aliens

Author Topic: Minor changes  (Read 6173 times)

Offline coorta88

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 24
    • View Profile
Re: Minor changes
« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2021, 11:56:30 am »
@Solarius Scorch

Awesome. Just perhaps add more of those nicer windows, maybe helipad if it is possible on the top and if there are sources for it, some masked trapdoors in the back part of ship (as smuggling ship must have some way to get to cargo from outside without need to manually haul everything from the cargo hold) and from outside it is done.

Offline Solarius Scorch

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 11499
  • WE MUST DISSENT
    • View Profile
    • Nocturmal Productions modding studio website
Re: Minor changes
« Reply #16 on: January 30, 2021, 07:57:32 pm »
@Solarius Scorch

Awesome. Just perhaps add more of those nicer windows, maybe helipad if it is possible on the top and if there are sources for it, some masked trapdoors in the back part of ship (as smuggling ship must have some way to get to cargo from outside without need to manually haul everything from the cargo hold) and from outside it is done.

Thanks!

Well, this blasted ship is finally done, I think. :)
  • I used as many nice windows as I thought was okay, but perhaps more would be possible - it's a trivial thing to change a wall into a window (as long as it's W or E wall; N and S walls don't have the tile for such windows).
  • I felt a helipad would be too much for a smaller ship like this. It can also be changed easily, if I decide to use this map for a mission with a vehicle.
  • No trap doors, because it's still a generic ship (Dr. Hadriex also uses it now).

Offline zee_ra

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile
Re: Minor changes
« Reply #17 on: July 28, 2022, 08:26:04 pm »
Yeah, but it's kinda uninspired, even if the easiest way out.

I think, that adding a heavy launcher variant for the Pike missiles would be a consistent solution.  However, please note the following considerations.  In practice, the case whence a vehicle should be carrying heavy missiles are solely those whence battleships need to be engaged.  Everything else is handled very well by tritanium / gauss cannons, including the larger vessels.  The occasional issue of an unlucky hit is compensated by reasonable amount of armor, though in case of RAVEN luck is still occasionally a factor when engaging terror ships.  In this configuration, the use of STORMLANCE is actually a rational choice, even over the fusion ball, and certainly over the AVALANCHE.  The rationale is that the total destructive potential of a full STORMLANCE load (2x twin maganize in heavy slots) is about twice as great as that of a full fusion ball load.  In terms of Elerium usage, the STORMLANCE is on par with fusion ball.  The need to use these missiles arises infrequently, since these missiles are only really truly necessary against a battleship.

In fact, the only real issue with the craft organization arises with the THUNDERSTORM.  It is desirable to use it both in the 2 cannon configuration, and also with 2 heavy missile configuration.  The former is for engaging anything up to a terror ship.  The latter is for engaging the battleships.  I wonder, if it may be possible to introduce a twin-cannon THUNDERSTORM variant?  It might also have a greater speed than its heavy-missile centered sibling.

As an alternative, I would like to invite the following possibility for a consideration.  Perhaps, certain beam weapons should be possible to install into some heavy missile slots.  It would suffice for such adaptation to exist for plasma weaponry.  It stands to reason that cannons may not be suitable for such mounts, due to e.g. kinetic recoil / stability issues.  However, beams are free from such issues, and only require space and mass lifting cpacity.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2022, 08:38:13 pm by zee_ra »

Offline zee_ra

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile
Re: Minor changes
« Reply #18 on: July 29, 2022, 04:03:10 am »
In fact, the only real issue with the craft organization arises with the THUNDERSTORM.  It is desirable to use it both in the 2 cannon configuration, and also with 2 heavy missile configuration.  The former is for engaging anything up to a terror ship.  The latter is for engaging the battleships.  I wonder, if it may be possible to introduce a twin-cannon THUNDERSTORM variant?  It might also have a greater speed than its heavy-missile centered sibling.

As an alternative, I would like to invite the following possibility for a consideration.  Perhaps, certain beam weapons should be possible to install into some heavy missile slots.  It would suffice for such adaptation to exist for plasma weaponry.  It stands to reason that cannons may not be suitable for such mounts, due to e.g. kinetic recoil / stability issues.  However, beams are free from such issues, and only require space and mass lifting cpacity.

I did edit the game files, and performed some play-testing.  The THUNDERSTORM with two gauss cannons performs very much adequately as a general-purpose medium interceptor.  The THUNDERSTORM with two beams also performs very much adequately as a general-purpose medium interceptor.  As noted before, THUNDERSTORM with two heavy missiles (armed with heavy STORMLANCE), performs very well as a heavy interceptor.  In general, a wing of two of THUNDERSTORM crafts armed with STORMLANCE could take down a battleship, with possibly another craft mopping up (in the current setup, it's a RAVEN with two cannons).  I think, that it merits to include three distinct versions of THUNDERSTORM in the game:
  • 2x heavy missiles version
  • 2x beams version
  • 2x cannons version
« Last Edit: July 29, 2022, 04:07:15 am by zee_ra »

Offline Moth_Of_Decay

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Minor changes
« Reply #19 on: July 29, 2022, 08:48:08 am »
I think there is a space for having both large and small maps. I'd be a bit sad to see the larger maps entirely removed, even if they can be intense. However I wouldn't mind whatsoever if the smaller boat was the "standard" version and the larger version was a less common "major mission" version.

Offline zee_ra

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile
Re: Minor changes
« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2022, 09:14:03 am »
I think there is a space for having both large and small maps. I'd be a bit sad to see the larger maps entirely removed, even if they can be intense. However I wouldn't mind whatsoever if the smaller boat was the "standard" version and the larger version was a less common "major mission" version.

I suppose, the "larger" maps could be matching the size of the ones in TFTD.  This implies a particular limitation upon the number of levels.

Offline Solarius Scorch

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 11499
  • WE MUST DISSENT
    • View Profile
    • Nocturmal Productions modding studio website
Re: Minor changes
« Reply #21 on: August 05, 2022, 11:48:59 am »
@zee_ra: Heavy Pike is already todolisted.

I think there is a space for having both large and small maps. I'd be a bit sad to see the larger maps entirely removed, even if they can be intense. However I wouldn't mind whatsoever if the smaller boat was the "standard" version and the larger version was a less common "major mission" version.

The mission "Cruise Liner Raid" is still played on the large version.

Offline zee_ra

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile
Re: Minor changes
« Reply #22 on: August 24, 2022, 06:17:47 am »
@zee_ra: Heavy Pike is already todolisted.

The mission "Cruise Liner Raid" is still played on the large version.

I also noticed that the dream levels use large maps, with more than 3 height levels.

In general, the smaller maps in this game don't feel so really limiting, except perhaps for the fact that sometimes a tactical approach from afar would have presented more opportunities for use of heavier ordnance from a larger distance.  In practice, though, the fight for the landing position is unavoidable, and hard to argue against, and the mortars are perfectly usable even in close landing scenarios.  It really takes a turn to move the soldiers in position.  With rockets, it's not uncommon to find the troops firing on the first round, and taking cover behind ship and smoke.  All in all, the smaller maps still feel quite adequate.  It is a consequence of their good design.  The larger maps tend to add more tedium in general, and with the larger number of missions in this game, only contribute to the longplay fatigue, even for an enthusiast.

Offline Solarius Scorch

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 11499
  • WE MUST DISSENT
    • View Profile
    • Nocturmal Productions modding studio website
Re: Minor changes
« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2022, 11:07:40 am »
I also noticed that the dream levels use large maps, with more than 3 height levels.

Almost all missions in XCF have more than 3 4 levels... Usually 10.

In general, the smaller maps in this game don't feel so really limiting, except perhaps for the fact that sometimes a tactical approach from afar would have presented more opportunities for use of heavier ordnance from a larger distance.  In practice, though, the fight for the landing position is unavoidable, and hard to argue against, and the mortars are perfectly usable even in close landing scenarios.  It really takes a turn to move the soldiers in position.  With rockets, it's not uncommon to find the troops firing on the first round, and taking cover behind ship and smoke.  All in all, the smaller maps still feel quite adequate.  It is a consequence of their good design.  The larger maps tend to add more tedium in general, and with the larger number of missions in this game, only contribute to the longplay fatigue, even for an enthusiast.

Yes, I agree with your observations - if large, open maps were more common, it would be less of a "special agent" game, and more of a regular battle. A battle where pistols and shotguns have a marginal role, and artillery is the main source of DPS.

I am mostly trying to either keep maps only as big as required, or at least open.

Offline zee_ra

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 200
    • View Profile
Re: Minor changes
« Reply #24 on: August 25, 2022, 01:37:21 am »
Almost all missions in XCF have more than 3 4 levels... Usually 10.

There are a few exceptions, but that seems to be in general a fact.  There's certainly no combinatorial limitations on the capability of AI to plan its moves due to the increased volume.

Yes, I agree with your observations - if large, open maps were more common, it would be less of a "special agent" game, and more of a regular battle. A battle where pistols and shotguns have a marginal role, and artillery is the main source of DPS.

I am mostly trying to either keep maps only as big as required, or at least open.

In my experience, the style of battle is determined by the setting in which it occurs, and not the map size.  On open maps, e.g. the ones with free-standing buildings, even with a smaller land size, the rockets and artillery are an essential source of damage, certainly so until the advent of really heavy armours (juggernaut+).  The use of dynamite on early mansion missions is essentially a substitute for the mortars.  Otherwise, there's a risk of incurring casualties, at the common 1:6 manpower ratio in favour of enemy.  The usefulness of rockets is preserved in large indoor spaces, like bases or the white tower.  The shrapnel rockets are more than adequate for most such settings.  The Tt shrapnel rockets are a nice trophy upgrade.  The mortars are essential in pre-juggertaun storms of battleships and terror ships.

When a battle moves inside the buildings, the machineguns and machine pistols play a more important role.  I do find that a minigun works much better than even the BlackOps mag MP indoors.  Still, the swords and grenades are an easy substitute for firearms in such settings, especially the psi blades.  In fact, trophy White Tower ordnance is in general in sufficient quantity to supply the indoor assault teams.

What is really missing in the gameplay, is the access to early guided rockets.  I think, there should be an option to field an early HE guided rocket (requiring either tritanium or aqua plastics), an early guided gas rocket (requiring either tritanium or aqua plastics), and slightly later, guided sonic rocket (damage about 180, with zrbite and aqua plastic requirements).  I could write the config specs, but I'm not sure about producing the right graphics for those.  Also, unguided gas rocket would be a good development, with the advent of gas grenades.  Finally, a 200+ (say, 220 or 250, due to its larger size) damage guided blaster rocket would be nice to have, and it should be the only one to require elerium (just 1 unit, since it should be enough to initiate fusion reaction) (note that the alien versions could require more elerium to produce, due to the fact that aliens must have a much more ample supply of that substance, and could afford to sacrifice its quantity for compactness).  A stun rocket, from a stun bomb, would be nice to have.

I think that one glaring omission from the game is the longer-range plasma sniper rifle.

« Last Edit: August 25, 2022, 01:52:01 am by zee_ra »

Offline Juku121

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1664
  • We're all mad here.
    • View Profile
Re: Minor changes
« Reply #25 on: August 25, 2022, 08:45:45 pm »
machine pistols
Huh? The only machine pistols I know are Magma, Gauss, Laser x2, Acid and Plasma. There are a grand total of zero classic machine pistols in the game. Or is this some sort of пистолет-пулемёт thing?

early guided rockets
stun rocket
I don't know how 'early' such missiles can be, but more variety in munitions would be welcome. I'd especially like if shotguns also finally played to their strength of being able to use a variety of ammo. Right now, only a select few have multiple ammo types, we have no birdshot, flechettes, triple threat, flashbangs, Dragon's Breath, chemical rounds...

I think that one glaring omission from the game is the longer-range plasma sniper rifle.
Er, what's wrong with the current plasma sniper rifle?