Messages

1

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

« on: March 19, 2024, 05:57:02 pm »

This time I got Gertrude Ellison mission early (March 1998) so even my best agents had melee accuracy of 65-70 (no ninja training yet).

Gertrude Ellison has 1.2*Reactions (i.e. 65) melee dodge with zero penalties from the back and sides. This means that it is essentially impossible to succeed in melee stunning her at least with this kind of melee accuracy. I spent a couple of turns with 5+ agents prodding her.

Then I got fed up, and used Milkors with Stun clips. That killed her (as I feared it could). No matter, she wouldn't reveal anything all that important anyway.

But this made me really wonder, is it really intentional to make her reliable capture so difficult? She has better melee dodge than even the BL assassins (1.0*RE) and Master Lo Wo (1.0*RE). I don't understand this if this is really intentionally balanced this way.

A shotgun with rubber bullets can be obtained right at the start of the game.

2

The X-Com Files / Re: EMP equipment and its damage

« on: February 29, 2024, 07:22:36 pm »

I just tried a quick battle, and this is the result. The MiB robot stepped on three mines and then went to sleep. So either EMP was less potent when you tried (don't know if it ever was?), or you got unlucky.

I don't know how Stone Lake managed to one-hit both his targets, though.

Edit: OK, he seems to have been quite lucky. (100 power * 50-150% damage roll * 35% damage resistance - 90 under armour * 25% armour efficiency) * (100% HP and 400% stun) = (35 average - 22.5) * 5 =  77.5 (range of 0-150) vs 96 health, it's something like 20% chance to happen twice in a row.

Its looking smart.

3

The X-Com Files / Re: EMP equipment and its damage

« on: February 29, 2024, 04:23:39 pm »

At least some have made it work in reality, see for example the tactics against MIB strike ship here: https://youtu.be/f3oDM_t8gV8?si=vxWs_IkfHgTt8BoA&t=1352

The problem seems to be more that you may need to avoid over-EMPing them so that they get stunned, not die off.

When I did this against the Ethereal sectopod, 5 mines did not cause any damage to the sectopod.

4

The X-Com Files / Re: EMP equipment and its damage

« on: February 29, 2024, 03:12:47 pm »

On another note, the dependencies for EMP weapons are somewhat strange.

In real life, the existence of EMP has been well-documented for a long time, although I admit I do not know how and if it has been miniaturized for use of EMP grenades, for example. But I suppose being able to obtain or manufacture EMP weapons after Promo III in 1998-1999 timeframe should not really be a major issue.

In XCF getting EMP is gated through Jarhead investigation, which is dependent on Jarhead autopsy.The only two ways for you to initially get Jarheads is either through Jarhead terror mission (7 % chance starting month 20) or by raiding at least level 2 Dagon manor (the best chance, if you let one grow, but upgrades are also RNG-dependent). So all in all, without good RNG, you might be stuck for a long time without access to EMP. Which would make many things a lot more straightforward and also eventually enables capturing and repurposing sectopods, for example.

How to fix this? If the dependencies are not completely restructured, my other suggestion would be to create two mission scripts: jarheadTerrorEarly and jarheadTerrorLate, like with many other similar instances. The first would have a higher trigger rate, like 20 or 25 % with STR_JARHEAD_INVESTIGATION: false. The latter would have lower percentage, such as 5 % or less, with STR_JARHEAD_INVESTIGATION: true. That way, like in numerous other instances, the probability of initial jarhead encounters would be increased until you have gone forward with the jarhead research.

I was also naive and thought to take the sectopod with emp devices. It's a pity that it won't work in reality.

5

The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 3.2: The Colors of Sin

« on: February 27, 2024, 09:11:03 pm »

If my memory serves me correctly, besides blaster missiles, heavy plasma also occasionally may destroy the ground. And in general, in vanilla, the strongest block was the ufo wall. But I may be wrong.

6

The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 3.2: The Colors of Sin

« on: February 26, 2024, 11:23:33 pm »

Not quite indestructible. Blaster Launcher would destroy a single tile of Dirt Wall to each side.

A wall of earth can be destroyed by a lot of things, even by hitting the fist of a power suit. But there are really indestructible (?) blocks in the game. For example, the steel walls of the syndicate headquarters, or similar walls around the brain room of the orbital station.

7

The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 3.2: The Colors of Sin

« on: February 26, 2024, 06:56:52 pm »

An interesting tactic - I hadn't considered digging through the walls to get easier access to the brain. As I recall in OG the walls were indestructible.

In fact, I expected the wall to be indestructible. If I remember correctly, there were indestructible blocks on the orbital station in my previous playthrough.

8

The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 3.2: The Colors of Sin

« on: February 26, 2024, 10:42:05 am »

                     Superhuman ironman done.

9

The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 3.2: The Colors of Sin

« on: February 24, 2024, 05:46:35 pm »

Um dont`t you see the hipocrisy in your post? You are telling Juku to not impose his way of playing but you are imposing your on everyone "cause I am playing this way"?
If you do not want to use Hangar mod then do not. Others who have different way of playing th game might want to use it. It was created for a reason after all and first Hangar mod was years ago.

I've been reading this topic for a while, and the paradox here is that many insist on introducing a variety of hangars into the game. They put pressure on Scorch stating that it is absolutely necessary. Scorch cannot implement this on the oxce engine, since hangars of different types are currently possible only on the brutal engine. I'm trying to defend the point of view that expanded hangars are not needed by the original XCF mod. This will throw an interesting piece of management in the trash. If someone needs it, they can install a submod. It doesn't bother me at all.

10

The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 3.2: The Colors of Sin

« on: February 22, 2024, 09:12:03 pm »

I just tried, four Thunderstorms with Heavy Pikes did it without losses and could coordinate more or less globally. So not true.

Stormlances most likely work as well, and even Heavy Stingrays might do something depending on luck (and with heavy casualties).
Not if the Battleships fly around and intercept your planes, especially the transports that are on a timer before the UFOs take off again. And Thunderstorms are better than Ravens, IMO.
That was my point, you need either several strike bases or sufficient hangars to base-hop. The hangar requirements are the same or even worse in the latter case.
Which is a problem with the mod as a strategy game. You should be taking enough losses on the ground and be presented with enough at least moderately useful missions that this kind of 'doomstacking' is impossible to do, or leads to serious penalties.
But I want to accumulate crap, like a proper loot goblin secret paramilitary! What kind of secret anti-alien task force does not have rows and rows of containment tanks filled with captured aliens, and stores bursting with super-secret alien tech? Are you trying to run some sort of cheap knockoff?!




Edit: I think the one thing that looks increasingly appealing to me is to make the opposition actually coordinate their missions so just hopping from one to the other with the Kitsune and occasionally swatting a UFO won't work. Something like the UFO swarms/waves adopted by several (most?) more modern X-Com-likes.

I don't have any problems with my playing style at all. In the future, after a couple of patches, I will try to play 3 bases. And I will also do defensive construction. This requires compromise solutions and frees the game from unnecessary garbage management. I don't understand why you impose your style of play.

But the main thing I'm trying to explain is that the expansion of hangars is not necessary. This is a strong simplification.

11

The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 3.2: The Colors of Sin

« on: February 22, 2024, 07:16:37 pm »

How do you deal with a swarm of UFOs, like a base mission? The ones with multiple Battleships? Currently, the answer is mostly "I don't" or "Let them land" or "use endgame craft", which is not really what X-Com's mission is.

Nevermind how you get good global transport coverage with just three hangars before the Kitsune, base-hopping or no base-hopping. Interceptors or no, you need hangars for transport craft. Or how you handle multiple important missions even with the Kitsune, like two terrors or the aforementioned base building swarm.

This also dovetails into the fact that the current air game is not particularly engaging. I recall UFO:ET had mods (Bman's and Unimod) that featured giant UFO swarms all over the globe. I had great fun trying to stretch my interceptor fleet to match them, shoot most of them down where I could launch ground missions, and I think there were even bounties for shooting some down within a time limit?

Xenonauts also had waves of UFOs performing their missions at the same time, forcing you to have an actual interception fleet. And there was also the fuel management part, where you couldn't launch from too far away, otherwise your in-combat performance suffered.

There is nothing like that in XCF, barring freak accidents like a base building mission and two terrors and a retaliation all going off within hours of each other.

Before the appearance of the tormentor, we have no chance of shooting down the battleship anyway. Everything except the battleship and flying UFOs is shot down by raven or a starfighter. There are 2-3 of them for the whole and globe. Exactly the same as the assault squad. Having 5 bases, I have 3 combat bases for 3-4 hangars. And two more bases - scientific and industrial. There are 10 scientists on all bases except the scientific one. At the scientific 90. Engineers are only on a scientific basis (150~) and on a production basis (250~). There is 1 empty  hangar each at the scientific and production bases. By the end of the game, you can generally play 1 basic assault craft. You just need to not be lazy and do management and throw out unnecessary garbage.

12

The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 3.2: The Colors of Sin

« on: February 22, 2024, 02:44:12 pm »

He means these lines:

Code: [Select]

facilities:
  - type: STR_HANGARX4_3X3
    provideBaseFunc: [ AEROSHOP ]


Code: [Select]

manufacture:
  - override: STR_ALLOY_SKYRANGER
    requiresBaseFunc: [AEROSHOP, WORKS]




Heavily IMO, but the current/vanilla situation does not create interesting management, it just kneecaps anything that's not a space-optimised base.

All bases need to be at least minimally interception bases, because you only get 8. Any kind of real specialisation means you want only one hangar. But a manufacturing base also needs an extra hangar, so you either need two bases, one for crafts and one for other stuff; or spread stuff around piecemeal. Although manufacturing is discouraged heavily enough that this does not matter too much.

Want meaningful defense facilities? Take 5-6 squares off the base, at least, probably 8+; until late game.

Want to store your surplus loot/captives somewhere? That's another full base, at least.

Want defensive base layouts and isolated lifts/hangars? Too bad, every square needs to be used for actually productive facilities.

Want to train up Psi/new agents/defense meatshields? Another base, or Psi Labs/Gyms in most bases.

Never mind the extra facilities that creep into every megamod, like infirmiaries, sensoriums, progression-related facilities (Lunar Control), specialised versions of labs/workshops... There are a million things to build, and only the same 36 squares as in the original game with for its noticeably smaller list of facilities.

And hangars are the worst base space hogs bar none, since they're a) practically mandatory and b) 1/9 of the whole base.

At least the 'more than 8 bases' option in Brutal OXCE alleviates this quite a bit. But unless we get either multiple floors or bases with more than 36 squares, base management remains a case of artificial difficulty, very much like NuCom's 'pick one of three abductions' mechanic. And I think both of these have already been rejected by OXC(E) devs? So, yeah.

In the current game, I have 5 bases, and only three have hangars with interceptors. I have no problems with this style of play.

13

The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 3.2: The Colors of Sin

« on: February 22, 2024, 01:04:39 pm »

Basically this mod restricts ALL crafts that need manufactured to require to be built in this facility.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

I almost completed the game for the second time on the maximum difficulty of iron man.

The standard situation with hangars creates interesting management, where hybrid, research or production bases have to sacrifice something for the sake of a large number of hangars. This management is especially felt more acutely if the base has a defensive structure and is separated from modules with enemy respawn by a footbridge. By simplifying this aspect, we will remove this interesting management from the game. But I agree that for a car, a 1*1 garage would be a logical solution and would not greatly upset the balance.

14

The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 3.2: The Colors of Sin

« on: February 22, 2024, 12:51:46 pm »

sort of slavic sarcasm-lite

I am not worthy of respect. But I feel bad for Scorch at this moment.

15

The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 3.2: The Colors of Sin

« on: February 20, 2024, 09:38:16 am »

I just posted a complete overhaul to my X-Com Files Hangar Expansion Pack mod.


New Mod Link
https://mod.io/g/openxcom/m/facility-expansion-pack-x-com-files

I haven't tested base retaliation, everything else works as expected.


Solarius Scorch, I'd be curios to get your take and any interest to incorpoarte this submore into the main XCF?  You are welcome to if you want. 

There are no problems with classic hangars right now. Just a gentle compulsion to a little base management. This submod will simply cut out of the game all the need to make a decision on hangars and crafts. Do you want to have any kind of transport on each base? Why stop there? Promote modules in the same way so that storage facilities are unlimited, and residential modules, and so that weapons do not need to be recharged and so that sanity is not consumed. It is very comfortable.

But seriously, a car garage can still be considered. Hangar 3*3 for 4 crafts completely breaks the management of the base.