UFOpaedia - User contributions [en]

Wish List (EU)

2010-08-18T23:18:00Z

N: /* Crushed Buildings */

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]]

=== 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]]

===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)

:::: Ummm, it seems the best solution (I, for one, can't think of any better), but wouldn't it assume that only the BattleShip really locates the player's base? All those scouts for nothing? [Still the best solution, though] [[User:N|n]] 15:01, 16 August 2010 (GMT+1)

=== All Aircraft Weapons Useful ===

In a balanced game, all weapons should have their uses, or at least a niche, but sadly this is not so:

The Cannon is only useful for shooting down Small Scouts, and even that is practically impossible, due to the difficulty in closing to 10km range with any UFO, particularly the fast-accelerating Small Scout.

The Stingray is not even useful for shooting down Small Scouts (destroys them 57% of the time) and the Avalanche is better in every meaningful way. It also takes twice as long to rearm, making it operationally much worse than the Avalanche.

The Laser Cannon is inferior to the Avalanche for everything. It does have a higher payload but this is hardly relevant. If attacking a UFO that you would struggle to kill with Avalanches, you are unlikely to own an aircraft that will survive long enough to inflict more damage than an Avalanche if it mounted Laser Cannon.

The Fusion Ball Launcher has a [[Talk:Craft_Armaments#Fusion_Balls_better_than_Plasma_Beams.3F¦possible niche]] in fighting Battleships when mounted on Interceptors. Even then, it is difficult and expensive to have aircraft configured to fight only one enemy.

Unfortunately, the optimum path for craft weapon development is all-Avalanche followed by all-Plasma Beam. This is a shame.

Suggestions to 'tune up' the other weapons:

*Cannon - Increase the damage to 20 or 25. So at least there is a pay-off if you manage to get in close.
*Stingray - Double the rearm rate so it can be reloaded as fast as an Avalanche launcher. Increase the ammo capacity to 9 or 12. Then up the rearm rate again (triple or quadruple) so it can still be reloaded as fast as Avalanche. Even then, it's probably not better than the Avalanche, so maybe it make it ''more'' accurate than the Avalanche instead of less. Raise Stingray to 90%, or to 80% but drop Avalanche to 65%.
*Laser Cannon - increase accuracy to 50% and damage to 100. Give it infinite ammunition.
*FBL - increase the ammo from 2 to 3. Increase damage to 250 or even 255. It's far and away the most expensive weapon to operate so it might as well pack the biggest punch.

It might be worth considering 'tune down' the Plasma Beam as well, particularly its stand-off range.
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:59, 14 February 2010 (EST)

=== Tougher UFOs ===

==== The Problem ====

So let me get this straight. The first hybrid airborne weapon that humans ever build, and it immediately outclasses every weapon the aliens ever built, including their Battleship weapon? After all the Aliens have only been building plasma weapons for a few million years, us humans have been doing it for ''months''!

More to the point, once you get Plasma Beams, downing UFOs is like shooting fish in a barrel. Even Battleships aren't that exciting if you show up with enough ships.

What is needed is to push up the range, damage, and rate of fire of all the UFO weapons, particularly the UFOs you will be fighting by the time you have plasma beams. At a minimum, the weapon on a Battleship should be at least as powerful as, say, 2 Plasma Beams (as found on the XCom craft it is fighting)? Instead of slightly less than half as powerful? Compared to a single Plasma Beam, only the Battleship weapon has better range. It has double the accuracy, slightly higher damage, but half the fire rate. Net 5.7% more firepower than one Plasma Beam, but no match for 2. And the Battleship weapon of course is the most powerful in the alien arsenal.

Possible tune ups for UFOs:

*Battleship - increase to 255 weapon power, improve reload rate to 12 (from 24). Now roughly equivalent to 4 Plasma Beams in total firepower (on Beginner difficulty). Increase range to 69km, so that the Battleship commences fire as soon as an XCom craft begins its attack run. Or better, increase range to 70+km, the limit of the interception window, so that the Battleship starts firing immediately the XCom craft enters air combat range. This would disrupt XCom aircrafts' ability to form up into a flight of 4, prior to commencing their attack. Overall, this would make it much harder to down Battleships. Increasing weapon range to 70+km would also make it much harder to tail a Battleship - manual control in the Geoscape would be needed to hold off outside of combat range. Really, the Battleship should not sit there like a sitting duck. Does it think XCom are friendly?
*Terror Ship - increase range to 52 (or decrease Plasma Beam range to 42), so stand-off kills are not possible with Plasma Beams?
*Actually maybe all the larger UFOs should have weapon range 69-70+km, so they behave very aggressively toward XCom craft.

NB: Strange effects occur if weapon range goes over 70km so it's probably best to leave it at 70km rather than 75km.

NB: Also, changes to rate of fire need to be looked at carefully though because Difficulty Level also reduces reload rate for UFOs. Between Beginner (Difficulty 0) and Superhuman (Difficulty 4), rate of fire (and thus firepower) for Battleships, Terror Ships and Supply Ships increases by 24/(24-4x2=16) or 50%. But if the base reload rate for these weapons was reduced to 12, the transition from Beginner to Advanced would increase firepower '''three''' times for these 3 UFOs (less so for the smaller UFOs). It is less risky to increase the weapon power. Unfortunately there are only 2 firepower variables to play with - damage and reload rate - so there are not a lot of options, especially for the Battleship which already has weapon strength 148 out of a probable maximum of 255.

:More detail on this. For Medium Scout, Large Scout and Abductor, with nominal reload rate 48gs, the rate of fire improves +20% between Beginner and Superhuman. For Harvester (32gs) it improves one third. For Large UFOs (Terror Ship, Supply Ship, Battleship - 24gs) the improvement is +50%. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:28, 14 February 2010 (EST)

I think we should assume that the Battleship, which is bigger than the entire XCom base, is engaging XCom craft with its secondary weapons rather than its main armament, which could probably destroy Manhattan with a glancing hit.

I would really like to see the hypothetical Mega-Battleship go up against XCom's finest - a flight of 4 Avengers armed with dual Plasma Cannon or dual Fusion Ball Launchers. With the Battleship having 70+km range, 255 weapon power, and an effective fire rate on Superhuman triple that of the PB, it would have the firepower of 11 Plasma Beams - 36% more firepower than the whole attacking XCom force combined. To be honest I think that would be carnage, not sure XCom could win. So that would be tuning the Battleship up too much. The 3-fold increase in rate of fire when on Superhuman is just too much. Maybe just max out the damage to 255 and range to 75. This gives a 72% increase in firepower, and a challenging tactical problem for XCom (forming up and approaching under fire).

The smaller UFOs can probably stay as they are. It is not until later in the game that XCom advances so that even large UFOs are easy pickings. What is the crossover point? Maybe the medium UFOs. So it might be good to reduce the reload times of the medium UFOs from 48 / 32 to 24, a good increase in firepower.

In general I think all UFOs energy weapons should have at least as good range as the XCom energy weapons, even the Medium Scout. Again, they have been using these weapons for millions of years and we only just figured out how to copy them from the aliens, how could our weapons be better than the aliens? How did our first plasma weapon out-range and out-perform all but the hugest UFO plasma beam? And on an airframe the size of a Small Scout we mount ''two'' such weapons? On the battlefield we only are able to replicate alien weapons; how is it that in the air we are able to improve on them ''masssively''?

Perhaps there should never be a stand-off advantage, except possibly with missiles -which should be less accurate with longer range. The XCom stand off advantage is really unfair because as far as I have seen the UFOs never attempt to close to effective range, even when they are getting killed. They don't break off much, either, though I think I have seen that happen on occasion.

==== Specific Proposals ====

===== No Standoff Beam Attacks =====

Increase ''all'' UFO plasma weapon ranges to at least 55km (compared to 52km for the XCom plasma weapon). Now only launched XCom weapons (Avalanche and Fusion Ball) have standoff advantage. Probably also reduce the accuracy of the Avalanche to 60% and buff Stingray accuracy to 80%, providing both weapons with a useful niche role.

===== No Standoff Attacks =====

Increase ''all'' UFO plasma weapon ranges to 66km (compared to 52km for the XCom plasma weapon). Now ''no'' XCom weapon has standoff advantage. (The benefit of a longer range weapon is simply spending less time being fired on by the UFO.)

===== Twitchy Aliens =====

Increase all UFO ranges to 69km. They will attack as soon as XCom aircraft commence any attack run.

===== Hostile Aliens =====

Increase all UFO ranges to 70km. They will attack as soon as XCom aircraft enter intercept range. UFOs now fire first, and tailing them unchallenged is impossible.

===== Improved Medium UFOs =====

Reduce (improve) the nominal reload time of Medium UFOs, Abductors and Harvesters, from 48gs and 32gs to 24gs. This increases the challenge in the early-mid game, when XCom might first be deploying advanced weapons.

===== Improved Battleships =====

Increase damage to 255. They're firing (bigger) Fusion Balls! A Battleship now has the same firepower as one XCom Craft with dual Plasma Beams (gosh wow!). It's a start, but what if we...

===== Super Battleships =====

... also reduce nominal reload time to 18gs. Giving a further one-third extra firepower on Beginner, 60% more on Superhuman.

===== Mega Battleships =====

... or for a real challenge, reduce reload time to 12gs. A further doubling of the firepower on Beginner - a further ''four'' times increase on Superhuman. Now Superhuman Battleships out-gun the biggest fleet XCom can throw at them!

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 00:25, 19 February 2010 (EST)

: the flip side of this is weakening Xcom craft - apart from firepower issues there is also the issue of range: the ranges of the transport craft are such that really no more than 1 manned base is necessary to cover the globe for terror site defense. Setting e.g. the fuel capacity of the Skyranger to 500 results in roughly 1 base per continent required. This has interesting strategic consequences: need for more bases makes the ecomics more challenging (and thus slows down research). [[User:Emphyrio|Emphyrio]] 08:43, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

===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]]

=== 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)

=== Keyboard shortcuts at bases ===

I wish we had (customised, maybe?) keyboard shortcuts at the base screen. Numbers (at the "base information" screen as well) would switch bases, R for research, E for equip craft, T for transfer, M for manufacture, S for soldiers, B for build new base, P for purchase+recruit (or "B" for "buy" - let people double-bind if they need it), I for base information. The doubles (soldiers/sell+sack) could be solved by using the key under the primary one (x for sell+sack). - n (16:26, 16 Aug 2010 (GMT+1))

== 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)

====Crushed Buildings====

Why don't we see any crushed or destroyed buildings? Does a UFO always fall like a rock, perpendicular to the ground? No marks on the ground? Such impact would do massive damage to the land (a small meteor can do much if it has a high speed...). (Also, at the [debatedly] "real" UFO crash zones UFO parts were scattered over miles)

I'd like to see chopped buildings, entering UFO's through a barns; entering an abductor from a immediate house's roof if I have plasma and no flying suits yet. - [[User:N|n]] 15:01, 16 August 2010 (GMT+1)

: The Pocket PC remake of the game did this, though it seems the site it concern has vanished off the face of the net. Could probably find a copy if you're interested.

: By the way, you can generate a time/date stamped signature by typing four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 23:04, 16 August 2010 (EDT)

:: Amazingly enough (is it Truman Show of me or just a coincidence :)?), my GF found a low-tech palmtop (with/in a case)... on the pavement. With no personal data and means to find the owner; when I laid my hands on it, I actually found and installed Ufo:EU there, but it wouldn't run :(. [And thanks! again for the 4 tildes name/timestamp trick] - [[User:N|n]] 19:18, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

===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)]]

Taking off with troops onboard would be perfectly safe (for the aliens) and justifiable if one assumes that alien ships in flight are inherently inhospitable for humans. This is easily done by saying that they undergo accelerations that humans can't withstand (splat), can't withstand for any length of time (pass out), or that they intentionally make rapid accelerations in different directions, either normally or just if they're trying to bash some intruders around. Naturally, the aliens themselves would either be immune to these (tough physique / their built-in antigrav devices?), or be in acceleration chairs, safe from all this.

Alternatively, when you get the warning that the UFO is going to take off, you've got a certain amount of time to either get everyone '''off''' the UFO, or to get everyone '''on''' it (or as many as you can). There could be a follow-up mission that takes place in "sky" terrain, where the outdoors is either impassable (the easy way) or else instantly withdraws units from combat (flying suits / parachutes). The soldiers' goals would be to either take out the aliens and presumably safely land and salvage the UFO, or take out the UFO's means of flying (power cores / navigator?). In the latter case, they might have a certain number of turns to withdraw or be caught in the crash, with possible casualties just like the aliens, mitigated to some degree by their armour and maybe where inside the UFO they are.

In the case of a crash, there could be a final mission to finish off the surviving aliens, using the X-COM soldiers that survive the crash, and no landing craft (it's still back at the old landing site). Alternatively, you could say that there '''is''' an X-COM landing craft parked outside (with all remaining members of the original landing party), since the in-flight time / distance was presumably low and the original X-COM craft quickly packed up and flew to the new landing site. — [[User:Wisq|Wisq]] 17:11, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

===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)

Fixing the AI for this could be really hard. Apart from all the possible exploits by XCom, the AI is probably a really hard part of the game to reverse engineer. You could say that an unarmed alien is no threat anyway (we are only concerned about aliens without psi or built in weapons). So nothing is lost even with an exploitable method of re-arming. By exploitable I mean the XCom player can manipulate re-arming, e.g. by leaving weapons out in the open as bait for traps.

Maybe the simplest modification would be to ''not'' drop weapons when the alien panics? This does not require delving in to the AI, just intercepting the panic effects. Dont make aliens drop any weapons when they panic. It would be reasonable to return the weapon in hand to inventory, so there is a TU cost for the alien to bring the weapon back into play again.

This would not work for aliens who were stunned and wake up, or who were mind controlled by XCom and made to drop their weapons. But it would probably catch 80% of cases.

Another cheat, short of fixing the AI, is just to pick up weapons that the alien walks over. It could also pick up "spare" weapons from adjacent aliens (cheating on TUs - basically just teleporting the items to the unarmed alien). Spare alien weapons are almost invariably grenades. I have not had a lot of success in getting unarmed aliens to use grenades, so more research is needed here. Maybe only certain types of aliens use grenades, or only in certain circumstances?

Really, really cheating would be to teleport any weapon laying around the battlefield into the alien's inventory. But I think it is more fair just to say panicked aliens dont drop their equipment. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:13, 13 February 2010 (EST)

==== 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)

=== 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.

----

There was a utility to do this from Devisraad. it has long since been removed from his site, but someone may still have it. The basics was you renamed unit and it automatically replaced graphics flag to swap out the units. Didn't work on the Large Aliens but still was a fun mod --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:20, 6 January 2010 (EST)

=== 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)

----
You may be able to get 3 levels in an X-Com Base but not 4. EU has a smaller amount of memory alocated. I dont know the limit but 60x60x4 will crash EU. TFTD has no problem --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:25, 6 January 2010 (EST)

----

I got partway through this and then decided to change my methods entirely and start from scratch. So I thought I might as well post my progress anyways, as it's already about on par with the crude TFTD implementation: You always have the same craft appear in your hanger regardless of what is (or isn't!) there.

[[Image:Skyranger In Hanger.rar]]

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 05:40, 17 December 2009 (EST)

----

Hey BB, a while ago I have modded the plane terrain files so that the Skyranger appears facing east instead of south. If you want to use that one (to make it a little different) let me know. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 08:23, 17 December 2009 (EST)

----

Thanks, but don't worry about it for now: it'll make the MCD arrays larger still, so I'll consider it when I get all the other stuff done.

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 17:01, 19 December 2009 (EST)

----

The completed mod is now included in my toolpack. As usual, I've only done cursory testing on it, but I'm pretty sure it's stable enough.

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 06:40, 20 January 2010 (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]]

=== Impose cost to using Psionic attacks===

I think everyone agrees Psi attacks are too powerful. I would propose to impose a cost to using Psionic attacks. This could take the form of decreasing the physical stats after using a PSi attack (after all all: the psionic races are physically weak). This could for example lead to a soldier becoming a weakling or even fainting or dying from using psi-attack. Another possibility is to decrease mental stats (in this case the ratio would be that humans are not really being adapted to psi: you could be expected to go crazy playing mind games) leading to a decrease in psionic powers or maybe panicking or beserking the soldier using psi. Together with limiting psi attacks of MCed units proposed elsewhere this would rebalance the later game somewhat... [[User:Emphyrio|Emphyrio]] 07:22, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

== 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)

=== 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.
: Now fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

=== 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)
:: XcomUtil 9.6 also restores all DOA if you win to. Not what was intended. This feature has been removed as of 9.7 until I can fix it. --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)
: Now also fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

=== 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).
: Now fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

= 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]]

User:Bomb Bloke

2010-08-18T23:12:46Z

Some time after first playing UFO I started hunting around the web for relevant material, and came across [[X-Com Tactical Command]] (now [http://www.strategycore.co.uk StrategyCore]). I can usually be found in the forum there, though I do frequent a handful of other places as well.

These days most of my X-Com related time is spent decoding the [[Saved Game Files|UFO save files]], though I do write the occasional mod/editor/logger.

{| {{StdDescTable}} style="width:100%"
|- {{StdDescTable_Heading}}
! [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/index.php?dlid=686 BB's Toolpack]
|-
| Contains various editors. With the exception of the "BB-mod" pack (UFO only), they all work with both UFO and TFTD. The [http://www.java.com/en/download/manual.jsp Sun Java VM] is required, though the effects of all tools can be seen under DosBox.

Last updated: 02/03/2010

<center>BattleScape Editor</center>

Allows you to edit saved battlescape maps, including positions of units, item properties and terrain. Check [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=5342 this thread] for details and instructions.

<center>UFO/TFTD CE EXE Splitter / Merger</center>

Splits the CE executable. If any of my tools state that they require [[XcomUtil]], this can instead be used as an alternative.

It's also able to "recombine" the new files, which is handy if you're edited them further and want them to act as one again.

<center>BB-Mod Pack</center>

Manages and implements custom uniform sets into ''UFO: Enemy Unknown'' and ''Terror from the Deep''. Additionally for ''UFO'', adds inventory screens for non-Xcom units, unique inventory screens for power/flying armour equipped troopers, re-introduces male civilians to terror missions, and causes X-COM craft to appear during base defense missions. Contains "addon" data for integration into [[XcomUtil]].

<center>LOF Terrain</center>

Converts your terrain PCK images to represent the actual 3D models they correspond to (colour coded according to their type).

<center>Map/Unit Image Converter</center>

Takes the graphics for either UFO or TFTD and converts them for use with the other game. The resulting maps are best used with [[XcomUtil]]'s "hybrid" feature, though at the moment units need to be manually implemented after conversion (see the manual).

<center>Image Converters</center>

Command line tools to convert UFO/TFTD image files to GIF format, and back again. Programs to deal with every known game image format. If you need a program to deal with GIF files, try [http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Graphic/Graphic-Editors/Paint-NET.shtml Paint.NET].
|}

{| {{StdDescTable}} style="width:100%"
|- {{StdDescTable_Heading}}
! [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/index.php?dlid=264 UFO Damage Testing Tileset]
|-
| Replaces your desert terrain with one which displays damage dealt to tiles. More of a tool then a mod.
|}

{| {{StdDescTable}} style="width:100%"
|- {{StdDescTable_Heading}}
! [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/index.php?dlid=246 BB Log]
|-
| Logs stuff that occurs in UFO's tactical missions. The original in a growing set of loggers that I've started to lose track of.
|}

{| {{StdDescTable}} style="width:100%"
|- {{StdDescTable_Heading}}
! [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/index.php?dlid=576 Combat Civilians]
|-
| Gives civilians pistols in a given terrorist mission. Not really a proper mod (as you have to run it manually for each map), but I don't intend to update it... So here it is.
|}

{| {{StdDescTable}} style="width:100%"
|- {{StdDescTable_Heading}}
! [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/index.php?dlid=575 Apoc Flop]
|-
| The only tool I've written for Apocalypse to date, though probably one of the oldest X-Com projects I've got on file. Switches control of units in a given battle so you can play as the aliens. Unpolished.
|}

{| {{StdDescTable}} style="width:100%"
|- {{StdDescTable_Heading}}
! [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/index.php?dlid=666 Seb76 Patcher]
|-
| ('''Note:''' This tool has been made redundant, as Seb has made his own, far superior version: the UFO Extender. Check out his [[User:Seb76|user page]] for more info).

Applies some of the various tweaks [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] has being posting around the wiki ('cause I'm starting to lose track of them all). 
[[Talk:Grenade#Timers|Primed grenades detonate even when held]] 
[[Talk:Base_Defense#Psi_and_visual_contact|Aliens cannot use PSI attacks]] 
[[Talk:UNITREF.DAT#Offset_0x71|Can access mind controlled inventories]] 
[[Talk:Exercising_The_AI|Tactical debug mode]]
|}

*To be deleted after reading by Bomb_Bloke:

**Thanks for the help; I know the wiki system in general, but I never really used such a small wiki to use my signature (normally I only fix misspellings and other low-profile mistakes :)) [[User:N|n]] 19:12, 18 August 2010 (EDT)

Medi-Kit (EU)

2010-08-17T19:26:07Z

N: Bug added

[[Image:Medi-Kit.gif|right]]The Medi-Kit is highly advanced healing facility with pain killers and stimulants that can be administered to injured units almost instantly under any field condition. Any unit (except large units, because you can't really access their inventories) can pick up and use a Medi-Kit. In order to use the Medi-Kit on a conscious unit the medic must be facing the unit requiring treatment, and on an adjacent tile. The medic cannot use the kit on him or herself. If the patient is unconscious, the medic must stand over the body, on the same tile, and must not be directly facing another treatable unit.

== Stats ==
<table><tr><td>[[Image:BIGOBS24.GIF|left|64 px]]</td><td>
* Ammo: 10 charges each of healing, stimulants, and pain killers.
* Size: 2 high x 1 wide
* Weight: 5
* TUs:
** 10 per use of a charge.
** 0 for diagnostic check only.
* [[Buying/Selling/Transferring#Manufacturable_Prices|Manufacturing]]: $28,000 for parts, 420 Engineer Hours
* Sell Price: $45,600</td></tr></table>

== Uses ==
The Medi-Kit has four functions:
* Diagnosis: Red body parts show [[Fatal Wounds|fatal wounds]]. Click on a wounded body part to display the number of wounds. If there is no living creature under the medic, or in the adjacent square in the direction the medic is facing, the diagnostic display does not activate.
* Healing: Click on a body part that is wounded and then click on the 'Heal' button. One fatal wound will be cured and three health points restored. It has no effect when used on uninjured body parts.
* Stimulant: This will restore [[energy]] (10 points) and reduce [[stun]] (4 points stun/use), thus it can be used to revive [[unconscious]] units. In order to revive an unconscious unit, you must stand directly over the body.
* Pain killer: This will restore the [[morale]] of damaged units up to an amount equivalent to the soldier's lost health. There is no effect on uninjured units. The morale benefit for each unit of lost health can only be had once. (Further health loss will allow further morale benefit from pain killers).

Each dose from the Medi-Kit uses a fixed cost of 10 TUs. Bringing up the diagnostic panel costs 0 TUs.

== Tips and tricks ==
* Works on aliens too. This will perhaps consist mainly of reviving stunned aliens. Aliens as a general rule do not suffer fatal wounds unless they have been injured while under X-COM mind control, and then released. Large aliens can only be treated when unconscious, by standing over them (in any square). Also the only way to check, after the fact, if a fallen large alien is dead, or merely stunned (if you didn't listen for the death cry). Stunned large aliens cannot be revived.
* Can operate through walls, thus usable as a free 1-square alien detector. The most practical use would be to check behind doors to see if there is an enemy standing immediately behind it. Note that this will '''not''' detect large aliens!
* To tell if a fallen soldier has regained consciousness after a stim shot, you have to exit the medi-kit interface and try entering it again, or check inventory to see whether your medic is still standing over a body. If it can't find a target then the soldier has stood up. The soldier will normally wake up directly to the north of your medic (if the square is free), but due to a graphical glitch, will not appear unless you select a different unit first.
* For troop transport supplies: Three to five kits for every 10 soldiers is enough, as the medics can throw or pass kits around the battlefield. Too many kits will cut heavily into your alloted carrying capacity of 80 items.
* Medi-kits are fully recharged after the end of each mission. They can not be recharged during a mission, so be sure to carry enough for any eventuality.
* Every successful hit from an alien has a chance of causing from 1 to 3 fatal wounds. The chance of getting fatal wounds is about 9% per point of damage dealt, and is evenly split between the three options. Therefore, any unit taking 11 or more points of damage from one attack is guaranteed to get fatal wounds.
* It is possible for the number of fatal wounds dealt from low-damage attacks to be high enough to allow full healing. In CE, you cannot exceed maximum health. In early DOS versions, it was sometimes possible to overflow the health stat so the soldier would be healthier after healing than he started before he was shot. This would in turn grant a bonus to firing accuracy.
* Watch out when you're using medkit at the border of the map - it will pop up and you will be able to administer (and therefore lose) it's functions to the border.
* [[Field Manual: Medi-Kit]]

==See also==
{{Equipment (UFO Defense) Navbar}}
[[Category:Equipment (EU)]]
[[Category:Research (EU)]]

Talk:Celatid

2010-08-17T11:30:58Z

N: New section: Bugs and stuff

EthC, why would their weapon strength, equal their "muscle" strength? Weapons are handled as "separate add-ins", even if they are "inherent". You can kill this note after reading.

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 06:13, 21 May 2006 (PDT)
----

Hmm...

*On the [[Zombie]] page, it states "Zombies have a melee attack equal to its strength."
*The Celatid entry formely read "its acid spit does a whopping 140 points" -- which is 2x its Strength (70) and the normal maximum for a weapon of damage rating 70
*I've also seen elsewhere someone claim Sectopods' weapons are slightly less powerful than the Heavy Plasma (115) (Sectopod Strength is 90-105)

But just now I hacked Sectopods' Strength down to 2 and Mind-Controlled one -- its weapon was just as damaging as before, both when under MC and not. Does anybody know which field(s) in [[GEOSCAPE.EXE]] determine weapon damage for Sectpods, Celatids, etc.?

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 13:15, 21 May 2006 (PDT)

----

I know the rough whereabouts of the terror unit 'built in turrets'. My offsets are for the CE version - so you'd need to adjust the offsets accordingly for the dos version.

I can't give you the exact offset, but you can look at the values within the region of the byte no 448, 073. If I'm not mistaken, it's in the Tactical.exe portion of the game. If you want the closest reference, try looking for the 'missdat/direct.dat' and move about 3000 bytes or so past that.

You'll see sets of data that resemble weapon stats. From damage type, damage, firing costs, etc. They're all stored in 16-bit words (i.e. 2 bytes).

The rocket tank's launcher for example will have a value set of 2 (high-ex), 12 (default ammo), 85 (damage), 55, 45, 0 (aimed-snap-auto costs), 115, 75, 0 (aimed-snap-auto accuracies). Etc.

We've actually done some damage tests the hard way (reiterative testing in-game with various armour levels). In the end the weapon damages have already been confirmed against Dave Ellis's Official strategy guide, which lists the damage levels of the terror unit weapons.

- [[User:NKF|NKF]]

----

Ahh, I see it, it seems to start at 447,868 for the Tank/Cannon. And it looks like the Sectpod weapon is 100/Laser. Been wondering about that for a long time.

Is Str = melee damage true? For all the units with melee attacks?

I read a thread of Zombie's on Strategycore that alien melee attacks took 14 TUs, not 15, as is listed on this site in several places. Any idea which is correct?

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 00:10, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

----

Zombie has done a lot of work on melee. I'm too rusty to remember.

Great job on the trajectories, and important to know for this lethal creature. Did you MC one to measure it?

If possible, one of you should put this info on where stuff is (above) on the GEOSCAPE or TACTICAL page or whatever. I'm still confused about what files which versions have.

NKF, do you know where the [[Damage#Damage_Modifiers|Damage_Modifiers]] are? I tried to help Danial once and looked through all the files for them so we could confirm the OSG. But I never could find them.

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:30, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

----

Yep, I MCed it, I'm an MC junkie. I wish MC was less powerful, actually; once you get psi supertroopers, the game's over.

I added some notes about the turret/inbuilt weapons to the geoscape.exe page.

--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 20:33, 22 May 2006 (PDT)

----

As a matter of fact Mike, I sent a private message to Zombie on the damage modifiers over at Strategycore a couple of months back about this. Let me just go and see if I can dig it up.

Assuming you're using MS-Edit and the CE version, open it up at 100 columns. Look down within the region of line 4502 (that translates to byte 450,200. Or for those that prefer hexadecimal, 0x06DE98), then scoot across to column 37.

It's a short way above the line I mentioned earlier. In fact, it's not too far above the block that stores the name strings for your troops. Not exactly, but it's a good place to start looking if you want to spelunk through the dos executables. That's assuming they're in the same place. If so, use the name strings as a reference point and start scrolling up.

Or you could try looking for a region filled with lots of lower case d's and a space. One line looks a bit like d d d d < d d d d P and etc. Lower cap d's translate to 100 in ascii - after all. The space just shows that the value is stored as a 16-bit integer.

They are stored in blocks of 14 values. 1 unknown or base value and the 13 unit types in the game. It looks like:

0 - Unknown(possibly baseline?)
1 - Soldier, civilian, sectoid, celatid, floater
2 - Personal armour
3 - Power suit/flying suit
4 - Tanks/hovertanks
5 - Snakemen
6 - Etherael
7 - Muton
8 - Silacoid
9 - Chryssalid
10 - Reaper
11 - Sectopod
12 - Cyberdisc
13 - Zombie

Each block is ordered in AP, incendiary, explosive, laser, plasma, stun, melee and acid spit.

You can send your thanks to Zombie for looking up these values and confirming them against the OSG. Everything's jake.
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]

----
In response to Ethereal Cereal's questions about melee, I'll try my best to explain it. Pulling from my tests in damage modifiers, HTH-only aliens have a strength = melee damage. It's true. Also, the same strength nember is considered to be the base accuracy of the HTH weapon. Multiply this by melee accuracy of the alien and you get the base chance to hit the target. (It's the same principal as weapon accuracy. Weapon accuracy * Soldier FA = Base chance to hit).

All melee attacks require 15 TU as I reported in [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=746&view=findpost&p=57329 this] post. I also changed the numbers in the wiki to match, so if you still see some listed as 14, go ahead and change them. (The reason why I originally said 14 TU was because I was using the Playstation to test. It's very hard to nail down an exact number in the PSX version since you cannot edit the game files. The computer versions allow more flexibility in this area and thus an accurate value could be determined).

While on the same subject, Psi-enabled aliens require 26 TU for one attack. It's a fixed cost just like melee and doesn't change if the aliens stats change or by difficulty level. See [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=746&view=findpost&p=57497 this] post at the StrategyCore forums.

Any other questions in this area? I probably have answers. Some of this info may need to be moved into the relevant areas when this discussion is finished.--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:54, 11 June 2006 (PDT)

----

I think I may have discovered an exploit, though I am not one hundred percent sure about it yet. Okay, here it goes: if you equip a Celatid with any ranged weapon, it will break its accuracy-spitting-targetting-thingy, causing it to miss every attack. If this proves to be true, one could give the flying livers a Heavy Plasma for target practise without risk, eliminating the need to carry pistols in the process (at least into Muton missions).--[[User:Trotsky|Trotsky]] 00:12, 18 July 2006 (PDT)

== Weapon Rankings Vs. Celatids ==

%TUs per kill (average; FA=50):

HvyPlas 33
Blast Bmb 38
Stun Rod 44
PlasmaR 48
HE Pack(XCU) 58
HvyLas (XCU) 59
PlasmaP 80
LaserR 80
HE Pack 116
HvyLas 136
LaserP 144
RocketLg 148
Alien Grd 149
Stun Bmb 174
HC - AP 198
Prox Grd 209
RocketSm 215
AC - AP 232
HC - HE 234
AC - HE 236
Rifle 340
Grenade 349
Pistol 414

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:15, 27 February 2009 (CST)

== Bugs and stuff ==

Whenever I MC a Celatid and move it, I get explosion sounds (for every tile it moves). Any way to fix this?

Also, I saw a Celatid clone itself once (with the same "bag" on the ground as shown under a living specimen in Ufopaedia), but it was years ago and I don't even know if it was CE or regular DOS one.

n

Pact

2010-08-16T23:48:32Z

N: a typo ("existance")

The greatest threat to X-COM is not the aliens themselves; rather, it is the whims of the funding council. While [[Elerium-115|Elerium]] and [[Alien Artefacts]] are critical, X-COM cannot continue to operate without the approval of the funding council. The aliens realize this and will attempt to sign non-agression pacts with the [[Country Funding|member nations]]. The aliens will offer the country superior alien technology, and knowledge. Sometimes they will also attempt to threaten the country's leaders into submission. In any case, in exchange for all of these gifts, they ask only one thing: Stop funding X-COM. The loss of revenue by such pacts must be avoided at all costs, for without funding, X-COM cannot hope to continue the fight. It is suspected the aliens have no intent of following up on their end of the bargain once X-COM has been erased from existence, and it is known they would agressively assault any nations that double-cross them.

In conclusion: If a country signs a pact with the aliens, X-COM loses all funding from them for the remainder of the war.

The Mysteries of X-COM

2010-08-16T14:48:14Z

N: /* What sort of physical process is used to increase human stats over time? */

Discussion page for some less clear aspects of the series

==General issues==

==='''How fast can alien craft travel in space?'''===

Some alien missions (repeated attacks on X-COM bases, for instance) come daily. This seems to imply that alien craft are able to travel the distance from Mars to Earth in a matter of hours.

: Or maybe, as you suggest in your novels, they have a staging area near Earth, such as the dark side of the Moon. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:36, 25 February 2009 (CST)

::Really fast. Consider that they don't need to push aside atmosphere, as well as the fact that momentum is conserved in space, so they can achieve very high speeds with gravity slingshots. (Mars DOES have 2 moons, recall.) Also note that they may be operating a bit closer to home(the far side of the moon, perhaps?) it's simply that the command staff are at Cydonia. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 00:19, 26 February 2009 (CST)

Good article in last month's Scientific American pointing out we only rely on gravity slingshots because we still use chemical rockets with pathetic delta-V. Once 2nd and 3rd generation plasma engines come on line (1st gen are in flight now) the gravity slingshot will become an irrelevance. No doubt UFO drives are at least as good as our (future) 3rd gen plasma drives, probably way better since they warp space.

(Reminds me of the old Guild Navigator joke - I just warped space from Ix, and boy is my mind tired. Oh well, you had to be there)

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:24, 27 February 2009 (CST)

==='''What happens to the crashed UFO craft and its crew?'''===

Downed alien craft disappear after a few days have passed. No explanation is given to this whatsoever, so what really happens to them?

Possible answers:
* The UFO and its occupants are recovered by other humans.
* The Aliens manage to repair the craft and fly back to space. (unlikely, in the event that the power plant blew up and they have no Elerium)
* The Aliens self-destruct the craft and kill themselves in the process, ensuring their remains will not be recovered by humans.
* The UFO Powerplant eventually suffers a meltdown and explodes, eliminating any vestiges of alien presence.
* The Aliens blow up the UFO and disappear into the countryside.
* Most likely answer, IMHO: The local government/ funding nations give X-COM a limited time window to launch any operation, similiar to what you see in covert ops movies: "Complete the mission within 36 hours, or we initiate Carpet Bombing of the area". This is very likely considering that each nation actually has jurisdiction, and X-com is operating each military op with permission and cooperation by local authorities. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 13:42, 25 February 2009 (CST)
*Similiarly, I assume that nations which have signed a pact with the aliens launch a rescue operation and assist their alien friends. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 13:42, 25 February 2009 (CST)
: In the UFO TV show, it's stated that alien craft and bodies degrade quickly in Earth's atmosphere, disappearing completely in hours or a few days. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:36, 25 February 2009 (CST)
:: If that was the case, then one of the gases present in the atmosphere would be very toxic to the aliens. They would be restricted on their activities outside their craft, not to mention they would have to terraform the planet to be able to live here. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:32, 26 February 2009 (CST)

:: As Zombie said, doesn't Alien Containment support this idea? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:24, 27 February 2009 (CST)

::Those are excellent suggestions. One of the X-COM books detailed that aliens throw up a force field around crashed UFOs to give them time to repair the craft. This would also explain the limited size of the Battlescape (the area of the force field...the field was thrown up before the crash, thus why the craft wasn't always centered in it) as well as why the Battlescape is devoid of human life(the aliens took care of that up front.) Similarly, large scale bombing works as well, as does the local government going in to clean it up themselves. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 00:19, 26 February 2009 (CST)
:::If there's a force field around the craft what is it supposed to repel? The atmosphere? Because humans have no problem entering the field and operating inside it. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:32, 26 February 2009 (CST)
::::Of course they do! Have you ever noticed how dumb your units can be? That's because the aliens can't live with too much nitrogen, so they turn some of it in their force field to oxygen, and excessive amounts of oxygen make you act weird. After a while, their power source runs out and the nitrogen returns, dissolving them into E-115. (What did you think it was made of?) AT least, that's what seemes logical to me, ad is a combination of many postulates here. 21:36, 18 March 2010 (EDT)
:::::That would require that the aliens' biochemistry and the alien alloys used in the power sources reacted with nitrogen, which is a mostly inert gas on normal temperature and pressure and a . It's kinda of weird that the aliens didn't bothered with fixing that vulnerability with their craft and bodies during millions of years (what happens if the force field malfunctions while capturing cattle? ooops!) but ok. The increase in the amount of oxygen would probably also turn any kind of fire into large explosions throughtout the force field. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 21:24, 19 March 2010 (EDT)
::The force field was intended to keep humans out so the aliens were undisturbed. The first major hurdle X-COM had was figuring out a way to bypass those fields so they COULD get troops and aircraft inside. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:54, 26 February 2009 (CST)

===How do the aliens carry their equipment?===
Like human soldiers, aliens can carry weapons and equipment in locations like legs, belt, shoulders and backpack, regardless of the fact that some of their races even lack those anatomical features.

:Potentially a sticky gel-like area on the limb. Though really, since we were never intended to access alien inventories and the AI does all inventory management internally, this may simply be something that was never considered. Speaking from a slightly different standard, most aliens do not carry excessive amounts of gear; often their equipment would be able to fit in both hands. Also recall that Floaters and Ethereals have capes and robes(which may have inside pockets, or the Floaters could store them in the anti-grav/life support unit or inside surgically created body cavities during the installation, while Ethereals could support their excess gear with telekinesis), Mutons have armor(which may have external straps or adhesive areas), and Snakemen have an armor plate(which could have straps, adhesive, inside pockets, or even a backpack.) [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 00:19, 26 February 2009 (CST)

:We already know the answer to this one - they cheat! ;) [[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:24, 27 February 2009 (CST)

===Are X-COM transport craft piloted?===

:Almost certainly, since a remotely-piloted craft could be returned to base when the mission was aborted or failed. It's entirely possible that all X-COM soldiers are qualified pilots of the appropriate craft, since it would make no sense for X-COM to waste space on the plane for a noncombatant, or to have a single-point of failure on the mission like that. (The aliens could screw over the entire op by killing the pilot). It also explains why the craft is lost when the mission fails or is aborted with no one inside(lacking a pilot, the aliens are able to easily destroy it.) [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 00:19, 26 February 2009 (CST)

:: On the other hand, even a tank/hovertank is capable of getting the craft back to base. Perhaps there is an autopilot function. X-com craft are also infamous for choosing strange and bizarre intercept paths, based on latitude lines... almost as if they followed some a few simple lines of code from 1993 programming (bit of 4th wall breakage there...) -[[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]]

:Of course, given the tanks seem to be remotely piloted from an X-COM base, its possible that the tank being in the craft allows the Tank pilot to reroute into the control systems for the dropship and take it over. Limiting this to having the tank inside is a rather good idea. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 12:07, 27 February 2009 (CST)

:I recall that the various cutscenes in the PSX version had a pilot, most notably in the "Mission Failure" scene, where it shows the pilot being killed. --[[User:Mabmoro|Mabmoro]] 16:06, 13 March 2009 (EDT)

===What sort of physical process is used to increase human stats over time?===

The increases in some stats are easy explained by experience gained on missions (firing abiility, reactions, etc.). However, in the cases of physical stats (TUs, stamina, strength) the increase must be augmented by an artificial process, since it isn't easily explainable that humans can significantly increase body mass/speed/endurance just by physical activity/exercise.

:Lifting weights will increase strength. Running and cardio exercise will increase endurance, and performing the same task multiple times will allow you to perform it faster. I see no reason natural increase doesn't work. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 18:33, 26 February 2009 (CST)
::I assume that it is possible to a human to use those methods to double its physical condition, but that being the case why are X-COM recruits so... undeveloped? Maybe this is a more intriguing aspect. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:32, 26 February 2009 (CST)

What I don't get is that when someone gets blasted that they gain a lot of extra health. For crying out loud, the aliens are throwing around plasma and ridicoulously HUGE explosions. Shouldn't they be suffering from third-degree burns? I would expect them to at least have a major sore spot where they got hit. [[User:Tsunamiatunzen1|Tsunamiatunzen1]] September 24

:There's been arguments over whether the soldiers in X-COM are the Green Berets or equivalents of their various militaries, just average soldiers that volunteered for the job, or if the Council of Funding Nations is corrupt and is using this as an excuse to foist off their most useless soldiers onto the X-COM project. If the latter, it would easily explain their rather poor early stats. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 21:06, 26 February 2009 (CST)

::Maybe the stat increases relate to the troops getting more comfortable performing all operations - lifting, running, combat actions - when the aliens no longer scare the cr*p out of them so much. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:24, 27 February 2009 (CST)

:: I know what you mean... if this were Jagged Alliance, it'd be like trying to hire Mike and getting Gumpy instead... ouch! ... IMHO, it looks as if the COFN is being funny about this. Clearly, the troops assigned to X-com have had extensive weapons training... each and every one of them can use just about any standard weapon, including Rocket Launchers, incindieries, auto Cannons, etc. However, NONE of them have any combat experience, coming to you as fresh rookies. And their stats look as if they were selected based on a pot luck basis rather than screening among the elite troops... [[User:Jasonred]]

:Health isn't gained from getting shot. But as for the "ludicrously low stats" issue, maybe they're being selected on some other basis, or there's a real shortage of volunteers. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 04:56, 25 September 2009 (EDT)

:: I think that the X-COM's soldiers have big responsibilities, can't have children. They are sworn in and only then go to the field - if someone can't be trusted to keep a secret, he's getting sacked, given a shitty job (ever wondered who maintained the General Stores?) or worse. - n, 16:47, 16 August 2010 (GMT+2)

==Enemy Unknown/UFO Defence issues==
==='''Why isn't Earth overrun by Snakeman/Chryssalids?'''===

According to the UFOPaedia, Snakemen's "Reproduction is asexual, with each snakeman carrying up to fifty eggs inside its body at any one time" adding the ominious conclusion: "Left to its own devices this species would be a severe threat to life on earth."
Moreover, this species is usually accompanied by the Chryssalids, which have a capacity to reproduce themselves very quickly using humans. So, any survivors of crash sites or terror attacks could start reproducing themselves hidden, resulting in large areas being overrun by those aliens later on.

Possible answers:
* Both races have a self-destruct mechanism incorporated into their psysiology to prevent this.
* The entire area is purged by large scale bombing. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 13:42, 25 February 2009 (CST)

::One thing suggested in fan data was that Snakemen have air tablets in their stomach...which may be different from earth's atmosphere, which would limit their lifespan in earth's atmosphere, also making egg-laying pointless, since the offspring wouldn't be able to breathe or survive. It has also been suggested that Chryssalids have a very rapid metabolism. Though Chryssalids are likely just as, if not more useful, as a threat or a bargaining tool. When attempting to get a nation to capitulate to their demands, the aliens could threaten to employ Chryssalids en masse, or offer to remove a mass infestation in exchange for the government's cooperation. Or even further, it's possible that Chryssalids are under Ethereal control and maintaining the control link at that distance is taxing, thus eliminating mass use of the creatures. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 00:19, 26 February 2009 (CST)

Two words: [[Alien Containment]]. That answers everything except for the UFOPaedia articles for the aliens themselves which contradict it. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 00:42, 26 February 2009 (CST)
: For captured aliens, yes. But what survivors of uninvestigated crash sites? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]]

::Zombie is commenting that based on the need for an Alien Containment unit, the aliens cannot survive in earth's atmosphere for extended periods, needing special atmospheric blends and/or nutrient pools which earth is unable to provide naturally, thus limiting their operations outside of the craft. (If the aliens won the war, it's likely this would be one of the first things that they would 'correct'.) [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:54, 26 February 2009 (CST)

===What is the propose of the 'disco balls' found inside some UFOs?===

:Given that they explode, they could be storage reservoirs for coolant for the computers or other systems. They could also be circuit breakers or electrical junction boxes, or even a component of the UFO's particle beam they use to fry X-COM Interception craft. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 00:19, 26 February 2009 (CST)

Here again, two words: [[Alien Entertainment]]. Even though the spheres are not set to Alien Entertainment in the MCD files, they are almost certainly related to the process somehow. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 00:42, 26 February 2009 (CST)

:Maybe they are for having discos? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:24, 27 February 2009 (CST)

:Presumably [[Alien Entertainment]] is psionic in some way, maybe they're Psi-Emitters or something? -[[User:magic9mushroom|magic9mushroom]]

===Who buys those alien bodies/equipment from X-COM?===

:Equipment likely goes to the funding nations or the international black market. No rebel group is going to ask too many questions about being offered guns that can [[Heavy Plasma|slice through the hull of an MBT]] or [[Alien Grenade|grenades that can level a building]] or [[Blaster Launcher|man-portable guided missiles]]; it'd just be cash-and-carry. Similarly, scientists would likely be interested in looking at much of this stuff for their own research. This would also explain the lack of market forces; the funding nations could have a set price for each item, or if X-COM is selling them under the table to rebels and rogue scientists, they can set the price and refuse to budge. The money on corpses could also be an "Alien Bounty" paid by the Funding Nations, as a reward for each alien that X-COM can prove they killed. Or it could be bought by other groups...rumor has it that some fast food restaurants have processes that can make ANY meat, no matter the source, look and taste the same, and a Muton would make a LOT of McBurgers. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 00:19, 26 February 2009 (CST)
From the USO (Kasey Chang): XARQUID SUSHI.

===How did the aliens got to Mars?===

There are no indications that UFOs are capable of faster than light speed. So how did they get to Mars in the first place?

:The UFOs are mission craft, used for the legwork. The fighters; we never see the carriers. Given the aliens have been proven to be interstellar, they either Clone-A-Crew as needed when coming the long way to keep the UFOs crewed, or its far more likely that the aliens did have or still do have larger "Carrier" ships, which are capable of FTL travel, that were/are further out in the Solar System that store and dispatch UFOs to mission locations. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 18:33, 26 February 2009 (CST)

:: One word: TFTD. The entire city of T'leth was put into cryogenic suspended animation? Or look at X-com Interceptor. X-com and the aliens show the ability to enter hyperspace or whatever it is.
::: T'Leth is another mystery of its own. More to that later on :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:32, 26 February 2009 (CST)
::... there are no indications that the UFOs are INcapable of FTL... I don't think you would want to perform FTL travel within Earth's planetary atmosphere!
::: There are no indications that they are capable as well. And X-COM scientists don't seem to detect any FTL capabilities in UFOs during their research. And after the war the Elerium stocks dwindled, and it would make sense to perform some sort of interstellar missions to detect and harvest Elerium, however none are mentioned. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:32, 26 February 2009 (CST)
:::: Unless you count the events of X-com Interceptor? [[User:Jasonred]] [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 21:15, 26 February 2009 (CST)
::::: I am refering to the events between Enemy Unknown and TFTD. There is clearly a big distinction between the alien craft on EU and those of Interceptor. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 09:38, 27 February 2009 (CST)
::::: Enemy Unknown is set in 1999, TFTD in 2040, Interceptor in 2067... looks entirely plausible that they DID begin research into space exploration immediately after the events of Enemy Unknown. These things take time you know. Remember that the universe is a huge place, and Earth had rather limited Elerium Reserves by the end of EU. It takes... what, 30 Elerium just to fly an Avenger halfway across Earth? They could hardly afford to fly around randomly in space HOPING to come across elerium, they had to figure out detections methods, then scan the galaxy sector by sector, possibly partially using non-Elerium based propulsion at times... I can't remember if it's canon or fanfic, but I remember reading that all Elerium on Earth was reserved for space exploration.
As for FTL, Earth does get it for sure sometime between 1999 and 2067. And I'm pretty certain the technology is Elerium based. It's not a huge logic jump to assume that the aliens have access to FTL Elerium based tech.
Though I'm a bit puzzled why all T'leth technology is based on Zrbrite, when the aliens uniformly use Elerium, all the way from Earth to Cydonia to the far reaches of space. -[[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]]

:It takes 12 Elerium to fuel an Avenger, though how much 1 Elerium is is an ongoing debate. As for Elerium, it was reserved for propulsion research when the funding nations divvied up X-COM's resources, and then they blew it all without learning anything more than the original X-COM scientists. And yes, Earth clearly gets FTL after TFTD but before Interceptor. The reason Elerium is not used in TFTD is because Elerium becomes inert and useless upon contact with seawater. Similarly, seawater aggressively corrodes Alien Alloys and eventually completely dissolves them. Zrbite functions similar to Elerium, being gold mixed with alien bio-material. Unfortunately, Zrbite only works when supported by a massive energy grid created by T'leth and becomes inert upon its destruction. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 12:07, 27 February 2009 (CST)

OK... take the UNIT of elerium out of the equation... let's say that Earth had 5000 units of elerium, so 6 units get's an Avenger halfway around the world, and 12 units is sufficient to reach Mars. Hardly enough fuel reserves for intergalactic travel then.
2065 On October the 27th, the probe 'Tombstone 1' returns reports to Earth. It's data show that the globular star cluster where it rests, one hundred light-years from Earth, contains many life-supporting planets. Many of the planet's within the probe's scanning range also apparently possess great mineral wealth, including trace veins of elerium-115.
Hmm... So, mankind discovers FTL technology on their own in those 65 years? ah... come to think of it, if they've got non-Elerium based space travel and FTL, and more powerful weapons too, what's the big deal about Elerium in the Frontier? Does mankind even need it anymore?
As for T'leth, it is meant to be over 65 million years old, and CRASHLANDED on Earth due to a solar flare. Was the Ultimate Alien a prophet, thus chose to base T'leth on aqua plastics and Zrbite when T'lth was first constructed? Or did T'leth crash land, followed by frenzied activity where the entire city was replaced part by part, the alien alloys swapped for Aqua Plastics?
...
Actually, come to think of it, it's obviously a massive plothole due to limited timeframe, no point in discussing too deeply. Sigh... [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 13:50, 27 February 2009 (CST)

:It's implied that despite the loss of ability to use the alien technology from the First and Second alien wars, simply being able to see and examine their designs catapulted earth's technology forward at least a few decades...which really is entirely reasonable. Much of the technology can be replicated on earth, and the principles and designs can be reapplied.

:As for the deal with Elerium, its needed to power stronger weapons and is also wonderful for power generation; its efficiency in power generation is what allows Mega Primus to even exist.

:And was there anywhere that specifically said that T'Leth was made of Aqua Plastics? I don't recall. Yes, the rest of their subs are made of aqua plastics, but I'm wondering if something the size of a medium city might perhaps be made of something a bit more durable. PS: Thanks for signing your post! :D [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 14:17, 27 February 2009 (CST)

It's not a plothole at all. There is no Elerium on Earth, whereas the aliens can manufacture Zrbite on Earth, since there's gold here. Therefore it's obvious why they used Zrbite. Also, there's the fact that it was an Aquatoid colony mission, intended to produce an "aquatic paradise", so using Aqua Plastics instead of Alien Alloys is perfectly justified. [[User:magic9mushroom]]

:I think that the use of Aqua Plastics instead of Alien Alloys is perfectly justified by the fact that T'leth crashed million of years ago while the aliens that came to take a shot or two at earth were two million years ahead technologically. So Aqua plastics was some plastic that was used by aliens before they've got the Alloys. You might argue - it's Aqua Plastics, so Aqua =/= Space. Well, Aliens weren't calling them aqua, and there wasn't anything saying that Aqua Plastics is not suitable for Space Travel. --[[User:Domenique|Domenique]] 11:10, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

... I think Alien Alloys alone would catapult earth's technology forward a decade, and there's no reason humanity can't use those anymore, just not in water. According to timeline, some space pirates manage to make the decommisioned Avengers run on non-Elerium fuel... a large technological step.
By the time of Interceptor, Elerium weapons aren't that powerful. Good point about power generation though.
I would assume that T'leth SHOULD have been constructed out of Alien Alloys, since it was originially an interplanetary vessel? Generally, everything in EU was made of Alien Alloys, everything in TFTD was made out of Aqua plastics. Both of which seemed plenty durable.

::Have you noticed that the UFOs fly however their mission parameters tell them to? The UFOs pretty much IGNORE interceptions by X-com craft... if their mission tells them to make 3 passes, speed up, slow down, speed up... they will follow that pattern exactly, whether X-com craft are firing on them or not.

::Question: How long does it take the Avenger to reach Mars from Earth? [[User:Jasonred]] [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 19:12, 26 February 2009 (CST)
:::No longer than a week, in my opinion. Probably less than 2 days. Since canonically, the design of the Avenger had the Cydonia mission in mind, it would be capable of very high interplanetary speeds. (You could choose to burn 40% of the Elerium in one blast to get to high speed. Or you could burn even more and refuel while it's landed...or it could be a mission with no guaranteed escape for the crew. The lives of the many over those of the few and all that, especially since the war hinges on the mission.) In addition, you can fit a full complement of soldiers on board with no real excess room for supplies, and the longer it takes to get to Mars, the greater the chance the aliens will spot it coming for them and mount a serious defense. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:20, 26 February 2009 (CST)
:::If you'd burn that much fuel to accelerate the craft then you'd have to use as much again to decelerate it and attain a planetary orbit, otherwise you'll simply overshoot the planet and head towards outer space. This is also another aspect to take into account when thinking about the speed of UFOs. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:32, 26 February 2009 (CST)

::: UFO drives are non-Newtonian so those sort of rocket equations don't necessarily apply. I think filling up a car with gas is a closer analogy. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:24, 27 February 2009 (CST)

::: Well, they could put a mini mind shield on the Avenger, shoot down a UFO roughly their size, and then fly to Cydonia when the UFO they shot down was supposed to return based on the instructions found by the hyper-wave decoder. Basically taking the place of the UFO. Shouldn't be too hard since the UFO's are pretty common by the time you research Cydonia or Bust. [[User:Tsunamiatunzen1|Tsunamiatunzen1]] 14 February 2010 (MST)

::That would leave 20% of the fuel to take off the Avenger and land it. Not really that unreasonable. While they're landed, they could potentially refuel the Avenger, or the mission might have been planned as a 1-way trip from the get-go. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 21:06, 26 February 2009 (CST)

===What happened to Mars and the alien civilization there?===

According to the Brain, Mars was blooming with life had a alien civilization millions of years ago. However, Mars nowadays is a barren world and the alien civilization seems reduced to the area on Cydonia.

:That may well have been before Mars lost the majority of its atmosphere due to its weak magnetic field. As the atmosphere dissipated, the aliens left or died off. It's also possible that the aliens, shown in the game over to have little respect for planets other than as sites for slaves and resources, they strip-mined the planet dry(and the rust from the machines created the red coloring), and then seeded Earth so that the slave workforce would grow for future extraction of Earth's resources. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 18:33, 26 February 2009 (CST)

===Where are the human-alien hybrids referred to on the UFOPaedia?===

:For the ones on earth, probably in hiding or in laboratories for research. For the ones the aliens have, potentially improving the Sectoid gene pool or being used as food or menial tasks. Cloning is alot easier than making genetic hybrids and there's nothing that says their first-generation experiments would be suitable for combat. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 18:33, 26 February 2009 (CST)

:: They are babies at the time of X-com, and few in number. Their aren't even that many of them by the time of X-com Apocalypse. [[User:Jasonred]] [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 19:12, 26 February 2009 (CST)

:Not to mention the ones in X-COM: Apocalypse are less-than-fit for battle before extensive training. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 21:06, 26 February 2009 (CST)

===Why did the aliens only activate T'Leth after they were defeated?===

On TFTD T'Leth is shown as an entity/city of major power that is capable of conducting a war on its own. But the aliens leave it dormant although they could have used it to speed the process of taking control of Earth.

:Perhaps the Enemy Unknown aliens are legitimately scared of the TFTD aliens and are unsure how long they could trust them. Evil is not monolithic; the TFTD aliens may be more interested in themselves than the alien empire, so they were kept as an ace-in-the-hole. This is the same reason (canonically) that SKYNET did not originally send the T-1000 to assassinate Sarah Connor; SKYNET was scared of what the T-1000 could do and had only a bare minimum of control over it, so it only used it as an option when it had nothing left to lose. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 21:06, 26 February 2009 (CST)

T'Leth is in fact so powerful that all it has to do is surface, in order for X-com to be considered to have lost the war.
In fact, looking at the timelines, it takes 40 years for T'leth to wake up from it's slumber... that's one good reason not to use it. By the time it activated, the war would already be over. [[User:Jasonred]]

Because the whole purpose of the Enemy Unknown aliens was to rescue the TFTD aliens from T'leth, and there was no way of seeing whether the T'leth-based invasion in TFTD would even work - from their perspective it's possible that getting T'leth to bootstrap itself could have caused a catastrophe (they don't know whether or how badly it's damaged). Presumably the aliens planned to mount a proper rescue operation after locking down Earth and readying it for the aquatic paradise that was the entire point of the T'leth expedition in the first place. [[User:magic9mushroom]]

T'Leth was a coleny ship sent by the Sectoid/Aquatoid's millions of years earlier. This is why the Aquatoids use electronics to augment there control over other creatures, while there progeny are genetically modified to gain the same control. In TFTD it's implied that the T'Leth had been partialy active for a long time. Thawing out aliens in small groups but never going in full production. UFO aliens may have not intended to start the full awakening cycle until they had a chance to prepare the planet.
OR, given the Ultimate Alien was aquatoid in origin by his looks and there was no other races from the first game involved. And the fact that Sectoid/Aqutoid's are not the top of the food chain with the Ethereal and Brain being more powerful it's possible the brain had decided that the Ultimate Alien was a threat to it's power. It was not until it's death that they tried send the signal. --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 17:19, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

===Why did the aliens use limited force during the First Alien War?===

Imagine Independence Day or War of the Worlds: UFO above the major Earth cities destroying the national leadership and any resistance. Or simply announce to Earth that they are now a part of their empire and resistence is futile. Instead, they go 1 mission each day, allowing humans to capture their craft, research their technology, discover their intentions and mount a successful defense. Don't the aliens watch sci-fi movies to see how it should be done?

:Perhaps they don't have the standing forces to do so, and are in the process of building up the forces needed to do so. Perhaps they don't want to wipe out the entire power structure too fast; they want to leave some pieces in place for when they rebuild. Perhaps they're too condescending to think that humanity ever really has a chance; they've probably conquered thousands of other planets without anyone ever successfully resisting them. Perhaps they consider the X-COM project to be a rearguard action that, while a valiant effort and a credible threat, is ultimately doomed to failure because they simply cannot win in the end, which is why they undermine it. Indeed, the reason you need to launch the Cydonia mission in order to win is because X-COM simply cannot stop the aliens in a ground war; the aliens have an effectively infinite supply line and standing forces(though nothing says they're all waiting to swamp the earth), and the only way to win is to kill the command staff(which the aliens believe X-COM will not be able to do, lacking both knowledge of where the Brain is and any practical means to get there.) [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 21:06, 26 February 2009 (CST)
::The most plausible explanation seems to be the one employed in the Worldwar series, by Harry Turtledove, but that does not seem to mesh with what the Brain says about having been on Mars for a while, since then they could watch the Earthlings perpetually. Of course, what it says is probably a bunch of lies. Thinking about what it says for too long also raises the question of why the aliens attacked when they did, of course... [[User:Vizzydix1|Vizzydix1]] 21:52, 18 March 2010 (EDT)

The aliens are completely lacking in weapons of mass destruction. When you get right down to it, their aircraft are very fast, manuevarable and durable, but they have rotten firepower. Even the battleship is unable to bring down an Interceptor in 1 shot.
The terror missions and X-com Base Defences prove that the Aliens are unable to simply launch orbital bombardments... in fact, they appear to have no Air to Land weapons whatsoever...
When you get right down to it, the aliens are pretty stupid. Also, their scientists seem inferior to Earth's. Seems to me that they only had the advantage of Elerium deposits and thus elerium based research.
X-COM was unable to win in an all-out war with the aliens, but remember that X-com is a small little covert group with several dozen soldiers and a handful of aircraft. Can you imagine the result if the aliens had caused a joint war effort by the UN? You would have Lockheed factories converted to Avenger production, several platoons of soldiers outfitted with Flying Suits, Lasers, Heavy Plasma, thousands upon thousands of Laser Tanks...
I would say that keeping the fight to covert action on both sides was actually beneficial to the aliens, really. [[User:Jasonred]]
* Nope, the aliens could just invoke John's Law and blow up the planet with a kamikaze battleship at .9c. Even failing that, the alien battlefleet could come in numbers sufficent to blot out the sun.--[[User:(name here)|(name here)]] 14:39, 8 November 2009 (EST)
** Lest we forget, X-Com is essentially the Spartans to the aliens' Persian Empire. So they'd just fight in the shade (which would be a blessing in desert missions). --[[User:Guido Talbot|Guido Talbot]] 13:58, 16 July 2010 (EDT)

Aliens first began with smal scouting missions, so maybe all we expirience in X-Com is initial attacks by aliens, maybe the whole base was begining scouting and waiting for the invasion fleet? Aliens problably could be in sense dumber than humans, humans are adaptable and thinking, our technology advances fast, and we are fast and smart enough to stop the invasion before it begins. Aliens problably were not used to it so they thought "oh well, another invasion...". --[[User:Domenique|Domenique]] 11:10, 19 May 2010 (EDT)

==TFTD issues==
===What was the relationship between the aliens from the 1st and 2nd wars?===

Quoting from the UFOPaedia regarding Alien Origins: 'Deep in the oceans there lie ancient
sites used by the Aliens to contact their stellar cousins.' This also has some implications regarding the issue of why T'Leth was only activated when the Sectoids were defeated.

*Gill Men are coopted Terran creatures, Aquatoids are a differently-modified Sectoid breed, Lobstermen are machine soldiers that are manufactured, Tasoths are clone soldiers that are grown.

Aquatoids are the ancestors of the Sectoied's. The colony ship was sent out slowing than light hundreds of millions of years ago. Sectoids are a more genetically advanced race. The rest of UFO aliens were picked up after that point. The Brain and Ethereals probably conquered the Sectoids and dont regard them highly. While the Aquotoids that were thawd over the years created, conquered (gill man) or Manufactured the rest of the allies over time. I picture the Tasoth as probably something they brought with them and have been working on. Since most of the Aquatoids come from suspended animation they have not tinkered with geans much. Instead modifying and using electronics (MC Chip) to control. --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 17:28, 22 March 2010 (EDT)

===What kind of materials were 'synomium' and 'adamantium'?===

The first one is mentioned on the name of the alien communication devices and the second one appears at the end when T'Leth is destroyed: 'he twisting hugeness of T'leth begins to rupture.
Flames and smoke spew from its gleaming spires and adamantium halls.'

:Synomium is probably a special material used in the comm. devices, like Stargate's naquadah (universal stuff), naquadria (unstable power source), trinium (hull material) and neutronium (superdense metal). Adamantium is a legendary material in ancient literature that is said to be indestructible, similarly to mithril.--[[User:Amitakartok|amitakartok]] 10:55, 3 November 2009 (EST)

===How deep were X-COM bases located on the seas?===

*Floating bases would be easier to build, repair and supply. However they would have to be tethered to the ocean bed or possess some sort of propulsion to prevent them from drifing with the ocean currents. But it would also allow for easy redeployment of the base.
*Submersible bases could allow for better sonar detection. Same problems regarding ocean currents would apply. In case of hull breaches entire modules would be quickly flooded and any crew present would be crushed by water pressure or drown. Base could be built and then submerged (requires depth control)
*Seabed bases would be the hardest to build and supply. Several other factors could limit their deployment, such as instable areas (underwater volcanos, prone to seaquakes, rock avalanches, etc.) and depths.
*Given that the Alien Retaliation missions in TFTD are called "Floating Base Attack", I'd say floating. Also remember that your starting sonar can't see Very Deep, which rules out seabed bases. [[User:magic9mushroom]]
** Floating doesn't always happen on the surface. The surface has to deal with large waves ad bobbing up and down, submerged only has the currents it could be stabilized easier. --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 11:57, 14 January 2010 (EST)
* I was recently researching how far you have to be down to not be effected by surface conditions. You have to be submerged 1/2 of a waves lenght (measured crest to crest) Best I can find is that the average wave is 150 yards accross. To not be effected by the waves you have to be 75 Yards below. This is way below the depth needed to not be effected by the bends when surfaceing. I figure they are probably right at the limit of what can be safe for quick surfacing and well anchored to avoid getting [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwKXfc_a4Ag tossed in a storm]. --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 17:37, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
**Something else to consider - these 'floating bases' could be large modular submarines/submersibles. If memory serves, submarines basically maintain sea-level pressure regardless of the depth, so that could explain why they'd be able to be 75+ feet below sea level and not suffer the bends when surfacing.
::(Or, y'know, we could just say "a wizard did it".) --[[User:Guido Talbot|Guido Talbot]] 14:13, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
[[Category: Fiction]]

Wish List (EU)

2010-08-16T14:36:44Z

N: /* Crushed Buildings */

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]]

=== 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]]

===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)

:::: Ummm, it seems the best solution (I, for one, can't think of any better), but wouldn't it assume that only the BattleShip really locates the player's base? All those scouts for nothing? [Still the best solution, though] [[User:N|n] 15:01, 16 August 2010 (GMT+1)

=== All Aircraft Weapons Useful ===

In a balanced game, all weapons should have their uses, or at least a niche, but sadly this is not so:

The Cannon is only useful for shooting down Small Scouts, and even that is practically impossible, due to the difficulty in closing to 10km range with any UFO, particularly the fast-accelerating Small Scout.

The Stingray is not even useful for shooting down Small Scouts (destroys them 57% of the time) and the Avalanche is better in every meaningful way. It also takes twice as long to rearm, making it operationally much worse than the Avalanche.

The Laser Cannon is inferior to the Avalanche for everything. It does have a higher payload but this is hardly relevant. If attacking a UFO that you would struggle to kill with Avalanches, you are unlikely to own an aircraft that will survive long enough to inflict more damage than an Avalanche if it mounted Laser Cannon.

The Fusion Ball Launcher has a [[Talk:Craft_Armaments#Fusion_Balls_better_than_Plasma_Beams.3F¦possible niche]] in fighting Battleships when mounted on Interceptors. Even then, it is difficult and expensive to have aircraft configured to fight only one enemy.

Unfortunately, the optimum path for craft weapon development is all-Avalanche followed by all-Plasma Beam. This is a shame.

Suggestions to 'tune up' the other weapons:

*Cannon - Increase the damage to 20 or 25. So at least there is a pay-off if you manage to get in close.
*Stingray - Double the rearm rate so it can be reloaded as fast as an Avalanche launcher. Increase the ammo capacity to 9 or 12. Then up the rearm rate again (triple or quadruple) so it can still be reloaded as fast as Avalanche. Even then, it's probably not better than the Avalanche, so maybe it make it ''more'' accurate than the Avalanche instead of less. Raise Stingray to 90%, or to 80% but drop Avalanche to 65%.
*Laser Cannon - increase accuracy to 50% and damage to 100. Give it infinite ammunition.
*FBL - increase the ammo from 2 to 3. Increase damage to 250 or even 255. It's far and away the most expensive weapon to operate so it might as well pack the biggest punch.

It might be worth considering 'tune down' the Plasma Beam as well, particularly its stand-off range.
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:59, 14 February 2010 (EST)

=== Tougher UFOs ===

==== The Problem ====

So let me get this straight. The first hybrid airborne weapon that humans ever build, and it immediately outclasses every weapon the aliens ever built, including their Battleship weapon? After all the Aliens have only been building plasma weapons for a few million years, us humans have been doing it for ''months''!

More to the point, once you get Plasma Beams, downing UFOs is like shooting fish in a barrel. Even Battleships aren't that exciting if you show up with enough ships.

What is needed is to push up the range, damage, and rate of fire of all the UFO weapons, particularly the UFOs you will be fighting by the time you have plasma beams. At a minimum, the weapon on a Battleship should be at least as powerful as, say, 2 Plasma Beams (as found on the XCom craft it is fighting)? Instead of slightly less than half as powerful? Compared to a single Plasma Beam, only the Battleship weapon has better range. It has double the accuracy, slightly higher damage, but half the fire rate. Net 5.7% more firepower than one Plasma Beam, but no match for 2. And the Battleship weapon of course is the most powerful in the alien arsenal.

Possible tune ups for UFOs:

*Battleship - increase to 255 weapon power, improve reload rate to 12 (from 24). Now roughly equivalent to 4 Plasma Beams in total firepower (on Beginner difficulty). Increase range to 69km, so that the Battleship commences fire as soon as an XCom craft begins its attack run. Or better, increase range to 70+km, the limit of the interception window, so that the Battleship starts firing immediately the XCom craft enters air combat range. This would disrupt XCom aircrafts' ability to form up into a flight of 4, prior to commencing their attack. Overall, this would make it much harder to down Battleships. Increasing weapon range to 70+km would also make it much harder to tail a Battleship - manual control in the Geoscape would be needed to hold off outside of combat range. Really, the Battleship should not sit there like a sitting duck. Does it think XCom are friendly?
*Terror Ship - increase range to 52 (or decrease Plasma Beam range to 42), so stand-off kills are not possible with Plasma Beams?
*Actually maybe all the larger UFOs should have weapon range 69-70+km, so they behave very aggressively toward XCom craft.

NB: Strange effects occur if weapon range goes over 70km so it's probably best to leave it at 70km rather than 75km.

NB: Also, changes to rate of fire need to be looked at carefully though because Difficulty Level also reduces reload rate for UFOs. Between Beginner (Difficulty 0) and Superhuman (Difficulty 4), rate of fire (and thus firepower) for Battleships, Terror Ships and Supply Ships increases by 24/(24-4x2=16) or 50%. But if the base reload rate for these weapons was reduced to 12, the transition from Beginner to Advanced would increase firepower '''three''' times for these 3 UFOs (less so for the smaller UFOs). It is less risky to increase the weapon power. Unfortunately there are only 2 firepower variables to play with - damage and reload rate - so there are not a lot of options, especially for the Battleship which already has weapon strength 148 out of a probable maximum of 255.

:More detail on this. For Medium Scout, Large Scout and Abductor, with nominal reload rate 48gs, the rate of fire improves +20% between Beginner and Superhuman. For Harvester (32gs) it improves one third. For Large UFOs (Terror Ship, Supply Ship, Battleship - 24gs) the improvement is +50%. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:28, 14 February 2010 (EST)

I think we should assume that the Battleship, which is bigger than the entire XCom base, is engaging XCom craft with its secondary weapons rather than its main armament, which could probably destroy Manhattan with a glancing hit.

I would really like to see the hypothetical Mega-Battleship go up against XCom's finest - a flight of 4 Avengers armed with dual Plasma Cannon or dual Fusion Ball Launchers. With the Battleship having 70+km range, 255 weapon power, and an effective fire rate on Superhuman triple that of the PB, it would have the firepower of 11 Plasma Beams - 36% more firepower than the whole attacking XCom force combined. To be honest I think that would be carnage, not sure XCom could win. So that would be tuning the Battleship up too much. The 3-fold increase in rate of fire when on Superhuman is just too much. Maybe just max out the damage to 255 and range to 75. This gives a 72% increase in firepower, and a challenging tactical problem for XCom (forming up and approaching under fire).

The smaller UFOs can probably stay as they are. It is not until later in the game that XCom advances so that even large UFOs are easy pickings. What is the crossover point? Maybe the medium UFOs. So it might be good to reduce the reload times of the medium UFOs from 48 / 32 to 24, a good increase in firepower.

In general I think all UFOs energy weapons should have at least as good range as the XCom energy weapons, even the Medium Scout. Again, they have been using these weapons for millions of years and we only just figured out how to copy them from the aliens, how could our weapons be better than the aliens? How did our first plasma weapon out-range and out-perform all but the hugest UFO plasma beam? And on an airframe the size of a Small Scout we mount ''two'' such weapons? On the battlefield we only are able to replicate alien weapons; how is it that in the air we are able to improve on them ''masssively''?

Perhaps there should never be a stand-off advantage, except possibly with missiles -which should be less accurate with longer range. The XCom stand off advantage is really unfair because as far as I have seen the UFOs never attempt to close to effective range, even when they are getting killed. They don't break off much, either, though I think I have seen that happen on occasion.

==== Specific Proposals ====

===== No Standoff Beam Attacks =====

Increase ''all'' UFO plasma weapon ranges to at least 55km (compared to 52km for the XCom plasma weapon). Now only launched XCom weapons (Avalanche and Fusion Ball) have standoff advantage. Probably also reduce the accuracy of the Avalanche to 60% and buff Stingray accuracy to 80%, providing both weapons with a useful niche role.

===== No Standoff Attacks =====

Increase ''all'' UFO plasma weapon ranges to 66km (compared to 52km for the XCom plasma weapon). Now ''no'' XCom weapon has standoff advantage. (The benefit of a longer range weapon is simply spending less time being fired on by the UFO.)

===== Twitchy Aliens =====

Increase all UFO ranges to 69km. They will attack as soon as XCom aircraft commence any attack run.

===== Hostile Aliens =====

Increase all UFO ranges to 70km. They will attack as soon as XCom aircraft enter intercept range. UFOs now fire first, and tailing them unchallenged is impossible.

===== Improved Medium UFOs =====

Reduce (improve) the nominal reload time of Medium UFOs, Abductors and Harvesters, from 48gs and 32gs to 24gs. This increases the challenge in the early-mid game, when XCom might first be deploying advanced weapons.

===== Improved Battleships =====

Increase damage to 255. They're firing (bigger) Fusion Balls! A Battleship now has the same firepower as one XCom Craft with dual Plasma Beams (gosh wow!). It's a start, but what if we...

===== Super Battleships =====

... also reduce nominal reload time to 18gs. Giving a further one-third extra firepower on Beginner, 60% more on Superhuman.

===== Mega Battleships =====

... or for a real challenge, reduce reload time to 12gs. A further doubling of the firepower on Beginner - a further ''four'' times increase on Superhuman. Now Superhuman Battleships out-gun the biggest fleet XCom can throw at them!

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 00:25, 19 February 2010 (EST)

: the flip side of this is weakening Xcom craft - apart from firepower issues there is also the issue of range: the ranges of the transport craft are such that really no more than 1 manned base is necessary to cover the globe for terror site defense. Setting e.g. the fuel capacity of the Skyranger to 500 results in roughly 1 base per continent required. This has interesting strategic consequences: need for more bases makes the ecomics more challenging (and thus slows down research). [[User:Emphyrio|Emphyrio]] 08:43, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

===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]]

=== 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)

=== Keyboard shortcuts at bases ===

I wish we had (customised, maybe?) keyboard shortcuts at the base screen. Numbers (at the "base information" screen as well) would switch bases, R for research, E for equip craft, T for transfer, M for manufacture, S for soldiers, B for build new base, P for purchase+recruit (or "B" for "buy" - let people double-bind if they need it), I for base information. The doubles (soldiers/sell+sack) could be solved by using the key under the primary one (x for sell+sack). - n (16:26, 16 Aug 2010 (GMT+1))

== 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)

====Crushed Buildings====

Why don't we see any crushed or destroyed buildings? Does a UFO always fall like a rock, perpendicular to the ground? No marks on the ground? Such impact would do massive damage to the land (a small meteor can do much if it has a high speed...). (Also, at the [debatedly] "real" UFO crash zones UFO parts were scattered over miles)

I'd like to see chopped buildings, entering UFO's through a barns; entering an abductor from a immediate house's roof if I have plasma and no flying suits yet.

===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)]]

Taking off with troops onboard would be perfectly safe (for the aliens) and justifiable if one assumes that alien ships in flight are inherently inhospitable for humans. This is easily done by saying that they undergo accelerations that humans can't withstand (splat), can't withstand for any length of time (pass out), or that they intentionally make rapid accelerations in different directions, either normally or just if they're trying to bash some intruders around. Naturally, the aliens themselves would either be immune to these (tough physique / their built-in antigrav devices?), or be in acceleration chairs, safe from all this.

Alternatively, when you get the warning that the UFO is going to take off, you've got a certain amount of time to either get everyone '''off''' the UFO, or to get everyone '''on''' it (or as many as you can). There could be a follow-up mission that takes place in "sky" terrain, where the outdoors is either impassable (the easy way) or else instantly withdraws units from combat (flying suits / parachutes). The soldiers' goals would be to either take out the aliens and presumably safely land and salvage the UFO, or take out the UFO's means of flying (power cores / navigator?). In the latter case, they might have a certain number of turns to withdraw or be caught in the crash, with possible casualties just like the aliens, mitigated to some degree by their armour and maybe where inside the UFO they are.

In the case of a crash, there could be a final mission to finish off the surviving aliens, using the X-COM soldiers that survive the crash, and no landing craft (it's still back at the old landing site). Alternatively, you could say that there '''is''' an X-COM landing craft parked outside (with all remaining members of the original landing party), since the in-flight time / distance was presumably low and the original X-COM craft quickly packed up and flew to the new landing site. — [[User:Wisq|Wisq]] 17:11, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

===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)

Fixing the AI for this could be really hard. Apart from all the possible exploits by XCom, the AI is probably a really hard part of the game to reverse engineer. You could say that an unarmed alien is no threat anyway (we are only concerned about aliens without psi or built in weapons). So nothing is lost even with an exploitable method of re-arming. By exploitable I mean the XCom player can manipulate re-arming, e.g. by leaving weapons out in the open as bait for traps.

Maybe the simplest modification would be to ''not'' drop weapons when the alien panics? This does not require delving in to the AI, just intercepting the panic effects. Dont make aliens drop any weapons when they panic. It would be reasonable to return the weapon in hand to inventory, so there is a TU cost for the alien to bring the weapon back into play again.

This would not work for aliens who were stunned and wake up, or who were mind controlled by XCom and made to drop their weapons. But it would probably catch 80% of cases.

Another cheat, short of fixing the AI, is just to pick up weapons that the alien walks over. It could also pick up "spare" weapons from adjacent aliens (cheating on TUs - basically just teleporting the items to the unarmed alien). Spare alien weapons are almost invariably grenades. I have not had a lot of success in getting unarmed aliens to use grenades, so more research is needed here. Maybe only certain types of aliens use grenades, or only in certain circumstances?

Really, really cheating would be to teleport any weapon laying around the battlefield into the alien's inventory. But I think it is more fair just to say panicked aliens dont drop their equipment. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:13, 13 February 2010 (EST)

==== 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)

=== 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.

----

There was a utility to do this from Devisraad. it has long since been removed from his site, but someone may still have it. The basics was you renamed unit and it automatically replaced graphics flag to swap out the units. Didn't work on the Large Aliens but still was a fun mod --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:20, 6 January 2010 (EST)

=== 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)

----
You may be able to get 3 levels in an X-Com Base but not 4. EU has a smaller amount of memory alocated. I dont know the limit but 60x60x4 will crash EU. TFTD has no problem --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:25, 6 January 2010 (EST)

----

I got partway through this and then decided to change my methods entirely and start from scratch. So I thought I might as well post my progress anyways, as it's already about on par with the crude TFTD implementation: You always have the same craft appear in your hanger regardless of what is (or isn't!) there.

[[Image:Skyranger In Hanger.rar]]

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 05:40, 17 December 2009 (EST)

----

Hey BB, a while ago I have modded the plane terrain files so that the Skyranger appears facing east instead of south. If you want to use that one (to make it a little different) let me know. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 08:23, 17 December 2009 (EST)

----

Thanks, but don't worry about it for now: it'll make the MCD arrays larger still, so I'll consider it when I get all the other stuff done.

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 17:01, 19 December 2009 (EST)

----

The completed mod is now included in my toolpack. As usual, I've only done cursory testing on it, but I'm pretty sure it's stable enough.

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 06:40, 20 January 2010 (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]]

=== Impose cost to using Psionic attacks===

I think everyone agrees Psi attacks are too powerful. I would propose to impose a cost to using Psionic attacks. This could take the form of decreasing the physical stats after using a PSi attack (after all all: the psionic races are physically weak). This could for example lead to a soldier becoming a weakling or even fainting or dying from using psi-attack. Another possibility is to decrease mental stats (in this case the ratio would be that humans are not really being adapted to psi: you could be expected to go crazy playing mind games) leading to a decrease in psionic powers or maybe panicking or beserking the soldier using psi. Together with limiting psi attacks of MCed units proposed elsewhere this would rebalance the later game somewhat... [[User:Emphyrio|Emphyrio]] 07:22, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

== 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)

=== 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.
: Now fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

=== 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)
:: XcomUtil 9.6 also restores all DOA if you win to. Not what was intended. This feature has been removed as of 9.7 until I can fix it. --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)
: Now also fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

=== 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).
: Now fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

= 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]]

Wish List (EU)

2010-08-16T14:27:18Z

N: /* Geoscape and Strategic */

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]]

=== 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]]

===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)

:::: Ummm, it seems the best solution (I, for one, can't think of any better), but wouldn't it assume that only the BattleShip really locates the player's base? All those scouts for nothing? [Still the best solution, though] [[User:N|n] 15:01, 16 August 2010 (GMT+1)

=== All Aircraft Weapons Useful ===

In a balanced game, all weapons should have their uses, or at least a niche, but sadly this is not so:

The Cannon is only useful for shooting down Small Scouts, and even that is practically impossible, due to the difficulty in closing to 10km range with any UFO, particularly the fast-accelerating Small Scout.

The Stingray is not even useful for shooting down Small Scouts (destroys them 57% of the time) and the Avalanche is better in every meaningful way. It also takes twice as long to rearm, making it operationally much worse than the Avalanche.

The Laser Cannon is inferior to the Avalanche for everything. It does have a higher payload but this is hardly relevant. If attacking a UFO that you would struggle to kill with Avalanches, you are unlikely to own an aircraft that will survive long enough to inflict more damage than an Avalanche if it mounted Laser Cannon.

The Fusion Ball Launcher has a [[Talk:Craft_Armaments#Fusion_Balls_better_than_Plasma_Beams.3F¦possible niche]] in fighting Battleships when mounted on Interceptors. Even then, it is difficult and expensive to have aircraft configured to fight only one enemy.

Unfortunately, the optimum path for craft weapon development is all-Avalanche followed by all-Plasma Beam. This is a shame.

Suggestions to 'tune up' the other weapons:

*Cannon - Increase the damage to 20 or 25. So at least there is a pay-off if you manage to get in close.
*Stingray - Double the rearm rate so it can be reloaded as fast as an Avalanche launcher. Increase the ammo capacity to 9 or 12. Then up the rearm rate again (triple or quadruple) so it can still be reloaded as fast as Avalanche. Even then, it's probably not better than the Avalanche, so maybe it make it ''more'' accurate than the Avalanche instead of less. Raise Stingray to 90%, or to 80% but drop Avalanche to 65%.
*Laser Cannon - increase accuracy to 50% and damage to 100. Give it infinite ammunition.
*FBL - increase the ammo from 2 to 3. Increase damage to 250 or even 255. It's far and away the most expensive weapon to operate so it might as well pack the biggest punch.

It might be worth considering 'tune down' the Plasma Beam as well, particularly its stand-off range.
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:59, 14 February 2010 (EST)

=== Tougher UFOs ===

==== The Problem ====

So let me get this straight. The first hybrid airborne weapon that humans ever build, and it immediately outclasses every weapon the aliens ever built, including their Battleship weapon? After all the Aliens have only been building plasma weapons for a few million years, us humans have been doing it for ''months''!

More to the point, once you get Plasma Beams, downing UFOs is like shooting fish in a barrel. Even Battleships aren't that exciting if you show up with enough ships.

What is needed is to push up the range, damage, and rate of fire of all the UFO weapons, particularly the UFOs you will be fighting by the time you have plasma beams. At a minimum, the weapon on a Battleship should be at least as powerful as, say, 2 Plasma Beams (as found on the XCom craft it is fighting)? Instead of slightly less than half as powerful? Compared to a single Plasma Beam, only the Battleship weapon has better range. It has double the accuracy, slightly higher damage, but half the fire rate. Net 5.7% more firepower than one Plasma Beam, but no match for 2. And the Battleship weapon of course is the most powerful in the alien arsenal.

Possible tune ups for UFOs:

*Battleship - increase to 255 weapon power, improve reload rate to 12 (from 24). Now roughly equivalent to 4 Plasma Beams in total firepower (on Beginner difficulty). Increase range to 69km, so that the Battleship commences fire as soon as an XCom craft begins its attack run. Or better, increase range to 70+km, the limit of the interception window, so that the Battleship starts firing immediately the XCom craft enters air combat range. This would disrupt XCom aircrafts' ability to form up into a flight of 4, prior to commencing their attack. Overall, this would make it much harder to down Battleships. Increasing weapon range to 70+km would also make it much harder to tail a Battleship - manual control in the Geoscape would be needed to hold off outside of combat range. Really, the Battleship should not sit there like a sitting duck. Does it think XCom are friendly?
*Terror Ship - increase range to 52 (or decrease Plasma Beam range to 42), so stand-off kills are not possible with Plasma Beams?
*Actually maybe all the larger UFOs should have weapon range 69-70+km, so they behave very aggressively toward XCom craft.

NB: Strange effects occur if weapon range goes over 70km so it's probably best to leave it at 70km rather than 75km.

NB: Also, changes to rate of fire need to be looked at carefully though because Difficulty Level also reduces reload rate for UFOs. Between Beginner (Difficulty 0) and Superhuman (Difficulty 4), rate of fire (and thus firepower) for Battleships, Terror Ships and Supply Ships increases by 24/(24-4x2=16) or 50%. But if the base reload rate for these weapons was reduced to 12, the transition from Beginner to Advanced would increase firepower '''three''' times for these 3 UFOs (less so for the smaller UFOs). It is less risky to increase the weapon power. Unfortunately there are only 2 firepower variables to play with - damage and reload rate - so there are not a lot of options, especially for the Battleship which already has weapon strength 148 out of a probable maximum of 255.

:More detail on this. For Medium Scout, Large Scout and Abductor, with nominal reload rate 48gs, the rate of fire improves +20% between Beginner and Superhuman. For Harvester (32gs) it improves one third. For Large UFOs (Terror Ship, Supply Ship, Battleship - 24gs) the improvement is +50%. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:28, 14 February 2010 (EST)

I think we should assume that the Battleship, which is bigger than the entire XCom base, is engaging XCom craft with its secondary weapons rather than its main armament, which could probably destroy Manhattan with a glancing hit.

I would really like to see the hypothetical Mega-Battleship go up against XCom's finest - a flight of 4 Avengers armed with dual Plasma Cannon or dual Fusion Ball Launchers. With the Battleship having 70+km range, 255 weapon power, and an effective fire rate on Superhuman triple that of the PB, it would have the firepower of 11 Plasma Beams - 36% more firepower than the whole attacking XCom force combined. To be honest I think that would be carnage, not sure XCom could win. So that would be tuning the Battleship up too much. The 3-fold increase in rate of fire when on Superhuman is just too much. Maybe just max out the damage to 255 and range to 75. This gives a 72% increase in firepower, and a challenging tactical problem for XCom (forming up and approaching under fire).

The smaller UFOs can probably stay as they are. It is not until later in the game that XCom advances so that even large UFOs are easy pickings. What is the crossover point? Maybe the medium UFOs. So it might be good to reduce the reload times of the medium UFOs from 48 / 32 to 24, a good increase in firepower.

In general I think all UFOs energy weapons should have at least as good range as the XCom energy weapons, even the Medium Scout. Again, they have been using these weapons for millions of years and we only just figured out how to copy them from the aliens, how could our weapons be better than the aliens? How did our first plasma weapon out-range and out-perform all but the hugest UFO plasma beam? And on an airframe the size of a Small Scout we mount ''two'' such weapons? On the battlefield we only are able to replicate alien weapons; how is it that in the air we are able to improve on them ''masssively''?

Perhaps there should never be a stand-off advantage, except possibly with missiles -which should be less accurate with longer range. The XCom stand off advantage is really unfair because as far as I have seen the UFOs never attempt to close to effective range, even when they are getting killed. They don't break off much, either, though I think I have seen that happen on occasion.

==== Specific Proposals ====

===== No Standoff Beam Attacks =====

Increase ''all'' UFO plasma weapon ranges to at least 55km (compared to 52km for the XCom plasma weapon). Now only launched XCom weapons (Avalanche and Fusion Ball) have standoff advantage. Probably also reduce the accuracy of the Avalanche to 60% and buff Stingray accuracy to 80%, providing both weapons with a useful niche role.

===== No Standoff Attacks =====

Increase ''all'' UFO plasma weapon ranges to 66km (compared to 52km for the XCom plasma weapon). Now ''no'' XCom weapon has standoff advantage. (The benefit of a longer range weapon is simply spending less time being fired on by the UFO.)

===== Twitchy Aliens =====

Increase all UFO ranges to 69km. They will attack as soon as XCom aircraft commence any attack run.

===== Hostile Aliens =====

Increase all UFO ranges to 70km. They will attack as soon as XCom aircraft enter intercept range. UFOs now fire first, and tailing them unchallenged is impossible.

===== Improved Medium UFOs =====

Reduce (improve) the nominal reload time of Medium UFOs, Abductors and Harvesters, from 48gs and 32gs to 24gs. This increases the challenge in the early-mid game, when XCom might first be deploying advanced weapons.

===== Improved Battleships =====

Increase damage to 255. They're firing (bigger) Fusion Balls! A Battleship now has the same firepower as one XCom Craft with dual Plasma Beams (gosh wow!). It's a start, but what if we...

===== Super Battleships =====

... also reduce nominal reload time to 18gs. Giving a further one-third extra firepower on Beginner, 60% more on Superhuman.

===== Mega Battleships =====

... or for a real challenge, reduce reload time to 12gs. A further doubling of the firepower on Beginner - a further ''four'' times increase on Superhuman. Now Superhuman Battleships out-gun the biggest fleet XCom can throw at them!

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 00:25, 19 February 2010 (EST)

: the flip side of this is weakening Xcom craft - apart from firepower issues there is also the issue of range: the ranges of the transport craft are such that really no more than 1 manned base is necessary to cover the globe for terror site defense. Setting e.g. the fuel capacity of the Skyranger to 500 results in roughly 1 base per continent required. This has interesting strategic consequences: need for more bases makes the ecomics more challenging (and thus slows down research). [[User:Emphyrio|Emphyrio]] 08:43, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

===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]]

=== 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)

=== Keyboard shortcuts at bases ===

I wish we had (customised, maybe?) keyboard shortcuts at the base screen. Numbers (at the "base information" screen as well) would switch bases, R for research, E for equip craft, T for transfer, M for manufacture, S for soldiers, B for build new base, P for purchase+recruit (or "B" for "buy" - let people double-bind if they need it), I for base information. The doubles (soldiers/sell+sack) could be solved by using the key under the primary one (x for sell+sack). - n (16:26, 16 Aug 2010 (GMT+1))

== 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)

====Crashed Buildings====

Why don't we see any crushed or destroyed buildings? Does a UFO always fall like a rock, perpendicular to the ground? No marks on the ground? Such impact would do massive damage to the land (a small meteor can do much if it has a high speed...). (Also, at the [debatedly] "real" UFO crash zones UFO parts were scattered over miles)

I'd like to see chopped buildings, entering UFO's through a barns; entering an abductor from a immediate house's roof if I have plasma and no flying suits yet.

===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)]]

Taking off with troops onboard would be perfectly safe (for the aliens) and justifiable if one assumes that alien ships in flight are inherently inhospitable for humans. This is easily done by saying that they undergo accelerations that humans can't withstand (splat), can't withstand for any length of time (pass out), or that they intentionally make rapid accelerations in different directions, either normally or just if they're trying to bash some intruders around. Naturally, the aliens themselves would either be immune to these (tough physique / their built-in antigrav devices?), or be in acceleration chairs, safe from all this.

Alternatively, when you get the warning that the UFO is going to take off, you've got a certain amount of time to either get everyone '''off''' the UFO, or to get everyone '''on''' it (or as many as you can). There could be a follow-up mission that takes place in "sky" terrain, where the outdoors is either impassable (the easy way) or else instantly withdraws units from combat (flying suits / parachutes). The soldiers' goals would be to either take out the aliens and presumably safely land and salvage the UFO, or take out the UFO's means of flying (power cores / navigator?). In the latter case, they might have a certain number of turns to withdraw or be caught in the crash, with possible casualties just like the aliens, mitigated to some degree by their armour and maybe where inside the UFO they are.

In the case of a crash, there could be a final mission to finish off the surviving aliens, using the X-COM soldiers that survive the crash, and no landing craft (it's still back at the old landing site). Alternatively, you could say that there '''is''' an X-COM landing craft parked outside (with all remaining members of the original landing party), since the in-flight time / distance was presumably low and the original X-COM craft quickly packed up and flew to the new landing site. — [[User:Wisq|Wisq]] 17:11, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

===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)

Fixing the AI for this could be really hard. Apart from all the possible exploits by XCom, the AI is probably a really hard part of the game to reverse engineer. You could say that an unarmed alien is no threat anyway (we are only concerned about aliens without psi or built in weapons). So nothing is lost even with an exploitable method of re-arming. By exploitable I mean the XCom player can manipulate re-arming, e.g. by leaving weapons out in the open as bait for traps.

Maybe the simplest modification would be to ''not'' drop weapons when the alien panics? This does not require delving in to the AI, just intercepting the panic effects. Dont make aliens drop any weapons when they panic. It would be reasonable to return the weapon in hand to inventory, so there is a TU cost for the alien to bring the weapon back into play again.

This would not work for aliens who were stunned and wake up, or who were mind controlled by XCom and made to drop their weapons. But it would probably catch 80% of cases.

Another cheat, short of fixing the AI, is just to pick up weapons that the alien walks over. It could also pick up "spare" weapons from adjacent aliens (cheating on TUs - basically just teleporting the items to the unarmed alien). Spare alien weapons are almost invariably grenades. I have not had a lot of success in getting unarmed aliens to use grenades, so more research is needed here. Maybe only certain types of aliens use grenades, or only in certain circumstances?

Really, really cheating would be to teleport any weapon laying around the battlefield into the alien's inventory. But I think it is more fair just to say panicked aliens dont drop their equipment. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:13, 13 February 2010 (EST)

==== 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)

=== 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.

----

There was a utility to do this from Devisraad. it has long since been removed from his site, but someone may still have it. The basics was you renamed unit and it automatically replaced graphics flag to swap out the units. Didn't work on the Large Aliens but still was a fun mod --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:20, 6 January 2010 (EST)

=== 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)

----
You may be able to get 3 levels in an X-Com Base but not 4. EU has a smaller amount of memory alocated. I dont know the limit but 60x60x4 will crash EU. TFTD has no problem --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:25, 6 January 2010 (EST)

----

I got partway through this and then decided to change my methods entirely and start from scratch. So I thought I might as well post my progress anyways, as it's already about on par with the crude TFTD implementation: You always have the same craft appear in your hanger regardless of what is (or isn't!) there.

[[Image:Skyranger In Hanger.rar]]

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 05:40, 17 December 2009 (EST)

----

Hey BB, a while ago I have modded the plane terrain files so that the Skyranger appears facing east instead of south. If you want to use that one (to make it a little different) let me know. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 08:23, 17 December 2009 (EST)

----

Thanks, but don't worry about it for now: it'll make the MCD arrays larger still, so I'll consider it when I get all the other stuff done.

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 17:01, 19 December 2009 (EST)

----

The completed mod is now included in my toolpack. As usual, I've only done cursory testing on it, but I'm pretty sure it's stable enough.

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 06:40, 20 January 2010 (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]]

=== Impose cost to using Psionic attacks===

I think everyone agrees Psi attacks are too powerful. I would propose to impose a cost to using Psionic attacks. This could take the form of decreasing the physical stats after using a PSi attack (after all all: the psionic races are physically weak). This could for example lead to a soldier becoming a weakling or even fainting or dying from using psi-attack. Another possibility is to decrease mental stats (in this case the ratio would be that humans are not really being adapted to psi: you could be expected to go crazy playing mind games) leading to a decrease in psionic powers or maybe panicking or beserking the soldier using psi. Together with limiting psi attacks of MCed units proposed elsewhere this would rebalance the later game somewhat... [[User:Emphyrio|Emphyrio]] 07:22, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

== 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)

=== 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.
: Now fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

=== 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)
:: XcomUtil 9.6 also restores all DOA if you win to. Not what was intended. This feature has been removed as of 9.7 until I can fix it. --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)
: Now also fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

=== 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).
: Now fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

= 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]]

Wish List (EU)

2010-08-16T14:14:27Z

N: /* Fog of War Improvements */

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]]

=== 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]]

===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)

:::: Ummm, it seems the best solution (I, for one, can't think of any better), but wouldn't it assume that only the BattleShip really locates the player's base? All those scouts for nothing? [Still the best solution, though] [[User:N|n] 15:01, 16 August 2010 (GMT+1)

=== All Aircraft Weapons Useful ===

In a balanced game, all weapons should have their uses, or at least a niche, but sadly this is not so:

The Cannon is only useful for shooting down Small Scouts, and even that is practically impossible, due to the difficulty in closing to 10km range with any UFO, particularly the fast-accelerating Small Scout.

The Stingray is not even useful for shooting down Small Scouts (destroys them 57% of the time) and the Avalanche is better in every meaningful way. It also takes twice as long to rearm, making it operationally much worse than the Avalanche.

The Laser Cannon is inferior to the Avalanche for everything. It does have a higher payload but this is hardly relevant. If attacking a UFO that you would struggle to kill with Avalanches, you are unlikely to own an aircraft that will survive long enough to inflict more damage than an Avalanche if it mounted Laser Cannon.

The Fusion Ball Launcher has a [[Talk:Craft_Armaments#Fusion_Balls_better_than_Plasma_Beams.3F¦possible niche]] in fighting Battleships when mounted on Interceptors. Even then, it is difficult and expensive to have aircraft configured to fight only one enemy.

Unfortunately, the optimum path for craft weapon development is all-Avalanche followed by all-Plasma Beam. This is a shame.

Suggestions to 'tune up' the other weapons:

*Cannon - Increase the damage to 20 or 25. So at least there is a pay-off if you manage to get in close.
*Stingray - Double the rearm rate so it can be reloaded as fast as an Avalanche launcher. Increase the ammo capacity to 9 or 12. Then up the rearm rate again (triple or quadruple) so it can still be reloaded as fast as Avalanche. Even then, it's probably not better than the Avalanche, so maybe it make it ''more'' accurate than the Avalanche instead of less. Raise Stingray to 90%, or to 80% but drop Avalanche to 65%.
*Laser Cannon - increase accuracy to 50% and damage to 100. Give it infinite ammunition.
*FBL - increase the ammo from 2 to 3. Increase damage to 250 or even 255. It's far and away the most expensive weapon to operate so it might as well pack the biggest punch.

It might be worth considering 'tune down' the Plasma Beam as well, particularly its stand-off range.
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:59, 14 February 2010 (EST)

=== Tougher UFOs ===

==== The Problem ====

So let me get this straight. The first hybrid airborne weapon that humans ever build, and it immediately outclasses every weapon the aliens ever built, including their Battleship weapon? After all the Aliens have only been building plasma weapons for a few million years, us humans have been doing it for ''months''!

More to the point, once you get Plasma Beams, downing UFOs is like shooting fish in a barrel. Even Battleships aren't that exciting if you show up with enough ships.

What is needed is to push up the range, damage, and rate of fire of all the UFO weapons, particularly the UFOs you will be fighting by the time you have plasma beams. At a minimum, the weapon on a Battleship should be at least as powerful as, say, 2 Plasma Beams (as found on the XCom craft it is fighting)? Instead of slightly less than half as powerful? Compared to a single Plasma Beam, only the Battleship weapon has better range. It has double the accuracy, slightly higher damage, but half the fire rate. Net 5.7% more firepower than one Plasma Beam, but no match for 2. And the Battleship weapon of course is the most powerful in the alien arsenal.

Possible tune ups for UFOs:

*Battleship - increase to 255 weapon power, improve reload rate to 12 (from 24). Now roughly equivalent to 4 Plasma Beams in total firepower (on Beginner difficulty). Increase range to 69km, so that the Battleship commences fire as soon as an XCom craft begins its attack run. Or better, increase range to 70+km, the limit of the interception window, so that the Battleship starts firing immediately the XCom craft enters air combat range. This would disrupt XCom aircrafts' ability to form up into a flight of 4, prior to commencing their attack. Overall, this would make it much harder to down Battleships. Increasing weapon range to 70+km would also make it much harder to tail a Battleship - manual control in the Geoscape would be needed to hold off outside of combat range. Really, the Battleship should not sit there like a sitting duck. Does it think XCom are friendly?
*Terror Ship - increase range to 52 (or decrease Plasma Beam range to 42), so stand-off kills are not possible with Plasma Beams?
*Actually maybe all the larger UFOs should have weapon range 69-70+km, so they behave very aggressively toward XCom craft.

NB: Strange effects occur if weapon range goes over 70km so it's probably best to leave it at 70km rather than 75km.

NB: Also, changes to rate of fire need to be looked at carefully though because Difficulty Level also reduces reload rate for UFOs. Between Beginner (Difficulty 0) and Superhuman (Difficulty 4), rate of fire (and thus firepower) for Battleships, Terror Ships and Supply Ships increases by 24/(24-4x2=16) or 50%. But if the base reload rate for these weapons was reduced to 12, the transition from Beginner to Advanced would increase firepower '''three''' times for these 3 UFOs (less so for the smaller UFOs). It is less risky to increase the weapon power. Unfortunately there are only 2 firepower variables to play with - damage and reload rate - so there are not a lot of options, especially for the Battleship which already has weapon strength 148 out of a probable maximum of 255.

:More detail on this. For Medium Scout, Large Scout and Abductor, with nominal reload rate 48gs, the rate of fire improves +20% between Beginner and Superhuman. For Harvester (32gs) it improves one third. For Large UFOs (Terror Ship, Supply Ship, Battleship - 24gs) the improvement is +50%. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:28, 14 February 2010 (EST)

I think we should assume that the Battleship, which is bigger than the entire XCom base, is engaging XCom craft with its secondary weapons rather than its main armament, which could probably destroy Manhattan with a glancing hit.

I would really like to see the hypothetical Mega-Battleship go up against XCom's finest - a flight of 4 Avengers armed with dual Plasma Cannon or dual Fusion Ball Launchers. With the Battleship having 70+km range, 255 weapon power, and an effective fire rate on Superhuman triple that of the PB, it would have the firepower of 11 Plasma Beams - 36% more firepower than the whole attacking XCom force combined. To be honest I think that would be carnage, not sure XCom could win. So that would be tuning the Battleship up too much. The 3-fold increase in rate of fire when on Superhuman is just too much. Maybe just max out the damage to 255 and range to 75. This gives a 72% increase in firepower, and a challenging tactical problem for XCom (forming up and approaching under fire).

The smaller UFOs can probably stay as they are. It is not until later in the game that XCom advances so that even large UFOs are easy pickings. What is the crossover point? Maybe the medium UFOs. So it might be good to reduce the reload times of the medium UFOs from 48 / 32 to 24, a good increase in firepower.

In general I think all UFOs energy weapons should have at least as good range as the XCom energy weapons, even the Medium Scout. Again, they have been using these weapons for millions of years and we only just figured out how to copy them from the aliens, how could our weapons be better than the aliens? How did our first plasma weapon out-range and out-perform all but the hugest UFO plasma beam? And on an airframe the size of a Small Scout we mount ''two'' such weapons? On the battlefield we only are able to replicate alien weapons; how is it that in the air we are able to improve on them ''masssively''?

Perhaps there should never be a stand-off advantage, except possibly with missiles -which should be less accurate with longer range. The XCom stand off advantage is really unfair because as far as I have seen the UFOs never attempt to close to effective range, even when they are getting killed. They don't break off much, either, though I think I have seen that happen on occasion.

==== Specific Proposals ====

===== No Standoff Beam Attacks =====

Increase ''all'' UFO plasma weapon ranges to at least 55km (compared to 52km for the XCom plasma weapon). Now only launched XCom weapons (Avalanche and Fusion Ball) have standoff advantage. Probably also reduce the accuracy of the Avalanche to 60% and buff Stingray accuracy to 80%, providing both weapons with a useful niche role.

===== No Standoff Attacks =====

Increase ''all'' UFO plasma weapon ranges to 66km (compared to 52km for the XCom plasma weapon). Now ''no'' XCom weapon has standoff advantage. (The benefit of a longer range weapon is simply spending less time being fired on by the UFO.)

===== Twitchy Aliens =====

Increase all UFO ranges to 69km. They will attack as soon as XCom aircraft commence any attack run.

===== Hostile Aliens =====

Increase all UFO ranges to 70km. They will attack as soon as XCom aircraft enter intercept range. UFOs now fire first, and tailing them unchallenged is impossible.

===== Improved Medium UFOs =====

Reduce (improve) the nominal reload time of Medium UFOs, Abductors and Harvesters, from 48gs and 32gs to 24gs. This increases the challenge in the early-mid game, when XCom might first be deploying advanced weapons.

===== Improved Battleships =====

Increase damage to 255. They're firing (bigger) Fusion Balls! A Battleship now has the same firepower as one XCom Craft with dual Plasma Beams (gosh wow!). It's a start, but what if we...

===== Super Battleships =====

... also reduce nominal reload time to 18gs. Giving a further one-third extra firepower on Beginner, 60% more on Superhuman.

===== Mega Battleships =====

... or for a real challenge, reduce reload time to 12gs. A further doubling of the firepower on Beginner - a further ''four'' times increase on Superhuman. Now Superhuman Battleships out-gun the biggest fleet XCom can throw at them!

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 00:25, 19 February 2010 (EST)

: the flip side of this is weakening Xcom craft - apart from firepower issues there is also the issue of range: the ranges of the transport craft are such that really no more than 1 manned base is necessary to cover the globe for terror site defense. Setting e.g. the fuel capacity of the Skyranger to 500 results in roughly 1 base per continent required. This has interesting strategic consequences: need for more bases makes the ecomics more challenging (and thus slows down research). [[User:Emphyrio|Emphyrio]] 08:43, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

===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]]

=== 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)

====Crashed Buildings====

Why don't we see any crushed or destroyed buildings? Does a UFO always fall like a rock, perpendicular to the ground? No marks on the ground? Such impact would do massive damage to the land (a small meteor can do much if it has a high speed...). (Also, at the [debatedly] "real" UFO crash zones UFO parts were scattered over miles)

I'd like to see chopped buildings, entering UFO's through a barns; entering an abductor from a immediate house's roof if I have plasma and no flying suits yet.

===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)]]

Taking off with troops onboard would be perfectly safe (for the aliens) and justifiable if one assumes that alien ships in flight are inherently inhospitable for humans. This is easily done by saying that they undergo accelerations that humans can't withstand (splat), can't withstand for any length of time (pass out), or that they intentionally make rapid accelerations in different directions, either normally or just if they're trying to bash some intruders around. Naturally, the aliens themselves would either be immune to these (tough physique / their built-in antigrav devices?), or be in acceleration chairs, safe from all this.

Alternatively, when you get the warning that the UFO is going to take off, you've got a certain amount of time to either get everyone '''off''' the UFO, or to get everyone '''on''' it (or as many as you can). There could be a follow-up mission that takes place in "sky" terrain, where the outdoors is either impassable (the easy way) or else instantly withdraws units from combat (flying suits / parachutes). The soldiers' goals would be to either take out the aliens and presumably safely land and salvage the UFO, or take out the UFO's means of flying (power cores / navigator?). In the latter case, they might have a certain number of turns to withdraw or be caught in the crash, with possible casualties just like the aliens, mitigated to some degree by their armour and maybe where inside the UFO they are.

In the case of a crash, there could be a final mission to finish off the surviving aliens, using the X-COM soldiers that survive the crash, and no landing craft (it's still back at the old landing site). Alternatively, you could say that there '''is''' an X-COM landing craft parked outside (with all remaining members of the original landing party), since the in-flight time / distance was presumably low and the original X-COM craft quickly packed up and flew to the new landing site. — [[User:Wisq|Wisq]] 17:11, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

===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)

Fixing the AI for this could be really hard. Apart from all the possible exploits by XCom, the AI is probably a really hard part of the game to reverse engineer. You could say that an unarmed alien is no threat anyway (we are only concerned about aliens without psi or built in weapons). So nothing is lost even with an exploitable method of re-arming. By exploitable I mean the XCom player can manipulate re-arming, e.g. by leaving weapons out in the open as bait for traps.

Maybe the simplest modification would be to ''not'' drop weapons when the alien panics? This does not require delving in to the AI, just intercepting the panic effects. Dont make aliens drop any weapons when they panic. It would be reasonable to return the weapon in hand to inventory, so there is a TU cost for the alien to bring the weapon back into play again.

This would not work for aliens who were stunned and wake up, or who were mind controlled by XCom and made to drop their weapons. But it would probably catch 80% of cases.

Another cheat, short of fixing the AI, is just to pick up weapons that the alien walks over. It could also pick up "spare" weapons from adjacent aliens (cheating on TUs - basically just teleporting the items to the unarmed alien). Spare alien weapons are almost invariably grenades. I have not had a lot of success in getting unarmed aliens to use grenades, so more research is needed here. Maybe only certain types of aliens use grenades, or only in certain circumstances?

Really, really cheating would be to teleport any weapon laying around the battlefield into the alien's inventory. But I think it is more fair just to say panicked aliens dont drop their equipment. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:13, 13 February 2010 (EST)

==== 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)

=== 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.

----

There was a utility to do this from Devisraad. it has long since been removed from his site, but someone may still have it. The basics was you renamed unit and it automatically replaced graphics flag to swap out the units. Didn't work on the Large Aliens but still was a fun mod --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:20, 6 January 2010 (EST)

=== 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)

----
You may be able to get 3 levels in an X-Com Base but not 4. EU has a smaller amount of memory alocated. I dont know the limit but 60x60x4 will crash EU. TFTD has no problem --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:25, 6 January 2010 (EST)

----

I got partway through this and then decided to change my methods entirely and start from scratch. So I thought I might as well post my progress anyways, as it's already about on par with the crude TFTD implementation: You always have the same craft appear in your hanger regardless of what is (or isn't!) there.

[[Image:Skyranger In Hanger.rar]]

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 05:40, 17 December 2009 (EST)

----

Hey BB, a while ago I have modded the plane terrain files so that the Skyranger appears facing east instead of south. If you want to use that one (to make it a little different) let me know. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 08:23, 17 December 2009 (EST)

----

Thanks, but don't worry about it for now: it'll make the MCD arrays larger still, so I'll consider it when I get all the other stuff done.

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 17:01, 19 December 2009 (EST)

----

The completed mod is now included in my toolpack. As usual, I've only done cursory testing on it, but I'm pretty sure it's stable enough.

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 06:40, 20 January 2010 (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]]

=== Impose cost to using Psionic attacks===

I think everyone agrees Psi attacks are too powerful. I would propose to impose a cost to using Psionic attacks. This could take the form of decreasing the physical stats after using a PSi attack (after all all: the psionic races are physically weak). This could for example lead to a soldier becoming a weakling or even fainting or dying from using psi-attack. Another possibility is to decrease mental stats (in this case the ratio would be that humans are not really being adapted to psi: you could be expected to go crazy playing mind games) leading to a decrease in psionic powers or maybe panicking or beserking the soldier using psi. Together with limiting psi attacks of MCed units proposed elsewhere this would rebalance the later game somewhat... [[User:Emphyrio|Emphyrio]] 07:22, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

== 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)

=== 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.
: Now fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

=== 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)
:: XcomUtil 9.6 also restores all DOA if you win to. Not what was intended. This feature has been removed as of 9.7 until I can fix it. --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)
: Now also fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

=== 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).
: Now fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

= 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]]

User talk:Seb76

2010-08-16T14:03:47Z

N: /* New and Outstanding Requests */

Hey, sorry to pester you again. :) I've gotten access to IDA, as you suggested, and with it I'm making some slow progress toward my mod. I wanted to ask, though, do you know of any sort of tutorial or useful intro for it? The user interface is pretty obtuse, the built-in help has nothing useful, and I've been struggling just to make comments go where I want them to.

(I mean, I understand that it's meant for very advanced users, but Jesus, who writes an enterprise-grade utility and doesn't bother to implement an Undo function?!?)

Thanks again for your help! [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 23:15, 16 June 2008 (PDT)

Okay, a little more progress since I discovered anterior comments. Couple of more specific questions: what's the difference between a "comment" and a "repeatable comment"? Or any of the several other types of comments, for that matter.

What exactly does "mov cs:word_102F9, ax" do? At first I thought it was just copying the accumulator into the data word at 02F9, but the "cs:" part is confusing. word_102F9 is 0, I think ("seg000:02F9 word_102F9 dw 0"). Does that mean it's copying AX into the current code segment, offset 0, modifying the code in progress? That seems odd.

Okay, one more and then I'll go to bed: what does "jmp short $+2" do? It looks like it just means "jump to next instruction", which is kinda redundant, but it could be "jump ''over'' next instruction", which...still seems unnecessarily verbose. I dunno. [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 00:51, 17 June 2008 (PDT)

: The last two questions are actually general Intel 16-bit assembly ;)

: The cs in "mov cs:word_102F9, ax" is the 16-bit code segment base, yes. It *might* be self-modifying code, but more likely there is a C global or static variable that was implemented there and being updated. The "seg000:02F9 word_102F9 dw 0" is probably from C default initialization, but could be from an explicit initialization to 0.
::Back in the 16bit days, there were several memory models. My knowledge on this is quite rusty, but IIRC COM executables were using the "tiny" one which means that the code and data use the same segment (I assume you're working on the music TSR?). Modification of data via the CS segment is not necessarily self-modifying code. Also TSRs were usually signaled using software interruptions so the code most likely sets up an interrupt vector and bails out. e.g.:
seg000:0140 mov dx, 157h
seg000:0143 push ds
seg000:0144 push cs
seg000:0145 pop ds
seg000:0146 mov ax, 2566h
seg000:0149 int 21h ; DOS - SET INTERRUPT VECTOR
seg000:0149 ; AL = interrupt number
seg000:0149 ; DS:DX = new vector to be used for specified interrupt
seg000:014B pop ds
seg000:014C call sub_1067A
seg000:014F mov dx, ax
seg000:0151 mov ax, 3100h
seg000:0154 int 21h ; DOS - DOS 2+ - TERMINATE BUT STAY RESIDENT
seg000:0154 start endp ; AL = exit code, DX = program size, in paragraphs

::In this example (from music.com), there is code at 157h but IDA does not detect it. You can get there, type 'C' and create a new function. The code there is the most important. HTH [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 12:10, 17 June 2008 (PDT)

::: There were at least six common memory models. *.COM not only assumed a single code and single data segment, it assumed their base addresses were the same. You get four more (with one segment of static data) by 1 or more than 1 of each of code and data segments [near and far pointer distinctions]. The last allowed more than 64K of static data.

::: XCOM most likely used one of the double-far memory models. -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]], 9:31 Jun 19 2008 CDT

: "jmp short $+2" is jump over the next instruction, if the next instruction is 2 bytes. This probably came from an if-then-else in C (it's a common idiom in translating C to assembly). -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]], 12:36 Jun 17 2008 CDT

:: I can see several instances of this in music.com for simple "return value" functions. Most likely a "feature" of the compiler. If used for padding, it is equivalent to 2 nop instructions, but takes only one cycle to execute. This was before deeply pipelined processors though ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 12:10, 17 June 2008 (PDT)

Yeah, I sidelined off IDA onto general assembly there :) Probably a good thing, means I'm getting used to it. Sort of.

(Holy crap. I just discovered that hitting "P" (Create Function) in the right place is all it takes to enable graph display mode and give me a vast, improbably pretty flowchart of, well, a lot of stuff. I'd been wondering how to make that work.)

Anyway! Seb, you're correct, I'm working on the music TSR. I've pretty much figured out how the entry code works, setting up an interrupt vector and terminating, which I think is decent progress for three days' experience with x86 assembler. I did find a web reference to "jmp short $+2" [http://www.programmersheaven.com/mb/x86_asm/484/484/ReadMessage.aspx here], which suggests that it's "used to clear the cache, before going in or out of protected mode". Not entirely sure what clearing the cache does, but it's good to know.

Thanks to the both of you for your help. Seb, do you mind if I continue to ask questions here? I don't know where else it should go. Maybe we need a "ridiculous hacking ideas" section of the wiki... ;) [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 01:10, 18 June 2008 (PDT)

:Hehe, sounds like fun. When I can find time to write a dll injector, I may add some stuff to it ;-) I'd start with increasing the max number of smoke entries. (Not possible right off the bat because it's using a static array instead of malloc-ed data :( ). Other ideas: fix the proxmine bugs, or maybe the disjoint base bug. I found the piece of code and it is not a simple "off by one" issue so it cannot just be patched in place... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 12:22, 18 June 2008 (PDT)

::Yeah, there's a lot of bugs and odd behaviors that could be fixed by just using larger arrays somehow. The 80-item limit causes all sorts of problems, the smoke limit, the 20-armed-proxmine limit...I wouldn't mind having more than 8 bases in the late game...stuff like that. [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 12:42, 18 June 2008 (PDT)

Hmm. The loader thing looks wonderful, but as I'm using a dos version in dosbox I'm guessing I'm out of luck for now? Or are you a dos wizard as well? :)
[[User:Knan|Knan]] 12:35, 9 July 2008 (PDT)
:Using a loader coupled with dll injection, there is no limit to the size of what you want to patch. You can also use higher level languages instead of plain assembler. However it is windows specific (won't work on anything pre-XP because of CreateRemoteThread usage BTW). For CD music in DOS, [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] may be your ticket. I'm willing to help but as I said before, my knowledge of DOS is quite rusty. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 12:49, 9 July 2008 (PDT)
::It's really the equipment screen hack that looks compelling. Figure it might be unreasonably hard to do that in dos. But I can't seem to get the windows version to run at a reasonable speed these days, always far too fast. That's why I'm using dosbox. Ah well, have fun modding :) [[User:Knan|Knan]] 14:14, 9 July 2008 (PDT)
:Well, actually I have the speed issue too. It's just that setting the laptop to max battery and scroll speed to one is enough to work around the problem ^^. The geoscape has a sleep routine to prevent too fast updates. The mecanism is not present in the tactical part. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:45, 9 July 2008 (PDT)
:Edit: might be your lucky day. I made a modification, it should slow down the scroll now. Can you check? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:42, 9 July 2008 (PDT)

Seb76, since you appear to be on a roll with the findings lately, I thought I'd mention this as something to look out for if you haven't already found it. Can you track down the tables that determine a few other object properties that aren't stored in obdata.dat? I mean for properties like if it can cast light, what bullet image to use if the object is fired, whether its melee attack/mind probe/psi attacks are available for that item, etc. This would certainly allow for much more robust equipment modding. I'm guessing it'll be a part of the tactical.exe portion of the game. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 19:56, 11 July 2008 (PDT)
:Only flares can cast light currently. It is not a property in obdata, but a hardcoded "objectType=0x1B" check. I can hack in a piece of code to enable light for some other object types, but we'll need a way to say which ones do (can be done in the ini file but it would not be clean. Maybe we can find an unused bit in obdata.dat and arrange that...). [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:12, 12 July 2008 (PDT)
:Edit: the routine that populates the item menu has everything almost hardcoded too: stun, mind probe, psi-amp actions, scanner and medkit are all hardcoded by object type. The rest uses known flags from obdata. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:18, 12 July 2008 (PDT)
:Edit2: playing with the heavy laser mod, I found the data for bullet image/sound. It is located at offset 0x6D1F8. Each entry is organized like that:
struct {
short bulletVisual;
short shootSound;
short impactSound;
short impactAnimation;
}
Entries are sorted per [[OBDATA.DAT]] ID (i.e. the first entry is for pistol, the 0x12th for heavy laser, etc.) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:31, 2 August 2008 (PDT)

: Ah, that'll help with some modding. Although I just remembered something that I was going to ask at the time - but completely forgot about. What controls how the weapon is displayed while in the soldier's hands? I mean, the pistols are displayed with the weapon extended in the firing position while most other weapons are held across in both hands (mimicking one/two handed items). Would this be hard coded as well in addition to the unique item actions? -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 17:43, 2 August 2008 (PDT)

== Error running UFOExtender ==

Hi Seb76. I've tried running your UFOExtender as I want to slow down the scrolling in the tactical view. However I get the following error message:

C:\Games\X-com\UFO Defense\UFOLoader.exe
This application has failed to start because the application configuration is incorrect. Reinstalling the application may fix this problem.

Any ideas what's going wrong? I'm on Win XP running Collector's Edition of UFO. --[[User:Col w|col_w]] 05:34, 12 July 2008 (PDT)
:Hum, looks like the error you get when there is a missing DLL. I compiled using Visual Studio 9.0 Express Edition, maybe you don't have the runtime installed? You can get it [http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=9B2DA534-3E03-4391-8A4D-074B9F2BC1BF&displaylang=en here]. Tools like [http://www.dependencywalker.com/ dependency walker] can help identify missing DLLs. Also what OS are you using (service pack number)? I don't have Vista here to test so it may only be running in XP SP2. Anybody can report it running on Vista? For sure it won't work on Win9x. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 09:02, 12 July 2008 (PDT)
::Yeah, visual xyz runtime dlls need to be included with things you compile with visual xyz. A common complaint when running small hacks under Wine on Linux as well, since you usually install just a very few programs on each virtual windows install, so it's unlikely some other program installs the dlls for you. [[User:Knan|Knan]] 17:08, 12 July 2008 (PDT)
:Especially since they made up that manifest stuff. Supposed to solved DLL hell... Well, so far it caused me more trouble than it solved issues. The funny part is when you install a new VS service pack on your build servers and have half the development team freak out because their target system won't boot the latest piece of code... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 18:04, 12 July 2008 (PDT)
Awesome, that fixed it! Now I can enjoy this classic game once again. Love the language screen joke too :) Many thanks --[[User:Col w|col_w]] 11:08, 12 July 2008 (PDT)
:My pleasure man. Glad you enjoyed it ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 12:07, 12 July 2008 (PDT)

My problem is the following: if I try to run the loader normally, a console window pops up for a few seconds then I get an "illegal instruction" error from NTVDM (and the window disappears, yet it's button remains on the taskbar until I kill the process). If I try to run it with DosBox however, I get "illegal command: UFOLOADER.EXE". Point is, I can't run this at all.--[[User:Amitakartok|amitakartok]] 11:27, 13 October 2009 (EDT)
:Looks like you're trying to use the DOS version here. Only the CE (windows) version is supported. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 13:48, 13 October 2009 (EDT)

Hi, is it in any way possilbe to run the Extender in Win98? I just set up an old machine with it and wanted to give it a try but as you said above, it won't work with Win9x. But is there a way to manually mod the game? I am asking becaus on my WinXP Machine the game often crahes in battlescape and that really sucks =(--[[User:Skaw847|Skaw847]] 19:28, 21 May 2010 (EDT)

== UFOloader and Xcomutil ==

Hey Seb76 awesome work with this patch! Just wondering though if it would be possible to run this together with XcomUtil somehow. Thanks!
Oh and btw when's the TFTD version coming out? ;-)
[[User:J'ordos|J'ordos]] 14:09, 24 July 2008 (PDT)
:You can try this version: [[Image:UFOExtender-dev.zip ]]. I did not really have time to test it. Use the modified batch and keep me posted ;-) You'll get a crash if you activate the patch to disable the introduction movie. I checked the equipment screen patches, they were OK. TFTD will wait till I'm satisfied with the XCOM version. Anyway, I'm not in a disassembling frenzy right now :p [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:29, 24 July 2008 (PDT)

:: Hey fast response, thanks! I tried the new version but unless I'm missing something I've been unable to get it to include f0dder's bugfix loaders. I edited the ini file's Executable= to 'xcloader.exe', xcomutil's included bugfix loader, and when I run UFOloader.exe directly it works fine, but when using your modified runxcomW.bat it seems to be disregarded. This was not the case with your previous version. (I actually thought of modifying runxcomW.bat like that :-) ) Can't seem to find any reason for it in runxcomW.bat.
:The only modification I did to this version is forward the parameters passed to the loader to the XCOM executable (geoscape is passed an argument which tells it if it needs to start from scratch, or use the data from the missdat folder). Also it cannot work with f0dder's patch the way you tried: doing so, you are patching the xcloader binary itself, which obviously is not what you want.
:Edit: I added a "Video Pitch" bug fix to compensate for the incompatibility of the 2 loaders ;)
:: also a minor note, but on a fresh xcom install the console echoes a read error on MISSDAT\saveinfo.dat (I assume this is the work of xcomutil) and minimizes Xcom to the tray. It still works fine though.
:: while on the subject of minor notes the 'Rank In Inventory=' in your ini file actually has the letter O instead of the number 0 by default ;-)
:Hm, I guess that's what you get when experimenting stuff at 1:00 am ;-) (GMT+2 here)
:: edit: I decided to do some testing first by manually disabling directdraw to circumvent the bugfix loader problem. Unfortunately the game crashes as soon as I enter tactical combat (when it should go to the equipment screen) even when all features are disabled. But unless I delete the MISSDAT folder's contents the next time I run runxcomW.bat I can hear the battlescape music playing. Unfortunately the batch file seems to get stuck in an infinite loop or something as it just keeps starting xcom over and over until it finally kills my system! :-) (all my base really belong to you ;-) )
:I start the runxcomw.bat batch from a shell and I have to do a "ctrl-C" between phases . Maybe it is because I replied yes to "Do you want to see XcomUtil messages after combat?"
:: using the previous version I can enter battles just fine, but none of the UFOloader features work.
:Did you try disabling every XComUtil features? I don't know how extensively it modifies the main executable. Here it works with the following config: replied "no" to everything while installing XComUtil (so that only executable splitting is done), enabling only equipment screen patches with my loader, and starting via the attached batch file. I can start a new game, down a UFO, go into tactical mode and go back to the geoscape view after taking down all the aliens. Did you try renaming UFOLoader.exe into xcloader.exe? It might work [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 12:21, 25 July 2008 (PDT)

:: Thanks for your efforts, but still no luck. I downloaded the new version and did a fresh install of xcom. Running the UFOloader without xcomutil works fine (with your directdraw patch I get a ~3sec pause everytime the game zooms in/out on an interception though, which does not occur with f0dder's patch). Running xcomutil without the UFOLoader also works fine (using ctrl+C). I then did another fresh install and put the both of 'em together. I enabled the equipment screen patch and the directdraw fix on UFOLoader and told xcomutil to use f0dder's loader, answering no to all other questions. Renamed UFOLoader.exe to xcloader.exe and started runxcomW.bat. The game crashed when it should go to the equipment screen. (no ctrl+C possible) Disabling the equipment screen patch and/or enabling xcomutil's messages after combat yielded the same result. :(
:About the 3sec pause, it may be related to the musicfix that f0dder's patch does: it runs the MCI commands in a separate thread to remove the pause due to synchronous calls (with the unpatched version, there is a "slight" pause (~0.5sec on my computer) each time the music changes). Do you have the same pause in the main menu? Also if you activate the PSX music patch (even with no CD in the tray), it should remove the pause (if it is indeed the same problem). For your crash, I haven't got a clue. Maybe it's time I release the source code so people with different configurations can try more stuff. I know there are imaginative people out there ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 07:02, 27 July 2008 (PDT)

:: Ah that fixed the delays, thanks! Strangely the battlescape now works fine (using ctrl+C) as long as I don't enable the equipment patch with xcomutil... Don't know about the other fixes&flags. I'll do some more testing. [[User:J'ordos|J'ordos]] 10:31, 27 July 2008 (PDT)

:: edit: quick testing reveals that it actually crashes exactly 1 times in 2, apparently regardless of what fixes are on. (though I did not yet test any xcomutil features) I guess it's probably related to one of the MISSDAT files? [[User:J'ordos|J'ordos]] 10:37, 27 July 2008 (PDT)
:: edit2: OK here's what I have so far: It crashes if the previous mission worked. It works if it crashed on the previous mission. If I delete the contents of the MISSDAT folder it always crashes until I do a mission without xcomutil and/or without the loader. After that the normal rules apply. (i.e. next mission I play with both xcomutil&the loader it'll crash, as the previous mission worked, but the next one will work again) very strange :s Note that I did not yet try to play out a full mission, I always aborted on the first turn. Hope you can narrow the problem down a bit this way :-) [[User:J'ordos|J'ordos]] 10:50, 27 July 2008 (PDT)
:Can you give me the address of the error when it crashes? (accessible in the crash window dialog)[[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 11:29, 27 July 2008 (PDT)

:: There is nothing when it crashes, not even the console remains. Unless you're talking about a log file?
:I was talking about the "a program has cause xxx to close unexpectedly" (or whatever it is in the US version) dialog box. This looks more like a silent crash (the worth case). I modified the loader and it looks better. I still have the "ctrl-C" issue however. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 12:38, 27 July 2008 (PDT)

:: <3 don't know what you did but the latest version works perfect! Just did 3 missions in a row, restarted xcom and did another 2 (only actually completed one of 'em tho :) ) without any crashes at all! *crosses fingers* I enabled all the settings I wanted in both xcomutil and the UFOLoader without problems. Thanks Seb, excellent work! ;-)
:: oh and the ctrl+C thing is a problem in the xcomutil batch file, it's not your program's fault. The Xcopy commands in the runxcomW.bat file are missing a /Y parameter. Here's a link to the xcomufo.com forum thread discussing it for anyone interested: [http://www.xcomufo.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=242025489]
:: Whew, was quite a ride... Now, where's my ammo clip fix? ^^
:Thanks for the feedback, it is good to know that it is possible to have this work with xcomutil. BTW, the fix I did in the test version is also in the latest package with the ammo clip hack ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:16, 27 July 2008 (PDT)
:::After spending an hour with reading through this double discussion and trying to find the right batch file in the old archives and make the game work, I decided to put your '''Xcomutil + UFOloader solution''' here: [[Image:RunXcomW.zip]] with a simple explanation. Hope you don't mind.--[[User:Kyrub|Kyrub]] 15:43, 8 September 2008 (PDT)
::::Actually you don't need the modified runxcomw.bat file, the way I do it is I tell xcomutil to use f0dder's loaders and then I simply replace xcloader.exe (xcomutil's included f0dder patch) with UFOLoader.exe! [[User:J'ordos|J'ordos]] 05:01, 9 September 2008 (PDT)
: Hey there, I've read about this project and I'm wondering if I can ran it with XComUtil but I play with the DOS versions (through DosBox) and thus use RunXCom. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 16:27, 13 September 2008 (PDT)
::Sorry there, this project uses modifications of the binary so it'll work only on the windows version. Why do you have to stick to the DOS version BTW? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 04:29, 14 September 2008 (PDT)
:::DOS version was the first I played and I prefer its sounds (specially the alien death cries). I also prefer the DOS bugs (some on CE are too annoying). Thanks anyway :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 11:26, 14 September 2008 (PDT)
:::Hmm, something I remembered: IIRC, XComUtil splits the binary of CE into Tactical and Geoscape, in order for it to run with CE. I think I'll download your program and give it a try [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 11:34, 14 September 2008 (PDT)
::::No success, doesn't surprise since I have the barest clue of what I should be doing. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 11:44, 14 September 2008 (PDT)
::There's no way it could work like that, windows binaries cannot run in DOS environment; split binaries or not. If you're pissed about a particular bug, just tell. I may be able to fix it ;-) Concerning the sounds, I don't know exactly what is the problem about CE version. If someone can give some details, I may have a look at that too. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 12:09, 14 September 2008 (PDT)
:Hey Seb is it possible the latest versions of your extender don't work with xcomutil anymore? Did you drop support? Love the new features but I rather miss xcomutil's automatic re-equipping :) [[User:J'ordos|J'ordos]] 12:58, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
::Yeah, it is possible ^_^ But you now, it was never officially supported, it worked more or less by chance ;-) As I said on the forum, it might be possible the older version of the loader still works (you can use the old loader with a recent patcher DLL, it should be OK), but I got little feedback so I don't know if I'm correct... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:13, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

== Heavy Laser Mod ==

Hey Seb, I've been trying the new heavy laser. It's a cool idea, adds some new options during battle :) But I think currently the full auto option is overpowered. I hardly use the burst mode at all. I'd suggest lowering the accuracy and/or (if possible) reducing the amount of shots fired? Currently when I see a single alien I use full auto (can't miss with 10 shots), when I see a terror unit I use full auto (2x2 + 10 shots = dead terror unit :) ), and when I see a group of aliens I also use full auto (10 shots > 5 shots). A few units still standing? Bring on the next heavy laser.
Also because these new fire modes don't mind line of fire restrictions cover won't help aliens at all (unless the cover is strong enough to withstand HL power). Just use full auto to blast through any house that's in the way and in most cases it'll still kill the alien as well. (do need to make sure no agents/civilians are standing in the line of fire though)
Should note that ATM I'm still only dealing with sectoids and the occasional floater. Will let you know how it fares against the later races.
[[User:J'ordos|J'ordos]] 05:44, 31 August 2008 (PDT)

OK, it's cool but it really is overpowered. Accuracy must be lower in Auto modes than in Snap, that's basic in the game. If you assume the Heavy Laser is somehow better optimised for autofire than the Laser Rifle, and set the TUs for normal Auto at say 30% (vs 34% with Laser Rifle) that would let you get off 3 bursts, which would be better. (I could live with the idea that you can also only fire 3 snap shots). Then your "Full Auto" mode would be 100% TUs for 10 rounds and your "Burst Mode" could be 50% TUs for 5 rounds, and that would be consistent with the 'standard' Auto mode. But the accuracy per shot needs to be much lower. I would suggest the base Accuracy per shot is reduced to 33% (one third less than Snap, similar to a Laser Rifle). You are still making the weapon MUCH more effective this way. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:47, 1 September 2008 (PDT)

: On further analysis, even this is too powerful. The stats I just cited would give firepower only a fraction less than a Heavy Plasma - with much lower cost, unlimited ammo and easier-to-reach technology. That's not balanced. Unfortunately, you can't really go above 6 shots per turn without unbalancing the game, as none of the 2 handed weapons fire more than 6 shots/turn. So the TUs for Auto need to be 34%-40%, and you can't really have it fire more than 6 shots per turn even in the Full Auto mode. I would suggest Auto = 35%, Burst = 75%, Full Auto = 80%. Burst and Full Auto only fire 6 shots. Burst Mode fires 2 shots each at 2 waypoints, and a further 2 rounds spread in between the 2 waypoints. Full Auto fires one each at 2 waypoints and 4 shots spread between the waypoints. And maybe the Burst Mode should be the more expensive one as it is more 'concentrated' fire. The reason you can't really exceed 6 shots per turn, even if you reduce the accuracy drastically, is because otherwise you create a super-effective shock weapon at point blank range (and a super effective terrain-clearing weapon). Somehow the 'shock power' in particular seems inappropriate for something as clumsy as a Heavy Laser. To rationalise it, think of it this way - it's not a machinegun, it's an energy weapon. The 'cyclic rate of fire' is limited by the energy circuitry as much as anything else. So squeezing six shots per turn out rather than 3 (the limit with Snap fire) is a pretty good improvement. With the Auto Mode I've suggested here, you have still double the 'shock' firepower of the Heavy Laser at short range, and increased its firepower by two thirds at longer ranges. Not a bad way to put some life back into a weapon that otherwise has very limited uses. Probably in the 'Area' modes (Burst / Full Auto) the Accuracy should drop, say to 25% (vs 33% in standard Auto). [[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:48, 1 September 2008 (PDT)

Ok I finally shut down my NeXCom Workstation and turned out the lights in the Bean Counter's Department at X-Com HQ - and headed down to the Armoury. I checked out one of the new, experimental Super Heavy Auto Lasers and ducked onto an Avenger heading into a hot LZ.

Seb, let me tell, you, it was SPECTACULAR! You are the Ayatollah of Rock-and-Rolla! I was like Jesse Ventura in Predator, carving up the jungle with his minigun. I love your gun. It is too cool. It must not be nerfed. So I have another suggestion for your coding skillz:

See if you can get the "hidden item", Gatling Laser, working. Add your Super Heavy Auto Laser as a new item, using the Gatling Laser image and OBDATA entry. I don't know if you can add a new Research option or a new Manufacturing option. If you can't, maybe you can offer it to Purchase (once Heavy Laser is researched, or perhaps Laser Cannon). Given the power of the weapon (as spec'd above), the cost to buy or manufacture should be similar to a Heavy Plasma: around a total cost of $164K to manufacture (including ''all'' costs) or around $225K to buy. As a quick hack, for the time being, if you are still using the Heavy Laser object for the Super Heavy Auto Laser (with 10 shot Full Auto), increase the manufacturing costs and buy/sell prices to roughly the same as the Heavy Plasma. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:29, 3 September 2008 (PDT)

:Thanks for the nice feedback! The initial idea for this mod came when watching a Laser Squad speedrun (never played the game myself) and seeing the guy waste several baddies with one auto-shot sweep (in this game you can also select the number of shots when auto-firing). I chose to try a modification of the heavy laser for 2 reasons: everybody agrees to say that the default one sucks and second, since it uses no ammunition there is no need to handle out-of-ammo conditions. I personally see this weapon more as a recipe for new doors than a direct way to kill aliens. Several things could nerf it a bit but I didn't try them yet:
:*make accuracy lower and lower during a burst (to account for the laser lens deformation caused by overheating). This would restore the advantage of cover and make people thing twice before firing when a friendly unit stands in front
:*reduce accuracy even further when shooting out of sight (this was mentionned in another post)
:*change the damage model and reduce the probability that terrain is destroyed when shot
:*have a cooldown period where the weapon is not useable (not sure if it's feasible though)

::Yeah cooldown periods! Then restore functionality of the melee HIT command. Hey it worked for incubation: time is running out. ^^ [[User:J'ordos|J'ordos]] 16:27, 7 September 2008 (PDT)
:::Hm, I already cannibalized the unused "open" and "close" actions for the heavy laser mod, there is no more room for a new "hit" command. Unless... ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 11:28, 8 September 2008 (PDT)

:OK, here is the last draft before I finalize:
:*Shooting the HL will cost ~50 energy so you won't be able to abuse it (the shooter will be a sitting duck)
:*Each shot of a burst will reduce the accuracy (amount not determined yet)
:*The [[User:Seb76#Range_Based_Accuracy|Range Based Accuracy]] will always apply to the HL
:If everybody likes it, I'll got with that. Any comment? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 09:16, 22 November 2008 (CST)

Sounds good to me. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:25, 22 November 2008 (CST)
:OK, here we go. I won't tell you exactly what I did, just give me your feedback ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 05:24, 23 November 2008 (CST)

It's been a while, but recently tried your newest version and it seems the heavy laser is bugged? No matter which firing mode I choose it is extremely inaccurate and a lot of shots after travelling in one direction suddenly 'deflect' into another direction for some reason. It's a miracle none of my own guys were hit :) [[User:J'ordos|J'ordos]] 12:41, 28 February 2009 (CST)
:It may have been broken by other stuff indeed. I'll have a look [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:29, 28 February 2009 (CST)

Hey, is it just me or is full auto not affected by range based accuracy, while burst is? I am using the RB accuracy mod on all weapons, and maybe that is affecting it. All I know is, even at long distance, full auto shows full accuracy. Not sure if the burst mode is showing the RB decrease I programmed or not though.
--[[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 06:01, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

:The heavy laser and range based accuracy stuff were developped in parallel and merged later. It is almost sure that things will go wrong if you activate both ;-) I could reproduce some issues and will try to fix them. BTW, I got no feedback for the "shortcuts" patch. Is it broken that badly that nobody wants to have it fixed? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:00, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

I just used an unpatched version (CE, as I always use), and used your patch on it. The only things I even activated in the patch are the video fix so it was playable, the heavy laser mod, and the accuracy mod. Still have the same problem, so yeah... they don't work well together at the moment. But... I am hooked on the accuracy mod, so I guess Ill just deal with it and not use full auto. As far as shortcuts go... I had enabled it at one time, but I found that I just never used them. Maybe I will try to use it a bit to give you some feedback. I added a comment for alien bases, too, btw. --[[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 15:18, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

== Wish List please please please ==

=== New and Outstanding Requests ===

* Could we get TUs (in current/max format) at the inventory screen while on a mission? It would greatly help with swapping weapons among soldiers.

* Could we get little numbers [like on the screenshot of accuracy mod] showing how much TUs an action on the inventory screen would take? Some players (me, of course, included) can't really remember all that reloading from backpack or from a leg slot TUs. Also...

* a "drop all" button, maybe?

* Soldiers' positioning in Skyranger is very good... but with the Avenger it is not so pretty. The ones at the top are not the ones closest to the trap door. Chooseable patterns, maybe?

* Remember soldier load outs from last mission and re-equip accordingly. Or maybe just prevent units from taking more than they can carry. Removing grenades first, then magazines and ammo and lastly guns.
: '''Save Equipment''' is under development, still some bugs

* Make it so you can drop more than one screen worth of stuff in the pre-mission equipping phase.

* Allow human side soldiers to reaction fire in their currently saved Reserved Fire mode - eg to take Autofire or Aimed reaction shots. That would be very, very cool. It would also be a balanced trade-off, if these Reacting soldiers were not allowed to 'switch' to Snap fire after they no longer have the TUs left to use their Reserved mode.

: Has this been completed via the "Save Reserve Mode" feature? Not entirely I guess as Reaction fire is still always in Snap. To be honest that's not a bad thing. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 08:54, 23 November 2008 (CST)

* Implement your 'Area Fire' (as per Heavy Laser) for '''all''' large automatic weapons (AutoCannon, Heavy Plasma) or maybe just for all automatic weapons, period. It would be very handy for Autocannon bursts to cover a wider area, firing a narrow burst is often not what you want at all in many tactical situations. There might be a problem implementing this for Plasma weapons, if you couldn't persuade the Aliens' AI to use the Area modes - it wouldn't be fair.

* Close down Exploits. (I've just been reorganising the Exploits pages so it's on my mind.) Maybe this is pointless for those who have the willpower just to abstain from using Exploits. But as these are actually bugs I think it would be good to fix them. The worst exploits in my opinion are:
** [[ExploitsA#Free Manufacturing|Free Manufacturing]]. Probably needs to add a check that the manufacturing project has >0 units before allowing it to start.
** [[ExploitsA#Free Wages|Free Wages]]. Pay wages regardless of whether staff are in transit. They are on the payroll after all. This has a drawback that you pay twice (1.5x) for staff you hired very near the end of the month, which would affect some styles of gameplay.
** [[Tactical Exploits]]: The worst ones are the Collision Detection bugs, those I imagine are '''hard''' to fix.
** Eliminate "infinite fuel" exploit for conventional aircraft.
* Side-arm throws for grenades: It would be nice if the game could first check for a direct fire solution (side-arm throw or straight throw) for a grenade attack, if the target is in range for a straight throw, Range for straight throws would be reduced (to 1/4 or so of the parabolic range). It would only go on to attempt the indirect fire solution (parabolic vertical throw) if the direct fire attack returns "no line of fire". This would avoid a lot of the "hit the ceiling" issues with grenade indirect fire.[[User:Spike|Spike]] 08:54, 23 November 2008 (CST)

* With View All Locations, put some kind of indicator or (better yet) counter on the Geoscape screen when there are UFOs in flight. In case the UFO is on the other side of the world from where you are currently looking. '''-OR-'''
* Make the world rotate at normal speed (i.e. once per 24 hrs. Rotation starts after say 12 or 24 hrs of looking at the Geoscape and not touching anything. Stops again if you touch the globe controls.
* Make Aliens able to pick up a weapon if they are empty handed! Or just make them pick up anything Alien in their square, if that's easier. Maybe move them towards a weapon if they have no weapon - much harder to do I suppose. But at least, if they are empty handed and happen to walk over an Alien weapon, pick it up! See discussion [[Wish List#Alien AI|here]].

* [[Wish List#Prior Recon of Battlefield|"Eye in the Sky"]]. Map (set to visible) all terrain features on Turn 1 (but do not sight any hostile units). Ideally this should be only the exterior of buildings but that's probably too tricky. Assume we have something like a FLIR on the Skyranger that can do basic imaging of the inside of buildings.

* Grenades that [[Wish List#Warm Grenades|function normally]].

* Fix Base Storage display problems that lead to storage weirdness. Discussion and recommendations [[Talk:Base Stores#Base Stores Anomalies|here]].

* Enable native alien melee attacks within Alien Pets. The Floaters are pleading. (At the moment, Alien Pets+Big Brother means a crashed Superhuman Floater Large Scout costs 6-8 X-COM agents; corresponding crashed Sectoid Superhuman Large Scout is only worth 3-5 X-COM agents. Floater Large Terror Ship on just Big Brother : only one agent, and that was due to the top-of-stair pinning bug providing enough TU to do something.) -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 12:39, August 12 2009 (CDT)

* Do something to help out the psi aliens as well within Alien Pets, as above. -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 12:39, August 12 2009 (CDT)

* Would it be possible to change the master volume level in the game, or at least have a no sound option? [[User:Epiceuropean|Epiceuropean]] 00:26, 12 January 2010 (EST)

=== A few more ===

Do any of these take your fancy:

* Draw the Radar detection radii onto the map as a circle(s) around the base (also for moving aircraft?)

* Show All UFOs (Ultrawave Detector - like Show All Locations, but doesn't show Alien Bases, you still have to hunt for those).

* Sensible Ammo Recovery = add up all remaining rounds of ammunition at the end of a mission (in the ship, if Aborting), and recover a number of (full) clips equal to that number divided by the clip capacity (rounded down maybe).
: There's a reason I didn't turn Clip Recovery on, and it's that I guessed that it didn't work exactly as it's suggested here. If it did work like this, I would use it. [[User:Stubbs|Stubbs]]

* Implement tactical time limits for UFO Assaults/Recoveries. After a random period (within a pre-defined upper and lower time limit), the aliens leave. Pop up warnings appear at the end of each turn, saying the UFO engines are powering up. When the aliens leave, all aliens/items/equipment inside the UFO is gone - no loot, no score. Any soldiers still inside the UFO are considered MIA. The soldiers are ''captured'' in fact - score penalty worse than MIA? There must be one conscious alien inside the UFO for it to leave or attempt to leave. Maybe any live aliens outside are 'beamed' or 'tractored' inside the UFO, complete with their equipment? (E.g. the mission ends and you don't get score for them or their equipment either - just for the corpses and dropped loot).

* No Milk Please: After XCom withdraws from an Alien Base, randomise the base's location and make it hidden again. Just like what happens to the aliens after they fail to assault an X-Com base. Though you would probably still need to locate it within the same country or region so finding it again wouldn't take long I guess. Would it mess things up to move the base to a random part of the world?

* [[User:Spike#Tank mods|Tank Armour and Equipment Mods]]

But I should probably code this up myself, looking at your source code it doesn't look '''too''' hard. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:46, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:46, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

* Burning Zombies

It's more or less impossible to prevent Zombies from hatching into Chryssalids by killing the Zombies with fire, since fire does such a small amount of damage, and the requirement is that the actual killing point of damage is done by an incendiary. Apart from hitting them with an incendiary and running away, then waiting about ten turns for them to die (probably repeating the attack once or twice), this is only ever going to happen by blind luck.

It would be much more viable if the rule was (also?) that a Zombie which is '''on fire''' at the time of death would not hatch into a Chryssalid. This is not exactly easy either, but it is at least possible. It requires hitting the Zombie repeatedly with incendiary weapons until it catches on fire, then killing it right away with regular weapons (before the fire goes out).

A much easier version of this approach would be to say that if the Zombie is killed while it is '''in fire''', it does not hatch. But that is probably too easy.

A way to do this by hacking game files, without code changes, would be to increase the Zombie susceptibility to fire, to 200%. This would make incendiary weapons a viable way of killing them, as well as increasing the likelihood that the killing shot was an incendiary shot.

An alternative approach would be for the Zombie to have a chance of not turning into a Chryssalid, proportional to the percentage of health damage that had been caused by incendiaries. But that's probably too hard to track, it would require an extra/unused field in UNITREF.DAT.

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:12, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

* Fear of Fire

Apparently there is no morale effect from [[Incendiary#Damage|Incendiary damage]]. If anything, for humans, and maybe be for other humanoid aliens, fire should probably have a greater morale effect than ordinary damage, not none. A basic fix would treat fire damage the same as normal damage when reducing morale. A more complicated fix could add a weighting to this morale effect: multiply by the creatures susceptibility to fire (or reduce by its resistance to fire). Any creature or soldier that is immune to fire should not have its morale affected. Actually the affects of fire vary quite a lot (different aliens, different human armour types). Maybe this is why the designers didn't get around to implementing morale effects for fire, as it's a bit complicated.

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:40, 7 September 2009 (EDT)

=== Multi Stage Missions ===

Between each stage of a multi-stage mission:

* Send all artefacts (non-usable items), corpses and recoverables back to base
* If possible, remember the score for these items, and apply it to the score at the end of the mission
* Alternatively, pop up a score window between the mission stages, and apply the score then?
* Gather all loose usable equipment into the "equipment pile" for the next stage
* Or possibly re-run the Equip Screen between mission stages, again gathering all loose usable items into the equipment pile first.
* Keep an 80 item limit on what you can take into the next stage
* Prune down to the 80 item limit using some sensible rules, not sure what exactly.

This is of limited use in X-Com EU but would be much more use for TFTD, one day. EU has only one multi stage mission, and it ends the game, so only some of these points above will be relevant.

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:54, 2 September 2009 (EDT)

=== Even More ===

Tremendous work, you've pretty much made the game worth playing again. Best work since Xcomutil. As with everone else, I have a few requests. [[User:KingMob4313|KingMob4313]] 23:59, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

: Ability to change damage modifier. Right now the damage runs from 0-200% of damage values on the weapon. I'd love to see a way to change it to 50-150%, 75-125% or the like.

: A modifier to increase or decrease the explosion radius modifier. Right now the radius is either keyed to the explosive or to the explosive damage. I'll investigate it further. But it would be nice to have a very small radius, but high powered explosive for use as a breaching charge.
:: There is a "crimping" function on some of the explosions already so it might be possible to exploit that. Check the [[Explosions]] page. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:46, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

: A modification of the range based accuracy. One handed weapons have a shorter range, to the point that even their aimed shots have an effective range, two handed weapons have a further range (and no aimed shot effective range) and really heavy two handed weapons have an even further range.

: Ability to enable the Burst fire (5 shots over 3 picked spots) and/or the full auto mod that is on the heavy laser on other weapons (set by a flag).

: A modification so that on the alien's side first turn, they do not have their full time units in reserve for reaction fire. Nothing like getting shot 3 times from the same sectiod after missing ONE shot on them.

:: You could always wait a turn before you open the door. :) [[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:46, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

::: Good point, I should be doing that anyways.

=== More Exploits to Close ===

* [[Exploiting Mind Control#Exponential Mind Control|Exponential Mind Control]]

Probably the worst single exploit in the game. What is needed is to disable any mind control actions for a Psi Amp, if the unit holding the Psi Amp is currently mind controlled.

Also a general mind control bug/exploit fix for:

* [[Exploiting Mind Control#Exponential Mind Control|Civilian Traitors]]
* [[Exploiting Mind Control#Exponential Mind Control|Resurrect Zombified Agents]]
* [[Exploiting Mind Control#Exponential Mind Control|Zombie's Permanent Control of Aliens via Stunning]]
: Above 3 bugs are fixed by '''Hostile Civilians''' fix.

* Probably many other missing/MIA-type bugs

These probably all arise from the daft decision to save a single byte (or even bit), by not recording separately the current vs default "side" a unit is on. The game only tracks the "current side". Consequently when mind control ends, the game often makes dumb decisions as to what side to "restore" the unit to. We could use an unused byte to track the default "side", but that would require overloading a presumed "unused" field and that could be risky. But actually we can always deduce the "default side" from the unit type: XCom for soldiers and tanks, Neutral for Civilians, Alien for everything else. So what is needed is just an end-of-turn check to restore everything to its correct side, based on its unit type. Actually it's slightly complicated by alternating turns. You need to update all (originally) Alien units at the end of the Alien turn, all originally XCom units at the end of the XCom turn. You might also need a special end-of-game update, to avoid the MIA-type bugs. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:22, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

: AlienSWP.py implements turnswapping via mind control, like XCOMUtil. Handling the alternating turns, as you described, is necessary to make mind control work properly (a mind-controlled alien remains with X-COM during the alien turn, and so on).

: I would assume that the original programming team had a coding policy forbidding both bitfields, and emulating them with bitwise shifts. That's really the only way I can explain most of the idiosyncrasies of the file format. [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 12:07, 26 August 2009 (CDT)

=== Soldier Colouration ===

Not the most "practical" request in terms of changes to gameplay, but still something I feel would be pretty cool if incorporated. Basically, the option to have the battlescape engine display soldiers according to their race/hair colour, as according to their inventory screens, [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/post-a1669-.html like this].

The stored tactical [[PALETTES.DAT|palette]] is made up of 16 groups of 16 colours (256 total), in this order (though the last 16 colours are replaced with a grey-scale shade list at run-time, similar to the other fifteen groups - refer to the page on palette data for more info on that):

[[image:5_BattleScapePal.Png|center|frame]]

Solders are drawn using colours from three of these groups: One for their clothing (x50-x5F for overalls/power armor, xE0-xEF for personal armor), one for their skin (x60-x6F), and one for their hair (x90-x9F). Flying suits use a few extra colours, but they don't matter for the sake of this explanation (they don't show hair/skin anyways).

With my [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/index.php?dlid=686 battlescape editor] I incorporated a feature where you could have the program redraw units on the fly (as per the screen shot), changing just the hair/skin colour. For example, to check to see if a colour index was supposed to represent hair, it simply checks if "(''value'' & xF0) == x90", and if so, it'd add or subtract a certain figure to achieve the desired colour.

Well, there's a bit more to it then that (males in personal armor have a different hair colour already), but I'm sure the basic concept is obvious to you by this point. If you're interested, you can see a sample function in a file included in my toolkit - "bb_tact\UnitDrawer.java", line 384. It's not exactly well documented, but if you check the hair/skin arrays it refers to, it should be fairly obvious what it does. While the program is running, the "characteristics" variable is set to "true" by tapping C on your keyboard. Of course, I've no idea how the actual game deals with drawing soldiers, but I assume it decompresses every [[Image_Formats#PCK|PCK]] image every time it wants to draw it, same as my code does.

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 09:46, 4 May 2010 (EDT)

=== See Also ===

*[[Wish List]]
*[[Known Bugs]]
*[[Exploits]]

== Completed Items - Thanks Seb! ==

See also the lists at: [[User:Seb76#Mods]] and [[User:Seb76#Bug_Fixes]]

* Add 1-2 UFO Navigation to the haul after a successful Alien Base Assault.
:The game actually has specific code to remove these from the recovered items, it's just a matter of bypassing it. Next version will have an option to do so. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 07:19, 7 September 2008 (PDT)
:: Completed with the "Keep Base Navigation Tables" option.

* Random chance (1-2%, and only for Scouts) per mission that a UFO accidentally crashes - like the "Roswell Incident". Crash site would be automatically detected & UFO would have random damage.
:Sounds like a nice idea. I'm working on it but I still have some crashes, and the routine to check if a ship is over water does not seem to work properly :( [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 07:19, 7 September 2008 (PDT)
:Update: feature almost complete, time to bake a new version ;-)

:[[Image:Roswell.png]]

:There are probably some bugs lurking (the most likely problem would be unfreed CRAFT.DAT entries), but I don't think I'll change the code much now. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 07:47, 13 September 2008 (PDT)

* Got an idea while I was at work today that I thought I'd throw onto the wish list. Some means to completely fast-forward the base defense screen. Either by making all the firing sequences happen in an instant, or completely skip the screen altogether. I always advise against making impenetrable bases if only to preserve your sanity. I mean you eventually get sick of being interrupted to watch the defense module firing screen for the umpteenth time. If you never got the interruptions then an impenetrable base would be quite satisfactory. You shouldn't be getting any points for a failed base attack so you won't be gaining from it. About the only problem would be when an undefended base gets destroyed, unless you can make a dialog box pop up to announce it. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:10, 2 September 2008 (PDT)

: Fixed with "Faster base defence sequence" option. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:40, 14 December 2008 (CST)

* Multiple Radar - Fixed.

Can I ask what algorithm you used for Multiple Radar? The algorithm in my BaseFixer.py Python script is actually much better than the fairly lame one described on my User page. [[User:Spike|Spike]]
:As I said, I used about the same as in you BaseFixer script:
float shortDetection=pow(0.9f,smallRadars);
float largeDetection=pow(0.8f,largeRadars);

*(short *)(&base[0x10])=(short)((1.0-shortDetection*largeDetection)*100.0);
*(short *)(&base[0x12])=(short)((1.0-largeDetection)*100.0);
:However I keep the computed value even for the one small/one big radar combo ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 07:19, 7 September 2008 (PDT)

* Accuracy reductions for long range snap and auto fire - Fixed.
* Aircraft always ready for mission despite re-fuel/re-arm status - Fixed
* Stack up base build orders in advance - Implemented
* More smoke and fire - Fixed
* Blaster drift and waypoint bug - Fixed
* Stats visible during Equip phase - Implemented
* Melee combat (bludgeoning) with any weapon - Fixed
* With "Council Funding Only", allow items to be sold for money if they are ''purchasable'' (i.e. conventional weapons). Buying and selling these is loss making, and there is no source of them on the Battlescape, so it does not create any "income" (except at the start of the game perhaps). But it does help to manage a tight budget. And you need all the help you can get with "Council Funding Only". Check offset 18 of [[PURCHASE.DAT#Structure|PURCHASE.DAT]] If byte 18 is true then it's ordinarily Purchasable, so it's ok to sell that item. - OK, here is your christmas gift ;-) You can sell what you can purchase now. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 08:28, 28 December 2008 (CST)
* Close Down Exploits
** [[ExploitsA#Robotic Manufacturing|Robotic Manufacturing]] / [[ExploitsA#Cybernetic Laboratories|Cybernetic Laboratories]] - Fixed

* More video options. In particular, an option to put padding at the top and the bottom of the screen to preserve the aspect ratio on a 4:3 monitor. Maybe it's just me, but stretching the original height of the game to fit a 4:3 screen makes the Battlescape look weird. (Actually, if you update the source code link, I could try to do it myself. The current source doesn't seem to include your more recent changes. --[[User:Mikawo|Mikawo]] 20:30, 12 August 2009 (EDT))
** Thanks for uploading the new source code. I managed to add the letterboxing that I wanted. If you wanted to make it an official feature I could upload the updated files. And I don't think I said this before, but thanks for the great loader! --[[User:Mikawo|Mikawo]] 18:40, 14 August 2009 (EDT)
:Go ahead and upload/PM me the file (d3d.cpp I presume?), I'll gladly incorporate your modification. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 19:14, 14 August 2009 (EDT)

* Fix the [[Tactical Exploits#Fire|bug]] where all units in smoke/fire take stun/fire damage, whenever any smoke/fire hex is hit with an [[Incendiary]].

:: Boy oh boy this is a tough one. First we need to figure out how Incendiary actually works. Zombie is getting in to some heavy testing over on [[Talk:Incendiary]]. Right now, the more we learn, the more we know we ''don't'' know. With this 'Funky Fire' bug, presumably what is going on is that during an Incendiary explosion, the game engine loops through all units that are in fire(and on fire?). This is wrong. What it should be doing is testing to see if they are within the Area of Effect of this particular IN round. The game definitely has working code to correctly select units within an area of effect, since that's what happens for HE and Stun explosions. But in this case it does not apply the correct selection criteria. What is looks like it does is scans the Unitref table (copy in memory) for every unit standing on a tile with fire in it, and maybe also with the 'on fire' flag set. Both of these lookups are actually irrelevant to an exploding IN round. These looks would make exact sense for the end-of-turn processing of fire damage, but not for the instantaneous effect of an IN round. They should use the HE/Stun routine instead, to select the units for processing. Then when the units are selected, it should apply the IN effects - still to be determined. So yes, I think what's happened is the coders mistakenly used the "end of turn" criteria to select units for instantaneous damage/effect when an IN round explodes. Anyway, once Zombie has sorted out the facts, maybe you could take a look at these IN explosion routines? I guess one difficulty is that the HE routine is performing 2 functions - it's doing damage to terrain, and also flagging units to apply damage to. It may also be setting smoke. Similarly, the IN routine ought to have 2 functions - to apply fire/burning time to the tile, but also to apply IN damage effects to the occupants of the tiles. This really could be coded badly and just hard to fix. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:17, 11 March 2009 (CDT)

OK I'm pretty sure this is the whole problem with the Funky Smoke/Fire bug. What's going on is the Incendiary Explosion routine is calling the whole end-of-turn smoke/fire processing routine, every time an IN round explodes anywhere on the map. That's why you get smoke induced stun as well as fire-induced damage. All you need to do is find this IN Explosion routine and make it return unconditionally before it calls the end-of-turn routine. That will substantially solve the bug. What the IN Explosion routine ought to do is:

# In area of effect
##add fire to tiles
##'''possibly''' do 33% check for units to catch fire - '''unless''' this is performed by the end of turn routine (probably)
# IF a unit was hit directly
## check to see if it catches fire
## ''possibly'' do "impact" damage.
# Return, '''without''' calling the end-of-turn smoke/fire routine

And it's entirely possible there was never supposed to be any "impact" damage, all that was intended was to set tiles and units on fire, with any damage only coming at the end of turn. You can easily imagine a last minute and ill-considered coding decision to run the end of turn routine upon every IN explosion, as an attempt to increase IN lethality, without thinking through the implications properly. So the "impact" damage could just be a side effect of the funky fire bug - applying the 5-10 "on fire" damage right away, when it was meant to be applied at end-of-turn.

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 22:11, 11 March 2009 (CDT)
:Hey, that's a nice piece of supposition:) There is actually what I called an ApplyFireAndStunDamage function which is indeed called after IN explosions and at the end of the turn... It basically damages/stuns every unit on fire/in smoke and makes units standing in firing tiles possibly take fire. The function is called 5 times, one of which is at the end of the turn so patching the 4 other locations should remove the bug; but also weaken the IN rounds...[[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:22, 12 March 2009 (CDT)

::Thanks! :) But now you're scaring me - why would there be '''4''' calls to this function, apart from end-of-turn? Why wouldn't there just be one piece of common code, one call, for IN explosions? I'm racking my brains. I guess there could just be 4 different situations when an IN round could explode. Maybe - direct impact, impact with terrain, reaction fire, large units, auto fire... guesswork! Reaction fire is a good guess - we already know lots of things that are bugged with reaction fire, which suggests the code for reaction fire may be a separate loop. There are hints that auto fire may be handled differently for IN - only hints. I'd be worried patching out all 4 calls. But, if you can do it, I'm very happy to test for unintended consequences.

::It will be interesting to see if patching out all 4 calls eliminates "impact" IN damage from direct hits - suggesting it was only ever an unintended effect of the bug. It may not be possible, but "impact" damage might be the one thing to retain, to avoid making IN weapons too weak. Still it might not be an option. Interesting stuff!

::Any chance you could do 5 separate config file flags to mask out the 5 calls? Then I could determine by experiment what each one does. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 18:27, 12 March 2009 (CDT)

* Replace the batch file that runs xcomutil. Make it so the loader will call an outside program at certian points. Add a section to the config file that will allow the user to pick a program to be run.
[Utilities]
Run Utilities=0|1
Run before battle="xcomutil ..."
Run after battle ="xcomutil ..."
Run before base screen="xcomutil ..."
:The above works perfectly. [[User:KingMob4313|KingMob4313]] 00:05, 13 August 2009 (EDT)

* Allow scrolling the map with the keyboard. "WASD" as default maybe, since you used the arrow keys and most people have thier left hand free anyway. Allow moving units one square at a time with the numpad. First tap changes facing if not looking that way, second one moves you in that direction.
:Fixed via Keyboard Shortcuts - and configurable too.
-- Sorry, I am having trouble finding this addition. Is it in the newest version? I can't see where to configure it if so.

== Warm Grenades ==

It would be nice to have a Mod where grenades / HE explode a set number of half-turns after you drop/place them.

This could be implemented by an extra bit of logic that increments the "Turn When I Will Explode" field by +2 if the grenade is being held/worn when the Explode check happens.

For me this is a more natural way for grenades to work: set the fuse, then the fuse only starts when you release the spring or set the HE pack in position. Certainly hand grenades should behave this way. I guess people could argue that HE packs should behave in the standard way. In which case, you could check the weapon type and use different logic for HE.

Hopefully the Alien AI would not be confused by any of these changes. I suspect the AI cheats anyway? Or always sets to 0 and throws right away? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 02:00, 2 September 2008 (PDT)

== Facility maintenance cost bug ==

Could you fix that? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:15, 3 September 2008 (PDT)
:I'm a bit confused about this one. Some says that the fund graph is OK but not the amount of money taken. I had a look at the code and found that what is shown on the graphs is exactly the same amount as removed (the graph data is updated at the same place and the computation is done once for both). I think I remember also someone saying that the bug does not exist at all... Can someone clarify? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 02:31, 15 September 2008 (PDT)
::The graph is ok and the amount of money taken is ok (tested). What is wrong is the maintenance displayed in the 'Base overview' screen (in every respective base you go to 'overview' and something like 'maintenance'). The wrong way is very well described here [[Base_Facilities#Displayed_Base_Maintenance_Cost_Bug]], I think you will guess what exactly is wrong in the code. --[[User:Kyrub|Kyrub]] 15:34, 17 September 2008 (PDT)
:Thanks, I found the code and it is indeed completely f*cked up. I'll try a fix tomorrow. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:53, 17 September 2008 (PDT)
:Edit: Done. What's next? ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 01:15, 18 September 2008 (PDT)
::Blimey. Seeing the work you have put in (below), it is impressive beyond measure. And... what next? Well... Could you possibly fix a game harming BUG of the blind spots? How come he sees you, and you do not see him, and vice-versa? There must be some strange way the line of sight is implemented in the code... See here: [[http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Line_of_sight]], "Blind spots around the corner".
Just how bad was the mess up? Curios minds demand to know! By the way, my mind was wandering while at the office and one thing came to mind to add to your already useful inventory display: Armed grenade status. Ever drop one you've just armed and lose it in a pile of other unarmed grenades on the ground?
:Well, from the look of it, I think they were trying to compute the maintenance cost using an array. Obviously something was wrong.
:*they first try to clear an array of 0x11 entries at the begining of the function (there are 0x11 base elements types, hangar count as 1). Note that there is already a bug here and the array is not cleared as expected, only the first entry is cleared 0x11 times...
mov esi, 11h
...
loc_44004C:
dec esi
mov word ptr [esp+3Ch+elementsArray], 0
jnz short loc_44004C
:*ecx is initialized to point to the maintenance cost data (nothing wrong here)
mov ecx, offset baseElements.maintenance
:*then they loop on each base element, but the inner loop is nonsense (at this point ax contains the base element type. edi is the total maintenance cost):
movsx eax, ax
inc word ptr [esp+eax*2+44h+elementsArray] ;increment the array entry corresponding to the base element type
lea eax, [esp+eax*2+44h+elementsArray] ;get the address of the array entry we just incremented
xor eax, eax ;discard the address we just computed (!)
mov al, [ecx] ;get the maintenance cost from ecx; the element type is not used here (!)
lea eax, [eax+eax*4]
lea eax, [eax+eax*4]
lea eax, [eax+eax*4]
lea edi, [edi+eax*8] ;totalMaintenaceCost+=elementMaintenanceCost*1000
:we see that they increment the array element, but the content of the array is discarded and the maintenance cost (edi) is computed simply from [ecx].
:*then after each row, we have this:
add ecx, 10h
:which explains why the cost changes for each row.
:I don't see what kind of C code could produce such disassembly; maybe there is a bug in the compiler,at least the address calculation should have been removed (optimized out).
:The fix required two patches:
:*remove the incrementing of ecx for each row
char nop[]={0x90,0x90,0x90};
PatchInPlace(0x44066E,nop,3);
:*make a working inner loop:
char patch[]={
0x03, 0xc0, // add eax,eax
0x8a, 0x04, 0xc1, // mov al, BYTE PTR [ecx+eax*8] ;get the maintenance cost for the *specific* base element
0x0f, 0xb6, 0xc0, // movzx eax, al
0x90, 0x90, 0x90, 0x90, 0x90 // nop the remaining
};
PatchInPlace(0x440651,patch,13);
:this takes care of the nonsense code
inc word ptr [esp+eax*2+44h+elementsArray] ;increment the array entry corresponding to the base element type
lea eax, [esp+eax*2+44h+elementsArray] ;get the address of the array entry we just incremented
xor eax, eax ;discard the address we just computed (!)
mov al, [ecx] ;get the maintenance cost from ecx; the element type is not used here (!)

Very interesting stuff! By the way I'm playing a "Roswell" game at the moment and loving it - thanks Seb! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 10:31, 20 September 2008 (PDT)

==Grenade Status Indicator==

Is it possible to include an indicator on the end of the grenade's name string to show whether the grenade has been armed? Or perhaps even show how many grenade ticks are left to go?
:Hmm, I'll see if I can find something

== Keyboard Support ==

Would it be possible to introduce some keyboard shortcuts for simple tasks? -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 00:48, 19 September 2008 (PDT)
:sSuch as? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 02:52, 19 September 2008 (PDT)

:: Hmm, perhaps a few keys like they had in Apocalypse for ending the turn and raising/lowering the elevation with the page up and down keys would be a good start, or jumping to the inventory screen. Perhaps keys in the Geoscape for setting the time compression settings. I can already see a bit of an obstacle with adding a key capture function in the Geoscape, you'd have to know when you're entering strings or every other time when you're just toggling the Geoscape overlay. I've always admired this game for relying on a two button mouse for pretty much everything except when entering strings, but if it's within the realm of possibility I think it would be great to have some keyboard shortcuts. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 12:39, 19 September 2008 (PDT)

Well, since it has been a little while now, and nobody has said anything, let me be the first. Thank you for the shortcuts on the geoscape. As I mentioned before, I had the shortcuts on battlescape on, but personally I never used them because it is not timed. But the geoscape, being that there is no pause, I have found a lot of use in shortcuts. Works perfectly for me, too. Secondly, the obdata editing feature is fantastic. If only it worked on accuracy, too....
Thanks again, my friend. --[[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 17:19, 22 May 2009 (EDT)
:I've put a new version with support for more settings, give it a shot ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 06:25, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

----

First off have to say that this is outstanding work Seb, sincere thanks for what you have done here. I have started playing this again after years thanks to your hard work. I was going to suggest the old smoke limit problem but before I could you fixed it!! I have some other ideas, I know there are a lot but I thought I would throw them in anyway. Don’t mind if you think there all rubbish, you’ve done loads already.
:Thanks. Don't hesitate to suggest stuff, if it is not too difficult I'll try to make something :)
BTW is there a separate loader with your new Laser weapon? Can’t see it listed in the extender file (not researched it in my current game yet).
:There is a special [[Image:UFOExtender-dev.zip|dev version]] for the HL mod. It is not in the normal package since it is still too experimental.
A suggestion for a mod would be the following; I understand that if you defeat an alien assault on your base with base defense measures, then the aliens will continue to attack that base with more battleships until defeated inside the base (they then have to ‘find’ your base again before launching another attack). Can this be altered so that if their battleship is destroyed then they have to find your base again before dispatching anther battleship? Or a chance that they have to find it again.
:I'd gladly work on that, but I need a savegame to reproduce the problem. I have one but when the battleship is destroyed, no other comes back later so there must be something wrong with it.
Another suggestion is that I also understand that 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?
:At one time I had the idea of having aliens target only visible units, but then I thought that the scout units would be doomed. Maybe targeting any unit randomly would be better. I'll give it a try.
If you psi control a human 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?

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).
:These two are on my secret todo list ;-)
::I was doing a Terror mission and getting creamed by Sectoids and Cyberdisks. Had a couple of guys left and got them back into the Skyranger only to find a civilian cowering at the back (must of walked in at some point). When I took off the civilian was counted as being killed by the aliens. Would it be possible to count any civilians in x-com craft at end of Terror as recued if you have to blast off? I think this would work interestingly with the civilians psi control issue above if they no longer became enemies after you control them. :-)--[[User:Mal310|Mal310]] 09:23, 22 September 2008 (PDT)
80 item bug on base defense mission
:May be hard to pull off. IIRC there is a 170 objects limit in the battlescape, and we must leave some room for the aliens...
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!
:I think this is a known issue with LOS, not sure though
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).
:I don't think this is done already. It may be possible to modify the number of units according to the damage done to the attacking ship, I'll have to take a look
This one is way out there. Alien v Alien battles outwith main game, just ramdom battlescape maps. Sectoid and their terrorists against Floters and theirs etc. One side human controlled the other computer . Choice of ships involved etc.
:Hmm, you do know I don't have the original source code available, don't you? :p
Any plans to work on Terror from the deep?
:I had a look and reidentifying the specific patch locations is quite tedious, and I'm quite lazy... The loader source is available however, if anyone feels like giving it a shot ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:38, 19 September 2008 (PDT)

Thanks for the reply. If I get a suitable saved game re the base attack I’ll let you know. Great to hear that a couple of the ideas are on your list already. I have been playing around with the smoke bombs since your fix. I have not noticed any problems, seems to be working fine. --[[User:Mal310|Mal310]] 12:10, 21 September 2008 (PDT)

== Inventory screen ammo weight bug ==

I think there is a small bug. The weight of loaded weapons is not initially calculated. The base weight of the weapon is used but the weight of the ammunition is ignored. However if you reload the weapon in the inventory screen, the correct weight is then calculated. I have seen this repeatedly with AutoCannons. I am using XcomUtil to 'remember' the equipment loads - maybe this might be part of the problem? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:24, 21 September 2008 (PDT)
:Yeah, I noticed this one already but flagged it as minor :) I'm using a function that I found in the executable to calculate the weight (the one that's actually used by the game to see if a soldier is overburdened) so it is an original bug. Anyway, this calls for a fix ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 09:47, 21 September 2008 (PDT)

:: Is this the same bug that is present when calculating the throwing range of a loaded weapon? (NKF)
:Does not ring any bell. Any link?

There are major issues with your current weight calculations. I'm not exactly sure how it was occurring, but repeatedly messing around unloading and loading weapons, switching clips from the ground them putting them back in... at least one of these functions causes 'phantom weight' to be added to the soldier (e.g. strip them bare and they are still carrying a load). This was happening by 3 units of weight at a time; the weight of a clip. It's so bad that I managed to get 18 phantom weight units on a soldier before getting bored. Occasionally, 3 units of phantom weight would be removed again! It's hard to tell if this was in the original game, due to the lack of weight display in the inventory screen.

Edit: I've worked out what's happening. Add a loaded weapon to a soldier, unload it, and remove the ammo and gun: this ''removes'' 3 phantom weight units. But, add an unloaded weapon to a solider and load it... this ''adds'' 3 phantom weight units. [[User:Stubbs|Stubbs]]
:This is a genuine bug because they forgot to unassign the clip of a weapon when you drop it. Also the default weapon's clip is not initially assigned to the wearer so if you unload and reload the clip, your soldier weights more. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 13:27, 3 February 2010 (EST)
:: So is this impossible for you to override and fix? It's really irritating... I've edited lots of item weights, but I guess I'd have to make ammo light and guns heavy to minimize the effects of this bug. [[User:Stubbs|Stubbs]]
:::I second that, it would be great if this could be fixed. [[User:Rovlad|Rovlad]] 17:45, 13 May 2010 (EDT)

== Equipment issue ==
Also, something that I was reminded of while in the rifle vs. laser pistol discussion. It's not related to the weight bug but it is inventory related: The weird pistol arming bug where sometimes no one arms any pistols, or only one guy will arm one pistol and then fill every available inventory slot with the respective pistol clip. I'm sure it was thrown in so that pistols were always the last to be armed, but is it possible to make the game ignore this and arm the pistol like every other weapon? -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 15:20, 26 September 2008 (PDT)
:There is a lot of possible work to do with how the soldiers are equiped (equip stuff on shoulders first instead of belt, keep equipment from last battle à la xcomutil, stop having one guy get stuffed up with every ammo available, etc). Since obviously all that is tightly intertwined, it requires some thought before getting into it... Plus this is a part of code that I did not analyse yet ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 03:40, 27 September 2008 (PDT)

== Request For UFO PS Explosion Offset ==

Hi Seb, in the [[Talk:Explosions#UFO_Power_Source_Explosions|Explosions Talk page]] you mention the following:

Looks like before the first turn, the engine will look for every tile in the map (it scans the MAP.DAT data linearly) ; when it finds a power source (it checks if the MCD special property is set to 2), there is a 25% chance that it will leave it alone. Otherwise, it'll generate an explosion at the UPS location with a strength of 180+RND*70. Whether the UPS blows up on top of that or is just destroyed, I do not know. Can someone hack the MCD data and see if it's possible to generate an explosion on a tile that is not a UPS just by messing with the special property? PS: I am almost certain of the 75% probability of explosion vs 70% that is often stated here. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 09:31, 12 February 2008 (PST)

I'm just wondering where the power source explosion is coded in the executable. If you could tell me that, I'd be able to edit it down so that units don't take quite so much damage. This is a whole heck of a lot better than editing unit stats to near maxed-out levels as the number of trials needed to find the average would be cut by a few orders of magnitude. Also, if you have an email address where I could contact you directly, it would be appreciated (email me with it). Thanks! --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 23:58, 2 November 2008 (CST)

== Great new features ==

Hi Seb! I just saw you uploaded a version with lots of new features. It was a great idea to add some of the [[Making the Game Harder]] scenarios. I look forward to trying all the new features out (some previous ones I've missed as well). Cheers! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:37, 19 November 2008 (CST)

:OK I dusted off my Windows version of XCOM and installed your latest loader. I have to say I love it! The range-based accuracy is great. I use about half the default values, I might try returning them to the default levels as it makes snap>auto for everything above point blank. But it's definitely working as designed. And I love the %Acc indicators over the target square. Not to mention the (primed) indicator on grenades.

:I played with Alien Pets and Big Brother and View All Locations and found a few strange bugs:
:* If you use the left and right arrows in the Inventory screen to try to move to a different Alien unit, you only see human units
:* The character graphic displayed on the Inventory screen is a human, not the appropriate type of Alien
:* For some reason if you check on turn one the aliens weapons are not loaded and not in their hands. This was in a Roswell scenario, so might be more to do with Roswell. - No, I also got it on my base defence mission. Hang on, silly me, this is just normal for Aliens under mind control isn't it?
:* In night missions, even with Big Brother <strike>and View All Locations</strike> set, I could only see what my guys had illuminated & seen.
:* View All Locations showed the incoming Battleship before my radars detected it on the half-hour, which gave me a brief chance to prepare my base for attack. Not exactly a bug, more a feature - different. Sadly I wasn't quick enough so ended up defending with loads of ammo clips and not enough weapons. :)
::The "Hack" section is really not to be used for gameplay; there I put patches that are useful to test my stuff, nothing more. I only make them available in case it can help someone with her analyse of the game. All the strange things you mention are expected behaviors ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]]
:* With Alien Bases and View All Locations, the X-COM bases show up as pink.
:* It wasn't obvious to me that I needed to set e.g. "Initial Alien Bases=20" rather than just "Initial Alien Bases=1". I is dumb! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:20, 25 November 2008 (CST)

:Now I need to check the notes on this page to get it working with XComUtil. The one thing that really p____s me off about playing without XComUtil is having to allocate equipment to my guys before every mission. It's really tedious! Especially as I tend to take 14 guys on each mission.
:I have not developed Heavy Laser yet, <strike>nor beaten up any aliens in melee,</strike> but I will let you know how that goes. Thanks for all your amazing work! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:00, 23 November 2008 (CST)

:: Awesome. I just completed a mission by my Captain pistol-whipping a Floater Navigator into unconsciousness. How cool is that? But - possible bug - it cost my guy only 8 TUs per attack when he has about 58 total TUs. Is that intended, or is that an error? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:38, 23 November 2008 (CST) ''(Later)'' I'm regularly beating up aliens, it's a giggle. The close quarters combat feels much more authentic now, I love it.
:::The small TU usage for the pistol is normal (it goes with small stun damage). I liked the idea of having to bash an alien for a while before he falls. Did you not experience reaction fire from the alien? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]]
::::The TU costs are percentage based instead of fixed(this has been clarified on the main page). 15% of 58 is 8.7 TUs, which truncates to 8. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 14:15, 24 November 2008 (CST)
: I'm having so much fun and doing so well I got a Base Defence on Superhuman on Jan 12th. And with the old, sucky starting base layout (hangars take 25 days to move!). I've never seen so many Floaters and Reapers at one time. I knew there was a reason to hang on to those Incendiary rounds - bad doggie, down! Loads of fun, however one or two bugs have cropped up:
::Glad you're having fun :-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]]

::* The game crashed as a soldier walked down the stairs from Living Quarters. This is probably a bug in the game and not a bug in your loader.
: Let me know what details I can give you. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:43, 23 November 2008 (CST)
::Can you provide me with a savegame that reproduces the crash? I think it is the bug that makes defence missions crash around turn 5-6 sometimes (it crashes during the alien turn). I could not reproduce it. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]]

== Base Disjoint Bug Fix ==
A Base Disjoint has occurred, despite enabling your Based Disjoint bug fix. <strike>It may be an usual one because it's not on the bottom nor the right edge of the map (isn't that where Disjoints are supposed to happen?)</strike>. It's the normal, bottom of the map edge kind. Here is a [[Media:BaseDisjointGenStores.ZIP|screenshot]] (anyone got a freeware TGA converter?).
: Hum, the code was badly f***ed up. Can you retry with the last version? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]]

I downloaded the latest version but unfortunately no effect. It didn't fix the saved Base Defence scenario. I also restarted from 3 hours before the attack and so created a new Base Defence mission, twice, but no change - still bugged. I'll post the [[Media:IncomingRetaliation.zip|savegame from 3 hrs before]] in case that helps. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:24, 25 November 2008 (CST)
:Kinda weird, it works here. Maybe I made a faulty delivery... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:34, 25 November 2008 (CST)
:Edit: nope, took the patcher from the delivery and it worked. Are you sure you enabled the fix? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]]
Yes I doubled checked a couple of times. I set the flag as

Base Disjoint=1

Is that correct? I'll try again anyway. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:20, 25 November 2008 (CST)
: Oops my fault. I updated the .exe but not the patcher.dll. (I didn't want to overwrite my UFOExtender.ini - very lazy of me.) Doh!

== A couple of bugs to report ==

Two things so far. With wreck analysis enabled I am getting analysis reports even after raiding alien bases. On one occasion this seemed to have fairly random strings inserted into the variables, resulting in the message "The Alien Food UFO was on an Damage Capacity mission in Power Sources." All things considered, this is just a cosmetic problem as the actual UFOs are being properly analysed. However, this has got me curious as to what enables you to perform these analyses? It doesn't happen right from the beginning of the game, at least for me. From the description of the feature I thought maybe it was after researching UFO navigation, but then the messages started popping up before that.

The other bug I have encountered is more severe. After building my first Firestorm I was completely unable to send it out for interception. Clicking on the craft in the list simply returned me to the Geoscape screen without allowing to pick a target, and the game continued to play normally. Disabling the feature for crafts to always be ready despite rearming, repairs and refueling fixed this. [[User:Crowley|Crowley]] 15:52, 3 January 2009 (CST)
:Been out for a while... I'll have a look at these two. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 11:04, 2 January 2009 (CST)

Another case of erroneous wreck analysis, this time from an actual UFO: I followed a battleship on an alien base mission and assaulted it when it landed on its own. After the battle the analysis claimed it was on a raiding mission. Perhaps this has something to do with how alien bases are created the moment the battleship appears? [[User:Crowley|Crowley]] 15:52, 3 January 2009 (CST)

:I use the data from [[MISDATA.DAT]] to get the mission details. Perhaps it is not correctly set at the time I retrieve the information. I'll investigate further. As for the firestorm problem, do you have a savegame just before the craft is finished so I can reproduce the bug easily? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 18:23, 3 January 2009 (CST)

::Unfortunately not, but I did make a separate save shortly after the craft was finished. I tested it, and turning on the "crafts always ready" option still disables Firestorms with all my saves. With more testing I found out this also affects Lightnings, but not Avengers. [[User:Crowley|Crowley]] 08:36, 4 January 2009 (CST)

Instead of MISDATA.DAT, maybe grabbing the first byte out of [[LOC.DAT]] might be more accurate? I'm not entirely positive if offset 76 of MISDATA is for just crash sites or all sites in general. BB would know for sure. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:25, 3 January 2009 (CST)

:"Raiding" ''is'' what you're supposed to get if you're not lucky enough to get both the mission type ''and'' the zone, as in the .ini file: <pre>Zone Discovered=Intel found out that the %s UFO was raiding %s</pre>If I remember correctly, difficulty level and the number of recovered navigation modules determine the chance of finding out both pieces of information, so it can't be Christmas every day ;)

:Regarding the 'Craft always ready' option, I had some Interceptors not launching as described by Crowley above but turned out they had 0% fuel, thanks to the [[Known_Bugs#Fuel_dump_on_transfer|transfer bug]] (shuffled them around ages ago to make room for Avengers and forgot about them ;) ). Maybe Crowley's Firestorms were also transferred around? In any case enabling this option is a bit tricky, if you happen to have craft with the fuel bug sitting around without realising it (or knowing about the bug to begin with); all I can think of right now is to have this option enforce the transfer bug fix ''and'' somehow have buggy craft (0% fuel but ready) update their status to 'refuelling'... Wouldn't be surprised if there's a global 'update interval' in Geoscape when all craft marked as 'refuelling' get their fuel level increased; if so, it might be possible to change that status check to use fuel level instead (much like what this option already does, for the selected craft only) [[User:Goran|Goran]] 00:09, 4 January 2009 (CST)

::Repairing interception craft repair one point of damage capacity per hour (XX:00), refuelling interception craft are granted an amount of fuel each half hour(XX:00 and XX:30) dependent on craft, and rearming interception craft are given an amount of ammo each hour(XX:00) dependent on the weapon being loaded. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 05:12, 11 January 2009 (CST)
:Being busy with work ccurrently so I've not much time for the loader. I already use the fuel level instead of the status. I used a value of 30 as a threshold for readyness which is OK for standard fuel ships, but for elerium ships it's too high: even when fully refuelled, they don't exceed it. Reducing the value should be enough to fix the problem. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 05:22, 11 January 2009 (CST)

Some more comments:
# Limited Military = 1 gives you only 1 soldier. OK, I guess it's meant to do that, but it was not obvious. User error! But maybe it's time to add "usage" comments to the .INI file?
# Personnel Overflow works ok, even when the extra personnel are transferred in from another base (instead of being Recruited) - good job!
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:20, 2 January 2009 (CST)
:What's wrong with the info from readme.txt? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 05:13, 3 January 2009 (CST)
*Limited Military: you start with this specified amount of soldiers and cannot recruit any more during the game

:: User Error ^2 - I didn't read the readme.txt either :) [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:17, 3 January 2009 (CST)

Errr.... why do Launchers do more stun damage than the Stun Rod? ... Electrocuting someone should do more than just hitting them with a large object? ... for that matter, stun damage of 80 is a LOT... remember that being shot with a rifle does 30, and a grenade does 50. (IMHO, the stun rod is likely to use VERY high voltage... it is much larger than a normal stun gun, and X-com doesn't mind doing permanent damage to the aliens)
Here's a challenge for your coding skills, and a logical one too: make melee do more damage based on Strength stat. My 80 strength goliath should do more damage than my 10 strength rookie wimp... [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 18:40, 26 February 2009 (CST)

== Glitches with Alien Pets ==

OK I know that Alien Pets is a Hack and we should expect side effects. I just want to list them here for information purposes - please do not feel under any obligation to fix them!

* If Alien Pets is set to 1 at the start of a Battlescape mission, Aliens generate with all their equipment in slot 2, i.e. no clips in weapon, no weapon in hand. They remain in this state until they spot a human in their own turn, at which point they lose 19 TUs drawing and loading the weapon. Furthermore, they are incapable of reaction fire until they have seen a human, drawn and loaded their weapon as a result, and survived the experience. From [[Talk:Alien Inventory Use|discussions]] it seems likely that there is a pre-battle routine which moves a weapon from slot 2 on each alien, and arms it, prior to the start of Battlescape turn 1. This routine bypassed - possibly because Alien Pets flags the alien units as human-controlled, and so this 'arming' routine ignores those units?
* It is possible to get to an Inventory screen for large terror units. Normally this is blocked (even when using the Alien Inventory 'trick'). This has these effects:
** Large terror units can pick up and drop items. To pick up, position the topmost/northwest corner of the unit over the item. The Cyberdisc makes a great cargo vehicle!
** Terror units can also equip weapons in their "hands". Move the weapon to the left hand slot and it will appear in the Battlescape display. However the weapon can't actually be used. Using the left weapon will cause the unit's built-in ranged weapon to be used instead. (But test with Reapers or when the built-in is out of ammo?)
* I also saw some very weird TU and Weight/Encumbrance behaviour. Aliens at 200% encumbrance, unable to do anything and losing TUs each round. I need to characterise this more clearly.

This might or might not be unrelated (might be due to me using Bomb Bloke's object editor wrongly):

* When an Alien loads a clip into a weapon and fired it, the ammo count goes negative. This clip (or even single rocket/bomb) then becomes an infinite ammo supply. Probably a signed vs unsigned integer error?

Now regardless of all these minor points, Alien Pets has been very helpful for me doing research on the Alien AI and Inventory handling, so thanks very much for this useful hack!

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:04, 5 March 2009 (CST)
:My pleasure. It was the very reason I allowed it in the loader in the first place!
:FYI: the weapons are not handed in a hidden turn but while the aliens are spawned. Also I think reaction fire is completely disabled for the aliens when the hack is activated [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 13:37, 6 March 2009 (CST)

:: Alien reaction fire works fine for me within Alien Pets. -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 12:41, August 12 2009 (CDT)

I dropped by after three months or so (you've inspired me to start an disassembly work on another oldie strategy ->> no time), and I am really astonished, Seb. Behold, incredible work with one of my old wishes, the decreasing accuracy. Fantastic for the gameplay!
So - ehm - I'll try to wish for one more, hope you do not mind. There is the last, very (game-wise) frustrating issue: the AI fires a weapon and then sidesteps the alien just out of your view. I am bored to death to make that one step forward and always find the bad guy and shoot him in the back. If you could make this "retreating" a somewhat random thing (random APs, random where to), it would thicken the atmosphere (where he is??) and make the game 10x better. I guess you can't make them 'search cover', but make them running away RANDOMLY will do the job for me. I'll be very thankful to you. --[[User:Kyrub|Kyrub]] 20:26, 1 April 2009 (EDT)
:Thanks for the support, I'm bored of the "the stuff does not work with ET" thing ;-) I can have a look but the alien AI is one of the points I'm clueless about, I don't really know what to look for. When I study the parts that interact with ROUTE.DAT data, I cannot figure what the hell is going on... Do you know if the backing alien has ran out of TUs? Maybe the game tries to keep some for reaction fire but no-one realized that turning your back on danger is not the best tactic for reaction shots ^_^ [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:46, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
::The situation happens always a) in the open b) during the alien turn c) when the enemy spots you, fires and then retreats out of view. I think he even turns back to face you sometimes, but not sure. But the main (gameplay) problem is that you are totally safe to advance 1 step and shoot because you have full TUs, no reaction fire, no support from other aliens. Perhaps the program determines the quadrant with human, via substracting the positions and finding the angle with a pre-made table in the exe (I have the same thing in my disassembling game)? Or it just loops next fields until it finds the one without eye-contact? -- I am almost sure that this was repaired in the Ufo Tftd. The aliens are very nasty and retreat totally out of view... -- BTW, the aliens do well in the vessels in UFO-eu, they search cover in the next room!--[[User:Kyrub|Kyrub]] 16:22, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
:Hum, too bad I never got to disassemble TFTD then ;-) BTW, which game do you work on? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:22, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
::Master of Orion I, correcting the bugs and improving AI. (Hey, noticed the doors' thing. Another great one.) --[[User:Kyrub|Kyrub]] 20:09, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

== TFTD Door problem ==

Seb, there seems to be a problem using the TFTD Doors with the Proximity Mine bug fix. I do have several other patches to my game, and it is possible that they are complicating the matter, but simply by turning off the PM fix I can suddenly open doors again. --[[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 06:02, 14 April 2009 (EDT)
:Hi Talon81, what do you mean by "other patches". Are you using ET or xcomutils? Or are you just enabling other patches from the loader? Also what are the symptoms exactly. Can't you open any door? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:24, 6 April 2009 (EDT)
:Edit: Nevermind, I could reproduce the problem. Can you try the new version I just uploaded? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:08, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Yeah, I tried it, and it works fine. As you no doubt have already figured out, it wasnt working on any kind of door, as far as I could determine. The other things I am using should not interfere. They are minor patches such as Zombie's combo patch for terrain, etc, CE to DOS sound editor, and the aimed accuracy adjustment patch. I am not using Xcomutil or ET (would like to use ET, but I know that it doesnt work well with your patch).

If it means anything to you, I would like to say that your work has meant a LOT towards making this game what it should have been. I fell in love with this game in 94, and never have more than a couple years gone by without me playing it. Your patch is the best thing to come along since it was made. ;-)
--[[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 06:02, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

: I second that, wholeheartedly. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:44, 14 April 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks guys! This game is the best and I try not to divert it from its spirit with my patches... Actually the fix for the doors *might* increase compatibility with ET, but it's a wild guess. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:56, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

== Initial Alien Bases ==

OK, so I was having some problems getting alien bases to work, so I created a new folder of X-Com with nothing but your video patch on, and alien bases. I am still having the same problems I was having on my more heavily patched version. For example, I created one with 3 alien bases. Looks fine. I run it with the show all locations patch and sure enough, no alien bases. I make a new game with the show all patch on and there are the alien bases, shown until the point that I place my own base. Then they disappear and my base now looks like an alien base. There are some other minor bugs associated, too; however, that seems to be the main problem. In short, I have yet to get an alien base to survive past the placement of my base. I thought it could be a glitch in the show all patch, but scouting the areas where the alien bases were shown prior to base placement has returned nothing. --[[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 15:23, 19 April 2009 (EDT)

By the way, Seb, are you the same as Strife67? --[[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 13:13, 24 April 2009 (EDT)
:Nope, never heard of that guy. What's he doing? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:13, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

Nothing anymore. He created a sound patch a year ago or so, and there were some things he said that reminded me of you, not to mention in my head I was thinking you were Seb67 instead of Seb76. I just now noticed my mistake. --[[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 20:16, 24 April 2009 (EDT)

:OK, I uploaded a new version. Can you confirm it fixes the problem on your rig? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 07:57, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

Seems to have solved the problem to me. The alien bases now appear after placement of mine instead of before like they previously did. X-Com bases are correctly shown, as well. --[[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 13:34, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

== Won't work on my rig Vista+CE version ==

Nice work! I really want to play this, it's not working on my PC though. I may be stuck with the Dos version in Dosbox forever.

My screen flashes between the squashed look of the unpatched EXE and the OK version. On screens without animation it changes back and forth as I move the mouse. On the Geoscape it just flashes and gives me a headache. Sorry about the big images, to lazy to cut them down.

* http://darksun.lunarpages.com/XCOM/Scrambled%20P1010264.JPG
* http://darksun.lunarpages.com/XCOM/Fine%20P1010265.JPG
--[[User:SaintD|SaintD]] 19:09, 19 April 2009 (EDT)
:Hum, looks like another Vista problem... Do you have the problem when using [http://appaholic.co.uk/2007/10/16/dxwnd-force-almost-anything-into-a-windowed-mode/ DXWnd]? I use the following settings (but I'm under XP...):

[[Image:Dxwnd.png]]

[[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:57, 20 April 2009 (EDT)

Awesome. That worked. My 1440x900 regular resolution means that the window is really tiny though. You should really get the upscaler working now. Heheh. Dxwnd makes Internet Explorer crash on vista. Does that happen to you?

http://darksun.lunarpages.com/XCOM/xcomWindowed.png --[[User:SaintD|SaintD]] 00:34, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

[edit] I didn't realize you can just drag the Dxwnd window bigger. I still miss the advinterp3x from dosbox.

:I dunno exactly how DXWnd works but I think it may screw up aero stuff... I played with scale2x a bit and got that but it only works with DXWnd:
:[[Image:Scale2x.png]]

:When I try fullscreen, it looks like DirectX won't allow me to go to 640x400 resolution :( Any DX guru out there? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:36, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

::Can I get a copy of the new version? :) I can only use Dxwnd anyway. If you can boil the problem down I might be able to get some Direct X help. I know a couple guys who have been playing with XNA a lot. Can you create a stand alone sample program to illustrate your issue maybe?
:I uploaded this: [[Image:UFOExtender-dev.zip]]. It works only in window mode on my laptop, maybe you can give it a try? You'll most likely have to alt-tab out of the black screen though... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 11:08, 26 April 2009 (EDT)
:Edit: version updated with support for HQ4x (in 1280x800). Feedback appreciated... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 09:55, 3 May 2009 (EDT)

The above version works perfectly on my PC but only through DXWmd. I'd also like to note that using DXWnd eliminates fast speed issues in Battlescape for some reason. I'm really excited Seb is pulling this off. <3
:Uploaded a new version, you need to add a "HQ4x=1" line under the "Mod" section to enable it. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:36, 6 May 2009 (EDT)

Works perfect without the use of DXWnd, but there's some sort of frameskip feeling. Great work, this is getting better and better. :-)

Now the question is, how do you use DXWnd with the loader?
[[User:KingMob4313|KingMob4313]] 11:02, 12 August 2009 (EDT)

==Works but won't multitask==

Target system: prefab HP Vista with global data execution prevention. Problem is the same native, with D3D, and/or with HQ4X. (The two do combine nicely, visually, but a bit laggy for my tastes).

ALT-TAB terminates all further screen display on restore; the sea of blackness continues until Task Manager is used to kill the application, at which point D3D admits that it has "lost the device". (This is after the improved error reporting patch. Before, 0xc0000005 as Data Execution Prevention takes over.)

-- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 12:27, 12 August 2009 (CDT)

: Solved on Win7 for the most recent version: Program Properties dialog has an "unblock" button. Unblocking allows the program to survive being alt-tabbed away from. -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 22:03, 24 June 2010 (CDT)

==Heavy laser mod==
My heavy laser only has the two new firing modes. Also, when I fire, the beams don't go where I point. They seem to be grouped correctly, just off in the wrong direction. [[User:SaintD:SaintD]]

:Yeah, it is a problem when you enable range based accuracy at the same time. I'll try to fix that when I get some time... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:25, 23 April 2009 (EDT)
:Made a new version. Can you try it and let me know if the problem is gone? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 09:19, 26 April 2009 (EDT)

::I tried it. The new modes now work, but Snap Mode is still missing from my HL. Also it's not clear the difference between burst and full auto since they both have the same accuracy and TU cost.--[[User:SaintD|SaintD]] 19:25, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, on mine the burst and full auto have different accuracies (80% and 60%, respectively); and they fire 5 and 8 rounds, also respectively. I believe the snap shot was taken out on purpose to coincide with the idea of the heavy laser as being more suited to being a support weapon. Of course the last part is conjecture on my part, but I am pretty certain it is not supposed to be there. --[[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 23:51, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

I am not the original poster in this heading, and I have not had the same problems with the heavy laser that others had (only one I had was about the Range Based Acc not affecting full auto), so I cannot confirm whether this patch has solved that. But I will tell you what you probably already know: everything is fuzzy, kinda like [ Mok's 2xSaI]. It is also a little bit jumpy. Due to that, I can't take advantage of the Funky Fire fix, or any other future fix, unless I am willing to deal with the fuzziness, or unless you create 2 runs; 1 with the Heavy Laser fix, and one without. --[[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 13:42, 28 April 2009 (EDT)
:Hum, I'm not sure I understand. What has the fuzziness to do with the HL fix? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:15, 28 April 2009 (EDT)

Wow, to think I almost didnt bother to post because I was sure you would already be aware of it. As soon as I updated your loader from 6 April (TFTD door fix) to 26 April (funky fire fix), everything got fuzzy. After that, I tried the update without funky fire (HL fix). Still fuzzy. Then I rolled back to the previous one (Initial Alien Base fix). No more fuzzy. I even went back to HL fix, then back again to Alien Base fix. Same deal. I will try using it on a fresh X-Com install without my other patches. But yeah, you should seriously install the patch I linked to in my above post. Will only take a minute to try. Looks VERY much like it (I know that many people have the fuzzy problem with that patch). --[[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 02:17, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

OK, it is indeed still fuzzy on a fresher copy of X-Com. It is not a genuine fresh install as I no longer have the disk, it is just the original files copied on my computer in another location. Furthermore, I forgot to mention there is also slight video garble (yes, even with the garble fix on) at the bottom of the menu screens. That in itself is not a problem as it is not throughout the game, and is only a few pixels in height. I can't wait to see if anyone else has these problems or if its just me. --[[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 02:27, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
:I have a crash with Mok's patch so I cannot check the problem. By fuzzy you mean something like the image is bilinearly filtered and all smoothed? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:20, 29 April 2009 (EDT)

I am a total programming/graphics newb, so I don't know if that is a good description or not. The UFO's for example, instead of being crosses, are blurbs that slightly change shape as they fly, and everything has softer transitions that make it look like it is done with pastels or something. I can tell you I tried to take a screen capture but it did not reflect the screen as it appears in game. In any case, unless other people have this same problem, I would not worry about it for my sake. If it is something you want to tackle anyway, just tell me what I can do to help you. --[[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 23:51, 29 April 2009 (EDT)
:Hum, are youe using the "dev" version instead of the official one? It features a scale2x filter that craps the image up.[[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:40, 30 April 2009 (EDT)

Not sure what you mean by "dev" version, but I am guessing you are referring to my version of CE. I do not know for sure, because it has been years since I got it, but I am guessing the answer is yes because mine runs in full screen without any mods. --[[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 12:22, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

Your newest version seems to have gotten rid of my problem. --[[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 12:32, 1 May 2009 (EDT)
:That's great ;-) By dev I was refering to the "dev" version of the loader linked on this page. It is an experimental version that uses scale2x with 640x400 resolution. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 12:53, 1 May 2009 (EDT)

== REng UFO with IDA ==

Hi Seb =)

I've just started working with IDA in an attempt to understand the inner workings of TACTICAL.EXE. I have never used IDA or related tools before, nor do I really know what I'm doing ;) I have removed the DOS/4GW loader and am examining the LE code currently.

So far my only progress (using DOSBox debugger) has been to isolate the calls in main() which display the equip screen and handle the interative section of the mission. You could say progress has been slow, as this has taken a couple days (including time spent figuring out the basics of IDA/DOSbox debug).

Would it be possible to see your notes? You will no doubt have discovered most (all?) functions and exactly what they do. If I could see this data (such as comments, renamed funtions, cleaned up code) it would take months off of the time I would need to understand the underlying assembler code.

I also recently discovered a plugin called HexRays for IDA. Do you use this? I'm really a newb so would love to get some input on which tools are best for this job.

My long, long-term goal will be to implement TACTICAL as a native windows program, as it would be a great project to have whilst learning to program (I should say I have some basic programming already, but nothing beyond a simple Windows game in Delphi).

Any advice is deeply appreciated mate =)

XCom forever!
--[[User:K9wazere|K9wazere]] 09:51, 17 June 2009 (EDT)
:Hi k9,
:Slow progress at the start is a normal thing. In the windows version I got help from the developers because they left a few error messages around to guide me during my initial analysis ^_^ I don't know about the DOS version, maybe they are also present.
:For the DB, just PM me an email address where I can send you the file (~1.7MB)... I gave a shot at HexRays (early versions), but I didn't find it that much useful in helping to understand what's going on. Well, if you're not used to asm, it may be interesting for you ;-) Still, for re-engineering a function it may prove useful. All in all, I'm just using a standard 5.2.0.908 version, it got everything I need. Also for debugging, I use DXWnd because breakpoints and fullscreen DX apps don't live well together...
:Good luck with your project,
:[[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:15, 17 June 2009 (EDT)

:::Thanks for that, Seb! I'm trying to understand how your loader and patcher works...

void InsertCall(int dst, void *func)
{
DWORD oldProtect;
DWORD *pOffset=(DWORD *)(((char *)dst)+1);

VirtualProtect((void *)dst,5,PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE,&oldProtect);
*(char *)dst=(char)0xE8;
*pOffset=(int)func-(int)dst-5;
VirtualProtect((void *)dst,5,oldProtect,&oldProtect);
}

::: This calculation here is interesting:

*pOffset=(int)func-(int)dst-5;

:::I assume 0xEA is assembler for CALL ... but then the reason for subtracting 'dst' from 'func' is not apparent. All in all I'm a bit confused as to how code in one area of memory (UFO Defense) can call code in another area of memory, belong to a different process (UFO Loader).
:The 0xEA is indeed the CALL opcode, but it is a relative jump so you must feed it the delta between source and destination (the 5 is the size of the CALL instruction itself that must be removed).
:The beauty of the thing is that the loader injects the code in the address space of the main executable image so you can call functions from/to it with no trouble :)

:::Can you suggest some good reading material to better understand this? Cheers!
:::--[[User:K9wazere|K9wazere]] 14:36, 20 June 2009 (EDT)
:You can search for DLL injection methods on the web, that's the name of the trick. In a nutshell I spawn the "UFO Defense" process in a suspended state, then use the CreateRemoteThread/LoadLibrary trick. HTH, [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:48, 21 June 2009 (EDT)

== D3D ==

If I select the D3D option, UFO Defense and patcher.dll crash and generate a Windows Error Report. It won't let me copy and paste the contents unfortunately. My XCom machine is an old laptop, Win XP Pro 2003, Pentium III 851MHz, 376Mb RAM. I'm not sure what version (if any) of DirectX it has.

I'm still checking out the Save Equipment / Auto Flares mods. Very welcome! Once these are working there will be no reason for most people to use XComUtil. I will get back to you when I have specific feedback - but thanks again, Seb. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:59, 18 July 2009 (EDT)
:You need DirectX 9 installed (couldn't easily locate any older SDK, I'm sure I could've gotten away with DX7...), maybe I should make the code more robust and exit gracefully instead of crashing... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 13:04, 18 July 2009 (EDT)

Hmm. I've installed DirectX version 9 (March 2009 version) and with D3D enabled the Loader just fails silently; no error message, nothing in the event log. Maybe the install didn't work properly. I'll see if I can find some kind of DirectX test/verification utility somewhere. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:23, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

OK I ran the dxdiag utility which comes with DirectX 9.0c. This tests DirectDraw and Direct3D levels 7/8/9. There were no problems and no issues detected, apart from my laptop does not support hardware sound buffering (software only). I can send you the full dxdiag.txt report if it will help. When the Loader fails, all I see is a little black square in the top left, which I think is a normal part of the loading sequence (some kind of command window), and then nothing. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:39, 19 July 2009 (EDT)
:Might be related to using none power of two textures. Maybe your hardware does not support it? I'll add some more checks to make sure that's the problem.
:Edit: Can you try the latest version? I added some more error handling, can you tell me if you have an error message at some point? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 19:18, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
Unforunately I don't have access to the original laptop now, I won't do for a few months. I have tried on another PC (XP 2002 Professional SP3, DirectX9.0c, dxdiag tests all ok) and I also get a crash. Instead of dropping out right away, I see the smallish black square in the top left for a while, then I go to a full screen black or grey-black screen. This lasts for minutes. It doesn't eat up CPU and I can task switch out of it. I don't see any popup error messages and nothing in the event logs. When I kill UFO Defense the black full screen goes away. Sorry I know that's not much help. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:59, 22 July 2009 (EDT)

D3D mode isn't working for me either, I simply get a black screen. When I alt+tab out of it though I can see an error box titled 'D3D error' which tells me it 'Cannot create texture'. [[User:J'ordos|J'ordos]] 19:09, 8 August 2009 (EDT)
:edit: forgot to mention, I have directx 9.0c installed and dxdiag reports no problems. I have a Geforce2 MX *blushes*
:Do you know if this card supports non power of two textures? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 05:10, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
::no idea, but since your new version works fine with the D3D option on I assume it doesn't :) [[User:J'ordos|J'ordos]] 11:38, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
:That's great. Spike, does it fix your problems too? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:04, 9 August 2009 (EDT)
::Sorry for the late reply - yes that fixes my problems too, D3D is working fine now. Thanks, [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:55, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

== Save equipment ==

Hi Seb. I've tried out the Save Equipment and Auto Flares (good idea by the way). I've seen some quirks. I had a few weapons (a Rifle and maybe a Pistol) that weren't loaded. Normally the game loads all weapons unless there isn't sufficient ammo. I moved some stuff around so this might have been due to me. So I restarted. Then I got a situation where:

*1 soldier had no weapons, just a grenade in a belt, even though there were Rifles and Auto Cannon (both with ammo) not allocated. Actually this soldier was showing 54/40 encumbrance from one grenade. Carrying a lot of "invisible" equipment!
*Heavy weapons (Auto Cannon, Heavy Cannon, Rocket Launcher) were allocated only once each. Spare heavy weapons were not allocated. The soldiers allocated the heavy weapons carried 3 spare ammo clips and were overloaded. Also, a weak soldier (strength 21 or so) was selected to carry the Auto Cannon and 3 spare clips.
*The mission appeared to be a night mission but no flares were allocated. (the previous mission, the Auto Flares worked fine). Maybe it was a Dusk mission? It looked dark out there.
*Also the game crashed when I moved the first guy out of the transport. Of course this is not necessarily related to using Save Equipment.

Actually, making sensible automatic rules for weapon and ammo allocation is hard to do, and a matter of personal taste, and this is really a different goal than just saving equipment allocations that have been picked manually by the player. So I'm probably being really unfair. Maybe it would be easier not to allocate any weapons other than what the player has picked?

Anyway I have a save game file for the 2nd game if that is any use to you for debugging. Cheers, [[User:Spike|Spike]] 18:53, 18 July 2009 (EDT)
:Thanks for the feedback, it got in the dev version for 2 months and nobody sent any comment so I figured I might as well put it in the official version ;-) I'm not surprised with the kind of problems you encountered, I got lots of 'em while making this... The crash at the start is most likely due to reaction fire.
:The autoflare feature should trigger at the same time as the visibility reduction caused by the night. Were you able to see up to 20 tiles away?
:As for the auto-allocation, I'm afraid there is no other easy option that I can see: when the mission starts, everybody is already equiped with the default stuff. I have to remove everything to be able to reassign items properly :( The default reequiping rules are quite simple: strength is not taken into account, and you require a set amount of free clips to be able to equip a weapon.
:I had a look at your savegame, but one just before the mission would be better. Also can you attach your ini file? Maybe some problems are caused by incompatibilities between mods. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 04:08, 19 July 2009 (EDT)
::OK uploaded what I hope is the right .ini file. Unfortunately that was my first savefile of the game, I don't have any earlier one. All I did was bought some guns 'n ammo and landed on the first (Roswell) crash site. The weirdest thing was the female soldier (Martha Stewart? or am I hallucinating?) with 54/40 encumbrance but only carrying one grenade. Could this be connected to [[Known_Bugs#Weightless_Loaded_Ammo|the problem you discovered in the game's weight routine]]? Anyway I will try and recreate the problem with more savefiles so you have a "before" and "after". [[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:15, 19 July 2009 (EDT)
:In your savegame I indeed see that the Maria chick is overweight, but if I bail out of the mission and go on a new one, she only have a grenade and a weight of 3... Another strange thing is that in the equip.ini file of the savegame, she's marked as having a large rocket loaded in the weapon that she's holding, but she has no weapon... Did you equip her with the rocket launcher and changed your mind afterward? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 11:27, 19 July 2009 (EDT)
::OK I restarted from a new game. I took lots of savegames after each step. Everyone has your default basic loadouts - loaded pistol or rifle, one reload, one grenade. I see a couple of anomalies. Look for Jacques. He is overweight despite only carrying a Rifle. Also, he is carrying a grenade that shows as Primed - it isn't. I even threw it to make sure - no explosion. Like Maria before him, Jacques is the last soldier in the equip.ini list. Also like Maria, Jacques is carrying more guns & ammo in equip.ini than are shown in the inventory screen. He has 5 items but they don't add up to the 54 or so Encumbrance he is showing. Like Maria, he is carrying ammo (type 13) in a slot1 (left hand) weapon that doesn't exist, and it seems to weigh about 20! The crazy encumbrance persists into the next turn and it is still there after I restore a savegame. I will upload a full set of play-by-play savegame files. I did move some equipment around for some guys in the later saves. But never for Jacques. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:10, 19 July 2009 (EDT)
:OK, I'll have a look at this, thanks for the effort.
:Edit: I could not reproduce the problem staight away: I see the crapped up weight if I load your tactical games, but when using the "i/b" one, Jacques is alright... Does this problem happens 100% of the time on your PC? Maybe it's a problem with the ini file handling (W2K3?), who knows... I'll keep trying. Feedback from XP/Vista users could be useful on this one. BTW are you using split binaries? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:44, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
::I've uploaded another save game, this time on a different PC (better XP version, CPU, RAM). Same symptoms - the last man has phantom equipment. Actually I notice the last TWO men have 2 items of equipment on them, but only visible one item shown in equip.ini. Also I keep forgetting to send the UFO Extender.ini file. My games don't use split binaries. I don't think it's a problem parsing the equip.ini file because the problem appears right away, if I save as my first action when the battlescape appears - the equip.ini already has the weirdness, and on the battlescape the soldier already has the weirdness. Although - let me check this - but I don't think the phantom equipment weirdness is there during the Equip Screen, it only appears when the actual Battlescape starts. So, if you pass the equipment information from the Equip screen to the Battlescape via the equip.ini file, that's a possibility. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:21, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
::Uploaded another New game, same/similar symptoms. This time the last guy is carrying weapons. But still, he is too heavy. The effect is NOT present in Equip Screen; his weight only increases once on the Battlescape. He is carrying a Rocket (object type 13) inside an invisible second weapon. So this could be a problem parsing the equip.ini file. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:38, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
::Last note tonight. The guy is overweight by 13 x 2 = 26 units. His equip.ini shows him carrying a phantom type 13 object (in a nonexistent 2nd weapon). Is this a coincidence? Maybe check the other savefiles and see if the last man was also overweight by 26 units, or by 2 x the index of the phantom item. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 18:00, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
:I uploaded a new version, can you check it out? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 19:16, 20 July 2009 (EDT)
:: Re tried with New game after your fix. Still seeing last 2 characters with incorrect weights. The weights were the same on the Equip screen as on the Battlescape. Excess weights are 6 and 3 units. Uploaded the save game. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:14, 21 July 2009 (EDT)
:Actually you're now hitting another bug: when putting a loaded gun to the floor, the ammo stays assigned to the soldier so its weight is still taken into account... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:21, 21 July 2009 (EDT)
::Yes you are right. In fact the weight errors were not 6 and 3 but 6 and 5 - the weight of heavy cannon ammo and auto cannon ammo, respectively. When I dropped the loaded heavy cannon and the loaded auto cannon, the encumbrance weights drop by 18 and 19 respectively. This is the weight of the unloaded weapon, not the correct weight of the loaded weapon. (Though normally, due to the buggy weight routine in the game, that *is* the actual (but incorrect) weight of the loaded weapon if you haven't yet unloaded it). So this is just a matter of ignoring the ammo weight from the soldier's encumbrance when dropping a loaded weapon. And it does look like the original problem has been fixed. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 18:18, 22 July 2009 (EDT)

Hmm more problems with Save Equipment. Ammo of all types seems to disappear. Eg I have 6 pistols and 6 pistol clips on the craft, but the Equip screen just gives me 6 empty pistols. Other weapons are short of ammo too. Is the Save feature perhaps "remembering" empty weapons (or loaded weapons) and somehow eliminating the clips. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:34, 18 August 2009 (EDT)
:This looks like an issue with ''UnloadClips''(). I noticed that the clip object's ''loaded_into'' is set to 0xff, but the ''not_loaded'' remains as 0. The game may see this as the clip still being loaded in an object, so the clip effectively disappears. --[[User:Mikawo|Mikawo]] 11:05, 19 August 2009 (EDT)
::This is possible. The wiki is wrong on these 2 fields BTW: it is in fact just one field (loaded_into signed extended to 16bit). I'll have a look at that. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:33, 19 August 2009 (EDT)

I think Mikawo is right. UnloadClips() should look something like this:

void UnloadClips()
{
obpos_dat *pObPos=pObpos_dat;

for(unsigned char i=0;i<170;i++)
{
if(pObPos->itemType != 0xff && pObPos->not_loaded == 0 && IsXComItem(i))
{
pObPos->loaded_into=0xff;
<big>'''pObPos->not_loaded=0xff;'''</big>
}
pObPos++;
}
}

Quite a few other functions in '''equipment.cpp''' use this check '''pObPos->not_loaded == 0xff''' so it is important to set this flag just for UFOExtender, regardless of whether the game needs it set (which it probably does). Eg items unloaded by UnloadClips will thereafter fail to be found by GetFreeItem, during execution of LoadSoldierEquipment. That probably explains the problems observed.
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:24, 26 August 2009 (EDT)

:I did some rework based on that. Do you have other problems? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:08, 30 August 2009 (EDT)

::Thanks Seb. This seems to be working mostly ok now. Some remaining smaller issues I have seen:

::* The weight calculation is so accurate, it is more accurate than the unmodified game. So the "weight free ammo" (the first clip loaded into a weapon, before the user takes any action in the Equip screen) is no longer weight free. Not sure if you want to "fix" this or not? It is debatable. Really, you have fixed a bug. But the normal game behaviour has changed. Maybe make the "weight free ammo" optional?
::* There is a weird glitch. If I unload a weapon, put it and the clip on the ground seperately, that works fine. But if I pick up the clip '''directly from the ground''' and load it straight into the weapon, then drop the weapon, the weight of the clip is still shown on the soldier. And actually the same thing happens with a clip that is first moved into the soldier's equipment. So in fact the problem is that a clip loaded into a weapon, doesn't get removed from the soldier weight when the weapon is dropped onto the ground. It happens even if the clip is pre-loaded by your routine.
::* Still outstanding - you can't use the right arrow to move onto a second screen of equipment. So you can't have more than one screenload of equipment on the ground. Or maybe you can, if you start the Equip screen with more than one screenload on the ground - I didn't check that.

::[[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:10, 1 September 2009 (EDT)

== Glitch with Alien Pets and Big Brother? ==

Hi Seb. I was trying to do some initial research on the idea of [[User:Spike#Tank mods|Tank mods]] but it looked like these 2 useful features of your Loader, Alien Pets and Big Brother, have both stopped working. Can you test this, on the latest version? I'm using a very recent version (last 2 weeks) but not the absolute latest as I have internet download problems.

Also, have you seen this new Wiki article: [[Enemy Unknown Extended]]. It is a package including your loader plus a few other odds and ends.

cheers,
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 11:16, 17 August 2009 (EDT)
:My mistake, I commented out that part of code a while ago and only recently noticed that. It was corrected one or two versions ago.
:The article is a good idea, it should allow less techies an easy start. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 13:51, 17 August 2009 (EDT)
:: OK cool yes the Hacks are back in place, thanks. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:34, 18 August 2009 (EDT)

== Alien Bleeding ==

Test results:

* 1-unit and 4-unit aliens can be healed by anyone (alien or human) holding a Medkit
* 4-unit aliens can be healed by standing in any of their 4 squares
* 4-unit aliens can only be healed while they are stunned. Pointing to their "control" square does not seem to work.
* 1-unit aliens can be healed either while conscious or while stunned
* Wounds on aliens can be correctly seen with Medkits
* The Medkit display shows a human silhouette regardless of the alien type, of course
* Healing aliens with Medkits, stops them from dying of wounds (not 100% tested but seems to be true)
* Aliens (large and small) seem to lose the correct amount of Health per turn from Wounds
* Aliens with wounds that are not treated, eventually die (not 100% tested but seems to be true)
* A Mind Probe can see if an alien has Wounds.

Anomalies:

* I had a lot more reports of Reapers dying than I would expect. I would not have expected any to die, and I had 3 reports of death by wounds. Even heavily wounded Reapers take a long time to die. In my test I was only shooting them with Pistols. Maybe there is a problem with the reporting? Maybe the death of the same Reaper was reported more than once? More testing needed on this.
:I wonder if Reapers are receiving wounds on all 4 sections when hit by explosives (I don't know which weapon you were using). They really shouldn't, although I'm unsure how you'd get around this. If possible, put a cap on the maximum number of wounds something can ever have (perhaps 6). You could argue their multiple hearts really empty their blood out quickly, but I don't think fatal wounds should ever become more dangerous than burning alive.

:: Well, why not: hit four times by one explosive, check for incurring fatal wounds four times. -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]], 13:49 Sept. 6 2009 CDT

* Question: should the death of an alien by wounds be reported, or should it die silently? Did I only see these messages because I was using Alien Pets, and so they were on "my" side?
:Regarding death reports, I enabled the dialog for aliens/civilians (it usually only shows up for xcom operatives) to help in testing. The final version will not show them. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:10, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

Caveats:
* I used the Alien Pets, Big Brother, and Alien Inventory hacks to do this test. I also hacked a save game to give me Pistols, Medkits, PsiAmps and Mind Probes. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:03, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

To Do:
* Test if aliens (small, large and mechanical) suffer from [[Fatal Wounds#Other effects of Fatal Wounds|other effects of wounds]], e.g. penalties to Energy, Accuracy, Time Units
* Do Cyberdisks, which have no legs or arms and probably no head, only ever receive Torso wounds?

=== Mechanical Bleeding ===

* Question: Do Cyberdiscs and Sectopods receive Fatal Wounds? I'm wondering whether an unconscious Cyberdisc is safe to be around. Even if they didn't explode, Fatal Wounds would be stupid for a robot. If XCOM tanks can't end up leaking fuel and sparking dangerously, neither should enemy robots. [[User:Stubbs|Stubbs]]
: I think you can make a case for tanks and robots having "wounds", i.e. damage that gets progressively worse by itself. You can even make a case for them being "stunned" - temporarily non-operational. You can even make a case for it applying to alien robots but not to X-COM tanks, since alien robots all have some degree of organic component (which is why they can be Mind Controlled). But I still think you are right, neither effect should apply to machines, whether alien or human. As for your question, see the tests below:

Cyberdisk Bleeding Test Findings:
* Cyberdisks take Wounds (with Alien Bleeding option enabled)
* Cyberdisk wounds can be healed (though only after unit is stunned)
* Cyberdisks lose health from wounds
* Cyberdisks can die from wounds
* Cyberdisks don't seem to explode when they die from wounds ("has died from wounds" popup)

Cyberdisk Bleeding TestTest Caveats:
* Same caveats as previous tests (above), plus:
* The Cyberdisks were modified from Reapers using xcomutil :rpl
* Some Pistols were changed to Laser Rifles using xcomutil :chg
* (xcomutil was not installed in the game directory however, it was used from another location)
* The stats (Armour 34 all round, Health 120) appeared normal for Superhuman
* However the Cyberdisks seemed to fall too easily to Laser Rifle fire (e.g. 1 hit)
* Also, they seemed not to explode as often. This was because they were often stunned.
* Hard to tell in-game whether a Cyberdisk is dead or stunned. The graphic is the same, you can't use a Mind Probe, nor look on the ground, nor even check by changing sides.
* Actually there is one way to tell: stand over it and use a Medkit. Didn't think of that. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 08:22, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

:Thanks for finding out, Spike. Autopsy text shows you are right about the Sectopod( but not about the Cyberdisc) having biomechanical components, but it's not like there are gallons of blood pumping around the thing to gush out. One thing: did you check both conscious and unconscious death-by-wounds for the Cyberdisc? [[User:Stubbs|Stubbs]]
::No problem Stubbs. I didn't deliberately test this, but I had numerous deaths-by-wounding while unconscious and I think at least a few while conscious. I believe those that died while conscious, exploded. (I think this is the basic rule for Cyberdisks. If they are stunned, they don't explode. This typically happens with stun weapons but can also happen with regular weapons, if you are lucky.) [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:54, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

* Seb76: maybe robots receiving wounds was an oversight, or maybe you really do want robots to take wounds. In either case, it would be nice to have a separate option for this. My arguments against robot wounds are pretty simple: tanks do not receive them, the bled-out dialogue "X has died from a fatal wound" sounds silly for a robot that was never alive, and finally that a Medkit should not be able to heal a robot.
: It's reasonable that alien mechanisms (Sectopod, Cyberdisk) would not suffer from wounds. Possibly also Zombies should remain immune to wounds? From a note Seb made elsewhere, I think the UNITREF.DAT "can be wounded" flag is the same as the "can be stunned" flag. Wounding is probably prohibited globally for aliens, by an override somewhere in the executable. Seb has probably removed this override, unconditionally. To remove the override more selectively, I suspect Seb would need to put a logic test in the code, to check the alien type. .[[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:54, 5 September 2009 (EDT)
::There was a check for ownership that I simply removed. Next version will have an explicit check for robots/chryssies/zombies not to bleed. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 12:29, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

* If you want a sense of "the Sectopod's leg got damaged" or even "the tank's track was broken", perhaps robotic units could be 'wounded' by damaging max TUs.
* If, however, the above won't let weapon usage TU %s recalculate as TUs are lost (i.e. the units lose firing ability as well as walking), then certain values of Energy with the correct Energy usage modifier could emulate loss of speed without losing firing ability. Since Energy is returned at a rate of 1/3 of TUs, these units could have an Energy value of (slightly less than) exactly 1/3rd of their TUs. Their energy usage modifier is then changed to allow this small energy value to usually suffice. Now, when Energy is damaged, the units will be permanently slowed, but their weapons won't be affected. [[User:Stubbs|Stubbs]]

=== Zombie Bleeding ===

Zombies that bleed to death don't seem to turn into Chryssalids. As discussed above, it might be better to disable wounding for Zombies. (Death by wounding for Zombies was already possible, without this fix, if the Zombie was mind controlled, wounded while mind controlled, then released back to Alien control.) [[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:07, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

== Hostile Civilians ==

This fix also seems to prevent:
* [[Exploiting_Mind_Control#Zombie's_Permanent_Control_of_Aliens_via_Stunning|Permanent Control of Aliens via Stunning]] Exploit - as was hoped for.
* [[Exploiting_Mind_Control#Resurrect Zombified Agents|Permanent Control of a Chryssalid/Tentaculat]]

It does not fix:

* Various Mind Control bugs:
** [[Known_Bugs#Mind_Controlled_Soldiers_go_MIA]]
** [[Known_Bugs#Mind Controlled Aliens Count as MIA if you Abort]]

(Probably because fixing both of these requires special, end-of-mission processing)

Still To Be Fixed:

* [[Exploiting_Mind_Control#Exponential Mind Control|Exponential Mind Control]]

(This requires a check in UNITPOS to ensure that the unit attempting Mind Control is not, itself, already mind controlled.)

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:16, 3 September 2009 (EDT)

== Fixed Funky Fire and Zombies ==

Fixed Funky Fire still permanently kills Zombies, when the killing damage comes from (end of turn) fire damage. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:02, 5 September 2009 (EDT)

== Research Tree ==

I've found a way of modding the research tree and was wondering if people are interested in an updated version. I've read of stuff like enabling hovertanks from cyberdisc autopsies or flying suits with floater research, but I think there is more that can be done. The limitations from the original game is that having researched a topic cannot unlock more than 4 new topics, and cannot unlock the production of more than 4 new item types. Any ideas? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 12:40, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

* Another one I mentioned was: Mind Probe before Psi-Amp, although I'm going to retcon that to "Mind Probe before Psi-Lab" (which then leads to Psi Aimp as per usual). The logic behind this is that the first step of a psi-attack must be scanning for enemy brainwaves to pick them out of the other signals. Before you can teach soldiers to do this, you'd have to have studied the mind probe to see how the non-psychic aliens are managing to find targets. You've got to walk before you can run, after all.
* I'm unsure if the next suggestion is possible, given what you have said. I'd like some kind of necessity to research at least some corpses/aliens - is it possible to require, say, any 6 alien 'live' or 'autopsy' reports finished before Alien Origins unlocks? You might also make it dependent on difficulty (6/7/8/9/10 needed). You could also include alien missions in this count.
* My only other suggestions are: you should have to research Elerium before you can build anything that requires Elerium to build. You should have to research Alien Alloys before you can build anything that uses those (which is true only for some things currently. It doesn't seem to be a prerequisite for building alien weapons). Is it possible for a manufactured item to require two separate research entries to be manufactured?
* Question: is there also a limit of 4 prerequisites for a research item? [[User:Stubbs|Stubbs]]
:There is no limit on prerequisites, it's the code that shows "you can now build/research xxx" that has a 4 entries limitation. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:05, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

A boring suggestion but how about making sure that for all weapon research, you need to do the pistol before the rifle before the heavy weapon, etc. And similarly with the ammo types. Apart from that, I'll think on it. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:42, 6 September 2009 (EDT)

Another boring suggestion: each specific laser weapon should take a little longer to research - force you to use the starting weapons for a little longer. You could also rebalance the Plasma research times so that the rifle took a little longer and the Heavy Plasma took significantly longer. It might then be more viable to research them from weakest to strongest, without forcing your hand as Spike suggested. [[User:Stubbs|Stubbs]]

:Yep that's a good alternative.

You could make the Stun Launcher a little harder by requiring (as well as Alloys and Elerium), perhaps a live Medic to be researched before the Stun Launcher (since it's usually Medics that carry them and presumably understand how to operate them), and an Engineer for a Blaster Launcher. It's not much extra but it helps to make these powerful weapons a little harder to get. If you wanted to make Blaster Launcher quite a lot harder to get you could add something like UFO Navigation (something to do with plotting all those waypoints, alien-stylee), or at least a Mind Probe for similar reason.

But, what are we trying to do here? Make things harder in general? That's one option. Or "rebalance", i.e. make things that are relatively too easy to get, relatively harder to get? Or make things more "logical"? There's lots of ways to play this.

It's a shame there's not a distinction in the game between using, and manufacturing, alien weapons - as is done in XcomUtil. Really, there should be a world of difference between figuring out how to use scavenged alien weapons, and actually being able to manufacture them. But that's not really a research tree topic, '''unless''' - would it be possible to create new topics? Could you separate out the using of an item from the manufacturing of it? (If not, it would be good to have a game variant in which nothing that can be scavenged, is allowed to be manufactured).

UFO Navigation might also be a good prerequisite for Hyperwave Decoder. I'm sort of rambling here, but what are the most powerful technologies, that are kind of easy to get... which ones need to be made harder. (Are there any that need to be made easier?)

Powerful technologies:
* Psionics (Psi Lab == Psi Amp). Adding the Mind Probe, as suggested, would be a good idea. Maybe a psionic Commander capture required for each.
* Blaster Launcher - maybe require an Engineer and a Soldier research, as well as Elerium & Alloys. Mind Probe or UFO Navigation for the "plotting" element? A separate Engineer capture to produce the ammo? What else?
* Stun Launcher - Medic and an Engineer? Maybe a full set of autopsies - but that's too onerous.
* Heavy Plasma - stretching the research time would be good, though this can already be done. Additional pre-reqs - maybe add a live Engineer requirement (maybe for ''each'' Plasma weapon type?). If you keep making these requirements you probably need to add a hint in the UFOPaedia along the lines of "we will need to interrogate alien technical experts to further understand this weapon technology". (OK that's hardly a hint.)
* Laser Cannon (?) - But I'm not sure this Laser Cannon factory thing is a big deal. Arguably building a new intercept base is a better cash cow than building a 50-Engineer Laser Cannon factory.

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:34, 8 September 2009 (EDT)

== 64 bit compatibility ==

Any way to make the loader compatible with 64-bit operating systems, like 64-bit XP/Vista/7? [[User:Jwilcox25|Jwilcox25]]

: I'm using it on Windows 7 and it's working fine. Not sure if that's 64 bit though. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:26, 9 September 2009 (EDT)

:: If you're not sure, you are probably running the 32-bit version of Windows 7. Starting from XP, Windows comes in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors. Most 32-bit programs are backwards compatible, but apparently not X-COM from my experience. [[User:Jwilcox25|Jwilcox25]]

: It works fine with Windows 7 64-bit. Didn't have to enable any compatibility options or anything like that. [[User:Rovlad|Rovlad]] 02:29, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

== Music bug ==

When enabled "MIDI freeze" bugfix, after entering first combat the music stops playing completely, for the remaining game session.

Also, when using Extender, for some reason music is playing at really low volume, i have to manually reduce my main sound channel and crank up the volume to hear it. When just starting normal UFO CE volume levels of music and sfx are about equal. I have SB Live & WinXP.

== Fire Speed bug ==

Sometimes, for no apparent reason, fire speed setting jumps to 3, instead of what you had it set on.

: I believe it's a bug in the game itself, not the loader. I remember encountering it in both DOS and CE versions. [[User:Rovlad|Rovlad]] 02:31, 23 April 2010 (EDT)

== Reserve TU for x-Shot ==

Not sure if this has been addressed or fixed, but if you reserve Time Units for any shot type, all you get is Snap Shots for the reaction phase - never aimed or auto. Is there any way you could enable these two unused types for reaction shots? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 22:51, 25 October 2009 (EDT)
:As far as I can tell, the reserve is only meant to be used during the active turn. Reaction shots are hardcoded to snapshots (that's true for the aliens too), it's no bug that your guys don't use reaction autoshots. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 12:10, 16 January 2010 (EST)

== TFTD ==

I know you're hoping to perfect the current version before taking on any new projects, but I just want to add my plea to the others requesting a TFTD version. Even some of the basic functionality would be awesome and probably completely portable, such as the stats on the equipments screen, default new base, etc.

== Can't change tasks in D3D ==

Hey, I'm having an issue with D3D. If I alt-tab out, I can't switch back to the X-Com task. I'll switch to it but nothing can happen. I'm on Windows 7 x64 with an ATI Radeon HD 5770. [[User:Rlbond86|Rlbond86]] 20:19, 15 January 2010 (EST)
:I too have hangups sometimes when alt-tabbing out of XCom, sadly I'm no D3D expert :( I'll add more checks to see if resetting the D3D device worked though. If anyone knows of a 100% working way of dealing with "device lost" conditions, now is your chance... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 12:06, 16 January 2010 (EST)

== Battlescape Soldier's Stats Crash ==

I'm having this little problem with this and I wanted to know if I'm the only one that's suffering with it: everything works fine, but when in battlescape mode I want to check the stats of a soldier (by clicking his rank icon) the entire game CTD. Does it happen to anyone else? How can I fix it?
:Never saw such problem...
:* Does it still crash when you disable the extender (and what options did you enable)?
:* Do you have the address where the crash happens?
:[[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:55, 22 January 2010 (EST)
::It didn't, but now I reinstalled the game and it works wonderful. This is a great job you did here. Is there any chance that you could access to the stats of the soldiers from the assign crew screen? --[[User:Slibluhr|Slibluhr]] 16:56, 22 January 2010 (EST)
::OK, I could reproduce the crash this time, it has nothing to do with the stats screen as I supposed to do. The game crashes RANDOMLY if I have turned on the D3D thingy, any clue? I've also noted that if I turn on the caps mod (to put most of 'em in 150-200 to overcome the distance penalty) the soldiers do NOT improve, even after kicking a large scout's butt with KAtherine Sharpe, she didn't get any FAc point! --[[User:Slibluhr|Slibluhr]] 05:30, 23 January 2010 (EST)
:The caps bug is a known one, and a fix is available. I thought I'd wait for more substancial stuff before releasing a new version though. You can try the latest dev version that has the fix included.
:As for your crash I cannot do much without a crash address... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 11:46, 24 January 2010 (EST)
::This is what it said during last crash:

::AppName: ufo defense.exe AppVer: 1.0.0.1 ModName: ntdll.dll
::ModVer: 5.1.2600.5755 Offset: 00011689

::--[[User:Slibluhr|Slibluhr]] 15:29, 24 January 2010 (EST)
:Sadly the address is of no use (crash inside Windows code, most likely because of wrong arguments). I've put a new version up with better D3D error handling, does it help with your crashes? Also since I was feeling like it, I updated the "Reorder Soldiers" feature so that when you click the name of the soldier, his stats show up. You must click the rank/name of the ship to assign the soldier. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 18:00, 24 January 2010 (EST)
::Thank for the access to the stats of the soldiers via crew screen, it releases them from having their FAcc and PStr in the name.

:: btw, the crash moved to this location now:

::AppName: ufo defense.exe AppVer: 1.0.0.1 ModName: ntdll.dll
::ModVer: 5.1.2600.5755 Offset: 00028c0b

::could it be that's my pc's fault? does this happen to anyone else?

::------------------
::System Information
::------------------
::Time of this report: 1/25/2010, 01:25:00
:: Machine name: 0X000001
:: Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.090804-1435)
:: Language: Spanish (Regional Setting: Spanish)
::System Manufacturer: FOXCONN
:: System Model: A6VMX
:: BIOS: BIOS Date: 03/13/09 09:59:28 Ver: 08.00.14
:: Processor: AMD Sempron(tm) Processor LE-1250, MMX, 3DNow, ~2.2GHz
:: Memory: 3072MB RAM
:: Page File: 466MB used, 4490MB available
:: Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
:: DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
::DX Setup Parameters: Not found
:: DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.5512 32bit Unicode

== Store limit question ==
Nice to see you've implemented the general store change (unfortunately, UFOExtender doesn't work under wine, so I can't test this). I'm curious why 187 is the limit? I thought it would be a power of 2 (possibly minus 1)... Possibly you wanted to write 127? [[User:Cesium|Cesium]] 19:43, 21 February 2010 (EST)
:You can build 35 general stores max in a base and 65535/35 ~= 1872 (the internal representation is ten times what's shown ingame). [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 00:19, 22 February 2010 (EST)

== Mouse scaller not working on Windows 7 x64 ==

with d3d=1 and Scale Mouse=1 I still have issues with the mouse going way off screen.
--[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 01:57, 22 February 2010 (EST)
:I have noticed that alt-tabbing out of X-COM at the title menu (or any other point that won't crash it) and then alt-tabbing back into it fixes this problem for me in Win7-64. --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 13:12, 22 February 2010 (EST)
::Thanks for the heads-up. I uploaded a test version here: http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Image:UFOExtender-dev.zip
::Does it fix you problems? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:36, 22 February 2010 (EST)
:::Yep. Seemingly no issues with the mouse going off the screen using it, although I didn't test for long. I'll try to get more test time in later. --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 20:46, 24 February 2010 (EST)
::::Actually, it doesnt work for me either, in WinXP. And it was broken since the version of 7th November, the one with windowed mode addition. Also, Alt-Tabbing didnt work too. This fix makes things right, though.
::::Edit : also, this dev version crashes in 100% cases when going to battlescape.
::Strange, I do not have any trouble even when using split binaries. Do you have an address for the crash? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:03, 1 March 2010 (EST)
:::Okay, i hope this is what you wanted, but it says the adress is 0x0000000000bd22ca. I can load an actual save with tactical mode, but cant go into tactical from geoscape. So i use the version from 1st November still.
:Hum, you say the dev version crashes and that you are stuck with the version from 1st november. Do you mean you have the problem since the version of november the 7th, independently from the dev version? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:08, 4 March 2010 (EST)
::Actually yes. At first i didnt want to use it, because i use a tablet instead of mouse, and its really noticeable when a window failed to scale properly, since a tablet works in absolute screen coordinates. But just now i checked several new (non-dev) versions for the crash - its there. Crashes every time i try to enter tactical mode from geoscape. Saves from tactical load up fine. Version from Nov.1st gives no problems whatsoever.
:Do you still have the problem if you disable D3D or use windowed mode? Also if you load a tactical game, don't you get a crash when it goes back to geoscape? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 03:20, 6 March 2010 (EST)
::When disable D3D - yes. When enable windowed - yes. When going from tactical to geoscape - no.
:OK, I suspect this has to do with the "Save Equipment" feature. Can you try disabling it if you have it on? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]]
::OK, um...i tried all my saves, and with that feature disabled all my saves load up fine, and i can go from geoscape to tactical and back. So i thought everything was alright, and kept playing - the very next tactical mission loads up fine, but as soon as i try to move anyone - it crashes. And that is the same in all my saves, first mission is alright - second one always crashes. The crash adress is 42064f, in case you're gonna ask.
:Alright, can you PM me a savegame before the crash? I doubt it'll help but who knows...[[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 12:43, 6 March 2010 (EST)

== Extender in Steam (+ maybe XComUtil) ==

Hi do you know of any way to use the two apps together with the Steam version? I would really like to be able to combine the 'Reorder Soldiers' feature of Extender and the 'Capturing Aliens for Research' of XcomUtil.

Actually now that Ive put a bit more time into it I can't get UFOLoader.exe to run in steam's dosbox implementation at all. I can just run UFOLoader but it doesn't run in dosbox which makes the game run horribly. If you don't have a steam copy for testing / integration of the basic Extender program please let me know and I would be happy to send you a gift copy.

-Dogfish

P.S. What a great program, you are a credit to gaming.
:As far as I know, the Steam version also ships with the windows CE edition, the default shortcut just happens to point to the dosbox one. Also the latest version of XComUtil is able to detect the loader presence and act accordingly. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:42, 25 February 2010 (EST)

:: STEAM comes with both EXE. XcomUtil and UFO Extender work together with STEAM. To use Setup UFO Extender in the game folder. Then Download and install the latest build of XcomUtil 9.7. It will auto start XcuSetup in windows, Detect UFO Extender and allow you to configure RunXcom to use it. To use UFO Extender, or UFO:CE you can't launch the game from STEAM. You have to create a short cut for RunXcom. (Right click > send to > Desktop as Shortcut) --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 19:13, 25 February 2010 (EST)

Thanks guys I was able to start the game with both mods. I apparently had everything configured correctly but I kept launching it from steam. Is there a way to play in windowed mode (since its not using dosbox)? I tried launching dosbox and running 'RunXCom.bat' file from there but it does not recognize UFOExtender.

Oh boy the game is fast, even on slowest scroll it is difficult play a battle :)

-Dogfish
:What options did you turn on? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:18, 26 February 2010 (EST)

Show Stats=1
Apply=1 (wreck analysis)
Proximity Grenades Experience=1
Elerium-fueled Craft Bug=1
Save Reserve Mode=1
Rank In Inventory=1
Manual Interception Fire Mode=1
Crafts Always Ready=1
Reorder Soldiers In Crafts=1
No Funkers=1
TFTD Doors=1

Full System Specs:
Win Vista 64
Intel i7 920
6GB RAM
GTX 285 Video
Asus p6t

Everything is fast the geoscape tics are at least 5 times faster than running the non-Extender mode via dosbox.

Would you have any suggestions how to slow it down? I've actually been playing in steam(dosbox) with XComUtil only and then saving/loading between missions so I can reorder the soldiers.

Aha! I found the D3D Windowed option...
HQ4x=0
D3D=1
D3D Windowed=1
Always On Top=0
Clip Cursor=1
Scale Mouse=1
Screen Ratio=0.833333

I can manually resize it to be bigger, excellent!
What is strange is that running it in windowed mode seems to slow it down enough for the scroll speed settings to make it playable :)

I ran into a "Unsupported 32/16/64 bit error message switching from geoscape to battlescape but it happens only 1/3 times maybe?"

I will be playing this and let you know if I run into any more problems.

Thanks a bunch!
-Dogfish

Hi guys, dogfish again I've been getting a couple of glitches.

1. Switching from battlescape back to geoscape in the cmd prompt it displays
'echo----------------------------Leaving' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file.

2. This has happened twice

Get someone who has been shot is at low health and has fatal wounds

Have them pass out due to smoke inhalation

Let them bleed to death and get the "Joe McSoldier has died from a fatal wound" *while unconsious from the smoke*

I will lose points for the mission but the soldier will be recovered at the end of the mission but terribly wounded. (Currently Hans 'Jesus' Vogel is taking 55 days to recover his 41 health.)

:Both of these are XcomUtil issues. 1 has been fixed in Build 413 but I need a saved from just before ending combat to fix 2. --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 18:19, 28 February 2010 (EST)

::Sent the savegame to your gmail (whatever was listed on my paypal reciept from your donate button). Just hit end turn (all the aliens are dead) and the bug is triggered. -Dogfish
::: I got it. Was up all night with Bomb Bloke and we worked out what was going on. The fixed works with your save. The next build will fix the zombie bug. Also Thanks for the donation. Every little bit helps. --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 16:02, 1 March 2010 (EST)

--
Hi! I'm thefarside. This is my first time ever editing a wiki page so please bear with me. I'm not even sure I'm allowed to do this.

However, I have a problem with the cursor. It moves WAY out of the screen to the right and downwards. I've read something about a "clip cursor" fix but I can't seem to find out where and how to implement it.

Regards,
thefarside
--

== Manually Select Promotions ==

Just an Idea, not sure how easily done it is but I was thinking it would be really cool if (when its time for promotions) it would bring up a soldier screen with the eligible soldiers so that you could pick who gets promoted. Bonus if you could click on the candidates and be taken to their stats screen.

Love,
Dogfish

== Xusilak's Patch Additions ==

Since my patches are being integrated into the main release now, everyone should let me know if any issues are found with them. I'll try to get on fixing them as quickly as possible.

For clarity, the patches in the current build that I developed are:

* AutoSell
* Show Money

Thanks! --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 14:51, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

I went ahead and set up my own user page: [[User:Xusilak]]. If possible, direct discussion about my patches to my [[User_talk:Xusilak|discussion page]] there. Thanks again! --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 15:44, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

----

Hi Seb,
I've been working with IDA, your database, and your patcher's code for some time now, learning my way around it, and so on. So far, I've managed to come up with three UI improvement patches, although they still need some polish and testing.

The first one is a battlescape movement confirmation patch; it requires the user to click twice (double-click with no time limit) on the same tile to move, instead of once, to eliminate movement errors. In practice, I have found this very helpful.

The second one shrinks the geoscape clock and adds your current funds above it, letting you see your financial situation at a glance while waiting for time to pass.

The third one enables auto-selling of manufacturing items. Pressing the down arrow when the production quantity is at 0 engages this mode. When in this mode, production of that item never ceases (unless resources become unavailable), and the item is immediately sold upon completion.

Would you like me to make the code for these available once I've finished polishing them up? They currently consist of a few C functions accompanied by some InsertCall()s and Nop()s, as well as some additions to XCOM.h. I haven't added INI options to enable them, so I'd leave that up to you. You may use them as you wish, with no conditions.

Note: I'm still learning x86 assembly, so the patches may not be bug-free. I'm hoping to give them a good testing myself, though.
--[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 16:10, 19 March 2010 (EDT)
:Glad to see you could make something out of this database :-) Do not hesitate to send me your modifications, I'll incorporate them in the codebase so others can enjoy them. I'm sure your autosell feature will make a few happy ones ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 19:12, 19 March 2010 (EDT)
:::Yeah those features would all be '''great!''' Thanks Xusilak. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:08, 22 March 2010 (EDT)
::OK. I'm going to finish up my last touches on them, then test them for a while; they should be ready within a couple days. --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 21:59, 19 March 2010 (EDT)

== v1.21, Battlescape crashes ==

I enabled the new mods and they worked ok in Geoscape. Then this Popup box starting the first Battlescape:

Application failure
XCOM crashed at 0x10002571 with error 0xC0000005 trying to access 0x0968DF43

[[Media:UFOExtender1.21.BSCrash.zip]] contains the UFOExtender.ini file.
This was a New Game but not a new install of XCOM, just an overlay of updated UFOExtender.

*Win XP Pro 2002 SP2 32bit PAE
*Pentium-4 3.00GHz 3.5GB RAM

Any ideas? Need more info? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:20, 24 March 2010 (EDT)
:Does it happen consistently? I've been plagued by a random geoscape->battlescape transition crash in the collector's edition. It's one of the things I'm looking to fix at some point. The current UFOExtender doesn't appear to crash any more than previous ones do for me. I managed to do four missions in a row just now. --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 21:00, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

I'm doing some research into this; I started up in debugging mode and spammed missions until I hit a crash. The crash (on this occasion) is an access violation caused by an invalid pointer stored at 0x49B954 (the offset that pSoldierDat points to). This means *pSoldierDat is being changed at some point. It took many, many tries to get this crash to happen; I reloaded something like 20 times hitting the same mission, went ahead and did the mission quickly, proceeded, did another mission, proceeded, then the next mission crashed. Given that I'm in debug mode, it's not impossible this is due to the various hacks enabled by it, so that should be kept in mind. I'm going to continue working on this. --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 22:26, 24 March 2010 (EDT)
:It appears the "invalid" pointer is actually set by malloc() - 0x0771D380 (for me). I can only assume something along the way disrupted the data on the heap, as the pointer was the same when examined on a battlescape transition that didn't crash. Still researching. Note that for me, the crash itself happened inside GetSolderUUID() in the Save Equipment patch functions when it attempted to use that *pSoldierDat pointer. However, I assume it would still happen if the Save Equipment patch were disabled, just elsewhere. This is something I'll test as well. --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 23:41, 24 March 2010 (EDT)

::Sorry I'm guilty of reporting a bug I didn't (couldn't) repeat. But as I had no previous save game positions I couldn't repeat anything - the crash happened on the first Battlescape mission which for me is unusual, I would say that for me that transition crashes less than 1 in 100 times, if even that many. I had enabled Save Equipment I think and on instinct I would suspect that mod as being responsible. Those UFOExtender functions would run while setting up the Battlescape presumably. The equipment handling functions and structures ''already'' present in the game are known to be buggy. BladeFireLight and I just found another issue with them last week. Manipulating them is still risky. If you can investigate that would be very helpful.

::In the meantime I will see if I can try to repeat the fault, with and without Save Equipment enabled, and starting from a clean XCOM install. One trick I may use is to set No Score Game Over and then just abort from each mission rather than fighting it, to speed up the testing.

::Thanks for your good work Xusilak, it is appreciated! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 03:25, 25 March 2010 (EDT)

One possibility: On this mission I had only 6 soldiers (2 HWPs) but enough weapons in the Skyranger to equip 14 soldiers. Is there some known issue with needing to allocate '''all''' weapons to soldiers during the equip phase, in order to avoid a crash? If so that might be the cause. I will try to recreate those conditions and see if it provokes a crash. In case it's not clear, Battlescape never appeared to start, no Equip Phase screen ever came up. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 03:31, 25 March 2010 (EDT)
:Assuming the same crash is afflicting us, then the crash is when the very first soldier is accessed, when the Soldier.Dat data is first used for that mission. It's unlikely that volume of equipment is affecting that, and in particular, I hadn't changed my Skyranger's loadout to any degree whatsoever, having only briefly touched researching and manufacturing; it was otherwise a gamestate set entirely by doing one quick regular mission and one quick terror mission. However, I was also in debug mode, which enables certain cheats, like Alien Pets, automatically. This might, itself, have unseen bugs that could corrupt the data structures and cause a similar crash. When I get the time to, I'll be testing again with those cheats disabled, trying to further isolate the conditions involved. --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 08:34, 25 March 2010 (EDT)

I've repeated this multiple times now, with a clean install of XCOM and a clean install of UFOExtender 1.21. The game crashes everytime, after the "mission screen" that comes up just before the Equip Phase of Battlescape for the first mission. It's regardless of my equipment loadout or number of soldiers/tanks: it happens with totally default equipment and Skyranger load. So I imagine it must be due to some combination of the UFOExtender.ini file options I selected, and maybe code changes in 1.21. My .ini file is the upload at the top of this section. The error is always "error 0xC0000005 trying to access 0x0968DF43", though the crash location (in the code) varies. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:31, 25 March 2010 (EDT)
:If you have time, could you try to 1) confirm it's specific to 1.21 2) try to correlate it to ini options? Turn everything but the basics off and see what happens... if that works, turn on Save Equipment and try again, etc. I haven't seen any behavior like that in my local tests, on either of my computers (Win7-64 and XP-32). I'll try it with your ini, though. Maybe I can find something. --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 20:39, 25 March 2010 (EDT)
::Just tested with your ini, although with D3D and D3D window enabled. Started a mission, didn't crash. I also noticed one thing: you have General Stores capacity set to 1. I don't think that's helping anything, but it's probably not causing the crash, either. Experimenting more. --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 20:48, 25 March 2010 (EDT)

::: Save Equipment=1 is part (at least) of the problem. If I turn that off, and leave all my other .ini settings as is, I no longer get the Battlescape crash. Seb, did you make some changes there? Maybe after the investigations we were doing with BladeFireLight? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:13, 25 March 2010 (EDT)

I have isolated the problem (on my end) to the fact that the SOLDIER.DAT data in memory is deallocated when the transition to the Battlescape starts. When Seb's Save Equipment code attempts to use it, it's getting random unallocated (or unrelated) memory instead of the SOLDIER.DAT data. Interestingly, the dynamic memory used to hold the SOLDIER.DAT data is deallocated on the transition to the Battlescape, and reallocated to a new memory address on the transition out of the Battlescape. I assume this is an artifact of the way the Collector's Edition merged TACTICAL.EXE with GEOSCAPE.EXE, because TACTICAL.EXE had no need of SOLDIER.DAT, and only used UNITREF.DAT and similar. At any rate, this problem can be resolved by not relying on **(0x49B954) (or **pSoldierDat) to contain the correct data. Instead, a workaround to get the needed data should be used. One option would be to patch the way the transition works to prevent the deallocation from happening, and then ensuring on exiting the Battlescape that the old memory block is still used. I may be able to work in that fix myself. If so, it would require no changes to the Save Equipment code.
I'm not sure if this is a general issue or local to me only. I'll try to test on my XP system and see if it suffers from the same problem; if it does, it's a safe bet this is a general issue, and the likely cause of your crashes. --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 00:06, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

Save Equipment did used to work for me before. Maybe it's because I also selected Reorder Soldiers In Craft. Does that sort and rewrite SOLDIER.DAT? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 03:39, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

I have confirmed this behavior in the original X-COM Collector's Edition UFO Defense.exe copy, running on my XP system. As such, it ''cannot'' be a result of any patches Seb has made (because it still happens even when not using Seb's loader). I'm not sure if it will crash without Seb's patches still, but the way Seb uses the *pSoldierDat pointer in GetSoldierUUID() appears to be unsafe, as *pSoldierDat has already been deallocated at that point. On some systems, it may work, because the nature of memory on the heap is such that different systems give different results when dealing with deallocated memory and bad pointers. Regardless, the crashes can be at least partially (maybe entirely) resolved by using a workaround that avoids the deallocation of *pSoldierDat when the battlescape transition starts. I'm going to see if I can implement the fix I suggested, that prevents the memory from ever being deallocated. That should completely resolve it. At the least, I am going to study the assembly responsible for deallocating it to see if I can confirm the exact issue on the code level. --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 13:26, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:It seems that when GotoGeographMode() returns to move into GotoTacticalMode(), it calls FreeEverything() in the process, deallocating all data structures. Then, GotoTacticalMode() never bothers to reinitialize *pSoldierDat, so when the equipment phase comes up, it's still unallocated. Still working on a fix. --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 14:29, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

::Surely at some point the (unmodified) game needs to at least read the *pSoldierDat structure, in order to populate the [[UNITREF.DAT]] and [[UNITPOS.DAT]] structures for Battlescape? Unless it reads SOLDIER.DAT but doesn't bother storing it, not even temporarily, in *pSoldierDat.[[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:27, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::Nice piece of analyse there :-). I'll modify the patch to load the soldier data when needed and clean up afterward. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:30, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::Edit: I uploaded a test version. Can you check if it fixes your crash? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:47, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
::::Looking good so far; Save Equipment works for me now, and it never has in the past. I'll run through a bunch of missions quickly and see if I get any crashes. Thanks Seb! --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 17:01, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::No, thank you for figuring out the cause of the crash. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:21, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::::Just ran through several dozen (very quick, mostly aborted) missions all the way up to June. I never crashed, and Save Equipment always worked correctly. I think we're good to go. Hopefully it works for Spike as well. --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 18:00, 26 March 2010 (EDT)

I've also been narrowing in on another crash, unrelated to the patcher, I believe. It happens rarely upon clicking the air to move somewhere, like stepping out of the Skyranger by clicking the air one tile in front of the soldier, to move onto the ramp. It appears to be the result of a bad calculation on the tile to check in MoveUnitTo(). The calculation is looking at (char *)pMap + 4 * (xpos + (currentUnit_zpos + esi) * map_numTilesPerLevel + dword_4A28AC * tac_mapYSize); // when esi is 2 or greater; this esi factor shouldn't be there, as far as I can tell, because it results in the offset used being much greater than it should be and frequently going out of bounds of the MAP.DAT data stored at *pMap. Continuing my research into this when I get a chance. --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 17:01, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:I noticed that crash also (I think it's the number one crash cause on a genuine XCOM setup) but was never able to reproduce enough to investigate it. I was tempted at one point to patch the GetTileAt function to check its arguments, but finding the cause of the corrupted value would be better. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:21, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
::Yes, it's definitely a hard crash to catch, because of how rare it is. I've got a few ideas, though. We'll see if they help. --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 18:00, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
:::Currently, my guess is that this line:
:::<pre>.text:00420534 BE 01 00 00 00 mov esi, 1</pre>
:::should be "mov esi, 0" instead.
:::To sum up the issue:
:::The way the 'click on air to move to a tile below unit' part of MoveUnitTo() works is that it examines each level below the unit until it finds a floor to move to. It does this by looping through the level below you, incrementing esi to loop through the next level below that, and so on. To do this correctly, esi should start at 1. However, the X-COM programmers appear to have made an oversight: they initialized esi to 1, but then incremented esi again before the initial value actually gets used. The net result of this, is that we get zpos += 2 for the very first cycle. This works OK on floors 3 and 4, but for floor 2, it will attempt to access a z level that doesn't exist (one below the ground), causing this line: <pre>(char *)pMap + 4 * (xpos + (currentUnit_zpos + esi) * map_numTilesPerLevel + dword_4A28AC * tac_mapYSize);</pre> to exceed the bounds of the *pMap memory block. Obviously, running off the end of that block will cause unpredictable results, and if it reaches into a block that isn't allocated, it will crash. That's why the actual crash is very rare: it has to overrun into an unallocated memory block.
:::Of course, I could be completely wrong, but it makes sense, and patching 'mov esi, 1' to 'mov esi, 0' doesn't seem to cause any problems. I'm going to be testing with that patch enabled from now on, to see if I crash in that circumstance anymore.
::Looks like you are right. I instrumented the code and there are indeed systematic out of bound accesses when getting out of the craft, though the game does not crash every time. I suspect this is the same crash that happens during base defence when an alien tries to move down from the access lift. Kudos for figuring all this out! I'll provide the fix in the next version. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:04, 27 March 2010 (EDT)
:::By the way, Seb, the 1.21 source code doesn't include autosell.cpp; I assume it's a simple oversight. I reconstructed it to get it compiling properly. Just wanted to make sure you knew. --[[User:Xusilak|Xusilak]] 20:37, 26 March 2010 (EDT)
::Oops, forgot to check the unversioned files before checking in...[[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:04, 27 March 2010 (EDT)

== Minor cosmetic enhancements? ==

Had these ideas come to mind while I was at work today, and since your loader is doing some amazing things for the game, I thought I'd ask if the possibility of any of these enhancements exist.

The short of it is: Are you able to overlay any additional bitmap surface on top of the battlescape view, and are you able to play additional sounds?

The main idea for drawing an extra bitmap (semi-transparent) over them map would be to simulate rain/snow for some outdoor maps. Lightning even - though that would require clever use darkening and lightening the overlay. This would have some issues attached to it such as knowing when to display it and when not to, thanks to the various other screens available.

As for playing sounds, which would be simpler, would be to play a looping sound clip to provide environmental sound effects, such as insects chirping and owls hooting at night in woodland maps or town noises at terror sites. Or during the day in a jungle map, some tropical bird calls made at random intervals. TFTD already does the looping environmental sounds, such as teh under water bubbly noises or the wind and sea noises when on land mission. Would it be possible to duplicate this for UFO CE?

Not the most important of enhancements, but I was still wondering if the possibility is there.

-[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:41, 25 March 2010 (EDT)

== Save/Load shortcuts ==

Seb, would it be possible to enable shortcuts for the Save/Load in geospace & tactical (like F2 or F3) ? ;) except for saving in the final battle (from level 4 if remember) :)

Other things:
- rosvell incidents occured for me too often - 5 in the first month while there was no other alien craft movement detections

- option to disable mission briefing window with the only ok button :) supposedly for advanced users ;)

== Aliens continue using pistols&rifles ==

Hi Seb, sorry to bother you - i have been playing X-COM titles on and off for about 10-15 years now, and one thing always bothered me: Why do the aliens always swith to heavy plasma (or the Sonic cannon in case of TFTD) later on? It encourages the player to swith to heavy plasma too, if only for the free ammunition you almost drown in later on. Would it be possible to have the aliens continue using the plasma pistol&rifle after june/july? It would make using those weapons more feasible, getting ammunition during missions and not having to use elerium to produce it.

Another request (don't know if it is possible) - let the aliens continue using the abductor and the harvester for the respective missions. Later on, all you get are large scouts or even battleships doing those missions - getting some variety in there would make the endgame more interesting. You get to do 50+ battleship missions in a game, but only 4 or 5 with a harester/abductor. Those ships should see a lot more use during the missions they are "designed" for. The "[[MISSIONS.DAT]]" page says something about ufo and mission counters and their associated ufo-types - would it possible to modify those entries via the loader?

Regards, Equinox

== ALIEN MISSION DATA CLARIFICATION ==

According to
[http://ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:MISSIONS.DAT#Alien_missions_data_discovered_in_geoscape.exe_.5Bfinally_.3B-.29.5D link title]

I found it in TFTD. At offset 505448 (decimal) is starting (mission Probe). Next Interdicition/resource raid/infiltration/colony expansion/surface attack/Floating base attack

I understood what is 3-rd word. If You interesting - I can exlain

Seeing speeds of USO sub we can determine the mission of this USO sub even without transmission resolver - even in january 2040
Every USO sub in every missions (interdiction, colony, probe and other) have unique speeds and we can determine mission of USO on their speed
And we can determine what amount of times a sub touch down on his mission - because every mission has unique rule for touch down USO subs
And we can determine what amount of time USO Sub will touch down on their mission - because every Sub in every mission has unique and ALWAYS equal amoun of time to touch down (p.s. this time we can see in file Loc.dat)
Here - I attached file speeds.zip
[http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/Ion-Beam-Accelerator-in-What-file-t8099.html&view=findpost&p=95994#entry95994 link title]

3-rd word - it is reference to unique speed of each sub

4-th word - is time that precede to arrive next uso sub. In other word, in line ufo/c 0/0 if time = for example = 200 - it's time to arrive sub that indexes 1/0.
And where can I get time to arrive EXACTLY sub 0/0 is incomprehensible for me. I assume that this time contain at similarly word of last uso for this mission - but its'not truth because at some missions time in the line of last ufo/c = 2 half-hours and it's means that ufo/c 0/0 can to arrive at new month at 2 half-hours. It's true for Surface attack Mission but not truth for other missions.
I assumed that time in line ufo/c 0/0 - that time to arrive for NOT next ufo - and I assumed that it's time to arrive exactly ufo/c 0/0 itself. But many my tests (more than 100) denies my suppositions.
In example, at line ufo/c Cruiser mission Colony Expansion time in file =2. Cruiser in that mission arriving much more than 2 half-hours after Escort. Instead Fleet supply Cruiser in that mission arriving after 2 half-hours exactly after Cruiser.

'''Question - Where can I find time to arriving for ufo/c 0/0 for each missions except Surface attack mission ?'''

I am sorry for disturbance and will great thank for you for help.
:After the first month the game creates a mission per month, up to the 6th where it generates 2. I guess a mission starts immediatly, there is no timing added for its first ship. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:18, 30 April 2010 (EDT)

Mission starts not immediately. often time to arrive to survey ship (first sub) about 10-15 days.
1-st day of month at 0-00 we can see it time at Missions.dat but wants to know average time similarly such average time for other subs from alien data mission at executable if possible.

What is exactly 6-th? mission from Probe to Colony Expansion? or from January to June?
:Yep, 6th month. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 20:04, 30 April 2010 (EDT)

what happens after 6-th month June?

I so sorry for reminder and bother you, but don't you know it? ((

== Formules about Retaliation/Floating base attack mission ==

Hi

My great respect to you for you formules
I need few help. I am great thank to you in advance

Now I found alien data missions in TFTD (in a similar in EU ) and I ask generously to you to check 3 your formules in TFTD. Is these same or not?

1. After a shootdown, the next UFO for that mission is delayed between 1 and ~9 days ( the formula is 48+RAND()*400 half hours
:Xusilak is more knowledgeable than I concerning TFTD. I cannot help you here... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:41, 30 April 2010 (EDT)

Formule 2 and 3 probably contins mistake. formule 'll have to have symbol > instead symbol <. Otherwise retaliation mission activates more often on Beginner diificulty than Superhuman difficulty. Is is strange.

2. A retaliation mission will be scheduled if RAND()*100 < 4*(24-difficultyLevel).
:There is indeed a mistake there. It's been so long I cannot remember if I got it wrong or just messed it up wikifying it ^^ [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:41, 30 April 2010 (EDT)

3. If RAND()*100 < (50-6*difficultyLevel), the retaliation mission will use the same zone as the shot UFO, else it'll be the zone containing the base the craft in coming from. The first UFO is scheduled in 100 half-hours (the value is taken from the table I speak of later at the bottom of this page).

And RND() - what values may has? from 0 to 1 or not?
:When I write RAND()*100, it just means a random number between 0 and 100. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:41, 30 April 2010 (EDT)

I will be very thank for given help

== MISSIONS.DAT formula clarification ==

Hi Seb76. I've been having a discussion with Alexchamp and trying to interpret the formula you mentioned on [[Talk:MISSIONS.DAT]] about retaliation missions being scheduled after a shoot down. Namely: if RAND()*100 < 4*24-difficultyLevel

We mainly need clarification on the logical operator. Should it be less-than or greater-than?

As it reads now, it could be interpreted as though retaliation missions are generated more frequently on the easier levels. But if we treat it as >, then this means that retaliation missions are generated about (Beginner) 4%, 8%, 12%, 16% and (Superhuman) 20% (or 28% for TFTD) of the time on their respect difficulty levels.

If you could clarify that for us it would be great, thanks. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]
:Yep, I goofed up. Don't take everything I say as gold ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:45, 30 April 2010 (EDT)

And I precise too one '''mainly moment'''. Whether there must be the opened bracket after the sign of multiplication? Because if no, then right interpretation formule in Superhuman example such: Rand*100>4*24=96-6=90 and that means that retaliation mission would be sheduled in 10 cases from 100.
IF there must be opened bracket then rand*100>4*(24-6)=4*18=72 wouid be sheduled in 28 cases from 100
What is this versions is right?

Then needs clarification for second formula yours. If RAND()*100 < (50-6*difficultyLevel), the retaliation mission will use the same zone as the shot UFO, else it'll be the zone containing the base the craft in coming from.
What logical operator there? should it be too greater-than or less-than?

You have found later formules about activation retaliation mission (if we shotdown alien craft)
Where exactly in assembler is subprogram that determines it? What address/offset of it?

== COLONY SUPPLY MISSION ==

As we know, When alien base built, Fleet Supply Cruisers with missions Colony Supply can to arrive to this base.

Where can I see (file/offset)
1) average time to arrive colony supply ship for examle/at least in XCOM-EU. As I said later, in responsible offset is time '''to PRECEDE to ARRIVE NEXT UFO SUB''' '''it's not''' time to arrive this sub
2) real time to wait arriving colony supply ship similarly times in file Missions.dat

According to [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/Colony-Supply-ship-time-to-arrivin-t8103.html&view=findpost&p=96011#entry96011 Colony Supply - time to arriving]

If guesses of NKF is right, we need to formule of probability to arrive Colony Supply ship.
Can you to render courtesy with this formule?

Thank you very very great in advance
:I added details in the LOC.DAT talk page. The supply ship is spawned randomly and starts its mission. There is no "time to first supply ship" that I can see. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:11, 30 April 2010 (EDT)

Thank tou very much for this clarification. I found this offset in TFTD even. Changed, checked - it works.
You are greatly people!

== Roswell mission bug? ==
Hello, Seb76.

I've just had two consecutive games (meaning, I restarted the application and began a new game) where the same strange behavior occurred.

Both games had Roosevelt mission as the first one. It showed the window (type, terrain, UFO size) as usual. Afterward, whenever I clicked on it (to check mission conditions again), it showed a typical "hyperwave transmission decoded" window, stating race/mission type, etc. Needless to say, I had no decoder at this time, since it happened both times in the first game week.

I have a saved game if you want to take a look at it. It's completely reproducible, at least for me. You just click on the white cross and get this window.

Also, I'm using plain CE version with a "complete UFO patch" from StrategyCore. The saved game was not hacked in any way.

Cheers!
[[User:Rovlad|Rovlad]] 10:08, 30 April 2010 (EDT)
:Hum, I gave it some shots but could not reproduce your problem. Anyone experiencing the same problem? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:36, 30 April 2010 (EDT)

::Here's the [http://rovlad.nm.ru/GAME_1.zip savegame]. Let me know if it works fine for you. [[User:Rovlad|Rovlad]] 21:47, 30 April 2010 (EDT)
:Looks like the CRAFT.DAT entry is not cleared when a new craft is created and the offset 0x64 could be garbage till the craft is detected by a base/another ship. Since I bypass the detection when "crashing" a UFO, it is possible the "HWD detected" flag is set randomly, producing a full report. I'll clear the bit and we'll see if it corrects the issue, just wait for the next release. Thanks for providing the savegame BTW. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:22, 5 May 2010 (EDT)
::You're more than welcome. Fantastic job on the extender, keep up the good work. [[User:Rovlad|Rovlad]] 19:04, 5 May 2010 (EDT)

== ALIEN RACE SPAWN ==

Your post: In EU, the race is based off a lookup table starting at offset 0x46E53C (containing 300 entries).

Offset-0x46E53C is absent. Is one symbol odd?

Your posr:The table is made up of 10 entries lines.

It means that this bit of array has 10 rows width of 30 bytes. is right?

What is means this 10 entries lines? Can you copy 2-3 lines from exe and explain that means known for you offsets in line?As simiilarly as you done for alien data mission in file Missions.dat
Can you get more particularly answer about values it this array?(naturally if know it)
:0x46E53C is the address in memory. In the file it should be 0x6E53C (UFO Gold edition).
:The begining starts like this:
.data:0046E53C byte_46E53C db 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 4, 4 ; 0
.data:0046E53C ; DATA XREF: CreateAlienMission+15B�r
.data:0046E546 db 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 4, 4, 4 ; 0
.data:0046E550 db 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 4, 4, 4 ; 0
.data:0046E55A db 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 4, 4 ; 0
.data:0046E564 db 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 ; 0
.data:0046E56E RaceForTerrorMission db 0, 0, 0, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 ; 0
.data:0046E56E ; DATA XREF: GeoPerformMonthlyActions+15E�r
.data:0046E578 db 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 4, 4 ; 0
.data:0046E582 db 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 4, 4, 4 ; 0
:till the end:
.data:0046E67C db 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 4 ; 0
.data:0046E686 db 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4 ; 0
.data:0046E690 db 0, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4 ; 0
:As you can see, at the begining you'll get tons of sectoids (0), a few floaters (4) and even less snakemen (1).
:At the end, you'll get ethereals (2) one time out of two. Also note that for terror missions, the line is taken a bit farther than normal missions, which means that you'll get stronger aliens sooner in terror missions. HTH, [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 13:36, 5 May 2010 (EDT)

Thank you greatly for your detailed answer ...
I want a few more precise ...
I right understand? I guessed That line 1 - is used for January mission Research? Line 2 - Jan Harvest? Line 3- Jan-Abduction Line 6- January Terror?
What define Line 7?
Line 8 - is February Research?

According to - Line 13 -Feb terror? Line 20 - March terror? Line 27 -April Terror? Line 34- May terror? that sequence and guesses is right?

And question 2) does affect score to choose the value among values in line? How differ choose values in line at the level superhuman and level beginner ?
If you know, naturally, I would be greatly thanks to you for this wonderful magic help.

== Research tree in executable ==

Do you know location (starting offset) of research tree in EU? and how much entries it contains ? and what means values within this array?

Very great thank in advance for this help to you
:The research tree is not stored as a data array but is a hardcoded sequence of "if this is already researched and that is also researched and such item is in the inventory, then enable this research". Modding this would require a complete reengineering, not just patching. Still feasible though. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 13:25, 5 May 2010 (EDT)

What is starting offset (ce version) of this hardcoded sequence? and what is latest offset of it? what is length of one sequence? If possible -what is structure of it briefly? (how much bytes to tech requirements, how much bytes to items requrements)

Thank you for this help '''VERY VERY GREAT'''
:As I said, there are no *sequences* but just a cascade of hardcoded ifs:
:[[Image:Research.png]]
:If you want to take a look, the function begins at address 0x446A0. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 07:28, 24 May 2010 (EDT)
'''
Seb76, you are GREAT GENIUS!!!! GREATLY RESPECT FOR YOU!!! THANKS FOR YOU VERY VERY MUCH!!!'''
I have found research tree in TFTD too with your help. Now I can do some changes in it.
Maybe do you know, how can I find subprogram that run 1-st day of any month in assembler code of game?
This subprogram determines new mission's month and terror ship route (in TFTD)
There is not in EU terror ship route, I know. But If you know and tell me - what is subprogram in EU that runs 1-st day of any month, I would be able to edit probability of terror ship route in TFTD.
Greatly thanks in advance to you dear Seb76!
:In EU, monthly actions start here:
.text:0043B9B0 GeoPerformMonthlyActions proc near ; CODE XREF: GeoIncrementDayAndDoMonthlyActions:loc_4420C1�j
:HTH, [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:31, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

== Any way to slow down geoscape time? ==

Is there any way to slow down geoscape time progression on fast computers, esp. multiprocessor ones, where it is impossible to significantly slow it down using utilites like MoSlo and Turbo?--[[User:AVE|AVE]] 03:01, 5 May 2010 (EDT)
:Did you try enabling D3D? If you're drivers are configured to wait VSync, it should limit the game speed (well, if you use a CRT@120Hz it'll still be too fast I guess...). Also is it still too fast if you put it windowed? (enabling both D3D and D3D Windowed options) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 13:19, 5 May 2010 (EDT)
::Yes, both D3D and D3D Windowed are enabled. This is even more surprising, because it shows the same results on two different computers (Dual Core one and simple P4Celeron) with different video cards (NVidia and ATI). Both have vsync explicitly enabled. LCD@60Hz both. Also I've tried to use different combinations of Video Pitch, D3D, D3DWin and HQ4x settings - no luck. [[User:AVE|AVE]] 04:20, 6 May 2010 (EDT)
:Personally I've never been able to reproduce this "CE game running too fast" thing people keep harping on about. Perhaps I just have a different perception as to what "too fast" means.

:Anyways, I know [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/index.php?dlid=474 Mok's patched executable] includes a timer hack for the Geoscape, but I found that makes it run far too slow for my taste. Not sure off the top of my head whether it works with Seb's loader, either - you'd probably need to at the very least need to rename Mok's executable to replace the original in order to try it that way. - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 05:14, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

== Some problem with edit research tree ==

I want to add new 20-30 commands to research tree. I wrote this subprogram. How can I add it to game?
I tried to write "call sub" instead useless 5 bytes in subrogram research tree. I checked in IDA after it, all other commands is preserved.
And I placed my new subprogram after latest byte of executable file. But game is crashed.
I tried to place my new subprogram after all subprograms and before first byte of idata, but game is crashed too.
All indexes in subprogram was exactly.
in second case IDA displayed "sp-analysis failed".

Where and how can I placed my new subprogram that will be addition to current subpogram research tree?
:To add new code, you need to modify the PE header of the exe file accordingly. I'm not quite knowledgeable regarding the procedure (that's one of the reasons why I made a loader instead of patching the file directly) so you're gonna have to find help somewhere else on this one. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:36, 28 May 2010 (EDT)

== Update to IDA database ==

Hey again Seb76 :)

After a long time I've come back to your extender, dusted off my copy of VC Express, and decided I'd have another go at doing some UFO modding (don't ask how the first attempt went; it's not pretty! :p )

I'm assuming you've probably updated the IDA database since last time I asked. Would be extremely grateful if I could get the latest version.

Thanks for all the hard work, staring at assembly code all day is no joke! --[[User:K9wazere|K9wazere]] 18:07, 6 June 2010 (EDT)

Arf, didn't realise I could send you an email, so this new section on your talk page is a bit redundant now :p Oh well, maybe someone else will want the file too!

== Line of Sight Origin Points ==

Hiya.

A while back you mentioned the co-ords for the [[User talk:Bomb Bloke:Firing Accuracy#Firing Point Origin|firing point origin]]. The zpos is calculated according to the unit's effective height, and the x/ypos co-ords come from look-up tables depending on which way the unit is facing.

I was wondering, are these same two tables used for the purpose of line of ''sight?'' And by any chance could you find the formula for the initial LOS zpos?

Any help would be appreciated, as usual. There are many other obvious questions around this issue (such as where the ''end'' point for these lines is), though the origin would be a good start. - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 07:44, 24 June 2010 (EDT)

== Training Stat Request ==

Hi there.

In the Equipment screen where the Weight and TUs are displayed during battle, would it be possible to also include the current unit's number of Reaction shots, Hits, Psi attempts and (possibly) Throws? Possibly along the bottom in a horizontal string where there's room?

Wish List (EU)

2010-08-16T13:02:40Z

N: /* Score for retaliation Battleships */

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]]

=== 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]]

===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)

:::: Ummm, it seems the best solution (I, for one, can't think of any better), but wouldn't it assume that only the BattleShip really locates the player's base? All those scouts for nothing? [Still the best solution, though] [[User:N|n] 15:01, 16 August 2010 (GMT+1)

=== All Aircraft Weapons Useful ===

In a balanced game, all weapons should have their uses, or at least a niche, but sadly this is not so:

The Cannon is only useful for shooting down Small Scouts, and even that is practically impossible, due to the difficulty in closing to 10km range with any UFO, particularly the fast-accelerating Small Scout.

The Stingray is not even useful for shooting down Small Scouts (destroys them 57% of the time) and the Avalanche is better in every meaningful way. It also takes twice as long to rearm, making it operationally much worse than the Avalanche.

The Laser Cannon is inferior to the Avalanche for everything. It does have a higher payload but this is hardly relevant. If attacking a UFO that you would struggle to kill with Avalanches, you are unlikely to own an aircraft that will survive long enough to inflict more damage than an Avalanche if it mounted Laser Cannon.

The Fusion Ball Launcher has a [[Talk:Craft_Armaments#Fusion_Balls_better_than_Plasma_Beams.3F¦possible niche]] in fighting Battleships when mounted on Interceptors. Even then, it is difficult and expensive to have aircraft configured to fight only one enemy.

Unfortunately, the optimum path for craft weapon development is all-Avalanche followed by all-Plasma Beam. This is a shame.

Suggestions to 'tune up' the other weapons:

*Cannon - Increase the damage to 20 or 25. So at least there is a pay-off if you manage to get in close.
*Stingray - Double the rearm rate so it can be reloaded as fast as an Avalanche launcher. Increase the ammo capacity to 9 or 12. Then up the rearm rate again (triple or quadruple) so it can still be reloaded as fast as Avalanche. Even then, it's probably not better than the Avalanche, so maybe it make it ''more'' accurate than the Avalanche instead of less. Raise Stingray to 90%, or to 80% but drop Avalanche to 65%.
*Laser Cannon - increase accuracy to 50% and damage to 100. Give it infinite ammunition.
*FBL - increase the ammo from 2 to 3. Increase damage to 250 or even 255. It's far and away the most expensive weapon to operate so it might as well pack the biggest punch.

It might be worth considering 'tune down' the Plasma Beam as well, particularly its stand-off range.
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:59, 14 February 2010 (EST)

=== Tougher UFOs ===

==== The Problem ====

So let me get this straight. The first hybrid airborne weapon that humans ever build, and it immediately outclasses every weapon the aliens ever built, including their Battleship weapon? After all the Aliens have only been building plasma weapons for a few million years, us humans have been doing it for ''months''!

More to the point, once you get Plasma Beams, downing UFOs is like shooting fish in a barrel. Even Battleships aren't that exciting if you show up with enough ships.

What is needed is to push up the range, damage, and rate of fire of all the UFO weapons, particularly the UFOs you will be fighting by the time you have plasma beams. At a minimum, the weapon on a Battleship should be at least as powerful as, say, 2 Plasma Beams (as found on the XCom craft it is fighting)? Instead of slightly less than half as powerful? Compared to a single Plasma Beam, only the Battleship weapon has better range. It has double the accuracy, slightly higher damage, but half the fire rate. Net 5.7% more firepower than one Plasma Beam, but no match for 2. And the Battleship weapon of course is the most powerful in the alien arsenal.

Possible tune ups for UFOs:

*Battleship - increase to 255 weapon power, improve reload rate to 12 (from 24). Now roughly equivalent to 4 Plasma Beams in total firepower (on Beginner difficulty). Increase range to 69km, so that the Battleship commences fire as soon as an XCom craft begins its attack run. Or better, increase range to 70+km, the limit of the interception window, so that the Battleship starts firing immediately the XCom craft enters air combat range. This would disrupt XCom aircrafts' ability to form up into a flight of 4, prior to commencing their attack. Overall, this would make it much harder to down Battleships. Increasing weapon range to 70+km would also make it much harder to tail a Battleship - manual control in the Geoscape would be needed to hold off outside of combat range. Really, the Battleship should not sit there like a sitting duck. Does it think XCom are friendly?
*Terror Ship - increase range to 52 (or decrease Plasma Beam range to 42), so stand-off kills are not possible with Plasma Beams?
*Actually maybe all the larger UFOs should have weapon range 69-70+km, so they behave very aggressively toward XCom craft.

NB: Strange effects occur if weapon range goes over 70km so it's probably best to leave it at 70km rather than 75km.

NB: Also, changes to rate of fire need to be looked at carefully though because Difficulty Level also reduces reload rate for UFOs. Between Beginner (Difficulty 0) and Superhuman (Difficulty 4), rate of fire (and thus firepower) for Battleships, Terror Ships and Supply Ships increases by 24/(24-4x2=16) or 50%. But if the base reload rate for these weapons was reduced to 12, the transition from Beginner to Advanced would increase firepower '''three''' times for these 3 UFOs (less so for the smaller UFOs). It is less risky to increase the weapon power. Unfortunately there are only 2 firepower variables to play with - damage and reload rate - so there are not a lot of options, especially for the Battleship which already has weapon strength 148 out of a probable maximum of 255.

:More detail on this. For Medium Scout, Large Scout and Abductor, with nominal reload rate 48gs, the rate of fire improves +20% between Beginner and Superhuman. For Harvester (32gs) it improves one third. For Large UFOs (Terror Ship, Supply Ship, Battleship - 24gs) the improvement is +50%. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:28, 14 February 2010 (EST)

I think we should assume that the Battleship, which is bigger than the entire XCom base, is engaging XCom craft with its secondary weapons rather than its main armament, which could probably destroy Manhattan with a glancing hit.

I would really like to see the hypothetical Mega-Battleship go up against XCom's finest - a flight of 4 Avengers armed with dual Plasma Cannon or dual Fusion Ball Launchers. With the Battleship having 70+km range, 255 weapon power, and an effective fire rate on Superhuman triple that of the PB, it would have the firepower of 11 Plasma Beams - 36% more firepower than the whole attacking XCom force combined. To be honest I think that would be carnage, not sure XCom could win. So that would be tuning the Battleship up too much. The 3-fold increase in rate of fire when on Superhuman is just too much. Maybe just max out the damage to 255 and range to 75. This gives a 72% increase in firepower, and a challenging tactical problem for XCom (forming up and approaching under fire).

The smaller UFOs can probably stay as they are. It is not until later in the game that XCom advances so that even large UFOs are easy pickings. What is the crossover point? Maybe the medium UFOs. So it might be good to reduce the reload times of the medium UFOs from 48 / 32 to 24, a good increase in firepower.

In general I think all UFOs energy weapons should have at least as good range as the XCom energy weapons, even the Medium Scout. Again, they have been using these weapons for millions of years and we only just figured out how to copy them from the aliens, how could our weapons be better than the aliens? How did our first plasma weapon out-range and out-perform all but the hugest UFO plasma beam? And on an airframe the size of a Small Scout we mount ''two'' such weapons? On the battlefield we only are able to replicate alien weapons; how is it that in the air we are able to improve on them ''masssively''?

Perhaps there should never be a stand-off advantage, except possibly with missiles -which should be less accurate with longer range. The XCom stand off advantage is really unfair because as far as I have seen the UFOs never attempt to close to effective range, even when they are getting killed. They don't break off much, either, though I think I have seen that happen on occasion.

==== Specific Proposals ====

===== No Standoff Beam Attacks =====

Increase ''all'' UFO plasma weapon ranges to at least 55km (compared to 52km for the XCom plasma weapon). Now only launched XCom weapons (Avalanche and Fusion Ball) have standoff advantage. Probably also reduce the accuracy of the Avalanche to 60% and buff Stingray accuracy to 80%, providing both weapons with a useful niche role.

===== No Standoff Attacks =====

Increase ''all'' UFO plasma weapon ranges to 66km (compared to 52km for the XCom plasma weapon). Now ''no'' XCom weapon has standoff advantage. (The benefit of a longer range weapon is simply spending less time being fired on by the UFO.)

===== Twitchy Aliens =====

Increase all UFO ranges to 69km. They will attack as soon as XCom aircraft commence any attack run.

===== Hostile Aliens =====

Increase all UFO ranges to 70km. They will attack as soon as XCom aircraft enter intercept range. UFOs now fire first, and tailing them unchallenged is impossible.

===== Improved Medium UFOs =====

Reduce (improve) the nominal reload time of Medium UFOs, Abductors and Harvesters, from 48gs and 32gs to 24gs. This increases the challenge in the early-mid game, when XCom might first be deploying advanced weapons.

===== Improved Battleships =====

Increase damage to 255. They're firing (bigger) Fusion Balls! A Battleship now has the same firepower as one XCom Craft with dual Plasma Beams (gosh wow!). It's a start, but what if we...

===== Super Battleships =====

... also reduce nominal reload time to 18gs. Giving a further one-third extra firepower on Beginner, 60% more on Superhuman.

===== Mega Battleships =====

... or for a real challenge, reduce reload time to 12gs. A further doubling of the firepower on Beginner - a further ''four'' times increase on Superhuman. Now Superhuman Battleships out-gun the biggest fleet XCom can throw at them!

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 00:25, 19 February 2010 (EST)

: the flip side of this is weakening Xcom craft - apart from firepower issues there is also the issue of range: the ranges of the transport craft are such that really no more than 1 manned base is necessary to cover the globe for terror site defense. Setting e.g. the fuel capacity of the Skyranger to 500 results in roughly 1 base per continent required. This has interesting strategic consequences: need for more bases makes the ecomics more challenging (and thus slows down research). [[User:Emphyrio|Emphyrio]] 08:43, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

===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]]

=== 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)]]

Taking off with troops onboard would be perfectly safe (for the aliens) and justifiable if one assumes that alien ships in flight are inherently inhospitable for humans. This is easily done by saying that they undergo accelerations that humans can't withstand (splat), can't withstand for any length of time (pass out), or that they intentionally make rapid accelerations in different directions, either normally or just if they're trying to bash some intruders around. Naturally, the aliens themselves would either be immune to these (tough physique / their built-in antigrav devices?), or be in acceleration chairs, safe from all this.

Alternatively, when you get the warning that the UFO is going to take off, you've got a certain amount of time to either get everyone '''off''' the UFO, or to get everyone '''on''' it (or as many as you can). There could be a follow-up mission that takes place in "sky" terrain, where the outdoors is either impassable (the easy way) or else instantly withdraws units from combat (flying suits / parachutes). The soldiers' goals would be to either take out the aliens and presumably safely land and salvage the UFO, or take out the UFO's means of flying (power cores / navigator?). In the latter case, they might have a certain number of turns to withdraw or be caught in the crash, with possible casualties just like the aliens, mitigated to some degree by their armour and maybe where inside the UFO they are.

In the case of a crash, there could be a final mission to finish off the surviving aliens, using the X-COM soldiers that survive the crash, and no landing craft (it's still back at the old landing site). Alternatively, you could say that there '''is''' an X-COM landing craft parked outside (with all remaining members of the original landing party), since the in-flight time / distance was presumably low and the original X-COM craft quickly packed up and flew to the new landing site. — [[User:Wisq|Wisq]] 17:11, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

===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)

Fixing the AI for this could be really hard. Apart from all the possible exploits by XCom, the AI is probably a really hard part of the game to reverse engineer. You could say that an unarmed alien is no threat anyway (we are only concerned about aliens without psi or built in weapons). So nothing is lost even with an exploitable method of re-arming. By exploitable I mean the XCom player can manipulate re-arming, e.g. by leaving weapons out in the open as bait for traps.

Maybe the simplest modification would be to ''not'' drop weapons when the alien panics? This does not require delving in to the AI, just intercepting the panic effects. Dont make aliens drop any weapons when they panic. It would be reasonable to return the weapon in hand to inventory, so there is a TU cost for the alien to bring the weapon back into play again.

This would not work for aliens who were stunned and wake up, or who were mind controlled by XCom and made to drop their weapons. But it would probably catch 80% of cases.

Another cheat, short of fixing the AI, is just to pick up weapons that the alien walks over. It could also pick up "spare" weapons from adjacent aliens (cheating on TUs - basically just teleporting the items to the unarmed alien). Spare alien weapons are almost invariably grenades. I have not had a lot of success in getting unarmed aliens to use grenades, so more research is needed here. Maybe only certain types of aliens use grenades, or only in certain circumstances?

Really, really cheating would be to teleport any weapon laying around the battlefield into the alien's inventory. But I think it is more fair just to say panicked aliens dont drop their equipment. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:13, 13 February 2010 (EST)

==== 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)

=== 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.

----

There was a utility to do this from Devisraad. it has long since been removed from his site, but someone may still have it. The basics was you renamed unit and it automatically replaced graphics flag to swap out the units. Didn't work on the Large Aliens but still was a fun mod --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:20, 6 January 2010 (EST)

=== 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)

----
You may be able to get 3 levels in an X-Com Base but not 4. EU has a smaller amount of memory alocated. I dont know the limit but 60x60x4 will crash EU. TFTD has no problem --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:25, 6 January 2010 (EST)

----

I got partway through this and then decided to change my methods entirely and start from scratch. So I thought I might as well post my progress anyways, as it's already about on par with the crude TFTD implementation: You always have the same craft appear in your hanger regardless of what is (or isn't!) there.

[[Image:Skyranger In Hanger.rar]]

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 05:40, 17 December 2009 (EST)

----

Hey BB, a while ago I have modded the plane terrain files so that the Skyranger appears facing east instead of south. If you want to use that one (to make it a little different) let me know. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 08:23, 17 December 2009 (EST)

----

Thanks, but don't worry about it for now: it'll make the MCD arrays larger still, so I'll consider it when I get all the other stuff done.

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 17:01, 19 December 2009 (EST)

----

The completed mod is now included in my toolpack. As usual, I've only done cursory testing on it, but I'm pretty sure it's stable enough.

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 06:40, 20 January 2010 (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]]

=== Impose cost to using Psionic attacks===

I think everyone agrees Psi attacks are too powerful. I would propose to impose a cost to using Psionic attacks. This could take the form of decreasing the physical stats after using a PSi attack (after all all: the psionic races are physically weak). This could for example lead to a soldier becoming a weakling or even fainting or dying from using psi-attack. Another possibility is to decrease mental stats (in this case the ratio would be that humans are not really being adapted to psi: you could be expected to go crazy playing mind games) leading to a decrease in psionic powers or maybe panicking or beserking the soldier using psi. Together with limiting psi attacks of MCed units proposed elsewhere this would rebalance the later game somewhat... [[User:Emphyrio|Emphyrio]] 07:22, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

== 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)

=== 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.
: Now fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

=== 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)
:: XcomUtil 9.6 also restores all DOA if you win to. Not what was intended. This feature has been removed as of 9.7 until I can fix it. --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)
: Now also fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

=== 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).
: Now fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

= 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]]

Wish List (EU)

2010-08-16T12:58:25Z

N: /* Score for retaliation Battleships */

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]]

=== 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]]

===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)

:::: Ummm, it seems the best solution (I, for one, can't think of any better), but wouldn't it assume that only the BattleShip really locates the player's base? All those scouts for nothing? [Still the best solution, though]

=== All Aircraft Weapons Useful ===

In a balanced game, all weapons should have their uses, or at least a niche, but sadly this is not so:

The Cannon is only useful for shooting down Small Scouts, and even that is practically impossible, due to the difficulty in closing to 10km range with any UFO, particularly the fast-accelerating Small Scout.

The Stingray is not even useful for shooting down Small Scouts (destroys them 57% of the time) and the Avalanche is better in every meaningful way. It also takes twice as long to rearm, making it operationally much worse than the Avalanche.

The Laser Cannon is inferior to the Avalanche for everything. It does have a higher payload but this is hardly relevant. If attacking a UFO that you would struggle to kill with Avalanches, you are unlikely to own an aircraft that will survive long enough to inflict more damage than an Avalanche if it mounted Laser Cannon.

The Fusion Ball Launcher has a [[Talk:Craft_Armaments#Fusion_Balls_better_than_Plasma_Beams.3F¦possible niche]] in fighting Battleships when mounted on Interceptors. Even then, it is difficult and expensive to have aircraft configured to fight only one enemy.

Unfortunately, the optimum path for craft weapon development is all-Avalanche followed by all-Plasma Beam. This is a shame.

Suggestions to 'tune up' the other weapons:

*Cannon - Increase the damage to 20 or 25. So at least there is a pay-off if you manage to get in close.
*Stingray - Double the rearm rate so it can be reloaded as fast as an Avalanche launcher. Increase the ammo capacity to 9 or 12. Then up the rearm rate again (triple or quadruple) so it can still be reloaded as fast as Avalanche. Even then, it's probably not better than the Avalanche, so maybe it make it ''more'' accurate than the Avalanche instead of less. Raise Stingray to 90%, or to 80% but drop Avalanche to 65%.
*Laser Cannon - increase accuracy to 50% and damage to 100. Give it infinite ammunition.
*FBL - increase the ammo from 2 to 3. Increase damage to 250 or even 255. It's far and away the most expensive weapon to operate so it might as well pack the biggest punch.

It might be worth considering 'tune down' the Plasma Beam as well, particularly its stand-off range.
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:59, 14 February 2010 (EST)

=== Tougher UFOs ===

==== The Problem ====

So let me get this straight. The first hybrid airborne weapon that humans ever build, and it immediately outclasses every weapon the aliens ever built, including their Battleship weapon? After all the Aliens have only been building plasma weapons for a few million years, us humans have been doing it for ''months''!

More to the point, once you get Plasma Beams, downing UFOs is like shooting fish in a barrel. Even Battleships aren't that exciting if you show up with enough ships.

What is needed is to push up the range, damage, and rate of fire of all the UFO weapons, particularly the UFOs you will be fighting by the time you have plasma beams. At a minimum, the weapon on a Battleship should be at least as powerful as, say, 2 Plasma Beams (as found on the XCom craft it is fighting)? Instead of slightly less than half as powerful? Compared to a single Plasma Beam, only the Battleship weapon has better range. It has double the accuracy, slightly higher damage, but half the fire rate. Net 5.7% more firepower than one Plasma Beam, but no match for 2. And the Battleship weapon of course is the most powerful in the alien arsenal.

Possible tune ups for UFOs:

*Battleship - increase to 255 weapon power, improve reload rate to 12 (from 24). Now roughly equivalent to 4 Plasma Beams in total firepower (on Beginner difficulty). Increase range to 69km, so that the Battleship commences fire as soon as an XCom craft begins its attack run. Or better, increase range to 70+km, the limit of the interception window, so that the Battleship starts firing immediately the XCom craft enters air combat range. This would disrupt XCom aircrafts' ability to form up into a flight of 4, prior to commencing their attack. Overall, this would make it much harder to down Battleships. Increasing weapon range to 70+km would also make it much harder to tail a Battleship - manual control in the Geoscape would be needed to hold off outside of combat range. Really, the Battleship should not sit there like a sitting duck. Does it think XCom are friendly?
*Terror Ship - increase range to 52 (or decrease Plasma Beam range to 42), so stand-off kills are not possible with Plasma Beams?
*Actually maybe all the larger UFOs should have weapon range 69-70+km, so they behave very aggressively toward XCom craft.

NB: Strange effects occur if weapon range goes over 70km so it's probably best to leave it at 70km rather than 75km.

NB: Also, changes to rate of fire need to be looked at carefully though because Difficulty Level also reduces reload rate for UFOs. Between Beginner (Difficulty 0) and Superhuman (Difficulty 4), rate of fire (and thus firepower) for Battleships, Terror Ships and Supply Ships increases by 24/(24-4x2=16) or 50%. But if the base reload rate for these weapons was reduced to 12, the transition from Beginner to Advanced would increase firepower '''three''' times for these 3 UFOs (less so for the smaller UFOs). It is less risky to increase the weapon power. Unfortunately there are only 2 firepower variables to play with - damage and reload rate - so there are not a lot of options, especially for the Battleship which already has weapon strength 148 out of a probable maximum of 255.

:More detail on this. For Medium Scout, Large Scout and Abductor, with nominal reload rate 48gs, the rate of fire improves +20% between Beginner and Superhuman. For Harvester (32gs) it improves one third. For Large UFOs (Terror Ship, Supply Ship, Battleship - 24gs) the improvement is +50%. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:28, 14 February 2010 (EST)

I think we should assume that the Battleship, which is bigger than the entire XCom base, is engaging XCom craft with its secondary weapons rather than its main armament, which could probably destroy Manhattan with a glancing hit.

I would really like to see the hypothetical Mega-Battleship go up against XCom's finest - a flight of 4 Avengers armed with dual Plasma Cannon or dual Fusion Ball Launchers. With the Battleship having 70+km range, 255 weapon power, and an effective fire rate on Superhuman triple that of the PB, it would have the firepower of 11 Plasma Beams - 36% more firepower than the whole attacking XCom force combined. To be honest I think that would be carnage, not sure XCom could win. So that would be tuning the Battleship up too much. The 3-fold increase in rate of fire when on Superhuman is just too much. Maybe just max out the damage to 255 and range to 75. This gives a 72% increase in firepower, and a challenging tactical problem for XCom (forming up and approaching under fire).

The smaller UFOs can probably stay as they are. It is not until later in the game that XCom advances so that even large UFOs are easy pickings. What is the crossover point? Maybe the medium UFOs. So it might be good to reduce the reload times of the medium UFOs from 48 / 32 to 24, a good increase in firepower.

In general I think all UFOs energy weapons should have at least as good range as the XCom energy weapons, even the Medium Scout. Again, they have been using these weapons for millions of years and we only just figured out how to copy them from the aliens, how could our weapons be better than the aliens? How did our first plasma weapon out-range and out-perform all but the hugest UFO plasma beam? And on an airframe the size of a Small Scout we mount ''two'' such weapons? On the battlefield we only are able to replicate alien weapons; how is it that in the air we are able to improve on them ''masssively''?

Perhaps there should never be a stand-off advantage, except possibly with missiles -which should be less accurate with longer range. The XCom stand off advantage is really unfair because as far as I have seen the UFOs never attempt to close to effective range, even when they are getting killed. They don't break off much, either, though I think I have seen that happen on occasion.

==== Specific Proposals ====

===== No Standoff Beam Attacks =====

Increase ''all'' UFO plasma weapon ranges to at least 55km (compared to 52km for the XCom plasma weapon). Now only launched XCom weapons (Avalanche and Fusion Ball) have standoff advantage. Probably also reduce the accuracy of the Avalanche to 60% and buff Stingray accuracy to 80%, providing both weapons with a useful niche role.

===== No Standoff Attacks =====

Increase ''all'' UFO plasma weapon ranges to 66km (compared to 52km for the XCom plasma weapon). Now ''no'' XCom weapon has standoff advantage. (The benefit of a longer range weapon is simply spending less time being fired on by the UFO.)

===== Twitchy Aliens =====

Increase all UFO ranges to 69km. They will attack as soon as XCom aircraft commence any attack run.

===== Hostile Aliens =====

Increase all UFO ranges to 70km. They will attack as soon as XCom aircraft enter intercept range. UFOs now fire first, and tailing them unchallenged is impossible.

===== Improved Medium UFOs =====

Reduce (improve) the nominal reload time of Medium UFOs, Abductors and Harvesters, from 48gs and 32gs to 24gs. This increases the challenge in the early-mid game, when XCom might first be deploying advanced weapons.

===== Improved Battleships =====

Increase damage to 255. They're firing (bigger) Fusion Balls! A Battleship now has the same firepower as one XCom Craft with dual Plasma Beams (gosh wow!). It's a start, but what if we...

===== Super Battleships =====

... also reduce nominal reload time to 18gs. Giving a further one-third extra firepower on Beginner, 60% more on Superhuman.

===== Mega Battleships =====

... or for a real challenge, reduce reload time to 12gs. A further doubling of the firepower on Beginner - a further ''four'' times increase on Superhuman. Now Superhuman Battleships out-gun the biggest fleet XCom can throw at them!

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 00:25, 19 February 2010 (EST)

: the flip side of this is weakening Xcom craft - apart from firepower issues there is also the issue of range: the ranges of the transport craft are such that really no more than 1 manned base is necessary to cover the globe for terror site defense. Setting e.g. the fuel capacity of the Skyranger to 500 results in roughly 1 base per continent required. This has interesting strategic consequences: need for more bases makes the ecomics more challenging (and thus slows down research). [[User:Emphyrio|Emphyrio]] 08:43, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

===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]]

=== 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)]]

Taking off with troops onboard would be perfectly safe (for the aliens) and justifiable if one assumes that alien ships in flight are inherently inhospitable for humans. This is easily done by saying that they undergo accelerations that humans can't withstand (splat), can't withstand for any length of time (pass out), or that they intentionally make rapid accelerations in different directions, either normally or just if they're trying to bash some intruders around. Naturally, the aliens themselves would either be immune to these (tough physique / their built-in antigrav devices?), or be in acceleration chairs, safe from all this.

Alternatively, when you get the warning that the UFO is going to take off, you've got a certain amount of time to either get everyone '''off''' the UFO, or to get everyone '''on''' it (or as many as you can). There could be a follow-up mission that takes place in "sky" terrain, where the outdoors is either impassable (the easy way) or else instantly withdraws units from combat (flying suits / parachutes). The soldiers' goals would be to either take out the aliens and presumably safely land and salvage the UFO, or take out the UFO's means of flying (power cores / navigator?). In the latter case, they might have a certain number of turns to withdraw or be caught in the crash, with possible casualties just like the aliens, mitigated to some degree by their armour and maybe where inside the UFO they are.

In the case of a crash, there could be a final mission to finish off the surviving aliens, using the X-COM soldiers that survive the crash, and no landing craft (it's still back at the old landing site). Alternatively, you could say that there '''is''' an X-COM landing craft parked outside (with all remaining members of the original landing party), since the in-flight time / distance was presumably low and the original X-COM craft quickly packed up and flew to the new landing site. — [[User:Wisq|Wisq]] 17:11, 18 April 2010 (EDT)

===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)

Fixing the AI for this could be really hard. Apart from all the possible exploits by XCom, the AI is probably a really hard part of the game to reverse engineer. You could say that an unarmed alien is no threat anyway (we are only concerned about aliens without psi or built in weapons). So nothing is lost even with an exploitable method of re-arming. By exploitable I mean the XCom player can manipulate re-arming, e.g. by leaving weapons out in the open as bait for traps.

Maybe the simplest modification would be to ''not'' drop weapons when the alien panics? This does not require delving in to the AI, just intercepting the panic effects. Dont make aliens drop any weapons when they panic. It would be reasonable to return the weapon in hand to inventory, so there is a TU cost for the alien to bring the weapon back into play again.

This would not work for aliens who were stunned and wake up, or who were mind controlled by XCom and made to drop their weapons. But it would probably catch 80% of cases.

Another cheat, short of fixing the AI, is just to pick up weapons that the alien walks over. It could also pick up "spare" weapons from adjacent aliens (cheating on TUs - basically just teleporting the items to the unarmed alien). Spare alien weapons are almost invariably grenades. I have not had a lot of success in getting unarmed aliens to use grenades, so more research is needed here. Maybe only certain types of aliens use grenades, or only in certain circumstances?

Really, really cheating would be to teleport any weapon laying around the battlefield into the alien's inventory. But I think it is more fair just to say panicked aliens dont drop their equipment. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:13, 13 February 2010 (EST)

==== 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)

=== 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.

----

There was a utility to do this from Devisraad. it has long since been removed from his site, but someone may still have it. The basics was you renamed unit and it automatically replaced graphics flag to swap out the units. Didn't work on the Large Aliens but still was a fun mod --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:20, 6 January 2010 (EST)

=== 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)

----
You may be able to get 3 levels in an X-Com Base but not 4. EU has a smaller amount of memory alocated. I dont know the limit but 60x60x4 will crash EU. TFTD has no problem --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:25, 6 January 2010 (EST)

----

I got partway through this and then decided to change my methods entirely and start from scratch. So I thought I might as well post my progress anyways, as it's already about on par with the crude TFTD implementation: You always have the same craft appear in your hanger regardless of what is (or isn't!) there.

[[Image:Skyranger In Hanger.rar]]

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 05:40, 17 December 2009 (EST)

----

Hey BB, a while ago I have modded the plane terrain files so that the Skyranger appears facing east instead of south. If you want to use that one (to make it a little different) let me know. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 08:23, 17 December 2009 (EST)

----

Thanks, but don't worry about it for now: it'll make the MCD arrays larger still, so I'll consider it when I get all the other stuff done.

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 17:01, 19 December 2009 (EST)

----

The completed mod is now included in my toolpack. As usual, I've only done cursory testing on it, but I'm pretty sure it's stable enough.

- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 06:40, 20 January 2010 (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]]

=== Impose cost to using Psionic attacks===

I think everyone agrees Psi attacks are too powerful. I would propose to impose a cost to using Psionic attacks. This could take the form of decreasing the physical stats after using a PSi attack (after all all: the psionic races are physically weak). This could for example lead to a soldier becoming a weakling or even fainting or dying from using psi-attack. Another possibility is to decrease mental stats (in this case the ratio would be that humans are not really being adapted to psi: you could be expected to go crazy playing mind games) leading to a decrease in psionic powers or maybe panicking or beserking the soldier using psi. Together with limiting psi attacks of MCed units proposed elsewhere this would rebalance the later game somewhat... [[User:Emphyrio|Emphyrio]] 07:22, 9 August 2010 (EDT)

== 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)

=== 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.
: Now fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

=== 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)
:: XcomUtil 9.6 also restores all DOA if you win to. Not what was intended. This feature has been removed as of 9.7 until I can fix it. --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 02:27, 6 January 2010 (EST)
: Now also fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

=== 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).
: Now fixed by the Seb76 loader [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:13, 11 December 2009 (EST)

= 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]]