Messages

1

The X-Com Files / Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste

« on: November 18, 2024, 04:21:04 pm »

I've found another place where the English is a little 'wrong'.  Not game-breaking of course, just a weird way to put it.

In the 'wrecked alien light plasma turret' description it says 'relies of external source.'  A better phrase would be 'relies on an external power source'.

2

The X-Com Files / Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste

« on: October 27, 2024, 01:08:51 pm »

I think "yet" would be better than "but", but I'm not sure if "but" would be wrong either. Or if this is what OP meant.

But to be honest, I'm not even sure what the whole sentence is trying to say. Are these supposed to be as good *and* functioning (but still addictive?), and the difference is that you can get these from the markets and don't need to join the exalt gang to feed your addiction? If so, the sentence could be rephrased.

Might I suggest shortening the sentence to '...which works just as well but won't force you into joining an alien army in exchange.'  It makes more sense that way to a native English speaker.

3

OXCE Support / Re: Agents Being Able To Actually Lay Prone, Is It Possible?

« on: October 19, 2024, 07:41:54 pm »

No, someone would need to change code to add this, another is dedicated graphic need to display prone unit.
Even more if we even allow prone it bit useless as each time you try move unit would need get up, move to next tile and
lay down. Changing that would require even more changes to engine to support different move positions.

Yea, I didn't think it was possible otherwise it would've been done already, but I had to ask

4

OXCE Support / Agents Being Able To Actually Lay Prone, Is It Possible?

« on: October 19, 2024, 04:29:50 pm »

I've been playing XCOM-type games for decades now, right from the original 'Laser Squad' on an Amstrad CPC (with a 4-track tape drive!), but one thing that bugs me is that while the characters can KNEEL they can't lay PRONE.   After playing Jagged Alliance 2 and it's mods this gets even more bugging in XCOM as there are times when it would be useful, like hiding behind rocks and such or having a sniper on a roof.

Is this even possible with the Openxcom engine?

5

The X-Com Files / Re: the frustration about base size

« on: August 16, 2024, 09:31:28 pm »

Agree.  You don't need every facility on every base.  I personally have one main HQ/research base with one or two hangars and my main elite 'action squad' based there, one main construction/storage base (usually in Antarctica) with one hangar to build craft, and the rest are interceptor bases with a secondary mission craft function for when the mission is on the other side of the globe from the main base or if there are multiple missions at once.  When you get large prisons one of the interceptor bases can function as the main prison to hold prisoners and send them to the research base to be 'interrogated'.  Before that I have at least one holding facility and animal pen at each base for the 'overspill' from the HQ.

6

The X-Com Files / Re: the frustration about base size

« on: August 16, 2024, 09:27:47 pm »

The current design of facilities provides a lot of tradeoffs. This is a good thing because players have multiple viable options how to go about their bases, not just one or just put everything in it. Because you can have 8 bases and you can cover the most important areas with 4-5 bases, you have some to spare. So actually the answer for you is that you don't need to try cram everything in single base (or all of your bases) but you need some variability.

Agree.  You don't need every facility on every base.  I personally have one main research base with one or two hangars and my main elite 'action squad' based there, one main construction/storage base (usually in Antarctica) with one hangar to build craft, and the rest are interceptor bases with a secondary mission craft function for when the mission is on the other side of the globe from the main base or if there are multiple missions at once.

7

XPiratez / Re: A thread for little questions

« on: August 08, 2024, 04:18:34 pm »

X-Prison allows AIRBUS*058, AIRBUS, AIRVAN, SPECTOR, RAIL POD

Thanks.  Been a while since I did an x-prison, but am near to doing it in my present run.  I don't have a Spector so it's the old faithful Airbus for the extra crew member when compared to the Airvan.

8

XPiratez / Re: A thread for little questions

« on: August 07, 2024, 11:57:38 pm »

Just in case, make a Shipyard/Radar base, and keep the ships you can't manufacture or buy there. As far I can recall you CAN'T use the Faust for X-Prison

The original airbus is the only craft you can use for the x-prison as far as I can remember.  You can sell it/send it to another base for smaller missions after you've completed the prison mission.  Well, you can do it before that, but I like to send my original gals (or whoever is left of them) on the x-prison mission.

9

The X-Com Files / Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste

« on: July 20, 2024, 04:49:01 pm »

Hey, having an issue with the game crashing.
This is the error msg:
A fatal error has occurred: Error occurred while trying to determine waypoint for mission type: STR_ALIEN_ABDUCTION in region: REGION_NATASHA_MOROZOVA_HIDEOUT, mission tried to find a waypoint in zone 5 but this region only has zones valid up to 1.

To recreate just load the game save and let the world map run for a bit,  click away the first few ufo sightings.

That's been reported before and it was fixed a month or two ago in the github build

https://github.com/SolariusScorch/XComFiles

10

The X-Com Files / Re: AH-6 weapons

« on: July 13, 2024, 03:28:49 pm »

Blackops miniguns and RPG-7s/rocket launchers are good against cults.

11

The X-Com Files / Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste

« on: June 20, 2024, 08:08:07 pm »

getting a crash for Natasha population I believe. Anyway to fix this in text file ?

That's been fixed in the github version

github.com/SolariusScorch/XComFiles

12

The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 3.3: Mysteries Ancient And New

« on: May 31, 2024, 04:44:09 pm »

Something I thought of, maybe for weapon acquisition, 'local' arms should be acquirable a bit easier. Like if you have a starting base in around the Europe area, you can acquire FAMAS, FALs and other appropriate weapons a bit earlier than normal.

Looking at it, promotion I to II ain't that long or difficult, but could be an interesting flavor to base location choice. Shouldn't be too hard to stumble across some local arms for the shady black project

I tend to do this myself as a 'quirk' of my playstayle.  M16s in the USA, Steyr AUGs in Australia (their army uses them), AKs in Russia and Africa and the FALs/FAMAS/L85s in Europe.  If I can get enough of them from raiding cults that is.

Getting them earlier would be good, maybe gated behind recruiting the quartermaster first (he has certain 'contacts' I suppose).

I move on to Blackops weapons in every base, then Pulse weapons when they become available.  Lasers are the next step.  I haven't played a game long enough to get Plasma weapons as I like to restart when Solarius does an upgrade to the early game (I use the Github releases).

13

The X-Com Files / Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste

« on: May 24, 2024, 11:30:11 pm »

I don't know exactly what happened with REGION_NATASHA_MOROZOVA_HIDEOUT, but I see that it had two mission zones instead of just one, so I merged them. Hopefully this will be enough to prevent any further accidents.

I have updated GitHub. To those players who use it instead of waiting for an official release: please test it. (Note that changes will only apply starting next month.)
If this doesn't work, I'll do more extensive fixing.

That seems to have sorted the problem as I had an abduction mission with no problems.  Thank you.

[Spoiler]

14

The X-Com Files / Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste

« on: May 21, 2024, 12:43:55 am »

This is true, but the alien abduction missions in XCF have been redifined to have objective: 3 which makes it a site spawning mission and those follow their own rules by what I've understood, rendering the regionWeight irrelevant for this particular mission. I believe the issue lies in that REGION_NATASHA_MOROZOVA_HIDEOUT defines 2 missionZones for reasons unknown to me, perhaps WIP or from an old idea that got discarded, but as far as I could see, the 2nd zone (missionZone 1) is not actively used anywhere, yet for abduction site spawning purposes it's considered valid, at least until it has to spawn the UFOs and then it encounters the issue of no zone 5 (typical UFO entry/exit zones) defined for that region.

The fix in this case should be simple enough if nothing truly requires that missionZone 1, deleting the dash for said zone and allow for its missionAreas to be consolidated into missionZone 0 and thus, the region will no longer be a valid target for abductions.

Currently defined region

Spoiler:

Code: [Select]

- type: REGION_NATASHA_MOROZOVA_HIDEOUT
    missionZones: # European and American mountains, and Ural
      -
        - [142, 142, -73.5, -73.5, -317]
        - [93, 93, -84.5, -84.5, -317]
        - [213, 213, -80, -80, -317]
        - [118, 118, -72, -72, -317]
        - [44, 44, -68, -68, -317]
        - [163, 163, -66, -66, -317]
        - [82, 82, -63, -63, -317]
        - [61, 61, -67, -67, -317]
        - [129, 129, -67, -67, -317]
        - [160, 160, -63, -63, -317]
        - [36.34, 36.34, -68.47, -68.47, -317]
        - [44.81, 44.81, -67.02, -67.02, -317]
      -
        - [158, 158, -55, -55, -316]
        - [105.7, 105.7, -53.87, -53.87, -316]
        - [89, 89, -58, -58, -316]
        - [57, 57, -62, -62, -316]
        - [51, 51, -64, -64, -316]
        - [35, 35, -62, -62, -316]
        - [46.91, 46.91, -60.85, -60.85, -316]
        - [137.64, 137.64, -51.39, -51.39, -316]


Consolidated into single zone

Spoiler:

Code: [Select]

- type: REGION_NATASHA_MOROZOVA_HIDEOUT
    missionZones: # European and American mountains, and Ural
      -
        - [142, 142, -73.5, -73.5, -317]
        - [93, 93, -84.5, -84.5, -317]
        - [213, 213, -80, -80, -317]
        - [118, 118, -72, -72, -317]
        - [44, 44, -68, -68, -317]
        - [163, 163, -66, -66, -317]
        - [82, 82, -63, -63, -317]
        - [61, 61, -67, -67, -317]
        - [129, 129, -67, -67, -317]
        - [160, 160, -63, -63, -317]
        - [36.34, 36.34, -68.47, -68.47, -317]
        - [44.81, 44.81, -67.02, -67.02, -317]
        - [158, 158, -55, -55, -316]
        - [105.7, 105.7, -53.87, -53.87, -316]
        - [89, 89, -58, -58, -316]
        - [57, 57, -62, -62, -316]
        - [51, 51, -64, -64, -316]
        - [35, 35, -62, -62, -316]
        - [46.91, 46.91, -60.85, -60.85, -316]
        - [137.64, 137.64, -51.39, -51.39, -316]


Thanks, I'll try this fix and see if it works.

15

The X-Com Files / Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste

« on: May 21, 2024, 12:40:33 am »

I had a crash with that as well with the 3.4 version from github and openexe 7.11, no mods.

I went into my savegame and deleted all references to 'Natasha' missions and that sorted it.  It hasn't returned in three or four game months since then.

Maybe a holdover from something being changed?

You won;t believe this, but literally an hour or so after I posted that I had the same crash and 'repaired' it in the same way.  It's not game-breaking as I delete the missions from the save, it's just a little annoying.