Messages

1

Discussion / Re: Some rant about ufopaedia texts

« on: January 11, 2012, 04:53:58 am »

No need, I went over it again myself and, upon second thought, you actually kind of have a point there.  Either way it and some of the other descriptions should also be revised a bit to take into account when they were written - the workshop entry mentions industrial robots even though it was ostensibly written in the 1950s.  I know PHALANX was ahead of its time and all that, but since they were supposedly founded in 1958, and the entry was written in 1958, there's no way they could have had enough time to invent, mass-produce, and implement industrial robotics.

EDIT: Thinking about it, this is a fairly simple rewrite, by shifting some of the information about automated systems and such to the 'Addenda' section pointing out that they were added to the design in later years.  Maybe have the addendum mentioning them being from the 1970s or 80s rather than 2084, since advanced automated systems seem like a logical thing to add to the base workshop as soon as they're available.

EDIT THE SECOND: Actually, the first industrial robots were apparently around by the mid-1950s, so my entire rant is invalid.  Disregard.

2

Tactics / Re: Keeping the Nations Happy in 2.4

« on: January 10, 2012, 09:28:14 pm »

Coyote, could you offer you savegame for analysis?

-geever

Here's my latest playthrough.  This one is in mid-May, and as you'll notice all of the nations are quite satisfied with my performance, with none of them going below 'Pleased' and most of them in the Happy/Exuberant range.  You can also see that most of them actually reduced my funding significantly at the end of April - the Revolutionary Countries, in particular, very nearly stopped funding me altogether - despite the fact that I did every available tactical mission and sold every captured UFO to them their opinion never went above Neutral until May.  Russia, oddly, kept its funding for me the exact same up until a few in-game days ago, never increasing or decreasing its satisfaction rating no matter what I did, while the Asian Republic and Commonwealth of Oceania were actually fairly satisfied with my performance - most of the missions I did were on their territory, so I assume that has something to do with it.

You'll also notice that the secondary combat team based at Groom Lake is equipped with plasma pistols and nothing else; I was in a hurry to equip them quickly for a terror mission in Panama and haven't gotten around to giving them proper gear yet.  And yes, I know Baikonur is in the wrong place, I couldn't remember exactly where it was so I just plopped the base randomly in Kazakhstan.

3

Discussion / Re: Some rant about ufopaedia texts

« on: January 10, 2012, 09:12:56 pm »

Being a bit..anal..aren't we?

Descriptions give flavor. You complain the Storage description is too long? Bah.

If anything, the base model could use an update.

+1

I really don't see what the problem is.  Strictly speaking, the storage facility doesn't need a description at all - the name is kind of self-explanatory.  It's a facility, in which you store items.  Since every item takes up storage space, you need one.  That's all you need to know, and it's explained right there in the name.  But just because it doesn't need one doesn't mean it shouldn't have one - and just because it doesn't need to be more than three or four sentences doesn't mean it necessarily should be that brief.  Some people - myself included - actually like reading the minor details about the various facilities, and it's not like the game actually forces you to read the entry at any point, so if you would prefer not to hear about how a storage room is organized or whatever, you could always just not read it.

4

Tactics / Re: Keeping the Nations Happy in 2.4

« on: January 09, 2012, 05:23:11 pm »

In my experience with the latest dev version, it's ludicrously difficult to keep the nations happy in the first two or three months - their relationship with you constantly drops no matter what you do and you essentially have to shoot down every single UFO you see and do every single mission that becomes available and sell every single piece of wreckage just to keep them from shutting you down.  However, for some reason, once you hit late May/early June, it peters off, they're much more forgiving of mistakes, their satisfaction falls more slowly and is raised more easily.  I'm not sure if this is a bug, or if it's a hidden feature - the funding nations being initially skeptical of the organization but becoming more willing to support them after they've had a few months of successful operation.

5

Design / Re: Technology Proposals

« on: May 11, 2011, 11:23:21 pm »

Full-size land vehicles, when deployed in a military role, are usually used for full-scale open engagements with other military forces.  PHALANX is, in essence, a counter-terrorist outfit; think of it as a SWAT team that fights aliens instead of criminals.  They generally engage in small-unit actions in relatively small operational areas, many of them urban or otherwise confined.  Land vehicles much larger than the already existing UGVs would simply be of little to no use in the types of actions PHALANX usually engages in, regardless of how 'cool' they may be.

6

Tactics / Re: Pace of game

« on: May 11, 2011, 08:11:38 pm »

I have indeed noticed that alien activity increases to a ridiculous degree after the first month.  I'm near the end of July of the first year, and am currently dealing with around one UFO every day at least, with the gaps occasionally being as short as six hours between incursions.  My combat teams are being worn down by death-of-a-thousand-cuts - they might only sustain one injury every mission, but less than a day later they have to go out and fight again, and take yet another injury before the first one has healed up, etc, etc, etc.  I've lost nine troopers to cumulative damage already.

7

Design / Re: Idea for more UFOpaedia entries

« on: May 10, 2011, 06:59:34 pm »

Okay, in that case, I'll instead devote my time to writing entries for things that have already been approved and, thus, will actually be appearing in the game - specifically, the advanced base facilities, unless someone else has already written entries for them or has expressed interest in doing so.

8

Design / Re: Idea for more UFOpaedia entries

« on: May 10, 2011, 07:03:56 am »

Hey, I wasn't suggesting that they be included, I was just going off of already existing proposals on the wiki (which have actually been there since 2.2 at least, probably longer), which I myself did not make, and which have neither been approved nor rejected.  I was writing these so that, on the off-chance that they might potentially be approved at some point in the future, there would be UFOpaedia entries present for them.  I thought I made that quite clear in the original post; I apologize for not wording things more clearly.

9

Design / Idea for more UFOpaedia entries

« on: May 10, 2011, 01:52:29 am »

So, I've noticed that the 'Proposed Equipment' section on the wiki includes civilian weapons.  I figure that, if they were compiling data on how to deal with an alien threat, PHALANX would also try to collect information on the equipment that other humans might use when engaging in combat with aliens, and put together a basic assessment of their effectiveness, so I've decided to put together some very basic example UFOpaedia entries in an attempt to show what that might look like.  Note that literally none of this is set in stone, as the weapons I'm writing about do not yet exist in-game, and might never exist in-game.  Let me know what you think - if there are any improvements you think can be made please suggest them.


First, the proposed Hunting Rifle. 

CLASSIFIED LEVEL YELLOW

PHALANX Extraterrestrial Response Unit

Technical Document, Delta Clearance

Filed: <DATE> 2084

By: Cdr. <NAME PENDING>, R&D: <SOMETHING> Division, PHALANX, Atlantic Operations Command



Overview

The alien attack on Mumbai made our situation painfully clear. Their technology is far more advanced than ours. The complete inability of Commonwealth troops to make a dent in the Mumbai offensive revealed critical weaknesses in current military training and equipment. They lost three battalions just bringing the aliens to a standstill without inflicting significant casualties. PHALANX has to overcome these odds, and to do that we need the very best human technology has to offer.

The Excalibur Program was created to find the most effective weapons on Earth by reviewing their manufacturing standards, durability, operational record, and their combat performance in the situations where we've managed to bring the aliens to battle. A sub-project of this program, dubbed 'Excalibur-B', has been assigned the sole duty of examining weapons currently in widespread use among civilians, law enforcement, and military units worldwide and assessing their effectiveness in combat with our newfound foe.

Hunting rifles are extremely common in civilian hands in most nations.  They exist in a variety of sizes, weights, designs, calibers, and magazine sizes.  Although bolt and lever-action rifles can still be found in rural areas or in the hands of collectors (or in nations where semi-automatic firearms are outlawed), most modern hunting rifles are semi-automatic single-shot weapons firing simple smokeless-powder centerfire ammunition in mid-sized calibers, the most popular being the venerable Russian 7.62x39mm and American .308 Winchester (also known as 7.62x51mm NATO) cartridges.  Although these rounds have long been obsolete for military purposes, they are as effective against unarmored targets (such as wildlife) as ever, and remain popular among civilian marksmen.

Generally designed for engaging targets at medium to long ranges, and never intended for sustained combat operations, hunting rifles are of little use in urban combat or home defense scenarios, and in close quarters the long barrel and relatively slow fire rate may serve to render the weapon almost completely ineffective.  In wide-open areas, however, rifles of this type come into their own; they can be terrifyingly accurate in the hands of a skilled marksman, and usually possess more than sufficient power to bring down their intended targets.  However, it is important to remember that an armed and trained alien enemy is a far more significant threat than a deer or boar.

Recommended Doctrine

There is absolutely no reason for any PHALANX operative to ever make use of one of these weapons, and as such there are no plans to make them available in our arsenal.  However, it is reasonable to assume that, at some point in the future, we may encounter firearms of this type in the hands of armed civilians in the field.  Friendlies equipped with these weapons will, as with most armed civilians, usually be little more than a liability to both themselves and PHALANX, but sufficiently skilled individuals armed with hunting rifles and stationed in good positions will likely be able to easily hold their own against a small number of unarmored aliens at medium to long range.  As most hunting rifles are ineffective against human body armor, it is reasonable to assume that they will be ineffective against alien body armor as well, and in a CQB situation they will be worse than useless even against unarmored targets.

Addenda

None.

10

Feature Requests / Re: Back Up

« on: May 10, 2011, 01:04:10 am »

Like crouching, walking backwards should take more TU then walking forwards. I can see some limited tactical use for walking backwards, but anything farther than a grid or two away should cost more TUs then walking + turning around.

Agreed.

11

Feature Requests / Back Up

« on: May 09, 2011, 09:35:31 pm »

This is a fairly simple request: give us an option to, when ordering a soldier to move to a location behind them,  have them walk backwards instead of turning around and walking over there, allowing them to reposition without us then having to spend a TU turning them back around.  Not sure if this is possible to implement, but it would be extremely useful.

12

Tactics / Re: What's your favorite weapon?

« on: May 09, 2011, 09:32:30 pm »

I'm going to have to give my vote to the humble Bolter.  It doesn't handle any one job particularly well, but it's just so damn versatile that it's impossible not to love it.  It's pretty much the perfect battle rifle, capable of dishing out incredible damage at point-blank ranges and making precision shots at longer distances, not to mention the fact that it's able to shoot straight through most cover.  Bolter troopers should never be sent in unsupported, of course, and it takes a skilled trooper to use one effectively, but they're still handy weapons.  I keep exactly two Bolters in every one of my team loadouts at all times.  The remainder of my standard team loadout consists of two longer-ranged troops - snipers in the early game, Laser Rifles in the mid-to-late - two dedicated CQB troopers armed with either flamers or shotguns, and two heavy weapons troopers  - one explosive, one not - whose loadout I change situationally based on the mission description, usually settling on an MG and a GL in the early to mid game, and a Heavy Laser and a GL in the late game.

For backup weapons/sidearms, the Plasma Pistol wins in my book, decent accuracy at mid-range and absolutely terrifying damage output at close range.  It's a big weapon but it balances that out with small magazines.

13

Discussion / Re: A few questions

« on: May 09, 2011, 09:06:55 pm »

Okay, thanks folks.

14

Discussion / A few questions

« on: May 09, 2011, 02:40:31 am »

I had a lot of issues getting this game to work properly, all of which were eventually traced back to PEBKAC, and now that I've gotten things going I've played a while and formulated a list of questions about the game in general.

1.  What happened to the incendiary grenade, flashbang, and smoke grenade?  They were in earlier versions, and in 2.2 flashbangs were actually an integral part of my strategy, but in this version they seem to have inexplicably disappeared.

2.  Is it just me, or is research substantially slower in this version than in previous versions?  I play on Normal at all times, and researching on this difficulty really does seem like it takes longer to complete the same projects with the same amount of scientists than it did in 2.2.

3.  Is there a way for me to add more names to the pool from which employee names are selected?

4.  What parameters have to be fulfilled before equipment you research becomes purchasable on the open market without you having to manufacture it yourself?  I know that, for example, DF Cartridges eventually become buyable but am not quite clear on what has to be done before this happens.

5.  Is there a way for a soldier to use an equipped medkit on themselves?

6.  Is the 8-soldiers-on-the-map-at-a-time limit hardcoded?  Is it possible to mod in dropships with a higher capacity, or use more than eight soldiers at a time during base defense missions?

15

Bugs in older version (2.3.1) / Bugs with sound and video options

« on: November 24, 2010, 06:34:44 pm »

I've been playing a while and noticed a few issues with the options, namely the fact that I cannot change any of them.  There are also numerous sound issues.

-In Battlescape, the audio is almost immediately overwhelmed by ear-splitting static that persists even if I turn the effects and music volume all the way down and only goes away once I've turned sound off.

-Once I have turned sound off, attempting to turn it back on crashes the game immediately to desktop.  No error message, no lockup, it just disappears.

-The texture resolution cap cannot be changed.  Changing it and then restarting the game reverts it back to whatever it originally was, while changing it without restarting the game has no effect.

-Attempting to turn off texture compression does nothing.

-Changing most video options does nothing; of the ones that actually can be changed, most of them cannot be turned off again once turned on without uninstalling and then reinstalling the game.

-Attempting to change most gameplay options has no effect whatsoever.

-The game has a tendency to randomly crash to desktop while on the options menus, even if I don't actually do anything.