OpenXcom Forum
Modding => Released Mods => XPiratez => Topic started by: Ewokgod on May 31, 2017, 03:32:20 am
-
irl, if you make a vehicle big enough, it can act like a base. Look at modern aircraft carriers, for example.
I am seeing the possibility of ground expeditions as comprising convoys of vehicles or a all-terrain "train", where the player builds a number of components (Med-Wagon, Air Defence, rolling Workshops, sleeper wagons) to produce an independent moving mini-base (from "Amtrak Wars" series of books).
Or large dirigibles ("Crimson Skies").
Or icebergs (HMS Habbakuk).
These "mini-bases" would have limited living quarters or storage, but could be used as "parasite" bases where a combat team can deploy from in the smaller aircraft.
But it needs the game engine to allow bases to move, or to fool the engine into allowing a vehicle to have base-like qualities.
-
It's a fun idea, but what problem would it solve for you? Would they be immune from crackdowns? I have wanted to put a base in the ocean for better radar coverage in a few specific situations, but never thought about it moving
-
Figuring out when the plane should return would be a huge problem. What if it is force to return, and the base moves in the opposite direction?
-
Figuring out when the plane should return would be a huge problem. What if it is force to return, and the base moves in the opposite direction?
Not that big of a problem. Base surely can't move faster than a plane (ok, of a comparable tech level), and while it's slower, calculating the bingo fuel point to include worst possible movement of the base is trivial. If you fly 400-knot piston fighers out of 4000-knot elerium-powered laputas, then its your problem to make sure they don't run out of gas.
-
Not that big of a problem. Base surely can't move faster than a plane (ok, of a comparable tech level), and while it's slower, calculating the bingo fuel point to include worst possible movement of the base is trivial. If you fly 400-knot piston fighers out of 4000-knot elerium-powered laputas, then its your problem to make sure they don't run out of gas.
Yeah, but that means that a plane's reach would actually be lower - the point of no return would have to be closer, since the plane would have to take into consideration that the base might just be a troll and run away.
-
Yeah, but that means that a plane's reach would actually be lower - the point of no return would have to be closer, since the plane would have to take into consideration that the base might just be a troll and run away.
Yes, but this is up to the player - more freedom to him is always good in my book. Besides it all depends on plane speed/base speed ratio, if we talk floating bases as in aircraft carriers, that would be something on the order of 5 (a worst case of a helicopter vs Nimitz class), which makes almost no difference wrt a stationary base - combat radius reduced by ~10%. And that's a helicopter, and a worst case of the carrier starting to move away from the target immediately after launch. If we assume craft cruise speed about 20 times the carrier's one, that reduction reduces to something like 3%.
-
I understand that it's intended to be pretty slow, but if such a feature was introduced, it would have to work with any numbers a modder could come up with. Because modders are very clever* and will certainly use this mechanic for something completely different, which you haven't predicted.
Also, what exactly do you mean by "this is up to the player"? What if the player decides to troll the plane - would the plane crash then? Just trying to understand the model.
* Well, not me. I'm not a clever modder. :(
-
I understand that it's intended to be pretty slow, but if such a feature was introduced, it would have to work with any numbers a modder could come up with. Because modders are very clever* and will certainly use this mechanic for something completely different, which you haven't predicted.
More power to them modders, isn't this the way all the great mods get done?
Also, what exactly do you mean by "this is up to the player"? What if the player decides to troll the plane - would the plane crash then? Just trying to understand the model.
Well, let it crash then. Out-of-fuel crash is much simpler to code than a Howl's moving castle.
Edit:
Besides, if you insist on craft AI insisting to always have enough fuel to return to the base, this is no problem at all too - dunno how it is right now, but nothing stops the code to keep enough fuel for a worst-case return to base at all times, unless base is faster than the craft. If it is, well, modder shot himself in a foot. He will be corrected by his player base. Or maybe it was intended for the players to keep that in mind. What's the problem?
-
Or, one could prohibit base movement, when planes are out and about.
-
I always liked idea of orbital bases.
-
IN nboth base gaem and piratez, bases are supposed to be hidden. Any kind of mobile base would be trivial to find.
-
In Piratez, it would have to be post cloaking device. But it would have to be anyway, as you would be making a custom vehicle.
-
nothing stops the code to keep enough fuel for a worst-case return to base at all times, unless base is faster than the craft.
However it shortens the effective range of a craft.
-
However it shortens the effective range of a craft.
Yes, but for realistic craft and carrier speeds this is 10-20% less range worst case.
Given the typical combat ranges of xcom craft, this is just not worth noticing.
-
More power to them modders, isn't this the way all the great mods get done?
Of course! But only as long as they are properly made.
Well, let it crash then. Out-of-fuel crash is much simpler to code than a Howl's moving castle.
I don't mind this solution at all, I only wanted to establish most important points of the concept.
Besides, if you insist on craft AI insisting to always have enough fuel to return to the base, this is no problem at all too - dunno how it is right now, but nothing stops the code to keep enough fuel for a worst-case return to base at all times, unless base is faster than the craft. If it is, well, modder shot himself in a foot. He will be corrected by his player base. Or maybe it was intended for the players to keep that in mind. What's the problem?
The problem is that
1) players cheat
2) modders experiment
It's perfectly fine if you add such a feature for your own use, but if it's to be published, it must meet certain standards. Otherwise... bad stuff happens to the modder. ;)
Again, I definitely am not fighting against this feature, it's pretty cool. But some things need to be established first.
Or, one could prohibit base movement, when planes are out and about.
We could, but that would feel really forced. There is nothing that would realistically prevent the flying base from moving.
I always liked idea of orbital bases.
UFO: Aftershock, eh? ;)
IN nboth base gaem and piratez, bases are supposed to be hidden. Any kind of mobile base would be trivial to find.
In Piratez, it would have to be post cloaking device. But it would have to be anyway, as you would be making a custom vehicle.
Yeah, a valid point, but it depends on execution. Not a problem with the concept as such.
Yes, but for realistic craft and carrier speeds this is 10-20% less range worst case.
Given the typical combat ranges of xcom craft, this is just not worth noticing.
No, but what if I want to add super fast fighters or bases, because it makes sense in my setting? If the game engine put a soft limit on it, because at some level it's falling apart, then it's just poor design. X-Com design standards are higher than that.
But yeah, making the plane crash is good enough for me... as long as it's communicated to the player clearly.
-
No, but what if I want to add super fast fighters or bases, because it makes sense in my setting? If the game engine put a soft limit on it, because at some level it's falling apart, then it's just poor design. X-Com design standards are higher than that.
Hmm. As long as player takes care to not abandon his craft, the craft won't crash. As long as the player is informed that his action will result in a loss of a craft (see the last paragraph), I don't think there is anything more to do here.
I can't think of a setup (craft, base speeds, fuel tank sizes, number of craft, their missions) which will result in a crash unless the player willfully ignores warnings.
I feel that the assumption that there is always such a course change for a base to recover all launched craft can be proven to be strictly true, as a math theorem.
Of course, the fuel reserve will have to be recalculated every game tick.
Now, if we start to tie fuel consumption and/or max speed to battle damage, then, of course, dry crashes are possible, even with stationary bases.
I think I'm somehow not getting what you mean with 'soft limit' and 'falling apart'.
But yeah, making the plane crash is good enough for me... as long as it's communicated to the player clearly.
There's already a 'low on fuel' popup. There can be another if the base moves out of range, mentioning the base in question. If it runs out of fuel after that, it crashes, another popup.
The whole situation is only possible if player changed the base's course in such a way that it increased its speed away from the craft, while a craft is returning in 'low on fuel' condition. At this point it's either reverse the course change or lose the craft.
-
OK, that sounds good!
-
It's a fun idea, but what problem would it solve for you? Would they be immune from crackdowns? I have wanted to put a base in the ocean for better radar coverage in a few specific situations, but never thought about it moving
Mobile bases (MBs) do not fix any problems as such. If the player wants to have better detection coverage, Spy Zeppelins and Expeditions allow the player to tailor the coverage he wants, for a resource fee and a hangar slot each.
What MBs can do is provide close-in attack options. For example, have you ever discovered an enemy base outside your detection range that you really did not want to attack yet? Maybe you didn't have the right equipment (read bigger guns) or your good gals were in the infirmary. Maybe it is going to be wall-to-wall Cryssalids (or worse) in there. That base affects your score negatively until you destroy it and there is nothing you can get out of it. A MB could put a radar footprint over that enemy base and, at least, you can detect and shoot down / attack the supply ships as they come in because you not only have radar coverage, you have a hangar. nearby Once you finish with the enemy, your MB can be retasked to other areas.
Another thing a MB can do is allow the player to layer his base defences. if a crackdown is coming for one of your bases and a MB is nearby, that's another hangar for defensive fighters and another radar footprint that may allow the player to detect the attackers earlier. Heck, I don't know exactly how the AI chooses targets for crackdowns, but there might even be an option for a sacrificial MB, empty of anything valuable or crew, just sitting on the AI's flightpath to be detected and destroyed at the AI's whim. Or a trap MB, loaded with trap rooms and your best killers.
If the game develops any base buildings that have (or can have) a negative effect, it might be useful to hive off those buildings into a MB. For example, I've never seen it happen but the in-game bootypedia says that a summoning circle may spawn enemies in a base defence. The player could put a summoning circle (and any other buildings like that) on a MB and park it far away from the other valuable stuff. Extra cool points for putting your circle over a rough guess of the location of R'lyeh before you start trying to summon Cthulhu :)
As to being immune from crackdowns, I don't think so. There is some functionality in them not being immune, and there can be some cool scenarios in their base defence battles; circled wagons for a convoy, room-to-room fighting on a sea-going vessel (maybe even seabed stuff, submersible carriers are possible). An airborne carrier, on the other hand, might just be shot down by the enemy, if the intercept screen can be rejigged.
And dammit, they are just cool and not that far removed from real-life weirdness. If you would like some evidence,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zveno_project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_submarine_Surcouf
-
An aside on the question of fuel range on aircraft.
Does anyone know if the RTB fuel warning can be overridden, in effect, it never shows up, for a specific fighter?
And can a modder make a fighter lose all its HP after an intercept?
If the answer to both is "Yes", or maybe "Yes, but why in the name of all that is unholy would you want that to happen?!", then, if you give that fighter a very high speed, decent dodge, good accuracy and a damaging one-shot point-blank weapon, you've made a surface to air missile, and there might be a use for that.
-
The answer to both is "no".
If we want SAMs, I think a better idea would be working with base defense buildings (extending range if needed), not interceptors.