Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Bananas_Akimbo

Pages: [1] 2 3
The X-Com Files / Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« on: March 22, 2020, 02:46:29 am »
Stuff like that with all kinds of melee attacks has happened to me so often, that I've simply come to accept it instead of thinking to submit it as a bug. Reloading never helped with it either.

The X-Com Files / Re: Yet another question about guns and ammo
« on: March 13, 2020, 11:28:57 pm »
That doesn't make sense to me. Even if guns use the same ammunition, they still use different magazines (with some exceptions and those are represented in the game). Having ammo and magazines as seperate items would be a hassle to play and a hassle to code I imagine.
And what do you mean by:
This would add some life to older weapons which can accept large ammo types.
Do you mean put larger caliber ammunition into a gun, than it usually holds? That is physically impossible.

You get stronger ammunition for many old weapons later on, made out of alien alloys.

The X-Com Files / Re: First mission: panic?
« on: March 13, 2020, 08:54:05 pm »
Since we are again at the topic of changing the readiness system, I'll throw in my 2 cents.
My favourite thing about readiness is, how it forces you to rest your soldiers between missions, like in Long War. In vanilla X-Com it has always bothered me a bit, how you could just throw the same small group of people into battle non-stop, 7 days a week and more, with no regard for their well-being beyond getting wounded.
If it was up to me, this aspect could be even more pronounced.

Limiting readiness loss to missions with "supernatural" enemies would also affect the need to rest your troops, right? That would be bad.
And really, if you are being loose with the definition, most enemy groups could be called "supernatural". All of the wild creatures and zombies fit the bill, don't they? The various cults also do to some degree. I mean you are fighting creepy fish-people, russians on alien steroids, and freaking ninjas. They are all weirdos except for Exalt and Osiron.

I would like to propose, that readiness depletion simply be slowed (how much? dunno, half maybe?), to accomodate slower players and that readiness regeneration in the geoscape is then also slowed (by the same factor or even more).

The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 1.2: Masters of the Universe
« on: March 13, 2020, 04:43:51 pm »

Indeed one of the first things I noticed when playing XCF for the first time after having tried Piratez before, was the incredible usefulness of pistols. Pistols and to a lesser degree shotguns rule the battlefield in the early game with its small maps and poorly equipped or melee enemies and they remain very useful long after that. The potential damage output is so much higher than rifles thanks to very low TU costs and good accuracy at short ranges. Add to that the ability to wield melee weapons/grenades/shields in your offhand. Pistols only become a liability on wide open maps with little cover or against well-armoured foes.
I still mostly use rifles for their versatility and for aesthetic reasons (pistols go well with agents in coats and kevlar vests but not so much with military gear). Recently, however, I have considered giving more of my soldiers pistols again, not just as sidearms for snipers. TU-intensive aimed shots from rifles draw a lot more enemy reaction fire than fast pistol shots, which is a big problem.
I'm still mostly fine with the balance between rifles and pistols, because they each excel in different areas.
I'm more concerned with SMGs. They are really just inferior pistols. The added auto-option never gives you as many hits per turn as snap shots from a pistol would, unless you are so close to the target, that you might as well switch to melee. This as bad, since pistols and SMGs mostly serve the same purpose, being small, lightweight, often concealable and fast-firing short range weapons. So far, I only found the BlackOps SMG and the P90 to be worthwhile.

The X-Com Files / Re: Readiness mechanics discussion
« on: March 01, 2020, 03:23:54 pm »
Hmm, it's not perfect, but I quite like the idea of making readiness depletion dependant on xp gain.

The only downside I can think of, is that it doesn't really account for failure.

Imagine a mission going pear-shaped. Your squad gets shot at a lot, panicked, maybe even mind-controlled. You decide it's not worth it and abort. Your squad gets out mostly unharmed. Because they didn't land a lot of hits, their readiness only drops a little. That doesn't make much sense to me. An unsuccessful mission, where your soldiers were in a lot of danger, should be at least as taxing as a long successful mission. Then again, most missions won't be like that, or else your campaign will be a short one.

Another example: Consider an unskilled soldier swinging wildly at an enemy, missing again and again. Another soldier comes along and knocks out the enemy in one swing. The first soldier loses no readiness in this case, even though he should be losing more than the second one.

In both cases I doubt the player would even notice, that readiness wasn't impacted as much as it should have been realistically.

I don't think it's possible to have a system, which is very close to realistic, without being overly complicated or unfun.
Tying readiness depletion to xp gain seems like an okay solution to me.

The X-Com Files / Re: [Suggestion] Ai Armor
« on: February 02, 2020, 08:34:15 pm »
Oops, looks like I forgot to block its left hand... -_-'

Sorry, this drone has no hands, I can't allow it to hold equipment :)

Oh no! I just found out, that this is possible and now that "feature" will be removed.
Giving my drone a stungun or even some dynamite is hilarious. (I know it makes no sense.)

The X-Com Files / Re: Soundtrack inspired by action movies of the past
« on: January 22, 2020, 11:35:24 am »
I don't know. It's just my personal opinion, but generally I don't like it when I recognize music (and other assets) from somewhere else. It just takes me out of the experience.

The X-Com Files / Re: Shogg Lantern vs Flashlight
« on: January 21, 2020, 04:59:57 pm »
Nah I only use flashlights in easy missions (like crop circles, cult apprehension, monsters without ranged attack), so I don't have to faff about with flares.
Flares are still pretty good, though, if you can deal with the extra hassle.

The X-Com Files / Re: Shogg Lantern vs Flashlight
« on: January 21, 2020, 01:44:29 pm »
You're wrong. Flashlights also don't turn off, when on the ground. Whether you drop or throw them.
Worst of all, unlike flares they are turned on by default and so they illuminate your landing zone, if you leave them in your stash. (Never bring more, than you intend to equip on your soldiers.)

The advantage of flashlights over normal flares is, that they illuminate a greater area. And you can use them as a weapon.
So trace flares make them obsolete, in my opinion, if you can ever make enough.

The X-Com Files / Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« on: January 19, 2020, 03:17:09 pm »
In my main base I can build the advanced intelligence center without first having built the normal one. I am only deducted the cost of the upgrade (money and time), not the cost of the base building + upgrade.
This isn't possible in any other bases. There I need to have built the base building first but I can still build the advanced intelligence center on a different square for merely the upgrade cost.

Another, similar problem. I must be doing something wrong. Can't build virtualized HQ over normal HQ in my South American base. It says 'facility in use' even though there's enough space left in labs and stores.

The X-Com Files / Re: Readiness mechanics discussion
« on: January 19, 2020, 10:07:19 am »
I have ambivalent feelings about the readiness system so far.

I like how it forces you to rest your soldiers between missions and expand your roster as a result.

I am mostly indifferent about the in-mission effects. Mostly it feels like added complexity without an increase in gameplay value.
The stamina meter, though simplistic, always seemed adequate at simulating physical exertion in a long battle. Easy to understand, easy to manage, very punishing if you run out at the wrong time.

About the morale effect, I must confess I haven't even noticed that one until I read about it here. I guess I must have been lucky. Bughunting never took me long enough for my soldiers to freak out.
Still, I don't like the idea of punishing the player this way. Punishing campers I understand, but it isn't always up to the player how long a mission lasts. Searching for the last enemies after a successful fight can't be that stressful, at least not any more stressful than the preceding combat.
I also can't think of any scenario, where soldiers would be so mentally depleted after a long battle, that they start losing their minds and possibly shooting at their comrades. That's a bit extreme.
What would make sense, is if soldiers low on readiness took higher morale damage from the usual sources. That could also apply to stun.

The first item is to agree on what a game turn is. Based on numerous posts, it appears each turn is equivalent to 1 to 2 minutes of real life. This means a base defense or Cydonia, with 100 turns can be between around 1.5 to 3 hours of fight.

Strange, to me a turn seems very short. Based on the actions a soldier can perform with full TUs, like shooting a bunch of rounds on full-auto (+time for aiming) or running a short distance, I was thinking mere seconds. No more than 30 seconds. Very short turns would also explain rookies' inaccurate firing, since they don't really have much time to take aim in a frantic combat situation. It would also explain how they run out of stamina so fast.
All of this is assuming, that a lot of the actions, which happen within a turn, are happening at the same time or at least overlapping.

The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files online Wiki
« on: January 12, 2020, 11:42:59 pm »
Upper right corner. It's the same functionality as motion scanner.

Edit: Now with picture.

The X-Com Files / Re: Funding questions
« on: January 12, 2020, 04:05:55 pm »
Bug or not, there are more important facilities to build. :)

Agreed. You don't really need a high detection rate.

The X-Com Files / Re: Funding questions
« on: January 12, 2020, 12:48:46 pm »
Only ONE radar system works at the same time, so you no need to maintain more than ONE radar system on each base. The difference between them is about percentage of UFO detection.

But wasn't that a bug in vanilla, which is now fixed? So having both kinds of radar adds up, as well as having several of the same type.

The X-Com Files / Re: Funding questions
« on: January 12, 2020, 01:15:51 am »
Same thing here. I've had this in several campaigns so far.

It seems that countries, which start at very low funding, never increase their funding, ever. I don't think there are any external influences like alien bases at fault, but I can't be sure.
My theory is, that when current funding is below a certain threshold (maybe 10.000?), then any increase will be rounded down to zero.

So basically those countries are a lost cause from the beginning and there is nothing, that can be done about it.
Hopefully, I'm wrong.

Then again, you're not losing out on much money, anyway. Look at your other lowest funding countries. Even if they increase their contribution every month, it still never amounts to much. Typically, countries, that contribute big to your budget in the beginning, will do so throughout the game and vice versa. Unless you screw up big time, that will never change.

Pages: [1] 2 3