project-navigation
Personal tools

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Ragwortshire

Pages: [1]
1
Discussion / Re: 2.5-dev Feedback (Early Game, Hard difficulty)
« on: September 23, 2013, 02:26:35 pm »
I've now downed my first Supply UFO and found a Plasma Blade, so I guess that means the early game is over! I've enjoyed the campaign so far, and seem to be keeping up reasonably well with the aliens. I have 5 working Labs (all at my original base) and 3 workshops, and have been able to research all of the topics that seem important as well as producing two Dragon Interceptors. However money has been pretty tight all the way through.

Here are some issues which I encountered:

Geoscape:

 - Aerial Laser Cannons never appeared on the market for me, even though they were the second tech I researched. In the campaign_asymptotic_market script, they don't have an entry despite being a human-manufactured weapon. Is this intentional?
 
 - At some point I received the message, "United America is content and below the minimum happiness allowed for the campaign." Am I supposed to have lost now? Their funding dropped a lot, but it's recovered since then. I didn't have radar coverage at the time, but I assume the drop was due to a successful Harvester attack.
 
 - There's a long period from 110 alien interest to 200 alien interest, during which the aliens receive no new weapons, species, armor or UFOs. I think this is actually a design flaw. The Hard campaign starts at 50 alien interest, so this period of 90 interest is longer than the entire game up to that point! There was still lots for me to do on the Geoscape, but the Battlescape missions became steadily easier and more tedious.
 
 I really think this needs to be changed, since a new player might well get bored by such a long, early period of not much happening. I think the simplest way to do it would be to move some alien tech forward from 80 Interest to 110 and from 110 to 140, and some back from 200 to 170. That would smooth the difficulty curve out somewhat, rather than having this annoying dip.
 
 I do admit, though, that the current pacing is much better than it was before!

Battlescape:

 - In general it seems that during this period, the aliens are decent at short range combat but quite useless at long ranges. So my tactics were always focused around engaging the aliens at long range. When I researched Heavy Lasers, the disparity only became more apparent. This got tedious after a while, so I think my ideal weapon to encounter earlier would be the Needler.

 - Having researched all of the early Plasma weapons, I really haven't found a proper use for either the Pistol or the Blaster yet. This is mainly a result of the previous point: If the aliens are close enough for my Plasma Blasters to be effective, then *their* weapons will also be effective, which is bad. Also Plasma Rifles seem very powerful; a typical team for me early game was 5x Plasma Rifles, 2x Grenade Launchers, 1x Sniper Rifles.
 
 - Also a result of the previous point: Close-combat skills were not very useful for me. Assault specialists, on the other hand, get to play with the Plasma Rifle, the Laser Rifle (I assume, I didn't research it yet) *and* the Heavy Laser, which seem to be three of the best weapons. The Heavy Laser in particular surprised me; doesn't it have much more in common with the Sniper Rifle (long range, high accuracy, single shot) than with the Assault Rifle?
 
 - Certain maps were a bit weird. The Sewage Construction map is basically a huge, linear crawl across the map... and then the same again, but underground! The Bungalow map suffers from the opposite problem: There's no room to deploy your troops and the fight is over very quickly; moreover, smoke grenade abuse is needed as there is not enough cover for the whole team. Finally, the start position on Village is just evil and requires horrific smoke abuse to escape from.

AI:
 
I think that rather than trying to diagnose specific problems, I'll just give a general overview of how my battles tended to go:
 - Turn 1: Phalanx shoots any visible aliens, and deploys smoke grenades if needed. Team members take cover (or hide in the smoke, if cover does not exist).
 - Early on: Phalanx has all team members who can engage Reaction Fire and try to maximise vision and cover. Aliens emerge and either try to take some shots from long range (with not enough accuracy to kill) or move in closer and die to reaction fire. Aliens who took long range shots are taken out by snipers, Lasers or just aimed shots from Plasma Rifles.
 - Later on: Phalanx advances slowly across the map with Reaction Fire on. Alien stragglers either emerge one by one and die to reaction fire, or are spotted and taken out by Grenade Launchers.
 
 I guess that the AI has a rather hard task here; it somehow has to make its short- and medium-range weapons effective against an opponent which has long-range weapons as well. That would indicate things like hiding around corners, or maybe swarm tactics to overwhelm Reaction Fire. But the AI only has a routine for closing in along the most obvious path and shooting, and it doesn't do teamwork.


2
Windows / Re: Building 2.5-dev with Code::Blocks and SDL 2
« on: September 18, 2013, 02:31:48 pm »
Here is what I did, to the best of my memory:

 - Installed Code::Blocks 12.11.
 - In the Code::Blocks settings, set it to use mingw32 which I had installed previously. For some reason I can't find my mingw32 version, but my msys version is 1.0.
 - Downloaded the Code::Blocks package from the wiki (http://ufoai.org/wiki/Code::Blocks)
 - Opened the ufo.cbp project.
 - In Settings -> Compiler -> Search Directories, added MinGW\include, codeblocks\MinGW\include (from the wiki package) for the compiler and MinGW\lib, codeblocks\MinGW\lib for the linker.
 - In the linker settings, added -static-libgcc -static-libstdc++
 - Copied the dlls from the Code::Blocks package into MinGW\bin.

When I was trying to use SDL 2, I also did the following:
 - Added the paths for the SDL 2 headers to Compiler -> Search Directories for the compiler, and for the .a files to the linker.
 - Added -lSDL2main -lSDL2 -lSDL2_mixer -lSDL2_ttf to the linker settings.
 - Copied the SDL 2 dlls to MinGW\bin.

3
Windows / Building 2.5-dev with Code::Blocks and SDL 2
« on: September 17, 2013, 03:56:58 pm »
I'm having trouble building the current development version using Code::Blocks 12.11 on Windows 7, with an Intel Core i3 M350 processor. I don't have much experience with Code::Blocks, so it's possible I'm missing something very obvious, but here goes.

So far I've only tried to build ufo.exe. I eventually got the compiling and linking to go through, and got all the necessary .dll files, and so can successfully start the game. I can get to the main menu without problems. When I load a saved game, the geoscape briefly shows up before the program abruptly crashes.

I've attached my console log. Any idea what the problem could be, or what I should try to fix it?

UPDATE: When using SDL 1, this problem did not occur - thankfully! However I haven't tested the build thoroughly yet.

UPDATE: After rebuilding game.cbp, the battlescape now seems to work and I can do various base functions. Anything else that it's usually a good idea to test?





4
Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: Saved games not shown
« on: September 17, 2013, 01:00:49 pm »
Okay, thanks!

5
Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: Saved games not shown
« on: September 17, 2013, 11:38:06 am »
I was aware of that, but

(a) This happened with a saved game I had just created!
(b) Also, I last updated the game on Sept 8th and had no problems then.

6
Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Saved games not shown
« on: September 17, 2013, 10:48:25 am »
Using Windows 7; my processor is an Intel Core i3 M350.

I updated the game just now via the following process:
 - Used Git to update the game files.
 - Downloaded the "nightly build" executables from the downloads page and extracted them into my ufoai folder.
 - Ran contribs\map-get\update.py to update the maps.

I then ran ufo.exe which started normally, but I couldn't load any of my saved games from before - they just didn't show up. So I tried the following:

 - Started a new game.
 - Built a base somewhere on the map.
 - Saved the game in the last slot.
 - Went back to the load screen.

Result: Still no saved games displayed!

I've attached my ufoconsole.log as well as the saved game, which did exist after all (and all my old saves are in the same place, too)! So it seems like the problem is in finding the saved games rather than creating them. However, I don't know if this is a genuine bug or if I made a mistake in updating the game.

7
Discussion / 2.5-dev Feedback (Early Game, Hard difficulty)
« on: September 14, 2013, 06:53:15 pm »
This isn't my first time playing UFO:AI, but last time I gave up because of the campaign pacing in previous versions. However this time I'm enjoying it a lot more, and decided to write up some very quick comments on the game and post some general feedback. I hope this is helpful in some way! I made a couple of "suggestions" in the course of this post, but these are mostly very minor and I'm aware they have probably been suggested before - in which case I'm just voicing my support for them.

The version of the game I played was from 8th September.

Geoscape:

 - I really like what I've seen so far of the new tech tree.  In particular the links between actual research projects, disassmbley and combat missions (e.g., shoot down UFO, research UFO theory, dissassemble, research parts, produce parts) seem to work well.  There does seem to be an awful lot of things to research, but I consider that a good thing!

 - I experienced some odd behavious of UFOs: a couple of fighters that totally ignored my aircraft, and a harvester that seemed more interested in going after my interceptors than in the humans on the ground! Could this be a bug?

 - The limit on the number of installations that can be built can be very annoying at times. It restricts the range of available playstyles, penalising players who prefer fewer, better-developed bases and favouring those who build lots of bases. Further it breaks immersion, since it beggars belief that a high-tech command centre cannot deal with more than three basic radar stations!
 
 I don't see why the limit is necessary, especially for radar towers and UFO hangars. I suggest that the limit should apply to SAM sites only, so that the player has more freedom but still cannot build SAM sites en masse and shoot down arbitrarily strong UFOs.
 
 - The range of the Radar Tower seems very small, especially the detection/inner radius (the tracking radius, on the other hand, is large enough to be very useful). Is it intended that the player build extra bases as glorified radar stations? This feels unsatisfying to me, so I suggest that the detection radius be increased by 25% or so with the tracking radius remaining the same.
 
 - The UFOs maintain targets forever and only shoot at their target, so can always be shot down with 2 interceptors if they decide to get aggressive. The interceptors close in until the UFO targets one, and whichever was targetted flies directly away. The other moves in and shoots down the UFO, which will not fire back.
 
 - There seems to be little strategy involved in research once the player has worked out what the most immediately useful projects are (e.g., plasma rifles are very important early on, but live alien research is not). Since the player can always focus all of his scientists on a project and complete it very quickly, there is little incentive to pursue a `balanced' approach to keep options open. However much a player neglects a certain area early on, he will always be able to catch up quickly once it becomes relevant (so once the player has 70 scientists and wants to start on the way to psionics, he can complete the live alien research in a few hours).
 
 FreeOrion added another layer to the research system by limiting the number of scientists (which FreeOrion calls RP) that can work on a particular project at a given time. This means that if a player neglects live alien research for a long time, then it will cost him a minimum amount of time (e.g., 5 days) to complete it. In my opinion this works very well and encourages players to research multiple topics at once, which greatly improves immersion (in real life, universities tend to have multiple projects going simultaneously). I also introduces a choice between pouring everything into immediately useful projects (better now) and spreading out a bit to avoid bottlenecks (better later). So I would suggest having a look at implementing this kind of system.

Battlescape:

 - I really like the new wounds system! First Aid Kits are now vital because without them your soldiers will die of their wounds, rather than because they make your entire team invincible to anything but a one-hit kill.
 
 - I also really like the way reaction fire works. There is a real tactical choice in whether to use a low-TU mode an guarantee at least some damage, or a high-TU mode and hope the AI is silly enough to spend many TUs in your line of sight.
 There is also a similar choice when dealing with enemy reaction fire. Overall, it's really really cool.
 
 - Weather effects (specifically snow) produced a dramatic drop in performance for me. Similarly, triggers (specically that map where there's a door you can open by standing near it) produced a dramatic but temporary drop in performance. On the other hand, my computer was able to handle the rest of the game with little trouble so far.

AI:

 - The AI does not react at all to smoke grenade clouds. As a result, soldiers can stand in a smoke cloud on completely open ground and be almost completely safe, unless the AI walks a unit right next to them.
 
 - The AI units do not support each other, at all. For example, one unit frequently wanders around near the edge of the map, away from the player's units, while the rest of the AI team is engaged in combat. As well as making battles easier (since only a reduced force is present), this can also make them more irritating as one has to hunt down stragglers after the main battle is over.
 
 - The AI does not utilise cover, frequently standing around on open ground waiting to be shot. I suggest they should at least prefer to stand near a wall (maybe even a wall which blocks them from the enemy, but any wall would be a start!).
 
 - The AI is very vulnerable to reaction fire, because instead of firing as soon as it sees your unit (which might be 10 spaces away or so), it tends to close in for a better hit chance. Of course this gives your units a better hit chance too, as well as giving you more time to get your shot off first!

Pages: [1]