Jump to content


Flying On Your Own


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Azrael_*

Guest_Azrael_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 September 2004 - 09:30 PM

How about flying your interceptor yourself?, like in XCom Interceptor, would't be nice to wreck all those UFOs yourself?
Just a thought.

#2 Guest_alex the greater_*

Guest_alex the greater_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 September 2004 - 04:18 AM

yah that would be fun beatter than the old intersept screen

#3 Paladin

Paladin

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts

Posted 10 September 2004 - 07:17 AM

It's an idea, but I'd settle for a simple cockpit view before the full complexity of a flight simulator... :D
"You're just jealous because the voices in my head only talk to me."

"I only think this stuff up ..
then I have to write it down so it doesn't corrupt the rest of my brain.. "

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another which states that this has already happened.
-Douglas Adams (The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy)"

#4 Tuoppi

Tuoppi

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 10 September 2004 - 08:51 AM

I wouldn't like it. It would need a whole game to make it fun, balanced and not boring. Too much effort even in ver 9.0. We have interceptor (and hopefully remake someday) for that. And besides, we cannot shoot, just order our troops to shoot and that is the way i want it.

#5 centurion

centurion

    Programming Department

  • Xenocide Programming Department
  • 800 posts

Posted 10 September 2004 - 11:38 AM

How about flying your interceptor yourself?, like in XCom Interceptor, would't be nice to wreck all those UFOs yourself?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can always produce a mod for that :naughty:
Endure; in enduring, grow strong.
- Dak'kon

Help us getting Civ2 code: http://forums.civfan...p...age=1&pp=20 !

#6 Paladin

Paladin

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts

Posted 10 September 2004 - 12:30 PM

Yup, I'm for modding... If some people want to add this to the game, let'hem, but I would not want this to delay xenocide's developpment.
"You're just jealous because the voices in my head only talk to me."

"I only think this stuff up ..
then I have to write it down so it doesn't corrupt the rest of my brain.. "

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another which states that this has already happened.
-Douglas Adams (The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy)"

#7 The Master Maniac

The Master Maniac

    Captain

  • Xenocide Recruit
  • 442 posts

Posted 10 September 2004 - 12:56 PM

Besides, we're the Commander of X-Corps, right? It'd be hard to manage inventory space and learn fighter skills all in the same career path. ;)

#8 Guest_alex the greater_*

Guest_alex the greater_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 September 2004 - 01:38 PM

or maby just have a flythro whare you can wach the action from the interseptors nose camra

#9 Paladin

Paladin

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts

Posted 10 September 2004 - 01:45 PM

That's what I meant by the cockpit view/replay... :D
It might be a nice sugar coating, to have some 3D rendering of the actual chase... ^_^
"You're just jealous because the voices in my head only talk to me."

"I only think this stuff up ..
then I have to write it down so it doesn't corrupt the rest of my brain.. "

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another which states that this has already happened.
-Douglas Adams (The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy)"

#10 Guest_alex the greater_*

Guest_alex the greater_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 September 2004 - 01:56 PM

not replay live fottige

also have multable camra angles: nose (first person), cocpit (mounted on the counsol facing the pilot used for rear vew), fin (on the taill fin facing forword second person), and maby a chase cam (third person not very realistic thoe)

#11 Paladin

Paladin

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts

Posted 10 September 2004 - 02:09 PM

It's a whole other ball game if it becomes a full rendering...
A Gun camera would still be real cool, especially if we get to see the UFOs in flight up to dogfight range :D
"You're just jealous because the voices in my head only talk to me."

"I only think this stuff up ..
then I have to write it down so it doesn't corrupt the rest of my brain.. "

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another which states that this has already happened.
-Douglas Adams (The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy)"

#12 Guest_alex the greater_*

Guest_alex the greater_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 September 2004 - 02:11 PM

yah thats what i mean

#13 Paladin

Paladin

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts

Posted 10 September 2004 - 02:15 PM

Damn! You'Re answering fast :LOL:

Anyhow, no need for a full flight sim IMHO, I'll settle for a simple rendering, as iut's already good "as is", so anything more is better, just not essential...
"You're just jealous because the voices in my head only talk to me."

"I only think this stuff up ..
then I have to write it down so it doesn't corrupt the rest of my brain.. "

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another which states that this has already happened.
-Douglas Adams (The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy)"

#14 Snakeman

Snakeman

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 10 September 2004 - 02:33 PM

A better camera rendering might be nice, rather than just seeing a radar blip. Although, if we're commanders, I suppose that'd be the sort of view we'd see anyway :)

But cameras just extend that notion a bit. I wouldn't want a full blown interception stage where I was piloting anyway...I mean, here I am, all set to remember my soldier fighting commands, and there might be a totally different set of pilot commands just before that. Might be disorienting :)

Perhaps with the additon of the camera view too, it might give you as the commander better info to go on with regards to specific targeting opportunities (granted, if that class of alien ship had been researched), weapons, engines, power, bridge (effecting flight control/navigation) etc. You still give the orders to do whatever attack, only then you could attempt some precision stuff and tell your pilot.

Edited by Snakeman, 10 September 2004 - 02:35 PM.


#15 Snakeman

Snakeman

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 10 September 2004 - 02:42 PM

Speaking of cameras, I was fresh off watching Aliens again (great flick), and I recalled each trooper on the ground had a helmet cam. I wonder if the resolution being developed for the battlescape menus would be adequate enough to display small thumbnails of what each soldier sees.

I guess it wouldn't matter much in the turn based environment of the battlescape that that be there as opposed to the intercept action on the Geoscape. I was just pondering what other ways it might be fun to make a small video clip of a solder's actions from his perspective. Again, may not be that feasible to have running video because of that, though maybe screenshots would be better for those thumbnail soldier views.

If video could be squeaked in there, I'd reckon it only have to be running during the between turn screens when we see movement.

#16 fux0r666

fux0r666

    Alien Concept Task Force

  • Xenocide Artwork Department
  • 1,028 posts

Posted 10 September 2004 - 03:04 PM

I think that it would be better to have an excellent interceptor window than a supah-lame flight-sim subgame.

Here I go an angry brother gonna make his move
But can I buck him in the city so I never lose?
See I'm a get him in the crowd with a couple heavies
And lay the barrel to the ground, hold the gat steady
And now I'm ready for my adversary, talk is cheap
I'm looking for a way to make a plan gonna keep it neat
So don't be telling me to get the non-violent spirit
'cause when I'm violent is the only time the devils hear it
'cause all I want to see is m****f***ing brains hanging


Posted Image

#17 dipstick

dipstick

    Colonel

  • [Global Moderators]
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,011 posts

Posted 10 September 2004 - 04:23 PM

How about a slightly more informative aftermath type thing?
Posted Image

#18 Guest_Azrael_*

Guest_Azrael_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 September 2004 - 06:44 PM

So many replys so early :D , I was kinda thinking of an optional thing, if you wanna fly your own interceptors, I you don't you get the traditional (improved of course) interception screen. I'm sure it is not as easy as it sounds, but I don't believe it can't be done, not something like the Flight Simulator, something easier like flying the fighters in Freespace.

#19 Tuoppi

Tuoppi

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 11 September 2004 - 05:05 AM

IMO it kind of ruins the atmosphere if an interceptor is simplified enough to make it flyable in mini-game. There needs to be a feeling that your fighter is flown by someone under your command, a top trained pilot who still is capable of mistakes. Not you, as you don't pull the trigger in the battlefield either, just keep players role in issuing commands.

And those intercept-videos in aftermath got really boring really fast.

Edited by Tuoppi, 11 September 2004 - 05:06 AM.


#20 Snakeman

Snakeman

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 11 September 2004 - 01:14 PM

I agree. If we're the commander's, it doesn't make much sense to be flying them first or third person. I am on the other hand interested in the varying levels of orders we could give based on known information (and later information revealed through research).

Edited by Snakeman, 11 September 2004 - 01:15 PM.


#21 Guest_Azrael_*

Guest_Azrael_*
  • Guests

Posted 11 September 2004 - 06:59 PM

Well, if I'm the commander, I don't get to choose everyone of my soldiers' movements, turn by turn, and I don't get a view of all my soldiers moving all over the place, I can see them everywhere I want and make them do what I want because it's a game, and because it's a game and it is meant to be fun, I just thought that it'd be fun for us players who like flying "sims" like freespace to fly our own interceptors and take down the ufos ourselves.

#22 Snakeman

Snakeman

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 12 September 2004 - 01:38 AM

Well, I won't say that I'm not intrigued by that idea. I just have doubts about how something like that could be pulled off. Don't get me wrong, I'm still drooling for that ever elusive badass RPG game that incorporates all my favorite elements, like land/air/sea/space settings, flying sim style as well as commanding troops in a way that made it fun with X-COM where holding territory means something in a larger playing arena (that incorporates earth too, but even further).

Of course, mod making or map making in an editor is a nice secondary thing for that. Anything that also helps replayability is key.

I wonder, what if the intercept stage was handled with a more arcade feel to it rather than sim style? Could it work without appearing too cheesy? I mean as long as it kept that kind of Anime feel to it that corresponded with the soldier looks for example.

Edited by Snakeman, 12 September 2004 - 01:40 AM.


#23 centurion

centurion

    Programming Department

  • Xenocide Programming Department
  • 800 posts

Posted 12 September 2004 - 02:50 AM

Everything can be pulled off if there enough people with appropriate skills getting agitated. A first-person interception phase would only be consistent with a first-person tactical combat, so it can only be a mod to the version that's currently underway; even a third-person control of the dogfight looks like something that will not have unanimous support, so it should be done separately. The concept is not contradicting with the game's underlying "you posess your people, they do what you want" philosophy, so I can easily see people banding up to make the extension.
Endure; in enduring, grow strong.
- Dak'kon

Help us getting Civ2 code: http://forums.civfan...p...age=1&pp=20 !

#24 Snakeman

Snakeman

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 12 September 2004 - 10:26 AM

Ok then, since in tactical you fight from a certain perspective there, would similarly slanted (by this I mean view the same as tactical) appearance do the trick? For instance like a side scrolling shooter.

I mean for one thing, this "commander business" is simply a plot device. If they wanted to you could add a story element/research/ufopedia thing that explains why you get control. Its relatively easy, just say it had to do with Psi in some form. Its a nice straight forward thing to use as a crutch easily I'd guess considering the universe we're playing in :)

Then it just becomes a question of implimentation, how it should appear (first, third, scrolling arcadeish shooter etc.). I think you have a valid point there centurion. Tactical view is a particular view, so too I think the intecept stage, if it was flushed out more to give us control, should be a particular view.

In addition, the view you have in the intercept stage aside, my next main worry is in the controls. They should be simple and easy to use, for instance using the direction keys for movement and spacebar to fire (I'm assuming this mode here is in real time as opposed to turn based mode in ground tactical missions). Maybe there are a couple more keys if you had an alternate weapon to fire or another button to use afterburn.

I would prefer a straight up flight sim, however those games, depending on what they were and used as controls tended to create a high learning curve for some. I'd probably opt for a little more simplicity in this regard if they went with this approach. The meat of the game after all should still remain ground combat.

#25 centurion

centurion

    Programming Department

  • Xenocide Programming Department
  • 800 posts

Posted 12 September 2004 - 10:43 AM

Clarification: having a first-person flight sim/whatever and a third person only tactical part is not good; having the same flight sim/whatever and a first person tactical part (or at least the ability to play it that way) gives a more consistent way of doing things. If there's only the "usual" tactical part, then you should have third person view of the dogfight and the ability to issue orders to keep the game together.

The commander's dark mind-controlling magics are not to be discussed in the game, it's much better to leave the explanation undone.
Endure; in enduring, grow strong.
- Dak'kon

Help us getting Civ2 code: http://forums.civfan...p...age=1&pp=20 !

#26 The Master Maniac

The Master Maniac

    Captain

  • Xenocide Recruit
  • 442 posts

Posted 12 September 2004 - 12:25 PM

Well, I dunno--I think they already have X-Com Interceptor, and from what I've heard, it wasn't all that great. Not to contradict any given person, I simply don't believe that a full-blown interactive interception bit would add anything to the game. In fact, as someone else here put it, we're simply an officer that gives simple orders with the hopes our guys are capable of pulling them off. I think it'd kind of ruin the flow if you were thrust into a cockpit, barring the simple fact that it's not incredibly feasible. Besides, there are tons of UFOs to junk, at regular intervals--even the most hardcore player would get a just a bit aggrevated after UFO-251 pops up. :)

As for the helmet-cam idea, I was really considering that myself. Not only would it be neat eye-candy, there's also the tactical advantage of being able to see exactly what the soldiers see, as well (hence, no more "why-couldn't-PFC. Bob-see-that-alien" syndrome). That way, you have appropriate, realistic LOS at all times, and each soldier's viewpoint is a simple glance away. I like.

But hey, there's no reason why we can't do a 3D render of the interceptions at V1+--the idea of being able to issue more specific orders and actually see the results (once the UFOs are appropriately researched, of course) sounds just great to me.

As for the soldiers...umm, what about a DGIL (Direct Global Interface Link), as pinned by the US military? Besides, playing with satellites is cool, right?

Edited by The Master Maniac, 12 September 2004 - 12:32 PM.


#27 Snakeman

Snakeman

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 12 September 2004 - 05:06 PM

Sure why not. Let's have another tech trinket or two we could use to flesh out the game a bit more (that satelite thing sounds cool). I'm still partial to having varous features being unlocked via research. The being able to hit UFO's in more precise ways as an example.

Perhaps tying in UFO research along with satelite imaging systems research would be the manifestation of that ability. Before that, it could be as before where UFO damage was calculated at random upon the loading of the battlescape. I'd just hope that if after the "special ability" was researched for your commander to fine tune his targetting, that what you did damage to was reflected in what got smashed late game (how you see it on the battlescape as compared before).

For example, if I'm able to target the bridge and do damage, I shouldn't expect to find any navigators or leaders when the map loads. I think this would introduce too some nice pros and cons into it like that especially if you needed to capture someone for research. Knocking out power could eliminate engineers from loading, taking out weapons on the ship might spawn fewer soldier regulars etc. Make every system that's targetable like that correspond to how it affects the enemy crew and what you ulitmately find on the battlescape.

#28 The Master Maniac

The Master Maniac

    Captain

  • Xenocide Recruit
  • 442 posts

Posted 13 September 2004 - 12:34 AM

Yeah, that's a great idea--though you'd have to factor in the aspect of unpredictability, as well. Just because you're gunning for, say, the bridge, doesn't mean that your pilot will keep from blowing up the craft's engines, or vice versa.

And, although I know that you guys are already settled on the GUI (global user interface, am I right?), there's no harm in adding a cyber-cool computer-uplink dealie that runs at startup, right? I know, it's essentially worthless and purely aesthetic, but something that looks a bit authentic (or, in some cases, purely ridiculous) that doesn't take too much time or effort would be neat icing on the cake. I remember this one game from eons ago that really rocked my world as a kid--simply because the thing started up with "Enter Pentagon Ops Code to Proceed:" (or something like that). Well, the rest of the game was pretty crappy (basically a ripoff Asteroids/Space Invaders hybrid), but that one little detail makes the player feel, I dunno, powerful? Hmm...

#29 Snakeman

Snakeman

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 13 September 2004 - 02:20 AM

Oh absolutely, even after that special targetting ability was afforded to you, you could still introduce a level of randomness to how the pilot's abilities come into play and what it does damage to.

I wonder now if its too much to have pilot characters now too and tie in a training facility they could use to improve.

It might be another one of those things you have to decide whether to build or not if your dealing with limited construction room for things too. i.e. if you had like 2-3 other training facility types you had to weigh it against, such as Psi Labs, your grunt training sims, topped with pilot sims. And maybe unlike the other forms of training, you could only afford to train a couple at a time. This coupled with placing a minimum crew compliment to ships to even lift off could also further that idea (earth generation fighters may only need one, but later ones may need 2 or 4 for the larger transports).

Maybe its simpler to have it where your ships could respond without the need for the facility, though having it and using it could benefit such benign things as response times to intercept (the pilot's ability to coax more out of his vehicle the longer he's been assigned to it).

Edited by Snakeman, 13 September 2004 - 02:22 AM.


#30 The Master Maniac

The Master Maniac

    Captain

  • Xenocide Recruit
  • 442 posts

Posted 13 September 2004 - 02:43 AM

Yeah, pilot experience counts, too. Wow, this is like a whole new layer of depth, here. Just so long as the development doesn't obscure the ground combat, which is the focus of the game, of course. Interesting suggestion.

#31 Paladin

Paladin

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts

Posted 13 September 2004 - 06:12 AM

Yeah, most interresting suggestions! ^_^

Especially the possibility of hitting specific parts of the UFOs and the helmet cameras...

Re: Helmet cams, I sincerely HOPE that we'll be able to shoot THROUGH soft, foliaged things like hedges, shrubs and tree leaves... those thing never stopped a bullet, let alone a Laser beam, but passing plasma should set things on fire... ^_^
"You're just jealous because the voices in my head only talk to me."

"I only think this stuff up ..
then I have to write it down so it doesn't corrupt the rest of my brain.. "

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another which states that this has already happened.
-Douglas Adams (The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy)"

#32 Snakeman

Snakeman

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 13 September 2004 - 12:21 PM

With the pilot characters and training them up like that description, I think that it does provide a little more depth even if they don't go with a flight sim. We had it in a way with the scientists in Apoc, I just figure that its a logical progression in that respect.

Base stuff:

Plus, in that one they gave you two different science lab types...I just think too that designing bases is fun, and by adding another facility type or two and soldier type (pilot), I like the option of weighing my choices from a tactical perspective like that.

Plus when you factor in the one really big need, storage space (followed closely here with living space), you've got one structure right there that demands you have enough of it (usually has to be placed liberally if want a lot) and makes you weigh carefully what to keep and what to scrap. You could further add dimention to base layout by requiring a certain amount of grid space to other facilities (hangers tend to be the biggest, yet everything else from games 1-3 only seemed to take one square - make them more varied in sizes and scales. Maybe the first generation living quarters is one square, later two, then four etc.).

Back to the interceptor stuff a bit in relation to that...Maybe too another facility could be built for that satelite deployment idea. This facility could, in addition to the access lift and hangers, be vulnerable to alien incursion as another way into your base. Presumably this type of structure you'd only need to have for that initial deployment, then scrap it. But what if the aliens begun snuffing out Earth's other satelites among X-COM's? Yep, you'd have to build it again (then presumably scrap again when done heh) so those satelites could return to augmenting your radars and hyperwaves.

I like the satelite idea, as a kind of icing on the cake concept slightly above hyperwaves, yet one you'd have to manage from a base construction perspective, as well as a tactical one (have to build it again to replenish satelite losses and to give you that much more decision making power at interception stage).

Edited by Snakeman, 13 September 2004 - 12:24 PM.


#33 Paladin

Paladin

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts

Posted 13 September 2004 - 12:41 PM

RE: Pilot...
YES, more customisation!!!
Well, if only we could modify the interceptors a bit... ya know, that Alien Alloy armor we've all whinned about... Or that Xenium-powered afterburner... :D
Oh, and it would add VERY good incentives to go and rescue your pilots :LOL:

RE: Base stuff...
Storage space is weak, at the very least... we SHOULD ba able to build a bit further out, or a bit further down, like, making another layer of facilities under the first base??
That way we'd have bases that would not be so crowded, it's totally unrealistic to have such an arbitrary limit to the base layout as to be square (and small at that)... I've been into mines that were far deeper thant that, and let me tell ya that there's ample room down there, and it's absolutely NOT different if the base is 40m or 140m underground... It can get tedious if it's 500m ,but you'd have ample room to make lots of bases down there...
Of course, only the top floors would have hangars, radars, and defenses :D

I adore the satellite aspect, but it's a moot point, since we don't need a whole facility just for that... Perhaps the bases should have a command center anyway, but all you really need is a bunch of experts and computers somewhere safe... the actual satellite launching costs hundreds of millions with a rocket, or is pretty much free if you strap it under a firestorm/lightning/avenger... ^_^
"You're just jealous because the voices in my head only talk to me."

"I only think this stuff up ..
then I have to write it down so it doesn't corrupt the rest of my brain.. "

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another which states that this has already happened.
-Douglas Adams (The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy)"

#34 Guest_alex the greater_*

Guest_alex the greater_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 September 2004 - 01:13 PM

actuly xcom had satalites if you read the ufopeda on radar instlations it says it has a satalite uplink for ground search

#35 Snakeman

Snakeman

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 13 September 2004 - 01:25 PM

RE: Base stuff...
Storage space is weak, at the very least... we SHOULD ba able to build a bit further out, or a bit further down, like, making another layer of facilities under the first base??
That way we'd have bases that would not be so crowded, it's totally unrealistic to have such an arbitrary limit to the base layout as to be square (and small at that)... I've been into mines that were far deeper thant that, and let me tell ya that there's ample room down there, and it's absolutely NOT different if the base is 40m or 140m underground... It can get tedious if it's 500m ,but you'd have ample room to make lots of bases down there...
Of course, only the top floors would have hangars, radars, and defenses :D

I adore the satellite aspect, but it's a moot point, since we don't need a whole facility just for that... Perhaps the bases should have a command center anyway, but all you really need is a bunch of experts and computers somewhere safe... the actual satellite launching costs hundreds of millions with a rocket, or is pretty much free if you strap it under a firestorm/lightning/avenger...  ^_^

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


True, you do have a point with the launching facility. Theoretically if an Avenger was reequipped right to deploy it it could take it right to the orbit desired and be done. I guess I like the launching facility for another reason I didn't realize until now. Using it could alert the aliens and other subversives where your base is by launching from it (inferior rocketery - makes large racket and generates lots of fire n' smoke).

Maybe combining the two would be better....a kind of tech progression. You start with the launching facility (after the sat research is done o'course - costing you lots in launch costs and manufacturing), later you get that special "deployment pod" for lack of a better term, for your Avenger. The clear drawback to the first is that it could put a big kind of smoke trail right to your base for the bad guys to follow :) With the Avenger option, you gain much more stealth in your actions (your engines probably run more silently than rocket engines and no smoke trail), however the drawback is it ties up your valuable Avenger for a few days or so - maybe your pilot caught some aliens in the act of blowing up sats so it defends after it made its deployment. You could slap on another drawback to the Avenger option with this "sat pod" taking up a weapons slot.

The other benefits not mentioned with the Avenger option is clearly you don't need a launching facility apart from the hanger it resides in. Second, you lose that third inursion option for the aliens with that launching facility, and now you only go back to the two...hangers and access lift, over three with the platform. So I think using the platform probably ought to be considered only if the base is remote, say the north or south poles, african desert etc. Depending on the sat needs of X-COM determines how long you keep one active (weighing in the dangers too o'course) and how frequently aliens disrupt sat operations. Perhaps you could add more costs to the first launch option of rockets by contracting out to friendly governments to launch your secret cargo for you (heh, I like the thought of putting more countries in direct danger of alien reprisal - sounds real nifty cool :))

Anway, pre-Avenger sat deployment, I like the possibilities. Its like a stack of dominos when you think of how you get things accomplished, and the repercussions to other nations helping you if not to you using your base for this :)

RE: Pilot... 
YES, more customisation!!!
Well, if only we could modify the interceptors a bit... ya know, that Alien Alloy armor we've all whinned about... Or that Xenium-powered afterburner... :D
Oh, and it would add VERY good incentives to go and rescue your pilots :LOL:


Ooh cool, I sense another mission type. Downed pilot rescue. I like. Could add another dimention of importance when you factor in the possibility of him falling into rogue governments' or aliens' hands. Enemy interrogation efforts with pilot under duress could reveal if not the location of an X-COM base for them, certainly info on human tech that later may help introduce some enemy counters. Cool. Better not ignore this mission too often like you do for terror sites or some such :)

#36 Guest_alex the greater_*

Guest_alex the greater_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 September 2004 - 01:28 PM

did you read what i just sead?

#37 Snakeman

Snakeman

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 13 September 2004 - 01:43 PM

Yes, the game gives you a minimum detection ability I think even without having put in radar facilities. And its a ufopedia entry to explain it, however, what we're driving at is adding a little more functionality as it relates to intercepting. i.e. the new and improved sats with their imaging stuff able to discern specific areas on UFOs for pilots to target.

And in relation to that, introducing a facility or two to make base designing challenging, not to mention a new class, pilot. I mean think about it, with relation to technology especially, it changes so rapidly. You only need look as far as home computing advances in the last few years as an example. Only logical to derive from that that a satelite in orbit at game start will be inferior to what you could employ if you last as long as a year or two in game time.

edit: Just thought of another area that could be tapped with regard to sats. Space.com had an article a while back discussing how universities are developing mini-statelites made with off the shelf technology. Sure its in its infancy, but the possible applications seem intriquing to me.

Edited by Snakeman, 13 September 2004 - 01:46 PM.


#38 Paladin

Paladin

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts

Posted 13 September 2004 - 02:06 PM

Hmmm, we might need some more thinking about the satellite launch facility, 'cauz I don't like it... Far too unrealistic when real launch sites costs hundreds of billions, are large as ten of our bases, and are NOT subtle... Plus, they could launch our sats easily A ballistic intercontinental missile silo is... doable in our bases, but these things don't go into orbit, they don't have to reach the 20000 km/s or so, that's why they are small enough to be lodged underground...

I much prefer the idea of a XCOM-command center of some kind, where you control stuffs like satellites, plus it would give us training abilities, and a better chance of finding UFOs with the radars (10% per minute instead of 5% as it is now), becasue of better control and uplink to civilian and military radars...


The Pilot rescue mission actually comes from UFO:Aftermath, and it was already suggested in this forum multiple times... :D
"You're just jealous because the voices in my head only talk to me."

"I only think this stuff up ..
then I have to write it down so it doesn't corrupt the rest of my brain.. "

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another which states that this has already happened.
-Douglas Adams (The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy)"

#39 Snakeman

Snakeman

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 13 September 2004 - 07:09 PM

Oh, didn't know about the pilot rescue missions being mentioned before, but its still a good idea. I think that it brings that extra layer of depth needed for the class, not to mention the training facility.

Launch facilities don't all have to cost hundreds of billions, but they should cost you, whether you make them for you or you contract out to allies to use theirs.

With the rocket silo thing, true, it could be one of those underground varieties, but the thing still vents a lot of smoke when deployed. Hmm, but with the contracting out of launches thing to other nations...Might be one way to liven up the politics area a bit too. I imagine a scenario where one month you had several sats ready to deploy that another country was going to do for you, then the next month they suddenly stop supporting you. Meanwhile they've still got their launch facility, plus your super duper sats to study and turn on you with :)

I don't know how it all should go, but it sounds interesting especially with respect to how Apoc handled raids. Could liven up raid mission type - go in, spank your old friends and get your stuff back (and some of their stuff too, oh, and be sure to leave their launch silo a smoking crater heh).

Anyway, if you read that article on the mini-sats, they're already looking at ways to reduce the cost of launching payloads into orbit. All I'm saying is, its one way to explain it certainly from a story perspective. i.e. Off the shelf tech may not last very long even though costs to launch would be negligible (by government spending standards that is). Contracting out may save you some money, but introduce risks to your allied nations. Doing it yourself might tie up craft (see Avenger sat deployment). I'm just thinking about coming up with some interesting tradeoffs, and possibly finding out if we can introduce new mission types (or liven up old types).

One other mission type I was thinking about was knocking out the other guy's sats in orbit once found. You could use ground to space weaponry, but that could likewise direct attention to your bases. Using ships would be the way to go I reckon, and wouldn't have to generate a battlescape cause your only dealing with an object about as big as my neighbor's buick heh.

Anyway, I think your probably right. The simplist approach would be to just find a way to improve how the sats work by comparison to game start. You could forgo the political and contract help and use research topics to explain it all. I mean, we are just talking about beefing up what could be done at intercept stage, I don't think we need much more than the pilot facility to train pilots, sat research (in conjunction of course with ufo class research) to yield you the ability to target more precisely.

One thing I do love about all this though is pilots and pilot training, and them gaining in experience not just simply in skills, but their longevity with a given craft. Can't forget the pilot rescue missions too, I'd love to do those. Like terror missions, they seem to give me that feeling of "I better do this one or else..." heh. I love how terror missions did that to me "holy crap, gotta save the civies!"

That sense of urgency should remain I feel.

#40 centurion

centurion

    Programming Department

  • Xenocide Programming Department
  • 800 posts

Posted 14 September 2004 - 01:09 AM

Far too unrealistic when real launch sites costs hundreds of billions, are large as ten of our bases, and are NOT subtle... Plus, they could launch our sats easily  A ballistic intercontinental missile silo is... doable in our bases, but these things don't go into orbit, they don't have to reach the 20000 km/s or so, that's why they are small enough to be lodged underground...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Launch sites are way cheaper than what you say (unless you count in lira :D ) and not much bigger than a decent hangar. ICBMs that are launched from silos do get into orbit, that's why they have the range to hit anything; and to get into orbit, the speed is 8 km/s, not 7% of speed of light like you state.
Endure; in enduring, grow strong.
- Dak'kon

Help us getting Civ2 code: http://forums.civfan...p...age=1&pp=20 !

#41 Guest_alex the greater_*

Guest_alex the greater_*
  • Guests

Posted 14 September 2004 - 03:56 AM

no the outher countrys mantain the satalites if we start lanching sats the aliens would find our base on the first lanch (lanches arnt subtel) and anywhays it to easy for them to sabatoge them amywhay

#42 Paladin

Paladin

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts

Posted 14 September 2004 - 08:04 AM

Far too unrealistic when real launch sites costs hundreds of billions, are large as ten of our bases, and are NOT subtle... Plus, they could launch our sats easily A ballistic intercontinental missile silo is... doable in our bases, but these things don't go into orbit, they don't have to reach the 20000 km/s or so, that's why they are small enough to be lodged underground...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Launch sites are way cheaper than what you say (unless you count in lira :D ) and not much bigger than a decent hangar. ICBMs that are launched from silos do get into orbit, that's why they have the range to hit anything; and to get into orbit, the speed is 8 km/s, not 7% of speed of light like you state.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oops, sorry, I meant 20 000 km/h... :hammer:

And no, ICBMs DO NOT reach that speed, they reach orbital "altitude", that is, 100km above the earth's surface is usually regarded as being out of the atmosphere, but if they don't reach the satellisation speed, they'll fall down toward the ground in a ballistic arc, wich is exactly what they're designed to do... (ICBM: Intercontinental BALLISTIC Missile, as in: sub-orbital speed) ^_^

And YES, stas are VERY vulnerable to counter-attack... hmmm, WHAT would happen if the aliens decided to destroy ALL of our satellites... :idea: No more Internet, No more GPS, Intercontinental communications back to a crawl... THAT's a "prelude to invasion"... :LOL: :cussing: :crying: :devillaugh:


Phew, now...
RE: Pilots.
YES, all of it!! Let us have real pilots instead of nameless interceptors, let them gain experience... Even a medium scout should be more of a challenge at first, at least taking potshots at us... CUSTOMIZE FIGHTERS!! and, a real-time combat would be nice, but it's already very good as it is...
:happybanana:

Edited by Paladin, 14 September 2004 - 08:05 AM.

"You're just jealous because the voices in my head only talk to me."

"I only think this stuff up ..
then I have to write it down so it doesn't corrupt the rest of my brain.. "

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another which states that this has already happened.
-Douglas Adams (The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy)"

#43 The Master Maniac

The Master Maniac

    Captain

  • Xenocide Recruit
  • 442 posts

Posted 14 September 2004 - 10:41 AM

Now, see--that's an excellent idea right there. Another motivation to keep your interceptors from getting shot up besides fear of eventually going bankrupt! I like that one.

As for the multi-layered bases, it only seems natural. When I first read that, I initially didn't much care for the idea--after all, what keeps the player from totally obliterating the fun from the game by creating an invincible "super base?" Then I realized the obvious constraints and limits--1) money. How many facilities can you build before being swamped with costs and maintenence fees? 2) implementation of a kind of "structrual stability" system similar to Apocalypse that limits the player from building too many floors underground. Perhaps we could have a certain limit to how much room the player can take.

Anyway, a possible way to do this is to give the player roughly half more building space than you can get in the original. Balance and limitations are important for making good gameplay (I actually liked the original base system in the first X-Com, and Apocalypse's even more), therefore we don't want players "cheating" the game by making bases impossible to overpower and incredibly large. Maybe we could add the potential strategy of allowing the player to build vertically, as well, so that, in danger of enemy attack, they could make the available space as open or as confined as they like. Already, many facilities from the original X-Com are already multi-tiered, even if the didn't appear that way during battle. What, you didn't think everybody shared the same bed, did you? :) The living quarters alone appeared to have gone on for several floors due to the fact each could hold 50 people (and, also, the fact each floor appeared to be so confined). Giving the player a bit more creative "breathing room" shouldn't hurt--just so long as the game remains balanced and playable. Also, the factor of alien/enemy attacks has to be considered, as well. With more than, say, 10 levels of buildings, how difficult would finding that last alien be? Better yet, writing the AI of said aliens so that they can navigate through the difficult, winding interior of the base? Limits have to be put into practice, of course.

#44 Paladin

Paladin

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts

Posted 14 September 2004 - 11:55 AM

You got good point here, I do consider that building a base vertically is easier than having a large, sprawling thing underground...
Perhaps building another layer down would cost as much as building another base elsewhere, so it would be balanced, but you could still add a little bit more-realistically-wise, especially for storage space, living quarters and such...

I understand that a secret base needs to remain small, but does it have to be SQUARE!! ??
(and barely underground :huh:)

I'd settle for just double teh space we already have :D
"You're just jealous because the voices in my head only talk to me."

"I only think this stuff up ..
then I have to write it down so it doesn't corrupt the rest of my brain.. "

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another which states that this has already happened.
-Douglas Adams (The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy)"

#45 Snakeman

Snakeman

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts

Posted 14 September 2004 - 09:18 PM

Well, I think all those base ideas are good. Maybe "squares" shouldn't be taken too literally as far as how the structure in question looks. I mean, maybe it could take up a square, but what's seen for expanded living quarters for example, is a cylindrical structure that spans two or three levels. I mean, maybe the connecting corridors have to be straight and use the full dimentions of these squares, all I'm suggesting is that the building need not graphically or physically take up that whole space.

Oh yea, and the higher cost to begin building to another level sounds good. I'd reckon just pile on most of the cost to the access lift's extention portion. Costs to build anything else on that level could be slightly more, but I'd prefer if more of the costs were slammed at you had to do with maintenance much more rather than in intiial cost to buy. At least while its being built, you got yourself some time do go raid some countrys' bank accounts :)

But back to the flying stuff (gosh, its so easy to have one topic bleeding into others round here ain't it hehe).

I didn't touch much on the ship customization thing, but I'm all for it if its done well. It'd be fun for example to revitalize "inferior" ships with such things as using alien alloy composites (but otherwise its still roughly the same scale n' such), plopping in an extra weapons slot of its big enough, if not, maybe something else would fit down the road through miniturization reesarch of a given tech. Apoc let you plop in components and stuff and didn't seem to me to be too nuts in the mircromanagement department (although, I did sometimes need to remember to get stuff now and then :))

#46 centurion

centurion

    Programming Department

  • Xenocide Programming Department
  • 800 posts

Posted 15 September 2004 - 03:21 AM

And no, ICBMs DO NOT reach that speed, they reach orbital "altitude", that is, 100km above the earth's surface is usually regarded as being out of the atmosphere, but if they don't reach the satellisation speed, they'll fall down toward the ground in a ballistic arc, wich is exactly what they're designed to do... (ICBM: Intercontinental BALLISTIC Missile, as in: sub-orbital speed)  <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

'Ballistic' stands for the fact that the engines only fire during launch (and maybe descent start, I'm not sure). When the missile gets inot orbital altitude, it already has most of the speed needed to actually stay in orbit.

It takes a far more powerfull launcher (or a greatly lighter paylod) to go into orbit and stay there, that's why launch sites are usually as close to the equator as possible, to use the earth's motion as initial speed...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The satellite launch centres are put closer to the equator because of cost considerations, since you can choose where to put them; in case of ICBMs, there's the need to spread the sites as much as possible to avoid losing them en masse in case of an attack.

And yes, launch centers DO costs billions (of $), because this is top-notch expert stuff, that NO mistakes can be tolerated, and it takes DECADES to assemble the corerct staffing and industry to back it all up... That's why (to my knowledge), only the US, France (with the ESA), China and Japan, have, again to my knowledge, their own satellite-launching rocket sites...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A launch site is much less important than the delivery vehicle used; could you tell me what needs "top-notch expert stuff" around a scaffold to hold a rocket up straight?
As to the other sentence, ever heard of Russia?
Endure; in enduring, grow strong.
- Dak'kon

Help us getting Civ2 code: http://forums.civfan...p...age=1&pp=20 !

#47 Paladin

Paladin

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,132 posts

Posted 15 September 2004 - 08:22 AM

Hey! Here's my favorite arguing buddy! :beer:

First, some thoughts... Yep, flying interception would be cool, but it's definitely not a priority...
Ther, I said, it, I was on topic, so let's get to all the rest of the ideas that were raised here... O:)

Yep, building bases a bit deeper might be cool, or at LEAST give us the option of building deeper (bigger) Storage and living facilities... it only makes sense, and would clear out some space... for a cost ^_^


Ok, for ICBMs, they do not reach satellisation speed, as they don't need to STAY in orbit... that's what orbital speed is for... Even in low orbit.
Havin *most* of the sped needeed, like or so, is still not what's necessary...
My point was that it's very VERY much harder to have such a large rocket as needed for lanching stellites, hidden in a underground base when there's a commercial/military launchpad readily available...

About the launch center's locations, the thing is a rocket launched from the poles would need to be at teh very least thrice as big as one launching from the equator... When it gets to multiples of cost, it becomes a real technical problem if you want to launch something of a fixed size...

You are right about the control site not needing to be near the launch pad, wich is exactly my point, no need for the launch site to be in our bases :D

And yes, the Baikonour Cosmodrome is the farthest south the russians dared, and the equator's the reason why NASA's Cape Canaverall launch site is in Florida... The French launch site of Kuru, in French Guyana (just north of Brazil) is actually widely commercially efficient because it's further south... Their Ariane IV and V rockets carry generaly twice as much payload as their US or Russian equivalents...
I don't think the Chinese launch commercial satellites, but I think the Japanese do, still their launch sites are equator-oriented...

Edited by Paladin, 15 September 2004 - 08:24 AM.

"You're just jealous because the voices in my head only talk to me."

"I only think this stuff up ..
then I have to write it down so it doesn't corrupt the rest of my brain.. "

"There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable.
There is another which states that this has already happened.
-Douglas Adams (The Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy)"

#48 sir_schwick

sir_schwick

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 481 posts

Posted 27 November 2004 - 11:09 AM

ON BUILDING MORE SPACE:

I would like to see X-COM in general not be limited by game-balance concerns. They need all the help they can get against the new, smart, and more powerful aliens. Also, if one battleship can't take out a base, two will come next, two don't work, then three. Aliens will attack until the base no longer threatens them. That means you stop attacking them or they wipe you out. Eventually expect 20 battleships, once the aliens build them.

Hangars and Radars/HWD must be built on the top level. Each level below the first costs the level number/2 times the maintenance and construction cost. THat menas the 2nd level is normal, but 3 is 1.5 times as much and 4 twice as much.

You build down either on the access ramp(aliens get deeper easier) or deep-acess ramps.


INTERCEPT MISSIONS:

You are commanding the air intercept remotely. Eventually a partial-rendered contact could be shown, but wait till Xenocide works. I would like a couple popups showing the health(part specifici) of the pilot and interceptor craft. ALso, with appropriate techs, you could see more info about the UFO your intercepting.

Edited by sir_schwick, 27 November 2004 - 02:57 PM.


#49 GARAK

GARAK

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 26 May 2005 - 06:05 PM

I liked the radar screen in the original. If it's made more realistic with better graphics, well that would be better. I don't want the same old animations playing everytime, 3d or no. I didn't get sick of the radar thing, but if took longer, or was more involved, then I would have hated it.
Bases should be bigger and deeper, within reason.
Pilots should just get better on their own. I guess there could be a training facility, but there shouldn't be much to it really. I guess there would have to be additional training when the new ships are invented.
I don't like the rescue mission idea. There should be a 50/50 chance of survival. If they survive, a message comes up saying they were picked up. If not, then they died and there will be a service held in the empty hangar at o' 800 hours. DISMISSED.