UFOpaedia - User contributions [en]

User talk:Mingos

2009-12-15T01:28:01Z

Mingos:

Hiya, just a quick FYI - If you type four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>), it'll insert a time/dated signature in your comment when you hit the post button. Note that in most areas of the wiki, signatures are only used on discussion pages (as opposed to main articles).

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 19:42, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Any way to force the Wiki to display my local time? My preferences are set up correctly with respect to this, but I still get Eastern Standard Time instead of Central European Time in the time signature... [[User:Mingos|Mingos]] 20:16, 14 December 2009 (EST)

Sorry, no. Once you make your post the tildes change to "plain text", and can't be dynamically altered from there. If everyone's individual sig was using their local time, users would have a right pain trying to mentally translate when each person posted relative to everyone else... So to save on this frustration, signatures just use one global time zone setting across the board.

For example, reading this page as it is, it's easy for you to see that I posted again within about five minutes of your reply. :)

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 20:21, 14 December 2009 (EST)

:Discussions are usually ordered in "threads" and indented to separate the posts, so one needn't the signature to guess the chronology. I think it's more valuable info to know what one's time zone is, for instance, to estimate when you can expect a reply. [[User:Mingos|Mingos]] 20:28, 14 December 2009 (EST)

User talk:Mingos

2009-12-15T01:16:08Z

Mingos:

Wish List (TFTD)

2009-12-14T15:23:57Z

Mingos: /* New Features */

Suggestions for fixes or improvements that would be nice to have for X-COM: Terror From The Deep (TFTD). ''Since TFTD shares its game engine with X-COM: Enemy Unknown (EU), there are many problems that are common to both games. Please make any shared/common wishes under the EU Wish List (link at the bottom of this page).''

= Fixes =

== Geoscape ==

* Research Tree bugs
* The really annoying "Cannot intercept over land" message that pops up continually (more than once a second) during some pursuits along coastlines.

== Battlescape ==

* Underwater-only weapons reaction-firing on land
* Bio-Drone melee attack has no effect. This is a serious flaw in the Bio-Drone, as it always uses this attack when Aquanauts are adjacent.
* Bugs with MC at the end of one stage of a multi-stage mission. (Does this also affect EU, e.g. the 2-stage Cydonia mission?)
* Permit aliens to use carried melee weapons. (This is a game engine bug that applies to EU as well, but is moot since EU aliens don't have carried melee weapons.) This fix could inadvertently make the game easier, as aliens would use Sonic Pulsers (their default option since they can't use melee weapons) less often. So it is essential to ensure the AI chooses sensibly between drills and Pulsers.
* Make ship terror missions less annoying, especially the passenger ship. Aliens hide in labyrinthine structures and every single spot needs to be revisited if a single alien is left out, otherwise the mission is failed. Often over 100 turns are needed to win, as aquanauts quickly run out of energy and finding the last cowardly tasoth is a pain.
* The above also applies to other missions, namely the 2nd stages of alien colony assaults and artifact sites, but both can, fortunately, be won without killing all the aliens.
: Specific suggestion as to how to do this please? For example, reveal last 1-2 alien positions after XX turns, or (EU style), force all aliens to go on the offensive after XX turns (probably not as this is too easy). [[User:Spike|Spike]]
:: Easiest method would be to edit the map modules ("lock" some doors) and route node tables to remove the hidey holes. Heck, just messing with the nodes might be enough to do it - for example, at least one actually allows for large units to spawn in a tiny cabin where they can't move ''at all''. Assuming you find it, you've then got to deal with reaction fire from a critter that will always have maximum TUs on your turn... Stupid Xarquids... [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]]
::: In my view, the problems lies in the fact that the last terrified alien simply picks a hiding spot and remains there until you find it. Aliens should be more active, more aggressive. It's not a matter of game balance or difficulty, but playability. [[User:mingos|mingos]]
:::: Good point, there are at least 2 cases: aliens with failed morale, and aliens stuck in the map. For aliens with failed morale, the game should just end with them as prisoners (if they have no built in weapons and no chance of regaining morale). But for aliens stuck in the map by walls or waypoints or whatever, as Bomb Bloke said above, more measures are called for. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:42, 12 December 2009 (EST)
::::: I'm not sure it has anything to do with morale. After a few turns they'd've recovered from any "frights" they had (assuming they didn't drop their guns, but seeing as it's often [[Tentaculat]]s which go "missing" I doubt that has much affect on matters). I think the route nodes just send them on one way trips into certain out-of-the-way areas. The aggression stat ([[UNITREF.DAT|unitref(44 / 2C)]]) might actually be the way to go - the theory is that pumping this higher makes a creature more likely to leave cover and attack your agents head on. [[Alien Stats (TFTD)|By default]] most aliens already have it "maxed out", but for all I know the value can be cranked higher then the observed cap of 2. - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 00:59, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:::::: Same happens to me with other races too. Bio Drones and Tasoths seem to do the same quite often. While Tasoths are probably shaken up and disarmed, entaculats and Bio Drones have their weapons inbuilt, plus, they rarely panic. Not long ago I saw a Bio Drone fire from cover each turn, then hide again, and after I started looking for it, it simply picked a hiding spot and stayed there for ~20 turns until I found it and zapped it. The funny thing was that it was the beginning of the mission and there were only 2 or 3 aliens killed so far. [[User:mingos|mingos]]
::::::: OK the aggression stat sounds a good option for all this hidey behaviour. A 100 turns to finish a game is incredibly frustrating. In EU, you could Seb76's UFO Extender to make the remaining aliens visible. With TFTD, you have the option of using the '''xcomutil dis''' command to get the coordinates of the remaining aliens. There might also be an xcomutil command to make all units visible. And if all else fails you can use the '''xcomutil win''' command to kill the last aliens off. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:31, 13 December 2009 (EST)

= New Features =

* Airborne Interception - what's the point of flying subs without air to-air weapons anyway?(Avalanches anyone?) Surely it's better to 'splash' the USO ''before'' it makes it to the safety of water?
*Alternatively, get rid of the pretense that subs can fly. How does sonar track a USO over land, anyway?
:Both sonar and radar use the same principle (radio or sound waves being emitted and reflected back to a receiver) so it isn't unconceivable to have equipment that can use both detection methods. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 22:35, 12 December 2009 (EST)
::Hmm. Steam engines and internal combustion engines are pretty similar too but you rarely see both on the same vehicle! The sensors in TFTD are called sonars, not sonar/radar combinations. I would be quite happy if the names were just changed from Sonar to Sonar/Radar or to Sensor, that would be fine. It is possible to use something very similar to passive sonar to track bearings to aircraft, similar things were used in WWII before the development of radar. Without triangulation, it would be very difficult to get the actual range to the target, and almost impossible to get the target's heading and speed. It is very normal for modern subs and surface ships to have both sonar and radar, but they are totally separate systems aboard the vessel, with different capabilities. I would be fine if the name was changed to Sensor or Sonar/Radar, and the UFOPaedia description changed to say that it used both technologies. Mainly I just object to the flying subs not being able to intercept over land. You can see why though, since it would pose the question of why there were no land USO recovery missions. But you could just take the same approach as EU. Just as UFOs disintegrate if shot down over water, USOs could disintegrate if shot down over land. Or even better, the land/sea game below, allowing land recovery vs USOs and underwater recovery vs UFOs. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:22, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::: UFOs didn't disintegrate in water - it was just the Elerium (and presumably the crew!). After the aliens were beaten, X-COM's new job essentially boiled down to finding those drowned ships and scavenging whatever was left. - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 21:09, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:::: Game-wise, they did disintegrate. The whole story about SORESO and elerium recovery was made up later in order to give a meaning to the subsequent games. [[User:mingos|mingos]]
* Combined land/sea game, with subs and aircraft, USOs and UFOs, Aquanauts and Soldiers, land and sea bases. Now that would be cool!
**A slightly less dramatic change: on any land mission, automatically swap Dart Guns, Jet Harpoons, HydroJet Cannons and Torpedo Launchers for (respectively) Pistols, Rifles, AutoCannon and Rocket Launchers "from stores" (including their ammo of course). Purchase price of the weapons would be doubled (or just add the cost of the XCOM-EU equivalent) to reflect this versatility.
:Essentially the game would switch icons and elements of OBJECT.DAT for a land mission. Could also switch Grenade types perhaps? But it's best to keep some underwater weapons (eg Gas Cannon), especially for land missions where there is some water present. Conceivably, in recognition of the progress made by X-COM, and the increasing threat, the authorities might even make available some of the scarce (?) stocks of laser weapons, to exchange for Gauss weapons during land missions. (But this is not really necessary, as Gauss weapons are quite adequate on land.) Working plasma weapons of course have long since vanished due to lack of Elerium. (Although by the same argument, 1st Alien War-era Personal Armour should be issued to any unarmoured troops on land missions. Maybe it takes 200% damage from Sonic weapons.)
**Variant on this - allow 1st Alien War equipment to be purchased or leased by X-COM, for a quite high price, to be used on land missions only. Mainly laser weapons and armour. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:22, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:The direction that this suggestion is heading seems to point to merge the systems of both games. One idea to do so could be that both types of modules (Sonar and Radar) could be built at X-COM bases. Each of them would only detect USOs/UFOs either underwater or airborne. That would represent a strain on X-COM resources since the player would have to choose which ones to build at each base. Just having one type of system at a base would limit detection and tracking, which would also add another challenge.
:Concerning Subs intercepting USOs over land another interesting change could be that the subs' armaments could also be of limited use while on air, just like the ground battles. Torpedo weapons would be impossible to use on the air (Ajax, DUP and PWT) which would limit the weapons to Gas and Gauss Cannons. Based on the criteria of the ground weapons the Sonic Oscillator could also be used but I'd drop the power of it to 50 so that the TFTD Battleships (equivalent to Terror Ships) could have also a change to strike back at X-COM craft. Another possibility would be prevent the Oscillator from being used on air (the logic would that the sound waves dissipate as the range goes higher) which would present another challenge to the player since he/she would have to make choices concerning how to equip the subs, since it would only be possible to hit airborne USOs with Gas and Gauss Cannons. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 13:09, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::I like these ideas. I wonder if we should split off a different section or page on combined land/sea EU/TFTD? It would make an awesome game. If a game company was working on a remake of X-COM, it would be great to make an EU/TFTD hybrid from the start. It would be reminiscent of the UFO TV series that was probably one of the inspirations for X-COM.
::In the realm of possibility for player mods might be a game that combines sea and land bases on the same geoscape map, with USOs and UFOs flying around, crash sites on land or underwater depending on the location of the crash, and land (EU) or sea (TFTD) loadouts depending on the crash location. Terror sites and other land sites would probably use EU loadouts? MC and Psi would need to be merged into the same phenomenon, probably. That wouldn't be too hard since under the skin it's the same thing. This could be as simple as calling the EU battlescape for land missions and the TFTD battlescape for undersea missions. Of course the Geoscape changes would be trickier. Only one political map could be used at one time. But possibly you could play first with an EU geoscape, EU political map, and EU victory conditions, and then play again with TFTD geoscape/map/victory conditions. The only difference in the geoscape .exe would be to permit bases and interceptions over sea (in EU) and land (in TFTD). Opening the base screen of a land base in TFTD might requiring calling a patched module from EU, and vice versa. Tech research would need to follow the geoscape (EU or TFTD), unless a way was found to combine the research trees of both games. But I doubt that is possible in a player mod because there is only room for one set of technologies in things like the object table. So basically researching lasers would give you gauss, and vice versa, across the board. Researching each EU technology would give its TFTD equivalent and vice versa. This would be OK I think. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 18:22, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:::I was thinking more of the TFTD plotline rather than EU's when making this suggestion. USO's don't appear on EU nor could their appearance be explained by the plotline. But the opposite would fit TFTD rather nicely. TFTD's political map could be expanded to land and additional cities would have to be placed. Terror attacks on inland cities would be different than the Port attacks on costal cities. Alien land colonies could also be a possibility but plot like they wouldn't make much sense (unless the aliens were preparing to flood the colonies areas. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 18:53, 13 December 2009 (EST)
::::I did actually [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/UFO-TFTD-Combo-Mod-t7367.html make a start] towards such a game, but sorta lost interest due to the usual lack of testers and the limitations the TFTD engine enforces. If/when I get around to resuming work on it I'll probably be restarting under the UFO engine instead. - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 21:09, 13 December 2009 (EST)
* Bind equipment set to Aquanaut, so not to pick it every single time.
:This can already be done using XcomUtil.
* Add mortar (acting both on land and underwater).
: A mortar would be very advantageous to X-Com, since a lot of the tactical difficulty in the map is aliens hiding behind obstacles to direct fire. This is what grenades and Pulsers are for of course. An indirect fire weapon seems kind of 'realistic' but I'm not sure helping X-Com kill aliens is good for the game balance. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:22, 13 December 2009 (EST)
* Make Gauss useful?
: Explain? Gauss weapons are pretty useful. A big improvement on the starting weapons. Make them "more" useful? The XComUtil variant of Heavy Gauss is more useful, it packs quite a punch. Specific proposals please? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:22, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:: I agree. Gauss weapons are useful against most aliens, at least on an easy difficulty level. My aquanauts all use Gauss Rifles and the shots needed to down aliens are:
Alien Gauss Rifle hits
Aquatoid 1
Gill Man 1-2
Tasoth 3-5
Lobster Man ~10
Deep One 1
Calcinite 2
Xarquid ?
Hallucinoid 2-4
Tentaculat 2-3
Bio-Drone 2-4
Triscene immune
::As you can see, Gauss Rifles are useful and quite powerful. Plus, they offer autofire. The only pain in the butt are Lobster Men, which are near immune, and Triscenes which appear to be totally immune. But these are resistant to pretty much anything anyway, save for grenades in case of Triscenes, and drills in case of Lobster Men. So, uh... what's wrong with Gauss? [[User:mingos|mingos]]
:::Agreed - well demonstrated. Hmm, maybe the point is to make Craft Gauss weapons (Gauss Cannons) more useful? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 18:22, 13 December 2009 (EST)
* Add Ion weapons (They have Ion Beam Accelerators, right?). So why not make them smaller, more compact, and fire faster (if not weaker) shots?
: From the description of Gauss weapons, they sound similar to an Ion weapon of some kind. But yes in general maybe the discovery of IBAs could help the humans develop some weapon and not just armour/mobility technology. But then, the aliens don't seem to have a weapon based on Ions. Though some of the creatures (BioDrone, Xarquid) do have particle-type weapons. Maybe X-COM could design a new weapon based on these principles. Does the game really need new weapons though? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:22, 13 December 2009 (EST)

= See Also =

[[Wish List (EU)|Wish List (Enemy Unknown)]]

Wish List (TFTD)

2009-12-13T15:53:55Z

Mingos: /* New Features */ Gauss

Suggestions for fixes or improvements that would be nice to have for X-COM: Terror From The Deep (TFTD). ''Since TFTD shares its game engine with X-COM: Enemy Unknown, there are many problems that are common to both games. Please make any shared/common wishes under th EU Wish List (link at the bottom of this page).''

= Fixes =

== Geoscape ==

* Research Tree bugs
* The really annoying "Cannot intercept over land" message that pops up continually (more than once a second) during some pursuits along coastlines.

== Battlescape ==

* Underwater-only weapons reaction-firing on land
* Bio-Drone melee attack has no effect. This is a serious flaw in the Bio-Drone, as it always uses this attack when Aquanauts are adjacent.
* Bugs with MC at the end of one stage of a multi-stage mission. (Does this also affect EU, e.g. the 2-stage Cydonia mission?)
* Permit aliens to use carried melee weapons. (This is a game engine bug that applies to EU as well, but is moot since EU aliens don't have carried melee weapons.) This fix could inadvertently make the game easier, as aliens would use Sonic Pulsers (their default option since they can't use melee weapons) less often. So it is essential to ensure the AI chooses sensibly between drills and Pulsers.
* Make ship terror missions less annoying, especially the passenger ship. Aliens hide in labyrinthine structures and every single spot needs to be revisited if a single alien is left out, otherwise the mission is failed. Often over 100 turns are needed to win, as aquanauts quickly run out of energy and finding the last cowardly tasoth is a pain.
* The above also applies to other missions, namely the 2nd stages of alien colony assaults and artifact sites, but both can, fortunately, be won without killing all the aliens.
: Specific suggestion as to how to do this please? For example, reveal last 1-2 alien positions after XX turns, or (EU style), force all aliens to go on the offensive after XX turns (probably not as this is too easy). [[User:Spike|Spike]]
:: Easiest method would be to edit the map modules ("lock" some doors) and route node tables to remove the hidey holes. Heck, just messing with the nodes might be enough to do it - for example, at least one actually allows for large units to spawn in a tiny cabin where they can't move ''at all''. Assuming you find it, you've then got to deal with reaction fire from a critter that will always have maximum TUs on your turn... Stupid Xarquids... [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]]
::: In my view, the problems lies in the fact that the last terrified alien simply picks a hiding spot and remains there until you find it. Aliens should be more active, more aggressive. It's not a matter of game balance or difficulty, but playability. [[User:mingos|mingos]]
:::: Good point, there are at least 2 cases: aliens with failed morale, and aliens stuck in the map. For aliens with failed morale, the game should just end with them as prisoners (if they have no built in weapons and no chance of regaining morale). But for aliens stuck in the map by walls or waypoints or whatever, as Bomb Bloke said above, more measures are called for. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:42, 12 December 2009 (EST)
::::: I'm not sure it has anything to do with morale. After a few turns they'd've recovered from any "frights" they had (assuming they didn't drop their guns, but seeing as it's often [[Tentaculat]]s which go "missing" I doubt that has much affect on matters). I think the route nodes just send them on one way trips into certain out-of-the-way areas. The aggression stat ([[UNITREF.DAT|unitref(44 / 2C)]]) might actually be the way to go - the theory is that pumping this higher makes a creature more likely to leave cover and attack your agents head on. [[Alien Stats (TFTD)|By default]] most aliens already have it "maxed out", but for all I know the value can be cranked higher then the observed cap of 2. - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 00:59, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:::::: Same happens to me with other races too. Bio Drones and Tasoths seem to do the same quite often. While Tasoths are probably shaken up and disarmed, entaculats and Bio Drones have their weapons inbuilt, plus, they rarely panic. Not long ago I saw a Bio Drone fire from cover each turn, then hide again, and after I started looking for it, it simply picked a hiding spot and stayed there for ~20 turns until I found it and zapped it. The funny thing was that it was the beginning of the mission and there were only 2 or 3 aliens killed so far. [[User:mingos|mingos]]
::::::: OK the aggression stat sounds a good option for all this hidey behaviour. A 100 turns to finish a game is incredibly frustrating. In EU, you could Seb76's UFO Extender to make the remaining aliens visible. With TFTD, you have the option of using the '''xcomutil dis''' command to get the coordinates of the remaining aliens. There might also be an xcomutil command to make all units visible. And if all else fails you can use the '''xcomutil win''' command to kill the last aliens off. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:31, 13 December 2009 (EST)

= New Features =

* Airborne Interception - what's the point of flying subs without air to-air weapons anyway?(Avalanches anyone?) Surely it's better to 'splash' the USO ''before'' it makes it to the safety of water?
*Alternatively, get rid of the pretense that subs can fly. How does sonar track a USO over land, anyway?
:Both sonar and radar use the same principle (radio or sound waves being emitted and reflected back to a receiver) so it isn't unconceivable to have equipment that can use both detection methods. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 22:35, 12 December 2009 (EST)
::Hmm. Steam engines and internal combustion engines are pretty similar too but you rarely see both on the same vehicle! The sensors in TFTD are called sonars, not sonar/radar combinations. I would be quite happy if the names were just changed from Sonar to Sonar/Radar or to Sensor, that would be fine. It is possible to use something very similar to passive sonar to track bearings to aircraft, similar things were used in WWII before the development of radar. Without triangulation, it would be very difficult to get the actual range to the target, and almost impossible to get the target's heading and speed. It is very normal for modern subs and surface ships to have both sonar and radar, but they are totally separate systems aboard the vessel, with different capabilities. I would be fine if the name was changed to Sensor or Sonar/Radar, and the UFOPaedia description changed to say that it used both technologies. Mainly I just object to the flying subs not being able to intercept over land. You can see why though, since it would pose the question of why there were no land USO recovery missions. But you could just take the same approach as EU. Just as UFOs disintegrate if shot down over water, USOs could disintegrate if shot down over land. Or even better, the land/sea game below, allowing land recovery vs USOs and underwater recovery vs UFOs. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:22, 13 December 2009 (EST)
* Combined land/sea game, with subs and aircraft, USOs and UFOs, Aquanauts and Soldiers, land and sea bases. Now that would be cool!
*A slightly less dramatic change: on any land mission, automatically swap Dart Guns, Jet Harpoons, HydroJet Cannons and Torpedo Launchers for (respectively) Pistols, Rifles, AutoCannon and Rocket Launchers "from stores" (including their ammo of course). Purchase price of the weapons would be doubled (or just add the cost of the XCOM-EU equivalent) to reflect this versatility.
:Essentially the game would switch icons and elements of OBJECT.DAT for a land mission. Could also switch Grenade types perhaps? But it's best to keep some underwater weapons (eg Gas Cannon), especially for land missions where there is some water present. Conceivably, in recognition of the progress made by X-COM, and the increasing threat, the authorities might even make available some of the scarce (?) stocks of laser weapons, to exchange for Gauss weapons during land missions. (But this is not really necessary, as Gauss weapons are quite adequate on land.) Working plasma weapons of course have long since vanished due to lack of Elerium. (Although by the same argument, 1st Alien War-era Personal Armour should be issued to any unarmoured troops on land missions. Maybe it takes 200% damage from Sonic weapons.)
**Variant on this - allow 1st Alien War equipment to be purchased or leased by X-COM, for a quite high price, to be used on land missions only. Mainly laser weapons and armour. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:22, 13 December 2009 (EST)
* Bind equipment set to Aquanaut, so not to pick it every single time.
* Add mortar (acting both on land and underwater).
: A mortar would be very advantageous to X-Com, since a lot of the tactical difficulty in the map is aliens hiding behind obstacles to direct fire. This is what grenades and Pulsers are for of course. An indirect fire weapon seems kind of 'realistic' but I'm not sure helping X-Com kill aliens is good for the game balance. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:22, 13 December 2009 (EST)
* Make Gauss useful?
: Explain? Gauss weapons are pretty useful. A big improvement on the starting weapons. Make them "more" useful? The XComUtil variant of Heavy Gauss is more useful, it packs quite a punch. Specific proposals please? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:22, 13 December 2009 (EST)
:: I agree. Gauss weapons are useful against most aliens, at least on an easy difficulty level. My aquanauts all use Gauss Rifles and the shots needed to down aliens are:
Alien Gauss Rifle hits
Aquatoid 1
Gill Man 1-2
Tasoth 3-5
Lobster Man ~10
Deep One 1
Calcinite 2
Xarquid ?
Hallucinoid 2-4
Tentaculat 2-3
Bio-Drone 2-4
Triscene immune
::As you can see, Gauss Rifles are useful and quite powerful. Plus, they offer autofire. The only pain in the butt are Lobster Men, which are near immune, and Triscenes which appear to be totally immune. But these are resistant to pretty much anything anyway, save for grenades in case of Triscenes, and drills in case of Lobster Men. So, uh... what's wrong with Gauss? [[User:mingos|mingos]]
* Add Ion weapons (They have Ion Beam Accelerators, right?). So why not make them smaller, more compact, and fire faster (if not weaker) shots?
: From the description of Gauss weapons, they sound similar to an Ion weapon of some kind. But yes in general maybe the discovery of IBAs could help the humans develop some weapon and not just armour/mobility technology. But then, the aliens don't seem to have a weapon based on Ions. Though some of the creatures (BioDrone, Xarquid) do have particle-type weapons. Maybe X-COM could design a new weapon based on these principles. Does the game really need new weapons though? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:22, 13 December 2009 (EST)

= See Also =

[[Wish list (EU)|Wish List (Enemy Unknown)]]

Wish List (TFTD)

2009-12-13T11:57:33Z

Mingos: /* Battlescape */ hiding bio drones

Wish List (TFTD)

2009-12-13T00:06:53Z

Mingos: /* Battlescape */ last alien suggestion

Suggestions for fixes or improvements that would be nice to have for X-Com, Terror From The Deep (TFTD). ''Since TFTD shares its game engine with X-Com Enemy Unknown, there are many problems that are common to both games. Please make any shared/common wishes under the X-COM EU Wish List (link at the bottom of this page).''

= Fixes =

== Geoscape ==

* Research Tree bugs
* The really annoying "Cannot intercept over land" message that pops up continually (more than once a second) during some pursuits along coastlines.

== Battlescape ==

* Underwater-only weapons reaction-firing on land
* Bio-Drone melee attack has no effect. This is a serious flaw in the Bio-Drone, as it always uses this attack when Aquanauts are adjacent.
* Bugs with MC at the end of one stage of a multi-stage mission. (Does this also affect XCOM-EU, e.g. the 2-stage Cydonia mission?)
* Permit aliens to use carried melee weapons. (This is a game engine bug that applies to XCOM-EU as well, but is moot since XCOM-EU aliens don't have carried melee weapons.) This fix could inadvertently make the game easier, as aliens would use Sonic Pulsers (their default option since they can't use melee weapons) less often. So it is essential to ensure the AI chooses sensibly between drills and Pulsers.
* Make ship terror missions less annoying, especially the passenger ship. Aliens hide in labyrinthine structures and every single spot needs to be revisited if a single alien is left out, otherwise the mission is failed. Often over 100 turns are needed to win, as aquanauts quickly run out of energy and finding the last cowardly tasoth is a pain.
** Specific suggestion as to how to do this please? For example, reveal last 1-2 alien positions after XX turns, or (EU style), force all aliens to go on the offensive after XX turns (probably not as this is too easy).
** Easiest method would be to edit the map modules ("lock" some doors) and route node tables to remove the hidey holes. Heck, just messing with the nodes might be enough to do it - for example, at least one actually allows for large units to spawn in a tiny cabin where they can't move ''at all''. Assuming you find it, you've then got to deal with reaction fire from a critter that will always have maximum TUs on your turn... Stupid Xarquids...
** In my view, the problems lies in the fact that the last terrified alien simply picks a hiding spot and remains there until you find it. Aliens should be more active, more aggressive. It's not a matter of game balance or difficulty, but playability.
* The above also applies to other missions, namely the 2nd stages of alien colony assaults and artifact sites, but both can, fortunately, be won without killing all the aliens.

= New Features =

* Airborne Interception - what's the point of flying subs without air to-air weapons anyway?(Avalanches anyone?) Surely it's better to 'splash' the USO ''before'' it makes it to the safety of water?
*Alternatively, get rid of the pretense that subs can fly. How does sonar track a USO over land, anyway?
* Combined land/sea game, with subs and aircraft, USOs and UFOs, Aquanauts and Soldiers, land and sea bases. Now that would be cool!
*A slightly less dramatic change: on any land mission, automatically swap Dart Guns, Jet Harpoons, HydroJet Cannons and Torpedo Launchers for (respectively) Pistols, Rifles, AutoCannon and Rocket Launchers "from stores" (including their ammo of course). Purchase price of the weapons would be doubled (or just add the cost of the XCOM-EU equivalent) to reflect this versatility.
:Essentially the game would switch icons and elements of OBJECT.DAT for a land mission. Could also switch Grenade types perhaps? But it's best to keep some underwater weapons (eg Gas Cannon), especially for land missions where there is some water present. Conceivably, in recognition of the progress made by XCOM, and the increasing threat, the authorities might even make available some of the scarce (?) stocks of laser weapons, to exchange for Gauss weapons during land missions. (But this is not really necessary, as Gauss weapons are quite adequate on land.) Working plasma weapons of course have long since vanished due to lack of Elerium. (Although by the same argument, 1st Alien War-era Personal Armour should be issued to any unarmoured troops on land missions. Maybe it takes 200% damage from Sonic weapons.)
* Bind equipment set to Aquanaut, so not to pick it every single time.
* Add mortar (acting both on land and underwater).
* Make Gauss useful?
* Add Ion weapons (They have Ion Beam Accelerators, right?). So why not make them smaller, more compact, and fire faster (if not weaker) shots?

= See Also =

[[Wish list|Wish List (Enemy Unknown)]]

Wish List (TFTD)

2009-12-12T21:14:25Z

Mingos: ship terror missions wish; split fixes into geoscape and battlescape

Suggestions for fixes or improvements that would be nice to have for X-Com, Terror From The Deep (TFTD). ''Since TFTD shares its game engine with X-Com Enemy Unknown, there are many problems that are common to both games. Please make any shared/common wishes under the X-COM EU Wish List (link at the bottom of this page).''

= Fixes =

== Geoscape ==

* Research Tree bugs
* The really annoying "Cannot intercept over land" message that pops up continually (more than once a second) during some pursuits along coastlines.

== Battlescape ==

* Underwater-only weapons reaction-firing on land
* Bio-Drone melee attack has no effect. This is a serious flaw in the Bio-Drone, as it always uses this attack when Aquanauts are adjacent.
* Bugs with MC at the end of one stage of a multi-stage mission. (Does this also affect XCOM-EU, e.g. the 2-stage Cydonia mission?)
* Permit aliens to use carried melee weapons. (This is a game engine bug that applies to XCOM-EU as well, but is moot since XCOM-EU aliens don't have carried melee weapons.) This fix could inadvertently make the game easier, as aliens would use Sonic Pulsers (their default option since they can't use melee weapons) less often. So it is essential to ensure the AI chooses sensibly between drills and Pulsers.
* Make ship terror missions less annoying, especially the passenger ship. Aliens hide in labyrinthine structures and every single spot needs to be revisited if a single alien is left out, otherwise the mission is failed. Often over 100 turns are needed to win, as aquanauts quickly run out of energy and finding the last cowardly tasoth is a pain.
* The above also applies to other missions, namely the 2nd stages of alien colony assaults and artifact sites, but both can, fortunately, be won without killing all the aliens.

= New Features =

* Airborne Interception - what's the point of flying subs without air to-air weapons anyway?(Avalanches anyone?) Surely it's better to 'splash' the USO ''before'' it makes it to the safety of water?
*Alternatively, get rid of the pretense that subs can fly. How does sonar track a USO over land, anyway?
* Combined land/sea game, with subs and aircraft, USOs and UFOs, Aquanauts and Soldiers, land and sea bases. Now that would be cool!
*A slightly less dramatic change: on any land mission, automatically swap Dart Guns, Jet Harpoons, HydroJet Cannons and Torpedo Launchers for (respectively) Pistols, Rifles, AutoCannon and Rocket Launchers "from stores" (including their ammo of course). Purchase price of the weapons would be doubled (or just add the cost of the XCOM-EU equivalent) to reflect this versatility.
:Essentially the game would switch icons and elements of OBJECT.DAT for a land mission. Could also switch Grenade types perhaps? But it's best to keep some underwater weapons (eg Gas Cannon), especially for land missions where there is some water present. Conceivably, in recognition of the progress made by XCOM, and the increasing threat, the authorities might even make available some of the scarce (?) stocks of laser weapons, to exchange for Gauss weapons during land missions. (But this is not really necessary, as Gauss weapons are quite adequate on land.) Working plasma weapons of course have long since vanished due to lack of Elerium. (Although by the same argument, 1st Alien War-era Personal Armour should be issued to any unarmoured troops on land missions. Maybe it takes 200% damage from Sonic weapons.)
* Bind equipment set to Aquanaut, so not to pick it every single time.
* Add mortar (acting both on land and underwater).
* Make Gauss useful?
* Add Ion weapons (They have Ion Beam Accelerators, right?). So why not make them smaller, more compact, and fire faster (if not weaker) shots?

= See Also =

[[Wish list|Wish List (Enemy Unknown)]]

Wish List (EU)

2009-12-11T23:40:09Z

Mingos: /* Fixed firing TUs */ comment on TUs consumption

X-Com is a great game and as evidence just look to the fact this wiki exists even though the game pre-dates the internet. In all it's greatness X-Com has some elements and behaviors players wish they could change. This is a repository of those desires. Some day a fan mod may make your wish come true...

= I Wish... =
State what you want AND what X-com does normally. Sign your name if you think "Oh man! That would be great!"

== Geoscape and Strategic ==

=== Smarter Aircraft Movement Around Globe ===
I wish all craft understood the shortest distance between two points on a globe is a curved path towards the poles. Normally a craft goes in the opposite direction than it should (towards the equator). Pain in the ass when the base in the UK sends a craft to Siberia.
--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]]

===Score for retaliation Battleships===

When a Battleship on retaliation attacks your base and is shot down, you get no score for it. This is completely illogical and it discourages any use of base defences. You should get normal 700 (or even 1400) points for it.
--[[User:Kyrub|Kyrub]] 14:05, 30 August 2008 (PDT)

: I'm not sure about this. Yes it's illogical, but it could also be a licence to get a huge score if you have a strong enough base. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:16, 3 September 2008 (PDT)

:: The impenetrable base setup would turn into a cheat. As the aliens will keep hammering the base with a battleship until one breaks through, you'll have a steady supply of points without having to really do anything. Some balancing, such as paying to rearm your defence modules, ought to be thrown in to balance things out. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 23:13, 13 September 2008 (PDT)
:::A better fix would be to remove the retaliation flag when a battleship is destroyed. If someone can post a savegame with a never-ending flow of base attacks, I may have a look at the fix. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 01:05, 15 September 2008 (PDT)

===Enforced Variant Games===

Various people like to play various variant games, such as No Alien Technology, or No Detection, or No Lethal Weapons - see for example Scott Jones' notes to XComUtil. It would be nice to have options on the game executable to enforce these scenarios. Self restraint is hard! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:06, 3 September 2008 (PDT)

Some of these variant scenarios have been implemented by [[User:Seb76#Mods|Seb76]].

===Recruit Certain Alien Types===

Consider that not all aliens are loyal to their master (most TFTD alien has a device lodged to its brain), it would be interesting (or at least cool) if we could recuit such aliens to the XCOM cause. Maybe we can remove the controling devices from captive aliens after research on that species. Or convince the head of the Snakemen that it would be far more benefit to his race to help us instead of the Ethereals [[User:L-Zwei|L-Zwei]] 23:25, 12 September 2008 (PDT).

Only certain alien types should be recruitable. Ones that should NOT be include Mutons (as they are directly controlled by Ethereals), Chrysallids (unbalancing), etc. It would be nice to be able to reverse-engineer Cyberdiscs or Sectopods, or make it that a Cyberdisc must be researched to build hovertanks/etc.
[[User:MagicJuggler|MagicJuggler]] 13:32, 18 September 2008 (PDT)
: It's pretty obvious which ones should be recruitable: non-robotic terror units that are captured alive. Chryssalids should simply do melee damage instead of impregnating (as the resulting spawn would not be mind-controlled and therefore XCOM wouldn't do it). Silacoids would be pretty ineffectual, and reapers slightly less so, but both would be disposable scouts. Celatids might actually have some use (eating through hulls with acid, and arcing over walls) but are fragile. All of these would require capturing a terror alien alive after researching Psi Amp. The two robotic units should require a live alien Engineer researched as well as UFO Construction, and the materials for building one would be one corpse of the appropriate type, Alien alloys and Elerium (to repair and refuel the husk). The Sectopod should probably be nerfed somewhat, so that it isn't quite so invincible to Heavy Plasma shots - after all, it was probably a twisted and melted modern art piece by the time it finally went down). [[User:Stubbs|Stubbs]]

=== Smart Interception ===

Aircraft intercepting a UFO just head straight toward the UFOs current position at all times. Unless the UFO is already on a head-on course, this results in the interceptor travelling through a closing parabolic spiral path, and often missing the UFO and ending up in a tail-chase, and then just falling further behind unless the UFO stops or reverses course. This is pretty basic stuff, fighter pilots have known how to do this better for nearly a hundred years. It is particularly important if the aircraft you are trying to intercept is moving faster than you (eg if you are flying an Interceptor).

What is needed is to plot the UFO's current course and speed (which X-Com has from radar data), and plot an intercept course. The maths for this is pretty easy (the intersection of 2 vectors) and can be implemented in a few lines of code, if we can find out where the current interception algorithm is, and patch it.

Actually the radar bearing shown on screen is only accurate to within 45 degrees. I presume that X-Com does actually know the UFO's bearing, since it can clearly track the UFO's movements. Finding where that variable is located might be different.

While we're at it, it would be nice if the UFO detection information displayed the actual bearing in degrees, rather than just the compass direction (North East, South, etc).

Even if the improved intercept algorithm only used a bearing accurate to within 45 degrees, that would still be better for remote UFOs. You might need to switch to "head straight for it" once you get to very close range. [[User:Spike|Spike]]

=== Game option: sell only researched items ===

The fact that you may sell the alien items for the best price once you get them, without any research, is illogical. Such staff would never get on the market, being top secret and potentially dangerous to the humanity.

Selling without proper research does not help the replay value of the game either: once you know the "right path" to get the best items, you simply sell anything else immediately and ignore the unnecessary research. Too easy.

Therefore I wish for this game option: unknown items are sold for 0 (including the alien corpses), the known ones for their full price. This makes the sustainable economics much harder to develop and it gives sense to the "useless" research. Last but not least, it adds a lot of depth to the gameplay: will you choose research of a new weapon you need on the field, or of a mind probe that will earn you millions in sales? --[[User:Kyrub|Kyrub]] 15:55, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

: I really like this option, it's a great idea. Makes the game harder and makes it more interesting, more varied. Gives extra value to the otherwise "useless" research paths. Good thinking! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:06, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

: I'd prefer that unresearched artifacts/corpses sold for a fraction of their original value (no more than 25%). It makes no sense that nobody would pay to research them for themselves. Additionally, Laser Cannon sell price needs to be nerfed. [[User:Stubbs|Stubbs]]

=== New Research Mechanics ===

The above comments spurred some ideas to make the research more realistic and the path to victory less obvious.

For flavor reasons, give research options vague names instead of exact names. This already exists in some research topics, such as "New Fighter Craft" instead of "Firestorm". So, research topics might read "Alien Hovertank Wreck" instead of "Cyberdisc Corpse", "Grey Alien Corpse" instead of "Sectoid Corpse" or "Alien Pistol" instead of "Plasma Pistol". The names would be revealed in the UFOpaedia entry, and certain items would then be renamed as per common sense.

Hide the ranks of aliens in captivity until they are researched (so you'd see Live Grey Alien #1, Live Grey Alien #2 if you had two Sectoids available for research). However, if you happened to have two Soldier ranks in containment, you'd only see one topic. The same rank/race combination would never appear again, but you might have to research several specimens of the same species to get the useful one you want. The alternative would be to have researched Mind Probe, which would tell you exactly what you had in containment (just as it does on the battlefield).

Once an alien or its corpse is researched, then all other instances of that alien or its body are renamed appropriately. For example, research a live Muton and Muton corpses become obvious, and vice versa. "Live Green Humanoid Alien" is also renamed to "Live Muton".

Finally, there should be a few more prerequisites in place to make less useful research more necessary. As someone else has mentioned, you should need a Cyberdisc Corpse to research Hovertanks. I'd also suggest that Psi Amp and Mind Shield require the research of Mind Probe (seeing as both entail scanning for minds as a logical first step), and that Flying Suits require Floater Corpse, Cyberdisc Corpse or a live Floater researched as an additional prerequisite (not Ethereals, as they fly with the power of their huge brains). [[User:Stubbs|Stubbs]]

:These are all good suggestions and make a lot of sense. An alternative explanation of the names (seen in some fan fiction) is that these names are not the real names, but are made up by XCom troops based on some limited battlefield experience of them. But revealing the "real" alien race names through Research is a fun idea. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 08:44, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

== Battlescape and Tactical ==

===Equipment Management===

All wishes are currently implemented!

===Fog of War Improvements===

I'm sure most of these would be an absolute PAIN to implement, but I figured I'd toss the ideas out here.

====Prior Recon of Battlefield====
One thing that has always irked me is X-COM has no terrain knowledge when it lands, despite having probably circled the place two or three times before landing and thus they should know at least some of the area. This would be nice, but isn't too important. Probably would be a pain to implement so X-COM would have all knowledge of external features but no knowledge of building interiors, anyways. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 22:38, 7 August 2008 (PDT)

:Yes at the very least, when you splash the UFO, it could tell you (via some miracle technology such as "satellite reconnaisance") what the terrain type is of the landing zone area. Then you could adjust equipment accordingly. And adjust your uniform camouflage (if using one of the uniform mods). [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:16, 3 September 2008 (PDT)

:: Geoscape: center on the site, then maximum zoom. Aside from having to disambiguate forest from jungle, this works fine for knowing the exact terrain you're getting into. -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 10:17, 4 Sept 2008 (CDT)

:::This is already present in the game. To center the Geoscape on a specific location, right-click on the target spot. To do maximum zoom in, right click on the Zoom-In button(and the same works for Zoom-Out). Also, Jungle and Forest use the same display algorithm, but are easy to differentiate; Forest occurs NORTH of the equator, and Jungle occurs SOUTH. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 13:23, 4 September 2008 (PDT)

:Returning to AQ's original suggestion, it wouldn't be too hard would it for the dropship to "radar map" the target, and then have the basic map show up on your scanner on Turn 1? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:22, 24 November 2008 (CST)

====Dynamic Fog====

The Fog of War in X-COM is clumsily implemented, compared to modern expectations. Everything starts out black, but after exploring, is shown...and it's kept in the same showing, regardless of whether you actually have LoS to that area anymore. It would be nice if when you no longer had Line of Sight to a particular map area, it would be cloaked in a way so that you knew the terrain, but not the units there. Since I've sometimes spent over half an hour trying to hunt down that last alien hiding in area I'd already explored. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 22:38, 7 August 2008 (PDT)

====Deactivate Object Radar====

Currently, in X-COM, any objects dropped in a given square show on your Battlescape, regardless of whether you have Line of Sight to the square or not. In regards to dropped weapons/grenades/equipment/dead soldiers/dead aliens, this doesn't make a large difference. But in the case of STUNNED aliens, a quick scan across the Battlescape can tell you whether the alien you stunned 10 turns ago is still down, or stood back up(the stunned alien object will disappear from the stack). Of course, since aliens which have revived from stun are almost always disarmed(and the ones that aren't probably should've been killed instead), the usefulness of this 'exploit' is reduced mainly to finding out that the last alien you're looking for is just wandering aimlessly and unarmed. Perhaps leave stacks showing the same until you regain LoS to that area? [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 22:38, 7 August 2008 (PDT)

===Restore Game from Battlescape===

It would be nice to be able to reload a saved game directly from the Battlescape "?" screen, rather than having to go through the process of Abandoning to the Geoscape. Would you need to check it was a Battlescape save and not a Geoscape save? Maybe, maybe not. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:06, 3 September 2008 (PDT)

===Warm Grenades===

Currently when you set the timer on a grenade (or HE pack), the timer runs down every turn regardless of whether the grenade is worn, held, or dropped. Then, when the timer runs out, it explodes unless it is held or worn. There is no real grenade or explosive that works this way. Once the timer (fuse) starts running, they explode regardless. However for most hand grenades, the timer (fuse) doesn't start until after you throw/drop the grenade. It would be nice to have both of these real world behaviours, and lose the game's default behaviour. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:06, 3 September 2008 (PDT)

: Technically the way the game implements grenades, they don't have a timer. At least, not as such. When you set a grenade, the game just assigns it a turn to blow up on. Once the turn has passed, the game checks to see that it's on the ground and blows it up if it is, otherwise it doesn't. I believe Seb76 has already addressed this in his patches where there's an option to make grenade blow up regardless whether they are in inventory or otherwise the moment the timer is set. X-Com Apocalypse does a good job of this. The moment the grenade is so much as moved after the timer is set, it counts down. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 23:01, 13 September 2008 (PDT)

:: To simulate an actual timer, you would need to do something like: Every turn that a primed grenade is being held by a unit during the "explode" check, increment by +1 the turn when that grenade is going to explode. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:10, 14 September 2008 (PDT)
:::I think I would change quantity2 ([[OBPOS.DAT]]) to a countdown instead of a turn, and use quantity3 as a flag indicating if the count has started. This flag is set any time a turn ends and the grenade has no owner. Taking it back in your hand once the timer has started won't help and the thing must be thrown... quantity2 is decreased if quantity3 is set, and the grenade blows up as usual. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 01:35, 15 September 2008 (PDT)

: That would be great. It would be exactly consistent with a 'spoon' type hand grenade. The timer only starts when you release the grenade, but after that it explodes at a definite time regardless of whether you pick it up or not. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:22, 24 November 2008 (CST)

===Stun Grenades===

I want flashbangs.--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 22:59, 11 September 2008 (PDT)
:Instead of stunning, I'd see more effect if it would remove some TUs to units having line of sight (to be fare it should affect xcom units too). It would help against reaction fire (which is the point of flashbangs). Given that grenades detonate at the end turns, it would require a good coordination to have the grenade detonate exactly at the end of the alien turn, and just before your attack. Being able to open doors à la xcom2 would also help to throw flashbangs just before a craft assault... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 22:03, 12 September 2008 (PDT)
::That would be good. Hard to program, potentially extremely unbalancing, but good. I considered a "debuff" kind of ability (as you suggest) for flashbangs, vs the more obvious substitution of [[stun]] for [[Explosions|HE]] damage. In the end, I picked "I want flashbangs."--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 03:32, 13 September 2008 (PDT)
: Maybe flashbangs dont' work on Aliens - otherwise, XCom would use them, right? :) But seriously, I too would like flashbangs, and stun grenades / concussion grenades. Both of these would make the game easier, though. With flashbangs, you might have to compensate by just giving the aliens more TUs. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:33, 13 September 2008 (PDT)
::More options for the player is going to make it easier for any kind of game. Particularly of games like XCOM where the computer can't take advantage of the changes. However I don't believe a weak stun grenade (like 44 stun damage, comparable to AC-HE) would change the game much because the 80 item limit remains.--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 22:21, 13 September 2008 (PDT)

===Night Vision===

I '''don't''' want to add night vision equipment to the game. I assume that either (1) all XCom units already have night vision gear as standard, but it's not as good as alien night vision, and the visibility that XCom units have at night is based on their standard-issue night vision gear, or (2) night vision gear does not work on Aliens. Either they do not appear on night vision, or maybe worse - maybe the aliens can manipulate night vision equipment, causing worse than normal vision, or hallucinations, and even tricking XCom units into firing on each other. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:33, 13 September 2008 (PDT)

===Throwing over stuff===
'''(Moved to Talk, as this is not a bug and so does not need fixing.)'''

===Assault Time Limit===

One of the cool things about UFO Defence is there are no time limits on the scenarios. This is great as it allows for a totally different kind of tactics and much more flexibility.
It's more of a "thinking man's game" as a result. But... arguably this is not very realistic for UFO Assault missions. If the Aliens are getting creamed, they should try to make a getaway if they can (just like XCom would). A simple way to implement this would be a hard time limit (say 20 turns?) on a UFO Assault. Another way would be to base it on Alien Morale. At a certain Morale level the aliens decide to dust off. Give the player say 3 turns warning while they rev up the engines. Then if there is still a Navigator or Engineer in the Control Room alive, the ship takes off. Any XCom troops still aboard are MIA.

You might run into problems if the UFO took off but then landed again or was shot down, generating another ground mission with potentially '''more''' Aliens than were still alive at the end of the Assault. (Still, maybe they hatch some more clones if they get time to....) [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:51, 4 September 2008 (PDT)

: It strikes me as justified they don't do that. Troops loose in the vessel could be seriously bad. It would be nice if they dusted off on the condition that their morale was low enough or 3 X-com soldiers had the door in their sights without aliens alive outside in the latter case and no X-com soldiers on board in either case. also, if the UFO has a hole in either the command or engine room, it would have to set down before leaving the atmosphere. [[User:(name here)|(name here)]]

===Alien AI===

====Attempts to rearm====
Aliens cannot pick up items, but I wish they would. If an alien has no useful weapons in inventory they should either head for cover or head for a plasma weapon. Panicked aliens drop their weapons but never seem to pick them up when they managed to pull themselves together. It would be nice if they tried to arm themselves again. --[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 13:55, 19 September 2008 (PDT)

:Even if it's too hard to make aliens head towards weapons (is it safe?, could it be used to trap them, not to mention the complexities of route finding) - it would still be good if an unarmed alien checked for usable weapons in every square it moved through, and at least picked up one loaded weapon or grenade per turn. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:22, 24 November 2008 (CST)

==== End Psi Bullying and Psi Baiting ====
When the aliens use psi attacks they always go for your guys with the most chance of failing the attack and going nuts. Is it possible to make those pesky aliens attack random soldiers, regardless of their psi skill/strength?

: Not a bad idea to randomise this a bit, because while initially this tactic helps the aliens, it becomes so predictable that it can be used against them by deploying unarmed "Psi Bait" soldiers to draw off all the attacks. (Or make aliens avoid controlling/panicking soldiers who have no loaded weapons. But then folks would just give them pea shooters and wear armour.) [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:22, 24 November 2008 (CST)

=== Mind Controlled then Hostile ===
If you mind control a human (civilians) in a terror mission, they become enemies when you lose control (meaning you have to kill the poor idiots to finish the mission). Any chance that they could revert to friendlies/non enemies again when you lose control.

=== Mind Controlled then MIA ===
Men who are under alien control when you win become MIA, any chance they could be saved (you will have killed all the aliens after all).
: I believe XComUtil fixes this MIA issue. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:22, 24 November 2008 (CST)

=== 80 Item Limit on Base Defense Mission ===
: Well you get the 80 item limit on every mission, but it hurts more on a Base Defence as you have more limited ability, or sometimes no ability, to manage what goes into those 80 items. I was thinking about a couple of (theoretical) ways to fix this and I hit on a new one (new for me anyway): Why not take the 80 items from the Transport(s), first Transport then second Transport until you run out of items or hit 80. This has a few benefits:
:* Ready made interface to manage the 80-item limit, the Stores <> Craft (Equip Craft) Screen.
:* If you have no warning at all, the 80 items will probably make good tactical sense in general terms, even if they are are not totally optimised for Base Defence (no proximity mines, etc).
: I think that copying the Transport inventory into the Battlescape inventory would be relatively to implement (though what do I know?). As a simplification, you could move only the inventory in the ''first available'' Transport that is present in the Base, into the Battlescape, and not bother looking in more than one place (other Transports, Base Stores) to get up to 80. It would then be a bit of a drag if your Transports are all out on a mission when your Base gets attacked though. Or perhaps inspect the inventory of Transport 1 (wherever it is in the world), and then attempt to copy its inventory, using equipment present in the Base?
: Another way of doing it which has been mentioned elsewhere is to try to reverse the order of the items in the Stores list. This has the effect of putting the more advanced weapons first, rather than the more basic weapons. There could be all kinds of unwanted side effects of this, depending on various programming issues.
: Actually there is already a fix for the 80-item limit in XComUtil. XComUtil records a standard assign weapon set for each of your troops, and then teleports those weapons to the Battlescape from your Base Stores, regardless of the 80-item limit (but still subject to the Battlescape's 170-item limit). Not 100% sure if this works for Base Defence missions though.
:[[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:22, 24 November 2008 (CST)

=== Collision Detection Bugs ===
I have noticed that sometimes you can shoot through hard objects, for example, recently I had a soldier up on the roof of a house overlooking a large scout craft. When a Sectiod moved through one of the inner doors of the UFO, my man shot him straight through the intact ufo roof!

=== Base Defence Systems Cause Alien Casualties ===

I don’t know if this is already implemented in the game? When the aliens attack your base and you defend it with base defense measures does the following occur and if not a mod maybe? When you hit the battleship with your weapons but it still gets through (e.g. you hit the battleship with some missiles before it lands) can the number of attackers be reduced accordingly. For example if you hit it with some missiles then maybe they could have a couple less soldiers attacking (could be random small amount) or when you hit with loads of stuff like plenty of fusion balls and the battleship just makes it then their attack could be reduced to a few aliens (all others got killed in the defense). As I say not sure if this is already there to some degree (not played in a long time and I’m not at that stage yet this time round).

: The general view is probably that Base Defence missions are a boon to XCOM already, so why make them any easier. At very least there would need to be more damage to the loot than there was to the Alien's combat effectiveness, otherwise this unbalances the game in favour of XCOM. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:22, 24 November 2008 (CST)

=== Alien vs Alien ===
This one is way out there. Alien v Alien battles out with main game, just random battlescape maps. Sectoid and their terrorists against Floaters and theirs etc. One side human controlled the other computer. Choice of ships involved etc.

:I actually love this idea. It might just about be possible using XComUtil, if someone is a total XComUtil guru.

=== Open Doors But Don't Enter/Exit ===

Open doors like they do in TFTD (I know this is mentioned above with the good stun grenades idea).

=== Aircraft in Base Defence Battlescape ===

New graphics for the Interceptor and Firestorm on the battlescape. All your ships could remain in their hangers when the aliens attack your base. Don’t understand why Mythos did not do this originally.

----

Simply for one reason: the limit on the size of the battlescape. UFO maps are usually limited to 10000 tiles (50x50x4), on Bases you have 9600 (60x60x3), the last level one being dirt. You need 3 levels to display X-COM craft. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 14:28, 23 September 2008 (PDT)

----

Could you not do it but clip off the top level of the craft - leaving the ground level and 'deck' level? It would be a cool terrain area to fight in. I like the fact that in TFTD you can still see your subs during a base defence. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:22, 24 November 2008 (CST)

----

It is possible to edit the map files to include the Skyranger, but you'll have to use Xcomutil to play with that terrain and I think it would never launch during base defense missions (but I'm not sure on that - never tried editing the X-COM base terrain). [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 19:25, 4 December 2009 (EST)

----

This could be done by creating new "hangar" map modules, each containing one of the five possible X-COM craft. Bung the modules into [[GEODATA.DAT]] at index 0C, and you're done. The catch is you can't have all craft or the MCD array will overflow. The base terrain uses ~160 tiles as it is (out of the max of 256), while the craft use about 60 each (on average). Putting them all in would take the table above 300 entries (that is to say, the game'd crash).

'Cause XcomUtil already provides us with an Intercepter design made up of SkyRanger parts, I suppose the way to go would be to only implement those two craft. If you have any alien technology ships, they could either be left out ("they were fast enough to escape") or rendered as SkyRangers.

It should also be noted that bases are made up of two levels, not three. Luckily, all the craft are only three levels high, so cutting out the landing gear still works. - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 19:56, 4 December 2009 (EST)

----

Very true about the MCD limit, that's why I only mentioned the Skyranger but the Interceptor could be added as well (and would not make much sense to have your first defense mission with a nice Avenger parked on the hangar while your Interceptors are being blow to bits by Battleships). The bases are 3 levels but you can only modify two of them. The game engine automatically adds a layer of 'dirt modules' either at top or bottom. Hmmm, this just gave me an idea for the wish list... [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:29, 4 December 2009 (EST)

----

Both alien and X-Com bases ''are'' only two levels. There must be something screwy in your game; XcomUtil maybe?

It occurs to me that removing landing gear and stuff might make it ''just'' possible to jam in the Lightning tiles as well (as the MCD requirements would also shrink slightly). That'd make it possible to add the Firestorm, too. Seems a shame to get that far then leave out the Avenger, though...

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 21:30, 4 December 2009 (EST)

----

Nevermind, I completely misread your previous post. Yes, they are two levels only, could be Xcomutil that adds the 3rd level.

- [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 22:30, 4 December 2009 (EST)

=== Fixed firing TUs ===

Something that always bugged me was how the weapons used percentages for firing TUs. It doesn't make sense that the faster a soldier got, the longer it would take to fire a weapon.
: This is because you can't fire an automatic weapon any faster than it will shoot. However, it otherwise makes minimal sense, as you point out. I suggest two alternative solutions. Firstly, that only automatic fire modes use a fixed percentage of a soldier's time units, and other modes use a fixed number of TUs. This would entail the newer soldiers spraying and your most elite taking fast, selective single shots. The alternative is that each firing mode for each weapon entails its own formula (revealed in the UFOpaedia but essentially hidden during the battlescape) along the lines of "X% of TUs + Y TUs". Snap fire would be a low % of total plus a low fixed cost, Aimed would be a low % of total with a high fixed cost, and Auto would be a high % of total with a low fixed cost. While this is somewhat complex, in-game you wouldn't have to worry, and it accounts for what can be reduced (i.e. aiming speed) and what can never be improved by a soldier (i.e. cyclic rate of fire or time for a missile to lock). [[User:Stubbs|Stubbs]]
:: These observations are very sensible. However we also need to consider the impact on game balance. If you implement this in an even-handed way, alien rates of fire will increase as they have high TUs. Or, if you fudge it so that alien rates of fire remain the same, then X-Com's advantage will increase as the game progresses. Neither of these are desirable. It would be extremely hard to implement this and still maintain game balance. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 08:41, 1 September 2009 (EDT)
:::Each turn has the exact same duration, but is divided into TUs separately for each soldier. That's a simplification that works well in a turn-based game and reflects the fact that a soldier is fast or slow. However, weapons need to be aimed and will not fire faster than normal, thus they require a fixed percentage of the turn duration. In other words, soldiers gain movement speed, but fire at the same rate. This is both desirable and logical, just not self-explanatory. Thus, I would definitely stick to how TUs consumption is solved currently. [[User:mingos|mingos]]

=== In-flight Interception ===

Yes, I know that this idea is nigh-impossible, but I was thinking, wouldn't it be awesome to infiltrate a battleship, kill the aliens inside and escape, with the geoscape being shown zooming past underneath? Also, in a similar vein to the "aliens dust off after 3 turns" idea, after killing the aliens ( or blowing up the power cores, maybe?)you would have to get as many troops as possible to the drop ship in 3 turns(in retrospect I guess that you could only do this with the Lightning because of the doors) or the ship crashes and all troops not in the dropship are missing in action. Yes, this idea is impractical and would be really hard to program, but the idea of blowing a UFO up from the inside just seems epic to me. [[User:WolfenMage|WolfenMage]]

== Miscellaneous ==

===Fix All Bugs===

Oh no [[User:Seb76#Bug Fixes|Seb76]] already did this! :) [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:06, 3 September 2008 (PDT)

= I Wished (And My Wish Came True)... =

== Geoscape and Strategic ==

=== Fuel Ready always ===
[[User:Seb76#Mods|Implemented - here]]

I wish that I could send out craft at any fuel or ammo level. Normally craft can only leave a base if fully "ready". Craft is only "ready" at 100% fuel (or 0% fuel using an exploit) but there's no logical reason why a full tank and full ammo is required. Fully repaired... that's fine. I can live with pilots refusing to fly a plane missing a wing even if it means England is lost to aliens. 15 hours to fill a tank? Retarded but I can live with that too if I can send out a craft at 20% fuel.
--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]]

:Actually, many modern aircraft '''do''' require the fuel tanks to be full on takeoff, and fairly empty on landing. The weight of the fuel is figured into the takeoff aerodynamics, and the tank being full prevents fuel 'sloshing' in the tanks and not actually making it to the engine. (Conversely, many aircraft need to have dispensed of much of that fuel weight before landing.) This holds for most runway-takeoff craft, but may not apply to anything with VTOL capacity; I'm unsure there.

:I do agree that non-full weapons aren't as critical, though. But from a logical standpoint, most modern aircraft should not be launched on an empty fuel tank. I also should noted that an Elerium-fueled craft with [[Known_Bugs#Elerium-fueled_Craft_Bug|50% fuel or less remaining]] will automatically return to base, regardless of distance from base. Of course, given that such craft fuel up quickly, its less of an issue there. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 22:05, 7 August 2008 (PDT)

:Hum, maybe you can try [[User:Seb76#Mods|this]]? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 13:01, 8 August 2008 (PDT)
::Thanks! But I can't try it. I've not been able to get my copy of Xcom to run properly except on a Win98 install. VC2008 requires a more modern OS. I'm sure I could ''eventually'' figure out a way to get it running, but I tried once and wasted too much time before giving up.--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 14:45, 8 August 2008 (PDT)
:AFAIK VC2008 binaries should run OK on Win98 as long as the runtime is deployed. Anyway, the loader uses CreateRemoteThread API which is not available in Win98 so don't even bother. '''However''', you can manually patch the binary if you want ;-) Data to patch (all in hexadecimal):
offset 0x41752: 2A0075 -> 18207C
:HTH. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:56, 8 August 2008 (PDT)

===Base Build Stacking===
[[User:Seb76#Base Building Stacking|Implemented - here]]

At the moment you are only allowed to build next to a finished module, and you aren't allowed to plan ahead in your base construction. It would be nice to at least be able to plan more than one phase of construction in advance. This would be pretty easy to implement. There is no need to code any new "queuing system". Just place the new module next to an existing under-construction module, but increment the build time to the normal build time + the time remaining on the under-construction module (the lowest time remaining that would make the square you are building in, a legal square to build in). As a premium for build stacking, you have to pay the costs up-front. As with normal construction, all costs are non-refundable if you change your mind. (There would probably need to be some on-screen feedback for how long the module would take to build, before you were committed to building it.) [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:06, 3 September 2008 (PDT)

See also: Discussion on [[Talk:Wish List|Talk page]].

== Battlescape and Tactical ==

=== Equipment Management ===

==== Soldiers remembers THEIR equipment ====
[[XcomUtil|Implemented - here]]

I wish soldiers remembered what equipment they LAST used and start with that gear when they land. Normally soldiers grab various gear and put lots of crap on their belt. I put most things on the shoulder slots, and keep many things spare things on the ship just in case I need them. (I only want IN rounds if it's night. Stop picking them up before I shoot you in the back!) Takes forever to sort out the gear so the weakling isn't carrying all the rockets etc.
--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]]

:This is already available in [[XcomUtil]]. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 22:07, 7 August 2008 (PDT)

====Access to Stats screens during equipment allocation====
[[User:Seb76#Equipment Screen|Mostly implemented - here]]

In Battlescape you can get to Stats screens by right clicking on one of the unit's status bars. However you can't do this in the Equipment screen. Things like Statstrings and (even more so) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]]'s modified Equipment screen with actual/max weight help. But it would be nice to be able to see exact stats. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:06, 3 September 2008 (PDT)

===Decrease Accuracy for targets out of sight===
[[User:Seb76#Range_Based_Accuracy|Brilliantly implemented - here]]

How come you can easily shoot on something you do not see?
I find the over-used scout-sniper tactic is a cheap exploit of the X-COM. The tactical game should describe a combat, not a cowardly shooting practice. It would turn into a nice feature, if there would be a penalty of (let us say) -20% to the accuracy of anybody who is firing on a target out of his current sight. This can greatly enhance the tactical depth of the game. (Seb around? ;-) --[[User:Kyrub|Kyrub]] 14:20, 30 August 2008 (PDT)

...discussed [http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Wish_list here]

===Enough Smoke===
[[User:Seb76#Mods|Implemented - here]]

It would be nice to increase the current limit on smoke/fire hexes. This is due to their locations being stored in a small, fixed length array. In effect you can only get about 3-4 smoke grenades worth of smoke or fire on the map at the same time. Being able to use smoke liberally would really open up new tactics. At the moment all you can really do is cover the LZ in smoke when you exit the transport, and maybe cover one advance over open ground. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:06, 3 September 2008 (PDT)
:I did something for that on my loader. Heavy testing is required because it is hard to be make sure smoke still works as before (testing is the hardest part actually). [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:09, 18 September 2008 (PDT)

=== Alien AI ===

====Aliens better with explosions====
Partly implemented [[User:Seb76#Bug Fixes|here (waypoint bug fix)]] and [[User:Seb76#Mods|here (Blaster drift)]]. ''(Possibly move this to talk, as notwithstanding these 2 bugs, apparently the Aliens are fairly safe with lethal explosives.)''

I wish that aliens using grenades or blaster bombs or stun bombs (anything that goes boom) would use more sense. They should not want to use items that go boom when they are guaranteed to be caught in the blast radius. The alien can use grenades and blaster bombs by going out of line of sight before the explosion goes off. That may not save them if the explosion blows out the walls. At least it would be less stupid then firing a point blank blaster bomb vs taking 5 steps and setting up another waypoint. Units with morale above 100 or mind controlled should still be suicidal as normal.--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 13:55, 19 September 2008 (PDT)

: Actually, the aliens are quite careful with their explosives, they just seem to be prone to the occasional accident. They're not likely to fire off a blaster or grenade too close to them - as evident by the strategy where if you see an alien with a BB but can't shoot back, the safest place is to stand next to it. The blaster bomb vertical waypoint fix in the loader also eliminates the 'oops' moments where they plot a vertical right angle too close to themselves and there just happens to be a wall to the south. However, they do need more care with stun bombs as you often get to see an alien fire a stun bomb point blank into a HWP parked next to it. But I guess we are talking about three different weapon types here, so they may not be as careful with a standard firearm as they are with grenades and the BB. Wish the Apocalypse aliens at least had as much sense as the UFO/TFTD aliens. In that game, they're utterly psychotic with explosives and ignore nearby allies. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 14:34, 19 September 2008 (PDT)

= Category =
The page needs to be listed in various categories, which ones I don't know. Also links on other pages to this one would aid people finding it.

: OK how about this one: [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:21, 3 September 2008 (PDT)

[[Category:Oddities and bugs]]

Talk:Sub Armaments

2009-12-11T18:28:47Z

Mingos: /* TFTD Observed Rates of Fire? */ reply to Zombie's question

Can somebody tell me the name of the very powerful missile that you get later in the game?

yes...P.W.T Cannon

:Should we list these as separate pages in the style of the Enemy Unknown section of the wiki, or should the data be added here? [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 00:54, 1 June 2007 (PDT)

=Weapon comparison=

I find the article very insufficient. I'm playing TFTD and have decided to finish the game without ever researching sonic weapons. My craft weapon is limited to either D.U.P. or P.W.T. (others have miserable range, which makes them obsolete). I found no valuable comments on the weapons. I'll try to add something if possible. I've added a new column to the table: D×S×A, which is expected total damage caused to a target after shooting all shots from a weapon. Turns out that P.W.T. outdoes D.U.P. by almost 2x. Hope the figures are meaningful and useful to you Commanders. [[User:mingos|mingos]]

:Did you try following the Weapons vs USOs link? That has more specific narrative-type advice. As far as this table goes, in most cases the DxA/Rt value is the most relevant indication of firepower and effectiveness, unless you are fighting very tough subs where you expect to have a need, and the time to empty your magazines. One caution - I did this table before I found out that the published RoF values, in XCom anyway, are inaccurate. Assuming TFTD has the same game engine, it will also show differences 'under the hood' from the published rates of fire. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:34, 8 December 2009 (EST)

::Yes, I have tried that, but the page has but one brief phrase dedicated to P.W.T. as opposed to Sonic, indicating the superiority of the latter. I have already begun playtesting P.W.T. though. For instance, I used two Mantas, one armed with P.W.T., and the other one with D.U.P. and they are sufficient to sink a Fleet Supply Cruiser. All smaller subs are sunk with just the P.W.T.-armed Manta. Cruisers and smaller subs require a single round (both barrels). I'll try to document my findings on the Weapons vs. USO page. [[User:mingos|mingos]]
::EDIT: Also, I'd like to remark that the reload times given in th game are incorrect. P.W.T. has a much faster reload time than D.U.P., and if my memory doesn't deceive me, comparable to the Sonic Oscillator.
::: Excellent! By reload times, do you mean the fire rates during battle (as opposed to the ammo reloading times on the ground)? If so, this is good, it confirms what I was saying about about the actual RoF being not being the same as the game documented. See here [[Talk:UFO_Interception#Observed_Rates_of_Fire]] [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:15, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::::Yes, I meant the actual rate of fire observed in the interception window. My intuition might be deceiving me, of course, but if I'm correct, the numbers in the weapons stats table should be modified as well. I can't really check it with my current game since the aliens stopped using sonic pistols, so reaching the Sonic Oscillator is impossible now, but I'll start a new game to test that after I take on T'Leth (which might be tomorrow if I feel adventurous). [[User:mingos|mingos]]

::: The weapon comparisons that are are here were almost a mimic the one in the UFO pages - and I don't think it worked too well in the original sections. They also need the the neutral-POV mallet treatment.

::: This topic would be best covered under [[Weapon Analysis]] (With links from here pointing to the related article). We do need a section that explains all the ins and outs of the various weapons and compare them against one another and discuss how well they fare vs. the various enemy ships. I mean it's good to know that you need at least 3 - 4 Gas Cannons to take down a Dreadnaught. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 00:45, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::::Hmm, not sure. Up until now, Weapon Analysis has been used exclusively for tactical weapons, Battlescape weapons. Sub/aircraft weapons have a quite different set of factors and considerations. Personally I think it's best to keep them separate. I agree with you completely though that there is a need for cleanup and probably some kind of consolidation. I would just prefer not to consolidate onto the Weapon Analysis area, because I think it will make that area less coherent. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:31, 10 December 2009 (EST)

== TFTD Observed Rates of Fire? ==

Here are the observed rates of fire from Enemy Unknown. These differ from the published fire rates. No idea if they apply to TFTD sub weapons, but as they are hard coded in the EU executable, it's possible. @mingos, do they match your experience, for the equivalent TFTD weapons?

Weapon (''TFTD equiv?''): Fire Interval in Game Seconds
Aggressive/Standard/Cautious
Cannon (''Gas Cannon'') 2 / 2 / 2
Laser Cannon (''Gauss Cannon'') 12 / 12 / 12
Plasma Cannon (''Sonic Osc'') 12 / 12 / 12
Stingray (''Ajax'') 16 / 24 / 32
Avalanche (''DUP'') 24 / 36 / 48
Fusion Ball (''PWT'') 16 / 24 / 32

For example, you say PWT (?=Fusion Ball) is quite close to Sonic Oscillator (?=Plasma Cannon) in its fire rate. This would agree pretty much with the numbers above. You could try mounting an Ajax (?=Stingray) along with a PWT and see if they show the same fire rate. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:51, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:As I mentioned above, I can't really check the exact RoF of the Sonic Oscillator as I can't research it at the current stage. However, I have had a look at D.U.P. and P.W.T. and my previous observations seem to be correct:
Weapon: observed RoF in seconds
Aggressive/Standard/Cautious
D.U.P. Head 3 / 4 / 5
P.W.T. Cannon 2 / 3 / 4
:I don't know how much that would be in game seconds. My estimations might also be a bit off - it's 1AM here (CET) and my senses are a bit dull :). I'll do an exact interval measurement tomorrow if I don't forget about it. Is there a way to calculate the intervals in game seconds once the observed intervals are known? [[User:mingos|mingos]]

::Sort of. The method I used in my EU test was to take the firing interval of a Cannon as "2 game seconds" (as per the in game documentation), rightly or wrongly, and then measure everything as multiples of that. This basically involved mounting a Cannon on one wing and the weapon I was testing on the other wing. Then I would hack the range of the Cannon (using Xcomutil) so that it matched the range of the test weapon, so they would start firing at the same time. And I would usually hack the ammo counts of both weapons up to 100 to reduce rounding errors (and random variation, see below). Then I would let both weapons fire and try to keep my eye on the ammo count of the slower weapon at the exact point when the faster weapon ran out of ammo. That's the method in a nutshell.

::One thing to be aware of is that the firing rate (in EU anyway) is not fixed. Seb76 discovered that each shot involves a random interval that the firing rate (probably) just ''averages out'' to the values I listed here. So expect some variation, especially on small samples.

::The ratios in your data pretty much match my data from EU, e.g. 2:3 ratio between DUP/Avalanche and PWT/Fusion Ball in Aggressive mode. Provided that by RoF you mean the time take between each shot (aka "firing interval")? I'm very guilty of using the term "RoF" very carelessly to mean either the Rate of Fire, or its exact inverse, the firing interval. Sorry about that!

::Even though you don't have Sonic Oscillator, you can definitely do the tests with Ajax instead of DUP vs PWT. Those might be interesting. Also it could be interesting for you to test Gauss Cannon. My initial enthusiasm for [[Talk:Laser Cannon|Laser Cannon]] waned when I discovered that their firepower is not as great as I previously thought, because it turns out their actual rate of fire is much slower than the in game documentation says. The same might hold for Gauss Cannon, or it might not.

::To be fair, a more cautious way of quantifying the "observed rate of fire" data would be to divide "game seconds" by 2, and call the resulting values "multiples of Cannon firing interval". ''Probably'' this is meant to be multiples of 2 game seconds, but I can't say for certain. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:08, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::By RoF, I meant firing interval. Haven't noticed the obvious difference between the terms, sorry for that.
:::My idea for firing interval measurement was the following: record the firing in a sound editor and measure the intervals there. The variation you mention should be easy to assess visually, upon looking at the waveform. [[User:mingos|mingos]]
::::Nice method! I like it. I should clarify that when I say "game seconds" I don't mean "real time seconds". What I mean is, the Ufopaedia says a Cannon takes 2 seconds to reload, so I define that as 2 seconds in game time. In the Geoscape, time is often speeded up. In the Interception screen, time might not be running at 1 game second = 1 real time second. My gut feel is that the game is running at more than one game second per real time second. Also, this rate might vary based on CPU speed, etc - possibly. One reason I used the ammo counting method was, I wasn't sure if the game would keep a constant ratio between "game time" and "real time". In other words, the game might speed up and slow down during its simulation of game time - perhaps slowing down during intense computation. But the sound recording method is an excellent way of testing this! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)
:::OK, I performed the measurements. First off, the intervals vary slightly, by up to +/- 0,2 sec., approximately (observed in Gauss and D.U.P., and to a lesser extent in Ajax). P.W.T. measurements are incomplete because I lost the game before recording everything :P. Here are the results (they're not 100% accurate, as each is based on one sample attack):
WEAPON NAME INTERVALS IN SECONDS MULTIPLES OF GAS CANNON INTERVAL
CAUT./NORM./AGGR. CAUT./NORM./AGGR.
CRAFT GAS CANNON 0.25 0.25 0.25 1 1 1
GAUSS CANNON 1.4 1.4 1.4 5.6 5.6 5.6
AJAX 3.75 2.75 1.85 15 11 7.4
D.U.P. HEAD 5.6 4.2 2.85 22.4 16.8 11.4
SONIC OSCILLATOR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
P.W.T. CANNON 3.75 2.75 N/A 15 11 N/A
:::As you can see, the firing intervals are roughly the same for all tested weapons. I think it's safe to assume same happens with the Sonic Oscillator, contrary to my claim that it had a comparable RoF to the P.W.T. Cannon (I just don't remember exactly).
:::One more remark: I'm not 100% how many gas rounds were shot in the sample I used. My calculation might be off by a few rounds. That would explain why all other results are slightly lower than in X-COM: UFO Defence.
:::BTW, we edited this page at the same time :D. [[User:mingos|mingos]]
:This is great. Your data match mine pretty closely. The reason that your average intervals are lower is, I expect, because ''the first shot is free'' (takes zero time). I expect that if you increased your ammo capacity, your numbers would converge on mine. Also it looks like you have got a good approximation of the game time to real time ratio, at least for your PC. It looks a lot like an 8:1 ratio of game time::real time. This fits in with what we know of the programming style of the game, which often uses powers of 8 and scaling by 8s. Fantastic! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:18, 10 December 2009 (EST)
::A tiny remark: Craft Gas Cannon's reload time is 3 seconds, not 2 :D. [[User:mingos|mingos]]
:::Good point. E.g. according to the in game Ufopaedia you have Gas Cannon 3s, Ajax 17s, DUP 21s. Now one point I did not make clear here is that the firing rate values that appear in the Ufopaedia, which are taken from the game executables, seem to be ''completely ignored'' during craft combat. So I would not expect a 3:17:21 ratio between the firing rates of these TFTD weapons. EU weapons dont show firing rates in proportion to their Ufopaedia reload times. It is a bit arbitrary of me to take the Cannon reload time of 2s as a fixed point. To be consistent with this method I should take the Gas Cannon reload time of 3s as the equivalent fixed point for TFTD. But I doubt that we will find anything other than this: the actual ratios between firing rates are exactly the same as in EU. One possibility though is that the designers might have made the game harder by increasing (slowing down) all XCOM firing intervals by 50%. They made quite a lot of other things more difficult so this is a possibility. Of course this would only be relevant if they kept alien craft firing rates the same. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:58, 10 December 2009 (EST)

==USO observed rates of fire==

Are there any UFO/USO RoF measurements available? I could easily check these for TFTD, but I'd need quite some time to do the same for UFO Defence (I don't have it installed and I've never really played it more than just a couple of minutes). It would be cool to have all UFO/USO firing intervals expressed as multiples of the Cannon/Gas Cannon intervals. [[User:mingos|mingos]]
:Check out this article I wrote [[Talk:UFO_Interception#Review_of_Air_Combat_Mechanics]] and specifically [[Talk:UFO_Interception#UFO_Rate_of_Fire_Mechanics]]. I'm not sure anyone has dug the TFTD executable to find out where the equivalent values for TFTD are stored. I'm pretty sure they are ''not'' in the same place as EU though. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 08:14, 11 December 2009 (EST)
Where are the values stored in the EU executable? If we know that, we can extrapolate where they are in TFTD. My original idea when I saw this research is that the game ''is'' using the RoF numbers in the craft stats area of the exe, but it is modifying them with some internal calculations. If we find out what the formula is, then all these calculations are quite meaningless as the ratios are arbitrary comparisons to the cannon, not actual values. Did Seb find the equation/calculation used in EU? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 09:17, 11 December 2009 (EST)
: In structCraftData (at offset 0x10). Seb76s results were pretty clear that this is used by the UFO firing code, as a base to generate a semi-random firing interval. He more or less found the algorithm, for UFOs in EU anyway. The link to structCraftData in the article I linked to, gives more details. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:24, 11 December 2009 (EST)
Right, I realize where the base UFO firing rate is (and the values in TFTD are identical to those in EU). But that value is quite meaningless by itself. Let me ask again: where in the EU executable is the ''equation'' which draws these values to formulate the (observed) firing interval. If I know where it is in EU I can look for it in the general area of the TFTD exe to see if there is a difference. Another question: why are we talking about UFO firing intervals while this discussion deals with craft weapon firing intervals? Those two things are probably modeled differently anyway. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 12:58, 11 December 2009 (EST)
:The conversation sprouted naturally from the previous one :). Seriously: the subjects are naturally linked. X-COM craft weapons have different firing rates than actually declared in the UFOPaedia, ergo, their expected effectiveness is different from what the formulae involving the multiplicand RT (Reload Time) seem to suggest in this talk's content page. If they were recalculated using the new data, the results would be different. However, the results, changed or not, bear no significance if they aren't contrasted with USO weapon data, and perhaps X-COM craft's defences as well, in order to come up with a generalised formula for the outcome of any dogfight possible (the variables being the X-COM craft's weapons, the USO being intercepted and possibly the X-COM craft as well). Now, this may seem a bit absurd-ish, since it's obvious that, for instance, any craft with a Sonic Oscillator will down any USO with the exception of the Dreadnought, without taking damage, but the question becomes relevant in cases like mine, where the Sonic Oscillator is, intentionally or not, unavailable. D.U.P. Head vs. P.W.T. Cannon performances are pretty much unexplored. [[User:mingos|mingos]]

Talk:Sub Armaments

2009-12-10T22:23:59Z

Mingos: /* TFTD Observed Rates of Fire? */ UFO/USO firing intervals?

Can somebody tell me the name of the very powerful missile that you get later in the game?

yes...P.W.T Cannon

:Should we list these as separate pages in the style of the Enemy Unknown section of the wiki, or should the data be added here? [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 00:54, 1 June 2007 (PDT)

=Weapon comparison=

I find the article very insufficient. I'm playing TFTD and have decided to finish the game without ever researching sonic weapons. My craft weapon is limited to either D.U.P. or P.W.T. (others have miserable range, which makes them obsolete). I found no valuable comments on the weapons. I'll try to add something if possible. I've added a new column to the table: D×S×A, which is expected total damage caused to a target after shooting all shots from a weapon. Turns out that P.W.T. outdoes D.U.P. by almost 2x. Hope the figures are meaningful and useful to you Commanders. [[User:mingos|mingos]]

:Did you try following the Weapons vs USOs link? That has more specific narrative-type advice. As far as this table goes, in most cases the DxA/Rt value is the most relevant indication of firepower and effectiveness, unless you are fighting very tough subs where you expect to have a need, and the time to empty your magazines. One caution - I did this table before I found out that the published RoF values, in XCom anyway, are inaccurate. Assuming TFTD has the same game engine, it will also show differences 'under the hood' from the published rates of fire. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:34, 8 December 2009 (EST)

::Yes, I have tried that, but the page has but one brief phrase dedicated to P.W.T. as opposed to Sonic, indicating the superiority of the latter. I have already begun playtesting P.W.T. though. For instance, I used two Mantas, one armed with P.W.T., and the other one with D.U.P. and they are sufficient to sink a Fleet Supply Cruiser. All smaller subs are sunk with just the P.W.T.-armed Manta. Cruisers and smaller subs require a single round (both barrels). I'll try to document my findings on the Weapons vs. USO page. [[User:mingos|mingos]]
::EDIT: Also, I'd like to remark that the reload times given in th game are incorrect. P.W.T. has a much faster reload time than D.U.P., and if my memory doesn't deceive me, comparable to the Sonic Oscillator.
::: Excellent! By reload times, do you mean the fire rates during battle (as opposed to the ammo reloading times on the ground)? If so, this is good, it confirms what I was saying about about the actual RoF being not being the same as the game documented. See here [[Talk:UFO_Interception#Observed_Rates_of_Fire]] [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:15, 9 December 2009 (EST)
::::Yes, I meant the actual rate of fire observed in the interception window. My intuition might be deceiving me, of course, but if I'm correct, the numbers in the weapons stats table should be modified as well. I can't really check it with my current game since the aliens stopped using sonic pistols, so reaching the Sonic Oscillator is impossible now, but I'll start a new game to test that after I take on T'Leth (which might be tomorrow if I feel adventurous). [[User:mingos|mingos]]

::: The weapon comparisons that are are here were almost a mimic the one in the UFO pages - and I don't think it worked too well in the original sections. They also need the the neutral-POV mallet treatment.

::: This topic would be best covered under [[Weapon Analysis]] (With links from here pointing to the related article). We do need a section that explains all the ins and outs of the various weapons and compare them against one another and discuss how well they fare vs. the various enemy ships. I mean it's good to know that you need at least 3 - 4 Gas Cannons to take down a Dreadnaught. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 00:45, 10 December 2009 (EST)

::::Hmm, not sure. Up until now, Weapon Analysis has been used exclusively for tactical weapons, Battlescape weapons. Sub/aircraft weapons have a quite different set of factors and considerations. Personally I think it's best to keep them separate. I agree with you completely though that there is a need for cleanup and probably some kind of consolidation. I would just prefer not to consolidate onto the Weapon Analysis area, because I think it will make that area less coherent. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:31, 10 December 2009 (EST)

== TFTD Observed Rates of Fire? ==

Here are the observed rates of fire from Enemy Unknown. These differ from the published fire rates. No idea if they apply to TFTD sub weapons, but as they are hard coded in the EU executable, it's possible. @mingos, do they match your experience, for the equivalent TFTD weapons?

Weapon (''TFTD equiv?''): Fire Interval in Game Seconds
Aggressive/Standard/Cautious
Cannon (''Gas Cannon'') 2 / 2 / 2
Laser Cannon (''Gauss Cannon'') 12 / 12 / 12
Plasma Cannon (''Sonic Osc'') 12 / 12 / 12
Stingray (''Ajax'') 16 / 24 / 32
Avalanche (''DUP'') 24 / 36 / 48
Fusion Ball (''PWT'') 16 / 24 / 32

For example, you say PWT (?=Fusion Ball) is quite close to Sonic Oscillator (?=Plasma Cannon) in its fire rate. This would agree pretty much with the numbers above. You could try mounting an Ajax (?=Stingray) along with a PWT and see if they show the same fire rate. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:51, 9 December 2009 (EST)
:As I mentioned above, I can't really check the exact RoF of the Sonic Oscillator as I can't research it at the current stage. However, I have had a look at D.U.P. and P.W.T. and my previous observations seem to be correct:
Weapon: observed RoF in seconds
Aggressive/Standard/Cautious
D.U.P. Head 3 / 4 / 5
P.W.T. Cannon 2 / 3 / 4
:I don't know how much that would be in game seconds. My estimations might also be a bit off - it's 1AM here (CET) and my senses are a bit dull :). I'll do an exact interval measurement tomorrow if I don't forget about it. Is there a way to calculate the intervals in game seconds once the observed intervals are known? [[User:mingos|mingos]]

::Sort of. The method I used in my EU test was to take the firing interval of a Cannon as "2 game seconds" (as per the in game documentation), rightly or wrongly, and then measure everything as multiples of that. This basically involved mounting a Cannon on one wing and the weapon I was testing on the other wing. Then I would hack the range of the Cannon (using Xcomutil) so that it matched the range of the test weapon, so they would start firing at the same time. And I would usually hack the ammo counts of both weapons up to 100 to reduce rounding errors (and random variation, see below). Then I would let both weapons fire and try to keep my eye on the ammo count of the slower weapon at the exact point when the faster weapon ran out of ammo. That's the method in a nutshell.

::One thing to be aware of is that the firing rate (in EU anyway) is not fixed. Seb76 discovered that each shot involves a random interval that the firing rate (probably) just ''averages out'' to the values I listed here. So expect some variation, especially on small samples.

::The ratios in your data pretty much match my data from EU, e.g. 2:3 ratio between DUP/Avalanche and PWT/Fusion Ball in Aggressive mode. Provided that by RoF you mean the time take between each shot (aka "firing interval")? I'm very guilty of using the term "RoF" very carelessly to mean either the Rate of Fire, or its exact inverse, the firing interval. Sorry about that!

::Even though you don't have Sonic Oscillator, you can definitely do the tests with Ajax instead of DUP vs PWT. Those might be interesting. Also it could be interesting for you to test Gauss Cannon. My initial enthusiasm for [[Talk:Laser Cannon|Laser Cannon]] waned when I discovered that their firepower is not as great as I previously thought, because it turns out their actual rate of fire is much slower than the in game documentation says. The same might hold for Gauss Cannon, or it might not.

::To be fair, a more cautious way of quantifying the "observed rate of fire" data would be to divide "game seconds" by 2, and call the resulting values "multiples of Cannon firing interval". ''Probably'' this is meant to be multiples of 2 game seconds, but I can't say for certain. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:08, 9 December 2009 (EST)

:::By RoF, I meant firing interval. Haven't noticed the obvious difference between the terms, sorry for that.
:::My idea for firing interval measurement was the following: record the firing in a sound editor and measure the intervals there. The variation you mention should be easy to assess visually, upon looking at the waveform. [[User:mingos|mingos]]
::::Nice method! I like it. I should clarify that when I say "game seconds" I don't mean "real time seconds". What I mean is, the Ufopaedia says a Cannon takes 2 seconds to reload, so I define that as 2 seconds in game time. In the Geoscape, time is often speeded up. In the Interception screen, time might not be running at 1 game second = 1 real time second. My gut feel is that the game is running at more than one game second per real time second. Also, this rate might vary based on CPU speed, etc - possibly. One reason I used the ammo counting method was, I wasn't sure if the game would keep a constant ratio between "game time" and "real time". In other words, the game might speed up and slow down during its simulation of game time - perhaps slowing down during intense computation. But the sound recording method is an excellent way of testing this! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:27, 10 December 2009 (EST)
:::OK, I performed the measurements. First off, the intervals vary slightly, by up to +/- 0,2 sec., approximately (observed in Gauss and D.U.P., and to a lesser extent in Ajax). P.W.T. measurements are incomplete because I lost the game before recording everything :P. Here are the results (they're not 100% accurate, as each is based on one sample attack):
WEAPON NAME INTERVALS IN SECONDS MULTIPLES OF GAS CANNON INTERVAL
CAUT./NORM./AGGR. CAUT./NORM./AGGR.
CRAFT GAS CANNON 0.25 0.25 0.25 1 1 1
GAUSS CANNON 1.4 1.4 1.4 5.6 5.6 5.6
AJAX 3.75 2.75 1.85 15 11 7.4
D.U.P. HEAD 5.6 4.2 2.85 22.4 16.8 11.4
SONIC OSCILLATOR N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
P.W.T. CANNON 3.75 2.75 N/A 15 11 N/A
:::As you can see, the firing intervals are roughly the same for all tested weapons. I think it's safe to assume same happens with the Sonic Oscillator, contrary to my claim that it had a comparable RoF to the P.W.T. Cannon (I just don't remember exactly).
:::One more remark: I'm not 100% how many gas rounds were shot in the sample I used. My calculation might be off by a few rounds. That would explain why all other results are slightly lower than in X-COM: UFO Defence.
:::BTW, we edited this page at the same time :D. [[User:mingos|mingos]]
:This is great. Your data match mine pretty closely. The reason that your average intervals are lower is, I expect, because ''the first shot is free'' (takes zero time). I expect that if you increased your ammo capacity, your numbers would converge on mine. Also it looks like you have got a good approximation of the game time to real time ratio, at least for your PC. It looks a lot like an 8:1 ratio of game time::real time. This fits in with what we know of the programming style of the game, which often uses powers of 8 and scaling by 8s. Fantastic! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:18, 10 December 2009 (EST)
::A tiny remark: Craft Gas Cannon's reload time is 3 seconds, not 2 :D. [[User:mingos|mingos]]
:::Good point. E.g. according to the in game Ufopaedia you have Gas Cannon 3s, Ajax 17s, DUP 21s. Now one point I did not make clear here is that the firing rate values that appear in the Ufopaedia, which are taken from the game executables, seem to be ''completely ignored'' during craft combat. So I would not expect a 3:17:21 ratio between the firing rates of these TFTD weapons. EU weapons dont show firing rates in proportion to their Ufopaedia reload times. It is a bit arbitrary of me to take the Cannon reload time of 2s as a fixed point. To be consistent with this method I should take the Gas Cannon reload time of 3s as the equivalent fixed point for TFTD. But I doubt that we will find anything other than this: the actual ratios between firing rates are exactly the same as in EU. One possibility though is that the designers might have made the game harder by increasing (slowing down) all XCOM firing intervals by 50%. They made quite a lot of other things more difficult so this is a possibility. Of course this would only be relevant if they kept alien craft firing rates the same. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:58, 10 December 2009 (EST)
::::Are there any UFO/USO RoF measurements available? I could easily check these for TFTD, but I'd need quite some time to do the same for UFO Defence (I don't have it installed and I've never really played it more than just a couple of minutes). It would be cool to have all UFO/USO firing intervals expressed as multiples of the Cannon/Gas Cannon intervals. [[User:mingos|mingos]]

Talk:Sub Armaments

2009-12-10T21:34:20Z

Mingos: /* TFTD Observed Rates of Fire? */ Gas Cannon reload time remark

Talk:TRTBAG

2009-12-10T21:30:24Z

Mingos: /* The Deep One Dilemma */ Deep Ones found underwater before T'Leth

== The Deep One Dilemma ==

Too lazy to check, but are there really no Deep Ones in Gill Man Bases? After all, a base is considered dry ground... --[[User:Schnobs|Schnobs]] 07:03, 10 November 2007 (PST)

: Well, X-Com base attacks by Gillmen have Deep-Ones, but not in Colonies built by Gill-Men. These are underwater. Even so, Gillmen will only supply the base, the base itself will have a fixed selection of crews involving Tasoth on the first level and Lobstermen on the second level.

: The only place you'll find a Deep One underwater naturally is in the final mission. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]

Interesting. You guys say that the Tasoth commander can block the final research and prevent you from completing the game. Can't you just hex-edit so that the research will be available like the other one? I know it's cheating, but cheating for a good purpose.--[[User:Amitakartok|amitakartok]] 06:31, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

:@Amitakartok: yes, you can hex-edit the save. I remember doing it a few times after researching a Tasoth Commander. It worked fine.
:@Schnobs, @NKF: Deep Ones also appear in mixed crew Dreadnoughts (also underwater). If the RNG picks the correct race mix, that is. If luck shines on you, you will find exactly one Deep One in such a ship. The problem is finding a mixed crew Dreadnought. I noticed that mixed crews start appearing after exactly one year has passed (ie, on the 1st of January 2041) and never become a frequent sight. Surviving the year without advanced armour and M.C. is the difficult part, although with some luck, you might also get M.C. from another live terrorist, not just the Deep One.
:Also, note that the inavailability of the Ion Armour didn't use to be a nuisance in the unpatched DOS version. I learned about the existence of Ion Armour quite recently, when I failed at researching a live Deep One at the correct time in the patched TFTD version which I play now. In fact, I think I managed to finish the game without ever researching a live Deep One at some point ~10 years ago (although my memory might be deceiving me). [[user:mingos|mingos]]

== Invalid aliens ==

So the Tasoth Commander is not treated as a valid alien? Interesting, I very often captured live aliens, including Tasoth Commanders, and found that they did not become available for research. Does this happen with more race and/or race+rank combinations? I know I never ever managed to capture and research a live terrorist, save for Deep Ones, Tentaculats and Bio Drones. I remember getting Xarquid, Hallucinoid and Triscene in the UFOpaedia by interrogating Aquatoid Medics, but in my whole life (over 10 years playing TFTD!) I had the opportunity to see the Calcinite UFOpaedia entry once and only once (Aquatoid Medic). This particular alien is interesting for me because the article states that it can substitute a live Deep One for M.C. Lab. In other words, at least in the patched version, which I acquired very recently via Steam and am still trying to beat for the first time, alien terrorists are recognised without problems?
Mingos @ 01:55 AM (CET), 5 September 2009

: Ah, so someone else who's seen a Tasoth Commander! Knew I wasn't going mad. What version of the game did you recall seeing this on? Have been having a lot of trouble trying to locate one in-game to re-test the notes I took when I was writing this article.

: Not capturing or seeing some of the aliens, I believe, is quite random. I never saw some of the aliens (or get MC tech) on my very first play through the game, but encountered them in a later play through. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 20:00, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

::I captured Tasoth Commanders in the unpatched DOS version which I played a lot in late 90s. I never saw a Tasoth Commander in the patched version I got on Steam, but that's probably because they can only be found in Dreadnoughts, which I tend to avoid at all times unless they happen to land. I saw a Gill Man Commander yesterday, but they're documented as valid aliens (the only Gill Men capable of Molecular Control attacks). I don't know about availability for research, I just killed the bastard :D.
::Nonetheless, I have all techs researched in my current game, save for sonic weapons, which I intentionally skipped. If I happen to encounter a landed Dreadnought with something else than Lobster Men, I'll assault it and make sure I stun the alien Commander instead of blowing his brains out. After all, I won't lose the T'Leth research item now that it's already in my UFOpaedia. [[user:mingos|mingos]]

==Things that are not bugs==

Alien interrogations having to be the last prerequisite makes sense, because you have to know what to interrogate for. It's not a bug, so we shouldn't list it.

This covers Deep One for Ion Armour, Tasoth for M.C. Disruptor and the high-ranking aliens for The Ultimate Threat/T'leth, the Alien's City. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 05:32, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

: True, these aren't bugs as such, just technicalities. They are mostly mentioned for completeness sake and to alleviate any confusion that might arise when players don't see the research when they know they've researched that alien before. Not everyone knows the correct order to research the aliens and may end up feeling like they are unable to progress the game.

: The Deep One however is a real bug in the sense that if you research one, it won't always re-appear on the research list for you to research again. If it does appear, then you're fine. If it doesn't appear, then you're stuck. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 20:09, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

Talk:TRTBAG

2009-12-10T21:09:59Z

Mingos: /* Invalid aliens */ Reply to NKF (sorry for the 3-month delay!)

== The Deep One Dilemma ==

Too lazy to check, but are there really no Deep Ones in Gill Man Bases? After all, a base is considered dry ground... --[[User:Schnobs|Schnobs]] 07:03, 10 November 2007 (PST)

: Well, X-Com base attacks by Gillmen have Deep-Ones, but not in Colonies built by Gill-Men. These are underwater. Even so, Gillmen will only supply the base, the base itself will have a fixed selection of crews involving Tasoth on the first level and Lobstermen on the second level.

: The only place you'll find a Deep One underwater naturally is in the final mission. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]

Interesting. You guys say that the Tasoth commander can block the final research and prevent you from completing the game. Can't you just hex-edit so that the research will be available like the other one? I know it's cheating, but cheating for a good purpose.--[[User:Amitakartok|amitakartok]] 06:31, 5 May 2009 (EDT)

== Invalid aliens ==

So the Tasoth Commander is not treated as a valid alien? Interesting, I very often captured live aliens, including Tasoth Commanders, and found that they did not become available for research. Does this happen with more race and/or race+rank combinations? I know I never ever managed to capture and research a live terrorist, save for Deep Ones, Tentaculats and Bio Drones. I remember getting Xarquid, Hallucinoid and Triscene in the UFOpaedia by interrogating Aquatoid Medics, but in my whole life (over 10 years playing TFTD!) I had the opportunity to see the Calcinite UFOpaedia entry once and only once (Aquatoid Medic). This particular alien is interesting for me because the article states that it can substitute a live Deep One for M.C. Lab. In other words, at least in the patched version, which I acquired very recently via Steam and am still trying to beat for the first time, alien terrorists are recognised without problems?
Mingos @ 01:55 AM (CET), 5 September 2009

: Ah, so someone else who's seen a Tasoth Commander! Knew I wasn't going mad. What version of the game did you recall seeing this on? Have been having a lot of trouble trying to locate one in-game to re-test the notes I took when I was writing this article.

: Not capturing or seeing some of the aliens, I believe, is quite random. I never saw some of the aliens (or get MC tech) on my very first play through the game, but encountered them in a later play through. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 20:00, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

::I captured Tasoth Commanders in the unpatched DOS version which I played a lot in late 90s. I never saw a Tasoth Commander in the patched version I got on Steam, but that's probably because they can only be found in Dreadnoughts, which I tend to avoid at all times unless they happen to land. I saw a Gill Man Commander yesterday, but they're documented as valid aliens (the only Gill Men capable of Molecular Control attacks). I don't know about availability for research, I just killed the bastard :D.
::Nonetheless, I have all techs researched in my current game, save for sonic weapons, which I intentionally skipped. If I happen to encounter a landed Dreadnought with something else than Lobster Men, I'll assault it and make sure I stun the alien Commander instead of blowing his brains out. After all, I won't lose the T'Leth research item now that it's already in my UFOpaedia. [[user:mingos|mingos]]

==Things that are not bugs==

Alien interrogations having to be the last prerequisite makes sense, because you have to know what to interrogate for. It's not a bug, so we shouldn't list it.

This covers Deep One for Ion Armour, Tasoth for M.C. Disruptor and the high-ranking aliens for The Ultimate Threat/T'leth, the Alien's City. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 05:32, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

: True, these aren't bugs as such, just technicalities. They are mostly mentioned for completeness sake and to alleviate any confusion that might arise when players don't see the research when they know they've researched that alien before. Not everyone knows the correct order to research the aliens and may end up feeling like they are unable to progress the game.

: The Deep One however is a real bug in the sense that if you research one, it won't always re-appear on the research list for you to research again. If it does appear, then you're fine. If it doesn't appear, then you're stuck. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 20:09, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Sub Armaments

2009-12-10T20:49:44Z

Mingos: /* TFTD Observed Rates of Fire? */ TFTD firing intervals measurement

Talk:Sub Armaments

2009-12-10T16:49:07Z

Mingos: /* TFTD Observed Rates of Fire? */ measurement method

Talk:Sub Armaments

2009-12-10T00:10:41Z

Mingos: /* Weapon comparison */

Talk:Sub Armaments

2009-12-09T00:01:35Z

Mingos:

Talk:Sub Armaments

2009-12-08T23:49:58Z

Mingos:

Talk:Sub Armaments

2009-12-07T19:18:26Z

Mingos:

Sub Armaments

2009-12-07T19:10:59Z

Mingos: Added the Damage*Capacity*Accuracy column

X-COM flying subs would be useless if they had no means of neutralising enemy USOs. To this end, there are a number of craft armaments, or craft weapons, that you can be fit to interception craft for use in combat. Some of these weapons are immediately available to you to purchase, others have to be researched and manufactured in your workshops.

The weapons systems that can be purchased throughout the course of your conflict with the alien menace are:

*[[Craft Gas Cannon]]
*[[AJAX]]
*[[D.U.P. Head]]

The weapons that can be manufactured after you have researched them are:

*[[Gauss Cannon]]
*[[Sonic Oscillator]]
*[[P.W.T. Cannon]]

==Quick Comparision Table==

<table {{StdCenterTable}} class="sortable">
<tr {{StdDescTable_Heading}}>
<th width="150" align="left">Armament</th><th width="90">Damage</th><th width="120">Range (km)</th><th width="100">Accuracy</th><th width="160">Reload Time (s)</th><th width="80">Shots</th>
<th width="80">D×A/RT</th>
<th width="100">D×A/RT×Rg</th>
<th width="80">D×S×A</th>
</tr>
<tr><td align="left">Craft Gas Cannon</td><td>15</td><td>8</td><td>25%</td><td>3</td><td>200</td><td>1.25</td><td>10.00</td><td>750</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">AJAX</td><td>60</td><td>32</td><td>70%</td><td>17</td><td>6</td><td>2.47</td><td>79.06</td><td>252</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">D.U.P. Head</td><td>110</td><td>50</td><td>80%</td><td>21</td><td>3</td><td>4.19</td><td>209.52</td><td>264</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">Gauss Cannon</td><td>90</td><td>20</td><td>35%</td><td>4</td><td>50</td><td>7.88</td><td>157.50</td><td>1575</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">Sonic Oscillator</td><td>150</td><td>55</td><td>50%</td><td>5</td><td>100</td><td>15.00</td><td>825.00</td><td>7500</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left">P.W.T. Cannon</td><td>200</td><td>60</td><td>100%</td><td>28</td><td>2</td><td>7.14</td><td>428.57</td><td>400</td></tr>
</table>

As a general guide to the available weapons, 70km is the standoff range you first get the dogfight screen. If a weapon has close to 70km range the weapon will start firing soon after you press cautious attack, where weapons with around 30km range will require you to close in quite a lot. These ranges are also shown graphically on the interception screen.

See [[USOs#Weapons vs. USOs|Weapons vs. USOs]] for advice on which armaments to use against which USOs.

==See Also==
{{Subs Navbar}}

Talk:Known Bugs (TFTD)

2009-12-07T17:00:17Z

Mingos:

=More Unconscious Bugs=

OK maybe TFTD is just plain buggy. This may be related to the Mind Controlled units MIA bug. What I saw was:

* All human units are killed or stunned, but the game does not end, a Coelecanth keeps working (this is a bug right?). I ran the Coelecanth for at least 4 more turns, with all Aquanauts either dead or stunned.
* If I saved and restored this game with the Coelecanth, on the first restored turn I had no units. I could not use the Units menu, the Next Unit button, or the Centre on Unit button. Nothing. After letting the aliens move for one turn, I could see my Coelecanth again.
* If I aborted this mission with the Coelecanth in the ship, as expected it says "Submarine Lost" and the stunned crew - who had been placed aboard the Triton - do not make it back to base.
* However, one of the stunned crew members does make it back to base. The stunned crew were all psi weak but some were stunned whilst under alien mind control, others were not - they were just panicked. I'm not sure if the crew member who teleported back to base was mind controlled or just (morale) panicked. But I would guess he was panicked, since most of them were mind controlled.
* When this crew member gets back to base he is shown as being assigned to craft called "Weapon-1" (since the craft he was assigned to no longer exists). Since this craft doesn't exist, there is no way to unassign him from it. Even if I had a new Triton I doubt I would be able to assign him to it. Shame he wasn't injured!
* Like in a similar incident I saw before, the affected Aquanaut was the first in the list and also the most senior rank. So that ''might'' be a factor.
* In this underwater mission I saw that the Hallucinoid's melee attack definitely works, and is lethal against unarmoured Aquanauts. The melee attack is ineffective against a Coelecanth (with XComUtil improved tank armour I think). I saw no evidence of its ranged attack working, ever, despite many opportunities. It may be possible that (like the HJ Cannon on land), the Hallucinoid's ranged attack might be able to reaction-fire underwater. I didn't do enough to test this, I might try that later.
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:08, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

I got this situation:
Was on a ship attack mission (passenger ship). On the 2nd level, at the lift (big room with crates), one of my soldiers got MC'd while still standing on the lift. He shot a thermal shok bomb and became unconscious (while MC'd). He remained unconscious until I eliminated all aliens, waiting patiently on the lift. Now, the game didn't notify me about a dead or MIA agent, but he disappeared from my aquanauts list. Dunno what was the cause of this misbehaviour.
[[User:mingos|mingos]]

: I imagine it's the bug Zombie reported [[Exploiting_Mind_Control#Zombie.27s_Permanent_Control_of_Aliens_via_Stunning|here]] in reverse - your dude turned into an alien. He didn't count as MC'd (so no MIA message), and he didn't count as dead (so no DIA message either). That bug - and the others on the same page - really should be documented on the "master lists"... - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 02:45, 4 December 2009 (EST)

So... If I applied stimulant on him, he'd be hostile for one turn and then magically return to my team, I assume. Damn, all this stunned/revived/MC'd/un-MC'd and the mixtures thereof are really weird. Multiple bugs at play... [[User:mingos|mingos]]]

== Gill-men reported as Snakemen ==

I get these interesting bugs playing TFTD. A Gill-man corpse is described as a Snakeman corpse. And I get messages saying "Snakeman soldier has panicked", "Snakeman soldier has gone Berserk", when the Gillmen have morale failures. Now the game I'm running using XComUtil, and these Gill-men were created by using XComUtil REPlace command, changing them from Aquatoids and Tasoths. So this may be a fluke. Has anyone else ever noticed this? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:27, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

:It's due to XcomUtil. There isn't a string containing "Snakeman" (or any variant thereof) in ENGLISH.DAT, ENGLISH2.DAT or even the executable. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:45, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

==Survey Ship v. Escort==
The Survey Ship and Escort are not interchanged on the battlescape. The sub that comes up matches the UFOpaedia entry and the picture that pops up during interception. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 04:31, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

: Not sure what you mean exactly. I would expect that during Interception it would look like an Escort, but when you shoot it down you see a small 1 room craft (Survey Ship) on the Battlescape map but the expected large crew and loadout from an Escort. And vice versa. Is this not what you see? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:17, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

No. When you shoot an Escort down the picture (although not the size of the blob) matches the design of what you term a Survey Ship, the 1 room craft. When you shoot down a Survey Ship the picture (though again, not the size of the blob) matches the larger, 3 room craft. Which is also confirmed by the UFOpaedia entries. The UFOpaedia entry for the Survey Ship looks like the larger craft and the UFOpaedia entry for the Escort looks like the smaller craft.

So the sub seen on the battlescape matches the sub picture seen during interception and the sub picture in the UFOpaedia. There's no switching in the Battlescape relative to the stuff seen in the interception window and UFOpaedia. It may be that the Survey Ship was intended to be the one-room craft (and indeed, this seems logical) but if that's the case, it's switched in all three. I checked and double-checked this. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 05:03, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

Ok this is interesting, you may have uncovered a general misunderstanding. It's been suggested before that maybe it's just the ''names'' that are switched.

I know you have double checked that you have never run XcomUtil or a map pack? Definitely a virgin install?

Do you still see a large crew on a small craft and a 1 man crew on the larger craft?

That the sonar blob size is wrong does suggest maybe a problem in the .exe rather than the map files.

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 05:47, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

:I don't even know how to use Xcomutil and have never downloaded it, so I can guarantee it's not been run on my Collector's Edition version.

: I see multiple aliens on the 1-room craft and 1 alien on the 3-room craft.

:I don't think the names are switched, since IIRC the Survey Ship still appears first and the Escort second in a mission. Besides, it'd have to be names ''and crew'' switched to make sense.

:The sonar blob size isn't wrong, it coincides with the reported size of the craft. Escorts are reported as Small while Survey Ships are reported as Very Small. The problem, however, is that that reported size doesn't agree with the actual size of the ships, although it does agree with their loadouts. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 05:57, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

:::Ok you have been very thorough on this. Let me try to summarise. The battlescape map, UFOpaedia picture and Interception window picture all agree in showing the Survey Ship as the larger of the two. The reported detection size, crew loadouts, spawn points, order of appearance, combat power, & sonar blob size all agree in showing the Escort as the larger. (We haven't looked at Mission types, a further clue.)

::: I think the most likely explanation is your earlier suggestion that all 3 "pictures" (map, intercept, UFOPaedia) were switched. Probably the last 2 are configured in the same place in the exe. As Zombie said, a miscommunication between different parts of the development team. Good investigative work! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:57, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

::::You two have convinced me that it is probably unintentional. I don't think it should be listed under bugs though, as it always happens and doesn't actually screw up the game or anything. It's a very odd state of affairs and one that should be listed on the pages for the ships though. I still think the Survey Ship and Escort pages should reflect what actually happens in-game, ie that we should have the bigger floor plans under Survey Ship and the smaller ones under Escort, along with listing the UFOpaedia pics as they're actually noted in-game. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 05:00, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

Magic9mushroom, your investigation has improved the understanding of this issue. It should definitely be flagged up on the wiki pages of both craft. And the other picture-swapping case, the supply ship, should also be flagged on the relevant wiki pages. I think both should be considered Bugs, as they are illogical / inconsistent and don't behave as a player would reasonably expect. It's not necessary that an issue is unpredictable, nor that it damage game play, to be called a bug. Most listed bugs are always repeatable, and quite a few arguably aid gameplay. So I think we should list these as bugs, add your additional findings, and update the craft wiki pages. I'm not sure if we should swap the pictures and descriptions on the wiki pages back to the unmodified state or not. I'm thinking it over. You're right that it's confusing to players who use the unmodified game. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:57, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

: I'll put my support for the motion that Wiki should present this information as per what players will find in an unmodified game. So if they see pictures of an apple in the Ufopaedia but find an Orange in the Battlescape instead, while the Ufopaedia Orange entry comes up with a Battlescape Apple, then let it be so, but also note that the objects have been unintentionally swapped either in one place or the other. There are plenty more inconsistencies in TFTD anyhow. -[[User:NKF|NKF]]

So then, if there are no further objections, I plan to do the following:

- Swap the listed UFOpaedia pics for the Escort and Survey Ship to match the ones found in the in-game UFOpaedia.

- Swap the listed floorplans to agree with what is actually found on the Battlescape

- Add a note to both articles that there's likely some sort of mixup.

Any objections? [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 19:47, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

:Generally agreed but you could consider putting both images on each page, listing the unmodified one first, and saying "it looks like THIS but should probably look like THIS". [[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:45, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

I'll link each page to the other of course, so that seems a bit redundant. It's been over a day by my count so I'll do the switch. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 07:54, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

...and done! [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 08:32, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Known Bugs (TFTD)

2009-12-04T00:02:42Z

Mingos:

=More Unconscious Bugs=

OK maybe TFTD is just plain buggy. This may be related to the Mind Controlled units MIA bug. What I saw was:

* All human units are killed or stunned, but the game does not end, a Coelecanth keeps working (this is a bug right?). I ran the Coelecanth for at least 4 more turns, with all Aquanauts either dead or stunned.
* If I saved and restored this game with the Coelecanth, on the first restored turn I had no units. I could not use the Units menu, the Next Unit button, or the Centre on Unit button. Nothing. After letting the aliens move for one turn, I could see my Coelecanth again.
* If I aborted this mission with the Coelecanth in the ship, as expected it says "Submarine Lost" and the stunned crew - who had been placed aboard the Triton - do not make it back to base.
* However, one of the stunned crew members does make it back to base. The stunned crew were all psi weak but some were stunned whilst under alien mind control, others were not - they were just panicked. I'm not sure if the crew member who teleported back to base was mind controlled or just (morale) panicked. But I would guess he was panicked, since most of them were mind controlled.
* When this crew member gets back to base he is shown as being assigned to craft called "Weapon-1" (since the craft he was assigned to no longer exists). Since this craft doesn't exist, there is no way to unassign him from it. Even if I had a new Triton I doubt I would be able to assign him to it. Shame he wasn't injured!
* Like in a similar incident I saw before, the affected Aquanaut was the first in the list and also the most senior rank. So that ''might'' be a factor.
* In this underwater mission I saw that the Hallucinoid's melee attack definitely works, and is lethal against unarmoured Aquanauts. The melee attack is ineffective against a Coelecanth (with XComUtil improved tank armour I think). I saw no evidence of its ranged attack working, ever, despite many opportunities. It may be possible that (like the HJ Cannon on land), the Hallucinoid's ranged attack might be able to reaction-fire underwater. I didn't do enough to test this, I might try that later.
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:08, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

I got this situation:
Was on a ship attack mission (passenger ship). On the 2nd level, at the lift (big room with crates), one of my soldiers got MC's while still standing on the lift. He shot a thermal shok bomb and became unconscious (while MC'd). He remained unconscious until I eliminated all aliens, waiting patiently on the lift. Now, the game didn't notify me about a dead or MIA agent, but he disappeared from my aquanauts list. Dunno what was the cause of this misbehaviour.
[[User:mingos|mingos]]

== Gill-men reported as Snakemen ==

I get these interesting bugs playing TFTD. A Gill-man corpse is described as a Snakeman corpse. And I get messages saying "Snakeman soldier has panicked", "Snakeman soldier has gone Berserk", when the Gillmen have morale failures. Now the game I'm running using XComUtil, and these Gill-men were created by using XComUtil REPlace command, changing them from Aquatoids and Tasoths. So this may be a fluke. Has anyone else ever noticed this? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:27, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

:It's due to XcomUtil. There isn't a string containing "Snakeman" (or any variant thereof) in ENGLISH.DAT, ENGLISH2.DAT or even the executable. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:45, 8 August 2009 (EDT)

==Survey Ship v. Escort==
The Survey Ship and Escort are not interchanged on the battlescape. The sub that comes up matches the UFOpaedia entry and the picture that pops up during interception. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 04:31, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

: Not sure what you mean exactly. I would expect that during Interception it would look like an Escort, but when you shoot it down you see a small 1 room craft (Survey Ship) on the Battlescape map but the expected large crew and loadout from an Escort. And vice versa. Is this not what you see? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:17, 21 August 2009 (EDT)

No. When you shoot an Escort down the picture (although not the size of the blob) matches the design of what you term a Survey Ship, the 1 room craft. When you shoot down a Survey Ship the picture (though again, not the size of the blob) matches the larger, 3 room craft. Which is also confirmed by the UFOpaedia entries. The UFOpaedia entry for the Survey Ship looks like the larger craft and the UFOpaedia entry for the Escort looks like the smaller craft.

So the sub seen on the battlescape matches the sub picture seen during interception and the sub picture in the UFOpaedia. There's no switching in the Battlescape relative to the stuff seen in the interception window and UFOpaedia. It may be that the Survey Ship was intended to be the one-room craft (and indeed, this seems logical) but if that's the case, it's switched in all three. I checked and double-checked this. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 05:03, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

Ok this is interesting, you may have uncovered a general misunderstanding. It's been suggested before that maybe it's just the ''names'' that are switched.

I know you have double checked that you have never run XcomUtil or a map pack? Definitely a virgin install?

Do you still see a large crew on a small craft and a 1 man crew on the larger craft?

That the sonar blob size is wrong does suggest maybe a problem in the .exe rather than the map files.

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 05:47, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

:I don't even know how to use Xcomutil and have never downloaded it, so I can guarantee it's not been run on my Collector's Edition version.

: I see multiple aliens on the 1-room craft and 1 alien on the 3-room craft.

:I don't think the names are switched, since IIRC the Survey Ship still appears first and the Escort second in a mission. Besides, it'd have to be names ''and crew'' switched to make sense.

:The sonar blob size isn't wrong, it coincides with the reported size of the craft. Escorts are reported as Small while Survey Ships are reported as Very Small. The problem, however, is that that reported size doesn't agree with the actual size of the ships, although it does agree with their loadouts. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 05:57, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

:::Ok you have been very thorough on this. Let me try to summarise. The battlescape map, UFOpaedia picture and Interception window picture all agree in showing the Survey Ship as the larger of the two. The reported detection size, crew loadouts, spawn points, order of appearance, combat power, & sonar blob size all agree in showing the Escort as the larger. (We haven't looked at Mission types, a further clue.)

::: I think the most likely explanation is your earlier suggestion that all 3 "pictures" (map, intercept, UFOPaedia) were switched. Probably the last 2 are configured in the same place in the exe. As Zombie said, a miscommunication between different parts of the development team. Good investigative work! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:57, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

::::You two have convinced me that it is probably unintentional. I don't think it should be listed under bugs though, as it always happens and doesn't actually screw up the game or anything. It's a very odd state of affairs and one that should be listed on the pages for the ships though. I still think the Survey Ship and Escort pages should reflect what actually happens in-game, ie that we should have the bigger floor plans under Survey Ship and the smaller ones under Escort, along with listing the UFOpaedia pics as they're actually noted in-game. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 05:00, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

Magic9mushroom, your investigation has improved the understanding of this issue. It should definitely be flagged up on the wiki pages of both craft. And the other picture-swapping case, the supply ship, should also be flagged on the relevant wiki pages. I think both should be considered Bugs, as they are illogical / inconsistent and don't behave as a player would reasonably expect. It's not necessary that an issue is unpredictable, nor that it damage game play, to be called a bug. Most listed bugs are always repeatable, and quite a few arguably aid gameplay. So I think we should list these as bugs, add your additional findings, and update the craft wiki pages. I'm not sure if we should swap the pictures and descriptions on the wiki pages back to the unmodified state or not. I'm thinking it over. You're right that it's confusing to players who use the unmodified game. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:57, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

: I'll put my support for the motion that Wiki should present this information as per what players will find in an unmodified game. So if they see pictures of an apple in the Ufopaedia but find an Orange in the Battlescape instead, while the Ufopaedia Orange entry comes up with a Battlescape Apple, then let it be so, but also note that the objects have been unintentionally swapped either in one place or the other. There are plenty more inconsistencies in TFTD anyhow. -[[User:NKF|NKF]]

So then, if there are no further objections, I plan to do the following:

- Swap the listed UFOpaedia pics for the Escort and Survey Ship to match the ones found in the in-game UFOpaedia.

- Swap the listed floorplans to agree with what is actually found on the Battlescape

- Add a note to both articles that there's likely some sort of mixup.

Any objections? [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 19:47, 25 August 2009 (EDT)

:Generally agreed but you could consider putting both images on each page, listing the unmodified one first, and saying "it looks like THIS but should probably look like THIS". [[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:45, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

I'll link each page to the other of course, so that seems a bit redundant. It's been over a day by my count so I'll do the switch. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 07:54, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

...and done! [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 08:32, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

Talk:TRTBAG

2009-09-04T23:55:42Z

Mingos: /* Invalid aliens */

Talk:TRTBAG

2009-09-04T23:54:36Z

Mingos:

TRTBAG

2009-09-04T23:44:31Z

Mingos: /* Molecular Control Technology (optional) */

__NOTOC__
= The TFTD Research Tree Bug Avoidance Guide =
<div align = "right" style = "font-size:80%;">A needlessly wordy article by [[User:NKF|NKF]]</div>

__TOC__

 

==Foreword==

The designers of X-Com Terror From The Deep seem to have attempted to make the research process in TFTD much more complicated than its very straightforward predecessor's research tree. They have succeeded in doing this, but have also introduced many glaringly unacceptable errors in the process that can prevent you from completing the game.

Some players may have had the luck of not bumping into any of these errors by picking all the right research at the right time, or have a game that doesn't seem to have these problems. Unfortunately, as the research order in TFTD is non-linear, that is to say you can research anything you've got in any order you want, a lot of us are less fortunate. This guide should help to assist and point out some of the stickier bits.



Also note that ''this is not a reproduction of the research tree''.
There are many documents in a variety of formats describing the complete research tree on the Internet that you can peruse. This document is merely a supplement.

===Definitions===
The word 'prerequisite' is used quite frequently
throughout this document. As prerequisite is not
an everyday word, here is its definition.

:;Pre-Requisite: Pre- means 'before', Requisite means something that is required in order to achieve something. In Layman terms and in context with the game: to get this thingy, you need to research orhave these other thingies first.
 
=== Spoiler Warning ===
While this may spoil the game if you are new to
it, it is better to be informed than to make a
mistake that is irreversible. The game IS hard,
even for X-Com UFO veterans.

With the exception of MC technology, this
document discusses a branch of the research tree
that will take you from the very start of the
game all the way to the final chamber in T'Leth. (Well, not exactly, but it'll give you everything you need!)

== Glitches in the System ==

There are two major occasions where research can grind to a halt:

* An alien is required to further research AFTER certain projects are completed
* An object is needed in storage before research is completed

== Interrogations ==

A large portion of the research can be cut off by researching an alien in the incorrect sequence.

For example, in order to open a new research branch, you need to have researched project A and B and then interrogate alien C in order to get new technology D.
If you were to interrogate alien C before completing research on A and B, technology D will not appear for research once you've completed research on A and B.
In order to get D to appear, you must capture another alien and interrogate it again.

So, as a rule of thumb, if an alien is a prerequisite for any particular tech item,
it is highly recommended that you hold off the completion of the interrogation until
all the prerequisites have been researched.

== The Deep One Dilemma==

The primary research path at an abstract level looks roughly like so:
  
<center>
{| cellspacing="3"
| style="text-align: center; background: lavender; border: 1px gray solid; width: 80px;" | Armour
|| →
| style="text-align: center; background: lavender; border: 1px gray solid; width: 80px;" | Subs
|| →
| style="text-align: center; background: lavender; border: 1px gray solid; width: 80px;" | T'Leth
|}
</center>
 
The path for Armour looks roughly like:
  
<center>
{| cellspacing="3"
| style="text-align: center; background: lavender; border: 1px gray solid; width: 80px;" | Deep One Corpse
|| →
| style="text-align: center; background: lavender; border: 1px gray solid; width: 80px;" | Aqua Plastics
|| →
| style="text-align: center; background: lavender; border: 1px gray solid; width: 80px;" | Plastic Aqua Armour
|| →
| style="text-align: center; background: lavender; border: 1px gray solid; width: 80px;" | Ion Beam Accelerators
|| →
| style="text-align: center; background: lavender; border: 1px gray solid; width: 80px;" | Live Deep One Terrorist
|| →
| style="text-align: center; background: lavender; border: 1px gray solid; width: 80px;" | Ion Armour
|| →
| style="text-align: center; background: lavender; border: 1px gray solid; width: 80px;" | Magnetic Navigation
|| →
| style="text-align: center; background: lavender; border: 1px gray solid; width: 80px;" | Mag. Ion Armour
|}
</center>
 
Not all of the technologies need to be reseached in the exact order - with the exception of the live [[Deep One]], which should only be reseached after you have met the other prerequisites for Ion Armour.

Without Armours you won't get to research advanced subs; without advanced subs you can't reach T'leth and defeat the aliens once and for all.

You will need a living specimen and a
corpse. In older versions of the game, where you
need a lobsterman navigator to get magnetic
navigation, getting a live Deep One Terrorist is
not that important. However, in TFTD versions
with the v2 update, success hinges on getting a
living Deep One terrorist.

Deep One Terrorists can be found in most Gill-man
land missions. They do not appear underwater (1),
and are replaced with Xarquids if you shoot down
Gill-Men terror ships.

:(1) ''you may find some Deep One Terrorists in the second level of T'Leth; however, you may only get there after when you already have the tech they provide.''


Don't worry if you missed them, Gill-Man terror
sites do still appear when it's late in the game,
although they are abundant early in game.


Deep One Terrorists also appear in 'mixed' alien
crew land missions. A mixed crew is made up of a
variety of species, and in terror sites and base
attacks, will be supported by a variety of
land-based terror units, which includes the Deep
One Terrorist as well as the odd Xarquid (which
normally replaces the Deep One Terrorist for
underwater missions).


Just promote a terror site by leaving any ships
on terror missions alone, or encourage the
Gill-Men or 'mixed' crews to attack your base by
shooting some of their USOs down near your base.
You might also want to dismantle your M.C
generator to improve the likelihood of an attack.


Before starting research on the Deep One
Terrorist, refer to the Ion Armour section.


Finally, researching an alien medic and getting
information on the Deep One Terrorist or its
corpse is not the same as researching the real
thing. You will not get any research benefits
from the alien medic's report. Keep this in mind.


== The Tasoth Commander Trap==

Note that it is unfortunately difficult to double check the validity of this bug at the present time, so this section has been intentionally left vague for now, but is left for the benefit of the that may experience it.

Most copies of the game do not recognise the Tasoth Commander as a legal alien (Although the alien/rank combination can still exist) and cannot be researched. If for whatever reason one does somehow appear on your research list, do not complete the research on it until after obtaining a Leviathan and the final mission launch button. Researching it will prevent these topics from being researched through normal means.

If you're unsure whether you'll face this bug or otherwise, update your game with the v2 patch if you are using the Dos version. The Collectors edition of TFTD is already updated to v2.

==Required Objects ==
=== The MC Reader and Sub Construction samples===

These two items, the MC Reader and the Sub
Construction store item, are special in that they
will only become available for research if and
only if a sample is available in your general
stores before completing research for their
prerequisite technologies.


If you do not have any when completing research
on the last of their required technologies, they
will NOT appear later even after acquiring a few
samples.


For example: If you've done Zrbite and are about
to finish research on the Transmission Resolver,
make sure that you have the 'sub construction'
item in stores before the research on the
Transmission Resolver hits 100%, or vice-versa.


Between the MC Reader and the Sub Construction
store item, the 'sub construction' store item is
required to win the game. The MC Reader is
optional.


Note: This does not apply to Aqua Plastics. You
can research it even without any samples.


Note: If this happens to you and you don't have a suitable save game to revert, you can still rescue your game using a hex editor. Open the file RESEARCH.DAT that resides in the appropriate save game folder and set the byte at the hexadecimal offset 0x1B4 to 1. This will allow you to research Alien Sub Construction. (It will allow you to research it even if you don't have the prerequisite technologies, in fact, but you wouldn't cheat that way, would you?) 
Modify save games at your own risk. You should always create a backup first.


 

== Version differences==

There are two versions of TFTD. The original
unpatched version of TFTD and the one with the v2
update.


Players with the Collectors Edition of TFTD have
the version with the v2 patch.


The known changes in the research tree are as
follows:


====Unpatched====


A Lobsterman Navigator is needed to research
Magnetic Navigation


Ion Armour is not required for Magnetic Ion
Armour. All the technologies you need for
Magnetic Ion Armour are Plastic Aqua Armour, Ion
Beam Accelerators and Magnetic Navigation.


====v2====


Magnetic Navigation can be researched as soon as
one is in storage. The lobsterman navigator is
NOT required.


Ion Armour is required for Magnetic Ion Armour.
Magnetic Ion Armour now just requires Magnetic
Navigation and Ion Armour.


Yes, in other words, the v2 patch makes it easier
to get Mag. Ion Armour. However, it also means
that winning the game hinges on your ability to
obtain a live Deep One terrorist AND researching
it in the right order.


If you patch your game and reload a campaign
created before the patch, you might face a few
research problems. It's not that common, but you
might find that you'll have some trouble with
researching the more advanced armour via the V2
method. There should be no problems if you
haven't even started on the Ion Armour or Mag Ion
Armour yet. It's mostly for campaigns where
you're already half-way through researching the
armour.


= The Good Bit=
The all important good bit gets down to the brass tacks. It's probably why you're here, so dig in!
 

=== Alien Sub Components ===

{| cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" rules="all" style="border: 1px solid gray; text-align: center; background: #F9F9F9"
|- style="background: lavender; border: 1px gray solid"
! width="15%" | Technology !! width="20%" | Prerequisities !! Notes
|-
| Zrbite || None || style="text-align: left" | A clump of Zrbite can be found underneath an Ion Beam Accelerator unit. If any explosive detonations occur near the IBA unit, it will be destroyed as it is very brittle (or rather, the IBA will blow up).

You can pick up these clumps, but finding a clump only occurs in unusual circumstances. For example, throwing an unconscious soldier into an IBA and waiting for him or her to wake up. Falling down onto one or walking into one with the walk-through-walls bug.

Xcomutil users will often find Zrbite clumps lying about when selecting a USO floor map that is not the same as the type of USO you're actually attacking.
|-
| Aqua Plastics || Deep One corpse || style="text-align: left" | You don't need any aqua plastics to research it. You just need the Deep One corpse.
|-
| Ion Beam Accelerators || None || style="text-align: left" | Ion Beam Accelerator units are found in intact alien USOs. Most smaller enemy subs will lose their IBA units if shot down, although some of the IBA units may survive if they're in larger ships.
|-
| Magnetic Navigation || None (TFTD v2) or Lobsterman Navigator (TFTD pre-v2) || style="text-align: left" | In older versions of the game, a Lobsterman Navigator is required to get Magnetic Navigation. Otherwise, it should appear immediately on the research list once one is in storage.
|-
| Transmission Resolver || Magnetic Navigation || style="text-align: left" |  
|-
| Sub Construction || Sub Construction (item), Zrbite, Transmission Resolver || style="text-align: left" | Keep at least one 'sub construction' component in storage before completing either of the two prerequisites. If you don't have one when both the prerequisites have been met, you will not get the 'sub construction' tech item, which is required for the advanced submarines
|}
 

=== Armour ===
{| cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" rules="all" style="border: 1px solid gray; text-align: center; background: #F9F9F9"
|- style="background: lavender; border: 1px gray solid"
! width="15%" | Technology !! width="20%" | Prerequisities !! Notes
|-
| Plastic Aqua Armor || Aqua Plastics || style="text-align: left" | Aqua Plastics are obtained from a Deep One corpse. You need not have any actual aqua-plastics in storage to get the Aqua Plastics research item.
|-
| Ion Armour || Ion Beam Accelerators, Plastic Aqua Armour and a Deep One Terrorist || style="text-align: left" | Research the first two prerequisites in any order you wish. However, you MUST research the live Deep One Terrorist LAST. If you researched this alien earlier, you won't get Ion Armour. Capturing another Deep One Terrorist is possible, but there is a small chance that you will not be able to research any more of them.

This is especially important in versions of TFTD patched with the v2 update, as without Ion Armour, you cannot get Magnetic Ion Armour, which in turn is needed to get the advanced submarines.
|-
| Magnetic Ion Armour (TFTD v2) || Ion Armour, Magnetic Navigation || style="text-align: left" | If you don't know what version of the game you have, the method in which you obtain Mag. Ion Armour will tell you which one it is.

For versions v2 and up, Magnetic Navigation becomes available the moment you have a sample in storage. Also keep in mind that Ion Armour is compulsory.
|-
| Magnetic Ion Armour (TFTD pre-v2) || Magnetic Navigation, Ion Beam Accelerators || style="text-align: left" | In older versions of TFTD, to get Magnetic Navigation, you need a Lobsterman Navigator. Keep in mind, Ion Armour is not compulsory.
|}
 

=== Submarines ===
{| cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" rules="all" style="border: 1px solid gray; text-align: center; background: #F9F9F9"
|- style="background: lavender; border: 1px gray solid"
! width="15%" | Technology !! width="20%" | Prerequisities !! Notes
|-
| Manta || Magnetic Ion Armour, Sub Construction || style="text-align: left" | Refer to the sub component section for notes on Sub Construction. This submarine allows construction of the more advanced SWS.
|-
| Hammerhead || Manta ||  
|-
| Leviathan || Hammerhead, Lobsterman Commander || style="text-align: left" | The Lobsterman Commander should be researched after the Hammerhead. Also, for your convenience, don't forget to research 'alien origins' first so that you don't have to capture a third lobsterman commander to win the game.

If you did not research the commander and the hammerhead in the right order, don't worry, just research another Lobsterman Commander.
|}
 

=== Techs to Win the Game ===
{| cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" rules="all" style="border: 1px solid gray; text-align: center; background: #F9F9F9"
|- style="background: lavender; border: 1px gray solid"
! width="15%" | Technology !! width="20%" | Prerequisities !! Notes
|-
| Alien Origins || Any live alien ||
|-
| The Ultimate Threat || Alien Origins and a Lobsterman Commander || style="text-align: left" | Research the commander last. If you researched the commander before alien origins, don't worry. Just research another commander.
'''* A lobsterman Navigator can also substitute for the commander'''
|-
| T'Leth, the Alien's City || The Ultimate Threat and a Lobsterman Commander (another one) || style="text-align: left" | You need to research another lobsterman commander.

If you researched the Tasoth commander any time in the past, then there's a possibility that this very
important tech item will not appear, which means your current campaign has been scuttled and has already sunk all the way to the bottom of the ocean floor. Period.

If you don't have any saves made before completing research on the Tasoth commander, then your only recourse is to start a new game.
|}
 

=== Disrupter Pulse Launcher (optional) ===

Optional as you do not need the DPL torpedoes to win the game. It's not a serious problem, but is mentioned anyway to ally any concerns about the launchers not appearing for research.

{| cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" rules="all" style="border: 1px solid gray; text-align: center; background: #F9F9F9"
|- style="background: lavender; border: 1px gray solid"
! width="15%" | Technology !! width="20%" | Prerequisities !! Notes
|-
| Disrupter Pulse Launcher || Zrbite || style="text-align: left" | As soon as you've researched Zrbite, you can start research on the DPL launcher and its ammo - assuming you had a sample in storage upon completion of the project.

However, unlike Sub Construction and the Mind Probe, the DPL Launcher has a failsafe. If you did not have any samples upon completion of Zrbite, you will be able to make them appear for research the moment the '''next''' research project is completed.
|}
 

=== Molecular Control Technology (optional) ===

Optional because you don't need MC tech to win the game. But as its research branch has a notable bug, is included as well.

{| cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" rules="all" style="border: 1px solid gray; text-align: center; background: #F9F9F9"
|- style="background: lavender; border: 1px gray solid"
! width="15%" | Technology !! width="20%" | Prerequisities !! Notes
|-
| M.C.-LAB || Deep One Terrorist or Calcinite Terrorist || style="text-align: left" | Either of the two terrorist units will give you the M.C.-Lab.

Deep One Terrorists generally follow Gill-men and Calcinites associate themselves with Aquatoids. Both aliens can be found in 'mixed' crew land missions.
|-
| MC Reader || MC Reader, M.C.-Lab || style="text-align: left" | The MC Reader research item will only become available if research on the M.C.-Lab is completed while an MC Reader is in storage.

If you miss out on this, you will NOT get the MC Disrupter or the MC Generator for the rest of the campaign.
|-
| MC Disruptor || MC Reader and any live Tasoth || style="text-align: left" | Excluding the Tasoth Commander, of course.

While the Ufopaedia says it only works underwater, this item will work on land. I believe the text was meant to say that only aquanauts with 'MC implants' can use it, the word 'underwater' seems like a typo that was never removed.

Again, if you research the live Tasoth before completing the research on M.C. Reader, you will be forced to capture and interrogate another live Tasoth in order to get the M.C. Disruptor technology.
|-
| MC Generator || MC Disruptor || style="text-align: left" | This item will protect your base from being found, but it does not work 100% of the time. Aliens can still attack shielded bases if their scouts are lucky. The magnitude of USOs successfully spotting your base is reduced.
|}
 

=== Melee Weapons (optional, but handy) ===

Vibro Blade research comes from the Calcinite corpse. Once that research is done, if you've autopsied a Gillman corpse by that point (more than likely) you also get to research Thermic Lance. Once Thermic Lance is researched, Heavy Thermic Lance, last in this line, can be researched

=== Obligatory Disclaimer Claptrap ===

This document will not always be 100% accurate, as the game tends to behave differently for
different players with different computer systems and game editions.


These notes are derived through many controlled tests and observations with the MS-DOS
edition of Terror From The Deep with the TFTDv2 patch. Any noticeable difference between the
patched game and the older versions are noted. Otherwise, these notes are valid for practically
any version of TFTD available on the PC, with the possible exception of TFTD for the Sony Playstation.


TFTD, Terror From The Deep, X-Com, XCOM, et. al.
originally developed by some very fine people. Originally distributed by Microprose. Now? Who knows.


As the purpose of this document is to inform, feel free to distribute any information in this
document as you see fit.


Many thanks for the input and feedback from the
regular posters on the Xcommand and X-Com
Tactical Command forums for assisting in the
preparation of this document. Some indirect
thanks to the fine folks on the alt.games.x-com
Usenet newsgroup as well. Extra bits and pieces here and there picked up from the xcomufo.com forums as well.