Messages

16

Design / Re: Storyline Proposal: Alien Mothership

« on: October 13, 2012, 03:29:18 pm »

Alternatively; Everyone else's military tech is catching up a bit at this point and they have far greater resources available, making them consider (and attempt) a full frontal attack that gets plastered all over the thing's shield.

As a side effect, this would then allow for an increase in overall alien activity since a whole bunch of the global military force just got diverted (and butchered) on the offensive.

17

Artwork / Re: Alien supply ship

« on: October 13, 2012, 03:27:04 pm »

Indeed. Awesome.

18

Feature Requests / Re: Base Improvements

« on: October 12, 2012, 02:05:25 pm »

Now all we need is Klendathu Drop in the soundtrack.

19

Mapping / Re: Solar plant RMA map!

« on: October 11, 2012, 12:49:37 pm »

Note: The facility was designed (and built) by the lowest bidder.
Always. Bare minimum is what you get.

20

Mapping / Re: Solar plant RMA map!

« on: October 10, 2012, 07:57:06 pm »

About the toilets, have you ever been on an Army barrack or a Navy ship? Have you ever seen one toilet for every soldier? I guess not...

I was assuming he thought there are too many toilets.

21

Artwork / Re: Dropship/Fighter Contribution

« on: October 08, 2012, 10:10:44 pm »

In the *spoiler*tech tree outline*spoiler* I'm working towards, it's actually placed in the middle game, so it's pretty flexible in terms of the technology used. I think we're not meant to be able to manufacture alien materials, but that's why we salvage them from disassembled UFOs, if I understand that correctly.

From what I remember, the first paragraph of the nanocomposite armour completion message says they figured out how to mass produce carbon nanotubes. More or less.
But I'm not sure if that one requires alien materials in 2.4 or not. Completely clueless regarding .5.

22

Artwork / Re: Dropship/Fighter Contribution

« on: October 07, 2012, 01:30:24 pm »

Okay...as soon as this is implemented, I'm reinstalling the game.
And never using the Firebird again. Unless I really, really have to.

23

Discussion / Re: Suspension of belief

« on: September 28, 2012, 07:31:39 pm »

I think getting that finished is one of the major points of .5, though.
Not sure.
And it's not like you're dumping the stuff into Africa or wherever the hotspots are in 2084 for them to care what you're selling.
I'm sure any military would love to get their hands on some alien-resistant tech.

24

Discussion / Re: Suspension of belief

« on: September 22, 2012, 10:25:52 pm »

Fixed by only ever using a set of rails For one shot in the game itself.*
The main issue is supposed to be power generation/storage.*
*At least if I remember fluff correctly.


That said, I'm suddenly reminded of Silent Storm...might be I'd have to make a thread about that later.

25

Feature Requests / Re: Laser turrets for SAM sites?

« on: September 22, 2012, 10:10:46 pm »

Well, it would be easier on the players to just rename them all into "AA emplacement" and cycle various weapons but I foresee issues with swapping between models of the missile, laser and particle weapons.
Of course, I know exactly jack shit about the subject and am mainly guessing.

26

Discussion / Re: Suspension of belief

« on: September 20, 2012, 03:00:03 pm »

Laser and railgun weapons might actually come to widespread use much much sooner than 2084.
Naval railguns are developed by the US. Laser weapons are actually used since the 90s. One of the more recent examples is the FIRESTRIKE:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/14/weaponised_rayguns_hit_shelves_in_time_for_xmas/?d=154600
I was myself quite surprised that UFO:AI takes place in 2084 and these weapons aren't developed yet.. guess army isn't funded so well in the future
I'd hate to lose the opportunity to research these weapons though, research is what I always loved about x-com/ufo! Much better solution might be what OllyG suggested - setting the starting year to 2020s or perhaps 2040s-2050s.
Just my two cents 

I'm talking about man portable railguns especially. Even if you can fit one on a ship, it doesn't mean it's actually worth making an infantry weapon out of it. And even then, I'm guessing you'll be seeing an anti-material weapon first.

And note:

Portable blaster rifles or carbines aren't really on the cards yet, then. But a reasonably useful laser tank could well be a goer if Northrop can do what they say.

Okay, so it's probably closer than 70 years but still.

Pulse Detonation? You mean the thing that was invented by the time of World War II? So it could be used to power the V-1 Rocket?

No, that one is a pulse jet engine. It had moving parts and the combustion lasted longer.
The first pulse detonation engine flew in...08 with no practical engine in production to date. So I'm guessing it'll still take a while before it catches on. And even longer before someone decides to go VTOL with it.

27

Discussion / Re: Suspension of belief

« on: September 13, 2012, 01:55:22 pm »

It allows for some more advanced tech in the fluff, though. Railguns and lasers on human tech, for example.
Stilettos and pulse detonation engines (Firebird) as well.

Probably some of you misunterstood me. I just talked about the look - not about the functions etc. :>

But really, it doesn't. Sure, it's got the whole metal tube rockets go in thing but...that's pretty much it.

28

Discussion / Re: Suspension of belief

« on: September 10, 2012, 10:49:33 pm »

Well, with strong enough engines...it'd shake itself apart in a few weeks.

But until then and with all the finest techs the world can offer...I think that candle can shine brightly.
That said, it's specialty is doing magic up close, not speeding.

I didnt say it looks exactly like a Javeline. I wanted to point out that the UFO:AI Rocket Launcher looks more like a javeline or a stinger than RPG7.

Isn't it based off the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle? The last version of that is only twenty years old. And it works...why fix?
Not all good weapons look fancy. And the javelin has a min range of 75m. I'm not even sure my snipers can hit a harvester at that range. Add the fact that it's a single use weapon dedicated to taking care of tanks...apples and oranges, at this point.

29

Feature Requests / Re: Nuclear aircraft

« on: September 10, 2012, 09:56:26 pm »

 Quick question: Who's gonna pay for all that? Nuclear reactors aren't all that efficient when you try to stick them in aircraft.
Neither of the nuclear bomber programs actually got off the ground using their reactor before they were scrapped and the cruise missile irradiated the shit out of it's path.
 The player would probably have to shove funds and researchers into the project since day one for it to be applicable in time.
Sure, you might get the UN to hand over a few spare carriers if you beg long enough but I think that'd mean you'd have to pay for their crews. And even then, there's the issue of landing an insanely fast, radioactive hunk of metal on one of those.
 Oh, and flying aircraft carriers would probably get a taste of orbital bombardment faster than you can say "Goodness gracious great balls of fire!" There's a reason why all your bases are very immobile and underground. I won't comment on their surface appearance, though.
Most of this, of course, is assuming that the aliens have any sort of sense in that hive brain of theirs.

30

Discussion / Re: Health of a Plane

« on: August 19, 2012, 02:07:39 am »

I'd be nice to know how they're looking up before you send them out, though.
Bit of a hassle finding out you managed to send the poor rookie bastard with ten percent of his hull left rather than the ace with the shipfull of shiny new guns because you couldn't remember which is which.