once, if intensive aftercare is applied fast. It is astonishing what kind of damage the human body can take without stopping to work, if there is a fast reaction. Since we are a few years in the future, medical capabilities could have increased, too.  

Reason2: Death rates later in the game are becoming increasingly frustrating in my personal opinion

An incapacitated soldier he has the following options:

> if untreated: die (e.g. bleed out, losing hitpoints per round)
> if stabilized by a medic with medical equipment: remain stable (or just deteriorate slower, e.g. lose less HP per round)
> if looked after while the fight continues (check vital signs, stabilise again, etc) the chances should be quite good to survive.
> an incapacitated person can never get back into the fight in which he was incapacitated.
> he/shecan be killed by taking further damage.


The consequences for survivors:

> soldier should take a very long time to heal in the base hospital. (closer to months than weeks, in my opinion).



Advatages:

> more realism: If you find a wounded person as a soldier, you don't often know what is wrong. It is not visible whether somebody is dead, unconscious, etc... . So you check (=> "check patient" option in the medipack?). It would be a realistic turn to check fallen comrades whether they are still alive. It would add tension to the game.

> the race against the clock: Imagine a soldier is shot early in the mission. He is stabilized but the mission lasts longer and longer. You might find yourself in a situation in which you want to abort the mission and take the wounded back home (=> not implemented yet, but I guess one time you will be able to extract your soldiers). Another consequence could be that you take more risks to speed up the mission, which can be quite tense, too.

> base design: If you have to take the stabilized wounded back to your base, it would make sense to put hospitals in every base, so that the distances are short. I'm not yet sure whether the ability to die during transport wouldn't be doing more harm to motivation than the next option: just assume that soldiers - after the mission has ended - are transported to the next local facility and later are transferred back to Phallanx hospitals. So no further damage is counted after the mission ends.  

> progression of field medical skills/equipment: There could be a progression in mediacl equipment as well, like we can see it in weapons' technology. Medikits could be developed to counter the new types of inflicted wounds after a new weapon was discovered. I would like to have some research on this "front", too.

Okay, that's it. I'm curious what you think.

Andreas

66

Bugs prior to release 2.3 / Re: R27443 - Wrong weapon linked

« on: December 11, 2009, 02:03:29 pm »

Cool. And I thought "Hey, Flechette makes this weapon strangely versatile". Took Flechette with me when I entered ufos, used the explosive rounds in outdoor scenarios.

I like the fix, though! It is more what I expected of a grenade launcher.

Andy

67

Feature Requests / Re: Making combat feel more like future than like WWII

« on: December 05, 2009, 04:35:16 pm »

So you really don't agree that combat feels quite "like today" or "even yesterday" and not like "X years in the future"?

I strongly feel like that.

But okay. I can understand the "guided rocket" point... sorry, I didn't check that before.

Andreas

68

Feature Requests / Making combat feel more like future than like WWII

« on: December 04, 2009, 06:55:55 pm »

Hiho!

The way combat in AI is done is quite a bit "old-fashioned". There is a lot of direct fire and only one indirect fire weapon (the grenade launcher). So basically nothing has changed in terms of infantry warfare since WWII. We know that this is not true.

I would love to see combat feel "more modern".

My ideas:

> more indirect fire weapons: Infantry Missile launcher with controllable rockets.

Can you still remember the "blaster bomb launcher" in Enemy Unknown? Something like that is available in the military today. It's not as powerful of course and you can't assign 219 waypoints, but it would be very nice if something like this existed again. Just allow the player to set 2-3 waypoints and a less powerful payload... this would leave some opportunities for upgrading (plasma technology => more damage, alien minicomputers => more waypoints).

The direct line of fire rocket launcher is almost out of date today. And the game is set in the future.


> something unique that doesn't feel like "infantry combat today": Force fields to create artificial cover

If there is some kind of force field technology in the game (I think I've read about it somewhere), it would be great to add something uniquely modern and futuristic. You could use the forcefield like a grenade, but instead of an explosion an area of power forms that can deflect/absorb damage and thus give cover to your soldiers.

Using smoke grenades is a very old tactic. Upgrading it to actually creating cover (not just obscuring visibility) would feel futuristic to me. One could further upgrade the efficiency of the force field, add chamelionic attributes (it assumes the colour of the surrounding environment and is thus invisible to aliens), etc...


> more futuristic ammo types: from "laser-incision" round (able to pirece thin armour by using a pulse of laser upon impact) to "anti-matter high penetration" round

Once the first alien armour appears ingame, one should be able to develop types of ammo for the "standard weapons" to counter it. I think it would add a flavour of futuristic battle if there was something like a bullet that is designed to use a small source of energy (e.g. laser technology first, later plasma, later antimatter,...) to "melt" through the armor on impact... alien technologies could open up even more improved types of ammo and thus keep the "old-school" weapons ingame.

I would love to use the assault rifle with an "anti-matter high penetration" round or a "plasma-core alien material jacket" round. If those were given cool names, this would add a lot of futuristic feeling to the gameplay (plus give you more things to research + keep the variety of used weapons higher).


I can't think of any more ways of adding more advanced equipment to the arsenal but perhaps there are more ways of making combat feel more like it was set in the future.

See you!

Andreas

69

Tactics / Re: Acceptable losses

« on: December 04, 2009, 06:19:43 pm »

I would upgrade to 2.3..

> there the grenade launcher has no reaction fire mode any more (which is sensible since you would often kill yourself and teammates).

Andreas

70

Windows / Re: Win32 Development Binary Installer Links

« on: November 28, 2009, 09:05:26 pm »

I'm wondering whether there is a "list of changes" somewhere. I did a brief search of the wiki but couldn't find one. If there is one, please tell be because I'm considering whether to install this new version (I'm playing an older 2.3 Version at the moment and I'm of course curious for the new stuff).

Is it worth installing the newest one if I'm playing 26304 at the moment?

Tnx a lot in advance!

Andy - still a great fan of the game

71

Discussion / Re: Idea. Developers plz. pay attention

« on: November 26, 2009, 07:43:10 pm »

If you are a game developer, you should know how to approach game developers if you want your ideas to be taken seriously.

Andy

72

Artwork / Re: WIP Female new soldier model

« on: November 22, 2009, 08:55:19 pm »

Looks great!   I like the new models, both male and female.

Andy

73

Discussion / Re: How to shoot an ufo

« on: November 18, 2009, 06:31:06 pm »

At the beginning you can only shoot down the smallest type of Ufo, the Scout, without risking your craft. Fighters and Harvesters will just kill either Stiletto or Sarazen most of the time (if they don't just outrun your slow crafts).

You have a chance against Fighters if you send 2 Stilettos/Sarazens with the long range missiles against Figther UFOs. But it is quite risky and if you don't like save&load I would be careful. By the way: It's no use (in terms of winning the game) attacking Fighters as they don't do damage to earth.  

The solution is: First do the terror missions. You can capture UFOs there. Build an Ufo Yard early in the game. Disassemble a Fighter or Harvester (Harvester from terror mission ist best) as soon as you can. After disassembly you can research the Alien craft weapon. With this one you can dominate airspace.

Up to then... it's just a bitter lesson in terms of "the aliens are better than we".

Good luck!

Andreas  

74

Discussion / Re: Reason for clearing Inv on de-team?

« on: November 15, 2009, 08:00:16 pm »

Hiho!

I experience the same problem.

I would also like the soldiers to keep their personal items even if they are not on the ship. It is quite a lot to do if you have to equip every replacement soldier again and again, especially if you give them the full load of things, grenades, secondary weapon, etc.

I would rather buy/produce much more equipment, so that no piece of equipment needs to be used by different soldiers.

It would be great if this could be changed because it is just a lot of "fruitless clicking" before every mission.

It's a great game... but it would be even greater if this change could be implemented. =)

Andreas

 

75

Tactics / Re: Tactics in 2.3

« on: November 12, 2009, 04:59:29 pm »

Problem in 2.3 is, that one often starts right in front of aliens. They face you and they have full reaction fire in the first round. This makes attacking them deadly but running for cover (into your ship) even deadlier.

The only choice is sometimes to push "retry" and hope for a map in which the aliens don't face your squad directly.

Viento