OpenXcom Forum
Modding => Released Mods => XPiratez => Topic started by: Eddie on November 02, 2016, 12:02:32 am
-
About air combat...
In vanilla Xcom it was "can I catch it?". In TFTD it was "can I catch it?" with the addition of "can I outrange it?" which can be simplified to "do I have sonic oscillators?". So there wasn't really much of a game in aircombat. What was good about it was that you knew what you could do, you didn't sent craft on risky missions.
We all agree that vanilla aircombat is boring. Question is, can we actually do something better? If we make the outcome of aircombat a gamble, is that actually an improvement? Maybe we can start with solving this one question at a time.
First question: What should happen when you encounter an unknown shipping? Unknown meaning you never did aircombat with this shipping. In vanilla it was simple, larger = more dangerous, and you would be cautious to engage something large. In Piratez this does not hold anymore. Small things can be dangerous (fighter), large things can be harmless (freighter). Only way to find out if something is really dangerous is to engage it and see how much it damages you. And then it's more often than not *dodge, dodge, dodge, hit -> dead*
Do we want to improve this situation? If so, I would have an idea. Interception pictures could get a danger rating in skulls on them. This would translate to your pilot counting the guns on that ship. So a cutter would have like one skull in the interception picture, while a battleship would have five skulls. Or something like that. Then, in the description of Piratez craft and craft weapons, there could be an explanation as to what kind of "skull rating" this equipment can take on. So for a battleship you would need a five skull rated gun on a five skull rated ship. You would know what you are supposed to take on and what is too much for you.
-
There is the opportunity to make facing an unknown shipping pretty uncommon by researching engineers, who can tell you about pretty much every ship, and Dioxine did a good job of telling you what each shipping is about in its ufopaedia entry, including the damage per minute (DPM). I like the fact that there is some experimentation too - is it safe to intercept, and what eventually brings it down? With exception of the heavier military ships, nothing one-shots even the Hunter-Killer, so if you're not jumping in on aggressive, testing the enemy's range and power isn't too hard.
I think the skull rating would discourage this experimentation and risk-taking - oops, too many skulls for me, abort. What I think would be more useful is having more feedback on how much damage is being done to the target, something like the smoke clouds on UFOs in EU2012 as you damage them, or maybe let damage decrease the geoscape speed of the target. Unfortunately those would require source code modifications. Maybe a modification to the text displayed below the interception window could help, in the same vein as the battlescape hit indicator Meridian added; instead of just "hit," it could display "bounced off!" (no damage because armor), "glancing hit!" (damage below a certain threshold, like percent of target's total), and "solid impact!" for a good hit. Or at a certain percent of total damage to the enemy, a message about them smoking, maybe make it dithered a bit by a random amount so it isn't the exact same percentage every time.
Edit: Modifying the displayed text should be simple enough to code that I can take a look at it and come up with a prototype.
-
While it is true that the Hunter-Killer can survive one shot of most things, your first combat vehicle will be the Aircar. And after that probably a Jetbike. And on both these things you can dodge a lot before beeing hit, leading to *dodge, dodge, dodge, hit -> dead*
But I would like to get Meridians thoughts on this, as he seems to be the most cautious when it comes to air combat. Also he does aircombat without saving. I don't do that, I like experimenting too much.
-
Maybe a modification to the text displayed below the interception window could help, in the same vein as the battlescape hit indicator Meridian added; instead of just "hit," it could display "bounced off!" (no damage because armor), "glancing hit!" (damage below a certain threshold, like percent of target's total), and "solid impact!" for a good hit
The only thing here I really like. +1.
-
Btw, do we need to think about a rebalance of existing weapons regarding their damage potential vs armored ships? For example the Gauss does 15 damage, which makes it not very good vs commonly found armor 10 shippings. Same with the lasers. This is a bit counter intuitive, as in ground combat lasers and gauss is what you use as can openers. But then again, these are light weapons on a craft and not heavy weapons.
I'm not saying something needs to be changed (don't know enough about air combat yet), I just want to throw the idea out.
-
Maybe a modification to the text displayed below the interception window could help, in the same vein as the battlescape hit indicator Meridian added; instead of just "hit," it could display "bounced off!" (no damage because armor), "glancing hit!" (damage below a certain threshold, like percent of target's total), and "solid impact!" for a good hit.
While that would be a nice little touch, i suspect it would be just that: a little touch that wouldn't really change anything, since we can already see how much damage a craft takes from a given hit. So if you keep pounding an armored craft with a weak gun, this is currently communicated by the craft not displaying that much (or any) damage after being hit.
A thing i suggested a while back was to have a more informative intercept screen. Right now, if you click on the 'view enemy craft' button, you only see it's shape which really isn't that helpful, because so many crafts (e.g. in x-piratez) look alike. If you could also see the name of the craft type however, that would be a big help and make you remember the different crafts and their attributes. Even more helpful would be to click the image and be taken to the ufopedia entry of said craft.
With this solution we would also avoid the skull-difficulty-meter, which i suspect Dioxine doesn't like because it removes the 'thinking' part of interception.
-
While it is true that the Hunter-Killer can survive one shot of most things, your first combat vehicle will be the Aircar. And after that probably a Jetbike. And on both these things you can dodge a lot before beeing hit, leading to *dodge, dodge, dodge, hit -> dead*
The Aircar and Jetbike are really only for civilian vessels and anything they can out-range with the charger laser. The dodge on the bike is just to realize, oh, that thing has guns, I should get outta here.
I think the light weapons and lasers being ineffective against shields is intentional - the shield you can manufacture is based off the force fields that mitigate your lasers on the ground, and the heavier weapons like the railgun mention being better against armor in their pedia entries. Being able to tackle a military ship too early can mean big cash and weapons that make everything else too easy.
While that would be a nice little touch, i suspect it would be just that: a little touch that wouldn't really change anything, since we can already see how much damage a craft takes from a given hit. So if you keep pounding an armored craft with a weak gun, this is currently communicated by the craft not displaying that much (or any) damage after being hit.
There is no damage display for the enemy, so you have no clue how much your guns are doing compared to their armor and total damage capacity. I don't mean to add this to tell how much damage you're taking, but rather the enemy.
-
There is no damage display for the enemy, so you have no clue how much your guns are doing compared to their armor and total damage capacity. I don't mean to add this to tell how much damage you're taking, but rather the enemy.
Oh that's right, brainfart on my part i guess. If a health meter for the enemy isn't possible or isn't wanted, maybe the text that informs you about hits and misses can be color-coded to further draw attention to the outcome?
-
Changing air combat seems like the realm of a game mod. Also seems very complicated too. Xenonaut's air combat wasn't particularly endearing.
Flavor text would make it a bit more exciting. Albiet as is would be fine too. Though I think some end tier ships are too fast sure they're for base defense, but why couldn't your own ships work like base defenses too?
---
Ejection make sense for fighter jets, but honestly it seems rather out of place when you consider the fact that most people would test the waters during these fights before fully committing to an attack, also logically it would need a research option. Then there's the issue of recovering the lost agent in hostile territory. It would make for an interesting mission though.
-
I think aircombat would be improved if the modders could define the ufo weopon loadout in more detail like on the player's ships. That means several weapons each with damage, accuracy, range, reload time, ammo limit, travel speed. We could then have UFOs with long range missiles+ short range guns, each with different damage output.
Currently all Ufos can have only one weapon (with damage, range, accuracy and reload time.)
The ship with higher accelaration value should be able to determine the engagement distance.
-
So for the glancing/solid hit indication, should the HP threshold between damage being glancing vs. good hit be defined as a global parameter, per UFO, or per UFO but defaulting to a global parameter if not defined on the UFO? If I have time today, I'll be making a prototype to try out, and we can see if Meridian and Dioxine like it.
-
Thinking about it, something as simple as a possibility to define UFO weapon sound on UFO-per-UFO basis would help enormously (so when you hear WHOOOSH you'll know that your Jetbike is probably not the best craft to engage this target, but if you hear pew-pew, it's fine).
-
Thinking about it, something as simple as a possibility to define UFO weapon sound on UFO-per-UFO basis would help enormously (so when you hear WHOOOSH you'll know that your Jetbike is probably not the best craft to engage this target, but if you hear pew-pew, it's fine).
I like that idea! Maybe draw a beam or something too for the UFO's weapon that can have width/intensity scaling on damage or also defined per ship, for those who have sound muted or turned down.
-
I like that idea! Maybe draw a beam or something too for the UFO's weapon that can have width/intensity scaling on damage or also defined per ship, for those who have sound muted or turned down.
I'd prefer machine-drawn beam, based on damage - the width and brightness are so simple variables that human input is needless (except for defining the scale).
-
I'd prefer machine-drawn beam, based on damage - the width and brightness are so simple variables that human input is needless (except for defining the scale).
'Aight, I can add it to the list of interception window tweaks that I'll be trying, starting with the glancing hit indication. Shouldn't be too difficult...
Edit: Okay, I'm having trouble with the firing sound thing - I'm trying to copy the same method for loading the firing sounds from RuleCraftWeapon.cpp into RuleUfo.cpp, and it compiles just fine, but then crashes on startup - I think it has something to do with including Mod.h in the includes for RuleUfo.cpp, but I can't figure it out. Can I get some help on this one?
More Edit: Including Mod.h isn't the problem, I can add it in just fine without the stuff to load the sounds. The problem is I get a memory allocation error on startup when the code tries to load in the sounds' integer id with the proper offset for the mod, even though it follows the exact same method as in RuleCraftWeapon.cpp and RuleItem.cpp.
Even More Edit: What in the what? Apparently it was just the order I was defining things in RuleUfo.h. Why the crap does that matter? Anyways, it loads properly and I'm testing it out, but I have no sound on this computer, so I just have to go by what I put in the log whether it's using the modified sounds or not.
-
Okay, got something for y'all - the basic hit indicator is implemented, with a globally-defined threshold. Here are two examples of it in action, both with the damage threshold for glancing defined at 5% of the damage required to crash land the ship (2.5% of total damage capacity):
The first image is against an Envoy, 1000 HP, going up against a Gatling Lascannon, which can do 3-6 damage per hit, less than the threshold of 25 (1000 / 2 * 5%) - all hits should be glancing, so the gat doesn't tell you much information about the ship's total health. If you used something that does 30-40 damage, some hits would be glancing, some not, so you can guess at the total HP if you didn't know it before.
The second image is against a Gov't Fusion Cruiser, 30 armor, so my craft's Bulldog Cannon does nothing - we see the message for no damage.
Here are the necessary items defined in the ruleset:
ufoGlancingHitThreshold: 5
extraStrings:
- type: en-US
strings:
STR_UFO_HIT_NO_DAMAGE: "BOUNCED OFF THE HULL!"
STR_UFO_HIT_GLANCING: "GLANCING HIT!"
Edit: I've successfully exposed firing sound per ufo to ruleset, only need to define fireSound: on a ufo based on what you've added through extraSounds to GEO.CAT. It defaults to the original sound, so the vanilla compatibility is preserved. Looking at the beam size comes next! Source can be found here (https://github.com/ohartenstein23/OpenXcom/tree/oxce3.3-plus-proto-interception-window-t).
-
And one more message for some spam, but here's a prototype of the width of the ufo's beam weapon changing with power, based on the ruleset parameter ufoBeamWidthParameter:
Using an Envoy (weapon power 90), the first image shows what happens with ufoBeamWidthParameter: 50, and the second with ufoBeamWidthParameter: 25. To draw the beam, it takes the weapon power, divides by ufoBeamWidthParameter, and rounds down. This result is added to the width of the beam, so in the first case, it's an extra 1 (90 / 50 = 1.8 => 1) pixel on each side, and in the second it's 3 (90 / 25 = 3.6 => 3) pixels. The extra width is capped at 3, but the color will be more intense if the result is greater than 3.
The default ufoBeamWidthParameter is 1000, which will return to the vanilla case of a one-pixel-wide beam unless you modded in a UFO to kill fun.
-
Looks nice, informative and aesthetic!
-
Indeed. Great little things :)
-
It would make for an interesting mission though.
+1 to this.
[EDIT] I've found the same basic idea already listed in Solar's wishlist, yay! ;D (...also I'm a noob for not checking first ::) )
I have no idea if it can even be done but I really like the idea of player crafts having a chance to crash to the ground instead of being completely destroyed when losing air combat. It could spawn a mission site with:
- the damaged craft and part of the items that were inside, maybe with the ability to scavenge survived parts
- friendly units in various health conditions
- a second landed enemy craft with enemies hunting the crash-landed (that would bump the count to 3 which I realize seems a bit of a stretch, but then again the whole idea already is so I'm going wild)
- alternatively hostile creatures like in the monster hunts
-
Hello
I do not know if this has already been raised.
Possibility that several ships attack the same target.
The Skyranger, or any other transport ship, can be attacked by a UFO, as in Xenonauts.
-
Hello
I do not know if this has already been raised.
Possibility that several ships attack the same target.
The Skyranger, or any other transport ship, can be attacked by a UFO, as in Xenonauts.
Is this one request, or two? :)
Alien ships attacking your crafts came up a few times, yes. Hard to say if anyone's interested in implementing it though.
Several ships attacking the same target... You mean more than 4?
-
Hello:
Well, there are two different issues. As to the other question, I was referring to that, three ships of XCOM, one simultaneously UFO attack, as fighter squadrons of Xenonauts. Just to give it a little more variety, but just it, I ask impossible, the game engine.
-
You can already attack one UFO with up to four craft, this has always been the case.
As for UFOs being able to attack your craft, that is, start the interception themselves, I thought Stoddard was working on it.
-
Source can be found here (https://github.com/ohartenstein23/OpenXcom/tree/oxce3.3-plus-proto-interception-window-t).
Just had a first look, looks fine, I'll be merging it as soon as I can (might be next weekend).
What is this tho?
https://github.com/ohartenstein23/OpenXcom/commit/7dd24478d39d0f8034e81a5601ad56988e9e368c
It shows me as if you added the whole file new... can't see the changes :/
-
Just had a first look, looks fine, I'll be merging it as soon as I can (might be next weekend).
What is this tho?
https://github.com/ohartenstein23/OpenXcom/commit/7dd24478d39d0f8034e81a5601ad56988e9e368c
It shows me as if you added the whole file new... can't see the changes :/
Yes, I did just upload the file from my hard drive with the changes... sorry. Lines 1629-1646, I changed how a UFO's beam is drawn in the interception window, making width/intensity based on power divided by ufoBeamWidthParameter defined in the ruleset. And I just realized that it isn't in the proper place, or merged correctly with my other changes. I'm working on fixing that right now.
Edit: Fixed! Here's (https://github.com/ohartenstein23/OpenXcom/commit/88b214bdf2f601bbbcdd27fd35fe64cda889450e) what that commit should look like.
-
Merged: https://github.com/MeridianOXC/OpenXcom/commit/099897de5bf5b9d5ebf5458473026ba8a9fb9cd3
-
I have an idea:
It is a bit odd that only government ships have their special lights on.
They could turn them on only if needed, so you would need to hit the ship a bit until they show their 'flag' but not destroy it if it is a government ship.
Additionally, ships could show false flags.
Just a thought that could be improved on.
-
When I mentioned xenonauts before dioxine countered with saying it was flashy and inflexible and thats not what I was talking about at all.
I was speaking about - Ufos not letting you escape and choosing to engage you in a dogfight to shoot YOU down.
Then force a ground mission with your air vehicle shot down, as they walk out of their UFO fully armed to hunt down your guys (just like you do), which is a better way to lose an air vehicle than being blown up just for being greedy.
And also rubs it in the player's nose too because now you have a mission to deal with in addition to having lost your vehicle, and the only things you get to SAVE from the ruined vehicle are the Hands on board and the Equipment they had with them (no UFO recovery if you defeat them, since getting out of the area before rienforcements arrive and managing somehow to get back to base 96 hours later is already going to be a feat for the survivors).
This is one of the only reasons to have Pilots for your craft, then just like a base attack you have to defend your pilot (which is also why you would put equip in a 1 or 2 seater craft).
And to go along with this:
UFOs intercepting Your Craft and following them back if possible. Again if the crew of the UFO is aggressive enough or thinks (a check based on relative vehicle stats) that they can take you.
And calling for rienforcements, even if you run away from an air battle, diverting other eligible craft of tagged factions within a certain radius to give chase and intercept (which is where good speed comes into play because if you can GET BACK to your base in time, you disappear off the map and now they cant find you)
-
That's hardly Xenonauts-specific, it was like this in most UFO-like games. It was also discussed and deemed a worthy improvement - active UFOs that try to shoot you down are quite sweet. So were consequences of being shot down discussed, but that's a separate topic.
I'm all for the possibility of UFOs hunting your craft down, however, not in Piratez, because Cloaking Devices.
-
They could try to follow you after you've uncloaked, attacked something and are now retreating, though actually succeeding would depend on luck or observant crewmembers.
-
I've been wondering about how to design an aggressive mode for UFOs, where it actively hunts your ships, and not make it too painful (and make you lose all your Skyranger just like that, like Xenonauts did). So here's the idea:
- If your ship is found and intercepted, you get to choose: either Engage or Land.
- If you choose Engage, you do the normal air combat.
- If you choose Land, you do a ground combat against the UFO. Regardless of result, after this battle you return to base - no continuing towards your original destination.
- Ships returning from a mission are never targeted.
(Yes, I know Piratez has the Cloaking Device rationale, but 1) rationales change, 2) there are other mods out there too.)
-
Most of your vessels have no chance against enemy warships 1x1 both in air and on land.
So, it's an equivalent of just killing off your vessels and trained pilots randomly.
-
It's a workable idea in a mod where the air and ground tech gets much closer to parity or eventual advantage for the player. In pirates the player is permanently behind in the air and only wins on the ground vs large ships because the tactical ai is a turd.
Even the new series has artificial difficulty in ground combat due to "pod" mechanic breaking the enemy into digestible chunks for the player. It does make the game better but its nonsense from a simulation standpoint.
-
Most of your vessels have no chance against enemy warships 1x1 both in air and on land.
So, it's an equivalent of just killing off your vessels and trained pilots randomly.
Yes, that's why I'm suggesting an option to land.
Was your comment against my post, or the UFO interception idea in general?
Anyway, I imagine that interceptions would only be performed by UFOs who are specifically told to do so, otherwise it wouldn't be vanilla-friendly. So the modder can make sure it's balanced properly.
It's a workable idea in a mod where the air and ground tech gets much closer to parity or eventual advantage for the player. In pirates the player is permanently behind in the air and only wins on the ground vs large ships because the tactical ai is a turd.
Even the new series has artificial difficulty in ground combat due to "pod" mechanic breaking the enemy into digestible chunks for the player. It does make the game better but its nonsense from a simulation standpoint.
I agree with all the above, but this feature is not tied to Piratez specifically. If it existed, Dioxine could use it or not, whatever he decides.
-
Specific interception ufos would make it pretty good imo. The fighter in pirates is reasonably nasty in the air but can be out fought in the air by dedicated air combat craft 1x1 and out matched on the ground by the weight of numbers in transports.
I would also add an option to evade the interception. If your craft is faster you return to base(original mission still denied) if not you proceed to air combat. This way you can have a little more wiggle room on choice of intercepting ufos. Things like gunboats are a more difficult challenge in direct combat but are somewhat slow.
-
Specific interception ufos would make it pretty good imo. The fighter in pirates is reasonably nasty in the air but can be out fought in the air by dedicated air combat craft 1x1 and out matched on the ground by the weight of numbers in transports.
Yes, exactly... Fighters would be a poor choice for pirate hunters, as they would be routinely lured to the ground and killed.
I would also add an option to evade the interception. If your craft is faster you return to base(original mission still denied) if not you proceed to air combat. This way you can have a little more wiggle room on choice of intercepting ufos. Things like gunboats are a more difficult challenge in direct combat but are somewhat slow.
True, but can't you just disengage? I'm not sure how air combat works exactly.
-
Yes, to clarify i mean a "evade" option that bypasses normal air combat. Player craft returns to base(with no option for redirect) and interceptor ufo is removed from map. Normal air combat is current speed dependent but ufo speed fluctuates therefore chance involved. What i am after is a max vs max check that allows the player to opt out directly. Mostly i would intend this to streamline the preservation of frail interceptors that get tagged by heavy craft. The original mission is still scrubbed but the player is not forced to fiddle around with more clicks and layers to deal with a clear loss.
-
Yes, that's why I'm suggesting an option to land.
Your ships are even worse on land, because most pilot crews are one or two girls.
-
Yes, to clarify i mean a "evade" option that bypasses normal air combat. Player craft returns to base(with no option for redirect) and interceptor ufo is removed from map. Normal air combat is current speed dependent but ufo speed fluctuates therefore chance involved. What i am after is a max vs max check that allows the player to opt out directly. Mostly i would intend this to streamline the preservation of frail interceptors that get tagged by heavy craft. The original mission is still scrubbed but the player is not forced to fiddle around with more clicks and layers to deal with a clear loss.
Yeah, but that's more of a slap on the wrist than anything. Sure, you miss the mission, but there is nothing exciting about it... It's more of a "the weather's bad today, we'll go hunting ratmen some other day". Basically just a cockblock, nothing exciting about it.
Your ships are even worse on land, because most pilot crews are one or two girls.
Oh sorry, let me take you right to Cydonia now. :P
Seriously, your ship has no chance against the enemy in the air and no chance on the ground? Are we facing Battleships? What kind of an argument is this?
-
Yeah, but that's more of a slap on the wrist than anything. Sure, you miss the mission, but there is nothing exciting about it... It's more of a "the weather's bad today, we'll go hunting ratmen some other day". Basically just a cockblock, nothing exciting about it.
Oh sorry, let me take you right to Cydonia now. :P
Seriously, your ship has no chance against the enemy in the air and no chance on the ground? Are we facing Battleships? What kind of an argument is this?
Not exciting maybe but injecting excitement into something you are unable win becomes a turd sandwich with capers pretty fast. Yes there are the exceptional skilled/lucky players that can manage a 1-3 vs 10-15 with 2nd string gear but they are not the majority. Air combat before a certain point in vanilla is equally bad and even more concrete a outcome. You simply lack the speed and damage potential to get the job done against large parts of enemy lineup. Even if i can't escape i would prefer the single button "auto resolve" option rather then sit through the loseing combat several time per game.
To be clear i am in favor of this addition but it is something that needs a intense focus on balancing. It could very easily become intensely frustrating to the player. Not only are you losing your original target, the craft/crew is at risk as well. Having potentially your entire game at risk on RNG is not cool in 30+hour games. You mentioned the sky-ranger problem yourself Sorch. Being confronted with a high potential non standard game over with a tiny fraction of your arsenal is punitive to the player. Granted that the deeper into a play-through you get the smaller the issue becomes, but for the period it exists it a severe strike against player enjoyment if executed poorly. Be very aware of the ramifications of this addtion.
-
It depends a lot on what kind of ships you would be hunted with, and when. If it's a late game only, it could be an incentive to decommission every non-transport that can not either outrun or outfight every ship that enemy can use for intercepting.
-
Yeah guys, I realize it's a tough problem to balance. And I'm not even sure it's the right solution. But I can't remember or think of anything better.
I guess it's up to Dioxine to say if such a feature is even interesting.
-
Solarius Scorch: Give big factions alert level mechanics that gives them several discere bands of agressivity (low alert faction will do "civilian" missions such as surveying, high threat ones will eventually do nothing but patrol the globe with battleships). Alert level should go up when you shoot down their crafts, successfully assault their landed crafts, while it should drop a bit everytime they score by suceeding at a mission and also a bit at the end of a month. This gives the players an option of playing it smart and not triggering a response he can't currently deal with by choosing their battles.
But this woudl be a bitch to code I guess...
-
Hello:
I do not know if it has already been mentioned, but you could do something like the Xenonauts. Attacks on squadrons of two-three fighters, or that when the Skyranger, for example, takes the troops to a mission, can be knocked down by the way. In fact, the Skyranger himself, can intercept if the player so decides, a UFO, and force down, but not in reverse.
-
Having squads of planes from the get go get launched would be interesting. Xenonauts did a pretty good job with their air combat in that regard, though I always do the auto win xD.
-
Of course xenonauts was partially built around that air combat, and x-com wasn't, so while it might be possible, it's going to probably be difficult and there are likely faster and more productive paths the developers can put their efforts into.
-
Somebody asked for configurable pilot bonuses.
Can't find the original post/request, so I'll just post here:
# aim bonus/penalty = (averageBaseAccuracyOfAllPilots - pilotAccuracyZeroPoint) * pilotAccuracyRange / 100;
# dodge bonus/penalty = (averageBaseReactionsOfAllPilots - pilotReactionsZeroPoint) * pilotReactionsRange / 100;
pilotAccuracyZeroPoint: 55 # accuracy for no aim bonus
pilotAccuracyRange: 40 # impact (as percentage of distance to zero point) on aim in dogfight
pilotReactionsZeroPoint: 55 # reactions for no dodge bonus
pilotReactionsRange: 60 # impact (as percentage of distance to zero point) on dodge in dogfight
pilotBraveryThresholds: # impacts approach speed, does not impact disengage speed (craft acceleration is used for that)
- 90 # 200% very bold
- 80 # 150% bold
- 30 # 100% normal
# less => 50% cowardly
-
My idea is pilot's stats growth for winning air combat, depending on combat actions (like dodge, hits etc). Like at groung combat missions.
Do you understand now, how Han Solo gets his legendary gunfight reaction? 8)
Next, the idea of alternative mode of combat (or secondary equipment, like targeting computer) - "Achilles targeting": your vessel crew trys to hit the most vulnerable points of enemy ship, increasing damage and... chances to blow up it into pieces, without treasure reward.
-
Both pilot stat growth and targeting computer are already implemented.
-
In that case, I apologize. It so happened that I know piratez from earlier versions and able to make a mess of something.