aliens

Author Topic: Considerations for the THUNDERSTORM craft configuration options.  (Read 8693 times)

Offline Solarius Scorch

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 11448
  • WE MUST DISSENT
    • View Profile
    • Nocturmal Productions modding studio website
Re: Considerations for the THUNDERSTORM craft configuration options.
« Reply #30 on: August 07, 2022, 11:50:02 am »
"Heavy Pike Launcher"? :P Doesn't the same problem already exist for Stingray and Stormlance? I'd give all these topics a few dozen man-hours and call it a day.

But it's not how the Stingray works. There are two projects, but the second one has cost 0, so is unlocked immediately.

If you guys think it's okay, then I'll stick with it and won't touch the older projects.

Offline Juku121

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1620
  • We're all mad here.
    • View Profile
Re: Considerations for the THUNDERSTORM craft configuration options.
« Reply #31 on: August 07, 2022, 12:33:16 pm »
That's why I suggested the 'Heavy Pike Launcher', which would also be a second project. All of these have the drawback of not displaying the second Ufopedia article, even those already in the game.

There are two easy solutions I see: either add some scientist-hours to all the 'Heavy' projects (I mean, someone still has to design the thing, or at least negotiate a contract). Or make a pop-up event where a staff member tells you about it. Since the latter opens the door to doing this all over, I suppose it's not a terribly good idea from a dev POV.

Or just leave them as they are. I don't think it's such a big deal since the game still reminds the player that they can now buy/manufacture both weapons, so the curious can go check out the Pedia and others can skip straight to acquisition.

Offline krautbernd

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: Considerations for the THUNDERSTORM craft configuration options.
« Reply #32 on: August 07, 2022, 06:56:47 pm »
Or just leave them as they are. I don't think it's such a big deal since the game still reminds the player that they can now buy/manufacture both weapons, so the curious can go check out the Pedia and others can skip straight to acquisition.

But it's not how the Stingray works. There are two projects, but the second one has cost 0, so is unlocked immediately.

If you guys think it's okay, then I'll stick with it and won't touch the older projects.

Has anybody actually reported problems with how the existing heavy launchers are unlocked? Just asking.

Offline Solarius Scorch

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 11448
  • WE MUST DISSENT
    • View Profile
    • Nocturmal Productions modding studio website
Re: Considerations for the THUNDERSTORM craft configuration options.
« Reply #33 on: August 08, 2022, 10:29:06 am »
For now I set it up the same as the earlier missiles. It can easily be changed by simply editing research costs.

Offline zee_ra

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile
Re: Considerations for the THUNDERSTORM craft configuration options.
« Reply #34 on: August 23, 2022, 07:42:44 am »
Very strange comment. How can you do any serious mission with DRAGONFLY if they are challenging enough even with OSPREY?
In my playthroughs I always get Kitsune far earlier then I research SKRANGER. It, of course depends on priorities, and I have no incentive to rush for SKRANGER when I have OSPREY.
But CF105-ARROW is not designed for fighting UFOs. It's main purpose is to spot cult mansions. Also it can catch syndicate's DRAGONFLYs while "Little Bird" cannot.
As for armament, pretty much everything can be shot down with Avalanche without taking a backfire. I with there were some benefits to use anything besides Avalanche, but I don't think there is.

It's not entirely impossible to take on a cult mansion with 8 soldiers, armored with heavy tritanium suits.  The caveat is that the automated mortar almost becomes a requirement in such circumstances.  Even rocket launchers are just barely sufficient to consistently win on superhuman.  With 16 soldiers, armored in heavy tactical suits or basic tritanium vests, such missions are far easier, with only 4 common mortars being sufficient, and 2 high explosive, or even dynamic packages per each rifleman.

I think, OSPREY becomes virtually a requirement for most early missions that involve at least a cult base (not even a mansion) at the earlier tech level (i.e. no heavy tritanium suit and no automated mortars).  While the SKYRANGER and SKYMARSHALL could be skipped, and reasonably so, in favor of both Kitsune and Dropshit, the OSPREY appears to be an unskippable requirement for a completionist player (who completes all missions).

Offline zee_ra

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile
Re: Considerations for the THUNDERSTORM craft configuration options.
« Reply #35 on: August 23, 2022, 07:47:24 am »
For now I set it up the same as the earlier missiles. It can easily be changed by simply editing research costs.

I think, it would suffice to merely enable the use of cannons everywhere the beams and heavy missiles could be used.  Also, it would be nice to allow the use of beams everywhere the heavy missiles could be used.  Basically, 3 becomes [0, 1, 3], and 1 becomes [0, 1].  Allowing beams where cannons are available is not really necessary.

Considering the documentation, it might suffice to mention this substitution / compatibility in a general article.  Each specific craft article needs not mention this substitution, and could be understood as outlining a reference usage, which could be extended in a standard way, without being mentioned specifically.

Offline zee_ra

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile
Re: Considerations for the THUNDERSTORM craft configuration options.
« Reply #36 on: August 23, 2022, 07:52:31 am »
A question about the planned heavy version of the Pike: what should it require (besides the Pike itself)? I don't want to give it exactly the same prerequisites, because then you'd only get one article automatically displayed, and that isn't elegant. Then again, I can't think of any prerequisites which wouldn't feel forced.

I tried to make an experimental version of Pike, that fits only in heavy launcher (type 3) slot, and has 4 seconds reload time on aggressive setting, with a magazine on 9.  All other parameters were the same.  It seemed like a good aerial MLRS sort of system.  The conclusion has been as follows.  While such configuration had been advantageous, in the end, it had not proven itself more efficient at large versus gauss cannon based configurations.  Indeed, four THUNDERSTORM crafts with good pilots, and extra accelerators, are sufficient to down even a battleship.  The use of Pike or Stromlance only adds more logistical and production burden.  In fact, with Stormlance, an issue of non-renewable resource utilization is added.


Offline Solarius Scorch

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 11448
  • WE MUST DISSENT
    • View Profile
    • Nocturmal Productions modding studio website
Re: Considerations for the THUNDERSTORM craft configuration options.
« Reply #37 on: August 23, 2022, 11:22:11 am »
I think, it would suffice to merely enable the use of cannons everywhere the beams and heavy missiles could be used.

Um... Sorry, no.

I understand the extra hassle, but I think it'd stretch the engineering limits too much.

Offline Juku121

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1620
  • We're all mad here.
    • View Profile
Re: Considerations for the THUNDERSTORM craft configuration options.
« Reply #38 on: August 23, 2022, 12:45:37 pm »
As I've mentioned before, an aircraft weapon doesn't need to be integrated into the power systems. Modern fighter jets carry most of their weapons, even the autocannons and their ammo, in external and internal modular hardpoints. A 'plasma beam pod' with an integral Elerium power source would be pretty similar to the gun pods on Harriers and F-35 B/C. Might need an avionics update, but not a redesign of the aircraft.

Having a distinction between beam- and cannon-armed craft is kinda interesting from a gameplay POV, though. Gameplay trumps 'realism' and all that. I would actually kinda like if MiGs and perhaps Interceptors couldn't carry anything but autocannons (so no Gauss or Mass Drivers), either.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2022, 12:48:13 pm by Juku121 »

Offline krautbernd

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: Considerations for the THUNDERSTORM craft configuration options.
« Reply #39 on: August 23, 2022, 05:12:28 pm »
Why not have a downrated/inferior version of the beam weapons for "terrestial" interceptors? I don't know how progression is balance wise of the top of my head, but giving the player at least some option to utilize more advanced technologies with older aircraft might be beneficial. I distinctly remember having access to weapons but no aircraft able to actually mount them.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2022, 05:15:29 pm by krautbernd »

Offline Solarius Scorch

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 11448
  • WE MUST DISSENT
    • View Profile
    • Nocturmal Productions modding studio website
Re: Considerations for the THUNDERSTORM craft configuration options.
« Reply #40 on: August 23, 2022, 05:22:02 pm »
Why not have a downrated/inferior version of the beam weapons for "terrestial" interceptors? I don't know how progression is balance wise of the top of my head, but giving the player at least some option to utilize more advanced technologies with older aircraft might be beneficial. I distinctly remember having access to weapons but no aircraft able to actually mount them.

What would even be an inferior version of the laser cannon? Some kind of infrared beam?
Anyway, this idea feels kinda forced on me. I don't think there's a glaring hole for such a contraption.

Offline krautbernd

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: Considerations for the THUNDERSTORM craft configuration options.
« Reply #41 on: August 23, 2022, 05:40:36 pm »
Without knowing what the "science"/lore behind the laser/beam weapons is and why they can't be mounted on "regular" aircraft? Probably just lower energy output i.e. less damage.

What exactely is the (in-game) reason X-COM can cram plasma beam weapons inside a standard tank chassis, but not inside aircraft?

You'd think that the latter would have higher priority, given that you have to shoot down UFOs in order to use tank-mounted plasma weapons on aliens. Why would X-Com design a weapon that can't be mounted on any of the aircraft they have access to? Sure, balancing, but is there an in-universe explanation? At that point X-Com doesn't even know if/when they will get access to better aircraft/technology, but they have no trouble mounting said weapons to existing HWPs. I can understand that "older" craft (MIG-31, ARROW) would have trouble retrofitting advanced weapoinry, but you'd think that X-Com would have taken this into account when they start to design their own alien-tech based crafts.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2022, 05:51:38 pm by krautbernd »

Offline Solarius Scorch

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 11448
  • WE MUST DISSENT
    • View Profile
    • Nocturmal Productions modding studio website
Re: Considerations for the THUNDERSTORM craft configuration options.
« Reply #42 on: August 23, 2022, 05:59:55 pm »
Without knowing what the "science"/lore behind the laser/beam weapons is and why they can't be mounted on "regular" aircraft? Probably just lower energy output i.e. less damage.

I'd imagine it would be a more robust version of actual modern laser emitters (the ones with which they shoot down slow flying drones and presenting it as a huge engineering success).
And I can't say I know that much about how exactly laser weapons operate in X-Com. They just do, it's part of the setting, like the Force in Star Wars. I realise that they're kind of problematic as a sci-fi concept, but I'll leave solving this to those more qualified (and interested).

What exactely is the (in-game) reason X-COM can cram plasma beam weapons inside a standard tank chassis, but not inside aircraft?
You'd think that the latter would have higher priority, given that you have to shoot down UFOs in order to use tank-mounted plasma weapons on aliens. Why would X-Com design a weapon that can't be mounted on any of the aircraft they have access to? Sure, balancing, but is there an in-universe explanation? At that point X-Com doesn't even know if/when they will get access to better aircraft/technology, but they have no trouble mounting said weapons to existing HWPs. I can understand that "older" craft (MIG-31, ARROW) would have trouble retrofitting advanced weapoinry, but you'd think that X-Com would have taken this into account when they start to design their own alien-tech based crafts.

Same reason, really. And also balance.

Offline krautbernd

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
    • View Profile
Re: Considerations for the THUNDERSTORM craft configuration options.
« Reply #43 on: August 23, 2022, 06:08:38 pm »
Same reason, really. And also balance.

What reasons then? I didn't list any, you didn't list any and lore doesn't give any explanation either.

Why can X-Com fit laser and plasma weaponry into an existing tank chassis but not inside an airframe, let alone one that has been specifically designed to incorporate alien technology?

And it's just kind of strange that you get the laser beam so early on, but the only craft that can actually mount it is an alien craft that crashed into lake Michigan and which X-Com found by chance and which just so happens to come with laser cannons that are compatible if not identical to the ones X-Com uses.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2022, 06:39:15 pm by krautbernd »

Offline Juku121

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1620
  • We're all mad here.
    • View Profile
Re: Considerations for the THUNDERSTORM craft configuration options.
« Reply #44 on: August 23, 2022, 08:44:25 pm »
I don't really have anything to support that in-game, but tank weapons could be somethinmg similar to today's unmanned turrets. These are basically self-contained weapons installed on top of a vehicle, containing ammo, ATGMs, fire control, comms, drones, etc.

Still doesn't make sense why aircraft can't use 'beam pods', which is a very similar concept. But, as I said, I kinda like the implications of this, including having to design and deploy new platforms for actually using your shiny Wunderwaffen.