Re: The X-Com Files - 3.3: Mysteries Ancient And New

[krautbernd]

I'm not saying no to an alloy missile, but how would it work? Why exactly would it be better than something made with Earth materials?

That mostly depends on what you want it to be. Should it be based on existing missiles or should it be something entirely new? Given how in the beginning you're essentially trying to catch up, upgrading existing technology seems like the most logical choice.
Alien alloys are described as being light and durable, so it would make sense that a missile constructed using alloys can either carry the same load further or a bigger warhead the same distance as existing missiles. Additionally the missile would likely be able to endure higher aerodynamic forces and could use more powerful propellant, making it more manouverable (i.e. more accurate).

If you want something new (lore wise), that bonus in manouverability could enable x-com to construct a penetration-type warhead (current missiles use blast, fragmentation or continous-rod warheads with proximity fuses) that uses a solid core of alien alloys or something like a shaped charge alien alloy warhead to pierce outer UFO hulls. Nothing akin to an elerium warhead, but a definite step-up from the damage that the Stingray does.

As a sidenote, is the Avalanche really supposed to have a nuclear warhead? Wouldn't that cause all kinds of PR-shennanigans? X-COM can probably downplay crashed UFOs, but a growing number of aerial nuclear detonations over (possibly) inhabited areas is something entirly different. Also, if the sidewinder (which looks like conventional missile) is able to damage UFOs, would a nuclear warhead (and the associated problems) be absolutely necessary? I mean it's one thing to give a paramilitary organisation access to military hardware, but to give them unlimited access to nuclear weapons?

[Solarius Scorch]

Alien alloys are described as being light and durable, so it would make sense that a missile constructed using alloys can either carry the same load further or a bigger warhead the same distance as existing missiles. Additionally the missile would likely be able to endure higher aerodynamic forces and could use more powerful propellant, making it more manouverable (i.e. more accurate).

OK, better accuracy and possibly range, got it. Makes sense.

If you want something new (lore wise), that bonus in manouverability could enable x-com to construct a penetration-type warhead (current missiles use blast, fragmentation or continous-rod warheads with proximity fuses) that uses a solid core of alien alloys or something like a shaped charge alien alloy warhead to pierce outer UFO hulls. Nothing akin to an elerium warhead, but a definite step-up from the damage that the Stingray does.

But as far as I know, anti-air missiles do not rely on hitting the target, they explode in its general vicinity. I'm not sure how an alien alloy core would help here. Making an actually ramming missile would probably drastically decrease accuracy (in game terms), especially against supposedly highly maneuverable UFOs.

As a sidenote, is the Avalanche really supposed to have a nuclear warhead? Wouldn't that cause all kinds of PR-shennanigans? X-COM can probably downplay crashed UFOs, but a growing number of aerial nuclear detonations over (possibly) inhabited areas is something entirly different. Also, if the sidewinder (which looks like conventional missile) is able to damage UFOs, would a nuclear warhead (and the associated problems) be absolutely necessary? I mean it's one thing to give a paramilitary organisation access to military hardware, but to give them unlimited access to nuclear weapons?

I think Avalanche is not exactly a nuclear missile, more like a plasma warhead (as portrayed in many settings, for example Fallout). It's pure sci-fi, but I think acceptable in X-Com setting.

[krautbernd]

But as far as I know, anti-air missiles do not rely on hitting the target, they explode in its general vicinity. I'm not sure how an alien alloy core would help here. Making an actually ramming missile would probably drastically decrease accuracy (in game terms), especially against supposedly highly maneuverable UFOs.

Yes, that's what i meant by "new (lore-wise)" - because it would be near impossible with todays tech. The missile can be lighter and more manouverable, which would enable it to reliable hit such a target. If it hits, the alloy core would have much more kinetic energy than an expanding rod  or fragmentation warhead. Just theorycrafting here.

I think Avalanche is not exactly a nuclear missile, more like a plasma warhead (as portrayed in many settings, for example Fallout). It's pure sci-fi, but I think acceptable in X-Com setting.

Yeah, but everything else Plasma is locked behind alien research. As far as i can tell the Avalanche mostly resembles the AIM-54 Phoenix (the F-14 carried those), which would explain their range. The added damage would be due to the bigger warhead in comparison to other missiles.

BTW, i just noticed that the muton_armor0 only has twelve damage modifiers. Is this intended?

[Solarius Scorch]

Yes, that's what i meant by "new (lore-wise)" - because it would be near impossible with todays tech. The missile can be lighter and more manouverable, which would enable it to reliable hit such a target. If it hits, the alloy core would have much more kinetic energy than an expanding rod  or fragmentation warhead. Just theorycrafting here.

Yes, I get it. Makes sense to me, a layman. I'll note it down for the future, thank you.

Yeah, but everything else Plasma is locked behind alien research. As far as i can tell the Avalanche mostly resembles the AIM-54 Phoenix (the F-14 carried those), which would explain their range. The added damage would be due to the bigger warhead in comparison to other missiles.

All good points. I'll go with that.

BTW, i just noticed that the muton_armor0 only has twelve damage modifiers. Is this intended?

No, it's a bug - potentially a nasty one... Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[Dr.Crowley]

About M.A.G.M.A. Lab mission - yes, it can be a tough one but it IS beatable. Well, I cannot be completely sure since I am playing on Beginner, but anyway you can complete this mission... if your agents will not be slaugthered by the HORDES OF MEGAZOMBIES right after deployment, that is. And since monster count for this mission has been reduced in recent versions, it became even more likely that you will survive.

[HT]

As a sidenote, is the Avalanche really supposed to have a nuclear warhead? Wouldn't that cause all kinds of PR-shennanigans? X-COM can probably downplay crashed UFOs, but a growing number of aerial nuclear detonations over (possibly) inhabited areas is something entirly different. Also, if the sidewinder (which looks like conventional missile) is able to damage UFOs, would a nuclear warhead (and the associated problems) be absolutely necessary? I mean it's one thing to give a paramilitary organisation access to military hardware, but to give them unlimited access to nuclear weapons?

I liked to think that in the original X-Com "orky philosophy" was being followed: In other words, if we're going to kill aliens, we might as well kill as much as we can while doing so. 

As for the MAGMA LAB, assuming things are similar to when I played it, Dynamite and grenades are your friends. Use them well.

[mumble]

Last time I did the magma lab (before this update) I geared my people with all people having a landmine, everyone having TNT, and other heavy weapons, and still got my ass kicked.

This is why I keep commenting on a zombies explosive resistance, I get they have no vital organs, but I don't think they would be able to stand up straight after stepping on a landmine or being shot by an AP RPG. They just have such an insane amount of HP to burn through, and so many of them, that I cant seem to find an efficient way of killing them before I get nommed on by infectors. I dont think they have any weakness, persay, and it takes over 8 rounds of a typical round to drop a single zombie, so its a handful. Its less a tactical issue I feel, as a DPS issue... Then again, maybe I should try using stuff like the arasaka or the nitro express?


As for avalanches, couldn't they be like an RPG round but with a small detonation of a nuclear bomb? With like a shaped charge, then depleted uranium which then jets out in molten form on impact, much like a normal RPG round, but replacing copper with much heavier uranium, and a much stronger blast : I figure that would make it pretty effective.

[Solarius Scorch]

If it's any help, I find heavy shotguns and light cannons generally work best against zombies.

As for the avalanche, it could work probably, but I lack the engineering knowledge.

[Stoddard]

As for avalanches, couldn't they be like an RPG round but with a small detonation of a nuclear bomb? With like a shaped charge, then depleted uranium which then jets out in molten form on impact, much like a normal RPG round, but replacing copper with much heavier uranium, and a much stronger blast : I figure that would make it pretty effective.

They can, in principle, the nuclear shaped charge was designed in 60s for the Project Orion.

See this, for example.

In practice, though, surface to air or air to air nuclear-tipped missiles never used the shaping principle. This I suppose is because precise aiming it is very hard to achieve at typical hypersonic closing speeds, compared to just increasing the yield tenfold, or whatever the figure needed.

Given that in the setting outer UFO walls can be penetrated by man-portable munitions that are orders of magnitude below smallest nuclear warheads in existence (otherwise the squad and the map would just be obliterated every time), it makes no sense to use THAAD-style guidance packages, when the same effect can be achieved by just detonating ~10kt at ~50 meters distance, which is pretty much solved problem since 60s.

Edit:
The more I think the more Avalanche looks just like an AIM-54 Phoenix with a small-yield warhead.

Besides, 'shaping' a high-altitude nuclear detonation won't make it any less obvious - it's just a flash and a boom, and some EMP. It's nothing like a surface-level one.

[krautbernd]

Given that in the setting outer UFO walls can be penetrated by man-portable munitions that are orders of magnitude below smallest nuclear warheads in existence (otherwise the squad and the map would just be obliterated every time), it makes no sense to use THAAD-style guidance packages, when the same effect can be achieved by just detonating ~10kt at ~50 meters distance, which is pretty much solved problem since 60s.

I was going to post something similar, the gist of it being that constructing a nuclear shaped charge is technically not possible. Yes, you can focus the blast (see Orion Nuclear Pulse Units), but seeing how you need to compress the warhead to reach criticality, you cannot use it to form a shaped charge (i.e. something that results in a coherent jet of fluid metal). Shaped charges only work over small distances before the metal jet begins to brake up, so even if something like this was possible, you'd still need the missile to actually hit the target, instead of exploding it somewhere in the vincinity. Add to that that the warhead alone (sans shaped charge) would be about 100 kg (taking the W25 as an example here), i don't see this happening, at least not if the target is a UFO that can vastly outperform traditional aircraft. That was the reason i proposed this for a missile employing alien alloys, making it lighter and more manouverable.

Also i don't really see how adding a bunch of uranium in a shaped charge would make a difference if you detonate a 1 kiloton nuclear warhead in close proximity to the target. My guess would be that the added effect would be minimal at best. Just to remind you, a kiloton of TNT can be visualized as a cube of TNT 8.46 metres (27.8 ft) on a side (taken straight from wikipedia).

All of that aside, that still leaves us with the problem that x-com would have unlimited access to nuclear weapons and apparently detonates those at it's discretion, even over populated areas. You can't PR something like that away. I can see how the MIBs would be working against X-COM here if they are the ones running around having to neuralyz people

If the Stingray uses a conventional warhead that does about half the damage of the Avalanche, can the Avalanche really have a 1-2 kT nuclear warhead? Would it need to? Or could it not just be a regular missile which simply has a bigger warhead?

[khade]

So has anyone seriously considered a hanger that can hold 2-4 small vehicles?  I understand that a 2x2 tile is at best difficult to get around for the hangers, but maybe there could be a variant that could hold more of the smaller vehicles?  Seems like it could be especially useful for X-Com Files.

[Stoddard]

Completely agree.

There is the W54 though, ~23kg, while the Phoenix carried ~61kg conventional warhead.

If the Stingray uses a conventional warhead that does about half the damage of the Avalanche, can the Avalanche really have a 1-2 kT nuclear warhead? Would it need to? Or could it not just be a regular missile which simply has a bigger warhead?

Yeah, this way it's just a conventional Phoenix.

So has anyone seriously considered a hanger that can hold 2-4 small vehicles?  I understand that a 2x2 tile is at best difficult to get around for the hangers, but maybe there could be a variant that could hold more of the smaller vehicles?  Seems like it could be especially useful for X-Com Files.

That's quite an overhaul of the game code. To make the base count the craft size and available craft space just like storage space. Not that I wouldn't be delighted to see that. With dedicated craft hangars-without-the-doors, that aren't the invaders' spawn space.

1x1 hangars will be the simpler route, though.

[khade]

I just finished a Chupacabra hunt, says I got an artifact worth -10 points, but I can't see any artifacts.  My 1 civilian and 2 hunters died, so I got 2 double barrel shotguns, 4 ammo, 6 chupacabra corpses and 1 capture. Where does the -10 artifact fit in?

Edit

If we can do 1x1 or 2x1 hangers, for smaller craft, that would be very nice, but I've heard that the game has issues with those.

[mumble]

The negative score on artifacts is actually from the weapons the hunters dropped and you took. Its a little wonky, but sort of makes sense.

[Lohland]

Is it planned in the future for something like the Personal Disruptor Shield ?