UFOpaedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Differences to X-COM (UFO2000)

2009-07-20T14:00:38Z

Wasd:

Hobbes (or anyone),

I don't see any mention of Geoscape/Bases and there's the statement "You don't have to worry about losing your troops like you did on X-COM". Is UFO2k only the tactical part of X-COM?

Tiny wiki note: On this page you are using hyphens as bullets. If you use asterisks instead, you'll get a "proper bullet" and the paragraphs will be indented. Or use # to cause automatic numbering.

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 07:08, 9 June 2006 (PDT)

Yes Mike, UFO2000 is only the tactical part of X-COM for now. Thanks for the tip regarding bullets.

----

Cool, thanks. That would be something to state in the "Differences" page. You can delete this Discussion after reading.

---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 07:50, 9 June 2006 (PDT)

UFO2000 is not X-COM at all. It is definitely Laser Squad clone. :P --[[User:Wasd|Wasd]] 10:00, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

Wish List (TFTD)

2009-07-20T13:50:50Z

Wasd: /* New Features */

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

= Fixes =

* Research Tree bugs
* Underwater-only weapons reaction-firing on land
* Bio-Drone melee attack has no effect. This is a serious flaw in the Bio-Drone, as it always uses this attack when Aquanauts are adjacent.
* Bugs with MC at the end of one stage of a multi-stage mission. (Does this also affect XCOM-EU, e.g. the 2-stage Cydonia mission?)
* The really annoying "Cannot intercept over land" message that pops up continually (more than once a second) during some pursuits along coastlines.
* Permit aliens to use carried melee weapons. (This is a game engine bug that applies to XCOM-EU as well, but is moot since XCOM-EU aliens don't have carried melee weapons.) This fix could inadvertently make the game easier, as aliens would use Sonic Pulsers (their default option since they can't use melee weapons) less often. So it is essential to ensure the AI chooses sensibly between drills and Pulsers.

= New Features =

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

= See Also =

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

Talk:Best Starting Weapons (TFTD)

2009-07-20T13:25:34Z

Wasd: /* General Discussion */

== General Discussion ==

Excellent article, NKF. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 02:51, 10 December 2008 (CST)

Not trying to be nit-picky, but you left out the hand-held Torpedo Launcher. [[User:Muton commander|Muton commander]] 11:52, 21 December 2008 (CST)

: As was the thermal tazer and grenades. It was intentional. Torpedo launchers are not weapons that you'll be wanting to arm the entire team with - at least in most normal games. The two stronger weapons that I do cover tend to be more medium-weights than heavies like the torpedo launcher. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 22:48, 21 December 2008 (CST)

:: You COULD include your reasoning for the torpedo launcher in your discussion... actually, in TFTD, arming the entire team with torpedo launchers doesn't make a lot of sense... but it makes more sense than arming an entire team with Dart Guns. Do you believe me?

:: Also, Gauss weapons are terrible because YOU HAVE TO MANUFACTURE AMMO FOR THEM. It really screws up your production line. In addition, placing a Heavy Gauss among your starting weapons, but not putting Sonic Pistol in there is a bit weird. I mean, by the end of the first few weeks, you should have a sonic pistol and clip ready for research, maybe a blastaa rifle. So, given a choice, should you research Heavy Gauss, or Sonic Rifle... I would choose the sonic rifle! The heavy gauss is hardly a "starting weapon"... in XCOM, you would research Heavy Laser for 2 reasons. 1. Sectopods. 2. Laser Cannons.

:: As you said, gas cannons ability to be used above ground bumps them up many notches on the weapon rankings.

:: Why do you mention ION ARMOR as part of your combinations for STARTING weapons??? [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 02:05, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

: The minute you go on a land mission with nothing but torpedo launchers... I didn't include grenades as starting weapons either, even though I often encourage others to try out grenadier campaigns.

: The gauss weapons' ammo manufacturing isn't as bad as it seems - at least for the pistol and rifle ammo. It's like buying the ammo - only it takes less time to arrive. The increased power of the gauss weapons (relative to the darts) easily make up for the higher cost, and selling a few recovered items every mission easily covers the cash invested. You won't get back the engineer time, but you'll still be able to crank out adequate quantities of gauss pistol or gauss rifle ammo very quickly at 20 and 45 tech hours needed for each. Even your starting 10 engineers can crank out ammo at a consistent enough pace to keep a few aquanauts well stocked for each mission until better stuff arrives.

: The default Heavy Gauss just doesn't cut mustard, but is mainly included because you get it without gathering any equipment from the field.

: As for the Ion Armor it was never a main topic of discussion and was merely mentioned once in the context of something that could assist the player use Hydro Jet Cannon in close quarters. That can be done any time during the game. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 07:19, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Hmm.. maybe. But I recall going on terror missions with Gauss and having huge ammo problems... ah shit, now I remember. The 80 item limit really hurts on those 2 part terror missions. It really makes the PAYLOAD factor kick in. ... One more reason to rush sonic weapons I guess.

:: As for manufacturing time, it is not a crippling amount of engineering time, but it is still pretty significant, especially on higher difficulty levels. You can easily burn through 15 clips per mission, if Gauss is your main armament. Admittedly, 4 missions a month only comes to 60 rifle clips, which is 2 days for 30 engineers, so it's not that bad... as for cost... gauss ammo is cheaper overall than Sonic ammo, right?

On the very first mission or two I may have Jet Harpoons. It works excellent on aquatoids. Unfortunately, Gill Men are refuse to die unless taken three (sometimes two) harpoons. Torpedo Launcher is cumbersome. It could have been great if it was mortar!. Or if aliens walked in compact groups by 3-4. Hydrojet Cannon is heavy and underwater only. Most articles says "There should be balanced set of weapons". Well, for me the most balanced set was everyone wielding Gas Cannon (and Magna-Blast Grenade). My GC+MBG equipped squad have proven reliable and capable. Meanwhile I research Sensor, Medikit, loot alien sub and research Sonic Rifle. And again, have balanced set of weapons including Sonic Rifle for every operative. Not least, uniform weapons for entire crew gives advantage of uniform ammunition, so I usually take 15 clips for 10 guns. --[[User:Wasd|Wasd]] 09:25, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

----

All righty, thanks to recent discussions, I've inflicted some changes to the main article. I don't know if that's improved the article any bit, but hopefully it's a bit more objective than it was. Oh well, as is the nature of our wiki articles, they're ever being improved. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 06:05, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== Jet Harpoon ==

I use the Jet Harpoon early on basically as a secondary weapon - in effect, as a pistol - for aquanauts who are carrying a Torpedo Launcher, or who are absolutely too weak to carry a Hydrojet Cannon / Gas Cannon. This means I throw almost all the Jet Harpoons (and ammo) away as soon as my shipments of extra Hydrojet Cannon and Gas Cannon arrive on base. Until that time, of course, you're more or less forced to use the Jet Harpoons as primary weapons since otherwise you just don't have enough weapons even to arm 8 aquanauts. Quite often, you don't get any mission before the extra heavy weapons arrive to replace the Jet Harpoons. But maybe this is a bit hard-core. For land missions (such as Base Defence), it might be good to have a weapon around that's a bit more fast and flexible than a Gas Cannon.

Dart Guns I just throw away immediately. As mentioned above, I used Jet Harpoons as "pistols" instead.

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 18:02, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

== Hydrojet Cannon vs Gas Cannon ==

I actually disagree with the main article statement that says HjC and GC are more or less equal underwater for ranged combat. Until you start fighting enemies with high AP/HE resistance '''and''' high armour, the HjC (on auto) is more effective, even at range. I tend to go with the view that you routinely equip mostly HjCs, but switch to GCs for land missions (terror missions and base defence, both of which are advertised in advance). I should make it clear I'm talking about HjCs firing on auto, which means they chew through ammo - basically you need to reload after 2 turns of continuous fire, vs 4 turns for the GC. So you can count on shipping twice as many spare clips into the mission, which is not great. In Aimed and Snap fire the GC is hands-down better, so unless you use the HjCs on auto all the time, don't bother with it. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 18:14, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: The fact that GC has an extra 33% ammo compared to the Heavy Cannon... is... HUGE. And 65 HE power??? WTF. It is SO GOOD. ... Would like to point out that the HjC gets only 3 AutoShots, and 2 Snap Shots, due to it's ammo of 14. Compared to the GC with 8 snap shots... hmm.

:I had a hilarious experience with the HjC once.... one of my scouts spotted 3 aquatoids in a loose cluster, so my HjC guy goes full-Auto on them. And kills 5 aquatoids in 2 bursts. 3 I was targetting and 2 hiding off screen somewhere. 1 of those was REALLY far off screen, I didn't find his corpse til near the end of the battle. Being outnumbered = Target Rich environment.

:: Ammo logistics can be a hassle but at the end of the day lethality is more important. I'd rather have a battlefield of dead aliens and troops short on ammo, and figure out how to get some reloads to them, vs the alternative. The alternative is dead troops with full clips. :) The HE damage of 65 is good, but the HjC gets nearly twice as many hits per turn, on average. Unless your target has a lot of resistance/armour, the HjC will do more penetrating damage. For Lobstermen, yes, you want the GC.

:: Nonetheless the point you made elsewhere about reaction fire is a good one. For that reason alone you need to keep some Gas Cannons in the mix - even before the Lobstermen show up. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:09, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

The GC and HjC are just like the Pistol and Rifle in UFO. One is designed for single shots and excels at it very well. The other is very poor at single attacks, but excels really well at autofire - even though it is the slowest auto fire weapon in the game. Never implied that it was a bad weapon to use - it's actually very good. My note at the end that it was on par with the GC was really in that both weapons are fairly good at that range, but that the HjC was the dominant weapon for close range combat (especially when wearing armour). Just wish it didn't have that stupid under-water only restriction.

One thing the under-water only limit does really well is limit the Disrupter Pulse Launcher. I'd willingly give that up if the aliens did too. With so many tough land missions, it's just as well each side can't use it. Hang on, would reaction fire work though? DPL reaction shots are so rare that so hard to test too. Oh well. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 02:06, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:NKF, I still think the main article underplays the HjC and overestimates the importance of the "underwater only" drawback. It's true, isn't it, that missions involving land can '''always''' be anticipated, and so HjCs can be replaced with GCs ahead of time. In a Base Defence mission there might be no warning sometimes, but as GCs are ahead of HjCs in the list I guess they would be preferred to survive in the 80 item limit for Base Defence? So really the underwater only aspect is only a disadvantage in terms of using more Stores space, and more money, to maintain two sets of weapons - an underwater set and a land set. I doubt this additional cost would exceed $50K - $100K. Plus I guess it's a hassle to change loadouts for a land mission if you are using XComUtil to remember aquanauts' loadouts.

:Until you encounter very heavily armoured targets, HjC on auto is more lethal in normal offensive use. The GC is more lethal in defence (reaction fire) and for certain types of sniping (not all). I would put it at least equal to the HC, if not better. In fact the truth is, a mix of both is good - which does complicate your ammo logistics, to be fair. I'm not saying you can't make do with GC only, it's a fine strategy. But in forgoing HjCs you are forgoing higher firepower/lethality against all but the hardest targets.

:I agree with you that the GC effectively makes the Torp Launcher irrelevant. Also, in fairness (re my Gauss Rifle comment below), one advantage that standard weapons such as GC and HjC do have over the Gauss Rifle is the use of area effect rounds, HE/IN.[[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:45, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:: I don't know if you can always anticipate every land mission. I have some dreadful memories of a base attack where a good part of my squad could only use HjCs because I thought it was the bees knees as a weapon, and did decide to do a bit of ammo juggling to accomodate them! But as I've often said, I don't think it's a bad weapon at all. But, do you really need to undertake the hassle of having to maintain two sets of equipment? There are other high firepower alternatives at your disposal early in the game, and much of your early opponents can easily be dealt with by most explosives you can obtain early into the game. By the time you do need superior firepower, there will be even more alternatives available to you.

:: But I guess that's where the broken record of a comment keeps proving itself to be right: A mix of weapons is often the better solution. I know having one HjC on the Triton and perhaps some spare weapon isn't going to hurt you that badly and will introduce minimal ammo juggling. Since TFTD has increased the silly 80 item limit restriction a little, you do have room to carry a spare weapon and some reloads. This is especially handy if you decide to tough it out with Jet Harpoons until you get something better. 3 - 4 clips can be carried per Jet Harpoon with no trouble.

:: The GC being a better Torpedo launcher is Jasonred's analogy of it - but I can't reallly really disagree with it! I've always thought of it as a mini torpedo launcher for land based missions myself. The only place where the Torpedo launcher would trump the Gas Cannon is for aimed shots, when underwater, when carried by a crack marksmans and for raw firepower. That 110% accuracy isn't as good as its original counterpart, but still a most welcome accuracy boost. The extra trials offered by the GC (and HjC) does make it more preferable. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 14:48, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:: My statistics tells that on very rare occasion HjC will perform better than GC. In fact, my first move in new game is ordering GC for entire crew. And dumping all other as soon as it arrives. --[[User:Wasd|Wasd]] 09:23, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

== Gas Cannon with HE used to down Lobstermen ==

It can? ... It can??? OMG, IT CAN!!! Though it looks like by the time you manage to kill it, it's under armor might get reduced to zero, lol. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 20:55, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: It's slow, but it jolly well works. That's why I like it so much. However you're going to end up with very little ammo after taking one or two of the crustaceans down.

: Hang on, something just occurred to me. Recalling your favourite current strategy of using the Incendiary bug in UFO - does it apply to the Hydrojet as well? That would make it a very effective anti-lobstermen weapon in underwater fights. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:59, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:: I don't actually use the bug in UFO... I tend to kill my enemies one by one, not spread my squad out across the map and share out firepower... my current favourite strategy to burn aliens involves the fact that Incendiery ignores armor, does 4 times damage on large units, and does not provoke reaction fire. ... the trouble with Lobstermen is that they have 90-125 health, and 70% fire resistance, so it takes like 50 hits to cook them in the shell... VERY ineffective. Sigh. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 04:08, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::: I've been doing some [[Talk:Incendiary#Incendiary_vs_Large_Units|research on Incendiary vs Large Units]] and it looks like they probably don't take x4 damage from IN (though more work is needed to confirm this). Incendiary is still good for bypassing armour - especially on autofire. As long as you just have one target or set of targets on fire, and your rounds more or less land near the target(s), it's probably not cheating to do this. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:22, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Ah... well, if you just have one target, it effectively increases your accuracy to 100% perfection... which is bad, but if you're using deadshot soldiers anyhow, it's not THAT bad... Hmm, Incediery damage is a weird creature it seems to do more damage when used on flamable ground vs inflamable ground??? [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 15:18, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::: Yes that's the hypothesis. Some more testing is needed but it looks like the MCD flammability rating of the tile might add to the damage per turn / per impact. 'tis indeed strange. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:56, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

== Gauss Weapons vs their Contemporaries ==

The standard non-Gauss weapons share a few advantages over Gauss.

1. They do not require research. So you can use them right from the very first mission. Theoratically, you could fail to perform any missions until Gauss technology is developed, but this depends a lot on playstyle and strategy.
2. They can be purchased in bulk, instead of requiring manufacture. This tends to come to fore under several situations:
a) When starting a new base. Or, like some players do, several bases at once.
b) When production queues are very busy. If you have not created several Gauss cannon factories, it is possible that your production queue will be fully occupied making stuff like armor or MC disrupters. If you had only 1 large workshop base and it is halfway building a Leviathan, you will not be producing any new Gauss Ammo for quite some time...
c) When you lose troops and their armaments. In TFTD, losses can be quite heavy early on, and the aliens seem to be more aggresive in the grenadiering and PWT use. If you actually lose a squad, outfitting a new squad with Gauss can take a while...
d) After a Shipping Lane Mission. These super long missions can burn through over 50 Gauss Rifle clips quite easily. BUT, any standard equipment would have run out of ammo completely by comparison... it just should be noted that after a mission that uses a lot of Gauss, one might have to switch to Gas Cannons for a few days while manufacturing replenishes Gauss supplies.
3. They cost less. Not a major factor due to how UFO economics works despite what some penny pinchers may feel.

'''Gauss Pistol.'''

Defensively (reaction fire), the Gas Cannon is significantly better (in terms of firepower/lethality). Offensively (on auto), the Hydrojet Cannon is within 10% better (HE) to 10% worse (AP). The Gas Cannon is a better sniper weapon in some ways. So this one is not a slam dunk. You're going on some of the minor advantages (clip capacity etc) and also the one-handedness advantages.

'''Gauss Rifle.'''

This is more of a clear winner. The death-dealingest direct fire weapon in the game, bar none, vs lightly armoured targets. (Yes it's the sub-aquatic AK-47). Clearly outclasses all standard weapons in defence (reaction fire), offence (auto), and sniping. It [[Skipping Gauss Weapons|gives ground to Sonics]] of course as the stronger aliens with high armour levels and damage type resistances are encountered.

: The Gauss Pistol excels primarily with its compact size (it's a hip clipper), weight, high ammo capacity and damage. I see it mainly as a complete replacement for the Jet Harpoon - except for its awful accuracy which is compensated for by its high rate of fire. The Gas Cannon is still the best bang for your buck on a shot-by-shot basis - it's a high powered cannon or grenade launcher after all. A single autofire burst with the HjC and HE shells would definitely be much more effective than a single Gauss Pistol burst, except it's much slower to perform. It's not too powerful, but it's a light and fast weapon (good for finishing off or interrupting). The one-handed feature lets you compensate for the gun's weaker stopping power by letting you handle some other high powered weapon in the other hand, such as a magna-pack. It's not as good as the Laser Pistol as you have to add in the whole ammo conservation factor. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:25, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== Weapons not covered ==

I was actually thinking of putting the weapons that weren't covered into a separate category. Support weapons or something along those lines. The article mainly covers basic ranged firearms at present. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:44, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

-----

NKF, Either you have access to some math that I don't, or you made an error. Looks to me like small and large rockets only have a 25 point difference, not 50!

[[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 14:04, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

: It's an error. Fridayitis - and a long day at work are part to blame - being rather baffled by the small torpedo (not having really examined it this closely before) also contributed. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 15:44, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

----

Question: any difference between the GC-HE at clearing terrain compared to the Large Torpedos? [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 23:40, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

: Good question. Basically anything of an HE nature is good at clearing terrain. The Large Torpedo has a blast diameter of 13, while the GC-HE has a blast diameter of 9. So one will create a really big ring - the other two medium rings - which you can set apart at any range you wish. Which of the two weapons is better to use will depend on what shape you want to carve out in a single turn.

: Coincidentally, I just did a test earlier. Stared a new easy game, dumped all the weapons off the Triton and armed one GC (5 HE clips) and one Torpedo Launcher (5 Large Torpedoes). Wiped the first mission's map clean with these two weapons with only two spotters lost - one to a misfire. The GC-HE's pretty good at slicing through chunks of volcanic map terrain. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:29, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Best Starting Weapons (TFTD)

2009-07-20T13:24:24Z

Wasd: /* Hydrojet Cannon vs Gas Cannon */

== General Discussion ==

Excellent article, NKF. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 02:51, 10 December 2008 (CST)

Not trying to be nit-picky, but you left out the hand-held Torpedo Launcher. [[User:Muton commander|Muton commander]] 11:52, 21 December 2008 (CST)

: As was the thermal tazer and grenades. It was intentional. Torpedo launchers are not weapons that you'll be wanting to arm the entire team with - at least in most normal games. The two stronger weapons that I do cover tend to be more medium-weights than heavies like the torpedo launcher. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 22:48, 21 December 2008 (CST)

:: You COULD include your reasoning for the torpedo launcher in your discussion... actually, in TFTD, arming the entire team with torpedo launchers doesn't make a lot of sense... but it makes more sense than arming an entire team with Dart Guns. Do you believe me?

:: Also, Gauss weapons are terrible because YOU HAVE TO MANUFACTURE AMMO FOR THEM. It really screws up your production line. In addition, placing a Heavy Gauss among your starting weapons, but not putting Sonic Pistol in there is a bit weird. I mean, by the end of the first few weeks, you should have a sonic pistol and clip ready for research, maybe a blastaa rifle. So, given a choice, should you research Heavy Gauss, or Sonic Rifle... I would choose the sonic rifle! The heavy gauss is hardly a "starting weapon"... in XCOM, you would research Heavy Laser for 2 reasons. 1. Sectopods. 2. Laser Cannons.

:: As you said, gas cannons ability to be used above ground bumps them up many notches on the weapon rankings.

:: Why do you mention ION ARMOR as part of your combinations for STARTING weapons??? [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 02:05, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

: The minute you go on a land mission with nothing but torpedo launchers... I didn't include grenades as starting weapons either, even though I often encourage others to try out grenadier campaigns.

: The gauss weapons' ammo manufacturing isn't as bad as it seems - at least for the pistol and rifle ammo. It's like buying the ammo - only it takes less time to arrive. The increased power of the gauss weapons (relative to the darts) easily make up for the higher cost, and selling a few recovered items every mission easily covers the cash invested. You won't get back the engineer time, but you'll still be able to crank out adequate quantities of gauss pistol or gauss rifle ammo very quickly at 20 and 45 tech hours needed for each. Even your starting 10 engineers can crank out ammo at a consistent enough pace to keep a few aquanauts well stocked for each mission until better stuff arrives.

: The default Heavy Gauss just doesn't cut mustard, but is mainly included because you get it without gathering any equipment from the field.

: As for the Ion Armor it was never a main topic of discussion and was merely mentioned once in the context of something that could assist the player use Hydro Jet Cannon in close quarters. That can be done any time during the game. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 07:19, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Hmm.. maybe. But I recall going on terror missions with Gauss and having huge ammo problems... ah shit, now I remember. The 80 item limit really hurts on those 2 part terror missions. It really makes the PAYLOAD factor kick in. ... One more reason to rush sonic weapons I guess.

:: As for manufacturing time, it is not a crippling amount of engineering time, but it is still pretty significant, especially on higher difficulty levels. You can easily burn through 15 clips per mission, if Gauss is your main armament. Admittedly, 4 missions a month only comes to 60 rifle clips, which is 2 days for 30 engineers, so it's not that bad... as for cost... gauss ammo is cheaper overall than Sonic ammo, right?

----

All righty, thanks to recent discussions, I've inflicted some changes to the main article. I don't know if that's improved the article any bit, but hopefully it's a bit more objective than it was. Oh well, as is the nature of our wiki articles, they're ever being improved. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 06:05, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== Jet Harpoon ==

I use the Jet Harpoon early on basically as a secondary weapon - in effect, as a pistol - for aquanauts who are carrying a Torpedo Launcher, or who are absolutely too weak to carry a Hydrojet Cannon / Gas Cannon. This means I throw almost all the Jet Harpoons (and ammo) away as soon as my shipments of extra Hydrojet Cannon and Gas Cannon arrive on base. Until that time, of course, you're more or less forced to use the Jet Harpoons as primary weapons since otherwise you just don't have enough weapons even to arm 8 aquanauts. Quite often, you don't get any mission before the extra heavy weapons arrive to replace the Jet Harpoons. But maybe this is a bit hard-core. For land missions (such as Base Defence), it might be good to have a weapon around that's a bit more fast and flexible than a Gas Cannon.

Dart Guns I just throw away immediately. As mentioned above, I used Jet Harpoons as "pistols" instead.

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 18:02, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

== Hydrojet Cannon vs Gas Cannon ==

I actually disagree with the main article statement that says HjC and GC are more or less equal underwater for ranged combat. Until you start fighting enemies with high AP/HE resistance '''and''' high armour, the HjC (on auto) is more effective, even at range. I tend to go with the view that you routinely equip mostly HjCs, but switch to GCs for land missions (terror missions and base defence, both of which are advertised in advance). I should make it clear I'm talking about HjCs firing on auto, which means they chew through ammo - basically you need to reload after 2 turns of continuous fire, vs 4 turns for the GC. So you can count on shipping twice as many spare clips into the mission, which is not great. In Aimed and Snap fire the GC is hands-down better, so unless you use the HjCs on auto all the time, don't bother with it. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 18:14, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: The fact that GC has an extra 33% ammo compared to the Heavy Cannon... is... HUGE. And 65 HE power??? WTF. It is SO GOOD. ... Would like to point out that the HjC gets only 3 AutoShots, and 2 Snap Shots, due to it's ammo of 14. Compared to the GC with 8 snap shots... hmm.

:I had a hilarious experience with the HjC once.... one of my scouts spotted 3 aquatoids in a loose cluster, so my HjC guy goes full-Auto on them. And kills 5 aquatoids in 2 bursts. 3 I was targetting and 2 hiding off screen somewhere. 1 of those was REALLY far off screen, I didn't find his corpse til near the end of the battle. Being outnumbered = Target Rich environment.

:: Ammo logistics can be a hassle but at the end of the day lethality is more important. I'd rather have a battlefield of dead aliens and troops short on ammo, and figure out how to get some reloads to them, vs the alternative. The alternative is dead troops with full clips. :) The HE damage of 65 is good, but the HjC gets nearly twice as many hits per turn, on average. Unless your target has a lot of resistance/armour, the HjC will do more penetrating damage. For Lobstermen, yes, you want the GC.

:: Nonetheless the point you made elsewhere about reaction fire is a good one. For that reason alone you need to keep some Gas Cannons in the mix - even before the Lobstermen show up. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:09, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

The GC and HjC are just like the Pistol and Rifle in UFO. One is designed for single shots and excels at it very well. The other is very poor at single attacks, but excels really well at autofire - even though it is the slowest auto fire weapon in the game. Never implied that it was a bad weapon to use - it's actually very good. My note at the end that it was on par with the GC was really in that both weapons are fairly good at that range, but that the HjC was the dominant weapon for close range combat (especially when wearing armour). Just wish it didn't have that stupid under-water only restriction.

One thing the under-water only limit does really well is limit the Disrupter Pulse Launcher. I'd willingly give that up if the aliens did too. With so many tough land missions, it's just as well each side can't use it. Hang on, would reaction fire work though? DPL reaction shots are so rare that so hard to test too. Oh well. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 02:06, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:NKF, I still think the main article underplays the HjC and overestimates the importance of the "underwater only" drawback. It's true, isn't it, that missions involving land can '''always''' be anticipated, and so HjCs can be replaced with GCs ahead of time. In a Base Defence mission there might be no warning sometimes, but as GCs are ahead of HjCs in the list I guess they would be preferred to survive in the 80 item limit for Base Defence? So really the underwater only aspect is only a disadvantage in terms of using more Stores space, and more money, to maintain two sets of weapons - an underwater set and a land set. I doubt this additional cost would exceed $50K - $100K. Plus I guess it's a hassle to change loadouts for a land mission if you are using XComUtil to remember aquanauts' loadouts.

:Until you encounter very heavily armoured targets, HjC on auto is more lethal in normal offensive use. The GC is more lethal in defence (reaction fire) and for certain types of sniping (not all). I would put it at least equal to the HC, if not better. In fact the truth is, a mix of both is good - which does complicate your ammo logistics, to be fair. I'm not saying you can't make do with GC only, it's a fine strategy. But in forgoing HjCs you are forgoing higher firepower/lethality against all but the hardest targets.

:I agree with you that the GC effectively makes the Torp Launcher irrelevant. Also, in fairness (re my Gauss Rifle comment below), one advantage that standard weapons such as GC and HjC do have over the Gauss Rifle is the use of area effect rounds, HE/IN.[[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:45, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:: I don't know if you can always anticipate every land mission. I have some dreadful memories of a base attack where a good part of my squad could only use HjCs because I thought it was the bees knees as a weapon, and did decide to do a bit of ammo juggling to accomodate them! But as I've often said, I don't think it's a bad weapon at all. But, do you really need to undertake the hassle of having to maintain two sets of equipment? There are other high firepower alternatives at your disposal early in the game, and much of your early opponents can easily be dealt with by most explosives you can obtain early into the game. By the time you do need superior firepower, there will be even more alternatives available to you.

:: But I guess that's where the broken record of a comment keeps proving itself to be right: A mix of weapons is often the better solution. I know having one HjC on the Triton and perhaps some spare weapon isn't going to hurt you that badly and will introduce minimal ammo juggling. Since TFTD has increased the silly 80 item limit restriction a little, you do have room to carry a spare weapon and some reloads. This is especially handy if you decide to tough it out with Jet Harpoons until you get something better. 3 - 4 clips can be carried per Jet Harpoon with no trouble.

:: The GC being a better Torpedo launcher is Jasonred's analogy of it - but I can't reallly really disagree with it! I've always thought of it as a mini torpedo launcher for land based missions myself. The only place where the Torpedo launcher would trump the Gas Cannon is for aimed shots, when underwater, when carried by a crack marksmans and for raw firepower. That 110% accuracy isn't as good as its original counterpart, but still a most welcome accuracy boost. The extra trials offered by the GC (and HjC) does make it more preferable. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 14:48, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:: My statistics tells that on very rare occasion HjC will perform better than GC. In fact, my first move in new game is ordering GC for entire crew. And dumping all other as soon as it arrives. --[[User:Wasd|Wasd]] 09:23, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

== Gas Cannon with HE used to down Lobstermen ==

It can? ... It can??? OMG, IT CAN!!! Though it looks like by the time you manage to kill it, it's under armor might get reduced to zero, lol. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 20:55, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: It's slow, but it jolly well works. That's why I like it so much. However you're going to end up with very little ammo after taking one or two of the crustaceans down.

: Hang on, something just occurred to me. Recalling your favourite current strategy of using the Incendiary bug in UFO - does it apply to the Hydrojet as well? That would make it a very effective anti-lobstermen weapon in underwater fights. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:59, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:: I don't actually use the bug in UFO... I tend to kill my enemies one by one, not spread my squad out across the map and share out firepower... my current favourite strategy to burn aliens involves the fact that Incendiery ignores armor, does 4 times damage on large units, and does not provoke reaction fire. ... the trouble with Lobstermen is that they have 90-125 health, and 70% fire resistance, so it takes like 50 hits to cook them in the shell... VERY ineffective. Sigh. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 04:08, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::: I've been doing some [[Talk:Incendiary#Incendiary_vs_Large_Units|research on Incendiary vs Large Units]] and it looks like they probably don't take x4 damage from IN (though more work is needed to confirm this). Incendiary is still good for bypassing armour - especially on autofire. As long as you just have one target or set of targets on fire, and your rounds more or less land near the target(s), it's probably not cheating to do this. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:22, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Ah... well, if you just have one target, it effectively increases your accuracy to 100% perfection... which is bad, but if you're using deadshot soldiers anyhow, it's not THAT bad... Hmm, Incediery damage is a weird creature it seems to do more damage when used on flamable ground vs inflamable ground??? [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 15:18, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::: Yes that's the hypothesis. Some more testing is needed but it looks like the MCD flammability rating of the tile might add to the damage per turn / per impact. 'tis indeed strange. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:56, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

== Gauss Weapons vs their Contemporaries ==

The standard non-Gauss weapons share a few advantages over Gauss.

1. They do not require research. So you can use them right from the very first mission. Theoratically, you could fail to perform any missions until Gauss technology is developed, but this depends a lot on playstyle and strategy.
2. They can be purchased in bulk, instead of requiring manufacture. This tends to come to fore under several situations:
a) When starting a new base. Or, like some players do, several bases at once.
b) When production queues are very busy. If you have not created several Gauss cannon factories, it is possible that your production queue will be fully occupied making stuff like armor or MC disrupters. If you had only 1 large workshop base and it is halfway building a Leviathan, you will not be producing any new Gauss Ammo for quite some time...
c) When you lose troops and their armaments. In TFTD, losses can be quite heavy early on, and the aliens seem to be more aggresive in the grenadiering and PWT use. If you actually lose a squad, outfitting a new squad with Gauss can take a while...
d) After a Shipping Lane Mission. These super long missions can burn through over 50 Gauss Rifle clips quite easily. BUT, any standard equipment would have run out of ammo completely by comparison... it just should be noted that after a mission that uses a lot of Gauss, one might have to switch to Gas Cannons for a few days while manufacturing replenishes Gauss supplies.
3. They cost less. Not a major factor due to how UFO economics works despite what some penny pinchers may feel.

'''Gauss Pistol.'''

Defensively (reaction fire), the Gas Cannon is significantly better (in terms of firepower/lethality). Offensively (on auto), the Hydrojet Cannon is within 10% better (HE) to 10% worse (AP). The Gas Cannon is a better sniper weapon in some ways. So this one is not a slam dunk. You're going on some of the minor advantages (clip capacity etc) and also the one-handedness advantages.

'''Gauss Rifle.'''

This is more of a clear winner. The death-dealingest direct fire weapon in the game, bar none, vs lightly armoured targets. (Yes it's the sub-aquatic AK-47). Clearly outclasses all standard weapons in defence (reaction fire), offence (auto), and sniping. It [[Skipping Gauss Weapons|gives ground to Sonics]] of course as the stronger aliens with high armour levels and damage type resistances are encountered.

: The Gauss Pistol excels primarily with its compact size (it's a hip clipper), weight, high ammo capacity and damage. I see it mainly as a complete replacement for the Jet Harpoon - except for its awful accuracy which is compensated for by its high rate of fire. The Gas Cannon is still the best bang for your buck on a shot-by-shot basis - it's a high powered cannon or grenade launcher after all. A single autofire burst with the HjC and HE shells would definitely be much more effective than a single Gauss Pistol burst, except it's much slower to perform. It's not too powerful, but it's a light and fast weapon (good for finishing off or interrupting). The one-handed feature lets you compensate for the gun's weaker stopping power by letting you handle some other high powered weapon in the other hand, such as a magna-pack. It's not as good as the Laser Pistol as you have to add in the whole ammo conservation factor. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:25, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== Weapons not covered ==

I was actually thinking of putting the weapons that weren't covered into a separate category. Support weapons or something along those lines. The article mainly covers basic ranged firearms at present. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:44, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

-----

NKF, Either you have access to some math that I don't, or you made an error. Looks to me like small and large rockets only have a 25 point difference, not 50!

[[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 14:04, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

: It's an error. Fridayitis - and a long day at work are part to blame - being rather baffled by the small torpedo (not having really examined it this closely before) also contributed. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 15:44, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

----

Question: any difference between the GC-HE at clearing terrain compared to the Large Torpedos? [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 23:40, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

: Good question. Basically anything of an HE nature is good at clearing terrain. The Large Torpedo has a blast diameter of 13, while the GC-HE has a blast diameter of 9. So one will create a really big ring - the other two medium rings - which you can set apart at any range you wish. Which of the two weapons is better to use will depend on what shape you want to carve out in a single turn.

: Coincidentally, I just did a test earlier. Stared a new easy game, dumped all the weapons off the Triton and armed one GC (5 HE clips) and one Torpedo Launcher (5 Large Torpedoes). Wiped the first mission's map clean with these two weapons with only two spotters lost - one to a misfire. The GC-HE's pretty good at slicing through chunks of volcanic map terrain. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:29, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Best Starting Weapons (TFTD)

2009-07-20T13:23:28Z

Wasd: /* Hydrojet Cannon vs Gas Cannon */

== General Discussion ==

Excellent article, NKF. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 02:51, 10 December 2008 (CST)

Not trying to be nit-picky, but you left out the hand-held Torpedo Launcher. [[User:Muton commander|Muton commander]] 11:52, 21 December 2008 (CST)

: As was the thermal tazer and grenades. It was intentional. Torpedo launchers are not weapons that you'll be wanting to arm the entire team with - at least in most normal games. The two stronger weapons that I do cover tend to be more medium-weights than heavies like the torpedo launcher. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 22:48, 21 December 2008 (CST)

:: You COULD include your reasoning for the torpedo launcher in your discussion... actually, in TFTD, arming the entire team with torpedo launchers doesn't make a lot of sense... but it makes more sense than arming an entire team with Dart Guns. Do you believe me?

:: Also, Gauss weapons are terrible because YOU HAVE TO MANUFACTURE AMMO FOR THEM. It really screws up your production line. In addition, placing a Heavy Gauss among your starting weapons, but not putting Sonic Pistol in there is a bit weird. I mean, by the end of the first few weeks, you should have a sonic pistol and clip ready for research, maybe a blastaa rifle. So, given a choice, should you research Heavy Gauss, or Sonic Rifle... I would choose the sonic rifle! The heavy gauss is hardly a "starting weapon"... in XCOM, you would research Heavy Laser for 2 reasons. 1. Sectopods. 2. Laser Cannons.

:: As you said, gas cannons ability to be used above ground bumps them up many notches on the weapon rankings.

:: Why do you mention ION ARMOR as part of your combinations for STARTING weapons??? [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 02:05, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

: The minute you go on a land mission with nothing but torpedo launchers... I didn't include grenades as starting weapons either, even though I often encourage others to try out grenadier campaigns.

: The gauss weapons' ammo manufacturing isn't as bad as it seems - at least for the pistol and rifle ammo. It's like buying the ammo - only it takes less time to arrive. The increased power of the gauss weapons (relative to the darts) easily make up for the higher cost, and selling a few recovered items every mission easily covers the cash invested. You won't get back the engineer time, but you'll still be able to crank out adequate quantities of gauss pistol or gauss rifle ammo very quickly at 20 and 45 tech hours needed for each. Even your starting 10 engineers can crank out ammo at a consistent enough pace to keep a few aquanauts well stocked for each mission until better stuff arrives.

: The default Heavy Gauss just doesn't cut mustard, but is mainly included because you get it without gathering any equipment from the field.

: As for the Ion Armor it was never a main topic of discussion and was merely mentioned once in the context of something that could assist the player use Hydro Jet Cannon in close quarters. That can be done any time during the game. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 07:19, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Hmm.. maybe. But I recall going on terror missions with Gauss and having huge ammo problems... ah shit, now I remember. The 80 item limit really hurts on those 2 part terror missions. It really makes the PAYLOAD factor kick in. ... One more reason to rush sonic weapons I guess.

:: As for manufacturing time, it is not a crippling amount of engineering time, but it is still pretty significant, especially on higher difficulty levels. You can easily burn through 15 clips per mission, if Gauss is your main armament. Admittedly, 4 missions a month only comes to 60 rifle clips, which is 2 days for 30 engineers, so it's not that bad... as for cost... gauss ammo is cheaper overall than Sonic ammo, right?

----

All righty, thanks to recent discussions, I've inflicted some changes to the main article. I don't know if that's improved the article any bit, but hopefully it's a bit more objective than it was. Oh well, as is the nature of our wiki articles, they're ever being improved. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 06:05, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== Jet Harpoon ==

I use the Jet Harpoon early on basically as a secondary weapon - in effect, as a pistol - for aquanauts who are carrying a Torpedo Launcher, or who are absolutely too weak to carry a Hydrojet Cannon / Gas Cannon. This means I throw almost all the Jet Harpoons (and ammo) away as soon as my shipments of extra Hydrojet Cannon and Gas Cannon arrive on base. Until that time, of course, you're more or less forced to use the Jet Harpoons as primary weapons since otherwise you just don't have enough weapons even to arm 8 aquanauts. Quite often, you don't get any mission before the extra heavy weapons arrive to replace the Jet Harpoons. But maybe this is a bit hard-core. For land missions (such as Base Defence), it might be good to have a weapon around that's a bit more fast and flexible than a Gas Cannon.

Dart Guns I just throw away immediately. As mentioned above, I used Jet Harpoons as "pistols" instead.

[[User:Spike|Spike]] 18:02, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

== Hydrojet Cannon vs Gas Cannon ==

I actually disagree with the main article statement that says HjC and GC are more or less equal underwater for ranged combat. Until you start fighting enemies with high AP/HE resistance '''and''' high armour, the HjC (on auto) is more effective, even at range. I tend to go with the view that you routinely equip mostly HjCs, but switch to GCs for land missions (terror missions and base defence, both of which are advertised in advance). I should make it clear I'm talking about HjCs firing on auto, which means they chew through ammo - basically you need to reload after 2 turns of continuous fire, vs 4 turns for the GC. So you can count on shipping twice as many spare clips into the mission, which is not great. In Aimed and Snap fire the GC is hands-down better, so unless you use the HjCs on auto all the time, don't bother with it. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 18:14, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: The fact that GC has an extra 33% ammo compared to the Heavy Cannon... is... HUGE. And 65 HE power??? WTF. It is SO GOOD. ... Would like to point out that the HjC gets only 3 AutoShots, and 2 Snap Shots, due to it's ammo of 14. Compared to the GC with 8 snap shots... hmm.

:I had a hilarious experience with the HjC once.... one of my scouts spotted 3 aquatoids in a loose cluster, so my HjC guy goes full-Auto on them. And kills 5 aquatoids in 2 bursts. 3 I was targetting and 2 hiding off screen somewhere. 1 of those was REALLY far off screen, I didn't find his corpse til near the end of the battle. Being outnumbered = Target Rich environment.

:: Ammo logistics can be a hassle but at the end of the day lethality is more important. I'd rather have a battlefield of dead aliens and troops short on ammo, and figure out how to get some reloads to them, vs the alternative. The alternative is dead troops with full clips. :) The HE damage of 65 is good, but the HjC gets nearly twice as many hits per turn, on average. Unless your target has a lot of resistance/armour, the HjC will do more penetrating damage. For Lobstermen, yes, you want the GC.

:: Nonetheless the point you made elsewhere about reaction fire is a good one. For that reason alone you need to keep some Gas Cannons in the mix - even before the Lobstermen show up. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:09, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

The GC and HjC are just like the Pistol and Rifle in UFO. One is designed for single shots and excels at it very well. The other is very poor at single attacks, but excels really well at autofire - even though it is the slowest auto fire weapon in the game. Never implied that it was a bad weapon to use - it's actually very good. My note at the end that it was on par with the GC was really in that both weapons are fairly good at that range, but that the HjC was the dominant weapon for close range combat (especially when wearing armour). Just wish it didn't have that stupid under-water only restriction.

One thing the under-water only limit does really well is limit the Disrupter Pulse Launcher. I'd willingly give that up if the aliens did too. With so many tough land missions, it's just as well each side can't use it. Hang on, would reaction fire work though? DPL reaction shots are so rare that so hard to test too. Oh well. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 02:06, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:NKF, I still think the main article underplays the HjC and overestimates the importance of the "underwater only" drawback. It's true, isn't it, that missions involving land can '''always''' be anticipated, and so HjCs can be replaced with GCs ahead of time. In a Base Defence mission there might be no warning sometimes, but as GCs are ahead of HjCs in the list I guess they would be preferred to survive in the 80 item limit for Base Defence? So really the underwater only aspect is only a disadvantage in terms of using more Stores space, and more money, to maintain two sets of weapons - an underwater set and a land set. I doubt this additional cost would exceed $50K - $100K. Plus I guess it's a hassle to change loadouts for a land mission if you are using XComUtil to remember aquanauts' loadouts.

:Until you encounter very heavily armoured targets, HjC on auto is more lethal in normal offensive use. The GC is more lethal in defence (reaction fire) and for certain types of sniping (not all). I would put it at least equal to the HC, if not better. In fact the truth is, a mix of both is good - which does complicate your ammo logistics, to be fair. I'm not saying you can't make do with GC only, it's a fine strategy. But in forgoing HjCs you are forgoing higher firepower/lethality against all but the hardest targets.

:I agree with you that the GC effectively makes the Torp Launcher irrelevant. Also, in fairness (re my Gauss Rifle comment below), one advantage that standard weapons such as GC and HjC do have over the Gauss Rifle is the use of area effect rounds, HE/IN.[[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:45, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:: I don't know if you can always anticipate every land mission. I have some dreadful memories of a base attack where a good part of my squad could only use HjCs because I thought it was the bees knees as a weapon, and did decide to do a bit of ammo juggling to accomodate them! But as I've often said, I don't think it's a bad weapon at all. But, do you really need to undertake the hassle of having to maintain two sets of equipment? There are other high firepower alternatives at your disposal early in the game, and much of your early opponents can easily be dealt with by most explosives you can obtain early into the game. By the time you do need superior firepower, there will be even more alternatives available to you.

:: But I guess that's where the broken record of a comment keeps proving itself to be right: A mix of weapons is often the better solution. I know having one HjC on the Triton and perhaps some spare weapon isn't going to hurt you that badly and will introduce minimal ammo juggling. Since TFTD has increased the silly 80 item limit restriction a little, you do have room to carry a spare weapon and some reloads. This is especially handy if you decide to tough it out with Jet Harpoons until you get something better. 3 - 4 clips can be carried per Jet Harpoon with no trouble.

:: The GC being a better Torpedo launcher is Jasonred's analogy of it - but I can't reallly really disagree with it! I've always thought of it as a mini torpedo launcher for land based missions myself. The only place where the Torpedo launcher would trump the Gas Cannon is for aimed shots, when underwater, when carried by a crack marksmans and for raw firepower. That 110% accuracy isn't as good as its original counterpart, but still a most welcome accuracy boost. The extra trials offered by the GC (and HjC) does make it more preferable. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 14:48, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:: My statistics tells that on very rare occasion HjC will perform better than GC. In fact, my first move in new game is ordering GC for entire crew. And dumping all other as soon as it arrives. --[[User:Wasd|Wasd]] 09:23, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

On the very first mission or two I may have Jet Harpoons. It works excellent on aquatoids. Unfortunately, Gill Men are refuse to die unless taken three (sometimes two) harpoons. Torpedo Launcher is cumbersome. It could have been great if it was mortar!. Or if aliens walked in compact groups by 3-4. Hydrojet Cannon is heavy and underwater only. Most articles says "There should be balanced set of weapons". Well, for me the most balanced set was everyone wielding Gas Cannon (and Magna-Blast Grenade). My GC+MBG equipped squad have proven reliable and capable. Meanwhile I research Sensor, Medikit, loot alien sub and research Sonic Rifle. And again, have balanced set of weapons including Sonic Rifle for every operative. Not least, uniform weapons for entire crew gives advantage of uniform ammunition, so I usually take 15 clips for 10 guns. --[[User:Wasd|Wasd]] 09:23, 20 July 2009 (EDT)

== Gas Cannon with HE used to down Lobstermen ==

It can? ... It can??? OMG, IT CAN!!! Though it looks like by the time you manage to kill it, it's under armor might get reduced to zero, lol. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 20:55, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: It's slow, but it jolly well works. That's why I like it so much. However you're going to end up with very little ammo after taking one or two of the crustaceans down.

: Hang on, something just occurred to me. Recalling your favourite current strategy of using the Incendiary bug in UFO - does it apply to the Hydrojet as well? That would make it a very effective anti-lobstermen weapon in underwater fights. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:59, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:: I don't actually use the bug in UFO... I tend to kill my enemies one by one, not spread my squad out across the map and share out firepower... my current favourite strategy to burn aliens involves the fact that Incendiery ignores armor, does 4 times damage on large units, and does not provoke reaction fire. ... the trouble with Lobstermen is that they have 90-125 health, and 70% fire resistance, so it takes like 50 hits to cook them in the shell... VERY ineffective. Sigh. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 04:08, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::: I've been doing some [[Talk:Incendiary#Incendiary_vs_Large_Units|research on Incendiary vs Large Units]] and it looks like they probably don't take x4 damage from IN (though more work is needed to confirm this). Incendiary is still good for bypassing armour - especially on autofire. As long as you just have one target or set of targets on fire, and your rounds more or less land near the target(s), it's probably not cheating to do this. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:22, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:: Ah... well, if you just have one target, it effectively increases your accuracy to 100% perfection... which is bad, but if you're using deadshot soldiers anyhow, it's not THAT bad... Hmm, Incediery damage is a weird creature it seems to do more damage when used on flamable ground vs inflamable ground??? [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 15:18, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

::: Yes that's the hypothesis. Some more testing is needed but it looks like the MCD flammability rating of the tile might add to the damage per turn / per impact. 'tis indeed strange. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:56, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

== Gauss Weapons vs their Contemporaries ==

The standard non-Gauss weapons share a few advantages over Gauss.

1. They do not require research. So you can use them right from the very first mission. Theoratically, you could fail to perform any missions until Gauss technology is developed, but this depends a lot on playstyle and strategy.
2. They can be purchased in bulk, instead of requiring manufacture. This tends to come to fore under several situations:
a) When starting a new base. Or, like some players do, several bases at once.
b) When production queues are very busy. If you have not created several Gauss cannon factories, it is possible that your production queue will be fully occupied making stuff like armor or MC disrupters. If you had only 1 large workshop base and it is halfway building a Leviathan, you will not be producing any new Gauss Ammo for quite some time...
c) When you lose troops and their armaments. In TFTD, losses can be quite heavy early on, and the aliens seem to be more aggresive in the grenadiering and PWT use. If you actually lose a squad, outfitting a new squad with Gauss can take a while...
d) After a Shipping Lane Mission. These super long missions can burn through over 50 Gauss Rifle clips quite easily. BUT, any standard equipment would have run out of ammo completely by comparison... it just should be noted that after a mission that uses a lot of Gauss, one might have to switch to Gas Cannons for a few days while manufacturing replenishes Gauss supplies.
3. They cost less. Not a major factor due to how UFO economics works despite what some penny pinchers may feel.

'''Gauss Pistol.'''

Defensively (reaction fire), the Gas Cannon is significantly better (in terms of firepower/lethality). Offensively (on auto), the Hydrojet Cannon is within 10% better (HE) to 10% worse (AP). The Gas Cannon is a better sniper weapon in some ways. So this one is not a slam dunk. You're going on some of the minor advantages (clip capacity etc) and also the one-handedness advantages.

'''Gauss Rifle.'''

This is more of a clear winner. The death-dealingest direct fire weapon in the game, bar none, vs lightly armoured targets. (Yes it's the sub-aquatic AK-47). Clearly outclasses all standard weapons in defence (reaction fire), offence (auto), and sniping. It [[Skipping Gauss Weapons|gives ground to Sonics]] of course as the stronger aliens with high armour levels and damage type resistances are encountered.

: The Gauss Pistol excels primarily with its compact size (it's a hip clipper), weight, high ammo capacity and damage. I see it mainly as a complete replacement for the Jet Harpoon - except for its awful accuracy which is compensated for by its high rate of fire. The Gas Cannon is still the best bang for your buck on a shot-by-shot basis - it's a high powered cannon or grenade launcher after all. A single autofire burst with the HjC and HE shells would definitely be much more effective than a single Gauss Pistol burst, except it's much slower to perform. It's not too powerful, but it's a light and fast weapon (good for finishing off or interrupting). The one-handed feature lets you compensate for the gun's weaker stopping power by letting you handle some other high powered weapon in the other hand, such as a magna-pack. It's not as good as the Laser Pistol as you have to add in the whole ammo conservation factor. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:25, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

== Weapons not covered ==

I was actually thinking of putting the weapons that weren't covered into a separate category. Support weapons or something along those lines. The article mainly covers basic ranged firearms at present. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:44, 16 April 2009 (EDT)

-----

NKF, Either you have access to some math that I don't, or you made an error. Looks to me like small and large rockets only have a 25 point difference, not 50!

[[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 14:04, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

: It's an error. Fridayitis - and a long day at work are part to blame - being rather baffled by the small torpedo (not having really examined it this closely before) also contributed. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 15:44, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

----

Question: any difference between the GC-HE at clearing terrain compared to the Large Torpedos? [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 23:40, 17 April 2009 (EDT)

: Good question. Basically anything of an HE nature is good at clearing terrain. The Large Torpedo has a blast diameter of 13, while the GC-HE has a blast diameter of 9. So one will create a really big ring - the other two medium rings - which you can set apart at any range you wish. Which of the two weapons is better to use will depend on what shape you want to carve out in a single turn.

: Coincidentally, I just did a test earlier. Stared a new easy game, dumped all the weapons off the Triton and armed one GC (5 HE clips) and one Torpedo Launcher (5 Large Torpedoes). Wiped the first mission's map clean with these two weapons with only two spotters lost - one to a misfire. The GC-HE's pretty good at slicing through chunks of volcanic map terrain. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:29, 18 April 2009 (EDT)

Talk:TFTD Research Sequences

2009-07-20T11:24:51Z

Wasd:

MC sequence
?? ?? Live Deep One or Calcinite
40 420 MC Lab
16 600 M.C. Reader
3 500 M.C. Disruptor

Live Deep One or Calcinite??? Are you sure??? ... damnit, I haven't installed TFTD on my new computer, so I haven't checked this, but it sounds a bit weird to me. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 04:11, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

: Oh this is a definite. M.C.-Lab is obtained from either of these two live terrorists. Kind of makes the game easier for you to start screening MC stats that early into the game.

: Just needs one addition between the M.C. Reader and M.C.Disrupter: a live tasoth. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 04:27, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:: AH YES!!! I knew that it couldn't be that easy to get MC... er. So funny. BTW, does it work to get an aquatoid commander or other units that can use MC, or does it HAVE to be a tasoth?

:: I felt that MC was a huge ridiculous logic hole, based on the in-game description. It says that all aliens have a molecular control implant, and MC let's you control the alien via this implant. And Xcom agents have to receive the implant too in order to use MC. But that doesn't explain why your non-implanted agents can get controlled. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 06:21, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Magnetic Navigation needed for Mag-Ion Armour. Maybe it should be added to list? Otherwise it's a bit confusing.

Talk:TFTD Research Sequences

2009-07-20T11:24:30Z

Wasd:

MC sequence
?? ?? Live Deep One or Calcinite
40 420 MC Lab
16 600 M.C. Reader
3 500 M.C. Disruptor

Live Deep One or Calcinite??? Are you sure??? ... damnit, I haven't installed TFTD on my new computer, so I haven't checked this, but it sounds a bit weird to me. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 04:11, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

: Oh this is a definite. M.C.-Lab is obtained from either of these two live terrorists. Kind of makes the game easier for you to start screening MC stats that early into the game.

: Just needs one addition between the M.C. Reader and M.C.Disrupter: a live tasoth. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 04:27, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:: AH YES!!! I knew that it couldn't be that easy to get MC... er. So funny. BTW, does it work to get an aquatoid commander or other units that can use MC, or does it HAVE to be a tasoth?

:: I felt that MC was a huge ridiculous logic hole, based on the in-game description. It says that all aliens have a molecular control implant, and MC let's you control the alien via this implant. And Xcom agents have to receive the implant too in order to use MC. But that doesn't explain why your non-implanted agents can get controlled. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 06:21, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

Magnetic navigation needed for Mag-Ion Armour. Maybe it should be added to list? Otherwise it's a bit confusing.

Talk:TFTD Research Sequences

2009-07-20T11:24:06Z

Wasd:

MC sequence
?? ?? Live Deep One or Calcinite
40 420 MC Lab
16 600 M.C. Reader
3 500 M.C. Disruptor

Live Deep One or Calcinite??? Are you sure??? ... damnit, I haven't installed TFTD on my new computer, so I haven't checked this, but it sounds a bit weird to me. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 04:11, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

: Oh this is a definite. M.C.-Lab is obtained from either of these two live terrorists. Kind of makes the game easier for you to start screening MC stats that early into the game.

: Just needs one addition between the M.C. Reader and M.C.Disrupter: a live tasoth. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 04:27, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

:: AH YES!!! I knew that it couldn't be that easy to get MC... er. So funny. BTW, does it work to get an aquatoid commander or other units that can use MC, or does it HAVE to be a tasoth?

:: I felt that MC was a huge ridiculous logic hole, based on the in-game description. It says that all aliens have a molecular control implant, and MC let's you control the alien via this implant. And Xcom agents have to receive the implant too in order to use MC. But that doesn't explain why your non-implanted agents can get controlled. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 06:21, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

: Magnetic navigation needed for Mag-Ion Armour. Maybe it should be added to list? Otherwise it's a bit confusing.

Skipping Gauss Weapons

2009-07-16T09:28:21Z

Wasd: /* General Discussion */

==General Discussion==

In Xcom, researching laser weapons first is considered a matter of course... after all, you didn't want to be still using pistols and rifles when the Mutons arrive. Heck, even snakemen were hard to put down with those things.

However, in TFTD, Gauss has some huge failings. Using Ammo (a HUGE difference in the 2 stage terror missions and the alien artefact sites!), enemy resistances against Gauss are huge...

In my last few TFTD games, I skipped Gauss entirely and completely. Instead, as soon as I captured alien tech, I concentrated on Sonic Weapons, as well as Aqua plastics and armor.

Note that researching up to Gauss Rifles (with clips) takes 660 scientist days, 1350 for Heavy Gauss (with clips). Sonic Pistol + Clip take 1000 days.

The whole POINT of laser weapons in Xcom was that, early on, you could make do with terrestial weapons (actually, the explosive weapons stay good til the end of the game). Researching Laser Weapons gave you something powerful for when the tougher aliens started appearing.
Laser rifles killed anything except Superhuman Sectopods with good efficiency.

Gauss Weapons... when the tougher aliens start appearing, Gauss becomes really weak and not very useful. Lobstermen laugh these off, Tasoth's take quite a few shots from this...

And the item management issue. Sigh. Laser Weapons were much treasured for the ability to bring in 20 soldiers to the mission and only need 20 item slots. Those Gauss things... aargh. You gotta bring at least 60 items, 20 guns and 40 clips, and even that will get spent really fast.

Overall, I would say that Laser Weapons are a very good long term investment in Xcom... you spend 450 lab days and a few engineering weeks, and you use them for the entire campaign. Gauss, you spend longer in engineering, and then you only use Gauss for maybe a month before realizing that you have to throw it away and rely completely on sonic weapons.

NKF seems to favor gauss... personally, I don't bother using it anymore. ... Any other opinions among you Xcommies out there?

:Well Gauss weapons do have some uses. First of all though, if you are equipping squads based on what you learned in the first game, you'll have problems. Gauss weapons are not meant to be an entire team weapon like lasers were in EU. Weapon diversification is the name of the game in TFTD. Also, gauss has damage modifier issues which can make it totally ineffective against some (actually most) aliens. But Gauss does have something Sonic does not: Auto Shot. I find it useful when storming the inside of a USO. Accuracy at such close quarters is basically a non-issue. Damage from the sonic line is greater, but you will only be able to use Snap or Aimed shots. An Auto Shot from a Gauss Rifle is just as good as a Sonic Pistol since it's putting 3 shots on the target instead of 1. Of course, Gauss isn't going to do much against a few aliens so in this case Sonic has to be the primary weapon used. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 10:55, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:: I've always considered it a stepping stone technology myself rather than a long lasting technology like laser tech. No - that honor goes to the drills. Such a pity they can't attack terrain!

:: Despite its damage being completely nerfed by the damage modifiers, autoshot for the gauss pistol and gauss rifle more than make up for it. The gauss weapons are mainly replacements for your jet harpoons and work very well against all the aliens you meet until you start fighting the lobstermen. By then you should've developed better weapons. In fact you would be wise to supplement them with sonic pulsers early into the game for when you need that extra punch. You can just as easily get by with Gas Cannons (and you can - they're awesome), but Gauss weapons fill the niche of your fast/weak assault weaponry that is valuable for your forward soldiers.

::Is it a waste of research time though? Well - that's entirely up to you. It might matter if its your first time playing the game or if you're trying to run a speed game. But there's only a finite amount of technology available, so you can easily pick and choose the one you want right away and get the rest when there's not much else to do. No rush to T'Leth after all. But that's just how I approach the game. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 16:04, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:::Well one aspect that is quite similar to EU is the payoff for researching Gauss is the economic aspect, to manufacture Gauss Cannon for profit. So there is not just the tactical benefits to consider, there are also economic benefits for researching the Gauss stream. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 18:04, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:OMG, The Gauss/Laser Cannons. Geez. Takes QUITE a lot of researching to get them, and they're not as useful as Avalanche Missiles. The only point behind them is that you can sell them for big profit. GEEZ. ... Xcomutil's profit nerf renders them COMPLETELY useless, IMHO. In fact I'll add that to the wiki? ... But that's a good point, Spike.

:No, you are right, there is no rush to T'leth. The rush is in researching Psi/MC, actually. Meh. ... Actually, NKF, I had a number of games (especially on Superhuman) where Lobstermen appeared far earlier than might seem reasonable. (of course the aliens should logically be very uhnreasonable and wipe you out with maximum force right from the start...). I found that not having researched Sonic when you get your first Lobsterman Terror Mission is a little horrifying.

: Also, those freaking tentaculats! Freaking Flying Chryssalids! Erk. These alone make reaction fire very VERY important in TFTD. And, since reaction is always snap shot, I found that Gauss was never enough to save my agents from zombification, only sonics gave them a chance to survive.

: I don't see how Gauss is a stepping stone to Sonics. It's more like a detour. (It is obvious Gauss Rifle is stepping stone to Gauss Cannon though).

: The fact that auto-fire makes Gauss really powerful in close combat, eg when fighting in an alien craft, is a very very good point! ... However. DRILLS. Hmm hmm hmm.

: Analysing the 4 races, Aquatoid and Gillmen can be easily dealt with via standard store bought equipment. Tasoth only take 70% Gauss damage and 120% sonic damage! Lobstermen laugh at Gauss. So, I find that using store bought Gas Cannons, and Hydrojet Cannons on Aquatoids and Gillmen seems to be very adequate to my needs. Especially, early on, my men have shit for accuracy and explosive ammo is uber... heck, those Terror units are pretty freaking resistant to Gauss too.

: Anything, Gauss can do, Heavy Explosive does better. :) [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 22:31, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

Gauss is not a literal stepping stone, as in a prerequisite. It just gives your troops a good start in the battlefield, allowing you to concentrate more on building up your resources and other supports so that you can start phasing in the sonic weapons.

Experiences will vary from player to player regarding the appearance of the Lobstermen - so you just have to deal with them as they appear, such as avoiding them or getting really good with the Thermal Tazer! (Coincidentally, did we ever bust the myth about sonic weapon research accelerating their appearance?)

But because we all have different ways we like to approach the game: You don't ''have'' to force yourself to use gauss if you don't want to. The game's lenient enough to let you decide how you want to cook your seafood.

Is till consider the first two gauss weapons as some of the best weapons you can start with. Perhaps not as powerful as the Gas Cannon, but they are still light and fast and come packed with lots of ammo. The high ammo does it for me, as I tend to go through it very quickly even when I take careful shots.

The mighty Gas Cannon can definitely be used in lieu of gauss (which is why I made special mention of it in the TFTD Best Starting Weapon Summary), but you have to be extra mindful of its ammo.

Then there's always the option of just researching the Sonic pistol after your first mission. Because it's still early into the game, ammo conservation will also be a major concern. We won't always be lucky enough to gather large amounts of ammo and might use more ammo than they can gather.

Weapon diversification often wins the day in TFTD's early stages and helps save the more precious ammo. If you can accommodate all three somehow, that's even better. I like my dual pistols thank you very much!

Not going to argue about the Sonic Pistol being a good reaction fire weapon. It has equal cost and accuracy as the Gauss Rifle. The Gauss Pistol is the best weapon for reacting with that can still damage a superhuman Tasoth (from the back). The absolute best weapon to react with in this game (and I really hate to say this) is the Dart Gun. Great training weapon nonetheless. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:26, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

: Depends what you mean by "best to react with". There's a) Makes you perform a lot of reaction shots and thus good for training. b) Kills your enemy.

: I had some shipping lane missions. Somehow ended up burning all my Gauss ammo, ALL of it, by the end of the mission only 4 men out of my 14 men team could fire their weapons. Later on I did the missions with Sonics, and my ammo was just fine. Though this was quite some time ago, so maybe my memory gets faulty or something. ... crap. I remember getting Synonium Device missions early on as well. Those could get pretty hairy without Sonics, though I recall completing them with Gauss, albeit they were more of a headache.

: I found that the Hydrojet Cannon was pretty darn great for underwater missions, actually. ... Comparing Gauss and Underwater only weapons... how many Land Missions against Gillmen and Aquatoids do you go through? ... How many missions against Tasoth and Lobstermen do you go through? ... Actually, I found that there were 2 playstyles. A) was to have a generic loadout for all missions. B) was to manually setup each loadout based on mission type. ... Overall, I found that before you get Transmission Resolver, you have no idea what type of alien you are going to be facing. However, you ALWAYS get warning before hand whenever the mission will be on land. Therefore, it is a PAIN, but it is very very possible to use Torpedo Launchers and Hydrojets in your normal games, and switch loadouts during land missions. (That's what I'm forced to do once I get DPLs, so I might as well get used to it, i guess?) However, having a team with a loadout for Aquatoids and meeting Lobstermen = abort mission.

: Actually, I don't really consider Gauss to be "starting weapons". Truth be told, on Superhuman, by the time you get them, even rushing, it can be a little late in the game. Especially if you have to spend a lot of money making your base defensible. Same for laser weapons, really. Of course, in Xcom, the weapon flow is always : purchased weapons -> Laser Pistol -> Laser Rifle -> Heavy Plasma -> Psi. In TFTD, the enemy upgrades itself to Rifles so fast on superhuman, that I found my weapon flow to be : Purchased Weapons -> Sonic Rifle -> Psi. Hmm. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 10:29, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

:: "Best to react with" is as you say dependent on what you want. The Sonic Pistol is still the best to react with in the sonic family. The faster but depresslingly weaker dart gun for example would only be useful to interrupt a tentaculats charge. Ever notice how melee enemies seem to break off their charge after a reaction shot, then resume the charge on the next? Something like that anyhow. Not something to rely on exclusively. Much rather blast it to bits with sonic weapons any day - or poke it in the back with a drill.

:: I actually experience a lot of land missions in the form of shipping lane missions, and the various terror sites that underwater fights seem rare at times. But this varies from game to game, obviously. That's why I'm a little wary of using predominantly under-water-only loads and try going for mixed kits involving all sorts of equipment (to the point of having 1 gas cannon even in the late game when I'm almost entirely using sonics). Good thing the underwater restriction stops the aliens from using the DPL though. Love that aspect of it. No so for the HjC.

:: Gauss is a starting weapon in the sense that you have it right from the very start (even though you need a bit of research), and you don't have to go out and get anything to be able to get it. Also, some players are lucky (or should I say unlucky?) enough to get a few gauss pistols built before they go on their very first mission. Have had this happen to me a few times on superhuman after the first couple of subs I spotted fled from my Barracudas. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 02:17, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

: I, personally, like to research sonic rifle first. By the time research done, I already have several rifles. Even if clip research is not ready, it's possible to fire from trophy weapons. (At start I buy gas cannons and dump all other weapons. Works nice.) Research sequence goes as Sensor->Medikit->Sonic Rifle->it's clip->armor or Sonic Cannon.

== Gauss vs. AP comparison ==

Just glancing at the damage modifier table for TFTD, a few observations come to mind. For the early aliens that you are expected to be using AP and Gauss weapons against (aquatoid, gillmen, Deep Ones and Calcinite - generally), most of the damage multipliers are roughly the same. Note this refers to non-explosives.

Both types do:
* 100% vs. aquatoids and Gillmen
* 90% vs. Deep Ones.

That means that both AP (in the form of GC-AP) or gauss weaponry are quite fair against these enemies. There's one alien that differs somewhat.

* Calcinite, 100% AP vs 90% Gauss

That's not too bad a difference. You should be able to get past these aliens and move onto sonic weaponry before the higher tier aliens show up.

These two damage types start to really fluctuate in effectiveness against the higher tier enemies and the terror units. (do note that using lower tier weapons on higher tier aliens is often asking for trouble)

AP does better vs:
* Tasoth 80% AP vs. 70% Gauss.
* Xarquids and Biodrones 100% AP vs. 70% Gauss
* Triscene 90% AP vs. 80% Gauss.

Gauss does better vs:
* Lobstermen 20% AP vs. 30% Gauss (slightly less useless)
* Hallucinoids 60% AP vs 80% Gauss

What a mixed bunch Gauss and AP are! You probably will have upgraded to Sonic by the time you meet these guys, but some of the above is worth knowing.

Finally, one last observation about Gauss vs. AP: Against your own units.

* Unarmored and Plastic Aqua Armor: 100% AP vs. 100% Gauss
* Ion Armor/Mag Ion Armor: 90% AP vs. 80% Gauss
* SWS: 95% AP vs. 60% Gauss

AP's really earning its own title of "Armor Piercing" in TFTD. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 05:20, 6 April 2009 (EDT)

==Research Time Comparison==

=== Gauss vs Sonic ===

Ref Avg TOT.
0 50 50 Gauss Tech
29 100 150 Gauss Pistol
62 60 210 Gauss Pistol Clip
30 300 510 Gauss Rifle
63 150 660 Gauss Rifle Clip
31 460 1120 Heavy Gauss
64 230 1350 Heavy Gauss Clip
32 420 1770 Craft Gauss Cannon
8 600 600 Sonic Pistol
9 400 1000 Sonic Pistol Clip
6 700 1700 Blasta Rifle
7 400 2100 Blasta Clip
4 800 2900 Sonic Cannon
5 400 3300 Cannon Power Clip

=== Research discussion ===

An average of a thousand scientist-days of research is needed before you have a usable Sonic weapon - and you can't start until after your first combat. The Gauss weapon sequence delivers progressively better weapons at 210, 660, and then 1350 days. An additional 420 days (total 1770) unlocks the economic benefits of Gauss Cannon manufacturing. And each of these Gauss weapons is its own "stepping stone", a significant improvement on anything else available (so skipping research on the Clips is not sensible). Though, as has been discussed, in TFTD you need a mix of weapons.

The decision to develop Gauss weapons as a stepping-stone weapon may hinge on how much Research capability is available. If you have 50 scientists from the outset (or by your first combat), you may be able to afford to wait out the average of 20 days using only standard weapons. Even then it is likely to be a while before you have the manufacturing capability, or looting success, to arm all your aquanauts with Sonic weapons. Though if you tend to use small squads, that will be easier.

Personally I develop Gauss weapons from the outset. When I get my first Sonic Pulser, I switch to developing that, as it is easily scavenged and a massive equaliser. I develop Gauss weapons at least as far as Gauss Rifle. Unless I'm going down a Manufacturing Profitability route, I'm not so sure about proceeding to Heavy Gauss. The additional 690 days is not so far off the 1000 required for functioning Sonic Pistols. With Gauss Rifles and Sonic Pulsers in hand, you can manage pretty well during the delay in researching Sonic Pistol. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 10:05, 5 April 2009 (EDT)

=== Other Research Topics and Sequences for Comparison ===

See [[TFTD Research Sequences]]