UFOpaedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Managing the Item Limit

2007-01-20T18:30:32Z

Eric:

Does anyone know if modding the .exe to raise the 80-item limit is feasible? The 80-item limit is the most "dated" thing about the game... that, and the limit on alien containment capacity.
----
It's not possible as of now. (We do not know the location of this limit). Even if we could "up" the limit for X-COM agents, it would cut into the aliens item limit and some alien units would probably get "shorted" on weapons since there are only so many items which can be placed on the battlescape map. A real pickle this is, but a necessary evil. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:53, 19 January 2007 (PST)
----
Well, I should have said, raise the overall limit as well... since memory isn't an issue now.
[[User:Eric|Eric]] 10:30, 20 January 2007 (PST)

Talk:Managing the Item Limit

2007-01-20T18:30:09Z

Eric:

Talk:Managing the Item Limit

2007-01-20T18:29:47Z

Eric:

Does anyone know if modding the .exe to raise the 80-item limit is feasible? The 80-item limit is the most "dated" thing about the game... that, and the limit on alien containment capacity.
----
It's not possible as of now. (We do not know the location of this limit). Even if we could "up" the limit for X-COM agents, it would cut into the aliens item limit and some alien units would probably get "shorted" on weapons since there are only so many items which can be placed on the battlescape map. A real pickle this is, but a necessary evil. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:53, 19 January 2007 (PST)

Well, I should have said, raise the overall limit as well... since memory isn't an issue now.

Talk:Managing the Item Limit

2007-01-20T03:21:56Z

Eric: Removing the limit??

Does anyone know if modding the .exe to raise the 80-item limit is feasible? The 80-item limit is the most "dated" thing about the game... that, and the limit on alien containment capacity.

Talk:XcomUtil

2007-01-13T04:05:20Z

Eric: Is there an X-COM mod editor?

There's still a lot more stuff that could be added here. Also, I've never used some of the flags mentioned, especially those concerning Geoscape/Game executable. More info from those who have used them would be nice.

[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 07:56, 9 Nov 2005 (PST)

are there any standalone patches the fix the difficulty bug, or does one just copy over the geoscape.exe file to a new Xcom folder once its patched by using XcomUtil 9becuase of no other alternatives... as you can see, I'm not a fan of it).

I don't know about any patches that fix the difficulty bug. BladefireLight has made a patch that changes the craft back to their original configuration. It can be found [http://www.xcomufo.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8656 here at the XcomUtil forums]

[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 18:59, 9 Nov 2005 (PST)

----

The difficulty bug is only found in XCOM 1.0, and is fixed with the XCOM 1.4 patch, isn't it?

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 20:16, 9 Nov 2005 (PST)

== Difficulty Bug ==

Unfortunately, no. For the PC, the difficutly bug is only officially fixed in the Windows port - or as I like to call it, 1.4ce.

P. S, it also pays to look at the header whenever posting anything onto the wiki to see if your cookies have let you down and your automatic login setting has been unchecked. This avoids your handle from turning into a mere user IP.

- [[User:NKF|NKF]]

Hey, I wrote up a thingo about the patched geoscape.exe. I'm not sure about the edited Xcom base tiles though, i guess the backups would be called XBASE##.XCU, and the edited, corrected tiles would be XBASE##.MAP. I'm not sure on this because there are *.RMP files within the MAPS folder. Has anyone played around with cutting and pasting things and found out which ones to move to a new fresh install of the game? Thx [[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]]

----

The RMP files are the files used by the AI and I don't think XcomUtil changes those, so the backup .xcu files are the older .map files.

[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]]

[[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]]: Ok, i'll look into it. Just always thought that RMP go in the routes folder, and maps in maps folder. Yet, there seems to be both types in the maps folder. I guess i'll have a play when i swap puters to fire up Xcom1.

== Is there an X-COM mod editor? ==

Is there something out there that lets people do their own mods to the game, such as changing/adding/removing weapons, technology trees, graphics, etc?

Talk:Avenger

2007-01-09T14:58:22Z

Eric:

It does seem like the Avenger is the ultimate craft. The only thing it doesn't seem to be best at is loiter time -- the Skyranger can patrol an area for much longer looking for an enemy base or watching an area that doesn't have radar coverage. In addition to being faster, tougher, heavily armed, and transporting more soliders, the Avneger also seems to have better fuel-efficiency -- being faster, it can intercept a UFO in less time and thus burn less Elerium-115. Being faster, it can transport a squad to a crash site using less Elerium-115 than a Lightning.

Is there any reason NOT to replace all my Firestorms with Avengers? Should I have nothing but Avengers for air-superiority and transport, and only keep a couple Skyrangers around for specialized tasks?

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 22:56, 6 January 2007 (PST)

: Well, I suppose there's the long downtime the Avengers tend to have if you like to go on frequent agressive attacks on Battleships. And if you don't recover the amount of elerium you use for fuel in the missions, you'll end up with lots of pretty and expensive Hangar ornaments.

: Otherwise, if you've got the elerium stocks to support them, there's no reason not to convert your attackers to Avengers. If you've got a supply ship farm nearby, maintaining an Avenger fleet is certainly viable.

: I'd actually replace the Firestorms with Interceptors and keep a few emergency Avengers on standby - but that's only how I'd approach it if I were faced with that scenario. -[[User:NKF|NKF]]

Right. So the Avenger is the ultimate UFO-tech craft, but as you say, Interceptors still have their uses.

But, what really surprised me was that the Avenger isn't more of an Elerium-115 hog than the Firestorm or Lightning. If you're intercepting something, the Avenger will spend less time in the air = less fuel used. If I were to mod the game, that's something I would change... those twin nacelles with their respective power sources would consume twice the Elerium-115 per hour of the smaller single-engined craft like the Firestorm/Lighting.

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 06:58, 9 January 2007 (PST)

Talk:Avenger

2007-01-09T14:53:46Z

Eric:

Talk:Avenger

2007-01-07T06:56:10Z

Eric:

Talk:Avenger

2007-01-07T06:55:56Z

Eric: Are there ANY downsides to it?

Talk:Lightning

2007-01-07T06:42:45Z

Eric: What a shame

I find the Lightning somewhat useful at hunting down medium UFO's, since you do the downing and scavenging in a single trip, effectively saving a hangar. Of course, this is not exclusive - you still need at least a transport and an interceptor - but I find having a Lightning craft useful for such missions, especially since transferring soldiers and equipment from one craft to another costs nothing.

--[[User:Trotsky|Trotsky]] 04:29, 26 June 2006 (PDT)

------

If I built a Lightning, I'd do away with the SkyRanger/Interceptor (so long as I was sure I could access the Elerium required). However, because the Avenger can do everything the Lightning can (and much more), I don't see the point in wasting time and money building the lesser craft.

- [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]]

----

I think the Lightning is not so much a Skyranger/Interceptor replacement, but an experience. In fact, I'd actually recommend that the Lightning be used to suppliment your Skyranger or Interceptor than to replace them. (I always recommend hanging onto your older aircraft anyway... but that's not in discussion)

The Lightning's main selling point has to be when it's used in the battlescape, with its multiple exits (although, this is unique only because of a collision detection error). You don't get HWPs, but fill this with veteran soldiers and you're all set.

It's a lousy interceptor due to its shorter range, but it can still move very fast, making it good for emergency situations where you have to intercept a UFO close to home. But if you want a troop carrier, go for the Skyranger and Avenger. If you want an interceptor, go for the interceptor or Avenger.

The lightning, to me at least, is much more interesting than the Firestorm. But some players find that useful as well, and I won't begrudge them that.

- [[User:NKF|NKF]]

== What a shame ==

What a shame the Lightning doesn't have a viable niche in the game, if even for just a phase in the mid-game. It's less fuel-efficient and less heavily armed than the Firestorm, and of course it pales in comparison to the Avenger. I suppose it's possible to use it for intercepting and recovering Scouts... but a Firestorm+Skyranger would work better.

Question: my recollection is that early in the game I can find Elerium-115 on crashed UFO's, but later in the game the crashed UFO's are too heavily damaged. Is this just something hard-coded into the gameplay, or is it related to the level of overkill the later weapons do?

Perhaps the Lightning could serve some function as a specialist in anti-Scout missions... give it a single Plasma Beam and it could shoot them down without taking damage and without blasting their power sources, while also carrying an assault team that would be sufficient for dealing with the small number of aliens on those UFO's.

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 22:42, 6 January 2007 (PST)

Talk:Alien Containment

2006-12-29T20:42:13Z

Eric:

How many combinations of Aliens/Ranks are there to store?

Or put another way, how many Alien Containment facilities would I need to build to have enough storage to keep every kind of alien that could be captured?

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 12:42, 29 December 2006 (PST)

Talk:Alien Containment

2006-12-29T20:41:08Z

Eric: How many combinations of Aliens/Ranks are there to store?

Or put another way, how many Alien Containment facilities would I need to build to have enough storage to keep every kind of alien that could be captured?

Talk:Alien Missions

2006-12-11T15:13:57Z

Eric:

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

------
Something I noticed from a game I played when I made all my bases nearly impregnable with Fusion Ball Defenses and Grav Shields: The aliens seem to have a limited queue of missions. Since they were unable to break into any of my bases and had a large number of bases on Earth, the only missions I ever saw were Battleships on retaliation runs and Supply Ships on supply runs. On my newer file, where I use garrisons instead of flak, I see a lot of different types of ships on different types of missions.

--[[User:Dumas|Dumas]] 13:36, 8 November 2006 (PST)

-----

That is the FIRST decent reason I have seen to build base defense and avoid the tactical battles. With no infiltration or terror missions to worry about, the game becomes a lot easier. I wonder if the scenario can be easily reproduced?

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 14:32, 8 November 2006 (PST)

-----
I think I only managed to get the defenses up after I'd lost almost all the funding countries to infiltration. It definitely did cut down on the Terror missions, though. The Harvest, Abduction, etc. also went down a lot. The large amount of research required to obtain Fusion Balls would make it impractical, I think. You would need to assault an Alien Base or large UFO (I'm not sure which ones carry Blasters) for the Blaster Launcher (or take one on a base defense mission). The Grav Shield requires even more time for development since it follows the Lightning. And of course you have to do research for armour and troop weapons, too.

Add on top of that the high cost of the defenses ($1.2Mil for the Shield, $800K per Launcher...say, $5.2Mil for five Launchers and a Shield) and the month-long construction, and I'm not so sure that base defense missions are worth avoiding. Also, the Battle ships seemed to come every five minutes or so.

--[[User:Dumas|Dumas]] 15:01, 8 November 2006 (PST)

----

It sounds like good points, both ways... it sounds potentially really interesting, but it's also true that timing is everything... Many of us can probably get to a stable place where we've usually retained every country by the time we have the Hyperwave, ships, and men to shoot down or let land anything we want... At which point the cash is also rolling in and lots of defenses can be made... But once you reach that point, it becomes kind of moot, the need to channel UFO waves away from infiltration and terror... Hmm. Unless one is playing particular self-imposed variants (like, no Psi attacking), the rush for Hyperwave, Psi, and Avenger is probably the quickest course to domination. Hmm... - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 15:39, 8 November 2006 (PST)

== Retaliation Tradeoffs ==

Some people seem to indicate that shooting down a Retaliation Scout will intensify retaliation efforts, as if in some cases it's better to just hope the scout doesn't find the base. This seems a little strange on the surface, given there's already a retaliation mission underway, and in the end the key is to prevent the scout from finding your base -- shooting it down would seem to guarantee that.

However, I also read that retaliation scouting is performed by a series of ever larger craft until they find the base.

This makes me wonder if perhaps what's really going on is that shooting down a smaller scout will cause the next-larger and more dangerous scout to quickly appear... so it accelerates the escalation of retaliation scouting efforts by the aliens. I'm guessing that perhaps the larger the scouting UFO, the better its base detection capabilities. Perhaps you're better off risking a small scout wasting time looking, than to shoot down several UFO's until you have battleships scouting the area and posing a far greater threat.

The upshot being, if you have total air-superiority -- HWD coverage spotting everything, backed up by plenty of heavily armed Firestorms/Avengers to knock anything and everything immediately out of the sky -- go ahead and actively thwart the retaliation scouting missions, but if you only have limited air-defenses, you're better off crossing your fingers that they don't spot your base before the end of the month (the retaliation scouting mission terminates at the end of the month, yes?).

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 13:59, 9 December 2006 (PST)

* If the scout does not find your base, shooting down a retaliation scout has the same effect as shooting down any other UFO: the next retaliation scout UFO is delayed. Shooting down anything near your base can start a series of Retalation Scouts, as can simply scoring a lot of points.
* If your base is ''not'' found by any UFOs in the Retaliation mission series in [[MISSIONS.DAT]] (including the searching Battleships), the series will end normally.
* I do not know what the representation of a base being targeted for a base defense mission is, in the save files. It seems to be more of a fact about a base.

-- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 17:07, 10 December 2006 (CST)

LOL... I should have known that it was a waste of time for me to speculate on the inner workings of the game, when this group has already thoroughly dissected the game files and know how almost all of it works. Reading that MISSION.DAT page almost ruined the game for me... I'll have to make sure not to study it too much... the amazing thing about X-COM for me was always the mysterious behavior of the aliens.

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 07:13, 11 December 2006 (PST)

Talk:Alien Missions

2006-12-11T15:13:31Z

Eric:

Talk:Alien Missions

2006-12-09T21:59:23Z

Eric: Retaliation Tradeoffs

Talk:Laser Pistol

2006-11-12T03:36:24Z

Eric:

Do you guys think the Laser Pistol can serve as a primary sidearm?

I'm debating between it and the Laser Rifle, and while I know the rifle has much better damage and accuracy, I like the flexibility of the Pistol in terms of no accuracy penalty for carrying something in the other hand (so I can always have two objects equipped) and the TU benefits (which I find extra useful for seemingly simple stuff like blasting through bushes, wooden walls, etc).

My analysis seems to indicate that the Pistol is the superior close-range weapon in terms of damage per TU, because at close range many "misses" become hits. I also find an extra benefit to being able to squeeze off a last burst when you're in a tight situation. Basically, it's the superior indoor weapon.

At long range (outdoors) it loses out to the Laser Rifle, but my thinking there is to combine it with the Blaster Launcher for long range targets. The Blaster would also be the weapon of choice against large targets.

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 19:36, 11 November 2006 (PST)

Talk:Soldiers

2006-07-28T09:41:44Z

Eric:

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]]

Talk:High Explosive

2006-07-28T00:37:47Z

Eric: Blowing Through Interior Walls

== Blowing Through Interior Walls ==

How good are (unmodified) High Explosives for blowing through interior walls of alien ships? I see the damage is 110, and that would seem to be enough, compared to other weapons that can blast through interior walls... I'm just wondering if it's a widely used tactic early in the game, prior to better explosives becoming available.

[[User:Eric|Eric]] 17:37, 27 July 2006 (PDT)

Talk:Soldiers

2006-07-28T00:14:47Z

2006-07-09T20:41:17Z

Eric: Garbled MIDI

The files with the names of soundcards, ''adlib, roland'' and ''gm (general midi) '' store the respective Geoscape and Battlescape music sequences for their respective cards.

For those with plain soundblaster compatibles, adlib.cat was used. Those with Roland Gus's or general midi output devices, they used their respective files for the music sequences. They're stored in different files because the midi devices handle their data in different ways.

These files are only used by the Dos version - and perhaps are the reason why the music in the dos version, on certain soundcards, sound a lot better than the CE versions (though your mileage may vary). Speaking of which, these three files were replaced in the Collectors edition with midi files, one for each music sequence - this allows for a bit more freedom in modding as you can replace the midi files you don't like with other midi files.

The CE version of UFO leaves out intro.cat for some really odd reason, so your intro sequence has no sound effects. Worse still, it will not play intro.cat even if you copy it in.

I think there were a few 0-byte com files in here as well, but they did nothing and weren't used by the game.

- [[User:NKF|NKF]]

----
The .com files in my game are not empty, they probably do some low level sound card service, but on the other hand, in the main .bat file sound\sndstart and sound\sndend exe files are called. I looked into the them for strings they contain, and found names of other coms and exes in sound directory. I think sndstart/sndend is just a wrapper for a convenient use in .bat file.

The INTRO.CAT file was used only by old sound engine - DOS 1.4 uses (and CE should use) SAMPLE3.CAT. Erasing it makes CE crash with error:
Error Code 0
FILE: D:\SS\XCOM\UFO Defense\Stubs.c
LINE: 58
<br>Cannot open file Sound/sample3.cat

I'm not sure which files 1.4 version uses for Roland support, because there are two files (one for intro music, one with rest of it) - this construction was used by 1.2 engine. There isn't one file with all the music in it.

- Quantifier

== Garbled MIDI ==

A couple of the MIDI files seem to have screwed up instrument sounds when played on my computer -- I tried them on a friend's computer and had the same problems. The two major problems are the files for the intro music "GMINTRO1.MID" and particularly the BattleScape music "GMTACTIC.MID" -- I think there's supposed to be a low-pitch piano key (every now and then when I alt-tab out and back the sound works fine) but instead it just sort of sounds like a blown speaker. I was wondering if anyone else is having this sort of sound trouble and if there is a way of fixing it.

Talk:Reactions

2006-07-03T17:45:08Z

Eric:

Question: How is having weapons in both hands handled when dealing with reactions? Is there a "favored" hand? Is the quicker weapon always chosen? Are both weapons checked?

This is important because if I have a Laser Pistol in one hand and a Blaster Launcher in another, most of the time I'm not going to want my soldier wildly firing Blaster Bombs. Also, if (for example) it always checks the right hand first and I happen to put the Blaster Launcher there, I will fail a lot of reaction rolls I could have made if it had checked the other hand holding the Laser Pistol.

Have people noticed that the soldier always fires just one weapon... or have people seen soldiers alternate?

Talk:Stun Rod

2006-07-03T00:06:10Z

Eric: Handedness Clarifications Wanted

I have a question: this page says the stun rod is a 2-handed weapon. Normally using a two-handed weapon with one hand results in an accuracy penalty (-20% if I remember). Since I tend to use low-quality soldiers to try and stun aliens early in the game, I am thinking it would be wise to always try and use stun rods two-handed, to avoid the accuracy penalty. Am I right in looking at it this way?

Also, I see a few weapons with their "handedness" listed (mostly if they're two-handed) but most weapons entries don't mention if they're one or two-handed (Small Launcher, for example). This would be a good thing to accurately list for every weapon.

I'm also thinking there could be a separate wiki page for explaining "handedness", the importance of it, thoughts on the tradeoffs, etc. For example, I think the accuracy of the Blaster Bomb is 120% but it is considered a two-handed weapon, so my understanding is, you can put a second item in the other hand with no practical penalty.

Talk:Item Weight

2006-04-18T06:47:00Z

Eric: Item Sizes

I would suggest adding Item Sizes to this page as well -- i.e. how tall/wide each item is.

Talk:X-COM Base Terrain

2006-04-18T06:38:03Z

Eric: Requests & Questions

Hi, I have some requests/questions:

1) Could someone please upload Battlescape upper and lower level floorplan views of all the base modules? Probably less than half the modules have any Battlescape floorplan pictures, and most of the ones that do are for the upper level. When laying out my base it's nice to be able to know what the LOWER level corridors are going to look like! Finding out the actual layout details DURING the battle (using Battlescape) is obviously too late! Having these pictures on the Wiki would be very helpful.

2) To confirm: are the ONLY indestructible modules the Access Lift, Hangar, General Stores, and Living Quarters? Can all the other modules be destroyed from base defense combat?

3) During base assaults, do HWP's always appear in General Stores? Do Soldiers always appear in Living Quarters?

4) Does anyone know if aliens go out of their way to destroy base facilities, or do they just seek/destroy soldiers defending the base?

5) I see there's a unique connection for a Hangar module on its northeast corner facing north... if I connect the rest of my base to that point, it looks like I could defend that single hangar door easier than any other connection -- particularly the usual method of connecting via the Access Lift. Is my thinking correct?

6) Regarding the Base Disjoint Bug, do Hangar modules (being 2x2) suffer from this bug as well?

Thanks,

Eric