OpenXcom Forum
Modding => OXCE Suggestions NEW => OpenXcom Extended => OXCE Suggestions Rejected => Topic started by: tkzv on July 03, 2019, 08:51:03 am
-
Rejection reason: this is beyond/outside the scope of OXCE
Elsewhere we've been talking about air combat, and I thought: this minigame is a neverending source of frustration. Clumsy controls, not much of realism, a game of fast reaction looks out of place in turn-based tactical game. But since X-COM is all about turn-based tactical combat, why not implement air combat as a special Battlescape mission?
This is how I imagine it:
- Of course, this mode is optional.
- If it's on, the special Battlescape mission starts either when a human-controlled craft touches a UFO, or when distance is closer than standoff.
- If it's a one-on-one air battle, then the mission has only 2 units. If multiple interceptors engage one UFO at the same time, all of them participate in the mission. In case of escorting, also all crafts participate.
- There's no terrain, just open air. Or is the dirt floor unavoidable? Is it possible to make background light blue for midday and darken it at morning/evening and further at night?
- I don't know how big should the map be. At least twice the range of the battleship main gun, I suppose.
- Maximum TUs and energy, dodge chance and such are computed from the craft speed and maximum acceleration. I haven't tested any formulae yet. I supppse, hit points and weapon damage may be copied verbatim, but don't know about the rate of fire.
- If it's a battle a UFO can escape, then time is limited. When turns run out, it is said that UFO outran the interceptor.
- There are exit grids for interceptors. For example, in all 8 corners.
- For hunter-killer if human craft is slower, the escape is pointless as it is, but it's a separate question. But there should be a function like "paradrop crew, passengers and cargo".
- An interceptor has up to 2 weapons in its "hands". Can units shoot two (identical) weapons simultaneously, by the way?
- Earth craft from Interceptor to Avenger are 1x1x1. Small and medium UFOs are 1x1x1, Battleship is 2x2x1. Can Terror ship be 1x2x1? If no, then all large UFOs are 2x2x1 too.
- Drawing routine is 3 or 4 — cyberdisk or Ethereal.
If you are going to implement it, I'll try to make Battlescape sprites for all vanilla craft in UFO:EU.
-
Not really worth it as gameplay change, but nice idea for special mission. Like 0-g missions in PirateZ.
-
While obviously we can live without it, I would very much appreciate it. It would be so much more exciting.
-
I have zero interest in this.
-
I thought the air combat was dull even in the original X-Com, when I was 17 and liked everything. :P
But okay, no means no. I realize it would be a lot of work.
-
There's no terrain in the air so so far I and many major modders see autoresolve-ish air combat as best.
-
Elsewhere we've been talking about air combat, and I thought: this minigame is a neverending source of frustration. Clumsy controls, not much of realism, a game of fast reaction looks out of place in turn-based tactical game. But since X-COM is all about turn-based tactical combat, why not implement air combat as a special Battlescape mission?
So, since air combat is a neverending source of frustration for the reasons you listed, you want to implement a solution suffering from similar issues?
-
I always loved x-com air combat.
And this concept reminds me of StarCraft 2 missions, where you control Hyperion directly.
-
Clumsy controls, not much of realism, a game of fast reaction looks out of place in turn-based tactical game.
So, since air combat is a neverending source of frustration for the reasons you listed, you want to implement a solution suffering from similar issues?
The controls are different, the model is different and it's not reaction-based. It suffers from entirely different issues :) And I suppose that starting Battlescape mission instead of opening the air combat window would be easier to implement than keybindings for air combat window.
And this concept reminds me of StarCraft 2 missions, where you control Hyperion directly.
Is this bad? I haven't played StarCraft 2, and only know them from online descriptions.
-
While i've also been thinking how something like this could be realized, this idea suffer from some major flaws:
First off, engagements don't last for long, and outcome is - in almost all cases - predetermined by fighter armament and UFO type. Replacing a realt-time event with a turn based event drags out resolution (i.e. you have to invest more time) for a mostly predetermined outcome (at least if this is to reflect vanilla stats for fighters and UFOs).
Secondly, with the Battlescape consisting of nothing but empty space, what's the point, really? The whole point of battlescape gameplay in xcom is dealing with the the terrain and sightlines. Congratulations, you've replaced an 'out-out-place' real-time tactical event with a battlescape mission that lacks any tactical component. It's the same slugfest, but it's going to take more time.
Thirdly - and this is a personal opinion - i always saw air engagement as part of geoscape gameplay - which isn't turn based either. This mix of realt-time geoscape and turn-based strategy events was what set xcom apart from other titles. The aircombat is part of that experience - the whole point of is to be more hectic and fast-paced than the ground missions.
I like variety in my games. Replacing a game mechanic that's different with a game mechanic that's the same as a mechanic already in game takes away that variety.
I also like game mechanics to be engaging - air combat as it is in the game is engaging because it's designed to be. Granted, it's a slugfest, but it's over quick, it's kind of fun (at least for me) and it's different. Battlescape missions are designed around the terrain and in most cases you have to deal with mor than one enemy. You have to take into account multiple factors. That's what makes them fun and engaging. You plan to take away most of those factors. Granted, it would make for a somewhat different experience from ground-based engangements. It would also be worse.
-
on a tangent
to make air combat more interesting implement acceleration
delta += craft->getAccel() - ufo->getAccel()
w/ limits ofc. (don't allow a slow UFO to escape just because it has a higher acceleration, or cause closing to become disengaging nor vice versa)
I did this in my personal build and it's kinda whacky (but not too whacky, i like it)
Firestorms zip right up on smaller ufos, while Interceptors crawl slowly into position ...
i mean, I don't *think* that acceleration is in OxC (or OxCe ...) but pardon my French it's not too good,
-
While i've also been thinking how something like this could be realized,
What do you have in mind?
First off, engagements don't last for long, and outcome is - in almost all cases - predetermined by fighter armament and UFO type. Replacing a realt-time event with a turn based event drags out resolution (i.e. you have to invest more time)
A close range shootout between 2 units won't last long either.
for a mostly predetermined outcome (at least if this is to reflect vanilla stats for fighters and UFOs).
I do have ideas how to vary the outcome (see below), but didn't put them in the first post to encourage people to suggest something less obvious. Nobody did.
Secondly, with the Battlescape consisting of nothing but empty space, what's the point, really? The whole point of battlescape gameplay in xcom is dealing with the the terrain and sightlines. Congratulations, you've replaced an 'out-out-place' real-time tactical event with a battlescape mission that lacks any tactical component.[/u].
1. Even if the air is empty, you can simply approach the enemy and shoot him point-blank, letting him do the same; or you can briefly engage, shoot and retreat outside weapon range.
2. Clouds let you hide.
3. There is such thing as wind. The simplest implementation would be several identical-looking empty tiles that take different time to cross.
-
2. Clouds let you hide.
:D
-
Worked in WW I! 8)
Now, I completely agree with all the issues mentioned by Krautbernd. I agree that better mechanics are possible. Xenonauts is a good example (I enjoyed air combat there). Another working ign would be UFO: Extraterrestrials, with its RTS combat on geoscape itself (though probably unrealistic with geoscape scales). Or my personal favourite: turn-based, but Master of Orion 2 style rather than X-Com style (similar but not the same).
But all these are total pipe dreams. I can imagine adapting the battlescape mechanics for air combat, but making a completely new minigame? Who would be this crazy?
-
Xenonauts air combat, while fun at first, is so non-procedural (same optimal algorithm for same craft vs UFO combination) that even the developer of its sole megamod has admitted that autoresolve would be better. Though, he might take offense at me quoting him this much.
I am hopeful that Xenonauts 2 will have multiple units in a fight, allowing for some depth. Either way the fights play themselves out, so worst case it's a neat-looking auto-resolve.
I don't doubt that it's possible to simulate a better air combat in battlescape using mods. The hardest parts to mod would be actually replacing air combat with that (say, maybe you have a multi-stage mission, and you can only send interceptors to landed UFOs) and reducing turn rate. But it would be pretty difficult to mod every other part, and ultimately harder to control / longer than it needs to be. Feel free to create it if you like tkzv, but no one else is going to.
-
What do you have in mind?
Pretty much the same idea you had (replace it with a battlescape fight), since this would be the easiest to implement if you are looking for a total departure from the current mechanic. But i had to reject it for the reasons i listed - it's not a true change or a new mechanic - it's just more of the same that's already in the game. The problem is that battlescape is designed for squad-based ground combat - not for aerial dogfights. My ideal choice would be something like X-Com Interceptor or a true dogfight simulation - neither of which is realistic, given the contraints of openxcom.
Something i completely forgot to mention is how additonal equipment slots would be handled. OCXE adds the ability to use up to four weapon/equipment slots, while soldiers in battlescape can use a max of two weapons. How would this be handled? Do we need to redefine crafts and craft weapons? How would this be compatible with vanilla dogfights?
A close range shootout between 2 units won't last long either.
True, but it would still be bound to battlescape rules&mechanics, meaning multiple turns, intro, exit and possible equipment screens.
I do have ideas how to vary the outcome (see below), but didn't put them in the first post to encourage people to suggest something less obvious[...]
Clouds or other obstacles were also on my mind regarding tactical options, but again, this would be like having a total flat battlescape, with the addition that you get to use smoke grenades.
You can't see this as a totally separate game mechanic - you're prefacing a 'real' tactical engagement with an inferior one. Would you want to play through this hundreds of times? I don't think i would. I would probably try it a couple of times and then disable it. I just can't think of a way to make these as engaging as the ground assaults - and they would have to be in my opinion, otherwise you're just adding a ton of mandatory knock-off battles to the game.
And, as mentioned above, you run into problems with changes that have been made to the vanilla mechanic. It's simply not as easy adding an 'optional' combat stage to the game. You can't reuse existing content - it would need to be designed from the ground up to support that mechanic and vanilla dogfights, and it would need to be balanced for both modes for it to be 'optional'.
Would it be possible to implement? Probably, since it's reusing elements already in place. But would it be a worthwhile addition and would it be justifiable to rework existing and future content to support both modes? How much work would you have to put into it to make it interesting and different enough from ground battles? Would it even be possible to do that, given current and future limitiations and extension to ground-based battlescape gameplay?
-
Just reading this, it honestly looks like a waste of time. I could make a better argument for being able to run two Battlescape scenarios at once using the same turn cycles (that argument being mods with units that can teleport great distances through supertech/magic being able to swap between fronts) than for completely overhauling the interception mechanics to use the Battlescape. And even that would likely be a huge waste of time to implement compared to its limited use.
Yeah, the interception mechanics kind of stink. Even OCXE's additions don't do much to make them suck less - even Enemy Within has more strategic punch than vanilla UFO and TFTD thanks to consumable items, and that game's Geoscape is way simpler! It's just a reminder that the main focus of the game is in the tactical Battlescape, not the strategic Geoscape. Remember that item capacity limits didn't work right in vanilla! (nor did loading a save file's difficulty, and that was one byte!) Plus, it's old. The original engine creaks under its own weight, requiring two different executables for both Geoscape and Battlescape. It's likely that fancy dogfights just weren't possible. Yes, OpenXcom/OCXE could have fixed it (like Quest for Glory II VGA did the combat system up nicely, making swordfights actually interesting when you weren't just throwing OP fireballs at everyone) but OpenXcom was meant largely as a reimplementation of the original engine, while OCXE is based on it. Clue's in the name.
Go ahead and implement this crazy idea yourself if you like, but personally, if I were to do it, I would keep it real time. Turn-based combat works best when there's enough tactical/strategic depth to consider or characters to control that doing it in real time wouldn't work. Like X-COM. Making a dogfight turn-based when it's a matter of "shoot the bad thing and dodge boolet" is just a boring, slogged down version of autoresolve. If, however, you make it real time, you're telling the player that "you can gain an advantage by performing the right actions at the right time" - and even if you can't really do that, it's usually inoffensive and quick.
You already spend most of the game on the Battlescape - having to do it twice for most battles would just be terrible.
-
What did they use in UFO the two sides? I remember hearing that their implementation was quite good. Personally I use the Air combat rebalanced mod which i think really improves the air combat making it more challenging and the weapons better balanced.