[Suggestion] Laser Cannon variable Rge, Dam and Acc Based on altitude

[aceshigh]

Hey everyone,

I wanted to bring up something that has always bugged me about the Laser Cannon in XCOM (1994). As it stands, the weapon has:

Damage: 70
Range: 21 km
Accuracy: 35%
The major issue is the fixed range—a laser weapon should not behave like a projectile-based cannon with a hard limit. In reality, lasers do not have a set range, but their effectiveness is influenced by atmospheric conditions, scattering, and beam divergence. This means that altitude should play a major role in how the Laser Cannon performs during air combat.

How Altitude Should Affect Laser Performance
Higher altitudes have lower air density, meaning there are fewer particles to scatter and absorb the laser energy. This would logically lead to:

Increased Range – The beam would travel farther with less scattering.
Higher Accuracy – Less atmospheric distortion would mean a more precise shot.
Potentially Increased Damage – More of the laser energy reaches the target instead of being absorbed by air molecules.
Conversely, at lower altitudes, where air is denser:

Shorter Range – More scattering reduces effective distance.
Lower Accuracy – Beam distortion from refraction and turbulence.
Slightly Lower Damage – Energy absorption in the atmosphere.
Possible Game Implementation
If OpenXCom were to make these adjustments, UFO altitude during interceptions could determine how the Laser Cannon behaves. For example:

High altitude (>15 km) → Full range (maybe 30–40 km), full damage (70), and better accuracy.
Medium altitude (~8–15 km) → Current stats (range 21 km, damage 70, accuracy 35%).
Low altitude (<8 km) → Reduced range (~15 km or less), slight damage drop (maybe 60), and lower accuracy (~25%).
This would also add a tactical layer where engaging UFOs at high altitude is preferable for laser-based weapons, while projectile weapons (like cannons and missiles) perform better at lower altitudes where there is air resistance for laser attenuation to be less of an issue.

What do you all think? Would this be feasible to implement as an optional feature in OpenXCom?

Looking forward to your thoughts!


EDIT: the ruleset is very simple
craftWeapons:
  - type: STR_LASER_CANNON_UC
    sprite: 4
    sound: 8
    damage: 70
    range: 21
    accuracy: 35
    reloadCautious: 24
    reloadStandard: 24
    reloadAggressive: 24
    ammoMax: 50
    rearmRate: 50
    launcher: STR_LASER_CANNON
    projectileType: 4


maybe a possible solution would be to create three versions of the Laser Cannon (STR_LASER_CANNON_HIGH, STR_LASER_CANNON_MED, STR_LASER_CANNON_LOW), each with different stats.

And then use a script or event trigger to swap out which version is used based on UFO altitude. If OpenXCom Extended (OXCE) exposes UFO altitude as a variable, a custom script could adjust the Laser Cannon stats dynamically before engaging in combat.

A simpler way might be to modify the interception accuracy/damage formula in OpenXCom's engine to apply a bonus or penalty based on altitude.

[Delian]

I don't think this would be a useful feature.

Also, https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php?topic=11631.0

[aceshigh]

I don't think this would be a useful feature.

LASER cannon is always considered useless because of it's range. But also saw many criticisms to mods that increase it's range.

And ANYWAY, it's unrealistic the way it works now.

The feature would be useful because it would make the Laser Cannon useful (which it isn´t) while at the same time not making it overpowered. Your usage of it will depend of UFO altitude.

Also, https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php?topic=11631.0

I read it. Don´t see what's wrong.


1. Open a new thread in this board (https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/board,35.0.html)
OK
2. Give it a good name
OK I guess
3. Describe what you want to achieve (e.g. via use case, example, etc.)
OK
4. Don't panic if I don't respond immediately
OK

- one thread = one feature request... if you put more than one request into a thread, there's a good chance I will ignore it completely as spam
OK, as far as I understand, it's a single feature request

- describe the requirement/problem, not only the solution... there are many solutions to the same problem, and I will likely come up with a different solution (so if the problem is not described well, you will be double-disappointed, because I will do a different solution than you wanted AND the problem might not even be solved)
OK, I guess I did it?

- I accept QoL features from anyone (modders and players)
I have no idea what QoL feature is.

- I accept modding features ONLY from modders (either established modders, or new modders who have already published something non-trivial)
Ok, my request is not for any mod, so not a modding feature.

- I do not accept private requests (i.e. some new feature for your own private mod, which you will not share with anyone)
Ok, not a private request

- I don't have much time anymore, don't panic if I don't answer within 1 day... written answer and/or just a categorization of the request can take several weeks, implementation can take months or even years depending on complexity and priority
OK

[Meridian]

New features can be roughly categorized into 3 categories (it's not perfect, but it's also not the worst):

1. QoL features (stands for quality of life) -- these are features that don't change the game mechanics / game physics / game internal guts... basically cosmetic features. Like for example a new hotkey for something, or a new screen to show some new useless statistic, or a new link somewhere to do something a bit quicker. Something that doesn't require a mod to turn it on.

2. Modding features are basically anything that requires a mod to turn the feature on. So adding any new attribute to the existing modding ruleset language counts as a modding feature.

3. Technical features are things like: use a different rendering engine, use a different yaml library, load mods directly from zip files, support a new platform or operating system, etc.


Your suggestion falls into the modding feature category because it would require a mod to be turned on.

[aceshigh]

New features can be roughly categorized into 3 categories (it's not perfect, but it's also not the worst):

1. QoL features (stands for quality of life) -- these are features that don't change the game mechanics / game physics / game internal guts... basically cosmetic features. Like for example a new hotkey for something, or a new screen to show some new useless statistic, or a new link somewhere to do something a bit quicker. Something that doesn't require a mod to turn it on.

2. Modding features are basically anything that requires a mod to turn the feature on. So adding any new attribute to the existing modding ruleset language counts as a modding feature.

3. Technical features are things like: use a different rendering engine, use a different yaml library, load mods directly from zip files, support a new platform or operating system, etc.


Your suggestion falls into the modding feature category because it would require a mod to be turned on.

gee, damn, I got completely wrong what the modding feature meant. I was thinking it were features that modders needed for their mods to work or extend their mods.
I suppose I could re-create the thread at the modding support and maybe work with others on how to implement it?

Does my topic on smooth zoom directly on the Battlescape falls on QoL or Technical Feature?

[Meridian]

Does my topic on smooth zoom directly on the Battlescape falls on QoL or Technical Feature?

it's a technical feature

as for feasibility: I don't know how to implement it... if someone else knows how to do it (and it wouldn't mean rewriting the whole engine, we can discuss if and how it could be merged)

[aceshigh]

it's a technical feature

as for feasibility: I don't know how to implement it... if someone else knows how to do it (and it wouldn't mean rewriting the whole engine, we can discuss if and how it could be merged)

A technical feature for QoL 
Just something that it would make it so much easier to play specially in smaller screens, while at the same time you want sometimes a broader view of the battlescape. Zoom to move and precision, zoom out for tactical planning.


Maybe just bringing the 1x, 2x, 3x options to the battlescape bottom menu would be enough. Like a - and + button, increasing or decreasing the zoom as if we were changing it from the options menu.