UFOpaedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Bravery

2006-11-10T00:41:15Z

Egor:

For anyone interested, here's how a plot of the Bravery Experience (the number of times Panic/MC is '''resisted''') versus how often it results in a Bravery increase:

EC Min Ave +/- SDs Max N
0 0 0.00 0.00 0 2004
1 0 1.00 3.02 10 100
2 0 0.90 2.88 10 100
3 0 2.91 4.55 10 179
4 0 4.47 4.99 10 150
5 0 4.97 5.01 10 185
6 0 5.13 5.01 10 150
7 0 6.80 4.68 10 150
8 0 6.80 4.68 10 150
9 0 8.53 3.55 10 150
10 0 8.92 3.12 10 249
11 10 10.00 0.00 10 250
12 10 10.00 0.00 10 50
13 10 10.00 0.00 10 85
30 10 10.00 0.00 10 133
90 10 10.00 0.00 10 129
250 10 10.00 0.00 10 50

Where EC is the experience count value hacked into the Unitref.dat counter for Bravery (UR[85]), and Minimum, Average +/- Std. Dev. (sample), and Maximum are shown, together with the number of times tested. (The Ns are often nice round numbers because I would e.g. hack 10 soldiers in a savegame, then end that combat 15 times.) Don't be confused by the average; that is, you only get a 10 (or not), so the ave+SDs is actually a weighted average, as it were, of how often you get 10 or not for a given UR[85]. (That's why the SDs are huge and pretty much =5 in the middle.) For practical purposes, it's also a percent, e.g. 10 ECs result in a Bravery increase 89.2% of the time.

As you can see, the progression is not particularly smooth. But that's how the data was. Don't ask me why they chose 11 for experience counters and especially this, but they did. As you can see, I zeroed in around that 10/11 border with a bit of additional testing, but it held up.

Since Bravery is a pretty boring statistic all in all, I didn't do anything more with it except to make that simplified statement on the [[Bravery]] page.

For the record: The above was for varying values of Bravery, as long as they were less than 100. (Which is actually stored as an "inverted" single-digit value which equals a x0 value - see Unitref.dat and Soldier.dat.) As for other primary stats, I found that the current Bravery value (0 to 90) had no effect on the increase, as long as it was below the cap of 100 (data not shown).

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]], 2 July 2006

----

For anyone interested, here are a few observations from the Panic testing I just did (see stats under this page's Bravery Training). For lack of a better place, I've put them here:
*27 of the 104 soldiers never moved or dropped their gear, when going from Morale 0 to 60. (They always froze or berserked, their four times each while going from 0 to 60.) This little bit of datum may help piece together odds of [[Berserk]] (36%) versus Panic Run and Panic Freeze (read on). I did not track what happened each Panic/Berserk though; that would have been a lot more trouble than just getting Bravery experience counters (and noticing whatever else I could) for 0 to 60.
*Every soldier who ran, ''always'' dropped their gear. Both hands (all soldiers had both hands full).
*Only on fairly rare occasions did soldiers stay still but drop their gear. Also on rare occasions, they only ran a short distance. Most of the time when they ran, they ran to the limits of their TUs. (I had modified everyone to 40 TUs so they could run some, but not real far.)
*Therefore there probably are three possible results, from the programmer's side of it: Berserk (never drops), Panic Run (always drops), and Panic Freeze (never drops). And apparently the distance to run is usually full out, but occasionally is short or nothing.
*Soldiers who ran, always ran to the south and/or east, where southeast is "down your screen toward your keyboard". True, there was a UFO directly "up" (northwest) from their start point, but they ''never'' went west or north, even after they were far from the UFO. Or could it be they were running away from the UFO?
*On at least three occasions, I saw soldiers run ''through'' solid walls of other soldiers. This probably happened when a "Panic Run" order was given, but all paths south and/or east were blocked. (The only times I noticed it happening was on the first turn when everybody was Morale 0, bunched together with some soldiers blocking others' route to the south and east. After that turn, there were always "holes in the wall of soldiers" that they could go through, and they would.) This could be tested fairly easily, if anybody wants to. (Put 8 soldiers around a central one; set Morale of center one so only he'll Panic.) I wonder what they'd do inside a UFO?

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 13:25, 1 November 2006 (PST)

----

It may be the UFO the troops run from, or it may be an alien? The closest or furtherest one maybe?

Fwahaha! New grey detector!

As for why the troops sometimes don't move, my bet is a random location to run to is set, which sometimes turns out to be where the unit already is.

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 05:53, 6 November 2006 (PST)

----

It could be, BB. It's hard to draw conclusions on these other things since I wasn't really testing them. There was only one alien left alive, and some troops were "above" him (to north and/or west), but everybody to a man still went south and/or east. So I'd tend to think it's either south and/or east regardless, or they're running from the UFO. Maybe they run from whatever's the biggest (group of) alien thing(s) they can see? So maybe it's a new UFO detector, lol. Good point. Or maybe it's not.

That could be true about a random location to run to. But that may be bound up with how far they run, making it be two ways to say the same thing. Who knows? --[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 07:10, 6 November 2006 (PST)

I always thought that panicked soldiers ran towards the nearest prox grenade? In any case, you can use a wall of soldiers to pen panicked soldiers, in the back of the skyranger for instance. - Egor

Talk:Heavy Weapons Platforms

2006-10-25T00:48:29Z

Egor:

What is the morale hit your soldiers take from the loss of a tank? Would it be equal to the death of a newbie? If so, I think that would count as an advantage.--[[User:Trotsky|Trotsky]] 05:19, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

----

Yes, same as a rookie, according to the [[Morale]] page. Tanks are quite well-suited to the Scout role. Feel free to note this property on the HWP article page.

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 14:54, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

------------------------------------------------

My personal opinion is that hover tanks are fit for puropse but the conventional tanks are not. Tanks do not provide additional firepower compared to four squaddies, so their purpose must surely be as robust front line vehicles. Hovertanks can do this very well with their speed, flight, and durability against plasma fire. Conventional tanks are less mobile than squaddies, even without stamina problems, and still vulnerable to single plasma shots.

Using tanks on ufo recovery missions is problematic since they block the front of the skyranger, stop you getting smoke dropped, and usually draw plasma fire when they wheel down the ramp. This isn't solved on the lightning or avenger. Their best use seems to be on base defence, base attack, and cydonia missions where the 80 item limit prevents the arming of too many soldiers. - Egor

Talk:Missile Defences

2006-10-18T01:08:39Z

Egor:

== Are Missile Defences worth building? ==

I cannot recall the last time I built those. Laser Defences come quite early, and for the gap between I find it better to rely on a garrison with a couple rocket HWP's.--[[User:Trotsky|Trotsky]] 03:39, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

----

It's arguable that none of the defence modules are worth building - except the mind shields. Well, that's not entirely true. Defences don't stop an attack. They just slow them down.

The aliens will just send another battleship continuously until one gets through. You can only suffer so many battleships that you'll end up dismantling your defences just to let them through. Also damage to the battleship has no control on the aliens that actually enter the base.

But for the missile module... Let's see. The main one would be to build a huge battery of missiles. This is cheap (in relation to a huge battery of fusion modules) and can be incredibly effective when coupled with a grav shield. It unnecessarily expands your base, but with so many missiles firing, it'll be very hard for any battleship to break through. It also makes each ufo attack take a long time to complete, and as the aliens will just send another battleship, it's never ending.

Now, its other use, check the lower level corridor layout of the missile defence module. It's quite unique when compared to most of the other modules. With careful planning, you can use this to control movement through the base.

It's sad, but the missile module is more useful in a purpose other than what it's there fore.

- [[User:NKF|NKF]]

----

Thanks for confirming that damage upon incoming battleships has no effect on the tactical battle - I have been wondering about that.
As for defences not being worth building: I agree with the idea of defences being only useful as slowing the aliens down (I remember playing a TFTD game in which they would send more than a ship an hour - I would love an option to "turn defences off", so that one could just put an invasion off until ready to face it). However, missile denfences are double worthless, since not only they are only capable of delaying an invading force, but also very poor at doing so.
I found that bit about the module being valuable in tactical combat quite interesting - perhaps it should be added to the main article?--[[User:Trotsky|Trotsky]] 06:33, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

------------------

I had frequent crashes when running base defence missions with missile defences built. I now don't use them and don't miss them. I heard a rumour that base defences reduced the number of attacking aliens when they hit but since I don't use missiles any more I can't confirm that. Egor

Talk:Missile Defences

2006-10-18T01:08:10Z

Egor:

Talk:Alien Missions

2006-10-15T23:30:43Z

Egor: /* More info on mission waves */

I'm curious, can people tell me if the aliens will ONLY retaliate against bases if the player is shooting down UFO's, and won't retaliate against the player always attacking UFO's while landed.

Having recently tried Superhuman for the first time, I was caught off-guard when the aliens retaliated against a base in early March for me shooting a single UFO down (in February, I think) near that base. It wasn't even in the same country... I got the impression that simply being in the same world-region draws the attack.

I decided to restart the game from scratch, disbanded all my interceptors, and only attacked UFO's using Avengers following them until they landed... this actually worked extremely well... I have the alien menace under control so far, and I've saved tons of money by not having interceptors, avalanche missiles, hangars, and all the other support infrastructure.

However, I'm actually a little disappointed that the game lets you get away with this no-intercept strategy. I think next game I will come up with a strategy to go back to interceptors with "hardened" bases very early in the game (though how I'll get cash for that, I have no idea).

If I were to come up with one improvement to the game, it would be to make air-superiority more essential throughout the game... I would make the UFO's "aggro" vs. Skyrangers -- if they spot a nearby Skyranger they will attack and destroy it! Later in the game, I would make the Battleship ALWAYS attack any SLOWER craft it spots in the air... the idea is to wear down the player's air assets and knock him out of the sky. As the game currently is, you really don't need air-superiority if you have ground-superiority!

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 21:57, 12 July 2006 (PDT)

----

I've had more or less the same experience as you with Retaliations: after shooting down only one UFO, I got regular visits from a Retaliation scout on that continent.

Ground Assault-only works pretty well, but there are several cases where Interception is preferable:

* When the UFO doesn't make a landing at all (Retaliation scouts don't, for instance, and bigger ships often don't know where to land if you kill their scouts beforehand);
* Infiltration missions (4 or more ships show up at once, and unless you have 4+ Skyrangers, you'll need to shoot down one or more craft); Harvesters often show up in pairs, too;
* Distance (unless you've got multiple Skyrangers posted around the world, you might not be able to reach a UFO before it takes off again);
* Night missions (If the UFO arrives at its target at dusk, it'll probably leave before daybreak; it's easier to down it, then storm it at your leisure);
* Terror Ships (I bloody hate terror missions).

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 10:31, 12 July 2006 (PDT)

----

To be fair, after running a few non-related tests that involved getting a HWD from the very start, I have noticed that the very first UFO you spot can begin on retaliation mission.

Interceptions - or rather - shoot-downs do attract them, that's for sure.

- [[User:NKF|NKF]]

----------------------------------

I ran into the "latency" issue with using Skyrangers, but came up with a workaround: I figured out each month what region the aliens were focusing on -- Australasia in February 1999, for example. My main (first) base with my Skyranger was on the NORTH POLE!!!, so obviously catching a UFO scout picked up on radar over Australasia before it disappeared was extremely unlikely -- a 12 hour one-way trip -- and if I did it would probably be at night anyway. Well, my workaround was, once I figured out Australasia was "targeted", I would send the Skyranger down there on a regular schedule, timed to arrive an hour or two before dawn -- the immense fuel capacity of the Skyranger allows it to loiter on station, over Australia, for over 12 hours before returning. It would then spend the next 12 hours or so refueling and then be ready for the next mission -- thus I could have a Skyranger in the region of alien activity during daylight every other day. Turns out the aliens would frequently show up early in the day and land during daylight with the Skyranger right nearby -- I snagged several UFO's on the ground in Australasia this way.

Another strategy I came up with was placing my bases specifically to be equidistant around the globe -- the idea being to pick up the UFO's far outside the target region -- South Asia in March, for example, is picked up over New Zealand -- giving me plenty of warning to launch a Skyranger... by the time the UFO has picked a landing spot, the Skyranger is close enough to snag it on the ground during daytime. My bases are on the north/south poles, baja california, north africa, taiwan, fiji, paraguay, and madagascar -- roughly on the tropics every 60 degrees. I have Skyrangers based from the poles -- the rest are listening posts (and eventually interceptor bases).

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 21:57, 12 July 2006 (PDT)

----

Interesting approach. In terms of global coverage, I usually wait until I've got the Hyper-Wave to build most of my bases. One per continent generally does the trick.

Could you detail your build-out sequence more? When do you build additional bases, how many Skyrangers do you have, and when do you acquire them?

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 22:58, 13 July 2006 (PDT)

----

Yeah I'm currently torn regarding the hyperwave decoder issue... not too long after I get my bases built, the radar systems become "obsolete".

The idea is to have a "picket defense" -- rather than putting a base smack in the middle of each "high value" country, distribute bases evenly and try to pick up enemy UFO's inbound when they're far away from the high value country, and (eventually once the bases are built up) I can send multiple interceptors to converge on the UFO, because I have plenty of advance warning on where it is going.

OK, to detail my build plan: I build X-ARCTICOM first -- what can I say, I'm a fan of symmetry... it also has the benefit of being at the "center" of the northern hemisphere. I of course build an Alien Containment facility on day one. In my current game, I scrapped the third hangar and the 2nd interceptor... but if I had to do it over, strictly from a "winning" standpoint, I would scrap both of the southern hangars and both interceptors... the Skyranger is all that's required early on. But, I'm starting to think the no-intercept approach is a little cheesy so I'm trying to work out how to play the game "honest" while still maintaining my basic strategy.

On day one, I begin construction of X-NOAMERICOM, on the southern tip of Baja California. All future bases are added as money becomes available, but I give them extremely high priority in terms of funding... each base gets just long range and short range radars -- they are listening posts. The idea is, I'm trying to prevent the aliens from having any open spots they can harrass with impunity early in the game (my first Superhuman game, Australia signed a non-aggression pact in either February or March). As funding becomes availabe, the buildout is as follows:

X-NOAFRICOM (on the Prime Meridian and the Tropic of Cancer -- saharan desert)

X-SEASIACOM (western tip of Taiwan -- the closest I could get to E120 degrees)

X-AUSTRALCOM (actually in Fiji, closest to the international date line and Tropic of Capricorn)

X-SOAMERICOM (roughly paraguay -- W60 degrees and Tropic of Capricorn)

X-SOAFRICOM (Madagascar, closest to E60 degrees and Tropic of Capricorn)

X-ANTARCTICOM (south pole)

Technically the latitudes should be a tad closer to the equator to be truly equidistant (I worked the trig out once) but the tropic circles are easy to find on a map, have a pleasing simplicity to them, and the "high value real estate" is closer to the poles than the equator anyway, so nudging the bases a little closer to the poles works just fine.

The idea is to build a mirror of X-ARCTICOM down at X-ANTARCTICOM -- again, this provides both redundancy and also makes it easier to cover the southern hemisphere.

As I happened to play the game I only had one Skyranger until I built up X-ANTARCTICOM, but if I did it over again, I would probably go with two per polar base and 20 soldiers at each base -- enough for 10 men + 1 HWP per Skyranger. Then once X-ANTARCTICOM was built I would transfer one of the veteran squads from X-ARCTICOM down south and draft some new soldiers for both bases.

But, the idea is to give the the listening posts absolute top priority. Also, I've found that it's not ineffective to build small+large radars prior to the invention of the hyperwave decoder... they do the job... just not as well as the HWD. If I had to do things over, actually, I would postpone HWD research for better interceptor tech... and then once I have great interceptor bases, I would worry about having perfect UFO detection. Not that I'm opposed to HWD's... it's just a question of priorities. It's also more in keeping with what the game designers intended... they expected us to have to slug it out with simple radar tech for a while.

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 17:44, 14 July 2006 (PDT)

== More info on mission waves ==

Every mission wave will be carried out by one alien race, typically in one continental zone over one month. Regular mission waves will consist of just a few small ships, increasing in size. These are the bread and butter missions for X-COM. Retalition waves consist of a series of scouts, increasing in size, ending with a battleship. If any of them detects the base then a new battleship will head straight for the base and attack it, otherwise the retaliation wave ends harmlessly.

The medium sized harvester and research ships have a different pattern, the same ships landing repeatedly until you deal with them. Large terror ships arrive once a month to terrorise cities but can also make extra unexplained flights without landing.

Alien bases are usually constructed by the simultaneous landing of a small ship, two large supply ships, and a battleship in the same zone. It's a good idea to recover at least the small ship to see what type of alien is building the base. Thereafter, two supply ships each month fly quickly into the base and depart, too quick for interceptors and distant skyrangers. - Egor

Talk:Alien Missions

2006-10-15T23:29:08Z

Egor: /* More info on mission waves */

I'm curious, can people tell me if the aliens will ONLY retaliate against bases if the player is shooting down UFO's, and won't retaliate against the player always attacking UFO's while landed.

Having recently tried Superhuman for the first time, I was caught off-guard when the aliens retaliated against a base in early March for me shooting a single UFO down (in February, I think) near that base. It wasn't even in the same country... I got the impression that simply being in the same world-region draws the attack.

I decided to restart the game from scratch, disbanded all my interceptors, and only attacked UFO's using Avengers following them until they landed... this actually worked extremely well... I have the alien menace under control so far, and I've saved tons of money by not having interceptors, avalanche missiles, hangars, and all the other support infrastructure.

However, I'm actually a little disappointed that the game lets you get away with this no-intercept strategy. I think next game I will come up with a strategy to go back to interceptors with "hardened" bases very early in the game (though how I'll get cash for that, I have no idea).

If I were to come up with one improvement to the game, it would be to make air-superiority more essential throughout the game... I would make the UFO's "aggro" vs. Skyrangers -- if they spot a nearby Skyranger they will attack and destroy it! Later in the game, I would make the Battleship ALWAYS attack any SLOWER craft it spots in the air... the idea is to wear down the player's air assets and knock him out of the sky. As the game currently is, you really don't need air-superiority if you have ground-superiority!

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 21:57, 12 July 2006 (PDT)

----

I've had more or less the same experience as you with Retaliations: after shooting down only one UFO, I got regular visits from a Retaliation scout on that continent.

Ground Assault-only works pretty well, but there are several cases where Interception is preferable:

* When the UFO doesn't make a landing at all (Retaliation scouts don't, for instance, and bigger ships often don't know where to land if you kill their scouts beforehand);
* Infiltration missions (4 or more ships show up at once, and unless you have 4+ Skyrangers, you'll need to shoot down one or more craft); Harvesters often show up in pairs, too;
* Distance (unless you've got multiple Skyrangers posted around the world, you might not be able to reach a UFO before it takes off again);
* Night missions (If the UFO arrives at its target at dusk, it'll probably leave before daybreak; it's easier to down it, then storm it at your leisure);
* Terror Ships (I bloody hate terror missions).

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 10:31, 12 July 2006 (PDT)

----

To be fair, after running a few non-related tests that involved getting a HWD from the very start, I have noticed that the very first UFO you spot can begin on retaliation mission.

Interceptions - or rather - shoot-downs do attract them, that's for sure.

- [[User:NKF|NKF]]

----------------------------------

I ran into the "latency" issue with using Skyrangers, but came up with a workaround: I figured out each month what region the aliens were focusing on -- Australasia in February 1999, for example. My main (first) base with my Skyranger was on the NORTH POLE!!!, so obviously catching a UFO scout picked up on radar over Australasia before it disappeared was extremely unlikely -- a 12 hour one-way trip -- and if I did it would probably be at night anyway. Well, my workaround was, once I figured out Australasia was "targeted", I would send the Skyranger down there on a regular schedule, timed to arrive an hour or two before dawn -- the immense fuel capacity of the Skyranger allows it to loiter on station, over Australia, for over 12 hours before returning. It would then spend the next 12 hours or so refueling and then be ready for the next mission -- thus I could have a Skyranger in the region of alien activity during daylight every other day. Turns out the aliens would frequently show up early in the day and land during daylight with the Skyranger right nearby -- I snagged several UFO's on the ground in Australasia this way.

Another strategy I came up with was placing my bases specifically to be equidistant around the globe -- the idea being to pick up the UFO's far outside the target region -- South Asia in March, for example, is picked up over New Zealand -- giving me plenty of warning to launch a Skyranger... by the time the UFO has picked a landing spot, the Skyranger is close enough to snag it on the ground during daytime. My bases are on the north/south poles, baja california, north africa, taiwan, fiji, paraguay, and madagascar -- roughly on the tropics every 60 degrees. I have Skyrangers based from the poles -- the rest are listening posts (and eventually interceptor bases).

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 21:57, 12 July 2006 (PDT)

----

Interesting approach. In terms of global coverage, I usually wait until I've got the Hyper-Wave to build most of my bases. One per continent generally does the trick.

Could you detail your build-out sequence more? When do you build additional bases, how many Skyrangers do you have, and when do you acquire them?

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 22:58, 13 July 2006 (PDT)

----

Yeah I'm currently torn regarding the hyperwave decoder issue... not too long after I get my bases built, the radar systems become "obsolete".

The idea is to have a "picket defense" -- rather than putting a base smack in the middle of each "high value" country, distribute bases evenly and try to pick up enemy UFO's inbound when they're far away from the high value country, and (eventually once the bases are built up) I can send multiple interceptors to converge on the UFO, because I have plenty of advance warning on where it is going.

OK, to detail my build plan: I build X-ARCTICOM first -- what can I say, I'm a fan of symmetry... it also has the benefit of being at the "center" of the northern hemisphere. I of course build an Alien Containment facility on day one. In my current game, I scrapped the third hangar and the 2nd interceptor... but if I had to do it over, strictly from a "winning" standpoint, I would scrap both of the southern hangars and both interceptors... the Skyranger is all that's required early on. But, I'm starting to think the no-intercept approach is a little cheesy so I'm trying to work out how to play the game "honest" while still maintaining my basic strategy.

On day one, I begin construction of X-NOAMERICOM, on the southern tip of Baja California. All future bases are added as money becomes available, but I give them extremely high priority in terms of funding... each base gets just long range and short range radars -- they are listening posts. The idea is, I'm trying to prevent the aliens from having any open spots they can harrass with impunity early in the game (my first Superhuman game, Australia signed a non-aggression pact in either February or March). As funding becomes availabe, the buildout is as follows:

X-NOAFRICOM (on the Prime Meridian and the Tropic of Cancer -- saharan desert)

X-SEASIACOM (western tip of Taiwan -- the closest I could get to E120 degrees)

X-AUSTRALCOM (actually in Fiji, closest to the international date line and Tropic of Capricorn)

X-SOAMERICOM (roughly paraguay -- W60 degrees and Tropic of Capricorn)

X-SOAFRICOM (Madagascar, closest to E60 degrees and Tropic of Capricorn)

X-ANTARCTICOM (south pole)

Technically the latitudes should be a tad closer to the equator to be truly equidistant (I worked the trig out once) but the tropic circles are easy to find on a map, have a pleasing simplicity to them, and the "high value real estate" is closer to the poles than the equator anyway, so nudging the bases a little closer to the poles works just fine.

The idea is to build a mirror of X-ARCTICOM down at X-ANTARCTICOM -- again, this provides both redundancy and also makes it easier to cover the southern hemisphere.

As I happened to play the game I only had one Skyranger until I built up X-ANTARCTICOM, but if I did it over again, I would probably go with two per polar base and 20 soldiers at each base -- enough for 10 men + 1 HWP per Skyranger. Then once X-ANTARCTICOM was built I would transfer one of the veteran squads from X-ARCTICOM down south and draft some new soldiers for both bases.

But, the idea is to give the the listening posts absolute top priority. Also, I've found that it's not ineffective to build small+large radars prior to the invention of the hyperwave decoder... they do the job... just not as well as the HWD. If I had to do things over, actually, I would postpone HWD research for better interceptor tech... and then once I have great interceptor bases, I would worry about having perfect UFO detection. Not that I'm opposed to HWD's... it's just a question of priorities. It's also more in keeping with what the game designers intended... they expected us to have to slug it out with simple radar tech for a while.

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 17:44, 14 July 2006 (PDT)

== More info on mission waves ==

Every mission wave will be carried out by one alien race, typically in one continental zone over one month. Regular mission waves will consist of just a few small ships, increasing in size. These are the bread and butter missions for X-COM. Retalition waves consist of a series of scouts, increasing in size, ending with a battleship. If any of them detects the base then a new battleship will head straight for the base and attack it, otherwise the retaliation wave ends harmlessly.

The medium sized harvester and research ships have a different pattern, the same ships landing repeatedly until you deal with them. Large terror ships arrive once a month to terrorise cities but can also make extra unexplained flights without landing.

Alien bases are usually constructed by the simultaneous landing of a small ship, two large supply ships, and a battleship in the same zone. It's a good idea to recover at least the small ship to see what type of alien is building the base. Thereafter, base will have two supply ships each month fly quickly into the base and depart, too quick for interceptors and distant skyrangers. - Egor

Talk:Alien Missions

2006-10-15T23:28:42Z

Egor: More info on mission waves

I'm curious, can people tell me if the aliens will ONLY retaliate against bases if the player is shooting down UFO's, and won't retaliate against the player always attacking UFO's while landed.

Having recently tried Superhuman for the first time, I was caught off-guard when the aliens retaliated against a base in early March for me shooting a single UFO down (in February, I think) near that base. It wasn't even in the same country... I got the impression that simply being in the same world-region draws the attack.

I decided to restart the game from scratch, disbanded all my interceptors, and only attacked UFO's using Avengers following them until they landed... this actually worked extremely well... I have the alien menace under control so far, and I've saved tons of money by not having interceptors, avalanche missiles, hangars, and all the other support infrastructure.

However, I'm actually a little disappointed that the game lets you get away with this no-intercept strategy. I think next game I will come up with a strategy to go back to interceptors with "hardened" bases very early in the game (though how I'll get cash for that, I have no idea).

If I were to come up with one improvement to the game, it would be to make air-superiority more essential throughout the game... I would make the UFO's "aggro" vs. Skyrangers -- if they spot a nearby Skyranger they will attack and destroy it! Later in the game, I would make the Battleship ALWAYS attack any SLOWER craft it spots in the air... the idea is to wear down the player's air assets and knock him out of the sky. As the game currently is, you really don't need air-superiority if you have ground-superiority!

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 21:57, 12 July 2006 (PDT)

----

I've had more or less the same experience as you with Retaliations: after shooting down only one UFO, I got regular visits from a Retaliation scout on that continent.

Ground Assault-only works pretty well, but there are several cases where Interception is preferable:

* When the UFO doesn't make a landing at all (Retaliation scouts don't, for instance, and bigger ships often don't know where to land if you kill their scouts beforehand);
* Infiltration missions (4 or more ships show up at once, and unless you have 4+ Skyrangers, you'll need to shoot down one or more craft); Harvesters often show up in pairs, too;
* Distance (unless you've got multiple Skyrangers posted around the world, you might not be able to reach a UFO before it takes off again);
* Night missions (If the UFO arrives at its target at dusk, it'll probably leave before daybreak; it's easier to down it, then storm it at your leisure);
* Terror Ships (I bloody hate terror missions).

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 10:31, 12 July 2006 (PDT)

----

To be fair, after running a few non-related tests that involved getting a HWD from the very start, I have noticed that the very first UFO you spot can begin on retaliation mission.

Interceptions - or rather - shoot-downs do attract them, that's for sure.

- [[User:NKF|NKF]]

----------------------------------

I ran into the "latency" issue with using Skyrangers, but came up with a workaround: I figured out each month what region the aliens were focusing on -- Australasia in February 1999, for example. My main (first) base with my Skyranger was on the NORTH POLE!!!, so obviously catching a UFO scout picked up on radar over Australasia before it disappeared was extremely unlikely -- a 12 hour one-way trip -- and if I did it would probably be at night anyway. Well, my workaround was, once I figured out Australasia was "targeted", I would send the Skyranger down there on a regular schedule, timed to arrive an hour or two before dawn -- the immense fuel capacity of the Skyranger allows it to loiter on station, over Australia, for over 12 hours before returning. It would then spend the next 12 hours or so refueling and then be ready for the next mission -- thus I could have a Skyranger in the region of alien activity during daylight every other day. Turns out the aliens would frequently show up early in the day and land during daylight with the Skyranger right nearby -- I snagged several UFO's on the ground in Australasia this way.

Another strategy I came up with was placing my bases specifically to be equidistant around the globe -- the idea being to pick up the UFO's far outside the target region -- South Asia in March, for example, is picked up over New Zealand -- giving me plenty of warning to launch a Skyranger... by the time the UFO has picked a landing spot, the Skyranger is close enough to snag it on the ground during daytime. My bases are on the north/south poles, baja california, north africa, taiwan, fiji, paraguay, and madagascar -- roughly on the tropics every 60 degrees. I have Skyrangers based from the poles -- the rest are listening posts (and eventually interceptor bases).

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 21:57, 12 July 2006 (PDT)

----

Interesting approach. In terms of global coverage, I usually wait until I've got the Hyper-Wave to build most of my bases. One per continent generally does the trick.

Could you detail your build-out sequence more? When do you build additional bases, how many Skyrangers do you have, and when do you acquire them?

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 22:58, 13 July 2006 (PDT)

----

Yeah I'm currently torn regarding the hyperwave decoder issue... not too long after I get my bases built, the radar systems become "obsolete".

The idea is to have a "picket defense" -- rather than putting a base smack in the middle of each "high value" country, distribute bases evenly and try to pick up enemy UFO's inbound when they're far away from the high value country, and (eventually once the bases are built up) I can send multiple interceptors to converge on the UFO, because I have plenty of advance warning on where it is going.

OK, to detail my build plan: I build X-ARCTICOM first -- what can I say, I'm a fan of symmetry... it also has the benefit of being at the "center" of the northern hemisphere. I of course build an Alien Containment facility on day one. In my current game, I scrapped the third hangar and the 2nd interceptor... but if I had to do it over, strictly from a "winning" standpoint, I would scrap both of the southern hangars and both interceptors... the Skyranger is all that's required early on. But, I'm starting to think the no-intercept approach is a little cheesy so I'm trying to work out how to play the game "honest" while still maintaining my basic strategy.

On day one, I begin construction of X-NOAMERICOM, on the southern tip of Baja California. All future bases are added as money becomes available, but I give them extremely high priority in terms of funding... each base gets just long range and short range radars -- they are listening posts. The idea is, I'm trying to prevent the aliens from having any open spots they can harrass with impunity early in the game (my first Superhuman game, Australia signed a non-aggression pact in either February or March). As funding becomes availabe, the buildout is as follows:

X-NOAFRICOM (on the Prime Meridian and the Tropic of Cancer -- saharan desert)

X-SEASIACOM (western tip of Taiwan -- the closest I could get to E120 degrees)

X-AUSTRALCOM (actually in Fiji, closest to the international date line and Tropic of Capricorn)

X-SOAMERICOM (roughly paraguay -- W60 degrees and Tropic of Capricorn)

X-SOAFRICOM (Madagascar, closest to E60 degrees and Tropic of Capricorn)

X-ANTARCTICOM (south pole)

Technically the latitudes should be a tad closer to the equator to be truly equidistant (I worked the trig out once) but the tropic circles are easy to find on a map, have a pleasing simplicity to them, and the "high value real estate" is closer to the poles than the equator anyway, so nudging the bases a little closer to the poles works just fine.

The idea is to build a mirror of X-ARCTICOM down at X-ANTARCTICOM -- again, this provides both redundancy and also makes it easier to cover the southern hemisphere.

As I happened to play the game I only had one Skyranger until I built up X-ANTARCTICOM, but if I did it over again, I would probably go with two per polar base and 20 soldiers at each base -- enough for 10 men + 1 HWP per Skyranger. Then once X-ANTARCTICOM was built I would transfer one of the veteran squads from X-ARCTICOM down south and draft some new soldiers for both bases.

But, the idea is to give the the listening posts absolute top priority. Also, I've found that it's not ineffective to build small+large radars prior to the invention of the hyperwave decoder... they do the job... just not as well as the HWD. If I had to do things over, actually, I would postpone HWD research for better interceptor tech... and then once I have great interceptor bases, I would worry about having perfect UFO detection. Not that I'm opposed to HWD's... it's just a question of priorities. It's also more in keeping with what the game designers intended... they expected us to have to slug it out with simple radar tech for a while.

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 17:44, 14 July 2006 (PDT)

== More info on mission waves ==

Every mission wave will be carried out by one alien race, typically in one continental zone over one month. Regular mission waves will consist of just a few small ships, increasing in size. These are the bread and butter missions for X-COM. Retalition waves consist of a series of scouts, increasing in size, ending with a battleship. If any of them detects the base then a new battleship will head straight for the base and attack it, otherwise the retaliation wave ends harmlessly.

The medium sized harvester and research ships have a different pattern, the same ships landing repeatedly until you deal with them. Large terror ships arrive once a month to terrorise cities but can also make extra unexplained flights without landing.

Alien bases are usually constructed by the simultaneous landing of a small ship, two large supply ships, and a battleship in the same zone. It's a good idea to recover at least the small ship to see what type of alien is building the base. Thereafter, base will have two supply ships each month fly quickly into the base and depart, too quick for interceptors and distant skyrangers.

Talk:Line of sight

2006-09-23T20:37:40Z

Egor:

I just noticed this page, thanks to the new mock main page... I had been thinking of making the same thing; thanks Eth! ...

It would also be useful to see an exact radius of visualization, so you can know e.g. exactly where you might stand and be out of sight of an alien exiting a UFO (or otherwise try to "time" how many TUs they'll have left when they do)... it's easy to count 20 straight laterally, but it's not so easy on a diagonal. I'm thinking a diagram sort of like the bomb-blast patterns... I wouldn't be surprised if it can simply be computed using the same [[Explosions#Distance_from_Ground_Zero|walking TUs]] method. I'll test it soon.

Also, do you know if different elevations affect distance? If you're 20 away on the same level, then rise up one, are you still 20? (Can you still see them?) One would presume not. I can test that shortly, too.

Also TBD: Illumination distance of electroflares. I just checked the wiki and it doesn't seem to be anywhere. I can test that. Then there's e.g. city lights and a number of other light sources... checking [[TERRAIN|MCD]][58] vs. my MCD database, I see that there are 11 terrain entries that produce light: 7 alien base objects, 2 XCOM base ground tiles, and 2 city objects (street lamp and large standing room lamp). They all have an illumination rating which in theory could be tested. But the flare is most important.

So many little questions, so little time :P

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 16:56, 1 June 2006 (PDT)

----

Sure thing. I made it to answer a question to myself: can I stand beside an alien and not be noticed? (Answer: yes.) Particularly important info when you're trying to use a Stun Rod.

As for being out of sight of an alien coming through a door, short of being around a corner, I'm not sure what works. I've been testing it a bit lately and I can stand outside a door (far to the side) and the alien can ''still'' sometimes turn and shoot me before I get off a reaction shot. I'm not sure how the code is written in this respect.

A pretty big mystery is visibility around corners: for some reason the aliens can see you coming, the bastards. I've done preliminary testing of "where not to stand", and if the corridor is narrow, the answer is "nowhere" -- they can see you when you can't see them.

Just today I noticed a strange situation where while climbing stairs I could see an alien about 8 squares away but it couldn't see me. I could shoot it with impunity. Go figure.

Another big one to test is the illumination radius of fire: a lot of players use IC rounds instead of electroflares.

-- [[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 19:51, 1 June 2006 (PDT)

----

Right, I just noticed when assaulting the second floor on an [[Abductor]], the last alien was outside the UFO's control room by the door there... just like you say, he could shoot me when I could not see him. I tried it a bunch of times. This is before good armor and most every shot is lethal. Even worse, there also was no way I could get a prox grenade back near him. This was on a Superhuman mission early in the game and I had ONE GUY left, due to darkness and to psi attacks on a crew that was largely easily controlled.

I recently noticed that stair strangeness, with the farm cottage stairs. Coming down them, I did not see an alien to the left of the stairs that I really think I should've been able to see. I didn't see him until I got off the stairs. Is it possible that the game considers "eye level", and thinks your eyes are still "upstairs"? That could be tested. Maybe your eyes are upstairs but your body downstairs?? Could something weird like that explain what you saw?

Right, I've often noticed that, at least in the early game, aliens get shots at me coming out a UFO door, even though I'm laying in wait with full TUs. However, I haven't actually looked at each person's stats and worked out the reaction formula per se... maybe their stock reaction stats are much better than mine? I dunno.

I've got a game set up to test electroflare illumination, and should post that soon. I personally don't use IN rounds because they're not good weapons, cost money to use, and make obscuring smoke. I'll let somebody else test that :P

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 15:20, 2 June 2006 (PDT)

----

For the record: In making the visual-range-20 map, I found that it follows this equation:

Distance = ROUNDUP( MAX(X,Y) + MIN(X,Y)/2 )
where X and Y are positive offsets from Ground Zero

which is slightly different from the [[Explosions#Distance_from_Ground_Zero|walking TUs]] equation. Some tiles are 1 "closer" due to rounding up instead of truncating. This also means that visual range is slightly less than explosive range. Not that it makes much difference, though.

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 15:02, 5 June 2006 (PDT)

----

I'm not sure I understand the new diagram, particularly why the diagonal goes 2 3 5 6 8 9 ...

Am I to understand that, for instance, all squares marked '9' represent the outer edge of a soldier's nighttime vision? (If so, you should add a second colored region to represent the outer edge of nighttime vision.)

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 16:06, 5 June 2006 (PDT)

----

They're just the result of the equation shown above which gives me 20 at the right places, but they don't otherwise have significance. Maybe on the direct laterals (in yellow) but nothing much otherwise. They are used by my autoshader which grays in anything over 20. But I can make the numbers the same color as background so the numbers don't appear. What do you think is the best way to handle it... an explanatory note in the caption saying they don't mean much? Or take out the numbers? Or...? "9" here does not match the Nightvision 9, although borders could be put in for Nightvision (by hand) so the pic does double duty.

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 16:18, 5 June 2006 (PDT)

----

My preference would be to take out the numbers, and add a shaded region which represents the nighttime radius.

Got a new puzzle to suggest while we're here: what's the game mechanism for smoke vs. visibility? It does seem as though there are multiple smoke densities (byte 8 in [[SMOKREF.DAT]]?).

I've recently been experimenting with smoke-based tactics. Like so much in X-COM, it can work really well if you know how it functions.

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 16:42, 5 June 2006 (PDT)

----

Give the new map a look.

I don't know much at all about smoke. Others like NKF and Zombie may know a lot. It would be interesting to see tactics based on knowing how it works. FWIW [[TERRAIN]][51] might (or might not!) function similarly... amount of light blocked, with values 0-10.

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 17:40, 5 June 2006 (PDT)

----

Looks good now.

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 15:05, 6 June 2006 (PDT)

----

Eth, see my addition to the page. I noticed this while triple-checking my visual range map as I played more. This new info somewhat confuses the definition of "visual range" but I didn't want to re-write the whole page. (It also may be why some have stated the range as 21. However, enemies are only visible to 20. This includes the visual range of MC'd aliens.) Feel free to re-write, if you want.

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:31, 7 June 2006 (PDT)

----

That is interesting. I think your note explains the discrepancy well enough, it doesn't warrant a rewrite.

It's definitely useful info, though: I assumed it was enough to "sweep the black" out of the corners, but now I see I'll have to go a couple of steps further, especially when flying. Nice find.

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 20:18, 7 June 2006 (PDT)

Sectoids and Fences

While working on "augmented side swapping", I ran across a weird situation: being able to reaction-fire doesn't confer ability to see.

I was trying to get a sectoid to where it could shoot at one of my soldiers, but it took reaction fire without being able to see the soldier. Side-swapped...and the reaction-firing soldier couldn't see the sectoid either. But could fire at its square. The sectoid was incapable of targeting the soldier's exact square.

I'm guessing that the game has "eye level" and "weapon level" for each of the unit types, and is using a very simple "line to centroid" for determining both visibility LOS and firing LOS. Fences are capable of blocking only one of these LOS computations. Furthermore, reaction fire may be triggered only by entering firing LOS. [This may be too precise to correctly predict the known blind spots.]

Question: are "eye level", "weapon level", and "centroid" computed or explicitly stored in the game files, and which ones?

--[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 15:13, 15 August 2006 (CDT)

--------

I have regularly found blind spots sighting sectiods and snakemen behind fences. These vary whether your soldier is standing or kneeling.

Another common blind spot is when spotting an alien that is at a different elevation. I suspect intervening terrain, such as the crest of a hill, is considered differently when LOS is calculated in each direction. For example, I've often found that a cyberdisc hovering on the 2nd level, hiding in a building where the 2nd level walls are present but the 1st floor walls/doors are gone, is in a blind spot.

- Egor

Talk:Smoke Grenade

2006-09-22T20:27:26Z

Egor:

I would imagine that smoke grenades are one of the most misunderstood items for beginner players. They are the only way for a player to add obscurement and cover so they are important. Here are some of my thoughts on smoke.

Smoke grenades only cover the level on which they are placed. A smoke grenade that explodes on the ground will not protect the inside of the skyranger, for example. For that reason I'd recommend using a smoke grenade on the ground and another inside the skyranger at the start of a mission. Scouting through the cloud and using shooters from behind the cloud is very effective, so effective in fact that there's not much reason to sweep the map until the smoke clears.

Smoke genades do not seem to explode properly in outdoor terrain, giving only wispy smoke. They are best used inside bases, buildings, and spaceships. Fortunately, the perimeter of the skyranger seems to be considered indoors.

Smoke can also help in situations where your scout will inevitably be put into the firing line. The most common situation is when you enter a cross shaped small spaceship where you know the alien will be standing at the back. If the scout carries a primed smoke grenade he will be able to drop it without triggering reaction fire and end the turn. The smoke grenade will (hopefully) provide cover during the aliens movement.

I suspect that reaction shots are less likely against targets in smoke. For example, when a proximity grenade explodes there will be plenty of smoke so reaction shots against any following aliens can be lost. Perhaps someone else can verify this.

- Egor

----

A few thoughts:

The smoke grenade on the Skyranger level only really works if you are intending to fly out the back or you want to prevent aliens that are within visible range (20 tiles) from spotting you. When you move onto the ramp, you're technically on ground level. Your unit is offset, but otherwise on ground level, and should take advantage of smoke in its tile.

Smoke works the same way as explosives - solid objects block the blast from going further, so you'd only get the smoke to go inside the Skyranger and out the back. Oh wait, do you mean they don't produce the same amount of smoke? This could be a fire/smoke particle limit problem.

Reactions are reduced because smoke reduces the observer's maximum visible range. You see, the defender can only react if it spots the attacker - and if it can't, then it won't. However, the moment you step into a portion of smoke that's thin enough to allow the defender to see you, the defender gets a chance to react given all the conditions are met (higher reaction level and sufficient TUs to react, etc).

- [[User:NKF|NKF]]

----

My guess is the intent of a smoke grenade in the craft is to stop aliens firing into the craft. Usually this isn't something you need to defend against, but a well aimed stun bomb can incapacitate the majority of your team if they're still in there.

As for smoke density, there are actually multiple "thickness" levels that can appear in any one tile. This density changes as turns procede. I would assume denser smoke provides better cover then light smoke, but I've had some difficulty working out how to produce the different types. My map editer only displays one type of smoke, as I can't even work out how to tell them apart in the save files.

Smoke moves around the place, and can be guided by walls. My guess is if too much smoke gets directed into one tile, that smoke becomes dense. This won't happen out in the open, so you get light smoke.

As for reaction shots, unless the smoke completely obscures the unit in concern, there won't be any difference.

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 01:36, 14 September 2006 (PDT)

----

My limited experiments suggested that smoke grenades produce much denser smoke than other sources (visibility 4-6 squares at the center for the first few turns) but thins rapidly. As for

''the defender gets a chance to react given all the conditions are met''

one must keep in mind [[reaction fire triggers#mutual surprise]]: if you spot them at the same time as they spot you, they won't shoot until your next action, no matter what your respective Reactions are.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 22:32, 18 September 2006 (PDT)

----

I suggested releasing a smoke grenade at the front of the skyranger on the first turn as grenades are cheap, it's no handicap to your soldiers, and it only has to save lives occasionally to be worthwhile. - Egor

Talk:Smoke Grenade

2006-09-22T20:27:03Z

Egor:

I would imagine that smoke grenades are one of the most misunderstood items for beginner players. They are the only way for a player to add obscurement and cover so they are important. Here are some of my thoughts on smoke.

Smoke grenades only cover the level on which they are placed. A smoke grenade that explodes on the ground will not protect the inside of the skyranger, for example. For that reason I'd recommend using a smoke grenade on the ground and another inside the skyranger at the start of a mission. Scouting through the cloud and using shooters from behind the cloud is very effective, so effective in fact that there's not much reason to sweep the map until the smoke clears.

Smoke genades do not seem to explode properly in outdoor terrain, giving only wispy smoke. They are best used inside bases, buildings, and spaceships. Fortunately, the perimeter of the skyranger seems to be considered indoors.

Smoke can also help in situations where your scout will inevitably be put into the firing line. The most common situation is when you enter a cross shaped small spaceship where you know the alien will be standing at the back. If the scout carries a primed smoke grenade he will be able to drop it without triggering reaction fire and end the turn. The smoke grenade will (hopefully) provide cover during the aliens movement.

I suspect that reaction shots are less likely against targets in smoke. For example, when a proximity grenade explodes there will be plenty of smoke so reaction shots against any following aliens can be lost. Perhaps someone else can verify this.

- Egor

----

A few thoughts:

The smoke grenade on the Skyranger level only really works if you are intending to fly out the back or you want to prevent aliens that are within visible range (20 tiles) from spotting you. When you move onto the ramp, you're technically on ground level. Your unit is offset, but otherwise on ground level, and should take advantage of smoke in its tile.

Smoke works the same way as explosives - solid objects block the blast from going further, so you'd only get the smoke to go inside the Skyranger and out the back. Oh wait, do you mean they don't produce the same amount of smoke? This could be a fire/smoke particle limit problem.

Reactions are reduced because smoke reduces the observer's maximum visible range. You see, the defender can only react if it spots the attacker - and if it can't, then it won't. However, the moment you step into a portion of smoke that's thin enough to allow the defender to see you, the defender gets a chance to react given all the conditions are met (higher reaction level and sufficient TUs to react, etc).

- [[User:NKF|NKF]]

----

My guess is the intent of a smoke grenade in the craft is to stop aliens firing into the craft. Usually this isn't something you need to defend against, but a well aimed stun bomb can incapacitate the majority of your team if they're still in there.

As for smoke density, there are actually multiple "thickness" levels that can appear in any one tile. This density changes as turns procede. I would assume denser smoke provides better cover then light smoke, but I've had some difficulty working out how to produce the different types. My map editer only displays one type of smoke, as I can't even work out how to tell them apart in the save files.

Smoke moves around the place, and can be guided by walls. My guess is if too much smoke gets directed into one tile, that smoke becomes dense. This won't happen out in the open, so you get light smoke.

As for reaction shots, unless the smoke completely obscures the unit in concern, there won't be any difference.

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 01:36, 14 September 2006 (PDT)

----

My limited experiments suggested that smoke grenades produce much denser smoke than other sources (visibility 4-6 squares at the center for the first few turns) but thins rapidly. As for

''the defender gets a chance to react given all the conditions are met''

one must keep in mind [[reaction fire triggers#mutual surprise]]: if you spot them at the same time as they spot you, they won't shoot until your next action, no matter what your respective Reactions are.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 22:32, 18 September 2006 (PDT)

I suggested releasing a smoke grenade at the front of the skyranger on the first turn as grenades are cheap, it's no handicap to your soldiers, and it only has to save lives occasionally to be worthwhile. - Egor

Talk:Field Manual: Terrain

2006-09-13T16:03:24Z

Egor: Fences

Jasonred:

The 'Field Manual' entries belong to the X-Com Field Manual. The style of writing was to make it read like a military combat manual.

It was originally written with starting players in mind, where alien technology is unknown and all you have to work with is your standard weapons. So man-portable weapons refer to weapons like the pistol, rifle, heavy cannons, etc. Mind you, there aren't any real concrete artificial structures in this game. There is of course the Skyranger...

- NKF

[Jasonred] : Well... if it's written with starting players in mind, and you just wrote something about concrete artificial structures... aren't you going to confuse starting players? Even a semi veteran like me got confused.

AFAIK, the only time you get brick/ concrete/ non-wood buildings on missions is terror missions. Where you get shops and gas stations, which actually MIGHT be concrete. PLUS, if I'm not mistaken, large rockets will blow these up.

So... yeah, I understand that you might want to maintain the "combat manual" feel of the game, but I feel that this online wiki ufopedia should provide "correct" info and "useful" info, rather than "pretty but misleading" info.

== Fair enough==

But remember that these are just simple copy and pastes from the field manual, an entirely separate project from the wiki.

The content of the wiki itself is at a, well, brainstorming stage where all the ideas are being lumped together. Someone has to come along and rewrite everything into something finished.

- NKF

== update ==

I've modified this section so it talks more directly about UFO outer hulls. --[[User:JellyfishGreen|JellyfishGreen]] 13:04, 3 May 2005 (BST)

I've updated this with some minor edits to tidy up a bit - however, I tried to get the footnotes to link correctly, but I can't get it. How do you get footnotes to link to the bottom of the page in wiki? - [[User:Phoenix|Phoenix]]

== Fences ==

I find that fences are worth a special mention. Sighting through fences changes with height, leading to some curious effects. Sectiods and snakemen can sometimes only be seen through a fence if you're kneeling, and sometimes only if you're standing up. This creates blind spots behind fences where aliens can see you and shoot you but you can't see them. I now routinely remove all fences with explosives in any snakeman or sectiod mission.

There can also be blindspots when scouting aliens at a higher elevation. You can't remove these as easily, but you can move along ridgelines instead of across ridgelines to reduce the risk.
- Egor

Talk:Alien movement patterns

2006-09-13T15:55:57Z

Egor:

There are quite a few different movement patterns amongst the different aliens. One of the most noticable difference is how they use their elevation. Walking aliens will leave the upper floors of buildings and get onto the ground or roof. Flying aliens will lurk on the upper floor and ambush soldiers later, so you can counter this by removing a wall and exposing the upper floor. Flying aliens are generally more capable with grenades as they have more geometry available to them. There are also blind spots due to elevation when an alien at a higher level can see your soldier while you cannot see them, so make sure your next soldier approaches from a better angle.

Sectoids and reapers run about all over the place. Snakemen seem more willing to wait in ambush. Crysallids will run quickly but then slow down on later turns as they run out of stamina. They are most dangerous after standing still for a few turns in panic, recovering their stamina.

A common point for aliens to stop is outside a farm doorway, especially on the edge of the map. This sometimes hides them behind the door. Always make sure you approach these points with good visibility. Some paddocks can be fully enclosed with fences or walls so expect to see walking aliens trapped in there, even when the surrounding countryside seems safe.

The last alien alive will typically stand still and stop moving. This will make it more dangerous as it doesn't show up on motion scanners and has all its time units left for reaction shots. Cyberdiscs often stop moving for long periods and wait in ambush.

If there are plenty of aliens alive then even the most reluctant will eventually leave safety behind and come looking for soldiers. At times though they can suddenly move out in dangerously large groups which dramatically increases their threat. Keep an eye out for that happening.

- Egor

Talk:Reactions Training

2006-09-13T15:50:08Z

Egor:

I find that reaction shots on aliens leaving a spacecraft are exceedingly dangerous. You can lose a lot of soldiers doing this. It does however train up soldiers and is tidier than grenades. If you think that covering the spacecraft door is just going to be too dangerous then just don't do it. Hold your troops further back and scout the exit area each turn instead. Here are my experiences.

Alien grenades are the biggest threat to reaction shooters. Aliens need time to take out, arm, and throw the grenade however so you're generally safe unless the alien needs to move only one or two spaces to see a soldier. Use a motion scanner to check the position of aliens and if they are close enough to throw a grenade you should take precautions, such as placing a proximity grenade.

When an alien leaves a spaceship it will generally shoot at someone in their sight, someone who shot at them, or the closest person. This means it is generally a good idea to put the most expendable soldier closest to the door. Even then though the alien can shoot at another target so I wouldn't cover the spaceship door with anyone that I really wanted to keep alive.

If you're using proximity grenades to cover the door then you might lose a lot of money unless you have someone running through to pick up any valuables before the you place the next grenade. Don't be too greedy or else the runner will get caught when the next alien walks out.

- Egor

Talk:Alien movement patterns

2006-09-13T15:18:44Z

Egor:

There are quite a few different movement patterns amongst the different aliens. One of the most noticable difference is how they use their elevation. Walking aliens will leave the upper floors of buildings and get onto the ground or roof. Flying aliens will lurk on the upper floor and ambush soldiers later, so you can counter this by removing a wall and exposing the upper floor. Flying aliens are generally more capable with grenades as they have more geometry available to them.

Sectoids and reapers run about all over the place. Snakemen seem more willing to wait in ambush. Crysallids will run quickly but then slow down on later turns as they run out of stamina. They are most dangerous after standing still for a few turns in panic, recovering their stamina.

A common point for aliens to stop is outside a farm doorway, especially on the edge of the map. This sometimes hides them behind the door. Always make sure you approach these points with good visibility. Some paddocks can be fully enclosed with fences or walls so expect to see walking aliens trapped in there, even when the surrounding countryside seems safe.

The last alien alive will typically stand still and stop moving. This will make it more dangerous as it doesn't show up on motion scanners and has all its time units left for reaction shots. Cyberdiscs often stop moving for long periods and wait in ambush.

If there are plenty of aliens alive then even the most reluctant will eventually leave safety behind and come looking for soldiers. At times though they can suddenly move out in dangerously large groups which dramatically increases their threat. Keep an eye out for that happening.

- Egor

Talk:Soldiers

2006-09-13T14:30:53Z

Egor: Managing squads

Ideas for opening blurb:

Welcome to the XCOM Personell Department. Here we maintain the records of extensive aptitude testing and training regimes.

From the sharpshooter with their rifle to the weakling with their smoke grenade, everyone on the assault team has a part to play.

XCOM is an Equal Opportunities Exploiter. Both men and women from any XCOM-funding country are welcome to apply.

-[[User:JellyfishGreen|JellyfishGreen]]

----

We make no distinctions regarding gender or ethnicity (neither do plasma beams). Regardless of how you look you will be turned into blondes the moment the transport lands? -[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 06:12, 17 February 2006 (PST)

----

If your last name sounds English, French, German, Russian, or Japanese, please apply. If not, get lost. -[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]]

== Can We Add Page About Squads? ==

I'm a total Wiki newbie or I'd attempt adding this myself:

I'd like to see a page added that addresses Squad composition for various missions, various transport aircraft, various available technology/equipment, etc. Should everyone be a specialist, should everyone be balanced, or should there be a few specialists and a bunch of balanced soliders, etc? This wouldn't really be a normal "game info" page... more of just a strategy page... perhaps it should be a Field Manual entry? Some things that should be addressed:

The role of HWP's and tradeoff vs. more soldiers.
Specialists vs. balanced soldiers -- what kinds of specialists, what makes for a balanced soldier.
Best mix of weapons for a squad, as new technology becomes available.

Some unanswered questions on my mind:
I'm currently leaning towards two soldier categories: non-combat leaders (loaded with support equipment) and balanced combat soldiers (with a mix of weapons that makes them flexible in combat roles during the mission). I also like the idea of lots of HWP's and uber-soldiers with more equipment.

How to phase in psi-soldiers when you find candidates with high psi-strength? Normally I would want to use them as non-combat leaders, but unfortunately the way promotions work in the game, that doesn't work... the top ranks are filled with morons.

I'm thinking the page on X-COM Squads should heirarchy-wise either be above or below the page on Soldiers... I also think we should rename the "Logistics" section to "X-COM Assets" or something like that... I'm leaning towards the heirarchy going X-COM Assets > Squads > Soldiers > Info/Skills/Combat/etc. I think that would make more sense.

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 17:14, 27 July 2006 (PDT)

----

X-Com soldiers are very generic and can change roles on the dime, so it's hard to pigeon hole them into any specific role, but that said, a section on how players can use soldiers is always welcome.

Just as a very quick primer on how you can create a brand new page, just edit the soldier page and create a wiki link to the page you want created. You can do this by surrounding the page name in double square brackets. For example

<nowiki>[[Squad Composition]]</nowiki>

Produces

[[Squad Composition]]

Then save your edit. To create the page and put in new content, click on the red link and it'll bring up a blank page. Then edit away and save. You can just dump unformatted text in there and fix it later once you've learned a trick or two - or one of the regulars may meddle with it as they see fit.

As for the heirarchy - I'm on the fence about it. I'd stick to soldiers as the main section for the moment. Until some consensus is obtained on the heirarchy, stick squad composition under the general information section for now.

-[[User:NKF|NKF]]

----

I've never seen much point to specific role assignment, although certain stats dictate certain capabilities. A Strength of 40+ is required for a soldier carrying a loaded rocket launcher + 3 heavy rockets; high-tech weapons tend to be lighter. Psi Strength determines who gets a Psi-Amp (they stay off the front line). High Reactions are good for "spotters", such as those posted outside a door. I don't like high reactions for my scouts, because they tend to die -- I reserve soldiers with the crappiest stats for scouting duty (especially the first to walk through a door).

To aid assigning roles like this, renaming soldiers is helpful. I add reactions/FA/str (and later psi str) to their names, and I rename them alphabetically to remember "who's out the door first".

"Fireteams" are an important strategy (groups of 2-4 soldiers), but I group them according to proximity to one another, not stats.

Soldiers vs. HWPs is highly dependent on play style. I like 26 soldiers on an Avenger, personally, although HWPs are excellent expendable scouts. In the early game, money is too tight; I'd rather lose $100k worth of soldiers than $480k worth of tanks. 26 soldiers on an Avenger necessitates Laser Rifles as your primary weapon due to the 80-item limit (no ammo).

A mix of weapons is only necessary in that you should stock a few special-role weapons. I like 2 Rocketeers in the early game, 2 Blasters in the later game. I carry 3+ stun launchers if I'm in the stage of the game where I'm trying to capture an alien leader or commander. If you've got a mix of Heavy Plasmas and Laser Rifles, give the plasma to your most accurate soldiers.

I like to keep the first 6 to 8 soldiers on the Soldier screen ''off'' the Skyranger, to be reserved as cannon fodder for later. If my frontmost troops grow very powerful through experience, I can put reserved soldiers in front of them. Deployment is the most dangerous stage of combat.

Try to keep your highest-rank soldiers off the front line.

I guess that's some pretty good advice. I'll create a page for it. ;-)

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 11:13, 29 July 2006 (PDT)

== Managing squads ==

I'd suggest that all useful soldiers are renamed so you can identify them easily. It can even add a bit of fun. I also add a rating for their key stats by appending letters at the end, an R for 50 reactions or S for 35 strength, say. This lets me arm and move soldiers appropriately without knowing everything about them.

When picking a squad for a mission you probably need some expandable scouts, a leader, and some people to carry heavy weapons. It's useful if the front people in the skyranger are expendable as any accidents tend to happen to them. Once you've picked your scouts, hopefully before you've even set off, you should make sure that none of the other soldiers get shot during the mission. I would use low bravery soldiers as expendable scouts. You won't miss people who can go beserk at the first sign of trouble and intentional bravery training is typically an exploit. Soldiers can generally perform all roles except Psi offense, even if some are better skilled than others.

- Egor

Talk:Smoke Grenade

2006-09-13T13:36:29Z

Egor:

Talk:Grenade

2006-09-13T12:54:14Z

Egor:

When using a grenade to remove terrain you can set the timer to 1 instead of 0. The aliens will move before the grenade explodes, giving you first use of the cleared terrain. -Egor

Talk:Grenade

2006-09-13T12:54:02Z

Egor:

When using a grenade to remove terrain you can set the timer to 1 instead of 0. The aliens will move before the grenade explodes, giving you first use of the cleared terrain.

Talk:Making the Game Harder

2006-09-13T12:09:43Z

Egor:

A challenge for experienced players could be to be win as quickly as possible, no reloads, no exploits. I've managed June 1st with one reload (lost the skyranger) and June 9th with no reloads, in the basic game version. The economics come into play when you're racing the clock and you certainly can't afford to lose good soldiers.
- Egor

Talk:Making the Game Harder

2006-09-13T12:09:25Z

Egor: Speed of Victory

Talk:Base Management

2006-09-13T11:59:52Z

Egor:

Maybe this become a Category instead of just a landing page? --[[User:Papa Legba|Papa Legba]] 09:45, 31 December 2005 (PST)

Hello! Saw a stub here and took a stab at fleshing it out. -Darksun

Hey dudes.Building a base at the poles would be awesome.You know,muslim XCOM employees would have to pray 5 times a year instead of 5 times a day.And Infid...er,Aliens would have a hard time to find it too.But you know it anyway.--[[User:X-COM:Turcocalypse|X-COM:Turcocalypse]] 12:43, 26 April 2006 (PDT)

== Base Placement ==

When aliens send scouts for a wave of Alien Retaliations, the scouts move quickly to the edge of an area/continent and then work inwards. If your base is built on the edge of the area it can sometimes be spotted before you have time to intercept, so I'd recommend putting bases into the middle of areas. The alien retaliation wave consists of a very small ship, smaller ship, small ship, then a battleship over the course of a month. If none of them spots the base then the wave is over.

Alien retaliation waves occur in areas where you have a base and areas where you have have scored a lot of points. If you put a base into an area where you don't score many points, such as the pacific, then the aliens will be less likely to search for that base.

-Egor

Talk:Base Management

2006-09-13T11:55:41Z

Egor: Base Placement

Talk:Known Bugs

2006-09-13T11:46:23Z

Egor:

did anyone find ANNOYING! the airbourne intercept window of TFTD when flying over water?

Annoying:

Intercept a USO over land then follow it and it may (should) fly out towards to water. The aliens don't usually go straight into the drink so the "Unable to continue pursuit while airbourne" window comes when flying over water "return to base" OR "continue pursuit" as the options. If you'd press the 'continue pursuit', it would just display the window again. The only way to continue pursuit was to click it maybe 10 or 20 times before the aliens submerged. This is nuts! Are there any work-arounds to this than just pressing the "return to base" button?

just checking up ?

== Difficulty Bug ==

We should for historical reasons outline the "Difficulty Bug" that [[XcomUtil]] has saved most of us from. Any takers? --[[User:JellyfishGreen|JellyfishGreen]]

-----

That would only require two or three short lines. Something like this:

'' " Because of one or two incorrectly set bytes in all dos versions of the game( 1.0 through to 1.4), no matter what difficulty was selected, the difficulty bug would reset to beginner at the end of the first mission. XcomUtil performs a very minor tweak that corrects this problem. This bug was officially fixed in the Collectors Edition Windows port (also commonly known as UFO Gold). " ''

Or perhaps something a bit more succinct, and with less commas. Ha!

- [[User:NKF|NKF]]

-----

This is a technical bug that doesn't happen to everyone and one this article wasn't really meant to chronical - but we won't turn away helping a fellow player if it can't be helped. It's just that there are so many random crash points in this game that it would take far too long to find them all or come up with solutions for them.

Certainly, the transfer crash can happen to some players, but it's not one that can be reproduced easily. It's just like the random crash that some players get when they research a floater medic. It crashes the game for some of us, but others don't seem to notice it at all.

It really depends on your hardware and OS setup, whether or not your copy of the game is damaged or your savegame is damaged, etc.

Does it happen in all games or just this one savegame?

- [[User:NKF|NKF]]

-----

== "Invisible Muton" bug ==

Upon shooting repeatedly a Muton, it sometimes plays its "death" animation without sound (as if falling unconscious) and it is no longer displayed in the screen, while remaining visible to my soldiers (I can center the screen and the cursor appears yellow over them). Under this state, they cannot be targeted by Stun Rods. They may play their death animation anytime they get shot, until they truly die, when they emit their characteristic sound and leave a corpse (along with any items carried).

I'm quite fond of laser weapons, maybe this happens more often with those.

Also, though I remember experiencing this quite often fighting Mutons, it may happen to any other high health race.--[[User:Trotsky|Trotsky]] 02:59, 2 July 2006 (PDT)

-----

Never seen that one myself. Another "unpatched game" thing maybe?

There's a (very rare) bug that allows your soldiers to live if they become stunned by an explosion that happens to kill them. Sometimes the game will register their death, and THEN register that they've been stunned. In every case I've seen this happen, however, the unit will have such a low amount of health that a single fatal wound will render it dead (again) on the next turn. I have a vague memory that other players may have been able to get a medkit to the scene on time...

I dunno if that's related to your issue at all (I doubt it, but... meh). I'd advise using a Mind Probe on the alien the next time it happens so you can check the aliens stun/health levels.

- [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]]

----

I'm pretty sure I've seen this with Mutons. Possibly Chrysallids as well, another high health, high armor creature. They were still readily killed by shooting the place they are. Good thought on the MP, BB

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 08:51, 2 July 2006 (PDT)

----

I've been known to have a dying muton(in fire) to spin around and then switch to the female civilian death animation. With the scream and everything. Even got a civilian death registered at the end of the mission. And this didn't just happen once, but on another separate occasion.

Unusually enough, I once had a sectopod die and then drop a tank corpse. I was using the Lightning at the time for my troop carrier, so you can imagine my surprise.

Then there was one occasion where a floater dropped a snakeman corpse. Let's not even get into the sort of things the aliens like to stuff themselves with.

Your invisible alien bug is quite common, although there appears to be many causes for it. I think one involves a full object table when it comes to invisible aliens in bases. But it can also happen in ordinary missions as well. I'm guessing the game may have tried to do something in the wrong order, and sprite information for the unit may have been lost or corrupted along the way.

Having had an experience where all the chryssalids become invisible in one base defence mission was quite a shocker. I fixed this by saving the game, quitting and then restarting the game. If you ever get an invisible alien again, try this and see if it helps. If it doesn't, well, just keep a careful watch on your map and any alerts that pop up as you play.

There's a similar but less severe bug where a dead alien will still leave its centre-on-unit alert button, but this goes away shortly after you move or turn.

- [[User:NKF|NKF]]

----

That last bug happens when exploding Cyberdiscs kill nearby Sectoids, doesn't it?--[[User:Trotsky|Trotsky]] 23:56, 2 July 2006 (PDT)

== Vanishing snakemen ==

I've known snakemen to become invisible when standing on a hay bale. On the first occassion I had a poor tank getting shot while spending numerous turns looking for it. On the second occasion I had an alien under Psi-control, left it on the hay bale, and couldn't find it next turn. - Egor

Talk:Known Bugs

2006-09-13T11:46:06Z

Egor: Vanishing snakemen

Talk:Psionics

2006-09-13T11:26:25Z

Egor: /* Suggestions for Psi Defence */

Just had a thought on the formula!

What if the "Psionic Combat Strength" formula was a''' ' + ' '''rather than a''' ' * ' '''?

It would mean the example Soldier would have a PCS of 111, rather than 1520, and the defending Muton would have:

Panic Chance = 76%
MC Chance = 56%

These numbers seem more reasonable, don't you think?

--[[User:Danial|Danial]] 15:32, 19 Nov 2005 (PST)
----
Right, it sounds '''much''' more reasonable now. My actual results were 1192 successes out of 2420 tries = 49.26% success rate. The MCer was right next to MC victim, and we know distance introduces ''some'' kind of decrease to base chance. That's the good news. The bad news is that I also tested psi str 95, skill 44 (and some higher skill levels) and never failed to MC ''once'' with these better MCers. Using your revision, a psi str 95, skill 44 guy should have had a success rate of 84% vs. a beginner Muton soldier (psi str 25, skill 0), not 100%. My higher-skill guys were also right next to their MC victims. So, to me the first example makes sense relative to your idea (fits base chance, plus a little distance adds a little more), but the second example counters it.

Still, it sounds WAY better than 1500% :)

I sure wish psi testing wasn't so labor intensive. I got those 2400 counts doing all that experience testing... not interested in doing it again, just for psi equations. At least not at the moment. :P ---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:12, 23 Nov 2005 (PST)
----
Question: why is the Sectopod's psionic resistance listed as N/A? I've mind-controlled sectopods (or at least one square of a sectopod) on many occasions. I usually have it shoot itself, since it can target one of its other, non-MC'ed squares. From my anecdotal experience, their psi resistance seems somewhat high. --[[User:Papa Legba|Papa Legba]] 14:19, 2 February 2006 (PST)
----
Answer: If you look on the alien summaries in the wiki they all have a PSI resistance listed, except the Sectopod. Since it's not listed anyplace I put N/A. Feel free to put it where it belongs in the list if you have enough experience to feel comfortable ranking it. --[[User:Darksun|Darksun]]
----
Darksun, I took the liberty of signing your name for you, and making a separator line. Why not say a word about yourself under [[User:Darksun]] and also, use four dashes (----) to demarcate entries. For more on the basics of wiki'ing, see NKF's "Community Portal" at the bottom of the homepage. Past all that - welcome, fellow XCOMMIE! We were all wiki noobs once. But not everybody loves XCOM. You must. Welcome aboard!

Proceeding right along to flagellating, laugh - Where are you folks talking about Sectopod psi resistance being "N/A"? I see their Psi Strength as 100, and their Psi Skill as 0 at Beginner; Psi Strenth 116 and Skill still 0 at Superhuman. In this respect, they match Cyberdisks. What do you folks mean by Psi "resistance"? Do you know the math behind the psi equations? I haven't been able to figure it out. But the stats I just listed are ones hacked out of the game... Zombie is going to present a full precis' some time soon.

Great speaking at ya ... keep on contributing, Darksun!! --[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]]

== Alien psionic resistance ==

I haven't tried mind-controlling Cyberdiscs much, but if, as I've read elsewhere, both Sectopods and Cyberdiscs have have a Psi Strength of 100, they should probably both be classed "extremely high".
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 10:30, 4 May 2006 (PDT)

== Psionic testing ==

I started doing some testing to figure out the psionics formula.

Initial finding: ''distance'' takes the hypotenuse into account. I'm not sure if the actual Pythagorean formula is used, but I can say this much: an Ethereal was able to panic a moderately-psi-weak soldier at 30 squares along the horizontal but not at 30 squares along the diagonal.

Second finding: the difference in "difficulty" between MC and panic is definitely 20 points (although that may not be percent). A soldier with 97 Psi strength, 0 Psi skill standing adjacent to an Ethereal Leader (60 str/45 skill) could not be panicked at all, but 96 Psi str could (often). The same soldier with 77 Psi str couldn't be mind-controlled, but could at 76 Psi str. ''With further testing, I see that 60/45 vs. 97 should succeed occasionally; I might retest this for greater precision, although the +20 still seems to hold.''

Third finding: A soldier with 99 Psi str/0 skill could ''just barely'' be panicked by an adjacent Ethereal with 63/45. I couldn't count how often the Ethereal succeeded, but it was something like 1%-2% of the time. The same soldier was panicked just as infrequently by an Ethereal with 45/63 (str & skill reversed), and much more often by an Ethereal with 54/54. This pretty strongly suggests the attack portion of the formula involves psi str & skill multiplied together.

Data points collected so far:
*Ethereal, 63/45, just barely panicked soldier, 99/0
*Ethereal 40/40 just barely panicked soldier 75/0
*Ethereal 27/27 (multiplied together = 729) just barely panicked soldier 57/0
*Ethereal 10/73 (multiplied = 730) just barely panicked soldier 57/0
**''this confirms that attacking is based on str*skill
*Ethereal 18/18 just barely panicked soldier 49/0
*Ethereal 1/1 just barely panicked soldier 43/0
*Ethereal 1/1 just barely panicked soldier 1/210
**''this confirms Psi skill / 5 is used in calculating defense; 1 + (210/5) = 43''

I also tested Ethereal 0/1 (no psi str, 1 pt. skill); it still attacked, but did not attack at 0 pts. skill no matter how high psi str was (no surprise there, otherwise all units would do psi attacks).

I ran the points through a curve-fitting program and got a nice and simple answer:

attack strength = psi str * psi skill '''/ 50'''
defense strength = psi str + (psi skill / 5)

Panic Attack chance = 44% + attack strength - defense strength
Mind Control Attack chance = 24% + attack strength - defense strength

The formula has held up under limited further testing; I'm satisfied it's correct. I invite others to test it more than I have.

The impact of distance has yet to be tested, but it should be easy to figure out now.

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 22:03, 26 May 2006 (PDT)

----

There is a reasonable approximation to the Pythagorean formula (in the plane) that could have been used, that doesn't require loops or floating-point math:

max( | Δx | , | Δy | ) + ½min( | Δx | , | Δy | )

where Δ_ := _2 - _1.

It overestimates slightly. I haven't thought through how this would generalize to 3D. [Yanked from Moria, Angband, and variants...think it's too basic to copyright, though.]

One way to test whether the distance estimator is no greater than true Pythagorean formula by working out the greatest distance (pure x or pure y) that MC/Panic is not 0%, then testing on a diagonal with a "computed same". An integer-math overestimator (like the above) would by 0%.

Muliple of 5 allows replacing the diagonal with a suitably scaled 3-4-5 triangle...should work as well for testing.

--[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 2:38PM, 26 May 2006 (CDT)

----

Wow... good approach to teasing this out, Ethereal!

Am I doing this right? I plugged in numbers for Muton, 25/0, Me 95/44, and got 83% MC Base Chance... But in much repeated testing (when learning about experience counters) it seemed quite solid that I was MC'ing him about half the time. Say 45-55% of the time. This was when right next to each other. Is 83% right for your equations?

Zaimoni, re: your equation, see [[Explosions#Distance_from_Ground_Zero]]. XCOM seems to use a fairly simple approach that doesn't involve Pythagoras per se. Since it's based on a very old engine, much of its stuff is integer based. Cool deal on the deltas and other wiki symbols - I wish I knew about them sooner! Actually I know where wiki symbol tables are... just didn't bother to look up so many symbols. :P

Nobody has tackled 3D distance yet, but I may soon, in studying illumination.

Once the equations are well known (maybe they are already), I imagine some cool 3D topographical graphs of the various factors (skill and strength, you vs. enemy) could be made. Do either of you have surface graph s/w at hand? All I've got at the moment is Excel. :(

Great work! Also thanks for cleaning up the page in general, Eth.

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 22:24, 2 June 2006 (PDT)

----

I suspect you've misremembered the details of your tests. The 49.26% success rate out of 2400 trials that you quote above would have been for your 95/16 soldier doing panics, not MCs: 44 + [95*16/50 = 30.4] - 25 = 49.4%, almost exactly the same as your 49.26%. A 95/44 doing panics would always succeed: 102.6%. A 95/44 doing MCs would succeed 82.6% of the time.

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 11:06, 3 June 2006 (PDT)

----

Ah, there's that data. Thanks for reminding me. I can't remember what I put in which discussions and was going to dig it out of my db.

No, it was MCs. Indeed I relied on the lack of seeing an enemy, if I got moving too fast and couldn't remember if I successfully MC'd. Attention starts to wander with such highly repetitive testing. This was before I realized the following...

Anyone doing repetitive psi testing can readily and accurately get the number of positive results from the [[UNITREF.DAT]] Psi byte [84] if you work it right. Note the turn you start psi attempts. Then do exactly 2 or 3 psi Attempts each turn, as your TUs allow. Then note the turn you stop and get the delta. Turns x Attempts/Turn = Attempts. A failed psi attempt adds 1 to [84] and a successful attempt adds 3, so the number of successes is: ([84]-Attempts)/2. Be careful during testing marathons because the byte wraps around at 255 (=85 straight successes, or 28.3 turns at 3 successful attempts per turn). Then it starts counting again so actually even this can be dealt with by adding 255 if you're on top of it. If anybody wants an applet that shows Unitref experience values on the fly, let me know. It's great for building experience. Right now it's embedded within my mdb though... I'd have to tease it out.

I'm using XCOM DOS which I once ran XcomUtil on, if that matters.

Hmm.

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 12:21, 3 June 2006 (PDT)

----

Distance...ok, no reason for the game to use multiple 2-d distance formulæ.

I have software set up to render 3D graphs. Is there anything on the site that jumps out as "would like to see first"? I'd rather wait until the psi formulæ are calibrated first before graphing those.

Ethereal: What I see posted is test data for ethereal MC human. Do you have test data for human MC ethereal as well? [That would test whether the game calculations are symmetrical.]

---[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 2:37, 3 June 2006 (EDT)

----

It ''is'' possible X-COM units get a different formula from aliens -- I only tested an alien doing psi, as it was more automated -- the thing would psi without my having to control it.

I'm not not volunteering to test x-com units for the time being -- it's a bit more laborious -- but if I ''had'' to test it, I'd do a small number of trials of 35/16, 50/51, and 100/51 soldiers trying to MC (not panic) an adjacent Muton, which should succeed 10.2%, 50% and 101% of the time.

Feel free to test it before I do. ;-P

Oh, and nice work on the flares, Mike.

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 12:50, 3 June 2006 (PDT)

----

Sounds cool, Zaimoni... As for "like to see",

Once my troops have psi ability, I try to get 90+ psi strength guys. Then the question becomes "at psi str 90, at what psi skill point are most/all aliens certain to be MC'ed?" In my experience, it's somewhere around skill 40-60... Anything that might show this, or show how you fare relative to aliens at, say, STR 90, is something I've always wanted. However it might be done. In one sense you could simply plug the "worst" psi alien (Ethereal CDR?) into Eth's equations to get the final answer. But it'd be good to see the lay of the land.

If you make the simplifying assumption that many of your targets are psi skill 0, there's one less variable. Additional graphs can be done later just for the psi-capable aliens... first things first though...

Taking the above into consideration, then, XCOM Psi Skill (Str=90) vs. Alien Psi Strength (Skill=0) vs. Success rate is one 3D graph that could be made. If you can do a 4th dimension as color, you could replace the Success rate axis with XCOM Psi Str, then have color indicate success rate, from primary red for "no way" through yellow for "sometimes" to primary green for "always". Or something like that. It'd also be nice but not critical to have annotations for where various aliens lie along their dimension. I can supply this info if you want. Which reminds me: Eth, Zombie and others found some errors in Aztec's table (which came from the OSG). Just a few percent of them, but they're definitely there (I can't remember where). I've hacked alien stats straight out of GEOSCAPE... see the alien stats page. I believe Zombie has found these to be correct, but he has not yet given the final word.

Zai, as far as I'm concerned, you can model using EC's equation already, if you have the time... I'm sure his equations are very close, if not spot on, and even if not, it may show key places to test and otherwise support further testing. E.g., both aliens and XCOM can readily have their relevant values hacked to test for boundary conditions of 0% and 100% success. Plus once it's set up it shouldn't be hard to tweak the equation and voila, the graphs update. But if you don't have the time - eh, it's all volunteer work anyway.

Eth, I suppose it's possible aliens vs. humans is different. They are known to have some differences in functionality, such as night vision. I don't know if I'll be able to test, but it definitely intrigues me. BTW I said somewhere else that I was looking into automating the XCOM interface in order to do psi testing. I have concluded that I can't do it. At least not the way I was hoping to. Oh well. Still, my belated realization that one can use Unitref[84] to count psi successes is a real boon to repetitive testing. So we'll see. Thanks for suggestions on what to test if I do. By the way, did I do that 83% correct? I just want to make sure I'm doing the math right.

Thanks re: the flares!

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:08, 3 June 2006 (PDT)

----

The influence of distance still needs to be tested, although it doesn't seem to be an enormous factor. Rather than a complicated graph, I think a few charts with distance = 1, 10 and 20 would probably tell the story more clearly. The distance formula might even prove to be something really simple, like +1 distance = -1% chance.

The hardest aliens to MC are Sectopods and Cyberdiscs: look at the [[Psionics#Summary_of_Alien_Psionic_Resistance]] section I added. At distance 1 on Superhuman you'll need 93 to 192 Attack Strength to achieve 1% to 100% chance. Assuming Psi Str 90, that's Skill 52 to 107.

Now vs. the strongest attacker: Superhuman Ethereal Commander, attack str 88. You'll need a Resistance of 132 to be totally immune to panics from one adjacent to you -- that's str 100, skill 160, or str 90, skill 210. Against MC, it's str 100/skill 60 or str 90/skill 110. In practice you won't be right next to them, so you can probably go a bit lower. They'll focus on the weakest soldiers anyhow, which in practice means a couple of decoys in with some supertroopers is a good strategy.

82.6%, yes.

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 21:51, 3 June 2006 (PDT)

OpenOffice.org is CPU-bound when converting the graph from 2D to 3D. [XCOM Psi Str/Sk 90/0-107, alien Psi Str/Sk 25-116/0; I'm on a 1GHz Pentium III/512MB] Not sure how ColdFusion single-IP demo would do yet (would have to reinstall), but the UI options look better in OpenOffice.org.

I'll attempt the transition later today (when I know I'll be away from the system and positively not working). I just need to be able to take a screenshot.

You probably already noticed this: even if a bug permitted a 0 Psi Skill operative to use a Psi Amp, the success chance of MC is still negative.

Also (thinking about the testing anomaly MikeTheRed had): The floating-point change in success rate from an increase of 1 in Psi Skill is 1.9 at 95 Psi Str. Integer truncation would make this 1...leaving the floating-point formula overestimating by 39.6%. At the precision of reporting, this works.

[Edit: but does *not* work against the initial regression. So, no good.]

---[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 9:51, 4 June 2006 (CDT)

Got a chance to run the bar graph this morning...no go, OpenOffice.org doesn't like a horde of data points on both axes.

But...this particular graph is essentially a plane. It should be hand-drawable, even if the more complicated ones aren't.

---[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 8:35, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

----

Hi Zaimoni... I'm not sure I understand the differences you talk about. You mean you can get your s/w to make a graph where you've specified the points by hand? Anyway, if you take a shot at most anything, we'd be able to give feedback... a picture's worth a thousand words. Thanks for working on it! ---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 06:36, 5 June 2006 (PDT)

Somewhat. Layer 1 of the spreadsheet is the raw data to be graphed (took about five minutes to set up). If I was going to commit to this representation, I'd go back and make the XCOM Psi Str and Alien Psi Skill configurable. So it's trying to graph data points (the MC success chances) on 0-107 by 25-116. I was planning to rotate the view after getting the initial graph up on Layer 2. [Time loading is not favorable for working further on this today.]

OpenOffice.org's autoscaling isn't compensating properly. I haven't checked how to suppress the "color key" that was auto-generated for Alien Psi Str — it's not leaving enough space for the vertical bars to even be 1 pixel in size. The result is decidedly flat, with "correct" vertical range.

As a bar graph, I could get away with subsampling (but don't have a clean way to do it). Yes, it should be possible to correctly graph this (as a plane in three-dimensional space) with only four data points: the corners.

---[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 12:39, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

== Psychic Farm ==
There's a sort of tactic I use which may fit into this article. It's blatant simple: building a base with a couple Living Quarters and as many
Psionic Laboratories as possible, hire the entire population of a small town and get them into psionic training. There may be a pre-selection for soldiers with appalling stats. I don't know what happens to veterans, but in my games by the time I get Psionic Labs money is not a constraint anymore, so I find this industrial breeding quite viable. What do the savvy say about this?--[[User:Trotsky|Trotsky]] 02:40, 11 July 2006 (PDT)
----
Hiya Trotsky,

That's what I do. You might want to see my info on [[Raw_recruit_statistical_likelihood|recruit statistics]] and [[Hiring/firing]] (esp. the last bullet under General Info). If you get the full 1,000 recruits per month, about 50 will have psi strength of 95+. Taking other stats into consideration, one or two dozen will be top-notch recruits.

I only have 2 or 3 actual combat squads. One of my less-busy bases serves as initial receiving for batches of ~100 (no psi labs needed), and other un-busy bases get the recruits who made the initial cut farmed out to them, for psi evaluation (lots of psi labs needed).

FWIW I have an applet that reads a savegame; I run it when a new batch of recruits shows up, and it prints out who to keep based on a prioritization. It's ordered by base and soldier names at that base so I go directly to Sell/Sack and dump the ones that didn't cut it, without needing to look at their stats in the game. Then those guys move on to your "psychic farm" bases for psi evaluation. Before I wrote the applet, I would stick a little plus sign next to the names of the guys to keep as I reviewed them in the Soldier Stats screen, so I'd know who to Sack.

Because you can only have 250 soldiers max, and some are devoted to combat or other duties, depending on how you draw the line on initial recruit stats (and how hard you want to work at it), plus the fact that psi results only come up at the end of the month and you need to have the next batch on hand for next month's evaluation... this all means that there's actually only ~100 noobs undergoing psi evaluation on any given month. Also, the number of new recruits you order in batches goes down from the beginning of the month to its end, since you only have a window of ~100 to work with initially. At least, that's how it works for me.

If I run a game a long time, over time what happens is that the bar for psi strength in my 2-3 active combat crews rises over time. Each month, the few high-psi recruits push a few vets below the bar. The best of these vets are farmed out to lesser bases, in case of attack. Of course, any of us could've won long before this point; we're playing just for the joy of play.

Despite all the above, if a soldier has good psi strength, almost anybody can become a superman, given enough [[Experience#Soldier_Advancement|combat]]. The difference between the worst recruit and the best is only about a dozen combats (assuming they can get 3 actions for firing and reaction each combat).

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 16:14, 11 July 2006 (PDT)

== Suggestions for Psi Defence ==

The first aim on missions is to pick off as many aliens as possible without them sighting you. With luck you can break their morale before you get a single psi-attack. Once a soldier is seen the aliens will often, but not always, pick off your weakest soldiers mercilesly (I've had a soldier with 83 strenth panicked as the sole attack during a mission, strangely). The second aim is to get your vulnerable soldiers disarmed so they can soak up all the psi-attacks harmlessly. You can do this by getting soldiers to drop everything when they return to your control, making sure weapons are stored on the ground instead of in hand, or stunning and reviving soldiers. Killing a soldier under alien control will only result result in another soldier being targetted. As you can't keep all your soldiers harmless all the time you should use all available cover to make sure that your troops cannot see each other. This reduces the damage if a soldier gets controlled. Don't use explosive weapons. Don't hold primed grenades between turns. Don't use proximity grenades close to your troops and clear any when soldiers panic in their direction.

Once a mission is completed you can rename the soldiers to record their Psi capability. I'd stick an X on their name, say, for poor defence. Soldiers which look like they have good Psi strength can be marked for training. Soldiers with poor defence will be no use in Cydonia so they can be sacked, used as scouts, or used as decoys on later Psi missions.

On Psi-attack, I think it's worth mentioning that if you stun an alien while it is under mind control then it will not be captured at the end of the mission. I have lost a commander this way.

- Egor

Talk:Psionics

2006-09-13T11:24:21Z

Egor: Suggestions for Psi Defence

Just had a thought on the formula!

What if the "Psionic Combat Strength" formula was a''' ' + ' '''rather than a''' ' * ' '''?

It would mean the example Soldier would have a PCS of 111, rather than 1520, and the defending Muton would have:

Panic Chance = 76%
MC Chance = 56%

These numbers seem more reasonable, don't you think?

--[[User:Danial|Danial]] 15:32, 19 Nov 2005 (PST)
----
Right, it sounds '''much''' more reasonable now. My actual results were 1192 successes out of 2420 tries = 49.26% success rate. The MCer was right next to MC victim, and we know distance introduces ''some'' kind of decrease to base chance. That's the good news. The bad news is that I also tested psi str 95, skill 44 (and some higher skill levels) and never failed to MC ''once'' with these better MCers. Using your revision, a psi str 95, skill 44 guy should have had a success rate of 84% vs. a beginner Muton soldier (psi str 25, skill 0), not 100%. My higher-skill guys were also right next to their MC victims. So, to me the first example makes sense relative to your idea (fits base chance, plus a little distance adds a little more), but the second example counters it.

Still, it sounds WAY better than 1500% :)

I sure wish psi testing wasn't so labor intensive. I got those 2400 counts doing all that experience testing... not interested in doing it again, just for psi equations. At least not at the moment. :P ---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:12, 23 Nov 2005 (PST)
----
Question: why is the Sectopod's psionic resistance listed as N/A? I've mind-controlled sectopods (or at least one square of a sectopod) on many occasions. I usually have it shoot itself, since it can target one of its other, non-MC'ed squares. From my anecdotal experience, their psi resistance seems somewhat high. --[[User:Papa Legba|Papa Legba]] 14:19, 2 February 2006 (PST)
----
Answer: If you look on the alien summaries in the wiki they all have a PSI resistance listed, except the Sectopod. Since it's not listed anyplace I put N/A. Feel free to put it where it belongs in the list if you have enough experience to feel comfortable ranking it. --[[User:Darksun|Darksun]]
----
Darksun, I took the liberty of signing your name for you, and making a separator line. Why not say a word about yourself under [[User:Darksun]] and also, use four dashes (----) to demarcate entries. For more on the basics of wiki'ing, see NKF's "Community Portal" at the bottom of the homepage. Past all that - welcome, fellow XCOMMIE! We were all wiki noobs once. But not everybody loves XCOM. You must. Welcome aboard!

Proceeding right along to flagellating, laugh - Where are you folks talking about Sectopod psi resistance being "N/A"? I see their Psi Strength as 100, and their Psi Skill as 0 at Beginner; Psi Strenth 116 and Skill still 0 at Superhuman. In this respect, they match Cyberdisks. What do you folks mean by Psi "resistance"? Do you know the math behind the psi equations? I haven't been able to figure it out. But the stats I just listed are ones hacked out of the game... Zombie is going to present a full precis' some time soon.

Great speaking at ya ... keep on contributing, Darksun!! --[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]]

== Alien psionic resistance ==

I haven't tried mind-controlling Cyberdiscs much, but if, as I've read elsewhere, both Sectopods and Cyberdiscs have have a Psi Strength of 100, they should probably both be classed "extremely high".
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 10:30, 4 May 2006 (PDT)

== Psionic testing ==

I started doing some testing to figure out the psionics formula.

Initial finding: ''distance'' takes the hypotenuse into account. I'm not sure if the actual Pythagorean formula is used, but I can say this much: an Ethereal was able to panic a moderately-psi-weak soldier at 30 squares along the horizontal but not at 30 squares along the diagonal.

Second finding: the difference in "difficulty" between MC and panic is definitely 20 points (although that may not be percent). A soldier with 97 Psi strength, 0 Psi skill standing adjacent to an Ethereal Leader (60 str/45 skill) could not be panicked at all, but 96 Psi str could (often). The same soldier with 77 Psi str couldn't be mind-controlled, but could at 76 Psi str. ''With further testing, I see that 60/45 vs. 97 should succeed occasionally; I might retest this for greater precision, although the +20 still seems to hold.''

Third finding: A soldier with 99 Psi str/0 skill could ''just barely'' be panicked by an adjacent Ethereal with 63/45. I couldn't count how often the Ethereal succeeded, but it was something like 1%-2% of the time. The same soldier was panicked just as infrequently by an Ethereal with 45/63 (str & skill reversed), and much more often by an Ethereal with 54/54. This pretty strongly suggests the attack portion of the formula involves psi str & skill multiplied together.

Data points collected so far:
*Ethereal, 63/45, just barely panicked soldier, 99/0
*Ethereal 40/40 just barely panicked soldier 75/0
*Ethereal 27/27 (multiplied together = 729) just barely panicked soldier 57/0
*Ethereal 10/73 (multiplied = 730) just barely panicked soldier 57/0
**''this confirms that attacking is based on str*skill
*Ethereal 18/18 just barely panicked soldier 49/0
*Ethereal 1/1 just barely panicked soldier 43/0
*Ethereal 1/1 just barely panicked soldier 1/210
**''this confirms Psi skill / 5 is used in calculating defense; 1 + (210/5) = 43''

I also tested Ethereal 0/1 (no psi str, 1 pt. skill); it still attacked, but did not attack at 0 pts. skill no matter how high psi str was (no surprise there, otherwise all units would do psi attacks).

I ran the points through a curve-fitting program and got a nice and simple answer:

attack strength = psi str * psi skill '''/ 50'''
defense strength = psi str + (psi skill / 5)

Panic Attack chance = 44% + attack strength - defense strength
Mind Control Attack chance = 24% + attack strength - defense strength

The formula has held up under limited further testing; I'm satisfied it's correct. I invite others to test it more than I have.

The impact of distance has yet to be tested, but it should be easy to figure out now.

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 22:03, 26 May 2006 (PDT)

----

There is a reasonable approximation to the Pythagorean formula (in the plane) that could have been used, that doesn't require loops or floating-point math:

max( | Δx | , | Δy | ) + ½min( | Δx | , | Δy | )

where Δ_ := _2 - _1.

It overestimates slightly. I haven't thought through how this would generalize to 3D. [Yanked from Moria, Angband, and variants...think it's too basic to copyright, though.]

One way to test whether the distance estimator is no greater than true Pythagorean formula by working out the greatest distance (pure x or pure y) that MC/Panic is not 0%, then testing on a diagonal with a "computed same". An integer-math overestimator (like the above) would by 0%.

Muliple of 5 allows replacing the diagonal with a suitably scaled 3-4-5 triangle...should work as well for testing.

--[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 2:38PM, 26 May 2006 (CDT)

----

Wow... good approach to teasing this out, Ethereal!

Am I doing this right? I plugged in numbers for Muton, 25/0, Me 95/44, and got 83% MC Base Chance... But in much repeated testing (when learning about experience counters) it seemed quite solid that I was MC'ing him about half the time. Say 45-55% of the time. This was when right next to each other. Is 83% right for your equations?

Zaimoni, re: your equation, see [[Explosions#Distance_from_Ground_Zero]]. XCOM seems to use a fairly simple approach that doesn't involve Pythagoras per se. Since it's based on a very old engine, much of its stuff is integer based. Cool deal on the deltas and other wiki symbols - I wish I knew about them sooner! Actually I know where wiki symbol tables are... just didn't bother to look up so many symbols. :P

Nobody has tackled 3D distance yet, but I may soon, in studying illumination.

Once the equations are well known (maybe they are already), I imagine some cool 3D topographical graphs of the various factors (skill and strength, you vs. enemy) could be made. Do either of you have surface graph s/w at hand? All I've got at the moment is Excel. :(

Great work! Also thanks for cleaning up the page in general, Eth.

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 22:24, 2 June 2006 (PDT)

----

I suspect you've misremembered the details of your tests. The 49.26% success rate out of 2400 trials that you quote above would have been for your 95/16 soldier doing panics, not MCs: 44 + [95*16/50 = 30.4] - 25 = 49.4%, almost exactly the same as your 49.26%. A 95/44 doing panics would always succeed: 102.6%. A 95/44 doing MCs would succeed 82.6% of the time.

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 11:06, 3 June 2006 (PDT)

----

Ah, there's that data. Thanks for reminding me. I can't remember what I put in which discussions and was going to dig it out of my db.

No, it was MCs. Indeed I relied on the lack of seeing an enemy, if I got moving too fast and couldn't remember if I successfully MC'd. Attention starts to wander with such highly repetitive testing. This was before I realized the following...

Anyone doing repetitive psi testing can readily and accurately get the number of positive results from the [[UNITREF.DAT]] Psi byte [84] if you work it right. Note the turn you start psi attempts. Then do exactly 2 or 3 psi Attempts each turn, as your TUs allow. Then note the turn you stop and get the delta. Turns x Attempts/Turn = Attempts. A failed psi attempt adds 1 to [84] and a successful attempt adds 3, so the number of successes is: ([84]-Attempts)/2. Be careful during testing marathons because the byte wraps around at 255 (=85 straight successes, or 28.3 turns at 3 successful attempts per turn). Then it starts counting again so actually even this can be dealt with by adding 255 if you're on top of it. If anybody wants an applet that shows Unitref experience values on the fly, let me know. It's great for building experience. Right now it's embedded within my mdb though... I'd have to tease it out.

I'm using XCOM DOS which I once ran XcomUtil on, if that matters.

Hmm.

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 12:21, 3 June 2006 (PDT)

----

Distance...ok, no reason for the game to use multiple 2-d distance formulæ.

I have software set up to render 3D graphs. Is there anything on the site that jumps out as "would like to see first"? I'd rather wait until the psi formulæ are calibrated first before graphing those.

Ethereal: What I see posted is test data for ethereal MC human. Do you have test data for human MC ethereal as well? [That would test whether the game calculations are symmetrical.]

---[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 2:37, 3 June 2006 (EDT)

----

It ''is'' possible X-COM units get a different formula from aliens -- I only tested an alien doing psi, as it was more automated -- the thing would psi without my having to control it.

I'm not not volunteering to test x-com units for the time being -- it's a bit more laborious -- but if I ''had'' to test it, I'd do a small number of trials of 35/16, 50/51, and 100/51 soldiers trying to MC (not panic) an adjacent Muton, which should succeed 10.2%, 50% and 101% of the time.

Feel free to test it before I do. ;-P

Oh, and nice work on the flares, Mike.

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 12:50, 3 June 2006 (PDT)

----

Sounds cool, Zaimoni... As for "like to see",

Once my troops have psi ability, I try to get 90+ psi strength guys. Then the question becomes "at psi str 90, at what psi skill point are most/all aliens certain to be MC'ed?" In my experience, it's somewhere around skill 40-60... Anything that might show this, or show how you fare relative to aliens at, say, STR 90, is something I've always wanted. However it might be done. In one sense you could simply plug the "worst" psi alien (Ethereal CDR?) into Eth's equations to get the final answer. But it'd be good to see the lay of the land.

If you make the simplifying assumption that many of your targets are psi skill 0, there's one less variable. Additional graphs can be done later just for the psi-capable aliens... first things first though...

Taking the above into consideration, then, XCOM Psi Skill (Str=90) vs. Alien Psi Strength (Skill=0) vs. Success rate is one 3D graph that could be made. If you can do a 4th dimension as color, you could replace the Success rate axis with XCOM Psi Str, then have color indicate success rate, from primary red for "no way" through yellow for "sometimes" to primary green for "always". Or something like that. It'd also be nice but not critical to have annotations for where various aliens lie along their dimension. I can supply this info if you want. Which reminds me: Eth, Zombie and others found some errors in Aztec's table (which came from the OSG). Just a few percent of them, but they're definitely there (I can't remember where). I've hacked alien stats straight out of GEOSCAPE... see the alien stats page. I believe Zombie has found these to be correct, but he has not yet given the final word.

Zai, as far as I'm concerned, you can model using EC's equation already, if you have the time... I'm sure his equations are very close, if not spot on, and even if not, it may show key places to test and otherwise support further testing. E.g., both aliens and XCOM can readily have their relevant values hacked to test for boundary conditions of 0% and 100% success. Plus once it's set up it shouldn't be hard to tweak the equation and voila, the graphs update. But if you don't have the time - eh, it's all volunteer work anyway.

Eth, I suppose it's possible aliens vs. humans is different. They are known to have some differences in functionality, such as night vision. I don't know if I'll be able to test, but it definitely intrigues me. BTW I said somewhere else that I was looking into automating the XCOM interface in order to do psi testing. I have concluded that I can't do it. At least not the way I was hoping to. Oh well. Still, my belated realization that one can use Unitref[84] to count psi successes is a real boon to repetitive testing. So we'll see. Thanks for suggestions on what to test if I do. By the way, did I do that 83% correct? I just want to make sure I'm doing the math right.

Thanks re: the flares!

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:08, 3 June 2006 (PDT)

----

The influence of distance still needs to be tested, although it doesn't seem to be an enormous factor. Rather than a complicated graph, I think a few charts with distance = 1, 10 and 20 would probably tell the story more clearly. The distance formula might even prove to be something really simple, like +1 distance = -1% chance.

The hardest aliens to MC are Sectopods and Cyberdiscs: look at the [[Psionics#Summary_of_Alien_Psionic_Resistance]] section I added. At distance 1 on Superhuman you'll need 93 to 192 Attack Strength to achieve 1% to 100% chance. Assuming Psi Str 90, that's Skill 52 to 107.

Now vs. the strongest attacker: Superhuman Ethereal Commander, attack str 88. You'll need a Resistance of 132 to be totally immune to panics from one adjacent to you -- that's str 100, skill 160, or str 90, skill 210. Against MC, it's str 100/skill 60 or str 90/skill 110. In practice you won't be right next to them, so you can probably go a bit lower. They'll focus on the weakest soldiers anyhow, which in practice means a couple of decoys in with some supertroopers is a good strategy.

82.6%, yes.

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 21:51, 3 June 2006 (PDT)

OpenOffice.org is CPU-bound when converting the graph from 2D to 3D. [XCOM Psi Str/Sk 90/0-107, alien Psi Str/Sk 25-116/0; I'm on a 1GHz Pentium III/512MB] Not sure how ColdFusion single-IP demo would do yet (would have to reinstall), but the UI options look better in OpenOffice.org.

I'll attempt the transition later today (when I know I'll be away from the system and positively not working). I just need to be able to take a screenshot.

You probably already noticed this: even if a bug permitted a 0 Psi Skill operative to use a Psi Amp, the success chance of MC is still negative.

Also (thinking about the testing anomaly MikeTheRed had): The floating-point change in success rate from an increase of 1 in Psi Skill is 1.9 at 95 Psi Str. Integer truncation would make this 1...leaving the floating-point formula overestimating by 39.6%. At the precision of reporting, this works.

[Edit: but does *not* work against the initial regression. So, no good.]

---[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 9:51, 4 June 2006 (CDT)

Got a chance to run the bar graph this morning...no go, OpenOffice.org doesn't like a horde of data points on both axes.

But...this particular graph is essentially a plane. It should be hand-drawable, even if the more complicated ones aren't.

---[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 8:35, 5 June 2006 (CDT)

----

Hi Zaimoni... I'm not sure I understand the differences you talk about. You mean you can get your s/w to make a graph where you've specified the points by hand? Anyway, if you take a shot at most anything, we'd be able to give feedback... a picture's worth a thousand words. Thanks for working on it! ---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 06:36, 5 June 2006 (PDT)

Somewhat. Layer 1 of the spreadsheet is the raw data to be graphed (took about five minutes to set up). If I was going to commit to this representation, I'd go back and make the XCOM Psi Str and Alien Psi Skill configurable. So it's trying to graph data points (the MC success chances) on 0-107 by 25-116. I was planning to rotate the view after getting the initial graph up on Layer 2. [Time loading is not favorable for working further on this today.]

OpenOffice.org's autoscaling isn't compensating properly. I haven't checked how to suppress the "color key" that was auto-generated for Alien Psi Str — it's not leaving enough space for the vertical bars to even be 1 pixel in size. The result is decidedly flat, with "correct" vertical range.

As a bar graph, I could get away with subsampling (but don't have a clean way to do it). Yes, it should be possible to correctly graph this (as a plane in three-dimensional space) with only four data points: the corners.

---[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 12:39, 7 June 2006 (CDT)

== Psychic Farm ==
There's a sort of tactic I use which may fit into this article. It's blatant simple: building a base with a couple Living Quarters and as many
Psionic Laboratories as possible, hire the entire population of a small town and get them into psionic training. There may be a pre-selection for soldiers with appalling stats. I don't know what happens to veterans, but in my games by the time I get Psionic Labs money is not a constraint anymore, so I find this industrial breeding quite viable. What do the savvy say about this?--[[User:Trotsky|Trotsky]] 02:40, 11 July 2006 (PDT)
----
Hiya Trotsky,

That's what I do. You might want to see my info on [[Raw_recruit_statistical_likelihood|recruit statistics]] and [[Hiring/firing]] (esp. the last bullet under General Info). If you get the full 1,000 recruits per month, about 50 will have psi strength of 95+. Taking other stats into consideration, one or two dozen will be top-notch recruits.

I only have 2 or 3 actual combat squads. One of my less-busy bases serves as initial receiving for batches of ~100 (no psi labs needed), and other un-busy bases get the recruits who made the initial cut farmed out to them, for psi evaluation (lots of psi labs needed).

FWIW I have an applet that reads a savegame; I run it when a new batch of recruits shows up, and it prints out who to keep based on a prioritization. It's ordered by base and soldier names at that base so I go directly to Sell/Sack and dump the ones that didn't cut it, without needing to look at their stats in the game. Then those guys move on to your "psychic farm" bases for psi evaluation. Before I wrote the applet, I would stick a little plus sign next to the names of the guys to keep as I reviewed them in the Soldier Stats screen, so I'd know who to Sack.

Because you can only have 250 soldiers max, and some are devoted to combat or other duties, depending on how you draw the line on initial recruit stats (and how hard you want to work at it), plus the fact that psi results only come up at the end of the month and you need to have the next batch on hand for next month's evaluation... this all means that there's actually only ~100 noobs undergoing psi evaluation on any given month. Also, the number of new recruits you order in batches goes down from the beginning of the month to its end, since you only have a window of ~100 to work with initially. At least, that's how it works for me.

If I run a game a long time, over time what happens is that the bar for psi strength in my 2-3 active combat crews rises over time. Each month, the few high-psi recruits push a few vets below the bar. The best of these vets are farmed out to lesser bases, in case of attack. Of course, any of us could've won long before this point; we're playing just for the joy of play.

Despite all the above, if a soldier has good psi strength, almost anybody can become a superman, given enough [[Experience#Soldier_Advancement|combat]]. The difference between the worst recruit and the best is only about a dozen combats (assuming they can get 3 actions for firing and reaction each combat).

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 16:14, 11 July 2006 (PDT)

== Suggestions for Psi Defence ==

The first aim is to pick off as many aliens as possible without them sighting you. With luck you can break their morale before you get a single psi-attack. Once a soldier is seen the aliens will often, but not always, pick off your weakest soldiers mercilesly (I've had a soldier with 83 strenth panicked as the sole attack during a mission, strangely). The second aim is to get your vulnerable soldiers disarmed so they can soak up all the psi-attacks harmlessly. You can do this by getting soldiers to drop everything when they return to your control, making sure weapons are stored on the ground instead of in hand, or stunning and reviving soldiers. Killing a soldier under alien control will only result result in another soldier being targetted. As you can't keep all your soldiers harmless all the time you should use all available cover to make sure that your troops cannot see each other. This reduces the damage if a soldier gets controlled. Don't use explosive weapons. Don't hold primed grenades between turns. Don't use proximity grenades close to your troops and clear any when soldiers panic in their direction.

Once a mission is completed you can rename the soldiers to record their Psi capability. I'd stick an X on their name, say, for poor defence. Soldiers which look like they have good Psi strength can be marked for training. Soldiers with poor defence will be no use in Cydonia so they can be sacked, used as scouts, or used as decoys on later Psi missions.

On Psi-attack, I think it's worth mentioning that if you stun an alien while it is under mind control then it will not be captured at the end of the mission. I have lost a commander this way.

- Egor