https://www.ufopaedia.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Hobbes&feedformat=atomUFOpaedia - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T23:29:13ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.4https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&diff=118531MediaWiki:Sidebar2024-03-18T11:36:13Z<p>Hobbes: added Terra Invicta to Spiritual Successors</p>
<hr />
<div>* Navigation<br />
** mainpage|mainpage<br />
** portal-url|portal<br />
** recentchanges-url|recentchanges<br />
** helppage|help<br />
* Games<br />
** X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown<br />
** TFTD|Terror From The Deep<br />
** Apocalypse|Apocalypse<br />
** Enemy Unknown (EU2012)|Enemy Unknown<br />
** The Bureau: XCOM Declassified|The Bureau<br />
** XCOM2|XCOM 2<br />
** Chimera Squad|Chimera Squad<br />
* Spiritual Successors<br />
** http://wiki.phoenixpoint.com/Phoenix_Point_Wiki |Phoenix Point <br />
** https://www.xenonauts.com/ |Xenonauts<br />
** https://hoodedhorse.com/wiki/Terra_Invicta/Terra_Invicta_Official_Wiki |Terra Invicta<br />
<br />
* Featured Projects<br />
** UFO2000|UFO2000<br />
** OpenXcom|OpenXcom<br />
** OpenApoc|OpenApoc<br />
** UFO:AI|UFO:AI<br />
** Long War|Long War<br />
** Long_War_2|Long War 2<br />
** Other Projects|Other Projects<br />
<br />
*Forums<br />
**http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/forum/96-ufopaediaorg/ |Ufopaedia forum<br />
**http://forums.2kgames.com/forumdisplay.php?75-XCOM |2K's XCOM forums<br />
**http://www.reddit.com/r/Xcom/ |Reddit X-COM<br />
**https://discord.gg/tWTMxvU |Discord XCOM<br />
**Forums | Other Forums<br />
*Languages<br />
**Pagina Principal|Español (Spanish)<br />
**Главная страница|Русский (Russian)<br />
**Page Principale|Français (French)<br />
**메인_페이지|한국어 (Korean)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=The_Mysteries_of_X-COM&diff=117696The Mysteries of X-COM2023-12-07T01:29:04Z<p>Hobbes: removed bold section titles</p>
<hr />
<div>Discussion page for some less clear aspects of the series<br />
<br />
==General issues==<br />
<br />
===How fast can alien craft travel in space?===<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
: 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)<br />
<br />
::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)<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
(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)<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:24, 27 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
:Also keep in mind that both Phobos and Deimos are tiny. They are basically captured asteroids. Neither would be useful in gravity assist. But yeah, the UFO's shouldn't need any assist anyway.[[User:Mannon|Mannon]] 11:35, 30 March 2011 (EDT)<br />
::Case in point: http://xkcd.com/681_large/ (Deimos can be escaped with someone on a bike and a plank stacked on a brick, Phobos requires a good pitching arm). --[[User:Xuncu|Xuncu]] 16:55, 13 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Consider that many of the same aliens as UFO/EU are in X-COM Intercepter, having necessarily had to break light speed. Consider that if outside any atmoshphere a battleship could reach 4800 knots(in-game top speed) within two minutes (which is about how long it appears to take in-game) then it is accelerateing at about 18m/s/s or almost 2Gs. In 24 hours it would reach 1,555km/s. At this speed (assuming it turned it's drive off after 24h) it would travel about 134,000,000km each day. The maximum distance between Earth and mars is about 401,000,000km. <br />
:For simplicity, because we have room to work with here, even if a battleship were to accelerate for 24 hours while orbiting mars, and again had to decelerate for 24 hours in orbit after reaching earth, (all while a chrysalid inside balanced two apples on each of it's mandibles) it would still only take 5 days to reach earth when both planets are at opposite orbital positions. It seems that the Ethereals can wipe out your base and not have to miss Ladies Night, assuming the club is also on earth. ''Ethereal Mind-Trick: "You don't want to 'blow dis joint'. You want to come back to the UFO for a little abduction mhmhmhmhhmm.'' [[User:Darkestaxe|Darkestaxe]] 23:38, 12 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
::On one hand, "near-constant multiple organ failure" problably includes THAT organ. Ouch. On the other, sheer force of will problably works on that for them (lucky them); and with Psionics, you can make any woman belive that "this long" (holds hands a few inches apart) is 1 foot, as well as literally make her forget any other man she's thought about before, as well as Algerbra. Unhooking a bra would, however, still a challenge unto itself. And, since we are given specific dates in-game, there's plenty of programs online that can calculate the distance between planets for any given time, as well as lists of Oppositions (when two plants are at their closest): http://cseligman.com/text/planets/marsoppositions.htm For example, in 1999, the in-game year of the first game, on April 24th, Mars was only 86 million Km away (though Kudos if you can beat the game THAT early into a campaign) --[[User:Xuncu|Xuncu]] 16:55, 13 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===What happens to the crashed UFO craft and its crew?=== <br />
<br />
Downed alien craft disappear after a few days have passed. No explanation is given to this whatsoever, so what really happens to them?<br />
<br />
Possible answers:<br />
* The UFO and its occupants are recovered by other humans.<br />
* 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)<br />
* The Aliens self-destruct the craft and kill themselves in the process, ensuring their remains will not be recovered by humans. (This is, in fact, the in-game explination. Read the mission briefing. [[User:Darkestaxe|Darkestaxe]] 23:38, 12 April 2013 (EDT))<br />
* The UFO Powerplant eventually suffers a meltdown and explodes, eliminating any vestiges of alien presence.<br />
* The Aliens blow up the UFO and disappear into the countryside.<br />
* 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)<br />
*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)<br />
: 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)<br />
:: 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)<br />
<br />
:: As Zombie said, doesn't Alien Containment support this idea? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:24, 27 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
::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)<br />
:::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)<br />
::::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)<br />
:::::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)<br />
::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)<br />
*I'd guess that the aliens would eventually mount their own rescue missions, especially once they realized that XCOM is farming their ships for resources (they must know we don't have ready access to their alloys and Elerium) and co-opting their technology. In the Firaxis game, when idling in the Situation Room screen, Central's (often amusing) radio chatter implies that there are many more UFO's and reports that don't go into the globe. Additionally: only 16 countries are covered, and there are over 150 countries on earth, plus all the oceans. After all, if we were shooting down every last ship, then the alien collective shouldn't be able to land so many aliens for Terror Missions. --[[User:Xuncu|Xuncu]] 02:48, 26 January 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
===How do the aliens carry their equipment?===<br />
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.<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
:We already know the answer to this one - they cheat! ;) [[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:24, 27 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Are X-COM transport craft piloted?===<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
:: 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]]<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
===What sort of physical process is used to increase human stats over time?===<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
: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)<br />
::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)<br />
<br />
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<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
::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)<br />
<br />
:: 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]]<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
:: 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)<br />
<br />
In Hotpoint's [http://www.tthfanfic.org/Story-16092/Hotpoint+XSGCOM+Goa+uld+Defence.htm| XSGCOM: Goa'uld Defense], his explanation is that after a few missions of watching their fellow newbies die, the survivors give in and volunteer for an experimental regimen of performance-enhancing drugs. IRL, steroids and such don't result in instant strength enhancement, they just encourage accelerated development of muscles. [[User:Kalaong|Kalaong]] 03:16, 28 March 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Heh: http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/901 --[[User:Xuncu|Xuncu]] 02:52, 26 January 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
As much as I've played this series for decades, and know full well how pitiful the starting stats of soldiers are, at least with respect to the game's rules, I really feel I must wonder and ask why we think those starting stats are 'underdeveloped' or 'pot luck'? What, exactly, are we basing this judgement on beyond how poorly they seem to perform in-game against a force that is quite honestly and clearly demonstrated as superior to humans in the first few missions, where only luck and superior numbers appear to manage to secure any wins for the organization and, in turn, humanity? How much can the average X-COM 'Rookie' carry in pounds as gear, and is it considered substantial compared to Army kit, or not? How many direct hits from a rifle can they take normally without dying or keeling over from fatal wounds, and how does this compare to real-world soldiers' survivability? How much time is one turn meant to represent, and how far can the average 'Rookie' run in that time, and how does that compare to how fast a fully-kitted Army soldier can move?<br />
<br />
Has all of this already been figured out elsewhere? Otherwise, I'm starting to question whether we have any real proof that 'Rookies' AREN'T "The best of the best of the best, sir! With honors" beyond just how it 'looks' and 'feels' during gameplay, which is already skewed by the enemy having superior firepower and attributes, or, in the case of replacements, existing troops being pushed far beyond previously-perceived human limits from such extreme combat maneuvers as have resulted in success against, as I said earlier, a far superior force (EDIT: want to clarify on this point that I'm taking the 'what doesn't kill you makes you stronger' stance on the original question for this section). If the stats extrapolated for OpenXcom are any indication, this is most certainly the case, even with Sectoids, to an extent. While Sectoids will never have anything on humans in the Health department, being as fragile as they are (though some rookies can have less health, apparently, but only a few unlucky ones), they are surprisingly enduring, with tons of stamina, being 20 points higher than the X-COM 'Rookie' maximum upper limit for initial stat generation, and the same for Bravery (though this seems to be the case with all AI controlled entities, except mechanical ones, which have an impervious 110 Bravery). Reactions are also higher than possible with a Rookie, and speed (TUs) is on par with the statistical average for rookies, same with accuracy ratings, and even strength. This is just looking at the grunts, too, not even considering the stat boosts Leaders and Commanders have. As expected, the average X-COM Rookie's stats are almost universally superior to the civilians, representing the average member of humanity. The only exception is Stamina, and I'm starting to think this is to compensate AI units somehow for an AI that may not be able to manage energy levels as well as a human.<br />
<br />
Anyway, just felt someone had to bring this up here. If it really is explained elsewhere, it probably should be clarified here, as well, for consistency, anyway. (EDIT: I just felt it was being taken at face value far too readily in this discussion, and it just didn't seem right to just assume it with no evidence, despite all my experience playing this series, and noticing full well the soldiers' stats feeling constraining at first) --[[User:StormhawkAPS|StormhawkAPS]] 01:08, 4 October 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Enemy Unknown/UFO Defence issues==<br />
===Why isn't Earth overrun by Snakeman/Chryssalids?===<br />
<br />
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."<br />
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. <br />
<br />
Possible answers:<br />
* Both races have a self-destruct mechanism incorporated into their psysiology to prevent this. <br />
* The entire area is purged by large scale bombing. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 13:42, 25 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
::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)<br />
<br />
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)<br />
: For captured aliens, yes. But what survivors of uninvestigated crash sites? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]]<br />
<br />
::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)<br />
<br />
<br />
===What is the propose of the 'disco balls' found inside some UFOs?===<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
:Maybe they are for having discos? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:24, 27 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
:Presumably [[Alien Entertainment]] is psionic in some way, maybe they're Psi-Emitters or something? -[[User:magic9mushroom|magic9mushroom]]<br />
<br />
::'Disco balls' = Alien 'LSD' emitters. Travelling through space to go on almost-suicide missions force aliens to develop POWERFUL relaxing devices to entertain themselves and not go insane :P. --[[User:Nekrocow|Nekrocow]] 20:10, 24 June 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Assuming it's about eyeball-like pod #3, it's absent on base maps, and present only in two UFOs: Battleship (in Alien Entertainment), but Terror Ship on the second deck has one in Alien Entertainment room, but two on the bridge. Those are also the only two ships running ground battles and carrying Terror Units (bases have them, but normally don't expect to use them), so... either remote control psionic relays or something else related to ground combat? -[[User:TBeholder|TBeholder]] ([[User talk:TBeholder|talk]]) 21:04, 30 December 2015 (EST)<br />
<br />
===Who buys those alien bodies/equipment from X-COM?===<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
From the USO (Kasey Chang): XARQUID SUSHI.<br />
<br />
===How did the aliens get to Mars?===<br />
<br />
There are no indications that UFOs are capable of faster than light speed. So how did they get to Mars in the first place?<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
:: 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.<br />
::: T'Leth is another mystery of its own. More to that later on :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:32, 26 February 2009 (CST)<br />
::... 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!<br />
::: 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)<br />
:::: Unless you count the events of X-com Interceptor? [[User:Jasonred]] [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 21:15, 26 February 2009 (CST)<br />
::::: 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)<br />
::::: 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.<br />
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.<br />
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]]<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
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.<br />
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?<br />
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?<br />
...<br />
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)<br />
<br />
: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.<br />
<br />
: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.<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
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]]<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
... 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.<br />
By the time of Interceptor, Elerium weapons aren't that powerful. Good point about power generation though.<br />
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.<br />
<br />
<br />
::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.<br />
<br />
::Question: How long does it take the Avenger to reach Mars from Earth? [[User:Jasonred]] [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 19:12, 26 February 2009 (CST)<br />
:::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)<br />
:::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)<br />
<br />
::: 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)<br />
<br />
::: 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)<br />
<br />
::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)<br />
<br />
Perhaps Elerium-based drives are a bit like Ramjet engines, where they're actually useless or inefficient ''below'' a certain threshold speed? --[[User:Xuncu|Xuncu]] 03:02, 26 January 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
===What happened to Mars and the alien civilization there?===<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
===Where are the human-alien hybrids referred to on the UFOPaedia?===<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
:: 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)<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
===Why did the aliens only activate T'Leth after they were defeated?===<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
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]]<br />
<br />
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]]<br />
<br />
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. <br />
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)<br />
<br />
===Why did the aliens use limited force during the First Alien War?===<br />
<br />
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?<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
::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)<br />
<br />
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.<br />
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...<br />
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.<br />
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...<br />
I would say that keeping the fight to covert action on both sides was actually beneficial to the aliens, really. [[User:Jasonred]]<br />
* 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)<br />
** 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)<br />
*** Mass producing those technologies on such a large scale would be impractical considering that those said technologies sans Laser Technology rely heavily on Elerium. Thus the Earth forces would be heavily reliant on downed or landed UFO's to resupply their Elerium powered craft making such efforts pointless. <br />
<br />
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)<br />
<br />
Mankind, as a whole, is incredibly cunning and full of guile. We are also incredibly aggressive. A trait that the most of the Aliens can barely concieve. Though we are weaker physically, mentally, etc, we are overly developed when it comes to strategem and war. The aliens are, in essence, have come to an inverse of Flatland. Though they are advanced, it is they who are 2D to our 3D approach to fighting. They return to earth, and through extensive research and testing, determine that inferior are strategically to humans. So...they use their advances to what they percieve as the most full advantage, and call for reinforcements over the initial months of the First Alien War. For eons, only the Sectoid make arrivals to earth. When the Brain finally realizes the situation, that mankind has woke up and is dealing with them most directly, it begins to get desperate, it sends reinforcements, but only incrementally. (Its always focused on peak efficiency). The concept of overwhelming force is illogical and some how, disdainful, to it. It prefers nuance, interogation, politics, and assessment. The Brain determine that its more effective to eliminate allies of XCOM than to face it directly. The concept of obliterating anything from orbit is reprehensible. Everything must be examined, especially the dead creatures you leave behind. Over time, it would learn man's tactics and assimilate. In fact, each race called in is an example of the Brain adapting. The Floaters bring forth an extra dimension to combat. The snakemen aggressiveness and accuracy. Mutons a culmination of superior warrior breeding, raw physical power, and determination not unlike the so called human soul. Finally, the Ethereals enter, with capacity to bring overwhelming force. In time, as they do on Mars base, they might begin joint force attacks with Mutons backed by Ethereals, supported by a mix of terror weapons. Fortunately, the First Alien War is ended before they fully develop such cunning. Hence the desperate act of T'Leth. The Brain has learned the power of anger fueled by vengeance and desperation.<br />
--[[User:BlackLibrary|BlackLibrary]] 11:10, 29 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I've always viewed it as primarily a lack of resources. Even if you get a UFO every single day and shoot them all down so that there's no possible chance of any of them being the same UFO that's still only several hundred to perhaps a thousand or few UFO's over the course of several years. And most of those are quite small and not too difficult to take out with regular old interceptors and human armaments. If used all at once it might be enough to achieve air superiority, particularly if the Battleships do all the heavy lifting. But it also might not. It certainly would NOT provide enough soldiers to mount a worldwide ground offensive. The crews on those ships aren't all that big. There's also no reason to assume that all those craft, weapons, soldiers, and more importantly... elerium are all available at the same time. It's quite likely that the aliens are cloning new soldiers, building new weapons and UFO's, and possibly receiving supplies (particularly of elerium) from deep space. Elerium is needed to manufacture a lot of their stuff as well, and we already know it's a limited resource in our solar system. Consider on top of that how much get's used up as fuel every time a UFO visits Earth. If they sent all their UFO's they would use up their reserves of Elerium all at once for a 1 day attack that ultimately would fail. Instead of conquering the Earth wholesale they are trying to influence governments into signing secret pacts with them so that they can control the population of the Earth rather than wipe us out. They do this by using terrorism to intimidate the public and inserting clones to infiltrate governments while holding secret negotiations. A steady stream of UFO missions keeps up the pressure until governments break. Lucky for us they never expected us to bring the fight to the command center on mars. Just imagine if they had built base defenses like we can for our bases. heh Lord would it be aggravating building up a crew of top notch soldiers, constructing an Avenger from scratch, scrapping together all the gear, sending it to Mars, and then watching it get blown to bits before it even lands... O,o Also consider that their UFO's have operated with relative impunity for a very long time. Presumably XCom is the first organization to shoot down a UFO? As for Earth ramping up for a full scale war, it'd be unlikely that we could really produce enough alien technology in any reasonable timescale to actually outfit whole nations armies, especially with limited Elerium. Perhaps the tech that doesn't require Elerium, but then again shifting an entire army from one weapon system to another is not as simple as merely producing all the weapons. It's an extremely long, arcane, and baffling process. Getting just the branches of the US military to switch to laser weapons would probably take at least a decade. I think that limited resources and the intent to control and dominate rather than eliminate the population of the Earth explain it. For that matter they would see the human population it-self as a resource. Hence the use of small scale terrorism rather than attempting to use any weapons of mass destruction. A bunch of aliens walking around shooting people is still pretty damn scary stuff.[[User:Mannon|Mannon]] 13:12, 30 March 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I would have thought that the simplest answer here is best. The aliens are manifestly unable to survive outside containment or bases for prolonged periods. Further, their clearest technological advantage over the humans (at least, prior to X-Com research) is mind control. Therefore, their primary method of offence is not to get bogged down in a ground war, but to engage in the overthrow of governments by infiltration, coercion, corruption and bribery, and achieve complaisance by terrorisation of the general populace. It is for this reason that standard combat tactics involving large hierarchies are ineffectual against the aliens (when the government/command can be mind controlled and the theatre can be defined by a mobile alien force). A decentralised, partly cellular, covert approach like X-Com is preferable, but unable to win an outright ground war either (being composed of, at maximum, 250 soldiers). Of course in reality, the irony is that the aliens/bourgeoisie/Fox network have Mind Controlled you, the X-Com commander into wasting your time with retro video games instead of doing anything about their societal control!<br />
--[[User:Oogleshay|Oogleshay]] 16:16, 18 October 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
My theory is that the aliens are deliberately trying to be low-key because they know once the UN can no longer keep the invasion a secret, they will have no reason to pull their punches at defending Earth. The aliens want to make it so that once humanity at large fully realizes what's going on, it's already too late - they're poking the sleeping giant but take care not to awaken it before amputating all limbs to make it unable to defend itself once awake.--[[User:Amitakartok|amitakartok]] 06:33, 14 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
Perhaps the aliens suffer from a lack of proper logistics. If we assume that their purpose was to retrieve the lost colony ship(T'leth) then it wouldn't seem particularly likely that the aliens would have brought along the necessary logistics to support a full scale invasion of Earth. Furthermore it is quite possible that the alien ships you encounter in the first XCOM are actually not dedicated invasion ships but rather re-purposed fighter ships(which would explain the total lack of artillery or bombardment capabilities).<br />
--[[User:Theinsomniac|Theinsomniac]] ([[User talk:Theinsomniac|talk]]) 22:47, 17 February 2014 (EST)<br />
<br />
I disagree with all this. "Mankind is the greatest species." - hogwash. The aliens are clearly capable of wiping out humanity when they wish, if you read the whole of the lose game screens. The game had to be designed to give humans a chance to fight back. With this caveat: the only reasons the aliens don't start wiping out the population would be to preserve humanity. With the harvesting and abduction missions, clearly they are looking for something in the fauna and flora of Earth. Something that a massive assault would make improbable to find due to the overwhelming loss of life that would occur. The most logical explanation would be that the aliens want to harvest specimens with specific genetics traits, so they would want to be able to sift through as much of the population as possible to find those with the best traits. Before wiping out the rest of the "inferior specimens". This explanation would also fit to the story that the brain tells at the end of the Cydonia mission (if that story is more than just a desperate attempt to save itself.) [Why the aliens are so incompetent is due to incomplete development of the strategic layer by the designers, especially with the economy.] [[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] ([[User talk:Morgan525|talk]])<br />
<br />
Obviously, in the remake, this is much more easily explained as the Etherial search for Psions making human extermination ''not'' being their goal (but in fact, the ''last'' thing they want, since we're the best shot they got for their apparent true goal: ascendance), but to an limited degree is is reasonable to retroactively apply this motivation to the 1994 Etherials/Cydonian Brain. On a similar vein, where the Gallop Brothers even thinking about T'leth yet during Defense's development? I saw not too long ago, I think on the History Channel, of a 'realistic' take at trying to fight off an invasion/occupation force, also noted to be about harvesting, not about outright killing all humans: with presumed FTL tech, even someting a fraction of lightspeed, and the number and masses of UFOs involved both in the special and in XCOM; it'd be much easier to just strap some engines on some large asteroids and spam them at Earth, which those points prove is possible: a much easier and effective means to exterminate humans, if the goal was xenophobic in nature--- but I digress. Consider.. hmmm, yeh, the US invasion of Iraq or Aphganistan: we COULD of just nuked the hell out either country and called it a day. Presuming a lot, but maybe some of the same reasons America didn't are the same? Intergalatic politics not allowing such WMDs? Excessive collateral damage wasn't their interest? Looking for something specific on an individual basis? That the aliens (may) want slaves, and reasons on that vein, is a big difference they have. Going back to the special, how humanity won is by a mass infitration/kamakaze attack on the barge/battleship-sized UFOs, and making it "not worth" continuing the occupation (in similar nature to people wizing up to Bush's bullshit and losing so many soldiers to cheap-ass IEDs and Soviet-era tech making the Iraq War unpopular)..... again, assuming alien behaviors and mechanics of motivations are anything remotley "human-like". So, at best, I'd ascribe the 1994 alien's motivation as the same as in the special: conquering for resources. Cortez conquering my ancestors for gold. --[[User:Xuncu|Xuncu]] ([[User talk:Xuncu|talk]]) 08:03, 18 February 2014 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
My personal theory in regards to this is simple. To get to Mars from where they originated they would have to travel at relativist speeds (at or at least close to the speed of light) this requires a lot of energy and at this speed every microgram counts. (a single microgram of cargo can cost a ton of fuel at FTL speeds).<br />
So the aliens travelling to Mars, instead of bringing a massed invasion fleet bring the bare minimum. Embryos or even genetic samples for each of their species, blueprints for weapons and equipment, basic manufacturing facilities, mining equipment and a transport vessel designed to be cannibalised to set up the initial Cydonia base, with only a ghost crew to start things off.<br />
This explains the year prior to the start of the game (the steady increase in UFO reports, abductions ect.) the aliens need resources, they probably got some from mining the area around Cydonia to build some of their equipment but to grow clones they need a nutrient medium (not to mention the food they need for themselves) which means they have to go to earth and harvest. The initial missions were probably in areas such as the ocean, or jungles, harvesting flora and fauna. But given how little they would be able to harvest this way (they would have trouble finding enough protein not to mention the fact that mutons are said to be obligate carnivores) which meant increased incursions on populated areas (such as farms) add to this the lack of genetic diversity means that they would abduct humans to help provide some means of altering their genetic code to better handle earth diseases and atmosphere. <br />
This can also explain why you only get small UFOs initially, they don't have the resources to build battle ships (until they have mined enough to expand their production facilities and build bigger craft). It also explains why they lack weapons.<br />
TFTD show that the alien's method for “education” is to just implant knowledge. What this means is you have a bunch of aliens with the same hard-wired brain (clones) and with the same knowledge. Limiting their ability to adapt and change (they don't have years of experience to work on, nor have they had to think of the knowledge they have it's just given to them as fact). <br />
Once X-com is formed they now find themselves battling an enemy that not only adapts to use their technology but builds on it (personal armour, power suits, flying suits, fusion ball tanks, ect). The whole alien invasion is doomed from the start. <br />
Given time the aliens could have built up a massive fleet capable of overwhelming earth (which was probably their initial plan) but due to X-com getting involved that plan got knocked back. They can mine Mars and the asteroid belt for minerals to build their weapons, but without raiding earth for the fauna to feed their troops and grow their clones they can not build an army.<br />
The aliens probably observed earth previously. (maybe Roswell was a scouting mission which failed to return) as such they underestimated our detection and interception capabilities (the back-story actually states that X-com is using the best craft available and previous attempts to intercept UFOs failed using conventional earth technology, which probably explains the limited weapon load-outs for x-com craft (they are built on high speed prototypes designed as proof of concept not actual in service craft so they had to jury rig hard points).<br />
This basically means that the aliens were unprepared for earth's level of resistance, before they even had a force capable of fighting. If they had been more careful, built their forces in silence (by farming wild life in the jungles and oceans, instead of going for rich targets like farms to load up on cow parts quickly) they may have been able to launch an invasion before earth even knew what was happening (just imagine if the game started with 20 battleships over every country, mutons march down the streets carrying heavy plasmas and blaster bombs, while snakemen and chrysalids strike major cities, all the while ethreals are mind controlling everyone... try winning that game with just 2 interceptors, a couple of rifles, some heavy weapons and 8 soldiers who can't hit the broad side of a barn from point blank range with a guided rocket --[[User:crwydryny|crwydryny]] 14:50, 30 December 2015 (GMT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that the aliens simply had no concept that they could be defeated. By analogy: when a dog trainer shows up to tame a savage dog, she's not showing up with a troupe of armed bodyguards, because that would be a silly level of overpreparedness. She's not worried the dog will outsmart her. She's not worried that the dog will figure out how to handle the leash, wrap it around her neck, and then demolish her car. If anything like that started happening, she'd be so utterly astonished, because it's never happened so far with any of the dogs she's trained. She'd be slow to react or to adapt her strategy, because the situation would be so difficult for her to believe. Dogs just don't behave that way! Similarly, the combination of battleships, mind control, and plasma has always been so overwhelmingly effective that the Ethereals have never needed to be smart, or adaptive, or even make accurate assessments about the intricate details of the planets they're taking over. Plus, they're a society of clones operating in a strict hierarchy, and literally sharing thoughts psionically. They probably have only a vague understanding of "individuality", and I doubt they have much understanding of guerrilla warfare, because they've never seen it succeed. Their political and interpersonal dynamics are vastly simpler than ours. I doubt that they're even aware that X-COM exists as an entity that is independent of our world governments. [[User:Jessicest|Jessicest]] ([[User talk:Jessicest|talk]]) 22:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
The question of ages “Why aliens never have the smart of ramming Earth with a UFO flying at sub-lightspeed?” They have plenty of smaller UFO to spare and given there are no advanced bases on the Moon and the absence of “carrier-grade” UFO, interplanetary travel should be quite feasible to them, thus their UFO can achieve sub-lightspeed. Actually, a similar question is also presented in Star Wars “Why Galactic Empire never rams a Rebel-controlled planet with a Star Destroyer flying at sub-lightspeed?” So I made up an answer for both questions: When a spacecraft’s velocity approaches lightspeed, it becomes “transparent” in the real-space, for it has begun to “phase” into the so-called “hyperspace”, when it reaches lightspeed, it completely disappears from the real-space into the “hyperspace lane”. So ramming Earth or any other celestial bodies with something flying at sub-lightspeed is not feasible, because the projectile will simply goes through the target like a ghost, without making any damage. [[User:Lixiaofossil|Lixiaofossil]] ([[User talk:Lixiaofossil|talk]]) 14:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC+8)<br />
<br />
===What may be the hidden function of UFO Power Sources?===<br />
<br />
Why does no UFO contain something similar to craft weapon despite the fact that most of them may shoot, some are very painfully? And the only UFO that can't do that is Small Scout; on the other side, it can fly with 2200 km/hr Speed yet does not even contain UFO Power Source, whereas the Speed of Medium Scout (with 1 UPS on board) is 2400 km/hr only. More so, the Speed of Battleship (4 UPS within) is 5000 km/hr, that is only about twice of Small Scout one. So, what is the function of UFO Power Source? Let us suppose that they not only increase UFO Speed but actually are used as Plasma Guns during air combat.<br />
<br />
Next, it is reasonable that UFO Navigation controls that weapon system; probably they need at least one per each UPS. Also Navigation may increase UFO's maneuverability when close to Earth's surface; pro arguments are: Harvester carries 10 Navigations (to pinpoint small targets, say, lonely cattle), Terror ship has 8 (to drop terror squad accurately onto city roads as shown in the Intro movie), Abductor has 5 (to pinpoint lonely men at rustic areas; also it's Size is Medium, not Large as Harvester), Supply ship has 4 (all that it should do is landing near Alien Bases); Battle ship has 4 (as it's main activity are air combats and X-Com base assaults); both Large and Medium Scouts (Small Size ships) have 2 each.<br />
<br />
Next, though Large and Medium Scouts have the same UPS and Navigation number, the first is faster being larger. But Large Scouts carry not only Navigators but 3 (estimating by Sectoid staff on Superhuman Difficulty) Engineers also. Probably, Engineers may adjust UPS to optimal performance that results in Speed increment (from 2400 to 2700 km/hr) and Weapon Range increment (from 15 to 34 km) yet Weapon Power doesn't change (20 damage units per attack). All the larger UFOs have full Engineer staff on board, namely 2, so their UPS are adjusted by default.<br />
<br />
Abductor and Harvester have 2 UPS each, 40 du Weapon Power, 20 and 22 km Weapon Range, 4000 and 4300 km/hr Speed respectively. Supply ship has 3 UPS, 60 du Weapon Power, 34 km Weapon Range yet only 3200 km/hr Speed. Terror and Battle ships have 4 UPS each, 120 and 140 du Weapon Power, 42 and 65 km Weapon Range respectively; their Speed values are 4800 and 5000 km/hr.<br />
<br />
At this stage of our research we have got two questions.<br />
<br />
First, Weapon Power values are expected to be proportional to the number of UPS multiplied by 20 du, so Terror and Battle ships should have only 80 du each. Probably, the explanation of such increase is UPS configuration. In both cases UPS are placed by corners of quadrate. Let's suppose, without too much far-fetching, that plasma beams, normally dissipating and losing power at larger distance, may focus somehow being close together, yet not too close, as Battle ship Weapon Power is higher. Also, that may explain the Weapon Range increment as well. Note that Large Scout has normal Weapon Power but quite high Weapon Range, 34 km, probably because of extended Engineer staff; otherwise it is expected to be next to Medium Scout's one, that is about 15 km. According to Abductor/Harvester, Supply ship and Terror ship data, each additional UPS increases the Range by 9 km in average.<br />
<br />
Second question is the Speed of Supply ship. One (well adjusted by Engineers) UPS increases UFO Speed from 2200 to 2700 km/hr (Large Scout as compared with Small Scout). Another UPS yields 4000-4300 km/hr. Another two yield 4800-5000 km/hr. So, in average, each UPS brings another 700 km/hr to basic Speed of 2200 km/hr.<br />
<br />
This Speed is probably provided by some propulsion device built in UFO's construction, as Small Scouts have about nothing but hulls and no trophy but alloys may be recovered. Another anomaly is special reinforcement of ship hull. Calculating the ratio of Damage Capacity to recovered Alloys quantity we get 5-7 for Large Scout, Harvester, Abductor; 13-15 for Supply, Terror and Battle ships; 18 for Medium Scout and 50 for Small one. Hypothetically, Small Scouts may be the most expensive ones to craft, while Harvesters are the cheapest, though it is quite reasonable in some way. Also, the theory of built-in UPS and Navigation may explain why even extremely damaged UFOs that have lost all their usual UPS may land without crush and crater, automatically, if Navigators are dead. Not speaking that Small Scout crew and personnel is presented by one Soldier (Muton occasionally), so its missions may be automatic in general. (Well, suggesting there is one hidden UPS out there somewhere, we just get another set of numbers: basic Speed of 1500 km/hr plus the same 700 km/hr per additional UPS in average. And three hidden UPS would give us simple linear dependence: Speed = UPS Number x 700 km/hr.) Still, even if we exclude Small Scouts from our research totally, the problem remains: Suppliers are slow.<br />
<br />
Thus, the expected Speed of Supplier is about 4200 km/hr, not just 3200. The possible explanation is their cargo of 20 Food units, since these ones are fragile containers (as they may be easily damaged in cross-fire) vulnerable to acceleration overloads; on the other side, Harvesters carry 14 Food units but they have 10 Navigation units vs. 4 on Supplier's board, so more advanced propulsion control may reduce these overloads.<br />
<br />
Also, there is once more interesting fact: only Terror and Battle ships have Entertainment modules, 8 and 24 respectively. And only these two types carry Terrorist alien combat units, 10 and 6 respectively (as well as Alien Bases, with 55 Entertainments in average and 7 Terrorists). Let's suppose that the true purpose of these enigmatic devices is 'entertainment', or rather brain-washing, to bring Terrorists under their master's control without excess efforts, or at least to suppress their aggression temporarily. Though, it is another topic at all.<br />
<br />
At Terror ships, Battle ships and Alien Bases there are some devices looking like red spheres with blue tubes connected. They referred as plasma conduits, and Engineers may be found over there. Yet hardly that means the same green plasma their weapons shoot with. Let's suggest that these things contain some kind of special food produced from harvested trophies and used by aliens, especially by Terrorists as they need more energy to fight. Maybe, since they are subject to psionic control, or stun damage, in contradistinction from X-Com HWP tanks, even Cyberdisks and Sectopods have some organic brain-like component inside, so they need food too, in addition to electric accumulators, or Elerium batteries recharge.<br />
<br />
Now back to the main question. Note that UFOs may not shoot two or more targets simultaneously, or at least never displays such activity. If so, these Plasma Guns have one-target operation mode only. It corresponds with the usual function of combined UPS and Navigation system as ship propulsion engine. Next, let's suggest that Navigators are ship Gunners also, while Engineers may adjust UPS to yield additional power boosting Speed and Weapon Range. Also it is reasonable that one of two Navigators controls the flight while another shoots during air combats, with some help of ship Engineers.<br />
<br />
Another fact is Alien Bases, even Cydonian, have neither Rocket Defense nor Plasma or similar defense system at all, only some alien combat units at most, though it could be expected to have anti-aerial power weaponry (versus meteorite bombardment, for example). Obviously, base UPS can't be used that way as they are deep beneath planet's surface.<br />
<br />
To conclude, let's note one more observation. UFO Power Sources have no complicated control console, as Navigations do, not even chair nearby. Yet there must be something Engineers can do with. Even Muton ones. Navigation control panels don't fit, as Engineers are looking at UPS from close range, without distant controls. On the other side, two Engineers are enough to adjust four UPS in opposite corners of Battleships. Also, as UFOs with solo UPS may change flight direction due to Navigators, their control of UPS generated fields must be quite versatile. So let us suggest that Engineer's job is periodical control of some close range field that protects UPS from propulsion forces and thereby distorts any distant sensors beyond reliability.<br />
<br />
Though it's only theoretical, aforesaid may pretend to explain some unclear details of UFO Power Source functions.<br />
[[User:VanTorrens|VanTorrens]] ([[User talk:VanTorrens|talk]]) 12:45, 24 October 2019 (CEST)<br />
<br />
===Why battlescapes always being "opaque"?===<br />
<br />
Every time an X-COM taskforce disembarks from the transport, they always find the surrounding being completely “shrouded”, despite in common military practice, there must be recon satellites and/or scout planes to overwatch the AO, even with hostiles marked and tracked. Even if X-COM doesn’t have that kind of luxury, their transports should be able to scan the AO before landing to provide a rather clear and detailed map for soldiers.<br />
<br />
And similarly, X-COM bases seemly never have any CCTV system, so during a Base Defense mission, the soldiers effectively fight in blind despite on their own turf.<br />
<br />
However in Alien Base Assaults, it’s understandable. Since an alien base is subterranean and it’s almost devoid of artificial illumination, also it’s impossible to send a spy for pre-battle reconnaissance, and seems aliens don’t have terminals for being hacked in corridors, so an alien base is supposed to be “shrouded”.<br />
[[User:Lixiaofossil|Lixiaofossil]] ([[User talk:Lixiaofossil|talk]]) 15:24, 5 December 2023 (UTC+8)<br />
<br />
==TFTD issues==<br />
===What was the relationship between the aliens from the 1st and 2nd wars?===<br />
<br />
Quoting from the UFOPaedia regarding Alien Origins: 'Deep in the oceans there lie ancient<br />
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. <br />
<br />
*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.<br />
<br />
Aquatoids are the ancestors of the Sectoids. 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 don't regard them highly. While the Aquatoids that were thawed 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 genes much. Instead modifying and using electronics (MC Chip) to control. --[[User:BladeFireLight|BladeFireLight]] 17:28, 22 March 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===What kind of materials were 'synomium' and 'adamantium'?===<br />
<br />
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.<br />
Flames and smoke spew from its gleaming spires and adamantium halls.'<br />
<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
:Adamantium is said to be one of the strongest elements in many books and films such as X-men. --[[User:St.froppelie|St.froppelie]] 19:45, 23 October 2011 (GMT)<br />
<br />
*See also Wikipedia article on Adamantium: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamantium]<br />
<br />
===How deep were X-COM bases located on the seas?===<br />
<br />
*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. <br />
*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)<br />
*Seabed bases would be the hardest to build and supply. Several other factors could limit their deployment, such as unstable areas (underwater volcanoes, prone to seaquakes, rock avalanches, etc.) and depths.<br />
*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]]<br />
** 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)<br />
* 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) <br />
**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.<br />
::(Or, y'know, we could just say "a wizard did it".) --[[User:Guido Talbot|Guido Talbot]] 14:13, 16 July 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==XCOM: Enemy Unknown (2012) issues==<br />
===Motives behind the invasion===<br />
Now, the UberEtherial pretty much spells out the whole point of the invasion, as well as of their use & control of all the other aliens: they ''wanted'' humanity to evolve and become powerful, because they needed a species that was both high in physical prowess, and a powerful psychic warrior. He (presuming gender) freely admits that their bodies suck (and that the other races suck in body and/or mind even more), and the 1st-3rd-1st person pronoun switch in ONE sentence ("We who failed to ascend as ''they'' thought we would") and "preparation for what lies ahead", as well as his descriptions of the other alien races in the Temple Ship imply a number of things:<br />
*The other races are enslaved races, perhaps from earlier invasions (possibly starting with Sectoids and Etherials being different castes of the same species?), themselves having been enhanced by their own resistances, before becoming enslaved on the degree of being puppets.<br />
*The whole point of the invasion is enslavement of humans, not extermination, for the perfect warrior-- any Metroid fans can think of the Chozo also becoming masters of Psionics and energy manipulation, at the cost of becoming physically frail and infertile, and entrusting the Power Suit -- and their legacy -- to Samus.<br />
*The alien surgeries (which greatly resemble Sensory Deprivation tanks-- you can even zoom in to see captive humans twitch sporadically) are their version of XCOM's Psi Lab (which ''also'' greatly resemble Sensory Deprivation tanks): they are 'farming' humans for Psi potential, similar to how us, the player, may farm soldiers for our own Psi Squad<br />
*Which then makes XCOM almost as much the ''Etherial's'' project as it is the Council's (hence why they do not invade or attack XCOM HQ or Interceptor bases)<br />
*Someone/thing ''else'' is involved, someone the Etherials are in some way subservient to: notice in the Temple Ship and in the Overseer UFO, the strange, Cathedral-like "Stained Glass Windows". To me, there appear to be ''two'' figures in each: the much more visible 4-armed Etherial silhouette, and in a transparent, but slightly darker shade of lavender, some other 6-8 limbed creature, with a larger body and a very different head-shape behind the first.<br />
*"What lies ahead" may mean some coming disaster, or merely a challenge and testing from this sequel-hook of "They"<br />
*Additionaly: the description of the Hyperwave device implies contact with an alternate dimension. The organic-metallic (silicon based, perhaps?) form of the Outsiders (as opposed to the rather obvious "manufactured and machined parts grafted onto flesh" Cyborg attachments of both Floater varieties), and their absence (especially from the Temple Ship) after the device's capture, as well as released screenshots of the upcoming FPS XCOM game (mentioning Outsiders AND being placed several decades ago)-- all this suggests alternate timelines as well as alternate dimensions (in quantum physics, these are practically the same thing anyways), as well as some species native to this ''Outside'' dimension that are the ones, this "They", whom are actually calling the shots.<br />
--[[User:Xuncu|Xuncu]] 03:56, 26 January 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
*Just to verify the point about the Outsiders, they are called OUTSIDERS, which pretty much means not native, so possibly they are not native to this dimension, also, "What lies ahead" Could possibly be foreshadowing a TFTD remake? And the Outsiders are merely, prototypes of the Ultimate Alien?<br />
[[User:XBrassxDragonX|XBrassxDragonX]] 22:59, 25 May 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
*The UberEthereal is a rebel against "They" he/she/it united a group of Ethereals, and left "They" Then, he/she/it proceeded to search for the Ultimate Race, a race that was as tough as a Muton, and as Psionically Powerful as an Ethereal, these were the Humans. This Ultimate Race would overthrow "They" and thus, complete the Ethereal's legacy, it could also be, that through the use of implants, and sacrificing physical strength for Psionic Power, the Humans could walk the same path as the Ethereals, and be contacted by whatever was left of "They" then, the Humans would help "They" rebuild, and realize the sinister motivations behind "They's" plan, and thus, repeat the story in a never-ending cycle.<br />
<br />
===How is it possible for Psionic soldiers to exist?===<br />
After capturing a Psi-capable enemy and dissecting it: does XCOM reverse-engineer the implants and insert them into troops (whether they test positive (capable of using them) or not)? Or, is the testing just digging for a Psi signal that ''is already there''? In which case, it's a human-evolved trait, but from where, and why wasn't it found before? Vahlen's reasearch implies similar genetic struture between aliens and humans: do humans and Etherials/Sectoids have a common Psi-capable ancestor, or have the Etherials been interfereing with human evolution for at least 20-30 years (or however old troopers tend to be, with Shaojie Zhang and his advanced age, equally possible to have Psi-Abilites), if no longer? At least in Apocalypse, there's the excuse of Sectoid/Human Hybrids. How do humans use a power just discovered that year, and only a few months of practice, end up with the capacity to potentially mind-control Etherials, each of which who have several thousand years of personal experience with Psi abilites? --[[User:Xuncu|Xuncu]] 05:28, 11 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
:It's implied that humans were always latent psionics (it's possible that if we weren't, the Ethereals would never have bothered us at all). The cutscene where your first psionic is found suggests the testee is immersed in some sort of purple gas, which presumably causes some physiological change to make them operant psionics. As for how human psionics get so good so quickly, good question, though bear in mind that psionic humans are implied to be an Ethereal's equal in raw power, but while an Ethereal has to expend psionic power all the time just to stay alive and standing, a human can devote it all to his psionic attacks. This could explain why humans are on an equal footing with Ethereals despite having comparatively little practice. More simply, it could just be that humans are badass compared to aliens; we certainly seem to be able to reverse engineer their technology in record time AND then make improvements to it, suggesting we're frankly just "better" than them. [[User:Binkyuk|Binkyuk]] 09:07, 12 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Another possibility could be that Elerium exposure maybe one of the factors. While Doctor Vahlen stated that she found a correlation with high will power and psychic ability, gameplay mechanics aside there are cases where a very high willed soldier came back from the Psionic Labs who had displayed no psychic prowess whatsoever. Elerium is used in the alien technologies and it was only after the Alien attack that XCOM was able to 'make' psionic soldiers. Another piece of evidence is that pieces of equipment such as the Psi Armor and the Mind Shield require a large quantity of Elerium in order to manufacture and that it 'enhances' the Psychic abilities of the wearer. While it is true that Elerium is used as a power source for the armor, unlike the hulking Titan armor the Psi armor is essentially a skinsuit/catsuit/muscle suit that has no visible heavy pieces of armor but yet the Elerium requirements for a set of Psi Armor exceed the Elerium requirements for the larger, heavier Titan armor. Logically (again, gameplay mechanics aside) speaking the lighter Ghost armor could perform the same if it used the same amount of Elerium for the Titan armor yet it requires more to function. Combined with the fact that the Psionic Labs and the Gallop Chamber (Both facilities that involve Psionic's) are the only XCOM facilities outside of the Elerium Generator that requires Elerium in their construction means that Elerium maybe linked to the manifestation of Psychic phenomena.<br />
[[User:GMPilot0079|GMPilot0079]] 3:56, 13 May 2013 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Bureau/Enemy Within/My Little Pony Supplemental===<br />
{{Ref Open | title = Yes, really}}<br />
How does a ''Psychic'' attack on an XCOM soldier cause obvious psychological effects (-will, -aim), but damages ''armor'' first?<br />
<br />
So, it's a safe assumption that the "They" spoken up above is probably the likes of [[Ethereal_(Bureau)|Asaru and Shamash]], "True" Etherials, who's physical forms have been discarded in trade of bodies made of pure energy--- much like EU/EW's Outsiders (not the Zudjari-- for clarity's sake, "Outsider" means the UFO-commander type alien in EU, and Bureau's 'Outsiders' shall be specifically called "Zudjari") are ''also'' described as being of pure energy. So, Bass Dragon was half-right: the Outsiders are not prototypes, they're attempts to ''reverse-engineer'' the Ultimate Life-forms that are the True Etherials. Shamash outright said they exist in multiple realities (either in the "omnipresent" sense (and the "physical" body is just the part that happens to intersect this reality), or that they can shift between alternate realities, XCOM's dimension included), and the Hyperwave Uplink, which seems to be the source for the Outsider's existence, has in-game descriptions that states that it has some kind of access to alternate dimensions, I think confirms this. The fact that Origin could study and emulate Shamash through scientific methods also leads credence that the Outsiders were scientific attempts to manufacture a True Etherial (or analogue thereof), via the Uplink.<br />
<br />
The slave collars on the Bureau's Sectoids. I used to think that Sectoids may have been a low catse, but effectively the same species as Etherials. But, that was more based on the 1994 game's depictions, where the Sectoids were weaklings, but seemed to be "just another member of the alien horde." With 4-armed Etherials being canon, it's more likley that Etherials share a common ancestor with Slenderman than Sectoids, since evolution doesn't really work that way (ie: all/most (modern) Earth animals with spinal chords (chordate [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chordate] ) follow a "head and 4 limbs and 2 eyes" body configuration). More likely, Sectoids are the "for hire/sale" whipping boy of the universe. Additionally, the slave collars that are suggested to help link them to the Mosaic Network, show how incomplete Origin's manipulation of Shamash was: in the infliltration of the Spire in Arizona, Dr Wier comments that Mosaic "seems to want to help". But, as the normal Etherials were collectively working together, that is why EU's Sectoids were without collars: the Etherials had no need for them.<br />
<br />
Sectoids on sale, now 50% off, this Rel only, here on Shopduct n' Slave!<br />
<br />
Now, the Meld: it always struck me as odd how ''careless'' the aliens seemed to be, leaving massive resources laying around for XCOM to collect. If XCOM was some kind of MMORPG, I would bet that players who chose the Alien factions would often blow up the Elerium Generators and Navigational Computers if it looked like they were going to lose a base or UFO (Chryssalid Rush, ke ke ke!). That they leave the Meld hanging around seems to me that they ''want'' XCOM to get it, which goes with what I wrote long ago up there about how XCOM could be said to also be the Etherial's project, at least indirectly.<br />
<br />
On the other hand; how does Meld tie in with the purpose of the invasion? Searching for the Ultimate Life Form, "as we sought to uplift them, to prepare them." In other words: those aren't mere storage canisters, XCOM Bait, or bombs. They're ''dispersal units''. The Etherials' plot was to seed Earth with Meld to enhance physical capacities anyways (Mechtoids, Floater/Heavies), while doing abductions as mass "Farming" for Psi-positive humans (ie; like how the player buys soldiers in bulk, and picks out the ones we want to submit for Psi testing). Failures: we fire them, Zudjari kill them and dump 'em out back, Etherials and The Matrix turn them into flood slurry, and the Wachowski Siblings make a third movie and lose all credibility.<br />
<br />
Which brings me to my third topic, where I talk about a cute talking unicorn that hails from a magical Fantasy kingdom of baby horses.<br />
<br />
In the crossover fanfic [http://www.fimfiction.net/story/100455/stardust XCOM/FiM: Stardust], the Author is (with obvious liberties) attempting to stay accurate to XCOM's technical information (with assistance from this very 'Paedia: he's seen my work here). The major alterations to the plot are that Bradford replaces the player character of the Commander, and instead of Fluttershy reforming Discord, Discord makes a bet with Twilight Sparkle to "Convince me, irrefutably, that friendship is the strongest power in the universe."<br />
<br />
With Twilight accepting the terms, Discord teleports her to April 02, 2015, to the site of a Terror Mission in Washington DC, within 30 feet of a Chryssalid.<br />
:If you've read this far, I assume I've had your interest. If I now have your attention, and want to read the story without getting spoilers, scroll down to where '''Elerium''' is next written in bold.<br />
<br />
So, obvious question: "What the hell does that have to do with anything?!" Well, the Author is trying to stay accurate to EU and Bureau (he did start writing before much of EW was revealed) while writing his own story, and he addresses several valid points that solve, or at least address several XCOM mysteries. The unique viewpoint of involving cartoon ponies is for flavor, amusement, and contrast to better see them.<br />
<br />
As the story continues; Twilight is captured by XCOM, and almost Interrogated by Dr Vahlen, but manages to escape the containment cell. Hijinks ensue, Dr Shen talks Bradford into allowing him to make contact (referencing the in-game Arc Thrower conversation between the three), and Twilight is now a 'guest' of XCOM, taking residence in "Stardust" Labs. Eventually, she helps in XCOM's research of both alien technology, and her own magic abilities: The magic field she uses in Equestria is also available on Earth, but is stiff from "disuse," but is discovered to be the same field that the Aliens use for Psionic abilities. It's revealed that Elerium is, or is at least an analogue to "Arcanite", a material that boosts magic abilities. Ergo: Elerium boosts Psionic abilities. As Twilight assists in both XCOM Research, and indirectly with missions themselves, with her magic, her use of the Field begins to awaken the Psionic/Magic abilities of the humans around her. For example, Commander Bradford has 'time-stopping' precognition; several times, he has seen TPKs, only to snap back into real time shortly before it all goes to hell-- save states, basically.<br />
<br />
Her assistance also points out that the implants found in the aliens, particularly the Sectoid Commanders, also have Elerium circuitry that activates/boosts/projects their Mind Control ability (as well as all aliens to be able to be controlled by the Etherials, who have not yet been revealed in the story, save for a refrence to/by a possible EXALT/Osiris member, and another to William Carter). This also points out that the Etherials are not specifically "Religious" of themselves, as Origin was, but are scientific-minded (the "All Technologies" research credit).<br />
<br />
The mystery of XCOM this addresses is, as Analyst Krut points out in The Bureau: "Why?"<br />
<br />
"Dear Twilight Sparkle,<br />
<br />
'''ELERIUM.'''<br />
<br />
Sincerely,<br />
:Pinkie Pie!"<br />
<br />
The Field that makes the abilities possible has probably always been here, and is perhaps universal, as inherent as magnetism or gravity (or, if you want a ''stupid'' comparison: like the "Chroma" in ''Indigo Prophecy''). And, with Elerium and it's use making Psionics easier for humans, Earth is now a 'factory' for making the most potentially dangerous beings in the universe.<br />
<br />
Evolution, at least on Earth, is more about "Good enough"/"it ''works'', duddn't it?" than any search/aim for "better", and certainly not "perfect". If there was no evolutionary push (or capacity) to be able to use the Field (as useful as it would be), such traits would not develop. Interesting examples where real-world animals do use advanced physics are the Pistol Shrimp, who's claw has evolved in such a way that's essentially a [[Sonic_Pistol]] and can make a luminescent spark of plasma that's the same temperature as the surface of the sun, and dolphins that use complex fluid dynamics that humans barely understand to, basically, just pass the time [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMCf7SNUb-Q].<br />
<br />
So, the Field that makes Psionic abilities possible is, in fact, accessible to humans, but as it is not often developed; it's rare, or doesn't manifest strongly. But it ''is'' there, so there is a motivation for the Etherials to come to Earth and do their testing (Incidentally, I don't think there is anything really saying that the Etherials knew that Asaru and Shamash were here).<br />
<br />
Which also addresses "Why now?"<br />
<br />
Because Elerium is now on Earth: in The Bureau, it's established that the Zudjari have been seeding the Earth with Elerium as early as 1957 (the year that Spudnik was launched: the satellite is even seen in the opening sequence of a campaign). If Elerium boosts Field abilities, such as Psionics, then 58 years of low-level global exposure may have triggered/boosted enough to draw the attention of the Etherials (incidentally, background radiation from above-ground nuclear tests peaked in 1963 at about 0.15 mSv per year worldwide, or about 7% of average background dose from all sources. The Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963 prohibited above-ground tests, thus by the year 2000 the worldwide dose from these tests has decreased to only 0.005 mSv per year [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#Atmospheric_nuclear_testing]-- and in Angela's ending, she gets the US Government to use nukes to erase evidence of the invasion). This may also be why the aliens seem careless with Elerium; not as effective at making enhancements as dispersing Meld, but may help instigate Psi activations.<br />
<br />
Now, I realize: if Psi powers ARE a scientifically understandable energy wave (and not straight-up "Magic"), then it does make sense that armor is damaged ''as well'', and that the suits that include Elerium can block the "piercing/bypassing" damage that I think would be more realistic. And for the armors it doesn't make sense for; they don't give an HP bonus big enough to make the difference.<br />
<br />
Which leads to one more interesting thought: Elerium is not exclusive to the "Etherial Empire", or whoever controls the Sectoids (as Elerium is not in Apocalypse(?), but Sectoids are): while not naturally native to Earth, there's nothing saying how limited-- or abundant-- Elerium is throughout the universe (Arcanite). Less evidence, and more of a hunch: may Elerium be somewhat... "viral"? That it may at least "try" to spread as it goes, as the Bureau suggests? Like a milder version of Tiberium [http://cnc.wikia.com/wiki/Tiberium] or Phazon [http://metroid.wikia.com/wiki/Phazon]?<br />
<br />
Obviously, Origin didn't have the device that had Asaru before the invasion, BUT, Faulk said the device was found ''in an Elerium Mine'' (in Montana). In other words, the Elerium aggregated around Asaru, who was there ''first''. So, there is enough to establish that there is a link between Elerium exposure/presence, and Psionic abilities, as is shown in Stardust.<br />
<br />
In conclusion:<br />
* ???? - Asaru arrives on Earth<br />
* ???? - Sectoids, a clone race, are sold in open intergalactic slave markets to various alien empires across the universe: as clones and near-blank genetic templates, their adaptability, ability to be mass produced, and 'ease of use' (aided by Psionic links to one another) lends to the success of their sale.<br />
* 65,000,000 BCE - The Lovecraftian "Vortex" Empire (refrence: Ecco the Dolphin [http://eccothedolphin.wikia.com/wiki/Vortex_Queen] - would explain why they look like Earth's aquatic animals), hailing from aquatic worlds, crash land a colony ship on Earth, either because, or ''as'' the impact that led to the extinction of the Dinosaurs-- and in the process, pave the way for mammals, and eventually for Humans to rise, whom will spend the rest of Time crossing Space, and even going into other Dimensions, obliterating every alien menace they encounter. Way to go, guys.<br />
** Due to the exclusion of Elerium and their preference of aquatic habitats, their own research creates Zrbite and Aquaplastics, and they modify their own Sectoid slaves/genome templates into the Aquatoids.<br />
* ????-1957-1962 - Zudjari, as part of their normal conquests' terraform operations, and the search for True Etherials, seeded Earth with Elerium in [[The_Bureau:_XCOM_Declassified|The Bureau]]. Asaru awakens, Shamash is killed, and Origin is deleted in a massive Etherial-fueled Psionic wave.<br />
* 1962-2015 - Background radiation from Elerium is covered up by atmospheric Nuclear Testing, but the effects are still felt worldwide: while skills may not be developed, Psionic potential grows.<br />
* 2015-2016? - The "cast out" Etherials begin their conquest and research of Humans and Earth, led here either by Elerium's energy signature, Psionic energy signatures, or due to the presence of the two True Etherials on a single planet; and event said to be a multiversal rarity. The battles between them and XCOM are a boon to human science and technology. Psionic experimentation, and the dispersal of Meld lead to the enhancement of both the human mind and body. Then the Etherials get blown the fuck up.<br />
** Black Market interests begin the EXALT organization, a paramilitary group made with the aim of stealing and adapting alien technology and materials to force human evolution. After the raid on their headquarters and the neutralization of their command leadership, remaining members go into hiding, and begin to pass and adapt their ideology down family lines.<br />
* 1997-2002 - Due to the energy signal released by the death of the multidimensional being Shamash: in an alternate timeline/dimension, the Etherial invasion happens earlier: since the Alien Brain is a computer, it's able to organize the invasion that much faster. The Tachyon signal released upon it's destruction lasts only a little while, but as the Tachyon is a (theoretical) FTL particle, it's properties are not restricted to 'normal' space-time.<br />
* 2027 - Reminants of EXALT reorganize into the Cult of Sirus.<br />
* 2041-2046 - As the Aquatoids were able to receive the signal as easily as their Sectoid cousins, they began the resurrection of T'leth: thus, the [[TFTD|Second Alien War]].<br />
* 2084 - The Micronoids, while not as experienced as Etherials at multidimensional travel, also register the death of Shamash, and begin [[Apocalypse|their assault]] on the largest Earth-based population: Mega-Primus. Thanks for that, Carter.<br />
** Sectoid-Human hybrids were origionally developed by the Etherials in an attempt to add the docile and controllable aspects of the Sectoids to the physically and psionically potent human race, much like the 1957 experiments with Africanized Honey Bees. In fact, ''exactly'' like those experiments: those bees are now known as "Killer Bees", and the Human-Sectoid mutants are willing to fight for XCOM, in exchange for universal rights.<br />
<br />
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand there: a Grand Unified Theory of XCOM!<br />
{{Ref Close | source = --[[User:Xuncu|Xuncu]] 08:53, 24 November 2013 (EST) }}<br />
And yes, I feel there's legitimacy in connecting XCOM to Ecco: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blaX_eMz3Qw Et voilà.]--[[User:Xuncu|Xuncu]] 17:49, 24 November 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Fiction]]<br />
[[Category:Enemy Unknown/UFO Defense]]</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Installing_(OpenXcom)&diff=114728Installing (OpenXcom)2023-07-17T16:59:01Z<p>Hobbes: /* OXC Versions */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''OpenXcom requires a vanilla version of the original [[X-COM]] resources.''' This can be any one of:<br />
<br />
* DOS Version 1.4 (you can check if you have the correct version if it contains a "SOUND\GM.CAT" file)<br />
* Windows Version / Collector's Edition<br />
* Steam Version (you can find the game folder in "Steam\steamapps\common\xcom ufo defense\XCOM")<br />
* Gog Version<br />
<br />
Make sure your copy has the [http://openxcom.org/index.php/downloads-extras/ latest patch]. '''Do not''' use modded versions (eg. [[XcomUtil]]) as they may cause bugs and crashes.<br />
<br />
== OXC Versions ==<br />
First, you should decide what exactly you want to install.<br />
* "Nightlies". Development versions - less polished, much more recent, not really nightly, but actually update every few months: [https://openxcom.org/git-builds/ released builds], [https://github.com/OpenXcom/OpenXcom repository].<br />
* OpenXcom Extended, aka OXCE. Cutting edge, extra-modding-friendly development version: [https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,5258.0.html released builds], [https://github.com/MeridianOXC/OpenXcom repository].<br />
* And there's also available the OpenXcom 1.0 release but it has been discontinued a long time ago - use the nightlies or OXCE instead.<br />
<br />
== Instructions ==<br />
<br />
In the instructions below, we refer to three different folders a lot: the "data" folder, the "user" folder, and the "config" folder. See [https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom#directory-locations here] for directory definitions and where they are located on your operating system.<br />
<br />
=== All platforms ===<br />
<br />
Copy the original resources (specifically the GEODATA, GEOGRAPH, MAPS, ROUTES, SOUND, TERRAIN, UFOGRAPH, UFOINTRO, and UNITS subfolders) to OpenXcom's [https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom#directory-locations Data folder] for version 1.0 or to the UFO folder in the [https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom#directory-locations User folder] for the nightly. If using the nightly, you can alternately/additionally copy in Terror From the Deep files to the TFTD folder in your User folder to prepare for when the TFTD OpenXcom ruleset is released. '''Do not''' just drag/copy your whole X-COM folder into the Data folder, it won't work.<br />
<br />
For version 1.0 it should end up like this:<br />
<br />
* data<br />
** '''GEODATA'''<br />
** '''GEOGRAPH'''<br />
** Language<br />
** '''MAPS'''<br />
** Resources<br />
** '''ROUTES'''<br />
** Ruleset<br />
** Shaders<br />
** SoldierName<br />
** '''SOUND'''<br />
** '''TERRAIN'''<br />
** '''UFOGRAPH'''<br />
** '''UFOINTRO'''<br />
** '''UNITS'''<br />
<br />
and for the nightly it should look like this:<br />
<br />
* '''UFO'''<br />
** '''GEODATA'''<br />
** '''GEOGRAPH'''<br />
** '''MAPS'''<br />
** '''ROUTES'''<br />
** '''SOUND'''<br />
** '''TERRAIN'''<br />
** '''UFOGRAPH'''<br />
** '''UFOINTRO'''<br />
** '''UNITS'''<br />
<br />
If you do this incorrectly, you'll get an error about "X not found". For more specific instructions, check your platform below.<br />
<br />
==== Video tutorial ====<br />
<br />
A video tutorial that covers the installation of milestone version 1.0 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNneKAwvjoU is available here] (courtesy of [http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHymw9FSZqharCpMW-WiiHg Ivan Dogovich]). Though recorded for the Windows platform, check it out if you have doubts about a particular step during the installation.<br />
<br />
This video: "[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1WUpX9n7gY OpenXCOM Nightly Install Tutorial]" explains installing the '''Nightly''' (both with the installer and manually) and installing both simple and total conversion '''mods'''.<br />
<br />
=== Windows ===<br />
<br />
The installer will automatically detect Steam installations, patch the game and copy the original data for you, just follow the instructions.<br />
<br />
=== Mac OS X ===<br />
<br />
Copy the resources to the application's '''data''' resource (right click the application > Show Package Contents > Contents > Resources > data) for version 1.0 or the UFO and/or TFTD resources for the nightly.<br />
<br />
=== Unix-like ===<br />
<br />
OpenXcom requires the following libraries:<br />
<br />
* [http://www.libsdl.org/ SDL] (libsdl1.2)<br />
* [http://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_mixer/ SDL_mixer] (libsdl-mixer1.2)<br />
* [http://www.ferzkopp.net/joomla/content/view/19/14/ SDL_gfx] (libsdl-gfx1.2), version 2.0.22 or later<br />
* [http://www.libsdl.org/projects/SDL_image/ SDL_image] (libsdl-image1.2)<br />
* [http://code.google.com/p/yaml-cpp/ yaml-cpp] (libyaml-cpp), version 0.5.1 or later (please note that 0.5.2 has issues, use 0.5.3)<br />
<br />
Check your distribution's package manager or the library website on how to install them.<br />
<br />
Copy game resources to the appropriate [https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom#linux folder locations].<br />
<br />
=== Portable ===<br />
<br />
To make a portable version of OpenXcom, just put all the files in the game folder, with a '''data''' (1.0) or '''UFO''' (nightly) subfolder for the resources and a '''user''' subfolder for your saves and settings (you may need to delete your old User Folder so the game doesn't use it instead).<br />
<br />
== Log file ==<br />
<br />
In case you experience any problems or errors during the initial game loading/startup, these will be shown and logged in ''openxcom.log'' in the [https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom#directory-locations User Folder]. Make sure you installed everything correctly as instructed, and if you still experience problems, check the [http://openxcom.org/forum/ forums].<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category:OpenXcom]]</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=OpenXcom&diff=114727OpenXcom2023-07-17T16:51:58Z<p>Hobbes: removed version 1.0</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Openlogo.png|center]]<br />
'''Welcome to the OpenXcom Wiki, a part of UFOpaedia.org. OpenXcom is a free open-source reimplementation of the original X-COM, written from scratch to provide all the fun with none of the limitations.'''<br />
<br />
This Wiki is a work in progress - all contributions to it are welcome as long as they are related with OpenXcom. Feel free to add new pages, edit the current ones and to use the [[Talk:OpenXcom|discussion tab]] to ask any questions.<br />
<br />
OpenXcom is still under development, so unless otherwise noted, all information in this wiki refers to the '''latest beta nightly.''' You can download it from the [https://openxcom.org official website]. Do not use version 1.0 because it has been superseded by the nightlies a long time ago.<br />
<br />
<table style="width: 100%;><br />
<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><br />
<td colspan = "3"><br />
{| {{stdTable}} title = "OpenXcom Main Directory" width = "100%" <br />
|- {{stdTable Heading}}<br />
| colspan = "2"| [[Image:Openicon24.png|link=OpenXcom|OpenXcom Badge]] '''OpenXcom''' <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><br />
<td style="width: 33%; border:1px gray solid;"><br />
{| {{stdTable}} width="100%" style="border:none;"<br />
|- {{stdTable Sub Heading}}<br />
| '''Overview'''<br />
|- <br />
| [[Info (OpenXcom)|About OpenXcom]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Credits (OpenXcom)|Credits]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Installing (OpenXcom)|Installation]] ([[Installation FAQ (OpenXcom)|FAQ]])<br />
|-<br />
| [[Mods (OpenXcom)|Mods]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Differences to X-COM (OpenXcom)|Differences between OpenXcom and X-COM]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Hidden Features (OpenXcom)|Hidden Features]]<br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
<br />
<td style="width: 33%; border:1px gray solid;"><br />
{| {{stdTable}} width="100%" style="border:none;"<br />
|- {{stdTable Sub Heading}} <br />
| '''Configuration'''<br />
|-<br />
| [[Options (OpenXcom)|Options]]<br />
: [[Video Options (OpenXcom)|Video]]<br />
: [[Audio Options (OpenXcom)|Audio]]<br />
: [[Controls (OpenXcom)|Controls]]<br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
<br />
<td style="width: 33%; border:1px gray solid;"><br />
{| {{stdTable}} width="100%" style="border:none;"<br />
|- {{stdTable Sub Heading}} <br />
| '''Technical Information'''<br />
|-<br />
| [[Compiling (OpenXcom)|Compiling]]<br />
: [[Coding Style (OpenXcom)|Coding Style]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Customizing (OpenXcom)|Customizing]]<br />
: [[Rulesets (OpenXcom)|Rulesets]] (Mods)<br />
:: [[Ruleset Reference (OpenXcom)|Ruleset Reference (Version 1.0)]]<br />
:: [[Ruleset Reference Nightly (OpenXcom)|Ruleset Reference (Nightly)]]<br />
:: [[Ruleset List Order (OpenXcom)|Ruleset List Order]]<br />
:: [[Ruleset Vanilla IDs (OpenXcom)|Ruleset Vanilla IDs]]<br />
:: [[Script (OpenXcom)|Script Basics]]<br />
: [[Alien Missions in Enemy Unknown (OpenXcom)|Alien Missions in Enemy Unknown]] <br />
: [[Translations (OpenXcom)|Translations]]<br />
: [[Soldier Names (OpenXcom)|Soldier Names]]<br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
[[Category:OpenXcom]]<br />
__NOTOC__</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:MISSIONS.DAT&diff=112244Talk:MISSIONS.DAT2022-10-27T13:39:14Z<p>Hobbes: /* Aborting an enemy mission? */</p>
<hr />
<div>Some questions [<i>Zaimoni</i>: now answered empirically]:<br />
* What is going on with the start time for 0/0 on Research missions? The Jan 1999 one is always 2.5h, but I recently saw an Antarctica Research mission at 3d for 0/0.<br />
* How consistently does the time to the next UFO react to a successful Battlescape game? (I just saw a Retaliation 1/1 go from 7Eh to 136h upon successful completion.)<br />
<br />
--[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]], 6:50 Sept 21 2006 CDT<br />
<br />
I couldn't understand much of your research but it made me wonder about one question: is it possible to determine the amount of UFO missions and their types that you will see during a month (and also the areas?). Or are those set in a total random fashion?<br />
<br />
If so this could be considered as spoilers but it could also be used for an article describing alien strategy on the field manual.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 18:39, 21 September 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
MISSIONS.DAT is a spoiler, definitely. It stores the time (in 30-minute increments) for all non-Supply scheduled UFOs that have not arrived yet. While it won't tell you all of the UFOs arriving in the month, it will positively ID arrival time, mission, physical type, and race of each one in the queue. I'm in the middle of redocumenting it.<br />
<br />
My current conjecture is that the 0..3 sequence indexes the "size" of the UFO. The legacy content just listing ufo-c coordinates is misleading (it seems to be enumerating the visible sequence of ufos), but I want to positively observe the entire sequence of ufo-c/ufo-sub-c pairs before updating.<br />
<br />
At all times, the current mission types and areas are in MISSIONS.DAT...<b>except</b> for supply missions. You really want a Hyperwave Decoder covering each alien base you're harvesting. So far, Beginner and Superhuman schedule the same at the beginning of the months after Jan 1999: 1 Terror mission, one non-terror mission. I don't know the criteria for scheduling Retaliation missions. (I've never seen them show up except immediately after Battlescape missions, but that obviously isn't exhaustive.]<br />
<br />
Particularly interesting: Battlescape messes with the arrival time of the next mission after the one you're cleaning up on. This needs more careful analysis (e.g., is it just mission completion?)<br />
<br />
--[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]], 22:35 Sept 21 2006 CDT<br />
<br />
The increase in time to next UFO occurs either (or both) at shootdown, or at the start of the Battlescape mission. Since I used XCOMUtil interceptor with six soldiers for this test, I can't tell which one. No change between the beginning and the end of the Battlescape mission. [But a genuine Terrorship will happen soon enough...that gets a no-crew Interceptor and a full Skyranger.]<br />
<br />
--[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]], 23:51 Sept 21 2006 CDT<br />
:After a shootdown, the next UFO for that mission is delayed between 1 and ~9 days ( the formula is 48+RAND()*400 half hours ). A retaliation mission will be scheduled if RAND()*100 < 4*(24-difficultyLevel).<br />
: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).<br />
:[[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 18:56, 12 July 2008 (PDT)<br />
<hr><br />
<br />
I don't think I'll be continuing this savegame, but I just had a Feb 1999 that only generated a new Terror Mission. The other mission...not visible. [I may have messed it up &mdash; I did edit the Jan 1999 Terror mission from Europe to Southern Africa.]<br />
<br />
--[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]], 10:38 Dec 30 2006 CDT<br />
<br />
== Retaliation ==<br />
<br />
Zaimoni, I've been thinking about the comment about HWD's activating retaliation missions from the start. Are you able to check the mission types of the first couple of UFOs through mission.dat without editing the HWD stats onto the base? I'm not entirely convinced that retaliation missions are instigated by having a hyperwave decoder (stats or the module). <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
: Yes, I can check (and have checked) that by hex editor. [It's a moderately different game with total information on arrival times and mission types...much easier to resume after a month or so hiatus.] I haven't tested with a game whose Hyperwave detection was edited.<br />
<br />
: I normally save immediately after starting a new game to apply my custom soldier editor to the game. While I'm at it, I check MISSIONS.DAT. I have always gotten two missions: a Research mission in the same region as my starting base, and a terror mission with a decidedly non-uniform random distribution of location that I haven't bothered to try to analyze.<br />
<br />
: I'm not sure whether there's a random component to getting a Retalation series scheduled by shooting down the first Research UFO, or whether it's just hypersensitive to some sort of detail. If the series is not significantly interfered with, the base defense mission would happen 2-3 weeks in.<br />
<br />
: --[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]], 3:23 Mar 20 2007 CDT<br />
<br />
Just ran some quick checks, nothing too intensive.<br />
* Editing hyperwave detection in a hex editor: no obvious effect, but would have to tweak the initial MISSIONS.DAT (move the Terror Act to within range) to be absolutely sure. The game does not transmogrify Research UFOs in real-time; I need to test Terror UFOs.<br />
* Start a new game after abandoning one: race information is not cleared in MISSIONS.DAT, but other information is cleared. In particular, both ufo-c and subufo-c are overwritten to their defaults.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]], 23:11 Apr 11 2007 CDT<br />
<br />
'''so''', the question which should be asked:<br />
<br />
Is it too difficult to make an editor which changes the sequences? I dunno anything with hex-editors, programming, high level mathematics, etc. It would be interesting to have an opportunity to spawn multiple UFO everyday and not be able to shoot them all down as which is the case for the current mode of EU (and TFTD). The only thing that comes close to something of this current scenario is an inflitration mission where you have 5+ alien ships all at once and not having the capability to deal with them all. I dunno... i just wish having more tweaks to make it harder would be a good thing as opposite to just using editors to dull the technology of xcom to increase difficulty.<br />
<br />
Six terror sites at once??? hell yeah! [[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]]<br />
<br />
: It should be safe to create Retaliation acts and Terror acts by directly editing MISSIONS.DAT, there will be no internal consistency issues with other files. Editing existing entries in MISSIONS.DAT to other valid entries should be safe (note that not all mission types have been authoritatively mapped). Editing duration should be safe, but problems could happen with invalid races or UFO c/sub-c pairs. Creating other mission types will require counter-editing ACTS.DAT. I haven't specifically checked the behavior of ZONAL.DAT when spawning new acts.<br />
<br />
: The ufo-c/ufo-sub-c pair 0/0 is always valid, at least.<br />
<br />
: Research, Base, Terror, and Retaliation have fully documented ufo-c/ufo-sub-c pairs. I haven't done any verification at all for Abduction or Infiltration.<br />
<br />
: Changing the relative durations between UFOs, time delays incurred when shooting down UFOs, or number of missions spawned per month, requires finding that information first. --[[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]], 10:16 Oct 17 2007 CDT<br />
<br />
Just a note to add to this section lest I forget, and as late follow up to the notes that re on the page: back when I first got the idea that the first UFO was on a retaliation mission, I did not know that there was a 2% chance for every UFO to generate a retaliation mission. Armed with this knowledge, this is probably the sequence of events that happened to me at the time: I shot down the first UFO, recovered it and then got my base attacked. The 2% might've triggered then. This would very well the impression I had that UFOs could start on retaliation missions. They don't, but they can generate an attack. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:10, 3 June 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Alien missions data discovered in geoscape.exe [finally ;-)] ==<br />
<br />
OK guys, here's a big one: alien missions data is located in the executable at offset 0x70E70 (gold edition) ; it starts with these values (all 16bit words):<br />
<br />
.data:00470E70 structAlienMission <5, 1, 0, 12Ch><br />
.data:00470E70 structAlienMission <6, 1, 2, 104h><br />
.data:00470E70 structAlienMission <7, 2, 4, 12Ch><br />
.data:00470E70 structAlienMission 5 dup(<0FFFFh, 0FFFFh, 0FFFFh, 0FFFFh>)<br />
...<br />
It goes on for 64x4x2 bytes (7 mission types and possible data for additional 'supply' type mission).<br />
<br />
Every mission type has 8 entries consisting of 4 words.<br />
First word is the ship type, second is the number of ship of this type to spawn successively (each uses the same time counter), and 4th correspond to the time counter in [[MISSIONS.DAT]]. 3rd one is unknown for now.<br />
<br />
The example below is for research mission: one small scout (type 5), then one medium scout (type 6) and finally 2 large scouts (type 7).<br />
The time counter is calculated like this: time*RAND()+time/2.<br />
Anyone care to hack the binaries to confirm this? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 10:58, 9 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: Time calculation looks good for those UFOs with randomized time (there are a few known exceptions). -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 10:16 10 March 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
: It would be very good to locate what controls fixed vs randomized times for the normal missions. -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 10:59 13 July 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
The 3rd word of missions is UFO_trajectory_type. It refers into table at address .data:00471070. So there are 10 types of trajectories possible, with maximum 8 waypoints. <br />
.data:00471070 ufo_10_types_52___ dw 5 ; UFO_Waypoint_count<br />
.data:00471070 dw 5, 0, 0, 1, 5, -1, -1, -1; UFO_Waypoint_Site<br />
.data:00471070 dw 4, 3, 1, 1, 2, 0, 0, 0; UFO_Waypoint_Altitude<br />
.data:00471070 dw 100, 74, 28, 47,100, 0, 0, 0; UFO_Waypoint_Speed<br />
.data:00471070 dw 3000 ; Ground_Timer<br />
--[[User:Volutar|Volutar]] 05:59, 14 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The 3rd "word" is called a ''Mission Plan'' in the dev notes I have. As Volutar mentioned, there are 10 types, and I'll list the internal descriptions here<br />
<br />
Plan Description<br />
0 Low level reconnaissance<br />
1 Intense low level reconnaissance<br />
2 Occasional landings<br />
3 Occasional abductions<br />
4 Systematic abductions<br />
5 Reconnaissance for base<br />
6 Establishing base<br />
7 Visit major cities<br />
8 Destroy <nowiki>[X-COM]</nowiki> base<br />
9 Base Supply<br />
<br />
--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] ([[User talk:Zombie|talk]]) 06:10, 31 July 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Clarification pls==<br />
<br />
- So all these missions, once started, will continue in the precise sequence no matter what?<br />
<br />
:: <i>Yes; only most of these tables have been verified by inspection of the savegame files in a hex editor, however. Infiltration has not. Matching the savegame file behavior against the in-game data Seb76 has located is tricky. -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]]</i><br />
<br />
- What about the whole thing with whether it's found the site or not (e.g. Terror Ships finding/not finding a city to raid, Battleships finding/not finding your base)? Does this apply to all missions?<br />
<br />
:: <i>The base assault battleships are not on the Retaliation Act sequence, they're controlled by [[XBASES.DAT]]. Reverse-engineering how the Retaliation Act ships find bases hasn't been precisely done yet (don't let the UFOs get too close to the base), mind shielding reduces the range at which a UFO can spot a base.</i><br />
<br />
::: So the two battleships that don't ever spot your base are unrelated to the battleships that come if you're spotted? [[User:magic9mushroom]]<br />
<br />
:::: <i>Correct. I've had entire Retaliation Acts cycle without scheduling a base attack battleship, but this was with [[XBASES.DAT]] never flagging a base for retaliation.</i><br />
<br />
:: <i>As for Terror Ships: whether a UFO lands or not, appears to be controlled by its ufo-c/ufo-sub-c indexing. If they have orders to land, they won't have problems finding an appropriate site. -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]]</i><br />
<br />
::: So that means that of the two Terror Ship indexes you have listed, only one occurs in any given mission? [[User:magic9mushroom]]<br />
<br />
:::: <i>For all act types, the indexes are incremented in strictly increasing order (with all ufo-sub-c indexes run through before the ufo-c index is incremented). It may take more than one hour for a ufo to reach hyperwave detection with incomplete hyperwave coverage. -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]]</i><br />
<br />
:::::So are there two Terror Ships per mission or not?<br />
<br />
:::::: <i>The separation between Terror Ship 2/0 and Terror Ship 3/0 is a few days, so it's conceptually two missions with one Terror Ship each with the Terror Act. Empirical research into ufo behavior suggests that if they are not shot down, Terror Ship 2/0 never lands, while Terror Ship 3/0 always lands (and gives you a terror site). -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]]</i><br />
<br />
- With the infiltration, what does the "it starts again" mean? Does that mean that once an infiltration mission has started in a zone, endless infiltrations will run there until all countries there are infiltrated?<br />
<br />
:: <i>Infiltration is the only mission type that loops. It will continue even after all countries in the zone have been infiltrated. Russia is empirically immune to infiltration in all versions higher than DOS 1.0. -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]]</i><br />
<br />
::: So what happens at the conclusion of an Infiltration mission after all countries in the zone are infiltrated? Does a country outside the zone get infiltrated? Does no country get infiltrated? [[User:magic9mushroom]]<br />
<br />
::::Nothing happens. Was rather fortunate to experience this a few times - and when I ran a no-funding-country scenario where I edited the save and flagged all the countries as withdrawn. Rather amusing to see them infiltrate an already infiltrated country and yield no results. In this case, the only real impact is the area activity points, which the neighbours will notice. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 05:30, 10 August 2009 (EDT) <br />
<br />
- It says the order for infiltrations is Terror ship -> Battleship -> Supply ship -> Battleship, but my own experience contradicts this - I shot down each UFO in an infiltration run, and the sequence was Terror ship -> Supply ship -> Battleship -> Battleship.<br />
<br />
:: <i>While Infiltration has not been verified by me in-game yet, the tables all assume that all UFOs in the sequence are detected. This is more interesting if this was with the Hyperwave Decoder. -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]], 8:42, 9 August 2009 (CDT)</i><br />
<br />
::: It was with a Hyper-Wave Decoder and I shot down each before the next appeared. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 04:07, 10 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: <i>All eight are in the executable, in the order specified in MISSIONS.DAT. However, the four mentioned are pretty much "in a row": the sixth should arrive exactly one hour later after the fifth, and so on. That is, you have one hour to shoot down the Terror Ship to delay the three others by ~2 weeks. -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]], 9:37, 10 August 2009 (CDT)</i><br />
<br />
::::: Well, it was days between detecting each one. They definitely arrived in the order Terror Ship, Supply Ship, Battleship, Battleship.<br />
<br />
:::::: <i>See it in the executable, fixing that now. (Mapping duration from executable to empirical is tricky, as is estimating turning points and landing counts.) -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]], 9:37, 10 August 2009 (CDT)</i><br />
<br />
Thanks in advance. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 04:14, 9 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I understood what mean third entry in section Alien Data Missions at executable file. <br />
As I said in forum Seeing speeds of USO sub we can determine the mission of this USO sub even without transmission resolver - even in january 2040<br />
Every USO sub in every missions (interdiction, colony, probe and other) have unique speeds and we can determine mission of USO on their speed<br />
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<br />
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)<br />
<br />
And third entry - it's index of speeds of sub.<br />
<br />
I have table of speeds of all USO subs. Where can locate it?<br />
<br />
== Non-scheduled Terror Missions ==<br />
<br />
What is it known on terror missions which are NOT in MISSIONS.DAT? At least in TFTD, such missions are, as a rule, on the 1st of each month, 1:00 (are they always ship route attacks?). Saving the game before the attack but after the midnight (1st, 0:00), and next loading and continuing it, always leads to a mission in the same (exact) location, on the same type of the ship, and with the same alien race (or Mixed Crew). Only numbers of particular creatures of a given race can change. So, the mission properties must be stored somewhere between the midnight and 1:00 (when the attack occurs). The game must store this information somewhere, and it is not MISSION.DAT for sure.<br />
<br />
Such a first-o'clock alien terror mission does not influence the normal, scheduled alien missions (so, it is even possible to have another terror mission just few hours after the first one, if only the other mission had been scheduled). Where is it stored?<br />
<br />
Does a similar phenomenon occur in UFO:EU as well?<br />
<br />
[[File:Nstm.zip]] - a set of savegames for tests, the explanation inside.<br />
<br />
[[User:Sherlock|Sherlock]] 20:24, 30 January 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
:It's in [[LOC.DAT]]. As in, the terror site already existed before it became visible to you, so you actually saved AFTER the attack started. - <span style="font-size:xx-small">&nbsp;[[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 02:02, 31 January 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Addresses ==<br />
<br />
I'm not great at this sort of thing so I'd like to know if the following is correct. Zaimoni's example, ''"E.g. infiltration(3) in Europe(4) would have the offset 3*8+4*(7*8)=0xF8"'' means the entries are ordered by missiontype*8 + region*56 (respectively from [[ACTS.DAT]] and [[ZONAL.DAT]]) ???<br />
<br />
Running that logic through excel I generated the addresses below. I guess they make sense; it could look like what's going on in-game though I don't have any saves where I am dead-certain what missions are running... which is what brought me to this page... :)<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable" style="font-size:90%;"<br />
|- <br />
! Adr.Hex !! Mission<br />
|-<br />
| 0 || Research in North America<br />
|-<br />
| 8 || Harvest in North America<br />
|-<br />
| 10 || Abduction in North America<br />
|-<br />
| 18 || Infiltration in North America<br />
|-<br />
| 20 || Base in North America<br />
|-<br />
| 28 || Terror in North America<br />
|-<br />
| 30 || Retaliation in North America<br />
|-<br />
| 38 || Research in Arctic<br />
|-<br />
| 40 || Harvest in Arctic<br />
|-<br />
| 48 || Abduction in Arctic<br />
|-<br />
| 50 || Infiltration in Arctic<br />
|-<br />
| 58 || Base in Arctic<br />
|-<br />
| 60 || Terror in Arctic<br />
|-<br />
| 68 || Retaliation in Arctic<br />
|-<br />
| 70 || Research in Antarctic<br />
|-<br />
| 78 || Harvest in Antarctic<br />
|-<br />
| 80 || Abduction in Antarctic<br />
|-<br />
| 88 || Infiltration in Antarctic<br />
|-<br />
| 90 || Base in Antarctic<br />
|-<br />
| 98 || Terror in Antarctic<br />
|-<br />
| A0 || Retaliation in Antarctic<br />
|-<br />
| A8 || Research in South America<br />
|-<br />
| B0 || Harvest in South America<br />
|-<br />
| B8 || Abduction in South America<br />
|-<br />
| C0 || Infiltration in South America<br />
|-<br />
| C8 || Base in South America<br />
|-<br />
| D0 || Terror in South America<br />
|-<br />
| D8 || Retaliation in South America<br />
|-<br />
| E0 || Research in Europe<br />
|-<br />
| E8 || Harvest in Europe<br />
|-<br />
| F0 || Abduction in Europe<br />
|-<br />
| F8 || Infiltration in Europe<br />
|-<br />
| 100 || Base in Europe<br />
|-<br />
| 108 || Terror in Europe<br />
|-<br />
| 110 || Retaliation in Europe<br />
|-<br />
| 118 || Research in North Africa<br />
|-<br />
| 120 || Harvest in North Africa<br />
|-<br />
| 128 || Abduction in North Africa<br />
|-<br />
| 130 || Infiltration in North Africa<br />
|-<br />
| 138 || Base in North Africa<br />
|-<br />
| 140 || Terror in North Africa<br />
|-<br />
| 148 || Retaliation in North Africa<br />
|-<br />
| 150 || Research in South Africa<br />
|-<br />
| 158 || Harvest in South Africa<br />
|-<br />
| 160 || Abduction in South Africa<br />
|-<br />
| 168 || Infiltration in South Africa<br />
|-<br />
| 170 || Base in South Africa<br />
|-<br />
| 178 || Terror in South Africa<br />
|-<br />
| 180 || Retaliation in South Africa<br />
|-<br />
| 188 || Research in Central Asia<br />
|-<br />
| 190 || Harvest in Central Asia<br />
|-<br />
| 198 || Abduction in Central Asia<br />
|-<br />
| 1A0 || Infiltration in Central Asia<br />
|-<br />
| 1A8 || Base in Central Asia<br />
|-<br />
| 1B0 || Terror in Central Asia<br />
|-<br />
| 1B8 || Retaliation in Central Asia<br />
|-<br />
| 1C0 || Research in Southeast Asia<br />
|-<br />
| 1C8 || Harvest in Southeast Asia<br />
|-<br />
| 1D0 || Abduction in Southeast Asia<br />
|-<br />
| 1D8 || Infiltration in Southeast Asia<br />
|-<br />
| 1E0 || Base in Southeast Asia<br />
|-<br />
| 1E8 || Terror in Southeast Asia<br />
|-<br />
| 1F0 || Retaliation in Southeast Asia<br />
|-<br />
| 1F8 || Research in Siberia<br />
|-<br />
| 200 || Harvest in Siberia<br />
|-<br />
| 208 || Abduction in Siberia<br />
|-<br />
| 210 || Infiltration in Siberia<br />
|-<br />
| 218 || Base in Siberia<br />
|-<br />
| 220 || Terror in Siberia<br />
|-<br />
| 228 || Retaliation in Siberia<br />
|-<br />
| 230 || Research in Australasia<br />
|-<br />
| 238 || Harvest in Australasia<br />
|-<br />
| 240 || Abduction in Australasia<br />
|-<br />
| 248 || Infiltration in Australasia<br />
|-<br />
| 250 || Base in Australasia<br />
|-<br />
| 258 || Terror in Australasia<br />
|-<br />
| 260 || Retaliation in Australasia<br />
|-<br />
| 268 || Research in Wilderness<br />
|-<br />
| 270 || Harvest in Wilderness<br />
|-<br />
| 278 || Abduction in Wilderness<br />
|-<br />
| 280 || Infiltration in Wilderness<br />
|-<br />
| 288 || Base in Wilderness<br />
|-<br />
| 290 || Terror in Wilderness<br />
|-<br />
| 298 || Retaliation in Wilderness<br />
|}<br />
<br />
--[[User:Tlist|Tlist]] ([[User talk:Tlist|talk]]) 13:46, 25 May 2014 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Something's off with Zombie's numbers ==<br />
<br />
I hate to contradict the great Zombie, but the countdown timers here seem to have an off-by-one. The numbers as they are now predict a 3x Abductor flotilla for Abduction, a 2xLarge Scout+Terror+Supply+2xBB flotilla for Infiltration, and a Medium Scout+Large Scout+2xSupply+BB flotilla for Base, but in all three cases the first of those is not actually part of the flotilla. We need to fix this, but I'm not sure how because I don't know where the data is in GEOSCAPE.EXE (I have DOS version). Can anyone help me out here? [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 07:34, 31 August 2019 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Okay, I've got it. It ''is'' an off-by-one. The time index associated with a UFO in the data files is not the countdown timer to that UFO. It's the amount of time ''added'' to the countdown timer when that UFO is spawned - i.e. the timer for the ''next'' UFO. The countdown timer for the first UFO in the mission is presumably set during mission creation, and is not stored with the rest of the mission data (this explains why it can be different for the first vs. subsequent Alien Research missions, as that one is not generated in the usual fashion).<br />
<br />
As such, I'm going to move all the times given (which are correct, but misinterpreted) down one row, and put question-marks in the top row (since I don't actually know most of them, except Terror which I empirically know to always be 2.5h). [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 08:46, 31 August 2019 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Aborting an enemy mission? ==<br />
<br />
Is there any way to abort an enemy mission, or will it always run through every ship in the list, and ultimtely succeed?<br />
: They'll always run through every ship in the list.<br />
<br />
In particular, once an infiltration mission starts, will some country *always* defect no matter what?<br />
: Once an infiltration starts in a country, it will defect, and in the next montn another country in the same continent will be infiltrated until there's no more countries left in that continent. (exception: Russia can never defect)<br />
<br />
Once a terror mission starts, will some city *always* be terrorized no matter what?<br />
: Yes, unless you shoot down the final Terror Ship that is spawned for the actual terror attack.<br />
<br />
Once a base construction mission starts, will a base always be built?<br />
: Yes.<br />
<br />
Destroying scouts and other ships will *delay* these; is there any way to actually prevent them?<br />
: No.<br />
<br />
Similarly, will base retaliation missions eventually always succeed?<br />
: No. The Battleship on Retaliation missions is only launched if the previous scouts detect an XCOM base. <br />
<br />
[[User:Keybounce|Keybounce]] ([[User talk:Keybounce|talk]]) 07:13, 23 October 2022 (CEST)<br />
:[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 15:39, 27 October 2022 (CEST)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Armor_(Chimera)&diff=110818Armor (Chimera)2022-08-06T22:25:46Z<p>Hobbes: /* Armor Mods */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Armor Types==<br />
There are no armor items in XCOM: Chimera Squad. Armor is replaced automatically as it is upgraded to Enhanced or Mastercrafted variants. It is used equally by all agents and Androids.<br />
<br />
===Basic Armor===<br />
This initial armor provides no bonuses.<br />
<br />
===Enhanced Armor===<br />
Provides 2 HP, and 1 Utility Item slot.<br />
<br />
===Mastercrafted Armor===<br />
Provides 3 HP, 1 Armor, and 1 Utility Item slot.<br />
<br />
==Armor Mods==<br />
After Modular Armor is researched, there is 1 Armor slot. It can be swapped or uninstalled at any time without destroying the item.<br />
<br />
* Extra Padding: +1 HP;<br />
* Hellweave: 2-4 damage reflected to melee enemy;<br />
* Infiltrator Weave: Adaptable ability (Breach through Vents);<br />
* Mach Weave: +30 Dodge;<br />
* Mindshield: Immunity to negative mental effects (Disorientation, Stun, Panic, Mind Control);<br />
* Regen Weave: +2 HP regeneration each turn;<br />
* Bubble Weave: Stasis effect instead of Bleeding Out;<br />
* Plated Vest: +1 Armor;<br />
* Adrenal Weave: First Overwatch fire will miss;<br />
* Hazmat Sealing: immunity to all environmental effects.<br />
<br />
[[Category: Chimera Squad]]</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=108327Talk:Main Page2022-06-09T15:33:28Z<p>Hobbes: /* New and old images not showing? */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Welcome To All Rookies'''<br />
<br />
This is the place to talk/ask about general issues concerning the wiki and hopefully someone will answer/reply to them. <br />
<br />
Specific game questions should be asked on the game's individual talk pages. <br />
<br />
For new users, in order to reduce spam you'll need to register to be able to edit pages.<br />
<br />
To start a new topic simply press the '''edit''' button above. Then place your <nowiki>==Topic Name==</nowiki> like it is written here.<br />
* To add a line you can either type <nowiki>----</nowiki> or use the buttons that appear on the edit screen. <br />
* If replying to an existing topic use colons '''<nowiki>:</nowiki>''' before your answer<br />
* Don't forget to sign your posts in the talk pages by typing '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''' at the end. <br />
* Finally when creating/editing wiki articles have a look at the [[Guidelines to writing articles|guidelines]] page. <br />
<br />
That's it. Happy editing!<br />
----<br />
<br />
Old articles have been moved to [[Talk:Main Page/Archive]] for later perusal. <br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
==Removing All Featured Projects from Sidebar==<br />
:We had another request to add an entry to the Featured Projects sidebar (LWOTC) and since we now have a Featured Projects page I've been wondering if it wouldn't be better to remove all the current Featured Projects from the sidebar and put them in that page, for several reasons:<br />
#The wiki has always been focused on the games and not on fan projects.<br />
#There are wiki-relevant sidebar links that keep getting pushed downwards everytime a project is added, like languages or tools.<br />
#With the reboot of the franchise and OpenXCom, a lot of fan projects are in the works. <br />
#While we provide a space for their subwikis if they need, the wiki was never a hub for fan projects and to publicize/monetize them. <br />
#Those projects typically came and use our space but I can't remember any who contributed to the wiki's main pages about the original XCom games, other than placing links to their projects on the original game pages for publicity. <br />
#A couple projects have also left and set up their own wikis, without ever bothering to at least delete their content once they stopped updating it, since they decided they didn't want to be here anymore when they didn't get the publicity they wanted. <br />
#UFO2000 & UFO:AI have zero or limited development for years - they're dead or almost.<br />
#OpenXCom and OpenApoc already have links for their subwikis on the UFO and Apocalypse tables.<br />
#Having Long War and Long War 2 then leads to other large projects like Long War Reworked and Long War of the Chosen also wanting the same attention/publicity. All of those could have also links for them on the Enemy Unknown and XCOM2 tables. <br />
#And the Featured Projects page could be reworked so that they are properly grouped together according to their specific game that they originate from and it could also include a short description about their scope and objectives. <br />
Ideas/Comments? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 06:07, 4 January 2022 (CET)<br />
<br />
==Featured Projects on Sidebar==<br />
I was requested on Discord by user [[Ucross]] to add to the Featured Projects section of the sidebar the mod that he is working on called Long War Rebalance, which is a mod of Long War, and thus a mod of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and I refused the request for the same reasons I already presented below regarding the Piratez mod for OpenXCom.<br />
It's arguable for the same reason that Long War shouldn't on that list for the same reason, it being a mod, but since Firaxis gave the official recognition to both Long Wars, and even gave support to Long War 2, that's the difference I see between Long War and all the other mods made for all XCom games, and thus worthy of recognition as significant contributions by and for the community. The same reason behind UFO2000, OpenXCom, OpenApoc and UFO:AI, they are all entire new XCom games built by teams of fans, and the first three are playable, and you can create mods for them. OpenXCom and OpenApoc are in active development. <br />
As for personal projects to be present on that section, I can think of a ton of projects related to XCom that would deserve to be there, and that would make that list endless an unpractical. And at the end, the objective of this wiki is to inform about the games. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 20:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: It still would be nice for players to be able to find all of the mods/projects that this wiki hosts. What about something like: "Other Projects" where it's a page that lists all other projects occurring for other games? Just a suggestion. Feel free to ignore me. =D [[User:Ucross|Ucross]] ([[User talk:Ucross|talk]]) 16:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I am rather partial to this solution myself. The wiki does need to keep its main focus tight as far as its main content is concerned. But nothing says we cannot have a page that acknowledges and point to other projects of interest. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 04:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Server Move==<br />
In the near future we're going to move to a new server (hosted by NineX) because of the constant site outages and other technical/security issues that have been affecting the wiki since the last year. NineX currently hosts the OpenXCom forums and site, so I feel that it will be a good move since the OpenXCom community has been the most active in keeping the old XCom games alive. <br />
<br />
However we're still not sure if we're gonna be able to keep the old domain (www.ufopaedia.org) or if it will be necessary to move to a new one, and ask everybody to update their links. We're trying to keep the old domain, but right now the choice is to be between keeping things as they currently are, or get the technical/security issues fixed and get back the wiki properly working, even if that means losing the domain and the traffic.<br />
<br />
I personally prefer the 2nd option since we need a wiki that is 100% available for both consulting and editing information, like it did in the past. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 14:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
==Temporary Domain==<br />
We completed the server move thanks to NineX, who also upgraded the wiki's software. The process required that we moved temporarily to a new domain, ufopaedia.info, but we'll return to our old domain, ufopaedia.org, as soon as the process is complete. Thanks for your patience :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 21:40, 28 January 2018 (CET)<br />
<br />
Migration finished. ufopaedia.info is redirecting to ufopaedia.org.<br />
Mediawiki software have been upgraded to latest version , and whole site audited. [[User:NineX|NineX]] ([[User talk:NineX|talk]]), 13:27, 31 January 2018 (CET)<br />
<br />
==Piratez in featured projects?==<br />
It seems out of place that piratez has it's own table on the UFOpedia, and uses (Piratez) to distinguish its own pages, but is not listed on the featured projects. Going to add it if nobody objects. The rationale for adding Long War in this talk pages history (Huge makeover of the original version) pretty much goes doubly so for piratez. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 21:57, 5 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:Only admins can edit Featured Projects. And I object to it. <br />
:I proposed to add Long War because it was the only major mod available to EU/EW, and even got recognition and compliments made by Firaxis (with Jake Solomon joking that he was the guy that designed LW's beta), which was then extended to hiring the LW team to make official XCOM 2 mods for the game's release. So LW is really something special that deserved to get its own recognition. <br />
:Piratez is just one of several total conversions available for OpenXCom, and the intent is not to list all mod projects on Featured Projects, Because then X-Files, Hardmode or Area 51 would also qualify, being also expansions on their own right, although without Piratez's popularity. <br />
:Not to mention that there are other current XCom games like XCOM 2 that have also their own mods. So, if Piratez is added, what happens if someone else from another XCOM game, or current projects being developed like OpenApoc, decides to ask for his major mod to be added?<br />
:The primary intent of this wiki is the XCOM games, and Featured Projects is a way to recognize the hard work and dedication of a few fan projects, OpenXCom being one of them - and if you add Piratez then you're basically saying that Piratez is at the same level as OpenXCom, when Piratez wouldn't exist if there wasn't OpenXCom to begin with. <br />
:Finally, pages with their own suffix (Whatever) don't necessarily translate into Featured Projects, check the existing Interceptor and the Enforcer pages, it's more of a matter of internal page categorization. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:23, 5 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::: Ah okay, but I'm not really convinced, this feels like a matter of scale. I'm not trying to get it added as a featured project because I'm a fan, it just doesn't seem right to not have it there regardless of those reasons. If you look at something like UFO:AI or OpenApoc, on the main featured bar, they're almost completed unupdated and tiny. If the idea is that Piratez should have it's place on this wiki, and not on it's own wiki, then it really should have a place on the main page. If it's not, why is it even on here with hundreds and hundreds of pages? I type in just about any search for x-com related things and see a bunch of piratez pages in the autocomplete. If X-Files, Hardmode, Area 51 had hundreds of pages on the wiki, I'd recommend adding them as well, though they don't. Anyways, just my thoughts, I won't push this anymore. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 01:53, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:::Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan explains the argument more. It The piratez main page is a huge presence on the wiki, and is essentially unaccessable on the wiki. Which is just not what wikis are about. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 01:59, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:::: There are a lot of interesting points in your reply, that I'll try to answer separately to those, since some I have already considered myself.<br />
:::: UFO2000 and UFO:AI are dead projects, UFO2000 had its glory days more than 10 years ago (I was heavily involved with it) and it is playable (although hardly anyone plays it) and UFO:AI was never finished, so there's really an argument there whether both should still be on Featured Projects. OpenApoc on the other hand is actively being developed right now, they have their own Discord channel and it might take a while, but the general feeling is that one day it will reach 1.0 status, like OpenXCom did.<br />
:::: Piratez section on its wiki grew up by itself out of the OpenXCom until now, Dioxine or anyone ever asked permission, that I recall, but since we got the space and it is XCom related, no one objected, and the community is pretty supportive of each other's projects. <br />
:::: If by Auto-Complete you mean Google's search bar then the reason why you get so much Piratez results associated with XCom is because it uses your past search history and page views. I don't get any Piratez results when I search for XCom things because I don't play Piratez (and I don't play LW or LW2 also, but I suggested that they should be added because of their importance).<br />
:::: And this brings me to another important point, which is that Piratez includes content that some people don't really think belongs in an XCom game, namely it being about space pirates, slaves and mutants against aliens, and with the nudity involved. I know it takes place in an alternate universe where XCom lost the war, but if Firaxis announced that XCOM 3 followed Piratez setting, there would be a huge fan backlash because XCom has almost always been about an international, semi-clandestine organization of humans fighting aliens, and never required nudity to be atractive. Piratez setting and aesthetics appeal to a lot of people but to a lot of others it doesn't, even inside the OpenXCom community. <br />
:::: And for instance, I'm the lead developer of Area 51 that was mentioned before, and while it expands the base UFO: Defense game like EW or LW did, if not more, I do not think it should be on Featured Projects because of all the reasons I mentioned before. As a developer I'd love it to be more publicized, but here I need to think first as a wiki administrator, and like I said before, this is an XCOM wiki since it was created 15 years ago, not an OpenXCom one. If this was a wiki dedicated to OXC, then Piratez, Area 51, Tech-Comm (another total conversion I'm working based on the Terminator universe), Warhammer 40k, Dune, and all other major projects, XCom based or not, would belong here, but it isn't.<br />
:::: Finally, we're not talking here about a single orphan article. Orphan articles mean that they can only be accessed by searching the wiki since there aren't any links to them anywhere. Piratez can be accessed through here https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Mods_(OpenXcom). The issue really is that you think Piratez should be more advertised on the wiki by adding it to Featured Projects, but as I said before, it is questionable whether it deserves to get that sort of attention on an XCOM wiki. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 05:37, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::::: Heh, well in any case, looks like someone else added it to featured projects about a year ago: it's just on the featured projects at the very bottom of the page, along with all the other featured projects but with piratez squeezed in haha. Somewhat tangential but a bit on topic: Maybe the front page should just have a section at the top listing all the relevant games on the wiki? I remember like a decade ago when it was just the 1994 version/TFT and Apoc and the main page was very organized and clear, but it's really not now what with the tables of nearly every game on the wiki on the main page and some random lists in random places. Case in point: Piratez is already considered a featured mod by someone and neither of us noticed until this point, nor did I know even enforcer or these other spinoffs existed that you mentioned earlier existed or were on the wiki at all. In any case, glad to have talked this out. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 11:21, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::::: Bluh, one last point, I promise. I think maybe your having made/worked on a huge mod might be influencing your decision: you make it sound like it'd be a bad thing if all OpenXcom mods were featured and I don't think this would even be bad at all. E.g. a lot of games wikis list basically all the relevant large mods for the game in a very visible place. Example: https://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page has a link to a list of pretty much every major mod visible up front without needing to scroll down. To me it just seemed odd specifically for piratez here since it also had a huge space on the wiki, but I don't see an issue with Area 51, Warhammer 40k, etc having a visible place.<br />
<br />
== XCOM 2 section problems ==<br />
<br />
Hi guys,<br />
<br />
I've noticed that there's loads of problems in the XCOM 2 sections - misspellings, orphan pages, a lack of organisation, and so on. Even the term "MEC" was spelt wrong in a page title. I've been tackling a few of these issues, but I'm just thinking that this isn't worth having because Fandom have their own wiki at [https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/XCOM_Wiki] and they've got nearly everything down already.<br />
<br />
What are we trying to do here - dedicate this wiki to the old X-COM and a few mods (ahem, Long War), or adding in Firaxis's new XCOM grouping?<br />
<br />
Just a question in editorial direction.<br />
<br />
--[[User:SpeedofDeath118|SpeedofDeath118]] ([[User talk:SpeedofDeath118|talk]]) 17:08, 16 December 2019 (CET)<br />
:I think the question is more, what are you interested in doing? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:11, 16 December 2019 (CET)<br />
<br />
::The Wiki was set up long before the reboot series, so you could say the classics were its original focus. However it would have been remiss to not accommodate the new games as they appeared. However the wiki thrives or declines entirely on the input of the people that make use of it. If the interest and willingness is there, the sections will grow. If not (looks at the early spinoff titles), then perhaps not so much. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 07:31, 17 December 2019 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Enable dark mode theme? ==<br />
<br />
Would it be possible to add a dark mode option to this wiki? Something like these:<br />
https://help.fandom.com/wiki/Converting_to_hydradark<br />
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Timeless/DarkCSS<br />
: Hi and thanks for asking but after consultation with NineX, we don't have the resources (someone experienced with Mediawiki) to keep the UFOpaedia.org updated to the latest Mediawiki releases. Otherwise, the odds are that things will start breaking with UFOpaedia.org if we change the custom skin, which has happened to other wikis. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:32, 25 October 2021 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I see a "Skin" option when I navigate to Preferences > Appearance (https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering ), but no options other than the default appear. <br />
-[[User:JimmAYY2|JimmAYY2]] ([[User talk:JimmAYY2|talk]]) 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== New and old images not showing? ==<br />
<br />
When adding images to new pages that I've been editing I've noticed some images will never be displayed properly, this includes new images I've uploaded and old images from years ago that I've simply linked in a new page<br />
<br />
On this page:https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Lab_Ship<br />
You can see that while the 'side view' image loads in correctly, however the terrain map images fail to load properly, spouting errors. These are all new images.<br />
<br />
Conversely on this page: https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Battlescape_Strategy_(Hardmode)#Disembarkation_Strategy<br />
While most of those images are also new, the third image is the very old 'motion scanner' image from the vanilla wiki that has been around for a decade, it is also failing to load.<br />
<br />
I've no idea why some images will work and other's won't. I have also tried to do the edits and upload new images from entirly different devices and computers but to no avail.<br />
<br />
Just reporting the issue. Cheers [[User:Steelpoint|Steelpoint]] ([[User talk:Steelpoint|talk]]) 17:52, 3 June 2022 (CEST)<br />
:I just tried to see the image being hosted of the LabShip that wasn't displaying on the gallery and it didn't also load, with the similar error message. Since all the majority of the .pngs you upload seem to be correctly appearing, I'd advise to recheck those .png files. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 03:38, 5 June 2022 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:I've tried taking a new image on a different machine and have re-uploaded it to no avail, I've even taken a new image and converted it to a different file format but it still produces an error output. I've even uploaded the images to different websites to see if there's a problem with the files but the other websites display the image with no issues. <br />
:If we check some of the older pages I made, using the same program to get the UFO images, the images uploaded just fine as evidenced here: https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Sentry_Ship<br />
:I'm just not sure of the issue or if its even one on my end due to how random the issue is. If it was just affecting images I am screenshoting from 'MapViewer' then I'd say that's it but its also cropping errors for a wide range of images from different sources. [[User:Steelpoint|Steelpoint]] ([[User talk:Steelpoint|talk]]) 12:11, 5 June 2022 (CEST)<br />
::I think I might have encountered this bug years ago but I think it got eventually for the images to appear. Try using .jpg instead? Otherwise, I'm afraid I don't have a clue of how to solve it. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 17:33, 9 June 2022 (CEST)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=108308Talk:Main Page2022-06-05T01:38:45Z<p>Hobbes: /* New and old images not showing? */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Welcome To All Rookies'''<br />
<br />
This is the place to talk/ask about general issues concerning the wiki and hopefully someone will answer/reply to them. <br />
<br />
Specific game questions should be asked on the game's individual talk pages. <br />
<br />
For new users, in order to reduce spam you'll need to register to be able to edit pages.<br />
<br />
To start a new topic simply press the '''edit''' button above. Then place your <nowiki>==Topic Name==</nowiki> like it is written here.<br />
* To add a line you can either type <nowiki>----</nowiki> or use the buttons that appear on the edit screen. <br />
* If replying to an existing topic use colons '''<nowiki>:</nowiki>''' before your answer<br />
* Don't forget to sign your posts in the talk pages by typing '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''' at the end. <br />
* Finally when creating/editing wiki articles have a look at the [[Guidelines to writing articles|guidelines]] page. <br />
<br />
That's it. Happy editing!<br />
----<br />
<br />
Old articles have been moved to [[Talk:Main Page/Archive]] for later perusal. <br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
==Removing All Featured Projects from Sidebar==<br />
:We had another request to add an entry to the Featured Projects sidebar (LWOTC) and since we now have a Featured Projects page I've been wondering if it wouldn't be better to remove all the current Featured Projects from the sidebar and put them in that page, for several reasons:<br />
#The wiki has always been focused on the games and not on fan projects.<br />
#There are wiki-relevant sidebar links that keep getting pushed downwards everytime a project is added, like languages or tools.<br />
#With the reboot of the franchise and OpenXCom, a lot of fan projects are in the works. <br />
#While we provide a space for their subwikis if they need, the wiki was never a hub for fan projects and to publicize/monetize them. <br />
#Those projects typically came and use our space but I can't remember any who contributed to the wiki's main pages about the original XCom games, other than placing links to their projects on the original game pages for publicity. <br />
#A couple projects have also left and set up their own wikis, without ever bothering to at least delete their content once they stopped updating it, since they decided they didn't want to be here anymore when they didn't get the publicity they wanted. <br />
#UFO2000 & UFO:AI have zero or limited development for years - they're dead or almost.<br />
#OpenXCom and OpenApoc already have links for their subwikis on the UFO and Apocalypse tables.<br />
#Having Long War and Long War 2 then leads to other large projects like Long War Reworked and Long War of the Chosen also wanting the same attention/publicity. All of those could have also links for them on the Enemy Unknown and XCOM2 tables. <br />
#And the Featured Projects page could be reworked so that they are properly grouped together according to their specific game that they originate from and it could also include a short description about their scope and objectives. <br />
Ideas/Comments? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 06:07, 4 January 2022 (CET)<br />
<br />
==Featured Projects on Sidebar==<br />
I was requested on Discord by user [[Ucross]] to add to the Featured Projects section of the sidebar the mod that he is working on called Long War Rebalance, which is a mod of Long War, and thus a mod of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and I refused the request for the same reasons I already presented below regarding the Piratez mod for OpenXCom.<br />
It's arguable for the same reason that Long War shouldn't on that list for the same reason, it being a mod, but since Firaxis gave the official recognition to both Long Wars, and even gave support to Long War 2, that's the difference I see between Long War and all the other mods made for all XCom games, and thus worthy of recognition as significant contributions by and for the community. The same reason behind UFO2000, OpenXCom, OpenApoc and UFO:AI, they are all entire new XCom games built by teams of fans, and the first three are playable, and you can create mods for them. OpenXCom and OpenApoc are in active development. <br />
As for personal projects to be present on that section, I can think of a ton of projects related to XCom that would deserve to be there, and that would make that list endless an unpractical. And at the end, the objective of this wiki is to inform about the games. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 20:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: It still would be nice for players to be able to find all of the mods/projects that this wiki hosts. What about something like: "Other Projects" where it's a page that lists all other projects occurring for other games? Just a suggestion. Feel free to ignore me. =D [[User:Ucross|Ucross]] ([[User talk:Ucross|talk]]) 16:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I am rather partial to this solution myself. The wiki does need to keep its main focus tight as far as its main content is concerned. But nothing says we cannot have a page that acknowledges and point to other projects of interest. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 04:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Server Move==<br />
In the near future we're going to move to a new server (hosted by NineX) because of the constant site outages and other technical/security issues that have been affecting the wiki since the last year. NineX currently hosts the OpenXCom forums and site, so I feel that it will be a good move since the OpenXCom community has been the most active in keeping the old XCom games alive. <br />
<br />
However we're still not sure if we're gonna be able to keep the old domain (www.ufopaedia.org) or if it will be necessary to move to a new one, and ask everybody to update their links. We're trying to keep the old domain, but right now the choice is to be between keeping things as they currently are, or get the technical/security issues fixed and get back the wiki properly working, even if that means losing the domain and the traffic.<br />
<br />
I personally prefer the 2nd option since we need a wiki that is 100% available for both consulting and editing information, like it did in the past. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 14:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
==Temporary Domain==<br />
We completed the server move thanks to NineX, who also upgraded the wiki's software. The process required that we moved temporarily to a new domain, ufopaedia.info, but we'll return to our old domain, ufopaedia.org, as soon as the process is complete. Thanks for your patience :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 21:40, 28 January 2018 (CET)<br />
<br />
Migration finished. ufopaedia.info is redirecting to ufopaedia.org.<br />
Mediawiki software have been upgraded to latest version , and whole site audited. [[User:NineX|NineX]] ([[User talk:NineX|talk]]), 13:27, 31 January 2018 (CET)<br />
<br />
==Piratez in featured projects?==<br />
It seems out of place that piratez has it's own table on the UFOpedia, and uses (Piratez) to distinguish its own pages, but is not listed on the featured projects. Going to add it if nobody objects. The rationale for adding Long War in this talk pages history (Huge makeover of the original version) pretty much goes doubly so for piratez. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 21:57, 5 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:Only admins can edit Featured Projects. And I object to it. <br />
:I proposed to add Long War because it was the only major mod available to EU/EW, and even got recognition and compliments made by Firaxis (with Jake Solomon joking that he was the guy that designed LW's beta), which was then extended to hiring the LW team to make official XCOM 2 mods for the game's release. So LW is really something special that deserved to get its own recognition. <br />
:Piratez is just one of several total conversions available for OpenXCom, and the intent is not to list all mod projects on Featured Projects, Because then X-Files, Hardmode or Area 51 would also qualify, being also expansions on their own right, although without Piratez's popularity. <br />
:Not to mention that there are other current XCom games like XCOM 2 that have also their own mods. So, if Piratez is added, what happens if someone else from another XCOM game, or current projects being developed like OpenApoc, decides to ask for his major mod to be added?<br />
:The primary intent of this wiki is the XCOM games, and Featured Projects is a way to recognize the hard work and dedication of a few fan projects, OpenXCom being one of them - and if you add Piratez then you're basically saying that Piratez is at the same level as OpenXCom, when Piratez wouldn't exist if there wasn't OpenXCom to begin with. <br />
:Finally, pages with their own suffix (Whatever) don't necessarily translate into Featured Projects, check the existing Interceptor and the Enforcer pages, it's more of a matter of internal page categorization. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:23, 5 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::: Ah okay, but I'm not really convinced, this feels like a matter of scale. I'm not trying to get it added as a featured project because I'm a fan, it just doesn't seem right to not have it there regardless of those reasons. If you look at something like UFO:AI or OpenApoc, on the main featured bar, they're almost completed unupdated and tiny. If the idea is that Piratez should have it's place on this wiki, and not on it's own wiki, then it really should have a place on the main page. If it's not, why is it even on here with hundreds and hundreds of pages? I type in just about any search for x-com related things and see a bunch of piratez pages in the autocomplete. If X-Files, Hardmode, Area 51 had hundreds of pages on the wiki, I'd recommend adding them as well, though they don't. Anyways, just my thoughts, I won't push this anymore. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 01:53, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:::Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan explains the argument more. It The piratez main page is a huge presence on the wiki, and is essentially unaccessable on the wiki. Which is just not what wikis are about. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 01:59, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:::: There are a lot of interesting points in your reply, that I'll try to answer separately to those, since some I have already considered myself.<br />
:::: UFO2000 and UFO:AI are dead projects, UFO2000 had its glory days more than 10 years ago (I was heavily involved with it) and it is playable (although hardly anyone plays it) and UFO:AI was never finished, so there's really an argument there whether both should still be on Featured Projects. OpenApoc on the other hand is actively being developed right now, they have their own Discord channel and it might take a while, but the general feeling is that one day it will reach 1.0 status, like OpenXCom did.<br />
:::: Piratez section on its wiki grew up by itself out of the OpenXCom until now, Dioxine or anyone ever asked permission, that I recall, but since we got the space and it is XCom related, no one objected, and the community is pretty supportive of each other's projects. <br />
:::: If by Auto-Complete you mean Google's search bar then the reason why you get so much Piratez results associated with XCom is because it uses your past search history and page views. I don't get any Piratez results when I search for XCom things because I don't play Piratez (and I don't play LW or LW2 also, but I suggested that they should be added because of their importance).<br />
:::: And this brings me to another important point, which is that Piratez includes content that some people don't really think belongs in an XCom game, namely it being about space pirates, slaves and mutants against aliens, and with the nudity involved. I know it takes place in an alternate universe where XCom lost the war, but if Firaxis announced that XCOM 3 followed Piratez setting, there would be a huge fan backlash because XCom has almost always been about an international, semi-clandestine organization of humans fighting aliens, and never required nudity to be atractive. Piratez setting and aesthetics appeal to a lot of people but to a lot of others it doesn't, even inside the OpenXCom community. <br />
:::: And for instance, I'm the lead developer of Area 51 that was mentioned before, and while it expands the base UFO: Defense game like EW or LW did, if not more, I do not think it should be on Featured Projects because of all the reasons I mentioned before. As a developer I'd love it to be more publicized, but here I need to think first as a wiki administrator, and like I said before, this is an XCOM wiki since it was created 15 years ago, not an OpenXCom one. If this was a wiki dedicated to OXC, then Piratez, Area 51, Tech-Comm (another total conversion I'm working based on the Terminator universe), Warhammer 40k, Dune, and all other major projects, XCom based or not, would belong here, but it isn't.<br />
:::: Finally, we're not talking here about a single orphan article. Orphan articles mean that they can only be accessed by searching the wiki since there aren't any links to them anywhere. Piratez can be accessed through here https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Mods_(OpenXcom). The issue really is that you think Piratez should be more advertised on the wiki by adding it to Featured Projects, but as I said before, it is questionable whether it deserves to get that sort of attention on an XCOM wiki. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 05:37, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::::: Heh, well in any case, looks like someone else added it to featured projects about a year ago: it's just on the featured projects at the very bottom of the page, along with all the other featured projects but with piratez squeezed in haha. Somewhat tangential but a bit on topic: Maybe the front page should just have a section at the top listing all the relevant games on the wiki? I remember like a decade ago when it was just the 1994 version/TFT and Apoc and the main page was very organized and clear, but it's really not now what with the tables of nearly every game on the wiki on the main page and some random lists in random places. Case in point: Piratez is already considered a featured mod by someone and neither of us noticed until this point, nor did I know even enforcer or these other spinoffs existed that you mentioned earlier existed or were on the wiki at all. In any case, glad to have talked this out. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 11:21, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::::: Bluh, one last point, I promise. I think maybe your having made/worked on a huge mod might be influencing your decision: you make it sound like it'd be a bad thing if all OpenXcom mods were featured and I don't think this would even be bad at all. E.g. a lot of games wikis list basically all the relevant large mods for the game in a very visible place. Example: https://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page has a link to a list of pretty much every major mod visible up front without needing to scroll down. To me it just seemed odd specifically for piratez here since it also had a huge space on the wiki, but I don't see an issue with Area 51, Warhammer 40k, etc having a visible place.<br />
<br />
== XCOM 2 section problems ==<br />
<br />
Hi guys,<br />
<br />
I've noticed that there's loads of problems in the XCOM 2 sections - misspellings, orphan pages, a lack of organisation, and so on. Even the term "MEC" was spelt wrong in a page title. I've been tackling a few of these issues, but I'm just thinking that this isn't worth having because Fandom have their own wiki at [https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/XCOM_Wiki] and they've got nearly everything down already.<br />
<br />
What are we trying to do here - dedicate this wiki to the old X-COM and a few mods (ahem, Long War), or adding in Firaxis's new XCOM grouping?<br />
<br />
Just a question in editorial direction.<br />
<br />
--[[User:SpeedofDeath118|SpeedofDeath118]] ([[User talk:SpeedofDeath118|talk]]) 17:08, 16 December 2019 (CET)<br />
:I think the question is more, what are you interested in doing? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:11, 16 December 2019 (CET)<br />
<br />
::The Wiki was set up long before the reboot series, so you could say the classics were its original focus. However it would have been remiss to not accommodate the new games as they appeared. However the wiki thrives or declines entirely on the input of the people that make use of it. If the interest and willingness is there, the sections will grow. If not (looks at the early spinoff titles), then perhaps not so much. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 07:31, 17 December 2019 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Enable dark mode theme? ==<br />
<br />
Would it be possible to add a dark mode option to this wiki? Something like these:<br />
https://help.fandom.com/wiki/Converting_to_hydradark<br />
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Timeless/DarkCSS<br />
: Hi and thanks for asking but after consultation with NineX, we don't have the resources (someone experienced with Mediawiki) to keep the UFOpaedia.org updated to the latest Mediawiki releases. Otherwise, the odds are that things will start breaking with UFOpaedia.org if we change the custom skin, which has happened to other wikis. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:32, 25 October 2021 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I see a "Skin" option when I navigate to Preferences > Appearance (https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering ), but no options other than the default appear. <br />
-[[User:JimmAYY2|JimmAYY2]] ([[User talk:JimmAYY2|talk]]) 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== New and old images not showing? ==<br />
<br />
When adding images to new pages that I've been editing I've noticed some images will never be displayed properly, this includes new images I've uploaded and old images from years ago that I've simply linked in a new page<br />
<br />
On this page:https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Lab_Ship<br />
You can see that while the 'side view' image loads in correctly, however the terrain map images fail to load properly, spouting errors. These are all new images.<br />
<br />
Conversely on this page: https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Battlescape_Strategy_(Hardmode)#Disembarkation_Strategy<br />
While most of those images are also new, the third image is the very old 'motion scanner' image from the vanilla wiki that has been around for a decade, it is also failing to load.<br />
<br />
I've no idea why some images will work and other's won't. I have also tried to do the edits and upload new images from entirly different devices and computers but to no avail.<br />
<br />
Just reporting the issue. Cheers [[User:Steelpoint|Steelpoint]] ([[User talk:Steelpoint|talk]]) 17:52, 3 June 2022 (CEST)<br />
:I just tried to see the image being hosted of the LabShip that wasn't displaying on the gallery and it didn't also load, with the similar error message. Since all the majority of the .pngs you upload seem to be correctly appearing, I'd advise to recheck those .png files. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 03:38, 5 June 2022 (CEST)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Personal_Disruptor_Shield&diff=107730Talk:Personal Disruptor Shield2022-05-11T18:12:26Z<p>Hobbes: Maybe in 16.5 years in the future this discussion can be useful ;)</p>
<hr />
<div>Some Questions:<br />
<br />
* Do multiple shields all work together, at once, or do they discharge one after another, when being attacked.<br />
* Pretty sure Psionics are not stopped by shields, not sure on Laser, Plasma, Multiworm Spit, Hyperworm Bite.<br />
<br />
thx [[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]] Nov 2005<br />
<br />
Hmm, May 2022 <br />
I've answered myself!<br />
<br />
THIS PAGE CAN BE DELETED or blanked.<br />
:Maybe in 16.5 years in the future this discussion can be useful ;) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 20:12, 11 May 2022 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Personal shields ==<br />
<br />
Right, let's see... <br />
<br />
Personal shields provide something like 100 or 200 temporary rechargeable hitpoints per shield (Will need to double check that amount). Each shield works and recharges independantly but the display on your agent's health bar is a combined total all of all the shields. Basically the bar that you see is: <br />
<br />
&Sigma; Remaining Shield Power &divide; &Sigma; shield capacity <br />
<br />
Or something like that. So it pays to examine your shields and drop weakened shields for a while so that they don't get destroyed.<br />
<br />
Next, shields temporarily protect against all types of damage except: anti-alien toxin, air based stun attacks (not projectile) and Anti-Alien Gas. <br />
<br />
Psi isn't a projectile or air-based agent so it also ignores shields. Fire doesn't damage shields, but the AI's automatic reaction to running away from flames still kicks in. <br />
<br />
Shields also protect a unit from fall damage. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
When any amount of disruptor shields are equipped, the protective fields merge and the blue "shield bar" shows the total of all shields. If I remember correctly, only once all combined shields fail, the entire array of personal disruptor shields are destroyed.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Karpatius|Karp]] 04:05, 20 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: Shields work independently in the battlescape and will get destroyed individually as they lose power, but show a unified bar. The cityscape on the other hand combines them into one and zaps the lot once the energy is drained. Hmm, actually does anyone know how the game determines which shield to draw damage from? I'm guessing it might be some sort of first-on-the-list type of thing. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 05:59, 20 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Ugh... guess I remembered it wrong. But now this is getting a little confusing. Maybe the game assigns each shield it's own ID in combat that is used to determine the drain order or something? That would seem like a fairly practical system, but I'm no expert on the games mechanics.<br />
<br />
::But I do seem to recall shields being destroyed in the backpack from top to bottom.<br />
<br />
::--[[User:Karpatius|Karp]] 22:00, 20 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== 50% damage from all other sources? ==<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure the shield takes more than 50% damage from the Entropy Launcher. Otherwise it would take an average of 9% per Entropy Launcher hit, which is significantly lower than what I've observed. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 16:18, 16 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I don't have the game installed to check, but that doesn't sound right. From recollection a single Entropy missile can tear down 1/3 of the currently the active Disrupter Shield per missile. I have a feeling it might be another of those the exceptions that ignore the rules. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 07:27, 17 August 2018 (CEST)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=User_talk:EsTeR&diff=107421User talk:EsTeR2022-04-29T00:59:22Z<p>Hobbes: </p>
<hr />
<div>Hey there :)<br />
Great work on the Apocalypse pages, it's nice to see editors giving love to my first XCOM game. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 02:59, 29 April 2022 (CEST)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Tactics_(Apocalypse)&diff=107403Tactics (Apocalypse)2022-04-28T16:09:48Z<p>Hobbes: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''A collection of strategies and tactics when fighting on the battlescape.'''<br />
<br>''...written mostly in a fashion where [[Real-Time_Combat_(Apocalypse)|Real-Time Combat]] is used.''<br><br />
An un-informed player with an under-equipped squad is a bad combination.<br />
==Don't Get Hurt==<br />
* How to [[Starting_a_Mission_(Apocalypse)|start]] a mission.<br />
* What to use when [[Suggestions_for_Equipping_Troops_(Apocalypse)|equipping troops]].<br />
* The types of [[Tactical_Combat_Missions_(Apocalypse)|missions]] possible.<br />
* How to [[Controls_(Apocalypse)|fight well]].<br />
* Using the battlescape [[Take_Cover!|environment]].<br />
* Fighting and getting [[Engaging_the_Enemy_(Apocalypse)|good at it]].<br />
* Customising squads for [[Strategies_for_Troops_(Apocalypse)|efficiency]].<br />
* Getting to know your [[Capturing_Live_Aliens_(Apocalypse)|enemy]].<br />
* Playing with their [[Psionics_(Apocalypse)|mind]].<br />
* There is no place like [[Base_Defense_(Apocalypse)|home]].<br />
* And you can also try to [[Blitzing_(Apocalypse)|blitz]] your opponents.<br> <br />
'''See Also:'''<br />
[[Turn-Based_Combat_(Apocalypse)|Turn-Based Combat]]<br />
<br />
[[Category: Apocalypse]]</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Marsec_High_Explosive&diff=107402Marsec High Explosive2022-04-28T16:02:55Z<p>Hobbes: Demolishing buildings</p>
<hr />
<div> A high explosive system for breaking through barriers or impassable terrain. Extra care must be taken when throwing this device. Its increased size means that it can't be thrown the same distance as a conventional grenade.<br />
[[Image:Marsec High Explosive (UFOpaedia).png|frame|High Explosive]]<br />
<table><tr><td>[[Image:Marsec High Explosive.png|left]]</td><td><br />
* Size: 2 × 2<br />
* Weight: 14<br />
* Power: 120<br />
* Damage Type: Explosive<br />
* Blast Radius: 7<br />
* Manufacturer: [[Marsec]]<br />
* Base Price: $800<br />
* Minimum Weekly Stock: 8<br />
* Maximum Weekly Stock: 16<br />
* Battlescape Score: 2</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
Explode-on-impact when thrown. RMB on grenade image in agent's hand.<br />
<br />
A strong, but heavy, <s>demolition charge</s> explosive grenade used to injure or kill stronger hostile forces, destroy building structures such as wall, ramps, fire escapes etc. and may form a crater in grassy terrain. An agent may not be strong enough to throw such a heavy device far enough to escape its blast radius, so using detonate-on-impact may not be suitable unless it is thrown from a high elevation, onto hostiles below. The timer will allow tactical placement, or dropped from flying agents, then evacuate the immediate area. A proximity mine salted with a single High Explosive works well.<br />
<br />
It is possible to bring down entire buildings through proper placement and timing of enough High Explosives. As a example see: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWvmbFeHX1g&ab_channel=Vadios83] <br />
<br />
{{Equipment (Apocalypse) Navbar}}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Apocalypse]]<br />
[[Category: Agents Equipment (Apocalypse)]]</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Controls_(Apocalypse)&diff=106804Controls (Apocalypse)2022-03-31T20:18:03Z<p>Hobbes: /* Notes */</p>
<hr />
<div>=Attitude=<br />
X-Com agents on the battlescape area are controlled by an Attitude system (similiar to [[Alien_Ship_Combat_(Apocalypse)|craft]] attitude) which, depending on the level of autonomy, may perform actions without direct input from the player. The colour matching the selected attitude is displayed above the unit (or grouping of units) in isometric view of the battlescape.<br />
==Safe Mode==<br />
'''Blue'''<br><br />
The agent with a '''Safe''' attitude will seek cover from a hostile as first preference, may break visual contact in doing so, and then may engage in combat. This is similar to how a panicked hostile acts. As avoidance is paramount, this mode may be unhelpful because your agent may ignore your movement commands. If moving position in view of a hostile entity (and set to walking) the agent will run instead.<br><br />
This mode is primarily used if you want your unit to avoid hostiles. <br />
==Cautious Mode==<br />
'''Green'''<br><br />
The agent with a '''Cautious''' attitude will engage a hostile unit, will try to find cover when "Under Fire" and return fire when the incoming attack ceases. When seeking cover behind an object such as a wall, the cautious agent will side-step (strafe) to face the enemy and fire, quickly moving back when there is return fire. Your agent remains aware of enemy positions by trying not to break visual contact for too long. If moving position in view of a hostile entity (and set to walking) the agent will run instead.<br><br />
This mode is primarily used if you want your unit to engage a difficult enemy.<br />
==Agressive Mode==<br />
'''Red'''<br><br />
The agent with an '''Agressive''' attitude will not seek cover and will fire towards hostiles disregarding civilians and neutrals in the way.<br><br />
This mode is primarily used if you want your unit to obey your command.<br />
==Notes==<br />
* Offence is the best defence.<br />
* An agent within fire or stun gas will immediately run and disregard any attitude command or movement setting. If the agent is not wearing a helmet, smoke will have the same effect as (very weak) stun gas. When the area is safe, they will automatically return to their original position. <br />
* A grenade being thrown will make ''safe'' and ''cautious'' agents run away from it. This is dangerous if they run from a Boomeroid.<br />
* If agents are in position to attack hostiles at a choke point, ''safe'' and ''cautious'' agents may start moving about to get to cover once the hostiles are engaged. This is dangerous since weapons aren't being fired when Brainsuckers and Poppers are near. Don't do the [[Popper (Apocalypse)|blue chicken]] dance.<br />
<br />
=Movement=<br />
Note: If set to walk or crawl, an agent that has no weapons will run if they see an enemy, but resume walking/crawling once any visual contact is lost.<br />
<br />
===Crawl===<br />
The agent will drop to the ground and will start to crawl. You need at least 2 free tiles in order to crawl. If in a confined situation, the soldier will stand instead. <br />
<br />
Going prone reduces your size as a target and improves your weapon accuracy considerably. However you will move very slowly, and you will not be able to look over small obstacles like low walls. Brainsuckers cannot attach themselves when an agent is prone. They may jump nearby but land stunned.<br />
<br />
In Turn based, TU movement consumption will be at its highest.<br />
<br />
===Walk===<br />
The agent will walk to your way point, or walk (usually, but will run sometimes) to a position when seeking cover. An agent is able to fire a weapon when walking but at reduced accuracy. Stamina drain and recovery is equal, so stamina is not consumed nor recovered while walking. <br />
<br />
The only two reasons to walk is to fire on the move and to conserve stamina.<br />
<br />
Your walking speed will vary depending on your speed and encumbrance levels. Single file formation and some disposition settings will override the walk and make the agent sprint in short bursts. <br />
<br />
In Turn based, TU consumption and Stamina are consumed at the normal rate. <br />
<br />
===Run===<br />
The agent will run until tired. Your soldier cannot fire their weapons when moving. Running is very dependent on Stamina. The more your Agent has, the longer they can run. Once they run out of stamina, they will default to walking until they regain some stamina. <br />
<br />
In Turn Based, the TU consumption is reduced, while Stamina consumption is increased.<br />
<br />
===Kneel===<br />
When ordered to kneel, agents will drop to a kneeling position as soon as they have no movement orders. Kneeling makes an agent a smaller target like crawling, but not as much and agents can peek over low objects with minimal exposure. Kneeling also makes aiming more steady so that agents get an accuracy bonus when kneeling, but again, not as much as when crawling.<br />
<br />
Agents cannot move when kneeling and any movement orders will make them stand up and kneel again when the orders have been finished or cleared. Turning is still allowed. Agents will keep kneeling ( and standing up when moving ) for as long as the kneeling button is active.<br />
<br />
In Turn Based, TU's are consumed whenever an agent has to stand up and kneel back down, so careless use can waste a lot of TU's as the agent kneels up and down between movement orders.<br />
<br />
== Formations ==<br />
The formations control how groups of agents move in the battlescape. There are only two modes, formation and single file. <br />
<br />
===Formation===<br />
The selected agents will move to the next waypoint and stop in a chequered formation. They will attempt to move at their best possible speed depending on how tired they are and what movement modes have been set. This can cause faster soldiers to outdistance slower soldiers.<br />
<br />
This is the default setting and most players never switch away from this mode. <br />
<br />
===Single File===<br />
<br />
Single File is a very interesting formation mode that is rarely used by most players due to a small loss in control that it has over the squad.<br />
<br />
It causes a team of agents to dynamically coordinate amongst themselves, no matter how disarrayed they may seem, to fluidly form a single file formation, with the leader or point man always being the agent nearest the way point you specify. This restructuring of the single file chain always happens when you move the team as a group. <br />
<br />
Once a single file chain is set up, each agent will have a buddy that they'll always follow. If you were to deselect the team and select the current leader, all of the other agents will automatically wander after the leader. If you were to break the chain and pick an agent in the middle, that agent becomes the leader of his or her own smaller single file chain. All of the chained agents will keep following their lead unit until they are issued a move order. <br />
<br />
This chaining can be used on soldiers in other teams. With clever use of chaining small single-file formations of agents from others squads together, you could move two squads about the field by only controlling one squad in formation, with each agent in a secondary squad attached to an agent in the first squad. <br />
<br />
Chains of agents have an irregular movement pattern. See the next section for details. This irregularity affects any agent that is part of a chain. Even if the lead unit is walking in Formation mode, this movement irregularity continues to hold true until the agent is removed from a Single File chain. <br />
<br />
While a very clever walking mode, this movement irregularity causes a small loss in control, thus making it less generally desirable to use. <br />
<br />
This mode fails because of the awkward movement, but is a great way of micromanaging small groups. You can use it to make an agent from a different squad follow a member from another squad automatically. By walking and using aggressive, these units can walk around and automatically use reaction fire on any enemies attacking the leading unit. <br />
<br />
====Walking and running in Single File ====<br />
When walking in the single file mode, the agents may, for reasons unknown, vary their movement from a sluggish walk that is slower than the normal walk or may even sprint towards the nearest agent or (for the leading agent) way point in varying bursts. This is frustrating, therefore you cannot rely on them to walk or run normally when in single file. <br />
<br />
If you must rush everyone to a particular location in a hurry, break out of single file and go to formation, and either move in formation or manually order your troops one at a time.<br />
<br />
===Combining Single File and Formation Mode===<br />
<br />
By using single file mode, you can link agents from any group with agents with another. For example, you can get six agents from another squad individually attach themselves to members of the main squad of six agents by making the agents in the first squad the lead unit in mini single-file formations. <br />
<br />
Once the units are attached, you can select your main squad and then go back to formation mode. Your main squad will now be able to move about in formation, and the soldiers in the other squad will automatically follow the main squad and basically hover around the primary squad. Note however that because the soldiers are made up of mini single-file formations, your leading units may have their speed affected as if they were in single file. <br />
<br />
You can also make longer mini-chains, however this can lead to a big mess agents getting in each others' way.<br />
<br />
== Shot Types ==<br />
There are four different shot types that affect the fire rate and accuracy of weapons.<br />
<br />
'''None'''<br />
<br />
Prevents the agent from firing the weapon. It should be used if you want to capture a Alien and don't want it injured.<br />
<br />
'''Aimed-Shot''' <br />
<br />
The slowest and most accurate of the Shot Types. When using this Shot Type units will aim at the selected target. Aimed Shots will caused the least damage to buildings, and it is best used when you want to minimize damage to the surrounding area.<br />
<br />
'''Snap-Shot'''<br />
<br />
The default Shot Type. It is faster then the Aimed Shot, but it is less accurate. When this Shot Type is selected units will fire a unaimed shot in the targets general direction. This shot is best used when the unit is close to the target.<br />
<br />
'''Auto-Shot'''<br />
<br />
The fastest and least accurate of the Shot Types. When this Shot Type is selected, the unit will fire short bursts at the target. It is best utilized at short ranges. If used indiscriminately, this Shot Type can cause unintended damage to the surrounding area.<br />
[[Category: Apocalypse]]</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Government&diff=106681Talk:Government2022-03-23T16:30:49Z<p>Hobbes: </p>
<hr />
<div>I've read that the decision to terminate funding is irreversible, even if the Government reconciles with X-COM. Can anybody confirm this? [[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 20:08, 22 March 2022 (CET)<br />
:Haven't played the game for a long time but I also have that idea. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 17:30, 23 March 2022 (CET)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Utilities_(Apocalypse)&diff=106638Utilities (Apocalypse)2022-03-19T17:40:10Z<p>Hobbes: ApocUtil does exist - download link updated</p>
<hr />
<div>= Editors and Utilities=<br />
<br />
==Apoc'D==<br />
Filename: Apoc_D.zip<br><br />
Filesize: 199 kB<br> <br />
Author: J'ordos<br><br />
Version: 3.06c<br><br />
Download: http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/apocd/<br><br />
====Notes====<br />
This editor is probably the best overall. It should be your first preference. Easy to use interface and many many options when making changes to the game mechanics for a new game. Allows editing of savegames as well.<br />
<br />
==Apatcher==<br />
Filename: apatcher.zip<br><br />
Filesize:68kB<br> <br />
Author: J'ordos<br><br />
Version: 1.5<br><br />
Download: http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/a-patcher/<br><br />
====Notes====<br />
Easy to use interface with options to change functions which Apoc'D does not, such as UFO appearance timers, available hire pool, Megapol vehicle settings, etc. This editor enables the hidden Cityscape Editor (which allows completely changing the city maps). <br><br />
Apatcher makes changes immediately to the relevant files so this allows early closing of the program. You don't have to go through all the options until the end. Just terminate the program with Ctrl-C (WinXP).<br />
<br />
===Notes: Apoc'd and Apatcher===<br />
Apoc'd and Apatcher are probably the best editors to use to change settings. There is no graphics or agent face editing functions. If a cityscape building location has been changed when using the Cityscape Editor, Apoc'd allows changing the X-Y co-ordinates of that building which is not available in the actual city editor. Functions which are missing are editing score, base inventory, alien containment within savegames.<br />
<br />
==ApocUtil==<br />
This program modifies savegames and program files<br><br />
Filename: <br />
Filesize: <br><br />
Author: Scott T Jones<br><br />
Version: <br> <br />
Source: https://sites.google.com/site/stjones/xcomutil/<br><br />
Download: http://web.archive.org/web/20071231230000/members.aol.com/stjones/xcomutil/apocut10.zipAA<br />
<br />
==XCOMAPOC Cheat==<br />
Filename: xComApCh-Win32.zip<br><br />
Filesize: 30.2kB<br><br />
Author: Vasiliy 'Atrosha' Panasenko<br><br />
Version: 0.0.60<br><br />
Download: https://github.com/Atrosha/xComApCh/releases<br><br />
====Notes====<br />
Lastest version is from 2020. A simple savegame editor which can change money and other basic functions.<br><br />
<br />
[[Category:Apocalypse]]</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Utilities_(Apocalypse)&diff=106637Utilities (Apocalypse)2022-03-19T17:39:45Z<p>Hobbes: Reverted edits by Hobbes (talk) to last revision by EsTeR</p>
<hr />
<div>= Editors and Utilities=<br />
<br />
==Apoc'D==<br />
Filename: Apoc_D.zip<br><br />
Filesize: 199 kB<br> <br />
Author: J'ordos<br><br />
Version: 3.06c<br><br />
Download: http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/apocd/<br><br />
====Notes====<br />
This editor is probably the best overall. It should be your first preference. Easy to use interface and many many options when making changes to the game mechanics for a new game. Allows editing of savegames as well.<br />
<br />
==Apatcher==<br />
Filename: apatcher.zip<br><br />
Filesize:68kB<br> <br />
Author: J'ordos<br><br />
Version: 1.5<br><br />
Download: http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/a-patcher/<br><br />
====Notes====<br />
Easy to use interface with options to change functions which Apoc'D does not, such as UFO appearance timers, available hire pool, Megapol vehicle settings, etc. This editor enables the hidden Cityscape Editor (which allows completely changing the city maps). <br><br />
Apatcher makes changes immediately to the relevant files so this allows early closing of the program. You don't have to go through all the options until the end. Just terminate the program with Ctrl-C (WinXP).<br />
<br />
===Notes: Apoc'd and Apatcher===<br />
Apoc'd and Apatcher are probably the best editors to use to change settings. There is no graphics or agent face editing functions. If a cityscape building location has been changed when using the Cityscape Editor, Apoc'd allows changing the X-Y co-ordinates of that building which is not available in the actual city editor. Functions which are missing are editing score, base inventory, alien containment within savegames.<br />
<br />
==XCOMAPOC Cheat==<br />
Filename: xComApCh-Win32.zip<br><br />
Filesize: 30.2kB<br><br />
Author: Vasiliy 'Atrosha' Panasenko<br><br />
Version: 0.0.60<br><br />
Download: https://github.com/Atrosha/xComApCh/releases<br><br />
====Notes====<br />
Lastest version is from 2020. A simple savegame editor which can change money and other basic functions.<br><br />
<br />
[[Category:Apocalypse]]</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Utilities_(Apocalypse)&diff=106636Utilities (Apocalypse)2022-03-19T17:39:24Z<p>Hobbes: ApocUtil does exist - download link updated</p>
<hr />
<div>= Editors and Utilities=<br />
<br />
==Apoc'D==<br />
Filename: Apoc_D.zip<br><br />
Filesize: 199 kB<br> <br />
Author: J'ordos<br><br />
Version: 3.06c<br><br />
Download: http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/apocd/<br><br />
====Notes====<br />
This editor is probably the best overall. It should be your first preference. Easy to use interface and many many options when making changes to the game mechanics for a new game. Allows editing of savegames as well.<br />
<br />
<br />
==ApocUtil==<br />
This program modifies savegames and program files<br><br />
Filename: <br />
Filesize: <br><br />
Author: Scott T Jones<br><br />
Version: <br> <br />
Source: https://sites.google.com/site/stjones/xcomutil/<br><br />
Download: http://web.archive.org/web/20071231230000/members.aol.com/stjones/xcomutil/apocut10.zipAA</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=105315Talk:Main Page2022-01-04T05:07:50Z<p>Hobbes: Removing All Featured Projects from Sidebar</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Welcome To All Rookies'''<br />
<br />
This is the place to talk/ask about general issues concerning the wiki and hopefully someone will answer/reply to them. <br />
<br />
Specific game questions should be asked on the game's individual talk pages. <br />
<br />
For new users, in order to reduce spam you'll need to register to be able to edit pages.<br />
<br />
To start a new topic simply press the '''edit''' button above. Then place your <nowiki>==Topic Name==</nowiki> like it is written here.<br />
* To add a line you can either type <nowiki>----</nowiki> or use the buttons that appear on the edit screen. <br />
* If replying to an existing topic use colons '''<nowiki>:</nowiki>''' before your answer<br />
* Don't forget to sign your posts in the talk pages by typing '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''' at the end. <br />
* Finally when creating/editing wiki articles have a look at the [[Guidelines to writing articles|guidelines]] page. <br />
<br />
That's it. Happy editing!<br />
----<br />
<br />
Old articles have been moved to [[Talk:Main Page/Archive]] for later perusal. <br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
==Removing All Featured Projects from Sidebar==<br />
:We had another request to add an entry to the Featured Projects sidebar (LWOTC) and since we now have a Featured Projects page I've been wondering if it wouldn't be better to remove all the current Featured Projects from the sidebar and put them in that page, for several reasons:<br />
#The wiki has always been focused on the games and not on fan projects.<br />
#There are wiki-relevant sidebar links that keep getting pushed downwards everytime a project is added, like languages or tools.<br />
#With the reboot of the franchise and OpenXCom, a lot of fan projects are in the works. <br />
#While we provide a space for their subwikis if they need, the wiki was never a hub for fan projects and to publicize/monetize them. <br />
#Those projects typically came and use our space but I can't remember any who contributed to the wiki's main pages about the original XCom games, other than placing links to their projects on the original game pages for publicity. <br />
#A couple projects have also left and set up their own wikis, without ever bothering to at least delete their content once they stopped updating it, since they decided they didn't want to be here anymore when they didn't get the publicity they wanted. <br />
#UFO2000 & UFO:AI have zero or limited development for years - they're dead or almost.<br />
#OpenXCom and OpenApoc already have links for their subwikis on the UFO and Apocalypse tables.<br />
#Having Long War and Long War 2 then leads to other large projects like Long War Reworked and Long War of the Chosen also wanting the same attention/publicity. All of those could have also links for them on the Enemy Unknown and XCOM2 tables. <br />
#And the Featured Projects page could be reworked so that they are properly grouped together according to their specific game that they originate from and it could also include a short description about their scope and objectives. <br />
Ideas/Comments? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 06:07, 4 January 2022 (CET)<br />
<br />
==Featured Projects on Sidebar==<br />
I was requested on Discord by user [[Ucross]] to add to the Featured Projects section of the sidebar the mod that he is working on called Long War Rebalance, which is a mod of Long War, and thus a mod of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and I refused the request for the same reasons I already presented below regarding the Piratez mod for OpenXCom.<br />
It's arguable for the same reason that Long War shouldn't on that list for the same reason, it being a mod, but since Firaxis gave the official recognition to both Long Wars, and even gave support to Long War 2, that's the difference I see between Long War and all the other mods made for all XCom games, and thus worthy of recognition as significant contributions by and for the community. The same reason behind UFO2000, OpenXCom, OpenApoc and UFO:AI, they are all entire new XCom games built by teams of fans, and the first three are playable, and you can create mods for them. OpenXCom and OpenApoc are in active development. <br />
As for personal projects to be present on that section, I can think of a ton of projects related to XCom that would deserve to be there, and that would make that list endless an unpractical. And at the end, the objective of this wiki is to inform about the games. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 20:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: It still would be nice for players to be able to find all of the mods/projects that this wiki hosts. What about something like: "Other Projects" where it's a page that lists all other projects occurring for other games? Just a suggestion. Feel free to ignore me. =D [[User:Ucross|Ucross]] ([[User talk:Ucross|talk]]) 16:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I am rather partial to this solution myself. The wiki does need to keep its main focus tight as far as its main content is concerned. But nothing says we cannot have a page that acknowledges and point to other projects of interest. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 04:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Server Move==<br />
In the near future we're going to move to a new server (hosted by NineX) because of the constant site outages and other technical/security issues that have been affecting the wiki since the last year. NineX currently hosts the OpenXCom forums and site, so I feel that it will be a good move since the OpenXCom community has been the most active in keeping the old XCom games alive. <br />
<br />
However we're still not sure if we're gonna be able to keep the old domain (www.ufopaedia.org) or if it will be necessary to move to a new one, and ask everybody to update their links. We're trying to keep the old domain, but right now the choice is to be between keeping things as they currently are, or get the technical/security issues fixed and get back the wiki properly working, even if that means losing the domain and the traffic.<br />
<br />
I personally prefer the 2nd option since we need a wiki that is 100% available for both consulting and editing information, like it did in the past. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 14:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
==Temporary Domain==<br />
We completed the server move thanks to NineX, who also upgraded the wiki's software. The process required that we moved temporarily to a new domain, ufopaedia.info, but we'll return to our old domain, ufopaedia.org, as soon as the process is complete. Thanks for your patience :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 21:40, 28 January 2018 (CET)<br />
<br />
Migration finished. ufopaedia.info is redirecting to ufopaedia.org.<br />
Mediawiki software have been upgraded to latest version , and whole site audited. [[User:NineX|NineX]] ([[User talk:NineX|talk]]), 13:27, 31 January 2018 (CET)<br />
<br />
==Piratez in featured projects?==<br />
It seems out of place that piratez has it's own table on the UFOpedia, and uses (Piratez) to distinguish its own pages, but is not listed on the featured projects. Going to add it if nobody objects. The rationale for adding Long War in this talk pages history (Huge makeover of the original version) pretty much goes doubly so for piratez. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 21:57, 5 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:Only admins can edit Featured Projects. And I object to it. <br />
:I proposed to add Long War because it was the only major mod available to EU/EW, and even got recognition and compliments made by Firaxis (with Jake Solomon joking that he was the guy that designed LW's beta), which was then extended to hiring the LW team to make official XCOM 2 mods for the game's release. So LW is really something special that deserved to get its own recognition. <br />
:Piratez is just one of several total conversions available for OpenXCom, and the intent is not to list all mod projects on Featured Projects, Because then X-Files, Hardmode or Area 51 would also qualify, being also expansions on their own right, although without Piratez's popularity. <br />
:Not to mention that there are other current XCom games like XCOM 2 that have also their own mods. So, if Piratez is added, what happens if someone else from another XCOM game, or current projects being developed like OpenApoc, decides to ask for his major mod to be added?<br />
:The primary intent of this wiki is the XCOM games, and Featured Projects is a way to recognize the hard work and dedication of a few fan projects, OpenXCom being one of them - and if you add Piratez then you're basically saying that Piratez is at the same level as OpenXCom, when Piratez wouldn't exist if there wasn't OpenXCom to begin with. <br />
:Finally, pages with their own suffix (Whatever) don't necessarily translate into Featured Projects, check the existing Interceptor and the Enforcer pages, it's more of a matter of internal page categorization. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:23, 5 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::: Ah okay, but I'm not really convinced, this feels like a matter of scale. I'm not trying to get it added as a featured project because I'm a fan, it just doesn't seem right to not have it there regardless of those reasons. If you look at something like UFO:AI or OpenApoc, on the main featured bar, they're almost completed unupdated and tiny. If the idea is that Piratez should have it's place on this wiki, and not on it's own wiki, then it really should have a place on the main page. If it's not, why is it even on here with hundreds and hundreds of pages? I type in just about any search for x-com related things and see a bunch of piratez pages in the autocomplete. If X-Files, Hardmode, Area 51 had hundreds of pages on the wiki, I'd recommend adding them as well, though they don't. Anyways, just my thoughts, I won't push this anymore. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 01:53, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:::Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan explains the argument more. It The piratez main page is a huge presence on the wiki, and is essentially unaccessable on the wiki. Which is just not what wikis are about. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 01:59, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:::: There are a lot of interesting points in your reply, that I'll try to answer separately to those, since some I have already considered myself.<br />
:::: UFO2000 and UFO:AI are dead projects, UFO2000 had its glory days more than 10 years ago (I was heavily involved with it) and it is playable (although hardly anyone plays it) and UFO:AI was never finished, so there's really an argument there whether both should still be on Featured Projects. OpenApoc on the other hand is actively being developed right now, they have their own Discord channel and it might take a while, but the general feeling is that one day it will reach 1.0 status, like OpenXCom did.<br />
:::: Piratez section on its wiki grew up by itself out of the OpenXCom until now, Dioxine or anyone ever asked permission, that I recall, but since we got the space and it is XCom related, no one objected, and the community is pretty supportive of each other's projects. <br />
:::: If by Auto-Complete you mean Google's search bar then the reason why you get so much Piratez results associated with XCom is because it uses your past search history and page views. I don't get any Piratez results when I search for XCom things because I don't play Piratez (and I don't play LW or LW2 also, but I suggested that they should be added because of their importance).<br />
:::: And this brings me to another important point, which is that Piratez includes content that some people don't really think belongs in an XCom game, namely it being about space pirates, slaves and mutants against aliens, and with the nudity involved. I know it takes place in an alternate universe where XCom lost the war, but if Firaxis announced that XCOM 3 followed Piratez setting, there would be a huge fan backlash because XCom has almost always been about an international, semi-clandestine organization of humans fighting aliens, and never required nudity to be atractive. Piratez setting and aesthetics appeal to a lot of people but to a lot of others it doesn't, even inside the OpenXCom community. <br />
:::: And for instance, I'm the lead developer of Area 51 that was mentioned before, and while it expands the base UFO: Defense game like EW or LW did, if not more, I do not think it should be on Featured Projects because of all the reasons I mentioned before. As a developer I'd love it to be more publicized, but here I need to think first as a wiki administrator, and like I said before, this is an XCOM wiki since it was created 15 years ago, not an OpenXCom one. If this was a wiki dedicated to OXC, then Piratez, Area 51, Tech-Comm (another total conversion I'm working based on the Terminator universe), Warhammer 40k, Dune, and all other major projects, XCom based or not, would belong here, but it isn't.<br />
:::: Finally, we're not talking here about a single orphan article. Orphan articles mean that they can only be accessed by searching the wiki since there aren't any links to them anywhere. Piratez can be accessed through here https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Mods_(OpenXcom). The issue really is that you think Piratez should be more advertised on the wiki by adding it to Featured Projects, but as I said before, it is questionable whether it deserves to get that sort of attention on an XCOM wiki. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 05:37, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::::: Heh, well in any case, looks like someone else added it to featured projects about a year ago: it's just on the featured projects at the very bottom of the page, along with all the other featured projects but with piratez squeezed in haha. Somewhat tangential but a bit on topic: Maybe the front page should just have a section at the top listing all the relevant games on the wiki? I remember like a decade ago when it was just the 1994 version/TFT and Apoc and the main page was very organized and clear, but it's really not now what with the tables of nearly every game on the wiki on the main page and some random lists in random places. Case in point: Piratez is already considered a featured mod by someone and neither of us noticed until this point, nor did I know even enforcer or these other spinoffs existed that you mentioned earlier existed or were on the wiki at all. In any case, glad to have talked this out. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 11:21, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::::: Bluh, one last point, I promise. I think maybe your having made/worked on a huge mod might be influencing your decision: you make it sound like it'd be a bad thing if all OpenXcom mods were featured and I don't think this would even be bad at all. E.g. a lot of games wikis list basically all the relevant large mods for the game in a very visible place. Example: https://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page has a link to a list of pretty much every major mod visible up front without needing to scroll down. To me it just seemed odd specifically for piratez here since it also had a huge space on the wiki, but I don't see an issue with Area 51, Warhammer 40k, etc having a visible place.<br />
<br />
== XCOM 2 section problems ==<br />
<br />
Hi guys,<br />
<br />
I've noticed that there's loads of problems in the XCOM 2 sections - misspellings, orphan pages, a lack of organisation, and so on. Even the term "MEC" was spelt wrong in a page title. I've been tackling a few of these issues, but I'm just thinking that this isn't worth having because Fandom have their own wiki at [https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/XCOM_Wiki] and they've got nearly everything down already.<br />
<br />
What are we trying to do here - dedicate this wiki to the old X-COM and a few mods (ahem, Long War), or adding in Firaxis's new XCOM grouping?<br />
<br />
Just a question in editorial direction.<br />
<br />
--[[User:SpeedofDeath118|SpeedofDeath118]] ([[User talk:SpeedofDeath118|talk]]) 17:08, 16 December 2019 (CET)<br />
:I think the question is more, what are you interested in doing? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:11, 16 December 2019 (CET)<br />
<br />
::The Wiki was set up long before the reboot series, so you could say the classics were its original focus. However it would have been remiss to not accommodate the new games as they appeared. However the wiki thrives or declines entirely on the input of the people that make use of it. If the interest and willingness is there, the sections will grow. If not (looks at the early spinoff titles), then perhaps not so much. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 07:31, 17 December 2019 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Enable dark mode theme? ==<br />
<br />
Would it be possible to add a dark mode option to this wiki? Something like these:<br />
https://help.fandom.com/wiki/Converting_to_hydradark<br />
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Timeless/DarkCSS<br />
: Hi and thanks for asking but after consultation with NineX, we don't have the resources (someone experienced with Mediawiki) to keep the UFOpaedia.org updated to the latest Mediawiki releases. Otherwise, the odds are that things will start breaking with UFOpaedia.org if we change the custom skin, which has happened to other wikis. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:32, 25 October 2021 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I see a "Skin" option when I navigate to Preferences > Appearance (https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering ), but no options other than the default appear. <br />
-[[User:JimmAYY2|JimmAYY2]] ([[User talk:JimmAYY2|talk]]) 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Category:ADVENT_(LWOTC)&diff=105312Category:ADVENT (LWOTC)2022-01-03T02:39:40Z<p>Hobbes: Created page with "All pages dealing with aspects of the Long War 2 port to XCOM 2's War of the Chosen expansion (or vice-versa). Category:Main"</p>
<hr />
<div>All pages dealing with aspects of the Long War 2 port to XCOM 2's War of the Chosen expansion (or vice-versa).<br />
<br />
[[Category:Main]]</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Hobbes&diff=105309User talk:Hobbes2022-01-02T20:16:17Z<p>Hobbes: /* Long War of the Chosen */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Nav Boxes==<br />
How do you make them? I was thinking of setting up some for Enemy Unknown (2012), namely one for base buildings/addons, one for all equipment (backpack equipment, weapons and armor), one for Aliens, one for Classes, etc. etc. [[User:Leman Russ|Leman Russ]] 18:16, 19 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
: Easiest way is to use an already existing template to create a new one, such as [[Template:Organizations_Navbar]], which gives you this: <br />
<br />
<table width="75%" {{stdTable}} cellpadding="3" border="1"><br />
<tr {{stdTable Sub_Heading}}><td colspan ="2">{{Apoc Icon}} <b>[[Apoc_Table|X-COM: Apocalypse]]:</b> [[Organizations]]</td></tr><br />
<tr><td width="80"><b>The Good:</b></td><td>[[Image:Apoc_xcom.png]] [[X-COM (Apocalypse)|X-COM]] [[Image:Apoc_govt.png]] [[Government]] [[Image:Apoc_megapol.png]] [[Megapol]]</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>The Bad:</b></td><td>[[Image:Apoc_aliens.png]] [[Aliens (Apocalypse)|Alien]] [[Image:Apoc_sirius.png]] [[Cult of Sirius]]</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>The Ugly:</b></td><td>[[Image:Apoc_cyberweb.png]] [[Cyberweb]] [[Image:Apoc_diablo.png]] [[Diablo]] [[Image:Apoc_energen.png]] [[Energen]] [[Image:Apoc_evonet.png]] [[Evonet]] [[Image:Apoc_extropians.png]] [[Extropians]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_gm.png]] [[General Metro]] [[Image:Apoc_gravball.png]] [[Grav Ball League]] [[Image:Apoc_lifetree.png]] [[Lifetree]] [[Image:Apoc_marsec.png]] [[Marsec]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_mutant.png]] [[Mutant Alliance]] [[Image:Apoc_nanotech.png]] [[Nanotech]] [[Image:Apoc_nutrivend.png]] [[Nutrivend]] [[Image:Apoc_osiron.png]] [[Osiron]] [[Image:Apoc_psyke.png]] [[Psyke]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_self.png]] [[S.E.L.F.]] [[Image:Apoc_sanctuary.png]] [[Sanctuary Clinic]] [[Image:Apoc_sensovision.png]] [[Sensovision]] [[Image:Apoc_solmine.png]] [[Solmine]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_sd.png]] [[Superdynamics]] [[Image:Apoc_synthemesh.png]] [[Synthemesh]] [[Image:Apoc_technocr.png]] [[Technocrats]] [[Image:Apoc_ts.png]] [[Transtellar]]</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
Or, if you click to edit the code: <br />
<br />
<nowiki><table width="75%" {{stdTable}} cellpadding="3" border="1"></nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki><tr {{stdTable Sub_Heading}}><td colspan ="2">{{Apoc Icon}} <b>[[Apoc_Table|X-COM: Apocalypse]]:</b> [[Organizations]]</td></tr></nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki><tr><td width="80"><b>The Good:</b></td><td>[[Image:Apoc_xcom.png]] [[X-COM (Apocalypse)|X-COM]] [[Image:Apoc_govt.png]] [[Government]] [[Image:Apoc_megapol.png]] [[Megapol]]</td></tr></nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki><tr><td><b>The Bad:</b></td><td>[[Image:Apoc_aliens.png]] [[Aliens (Apocalypse)|Alien]] [[Image:Apoc_sirius.png]] [[Cult of Sirius]]</td></tr></nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki><tr><td><b>The Ugly:</b></td><td>[[Image:Apoc_cyberweb.png]] [[Cyberweb]] [[Image:Apoc_diablo.png]] [[Diablo]] [[Image:Apoc_energen.png]] [[Energen]] [[Image:Apoc_evonet.png]] [[Evonet]] [[Image:Apoc_extropians.png]] [[Extropians]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_gm.png]] [[General Metro]] [[Image:Apoc_gravball.png]] [[Grav Ball League]] [[Image:Apoc_lifetree.png]] [[Lifetree]] [[Image:Apoc_marsec.png]] [[Marsec]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_mutant.png]] [[Mutant Alliance]] [[Image:Apoc_nanotech.png]] [[Nanotech]] [[Image:Apoc_nutrivend.png]] [[Nutrivend]] [[Image:Apoc_osiron.png]] [[Osiron]] [[Image:Apoc_psyke.png]] [[Psyke]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_self.png]] [[S.E.L.F.]] [[Image:Apoc_sanctuary.png]] [[Sanctuary Clinic]] [[Image:Apoc_sensovision.png]] [[Sensovision]] [[Image:Apoc_solmine.png]] [[Solmine]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_sd.png]] [[Superdynamics]] [[Image:Apoc_synthemesh.png]] [[Synthemesh]] [[Image:Apoc_technocr.png]] [[Technocrats]] [[Image:Apoc_ts.png]] [[Transtellar]]</td></tr></nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki></table><br />
</nowiki><br />
To create the template, just write the link for it, for instance [[Template: Aliens (EU2012)]], click and start editing. Just edit/replace/add what you want. After you've done a template, you'll have to add it to all the relevant pages by adding at the bottom the following code: <br />
<nowiki>{{Aliens (EU2012)}}</nowiki> [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 18:58, 19 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
::Got a number of them out. How do they look? Only one that I can think of that still needs doing is one for classes. [[User:Leman Russ|Leman Russ]] 13:16, 26 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Looking good, but only two comments. It might be a good idea to have added a Navbar suffix on the end of the template names. The other is perhaps to use wiki table markup for the outer/main boxes. [[User:NKF|NKF]] 16:37, 26 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
:::: NKF, could you please post here an example of wiki table markup? I'm not sure exactly myself of the difference. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 21:02, 26 April 2013 (EDT) <br />
<br />
:::::Sure. I'll use wiki table markup to replicate the example navbar above. Check the source. <br />
<br />
<br />
{| width="75%" {{stdTable}} cellpadding="3" border="1"<br />
|- {{stdTable Sub_Heading}}<br />
| colspan ="2" | {{Apoc Icon}} '''[[Apoc_Table|X-COM: Apocalypse]]:''' [[Organizations]]<br />
|-<br />
| width="80"| '''The Good:'''<br />
| [[Image:Apoc_xcom.png]] [[X-COM (Apocalypse)|X-COM]] [[Image:Apoc_govt.png]] [[Government]] [[Image:Apoc_megapol.png]] [[Megapol]]<br />
|-<br />
| '''The Bad:'''<br />
| [[Image:Apoc_aliens.png]] [[Aliens (Apocalypse)|Alien]] [[Image:Apoc_sirius.png]] [[Cult of Sirius]]<br />
|-<br />
| '''The Ugly:'''<br />
| [[Image:Apoc_cyberweb.png]] [[Cyberweb]] [[Image:Apoc_diablo.png]] [[Diablo]] [[Image:Apoc_energen.png]] [[Energen]] [[Image:Apoc_evonet.png]] [[Evonet]] [[Image:Apoc_extropians.png]] [[Extropians]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_gm.png]] [[General Metro]] [[Image:Apoc_gravball.png]] [[Grav Ball League]] [[Image:Apoc_lifetree.png]] [[Lifetree]] [[Image:Apoc_marsec.png]] [[Marsec]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_mutant.png]] [[Mutant Alliance]] [[Image:Apoc_nanotech.png]] [[Nanotech]] [[Image:Apoc_nutrivend.png]] [[Nutrivend]] [[Image:Apoc_osiron.png]] [[Osiron]] [[Image:Apoc_psyke.png]] [[Psyke]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_self.png]] [[S.E.L.F.]] [[Image:Apoc_sanctuary.png]] [[Sanctuary Clinic]] [[Image:Apoc_sensovision.png]] [[Sensovision]] [[Image:Apoc_solmine.png]] [[Solmine]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_sd.png]] [[Superdynamics]] [[Image:Apoc_synthemesh.png]] [[Synthemesh]] [[Image:Apoc_technocr.png]] [[Technocrats]] [[Image:Apoc_ts.png]] [[Transtellar]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::It's the same result, but has the advantage of being tidier to maintain. For nested tables, you can throw HTML tables inside and not make it one big block of greater/less-than symbols and slashes. ;) [[User:NKF|NKF]] 21:34, 26 April 2013 (EDT) <br />
<br />
::: I'd quite like to see one done for the [[Maps (EU2012)|maps]], though it may require a reduced font size in order to fit everything in without massive page bloat. - <span style="font-size:xx-small">&nbsp;[[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 18:17, 26 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
:::: Might be better to use only the loading screen images on the Navbar. I'll look into it later [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 06:12, 27 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
:::: How about something like this?<br />
<br />
{{Template:Maps Navbar (EU2012)}}<br />
<br />
[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:20, 27 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The layout and appearance looks perfect to me, but I don't like the use of style templates within the table - guess what THEY conflict with?<br />
<br />
: Starting a cell with a ! instead of a | is enough to tell the wiki it's to be a header cell, there's no need to use a template for that. I've hence modified the above table to do away with templates as an example.<br />
<br />
: If adding it to the map pages as a template, could I also ask for a <nowiki>{{EU2012_Style}}</nowiki> tag to go in as well? Doesn't actually exist as yet, but the plan is to save a little time later when it does. Er, in to the map pages, not the table template, that is to say.<br />
<br />
: - <span style="font-size:xx-small">&nbsp;[[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 22:12, 27 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
:: Just made a few more and edits and I've moved it into [[Template: Maps Navbar (EU2012)]]. I'll add it later, along with the <nowiki>{{EU2012_Style}}</nowiki> tag, meanwhile I want to redo the maps pages. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 04:39, 28 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
::: And just added both the Navbar and the Style tag to all the map pages. I still want to redesign the map page format but that's for later. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 16:22, 30 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::In regards to the image layout on those pages, you may or may not find the code used in [[UP001.SPK-UP042.SPK|this article]] useful. - <span style="font-size:xx-small">&nbsp;[[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 02:54, 1 May 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Spamming Accounts ==<br />
<br />
Since we think that all of these accounts are one person, surely we should try to block his/her IP Address which would stop him/her from creating new accounts; or do we not have the add-on installed on the wiki to block IPs? --[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] 02:59, 19 September 2013 (EDT)<br />
:Well, it was possible to block IPs until it was decided that only registered users could edit the wiki to prevent massive spamming. I have no idea about that add-on. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 05:32, 19 September 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Undo? ==<br />
<br />
I ''haven't''. --[[User:Xuncu|Xuncu]] 15:28, 18 November 2013 (EST)<br />
:I think he was talking about these ([http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XCOM:_Enemy_Within_DLC_(EU2012)&diff=prev&oldid=52480] [http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XCOM:_Enemy_Within_DLC_(EU2012)&diff=next&oldid=52480]) and ([http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XCOM:_Enemy_Within_DLC_(EU2012)&diff=prev&oldid=52276] [http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XCOM%3A_Enemy_Within_DLC_%28EU2012%29&action=historysubmit&diff=52278&oldid=52277])<br />
::Only thing I can think of was that I opened to edit, someone else opened to edit, they wrote something quick, saved, while I was taking my time to test and check, then saved with the origional text. --[[User:Xuncu|Xuncu]] 00:49, 19 November 2013 (EST)<br />
:::That's possible as well but you get a warning that someone has edited and saved a new version of the page while you're editing. To try to avoid this situation it's better to edit the EW main page by subsections if you're only adding a couple lines of text. But since we're now using page templates rather than having all info in the main page it should be easier to avoid conflicting versions. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 06:51, 19 November 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
== New template / standardized words / main testing page ==<br />
<br />
Hey Hobbes, since you're very active admin and user, I was wondering if a template akin to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed citation needed] to add to information that needs verification would be useful or if talk pages are appropriate at this point.<br />
<br />
Also, I was thinking of a page to showcase for editors to utilize when combing over pages for readability/uniformity. For instance, is Squad Sight Sniper or Squadsight Sniper better; the ability is called Squad Sight though. Or during movement, are they cells or tiles or squares? So as contributors add information, editors can go back and clean up pages with "minor edit" for readability.<br />
<br />
Lastly, it would be useful for me personally if there was a single page to consolidate testing/verifying with others instead of marking my page or trying to remember all the different talk pages. :P--[[User:DracoGriffin|DracoGriffin]] 13:47, 13 December 2013 (EST)<br />
:I've been wondering myself if we should make a [[Guidelines_to_writing_articles]] page solely for EU2012 due to all these questions you've just posed. I'm following a certain logic when editing pages to keep a consistent style and if contributors tried to keep that in mind it would surely help with the work. <br />
* Use the ingame terms on the pages to keep consistency: not Squadsight but Squad Sight; XCOM but not X-COM <br />
* Capitalize when you're using the exact term<br />
* For emphasis, i.e. you're mentioning specific abilites on a page that is about abilities, use bold for the ingame terms. <br />
* Use italics for transcriptions of ingame text, if they are not in identifiable boxes (like the pages dealing with research topics).<br />
* Don't write as if you're in a chat room: 'crits', 'dmg' and other abbreviations should not be used. <br />
* DO NOT WRITE phrases or words on full caps just for emphasis. <br />
<br />
Just some ideas to start. Maybe it would be nice to have a template informing people to check the Talk page if some info is disputed. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 14:03, 13 December 2013 (EST)<br />
:Hi, Hobbes! Have some question: can I create new templates for Russian section with (R) suffix? For example, [[Template:Ref Close (R)]]. The point is that words like "Источник" is more familiar than "Source" in Russian articles. --[[User:HansOlo|HansOlo]] ([[User talk:HansOlo|talk]]) 12:38, 20 June 2014 (EDT)<br />
:: Of course! [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 13:14, 20 June 2014 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== [[Bugs (EU2012)#Kinetic Strike Module and Flamethrower Upgrades|Kinetic Strike Module and Flamethrower Bug]] ==<br />
<br />
Do you know if it affects the Flamethrower (and if so what the eventually damage is. Does it round the 4.5 down or up?). Also do you know whether the bug resets for the game after being upgraded to the bugged value in the previous. I think it does but I can't remember.--[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] ([[User talk:Ditto51|talk]]) 14:49, 15 August 2014 (EDT)<br />
: I don't remember about the Flamethrower. All rounding of numbers is usually down in EU2012. The bug continues to upgrade the weapon until you play a game without getting the upgrade, IIRC, after which the next game the values are reset to normal ones. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 19:43, 15 August 2014 (EDT)<br />
:: OK, just had a little more time to check this. The flamethrower should be upgraded to 13 (9 + 4.5, rounded down). I never actually confirmed this personally with the Flamethrower. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 20:54, 15 August 2014 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Well, that was rather rude ==<br />
<br />
http://ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Mods_%28EU2012%29&action=history Connor's edit 'comment'<br />
:There are two issues here. First I agree with you that the comment wasn't a nice one. However, I also might take it in a more light manner since the stuff that he removed (XCOM/My Little Pony crossover) gets me scratching my head whether to laugh at it or to take it seriously. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 00:54, 15 September 2014 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Code of Infiltration ==<br />
<br />
I put some of the code for the infiltration routine on my [[User:Morgan525#Other_information | user page]]. I remove a lot of code so that the important stuff is easier to follow. The code only goes up to the UK as that is where the logic is easiest to follow. If something is not clear, let me know. [[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] ([[User talk:Morgan525|talk]]) 20:43, 5 December 2014 (EST)<br />
:Thanks a lot and yes, I can see how it works, the logic behind it is actually simpler than I was imagining it. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 21:28, 5 December 2014 (EST)<br />
Glad to help![[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] ([[User talk:Morgan525|talk]]) 23:49, 5 December 2014 (EST)<br />
:Something else I'm wondering if you could help. I was mentioning before that I wanted to update the page about [[Alien Missions]] with details about how the missions are generated, based on the info present in OpenXcom. But from our exchange I started realizing that the logic followed by OpenXcom might not be the same of the original game, even though the results are. So, I wrote a page about [[Alien Missions in Enemy Unknown (OpenXcom)]] but describing the process from the OpenXcom's code perspective. But since you're familiar with the original game's code I'm wondering if you could adapt its contents to the original game's code and update the Alien Missions page since you're way more qualified than me. Just an idea. :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 00:03, 6 December 2014 (EST)<br />
:Something I don't quite understand is what you mean by missions. In your various postings about alien missions in openxcom, you talk about the different trajectories and how a UFO uses them. Missions and trajectories are different things. The way missions are selected and completed has nothing to do with their flight patterns. Is this what your wanting to discuss, not how missions are selected or how they are completed? - [[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] ([[User talk:Morgan525|talk]]) 19:41, 29 December 2014 (EST)<br />
::I'm interested in describing the whole process behind alien missions in the original game: how the mission is selected, how the UFOs are assigned to it and how their flight patterns are determined and finally what happens (score) when the mission is completed. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 20:21, 29 December 2014 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Variables ==<br />
<br />
Hi!<br />
Recently I joined article writers and created several pages. Almost immediately, I faced with the duplicated information problem. Sometimes page should contain the same string twice and it is really pain in ass to update such strings. Maybe I am blinded but currently there is no way to use variables. So, is it possible to install pretty extension called “Variables”? Here is the link: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Variables [[User:El.|El.]] ([[User talk:El.|talk]]) 12:00, 5 July 2015 (EST)<br />
:Hey there. I noticed the insane amount of templates that you guys were creating for Long War and I wondered how necessary they were. I can ask Pete (site owner) about the Variable extensions, I have never used them myself though. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 19:43, 6 July 2015 (EDT)<br />
::I personally have created pages and templates only for russian language from scratch. So yes, I realy need them :). It would be cool if Pete did the favour for guys who need variables. --[[User:El.|El.]] ([[User talk:El.|talk]]) 02:50, 7 July 2015 (EDT)<br />
:::Just to let you know that I've emailed Pete about the Variables, now I'm waiting for an answer. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 19:40, 8 July 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Spam flood ==<br />
<br />
Shit's fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked! --[[User:Xuncu|Xuncu]] ([[User talk:Xuncu|talk]]) 23:08, 9 February 2016 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Working as intended ==<br />
<br />
Just FYI the bot was working as intended. More info on my talk page. Now I just need to figure-out why the tables are breaking in such a weird way. --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 18:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Tvol-bot ==<br />
<br />
Do you think you could flag [[User:Tvol-bot]] as a bot? I'm doing a lot of batch processing on the wiki with it. And I'm sure other people might appreciate not seeing the wall of edits in the recent changes (or at least I certainly would :P ). --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 01:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
:I have no idea if that's even possible to do on this wiki... do you know how to do it?[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 01:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
::Should be somewhere [[Special:UserRights|in here]]. Otherwise poke around [[Special:AdminLinks]]. --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 01:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
:::OK, I'm not authorized to make edits on the [[Special:UserRights]] and I can't find anything about bots on [[Special:AdminLinks]], so that's above my pay grade. Just go ahead with the bot for the mass edits - there might be some complaints but the amount of edits is natural since we're creating a whole new section and people should understand that, without edit things don't get done in a wiki :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 16:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
::::Seems like I have access to that section, so have given Tvol-bot bot status. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 22:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Image Strangeness ==<br />
<br />
Do you have any idea what is going on here? [[:File:UIPerk_aceinthehole.png]] [[File:UIPerk_aceinthehole.png]] The current revision is stuck as the original. But you can see from my upload attempts that the ''new'' images ''were'' successfully uploaded. The catch is that each time I would upload one, I would see the most recent version as the original. Which...makes no god damn sense. O.o Maybe the server needs a restart. Or a massive kick in the pants, either or. I'm fine with both. (Edit: I would try a mass delete and re-upload, which would almost guarantee this would be fixed but I don't have the perms.) --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 20:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
: Right now it's working properly it seems. I have no idea what was going on. --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 00:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
:: Thinking about this, it's likely you were seeing the local copy in your browser's cache rather than the latest copy on the server. The next time this happens, try doing a full refresh of the page with a shift-reload to re-download the content from the server and see if that sorts the problem. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 05:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)<br />
:Fraid not. That's the first thing I tried. I tried a full page refresh, purging my entire browser cache, and then on a whim I tried doing all that on Safari (on 2 computers), Edge (on one), Firefox (on all three), and Brave (again on all three). It's definitely not a caching issue on my end. For some reason the wiki is slow in updating the pointer to where the current revision is stored when it gets called on a page. The good news is that it eventually does do it, it just takes a while (half hour to an hour). --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 07:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== User CSS ==<br />
<br />
Would it be possible to enable user CSS ( <code><nowiki>$wgAllowUserCss</nowiki></code> )? I'm trying to test-out CSS to make {{Tl|Ability (LW2)}} better. What I want to do is have that extra info icon invert its color (like the game does; I'll make a custom image for that later), and set a div underneath the ability to appear (which would hold the ability's extended info text, so it appears under it only when rolled-over). With access to user CSS I can test this, and later add it to the Common.css file (well I couldn't, but someone else with admin rights could). Otherwise there's no good way of going about it.<br />
<br />
Alternately I can add CSS to each ability template ''in theory'', but in practice every time I try to add any CSS in the <code><nowiki><css></css></nowiki></code> tags the server hurks and doesn't show me the preview page. It also might add an issue with server and browser load. The wiki would probably do well [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CSS to be using this extension] instead anyway. --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 04:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
:I'll ask Jo5hua (current site admin) about it since I dont' have any skills related to this issue :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 18:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
::Much appreciated. --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 20:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
: Hey Hobbes, while you're at it, do you think you could propose installing [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CSS the MediaWiki CSS extension]? It allows for inclusion of complete style sheets ''and'' inline css, which could prove useful for pages where specific css is repeated. If need be (e.g. if it conflicts with the NewCSS extension) I can easily go over the wiki and convert any markup that uses the <code><nowiki><css></css></nowiki></code> tags (though as far as I can tell, NewCSS is broken, since I can't successfully add any CSS to a page with it and have the preview come back). (Edit: And take a look at [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WhiteSpace WhiteSpace] too if possible. Sorry for asking for so much, but both would eliminate some major headaches for me.) --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 07:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Any word on this? If it's easier, there's [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/161747/how-to-allow-mediawiki-logged-user-to-edit-common-css#295808 a slightly more straightforward solution.] Assuming you guys are okay with creating another group and handing me those permissions to edit the site's CSS (I promise to test thoroughly first; that's the primary reason I'm asking for user CSS to be enabled).<br />
<br />
To summarize what I've asked for (in order of importance) for the sake of anyone reading:<br />
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgAllowUserCss Ability to use own user-specific CSS.] Editing one's own CSS (e.g. [[Special:MyPage/vector.css]] ) isn't the issue. It being active needs to be enabled by the server admin. (see: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgGroupPermissions $wgGroupPermissions] and [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:User_style User style])<br />
* [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/161747/how-to-allow-mediawiki-logged-user-to-edit-common-css Permissions to edit site CSS.]<br />
* Depreciate [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:NewPageCSS Extension:NewPageCSS] and install [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CSS Extension:CSS]. This is for several reasons.<br />
: 1. Extension:NewPageCSS tags don't work. If added to a page with valid CSS in them, the server will not respond when the edit is submitted (not even a response error code; it just dies). (Edit: Well this ''was'' what was happening to me. They seem to be working now. Not idea why. In any case there are only three pages that use the extension right now, and Extension:CSS provides both transclusion of entire style sheets as well as parsing CSS inline.)<br />
: 2. Extension:CSS was updated more recently.<br />
: 3. Extension:CSS allows inclusion of other style sheets onto a page, which reduces potential repetition for any specialized CSS (it will also almost certainly be more efficient than transcluding a style sheet into the tags from Extension:NewPageCSS and then having it parse it every page load).<br />
* Install [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WhiteSpace Extension:WhiteSpace]. This is for my own sanity, but especially for the sanity of anyone looking at template code in the future. Consider the current [http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Template:Ability_(LW2)&action=edit source code] of {{tl|Ability (LW2)}}. This will only get ''more'' complicated if/when I add interactivity via CSS.<br />
<br />
If you aren't convinced this is a good idea, I've made [https://jsfiddle.net/Tvol/bxjqzah3/ a fiddle] (and [https://jsfiddle.net/Tvol/w9djepcv/ another based on Mavoc's suggestions]) of what the Ability template ''could'' look like. There are piles of other changes I would like to make, primarily to reduce duplication of effort. For example, without any default table styles other than .wikitable, changing the colours used requires an ungodly number of style tags. This makes maintenance of these templates much more difficult, and practically speaking, requires editors to be familiar with regexes and have Pywikibot installed to make any general changes to similar elements across the wiki. (It is, in short, a very bad way of doing things. It's a massive time-sink when building new templates as well because of the inevitable mistakes and bugs that crop-up from constantly repeating the same code.) --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 05:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)<br />
:I'm not skilled to decide if this is a good idea from the technical side of the wiki, I'm just forwarding your request to the appropriate person :) I got word back from Jo5hua, he thinks that there might be security issues with allowing what you're suggesting. Could you clarify this issue better? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 15:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)<br />
::OK, it's better if you just talk to Jo5hua directly on Skype. His Skype address is joshua.dominguez [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 16:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)<br />
:::Okie dokie; I've added him as a contact on Skype. --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 03:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== ADVENT Warden ==<br />
<br />
Hey,<br />
<br />
I don't think it's called an ADVENT Warden, but I have definitely seen that unit without having ABA installed. It probably has a different name, and it appeared during a mission to liberate a region, providing bonuses like Fire Discipline to allies.<br />
:That unit is the Advent General (and there are two versions of it on LW2, one red and the other black) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 15:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Long War of the Chosen ==<br />
<br />
Hi, not sure if this is the right place to ask, but [[Long_War_of_the_Chosen|Long War of the Chosen]] recently released its 1.0 version, complete with an official [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2683996590 Steam Workshop release]. I was wondering if now would be a good time to add LWOTC to the list of Featured Projects on Ufopaedia's sidebar, since it seems LWOTC is what most people will be playing from now on if they wish to experience the most up-to-date version of Long War for XCOM 2.<br />
<br />
Just a disclaimer: I am not an official representative of the LWOTC team, but I've been actively involved with the discord community for over a year and currently am one of the few active editors for the LWOTC part of Ufopaedia. [[User:Meatninja|Meatninja]] ([[User talk:Meatninja|talk]]) 22:33, 26 December 2021 (CET)<br />
:There are two issues regarding your suggestion:<br />
::1) How much of a difference there is between LWOTC and LW2? You're porting War of the Chosen to LW2, and the question is if it wouldn't make more sense to add a LWOTC section to LW2, otherwise you'll be replicating naerly all of the existing info of LW2?<br />
::2) If mod projects are added to the Featured Projects sidebar, then that list is gonna get pretty huge in no time, specially with the mods for OpenXcom. Long War was added because it became an semi-official expansion of Enemy Unknown, specially after Firaxis commissioned Pavonis to develop LW2. UFO2000 and UFO:AI are now dead but still playable projects and they wanted to remake the entire game. And OpenXcom and OpenApoc are clones of the original games that add a ton of new features. What does LWOTC exactly add that is new from LW2 or WotC like the existing projects? <br />
:Finally, the UFOPaedia has always been about XCom and its games. It's not to publicize mod or fan projects, although those will always have a place here if they need a wiki because this is a fan project too but it doesn't need them. And if it became a place to publicize personal work, then it wouldn't be very effective because there's a ton of projects that could be added to the Featured Projects section (including a couple of my own personal ones) and they would be all competing for attention. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 05:33, 2 January 2022 (CET)<br />
::First off, thanks for replying! I wasn't sure if anybody still uses talk pages.<br />
<br />
::Secondly, let me try to answer your questions:<br />
<br />
::Throughout 3 years of development by a team of multiple experienced developers (e.g. [https://github.com/pledbrook The Peter], [https://github.com/Grobobobo Grobobobo] and [https://github.com/GafrieGithub Amnesieri]), LWOTC has shifted away from just porting WOTC content to LW2 and for the last year or two focused more on either adding its own content or heavily reworking existing content.<br />
<br />
::Just to name a few things:<br />
::Every vanilla LW2 class now has a list of randomly selected perks ("XCOM row perks", in addition to their regular, "main tree" perks) that are tailored for that specific class instead of using a bunch of generic perks for nearly every class like LW2 did (which also means '''lots''' of new perks got added - over 100! All carefully balanced throughout a year of playtesting and constant balance patches);<br />
<br />
::The Chosen are of course a huge deal in LWOTC and got such a major rework compared to WOTC that they're nearly unrecognizable mechanically, appearing much less frequently but having a truly boss-like set of abilities and mechanics that make even the most experienced players have to prepare well in advance for every retaliation mission;<br />
<br />
::The addition and then complete reworking of the Hero classes from WOTC is a huge gamechanger. The three new classes got major overhauls compared to their WOTC counterparts - instead of being built around shallow "perk stacking" where you eventually just get every single perk on every single Hero, they now have mutually exclusive perks at every rank like every normal class, and those perks are now individually much more interesting, allowing for great build variety for every Hero class (for example, a Reaper in vanilla could pretty much only be built as a "shooty scout" - in LWOTC, they can now be based around either shooting, using explosives or throwing knives [which are completely new items in LWOTC]);<br />
<br />
::Various WOTC enemies were added while making sure they are much less exploitable (e.g. various new types of The Lost, all of which can now climb walls [which prevents blocking them via ladders], modified versions of Purifiers, Spectres and Priests), the stats and AIs of many existing LW2 enemies got reworked (e.g. Mutons had their damage nerfed, but now can't be permanently locked in place with [[Perk_List_(LWOTC)#Combatives|Combatives]], Najas now can't shoot while unactivated, Sectopods now don't use lightning field in the middle of nowhere, large enemies now can't be Stasis'd, etc.);<br />
<br />
::New missions based on WOTC content were added, namely rebalanced versions of Chosen Citadel Assault, Chosen Avenger Assault, Covert Action Ambush and a new type of Smash n' Grab;<br />
<br />
::Several "normal" perks (I'm currently counting at least 14) got rebalanced, while the entire Psi perk tree got completely reworked with new abilities and major changes to existing ones;<br />
<br />
::Many new items got added, including some ported from WOTC (such as rebalanced versions of the weapons you get after ultimately defeating each Chosen), and some third tier weapons (sawed-off shotguns, grenade launchers, knives) got added for weapons that only had 2 tiers in LW2. Some existing items and weapons got rebalanced as well;<br />
<br />
::The research tree had certain research projects changed to use more appropriate corpse types (and of course new research projects got added for new items), and the alien corpse economy got smoothed out thanks to the addition of aliens now appearing on rendezvous missions;<br />
<br />
::Various quality of life changes are now part of the game, such as circles for indicating [[Perk_List_(LWOTC)#Close_Combat_Specialist|Close Combat Specialist]] range, easier access to the Haven Management screen, being able to see the exact stats and abilities of enemies by pressing F1, indicators for which missions are part of Liberation chains and which give you facility leads, a confirmation that makes sure you don't accidentally skip Retaliations, a button for easily editing a Haven Adviser's loadout, and much more;<br />
<br />
::The introduction of a reworked Covert Action system, with core elements from WOTC but various major balance changes and additions (e.g. the addition of a failure chance, the removal of infinite stat stacking, and the addition of several new types of Covert Actions);<br />
<br />
::Several major bugfixes to longstanding LW2 bugs, including things like infinite exp farming with Wet Work, multiple Officer perks straight up not working at all (e.g. Infiltrator and Fire Discipline doing nothing), maximum Faceless limit in havens not working, enemies with Close Combat Specialist not taking the appropriate shots, etc.;<br />
<br />
::The addition of several tutorial pop-ups, explaining various things that LW2 didn't tell you (such as new enemy types and haven management), as well as additional tutorials for LWOTC-exclusive content (such as The Chosen and what to expect from their reworks);<br />
<br />
::And of course, I need to mention that LWOTC is still in active development, even with the 1.0 release already on Steam Workshop and [https://puu.sh/IA0Ef/13370864c0.png tens] [https://puu.sh/IA0En/fd49bf352f.png of thousands] of players within just the last year or so. Current plans include major overhauls to even more LW2 mechanics, such as completely changing how rebel jobs work and altering the conditions for triggering retaliations.<br />
<br />
::Finally, I'd just like to say that having LWOTC on the sidebar is by no means something that only ''I'' would want - we as a community (including prominent LWOTC youtubers/streamers such as [https://www.youtube.com/c/DerAva/videos DerAva] and [https://www.twitch.tv/akaillogical akaillogical] and modders like [https://steamcommunity.com/id/kiruka/myworkshopfiles/ Kiruka] and [https://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198138719639/myworkshopfiles/ kdm2k6]) would benefit from having an easy-to-access section for LWOTC, which would make sure that the newbies we are trying to help aren't erroneously getting knowledge about LWOTC from various outdated LW2 sources. [[User:Meatninja|Meatninja]] ([[User talk:Meatninja|talk]]) 16:05, 2 January 2022 (CET)<br />
<br />
:::Well, just downloaded and run LWOTC and it's a mod for LW2. LW2 introduced new enemies, missions, classes, weapons and expanded the strategic layer of X2, so it's an expansion. While in LWOTC nearly all of the changes are getting things to work together, QoL and bug fixing - I barely could find anything actually new being added other than 3 psi perks. It involves a lot of work for sure, but it's a mod of an expansion (LW2) using elements of another expansion (WOTC) - it doesn't add anything new that isn't already on both, it merely gets everything to combine together as your long description made clear. <br />
:::Second, as I said, the UFOPaedia focus on its nearly 20 years of existance has been on the original games - a group of XCom fan(atic)s decided one day that it would be nice to have a wiki to compile everything we knew about the games to help us play and enjoy them. So we don't really cared about publicity or monetizing the wiki (which is why it's ad free, unlike other wikis) because we like it focused on the games. <br />
:::Now, you have thousands of players and known streamers to this mod project? Good for you but that's not our target audience. We do not need these XCom fan projects for the UFOPaedia to exist because this is its own fan project. There's always space available if a fan project needs a subwiki, and a few of those even decided later to have their own wiki and stopped updating their subwikis on the UFOPaedia. So, if you decide to go that way, it wouldn't affect the UFOPaedia at all.<br />
:::Finally, this discussion already took place a year ago on the [[Talk:Main Page]] regarding Long War Rebalance and Piratez and the points presented there are still the same. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 21:16, 2 January 2022 (CET)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Mods_(OpenXcom)&diff=105301Mods (OpenXcom)2022-01-02T16:32:05Z<p>Hobbes: /* The X-Com Files */ removing dead link - links to a porn page</p>
<hr />
<div>So you finally got tired of the vanilla experience? ''(shame on you)''<br />
<br />
Don't worry, there's dozens of fan-mods out there to keep things interesting, including custom maps, weapons, units and more. If you're interested in making your own, check [[Customizing (OpenXcom)|Customizing]].<br />
<br />
== Standard Mods ==<br />
<br />
OpenXcom includes a standard set of mods based on [[UFOextender]] and [[XcomUtil]]. Here's a brief description of what's included:<br />
<br />
* '''Aliens Pick Up Weapons''': The AI will try to pick up weapons they dropped if they find themselves unarmed (eg. from panic or mind control).<br />
* '''Limit Craft Item Capacities''': Limits the number of items you can take on a craft to 80, just like in the original X-COM.<br />
* '''PSX Static Cydonia Map''': Uses the Cydonia map from the PSX version of X-Com: UFO Defense.<br />
* '''UFOextender Gun Melee''': Adds a stun melee attack to every weapon (called ''Stun Fest'' in UFOextender). The TU/Damage is based on the weapon's class: <table {{StdCenterTable}}><tr {{StdDescTable_Heading}}><th align="left">Weapon Class</th><th width="90">Stun Damage</th><th width="75">TU %s</th></tr><tr><th align="left">Pistols</th><td>20</td><td>15</td></tr><tr><th align="left">Rifles and Small Launcher</th><td>50</td><td>40</td></tr><tr><th align="left">"Heavy" weapons and Auto-Cannon</th><td>65</td><td>50</td></tr><tr><th align="left">Launchers</th><td>80</td><td>80</td></tr><tr><th align="left">Stun Rod (unchanged)</th><td>65</td><td>30</td></tr></table><br />
* '''UFOextender Psionic Line of Fire''': Psionic weapons (both X-COM and aliens) can only be used with direct line-of-sight to the target.<br />
* '''UFOextender Starting Avalanches''': All starting X-COM craft come with [[Avalanche|Avalanche Missiles]] equipped.<br />
* '''XcomUtil Always Daytime''': Forces all ground missions to daytime. Not compatible with the mod below.<br />
* '''XcomUtil Always Nighttime''': Forces all ground missions to nighttime. Not compatible with the mod above.<br />
* '''XcomUtil Fighter Transports''': Allows fighter craft ([[Interceptor]] and [[Firestorm]]) to carry soldiers and tanks to ground missions.<br />
* '''XcomUtil High Explosive Damage''': Increases the [[High Explosive]] damage to 200, letting it pierce UFO walls.<br />
* '''XcomUtil Improved Ground Tanks''': Gives ground [[Tank]]s the same stats as Hovertanks.<br />
* '''XcomUtil Improved Heavy Laser''': Increases the damage and accuracy of the [[Heavy Laser]].<br />
* '''XcomUtil No Psionics''': Removes all Psi tech from the game, both X-COM and alien.<br />
* '''XcomUtil Pistol Auto Shot''': Gives the standard-issue [[Pistol]] an auto shot.<br />
* '''XcomUtil Skyranger Weapon Slot''': Gives the [[Skyranger]] a craft weapon slot.<br />
* '''XcomUtil Starting Defensive Base''': Moves the starting 3 [[Hangar]]s to the top to make the base easier to defend in [[Base Defense]] missions.<br />
* '''XcomUtil Starting Improved Base''': Gives the starting base a [[Large Radar]], [[Alien Containment]], 50 scientists and 20 engineers.<br />
* '''XcomUtil Starting Defensive Improved Base''': Combination of the two mods above.<br />
* '''XcomUtil Statstrings''': Soldiers get [[Statstrings]] added to their names based on their stats.<br />
<br />
== Downloading & Installing ==<br />
<br />
However they're nothing compared to the plethora of fan mods out there! You can usually find them on these websites:<br />
<br />
* [https://openxcom.mod.io/ OpenXcom Mod Portal]<br />
* [http://openxcom.org/forum/index.php?board=16.0 OpenXcom Completed Mods forum]<br />
<br />
=== Installing Mods for 1.0 ===<br />
<br />
Check the individual instructions included by the mod author. Most mods just need to be extracted into your [https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom#directory-locations Data Folder], but some require special steps and instructions.<br />
<br />
=== Installing Mods for the Nightly Version ===<br />
<br />
* Extract the mod to a new folder under your mods folder<br />
** The mods directory is in your [https://github.com/SupSuper/OpenXcom#directory-locations User Folder], where your savegames are<br />
** If the mods directory doesn't exist, start OpenXcom once and quit and check again<br />
** WinZip has an "Extract to" option that creates a directory whose name is based on the archive name.<br />
** It doesn't really matter what the directory name is as long as it is unique.<br />
<br />
Some mods are packed with extra directories at the top, so you may need to move files around inside the new mod directory to get things straightened out. For example, if you extract a mod to <user folder>/mods/LulzMod and you see something like:<br />
<br />
mods/LulzMod/data/TERRAIN/<br />
mods/LulzMod/data/Rulesets/<br />
<br />
and so on, just move everything up a level so it looks like:<br />
<br />
mods/LulzMod/TERRAIN/<br />
mods/LulzMod/Rulesets/<br />
<br />
To uninstall a mod, just delete the folder -- no more figuring out which files were overwritten!<br />
To upgrade a mod, just delete the folder and replace it with the new version. <br />
<br />
[https://youtu.be/L1WUpX9n7gY?t=14m58s Video Tutorial: Install Mods for Nightly]<br />
<br />
== Enabling New Mods ==<br />
<br />
If you did everything correctly, you should now find your mod listed in-game in the Options > Mods section. If it's not showing up, recheck your installation. Common mistakes include extracting it to the wrong folder or into a subfolder too deep (e.g. LulzMod/LulzMod/). Note that you can only change mods from the Main Menu.<br />
<br />
After you enable any mods, the game will restart to load them and the mod changes will now be in effect. These apply to any saved game, new or loaded. Be careful when changing mods and the loading existing saved games, as removing mods used by a game may cause serious bugs and crashes. Total conversions in particular are best used on new games.<br />
<br />
If you experience problems or bugs while playing with mods, be sure to isolate them to the problematic mod first (to see if the bug comes from a specific mod or combination of them) and report them to the respective mod authors.<br />
<br />
== User Mods ==<br />
<br />
There are tons of mods for OpenXcom, but here are some of the more comprehensive experiences still being updated:<br />
<br />
=== Final Mod Pack ===<br />
This is a "megamod": a collection of about 70 mods from various authors, merged together and balanced. Besides adding a ton of content, it also makes the game longer and more varied.<br />
<br />
[http://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,2027.0.html Forum Link], [https://openxcom.mod.io/final-mod-pack Download Link], [http://youtu.be/L1WUpX9n7gY?t=22m36s Video Tutorial: Install FMP]<br />
<br />
=== The X-Com Files ===<br />
A cross between an expansion and a total conversion mod derived from the Final Mod Pack, adding even more content in the vein of The X-Files. The game now starts in 1996, as the newly formed X-COM project must discover the secrets behind the mutated animals and dangerous cults emerging throughout the world, figure out their connection to the reports of alien activity, repel the alien threats to Earth, and navigate through the enormous amounts of red tape that force you to start with only two agents and a rental car. The truth is out there!<br />
<br />
[https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/board,21.0.html Forum Link]<br />
[https://openxcom.mod.io/the-x-com-files Download Link]<br />
<br />
=== Hardmode Expansion ===<br />
Hardmode Expansion intends to make the gameplay more challenging and deals with most of vanilla versions flaws, like overpowered Psi and early Plasma ownage. It sticks strongly towards the vanilla core components and builts upon them. It is aimed at experienced X-Com players, who know the game well and are not afraid of a difficulty higher then Superhuman. The Aliens have more variants and your weapons will slowly become obsolete due to them. Research progress is a must, but comes at costs.<br />
<br />
For playing you should choose difficulty Superhuman, since the mod is balanced to be played on Superhuman difficulty, otherwise you wouldn't have the full experience. The difficulty will actually be higher then Superhuman. Technologies will need alive aliens captures to unlock and will trigger additional mission.<br />
<br />
Research takes longer and you do not have access to an alien containment from the beginning. It is recommend to get between 200-250 scientists by November. Otherwise the game becomes very difficult.<br />
<br />
[http://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,3550.0.html Forum Link] or [https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4971.0.html Forum Link], [https://github.com/hellrazor4223/hardmode-expansion/releases/tag/0.99.3 Github link], [http://youtu.be/L1WUpX9n7gY?t=33m45s Video Tutorial: Install Hardmode Expansion], [[Hardmode|Wiki Link]]<br />
<br />
=== Piratez (or X-Piratez) ===<br />
The year is 2600. The Earth has been long conquered by aliens. You run a gang of all-female mutant pirates. Rob aliens and their human proxies for fun, profit and power. Now with a custom .exe that allows for a ton of unique features; bigger and better than ever before. <br />
<br />
[http://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,3626.0.html Forum Link], [https://openxcom.mod.io/x-piratez Modsite Download Link], [http://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4465.0.html Alternate Download Link], [[Piratez|Wiki Link]],[http://youtu.be/L1WUpX9n7gY?t=54m11s Video Tutorial: Install X-Piratez]<br />
<br />
=== Area 51 ===<br />
Area 51 is an expansion that aims to enlarge the original game's experience, give it a couple new challenges, and leave nearly everything untouched about the original. It does not aim to include all the existing mods or drastically change the game although there are a lot of new features and other mods included. Area 51 was formerly known as UFO Redux until version 0.9.<br />
<br />
The aliens have stepped up their covert operations on Earth, sending teams of their agents to infiltrate and support the UFO activities on the ground. Fleets of alien craft attack the planet's defense, transport, manufacturing and research facilities that support the Earth's armed forces, targeted by alien covert teams who also work in subverting the individual countries of the Council. The aliens also include new species, weapons and units.<br />
<br />
To deal with this new threat, XCom now finds itself equipped with new weapons, crafts and HWPs. However, unlocking the secrets of advanced tech now require assistance of an alien captive or recovering specific items from missions.<br />
<br />
New mission types have been added such as Ship Assault (to disable its navigation), HWP/Skyranger factories, Facility Defense, Research Recovery, Capture and others. Unique missions will also give XCom the possibility of slowing down the alien invasion until it is possible to capture the Ethereal Commander required to send the Avenger to Cydonia.<br />
<br />
[http://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,3328.0.html Forum Link], [https://openxcom.mod.io/area-51 Download Link], [http://youtu.be/L1WUpX9n7gY?t=29m25s Video Tutorial: Install Area 51]<br />
<br />
=== The Hybrid Mod. ===<br />
<br />
This mod will enable you to play both UFO and TFTD in a single campaign in one game, instead of two games. First you play the UFO campaign as per normal, then TFTD, once the brain is destroyed on Cydonia.<br />
<br />
Main feature of this mod is the Hybrid Globe, you can access both UFO and TFTD Terrain, all their weapons and Aliens from both game.<br />
<br />
You can recover crash UFOs from the sea, use crafts from both game and more.<br />
<br />
https://www.moddb.com/mods/hybrid-mod-version-29-for-openxcom<br />
<br />
[[Category:OpenXcom]]</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=User_talk:Hobbes&diff=105299User talk:Hobbes2022-01-02T04:33:57Z<p>Hobbes: /* Long War of the Chosen */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Nav Boxes==<br />
How do you make them? I was thinking of setting up some for Enemy Unknown (2012), namely one for base buildings/addons, one for all equipment (backpack equipment, weapons and armor), one for Aliens, one for Classes, etc. etc. [[User:Leman Russ|Leman Russ]] 18:16, 19 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
: Easiest way is to use an already existing template to create a new one, such as [[Template:Organizations_Navbar]], which gives you this: <br />
<br />
<table width="75%" {{stdTable}} cellpadding="3" border="1"><br />
<tr {{stdTable Sub_Heading}}><td colspan ="2">{{Apoc Icon}} <b>[[Apoc_Table|X-COM: Apocalypse]]:</b> [[Organizations]]</td></tr><br />
<tr><td width="80"><b>The Good:</b></td><td>[[Image:Apoc_xcom.png]] [[X-COM (Apocalypse)|X-COM]] [[Image:Apoc_govt.png]] [[Government]] [[Image:Apoc_megapol.png]] [[Megapol]]</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>The Bad:</b></td><td>[[Image:Apoc_aliens.png]] [[Aliens (Apocalypse)|Alien]] [[Image:Apoc_sirius.png]] [[Cult of Sirius]]</td></tr><br />
<tr><td><b>The Ugly:</b></td><td>[[Image:Apoc_cyberweb.png]] [[Cyberweb]] [[Image:Apoc_diablo.png]] [[Diablo]] [[Image:Apoc_energen.png]] [[Energen]] [[Image:Apoc_evonet.png]] [[Evonet]] [[Image:Apoc_extropians.png]] [[Extropians]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_gm.png]] [[General Metro]] [[Image:Apoc_gravball.png]] [[Grav Ball League]] [[Image:Apoc_lifetree.png]] [[Lifetree]] [[Image:Apoc_marsec.png]] [[Marsec]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_mutant.png]] [[Mutant Alliance]] [[Image:Apoc_nanotech.png]] [[Nanotech]] [[Image:Apoc_nutrivend.png]] [[Nutrivend]] [[Image:Apoc_osiron.png]] [[Osiron]] [[Image:Apoc_psyke.png]] [[Psyke]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_self.png]] [[S.E.L.F.]] [[Image:Apoc_sanctuary.png]] [[Sanctuary Clinic]] [[Image:Apoc_sensovision.png]] [[Sensovision]] [[Image:Apoc_solmine.png]] [[Solmine]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_sd.png]] [[Superdynamics]] [[Image:Apoc_synthemesh.png]] [[Synthemesh]] [[Image:Apoc_technocr.png]] [[Technocrats]] [[Image:Apoc_ts.png]] [[Transtellar]]</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
Or, if you click to edit the code: <br />
<br />
<nowiki><table width="75%" {{stdTable}} cellpadding="3" border="1"></nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki><tr {{stdTable Sub_Heading}}><td colspan ="2">{{Apoc Icon}} <b>[[Apoc_Table|X-COM: Apocalypse]]:</b> [[Organizations]]</td></tr></nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki><tr><td width="80"><b>The Good:</b></td><td>[[Image:Apoc_xcom.png]] [[X-COM (Apocalypse)|X-COM]] [[Image:Apoc_govt.png]] [[Government]] [[Image:Apoc_megapol.png]] [[Megapol]]</td></tr></nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki><tr><td><b>The Bad:</b></td><td>[[Image:Apoc_aliens.png]] [[Aliens (Apocalypse)|Alien]] [[Image:Apoc_sirius.png]] [[Cult of Sirius]]</td></tr></nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki><tr><td><b>The Ugly:</b></td><td>[[Image:Apoc_cyberweb.png]] [[Cyberweb]] [[Image:Apoc_diablo.png]] [[Diablo]] [[Image:Apoc_energen.png]] [[Energen]] [[Image:Apoc_evonet.png]] [[Evonet]] [[Image:Apoc_extropians.png]] [[Extropians]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_gm.png]] [[General Metro]] [[Image:Apoc_gravball.png]] [[Grav Ball League]] [[Image:Apoc_lifetree.png]] [[Lifetree]] [[Image:Apoc_marsec.png]] [[Marsec]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_mutant.png]] [[Mutant Alliance]] [[Image:Apoc_nanotech.png]] [[Nanotech]] [[Image:Apoc_nutrivend.png]] [[Nutrivend]] [[Image:Apoc_osiron.png]] [[Osiron]] [[Image:Apoc_psyke.png]] [[Psyke]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_self.png]] [[S.E.L.F.]] [[Image:Apoc_sanctuary.png]] [[Sanctuary Clinic]] [[Image:Apoc_sensovision.png]] [[Sensovision]] [[Image:Apoc_solmine.png]] [[Solmine]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_sd.png]] [[Superdynamics]] [[Image:Apoc_synthemesh.png]] [[Synthemesh]] [[Image:Apoc_technocr.png]] [[Technocrats]] [[Image:Apoc_ts.png]] [[Transtellar]]</td></tr></nowiki><br />
<br />
<nowiki></table><br />
</nowiki><br />
To create the template, just write the link for it, for instance [[Template: Aliens (EU2012)]], click and start editing. Just edit/replace/add what you want. After you've done a template, you'll have to add it to all the relevant pages by adding at the bottom the following code: <br />
<nowiki>{{Aliens (EU2012)}}</nowiki> [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 18:58, 19 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
::Got a number of them out. How do they look? Only one that I can think of that still needs doing is one for classes. [[User:Leman Russ|Leman Russ]] 13:16, 26 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Looking good, but only two comments. It might be a good idea to have added a Navbar suffix on the end of the template names. The other is perhaps to use wiki table markup for the outer/main boxes. [[User:NKF|NKF]] 16:37, 26 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
:::: NKF, could you please post here an example of wiki table markup? I'm not sure exactly myself of the difference. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 21:02, 26 April 2013 (EDT) <br />
<br />
:::::Sure. I'll use wiki table markup to replicate the example navbar above. Check the source. <br />
<br />
<br />
{| width="75%" {{stdTable}} cellpadding="3" border="1"<br />
|- {{stdTable Sub_Heading}}<br />
| colspan ="2" | {{Apoc Icon}} '''[[Apoc_Table|X-COM: Apocalypse]]:''' [[Organizations]]<br />
|-<br />
| width="80"| '''The Good:'''<br />
| [[Image:Apoc_xcom.png]] [[X-COM (Apocalypse)|X-COM]] [[Image:Apoc_govt.png]] [[Government]] [[Image:Apoc_megapol.png]] [[Megapol]]<br />
|-<br />
| '''The Bad:'''<br />
| [[Image:Apoc_aliens.png]] [[Aliens (Apocalypse)|Alien]] [[Image:Apoc_sirius.png]] [[Cult of Sirius]]<br />
|-<br />
| '''The Ugly:'''<br />
| [[Image:Apoc_cyberweb.png]] [[Cyberweb]] [[Image:Apoc_diablo.png]] [[Diablo]] [[Image:Apoc_energen.png]] [[Energen]] [[Image:Apoc_evonet.png]] [[Evonet]] [[Image:Apoc_extropians.png]] [[Extropians]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_gm.png]] [[General Metro]] [[Image:Apoc_gravball.png]] [[Grav Ball League]] [[Image:Apoc_lifetree.png]] [[Lifetree]] [[Image:Apoc_marsec.png]] [[Marsec]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_mutant.png]] [[Mutant Alliance]] [[Image:Apoc_nanotech.png]] [[Nanotech]] [[Image:Apoc_nutrivend.png]] [[Nutrivend]] [[Image:Apoc_osiron.png]] [[Osiron]] [[Image:Apoc_psyke.png]] [[Psyke]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_self.png]] [[S.E.L.F.]] [[Image:Apoc_sanctuary.png]] [[Sanctuary Clinic]] [[Image:Apoc_sensovision.png]] [[Sensovision]] [[Image:Apoc_solmine.png]] [[Solmine]]<br>[[Image:Apoc_sd.png]] [[Superdynamics]] [[Image:Apoc_synthemesh.png]] [[Synthemesh]] [[Image:Apoc_technocr.png]] [[Technocrats]] [[Image:Apoc_ts.png]] [[Transtellar]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
:::::It's the same result, but has the advantage of being tidier to maintain. For nested tables, you can throw HTML tables inside and not make it one big block of greater/less-than symbols and slashes. ;) [[User:NKF|NKF]] 21:34, 26 April 2013 (EDT) <br />
<br />
::: I'd quite like to see one done for the [[Maps (EU2012)|maps]], though it may require a reduced font size in order to fit everything in without massive page bloat. - <span style="font-size:xx-small">&nbsp;[[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 18:17, 26 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
:::: Might be better to use only the loading screen images on the Navbar. I'll look into it later [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 06:12, 27 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
:::: How about something like this?<br />
<br />
{{Template:Maps Navbar (EU2012)}}<br />
<br />
[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:20, 27 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: The layout and appearance looks perfect to me, but I don't like the use of style templates within the table - guess what THEY conflict with?<br />
<br />
: Starting a cell with a ! instead of a | is enough to tell the wiki it's to be a header cell, there's no need to use a template for that. I've hence modified the above table to do away with templates as an example.<br />
<br />
: If adding it to the map pages as a template, could I also ask for a <nowiki>{{EU2012_Style}}</nowiki> tag to go in as well? Doesn't actually exist as yet, but the plan is to save a little time later when it does. Er, in to the map pages, not the table template, that is to say.<br />
<br />
: - <span style="font-size:xx-small">&nbsp;[[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 22:12, 27 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
:: Just made a few more and edits and I've moved it into [[Template: Maps Navbar (EU2012)]]. I'll add it later, along with the <nowiki>{{EU2012_Style}}</nowiki> tag, meanwhile I want to redo the maps pages. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 04:39, 28 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
::: And just added both the Navbar and the Style tag to all the map pages. I still want to redesign the map page format but that's for later. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 16:22, 30 April 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::In regards to the image layout on those pages, you may or may not find the code used in [[UP001.SPK-UP042.SPK|this article]] useful. - <span style="font-size:xx-small">&nbsp;[[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 02:54, 1 May 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Spamming Accounts ==<br />
<br />
Since we think that all of these accounts are one person, surely we should try to block his/her IP Address which would stop him/her from creating new accounts; or do we not have the add-on installed on the wiki to block IPs? --[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] 02:59, 19 September 2013 (EDT)<br />
:Well, it was possible to block IPs until it was decided that only registered users could edit the wiki to prevent massive spamming. I have no idea about that add-on. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 05:32, 19 September 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Undo? ==<br />
<br />
I ''haven't''. --[[User:Xuncu|Xuncu]] 15:28, 18 November 2013 (EST)<br />
:I think he was talking about these ([http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XCOM:_Enemy_Within_DLC_(EU2012)&diff=prev&oldid=52480] [http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XCOM:_Enemy_Within_DLC_(EU2012)&diff=next&oldid=52480]) and ([http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XCOM:_Enemy_Within_DLC_(EU2012)&diff=prev&oldid=52276] [http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XCOM%3A_Enemy_Within_DLC_%28EU2012%29&action=historysubmit&diff=52278&oldid=52277])<br />
::Only thing I can think of was that I opened to edit, someone else opened to edit, they wrote something quick, saved, while I was taking my time to test and check, then saved with the origional text. --[[User:Xuncu|Xuncu]] 00:49, 19 November 2013 (EST)<br />
:::That's possible as well but you get a warning that someone has edited and saved a new version of the page while you're editing. To try to avoid this situation it's better to edit the EW main page by subsections if you're only adding a couple lines of text. But since we're now using page templates rather than having all info in the main page it should be easier to avoid conflicting versions. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 06:51, 19 November 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
== New template / standardized words / main testing page ==<br />
<br />
Hey Hobbes, since you're very active admin and user, I was wondering if a template akin to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed citation needed] to add to information that needs verification would be useful or if talk pages are appropriate at this point.<br />
<br />
Also, I was thinking of a page to showcase for editors to utilize when combing over pages for readability/uniformity. For instance, is Squad Sight Sniper or Squadsight Sniper better; the ability is called Squad Sight though. Or during movement, are they cells or tiles or squares? So as contributors add information, editors can go back and clean up pages with "minor edit" for readability.<br />
<br />
Lastly, it would be useful for me personally if there was a single page to consolidate testing/verifying with others instead of marking my page or trying to remember all the different talk pages. :P--[[User:DracoGriffin|DracoGriffin]] 13:47, 13 December 2013 (EST)<br />
:I've been wondering myself if we should make a [[Guidelines_to_writing_articles]] page solely for EU2012 due to all these questions you've just posed. I'm following a certain logic when editing pages to keep a consistent style and if contributors tried to keep that in mind it would surely help with the work. <br />
* Use the ingame terms on the pages to keep consistency: not Squadsight but Squad Sight; XCOM but not X-COM <br />
* Capitalize when you're using the exact term<br />
* For emphasis, i.e. you're mentioning specific abilites on a page that is about abilities, use bold for the ingame terms. <br />
* Use italics for transcriptions of ingame text, if they are not in identifiable boxes (like the pages dealing with research topics).<br />
* Don't write as if you're in a chat room: 'crits', 'dmg' and other abbreviations should not be used. <br />
* DO NOT WRITE phrases or words on full caps just for emphasis. <br />
<br />
Just some ideas to start. Maybe it would be nice to have a template informing people to check the Talk page if some info is disputed. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 14:03, 13 December 2013 (EST)<br />
:Hi, Hobbes! Have some question: can I create new templates for Russian section with (R) suffix? For example, [[Template:Ref Close (R)]]. The point is that words like "Источник" is more familiar than "Source" in Russian articles. --[[User:HansOlo|HansOlo]] ([[User talk:HansOlo|talk]]) 12:38, 20 June 2014 (EDT)<br />
:: Of course! [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 13:14, 20 June 2014 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== [[Bugs (EU2012)#Kinetic Strike Module and Flamethrower Upgrades|Kinetic Strike Module and Flamethrower Bug]] ==<br />
<br />
Do you know if it affects the Flamethrower (and if so what the eventually damage is. Does it round the 4.5 down or up?). Also do you know whether the bug resets for the game after being upgraded to the bugged value in the previous. I think it does but I can't remember.--[[User:Ditto51|Ditto51]] ([[User talk:Ditto51|talk]]) 14:49, 15 August 2014 (EDT)<br />
: I don't remember about the Flamethrower. All rounding of numbers is usually down in EU2012. The bug continues to upgrade the weapon until you play a game without getting the upgrade, IIRC, after which the next game the values are reset to normal ones. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 19:43, 15 August 2014 (EDT)<br />
:: OK, just had a little more time to check this. The flamethrower should be upgraded to 13 (9 + 4.5, rounded down). I never actually confirmed this personally with the Flamethrower. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 20:54, 15 August 2014 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Well, that was rather rude ==<br />
<br />
http://ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Mods_%28EU2012%29&action=history Connor's edit 'comment'<br />
:There are two issues here. First I agree with you that the comment wasn't a nice one. However, I also might take it in a more light manner since the stuff that he removed (XCOM/My Little Pony crossover) gets me scratching my head whether to laugh at it or to take it seriously. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 00:54, 15 September 2014 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Code of Infiltration ==<br />
<br />
I put some of the code for the infiltration routine on my [[User:Morgan525#Other_information | user page]]. I remove a lot of code so that the important stuff is easier to follow. The code only goes up to the UK as that is where the logic is easiest to follow. If something is not clear, let me know. [[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] ([[User talk:Morgan525|talk]]) 20:43, 5 December 2014 (EST)<br />
:Thanks a lot and yes, I can see how it works, the logic behind it is actually simpler than I was imagining it. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 21:28, 5 December 2014 (EST)<br />
Glad to help![[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] ([[User talk:Morgan525|talk]]) 23:49, 5 December 2014 (EST)<br />
:Something else I'm wondering if you could help. I was mentioning before that I wanted to update the page about [[Alien Missions]] with details about how the missions are generated, based on the info present in OpenXcom. But from our exchange I started realizing that the logic followed by OpenXcom might not be the same of the original game, even though the results are. So, I wrote a page about [[Alien Missions in Enemy Unknown (OpenXcom)]] but describing the process from the OpenXcom's code perspective. But since you're familiar with the original game's code I'm wondering if you could adapt its contents to the original game's code and update the Alien Missions page since you're way more qualified than me. Just an idea. :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 00:03, 6 December 2014 (EST)<br />
:Something I don't quite understand is what you mean by missions. In your various postings about alien missions in openxcom, you talk about the different trajectories and how a UFO uses them. Missions and trajectories are different things. The way missions are selected and completed has nothing to do with their flight patterns. Is this what your wanting to discuss, not how missions are selected or how they are completed? - [[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] ([[User talk:Morgan525|talk]]) 19:41, 29 December 2014 (EST)<br />
::I'm interested in describing the whole process behind alien missions in the original game: how the mission is selected, how the UFOs are assigned to it and how their flight patterns are determined and finally what happens (score) when the mission is completed. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 20:21, 29 December 2014 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Variables ==<br />
<br />
Hi!<br />
Recently I joined article writers and created several pages. Almost immediately, I faced with the duplicated information problem. Sometimes page should contain the same string twice and it is really pain in ass to update such strings. Maybe I am blinded but currently there is no way to use variables. So, is it possible to install pretty extension called “Variables”? Here is the link: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Variables [[User:El.|El.]] ([[User talk:El.|talk]]) 12:00, 5 July 2015 (EST)<br />
:Hey there. I noticed the insane amount of templates that you guys were creating for Long War and I wondered how necessary they were. I can ask Pete (site owner) about the Variable extensions, I have never used them myself though. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 19:43, 6 July 2015 (EDT)<br />
::I personally have created pages and templates only for russian language from scratch. So yes, I realy need them :). It would be cool if Pete did the favour for guys who need variables. --[[User:El.|El.]] ([[User talk:El.|talk]]) 02:50, 7 July 2015 (EDT)<br />
:::Just to let you know that I've emailed Pete about the Variables, now I'm waiting for an answer. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 19:40, 8 July 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Spam flood ==<br />
<br />
Shit's fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucked! --[[User:Xuncu|Xuncu]] ([[User talk:Xuncu|talk]]) 23:08, 9 February 2016 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Working as intended ==<br />
<br />
Just FYI the bot was working as intended. More info on my talk page. Now I just need to figure-out why the tables are breaking in such a weird way. --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 18:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Tvol-bot ==<br />
<br />
Do you think you could flag [[User:Tvol-bot]] as a bot? I'm doing a lot of batch processing on the wiki with it. And I'm sure other people might appreciate not seeing the wall of edits in the recent changes (or at least I certainly would :P ). --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 01:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
:I have no idea if that's even possible to do on this wiki... do you know how to do it?[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 01:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
::Should be somewhere [[Special:UserRights|in here]]. Otherwise poke around [[Special:AdminLinks]]. --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 01:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
:::OK, I'm not authorized to make edits on the [[Special:UserRights]] and I can't find anything about bots on [[Special:AdminLinks]], so that's above my pay grade. Just go ahead with the bot for the mass edits - there might be some complaints but the amount of edits is natural since we're creating a whole new section and people should understand that, without edit things don't get done in a wiki :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 16:51, 28 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
::::Seems like I have access to that section, so have given Tvol-bot bot status. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 22:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Image Strangeness ==<br />
<br />
Do you have any idea what is going on here? [[:File:UIPerk_aceinthehole.png]] [[File:UIPerk_aceinthehole.png]] The current revision is stuck as the original. But you can see from my upload attempts that the ''new'' images ''were'' successfully uploaded. The catch is that each time I would upload one, I would see the most recent version as the original. Which...makes no god damn sense. O.o Maybe the server needs a restart. Or a massive kick in the pants, either or. I'm fine with both. (Edit: I would try a mass delete and re-upload, which would almost guarantee this would be fixed but I don't have the perms.) --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 20:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
: Right now it's working properly it seems. I have no idea what was going on. --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 00:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
:: Thinking about this, it's likely you were seeing the local copy in your browser's cache rather than the latest copy on the server. The next time this happens, try doing a full refresh of the page with a shift-reload to re-download the content from the server and see if that sorts the problem. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 05:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)<br />
:Fraid not. That's the first thing I tried. I tried a full page refresh, purging my entire browser cache, and then on a whim I tried doing all that on Safari (on 2 computers), Edge (on one), Firefox (on all three), and Brave (again on all three). It's definitely not a caching issue on my end. For some reason the wiki is slow in updating the pointer to where the current revision is stored when it gets called on a page. The good news is that it eventually does do it, it just takes a while (half hour to an hour). --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 07:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== User CSS ==<br />
<br />
Would it be possible to enable user CSS ( <code><nowiki>$wgAllowUserCss</nowiki></code> )? I'm trying to test-out CSS to make {{Tl|Ability (LW2)}} better. What I want to do is have that extra info icon invert its color (like the game does; I'll make a custom image for that later), and set a div underneath the ability to appear (which would hold the ability's extended info text, so it appears under it only when rolled-over). With access to user CSS I can test this, and later add it to the Common.css file (well I couldn't, but someone else with admin rights could). Otherwise there's no good way of going about it.<br />
<br />
Alternately I can add CSS to each ability template ''in theory'', but in practice every time I try to add any CSS in the <code><nowiki><css></css></nowiki></code> tags the server hurks and doesn't show me the preview page. It also might add an issue with server and browser load. The wiki would probably do well [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CSS to be using this extension] instead anyway. --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 04:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
:I'll ask Jo5hua (current site admin) about it since I dont' have any skills related to this issue :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 18:00, 31 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
::Much appreciated. --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 20:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)<br />
: Hey Hobbes, while you're at it, do you think you could propose installing [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CSS the MediaWiki CSS extension]? It allows for inclusion of complete style sheets ''and'' inline css, which could prove useful for pages where specific css is repeated. If need be (e.g. if it conflicts with the NewCSS extension) I can easily go over the wiki and convert any markup that uses the <code><nowiki><css></css></nowiki></code> tags (though as far as I can tell, NewCSS is broken, since I can't successfully add any CSS to a page with it and have the preview come back). (Edit: And take a look at [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WhiteSpace WhiteSpace] too if possible. Sorry for asking for so much, but both would eliminate some major headaches for me.) --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 07:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Any word on this? If it's easier, there's [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/161747/how-to-allow-mediawiki-logged-user-to-edit-common-css#295808 a slightly more straightforward solution.] Assuming you guys are okay with creating another group and handing me those permissions to edit the site's CSS (I promise to test thoroughly first; that's the primary reason I'm asking for user CSS to be enabled).<br />
<br />
To summarize what I've asked for (in order of importance) for the sake of anyone reading:<br />
* [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgAllowUserCss Ability to use own user-specific CSS.] Editing one's own CSS (e.g. [[Special:MyPage/vector.css]] ) isn't the issue. It being active needs to be enabled by the server admin. (see: [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgGroupPermissions $wgGroupPermissions] and [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:User_style User style])<br />
* [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/161747/how-to-allow-mediawiki-logged-user-to-edit-common-css Permissions to edit site CSS.]<br />
* Depreciate [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:NewPageCSS Extension:NewPageCSS] and install [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:CSS Extension:CSS]. This is for several reasons.<br />
: 1. Extension:NewPageCSS tags don't work. If added to a page with valid CSS in them, the server will not respond when the edit is submitted (not even a response error code; it just dies). (Edit: Well this ''was'' what was happening to me. They seem to be working now. Not idea why. In any case there are only three pages that use the extension right now, and Extension:CSS provides both transclusion of entire style sheets as well as parsing CSS inline.)<br />
: 2. Extension:CSS was updated more recently.<br />
: 3. Extension:CSS allows inclusion of other style sheets onto a page, which reduces potential repetition for any specialized CSS (it will also almost certainly be more efficient than transcluding a style sheet into the tags from Extension:NewPageCSS and then having it parse it every page load).<br />
* Install [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:WhiteSpace Extension:WhiteSpace]. This is for my own sanity, but especially for the sanity of anyone looking at template code in the future. Consider the current [http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Template:Ability_(LW2)&action=edit source code] of {{tl|Ability (LW2)}}. This will only get ''more'' complicated if/when I add interactivity via CSS.<br />
<br />
If you aren't convinced this is a good idea, I've made [https://jsfiddle.net/Tvol/bxjqzah3/ a fiddle] (and [https://jsfiddle.net/Tvol/w9djepcv/ another based on Mavoc's suggestions]) of what the Ability template ''could'' look like. There are piles of other changes I would like to make, primarily to reduce duplication of effort. For example, without any default table styles other than .wikitable, changing the colours used requires an ungodly number of style tags. This makes maintenance of these templates much more difficult, and practically speaking, requires editors to be familiar with regexes and have Pywikibot installed to make any general changes to similar elements across the wiki. (It is, in short, a very bad way of doing things. It's a massive time-sink when building new templates as well because of the inevitable mistakes and bugs that crop-up from constantly repeating the same code.) --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 05:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)<br />
:I'm not skilled to decide if this is a good idea from the technical side of the wiki, I'm just forwarding your request to the appropriate person :) I got word back from Jo5hua, he thinks that there might be security issues with allowing what you're suggesting. Could you clarify this issue better? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 15:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)<br />
::OK, it's better if you just talk to Jo5hua directly on Skype. His Skype address is joshua.dominguez [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 16:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)<br />
:::Okie dokie; I've added him as a contact on Skype. --[[User:Tvol|Tvol]] ([[User talk:Tvol|talk]]) 03:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== ADVENT Warden ==<br />
<br />
Hey,<br />
<br />
I don't think it's called an ADVENT Warden, but I have definitely seen that unit without having ABA installed. It probably has a different name, and it appeared during a mission to liberate a region, providing bonuses like Fire Discipline to allies.<br />
:That unit is the Advent General (and there are two versions of it on LW2, one red and the other black) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 15:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Long War of the Chosen ==<br />
<br />
Hi, not sure if this is the right place to ask, but [[Long_War_of_the_Chosen|Long War of the Chosen]] recently released its 1.0 version, complete with an official [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2683996590 Steam Workshop release]. I was wondering if now would be a good time to add LWOTC to the list of Featured Projects on Ufopaedia's sidebar, since it seems LWOTC is what most people will be playing from now on if they wish to experience the most up-to-date version of Long War for XCOM 2.<br />
<br />
Just a disclaimer: I am not an official representative of the LWOTC team, but I've been actively involved with the discord community for over a year and currently am one of the few active editors for the LWOTC part of Ufopaedia. [[User:Meatninja|Meatninja]] ([[User talk:Meatninja|talk]]) 22:33, 26 December 2021 (CET)<br />
:There are two issues regarding your suggestion:<br />
::1) How much of a difference there is between LWOTC and LW2? You're porting War of the Chosen to LW2, and the question is if it wouldn't make more sense to add a LWOTC section to LW2, otherwise you'll be replicating naerly all of the existing info of LW2?<br />
::2) If mod projects are added to the Featured Projects sidebar, then that list is gonna get pretty huge in no time, specially with the mods for OpenXcom. Long War was added because it became an semi-official expansion of Enemy Unknown, specially after Firaxis commissioned Pavonis to develop LW2. UFO2000 and UFO:AI are now dead but still playable projects and they wanted to remake the entire game. And OpenXcom and OpenApoc are clones of the original games that add a ton of new features. What does LWOTC exactly add that is new from LW2 or WotC like the existing projects? <br />
:Finally, the UFOPaedia has always been about XCom and its games. It's not to publicize mod or fan projects, although those will always have a place here if they need a wiki because this is a fan project too but it doesn't need them. And if it became a place to publicize personal work, then it wouldn't be very effective because there's a ton of projects that could be added to the Featured Projects section (including a couple of my own personal ones) and they would be all competing for attention. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 05:33, 2 January 2022 (CET)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=103992Talk:Main Page2021-10-25T21:32:13Z<p>Hobbes: /* Enable dark mode theme? */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Welcome To All Rookies'''<br />
<br />
This is the place to talk/ask about general issues concerning the wiki and hopefully someone will answer/reply to them. <br />
<br />
Specific game questions should be asked on the game's individual talk pages. <br />
<br />
For new users, in order to reduce spam you'll need to register to be able to edit pages.<br />
<br />
To start a new topic simply press the '''edit''' button above. Then place your <nowiki>==Topic Name==</nowiki> like it is written here.<br />
* To add a line you can either type <nowiki>----</nowiki> or use the buttons that appear on the edit screen. <br />
* If replying to an existing topic use colons '''<nowiki>:</nowiki>''' before your answer<br />
* Don't forget to sign your posts in the talk pages by typing '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''' at the end. <br />
* Finally when creating/editing wiki articles have a look at the [[Guidelines to writing articles|guidelines]] page. <br />
<br />
That's it. Happy editing!<br />
----<br />
<br />
Old articles have been moved to [[Talk:Main Page/Archive]] for later perusal. <br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
==Featured Projects on Sidebar==<br />
I was requested on Discord by user [[Ucross]] to add to the Featured Projects section of the sidebar the mod that he is working on called Long War Rebalance, which is a mod of Long War, and thus a mod of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and I refused the request for the same reasons I already presented below regarding the Piratez mod for OpenXCom.<br />
It's arguable for the same reason that Long War shouldn't on that list for the same reason, it being a mod, but since Firaxis gave the official recognition to both Long Wars, and even gave support to Long War 2, that's the difference I see between Long War and all the other mods made for all XCom games, and thus worthy of recognition as significant contributions by and for the community. The same reason behind UFO2000, OpenXCom, OpenApoc and UFO:AI, they are all entire new XCom games built by teams of fans, and the first three are playable, and you can create mods for them. OpenXCom and OpenApoc are in active development. <br />
As for personal projects to be present on that section, I can think of a ton of projects related to XCom that would deserve to be there, and that would make that list endless an unpractical. And at the end, the objective of this wiki is to inform about the games. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 20:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: It still would be nice for players to be able to find all of the mods/projects that this wiki hosts. What about something like: "Other Projects" where it's a page that lists all other projects occurring for other games? Just a suggestion. Feel free to ignore me. =D [[User:Ucross|Ucross]] ([[User talk:Ucross|talk]]) 16:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I am rather partial to this solution myself. The wiki does need to keep its main focus tight as far as its main content is concerned. But nothing says we cannot have a page that acknowledges and point to other projects of interest. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 04:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Server Move==<br />
In the near future we're going to move to a new server (hosted by NineX) because of the constant site outages and other technical/security issues that have been affecting the wiki since the last year. NineX currently hosts the OpenXCom forums and site, so I feel that it will be a good move since the OpenXCom community has been the most active in keeping the old XCom games alive. <br />
<br />
However we're still not sure if we're gonna be able to keep the old domain (www.ufopaedia.org) or if it will be necessary to move to a new one, and ask everybody to update their links. We're trying to keep the old domain, but right now the choice is to be between keeping things as they currently are, or get the technical/security issues fixed and get back the wiki properly working, even if that means losing the domain and the traffic.<br />
<br />
I personally prefer the 2nd option since we need a wiki that is 100% available for both consulting and editing information, like it did in the past. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 14:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
==Temporary Domain==<br />
We completed the server move thanks to NineX, who also upgraded the wiki's software. The process required that we moved temporarily to a new domain, ufopaedia.info, but we'll return to our old domain, ufopaedia.org, as soon as the process is complete. Thanks for your patience :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 21:40, 28 January 2018 (CET)<br />
<br />
Migration finished. ufopaedia.info is redirecting to ufopaedia.org.<br />
Mediawiki software have been upgraded to latest version , and whole site audited. [[User:NineX|NineX]] ([[User talk:NineX|talk]]), 13:27, 31 January 2018 (CET)<br />
<br />
==Piratez in featured projects?==<br />
It seems out of place that piratez has it's own table on the UFOpedia, and uses (Piratez) to distinguish its own pages, but is not listed on the featured projects. Going to add it if nobody objects. The rationale for adding Long War in this talk pages history (Huge makeover of the original version) pretty much goes doubly so for piratez. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 21:57, 5 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:Only admins can edit Featured Projects. And I object to it. <br />
:I proposed to add Long War because it was the only major mod available to EU/EW, and even got recognition and compliments made by Firaxis (with Jake Solomon joking that he was the guy that designed LW's beta), which was then extended to hiring the LW team to make official XCOM 2 mods for the game's release. So LW is really something special that deserved to get its own recognition. <br />
:Piratez is just one of several total conversions available for OpenXCom, and the intent is not to list all mod projects on Featured Projects, Because then X-Files, Hardmode or Area 51 would also qualify, being also expansions on their own right, although without Piratez's popularity. <br />
:Not to mention that there are other current XCom games like XCOM 2 that have also their own mods. So, if Piratez is added, what happens if someone else from another XCOM game, or current projects being developed like OpenApoc, decides to ask for his major mod to be added?<br />
:The primary intent of this wiki is the XCOM games, and Featured Projects is a way to recognize the hard work and dedication of a few fan projects, OpenXCom being one of them - and if you add Piratez then you're basically saying that Piratez is at the same level as OpenXCom, when Piratez wouldn't exist if there wasn't OpenXCom to begin with. <br />
:Finally, pages with their own suffix (Whatever) don't necessarily translate into Featured Projects, check the existing Interceptor and the Enforcer pages, it's more of a matter of internal page categorization. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:23, 5 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::: Ah okay, but I'm not really convinced, this feels like a matter of scale. I'm not trying to get it added as a featured project because I'm a fan, it just doesn't seem right to not have it there regardless of those reasons. If you look at something like UFO:AI or OpenApoc, on the main featured bar, they're almost completed unupdated and tiny. If the idea is that Piratez should have it's place on this wiki, and not on it's own wiki, then it really should have a place on the main page. If it's not, why is it even on here with hundreds and hundreds of pages? I type in just about any search for x-com related things and see a bunch of piratez pages in the autocomplete. If X-Files, Hardmode, Area 51 had hundreds of pages on the wiki, I'd recommend adding them as well, though they don't. Anyways, just my thoughts, I won't push this anymore. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 01:53, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:::Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan explains the argument more. It The piratez main page is a huge presence on the wiki, and is essentially unaccessable on the wiki. Which is just not what wikis are about. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 01:59, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:::: There are a lot of interesting points in your reply, that I'll try to answer separately to those, since some I have already considered myself.<br />
:::: UFO2000 and UFO:AI are dead projects, UFO2000 had its glory days more than 10 years ago (I was heavily involved with it) and it is playable (although hardly anyone plays it) and UFO:AI was never finished, so there's really an argument there whether both should still be on Featured Projects. OpenApoc on the other hand is actively being developed right now, they have their own Discord channel and it might take a while, but the general feeling is that one day it will reach 1.0 status, like OpenXCom did.<br />
:::: Piratez section on its wiki grew up by itself out of the OpenXCom until now, Dioxine or anyone ever asked permission, that I recall, but since we got the space and it is XCom related, no one objected, and the community is pretty supportive of each other's projects. <br />
:::: If by Auto-Complete you mean Google's search bar then the reason why you get so much Piratez results associated with XCom is because it uses your past search history and page views. I don't get any Piratez results when I search for XCom things because I don't play Piratez (and I don't play LW or LW2 also, but I suggested that they should be added because of their importance).<br />
:::: And this brings me to another important point, which is that Piratez includes content that some people don't really think belongs in an XCom game, namely it being about space pirates, slaves and mutants against aliens, and with the nudity involved. I know it takes place in an alternate universe where XCom lost the war, but if Firaxis announced that XCOM 3 followed Piratez setting, there would be a huge fan backlash because XCom has almost always been about an international, semi-clandestine organization of humans fighting aliens, and never required nudity to be atractive. Piratez setting and aesthetics appeal to a lot of people but to a lot of others it doesn't, even inside the OpenXCom community. <br />
:::: And for instance, I'm the lead developer of Area 51 that was mentioned before, and while it expands the base UFO: Defense game like EW or LW did, if not more, I do not think it should be on Featured Projects because of all the reasons I mentioned before. As a developer I'd love it to be more publicized, but here I need to think first as a wiki administrator, and like I said before, this is an XCOM wiki since it was created 15 years ago, not an OpenXCom one. If this was a wiki dedicated to OXC, then Piratez, Area 51, Tech-Comm (another total conversion I'm working based on the Terminator universe), Warhammer 40k, Dune, and all other major projects, XCom based or not, would belong here, but it isn't.<br />
:::: Finally, we're not talking here about a single orphan article. Orphan articles mean that they can only be accessed by searching the wiki since there aren't any links to them anywhere. Piratez can be accessed through here https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Mods_(OpenXcom). The issue really is that you think Piratez should be more advertised on the wiki by adding it to Featured Projects, but as I said before, it is questionable whether it deserves to get that sort of attention on an XCOM wiki. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 05:37, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::::: Heh, well in any case, looks like someone else added it to featured projects about a year ago: it's just on the featured projects at the very bottom of the page, along with all the other featured projects but with piratez squeezed in haha. Somewhat tangential but a bit on topic: Maybe the front page should just have a section at the top listing all the relevant games on the wiki? I remember like a decade ago when it was just the 1994 version/TFT and Apoc and the main page was very organized and clear, but it's really not now what with the tables of nearly every game on the wiki on the main page and some random lists in random places. Case in point: Piratez is already considered a featured mod by someone and neither of us noticed until this point, nor did I know even enforcer or these other spinoffs existed that you mentioned earlier existed or were on the wiki at all. In any case, glad to have talked this out. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 11:21, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::::: Bluh, one last point, I promise. I think maybe your having made/worked on a huge mod might be influencing your decision: you make it sound like it'd be a bad thing if all OpenXcom mods were featured and I don't think this would even be bad at all. E.g. a lot of games wikis list basically all the relevant large mods for the game in a very visible place. Example: https://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page has a link to a list of pretty much every major mod visible up front without needing to scroll down. To me it just seemed odd specifically for piratez here since it also had a huge space on the wiki, but I don't see an issue with Area 51, Warhammer 40k, etc having a visible place.<br />
<br />
== XCOM 2 section problems ==<br />
<br />
Hi guys,<br />
<br />
I've noticed that there's loads of problems in the XCOM 2 sections - misspellings, orphan pages, a lack of organisation, and so on. Even the term "MEC" was spelt wrong in a page title. I've been tackling a few of these issues, but I'm just thinking that this isn't worth having because Fandom have their own wiki at [https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/XCOM_Wiki] and they've got nearly everything down already.<br />
<br />
What are we trying to do here - dedicate this wiki to the old X-COM and a few mods (ahem, Long War), or adding in Firaxis's new XCOM grouping?<br />
<br />
Just a question in editorial direction.<br />
<br />
--[[User:SpeedofDeath118|SpeedofDeath118]] ([[User talk:SpeedofDeath118|talk]]) 17:08, 16 December 2019 (CET)<br />
:I think the question is more, what are you interested in doing? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:11, 16 December 2019 (CET)<br />
<br />
::The Wiki was set up long before the reboot series, so you could say the classics were its original focus. However it would have been remiss to not accommodate the new games as they appeared. However the wiki thrives or declines entirely on the input of the people that make use of it. If the interest and willingness is there, the sections will grow. If not (looks at the early spinoff titles), then perhaps not so much. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 07:31, 17 December 2019 (CET)<br />
<br />
== Enable dark mode theme? ==<br />
<br />
Would it be possible to add a dark mode option to this wiki? Something like these:<br />
https://help.fandom.com/wiki/Converting_to_hydradark<br />
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Skin:Timeless/DarkCSS<br />
: Hi and thanks for asking but after consultation with NineX, we don't have the resources (someone experienced with Mediawiki) to keep the UFOpaedia.org updated to the latest Mediawiki releases. Otherwise, the odds are that things will start breaking with UFOpaedia.org if we change the custom skin, which has happened to other wikis. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:32, 25 October 2021 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I see a "Skin" option when I navigate to Preferences > Appearance (https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering ), but no options other than the default appear. <br />
-[[User:JimmAYY2|JimmAYY2]] ([[User talk:JimmAYY2|talk]]) 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Organizations&diff=103595Talk:Organizations2021-10-15T19:18:56Z<p>Hobbes: /* Suggestion */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Raids ==<br />
<br />
Browsing around with Apoc'd, I see that there are several types of "raid" actions that organizations can conduct against their enemies. I'm looking for more concrete information on what the various types of raid actually mean. There exist:<br />
:Raid - this is the typical base attack using agents.<br />
:Attack - I have no idea what this is.<br />
:Illegal flyer - a flying vehicle or two attack an enemy building. Used only by Megapol and gangs.<br />
:Storm - again, no idea what this is. Used only by Megapol and gangs.<br />
[[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 05:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Attack = you get a "Organisation attacked:" message on the scrollbar (e.g. "Organisation attacked: Psyke Attacked by: Megapol"). However, if X-COM is targetted nothing happens.<br />
:Raid = similar message, but if X-COM is targetted you get a base defence.<br />
:Storm = similar message, but if X-COM is targetted you get a base defence (no apparent difference in difficulty).<br />
:Illegal flyer = "An illegal flyer has been detected", and then they suicide two Hovercars/Hoverbikes (depending on current budget I think) against an enemy building (IIRC Megapol can also use Police Hovercars, and I've seen a single Valkyrie get used once, but these are pretty rare).<br />
<br />
:Note that any infiltrated organisation will use the Megapol/gangs table (which has a much higher likelihood of rolling something interesting, in addition to the "illegal flyer" possibility). When the Alien Takeover screen says "right and wrong no longer exists for these people" it's actually hinting at this. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 07:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Awesome, thank you. So this confirms that non-gang non-Megapol organizations don't attack you with vehicles (unless infiltrated). As for the vehicle used, it's possible it's just a random dice roll with an equal chance of each vehicle in the organization's vehicle park being selected. This would explain why Valkyries are so rare, as the gangs each have only a single Valkyrie at the beginning of the game (though they might buy more as the game progresses).<br />
:: Which brings me to another question - do organizations ever send out ground vehicles to defend their buildings? I tried attacking Diablo and they never seem to bring out their Stormdogs (the gangs always begin with three each). In fact, I levelled a Diablo building and they lost a Stormdog, but I didn't get a "vehicle destroyed" message. [[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 08:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)<br />
:I don't know if Vehicle Parks are used for illegal flyer attacks, although the air units are definitely used for building defence (I've never seen military ground vehicles used apart from Megapol's Police Cars). Organisations can definitely buy new vehicle parks, although they can't do it instantly (it's possible to run an organisation out of vehicles, but if you come back a couple of hours later they'll have bought replacements). [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 17:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::I've done more testing regarding Illegal Flyers and here's what I've concluded:<br />
::1) Illegal Flyers are taken from an Org's "Vehicle Park".<br />
::2) The game will always try to assign two attacking vehicles.<br />
::3) The game checks the vehicles in the Park in the following order: Police Hovercar, Phoenix Hovercar, Hoverbike, Valkyrie, Hawk.<br />
::4) The selection routine seems to go: is there more than one vehicle of that type in the Pool? If yes, assign it to attack the target building & repeat query. If no, go to the next type.<br />
::For example: Cult of Sirius has 2 Phoenix Hovercars, 3 Hoverbikes and 2 Valkyries. The game assigns 1 Phoenix Hovercar, but skips the other one as it is now the only remaining one in the Pool. It moves on to the Hoverbikes and assigns one. Now there are two vehicles so the attack can go ahead. It will consist of one Phoenix and one Hoverbike.<br />
::Example #2: Government has 1 Hoverbike and 2 Hawks. The game skips the Hoverbike as there is only one in the Pool and moves onto the Hawks. It selects one and assigns it to the attack. As there are no other vehicles, the attack will consist of one Hawk.<br />
<br />
::Regarding '''armed''' ground vehicles, I could never get an Org to deploy them, and it seems that a number of them disappear from the Vehicle Park every time one of the owner's buildings gets damaged. They are never replaced. [[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 20:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Some testing of my own revealed a further wrinkle - illegal Police Hovercars do not produce the "An illegal flyer has been detected" message. This means that if the time setting is on Ultra Fast, the game will skip past them - if something else stops the clock within the next half-hour or so, the attack will commence then, but otherwise it'll go away. This would seem to be why illegal flyer attacks from Megapol don't show up very often - you're only stopped a few times a day.<br />
<br />
:Organisations do also seem to have to purchase vehicles for their vehicle park, which means that if you can bankrupt an organisation AND run them out of vehicle park they should be unable to launch illegal flyer attacks (raids can occur at negative balance, though). [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 11:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::Just wanted to make sure - have you seen a bankrupt Organisation launch a raid "naturally" (without using Apoc'd to schedule it)? [[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 07:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Yes, the original thing that made me say that was getting raided by Osiron during an ordinary game after they'd gone into negatives from their slums being collateral damage. Just retested by making the gangs hate me and giving them all -$1M starting money - took a while, but eventually I got raided (they were raiding each other and Megapol from the get-go, but I wanted to get a raid on X-COM to be sure). [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 09:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: OK, thanks. Seems there isn't much point in bankrupting them, then. Illegal flyer attacks are rare and not very dangerous if you have any craft to speak of. I'm not sure whether the Police Hovercars and Hoverbikes can even damage buildings with their weapons. [[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 09:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Megapol's Police Car and Police Hovercar patrols come out of their vehicle park; if you're hostile with Megapol, bankrupting them + shooting the cars down will eventually remove the distraction from UFO interception. Otherwise, though, I think you're right. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 11:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I was thinking that it may be better to replace the "Organizations Important to X-COM" section with a "Services Provided to X-COM" overview, e.g.<br />
<br />
<br><br />
<table {{StdCenterTable}}><br />
<th {{StdDescTable_Heading}} valign ="center">Organization</th><th {{StdDescTable_Heading}}>Services provided<br />
<tr><td align="left">[[Image:Apoc_govt_icon.png]] [[Government]]</td><td>weekly funding</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">[[Image:Apoc_megapol_icon.png]] [[Megapol]]</td><td>sells agent and vehicle equipment; limited assistance vs. Alien Craft</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">[[Image:Apoc_marsec_icon.png]] [[Marsec]]</td><td>sells ground and air vehicles, agent and vehicle equipment</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
<br><br />
<br />
And so on for all organizations that actually provide something to X-COM. [[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 09:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I mean, I do have a rather-detailed guide to that on my user page, but I suppose we could whip up something more concise.<br />
<br />
:The big question is whether to include Psyke and to a lesser degree Cyberweb. Psyke "sells" Psiclone, but they never have any for sale unless you sold it to them first and it's useless. Cyberweb does provide a selection of vehicle equipment, but none of the items appears to do anything. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 11:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::My recommendation - don't include Psyke, but do include Cyberweb, with a footnote explaining the latter's items don't work as intended.<br />
::p.s. I'm also not sure about Gravball League. I'm inclined to believe it does not affect the number of recruits, but I don't have 100% proof. [[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 11:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I just did a test of thirty days' worth of humans with GBL neutral/hostile/allied, and got 39/52/43, so I'm strongly inclined to think there's no effect. Probably not enough to filter out the noise, though, so I also put in a question on OpenApoc. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 13:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Don't forget that every Organization will buy recruits from the same pool, just as they will also buy up craft and equipment, so that will have impact on the availability as well. The increase is about the same as from SELF and Mutant Alliance. [[User:Bard|Bard]] ([[User talk:Bard|talk]]) 17:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::I've seen no evidence of anything you claim there; organisation personnel are not hired or equipped with bought equipment the way X-COM's are (they and their equipment are randomly generated when a mission is started), and the max humans seen with the GB league hostile and with it allied were both 3 (SELF and Mutant Alliance switch on and off the 0-1 android/hybrid, so a similar mechanism would produce a difference). Please don't supply urban legends as fact; it just confuses matters. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 06:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: Relations do matter, here is more info from the "PC Zone X-Com Apocalypse Tips Books", though ingame already all of these are very obvious to observe: https://imgur.com/a/QJtmiaR [[User:Bard|Bard]] ([[User talk:Bard|talk]]) 11:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::::: And most of those tips don't work as advertised because the game came out without many announced features. The best person to ask about which actually work is to ask Chimera Kitty Of Malal, the main developer of OpenApoc, since he has extensively researched the game's source code and he'll be able to clarify what actually works ingame. You can find him at the OpenXCom discord. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 19:18, 15 October 2021 (UTC)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&diff=103594MediaWiki:Sidebar2021-10-15T19:12:01Z<p>Hobbes: Added Discord invite link</p>
<hr />
<div>* Navigation<br />
** mainpage|mainpage<br />
** portal-url|portal<br />
** recentchanges-url|recentchanges<br />
** helppage|help<br />
* Games<br />
** X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown<br />
** TFTD|Terror From The Deep<br />
** Apocalypse|Apocalypse<br />
** Enemy Unknown (EU2012)|Enemy Unknown<br />
** The Bureau: XCOM Declassified|The Bureau<br />
** XCOM2|XCOM 2<br />
** Chimera Squad|Chimera Squad<br />
* Spiritual Successors<br />
** http://wiki.phoenixpoint.com/Phoenix_Point_Wiki |Phoenix Point <br />
** https://www.xenonauts.com/ |Xenonauts<br />
<br />
* Featured Projects<br />
** UFO2000|UFO2000<br />
** OpenXcom|OpenXcom<br />
** OpenApoc|OpenApoc<br />
** UFO:AI|UFO:AI<br />
** Long War|Long War<br />
** Long_War_2|Long War 2<br />
** Other Projects|Other Projects<br />
<br />
*Forums<br />
**http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/forum/96-ufopaediaorg/ |Ufopaedia forum<br />
**http://forums.2kgames.com/forumdisplay.php?75-XCOM |2K's XCOM forums<br />
**http://www.reddit.com/r/Xcom/ |Reddit X-COM<br />
**https://discord.gg/tWTMxvU |Discord XCOM<br />
**Forums | Other Forums<br />
*Languages<br />
**Pagina Principal|Español (Spanish)<br />
**Главная страница|Русский (Russian)<br />
**Page Principale|Français (French)<br />
**메인_페이지|한국어 (Korean)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=103166Main Page2021-09-16T01:03:43Z<p>Hobbes: </p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
__NOTITLE__<br />
<!-- BANNER ACROSS TOP OF PAGE --><br />
{| style="width:100%; height:90px; background:#f9f9f9; margin:1.2em 0 6px 0; border:1px solid #ddd; padding-bottom:10px; padding-left:20px;"<br />
| style="width:51%; color:#000;" |<br />
<!-- "WELCOME TO UFOPEDIA:ORG" AND ARTICLE COUNT --><br />
{| style="width:280px; border:none; background:none;"<br />
| style="width:280px; text-align:center; white-space:nowrap; color:#000;" |<br />
<div style="font-size:162%; border:none; margin:0; padding:.1em; color:#000;">Welcome to UFOpaedia.org,</div><br />
<div style="top:+0.2em; font-size:85%;">Your '''X-COM''' Wiki featuring [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFARTICLES}}]] articles and [[Special:Statistics|{{NUMBEROFUSERS}}]] users.</div><br />
|}<br />
<!-- GAME LIST ON RIGHT-HAND SIDE --><br />
| style="width:25%; font-size:95%;" valign ="top"|<br />
* {{UFO Icon|20px}} [[XCOM | UFO: Enemy Unknown (1994)]]<br/><br />
* {{TFTD Icon|20px}} [[TFTD | Terror from the Deep]]<br/><br />
* {{Apoc Icon|20px}}[[Apocalypse]]<br/><br />
<br />
| style="width:25%; font-size:95%;" valign ="top"|<br />
* [[File:Vigilo_Confido_black.png|20px]][[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown (2012)]]<br/><br />
* [[File:Bureau.png|16px]][[The Bureau: XCOM Declassified]]<br/><br />
* [[File:XCOM2 Resistance Logo.png|16px]] [[XCOM2|XCOM 2]]<br />
* [[XCOM: Chimera Squad]]<br />
|}<br />
<!-- MULTIPLE LANGUAGES BAR --><br />
<div style="float:right; font-size:.85em;">''In other languages: [[Pagina Principal|Español]], [[Главная страница|Pусский]], [[Page_Principale|Français]], [[메인 페이지|한국어]].''</div><br />
<br />
'''This site is dedicated to ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-COM X-COM]'', a computer strategy game series introduced in 1994 by MicroProse. <br />
<br />
This wiki contains a wealth of information including strategy, tactical tips, plus an in-depth look at how the game functions. If you love X-COM and want to contribute, please see the [[UFOpaedia:Community Portal|Community Portal]]. All rookies welcome!<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size:90%">''Disclaimer: To be absolutely clear, this site is dedicated to a series of computer games and not to general conspiracy theories regarding UFOs and aliens. ''</span><br />
<br><!-- Leading br bevore clear=all, Crome (8.0.522.0) misallingment fix. Still needed for some reason. --><br clear="all"><br />
<br />
{| style="float:right; margin-right:10px;"<br />
|[[File:Head red.png|30px]] [[File:Head red.png|30px]] [[File:Head red.png|30px]]<br />
|}<br />
<br / style="clear:right;"><br />
<br />
<!---- XCOM NEWS BOX ----><br />
{| style = "border:1px #aaa solid; width:64%; height:300px; float:left; margin-right:5px; margin-bottom:5px;"<br />
|- style = "font-weight: bolder; color: white; background: #bbb;" <br />
! X-COM News<br />
|-<br />
|{{:XCOM_News}}<br />
|-<br />
| <div align="right">[[XCOM_News#Archived News|Archived News]]</div><br />
|}<br />
<!-- UFOPEADIA NEWS BOX --><br />
{| cellpadding = "2" style="float: left; border:solid #aaa 1px; font-size:95%; width:35%; text-align:center; margin-bottom:10px;"<br />
|- {{StdDescTable_Heading}} <br />
! UFOPAEDIA News<br />
|- style="text-align:left;"<br />
| {{:Ufopaedia_News}}<br />
|-<br />
| <div align="right">[[:Ufopaedia_News#Archived News|Archived News]]</div><br />
|}<br />
<br style="clear: left;" /><br />
<br />
== Enemy Unknown (2012) ==<br />
{{Col}}<br />
{{:EU2012_Table}}<br />
{{EndCol}}<br />
<br />
== Sequels to Enemy Unknown (2012) ==<br />
{{Col}}<br />
{{:XCOM2_Table}}<br />
{{EndCol}}<br />
{{Col}}<br />
{{:Chimera_Table}}<br />
{{EndCol}}<br />
<br />
== Enemy Unknown (1994) ==<br />
{{Col}}<br />
{{EU_Table}}<br />
{{EndCol}}<br />
<br />
== Sequels to Enemy Unknown (1994) ==<br />
{{Col}}<br />
{{TFTD_Table}}<br />
{{EndCol}}<br />
<br />
{{Col}}<br />
{{Apoc_Table}}<br />
{{EndCol}}<br />
<br />
==Prequels to Enemy Unknown (2012)==<br />
{{:The_Bureau:_XCOM_Declassified_Table}}<br />
<br />
== Spin-Offs ==<br />
<table style="width:75%;"><br />
<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><br />
<td style="width:25%;"><br />
{| {{stdTable}} width = "100%" <br />
|- {{stdTable Heading}}<br />
| {{Interceptor Icon}} '''X-COM: Interceptor''' <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| {{stdTable}} width="100%" <br />
| [[Info (Interceptor)|General Information]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Background (Interceptor)|Background]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[The Frontier|The Frontier]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Hypernews Network (Interceptor)|Hypernews Network]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Research (Interceptor)|Research]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Cheats/Exploits_(Interceptor)|Cheats/Exploits]]<br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
<td style="width:25%;"><br />
{| {{stdTable}} width = "100%" <br />
|- {{stdTable Heading}}<br />
| {{email X-Com Icon}} '''E-Mail X-Com'''<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| {{stdTable}} width="100%" <br />
| [[Info (em@il)|General Information]]<br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
<td style="width:25%;"><br />
{| {{stdTable}} width = "100%" <br />
|- {{stdTable Heading}}<br />
| '''X-COM: Enforcer''' <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| {{stdTable}} width="100%" <br />
|-<br />
| [[Info (Enforcer)|General Information]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Characters (Enforcer)| The Enforcer, Dr. Standard and the Enemy]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Equipment (Enforcer)|Weapons and Power Ups]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[The Missions (Enforcer) | The Missions]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Tips and Tricks (Enforcer) | Tips and Tricks]]<br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
== Featured Projects ==<br />
<br />
UFOpaedia.org is also home to several X-Com based projects. <br />
<br />
<table style="width:25%;"><br />
<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><br />
<td style="width:50%;"><br />
{| {{stdTable}} width = "100%" <br />
|- {{stdTable Heading}}<br />
| '''Fan games''' <br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
<td style="width:50%;"><br />
{| {{stdTable}} width = "100%" <br />
|- {{stdTable Heading}}<br />
| '''Fan mods'''<br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><br />
<td style="width: 50%;"><br />
{| {{stdTable}} width="100%" <br />
| [[UFO2000]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[OpenXcom]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[OpenApoc]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[UFO:AI]]<br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
<td style="width: 50%;"><br />
{| {{stdTable}} width="100%"<br />
| [[Long War]] ([[Enemy Unknown (EU2012)|XCOM]])<br />
|-<br />
| [[Long War 2]] ([[XCOM2]])<br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
== Discontinued Titles ==<br />
<table style="width:50%;"><br />
<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><br />
<td style="width:25%;"><br />
{| {{stdTable}} width = "100%" <br />
|- {{stdTable Heading}}<br />
| '''X-COM: Genesis''' <br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
<td style="width:25%;"><br />
{| {{stdTable}} width = "100%" <br />
|- {{stdTable Heading}}<br />
| '''X-COM: Alliance'''<br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><br />
<td style="width: 25%;"><br />
{| {{stdTable}} width="100%" <br />
| [[Info (Genesis)|General Information]]<br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
<td style="width: 25%;"><br />
{| {{stdTable}} width="100%"<br />
| [[Info (Alliance)|General Information]]<br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<table style="width:50%;" ><br />
<tr style="vertical-align: top;"><br />
<td><br />
{| {{stdTable}} width = "100%" <br />
|- {{stdTable Heading}}<br />
| '''Site Information''' <br />
|}<br />
<br />
{| {{stdTable}} width = "100%" <br />
| [[UFOpaedia:Community Portal|Community Portal]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Community|Contributors]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Help:Getting Started|How to Edit This Site]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Guidelines to writing articles|Guidelines to Writing Articles]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Links]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Where to Get the Games]]<br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table></div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Incendiary&diff=102566Talk:Incendiary2021-07-15T18:16:24Z<p>Hobbes: /* Advantages/Disadvantages of using Incendiary for nighttime light */ Wikis should be inclusive, not exclusive.</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Comments ==<br />
<br />
For now, we'll just say the smoke + incendiary stun effects only work on X-Com owned units until some tests can be run to confirm this. It's unusual that only X-Com units are affected, but the game has been known to surprise you even after you think you've worked something out. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Given how aliens love to hang around in a smoke-filled crashed UFO, IC rounds would be insanely powerful if they did actually work against aliens in smoke. I'm glad they don't ''seem to'', as I'd be very tempted to cheat with it. They do work against aliens standing in fire, though, which is still quite cheaty...--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 21:35, 5 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I do consider the "standing on fire + new IC explosions = damage" a cheat. So I just don't abuse it. I only use IC rounds to illuminate or to finish off hiding aliens. It can also work as a "pass-through-and-die" tactic, the same way Proximity Nades work, although fire damage is pretty sad xD. --[[User:Nekrocow|Nekrocow]] 00:36, 24 June 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I use it a lot in TFTD to clear out those island bunkers and the upper storage levels of the large train station. Either the aliens roast alive, or they come out. Otherwise yes, it's no doubt a cheat. Well, more a bug exploited as a cheat. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 02:09, 24 June 2012 (EDT) <br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
I just edited the Incendiary page a bunch, because Brunpal's [[Talk:Experience]] questions about Incendiary sparked my interest... I never did test IN vs. experience. It's a very good question ''if'' it turns out to cause Firing experience. But while reviewing this page, I had a number of questions, for anyone interested. Also, I only tried to clarify things, and don't know Incendiary well, so fix anything you know I got wrong:<br />
#Did I get it right re: the set [ 0, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] for chance of initially catching fire? I over-wrote "linear" because it seemed odd when XCOM usually goes, e.g., 0-10. (Who tested this? - A little help here please. Just making sure.)<br />
#Why flame a zombie unless it's near death (and how can you know if it is)? It's been a long time since I used fire - if you don't have flying armor, why mess around with a zombie by burning it, why not Heavy Plasma it.<br />
#Any research/data on tile flammability versus duration of burning is appreciated. Probably it should go on the [[Terrain]] page byte, but be clearly referenced here. It's just a curiousity, but an interesting one.<br />
#The last line of the page says ''"The damage values listed in the UFOpaedia do not determine how powerful an incendiary round deals damage; it only determines how wide an area will be blanketed with flames."'' Does anyone know IN strength vs radius, then? Should be easy to test and post.<br />
#NKF, Zombie, or anyone else... would you mind seeing if Incendiary causes the Experience counter to increase? Brunpal is right that it's important to [[Experience]]... I found [[Small_Launcher#Experience|Stun Bombs]] to count for experience across their whole range, even if no stun damage occurred... if you have 11+ Mutons in a firing squad situation, passing around an [[Auto-Cannon]] with Incendiary may be better than standard pistols, depending on the range of the blast. I could test it, but it's been a long time since I've delved into the files; maybe one of you have them more close to hand. [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]]<br />
-----<br />
:Offhand, the only way I could think of to check the remaining HP on a Zombie would be by using a [[Mind Probe]]. Given the relative uselessness of a Mind Probe after Psionics are developed, as well as the time needed to use the Probe once, this seems a rather impractical course of action, unless your Rear Commander has nothing better to do. I agree, Heavy Plasma on Auto is better. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:33, 1 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
-----<br />
#Yeah, the set is correct. When a unit is shot with an incendiary round, the game does a calculation to determine if the unit catches fire. If it doesn't catch fire, the unit takes no damage (the 0 in the set). If the unit does catch fire, it will take between 5-10 damage points. Stupid discontinuous range, but that's what happens. As you may guess, I did the Incendiary trials over at the StrategyCore forums in the Damage Modifier topic - see [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=746&view=findpost&p=39672 this] post for the particulars.<br />
#Why flame a Zombie? Simple. A Zombie which is killed by an Incendiary round doesn't turn into a Chryssalid. Zombies are easily outrun, so you can just keep picking at them from a short distance with Auto-Cannon Incendiary rounds and then running away. Fairly effective, even when your troops do not yet have armor to protect them. And when you do not have the luxury of the Heavy Plasma early in the game, Incendiary is a good way to avoid an overabundance of Chryssalids who are not so easy to kill. As for checking the Zombie's stats, you can only rely on the Mind Probe or Psi. Neither are available early either (the Mind Probe is usually low on the research tree for most people even though you can collect enough, and Psi is difficult to use as a soldier needs to be quite proficient to use MC.<br />
#I have been meaning to do some tests in flammability vs terrain but only recently started fooling with MCD values. It'll be next on my list.<br />
#Here, I uploaded a very recent spreadsheet containing both I and Smoke when damage values are hacked. See [[Media:Incendiary_and_Smoke_Patterns.zip | this file]] which contains both.<br />
#I think I fooled around with Incendiary recently in conjunction with promotions. Soldiers who shot aliens with "I" didn't get promoted. Logically, that would mean the experience counter didn't increment. UNITREF.DAT would need to be checked to verify though. Addendum: indeed, as BB mentioned in the experience page (and a quick glance at the UNITREF.DAT experience counters by myself to triple-check my aging brain), Incendiary rounds do not increase any of the experience counters.<br />
<br />
Hope this clears up some of the issues/concerns here. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:16, 1 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
<i>"The damage values listed in the [[UFOpaedia]] do not determine how powerful an incendiary round deals damage; it only determines how wide an area will be blanketed with flames. Fire is unlike other damage; it works at initial blast and then over time, as described above."</i> and<br />
<i>"Initial "impact" damage from incendiary ammunition is either for no points (unit does not catch fire), or between 5-10 points (unit catches fire)."</i><br />
<br />
This should be stressed on ALL the various relevant pages. It's important. 6.4 dmg vs 90 dmg is a significant difference!--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 09:31, 2 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
It looks like Incendiary is gaining some clarity (at least for me), thanks for starting it Brunpal...<br />
*The "6.4" was only for the initial IN round impact (set [ 0, 5-10 ]); it can then burn for 4 more rounds (set [5-10]). Perhaps a short way to state this complicated damage type is "Minimum 0 (unit does not catch on fire) ''OR'' unit catches on fire 1-5 turns, 5-10 damage/turn, 5-50 damage in total (average 21.5)". Does that look right, Zombie? I'm not sure where you got 90 from Brunpal...<br />
:90 is the listed damage from an IN rocket.--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 21:39, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
*However, the numbers I just stated do not count possible additional damage from nearby terrain being on fire (as opposed to yourself). Maybe those should be included somehow. (And clearly, fire is much more dangerous outdoors than inside UFOs, where terrain does not burn.) But since terrain fire can last a variable number of turns, I guess you can't have a maximum damage. Average terrain damage from fire would be 6.5/terrain (1-12), but also, it can keep the unit itself burning more than 5 turns... hard to model.<br />
*Good point about flaming zombies, Zombie. I guess you ought to know, eh? :)<br />
*The spreadsheet looks great. Perhaps one of us can pull out the area patterns for non-hacked IN weapons and put them on the relevant pages. When it's done, the spreadsheet itself would be an asset to Incendiary (or maybe [[Damage]], if it's listing all types of damage). As has been stated, it's the size (area) of the blast that actually directly relates to incendiary weapon "strength"... the diameters you found are probably what should be in parentheses next to weapon strength, although damage can appear as well.<br />
*Ok, no experience from Incendiary blasts. It might've been real interesting if there were, but it didn't occur to me to test. (Or maybe I tested it briefly so long ago that I forgot.) I would've guessed that they did, because the stun bomb and explosives do. Oh well.<br />
*P.S. Brunpal, we may not have touched pages in a year, but most/all of us have "Watch this page" turned on, so we get immediate notification of any pages we've edited or Watched. :)<br />
-[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 09:17, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
*Sounds correct MTR. I think Brunpal was just comparing the "damage" (actually strength) of the Incendiary Rocket (90) to the average damage due to the "impact" of the blast (6.4).<br />
*Well, it isn't ''nearby'' terrain on fire which you have to worry about, it's the tile directly underneath a units feet which causes the most concern. If that tile is on fire and the unit doesn't move, it will take 1-12 damage points. While true that terrain on fire can last a variable number of turns, there is a definite upper-limit to how much damage a unit can possibly take. Fires don't last forever, and the combustibles eventually are consumed leaving either scorched earth or a damaged tile. Those damaged/destroyed tiles usually cannot be started on fire again by the spread of flames. They can only be set ablaze with incendiary ammo, and even then for only 1-3 turns (normal for dead tiles). So it's certainly possible to find a max damage. And for the most part, the things that burn the longest are usually objects, not tiles. And most objects you can't stand on anyway. But I totally agree that it's hard to model how fire functions due to the two forces at work: "impact" damage and damage due to standing in fire. <br />
<br />
P.S. Some of us are actually around here and don't need to be coaxed back into existence by an email when a watched page is changed either. Just because it's quiet, it doesn't mean nobody's home. :) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:34, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
While understanding the whole formula for fire and fire damage happens is useful, it was not thinking to go that broad. I was just interested in what occurs from the moment a solider takes his shot, to the time that solider gets his TU back. ie damage from incendiary rounds vs fire damage. --[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 21:39, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
It looks to me that, unlike all other forms of damage, Fire damage ignores armor, goes right past it. If so, this should be made explicit on the main page? [[User:Mugwump|Mugwump]] ([[User talk:Mugwump|talk]]) 05:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)<br />
:Fire damage doesn't ignore armor - power suits for instance can't be damaged by fire, except if the unit is already injured. Read carefully the Damage section - there's a lot of nuances about how fire works. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 03:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)<br />
:: What I meant is ignore armor ratings for damage calculation. While accounting for the resistances listed on the Damage Modification page, doesn't incendiary act as if front, side, back and under armor are 0 for calculation? [[User:Mugwump|Mugwump]] ([[User talk:Mugwump|talk]]) 18:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Incendiary vs Large Units ==<br />
<br />
We're discussing this in [[Talk:Sectopod#Incendiary vs Sectopod]], and a question came up. When an IN round impacts one segment of a large unit, presumably that segment gets the "Incendiary impact" function, i.e. 6/7 chance of catching on fire for 5-10 damage plus 1-5 turns of being on fire. Does the same "impact" function also apply to the 3 adjacent squares (6/7 chance), or is it just the "standing in fire" chance? If you had multiple regular-sized units standing in the area of effect of an IN round, they would each get "impact" effects (right?). So it ''seems'' logical that all 4 segments of a large unit, inside the area of effect, are also exposed to "impact" effects. But I wanted to check. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:34, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Oh boy! Calculating this not only depends on a lot of unknown assumptions, but is fiendishly complicated - especially if you factor in the "funky fire" bug. And contrary to my noblest efforts, it's impossible to use IN weapons without inadvertently exploiting this bug. Even if you only fire IN at a single target until it's dead, once the target is "standing in fire" you effectively just can't miss. <br />
<br />
Anyway back to the Large Targets specifically. The key assumption above is whether all regular-sized units in the area of effect of an IN burst are affected with "impact effects" - 5-10 dmg & 6/7 chance to catch fire. If they are, it's reasonable to assume the same thing happens to the 3 other segments of a Large Unit. However I suspect this is not the case, and strictly speaking "impact" effects should only occur at the single, impact square of an IN round. Testing needed!<br />
<br />
More likely, the GZ+1 squares, whether occupied by small or large units, are only subjected to the "standing in fire" effects: 1/3 'catch fire' probability, and 1-12 terrain-based damage. And these effects are applied once per turn, not once per hit. <br />
<br />
However, all of this is turned on its head by the 'funky fire' bug. After the first round hits, all units (and all Large Unit segments?) are "standing in fire". (Though maybe these fire damage routines run only for the "control" segment of the Large Unit? Possible, but unlikely.) Since they are standing in fire, the funky fire bug applies and all units/segments are hiit with "impact" effects. <br />
<br />
So assuming a Large Unit is ''already'' standing in fire (e.g. from a previous IN hit or near miss), damage per IN round fired is 6.4 x 4<br />
= 25.6 average, 10x4= 40 max. Subject to resistance/vulnerability modifiers, but ignoring armour level. In addition as multiple IN rounds are fired, the chance of all segments catching fire quickly approaches certainty. This not only means the Large Unit will sustain further damage at the end of the turn, it makes it impossible to escape the 'funky fire' trap by moving out of burning squares. <br />
<br />
(Any testing needs to be very careful and probably only fire a single IN round per game, otherwise 'funky fire' will skew the results.)<br />
<br />
So, in conclusion, the TU/kill factors I put up on the Talk pages for the Large Units ([[Talk:Reaper]], [[Talk:Cyberdisc]],[[Talk:Sectopod]]) should pretty much reflect the 'funky fire' reality after the first round connects, apart from the fact that you actually can't miss. The very first IN round to be fired would have the same effect (for immediate damage) on a Large Target as on a small one. But I really don't want to update the numbers to reflect this fact, it's just too awful. For AC-IN, the firepower factors will be about 6 times better than stated. Maybe I'll just remove them. :( <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:51, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
=== Simple Tests ===<br />
<br />
I did a small number of tests and found some interesting results. In 5/5 tests, all 4 squares of the target (Reaper) were on fire the following round. (It's hard to tell if they are on fire the same round, as you need to extinguish the fire with smoke to see). Perhaps this makes sense, as it's a UNITREF attribute and so applies to the whole unit, not its 4 component squares?<br />
<br />
Looking at the damage, it looks like "impact" and "on fire" damage applies to all 4 squares, i.e. x4 normal. Damage clusters tightly around 16-18 per hit which is roughly the expected value, maybe a bit lower (at x4). And since we '''are''' on fire, should expect an average of 7.5 ({5..10}/6) rather than 6.4 ({0,5..10}/7? Maybe something else is going on here, as these numbers seem a little low - 6.4 x 4 = 25.6 per hit or 7.5 x 4 = 30.0 per "on fire" hit might be expected on a Large Unit. <br />
<br />
:Drat. I didn't factor in the Reaper's 170% Susceptibility to Incendiary. So the actual damage levels are more like 10 per hit. Maybe there is no multiplier for the 4 squares? Hard to figure out what's going on here. In tests on hacked humans, armour level is not a factor vs Incendiary damage, otherwise I'd suspect the under-armour or something. 2.5 avg damage per segment seems too low. 10 average damage per alien seems too high - that should be the max, not the average. Is some mechanic pushing the average up to the max? I don't have a clue right now. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:53, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
The damage seems to be regardless of "funky fire" effect. A round fired at a target that is not burning / in fire seems to do about the same damage, per hit, as one that is in fire / on fire and so subject to the funky fire bug. So the only 'bad' effect of the bug is that you never miss, and you hit everything that is in fire / on fire. Not quite so bad, and it allows you to play honest by only ever firing at one target, not hitting any other targets by accident (!), and firing from point blank range so it doesn't matter that you never miss. <br />
<br />
Burn Time was as high as 7 when multiple IC rounds were fired (on auto). Higher than we thought possible (1-5 range expected). However it sometimes goes DOWN after additional hits. Possibly the value is re-randomised with every new IC impact, but hits are cumulative while firing auto bursts? <br />
<br />
Here's the raw test data:<br />
<br />
Test 1. <br />
-<br />
2 DH on Reaper, mix of auto and snap, some other IC impacts on others<br />
Burn Time=7 - exceeds known limit of 5<br />
All 4 sq on fire next turn<br />
Is 'on fire' global? It's in Unitref, so maybe<br />
-<br />
Test 2.<br />
-<br />
1 DH on Reaper, only IC shot fired in game. <br />
In firing turn, taken 132/148 = 16 damage. Burn time=3<br />
Start of T+1, taken 122/148 10 more damage, Burn time=2<br />
T+1 Reaper shows all 4 squares burning<br />
-<br />
Test 3. <br />
-<br />
Revisit #2 firing turn... fire another round (this will use funky fire)<br />
So 2nd IC hit, 2nd rd fired, same target. <br />
Health now 114/148, further 18 damage<br />
But Burn time has dropped to 2! Must re-randomise on each hit??<br />
Maybe only accumulates during auto burst?<br />
-<br />
Test 4. <br />
-<br />
Let's try lots of hits. Hack up accuracy to 255<br />
OK 3 out of 3 hits on Auto<br />
T+0 Health=98/148=50 damage (17 avg) Burn=6<br />
T+1 Health=81 (17 more dmg) Burn=5 All 4 squares on fire. <br />
-<br />
Test 5.<br />
-<br />
Revisit #4 and push to 6/6 hits<br />
T+0 Health=41/148=107 (18 avg) damage Burn=7<br />
T+1 Health=21 (20 more dmg) Burn=6 All 4 squares on fire. <br />
-<br />
Methodology (Apart from Test 1) = only ever 1 (same) target in any IC AoE; no misses<br />
(To try to minimise the impact of 'funky fire' effects - but can't eliminate)<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 23:27, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I re-ran the same simple tests against a regular-sized (Floater) target instead. The results agreed much better with the 'standard model' of [[Incendiary]] effects. All results were within the permitted ranges in the 'standard model', though some values were unexpectedly. I think some variables to look for in Incendiary mechanics are:<br />
<br />
* Large Unit vs regular unit behaviour looks to be different<br />
* Auto burst vs single explosion looks to be different (maybe just due to funky fire bug, maybe not)<br />
* Tile MCD "time to burn" value seems to affect one or more of the other calculations / probabilities<br />
* Burn Time on the unit can go up as well as down. New hits seem to re-randomise the value. <br />
* End of turn processing does not always reduce unit Burn Time by 1. Can a terrain fire add to unit Burn Time?<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:25, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I doubt a terrain fire adds to the time a unit is on fire. Actually, I'm quite positive on this since my tests from a while back were quite thorough. The counter can only tick down to 0, and when it does a terrain fire will have a chance of "reigniting" the soldier again.<br />
<br />
:Anyway, I had to start from scratch again on testing due to a few issues with my test scenario. I totally forgot that the first soldier on the unit roster is a bad choice for a "designated hitter" since he can never be automatically selected on a reload. Soldiers lower on the order are much better choices. So I got the shooting automated, but each reload was taking too much time since I had to reselect the shooter, select the shot, move the view down a level, shoot the target and abort. Having the soldier already selected cuts out 2 actions in the list allowing the script to run more efficiently. I'm going to try to get everything properly setup tonight, then start testing tomorrow morning. With a little luck and about 2 hours of babysitting the script to make sure it doesn't quit, I should have some prelims. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:55, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Looking forward to seeing that data! I did some more testing just for the special case of Large Units, about 40 tests. My tentative conclusions:<br />
<br />
# Damage range per 'impact' hit is the same as regular units, around 5-10 x Vulnerability (maybe + MCD Burn time?)<br />
# Large units go on fire about 1/7 of the time when receiving a direct hit - as expected<br />
# Either all 4 segments go on fire, or no segments go on fire - no 'part segments on fire'<br />
# Unit burn times are not correlated with unit damage received<br />
# Auto fire has the same average damage level per hit as snap fire<br />
# Unit Burn Time can exceed 5, both on Snap and Auto. Highs of 6 (Snap) and 7 (Auto) were seen. Maybe 1-5 + MCD Tile Burn Time?<br />
<br />
All my tests were done on the grid-lined pavement tiles from urban terror missions, which have an MCD default burn value of 2. For some of the "setting the large unit on fire" tests, I had the target floating in mid air, because air does not burn even during the turn that the IN round explodes - it makes it easier to see the unit burning. <br />
<br />
From Bomb Bloke's editor notes, the 4 potential MCD tiles in a map location are: a North Wall, a West Wall, a Ground tile, an Object tile. All 4 of these MCD tiles might have a burn time value. But Ground and Object are the most likely to be relevant. <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:58, 12 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Ok, I got the script running and optimized it a bit to cut down some wait cycles. Right now it's cranking out approximately 400 trials per hour which is about as fast as I can make it go without removing some desktop icons (all the icons have to refresh at the end of each logging cycle which takes a little time). Anyhow, just for giggles I stopped it after 400 trials to get some prelims.<br />
<br />
:<table {{StdCenterTable}} class="sortable"><br />
:<tr {{StdDescTable_Heading}}><th align="left" width="90">Damage</th><th width="90">Count</th><th width="90">Pct%</th></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">1</th><td>68</td><td>17.0%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">6</th><td>58</td><td>14.5%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">7</th><td>45</td><td>11.3%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">8</th><td>63</td><td>15.8%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">9</th><td>55</td><td>13.8%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">10</th><td>64</td><td>16.0%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">11</th><td>47</td><td>11.8</td></tr><br />
:</table><br />
:If you average the percent columns, it comes to 14.28571429% while the expected is 1/7 or 14.285714285714285714285714285714 which is a difference of 4E-09. This means 400 reloads is plenty enough values for this application. Great news! Well, as you can see, instead of the set [0, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] for MCD of 1, this scenario where the MCD was 0 is shifted up by one [1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. Interesting.<br />
<br />
:Tomorrow I'll rerun the MCD 1 scenario again to verify the values and damage set. Then it's on to the MCD of 2. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 01:50, 13 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: Extremely interesting! By the way, it was probably a late night but - the average any 7 numbers that (must) add up to 100% is always going to be 1/7th of 100%, so that result doesn't really demonstrate any confidence in the data. It would be the same with one result, or with a trillion results. The 4E-09 discrepancy is just the precision error in your calculator/spreadsheet's calculation of the percentages and the average of the percentages. You've got some considerable variation from 1/7th on the individual numbers, I'm not sure if that's just to be expected with only 400 trials. But for example "0" and "10" are both a bit high so it ''might'' be non-linear (probably not). Anyway we'll see when all your results are in! (To measure the degree of variation from the expected result, what you want is a chi-squared test or something - and I don't know what I'm talking about there so I'll shut up!) <br />
<br />
:: I'm checking Bomb Bloke's MCD database, and there are some tiles in there (U_BASE 22-25) with MCD burn value of 30 - I might play with those and see if anything dramatic happens. Oh except looks like they can't be set on fire (255 flammability). There are others that are quite high (8-), and still flammable. Or I could hack an MCD file (scary). Maybe I'll just wait for your results Zombie! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 05:49, 13 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
= Incendiary Research =<br />
<br />
== Large Units On Fire ==<br />
<br />
Here's another interesting test for setting Large Units on fire. Set AC-I power down from 42 to 1. <br />
At this IC power, there is no area effect. You can't even start a fire on one tile.<br />
All you can do is set units on fire with a direct hit. This means there is no way the other 3 squares of the <br />
Large Unit are in the IC area of effect. <br />
<br />
Result: Whether you hit a one square regular unit or a 4-square large unit, if it goes on fire, '''all''' squares of the unit still go on fire. Along with the fact that the inflicted IN damage level vs Large Units is basically normal (see above), this tends to confirm that being on fire is a "unitref" property and, unlike HE and Stun Bombs, is not applied (multiplied) vs the number of squares the unit occupies. (In fact it would be good to check that HE is actually applied separately to each square, with different HE strength, potentially different armour facing, etc. Maybe the engine just simplifies things and multiplies damage by 4?)<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:56, 15 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Unit Burn Time ==<br />
<br />
Unit Burn Time seems to be considerably '''cyclic''' rather than random. Very often, it just steps down by one from the previous value. I suspect this is because the "impact" routine calls the "end of turn" incendiary/smoke routine (see [[User talk:Seb76#Incendiary Bug]]). Sometimes it does not happen, maybe because some other factor has caused the Burn Time to increase. <br />
<br />
Here's some data. This was done against a Reaper with AC-I power set to 1 (and 10% TU Snap fire cost). But I've seen similar results with standard AC-I.<br />
<br />
<br />
Hit H/H Dmg/Avg Burn Time<br />
1 137/150 13 2<br />
2 126/150 11 1<br />
3 104/150 22 0 Very high damage (=13x1.7). Unit not on fire when game restored.<br />
4 96/150 8 7<br />
5 81/150 15 6<br />
6 66/150 15 5<br />
4,5,6 76/150 /9.33 5 (Auto) 9-10 (=5-6x1.7) is near minimum dmg<br />
7 56 10 4<br />
8 48 8 4 What happened here? didn't cycle. MIN dmg (5x1.7).<br />
9 35 13 6<br />
10 25 10 5<br />
11 10 15 6 New shooter takes over<br />
12 2 8 5<br />
<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:56, 15 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
:You're right on spot once again ;-) When a unit takes a direct hit from an IN round, it is set on fire (the duration is randomly chosen between 0 and incendiarydamagemodifier/20). Then the "end of turn" routine is called, which inflicts damage *and* decreases by one the number of turns to be on fire (done for all units). Then it sets on fire units standing in blaze. The duration is calculated as for direct hits; if the unit was already on fire, it'll take the maximum value between the new value calculated and the current value affected to the unit on fire. Not sure it is readable but I think you'll sort it out ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 10:51, 15 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Incendiary in TFTD ==<br />
<br />
I read [[Weapons (TFTD)#Phosphor|somewhere]] there are reduced effects underwater (or enhanced effects on land) for TFTD Phosphor rounds. I couldn't find an exact statement of the quantitative difference - does anyone know this? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:53, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:The effects of Incendiary weapons underwater (or Phosphor, as TFTD refers to it) is halved over the UFO equivalent. Incendiary weapons are doubly effective on the surface(Terror Missions) vs underwater, but of the three weapons that can fire Incendiary, two of them(Torpedo Launcher and Hydro-Jet Cannon) can only be reaction fired on land. The Gas Cannon can be fired in eiither location. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:08, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: It's clear that the effect underwater is half the effect on land. But does the base level (in USOPaedia / OBDATA) refer to land use or underwater use? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:13, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:As I recall, the base level is on land. The numbers for Phosphor ammo are close to the UFO Incendiary damage numbers, but I know it spreads less underwater. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:15, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: Look at the (puny) area effect pattern sizes underwater, that sounds about right. Can anyone confirm this? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:40, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
There is actually no difference between the pattern for the Gas Cannon's P rounds underwater as on land. Both have a r=3, d=7 pattern. (CE version at least). Maybe the pattern is smaller the deeper you go? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 16:45, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<gallery widths="200"><br />
Image:GC-P (underwater).png|Flame pattern from Gas Cannon Phosphorous rounds underwater.<br />
Image:GC-P (on land).png|Flame pattern from Gas Cannon Phosphorous rounds on land.<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
:OK now I'm really confused then! (I realise I was getting confused with the Dye grenade's small footprint vs Smoke grenades). If the blast pattern is the same size, that implies the weapon power is unchanged. So in what sense is Phosphorus "half as powerful" underwater? Does it burn half as long? Is the impact and fire damage halved? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:49, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
I really doubt the damage to units would be affected if the power of the round was modified. The power of the round only determines the size of the pattern produced, not the damage inflicted to units. I'll have to check the burn times and spread rate but my thought is that the two are identical in the version I'm using. Like I said, the pattern may get smaller the deeper you go underwater. The pic above was for a shallow site. It'll take a while for me to find a deeper site to check it out, otherwise some editing of the game files may be necessary to force the scenario.<br />
<br />
I just checked the Dye Grenade underwater and on land. Both produce the same r=1, d=3 pattern. So yeah, they are really pitiful when compared to the Smoke Grenade.<br />
<br />
Don't really go for the use of "impact" damage with Incendiary/Phosphorous rounds. There is no real impact since the damage range is discontinuous. The unit either catches fire from the splash of fire (in which case it does 5-10 damage points), or the unit doesn't catch fire and the unit remains unharmed. If there were such a thing as impact damage, the range would be continuous like normal weapons, in this theoretical case it would be [0-10] inclusive (ie the set [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 17:36, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Anyway, the half thing came up because AQ was comparing TFTD to UFO, not comparing the effects in TFTD from underwater and on land. However, further comparisons reveal that a hacked HC-I round of 60 produces the same pattern as a GC-P/60 round. Perhaps this whole dilemma can be traced to the Dye Grenade? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 18:28, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:That's entirely possible the Dye Grenade is the source. However, several of the pages for the TFTD weapons state that Phosphor is far weaker in water, so I didn't check. My mistake. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:35, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks for the feedback everyone. So this could just be a recycled rumour? I guess the general assumption is that the game engines are identical, so we would want evidence that TFTD is different. Looks like Zombie has proved that the area effect is equal (at least at shallow depths). That leaves only the fire damage or fire duration. Testing that would require repeated observations to check if fire damage is less than 6/hit, less than 6/turn, and burning for no more than 2-3 turns. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:14, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:As with any wiki where contributions can come from anywhere, there are bound to be problems with validity of the statements made. So unless those statements are backed up by real-life test data instead of memory or hearsay, take them with a grain of salt. The other point is to avoid spreading disinformation at all costs (I have been guilty of this as well, but try to at least quantify them). So there you go. I'm still trying to get a deeper underwater mission to check the size of the pattern produced there. Checking the spread of flames or damage inflicted to units shouldn't take too long though. I'll see if I can't get that done tonight yet. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:23, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Ok, I ran some trials with an unmodified GC-P round on the normal seabed floor against soldiers having 100 health and 0 all-around armor. For the guy standing at GZ, I saw ending health values of 99, 94, 93, 92, 90, and 89 (n=50). So that comes out to 1, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 points of damage respectively. I didn't think 11 damage was possible. Here's where things differ though. All the other guys who were clustered around GZ always received only one point of damage, never more, never less. In EU, the guys around GZ took damage equal to the guy at GZ. Odd. So then it occurred to me that perhaps I should check the MCD values of the seabed (TFTD) and the desert (EU) landscapes. Both are basically identical in terms of armor. But the seafloor has a "time to burn" value of 0 while the desert has a value of 1. So maybe our understanding of normal fire isn't totally complete. I'm going to go back to EU and retest the desert landscape with varying MCD burn time flags to see how that affects damage. ;) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 23:00, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: The whole Phosphor being half effective under water is related to the burn time and spread, if I remember correctly. The settings in the MCD files may be the culprit. The actual damage dealt or initial spread may not necessarily be affected. <br />
<br />
:: Hey, I just had a wacky idea. XComutil. Use its feature where you can set the depth of a mission. Launch a mission on a island terror site map (again, use XComutil's map picker to get to this faster). Lots of grass to burn there. Set fire to it and count how many turns before the fires die out. Redo the test, but this time set the depth to a deeper level. Try the whole process out again.<br />
<br />
:: Next repeat this with one of ye-olde seabed maps. They look really weird without the blue palette shift when played on land, what with the landscape being gray. <br />
<br />
:: It's possible that the half-effectiveness relates to the fuel that the fire has to burn more than anything else. Further confirmation on how long the flames stick to a target when on land or underwater may be helpful. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:28, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I've been burned one too many times using editors or utilities to mess with saved games. Half the time they introduce some unknown "feature" which isn't documented. Thanks, but no thanks. I only test with an unmodified game, except for the changes I make myself to keep control of the situation. Anyway, I tested a patch of fire on the seabed to see how long it remained lit (which has a "time to burn" value of 0). It only stayed lit the current round the shell detonated. After that the fire went out. So this agrees with what is expected. Will continue to work on this as I get time. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 01:51, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Well, I suppose my recommendation doesn't necessarily need XComutil. It would've certainly made it easier. But yes, it does introduce a few things that work behind the scenes that we might not know too much about. However, if I remember correctly, one of the battlescape savegame files should hold the depth level of the current map you are playing on. All you'll need to do is tweak that to change the depth of the map. <br />
<br />
One other thing, the different effect HE has on the same tiles underwater and when on land (ala the Triton) may also be one of the other culprits behind the belief that phosphor is less effective on land. Being able to blow up the Triton on land, but have it appear virtually indestructable when underwater does that. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:59, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
re Zombie's underwater tests, there is normally (i.e. on land in EU) a difference between the IC damage on the target of the direct hit, vs lower damage to others in the area of effect (hmm contrary to my IC kill modelling assumptions: uh oh I may've spoken to soon). But only seeing 1 damage on the others in the AoE does seem low. We need to figure out why. Did any of the other targets catch fire? Does that ever happen underwater? Do tiles ever burn past the turn when the IC round is fired? Any of these factors would reduce total fire damage/effectiveness by '''more''' than half. Actually, doesn't it say the 1-12 damage for "in fire" is ''not'' random, but dependent on terrain type? That could be the answer.<br />
<br />
The [[Incendiary]] article actually mentions '''4''' modes of fire damage, only 3 of which are quantified: <br />
<br />
#"impact",<br />
#"being in fire"<br />
#"being ''on'' fire"<br />
<br />
The 4th mode is "damage from burning ''terrain''. Only a tantalising mention is given, no quantitative details. This could be the source of the discrepancy. In fact it might be a component of "being in fire" that's not fully understood. I think Zombie is right to review the assumptions on this one - nice work! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 04:05, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:As I recall, "damage from burning terrain" is synonymous with "Standing on a tile that's currently on fire." Thus "Being in fire." But that's me and I'm tired this evening, so I could be wrong. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 05:30, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
I performed my TFTD Phosphorous tests underwater and after the flames died out some of my men did catch fire. So this part seems to jive with that of EU. Tiles do not burn longer than its "time to burn" value in the MCD files. So for instance, in the seabed underwater testing mission, the tiles have a MCD burn value of 0 which corresponds to the results seen (ie fire didn't stick around into the aliens turn or X-COM's next turn either, it only stayed lit the turn it detonated). There really is only 2 "modes" of I/P/fire damage:<br />
<br />
<ol><li>The code used for determining if a unit catches fire: 0 damage (if the unit didn't catch and was able to shrug it off) and 5-10 (if the unit catches).</li><br />
<li>Standing in fire.</li></ol><br />
At least from the initial tests in TFTD, units outside GZ are just considered to be standing in fire that turn and always take 1pt of damage. Anyway, I don't want to talk myself into a hole without doing more tests. All the following trials I do will be in EU to hopefully curtail any unknowns in TFTD. Once EU's code is figured out then it can be applied and compared to TFTD. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 09:06, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
: If they are "standing in fire", do you think the 1pt damage/turn is based on the fire characteristics tile/terrain type they are standing on? Is it more generally 1-12/turn, dependent on terrain? Also if you get a chance can you test large units and see what kind of effects they take on the GZ+1 squares? If the GZ+1 squares of a large unit are just 'standing in fire' rather than 'catch fire/5-10 impact damage' this will substantially weaken IC vs large units. And I will have shouted too soon! :) [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:18, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
I did some ad-hoc tests in TFTD. Actually I just ran around firing GC-P and HJ-P rounds everywhere. :) On a typical seabed layout, I found that most things don't burn - the fires don't last into the next turn. The only things I could get to burn were the green moss stuff and and coral skeleton "trees". Even the barrels do not burn. Also, I did not see much sign of terrain damage caused by the fires. But the moss and coral did burn for the normal period, i.e. 1-5 turns. <br />
<br />
I also managed to kill an Aquatoid with a single direct hit from a GC-P, in one turn. He died at the end of my turn or the start of his. That seems unlikely. 5-10 from being hit, plus 1-12 for standing in fire, plus maybe another 5-10 from being on fire? It's just about possible I suppose, to max out near 32 damage (if the terrain offers you "12" when it burns). Anyway those are my unsystematic enquiries. I have the 8 save files of various stages of the battle if anyone wants to take a look. It was from a virgin TFTD installation and there was no editing or jiggery pokery.<br />
<br />
OK I've uploaded the save files [[Image:TFTD Incendiary Tests 01 Spike.zip]] and taken a look myself with BB's editor. Prior to being hit (Game_4) our Aquatoid was in rude Health, 30/30. Immediately after being hit (Game_2) he was at 19 Health (no Stun damage) and On Fire, as well as Standing in Fire. That implies 11 Damage from the "impact effect" which is not supposed to happen. As noted, at the end of the same turn or beginning of his next turn, he dies. He looks to be standing on a standard seabed square, just sand, the kind of thing that does not burn. He is next to some of the brown cushion-like coral, but I don't think that burns, at least not over multiple turns. In fact in the same turn he is hit, at the end, you can see him dead (Game_3). Since there was only one alien, he died in the same turn. OK that's slightly confusing, maybe someone can double check the turn numbers in the save files (don't know where they are). <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:29, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Doh. I is a idiot. The Aquatoid was killed by the incendiary fire bug - I fired extra IN rounds at terrain objects after he was on fire. Which explains why he is already dead by the end of my turn. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:08, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Yeah, you gotta watch that. Well, anyhow, I edited the desert landscape in Enemy Unknown to have the same MCD "time to burn" value of 0 as the seafloor in TFTD. From the limited tests, the results look the same as in TFTD. (Fire burns out after the initial turn it detonated, units around GZ taking 1 unit of damage while the guy at GZ got more). So that means I can focus my efforts on EU with little worry because there will be no issues. I'm going use BB's logger and AHK to automate the data gathering aspect to save me a bunch of time. I'll probably need the full requisite 2000 reloads though, as the guy at GZ is not the same as the 24 soldiers around him. Wish me luck. :) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 15:54, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Good luck! I just read the MCD article, and it mentions 2 fire-related byte fields in MCD - "likelihood of catching fire" as well as "time to burn". Is the last field variable or fixed? Could the first field determine the damage/turn to units when it's on fire? Also with a possible 4 terrain items that could all be burning, is the maximum damage higher than 12? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:10, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Offset 45 is the flammability rating of the tile. This most likely controls whether an adjacent fire will spread to the tile in question. (For instance, if a fire is burning and the next tile over is a tree or something, it'll probably spread there fast because of the combustibles present). The other byte is offset 57 which is the one we are after. Don't know about the 4 types of things which can exist on a tile at once. I think the most I have ever seen is 2 (usually ground and a wall). Wouldn't hurt to edit a tile to include all 4, but that's an entirely different test to do. It'll have to wait until we get a better understanding of basic fire. ;) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:38, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::Here's a question. On Large units, if only one segment of the Large unit is on fire, will the fire spreading code allow the other three segments to catch on fire? [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:13, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I highly doubt it. Unit fires are completely different creatures from terrain fires. Needs testing though. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:55, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes it would have to be a very special case, since afaik fires do not spread from regular units on fire to adjacent terrain or to other adjacent regular units. Though it would make more sense than any of those things. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:03, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Incendiary Bug ==<br />
<br />
(Also known as the [[Known_Bugs#Funky_Fire|Funky Fire/Smoke bug]].) I made some suggestion about why this bug happens, and how the code could be patched to fix it: [[User talk:Seb76#Incendiary Bug]]. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:13, 12 March 2009 (CDT) Here is the general discussion of the bug:<br />
<br />
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. 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)<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
# In area of effect<br />
##add fire to tiles<br />
##'''possibly''' do 33% check for units to catch fire - '''unless''' this is performed by the end of turn routine (probably)<br />
# IF a unit was hit directly<br />
## check to see if it catches fire<br />
## ''possibly'' do "impact" damage. <br />
# Return, '''without''' calling the end-of-turn smoke/fire routine<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 22:11, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
<br />
I also suspect that other "end of turn" processing happens with every IN round fired. I am pretty sure "fire spreading" checks occur, as I have seen fire spread when using perfectly accurate shots. Either "fire spreading" happens, or there is a random element in incendiary area of effect, that is definite. I want to repeat these tests to see if "catch on fire" effects also happen for those who are standing in fire when an IN round is fired. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 08:59, 31 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mwahaha ==<br />
<br />
Was exploiting the Elevator Shield trick on an Alien Base Assault, and I had the forethought to pack lots and lots of Incendiaries. My sick sick mind found it amusing to set all those aliens on fire and watch them roast stupidly and helplessly. (Jasonred)<br />
<br />
= Fire Damage =<br />
(moved from talk:UFOextender)<br />
<br />
Not sure if the bug is already posted. And Not sure if I should post the bug here or in [[Talk:Incendiary]]. Problem is if you use extender to fix funky fire bug. Incendiary no long does any damage at all. Units only take the small amount of damage after ending turn because they're on fire. Using 1.28.3 extender<br />
<br />
To test this. I stripped a soldier of armour. And pounded four incendiary rockets into the soldier in the same turn. No damage. And then next turn, his health drops a little because he's standing in fire. This may not be a problem for most players. But it is still a major bug. I understand the funky fire problem is already difficult to fix, and I say thanks to all who will try to help solve this bug. [[User:Hellblade|Hellblade]] 14:44, 28 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: That's not a bug, that's the fix. Incendiary damage is only applied at the end of the turn. Think about it... does fire kill faster than a bullet? Faster than a grenade? Can you kill someone with fire faster than they can get a shot off back at you? No, to all these things. To compensate for fixing the bug, fire damage is doubled compared to the previous end-of-turn fire damage (that always existed). It is no longer applied per shot or per impact. All you get "per impact" is another chance to set the target unit itself on fire. Incendiary is a weak attack. It has the benefit of a wide area effect, no HE block, and ignores armour. There are situations when IN is the only effective weapon XCOM possesses. But, like everything, it has strengths and weaknesses. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:51, 28 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I see your point but let me elaborate. Heat, not fire, do kill as fast as bullets. The original game mechanics separated heat from fire just as in real life. It intended to have the big heat blast damage first and then the small fire damage per turn.<br />
:: Take the most extreme case, napalm or volcanic lava, you get fully cooked in less than a second - just by heat alone, and you may/may not catch fire later on. And heat blasts travel as fast as bullets, in some cases as fast as light. I believe the game has different Incendiary damage values to do different damage according to how strong the heat is, not the fire afterwards. The damage by fire later on makes sense because natural burning fires aren't that hot comparatively.<br />
:: I understand the difficulty in trying to fix this. But before this fix you could kill a reaper by a few AC-I shots (which is their weakness) and now you can empty the two clips at it and it'll never die. [[User:Hellblade|Hellblade]] 03:11, 4 October 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Advantages/Disadvantages of using Incendiary for nighttime light ==<br />
<br />
It seems for most folks that electro-flares are the go-to for night lighting and incendiary rounds are a distant afterthought.<br />
With that in mind I propose this list of pros/cons to using incendiary at least as a major complement to flares.<br />
I believe most people today are playing with OpenXcom or something that fixes the bugs, so I'll trim this of factors arising from bugs/limitations<br />
: What you believe might be completely off the mark since the original game is still being sold on Steam and new players will play that before even trying OpenXCom. The deciding factor should be that this page is in the original game section, thus it should reflect the original game and its bugs, not one open-source clone that people might have never heard of it before. If you're writing a page for the OXC section, then the original bugs shouldn't be mentioned but you're writing for the original game. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 18:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)<br />
:: Also, deleting someone's contribution just because you disagree with it isn't exactly how wikis should work. It should give the player as much information as possible, then let him/her decide what to do it with. And if there are different opinions relevant to the matter, then they should be contrasted together and the article should be written to reflect both. Wikis should be inclusive, not exclusive. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 18:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Cons:<br />
#Low damage, and for each soldier with incendiary rounds loaded they can't attack with more effective weaponry unless<br />
##they unload and reload<br />
##they carry another gun or use 'nades/stun rod<br />
#Not re-usable, will always be depleting stock<br />
#Shooting IC rounds doesn't generate experience/training like throwing throws does for throwing accuracy<br />
<br />
Pros:<br />
#Not dependent on throwing limitations of range and arc/trajectory<br />
#Very efficient in terms of light-output per weight, storage space, and time units<br />
#Can set area on fire to illuminate where the enemy is initially, then as the fire burns out you may move into the cover of the smoke it generates<br />
#Does at least some damage to enemies - very unlikely to kill them, but softens them up so future attacks more likely to neutralize<br />
#Area denial - fill a small building or enemy craft with flames and watch them flee out into your reaction fire, or at least out where you can get them, they don't get the drop on you<br />
#At least in OpenXCom the enemies on fire should provide lighting, helping to spot them at a distance<br />
#Fire is less vulnerable to being destroyed by nearby explosions, unlike those wimpy flares. And even if it is snuffed, it isn't something you were counting on re-using<br />
#Reaper vulnerability<br />
#Zombies not re-spawning to 'lids when KO'd by fire splash<br />
#You can dedicate a few number of soldiers to throwing fire around while the rest keep their hands and TU's free to attack<br />
#Soldiers that go berserk/get MC'd can't hurt armored soldiers w IC fire<br />
<br />
<br />
Now it seems to me that the first Con is major and obvious, but the many Pros are overlooked. Also that big Con could be greatly mitigated by cannon wielders w incendiary carrying a decent secondary weapon: thinking plasma rifle or pistol, laser pistol<br />
<br />
any I'm missing? what about putting this on the main page?<br />
(also I meant to make this a main topic, not sub-topic of the above)<br />
[[User:Mugwump|Mugwump]] ([[User talk:Mugwump|talk]]) 00:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Incendiary&diff=102565Talk:Incendiary2021-07-15T18:08:41Z<p>Hobbes: /* Advantages/Disadvantages of using Incendiary for nighttime light */ Page should reflect the original game, not one of its clones</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Comments ==<br />
<br />
For now, we'll just say the smoke + incendiary stun effects only work on X-Com owned units until some tests can be run to confirm this. It's unusual that only X-Com units are affected, but the game has been known to surprise you even after you think you've worked something out. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Given how aliens love to hang around in a smoke-filled crashed UFO, IC rounds would be insanely powerful if they did actually work against aliens in smoke. I'm glad they don't ''seem to'', as I'd be very tempted to cheat with it. They do work against aliens standing in fire, though, which is still quite cheaty...--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 21:35, 5 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I do consider the "standing on fire + new IC explosions = damage" a cheat. So I just don't abuse it. I only use IC rounds to illuminate or to finish off hiding aliens. It can also work as a "pass-through-and-die" tactic, the same way Proximity Nades work, although fire damage is pretty sad xD. --[[User:Nekrocow|Nekrocow]] 00:36, 24 June 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I use it a lot in TFTD to clear out those island bunkers and the upper storage levels of the large train station. Either the aliens roast alive, or they come out. Otherwise yes, it's no doubt a cheat. Well, more a bug exploited as a cheat. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 02:09, 24 June 2012 (EDT) <br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
I just edited the Incendiary page a bunch, because Brunpal's [[Talk:Experience]] questions about Incendiary sparked my interest... I never did test IN vs. experience. It's a very good question ''if'' it turns out to cause Firing experience. But while reviewing this page, I had a number of questions, for anyone interested. Also, I only tried to clarify things, and don't know Incendiary well, so fix anything you know I got wrong:<br />
#Did I get it right re: the set [ 0, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] for chance of initially catching fire? I over-wrote "linear" because it seemed odd when XCOM usually goes, e.g., 0-10. (Who tested this? - A little help here please. Just making sure.)<br />
#Why flame a zombie unless it's near death (and how can you know if it is)? It's been a long time since I used fire - if you don't have flying armor, why mess around with a zombie by burning it, why not Heavy Plasma it.<br />
#Any research/data on tile flammability versus duration of burning is appreciated. Probably it should go on the [[Terrain]] page byte, but be clearly referenced here. It's just a curiousity, but an interesting one.<br />
#The last line of the page says ''"The damage values listed in the UFOpaedia do not determine how powerful an incendiary round deals damage; it only determines how wide an area will be blanketed with flames."'' Does anyone know IN strength vs radius, then? Should be easy to test and post.<br />
#NKF, Zombie, or anyone else... would you mind seeing if Incendiary causes the Experience counter to increase? Brunpal is right that it's important to [[Experience]]... I found [[Small_Launcher#Experience|Stun Bombs]] to count for experience across their whole range, even if no stun damage occurred... if you have 11+ Mutons in a firing squad situation, passing around an [[Auto-Cannon]] with Incendiary may be better than standard pistols, depending on the range of the blast. I could test it, but it's been a long time since I've delved into the files; maybe one of you have them more close to hand. [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]]<br />
-----<br />
:Offhand, the only way I could think of to check the remaining HP on a Zombie would be by using a [[Mind Probe]]. Given the relative uselessness of a Mind Probe after Psionics are developed, as well as the time needed to use the Probe once, this seems a rather impractical course of action, unless your Rear Commander has nothing better to do. I agree, Heavy Plasma on Auto is better. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:33, 1 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
-----<br />
#Yeah, the set is correct. When a unit is shot with an incendiary round, the game does a calculation to determine if the unit catches fire. If it doesn't catch fire, the unit takes no damage (the 0 in the set). If the unit does catch fire, it will take between 5-10 damage points. Stupid discontinuous range, but that's what happens. As you may guess, I did the Incendiary trials over at the StrategyCore forums in the Damage Modifier topic - see [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=746&view=findpost&p=39672 this] post for the particulars.<br />
#Why flame a Zombie? Simple. A Zombie which is killed by an Incendiary round doesn't turn into a Chryssalid. Zombies are easily outrun, so you can just keep picking at them from a short distance with Auto-Cannon Incendiary rounds and then running away. Fairly effective, even when your troops do not yet have armor to protect them. And when you do not have the luxury of the Heavy Plasma early in the game, Incendiary is a good way to avoid an overabundance of Chryssalids who are not so easy to kill. As for checking the Zombie's stats, you can only rely on the Mind Probe or Psi. Neither are available early either (the Mind Probe is usually low on the research tree for most people even though you can collect enough, and Psi is difficult to use as a soldier needs to be quite proficient to use MC.<br />
#I have been meaning to do some tests in flammability vs terrain but only recently started fooling with MCD values. It'll be next on my list.<br />
#Here, I uploaded a very recent spreadsheet containing both I and Smoke when damage values are hacked. See [[Media:Incendiary_and_Smoke_Patterns.zip | this file]] which contains both.<br />
#I think I fooled around with Incendiary recently in conjunction with promotions. Soldiers who shot aliens with "I" didn't get promoted. Logically, that would mean the experience counter didn't increment. UNITREF.DAT would need to be checked to verify though. Addendum: indeed, as BB mentioned in the experience page (and a quick glance at the UNITREF.DAT experience counters by myself to triple-check my aging brain), Incendiary rounds do not increase any of the experience counters.<br />
<br />
Hope this clears up some of the issues/concerns here. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:16, 1 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
<i>"The damage values listed in the [[UFOpaedia]] do not determine how powerful an incendiary round deals damage; it only determines how wide an area will be blanketed with flames. Fire is unlike other damage; it works at initial blast and then over time, as described above."</i> and<br />
<i>"Initial "impact" damage from incendiary ammunition is either for no points (unit does not catch fire), or between 5-10 points (unit catches fire)."</i><br />
<br />
This should be stressed on ALL the various relevant pages. It's important. 6.4 dmg vs 90 dmg is a significant difference!--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 09:31, 2 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
It looks like Incendiary is gaining some clarity (at least for me), thanks for starting it Brunpal...<br />
*The "6.4" was only for the initial IN round impact (set [ 0, 5-10 ]); it can then burn for 4 more rounds (set [5-10]). Perhaps a short way to state this complicated damage type is "Minimum 0 (unit does not catch on fire) ''OR'' unit catches on fire 1-5 turns, 5-10 damage/turn, 5-50 damage in total (average 21.5)". Does that look right, Zombie? I'm not sure where you got 90 from Brunpal...<br />
:90 is the listed damage from an IN rocket.--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 21:39, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
*However, the numbers I just stated do not count possible additional damage from nearby terrain being on fire (as opposed to yourself). Maybe those should be included somehow. (And clearly, fire is much more dangerous outdoors than inside UFOs, where terrain does not burn.) But since terrain fire can last a variable number of turns, I guess you can't have a maximum damage. Average terrain damage from fire would be 6.5/terrain (1-12), but also, it can keep the unit itself burning more than 5 turns... hard to model.<br />
*Good point about flaming zombies, Zombie. I guess you ought to know, eh? :)<br />
*The spreadsheet looks great. Perhaps one of us can pull out the area patterns for non-hacked IN weapons and put them on the relevant pages. When it's done, the spreadsheet itself would be an asset to Incendiary (or maybe [[Damage]], if it's listing all types of damage). As has been stated, it's the size (area) of the blast that actually directly relates to incendiary weapon "strength"... the diameters you found are probably what should be in parentheses next to weapon strength, although damage can appear as well.<br />
*Ok, no experience from Incendiary blasts. It might've been real interesting if there were, but it didn't occur to me to test. (Or maybe I tested it briefly so long ago that I forgot.) I would've guessed that they did, because the stun bomb and explosives do. Oh well.<br />
*P.S. Brunpal, we may not have touched pages in a year, but most/all of us have "Watch this page" turned on, so we get immediate notification of any pages we've edited or Watched. :)<br />
-[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 09:17, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
*Sounds correct MTR. I think Brunpal was just comparing the "damage" (actually strength) of the Incendiary Rocket (90) to the average damage due to the "impact" of the blast (6.4).<br />
*Well, it isn't ''nearby'' terrain on fire which you have to worry about, it's the tile directly underneath a units feet which causes the most concern. If that tile is on fire and the unit doesn't move, it will take 1-12 damage points. While true that terrain on fire can last a variable number of turns, there is a definite upper-limit to how much damage a unit can possibly take. Fires don't last forever, and the combustibles eventually are consumed leaving either scorched earth or a damaged tile. Those damaged/destroyed tiles usually cannot be started on fire again by the spread of flames. They can only be set ablaze with incendiary ammo, and even then for only 1-3 turns (normal for dead tiles). So it's certainly possible to find a max damage. And for the most part, the things that burn the longest are usually objects, not tiles. And most objects you can't stand on anyway. But I totally agree that it's hard to model how fire functions due to the two forces at work: "impact" damage and damage due to standing in fire. <br />
<br />
P.S. Some of us are actually around here and don't need to be coaxed back into existence by an email when a watched page is changed either. Just because it's quiet, it doesn't mean nobody's home. :) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:34, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
While understanding the whole formula for fire and fire damage happens is useful, it was not thinking to go that broad. I was just interested in what occurs from the moment a solider takes his shot, to the time that solider gets his TU back. ie damage from incendiary rounds vs fire damage. --[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 21:39, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
It looks to me that, unlike all other forms of damage, Fire damage ignores armor, goes right past it. If so, this should be made explicit on the main page? [[User:Mugwump|Mugwump]] ([[User talk:Mugwump|talk]]) 05:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)<br />
:Fire damage doesn't ignore armor - power suits for instance can't be damaged by fire, except if the unit is already injured. Read carefully the Damage section - there's a lot of nuances about how fire works. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 03:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)<br />
:: What I meant is ignore armor ratings for damage calculation. While accounting for the resistances listed on the Damage Modification page, doesn't incendiary act as if front, side, back and under armor are 0 for calculation? [[User:Mugwump|Mugwump]] ([[User talk:Mugwump|talk]]) 18:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Incendiary vs Large Units ==<br />
<br />
We're discussing this in [[Talk:Sectopod#Incendiary vs Sectopod]], and a question came up. When an IN round impacts one segment of a large unit, presumably that segment gets the "Incendiary impact" function, i.e. 6/7 chance of catching on fire for 5-10 damage plus 1-5 turns of being on fire. Does the same "impact" function also apply to the 3 adjacent squares (6/7 chance), or is it just the "standing in fire" chance? If you had multiple regular-sized units standing in the area of effect of an IN round, they would each get "impact" effects (right?). So it ''seems'' logical that all 4 segments of a large unit, inside the area of effect, are also exposed to "impact" effects. But I wanted to check. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:34, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Oh boy! Calculating this not only depends on a lot of unknown assumptions, but is fiendishly complicated - especially if you factor in the "funky fire" bug. And contrary to my noblest efforts, it's impossible to use IN weapons without inadvertently exploiting this bug. Even if you only fire IN at a single target until it's dead, once the target is "standing in fire" you effectively just can't miss. <br />
<br />
Anyway back to the Large Targets specifically. The key assumption above is whether all regular-sized units in the area of effect of an IN burst are affected with "impact effects" - 5-10 dmg & 6/7 chance to catch fire. If they are, it's reasonable to assume the same thing happens to the 3 other segments of a Large Unit. However I suspect this is not the case, and strictly speaking "impact" effects should only occur at the single, impact square of an IN round. Testing needed!<br />
<br />
More likely, the GZ+1 squares, whether occupied by small or large units, are only subjected to the "standing in fire" effects: 1/3 'catch fire' probability, and 1-12 terrain-based damage. And these effects are applied once per turn, not once per hit. <br />
<br />
However, all of this is turned on its head by the 'funky fire' bug. After the first round hits, all units (and all Large Unit segments?) are "standing in fire". (Though maybe these fire damage routines run only for the "control" segment of the Large Unit? Possible, but unlikely.) Since they are standing in fire, the funky fire bug applies and all units/segments are hiit with "impact" effects. <br />
<br />
So assuming a Large Unit is ''already'' standing in fire (e.g. from a previous IN hit or near miss), damage per IN round fired is 6.4 x 4<br />
= 25.6 average, 10x4= 40 max. Subject to resistance/vulnerability modifiers, but ignoring armour level. In addition as multiple IN rounds are fired, the chance of all segments catching fire quickly approaches certainty. This not only means the Large Unit will sustain further damage at the end of the turn, it makes it impossible to escape the 'funky fire' trap by moving out of burning squares. <br />
<br />
(Any testing needs to be very careful and probably only fire a single IN round per game, otherwise 'funky fire' will skew the results.)<br />
<br />
So, in conclusion, the TU/kill factors I put up on the Talk pages for the Large Units ([[Talk:Reaper]], [[Talk:Cyberdisc]],[[Talk:Sectopod]]) should pretty much reflect the 'funky fire' reality after the first round connects, apart from the fact that you actually can't miss. The very first IN round to be fired would have the same effect (for immediate damage) on a Large Target as on a small one. But I really don't want to update the numbers to reflect this fact, it's just too awful. For AC-IN, the firepower factors will be about 6 times better than stated. Maybe I'll just remove them. :( <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:51, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
=== Simple Tests ===<br />
<br />
I did a small number of tests and found some interesting results. In 5/5 tests, all 4 squares of the target (Reaper) were on fire the following round. (It's hard to tell if they are on fire the same round, as you need to extinguish the fire with smoke to see). Perhaps this makes sense, as it's a UNITREF attribute and so applies to the whole unit, not its 4 component squares?<br />
<br />
Looking at the damage, it looks like "impact" and "on fire" damage applies to all 4 squares, i.e. x4 normal. Damage clusters tightly around 16-18 per hit which is roughly the expected value, maybe a bit lower (at x4). And since we '''are''' on fire, should expect an average of 7.5 ({5..10}/6) rather than 6.4 ({0,5..10}/7? Maybe something else is going on here, as these numbers seem a little low - 6.4 x 4 = 25.6 per hit or 7.5 x 4 = 30.0 per "on fire" hit might be expected on a Large Unit. <br />
<br />
:Drat. I didn't factor in the Reaper's 170% Susceptibility to Incendiary. So the actual damage levels are more like 10 per hit. Maybe there is no multiplier for the 4 squares? Hard to figure out what's going on here. In tests on hacked humans, armour level is not a factor vs Incendiary damage, otherwise I'd suspect the under-armour or something. 2.5 avg damage per segment seems too low. 10 average damage per alien seems too high - that should be the max, not the average. Is some mechanic pushing the average up to the max? I don't have a clue right now. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:53, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
The damage seems to be regardless of "funky fire" effect. A round fired at a target that is not burning / in fire seems to do about the same damage, per hit, as one that is in fire / on fire and so subject to the funky fire bug. So the only 'bad' effect of the bug is that you never miss, and you hit everything that is in fire / on fire. Not quite so bad, and it allows you to play honest by only ever firing at one target, not hitting any other targets by accident (!), and firing from point blank range so it doesn't matter that you never miss. <br />
<br />
Burn Time was as high as 7 when multiple IC rounds were fired (on auto). Higher than we thought possible (1-5 range expected). However it sometimes goes DOWN after additional hits. Possibly the value is re-randomised with every new IC impact, but hits are cumulative while firing auto bursts? <br />
<br />
Here's the raw test data:<br />
<br />
Test 1. <br />
-<br />
2 DH on Reaper, mix of auto and snap, some other IC impacts on others<br />
Burn Time=7 - exceeds known limit of 5<br />
All 4 sq on fire next turn<br />
Is 'on fire' global? It's in Unitref, so maybe<br />
-<br />
Test 2.<br />
-<br />
1 DH on Reaper, only IC shot fired in game. <br />
In firing turn, taken 132/148 = 16 damage. Burn time=3<br />
Start of T+1, taken 122/148 10 more damage, Burn time=2<br />
T+1 Reaper shows all 4 squares burning<br />
-<br />
Test 3. <br />
-<br />
Revisit #2 firing turn... fire another round (this will use funky fire)<br />
So 2nd IC hit, 2nd rd fired, same target. <br />
Health now 114/148, further 18 damage<br />
But Burn time has dropped to 2! Must re-randomise on each hit??<br />
Maybe only accumulates during auto burst?<br />
-<br />
Test 4. <br />
-<br />
Let's try lots of hits. Hack up accuracy to 255<br />
OK 3 out of 3 hits on Auto<br />
T+0 Health=98/148=50 damage (17 avg) Burn=6<br />
T+1 Health=81 (17 more dmg) Burn=5 All 4 squares on fire. <br />
-<br />
Test 5.<br />
-<br />
Revisit #4 and push to 6/6 hits<br />
T+0 Health=41/148=107 (18 avg) damage Burn=7<br />
T+1 Health=21 (20 more dmg) Burn=6 All 4 squares on fire. <br />
-<br />
Methodology (Apart from Test 1) = only ever 1 (same) target in any IC AoE; no misses<br />
(To try to minimise the impact of 'funky fire' effects - but can't eliminate)<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 23:27, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I re-ran the same simple tests against a regular-sized (Floater) target instead. The results agreed much better with the 'standard model' of [[Incendiary]] effects. All results were within the permitted ranges in the 'standard model', though some values were unexpectedly. I think some variables to look for in Incendiary mechanics are:<br />
<br />
* Large Unit vs regular unit behaviour looks to be different<br />
* Auto burst vs single explosion looks to be different (maybe just due to funky fire bug, maybe not)<br />
* Tile MCD "time to burn" value seems to affect one or more of the other calculations / probabilities<br />
* Burn Time on the unit can go up as well as down. New hits seem to re-randomise the value. <br />
* End of turn processing does not always reduce unit Burn Time by 1. Can a terrain fire add to unit Burn Time?<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:25, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I doubt a terrain fire adds to the time a unit is on fire. Actually, I'm quite positive on this since my tests from a while back were quite thorough. The counter can only tick down to 0, and when it does a terrain fire will have a chance of "reigniting" the soldier again.<br />
<br />
:Anyway, I had to start from scratch again on testing due to a few issues with my test scenario. I totally forgot that the first soldier on the unit roster is a bad choice for a "designated hitter" since he can never be automatically selected on a reload. Soldiers lower on the order are much better choices. So I got the shooting automated, but each reload was taking too much time since I had to reselect the shooter, select the shot, move the view down a level, shoot the target and abort. Having the soldier already selected cuts out 2 actions in the list allowing the script to run more efficiently. I'm going to try to get everything properly setup tonight, then start testing tomorrow morning. With a little luck and about 2 hours of babysitting the script to make sure it doesn't quit, I should have some prelims. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:55, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Looking forward to seeing that data! I did some more testing just for the special case of Large Units, about 40 tests. My tentative conclusions:<br />
<br />
# Damage range per 'impact' hit is the same as regular units, around 5-10 x Vulnerability (maybe + MCD Burn time?)<br />
# Large units go on fire about 1/7 of the time when receiving a direct hit - as expected<br />
# Either all 4 segments go on fire, or no segments go on fire - no 'part segments on fire'<br />
# Unit burn times are not correlated with unit damage received<br />
# Auto fire has the same average damage level per hit as snap fire<br />
# Unit Burn Time can exceed 5, both on Snap and Auto. Highs of 6 (Snap) and 7 (Auto) were seen. Maybe 1-5 + MCD Tile Burn Time?<br />
<br />
All my tests were done on the grid-lined pavement tiles from urban terror missions, which have an MCD default burn value of 2. For some of the "setting the large unit on fire" tests, I had the target floating in mid air, because air does not burn even during the turn that the IN round explodes - it makes it easier to see the unit burning. <br />
<br />
From Bomb Bloke's editor notes, the 4 potential MCD tiles in a map location are: a North Wall, a West Wall, a Ground tile, an Object tile. All 4 of these MCD tiles might have a burn time value. But Ground and Object are the most likely to be relevant. <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:58, 12 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Ok, I got the script running and optimized it a bit to cut down some wait cycles. Right now it's cranking out approximately 400 trials per hour which is about as fast as I can make it go without removing some desktop icons (all the icons have to refresh at the end of each logging cycle which takes a little time). Anyhow, just for giggles I stopped it after 400 trials to get some prelims.<br />
<br />
:<table {{StdCenterTable}} class="sortable"><br />
:<tr {{StdDescTable_Heading}}><th align="left" width="90">Damage</th><th width="90">Count</th><th width="90">Pct%</th></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">1</th><td>68</td><td>17.0%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">6</th><td>58</td><td>14.5%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">7</th><td>45</td><td>11.3%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">8</th><td>63</td><td>15.8%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">9</th><td>55</td><td>13.8%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">10</th><td>64</td><td>16.0%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">11</th><td>47</td><td>11.8</td></tr><br />
:</table><br />
:If you average the percent columns, it comes to 14.28571429% while the expected is 1/7 or 14.285714285714285714285714285714 which is a difference of 4E-09. This means 400 reloads is plenty enough values for this application. Great news! Well, as you can see, instead of the set [0, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] for MCD of 1, this scenario where the MCD was 0 is shifted up by one [1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. Interesting.<br />
<br />
:Tomorrow I'll rerun the MCD 1 scenario again to verify the values and damage set. Then it's on to the MCD of 2. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 01:50, 13 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: Extremely interesting! By the way, it was probably a late night but - the average any 7 numbers that (must) add up to 100% is always going to be 1/7th of 100%, so that result doesn't really demonstrate any confidence in the data. It would be the same with one result, or with a trillion results. The 4E-09 discrepancy is just the precision error in your calculator/spreadsheet's calculation of the percentages and the average of the percentages. You've got some considerable variation from 1/7th on the individual numbers, I'm not sure if that's just to be expected with only 400 trials. But for example "0" and "10" are both a bit high so it ''might'' be non-linear (probably not). Anyway we'll see when all your results are in! (To measure the degree of variation from the expected result, what you want is a chi-squared test or something - and I don't know what I'm talking about there so I'll shut up!) <br />
<br />
:: I'm checking Bomb Bloke's MCD database, and there are some tiles in there (U_BASE 22-25) with MCD burn value of 30 - I might play with those and see if anything dramatic happens. Oh except looks like they can't be set on fire (255 flammability). There are others that are quite high (8-), and still flammable. Or I could hack an MCD file (scary). Maybe I'll just wait for your results Zombie! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 05:49, 13 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
= Incendiary Research =<br />
<br />
== Large Units On Fire ==<br />
<br />
Here's another interesting test for setting Large Units on fire. Set AC-I power down from 42 to 1. <br />
At this IC power, there is no area effect. You can't even start a fire on one tile.<br />
All you can do is set units on fire with a direct hit. This means there is no way the other 3 squares of the <br />
Large Unit are in the IC area of effect. <br />
<br />
Result: Whether you hit a one square regular unit or a 4-square large unit, if it goes on fire, '''all''' squares of the unit still go on fire. Along with the fact that the inflicted IN damage level vs Large Units is basically normal (see above), this tends to confirm that being on fire is a "unitref" property and, unlike HE and Stun Bombs, is not applied (multiplied) vs the number of squares the unit occupies. (In fact it would be good to check that HE is actually applied separately to each square, with different HE strength, potentially different armour facing, etc. Maybe the engine just simplifies things and multiplies damage by 4?)<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:56, 15 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Unit Burn Time ==<br />
<br />
Unit Burn Time seems to be considerably '''cyclic''' rather than random. Very often, it just steps down by one from the previous value. I suspect this is because the "impact" routine calls the "end of turn" incendiary/smoke routine (see [[User talk:Seb76#Incendiary Bug]]). Sometimes it does not happen, maybe because some other factor has caused the Burn Time to increase. <br />
<br />
Here's some data. This was done against a Reaper with AC-I power set to 1 (and 10% TU Snap fire cost). But I've seen similar results with standard AC-I.<br />
<br />
<br />
Hit H/H Dmg/Avg Burn Time<br />
1 137/150 13 2<br />
2 126/150 11 1<br />
3 104/150 22 0 Very high damage (=13x1.7). Unit not on fire when game restored.<br />
4 96/150 8 7<br />
5 81/150 15 6<br />
6 66/150 15 5<br />
4,5,6 76/150 /9.33 5 (Auto) 9-10 (=5-6x1.7) is near minimum dmg<br />
7 56 10 4<br />
8 48 8 4 What happened here? didn't cycle. MIN dmg (5x1.7).<br />
9 35 13 6<br />
10 25 10 5<br />
11 10 15 6 New shooter takes over<br />
12 2 8 5<br />
<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:56, 15 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
:You're right on spot once again ;-) When a unit takes a direct hit from an IN round, it is set on fire (the duration is randomly chosen between 0 and incendiarydamagemodifier/20). Then the "end of turn" routine is called, which inflicts damage *and* decreases by one the number of turns to be on fire (done for all units). Then it sets on fire units standing in blaze. The duration is calculated as for direct hits; if the unit was already on fire, it'll take the maximum value between the new value calculated and the current value affected to the unit on fire. Not sure it is readable but I think you'll sort it out ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 10:51, 15 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Incendiary in TFTD ==<br />
<br />
I read [[Weapons (TFTD)#Phosphor|somewhere]] there are reduced effects underwater (or enhanced effects on land) for TFTD Phosphor rounds. I couldn't find an exact statement of the quantitative difference - does anyone know this? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:53, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:The effects of Incendiary weapons underwater (or Phosphor, as TFTD refers to it) is halved over the UFO equivalent. Incendiary weapons are doubly effective on the surface(Terror Missions) vs underwater, but of the three weapons that can fire Incendiary, two of them(Torpedo Launcher and Hydro-Jet Cannon) can only be reaction fired on land. The Gas Cannon can be fired in eiither location. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:08, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: It's clear that the effect underwater is half the effect on land. But does the base level (in USOPaedia / OBDATA) refer to land use or underwater use? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:13, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:As I recall, the base level is on land. The numbers for Phosphor ammo are close to the UFO Incendiary damage numbers, but I know it spreads less underwater. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:15, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: Look at the (puny) area effect pattern sizes underwater, that sounds about right. Can anyone confirm this? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:40, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
There is actually no difference between the pattern for the Gas Cannon's P rounds underwater as on land. Both have a r=3, d=7 pattern. (CE version at least). Maybe the pattern is smaller the deeper you go? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 16:45, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<gallery widths="200"><br />
Image:GC-P (underwater).png|Flame pattern from Gas Cannon Phosphorous rounds underwater.<br />
Image:GC-P (on land).png|Flame pattern from Gas Cannon Phosphorous rounds on land.<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
:OK now I'm really confused then! (I realise I was getting confused with the Dye grenade's small footprint vs Smoke grenades). If the blast pattern is the same size, that implies the weapon power is unchanged. So in what sense is Phosphorus "half as powerful" underwater? Does it burn half as long? Is the impact and fire damage halved? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:49, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
I really doubt the damage to units would be affected if the power of the round was modified. The power of the round only determines the size of the pattern produced, not the damage inflicted to units. I'll have to check the burn times and spread rate but my thought is that the two are identical in the version I'm using. Like I said, the pattern may get smaller the deeper you go underwater. The pic above was for a shallow site. It'll take a while for me to find a deeper site to check it out, otherwise some editing of the game files may be necessary to force the scenario.<br />
<br />
I just checked the Dye Grenade underwater and on land. Both produce the same r=1, d=3 pattern. So yeah, they are really pitiful when compared to the Smoke Grenade.<br />
<br />
Don't really go for the use of "impact" damage with Incendiary/Phosphorous rounds. There is no real impact since the damage range is discontinuous. The unit either catches fire from the splash of fire (in which case it does 5-10 damage points), or the unit doesn't catch fire and the unit remains unharmed. If there were such a thing as impact damage, the range would be continuous like normal weapons, in this theoretical case it would be [0-10] inclusive (ie the set [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 17:36, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Anyway, the half thing came up because AQ was comparing TFTD to UFO, not comparing the effects in TFTD from underwater and on land. However, further comparisons reveal that a hacked HC-I round of 60 produces the same pattern as a GC-P/60 round. Perhaps this whole dilemma can be traced to the Dye Grenade? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 18:28, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:That's entirely possible the Dye Grenade is the source. However, several of the pages for the TFTD weapons state that Phosphor is far weaker in water, so I didn't check. My mistake. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:35, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks for the feedback everyone. So this could just be a recycled rumour? I guess the general assumption is that the game engines are identical, so we would want evidence that TFTD is different. Looks like Zombie has proved that the area effect is equal (at least at shallow depths). That leaves only the fire damage or fire duration. Testing that would require repeated observations to check if fire damage is less than 6/hit, less than 6/turn, and burning for no more than 2-3 turns. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:14, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:As with any wiki where contributions can come from anywhere, there are bound to be problems with validity of the statements made. So unless those statements are backed up by real-life test data instead of memory or hearsay, take them with a grain of salt. The other point is to avoid spreading disinformation at all costs (I have been guilty of this as well, but try to at least quantify them). So there you go. I'm still trying to get a deeper underwater mission to check the size of the pattern produced there. Checking the spread of flames or damage inflicted to units shouldn't take too long though. I'll see if I can't get that done tonight yet. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:23, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Ok, I ran some trials with an unmodified GC-P round on the normal seabed floor against soldiers having 100 health and 0 all-around armor. For the guy standing at GZ, I saw ending health values of 99, 94, 93, 92, 90, and 89 (n=50). So that comes out to 1, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 points of damage respectively. I didn't think 11 damage was possible. Here's where things differ though. All the other guys who were clustered around GZ always received only one point of damage, never more, never less. In EU, the guys around GZ took damage equal to the guy at GZ. Odd. So then it occurred to me that perhaps I should check the MCD values of the seabed (TFTD) and the desert (EU) landscapes. Both are basically identical in terms of armor. But the seafloor has a "time to burn" value of 0 while the desert has a value of 1. So maybe our understanding of normal fire isn't totally complete. I'm going to go back to EU and retest the desert landscape with varying MCD burn time flags to see how that affects damage. ;) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 23:00, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: The whole Phosphor being half effective under water is related to the burn time and spread, if I remember correctly. The settings in the MCD files may be the culprit. The actual damage dealt or initial spread may not necessarily be affected. <br />
<br />
:: Hey, I just had a wacky idea. XComutil. Use its feature where you can set the depth of a mission. Launch a mission on a island terror site map (again, use XComutil's map picker to get to this faster). Lots of grass to burn there. Set fire to it and count how many turns before the fires die out. Redo the test, but this time set the depth to a deeper level. Try the whole process out again.<br />
<br />
:: Next repeat this with one of ye-olde seabed maps. They look really weird without the blue palette shift when played on land, what with the landscape being gray. <br />
<br />
:: It's possible that the half-effectiveness relates to the fuel that the fire has to burn more than anything else. Further confirmation on how long the flames stick to a target when on land or underwater may be helpful. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:28, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I've been burned one too many times using editors or utilities to mess with saved games. Half the time they introduce some unknown "feature" which isn't documented. Thanks, but no thanks. I only test with an unmodified game, except for the changes I make myself to keep control of the situation. Anyway, I tested a patch of fire on the seabed to see how long it remained lit (which has a "time to burn" value of 0). It only stayed lit the current round the shell detonated. After that the fire went out. So this agrees with what is expected. Will continue to work on this as I get time. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 01:51, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Well, I suppose my recommendation doesn't necessarily need XComutil. It would've certainly made it easier. But yes, it does introduce a few things that work behind the scenes that we might not know too much about. However, if I remember correctly, one of the battlescape savegame files should hold the depth level of the current map you are playing on. All you'll need to do is tweak that to change the depth of the map. <br />
<br />
One other thing, the different effect HE has on the same tiles underwater and when on land (ala the Triton) may also be one of the other culprits behind the belief that phosphor is less effective on land. Being able to blow up the Triton on land, but have it appear virtually indestructable when underwater does that. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:59, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
re Zombie's underwater tests, there is normally (i.e. on land in EU) a difference between the IC damage on the target of the direct hit, vs lower damage to others in the area of effect (hmm contrary to my IC kill modelling assumptions: uh oh I may've spoken to soon). But only seeing 1 damage on the others in the AoE does seem low. We need to figure out why. Did any of the other targets catch fire? Does that ever happen underwater? Do tiles ever burn past the turn when the IC round is fired? Any of these factors would reduce total fire damage/effectiveness by '''more''' than half. Actually, doesn't it say the 1-12 damage for "in fire" is ''not'' random, but dependent on terrain type? That could be the answer.<br />
<br />
The [[Incendiary]] article actually mentions '''4''' modes of fire damage, only 3 of which are quantified: <br />
<br />
#"impact",<br />
#"being in fire"<br />
#"being ''on'' fire"<br />
<br />
The 4th mode is "damage from burning ''terrain''. Only a tantalising mention is given, no quantitative details. This could be the source of the discrepancy. In fact it might be a component of "being in fire" that's not fully understood. I think Zombie is right to review the assumptions on this one - nice work! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 04:05, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:As I recall, "damage from burning terrain" is synonymous with "Standing on a tile that's currently on fire." Thus "Being in fire." But that's me and I'm tired this evening, so I could be wrong. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 05:30, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
I performed my TFTD Phosphorous tests underwater and after the flames died out some of my men did catch fire. So this part seems to jive with that of EU. Tiles do not burn longer than its "time to burn" value in the MCD files. So for instance, in the seabed underwater testing mission, the tiles have a MCD burn value of 0 which corresponds to the results seen (ie fire didn't stick around into the aliens turn or X-COM's next turn either, it only stayed lit the turn it detonated). There really is only 2 "modes" of I/P/fire damage:<br />
<br />
<ol><li>The code used for determining if a unit catches fire: 0 damage (if the unit didn't catch and was able to shrug it off) and 5-10 (if the unit catches).</li><br />
<li>Standing in fire.</li></ol><br />
At least from the initial tests in TFTD, units outside GZ are just considered to be standing in fire that turn and always take 1pt of damage. Anyway, I don't want to talk myself into a hole without doing more tests. All the following trials I do will be in EU to hopefully curtail any unknowns in TFTD. Once EU's code is figured out then it can be applied and compared to TFTD. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 09:06, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
: If they are "standing in fire", do you think the 1pt damage/turn is based on the fire characteristics tile/terrain type they are standing on? Is it more generally 1-12/turn, dependent on terrain? Also if you get a chance can you test large units and see what kind of effects they take on the GZ+1 squares? If the GZ+1 squares of a large unit are just 'standing in fire' rather than 'catch fire/5-10 impact damage' this will substantially weaken IC vs large units. And I will have shouted too soon! :) [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:18, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
I did some ad-hoc tests in TFTD. Actually I just ran around firing GC-P and HJ-P rounds everywhere. :) On a typical seabed layout, I found that most things don't burn - the fires don't last into the next turn. The only things I could get to burn were the green moss stuff and and coral skeleton "trees". Even the barrels do not burn. Also, I did not see much sign of terrain damage caused by the fires. But the moss and coral did burn for the normal period, i.e. 1-5 turns. <br />
<br />
I also managed to kill an Aquatoid with a single direct hit from a GC-P, in one turn. He died at the end of my turn or the start of his. That seems unlikely. 5-10 from being hit, plus 1-12 for standing in fire, plus maybe another 5-10 from being on fire? It's just about possible I suppose, to max out near 32 damage (if the terrain offers you "12" when it burns). Anyway those are my unsystematic enquiries. I have the 8 save files of various stages of the battle if anyone wants to take a look. It was from a virgin TFTD installation and there was no editing or jiggery pokery.<br />
<br />
OK I've uploaded the save files [[Image:TFTD Incendiary Tests 01 Spike.zip]] and taken a look myself with BB's editor. Prior to being hit (Game_4) our Aquatoid was in rude Health, 30/30. Immediately after being hit (Game_2) he was at 19 Health (no Stun damage) and On Fire, as well as Standing in Fire. That implies 11 Damage from the "impact effect" which is not supposed to happen. As noted, at the end of the same turn or beginning of his next turn, he dies. He looks to be standing on a standard seabed square, just sand, the kind of thing that does not burn. He is next to some of the brown cushion-like coral, but I don't think that burns, at least not over multiple turns. In fact in the same turn he is hit, at the end, you can see him dead (Game_3). Since there was only one alien, he died in the same turn. OK that's slightly confusing, maybe someone can double check the turn numbers in the save files (don't know where they are). <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:29, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Doh. I is a idiot. The Aquatoid was killed by the incendiary fire bug - I fired extra IN rounds at terrain objects after he was on fire. Which explains why he is already dead by the end of my turn. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:08, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Yeah, you gotta watch that. Well, anyhow, I edited the desert landscape in Enemy Unknown to have the same MCD "time to burn" value of 0 as the seafloor in TFTD. From the limited tests, the results look the same as in TFTD. (Fire burns out after the initial turn it detonated, units around GZ taking 1 unit of damage while the guy at GZ got more). So that means I can focus my efforts on EU with little worry because there will be no issues. I'm going use BB's logger and AHK to automate the data gathering aspect to save me a bunch of time. I'll probably need the full requisite 2000 reloads though, as the guy at GZ is not the same as the 24 soldiers around him. Wish me luck. :) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 15:54, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Good luck! I just read the MCD article, and it mentions 2 fire-related byte fields in MCD - "likelihood of catching fire" as well as "time to burn". Is the last field variable or fixed? Could the first field determine the damage/turn to units when it's on fire? Also with a possible 4 terrain items that could all be burning, is the maximum damage higher than 12? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:10, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Offset 45 is the flammability rating of the tile. This most likely controls whether an adjacent fire will spread to the tile in question. (For instance, if a fire is burning and the next tile over is a tree or something, it'll probably spread there fast because of the combustibles present). The other byte is offset 57 which is the one we are after. Don't know about the 4 types of things which can exist on a tile at once. I think the most I have ever seen is 2 (usually ground and a wall). Wouldn't hurt to edit a tile to include all 4, but that's an entirely different test to do. It'll have to wait until we get a better understanding of basic fire. ;) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:38, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::Here's a question. On Large units, if only one segment of the Large unit is on fire, will the fire spreading code allow the other three segments to catch on fire? [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:13, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I highly doubt it. Unit fires are completely different creatures from terrain fires. Needs testing though. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:55, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes it would have to be a very special case, since afaik fires do not spread from regular units on fire to adjacent terrain or to other adjacent regular units. Though it would make more sense than any of those things. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:03, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Incendiary Bug ==<br />
<br />
(Also known as the [[Known_Bugs#Funky_Fire|Funky Fire/Smoke bug]].) I made some suggestion about why this bug happens, and how the code could be patched to fix it: [[User talk:Seb76#Incendiary Bug]]. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:13, 12 March 2009 (CDT) Here is the general discussion of the bug:<br />
<br />
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. 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)<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
# In area of effect<br />
##add fire to tiles<br />
##'''possibly''' do 33% check for units to catch fire - '''unless''' this is performed by the end of turn routine (probably)<br />
# IF a unit was hit directly<br />
## check to see if it catches fire<br />
## ''possibly'' do "impact" damage. <br />
# Return, '''without''' calling the end-of-turn smoke/fire routine<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 22:11, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
<br />
I also suspect that other "end of turn" processing happens with every IN round fired. I am pretty sure "fire spreading" checks occur, as I have seen fire spread when using perfectly accurate shots. Either "fire spreading" happens, or there is a random element in incendiary area of effect, that is definite. I want to repeat these tests to see if "catch on fire" effects also happen for those who are standing in fire when an IN round is fired. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 08:59, 31 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mwahaha ==<br />
<br />
Was exploiting the Elevator Shield trick on an Alien Base Assault, and I had the forethought to pack lots and lots of Incendiaries. My sick sick mind found it amusing to set all those aliens on fire and watch them roast stupidly and helplessly. (Jasonred)<br />
<br />
= Fire Damage =<br />
(moved from talk:UFOextender)<br />
<br />
Not sure if the bug is already posted. And Not sure if I should post the bug here or in [[Talk:Incendiary]]. Problem is if you use extender to fix funky fire bug. Incendiary no long does any damage at all. Units only take the small amount of damage after ending turn because they're on fire. Using 1.28.3 extender<br />
<br />
To test this. I stripped a soldier of armour. And pounded four incendiary rockets into the soldier in the same turn. No damage. And then next turn, his health drops a little because he's standing in fire. This may not be a problem for most players. But it is still a major bug. I understand the funky fire problem is already difficult to fix, and I say thanks to all who will try to help solve this bug. [[User:Hellblade|Hellblade]] 14:44, 28 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: That's not a bug, that's the fix. Incendiary damage is only applied at the end of the turn. Think about it... does fire kill faster than a bullet? Faster than a grenade? Can you kill someone with fire faster than they can get a shot off back at you? No, to all these things. To compensate for fixing the bug, fire damage is doubled compared to the previous end-of-turn fire damage (that always existed). It is no longer applied per shot or per impact. All you get "per impact" is another chance to set the target unit itself on fire. Incendiary is a weak attack. It has the benefit of a wide area effect, no HE block, and ignores armour. There are situations when IN is the only effective weapon XCOM possesses. But, like everything, it has strengths and weaknesses. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:51, 28 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I see your point but let me elaborate. Heat, not fire, do kill as fast as bullets. The original game mechanics separated heat from fire just as in real life. It intended to have the big heat blast damage first and then the small fire damage per turn.<br />
:: Take the most extreme case, napalm or volcanic lava, you get fully cooked in less than a second - just by heat alone, and you may/may not catch fire later on. And heat blasts travel as fast as bullets, in some cases as fast as light. I believe the game has different Incendiary damage values to do different damage according to how strong the heat is, not the fire afterwards. The damage by fire later on makes sense because natural burning fires aren't that hot comparatively.<br />
:: I understand the difficulty in trying to fix this. But before this fix you could kill a reaper by a few AC-I shots (which is their weakness) and now you can empty the two clips at it and it'll never die. [[User:Hellblade|Hellblade]] 03:11, 4 October 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Advantages/Disadvantages of using Incendiary for nighttime light ==<br />
<br />
It seems for most folks that electro-flares are the go-to for night lighting and incendiary rounds are a distant afterthought.<br />
With that in mind I propose this list of pros/cons to using incendiary at least as a major complement to flares.<br />
I believe most people today are playing with OpenXcom or something that fixes the bugs, so I'll trim this of factors arising from bugs/limitations<br />
: What you believe might be completely off the mark since the original game is still being sold on Steam and new players will play that before even trying OpenXCom. The deciding factor should be that this page is in the original game section, thus it should reflect the original game and its bugs, not one open-source clone that people might try or not. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 18:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Cons:<br />
#Low damage, and for each soldier with incendiary rounds loaded they can't attack with more effective weaponry unless<br />
##they unload and reload<br />
##they carry another gun or use 'nades/stun rod<br />
#Not re-usable, will always be depleting stock<br />
#Shooting IC rounds doesn't generate experience/training like throwing throws does for throwing accuracy<br />
<br />
Pros:<br />
#Not dependent on throwing limitations of range and arc/trajectory<br />
#Very efficient in terms of light-output per weight, storage space, and time units<br />
#Can set area on fire to illuminate where the enemy is initially, then as the fire burns out you may move into the cover of the smoke it generates<br />
#Does at least some damage to enemies - very unlikely to kill them, but softens them up so future attacks more likely to neutralize<br />
#Area denial - fill a small building or enemy craft with flames and watch them flee out into your reaction fire, or at least out where you can get them, they don't get the drop on you<br />
#At least in OpenXCom the enemies on fire should provide lighting, helping to spot them at a distance<br />
#Fire is less vulnerable to being destroyed by nearby explosions, unlike those wimpy flares. And even if it is snuffed, it isn't something you were counting on re-using<br />
#Reaper vulnerability<br />
#Zombies not re-spawning to 'lids when KO'd by fire splash<br />
#You can dedicate a few number of soldiers to throwing fire around while the rest keep their hands and TU's free to attack<br />
#Soldiers that go berserk/get MC'd can't hurt armored soldiers w IC fire<br />
<br />
<br />
Now it seems to me that the first Con is major and obvious, but the many Pros are overlooked. Also that big Con could be greatly mitigated by cannon wielders w incendiary carrying a decent secondary weapon: thinking plasma rifle or pistol, laser pistol<br />
<br />
any I'm missing? what about putting this on the main page?<br />
(also I meant to make this a main topic, not sub-topic of the above)<br />
[[User:Mugwump|Mugwump]] ([[User talk:Mugwump|talk]]) 00:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Incendiary&diff=102462Talk:Incendiary2021-07-08T20:39:48Z<p>Hobbes: /* Advantages/Disadvantages of using Incendiary for nighttime light */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Comments ==<br />
<br />
For now, we'll just say the smoke + incendiary stun effects only work on X-Com owned units until some tests can be run to confirm this. It's unusual that only X-Com units are affected, but the game has been known to surprise you even after you think you've worked something out. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Given how aliens love to hang around in a smoke-filled crashed UFO, IC rounds would be insanely powerful if they did actually work against aliens in smoke. I'm glad they don't ''seem to'', as I'd be very tempted to cheat with it. They do work against aliens standing in fire, though, which is still quite cheaty...--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 21:35, 5 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I do consider the "standing on fire + new IC explosions = damage" a cheat. So I just don't abuse it. I only use IC rounds to illuminate or to finish off hiding aliens. It can also work as a "pass-through-and-die" tactic, the same way Proximity Nades work, although fire damage is pretty sad xD. --[[User:Nekrocow|Nekrocow]] 00:36, 24 June 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I use it a lot in TFTD to clear out those island bunkers and the upper storage levels of the large train station. Either the aliens roast alive, or they come out. Otherwise yes, it's no doubt a cheat. Well, more a bug exploited as a cheat. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 02:09, 24 June 2012 (EDT) <br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
I just edited the Incendiary page a bunch, because Brunpal's [[Talk:Experience]] questions about Incendiary sparked my interest... I never did test IN vs. experience. It's a very good question ''if'' it turns out to cause Firing experience. But while reviewing this page, I had a number of questions, for anyone interested. Also, I only tried to clarify things, and don't know Incendiary well, so fix anything you know I got wrong:<br />
#Did I get it right re: the set [ 0, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] for chance of initially catching fire? I over-wrote "linear" because it seemed odd when XCOM usually goes, e.g., 0-10. (Who tested this? - A little help here please. Just making sure.)<br />
#Why flame a zombie unless it's near death (and how can you know if it is)? It's been a long time since I used fire - if you don't have flying armor, why mess around with a zombie by burning it, why not Heavy Plasma it.<br />
#Any research/data on tile flammability versus duration of burning is appreciated. Probably it should go on the [[Terrain]] page byte, but be clearly referenced here. It's just a curiousity, but an interesting one.<br />
#The last line of the page says ''"The damage values listed in the UFOpaedia do not determine how powerful an incendiary round deals damage; it only determines how wide an area will be blanketed with flames."'' Does anyone know IN strength vs radius, then? Should be easy to test and post.<br />
#NKF, Zombie, or anyone else... would you mind seeing if Incendiary causes the Experience counter to increase? Brunpal is right that it's important to [[Experience]]... I found [[Small_Launcher#Experience|Stun Bombs]] to count for experience across their whole range, even if no stun damage occurred... if you have 11+ Mutons in a firing squad situation, passing around an [[Auto-Cannon]] with Incendiary may be better than standard pistols, depending on the range of the blast. I could test it, but it's been a long time since I've delved into the files; maybe one of you have them more close to hand. [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]]<br />
-----<br />
:Offhand, the only way I could think of to check the remaining HP on a Zombie would be by using a [[Mind Probe]]. Given the relative uselessness of a Mind Probe after Psionics are developed, as well as the time needed to use the Probe once, this seems a rather impractical course of action, unless your Rear Commander has nothing better to do. I agree, Heavy Plasma on Auto is better. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:33, 1 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
-----<br />
#Yeah, the set is correct. When a unit is shot with an incendiary round, the game does a calculation to determine if the unit catches fire. If it doesn't catch fire, the unit takes no damage (the 0 in the set). If the unit does catch fire, it will take between 5-10 damage points. Stupid discontinuous range, but that's what happens. As you may guess, I did the Incendiary trials over at the StrategyCore forums in the Damage Modifier topic - see [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=746&view=findpost&p=39672 this] post for the particulars.<br />
#Why flame a Zombie? Simple. A Zombie which is killed by an Incendiary round doesn't turn into a Chryssalid. Zombies are easily outrun, so you can just keep picking at them from a short distance with Auto-Cannon Incendiary rounds and then running away. Fairly effective, even when your troops do not yet have armor to protect them. And when you do not have the luxury of the Heavy Plasma early in the game, Incendiary is a good way to avoid an overabundance of Chryssalids who are not so easy to kill. As for checking the Zombie's stats, you can only rely on the Mind Probe or Psi. Neither are available early either (the Mind Probe is usually low on the research tree for most people even though you can collect enough, and Psi is difficult to use as a soldier needs to be quite proficient to use MC.<br />
#I have been meaning to do some tests in flammability vs terrain but only recently started fooling with MCD values. It'll be next on my list.<br />
#Here, I uploaded a very recent spreadsheet containing both I and Smoke when damage values are hacked. See [[Media:Incendiary_and_Smoke_Patterns.zip | this file]] which contains both.<br />
#I think I fooled around with Incendiary recently in conjunction with promotions. Soldiers who shot aliens with "I" didn't get promoted. Logically, that would mean the experience counter didn't increment. UNITREF.DAT would need to be checked to verify though. Addendum: indeed, as BB mentioned in the experience page (and a quick glance at the UNITREF.DAT experience counters by myself to triple-check my aging brain), Incendiary rounds do not increase any of the experience counters.<br />
<br />
Hope this clears up some of the issues/concerns here. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:16, 1 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
<i>"The damage values listed in the [[UFOpaedia]] do not determine how powerful an incendiary round deals damage; it only determines how wide an area will be blanketed with flames. Fire is unlike other damage; it works at initial blast and then over time, as described above."</i> and<br />
<i>"Initial "impact" damage from incendiary ammunition is either for no points (unit does not catch fire), or between 5-10 points (unit catches fire)."</i><br />
<br />
This should be stressed on ALL the various relevant pages. It's important. 6.4 dmg vs 90 dmg is a significant difference!--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 09:31, 2 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
It looks like Incendiary is gaining some clarity (at least for me), thanks for starting it Brunpal...<br />
*The "6.4" was only for the initial IN round impact (set [ 0, 5-10 ]); it can then burn for 4 more rounds (set [5-10]). Perhaps a short way to state this complicated damage type is "Minimum 0 (unit does not catch on fire) ''OR'' unit catches on fire 1-5 turns, 5-10 damage/turn, 5-50 damage in total (average 21.5)". Does that look right, Zombie? I'm not sure where you got 90 from Brunpal...<br />
:90 is the listed damage from an IN rocket.--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 21:39, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
*However, the numbers I just stated do not count possible additional damage from nearby terrain being on fire (as opposed to yourself). Maybe those should be included somehow. (And clearly, fire is much more dangerous outdoors than inside UFOs, where terrain does not burn.) But since terrain fire can last a variable number of turns, I guess you can't have a maximum damage. Average terrain damage from fire would be 6.5/terrain (1-12), but also, it can keep the unit itself burning more than 5 turns... hard to model.<br />
*Good point about flaming zombies, Zombie. I guess you ought to know, eh? :)<br />
*The spreadsheet looks great. Perhaps one of us can pull out the area patterns for non-hacked IN weapons and put them on the relevant pages. When it's done, the spreadsheet itself would be an asset to Incendiary (or maybe [[Damage]], if it's listing all types of damage). As has been stated, it's the size (area) of the blast that actually directly relates to incendiary weapon "strength"... the diameters you found are probably what should be in parentheses next to weapon strength, although damage can appear as well.<br />
*Ok, no experience from Incendiary blasts. It might've been real interesting if there were, but it didn't occur to me to test. (Or maybe I tested it briefly so long ago that I forgot.) I would've guessed that they did, because the stun bomb and explosives do. Oh well.<br />
*P.S. Brunpal, we may not have touched pages in a year, but most/all of us have "Watch this page" turned on, so we get immediate notification of any pages we've edited or Watched. :)<br />
-[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 09:17, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
*Sounds correct MTR. I think Brunpal was just comparing the "damage" (actually strength) of the Incendiary Rocket (90) to the average damage due to the "impact" of the blast (6.4).<br />
*Well, it isn't ''nearby'' terrain on fire which you have to worry about, it's the tile directly underneath a units feet which causes the most concern. If that tile is on fire and the unit doesn't move, it will take 1-12 damage points. While true that terrain on fire can last a variable number of turns, there is a definite upper-limit to how much damage a unit can possibly take. Fires don't last forever, and the combustibles eventually are consumed leaving either scorched earth or a damaged tile. Those damaged/destroyed tiles usually cannot be started on fire again by the spread of flames. They can only be set ablaze with incendiary ammo, and even then for only 1-3 turns (normal for dead tiles). So it's certainly possible to find a max damage. And for the most part, the things that burn the longest are usually objects, not tiles. And most objects you can't stand on anyway. But I totally agree that it's hard to model how fire functions due to the two forces at work: "impact" damage and damage due to standing in fire. <br />
<br />
P.S. Some of us are actually around here and don't need to be coaxed back into existence by an email when a watched page is changed either. Just because it's quiet, it doesn't mean nobody's home. :) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:34, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
While understanding the whole formula for fire and fire damage happens is useful, it was not thinking to go that broad. I was just interested in what occurs from the moment a solider takes his shot, to the time that solider gets his TU back. ie damage from incendiary rounds vs fire damage. --[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 21:39, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
It looks to me that, unlike all other forms of damage, Fire damage ignores armor, goes right past it. If so, this should be made explicit on the main page? [[User:Mugwump|Mugwump]] ([[User talk:Mugwump|talk]]) 05:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)<br />
:Fire damage doesn't ignore armor - power suits for instance can't be damaged by fire, except if the unit is already injured. Read carefully the Damage section - there's a lot of nuances about how fire works. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 03:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)<br />
:: What I meant is ignore armor ratings for damage calculation. While accounting for the resistances listed on the Damage Modification page, doesn't incendiary act as if front, side, back and under armor are 0 for calculation? [[User:Mugwump|Mugwump]] ([[User talk:Mugwump|talk]]) 18:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Incendiary vs Large Units ==<br />
<br />
We're discussing this in [[Talk:Sectopod#Incendiary vs Sectopod]], and a question came up. When an IN round impacts one segment of a large unit, presumably that segment gets the "Incendiary impact" function, i.e. 6/7 chance of catching on fire for 5-10 damage plus 1-5 turns of being on fire. Does the same "impact" function also apply to the 3 adjacent squares (6/7 chance), or is it just the "standing in fire" chance? If you had multiple regular-sized units standing in the area of effect of an IN round, they would each get "impact" effects (right?). So it ''seems'' logical that all 4 segments of a large unit, inside the area of effect, are also exposed to "impact" effects. But I wanted to check. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:34, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Oh boy! Calculating this not only depends on a lot of unknown assumptions, but is fiendishly complicated - especially if you factor in the "funky fire" bug. And contrary to my noblest efforts, it's impossible to use IN weapons without inadvertently exploiting this bug. Even if you only fire IN at a single target until it's dead, once the target is "standing in fire" you effectively just can't miss. <br />
<br />
Anyway back to the Large Targets specifically. The key assumption above is whether all regular-sized units in the area of effect of an IN burst are affected with "impact effects" - 5-10 dmg & 6/7 chance to catch fire. If they are, it's reasonable to assume the same thing happens to the 3 other segments of a Large Unit. However I suspect this is not the case, and strictly speaking "impact" effects should only occur at the single, impact square of an IN round. Testing needed!<br />
<br />
More likely, the GZ+1 squares, whether occupied by small or large units, are only subjected to the "standing in fire" effects: 1/3 'catch fire' probability, and 1-12 terrain-based damage. And these effects are applied once per turn, not once per hit. <br />
<br />
However, all of this is turned on its head by the 'funky fire' bug. After the first round hits, all units (and all Large Unit segments?) are "standing in fire". (Though maybe these fire damage routines run only for the "control" segment of the Large Unit? Possible, but unlikely.) Since they are standing in fire, the funky fire bug applies and all units/segments are hiit with "impact" effects. <br />
<br />
So assuming a Large Unit is ''already'' standing in fire (e.g. from a previous IN hit or near miss), damage per IN round fired is 6.4 x 4<br />
= 25.6 average, 10x4= 40 max. Subject to resistance/vulnerability modifiers, but ignoring armour level. In addition as multiple IN rounds are fired, the chance of all segments catching fire quickly approaches certainty. This not only means the Large Unit will sustain further damage at the end of the turn, it makes it impossible to escape the 'funky fire' trap by moving out of burning squares. <br />
<br />
(Any testing needs to be very careful and probably only fire a single IN round per game, otherwise 'funky fire' will skew the results.)<br />
<br />
So, in conclusion, the TU/kill factors I put up on the Talk pages for the Large Units ([[Talk:Reaper]], [[Talk:Cyberdisc]],[[Talk:Sectopod]]) should pretty much reflect the 'funky fire' reality after the first round connects, apart from the fact that you actually can't miss. The very first IN round to be fired would have the same effect (for immediate damage) on a Large Target as on a small one. But I really don't want to update the numbers to reflect this fact, it's just too awful. For AC-IN, the firepower factors will be about 6 times better than stated. Maybe I'll just remove them. :( <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:51, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
=== Simple Tests ===<br />
<br />
I did a small number of tests and found some interesting results. In 5/5 tests, all 4 squares of the target (Reaper) were on fire the following round. (It's hard to tell if they are on fire the same round, as you need to extinguish the fire with smoke to see). Perhaps this makes sense, as it's a UNITREF attribute and so applies to the whole unit, not its 4 component squares?<br />
<br />
Looking at the damage, it looks like "impact" and "on fire" damage applies to all 4 squares, i.e. x4 normal. Damage clusters tightly around 16-18 per hit which is roughly the expected value, maybe a bit lower (at x4). And since we '''are''' on fire, should expect an average of 7.5 ({5..10}/6) rather than 6.4 ({0,5..10}/7? Maybe something else is going on here, as these numbers seem a little low - 6.4 x 4 = 25.6 per hit or 7.5 x 4 = 30.0 per "on fire" hit might be expected on a Large Unit. <br />
<br />
:Drat. I didn't factor in the Reaper's 170% Susceptibility to Incendiary. So the actual damage levels are more like 10 per hit. Maybe there is no multiplier for the 4 squares? Hard to figure out what's going on here. In tests on hacked humans, armour level is not a factor vs Incendiary damage, otherwise I'd suspect the under-armour or something. 2.5 avg damage per segment seems too low. 10 average damage per alien seems too high - that should be the max, not the average. Is some mechanic pushing the average up to the max? I don't have a clue right now. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:53, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
The damage seems to be regardless of "funky fire" effect. A round fired at a target that is not burning / in fire seems to do about the same damage, per hit, as one that is in fire / on fire and so subject to the funky fire bug. So the only 'bad' effect of the bug is that you never miss, and you hit everything that is in fire / on fire. Not quite so bad, and it allows you to play honest by only ever firing at one target, not hitting any other targets by accident (!), and firing from point blank range so it doesn't matter that you never miss. <br />
<br />
Burn Time was as high as 7 when multiple IC rounds were fired (on auto). Higher than we thought possible (1-5 range expected). However it sometimes goes DOWN after additional hits. Possibly the value is re-randomised with every new IC impact, but hits are cumulative while firing auto bursts? <br />
<br />
Here's the raw test data:<br />
<br />
Test 1. <br />
-<br />
2 DH on Reaper, mix of auto and snap, some other IC impacts on others<br />
Burn Time=7 - exceeds known limit of 5<br />
All 4 sq on fire next turn<br />
Is 'on fire' global? It's in Unitref, so maybe<br />
-<br />
Test 2.<br />
-<br />
1 DH on Reaper, only IC shot fired in game. <br />
In firing turn, taken 132/148 = 16 damage. Burn time=3<br />
Start of T+1, taken 122/148 10 more damage, Burn time=2<br />
T+1 Reaper shows all 4 squares burning<br />
-<br />
Test 3. <br />
-<br />
Revisit #2 firing turn... fire another round (this will use funky fire)<br />
So 2nd IC hit, 2nd rd fired, same target. <br />
Health now 114/148, further 18 damage<br />
But Burn time has dropped to 2! Must re-randomise on each hit??<br />
Maybe only accumulates during auto burst?<br />
-<br />
Test 4. <br />
-<br />
Let's try lots of hits. Hack up accuracy to 255<br />
OK 3 out of 3 hits on Auto<br />
T+0 Health=98/148=50 damage (17 avg) Burn=6<br />
T+1 Health=81 (17 more dmg) Burn=5 All 4 squares on fire. <br />
-<br />
Test 5.<br />
-<br />
Revisit #4 and push to 6/6 hits<br />
T+0 Health=41/148=107 (18 avg) damage Burn=7<br />
T+1 Health=21 (20 more dmg) Burn=6 All 4 squares on fire. <br />
-<br />
Methodology (Apart from Test 1) = only ever 1 (same) target in any IC AoE; no misses<br />
(To try to minimise the impact of 'funky fire' effects - but can't eliminate)<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 23:27, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I re-ran the same simple tests against a regular-sized (Floater) target instead. The results agreed much better with the 'standard model' of [[Incendiary]] effects. All results were within the permitted ranges in the 'standard model', though some values were unexpectedly. I think some variables to look for in Incendiary mechanics are:<br />
<br />
* Large Unit vs regular unit behaviour looks to be different<br />
* Auto burst vs single explosion looks to be different (maybe just due to funky fire bug, maybe not)<br />
* Tile MCD "time to burn" value seems to affect one or more of the other calculations / probabilities<br />
* Burn Time on the unit can go up as well as down. New hits seem to re-randomise the value. <br />
* End of turn processing does not always reduce unit Burn Time by 1. Can a terrain fire add to unit Burn Time?<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:25, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I doubt a terrain fire adds to the time a unit is on fire. Actually, I'm quite positive on this since my tests from a while back were quite thorough. The counter can only tick down to 0, and when it does a terrain fire will have a chance of "reigniting" the soldier again.<br />
<br />
:Anyway, I had to start from scratch again on testing due to a few issues with my test scenario. I totally forgot that the first soldier on the unit roster is a bad choice for a "designated hitter" since he can never be automatically selected on a reload. Soldiers lower on the order are much better choices. So I got the shooting automated, but each reload was taking too much time since I had to reselect the shooter, select the shot, move the view down a level, shoot the target and abort. Having the soldier already selected cuts out 2 actions in the list allowing the script to run more efficiently. I'm going to try to get everything properly setup tonight, then start testing tomorrow morning. With a little luck and about 2 hours of babysitting the script to make sure it doesn't quit, I should have some prelims. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:55, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Looking forward to seeing that data! I did some more testing just for the special case of Large Units, about 40 tests. My tentative conclusions:<br />
<br />
# Damage range per 'impact' hit is the same as regular units, around 5-10 x Vulnerability (maybe + MCD Burn time?)<br />
# Large units go on fire about 1/7 of the time when receiving a direct hit - as expected<br />
# Either all 4 segments go on fire, or no segments go on fire - no 'part segments on fire'<br />
# Unit burn times are not correlated with unit damage received<br />
# Auto fire has the same average damage level per hit as snap fire<br />
# Unit Burn Time can exceed 5, both on Snap and Auto. Highs of 6 (Snap) and 7 (Auto) were seen. Maybe 1-5 + MCD Tile Burn Time?<br />
<br />
All my tests were done on the grid-lined pavement tiles from urban terror missions, which have an MCD default burn value of 2. For some of the "setting the large unit on fire" tests, I had the target floating in mid air, because air does not burn even during the turn that the IN round explodes - it makes it easier to see the unit burning. <br />
<br />
From Bomb Bloke's editor notes, the 4 potential MCD tiles in a map location are: a North Wall, a West Wall, a Ground tile, an Object tile. All 4 of these MCD tiles might have a burn time value. But Ground and Object are the most likely to be relevant. <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:58, 12 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Ok, I got the script running and optimized it a bit to cut down some wait cycles. Right now it's cranking out approximately 400 trials per hour which is about as fast as I can make it go without removing some desktop icons (all the icons have to refresh at the end of each logging cycle which takes a little time). Anyhow, just for giggles I stopped it after 400 trials to get some prelims.<br />
<br />
:<table {{StdCenterTable}} class="sortable"><br />
:<tr {{StdDescTable_Heading}}><th align="left" width="90">Damage</th><th width="90">Count</th><th width="90">Pct%</th></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">1</th><td>68</td><td>17.0%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">6</th><td>58</td><td>14.5%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">7</th><td>45</td><td>11.3%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">8</th><td>63</td><td>15.8%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">9</th><td>55</td><td>13.8%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">10</th><td>64</td><td>16.0%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">11</th><td>47</td><td>11.8</td></tr><br />
:</table><br />
:If you average the percent columns, it comes to 14.28571429% while the expected is 1/7 or 14.285714285714285714285714285714 which is a difference of 4E-09. This means 400 reloads is plenty enough values for this application. Great news! Well, as you can see, instead of the set [0, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] for MCD of 1, this scenario where the MCD was 0 is shifted up by one [1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. Interesting.<br />
<br />
:Tomorrow I'll rerun the MCD 1 scenario again to verify the values and damage set. Then it's on to the MCD of 2. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 01:50, 13 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: Extremely interesting! By the way, it was probably a late night but - the average any 7 numbers that (must) add up to 100% is always going to be 1/7th of 100%, so that result doesn't really demonstrate any confidence in the data. It would be the same with one result, or with a trillion results. The 4E-09 discrepancy is just the precision error in your calculator/spreadsheet's calculation of the percentages and the average of the percentages. You've got some considerable variation from 1/7th on the individual numbers, I'm not sure if that's just to be expected with only 400 trials. But for example "0" and "10" are both a bit high so it ''might'' be non-linear (probably not). Anyway we'll see when all your results are in! (To measure the degree of variation from the expected result, what you want is a chi-squared test or something - and I don't know what I'm talking about there so I'll shut up!) <br />
<br />
:: I'm checking Bomb Bloke's MCD database, and there are some tiles in there (U_BASE 22-25) with MCD burn value of 30 - I might play with those and see if anything dramatic happens. Oh except looks like they can't be set on fire (255 flammability). There are others that are quite high (8-), and still flammable. Or I could hack an MCD file (scary). Maybe I'll just wait for your results Zombie! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 05:49, 13 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
= Incendiary Research =<br />
<br />
== Large Units On Fire ==<br />
<br />
Here's another interesting test for setting Large Units on fire. Set AC-I power down from 42 to 1. <br />
At this IC power, there is no area effect. You can't even start a fire on one tile.<br />
All you can do is set units on fire with a direct hit. This means there is no way the other 3 squares of the <br />
Large Unit are in the IC area of effect. <br />
<br />
Result: Whether you hit a one square regular unit or a 4-square large unit, if it goes on fire, '''all''' squares of the unit still go on fire. Along with the fact that the inflicted IN damage level vs Large Units is basically normal (see above), this tends to confirm that being on fire is a "unitref" property and, unlike HE and Stun Bombs, is not applied (multiplied) vs the number of squares the unit occupies. (In fact it would be good to check that HE is actually applied separately to each square, with different HE strength, potentially different armour facing, etc. Maybe the engine just simplifies things and multiplies damage by 4?)<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:56, 15 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Unit Burn Time ==<br />
<br />
Unit Burn Time seems to be considerably '''cyclic''' rather than random. Very often, it just steps down by one from the previous value. I suspect this is because the "impact" routine calls the "end of turn" incendiary/smoke routine (see [[User talk:Seb76#Incendiary Bug]]). Sometimes it does not happen, maybe because some other factor has caused the Burn Time to increase. <br />
<br />
Here's some data. This was done against a Reaper with AC-I power set to 1 (and 10% TU Snap fire cost). But I've seen similar results with standard AC-I.<br />
<br />
<br />
Hit H/H Dmg/Avg Burn Time<br />
1 137/150 13 2<br />
2 126/150 11 1<br />
3 104/150 22 0 Very high damage (=13x1.7). Unit not on fire when game restored.<br />
4 96/150 8 7<br />
5 81/150 15 6<br />
6 66/150 15 5<br />
4,5,6 76/150 /9.33 5 (Auto) 9-10 (=5-6x1.7) is near minimum dmg<br />
7 56 10 4<br />
8 48 8 4 What happened here? didn't cycle. MIN dmg (5x1.7).<br />
9 35 13 6<br />
10 25 10 5<br />
11 10 15 6 New shooter takes over<br />
12 2 8 5<br />
<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:56, 15 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
:You're right on spot once again ;-) When a unit takes a direct hit from an IN round, it is set on fire (the duration is randomly chosen between 0 and incendiarydamagemodifier/20). Then the "end of turn" routine is called, which inflicts damage *and* decreases by one the number of turns to be on fire (done for all units). Then it sets on fire units standing in blaze. The duration is calculated as for direct hits; if the unit was already on fire, it'll take the maximum value between the new value calculated and the current value affected to the unit on fire. Not sure it is readable but I think you'll sort it out ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 10:51, 15 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Incendiary in TFTD ==<br />
<br />
I read [[Weapons (TFTD)#Phosphor|somewhere]] there are reduced effects underwater (or enhanced effects on land) for TFTD Phosphor rounds. I couldn't find an exact statement of the quantitative difference - does anyone know this? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:53, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:The effects of Incendiary weapons underwater (or Phosphor, as TFTD refers to it) is halved over the UFO equivalent. Incendiary weapons are doubly effective on the surface(Terror Missions) vs underwater, but of the three weapons that can fire Incendiary, two of them(Torpedo Launcher and Hydro-Jet Cannon) can only be reaction fired on land. The Gas Cannon can be fired in eiither location. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:08, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: It's clear that the effect underwater is half the effect on land. But does the base level (in USOPaedia / OBDATA) refer to land use or underwater use? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:13, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:As I recall, the base level is on land. The numbers for Phosphor ammo are close to the UFO Incendiary damage numbers, but I know it spreads less underwater. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:15, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: Look at the (puny) area effect pattern sizes underwater, that sounds about right. Can anyone confirm this? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:40, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
There is actually no difference between the pattern for the Gas Cannon's P rounds underwater as on land. Both have a r=3, d=7 pattern. (CE version at least). Maybe the pattern is smaller the deeper you go? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 16:45, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<gallery widths="200"><br />
Image:GC-P (underwater).png|Flame pattern from Gas Cannon Phosphorous rounds underwater.<br />
Image:GC-P (on land).png|Flame pattern from Gas Cannon Phosphorous rounds on land.<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
:OK now I'm really confused then! (I realise I was getting confused with the Dye grenade's small footprint vs Smoke grenades). If the blast pattern is the same size, that implies the weapon power is unchanged. So in what sense is Phosphorus "half as powerful" underwater? Does it burn half as long? Is the impact and fire damage halved? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:49, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
I really doubt the damage to units would be affected if the power of the round was modified. The power of the round only determines the size of the pattern produced, not the damage inflicted to units. I'll have to check the burn times and spread rate but my thought is that the two are identical in the version I'm using. Like I said, the pattern may get smaller the deeper you go underwater. The pic above was for a shallow site. It'll take a while for me to find a deeper site to check it out, otherwise some editing of the game files may be necessary to force the scenario.<br />
<br />
I just checked the Dye Grenade underwater and on land. Both produce the same r=1, d=3 pattern. So yeah, they are really pitiful when compared to the Smoke Grenade.<br />
<br />
Don't really go for the use of "impact" damage with Incendiary/Phosphorous rounds. There is no real impact since the damage range is discontinuous. The unit either catches fire from the splash of fire (in which case it does 5-10 damage points), or the unit doesn't catch fire and the unit remains unharmed. If there were such a thing as impact damage, the range would be continuous like normal weapons, in this theoretical case it would be [0-10] inclusive (ie the set [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 17:36, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Anyway, the half thing came up because AQ was comparing TFTD to UFO, not comparing the effects in TFTD from underwater and on land. However, further comparisons reveal that a hacked HC-I round of 60 produces the same pattern as a GC-P/60 round. Perhaps this whole dilemma can be traced to the Dye Grenade? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 18:28, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:That's entirely possible the Dye Grenade is the source. However, several of the pages for the TFTD weapons state that Phosphor is far weaker in water, so I didn't check. My mistake. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:35, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks for the feedback everyone. So this could just be a recycled rumour? I guess the general assumption is that the game engines are identical, so we would want evidence that TFTD is different. Looks like Zombie has proved that the area effect is equal (at least at shallow depths). That leaves only the fire damage or fire duration. Testing that would require repeated observations to check if fire damage is less than 6/hit, less than 6/turn, and burning for no more than 2-3 turns. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:14, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:As with any wiki where contributions can come from anywhere, there are bound to be problems with validity of the statements made. So unless those statements are backed up by real-life test data instead of memory or hearsay, take them with a grain of salt. The other point is to avoid spreading disinformation at all costs (I have been guilty of this as well, but try to at least quantify them). So there you go. I'm still trying to get a deeper underwater mission to check the size of the pattern produced there. Checking the spread of flames or damage inflicted to units shouldn't take too long though. I'll see if I can't get that done tonight yet. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:23, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Ok, I ran some trials with an unmodified GC-P round on the normal seabed floor against soldiers having 100 health and 0 all-around armor. For the guy standing at GZ, I saw ending health values of 99, 94, 93, 92, 90, and 89 (n=50). So that comes out to 1, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 points of damage respectively. I didn't think 11 damage was possible. Here's where things differ though. All the other guys who were clustered around GZ always received only one point of damage, never more, never less. In EU, the guys around GZ took damage equal to the guy at GZ. Odd. So then it occurred to me that perhaps I should check the MCD values of the seabed (TFTD) and the desert (EU) landscapes. Both are basically identical in terms of armor. But the seafloor has a "time to burn" value of 0 while the desert has a value of 1. So maybe our understanding of normal fire isn't totally complete. I'm going to go back to EU and retest the desert landscape with varying MCD burn time flags to see how that affects damage. ;) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 23:00, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: The whole Phosphor being half effective under water is related to the burn time and spread, if I remember correctly. The settings in the MCD files may be the culprit. The actual damage dealt or initial spread may not necessarily be affected. <br />
<br />
:: Hey, I just had a wacky idea. XComutil. Use its feature where you can set the depth of a mission. Launch a mission on a island terror site map (again, use XComutil's map picker to get to this faster). Lots of grass to burn there. Set fire to it and count how many turns before the fires die out. Redo the test, but this time set the depth to a deeper level. Try the whole process out again.<br />
<br />
:: Next repeat this with one of ye-olde seabed maps. They look really weird without the blue palette shift when played on land, what with the landscape being gray. <br />
<br />
:: It's possible that the half-effectiveness relates to the fuel that the fire has to burn more than anything else. Further confirmation on how long the flames stick to a target when on land or underwater may be helpful. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:28, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I've been burned one too many times using editors or utilities to mess with saved games. Half the time they introduce some unknown "feature" which isn't documented. Thanks, but no thanks. I only test with an unmodified game, except for the changes I make myself to keep control of the situation. Anyway, I tested a patch of fire on the seabed to see how long it remained lit (which has a "time to burn" value of 0). It only stayed lit the current round the shell detonated. After that the fire went out. So this agrees with what is expected. Will continue to work on this as I get time. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 01:51, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Well, I suppose my recommendation doesn't necessarily need XComutil. It would've certainly made it easier. But yes, it does introduce a few things that work behind the scenes that we might not know too much about. However, if I remember correctly, one of the battlescape savegame files should hold the depth level of the current map you are playing on. All you'll need to do is tweak that to change the depth of the map. <br />
<br />
One other thing, the different effect HE has on the same tiles underwater and when on land (ala the Triton) may also be one of the other culprits behind the belief that phosphor is less effective on land. Being able to blow up the Triton on land, but have it appear virtually indestructable when underwater does that. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:59, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
re Zombie's underwater tests, there is normally (i.e. on land in EU) a difference between the IC damage on the target of the direct hit, vs lower damage to others in the area of effect (hmm contrary to my IC kill modelling assumptions: uh oh I may've spoken to soon). But only seeing 1 damage on the others in the AoE does seem low. We need to figure out why. Did any of the other targets catch fire? Does that ever happen underwater? Do tiles ever burn past the turn when the IC round is fired? Any of these factors would reduce total fire damage/effectiveness by '''more''' than half. Actually, doesn't it say the 1-12 damage for "in fire" is ''not'' random, but dependent on terrain type? That could be the answer.<br />
<br />
The [[Incendiary]] article actually mentions '''4''' modes of fire damage, only 3 of which are quantified: <br />
<br />
#"impact",<br />
#"being in fire"<br />
#"being ''on'' fire"<br />
<br />
The 4th mode is "damage from burning ''terrain''. Only a tantalising mention is given, no quantitative details. This could be the source of the discrepancy. In fact it might be a component of "being in fire" that's not fully understood. I think Zombie is right to review the assumptions on this one - nice work! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 04:05, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:As I recall, "damage from burning terrain" is synonymous with "Standing on a tile that's currently on fire." Thus "Being in fire." But that's me and I'm tired this evening, so I could be wrong. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 05:30, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
I performed my TFTD Phosphorous tests underwater and after the flames died out some of my men did catch fire. So this part seems to jive with that of EU. Tiles do not burn longer than its "time to burn" value in the MCD files. So for instance, in the seabed underwater testing mission, the tiles have a MCD burn value of 0 which corresponds to the results seen (ie fire didn't stick around into the aliens turn or X-COM's next turn either, it only stayed lit the turn it detonated). There really is only 2 "modes" of I/P/fire damage:<br />
<br />
<ol><li>The code used for determining if a unit catches fire: 0 damage (if the unit didn't catch and was able to shrug it off) and 5-10 (if the unit catches).</li><br />
<li>Standing in fire.</li></ol><br />
At least from the initial tests in TFTD, units outside GZ are just considered to be standing in fire that turn and always take 1pt of damage. Anyway, I don't want to talk myself into a hole without doing more tests. All the following trials I do will be in EU to hopefully curtail any unknowns in TFTD. Once EU's code is figured out then it can be applied and compared to TFTD. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 09:06, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
: If they are "standing in fire", do you think the 1pt damage/turn is based on the fire characteristics tile/terrain type they are standing on? Is it more generally 1-12/turn, dependent on terrain? Also if you get a chance can you test large units and see what kind of effects they take on the GZ+1 squares? If the GZ+1 squares of a large unit are just 'standing in fire' rather than 'catch fire/5-10 impact damage' this will substantially weaken IC vs large units. And I will have shouted too soon! :) [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:18, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
I did some ad-hoc tests in TFTD. Actually I just ran around firing GC-P and HJ-P rounds everywhere. :) On a typical seabed layout, I found that most things don't burn - the fires don't last into the next turn. The only things I could get to burn were the green moss stuff and and coral skeleton "trees". Even the barrels do not burn. Also, I did not see much sign of terrain damage caused by the fires. But the moss and coral did burn for the normal period, i.e. 1-5 turns. <br />
<br />
I also managed to kill an Aquatoid with a single direct hit from a GC-P, in one turn. He died at the end of my turn or the start of his. That seems unlikely. 5-10 from being hit, plus 1-12 for standing in fire, plus maybe another 5-10 from being on fire? It's just about possible I suppose, to max out near 32 damage (if the terrain offers you "12" when it burns). Anyway those are my unsystematic enquiries. I have the 8 save files of various stages of the battle if anyone wants to take a look. It was from a virgin TFTD installation and there was no editing or jiggery pokery.<br />
<br />
OK I've uploaded the save files [[Image:TFTD Incendiary Tests 01 Spike.zip]] and taken a look myself with BB's editor. Prior to being hit (Game_4) our Aquatoid was in rude Health, 30/30. Immediately after being hit (Game_2) he was at 19 Health (no Stun damage) and On Fire, as well as Standing in Fire. That implies 11 Damage from the "impact effect" which is not supposed to happen. As noted, at the end of the same turn or beginning of his next turn, he dies. He looks to be standing on a standard seabed square, just sand, the kind of thing that does not burn. He is next to some of the brown cushion-like coral, but I don't think that burns, at least not over multiple turns. In fact in the same turn he is hit, at the end, you can see him dead (Game_3). Since there was only one alien, he died in the same turn. OK that's slightly confusing, maybe someone can double check the turn numbers in the save files (don't know where they are). <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:29, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Doh. I is a idiot. The Aquatoid was killed by the incendiary fire bug - I fired extra IN rounds at terrain objects after he was on fire. Which explains why he is already dead by the end of my turn. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:08, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Yeah, you gotta watch that. Well, anyhow, I edited the desert landscape in Enemy Unknown to have the same MCD "time to burn" value of 0 as the seafloor in TFTD. From the limited tests, the results look the same as in TFTD. (Fire burns out after the initial turn it detonated, units around GZ taking 1 unit of damage while the guy at GZ got more). So that means I can focus my efforts on EU with little worry because there will be no issues. I'm going use BB's logger and AHK to automate the data gathering aspect to save me a bunch of time. I'll probably need the full requisite 2000 reloads though, as the guy at GZ is not the same as the 24 soldiers around him. Wish me luck. :) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 15:54, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Good luck! I just read the MCD article, and it mentions 2 fire-related byte fields in MCD - "likelihood of catching fire" as well as "time to burn". Is the last field variable or fixed? Could the first field determine the damage/turn to units when it's on fire? Also with a possible 4 terrain items that could all be burning, is the maximum damage higher than 12? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:10, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Offset 45 is the flammability rating of the tile. This most likely controls whether an adjacent fire will spread to the tile in question. (For instance, if a fire is burning and the next tile over is a tree or something, it'll probably spread there fast because of the combustibles present). The other byte is offset 57 which is the one we are after. Don't know about the 4 types of things which can exist on a tile at once. I think the most I have ever seen is 2 (usually ground and a wall). Wouldn't hurt to edit a tile to include all 4, but that's an entirely different test to do. It'll have to wait until we get a better understanding of basic fire. ;) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:38, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::Here's a question. On Large units, if only one segment of the Large unit is on fire, will the fire spreading code allow the other three segments to catch on fire? [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:13, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I highly doubt it. Unit fires are completely different creatures from terrain fires. Needs testing though. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:55, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes it would have to be a very special case, since afaik fires do not spread from regular units on fire to adjacent terrain or to other adjacent regular units. Though it would make more sense than any of those things. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:03, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Incendiary Bug ==<br />
<br />
(Also known as the [[Known_Bugs#Funky_Fire|Funky Fire/Smoke bug]].) I made some suggestion about why this bug happens, and how the code could be patched to fix it: [[User talk:Seb76#Incendiary Bug]]. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:13, 12 March 2009 (CDT) Here is the general discussion of the bug:<br />
<br />
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. 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)<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
# In area of effect<br />
##add fire to tiles<br />
##'''possibly''' do 33% check for units to catch fire - '''unless''' this is performed by the end of turn routine (probably)<br />
# IF a unit was hit directly<br />
## check to see if it catches fire<br />
## ''possibly'' do "impact" damage. <br />
# Return, '''without''' calling the end-of-turn smoke/fire routine<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 22:11, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
<br />
I also suspect that other "end of turn" processing happens with every IN round fired. I am pretty sure "fire spreading" checks occur, as I have seen fire spread when using perfectly accurate shots. Either "fire spreading" happens, or there is a random element in incendiary area of effect, that is definite. I want to repeat these tests to see if "catch on fire" effects also happen for those who are standing in fire when an IN round is fired. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 08:59, 31 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mwahaha ==<br />
<br />
Was exploiting the Elevator Shield trick on an Alien Base Assault, and I had the forethought to pack lots and lots of Incendiaries. My sick sick mind found it amusing to set all those aliens on fire and watch them roast stupidly and helplessly. (Jasonred)<br />
<br />
= Fire Damage =<br />
(moved from talk:UFOextender)<br />
<br />
Not sure if the bug is already posted. And Not sure if I should post the bug here or in [[Talk:Incendiary]]. Problem is if you use extender to fix funky fire bug. Incendiary no long does any damage at all. Units only take the small amount of damage after ending turn because they're on fire. Using 1.28.3 extender<br />
<br />
To test this. I stripped a soldier of armour. And pounded four incendiary rockets into the soldier in the same turn. No damage. And then next turn, his health drops a little because he's standing in fire. This may not be a problem for most players. But it is still a major bug. I understand the funky fire problem is already difficult to fix, and I say thanks to all who will try to help solve this bug. [[User:Hellblade|Hellblade]] 14:44, 28 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: That's not a bug, that's the fix. Incendiary damage is only applied at the end of the turn. Think about it... does fire kill faster than a bullet? Faster than a grenade? Can you kill someone with fire faster than they can get a shot off back at you? No, to all these things. To compensate for fixing the bug, fire damage is doubled compared to the previous end-of-turn fire damage (that always existed). It is no longer applied per shot or per impact. All you get "per impact" is another chance to set the target unit itself on fire. Incendiary is a weak attack. It has the benefit of a wide area effect, no HE block, and ignores armour. There are situations when IN is the only effective weapon XCOM possesses. But, like everything, it has strengths and weaknesses. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:51, 28 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I see your point but let me elaborate. Heat, not fire, do kill as fast as bullets. The original game mechanics separated heat from fire just as in real life. It intended to have the big heat blast damage first and then the small fire damage per turn.<br />
:: Take the most extreme case, napalm or volcanic lava, you get fully cooked in less than a second - just by heat alone, and you may/may not catch fire later on. And heat blasts travel as fast as bullets, in some cases as fast as light. I believe the game has different Incendiary damage values to do different damage according to how strong the heat is, not the fire afterwards. The damage by fire later on makes sense because natural burning fires aren't that hot comparatively.<br />
:: I understand the difficulty in trying to fix this. But before this fix you could kill a reaper by a few AC-I shots (which is their weakness) and now you can empty the two clips at it and it'll never die. [[User:Hellblade|Hellblade]] 03:11, 4 October 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Advantages/Disadvantages of using Incendiary for nighttime light ==<br />
<br />
It seems for most folks that electro-flares are the go-to for night lighting and incendiary rounds are a distant afterthought.<br />
With that in mind I propose this list of pros/cons to using incendiary at least as a major complement to flares.<br />
<br />
Cons:<br />
#Low damage, and for each soldier with incendiary rounds loaded they can't attack with more effective weaponry unless<br />
##they unload and reload<br />
##they carry another gun or use 'nades/stun rod<br />
#Not re-usable, will always be depleting stock<br />
#There'so a limit on the original game to the number of tiles that can be on fire/smoke. Once that limit is reached, additional incendiary and smoke will not be placed on the map until the previous entries are cleared. This can limit the effectiveness of using IN for lightning.<br />
#There's also the [[Known Bugs#Funky Fire|Funky Fire]] bug which adds all sort of chaotic outcomes when generating fire. <br />
<br />
Pros:<br />
#Not dependent on throwing limitations of range and arc/trajectory<br />
#Very efficient in terms of light-output per weight, storage space, and time units<br />
#Can set area on fire to illuminate where the enemy is initially, then as the fire burns out you may move into the cover of the smoke it generates<br />
#Does at least some damage to enemies - very unlikely to kill them, but softens them up so future attacks more likely to neutralize<br />
#Area denial - fill a small building or enemy craft with flames and watch them flee out into your reaction fire, or at least out where you can get them, they don't get the drop on you<br />
#At least in OpenXCom the enemies on fire should provide lighting, helping to spot them at a distance<br />
#Fire is less vulnerable to being destroyed by nearby explosions, unlike those wimpy flares. And even if it is snuffed, it isn't something you were counting on re-using<br />
#Reaper vulnerability<br />
#Zombies not re-spawning to 'lids when KO'd by fire splash<br />
#You can dedicate a few number of soldiers to throwing fire around while the rest keep their hands and TU's free to attack<br />
#Soldiers that go berserk/get MC'd can't hurt armored soldiers w IC fire<br />
<br />
<br />
Now it seems to me that the first Con is major and obvious, but the many Pros are overlooked. Also that big Con could be greatly mitigated by cannon wielders w incendiary carrying a decent secondary weapon: thinking plasma rifle or pistol, laser pistol<br />
<br />
any I'm missing? what about putting this on the main page?</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Incendiary&diff=102461Talk:Incendiary2021-07-08T20:39:14Z<p>Hobbes: /* Advantages/Disadvantages of using Incendiary for nighttime light */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Comments ==<br />
<br />
For now, we'll just say the smoke + incendiary stun effects only work on X-Com owned units until some tests can be run to confirm this. It's unusual that only X-Com units are affected, but the game has been known to surprise you even after you think you've worked something out. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Given how aliens love to hang around in a smoke-filled crashed UFO, IC rounds would be insanely powerful if they did actually work against aliens in smoke. I'm glad they don't ''seem to'', as I'd be very tempted to cheat with it. They do work against aliens standing in fire, though, which is still quite cheaty...--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 21:35, 5 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I do consider the "standing on fire + new IC explosions = damage" a cheat. So I just don't abuse it. I only use IC rounds to illuminate or to finish off hiding aliens. It can also work as a "pass-through-and-die" tactic, the same way Proximity Nades work, although fire damage is pretty sad xD. --[[User:Nekrocow|Nekrocow]] 00:36, 24 June 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I use it a lot in TFTD to clear out those island bunkers and the upper storage levels of the large train station. Either the aliens roast alive, or they come out. Otherwise yes, it's no doubt a cheat. Well, more a bug exploited as a cheat. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 02:09, 24 June 2012 (EDT) <br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
I just edited the Incendiary page a bunch, because Brunpal's [[Talk:Experience]] questions about Incendiary sparked my interest... I never did test IN vs. experience. It's a very good question ''if'' it turns out to cause Firing experience. But while reviewing this page, I had a number of questions, for anyone interested. Also, I only tried to clarify things, and don't know Incendiary well, so fix anything you know I got wrong:<br />
#Did I get it right re: the set [ 0, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] for chance of initially catching fire? I over-wrote "linear" because it seemed odd when XCOM usually goes, e.g., 0-10. (Who tested this? - A little help here please. Just making sure.)<br />
#Why flame a zombie unless it's near death (and how can you know if it is)? It's been a long time since I used fire - if you don't have flying armor, why mess around with a zombie by burning it, why not Heavy Plasma it.<br />
#Any research/data on tile flammability versus duration of burning is appreciated. Probably it should go on the [[Terrain]] page byte, but be clearly referenced here. It's just a curiousity, but an interesting one.<br />
#The last line of the page says ''"The damage values listed in the UFOpaedia do not determine how powerful an incendiary round deals damage; it only determines how wide an area will be blanketed with flames."'' Does anyone know IN strength vs radius, then? Should be easy to test and post.<br />
#NKF, Zombie, or anyone else... would you mind seeing if Incendiary causes the Experience counter to increase? Brunpal is right that it's important to [[Experience]]... I found [[Small_Launcher#Experience|Stun Bombs]] to count for experience across their whole range, even if no stun damage occurred... if you have 11+ Mutons in a firing squad situation, passing around an [[Auto-Cannon]] with Incendiary may be better than standard pistols, depending on the range of the blast. I could test it, but it's been a long time since I've delved into the files; maybe one of you have them more close to hand. [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]]<br />
-----<br />
:Offhand, the only way I could think of to check the remaining HP on a Zombie would be by using a [[Mind Probe]]. Given the relative uselessness of a Mind Probe after Psionics are developed, as well as the time needed to use the Probe once, this seems a rather impractical course of action, unless your Rear Commander has nothing better to do. I agree, Heavy Plasma on Auto is better. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:33, 1 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
-----<br />
#Yeah, the set is correct. When a unit is shot with an incendiary round, the game does a calculation to determine if the unit catches fire. If it doesn't catch fire, the unit takes no damage (the 0 in the set). If the unit does catch fire, it will take between 5-10 damage points. Stupid discontinuous range, but that's what happens. As you may guess, I did the Incendiary trials over at the StrategyCore forums in the Damage Modifier topic - see [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=746&view=findpost&p=39672 this] post for the particulars.<br />
#Why flame a Zombie? Simple. A Zombie which is killed by an Incendiary round doesn't turn into a Chryssalid. Zombies are easily outrun, so you can just keep picking at them from a short distance with Auto-Cannon Incendiary rounds and then running away. Fairly effective, even when your troops do not yet have armor to protect them. And when you do not have the luxury of the Heavy Plasma early in the game, Incendiary is a good way to avoid an overabundance of Chryssalids who are not so easy to kill. As for checking the Zombie's stats, you can only rely on the Mind Probe or Psi. Neither are available early either (the Mind Probe is usually low on the research tree for most people even though you can collect enough, and Psi is difficult to use as a soldier needs to be quite proficient to use MC.<br />
#I have been meaning to do some tests in flammability vs terrain but only recently started fooling with MCD values. It'll be next on my list.<br />
#Here, I uploaded a very recent spreadsheet containing both I and Smoke when damage values are hacked. See [[Media:Incendiary_and_Smoke_Patterns.zip | this file]] which contains both.<br />
#I think I fooled around with Incendiary recently in conjunction with promotions. Soldiers who shot aliens with "I" didn't get promoted. Logically, that would mean the experience counter didn't increment. UNITREF.DAT would need to be checked to verify though. Addendum: indeed, as BB mentioned in the experience page (and a quick glance at the UNITREF.DAT experience counters by myself to triple-check my aging brain), Incendiary rounds do not increase any of the experience counters.<br />
<br />
Hope this clears up some of the issues/concerns here. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:16, 1 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
<i>"The damage values listed in the [[UFOpaedia]] do not determine how powerful an incendiary round deals damage; it only determines how wide an area will be blanketed with flames. Fire is unlike other damage; it works at initial blast and then over time, as described above."</i> and<br />
<i>"Initial "impact" damage from incendiary ammunition is either for no points (unit does not catch fire), or between 5-10 points (unit catches fire)."</i><br />
<br />
This should be stressed on ALL the various relevant pages. It's important. 6.4 dmg vs 90 dmg is a significant difference!--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 09:31, 2 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
It looks like Incendiary is gaining some clarity (at least for me), thanks for starting it Brunpal...<br />
*The "6.4" was only for the initial IN round impact (set [ 0, 5-10 ]); it can then burn for 4 more rounds (set [5-10]). Perhaps a short way to state this complicated damage type is "Minimum 0 (unit does not catch on fire) ''OR'' unit catches on fire 1-5 turns, 5-10 damage/turn, 5-50 damage in total (average 21.5)". Does that look right, Zombie? I'm not sure where you got 90 from Brunpal...<br />
:90 is the listed damage from an IN rocket.--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 21:39, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
*However, the numbers I just stated do not count possible additional damage from nearby terrain being on fire (as opposed to yourself). Maybe those should be included somehow. (And clearly, fire is much more dangerous outdoors than inside UFOs, where terrain does not burn.) But since terrain fire can last a variable number of turns, I guess you can't have a maximum damage. Average terrain damage from fire would be 6.5/terrain (1-12), but also, it can keep the unit itself burning more than 5 turns... hard to model.<br />
*Good point about flaming zombies, Zombie. I guess you ought to know, eh? :)<br />
*The spreadsheet looks great. Perhaps one of us can pull out the area patterns for non-hacked IN weapons and put them on the relevant pages. When it's done, the spreadsheet itself would be an asset to Incendiary (or maybe [[Damage]], if it's listing all types of damage). As has been stated, it's the size (area) of the blast that actually directly relates to incendiary weapon "strength"... the diameters you found are probably what should be in parentheses next to weapon strength, although damage can appear as well.<br />
*Ok, no experience from Incendiary blasts. It might've been real interesting if there were, but it didn't occur to me to test. (Or maybe I tested it briefly so long ago that I forgot.) I would've guessed that they did, because the stun bomb and explosives do. Oh well.<br />
*P.S. Brunpal, we may not have touched pages in a year, but most/all of us have "Watch this page" turned on, so we get immediate notification of any pages we've edited or Watched. :)<br />
-[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 09:17, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
*Sounds correct MTR. I think Brunpal was just comparing the "damage" (actually strength) of the Incendiary Rocket (90) to the average damage due to the "impact" of the blast (6.4).<br />
*Well, it isn't ''nearby'' terrain on fire which you have to worry about, it's the tile directly underneath a units feet which causes the most concern. If that tile is on fire and the unit doesn't move, it will take 1-12 damage points. While true that terrain on fire can last a variable number of turns, there is a definite upper-limit to how much damage a unit can possibly take. Fires don't last forever, and the combustibles eventually are consumed leaving either scorched earth or a damaged tile. Those damaged/destroyed tiles usually cannot be started on fire again by the spread of flames. They can only be set ablaze with incendiary ammo, and even then for only 1-3 turns (normal for dead tiles). So it's certainly possible to find a max damage. And for the most part, the things that burn the longest are usually objects, not tiles. And most objects you can't stand on anyway. But I totally agree that it's hard to model how fire functions due to the two forces at work: "impact" damage and damage due to standing in fire. <br />
<br />
P.S. Some of us are actually around here and don't need to be coaxed back into existence by an email when a watched page is changed either. Just because it's quiet, it doesn't mean nobody's home. :) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:34, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
While understanding the whole formula for fire and fire damage happens is useful, it was not thinking to go that broad. I was just interested in what occurs from the moment a solider takes his shot, to the time that solider gets his TU back. ie damage from incendiary rounds vs fire damage. --[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 21:39, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
It looks to me that, unlike all other forms of damage, Fire damage ignores armor, goes right past it. If so, this should be made explicit on the main page? [[User:Mugwump|Mugwump]] ([[User talk:Mugwump|talk]]) 05:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)<br />
:Fire damage doesn't ignore armor - power suits for instance can't be damaged by fire, except if the unit is already injured. Read carefully the Damage section - there's a lot of nuances about how fire works. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 03:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)<br />
:: What I meant is ignore armor ratings for damage calculation. While accounting for the resistances listed on the Damage Modification page, doesn't incendiary act as if front, side, back and under armor are 0 for calculation? [[User:Mugwump|Mugwump]] ([[User talk:Mugwump|talk]]) 18:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Incendiary vs Large Units ==<br />
<br />
We're discussing this in [[Talk:Sectopod#Incendiary vs Sectopod]], and a question came up. When an IN round impacts one segment of a large unit, presumably that segment gets the "Incendiary impact" function, i.e. 6/7 chance of catching on fire for 5-10 damage plus 1-5 turns of being on fire. Does the same "impact" function also apply to the 3 adjacent squares (6/7 chance), or is it just the "standing in fire" chance? If you had multiple regular-sized units standing in the area of effect of an IN round, they would each get "impact" effects (right?). So it ''seems'' logical that all 4 segments of a large unit, inside the area of effect, are also exposed to "impact" effects. But I wanted to check. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:34, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Oh boy! Calculating this not only depends on a lot of unknown assumptions, but is fiendishly complicated - especially if you factor in the "funky fire" bug. And contrary to my noblest efforts, it's impossible to use IN weapons without inadvertently exploiting this bug. Even if you only fire IN at a single target until it's dead, once the target is "standing in fire" you effectively just can't miss. <br />
<br />
Anyway back to the Large Targets specifically. The key assumption above is whether all regular-sized units in the area of effect of an IN burst are affected with "impact effects" - 5-10 dmg & 6/7 chance to catch fire. If they are, it's reasonable to assume the same thing happens to the 3 other segments of a Large Unit. However I suspect this is not the case, and strictly speaking "impact" effects should only occur at the single, impact square of an IN round. Testing needed!<br />
<br />
More likely, the GZ+1 squares, whether occupied by small or large units, are only subjected to the "standing in fire" effects: 1/3 'catch fire' probability, and 1-12 terrain-based damage. And these effects are applied once per turn, not once per hit. <br />
<br />
However, all of this is turned on its head by the 'funky fire' bug. After the first round hits, all units (and all Large Unit segments?) are "standing in fire". (Though maybe these fire damage routines run only for the "control" segment of the Large Unit? Possible, but unlikely.) Since they are standing in fire, the funky fire bug applies and all units/segments are hiit with "impact" effects. <br />
<br />
So assuming a Large Unit is ''already'' standing in fire (e.g. from a previous IN hit or near miss), damage per IN round fired is 6.4 x 4<br />
= 25.6 average, 10x4= 40 max. Subject to resistance/vulnerability modifiers, but ignoring armour level. In addition as multiple IN rounds are fired, the chance of all segments catching fire quickly approaches certainty. This not only means the Large Unit will sustain further damage at the end of the turn, it makes it impossible to escape the 'funky fire' trap by moving out of burning squares. <br />
<br />
(Any testing needs to be very careful and probably only fire a single IN round per game, otherwise 'funky fire' will skew the results.)<br />
<br />
So, in conclusion, the TU/kill factors I put up on the Talk pages for the Large Units ([[Talk:Reaper]], [[Talk:Cyberdisc]],[[Talk:Sectopod]]) should pretty much reflect the 'funky fire' reality after the first round connects, apart from the fact that you actually can't miss. The very first IN round to be fired would have the same effect (for immediate damage) on a Large Target as on a small one. But I really don't want to update the numbers to reflect this fact, it's just too awful. For AC-IN, the firepower factors will be about 6 times better than stated. Maybe I'll just remove them. :( <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:51, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
=== Simple Tests ===<br />
<br />
I did a small number of tests and found some interesting results. In 5/5 tests, all 4 squares of the target (Reaper) were on fire the following round. (It's hard to tell if they are on fire the same round, as you need to extinguish the fire with smoke to see). Perhaps this makes sense, as it's a UNITREF attribute and so applies to the whole unit, not its 4 component squares?<br />
<br />
Looking at the damage, it looks like "impact" and "on fire" damage applies to all 4 squares, i.e. x4 normal. Damage clusters tightly around 16-18 per hit which is roughly the expected value, maybe a bit lower (at x4). And since we '''are''' on fire, should expect an average of 7.5 ({5..10}/6) rather than 6.4 ({0,5..10}/7? Maybe something else is going on here, as these numbers seem a little low - 6.4 x 4 = 25.6 per hit or 7.5 x 4 = 30.0 per "on fire" hit might be expected on a Large Unit. <br />
<br />
:Drat. I didn't factor in the Reaper's 170% Susceptibility to Incendiary. So the actual damage levels are more like 10 per hit. Maybe there is no multiplier for the 4 squares? Hard to figure out what's going on here. In tests on hacked humans, armour level is not a factor vs Incendiary damage, otherwise I'd suspect the under-armour or something. 2.5 avg damage per segment seems too low. 10 average damage per alien seems too high - that should be the max, not the average. Is some mechanic pushing the average up to the max? I don't have a clue right now. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:53, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
The damage seems to be regardless of "funky fire" effect. A round fired at a target that is not burning / in fire seems to do about the same damage, per hit, as one that is in fire / on fire and so subject to the funky fire bug. So the only 'bad' effect of the bug is that you never miss, and you hit everything that is in fire / on fire. Not quite so bad, and it allows you to play honest by only ever firing at one target, not hitting any other targets by accident (!), and firing from point blank range so it doesn't matter that you never miss. <br />
<br />
Burn Time was as high as 7 when multiple IC rounds were fired (on auto). Higher than we thought possible (1-5 range expected). However it sometimes goes DOWN after additional hits. Possibly the value is re-randomised with every new IC impact, but hits are cumulative while firing auto bursts? <br />
<br />
Here's the raw test data:<br />
<br />
Test 1. <br />
-<br />
2 DH on Reaper, mix of auto and snap, some other IC impacts on others<br />
Burn Time=7 - exceeds known limit of 5<br />
All 4 sq on fire next turn<br />
Is 'on fire' global? It's in Unitref, so maybe<br />
-<br />
Test 2.<br />
-<br />
1 DH on Reaper, only IC shot fired in game. <br />
In firing turn, taken 132/148 = 16 damage. Burn time=3<br />
Start of T+1, taken 122/148 10 more damage, Burn time=2<br />
T+1 Reaper shows all 4 squares burning<br />
-<br />
Test 3. <br />
-<br />
Revisit #2 firing turn... fire another round (this will use funky fire)<br />
So 2nd IC hit, 2nd rd fired, same target. <br />
Health now 114/148, further 18 damage<br />
But Burn time has dropped to 2! Must re-randomise on each hit??<br />
Maybe only accumulates during auto burst?<br />
-<br />
Test 4. <br />
-<br />
Let's try lots of hits. Hack up accuracy to 255<br />
OK 3 out of 3 hits on Auto<br />
T+0 Health=98/148=50 damage (17 avg) Burn=6<br />
T+1 Health=81 (17 more dmg) Burn=5 All 4 squares on fire. <br />
-<br />
Test 5.<br />
-<br />
Revisit #4 and push to 6/6 hits<br />
T+0 Health=41/148=107 (18 avg) damage Burn=7<br />
T+1 Health=21 (20 more dmg) Burn=6 All 4 squares on fire. <br />
-<br />
Methodology (Apart from Test 1) = only ever 1 (same) target in any IC AoE; no misses<br />
(To try to minimise the impact of 'funky fire' effects - but can't eliminate)<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 23:27, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I re-ran the same simple tests against a regular-sized (Floater) target instead. The results agreed much better with the 'standard model' of [[Incendiary]] effects. All results were within the permitted ranges in the 'standard model', though some values were unexpectedly. I think some variables to look for in Incendiary mechanics are:<br />
<br />
* Large Unit vs regular unit behaviour looks to be different<br />
* Auto burst vs single explosion looks to be different (maybe just due to funky fire bug, maybe not)<br />
* Tile MCD "time to burn" value seems to affect one or more of the other calculations / probabilities<br />
* Burn Time on the unit can go up as well as down. New hits seem to re-randomise the value. <br />
* End of turn processing does not always reduce unit Burn Time by 1. Can a terrain fire add to unit Burn Time?<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:25, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I doubt a terrain fire adds to the time a unit is on fire. Actually, I'm quite positive on this since my tests from a while back were quite thorough. The counter can only tick down to 0, and when it does a terrain fire will have a chance of "reigniting" the soldier again.<br />
<br />
:Anyway, I had to start from scratch again on testing due to a few issues with my test scenario. I totally forgot that the first soldier on the unit roster is a bad choice for a "designated hitter" since he can never be automatically selected on a reload. Soldiers lower on the order are much better choices. So I got the shooting automated, but each reload was taking too much time since I had to reselect the shooter, select the shot, move the view down a level, shoot the target and abort. Having the soldier already selected cuts out 2 actions in the list allowing the script to run more efficiently. I'm going to try to get everything properly setup tonight, then start testing tomorrow morning. With a little luck and about 2 hours of babysitting the script to make sure it doesn't quit, I should have some prelims. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:55, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Looking forward to seeing that data! I did some more testing just for the special case of Large Units, about 40 tests. My tentative conclusions:<br />
<br />
# Damage range per 'impact' hit is the same as regular units, around 5-10 x Vulnerability (maybe + MCD Burn time?)<br />
# Large units go on fire about 1/7 of the time when receiving a direct hit - as expected<br />
# Either all 4 segments go on fire, or no segments go on fire - no 'part segments on fire'<br />
# Unit burn times are not correlated with unit damage received<br />
# Auto fire has the same average damage level per hit as snap fire<br />
# Unit Burn Time can exceed 5, both on Snap and Auto. Highs of 6 (Snap) and 7 (Auto) were seen. Maybe 1-5 + MCD Tile Burn Time?<br />
<br />
All my tests were done on the grid-lined pavement tiles from urban terror missions, which have an MCD default burn value of 2. For some of the "setting the large unit on fire" tests, I had the target floating in mid air, because air does not burn even during the turn that the IN round explodes - it makes it easier to see the unit burning. <br />
<br />
From Bomb Bloke's editor notes, the 4 potential MCD tiles in a map location are: a North Wall, a West Wall, a Ground tile, an Object tile. All 4 of these MCD tiles might have a burn time value. But Ground and Object are the most likely to be relevant. <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:58, 12 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Ok, I got the script running and optimized it a bit to cut down some wait cycles. Right now it's cranking out approximately 400 trials per hour which is about as fast as I can make it go without removing some desktop icons (all the icons have to refresh at the end of each logging cycle which takes a little time). Anyhow, just for giggles I stopped it after 400 trials to get some prelims.<br />
<br />
:<table {{StdCenterTable}} class="sortable"><br />
:<tr {{StdDescTable_Heading}}><th align="left" width="90">Damage</th><th width="90">Count</th><th width="90">Pct%</th></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">1</th><td>68</td><td>17.0%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">6</th><td>58</td><td>14.5%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">7</th><td>45</td><td>11.3%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">8</th><td>63</td><td>15.8%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">9</th><td>55</td><td>13.8%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">10</th><td>64</td><td>16.0%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">11</th><td>47</td><td>11.8</td></tr><br />
:</table><br />
:If you average the percent columns, it comes to 14.28571429% while the expected is 1/7 or 14.285714285714285714285714285714 which is a difference of 4E-09. This means 400 reloads is plenty enough values for this application. Great news! Well, as you can see, instead of the set [0, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] for MCD of 1, this scenario where the MCD was 0 is shifted up by one [1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. Interesting.<br />
<br />
:Tomorrow I'll rerun the MCD 1 scenario again to verify the values and damage set. Then it's on to the MCD of 2. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 01:50, 13 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: Extremely interesting! By the way, it was probably a late night but - the average any 7 numbers that (must) add up to 100% is always going to be 1/7th of 100%, so that result doesn't really demonstrate any confidence in the data. It would be the same with one result, or with a trillion results. The 4E-09 discrepancy is just the precision error in your calculator/spreadsheet's calculation of the percentages and the average of the percentages. You've got some considerable variation from 1/7th on the individual numbers, I'm not sure if that's just to be expected with only 400 trials. But for example "0" and "10" are both a bit high so it ''might'' be non-linear (probably not). Anyway we'll see when all your results are in! (To measure the degree of variation from the expected result, what you want is a chi-squared test or something - and I don't know what I'm talking about there so I'll shut up!) <br />
<br />
:: I'm checking Bomb Bloke's MCD database, and there are some tiles in there (U_BASE 22-25) with MCD burn value of 30 - I might play with those and see if anything dramatic happens. Oh except looks like they can't be set on fire (255 flammability). There are others that are quite high (8-), and still flammable. Or I could hack an MCD file (scary). Maybe I'll just wait for your results Zombie! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 05:49, 13 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
= Incendiary Research =<br />
<br />
== Large Units On Fire ==<br />
<br />
Here's another interesting test for setting Large Units on fire. Set AC-I power down from 42 to 1. <br />
At this IC power, there is no area effect. You can't even start a fire on one tile.<br />
All you can do is set units on fire with a direct hit. This means there is no way the other 3 squares of the <br />
Large Unit are in the IC area of effect. <br />
<br />
Result: Whether you hit a one square regular unit or a 4-square large unit, if it goes on fire, '''all''' squares of the unit still go on fire. Along with the fact that the inflicted IN damage level vs Large Units is basically normal (see above), this tends to confirm that being on fire is a "unitref" property and, unlike HE and Stun Bombs, is not applied (multiplied) vs the number of squares the unit occupies. (In fact it would be good to check that HE is actually applied separately to each square, with different HE strength, potentially different armour facing, etc. Maybe the engine just simplifies things and multiplies damage by 4?)<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:56, 15 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Unit Burn Time ==<br />
<br />
Unit Burn Time seems to be considerably '''cyclic''' rather than random. Very often, it just steps down by one from the previous value. I suspect this is because the "impact" routine calls the "end of turn" incendiary/smoke routine (see [[User talk:Seb76#Incendiary Bug]]). Sometimes it does not happen, maybe because some other factor has caused the Burn Time to increase. <br />
<br />
Here's some data. This was done against a Reaper with AC-I power set to 1 (and 10% TU Snap fire cost). But I've seen similar results with standard AC-I.<br />
<br />
<br />
Hit H/H Dmg/Avg Burn Time<br />
1 137/150 13 2<br />
2 126/150 11 1<br />
3 104/150 22 0 Very high damage (=13x1.7). Unit not on fire when game restored.<br />
4 96/150 8 7<br />
5 81/150 15 6<br />
6 66/150 15 5<br />
4,5,6 76/150 /9.33 5 (Auto) 9-10 (=5-6x1.7) is near minimum dmg<br />
7 56 10 4<br />
8 48 8 4 What happened here? didn't cycle. MIN dmg (5x1.7).<br />
9 35 13 6<br />
10 25 10 5<br />
11 10 15 6 New shooter takes over<br />
12 2 8 5<br />
<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:56, 15 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
:You're right on spot once again ;-) When a unit takes a direct hit from an IN round, it is set on fire (the duration is randomly chosen between 0 and incendiarydamagemodifier/20). Then the "end of turn" routine is called, which inflicts damage *and* decreases by one the number of turns to be on fire (done for all units). Then it sets on fire units standing in blaze. The duration is calculated as for direct hits; if the unit was already on fire, it'll take the maximum value between the new value calculated and the current value affected to the unit on fire. Not sure it is readable but I think you'll sort it out ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 10:51, 15 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Incendiary in TFTD ==<br />
<br />
I read [[Weapons (TFTD)#Phosphor|somewhere]] there are reduced effects underwater (or enhanced effects on land) for TFTD Phosphor rounds. I couldn't find an exact statement of the quantitative difference - does anyone know this? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:53, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:The effects of Incendiary weapons underwater (or Phosphor, as TFTD refers to it) is halved over the UFO equivalent. Incendiary weapons are doubly effective on the surface(Terror Missions) vs underwater, but of the three weapons that can fire Incendiary, two of them(Torpedo Launcher and Hydro-Jet Cannon) can only be reaction fired on land. The Gas Cannon can be fired in eiither location. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:08, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: It's clear that the effect underwater is half the effect on land. But does the base level (in USOPaedia / OBDATA) refer to land use or underwater use? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:13, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:As I recall, the base level is on land. The numbers for Phosphor ammo are close to the UFO Incendiary damage numbers, but I know it spreads less underwater. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:15, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: Look at the (puny) area effect pattern sizes underwater, that sounds about right. Can anyone confirm this? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:40, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
There is actually no difference between the pattern for the Gas Cannon's P rounds underwater as on land. Both have a r=3, d=7 pattern. (CE version at least). Maybe the pattern is smaller the deeper you go? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 16:45, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<gallery widths="200"><br />
Image:GC-P (underwater).png|Flame pattern from Gas Cannon Phosphorous rounds underwater.<br />
Image:GC-P (on land).png|Flame pattern from Gas Cannon Phosphorous rounds on land.<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
:OK now I'm really confused then! (I realise I was getting confused with the Dye grenade's small footprint vs Smoke grenades). If the blast pattern is the same size, that implies the weapon power is unchanged. So in what sense is Phosphorus "half as powerful" underwater? Does it burn half as long? Is the impact and fire damage halved? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:49, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
I really doubt the damage to units would be affected if the power of the round was modified. The power of the round only determines the size of the pattern produced, not the damage inflicted to units. I'll have to check the burn times and spread rate but my thought is that the two are identical in the version I'm using. Like I said, the pattern may get smaller the deeper you go underwater. The pic above was for a shallow site. It'll take a while for me to find a deeper site to check it out, otherwise some editing of the game files may be necessary to force the scenario.<br />
<br />
I just checked the Dye Grenade underwater and on land. Both produce the same r=1, d=3 pattern. So yeah, they are really pitiful when compared to the Smoke Grenade.<br />
<br />
Don't really go for the use of "impact" damage with Incendiary/Phosphorous rounds. There is no real impact since the damage range is discontinuous. The unit either catches fire from the splash of fire (in which case it does 5-10 damage points), or the unit doesn't catch fire and the unit remains unharmed. If there were such a thing as impact damage, the range would be continuous like normal weapons, in this theoretical case it would be [0-10] inclusive (ie the set [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 17:36, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Anyway, the half thing came up because AQ was comparing TFTD to UFO, not comparing the effects in TFTD from underwater and on land. However, further comparisons reveal that a hacked HC-I round of 60 produces the same pattern as a GC-P/60 round. Perhaps this whole dilemma can be traced to the Dye Grenade? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 18:28, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:That's entirely possible the Dye Grenade is the source. However, several of the pages for the TFTD weapons state that Phosphor is far weaker in water, so I didn't check. My mistake. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:35, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks for the feedback everyone. So this could just be a recycled rumour? I guess the general assumption is that the game engines are identical, so we would want evidence that TFTD is different. Looks like Zombie has proved that the area effect is equal (at least at shallow depths). That leaves only the fire damage or fire duration. Testing that would require repeated observations to check if fire damage is less than 6/hit, less than 6/turn, and burning for no more than 2-3 turns. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:14, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:As with any wiki where contributions can come from anywhere, there are bound to be problems with validity of the statements made. So unless those statements are backed up by real-life test data instead of memory or hearsay, take them with a grain of salt. The other point is to avoid spreading disinformation at all costs (I have been guilty of this as well, but try to at least quantify them). So there you go. I'm still trying to get a deeper underwater mission to check the size of the pattern produced there. Checking the spread of flames or damage inflicted to units shouldn't take too long though. I'll see if I can't get that done tonight yet. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:23, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Ok, I ran some trials with an unmodified GC-P round on the normal seabed floor against soldiers having 100 health and 0 all-around armor. For the guy standing at GZ, I saw ending health values of 99, 94, 93, 92, 90, and 89 (n=50). So that comes out to 1, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 points of damage respectively. I didn't think 11 damage was possible. Here's where things differ though. All the other guys who were clustered around GZ always received only one point of damage, never more, never less. In EU, the guys around GZ took damage equal to the guy at GZ. Odd. So then it occurred to me that perhaps I should check the MCD values of the seabed (TFTD) and the desert (EU) landscapes. Both are basically identical in terms of armor. But the seafloor has a "time to burn" value of 0 while the desert has a value of 1. So maybe our understanding of normal fire isn't totally complete. I'm going to go back to EU and retest the desert landscape with varying MCD burn time flags to see how that affects damage. ;) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 23:00, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: The whole Phosphor being half effective under water is related to the burn time and spread, if I remember correctly. The settings in the MCD files may be the culprit. The actual damage dealt or initial spread may not necessarily be affected. <br />
<br />
:: Hey, I just had a wacky idea. XComutil. Use its feature where you can set the depth of a mission. Launch a mission on a island terror site map (again, use XComutil's map picker to get to this faster). Lots of grass to burn there. Set fire to it and count how many turns before the fires die out. Redo the test, but this time set the depth to a deeper level. Try the whole process out again.<br />
<br />
:: Next repeat this with one of ye-olde seabed maps. They look really weird without the blue palette shift when played on land, what with the landscape being gray. <br />
<br />
:: It's possible that the half-effectiveness relates to the fuel that the fire has to burn more than anything else. Further confirmation on how long the flames stick to a target when on land or underwater may be helpful. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:28, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I've been burned one too many times using editors or utilities to mess with saved games. Half the time they introduce some unknown "feature" which isn't documented. Thanks, but no thanks. I only test with an unmodified game, except for the changes I make myself to keep control of the situation. Anyway, I tested a patch of fire on the seabed to see how long it remained lit (which has a "time to burn" value of 0). It only stayed lit the current round the shell detonated. After that the fire went out. So this agrees with what is expected. Will continue to work on this as I get time. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 01:51, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Well, I suppose my recommendation doesn't necessarily need XComutil. It would've certainly made it easier. But yes, it does introduce a few things that work behind the scenes that we might not know too much about. However, if I remember correctly, one of the battlescape savegame files should hold the depth level of the current map you are playing on. All you'll need to do is tweak that to change the depth of the map. <br />
<br />
One other thing, the different effect HE has on the same tiles underwater and when on land (ala the Triton) may also be one of the other culprits behind the belief that phosphor is less effective on land. Being able to blow up the Triton on land, but have it appear virtually indestructable when underwater does that. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:59, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
re Zombie's underwater tests, there is normally (i.e. on land in EU) a difference between the IC damage on the target of the direct hit, vs lower damage to others in the area of effect (hmm contrary to my IC kill modelling assumptions: uh oh I may've spoken to soon). But only seeing 1 damage on the others in the AoE does seem low. We need to figure out why. Did any of the other targets catch fire? Does that ever happen underwater? Do tiles ever burn past the turn when the IC round is fired? Any of these factors would reduce total fire damage/effectiveness by '''more''' than half. Actually, doesn't it say the 1-12 damage for "in fire" is ''not'' random, but dependent on terrain type? That could be the answer.<br />
<br />
The [[Incendiary]] article actually mentions '''4''' modes of fire damage, only 3 of which are quantified: <br />
<br />
#"impact",<br />
#"being in fire"<br />
#"being ''on'' fire"<br />
<br />
The 4th mode is "damage from burning ''terrain''. Only a tantalising mention is given, no quantitative details. This could be the source of the discrepancy. In fact it might be a component of "being in fire" that's not fully understood. I think Zombie is right to review the assumptions on this one - nice work! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 04:05, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:As I recall, "damage from burning terrain" is synonymous with "Standing on a tile that's currently on fire." Thus "Being in fire." But that's me and I'm tired this evening, so I could be wrong. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 05:30, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
I performed my TFTD Phosphorous tests underwater and after the flames died out some of my men did catch fire. So this part seems to jive with that of EU. Tiles do not burn longer than its "time to burn" value in the MCD files. So for instance, in the seabed underwater testing mission, the tiles have a MCD burn value of 0 which corresponds to the results seen (ie fire didn't stick around into the aliens turn or X-COM's next turn either, it only stayed lit the turn it detonated). There really is only 2 "modes" of I/P/fire damage:<br />
<br />
<ol><li>The code used for determining if a unit catches fire: 0 damage (if the unit didn't catch and was able to shrug it off) and 5-10 (if the unit catches).</li><br />
<li>Standing in fire.</li></ol><br />
At least from the initial tests in TFTD, units outside GZ are just considered to be standing in fire that turn and always take 1pt of damage. Anyway, I don't want to talk myself into a hole without doing more tests. All the following trials I do will be in EU to hopefully curtail any unknowns in TFTD. Once EU's code is figured out then it can be applied and compared to TFTD. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 09:06, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
: If they are "standing in fire", do you think the 1pt damage/turn is based on the fire characteristics tile/terrain type they are standing on? Is it more generally 1-12/turn, dependent on terrain? Also if you get a chance can you test large units and see what kind of effects they take on the GZ+1 squares? If the GZ+1 squares of a large unit are just 'standing in fire' rather than 'catch fire/5-10 impact damage' this will substantially weaken IC vs large units. And I will have shouted too soon! :) [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:18, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
I did some ad-hoc tests in TFTD. Actually I just ran around firing GC-P and HJ-P rounds everywhere. :) On a typical seabed layout, I found that most things don't burn - the fires don't last into the next turn. The only things I could get to burn were the green moss stuff and and coral skeleton "trees". Even the barrels do not burn. Also, I did not see much sign of terrain damage caused by the fires. But the moss and coral did burn for the normal period, i.e. 1-5 turns. <br />
<br />
I also managed to kill an Aquatoid with a single direct hit from a GC-P, in one turn. He died at the end of my turn or the start of his. That seems unlikely. 5-10 from being hit, plus 1-12 for standing in fire, plus maybe another 5-10 from being on fire? It's just about possible I suppose, to max out near 32 damage (if the terrain offers you "12" when it burns). Anyway those are my unsystematic enquiries. I have the 8 save files of various stages of the battle if anyone wants to take a look. It was from a virgin TFTD installation and there was no editing or jiggery pokery.<br />
<br />
OK I've uploaded the save files [[Image:TFTD Incendiary Tests 01 Spike.zip]] and taken a look myself with BB's editor. Prior to being hit (Game_4) our Aquatoid was in rude Health, 30/30. Immediately after being hit (Game_2) he was at 19 Health (no Stun damage) and On Fire, as well as Standing in Fire. That implies 11 Damage from the "impact effect" which is not supposed to happen. As noted, at the end of the same turn or beginning of his next turn, he dies. He looks to be standing on a standard seabed square, just sand, the kind of thing that does not burn. He is next to some of the brown cushion-like coral, but I don't think that burns, at least not over multiple turns. In fact in the same turn he is hit, at the end, you can see him dead (Game_3). Since there was only one alien, he died in the same turn. OK that's slightly confusing, maybe someone can double check the turn numbers in the save files (don't know where they are). <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:29, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Doh. I is a idiot. The Aquatoid was killed by the incendiary fire bug - I fired extra IN rounds at terrain objects after he was on fire. Which explains why he is already dead by the end of my turn. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:08, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Yeah, you gotta watch that. Well, anyhow, I edited the desert landscape in Enemy Unknown to have the same MCD "time to burn" value of 0 as the seafloor in TFTD. From the limited tests, the results look the same as in TFTD. (Fire burns out after the initial turn it detonated, units around GZ taking 1 unit of damage while the guy at GZ got more). So that means I can focus my efforts on EU with little worry because there will be no issues. I'm going use BB's logger and AHK to automate the data gathering aspect to save me a bunch of time. I'll probably need the full requisite 2000 reloads though, as the guy at GZ is not the same as the 24 soldiers around him. Wish me luck. :) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 15:54, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Good luck! I just read the MCD article, and it mentions 2 fire-related byte fields in MCD - "likelihood of catching fire" as well as "time to burn". Is the last field variable or fixed? Could the first field determine the damage/turn to units when it's on fire? Also with a possible 4 terrain items that could all be burning, is the maximum damage higher than 12? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:10, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Offset 45 is the flammability rating of the tile. This most likely controls whether an adjacent fire will spread to the tile in question. (For instance, if a fire is burning and the next tile over is a tree or something, it'll probably spread there fast because of the combustibles present). The other byte is offset 57 which is the one we are after. Don't know about the 4 types of things which can exist on a tile at once. I think the most I have ever seen is 2 (usually ground and a wall). Wouldn't hurt to edit a tile to include all 4, but that's an entirely different test to do. It'll have to wait until we get a better understanding of basic fire. ;) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:38, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::Here's a question. On Large units, if only one segment of the Large unit is on fire, will the fire spreading code allow the other three segments to catch on fire? [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:13, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I highly doubt it. Unit fires are completely different creatures from terrain fires. Needs testing though. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:55, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes it would have to be a very special case, since afaik fires do not spread from regular units on fire to adjacent terrain or to other adjacent regular units. Though it would make more sense than any of those things. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:03, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Incendiary Bug ==<br />
<br />
(Also known as the [[Known_Bugs#Funky_Fire|Funky Fire/Smoke bug]].) I made some suggestion about why this bug happens, and how the code could be patched to fix it: [[User talk:Seb76#Incendiary Bug]]. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:13, 12 March 2009 (CDT) Here is the general discussion of the bug:<br />
<br />
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. 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)<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
# In area of effect<br />
##add fire to tiles<br />
##'''possibly''' do 33% check for units to catch fire - '''unless''' this is performed by the end of turn routine (probably)<br />
# IF a unit was hit directly<br />
## check to see if it catches fire<br />
## ''possibly'' do "impact" damage. <br />
# Return, '''without''' calling the end-of-turn smoke/fire routine<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 22:11, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
<br />
I also suspect that other "end of turn" processing happens with every IN round fired. I am pretty sure "fire spreading" checks occur, as I have seen fire spread when using perfectly accurate shots. Either "fire spreading" happens, or there is a random element in incendiary area of effect, that is definite. I want to repeat these tests to see if "catch on fire" effects also happen for those who are standing in fire when an IN round is fired. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 08:59, 31 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mwahaha ==<br />
<br />
Was exploiting the Elevator Shield trick on an Alien Base Assault, and I had the forethought to pack lots and lots of Incendiaries. My sick sick mind found it amusing to set all those aliens on fire and watch them roast stupidly and helplessly. (Jasonred)<br />
<br />
= Fire Damage =<br />
(moved from talk:UFOextender)<br />
<br />
Not sure if the bug is already posted. And Not sure if I should post the bug here or in [[Talk:Incendiary]]. Problem is if you use extender to fix funky fire bug. Incendiary no long does any damage at all. Units only take the small amount of damage after ending turn because they're on fire. Using 1.28.3 extender<br />
<br />
To test this. I stripped a soldier of armour. And pounded four incendiary rockets into the soldier in the same turn. No damage. And then next turn, his health drops a little because he's standing in fire. This may not be a problem for most players. But it is still a major bug. I understand the funky fire problem is already difficult to fix, and I say thanks to all who will try to help solve this bug. [[User:Hellblade|Hellblade]] 14:44, 28 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: That's not a bug, that's the fix. Incendiary damage is only applied at the end of the turn. Think about it... does fire kill faster than a bullet? Faster than a grenade? Can you kill someone with fire faster than they can get a shot off back at you? No, to all these things. To compensate for fixing the bug, fire damage is doubled compared to the previous end-of-turn fire damage (that always existed). It is no longer applied per shot or per impact. All you get "per impact" is another chance to set the target unit itself on fire. Incendiary is a weak attack. It has the benefit of a wide area effect, no HE block, and ignores armour. There are situations when IN is the only effective weapon XCOM possesses. But, like everything, it has strengths and weaknesses. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:51, 28 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I see your point but let me elaborate. Heat, not fire, do kill as fast as bullets. The original game mechanics separated heat from fire just as in real life. It intended to have the big heat blast damage first and then the small fire damage per turn.<br />
:: Take the most extreme case, napalm or volcanic lava, you get fully cooked in less than a second - just by heat alone, and you may/may not catch fire later on. And heat blasts travel as fast as bullets, in some cases as fast as light. I believe the game has different Incendiary damage values to do different damage according to how strong the heat is, not the fire afterwards. The damage by fire later on makes sense because natural burning fires aren't that hot comparatively.<br />
:: I understand the difficulty in trying to fix this. But before this fix you could kill a reaper by a few AC-I shots (which is their weakness) and now you can empty the two clips at it and it'll never die. [[User:Hellblade|Hellblade]] 03:11, 4 October 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Advantages/Disadvantages of using Incendiary for nighttime light ==<br />
<br />
It seems for most folks that electro-flares are the go-to for night lighting and incendiary rounds are a distant afterthought.<br />
With that in mind I propose this list of pros/cons to using incendiary at least as a major complement to flares.<br />
<br />
Cons:<br />
#Low damage, and for each soldier with incendiary rounds loaded they can't attack with more effective weaponry unless<br />
##they unload and reload<br />
##they carry another gun or use 'nades/stun rod<br />
#Not re-usable, will always be depleting stock<br />
#There'so a limit on the original game to the number of tiles that can be on fire/smoke. Once that limit is reached, additional incendiary and smoke will not be placed on the map until the previous entries are cleared. This can limit the effectiveness of using IN as lightning.<br />
#There's also the [[Known Bugs#Funky Fire|Funky Fire]] bug which adds all sort of chaotic outcomes when generating fire. <br />
<br />
Pros:<br />
#Not dependent on throwing limitations of range and arc/trajectory<br />
#Very efficient in terms of light-output per weight, storage space, and time units<br />
#Can set area on fire to illuminate where the enemy is initially, then as the fire burns out you may move into the cover of the smoke it generates<br />
#Does at least some damage to enemies - very unlikely to kill them, but softens them up so future attacks more likely to neutralize<br />
#Area denial - fill a small building or enemy craft with flames and watch them flee out into your reaction fire, or at least out where you can get them, they don't get the drop on you<br />
#At least in OpenXCom the enemies on fire should provide lighting, helping to spot them at a distance<br />
#Fire is less vulnerable to being destroyed by nearby explosions, unlike those wimpy flares. And even if it is snuffed, it isn't something you were counting on re-using<br />
#Reaper vulnerability<br />
#Zombies not re-spawning to 'lids when KO'd by fire splash<br />
#You can dedicate a few number of soldiers to throwing fire around while the rest keep their hands and TU's free to attack<br />
#Soldiers that go berserk/get MC'd can't hurt armored soldiers w IC fire<br />
<br />
<br />
Now it seems to me that the first Con is major and obvious, but the many Pros are overlooked. Also that big Con could be greatly mitigated by cannon wielders w incendiary carrying a decent secondary weapon: thinking plasma rifle or pistol, laser pistol<br />
<br />
any I'm missing? what about putting this on the main page?</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Hiring/firing&diff=101865Talk:Hiring/firing2021-06-16T04:10:47Z<p>Hobbes: </p>
<hr />
<div>I just ran into that problem, Spike - thanks for the tip on the Stingray! ---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 22:09, 3 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
And on a completely unrelated but otherwise interesting note, transfer of a troop transport. <br />
<br />
Transferring a troop transpot will transfar all the equipment in it as well as all the soldiers assigned to it to the next base at the simple cost of the troop tranport's transfer cost (not much of a point with soldiers, as they cost $0 to transfer, but good for the weapons). <br />
<br />
You must have enough beds available at the destination in order to transfer the troop transport and all its crew. <br />
<br />
It's nothing terribly special and is only a real benefit from a logistic point of view. You get to cart your favourite teams all around the world and not have to transfer them one at a time - clogging up the transfer table. Not that most of us will use up the transfer table... <br />
<br />
Still a minor tidbit worth knowing. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Everything in the transport thus only needs one line item out of the 100-item transfer queue? That's good to know if you're doing high volume recruit screening! Heck it can even be a way to get "around" it... a "Tip" to transfer equipment in a transport. Thanks for pointing that out!<br />
<br />
---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 04:10, 5 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
When you recruit staff, if the month ends before the personnel arrive do you pay their salary? Or only personnel already in your base ready to use?<br />
[[User:Mugwump|Mugwump]] ([[User talk:Mugwump|talk]]) 18:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)<br />
:Nope. You can use this to avoid paying salaries all together. On the last day of the month transfer all your scientists/engineers from one base to the other, and since they're on transfer you don't have to pay their salaries. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 03:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Thanks. That prompted me to look at the OpenXCom differences page and see that the bug is fixed there! Think that should be mentioned on the hiring/firing page? [[User:Mugwump|Mugwump]] ([[User talk:Mugwump|talk]]) 21:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::All of the bugs listed on the Known Bugs page have been fixed on OpenXCom. I don't really see a point in adding that reference to all the pages that refer to those bugs, plus it's a fan project, not the original game. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 04:10, 16 June 2021 (UTC)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Base_Defence_Systems&diff=101025Talk:Base Defence Systems2021-06-01T03:18:07Z<p>Hobbes: </p>
<hr />
<div>I added some info about TFTD to the article since it talks about TFTD too. I noticed though that some of the info conflicts with [[Base_Defense (TFTD)]] article. e.g. here it says the item limit has been raised to 110, there it says the limit is still 80. Anyhow, I can verify there's a sorting algorithm from my experience, but not much further. I wonder if it may end up preferring unresearched guns for example.. [[User:Cesium|Cesium]] 20:02, 30 December 2009 (EST)<br />
:Hadn't realized that there was a page for TFTD. I just corrected it to 110 (this number is actually from the Unofficial Strategy Guide but from what I recall it is correct). About the sorting algorithm I can't confirm it. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:40, 30 December 2009 (EST)<br />
::I just ordered a lot of Jet Harpoons, Dart Guns and Chemical Flares to a base and let the aliens find it. The equipment available in the load screen was mainly Sonic Rifles and Sonic Cannons. The Darts, Jets and Flares were not available. Something has to account for the quartermaster being sane, and we do know some attention was given to base defense (since the item limit was raised). I guess only way to be sure is for someone to disassemble the executable and examine the code.... [[User:Cesium|Cesium]] 09:35, 31 December 2009 (EST)<br />
:::Well the quartermaster is mostly sane. However it does not check if you have researched the clip before it packs the shiny new Sonics. So be sure to move them out if you have not or you might end up with lots of guns without ammo. If you want Medikits be sure to reduce the number of spare weapons--[[User:Tauon|Tauon]] 19:32, 16 October 2010 (EDT)<br />
Not sure the 110 number for TFTD is technically correct. When I try to load more than 80 items on a craft I still get a warning. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 22:31, 30 December 2009 (EST)<br />
:The limit for weapons being carried in craft is still 80 but for the base defense missions the game allows for 110 items. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 22:56, 30 December 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Penetration Math ==<br />
<br />
"...Missile/Torpedo Defences are the most cost-effective of the defensive base facilities. The odds of penetrating 12 such modules and a Grav/Bombardment Shield are 30 to 1. On average, 30 attack ships will be destroyed before one gets through. Such a system costs $3.7 million. For the same price, 3 Fusion Ball/P.W.T. Defences with a Grav/Bombardment Shield will offer only 9 to 1 protection..."<br />
<br />
Huh? Where is this math coming from? From the way I understand it, it's a simple binomial distribution (at least for exclusively one type of base defense module).<br />
<br />
In order to bring down a battleship (3200 hits) you need to connect 7 rounds from a missile defense (500 damage). With 12 missile defenses and a grav shield, you have 24 bernoulli trials with a 50% probability of success. The probability of 6 successes or fewer out of 24 trials at 50% I believe is ~0.01133, or 1 out of about 88 ships getting through your defenses. I calculated this in excel via =BINOM.DIST(6,24,0.5,TRUE) so I am confident it is correct.<br />
<br />
In the fusion ball case, I believe it is 2 or fewer successes out of 6 trials with 80% probability, =BINOM.DIST(2,6,0.8,TRUE), 0.01696, or 1 out of about 59 ships getting through.<br />
<br />
While the original point still stands with my math (missile is more cost effective than fusion), the odds of penetrating either setup are greatly reduced, as is the difference between the performance of the two. Perhaps I do not properly understand the mechanics of base defense modules, or screwed up my thinking or math somewhere along the way.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Jewcifer|Jewcifer]] 12:57, 16 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure if the page mentions it (I've only got time for a quick skim right now), but to further complicate matters the amount of damage the defences do per-shot is randomised. I think it goes from about 50% to 150% of their rated power, can't remember if I was ever able to confirm an exact range. Seven shots from a missile defence may not be enough to down a battleship. - <span style="font-size:xx-small">&nbsp;[[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 17:39, 16 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Hmmm, I have seen no mention of variable damage either in-game or anywhere on this wiki (I've been reading through it quite extensively for months before finally getting around to signing up a couple days ago). I think that information should be determined and put somewhere (this article is probably as good a place as any for it). I'm not likely to do that myself (would probably require either extensive simulation or disassembling and hunting through the executable code to determine the range?), but if anyone else does I will run the different calculations appropriately. If the range is 50%-150% it should be only slightly more likely for ships to penetrate in these cases (but not nearly enough to account for the discrepancy), but perhaps if the range is more like 50%-100% (like craft weapons) they would match up with what's in the article. --[[User:Jewcifer|Jewcifer]] 12:24, 21 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
:::I am 100% sure that damage to UFOs from base defences is variable. I have seen Battleships both die and not die from 2 hits with a Fusion Ball Defence while I was using the Battleship Farming exploit. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 18:19, 21 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Indeed, a defense module may deal more then 100% of its rated damage. I've seen two fusion ball shots take out a battleship, and I've seen some require four - the vast majority drop after three. This "proves" a minimum range of 66%-133% (the damage averages required to achieve 2-4 hit take-downs), which strongly suggests the actual range is 50%-150%.<br />
<br />
:::Much of the information on this wiki is written off the top of someone's head, especially articles like this one that deal less in hard statistics and more on handing out strategies and tactics (it doesn't even mention how much damage needs to be done to shoot down a battleship!). Many such errors are only corrected when newcomers come along and spot them. There are plenty there, though, so don't be afraid to question anything you see or correct anything you are certain to be wrong. - <span style="font-size:xx-small">&nbsp;[[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 04:42, 22 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::Thanks guys. Initially I tried to work out a mathematical approach using the probability density function of an irwin–hall distribution, but dealing with variable n due to the accuracy aspect made it way too complicated and confusing for me to handle. Yikes.<br />
::::So I did what any sensible programmer would do and wrote a quick script to run monte carlo simulations of x-com base defense. I ran 1,500,000 simulations of both of the above scenarios for damage ranges of 100%-100%, 50%-100%, 50%-150%, and 0%-200% (using a discrete uniform distribution within the range). The output is the damage range formula used, the base defense setup (i.e. number of shots, damage, and accuracy), and the average number of attacking ships needed for one to get through:<br />
100%-100%<br />
24 shots, 500 damage, 50% accuracy:<br />
89.46 ships<br />
6 shots, 1200 damage, 80% accuracy:<br />
59.12 ships<br />
<br />
50%-100%<br />
24 shots, 500 damage, 50% accuracy:<br />
11.63 ships<br />
6 shots, 1200 damage, 80% accuracy:<br />
07.88 ships<br />
<br />
50%-150%<br />
24 shots, 500 damage, 50% accuracy:<br />
67.75 ships<br />
6 shots, 1200 damage, 80% accuracy:<br />
25.19 ships<br />
<br />
0%-200%<br />
24 shots, 500 damage, 50% accuracy:<br />
31.32 ships<br />
6 shots, 1200 damage, 80% accuracy:<br />
10.86 ships<br />
::::Nicely enough, the 100%-100% numbers (fixed damage) match my earlier calculations reasonably well, and it seems the 0%-200% numbers are very close to what is in the article! So I think unless someone verifies or is already quite confident the damage range is something other than 0 to double, or maybe has some non-uniform distribution, I'll leave it alone.<br />
::::I do think this article should mention somewhere that the damage is a variable range. Perhaps go ahead and say 0%-200%, with a note that this maybe should be verified?<br />
::::Thanks again for the replies!<br />
::::--[[User:Jewcifer|Jewcifer]] 11:36, 29 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
Monte Carlo method should be able to find the damage range, actually. Given a save with a Battleship inbound on a base with 10 Fusion Ball Defences + Grav Shield, one would save-scum (or just keep playing while leaving the Battleship swarms alone) and record the number of Fusion Ball hits needed to down the Battleship on each attempt. If it's 50%-150% (as I suspect it is), then the chance in Collector's Edition (3000 Battleship health) should be 1/8 (12.50%) to down it in two hits, 5/6 (83.33%) to down it in three hits or less, and 383/384 (99.74%) to down it in four hits or less (five hits gives certainty). In DOS (3200 Battleship health) it should be 1/18 (5.56%) to down it in two hits, 241/243 (99.18%) to down it in four hits or less and 933119/933120 (99.9999%) to down it in five hits or less (six hits gives certainty; three hits is more complicated and I CBF doing it right now). If it's 0%-200% then the chance to down it in two hits should be 9/32 (28.12%) in CE and 2/9 (22.22%) in DOS, the chance to down it in three hits or less should be under 5/6 (83%), the chance to down it in four hits should be under 23/24 (96%) and the chance to down it in five hits should be under 119/120 (99.2%) (in all cases by a decent margin, since that's actually the chance of doing under 2400 damage). My recollections don't match that latter set of numbers (I've ''never'' seen four hits fail to down a Battleship in CE, and two-hit kills are fairly rare) but I could be wrong. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 02:22, 18 February 2016 (EST)<br />
<br />
:After analyzing the CE code, it seems the damage range is 50-150%. - [[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] ([[User talk:Morgan525|talk]]) 03:52, 20 February 2016 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Monthly Score ==<br />
<br />
I guess it's assumed that ships destroyed by your base defenses count toward your monthly score/funding?<br />
: Actually there's no indication that they count for your score. UFOs destroyed during aerial interceptions count, but the Base Defense shootout is a different mechanic. So, this is undetermined. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 03:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Hiring/firing&diff=101024Talk:Hiring/firing2021-06-01T03:12:35Z<p>Hobbes: </p>
<hr />
<div>I just ran into that problem, Spike - thanks for the tip on the Stingray! ---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 22:09, 3 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
And on a completely unrelated but otherwise interesting note, transfer of a troop transport. <br />
<br />
Transferring a troop transpot will transfar all the equipment in it as well as all the soldiers assigned to it to the next base at the simple cost of the troop tranport's transfer cost (not much of a point with soldiers, as they cost $0 to transfer, but good for the weapons). <br />
<br />
You must have enough beds available at the destination in order to transfer the troop transport and all its crew. <br />
<br />
It's nothing terribly special and is only a real benefit from a logistic point of view. You get to cart your favourite teams all around the world and not have to transfer them one at a time - clogging up the transfer table. Not that most of us will use up the transfer table... <br />
<br />
Still a minor tidbit worth knowing. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Everything in the transport thus only needs one line item out of the 100-item transfer queue? That's good to know if you're doing high volume recruit screening! Heck it can even be a way to get "around" it... a "Tip" to transfer equipment in a transport. Thanks for pointing that out!<br />
<br />
---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 04:10, 5 June 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
When you recruit staff, if the month ends before the personnel arrive do you pay their salary? Or only personnel already in your base ready to use?<br />
[[User:Mugwump|Mugwump]] ([[User talk:Mugwump|talk]]) 18:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)<br />
:Nope. You can use this to avoid paying salaries all together. On the last day of the month transfer all your scientists/engineers from one base to the other, and since they're on transfer you don't have to pay their salaries. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 03:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Stun_Rod&diff=101023Talk:Stun Rod2021-06-01T03:07:18Z<p>Hobbes: </p>
<hr />
<div>I have a question: this page says the stun rod is a 2-handed weapon. Normally using a two-handed weapon with one hand results in an accuracy penalty (-20% if I remember). Since I tend to use low-quality soldiers to try and stun aliens early in the game, I am thinking it would be wise to always try and use stun rods two-handed, to avoid the accuracy penalty. Am I right in looking at it this way?<br />
<br />
Also, I see a few weapons with their "handedness" listed (mostly if they're two-handed) but most weapons entries don't mention if they're one or two-handed (Small Launcher, for example). This would be a good thing to accurately list for every weapon.<br />
<br />
I'm also thinking there could be a separate wiki page for explaining "handedness", the importance of it, thoughts on the tradeoffs, etc. For example, I think the accuracy of the Blaster Bomb is 120% but it is considered a two-handed weapon, so my understanding is, you can put a second item in the other hand with no practical penalty.<br />
<br />
- [[User:Erik|Erik]]<br />
:Pistols are one-handed weapons. Everything larger is two-handed. If that needs an explanation, go head. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 03:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)<br />
--------<br />
<br />
I don't think I've ever seen the stun rod miss. This is probably because you have to use it at point blank range - The only way you could fail to hit the target is if your unit actually turned away when you told him to use it. I've only ever seen a weapon misfire that badly once, so I don't think it's much of a risk.<br />
<br />
Someone did some tests with the Blaster Launcher a little while ago, and it seems to be as accurate whether you're holding another weapon or not. My personal theory is that the accuracy only effects the initial launching of the weapon, and once it starts following waypoints it's effects are lost.<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]]<br />
<br />
: I just fell victim to a nasty bug. During a base assault, I hit a Floater about 30 TIMES with the stun rod, yet it didn't deal any stun damage! I even tried attacking from the front instead of behind, still no effect! What's going on?--[[User:Amitakartok|amitakartok]] 10:18, 26 October 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Either your [[OBDATA.DAT]] file is messed up (unlikely) or you've hit the max number of items possible in a mission (170 items on the battlescape at a time found in the [[OBPOS.DAT]] file). When this happens, you can't create anymore items (such as corpses or stunned aliens) until some items are destroyed. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 14:15, 26 October 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
That someone was me, and Firing Accuracy (high or low) didn't seem to seem to affect any part of the bomb's flight path -- through the first waypoint, or otherwise. It ''might'' have an effect on reaction fire with a Blaster Launcher.<br />
<br />
I've never tested to see if a Stun Rod could miss. Sometimes it fails to knock out an alien, but I always assumed that was because it did low damage. I guess we could try hacking its accuracy (and a soldier's melee accuracy) to see if it can miss.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 20:16, 2 July 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Regarding the stun rod, if the game were to use your hidden melee accuracy stat to calculate melee hit accuracy, then the grip would certainly matter. The game appears to have hard coded the melee accuracy to always hit adjacent targets. Whether or not you do any damage is up to the random number generator and the target's defence. So it's okay to use the stun rod with another weapon in the other hand. It's still a two handed weapon, but because accuracy does not matter, it works just as well. <br />
<br />
Just an interesting note. The firing cost for the blaster launcher is in actual fact 66%. Not 80% as it is reported in the ufopaedia. The launch command is actually separate from the normal firing modes that we're accustomed to. I'm guessing the accuracy is in the same boat as melee accuracy. It is perhaps a fixed value that works independantly of your soldier's accuracy, so accuracy doesn't matter. Has anyone ever tried it with a 0 accuracy unit, such as what can be found on a mind controlled chryssalid? If you haven't, do give it a try and make what you will of it. Use the inventory trick or the mind controlled zombie trick to get one. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I've just got two observations about the stun rod to add.<br />
<br />
The first is that I've never ever experienced an alien firing a reaction shot when hit with a stun rod, even when hit from the front. I also think nearby aliens will not reaction fire either.<br />
<br />
The second is that if the stun rod does do 65 (stun) damage it seems to take far too many hits to take down any alien. I might try an experiment sometime where I take a skyranger full of flying suit vets with psi amps, mind probes and stun rods to test out exactly how much damage they actually do. If so I will report the results here.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Hot Logic|Hot Logic]] 21:11, 7 November 2006 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
It has been pointed out in a brief exchange in the article that while the attacks don't trigger the reaction shots, any other action that you do perform that [[reaction fire triggers|triggers]] a reaction shot will cause a reaction shot. Good to know, I guess. So the trick is to keep still if your attempt has failed, and try and get someone else to pull you out of the fire. <br />
<br />
As for the damage, don't forget that stun damage is also subject to the random number generator and unit armour. So you will not always be dealing 65 damage. I don't recall if the range of damage from the stun rod is doubled like it is for projectile launched stun damage. Anyway, refer to [[damage]]. Come to think of it, melee damage isn't that heavily covered in that section. Oh well.<br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
== Reaction attack with a Stun Rod? ==<br />
<br />
An unusual turn of phrase in the Reaction Fire article ("attacks of opportunity" - why not just "opportunity fire" unless it includes melee?) got me thinking about whether a unit can react with a Stun Rod or with any melee attack? Hard to test so I thought I would ask first. Do Reapers or other melee-only aliens react with their attacks?<br />
<br />
(Just for fun I have begun a game using non lethal weapons only, to see if reaction use of a stun rod ever happens. My guys have stun rods and smoke grenades, HE packs for breaching & to clear obstacles, and a tank to hide behind. The tank is not allowed to fire its cannon except to open passages through terrain, and it has to use up its TUs so that it never reaction-fires.)<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:07, 21 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I have never witnessed reaction fire with any melee attack; I have stood tanks next to various melee aliens and shot at them and never been struck back. So I personally doubt that any melee attack can be used in reaction fire. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:43, 21 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Seen plenty of opportunities for a "reactive" melee attack, never actually seen one made. It's commonly assumed that they don't happen, NKF or Zombie have very likely done trials on the matter already.<br />
<br />
Wouldn't be that hard to test though. Just bung a soldier right next to a Chrys, max out the aliens' reaction/TU stats, and have your man wander around.<br />
<br />
Then create a 3x3 room, stick your man in the center with a stun rod and likewise maxed stats, and leave an unarmed muton or something in there with him.<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 04:14, 22 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
: If there was code that controlled melee attacks in reaction attacks, we would've seen evidence of it by now with the melee aliens and with your own units armed with a melee weapon (particularly if you've been playing TFTD with its drills). Reaction attacks seem to be an automatic action that all off-turn units can perform if all the conditions are met. Notice how (armed) civilians can use reaction fire, but aren't able to manually shoot at you on their own turn. <br />
<br />
: The phrase attack of opportunity, if I'm not mistaken, was either taken or derived from one of the game manuals. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 07:23, 22 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Yes it's as much the odd phrase I'm wondering about. The phrase "attack of opportunity" is not in the official X-COM Ufo Defense manual - that manual uses the phrase Opportunity Fire and has a section with that title. Opportunity Fire is also the phrase used in the various GDW games that X-COM is derived from. <br />
<br />
I wonder what happens if a unit has a melee weapon as its active weapon and a fire weapon in the other hand. Would it take a reaction shot using the alternate weapon? And presumably no unit will ever reaction-fire with a thrown weapon such as a grenade? Hmm maybe this should move to the Reaction Fire section. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 10:00, 22 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:No unit will never reaction fire with a thrown weapon(in order to do so, you'd need a good number of TUs, or need to have primed the grenade ahead of time!) In either case, the designers decided(wisely, IMO) that grenades are something that should be used only at player discretion. I've had troops killed by a missed reaction shot...with grenades, you lose your squad, not one man.<br />
<br />
:Regarding your second issue...A unit will only switch its reaction fire from one weapon to another after the first weapon runs out of ammo. The Stun Rod has infinite ammo, so it will always pass the "Ammo left?" check. Thus, any unit with a stun rod as the active weapon will never take a reaction shot, even if they're holding a gun in the other hand! [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 11:42, 22 March 2008 (PDT)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Incendiary&diff=101022Talk:Incendiary2021-06-01T03:03:28Z<p>Hobbes: /* General Comments */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Comments ==<br />
<br />
For now, we'll just say the smoke + incendiary stun effects only work on X-Com owned units until some tests can be run to confirm this. It's unusual that only X-Com units are affected, but the game has been known to surprise you even after you think you've worked something out. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Given how aliens love to hang around in a smoke-filled crashed UFO, IC rounds would be insanely powerful if they did actually work against aliens in smoke. I'm glad they don't ''seem to'', as I'd be very tempted to cheat with it. They do work against aliens standing in fire, though, which is still quite cheaty...--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 21:35, 5 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I do consider the "standing on fire + new IC explosions = damage" a cheat. So I just don't abuse it. I only use IC rounds to illuminate or to finish off hiding aliens. It can also work as a "pass-through-and-die" tactic, the same way Proximity Nades work, although fire damage is pretty sad xD. --[[User:Nekrocow|Nekrocow]] 00:36, 24 June 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I use it a lot in TFTD to clear out those island bunkers and the upper storage levels of the large train station. Either the aliens roast alive, or they come out. Otherwise yes, it's no doubt a cheat. Well, more a bug exploited as a cheat. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 02:09, 24 June 2012 (EDT) <br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
I just edited the Incendiary page a bunch, because Brunpal's [[Talk:Experience]] questions about Incendiary sparked my interest... I never did test IN vs. experience. It's a very good question ''if'' it turns out to cause Firing experience. But while reviewing this page, I had a number of questions, for anyone interested. Also, I only tried to clarify things, and don't know Incendiary well, so fix anything you know I got wrong:<br />
#Did I get it right re: the set [ 0, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] for chance of initially catching fire? I over-wrote "linear" because it seemed odd when XCOM usually goes, e.g., 0-10. (Who tested this? - A little help here please. Just making sure.)<br />
#Why flame a zombie unless it's near death (and how can you know if it is)? It's been a long time since I used fire - if you don't have flying armor, why mess around with a zombie by burning it, why not Heavy Plasma it.<br />
#Any research/data on tile flammability versus duration of burning is appreciated. Probably it should go on the [[Terrain]] page byte, but be clearly referenced here. It's just a curiousity, but an interesting one.<br />
#The last line of the page says ''"The damage values listed in the UFOpaedia do not determine how powerful an incendiary round deals damage; it only determines how wide an area will be blanketed with flames."'' Does anyone know IN strength vs radius, then? Should be easy to test and post.<br />
#NKF, Zombie, or anyone else... would you mind seeing if Incendiary causes the Experience counter to increase? Brunpal is right that it's important to [[Experience]]... I found [[Small_Launcher#Experience|Stun Bombs]] to count for experience across their whole range, even if no stun damage occurred... if you have 11+ Mutons in a firing squad situation, passing around an [[Auto-Cannon]] with Incendiary may be better than standard pistols, depending on the range of the blast. I could test it, but it's been a long time since I've delved into the files; maybe one of you have them more close to hand. [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]]<br />
-----<br />
:Offhand, the only way I could think of to check the remaining HP on a Zombie would be by using a [[Mind Probe]]. Given the relative uselessness of a Mind Probe after Psionics are developed, as well as the time needed to use the Probe once, this seems a rather impractical course of action, unless your Rear Commander has nothing better to do. I agree, Heavy Plasma on Auto is better. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:33, 1 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
-----<br />
#Yeah, the set is correct. When a unit is shot with an incendiary round, the game does a calculation to determine if the unit catches fire. If it doesn't catch fire, the unit takes no damage (the 0 in the set). If the unit does catch fire, it will take between 5-10 damage points. Stupid discontinuous range, but that's what happens. As you may guess, I did the Incendiary trials over at the StrategyCore forums in the Damage Modifier topic - see [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=746&view=findpost&p=39672 this] post for the particulars.<br />
#Why flame a Zombie? Simple. A Zombie which is killed by an Incendiary round doesn't turn into a Chryssalid. Zombies are easily outrun, so you can just keep picking at them from a short distance with Auto-Cannon Incendiary rounds and then running away. Fairly effective, even when your troops do not yet have armor to protect them. And when you do not have the luxury of the Heavy Plasma early in the game, Incendiary is a good way to avoid an overabundance of Chryssalids who are not so easy to kill. As for checking the Zombie's stats, you can only rely on the Mind Probe or Psi. Neither are available early either (the Mind Probe is usually low on the research tree for most people even though you can collect enough, and Psi is difficult to use as a soldier needs to be quite proficient to use MC.<br />
#I have been meaning to do some tests in flammability vs terrain but only recently started fooling with MCD values. It'll be next on my list.<br />
#Here, I uploaded a very recent spreadsheet containing both I and Smoke when damage values are hacked. See [[Media:Incendiary_and_Smoke_Patterns.zip | this file]] which contains both.<br />
#I think I fooled around with Incendiary recently in conjunction with promotions. Soldiers who shot aliens with "I" didn't get promoted. Logically, that would mean the experience counter didn't increment. UNITREF.DAT would need to be checked to verify though. Addendum: indeed, as BB mentioned in the experience page (and a quick glance at the UNITREF.DAT experience counters by myself to triple-check my aging brain), Incendiary rounds do not increase any of the experience counters.<br />
<br />
Hope this clears up some of the issues/concerns here. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:16, 1 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
<i>"The damage values listed in the [[UFOpaedia]] do not determine how powerful an incendiary round deals damage; it only determines how wide an area will be blanketed with flames. Fire is unlike other damage; it works at initial blast and then over time, as described above."</i> and<br />
<i>"Initial "impact" damage from incendiary ammunition is either for no points (unit does not catch fire), or between 5-10 points (unit catches fire)."</i><br />
<br />
This should be stressed on ALL the various relevant pages. It's important. 6.4 dmg vs 90 dmg is a significant difference!--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 09:31, 2 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
It looks like Incendiary is gaining some clarity (at least for me), thanks for starting it Brunpal...<br />
*The "6.4" was only for the initial IN round impact (set [ 0, 5-10 ]); it can then burn for 4 more rounds (set [5-10]). Perhaps a short way to state this complicated damage type is "Minimum 0 (unit does not catch on fire) ''OR'' unit catches on fire 1-5 turns, 5-10 damage/turn, 5-50 damage in total (average 21.5)". Does that look right, Zombie? I'm not sure where you got 90 from Brunpal...<br />
:90 is the listed damage from an IN rocket.--[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 21:39, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
*However, the numbers I just stated do not count possible additional damage from nearby terrain being on fire (as opposed to yourself). Maybe those should be included somehow. (And clearly, fire is much more dangerous outdoors than inside UFOs, where terrain does not burn.) But since terrain fire can last a variable number of turns, I guess you can't have a maximum damage. Average terrain damage from fire would be 6.5/terrain (1-12), but also, it can keep the unit itself burning more than 5 turns... hard to model.<br />
*Good point about flaming zombies, Zombie. I guess you ought to know, eh? :)<br />
*The spreadsheet looks great. Perhaps one of us can pull out the area patterns for non-hacked IN weapons and put them on the relevant pages. When it's done, the spreadsheet itself would be an asset to Incendiary (or maybe [[Damage]], if it's listing all types of damage). As has been stated, it's the size (area) of the blast that actually directly relates to incendiary weapon "strength"... the diameters you found are probably what should be in parentheses next to weapon strength, although damage can appear as well.<br />
*Ok, no experience from Incendiary blasts. It might've been real interesting if there were, but it didn't occur to me to test. (Or maybe I tested it briefly so long ago that I forgot.) I would've guessed that they did, because the stun bomb and explosives do. Oh well.<br />
*P.S. Brunpal, we may not have touched pages in a year, but most/all of us have "Watch this page" turned on, so we get immediate notification of any pages we've edited or Watched. :)<br />
-[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 09:17, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
*Sounds correct MTR. I think Brunpal was just comparing the "damage" (actually strength) of the Incendiary Rocket (90) to the average damage due to the "impact" of the blast (6.4).<br />
*Well, it isn't ''nearby'' terrain on fire which you have to worry about, it's the tile directly underneath a units feet which causes the most concern. If that tile is on fire and the unit doesn't move, it will take 1-12 damage points. While true that terrain on fire can last a variable number of turns, there is a definite upper-limit to how much damage a unit can possibly take. Fires don't last forever, and the combustibles eventually are consumed leaving either scorched earth or a damaged tile. Those damaged/destroyed tiles usually cannot be started on fire again by the spread of flames. They can only be set ablaze with incendiary ammo, and even then for only 1-3 turns (normal for dead tiles). So it's certainly possible to find a max damage. And for the most part, the things that burn the longest are usually objects, not tiles. And most objects you can't stand on anyway. But I totally agree that it's hard to model how fire functions due to the two forces at work: "impact" damage and damage due to standing in fire. <br />
<br />
P.S. Some of us are actually around here and don't need to be coaxed back into existence by an email when a watched page is changed either. Just because it's quiet, it doesn't mean nobody's home. :) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:34, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
----<br />
While understanding the whole formula for fire and fire damage happens is useful, it was not thinking to go that broad. I was just interested in what occurs from the moment a solider takes his shot, to the time that solider gets his TU back. ie damage from incendiary rounds vs fire damage. --[[User:Brunpal|Brunpal]] 21:39, 5 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
It looks to me that, unlike all other forms of damage, Fire damage ignores armor, goes right past it. If so, this should be made explicit on the main page? [[User:Mugwump|Mugwump]] ([[User talk:Mugwump|talk]]) 05:55, 30 May 2021 (UTC)<br />
:Fire damage doesn't ignore armor - power suits for instance can't be damaged by fire, except if the unit is already injured. Read carefully the Damage section - there's a lot of nuances about how fire works. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 03:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Incendiary vs Large Units ==<br />
<br />
We're discussing this in [[Talk:Sectopod#Incendiary vs Sectopod]], and a question came up. When an IN round impacts one segment of a large unit, presumably that segment gets the "Incendiary impact" function, i.e. 6/7 chance of catching on fire for 5-10 damage plus 1-5 turns of being on fire. Does the same "impact" function also apply to the 3 adjacent squares (6/7 chance), or is it just the "standing in fire" chance? If you had multiple regular-sized units standing in the area of effect of an IN round, they would each get "impact" effects (right?). So it ''seems'' logical that all 4 segments of a large unit, inside the area of effect, are also exposed to "impact" effects. But I wanted to check. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:34, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Oh boy! Calculating this not only depends on a lot of unknown assumptions, but is fiendishly complicated - especially if you factor in the "funky fire" bug. And contrary to my noblest efforts, it's impossible to use IN weapons without inadvertently exploiting this bug. Even if you only fire IN at a single target until it's dead, once the target is "standing in fire" you effectively just can't miss. <br />
<br />
Anyway back to the Large Targets specifically. The key assumption above is whether all regular-sized units in the area of effect of an IN burst are affected with "impact effects" - 5-10 dmg & 6/7 chance to catch fire. If they are, it's reasonable to assume the same thing happens to the 3 other segments of a Large Unit. However I suspect this is not the case, and strictly speaking "impact" effects should only occur at the single, impact square of an IN round. Testing needed!<br />
<br />
More likely, the GZ+1 squares, whether occupied by small or large units, are only subjected to the "standing in fire" effects: 1/3 'catch fire' probability, and 1-12 terrain-based damage. And these effects are applied once per turn, not once per hit. <br />
<br />
However, all of this is turned on its head by the 'funky fire' bug. After the first round hits, all units (and all Large Unit segments?) are "standing in fire". (Though maybe these fire damage routines run only for the "control" segment of the Large Unit? Possible, but unlikely.) Since they are standing in fire, the funky fire bug applies and all units/segments are hiit with "impact" effects. <br />
<br />
So assuming a Large Unit is ''already'' standing in fire (e.g. from a previous IN hit or near miss), damage per IN round fired is 6.4 x 4<br />
= 25.6 average, 10x4= 40 max. Subject to resistance/vulnerability modifiers, but ignoring armour level. In addition as multiple IN rounds are fired, the chance of all segments catching fire quickly approaches certainty. This not only means the Large Unit will sustain further damage at the end of the turn, it makes it impossible to escape the 'funky fire' trap by moving out of burning squares. <br />
<br />
(Any testing needs to be very careful and probably only fire a single IN round per game, otherwise 'funky fire' will skew the results.)<br />
<br />
So, in conclusion, the TU/kill factors I put up on the Talk pages for the Large Units ([[Talk:Reaper]], [[Talk:Cyberdisc]],[[Talk:Sectopod]]) should pretty much reflect the 'funky fire' reality after the first round connects, apart from the fact that you actually can't miss. The very first IN round to be fired would have the same effect (for immediate damage) on a Large Target as on a small one. But I really don't want to update the numbers to reflect this fact, it's just too awful. For AC-IN, the firepower factors will be about 6 times better than stated. Maybe I'll just remove them. :( <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:51, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
=== Simple Tests ===<br />
<br />
I did a small number of tests and found some interesting results. In 5/5 tests, all 4 squares of the target (Reaper) were on fire the following round. (It's hard to tell if they are on fire the same round, as you need to extinguish the fire with smoke to see). Perhaps this makes sense, as it's a UNITREF attribute and so applies to the whole unit, not its 4 component squares?<br />
<br />
Looking at the damage, it looks like "impact" and "on fire" damage applies to all 4 squares, i.e. x4 normal. Damage clusters tightly around 16-18 per hit which is roughly the expected value, maybe a bit lower (at x4). And since we '''are''' on fire, should expect an average of 7.5 ({5..10}/6) rather than 6.4 ({0,5..10}/7? Maybe something else is going on here, as these numbers seem a little low - 6.4 x 4 = 25.6 per hit or 7.5 x 4 = 30.0 per "on fire" hit might be expected on a Large Unit. <br />
<br />
:Drat. I didn't factor in the Reaper's 170% Susceptibility to Incendiary. So the actual damage levels are more like 10 per hit. Maybe there is no multiplier for the 4 squares? Hard to figure out what's going on here. In tests on hacked humans, armour level is not a factor vs Incendiary damage, otherwise I'd suspect the under-armour or something. 2.5 avg damage per segment seems too low. 10 average damage per alien seems too high - that should be the max, not the average. Is some mechanic pushing the average up to the max? I don't have a clue right now. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:53, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
The damage seems to be regardless of "funky fire" effect. A round fired at a target that is not burning / in fire seems to do about the same damage, per hit, as one that is in fire / on fire and so subject to the funky fire bug. So the only 'bad' effect of the bug is that you never miss, and you hit everything that is in fire / on fire. Not quite so bad, and it allows you to play honest by only ever firing at one target, not hitting any other targets by accident (!), and firing from point blank range so it doesn't matter that you never miss. <br />
<br />
Burn Time was as high as 7 when multiple IC rounds were fired (on auto). Higher than we thought possible (1-5 range expected). However it sometimes goes DOWN after additional hits. Possibly the value is re-randomised with every new IC impact, but hits are cumulative while firing auto bursts? <br />
<br />
Here's the raw test data:<br />
<br />
Test 1. <br />
-<br />
2 DH on Reaper, mix of auto and snap, some other IC impacts on others<br />
Burn Time=7 - exceeds known limit of 5<br />
All 4 sq on fire next turn<br />
Is 'on fire' global? It's in Unitref, so maybe<br />
-<br />
Test 2.<br />
-<br />
1 DH on Reaper, only IC shot fired in game. <br />
In firing turn, taken 132/148 = 16 damage. Burn time=3<br />
Start of T+1, taken 122/148 10 more damage, Burn time=2<br />
T+1 Reaper shows all 4 squares burning<br />
-<br />
Test 3. <br />
-<br />
Revisit #2 firing turn... fire another round (this will use funky fire)<br />
So 2nd IC hit, 2nd rd fired, same target. <br />
Health now 114/148, further 18 damage<br />
But Burn time has dropped to 2! Must re-randomise on each hit??<br />
Maybe only accumulates during auto burst?<br />
-<br />
Test 4. <br />
-<br />
Let's try lots of hits. Hack up accuracy to 255<br />
OK 3 out of 3 hits on Auto<br />
T+0 Health=98/148=50 damage (17 avg) Burn=6<br />
T+1 Health=81 (17 more dmg) Burn=5 All 4 squares on fire. <br />
-<br />
Test 5.<br />
-<br />
Revisit #4 and push to 6/6 hits<br />
T+0 Health=41/148=107 (18 avg) damage Burn=7<br />
T+1 Health=21 (20 more dmg) Burn=6 All 4 squares on fire. <br />
-<br />
Methodology (Apart from Test 1) = only ever 1 (same) target in any IC AoE; no misses<br />
(To try to minimise the impact of 'funky fire' effects - but can't eliminate)<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 23:27, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I re-ran the same simple tests against a regular-sized (Floater) target instead. The results agreed much better with the 'standard model' of [[Incendiary]] effects. All results were within the permitted ranges in the 'standard model', though some values were unexpectedly. I think some variables to look for in Incendiary mechanics are:<br />
<br />
* Large Unit vs regular unit behaviour looks to be different<br />
* Auto burst vs single explosion looks to be different (maybe just due to funky fire bug, maybe not)<br />
* Tile MCD "time to burn" value seems to affect one or more of the other calculations / probabilities<br />
* Burn Time on the unit can go up as well as down. New hits seem to re-randomise the value. <br />
* End of turn processing does not always reduce unit Burn Time by 1. Can a terrain fire add to unit Burn Time?<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:25, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I doubt a terrain fire adds to the time a unit is on fire. Actually, I'm quite positive on this since my tests from a while back were quite thorough. The counter can only tick down to 0, and when it does a terrain fire will have a chance of "reigniting" the soldier again.<br />
<br />
:Anyway, I had to start from scratch again on testing due to a few issues with my test scenario. I totally forgot that the first soldier on the unit roster is a bad choice for a "designated hitter" since he can never be automatically selected on a reload. Soldiers lower on the order are much better choices. So I got the shooting automated, but each reload was taking too much time since I had to reselect the shooter, select the shot, move the view down a level, shoot the target and abort. Having the soldier already selected cuts out 2 actions in the list allowing the script to run more efficiently. I'm going to try to get everything properly setup tonight, then start testing tomorrow morning. With a little luck and about 2 hours of babysitting the script to make sure it doesn't quit, I should have some prelims. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:55, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Looking forward to seeing that data! I did some more testing just for the special case of Large Units, about 40 tests. My tentative conclusions:<br />
<br />
# Damage range per 'impact' hit is the same as regular units, around 5-10 x Vulnerability (maybe + MCD Burn time?)<br />
# Large units go on fire about 1/7 of the time when receiving a direct hit - as expected<br />
# Either all 4 segments go on fire, or no segments go on fire - no 'part segments on fire'<br />
# Unit burn times are not correlated with unit damage received<br />
# Auto fire has the same average damage level per hit as snap fire<br />
# Unit Burn Time can exceed 5, both on Snap and Auto. Highs of 6 (Snap) and 7 (Auto) were seen. Maybe 1-5 + MCD Tile Burn Time?<br />
<br />
All my tests were done on the grid-lined pavement tiles from urban terror missions, which have an MCD default burn value of 2. For some of the "setting the large unit on fire" tests, I had the target floating in mid air, because air does not burn even during the turn that the IN round explodes - it makes it easier to see the unit burning. <br />
<br />
From Bomb Bloke's editor notes, the 4 potential MCD tiles in a map location are: a North Wall, a West Wall, a Ground tile, an Object tile. All 4 of these MCD tiles might have a burn time value. But Ground and Object are the most likely to be relevant. <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:58, 12 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Ok, I got the script running and optimized it a bit to cut down some wait cycles. Right now it's cranking out approximately 400 trials per hour which is about as fast as I can make it go without removing some desktop icons (all the icons have to refresh at the end of each logging cycle which takes a little time). Anyhow, just for giggles I stopped it after 400 trials to get some prelims.<br />
<br />
:<table {{StdCenterTable}} class="sortable"><br />
:<tr {{StdDescTable_Heading}}><th align="left" width="90">Damage</th><th width="90">Count</th><th width="90">Pct%</th></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">1</th><td>68</td><td>17.0%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">6</th><td>58</td><td>14.5%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">7</th><td>45</td><td>11.3%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">8</th><td>63</td><td>15.8%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">9</th><td>55</td><td>13.8%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">10</th><td>64</td><td>16.0%</td></tr><br />
:<tr><th align="left">11</th><td>47</td><td>11.8</td></tr><br />
:</table><br />
:If you average the percent columns, it comes to 14.28571429% while the expected is 1/7 or 14.285714285714285714285714285714 which is a difference of 4E-09. This means 400 reloads is plenty enough values for this application. Great news! Well, as you can see, instead of the set [0, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] for MCD of 1, this scenario where the MCD was 0 is shifted up by one [1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11]. Interesting.<br />
<br />
:Tomorrow I'll rerun the MCD 1 scenario again to verify the values and damage set. Then it's on to the MCD of 2. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 01:50, 13 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: Extremely interesting! By the way, it was probably a late night but - the average any 7 numbers that (must) add up to 100% is always going to be 1/7th of 100%, so that result doesn't really demonstrate any confidence in the data. It would be the same with one result, or with a trillion results. The 4E-09 discrepancy is just the precision error in your calculator/spreadsheet's calculation of the percentages and the average of the percentages. You've got some considerable variation from 1/7th on the individual numbers, I'm not sure if that's just to be expected with only 400 trials. But for example "0" and "10" are both a bit high so it ''might'' be non-linear (probably not). Anyway we'll see when all your results are in! (To measure the degree of variation from the expected result, what you want is a chi-squared test or something - and I don't know what I'm talking about there so I'll shut up!) <br />
<br />
:: I'm checking Bomb Bloke's MCD database, and there are some tiles in there (U_BASE 22-25) with MCD burn value of 30 - I might play with those and see if anything dramatic happens. Oh except looks like they can't be set on fire (255 flammability). There are others that are quite high (8-), and still flammable. Or I could hack an MCD file (scary). Maybe I'll just wait for your results Zombie! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 05:49, 13 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
= Incendiary Research =<br />
<br />
== Large Units On Fire ==<br />
<br />
Here's another interesting test for setting Large Units on fire. Set AC-I power down from 42 to 1. <br />
At this IC power, there is no area effect. You can't even start a fire on one tile.<br />
All you can do is set units on fire with a direct hit. This means there is no way the other 3 squares of the <br />
Large Unit are in the IC area of effect. <br />
<br />
Result: Whether you hit a one square regular unit or a 4-square large unit, if it goes on fire, '''all''' squares of the unit still go on fire. Along with the fact that the inflicted IN damage level vs Large Units is basically normal (see above), this tends to confirm that being on fire is a "unitref" property and, unlike HE and Stun Bombs, is not applied (multiplied) vs the number of squares the unit occupies. (In fact it would be good to check that HE is actually applied separately to each square, with different HE strength, potentially different armour facing, etc. Maybe the engine just simplifies things and multiplies damage by 4?)<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:56, 15 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Unit Burn Time ==<br />
<br />
Unit Burn Time seems to be considerably '''cyclic''' rather than random. Very often, it just steps down by one from the previous value. I suspect this is because the "impact" routine calls the "end of turn" incendiary/smoke routine (see [[User talk:Seb76#Incendiary Bug]]). Sometimes it does not happen, maybe because some other factor has caused the Burn Time to increase. <br />
<br />
Here's some data. This was done against a Reaper with AC-I power set to 1 (and 10% TU Snap fire cost). But I've seen similar results with standard AC-I.<br />
<br />
<br />
Hit H/H Dmg/Avg Burn Time<br />
1 137/150 13 2<br />
2 126/150 11 1<br />
3 104/150 22 0 Very high damage (=13x1.7). Unit not on fire when game restored.<br />
4 96/150 8 7<br />
5 81/150 15 6<br />
6 66/150 15 5<br />
4,5,6 76/150 /9.33 5 (Auto) 9-10 (=5-6x1.7) is near minimum dmg<br />
7 56 10 4<br />
8 48 8 4 What happened here? didn't cycle. MIN dmg (5x1.7).<br />
9 35 13 6<br />
10 25 10 5<br />
11 10 15 6 New shooter takes over<br />
12 2 8 5<br />
<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:56, 15 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
:You're right on spot once again ;-) When a unit takes a direct hit from an IN round, it is set on fire (the duration is randomly chosen between 0 and incendiarydamagemodifier/20). Then the "end of turn" routine is called, which inflicts damage *and* decreases by one the number of turns to be on fire (done for all units). Then it sets on fire units standing in blaze. The duration is calculated as for direct hits; if the unit was already on fire, it'll take the maximum value between the new value calculated and the current value affected to the unit on fire. Not sure it is readable but I think you'll sort it out ;-) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 10:51, 15 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Incendiary in TFTD ==<br />
<br />
I read [[Weapons (TFTD)#Phosphor|somewhere]] there are reduced effects underwater (or enhanced effects on land) for TFTD Phosphor rounds. I couldn't find an exact statement of the quantitative difference - does anyone know this? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:53, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:The effects of Incendiary weapons underwater (or Phosphor, as TFTD refers to it) is halved over the UFO equivalent. Incendiary weapons are doubly effective on the surface(Terror Missions) vs underwater, but of the three weapons that can fire Incendiary, two of them(Torpedo Launcher and Hydro-Jet Cannon) can only be reaction fired on land. The Gas Cannon can be fired in eiither location. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:08, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: It's clear that the effect underwater is half the effect on land. But does the base level (in USOPaedia / OBDATA) refer to land use or underwater use? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:13, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:As I recall, the base level is on land. The numbers for Phosphor ammo are close to the UFO Incendiary damage numbers, but I know it spreads less underwater. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:15, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: Look at the (puny) area effect pattern sizes underwater, that sounds about right. Can anyone confirm this? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:40, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
There is actually no difference between the pattern for the Gas Cannon's P rounds underwater as on land. Both have a r=3, d=7 pattern. (CE version at least). Maybe the pattern is smaller the deeper you go? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 16:45, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<gallery widths="200"><br />
Image:GC-P (underwater).png|Flame pattern from Gas Cannon Phosphorous rounds underwater.<br />
Image:GC-P (on land).png|Flame pattern from Gas Cannon Phosphorous rounds on land.<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
:OK now I'm really confused then! (I realise I was getting confused with the Dye grenade's small footprint vs Smoke grenades). If the blast pattern is the same size, that implies the weapon power is unchanged. So in what sense is Phosphorus "half as powerful" underwater? Does it burn half as long? Is the impact and fire damage halved? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:49, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
I really doubt the damage to units would be affected if the power of the round was modified. The power of the round only determines the size of the pattern produced, not the damage inflicted to units. I'll have to check the burn times and spread rate but my thought is that the two are identical in the version I'm using. Like I said, the pattern may get smaller the deeper you go underwater. The pic above was for a shallow site. It'll take a while for me to find a deeper site to check it out, otherwise some editing of the game files may be necessary to force the scenario.<br />
<br />
I just checked the Dye Grenade underwater and on land. Both produce the same r=1, d=3 pattern. So yeah, they are really pitiful when compared to the Smoke Grenade.<br />
<br />
Don't really go for the use of "impact" damage with Incendiary/Phosphorous rounds. There is no real impact since the damage range is discontinuous. The unit either catches fire from the splash of fire (in which case it does 5-10 damage points), or the unit doesn't catch fire and the unit remains unharmed. If there were such a thing as impact damage, the range would be continuous like normal weapons, in this theoretical case it would be [0-10] inclusive (ie the set [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 17:36, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Anyway, the half thing came up because AQ was comparing TFTD to UFO, not comparing the effects in TFTD from underwater and on land. However, further comparisons reveal that a hacked HC-I round of 60 produces the same pattern as a GC-P/60 round. Perhaps this whole dilemma can be traced to the Dye Grenade? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 18:28, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:That's entirely possible the Dye Grenade is the source. However, several of the pages for the TFTD weapons state that Phosphor is far weaker in water, so I didn't check. My mistake. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:35, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks for the feedback everyone. So this could just be a recycled rumour? I guess the general assumption is that the game engines are identical, so we would want evidence that TFTD is different. Looks like Zombie has proved that the area effect is equal (at least at shallow depths). That leaves only the fire damage or fire duration. Testing that would require repeated observations to check if fire damage is less than 6/hit, less than 6/turn, and burning for no more than 2-3 turns. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:14, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:As with any wiki where contributions can come from anywhere, there are bound to be problems with validity of the statements made. So unless those statements are backed up by real-life test data instead of memory or hearsay, take them with a grain of salt. The other point is to avoid spreading disinformation at all costs (I have been guilty of this as well, but try to at least quantify them). So there you go. I'm still trying to get a deeper underwater mission to check the size of the pattern produced there. Checking the spread of flames or damage inflicted to units shouldn't take too long though. I'll see if I can't get that done tonight yet. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:23, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Ok, I ran some trials with an unmodified GC-P round on the normal seabed floor against soldiers having 100 health and 0 all-around armor. For the guy standing at GZ, I saw ending health values of 99, 94, 93, 92, 90, and 89 (n=50). So that comes out to 1, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 points of damage respectively. I didn't think 11 damage was possible. Here's where things differ though. All the other guys who were clustered around GZ always received only one point of damage, never more, never less. In EU, the guys around GZ took damage equal to the guy at GZ. Odd. So then it occurred to me that perhaps I should check the MCD values of the seabed (TFTD) and the desert (EU) landscapes. Both are basically identical in terms of armor. But the seafloor has a "time to burn" value of 0 while the desert has a value of 1. So maybe our understanding of normal fire isn't totally complete. I'm going to go back to EU and retest the desert landscape with varying MCD burn time flags to see how that affects damage. ;) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 23:00, 9 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: The whole Phosphor being half effective under water is related to the burn time and spread, if I remember correctly. The settings in the MCD files may be the culprit. The actual damage dealt or initial spread may not necessarily be affected. <br />
<br />
:: Hey, I just had a wacky idea. XComutil. Use its feature where you can set the depth of a mission. Launch a mission on a island terror site map (again, use XComutil's map picker to get to this faster). Lots of grass to burn there. Set fire to it and count how many turns before the fires die out. Redo the test, but this time set the depth to a deeper level. Try the whole process out again.<br />
<br />
:: Next repeat this with one of ye-olde seabed maps. They look really weird without the blue palette shift when played on land, what with the landscape being gray. <br />
<br />
:: It's possible that the half-effectiveness relates to the fuel that the fire has to burn more than anything else. Further confirmation on how long the flames stick to a target when on land or underwater may be helpful. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:28, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I've been burned one too many times using editors or utilities to mess with saved games. Half the time they introduce some unknown "feature" which isn't documented. Thanks, but no thanks. I only test with an unmodified game, except for the changes I make myself to keep control of the situation. Anyway, I tested a patch of fire on the seabed to see how long it remained lit (which has a "time to burn" value of 0). It only stayed lit the current round the shell detonated. After that the fire went out. So this agrees with what is expected. Will continue to work on this as I get time. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 01:51, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Well, I suppose my recommendation doesn't necessarily need XComutil. It would've certainly made it easier. But yes, it does introduce a few things that work behind the scenes that we might not know too much about. However, if I remember correctly, one of the battlescape savegame files should hold the depth level of the current map you are playing on. All you'll need to do is tweak that to change the depth of the map. <br />
<br />
One other thing, the different effect HE has on the same tiles underwater and when on land (ala the Triton) may also be one of the other culprits behind the belief that phosphor is less effective on land. Being able to blow up the Triton on land, but have it appear virtually indestructable when underwater does that. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:59, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
re Zombie's underwater tests, there is normally (i.e. on land in EU) a difference between the IC damage on the target of the direct hit, vs lower damage to others in the area of effect (hmm contrary to my IC kill modelling assumptions: uh oh I may've spoken to soon). But only seeing 1 damage on the others in the AoE does seem low. We need to figure out why. Did any of the other targets catch fire? Does that ever happen underwater? Do tiles ever burn past the turn when the IC round is fired? Any of these factors would reduce total fire damage/effectiveness by '''more''' than half. Actually, doesn't it say the 1-12 damage for "in fire" is ''not'' random, but dependent on terrain type? That could be the answer.<br />
<br />
The [[Incendiary]] article actually mentions '''4''' modes of fire damage, only 3 of which are quantified: <br />
<br />
#"impact",<br />
#"being in fire"<br />
#"being ''on'' fire"<br />
<br />
The 4th mode is "damage from burning ''terrain''. Only a tantalising mention is given, no quantitative details. This could be the source of the discrepancy. In fact it might be a component of "being in fire" that's not fully understood. I think Zombie is right to review the assumptions on this one - nice work! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 04:05, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:As I recall, "damage from burning terrain" is synonymous with "Standing on a tile that's currently on fire." Thus "Being in fire." But that's me and I'm tired this evening, so I could be wrong. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 05:30, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
I performed my TFTD Phosphorous tests underwater and after the flames died out some of my men did catch fire. So this part seems to jive with that of EU. Tiles do not burn longer than its "time to burn" value in the MCD files. So for instance, in the seabed underwater testing mission, the tiles have a MCD burn value of 0 which corresponds to the results seen (ie fire didn't stick around into the aliens turn or X-COM's next turn either, it only stayed lit the turn it detonated). There really is only 2 "modes" of I/P/fire damage:<br />
<br />
<ol><li>The code used for determining if a unit catches fire: 0 damage (if the unit didn't catch and was able to shrug it off) and 5-10 (if the unit catches).</li><br />
<li>Standing in fire.</li></ol><br />
At least from the initial tests in TFTD, units outside GZ are just considered to be standing in fire that turn and always take 1pt of damage. Anyway, I don't want to talk myself into a hole without doing more tests. All the following trials I do will be in EU to hopefully curtail any unknowns in TFTD. Once EU's code is figured out then it can be applied and compared to TFTD. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 09:06, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
: If they are "standing in fire", do you think the 1pt damage/turn is based on the fire characteristics tile/terrain type they are standing on? Is it more generally 1-12/turn, dependent on terrain? Also if you get a chance can you test large units and see what kind of effects they take on the GZ+1 squares? If the GZ+1 squares of a large unit are just 'standing in fire' rather than 'catch fire/5-10 impact damage' this will substantially weaken IC vs large units. And I will have shouted too soon! :) [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:18, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
I did some ad-hoc tests in TFTD. Actually I just ran around firing GC-P and HJ-P rounds everywhere. :) On a typical seabed layout, I found that most things don't burn - the fires don't last into the next turn. The only things I could get to burn were the green moss stuff and and coral skeleton "trees". Even the barrels do not burn. Also, I did not see much sign of terrain damage caused by the fires. But the moss and coral did burn for the normal period, i.e. 1-5 turns. <br />
<br />
I also managed to kill an Aquatoid with a single direct hit from a GC-P, in one turn. He died at the end of my turn or the start of his. That seems unlikely. 5-10 from being hit, plus 1-12 for standing in fire, plus maybe another 5-10 from being on fire? It's just about possible I suppose, to max out near 32 damage (if the terrain offers you "12" when it burns). Anyway those are my unsystematic enquiries. I have the 8 save files of various stages of the battle if anyone wants to take a look. It was from a virgin TFTD installation and there was no editing or jiggery pokery.<br />
<br />
OK I've uploaded the save files [[Image:TFTD Incendiary Tests 01 Spike.zip]] and taken a look myself with BB's editor. Prior to being hit (Game_4) our Aquatoid was in rude Health, 30/30. Immediately after being hit (Game_2) he was at 19 Health (no Stun damage) and On Fire, as well as Standing in Fire. That implies 11 Damage from the "impact effect" which is not supposed to happen. As noted, at the end of the same turn or beginning of his next turn, he dies. He looks to be standing on a standard seabed square, just sand, the kind of thing that does not burn. He is next to some of the brown cushion-like coral, but I don't think that burns, at least not over multiple turns. In fact in the same turn he is hit, at the end, you can see him dead (Game_3). Since there was only one alien, he died in the same turn. OK that's slightly confusing, maybe someone can double check the turn numbers in the save files (don't know where they are). <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:29, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Doh. I is a idiot. The Aquatoid was killed by the incendiary fire bug - I fired extra IN rounds at terrain objects after he was on fire. Which explains why he is already dead by the end of my turn. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:08, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Yeah, you gotta watch that. Well, anyhow, I edited the desert landscape in Enemy Unknown to have the same MCD "time to burn" value of 0 as the seafloor in TFTD. From the limited tests, the results look the same as in TFTD. (Fire burns out after the initial turn it detonated, units around GZ taking 1 unit of damage while the guy at GZ got more). So that means I can focus my efforts on EU with little worry because there will be no issues. I'm going use BB's logger and AHK to automate the data gathering aspect to save me a bunch of time. I'll probably need the full requisite 2000 reloads though, as the guy at GZ is not the same as the 24 soldiers around him. Wish me luck. :) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 15:54, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Good luck! I just read the MCD article, and it mentions 2 fire-related byte fields in MCD - "likelihood of catching fire" as well as "time to burn". Is the last field variable or fixed? Could the first field determine the damage/turn to units when it's on fire? Also with a possible 4 terrain items that could all be burning, is the maximum damage higher than 12? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:10, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Offset 45 is the flammability rating of the tile. This most likely controls whether an adjacent fire will spread to the tile in question. (For instance, if a fire is burning and the next tile over is a tree or something, it'll probably spread there fast because of the combustibles present). The other byte is offset 57 which is the one we are after. Don't know about the 4 types of things which can exist on a tile at once. I think the most I have ever seen is 2 (usually ground and a wall). Wouldn't hurt to edit a tile to include all 4, but that's an entirely different test to do. It'll have to wait until we get a better understanding of basic fire. ;) --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:38, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::Here's a question. On Large units, if only one segment of the Large unit is on fire, will the fire spreading code allow the other three segments to catch on fire? [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:13, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:I highly doubt it. Unit fires are completely different creatures from terrain fires. Needs testing though. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:55, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::Yes it would have to be a very special case, since afaik fires do not spread from regular units on fire to adjacent terrain or to other adjacent regular units. Though it would make more sense than any of those things. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:03, 10 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Incendiary Bug ==<br />
<br />
(Also known as the [[Known_Bugs#Funky_Fire|Funky Fire/Smoke bug]].) I made some suggestion about why this bug happens, and how the code could be patched to fix it: [[User talk:Seb76#Incendiary Bug]]. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:13, 12 March 2009 (CDT) Here is the general discussion of the bug:<br />
<br />
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. 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)<br />
<br />
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:<br />
<br />
# In area of effect<br />
##add fire to tiles<br />
##'''possibly''' do 33% check for units to catch fire - '''unless''' this is performed by the end of turn routine (probably)<br />
# IF a unit was hit directly<br />
## check to see if it catches fire<br />
## ''possibly'' do "impact" damage. <br />
# Return, '''without''' calling the end-of-turn smoke/fire routine<br />
<br />
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. <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 22:11, 11 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
: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)<br />
<br />
<br />
I also suspect that other "end of turn" processing happens with every IN round fired. I am pretty sure "fire spreading" checks occur, as I have seen fire spread when using perfectly accurate shots. Either "fire spreading" happens, or there is a random element in incendiary area of effect, that is definite. I want to repeat these tests to see if "catch on fire" effects also happen for those who are standing in fire when an IN round is fired. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 08:59, 31 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Mwahaha ==<br />
<br />
Was exploiting the Elevator Shield trick on an Alien Base Assault, and I had the forethought to pack lots and lots of Incendiaries. My sick sick mind found it amusing to set all those aliens on fire and watch them roast stupidly and helplessly. (Jasonred)<br />
<br />
= Fire Damage =<br />
(moved from talk:UFOextender)<br />
<br />
Not sure if the bug is already posted. And Not sure if I should post the bug here or in [[Talk:Incendiary]]. Problem is if you use extender to fix funky fire bug. Incendiary no long does any damage at all. Units only take the small amount of damage after ending turn because they're on fire. Using 1.28.3 extender<br />
<br />
To test this. I stripped a soldier of armour. And pounded four incendiary rockets into the soldier in the same turn. No damage. And then next turn, his health drops a little because he's standing in fire. This may not be a problem for most players. But it is still a major bug. I understand the funky fire problem is already difficult to fix, and I say thanks to all who will try to help solve this bug. [[User:Hellblade|Hellblade]] 14:44, 28 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: That's not a bug, that's the fix. Incendiary damage is only applied at the end of the turn. Think about it... does fire kill faster than a bullet? Faster than a grenade? Can you kill someone with fire faster than they can get a shot off back at you? No, to all these things. To compensate for fixing the bug, fire damage is doubled compared to the previous end-of-turn fire damage (that always existed). It is no longer applied per shot or per impact. All you get "per impact" is another chance to set the target unit itself on fire. Incendiary is a weak attack. It has the benefit of a wide area effect, no HE block, and ignores armour. There are situations when IN is the only effective weapon XCOM possesses. But, like everything, it has strengths and weaknesses. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:51, 28 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: I see your point but let me elaborate. Heat, not fire, do kill as fast as bullets. The original game mechanics separated heat from fire just as in real life. It intended to have the big heat blast damage first and then the small fire damage per turn.<br />
:: Take the most extreme case, napalm or volcanic lava, you get fully cooked in less than a second - just by heat alone, and you may/may not catch fire later on. And heat blasts travel as fast as bullets, in some cases as fast as light. I believe the game has different Incendiary damage values to do different damage according to how strong the heat is, not the fire afterwards. The damage by fire later on makes sense because natural burning fires aren't that hot comparatively.<br />
:: I understand the difficulty in trying to fix this. But before this fix you could kill a reaper by a few AC-I shots (which is their weakness) and now you can empty the two clips at it and it'll never die. [[User:Hellblade|Hellblade]] 03:11, 4 October 2012 (EDT)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&diff=98854MediaWiki:Sidebar2020-12-10T13:31:58Z<p>Hobbes: Added Xenonauts to Spiritual Successors</p>
<hr />
<div>* Navigation<br />
** mainpage|mainpage<br />
** portal-url|portal<br />
** recentchanges-url|recentchanges<br />
** helppage|help<br />
* Games<br />
** X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown<br />
** TFTD|Terror From The Deep<br />
** Apocalypse|Apocalypse<br />
** Enemy Unknown (EU2012)|Enemy Unknown<br />
** The Bureau: XCOM Declassified|The Bureau<br />
** XCOM2|XCOM 2<br />
** Chimera Squad|Chimera Squad<br />
* Spiritual Successors<br />
** http://wiki.phoenixpoint.com/Phoenix_Point_Wiki |Phoenix Point <br />
** https://www.xenonauts.com/ |Xenonauts<br />
<br />
* Featured Projects<br />
** UFO2000|UFO2000<br />
** OpenXcom|OpenXcom<br />
** OpenApoc|OpenApoc<br />
** UFO:AI|UFO:AI<br />
** Long War|Long War<br />
** Long_War_2|Long War 2<br />
** Other Projects|Other Projects<br />
<br />
*Forums<br />
**http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/forum/96-ufopaediaorg/ |Ufopaedia forum<br />
**http://forums.2kgames.com/forumdisplay.php?75-XCOM |2K's XCOM forums<br />
**http://www.reddit.com/r/Xcom/ |Reddit X-COM<br />
**Forums | Other Forums<br />
*Languages<br />
**Pagina Principal|Español (Spanish)<br />
**Главная страница|Русский (Russian)<br />
**Page Principale|Français (French)<br />
**메인_페이지|한국어 (Korean)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XCOM_News&diff=98851XCOM News2020-12-08T16:58:12Z<p>Hobbes: /* News */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is the Ufopaedia.org news page where relevant news and site messages will appear. When this page is transcluded into other pages, only the new news items should appear there. Everything else will only display on this page. <br />
<br />
== News ==<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
<div style="padding-left:10px;"><br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">Phoenix Point One Year Edition released!</span>====<br />
[[File:Phoenix Point Geoscape.png|240px|thumb|Phoenix Point Geoscape]]<br />
''' December 8th, 2020'''<br />
:*[https://phoenixpoint.info/ Phoenix Point], the successor to the XCom series made by its original creator, Julian Gollop, has just released its one year edition on Steam and other gaming platforms. The player takes control of Phoenix Point, a top secret organization created to deal with extraordinary threats, as it fights the Pandora virus, an alien lifeform that wishes to remake Earth at its own image, while dealing with human factions that also have their own agenda for the future of the planet, in a game heavily influenced by the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu_Mythos Cthulu Mythos]. The game follows the classic 4X (Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate) for its Geoscape layer, with a turn-based combat system situated halfway between the [[XCOM|original game]] and Firaxis' [[Enemy Unknown (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]]. Phoenix Point even has its own [http://wiki.phoenixpoint.com/Phoenix_Point_Wiki wiki] and it seems influenced by the UFOPaedia!<br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM: Chimera Squad announced!</span>====<br />
''' April 14th, 2020'''<br />
:*Firaxis has [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/1250061590092828678 announced] an upcoming spinoff to the XCOM franchise, "[[Chimera Squad]]", to be released in April 24th. The events of the game take place 5 years after XCOM 2 and are centered upon the titular multi-species law enforcement unit keeping the peace among the humans and aliens living together in the metropolis known as City 31, as a seeming spiritual successor to X-COM: Apocalypse. The released [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39fhpegVBQQ gameplay trailer] reveals that in addition to playable alien squad members, consisting of the Sectoid Verge, the Viper Torque and the Muton Axiom, the game also introduces a Breaching mechanic for setting up an opening surprise attack at the beginning of combat, a Timeline system where the combatants on both sides individually take turns after each other in a fixed, faction-alternating order rather than the entire team acting as once like in previous games, as well as disposable androids to take the place of injured agents on the team roster.<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM 2: War Of The Chosen DLC announced!</span>====<br />
[[File:War of the Chosen.png|240px|thumb|Reaper Resistance faction]]<br />
''' June 12th, 2017'''<br />
:* Firaxis has [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/874313674835415040 announced] "War Of the Chosen" the next XCOM 2 DLC to be released in August 29th. The DLC will introduce several new enemies, including the Chosen, an elite alien team consisting of the Assassin, the Hunter and the Warlock tasked with recapturing the XCOM commander, along with ADVENT's new Purifier and Priest units. As for XCOM, there will be 3 new classes, Reaper, Skirmisher and Templar representing Resistance factions that you'll need to recruit to your cause. And finally, the Lost will be introduced, which consist of mutated humans who dwell in the ruins of Earth's cities that were destroyed in the initial invasion. <br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM 2: The Real War Begins teaser</span>====<br />
''' June 11th, 2017'''<br />
:* [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/872815512656412672 XCOM]'s Twitter account has just posted a poster teaser for XCOM 2: The Real War Begins, the expected expansion to Firaxis' latest release in the XCOM series. Details of the new expansion will be [http://www.pcgamer.com/2k-and-firaxis-to-present-at-the-pc-gaming-show-at-e3/ revealed] next Monday, June 12th at the E3 convention.<br />
''' January 20th, 2017'''<br />
:* [http://www.pavonisinteractive.com Pavonis Interactive], formerly Long War Studios, has released a new version of its famous [[Long_War|Long War]] mod for XCOM 2. Long War 2 adds several new classes, equipment, research, aliens, missions and more, while increasing the duration of the game. Long War 2 can be downloaded through the Steam Workshop [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=844674609 page].<br />
''' November 11th, 2016'''<br />
:* '''U.S. advanced research organization [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-s-navcube-could-support-an-x-ray-communications-demonstration-in-space-a-nasa-first accidentally reveals XCOM device'''.] Researchers admit they, quote, "need more support to complete the XCOM package". [[Council_of_Funding_Nations]] advises NASA to use cover story in hopes of keeping invasion secret. :)<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
''' June 11th, 2016'''<br />
:* Steam have a one third off weekend special on XCOM 2 this weekend. <br />
<br clear="all"><br />
[[File:XCOM2_Sectopod.png|240px|thumb|XCOM 2 Arrives]]<br />
''' February 4th, 2016'''<br />
:* It is now possible to start the preload of XCOM 2 through Steam (~24.6 Gb download). Firaxis has already [http://steamcommunity.com/games/268500/announcements/detail/843665914362353836 announced] the release schedule for the different regions and has made available the ingame characters of the Development team for use in XCOM 2's Character Pool. Several reviews have been already released on the major gaming sites - some spoilers might be included on those, read at your own risk. Good luck commanders. <br />
<br clear="all"><br />
[[File:XCOM 2 Retaliation.png|240px|thumb|XCOM 2 - Join Us Or Become Them]]<br />
''' December 12th, 2015'''<br />
:* The Official [[XCOM2|XCOM 2]] "Retaliation" trailer has been released. You can check the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0qHZG1-rEg here] and for more ingame action, you can check Beaglerush's XCOM 2 gameplay videos: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9vG-N0ILB0 War Hand], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT_0gsOmsQE Blacksite] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X1Tfx_TM38&feature=youtu.be Legendary War Hand]. XCOM 2 will be released on February 5th, 2016. <br />
[[File:XCOM 2 Soldier Customization.png|240px|thumb|Soldier Customization]]<br />
''' September 10th, 2015'''<br />
:* [[XCOM2]] has been made available for pre-order on Steam in addition to XCOM: Enemy Unknown being free to play for all users until 10am PT on Sunday, September 13 with a 75% discount for anyone who purchases the game during the same period. This discount also applies to all downloadable content. Like the Elite Soldier Pack that came with pre-orders of Enemy Unknown, XCOM2 pre-orders come with the Resistance Warrior Pack which has more soldier customization options.[http://xcom.com/news/xcom-enemy-unknown-is-free-to-play-on-steam-this-weekend]<br />
<br />
'''August 7th, 2015'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released new [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj42i7f1nj0&feature=youtu.be footage] of the upcoming [[XCOM2]] game, with a focus on the Avenger, the mobile base used by XCOM to fight the ADVENT forces. Highlights include a tour through the base facilities and XCOM's Chief Engineer and Scientist, as well as a display of the soldier customization and the strategic layer.<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
<br />
====OpenTFTD Beta Released====<br />
[[File:OpenTFTD1.png|240px|thumb|OpenTFTD]]<br />
'''August 4th, 2015'''<br />
:* The developers of [[OpenXcom]] have released the first Nightly (a.k.a. beta version) of [http://openxcom.org/ OpenTFTD], an open source reimplementation of [[TFTD|XCOM: Terror From The Deep]]. OpenTFTD comes included with the engine of regular OpenXcom and requires a copy of the original TFTD game to play.<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
====XCOM 2 Gameplay Video Released====<br />
'''June 16th, 2015'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released the first [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzAKyj-KK-E&t=2m22s video] of XCOM 2 gameplay during the E3 2015 conference. The footage features a tactical mission where XCOM troops have to blow up an Advent target and it shows several enemies, including the Advent units of Soldier, Captain, Turret and MEC, as well as the Viper and the evolved Muton Berserker. The video also shows the new concealment/ambush mechanic, as well as a Gremlin hacking a turret and the Skyranger retrieval. It is also possible to see Officer [[Bradford (EU2012)|Bradford]] ordering XCOM troops into action and a glimpse of the world under the alien occupation.<br />
<br />
====XCOM2 confirmed!==== <br />
'''June 1st, 2015'''<br />
:* 2K and Firaxis have confirmed today on the XCOM official website [[http://xcom.com/]] the upcoming sequel to XCOM: Enemy Unknown. [[XCOM2]] takes place 20 years after the events of the remake, where the aliens have taken over Earth and the remains of XCOM are waging a guerrilla war against the extraterrestrials. The game will feature new soldier classes, the return of the [[Snakemen]] along with other new aliens, procedure generated (random) maps, and will be exclusive to the PC with specific features for mod development. More features will be revealed soon on IGN [http://ca.ign.com/articles/2015/06/01/xcom-2-announced-ign-first].<br />
'''May 29th, 2015'''<br />
:* Two clues at the Advent website have a series of letters that when combined produce "VIGILO CONFIDO", or the motto of Enemy Unknown 2012. It seems that a new XCOM game is under development and more details should be announced later. <br />
'''May 27th, 2015'''<br />
:* 2K has released yesterday a link to a site that presents an alternate reality company called [http://www.adventfuture.org/ Advent Administration]. Its contents have triggered speculation on the 2K official forums and Xcom subreddit that it is related to a new upcoming XCOM announcement. The site contains a rotating globe, pictures depicting a XCOM: Apocalypse style city, one of which seems to contain artwork already present on XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and a downloadable .pdf file uses a font called 'XCOM-Regular'. The site also appears to be under some sort of hacking by an unknown party, with its contents being replaced by phrases such as 'we are still watching'. While all of this is merely circumstantial evidence, 2K is expected to announce a major title on the next E3 Conference in 3 weeks so keep tuned for further details.<br />
<br />
== Archived News == <br />
<br />
'''October 21st, 2014'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released video footage of the two panels dedicated to XCOM: Enemy Unknown during the company's 2014 community convention, which took place last month. The panels were called ''Designing the Soldiers in XCOM'', which was presented by Game Designer Ananda Gupta, and ''The Artwork of XCOM'', by Art Director Greg Foertsch. The Firaxicon videos are available at Firaxis's Youtube [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-lTq9LJCHpRP88U3dngU2P6GhJ8KqEjP channel]. <br />
'''October 16th, 2014'''<br />
:* Steam announced that XCOM: Enemy Unknown can be played for free this weekend, starting today and until next Sunday. For more details check Steam's [http://store.steampowered.com/news/14681/ announcement]. <br />
<br />
'''August 5th, 2014'''<br />
:* Fantasy Flight Games announced that they'll be publishing ''XCOM: The Board Game'' on the last quarter of 2014. The tabletop board game is based on [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] and can be played from 1-4 players, which take the individual roles of XCOM Commander, Chief Scientist, Central Officer and Squad Leader, with the help of an app companion to determine the moves of the alien forces. For more details check the publisher's [http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4972 page], and yes, the game comes included with plastic figures representing all soldier classes, as well as the Interceptors and UFOs. Cost is presented as $59.95 for this game and it will be available for preview at the publisher's booth on Gen Con Indy 2014. <br />
'''June 13th, 2014'''<br />
:* [[OpenXcom]] has just completed its release 1.0 version, available for free at [http://openxcom.org/ openxcom.org]. If you're looking to spice up the original [[X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown]] game, then check out this revamped open source clone version, developed by [[User:SupSuper|SupSuper]] and a bunch of X-COM enthusiasts. For more details about OpenXcom, see this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL2x-Sz9Oa8 presentation]. <br />
'''May 29th, 2014'''<br />
:*Feral Interactive has [http://www.feralinteractive.com/en/news/424/ announced] that they will release XCOM: Enemy Unknown as their first game for Linux this summer, using the Ubuntu 14.04 version and through SteamPlay. <br />
'''May 17th, 2014'''<br />
:*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsHppXrgP0I YCOM: Enemy Unlikely] - Another remake of the XCOM series, YCOM: Enemy Unlikely is a demake of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, with a bit of hilarity added. The video contains a link on its description to download and play the game. <br />
'''April 29th, 2014'''<br />
:*[http://xcomrl.blogspot.pt/ X@COM] - playable alpha demo. X@COM, or XCOM Rogue-like, is a current fan project that aims to replicate the original UFO: Enemy Unknown using only ASCII characters. They're aiming to finish the project by 2015 and they have a current playable alpha version that can be downloaded for playing. <br />
'''March 9th, 2014'''<br />
:*[http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/03/x-coms-design-document-had-just-12-pages/ Kokatu] magazine has published an article about the creation of the original [[X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown]] which includes a [http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1017808/Classic-Game-Postmortem-X-COM link] to last year's video presentation made by its creator, Julian Gollop, about the original game's design process.<br />
'''March 4th, 2014'''<br />
:*XCOM: Complete Edition released for PC and Mac. Includes all of the DLCs released so far, including the Elite Soldier Pack, Slingshot and Enemy Within. <br />
'''February 7th, 2014'''<br />
:*[[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] has won the Best Strategy/Simulation Game of the Year 2013 DICE awards. For a list of winners see [http://www.interactive.org/news/17th_annual_dice_awards_winners.asp].<br />
'''February 4th, 2014'''<br />
:*2K Games is preparing the release a complete edition of [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] on March 4th, according to [http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/02/03/xcom-and-civilization-v-complete-editions-coming-soon.aspx Gameinformer]. No further details have been released yet about the edition but it's likely that it should include all of the DLCs released so far, such as [[Elite Soldier Pack DLC (EU2012)|Elite Soldier Pack]], [[Slingshot DLC (EU2012)|Slingshot]] and the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|Enemy Within]] expansion.<br />
<br />
==== [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] and [[Hangar 6: R&D DLC (Bureau)|Hangar 6: R&D]] have been released! ====<br />
====XCOM: Enemy Within released====<br />
'''November 15th 2013'''<br />
:*And now it is the rest of the world's turn as Enemy Within receives its international release today. So get on and enjoy the all new features!<br />
'''November 12th 2013'''<br />
:*XCOM Enemy Within is released in America with new features like the new human faction – EXALT, Base Defence and all new maps and council Missions. Enjoy the game and see you on the farm with the crashed UFO.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within Reviews! ====<br />
'''November 11th 2013'''<br />
:*Several reviews of [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] have been published today. To read/see them, check [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/10729-XCOM-Enemy-Within-Review Escapist Magazine] ("''All of the fun new toys, however, do work a bit against the game's biggest flaw - after a certain point of advancement, the challenge and satisfaction of snuffing aliens dissipates quickly.''"), [http://www.shacknews.com/article/81977/xcom-enemy-within-video-review Shacknews] ("''Firaxis once again manages to balance XCOM's disparate elements, resulting in a challenging and satisfying experience.''"), [http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/11/11/xcom-enemy-within-review IGN] ("''Enemy Within is an amazing expansion to a brilliant tactical game.''") and [http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/xcomenemyunknowntheenemywithin/reviews.html Strategy Informer] ("''I could go on about the virtues of Enemy Within, about how good it was to play through the whole campaign again, but ultimately it’ll come down to two factors: The fact that the ending hasn’t changed a bit, and the fact that, ultimately, you’re still playing the same game.''", and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mb_RXgIStw Revision3] ("''EW gets a 4 out of 5.''").<br />
<br />
====The Bureau Expansion====<br />
'''November 8th 2013'''<br />
:*[[The Bureau: XCOM Declassified|The Bureau: XCOM Declassified]] gained it first DLC Pack today in the form of [[Hangar 6: R&D DLC (Bureau)|Hangar 6: R&D]] in which the player takes control of DaSilva in an attempt to get to the bottom of a mysterious new infection.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM Base Defense confirmed on EW====<br />
'''October 23th, 2013'''<br />
:*The newest preview videos released ([http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/previews/10679-XCOM-Enemy-Within-Preview-Whole-New-Game here] and [http://www.gamespot.com/videos/base-defense-returns-in-xcom-enemy-within/2300-6415682/ here]) have confirmed the addition of a Base Defense mission to [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]], a feature of the original game long called for by players. Check for more details on the Enemy Within page.<br />
<br />
==== EXALT revealed!====<br />
'''October 9th, 2013'''<br />
:*A new faction has been revealed for [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]], the upcoming [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] expansion. XCOM's new enemies are called EXALT and they're a secret paramilitary human group that is conspiring to use the alien technology and chaos of the invasion to achieve world domination. More details available at the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|Enemy Within]] page.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within details announced!====<br />
'''August 21st, 2013'''<br />
:*Producer 2K revealed details about '''XCOM: Enemy Within''', the upcoming expansion to [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]]. The main features are the addition of the Meld, a substance that allows you to create a new class (Mech Troopers), with new weapons and abilities or to genetically enhance your soldiers (Gene Mods), along with other features. The release date is November 12th (US) and 15th (rest of the world) and check the full details on the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] page.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within will be revealed on August 21st====<br />
'''August 3rd, 2013'''<br />
:*Producer 2K has confirmed that it will reveal during Gamescom 2013 a new DLC for XCOM: Enemy Unknown called [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]].<br />
<br />
<br />
==== The Bureau: XCOM Declassified will be released next month====<br />
'''July 18th, 2013'''<br />
:*The upcoming XCOM squad based shooter will be available for sale on stores on August 20th in the US and on the 23rd to the rest of the world. From the available previews/footage it seems the game has been redesigned as a prequel to ''XCOM: Enemy Unknown'', featuring Sectoids, Mutons and even Silacoids.<br />
<br />
==== The Bureau: XCOM Declassified coming soon====<br />
'''May 5th, 2013'''<br />
:*Marin's 2K XCOM squad based shooter should be released soon as '''The Bureau: XCOM Declassified'''. The game was announced three years ago and has been redesigned.<br />
<br />
==== Clash of the Titans: X-COM meets XCOM ==== <br />
'''April 2nd, 2013'''<br />
:*Julian Gollop and Jake Solomon have met for the first time during Game Developers Conference 2013 to be interviewed regarding the original game and the 2012 remake. Check the video of the encounter here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8zZsecTRfM].<br />
<br />
==== GDC 2013: Julian Gollop's Postmortem on UFO: Enemy Unknown/XCOM: UFO Defense ====<br />
<br />
'''March 28th, 2013'''<br />
<br />
:*Julian Gollop gave a talk at Games Developers Conference 2013 on the development of the original UFO: Enemy Unknown/XCOM: UFO Defense. An interesting look into the philosophies and source material that went into the making of the game, and also how it nearly failed. <br />
<br />
:: See the video at: http://www.gamespot.com/events/gdc-2013/video.html?sid=6406150<br />
'''March 1st, 2013'''<br />
:*'''Elite Edition for the Mac announced.''' Firaxis have announced that Feral Games are porting XCOM: Enemy Unknown to the OS X and will be released in an Elite Edition. This edition will include the [[Elite Soldier Pack DLC (EU2012)|Elite Soldier Pack]], [[Slingshot DLC (EU2012)|Slingshot]] and [[Second Wave (EU2012)|Second Wave]] DLCs and should be released this spring. <br />
<br />
'''January 8th, 2013'''<br />
:*'''[[Second Wave (EU2012)|Second Wave]] options now available on XCOM: Enemy Unknown.''' The latest patch released today by Firaxis now activates the Second Wave options and makes it available for the game. Despite it being already included but inactive (and playable through mods) the developers had stated that they didn't had time to complete Second Wave before XCOM: Enemy Unknown but it was on their intentions to finish it. It now includes the following [[Info_(EU2012)#Advanced Options|options]] as part of Advanced Gameplay: ''Damage Roulette, New Economy, Not Created Equally, Hidden Potential, Red Fog, Absolutely Critical, The Greater Good, Marathon, Results Driven, High Stakes, Diminishing Returns, More Than Human, Total Loss, War Wariness, E-115'' and ''Alternate Sources''. The [[Patches_(EU2012)#2013-01-08|patch]] also introduces fixes to the teleport bug and adds a new XCOM Hero. <br />
<br />
'''December 4, 2012'''<br />
:* 2K Games has released the first of two DLC packs for all platforms, named ''Slingshot''. The pack features several additional new helmets, 1 new armor decoration and 3 linked Council missions and a special playable soldier named ''Zhang''.<br />
<br />
'''October 23, 2012'''<br />
:* 2K Games has [http://www.2kgames.com/blog/add-on-content-packs-for-xcom-enemy-unknown-coming-soon announced] the first of two DLC packs for all platforms. The first, named ''Slingshot'', will feature 3 new linked Council missions that will focus on a playable character named ''Zhang''.<br />
<br />
'''October 9, 2012'''<br />
:* Eighteen years after the original release of ''UFO: Enemy Unknown'' (or ''XCOM: UFO Defense''), 2K Games has released today in North America ''XCOM: Enemy Unknown'', its remake of the original game, which will be followed by the international release next Friday. XCOM is back!<br />
<br />
''' September 24, 2012 '''<br />
:* Demo is released on '''[http://store.steampowered.com/app/200510/ Steam]'''. It features a tutorial mission, a standard mission and a limited interaction with the Base and Geoscape layer. <br />
<br />
''' August 10, 2012 '''<br />
:* Multiplayer deathmatch revealed for XCOM: Enemy Unknown (2012), mix your own squad of soldiers & aliens and battle online vs other players. <br />
<br />
''' January 5, 2012 '''<br />
:*Publisher 2K Games announces that Firaxis (makers of Civilization) is developing a re-imagining of the original XCOM: Enemy Unknown for release this fall (2012).<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==== <span style ="color:#49BCB5;">New XCOM FPS Game by 2k Marin</span> ====<br />
:* XCOM FPS has been delayed multiple times, release is late 2013 or 2014 at the earliest.<br />
:* The game will focus on elite U.S. government operatives attempting to prevent a nightmarish invasion of the United States (while dropping the dash in X-COM). See:<br />
:* The [http://www.xcom.com official XCOM] site (only a couple of trailers here)<br />
:* Some criticism of its change in focus ([http://www.destructoid.com/2k-marin-s-22-minute-demonstration-of-xcom-209954.phtml 1], [http://www.destructoid.com/2k-xcom-changed-because-strategy-games-aren-t-modern-205991.phtml 2]), although 2k Marin may be rethinking this<br />
:* [http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?76-XCOM-General-Discussion 2k's XCOM forum], including passionate posts by X-Commies<br />
:* Once slated for March 2012 release, it has now slipped to a later date ([http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/xcom_2k_marin/news/xcom_release_date_slips_avoids_mass_effect_3.html 1], [http://www.gamespot.com/news/6344515.html?tag=nl.e579 2]).<br />
<br />
----<br />
==== <span style ="color:#49BCB5;">X-COM Packages </span> ====<br />
Now available for less than $15<br />
:*At [http://www.gamersgate.com/index.php?page=product&what=view&sku=DDB-XCOM&via=newly_added&aff=sc GamersGate], [http://store.steampowered.com/sub/964/ Steam] and [http://www.direct2drive.com/2/7614/product/Buy-X-Com-Complete-Bundle-Download Direct2Drive]. (Includes '''UFO''', '''TFTD''', '''Apoc''', '''Int''', and '''Enf''').<br />
<br />
For "reviews", see [[GEOSCAPE.EXE#X-COM_Complete_Packages|this]]. <br />
<br />
<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">'''OFFICIAL'''</span> - [http://kotaku.com/5516654/x+com-is-back NEW X-COM GAME FROM THE DEVELOPERS OF BIOSHOCK 2]<br><br />
Yes, this will come as a shock to all, but 2K Australia and 2K Marin is busily working on a first-person shooter based on the X-COM franchise. More info will presumably become available on the 2010 E3.<br />
<br />
For more information/rumors check 2K's [http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=76 X-COM forum].<br />
</div></div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XCOM_News&diff=98850XCOM News2020-12-08T16:55:54Z<p>Hobbes: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is the Ufopaedia.org news page where relevant news and site messages will appear. When this page is transcluded into other pages, only the new news items should appear there. Everything else will only display on this page. <br />
<br />
== News ==<br />
<div style="padding-left:10px;"><br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">Phoenix Point One Year Edition released!</span>====<br />
[[File:Phoenix Point Geoscape.png|240px|thumb|Phoenix Point Geoscape]]<br />
''' December 8th, 2020'''<br />
:*[https://phoenixpoint.info/ Phoenix Point], the successor to the XCom series made by its original creator, Julian Gollop, has just released its one year edition on Steam and other gaming platforms. The player takes control of Phoenix Point, a top secret organization created to deal with extraordinary threats, as it fights the Pandora virus, an alien lifeform that wishes to remake Earth at its own image, while dealing with human factions that also have their own agenda for the future of the planet, in a game heavily influenced by the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu_Mythos Cthulu Mythos]. The game follows the classic 4X (Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate) for its Geoscape layer, with a turn-based combat system situated halfway between the [[XCOM|original game]] and Firaxis' [[Enemy Unknown (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]]. Phoenix Point even has its own [http://wiki.phoenixpoint.com/Phoenix_Point_Wiki wiki] and it seems influenced by the UFOPaedia!<br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM: Chimera Squad announced!</span>====<br />
''' April 14th, 2020'''<br />
:*Firaxis has [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/1250061590092828678 announced] an upcoming spinoff to the XCOM franchise, "[[Chimera Squad]]", to be released in April 24th. The events of the game take place 5 years after XCOM 2 and are centered upon the titular multi-species law enforcement unit keeping the peace among the humans and aliens living together in the metropolis known as City 31, as a seeming spiritual successor to X-COM: Apocalypse. The released [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39fhpegVBQQ gameplay trailer] reveals that in addition to playable alien squad members, consisting of the Sectoid Verge, the Viper Torque and the Muton Axiom, the game also introduces a Breaching mechanic for setting up an opening surprise attack at the beginning of combat, a Timeline system where the combatants on both sides individually take turns after each other in a fixed, faction-alternating order rather than the entire team acting as once like in previous games, as well as disposable androids to take the place of injured agents on the team roster.<br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM 2: War Of The Chosen DLC announced!</span>====<br />
[[File:War of the Chosen.png|240px|thumb|Reaper Resistance faction]]<br />
''' June 12th, 2017'''<br />
:* Firaxis has [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/874313674835415040 announced] "War Of the Chosen" the next XCOM 2 DLC to be released in August 29th. The DLC will introduce several new enemies, including the Chosen, an elite alien team consisting of the Assassin, the Hunter and the Warlock tasked with recapturing the XCOM commander, along with ADVENT's new Purifier and Priest units. As for XCOM, there will be 3 new classes, Reaper, Skirmisher and Templar representing Resistance factions that you'll need to recruit to your cause. And finally, the Lost will be introduced, which consist of mutated humans who dwell in the ruins of Earth's cities that were destroyed in the initial invasion. <br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM 2: The Real War Begins teaser</span>====<br />
''' June 11th, 2017'''<br />
:* [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/872815512656412672 XCOM]'s Twitter account has just posted a poster teaser for XCOM 2: The Real War Begins, the expected expansion to Firaxis' latest release in the XCOM series. Details of the new expansion will be [http://www.pcgamer.com/2k-and-firaxis-to-present-at-the-pc-gaming-show-at-e3/ revealed] next Monday, June 12th at the E3 convention.<br />
''' January 20th, 2017'''<br />
:* [http://www.pavonisinteractive.com Pavonis Interactive], formerly Long War Studios, has released a new version of its famous [[Long_War|Long War]] mod for XCOM 2. Long War 2 adds several new classes, equipment, research, aliens, missions and more, while increasing the duration of the game. Long War 2 can be downloaded through the Steam Workshop [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=844674609 page].<br />
''' November 11th, 2016'''<br />
:* '''U.S. advanced research organization [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-s-navcube-could-support-an-x-ray-communications-demonstration-in-space-a-nasa-first accidentally reveals XCOM device'''.] Researchers admit they, quote, "need more support to complete the XCOM package". [[Council_of_Funding_Nations]] advises NASA to use cover story in hopes of keeping invasion secret. :)<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
''' June 11th, 2016'''<br />
:* Steam have a one third off weekend special on XCOM 2 this weekend. <br />
<br clear="all"><br />
[[File:XCOM2_Sectopod.png|240px|thumb|XCOM 2 Arrives]]<br />
''' February 4th, 2016'''<br />
:* It is now possible to start the preload of XCOM 2 through Steam (~24.6 Gb download). Firaxis has already [http://steamcommunity.com/games/268500/announcements/detail/843665914362353836 announced] the release schedule for the different regions and has made available the ingame characters of the Development team for use in XCOM 2's Character Pool. Several reviews have been already released on the major gaming sites - some spoilers might be included on those, read at your own risk. Good luck commanders. <br />
<br clear="all"><br />
[[File:XCOM 2 Retaliation.png|240px|thumb|XCOM 2 - Join Us Or Become Them]]<br />
''' December 12th, 2015'''<br />
:* The Official [[XCOM2|XCOM 2]] "Retaliation" trailer has been released. You can check the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0qHZG1-rEg here] and for more ingame action, you can check Beaglerush's XCOM 2 gameplay videos: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9vG-N0ILB0 War Hand], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT_0gsOmsQE Blacksite] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X1Tfx_TM38&feature=youtu.be Legendary War Hand]. XCOM 2 will be released on February 5th, 2016. <br />
[[File:XCOM 2 Soldier Customization.png|240px|thumb|Soldier Customization]]<br />
''' September 10th, 2015'''<br />
:* [[XCOM2]] has been made available for pre-order on Steam in addition to XCOM: Enemy Unknown being free to play for all users until 10am PT on Sunday, September 13 with a 75% discount for anyone who purchases the game during the same period. This discount also applies to all downloadable content. Like the Elite Soldier Pack that came with pre-orders of Enemy Unknown, XCOM2 pre-orders come with the Resistance Warrior Pack which has more soldier customization options.[http://xcom.com/news/xcom-enemy-unknown-is-free-to-play-on-steam-this-weekend]<br />
<br />
'''August 7th, 2015'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released new [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj42i7f1nj0&feature=youtu.be footage] of the upcoming [[XCOM2]] game, with a focus on the Avenger, the mobile base used by XCOM to fight the ADVENT forces. Highlights include a tour through the base facilities and XCOM's Chief Engineer and Scientist, as well as a display of the soldier customization and the strategic layer.<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
<br />
====OpenTFTD Beta Released====<br />
[[File:OpenTFTD1.png|240px|thumb|OpenTFTD]]<br />
'''August 4th, 2015'''<br />
:* The developers of [[OpenXcom]] have released the first Nightly (a.k.a. beta version) of [http://openxcom.org/ OpenTFTD], an open source reimplementation of [[TFTD|XCOM: Terror From The Deep]]. OpenTFTD comes included with the engine of regular OpenXcom and requires a copy of the original TFTD game to play.<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
====XCOM 2 Gameplay Video Released====<br />
'''June 16th, 2015'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released the first [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzAKyj-KK-E&t=2m22s video] of XCOM 2 gameplay during the E3 2015 conference. The footage features a tactical mission where XCOM troops have to blow up an Advent target and it shows several enemies, including the Advent units of Soldier, Captain, Turret and MEC, as well as the Viper and the evolved Muton Berserker. The video also shows the new concealment/ambush mechanic, as well as a Gremlin hacking a turret and the Skyranger retrieval. It is also possible to see Officer [[Bradford (EU2012)|Bradford]] ordering XCOM troops into action and a glimpse of the world under the alien occupation.<br />
<br />
====XCOM2 confirmed!==== <br />
'''June 1st, 2015'''<br />
:* 2K and Firaxis have confirmed today on the XCOM official website [[http://xcom.com/]] the upcoming sequel to XCOM: Enemy Unknown. [[XCOM2]] takes place 20 years after the events of the remake, where the aliens have taken over Earth and the remains of XCOM are waging a guerrilla war against the extraterrestrials. The game will feature new soldier classes, the return of the [[Snakemen]] along with other new aliens, procedure generated (random) maps, and will be exclusive to the PC with specific features for mod development. More features will be revealed soon on IGN [http://ca.ign.com/articles/2015/06/01/xcom-2-announced-ign-first].<br />
'''May 29th, 2015'''<br />
:* Two clues at the Advent website have a series of letters that when combined produce "VIGILO CONFIDO", or the motto of Enemy Unknown 2012. It seems that a new XCOM game is under development and more details should be announced later. <br />
'''May 27th, 2015'''<br />
:* 2K has released yesterday a link to a site that presents an alternate reality company called [http://www.adventfuture.org/ Advent Administration]. Its contents have triggered speculation on the 2K official forums and Xcom subreddit that it is related to a new upcoming XCOM announcement. The site contains a rotating globe, pictures depicting a XCOM: Apocalypse style city, one of which seems to contain artwork already present on XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and a downloadable .pdf file uses a font called 'XCOM-Regular'. The site also appears to be under some sort of hacking by an unknown party, with its contents being replaced by phrases such as 'we are still watching'. While all of this is merely circumstantial evidence, 2K is expected to announce a major title on the next E3 Conference in 3 weeks so keep tuned for further details. <br />
<br />
== Archived News == <br />
<br />
'''October 21st, 2014'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released video footage of the two panels dedicated to XCOM: Enemy Unknown during the company's 2014 community convention, which took place last month. The panels were called ''Designing the Soldiers in XCOM'', which was presented by Game Designer Ananda Gupta, and ''The Artwork of XCOM'', by Art Director Greg Foertsch. The Firaxicon videos are available at Firaxis's Youtube [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-lTq9LJCHpRP88U3dngU2P6GhJ8KqEjP channel]. <br />
'''October 16th, 2014'''<br />
:* Steam announced that XCOM: Enemy Unknown can be played for free this weekend, starting today and until next Sunday. For more details check Steam's [http://store.steampowered.com/news/14681/ announcement]. <br />
<br />
'''August 5th, 2014'''<br />
:* Fantasy Flight Games announced that they'll be publishing ''XCOM: The Board Game'' on the last quarter of 2014. The tabletop board game is based on [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] and can be played from 1-4 players, which take the individual roles of XCOM Commander, Chief Scientist, Central Officer and Squad Leader, with the help of an app companion to determine the moves of the alien forces. For more details check the publisher's [http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4972 page], and yes, the game comes included with plastic figures representing all soldier classes, as well as the Interceptors and UFOs. Cost is presented as $59.95 for this game and it will be available for preview at the publisher's booth on Gen Con Indy 2014. <br />
'''June 13th, 2014'''<br />
:* [[OpenXcom]] has just completed its release 1.0 version, available for free at [http://openxcom.org/ openxcom.org]. If you're looking to spice up the original [[X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown]] game, then check out this revamped open source clone version, developed by [[User:SupSuper|SupSuper]] and a bunch of X-COM enthusiasts. For more details about OpenXcom, see this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL2x-Sz9Oa8 presentation]. <br />
'''May 29th, 2014'''<br />
:*Feral Interactive has [http://www.feralinteractive.com/en/news/424/ announced] that they will release XCOM: Enemy Unknown as their first game for Linux this summer, using the Ubuntu 14.04 version and through SteamPlay. <br />
'''May 17th, 2014'''<br />
:*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsHppXrgP0I YCOM: Enemy Unlikely] - Another remake of the XCOM series, YCOM: Enemy Unlikely is a demake of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, with a bit of hilarity added. The video contains a link on its description to download and play the game. <br />
'''April 29th, 2014'''<br />
:*[http://xcomrl.blogspot.pt/ X@COM] - playable alpha demo. X@COM, or XCOM Rogue-like, is a current fan project that aims to replicate the original UFO: Enemy Unknown using only ASCII characters. They're aiming to finish the project by 2015 and they have a current playable alpha version that can be downloaded for playing. <br />
'''March 9th, 2014'''<br />
:*[http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/03/x-coms-design-document-had-just-12-pages/ Kokatu] magazine has published an article about the creation of the original [[X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown]] which includes a [http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1017808/Classic-Game-Postmortem-X-COM link] to last year's video presentation made by its creator, Julian Gollop, about the original game's design process.<br />
'''March 4th, 2014'''<br />
:*XCOM: Complete Edition released for PC and Mac. Includes all of the DLCs released so far, including the Elite Soldier Pack, Slingshot and Enemy Within. <br />
'''February 7th, 2014'''<br />
:*[[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] has won the Best Strategy/Simulation Game of the Year 2013 DICE awards. For a list of winners see [http://www.interactive.org/news/17th_annual_dice_awards_winners.asp].<br />
'''February 4th, 2014'''<br />
:*2K Games is preparing the release a complete edition of [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] on March 4th, according to [http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/02/03/xcom-and-civilization-v-complete-editions-coming-soon.aspx Gameinformer]. No further details have been released yet about the edition but it's likely that it should include all of the DLCs released so far, such as [[Elite Soldier Pack DLC (EU2012)|Elite Soldier Pack]], [[Slingshot DLC (EU2012)|Slingshot]] and the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|Enemy Within]] expansion.<br />
<br />
==== [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] and [[Hangar 6: R&D DLC (Bureau)|Hangar 6: R&D]] have been released! ====<br />
====XCOM: Enemy Within released====<br />
'''November 15th 2013'''<br />
:*And now it is the rest of the world's turn as Enemy Within receives its international release today. So get on and enjoy the all new features!<br />
'''November 12th 2013'''<br />
:*XCOM Enemy Within is released in America with new features like the new human faction – EXALT, Base Defence and all new maps and council Missions. Enjoy the game and see you on the farm with the crashed UFO.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within Reviews! ====<br />
'''November 11th 2013'''<br />
:*Several reviews of [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] have been published today. To read/see them, check [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/10729-XCOM-Enemy-Within-Review Escapist Magazine] ("''All of the fun new toys, however, do work a bit against the game's biggest flaw - after a certain point of advancement, the challenge and satisfaction of snuffing aliens dissipates quickly.''"), [http://www.shacknews.com/article/81977/xcom-enemy-within-video-review Shacknews] ("''Firaxis once again manages to balance XCOM's disparate elements, resulting in a challenging and satisfying experience.''"), [http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/11/11/xcom-enemy-within-review IGN] ("''Enemy Within is an amazing expansion to a brilliant tactical game.''") and [http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/xcomenemyunknowntheenemywithin/reviews.html Strategy Informer] ("''I could go on about the virtues of Enemy Within, about how good it was to play through the whole campaign again, but ultimately it’ll come down to two factors: The fact that the ending hasn’t changed a bit, and the fact that, ultimately, you’re still playing the same game.''", and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mb_RXgIStw Revision3] ("''EW gets a 4 out of 5.''").<br />
<br />
====The Bureau Expansion====<br />
'''November 8th 2013'''<br />
:*[[The Bureau: XCOM Declassified|The Bureau: XCOM Declassified]] gained it first DLC Pack today in the form of [[Hangar 6: R&D DLC (Bureau)|Hangar 6: R&D]] in which the player takes control of DaSilva in an attempt to get to the bottom of a mysterious new infection.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM Base Defense confirmed on EW====<br />
'''October 23th, 2013'''<br />
:*The newest preview videos released ([http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/previews/10679-XCOM-Enemy-Within-Preview-Whole-New-Game here] and [http://www.gamespot.com/videos/base-defense-returns-in-xcom-enemy-within/2300-6415682/ here]) have confirmed the addition of a Base Defense mission to [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]], a feature of the original game long called for by players. Check for more details on the Enemy Within page.<br />
<br />
==== EXALT revealed!====<br />
'''October 9th, 2013'''<br />
:*A new faction has been revealed for [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]], the upcoming [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] expansion. XCOM's new enemies are called EXALT and they're a secret paramilitary human group that is conspiring to use the alien technology and chaos of the invasion to achieve world domination. More details available at the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|Enemy Within]] page.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within details announced!====<br />
'''August 21st, 2013'''<br />
:*Producer 2K revealed details about '''XCOM: Enemy Within''', the upcoming expansion to [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]]. The main features are the addition of the Meld, a substance that allows you to create a new class (Mech Troopers), with new weapons and abilities or to genetically enhance your soldiers (Gene Mods), along with other features. The release date is November 12th (US) and 15th (rest of the world) and check the full details on the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] page.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within will be revealed on August 21st====<br />
'''August 3rd, 2013'''<br />
:*Producer 2K has confirmed that it will reveal during Gamescom 2013 a new DLC for XCOM: Enemy Unknown called [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]].<br />
<br />
<br />
==== The Bureau: XCOM Declassified will be released next month====<br />
'''July 18th, 2013'''<br />
:*The upcoming XCOM squad based shooter will be available for sale on stores on August 20th in the US and on the 23rd to the rest of the world. From the available previews/footage it seems the game has been redesigned as a prequel to ''XCOM: Enemy Unknown'', featuring Sectoids, Mutons and even Silacoids.<br />
<br />
==== The Bureau: XCOM Declassified coming soon====<br />
'''May 5th, 2013'''<br />
:*Marin's 2K XCOM squad based shooter should be released soon as '''The Bureau: XCOM Declassified'''. The game was announced three years ago and has been redesigned.<br />
<br />
==== Clash of the Titans: X-COM meets XCOM ==== <br />
'''April 2nd, 2013'''<br />
:*Julian Gollop and Jake Solomon have met for the first time during Game Developers Conference 2013 to be interviewed regarding the original game and the 2012 remake. Check the video of the encounter here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8zZsecTRfM].<br />
<br />
==== GDC 2013: Julian Gollop's Postmortem on UFO: Enemy Unknown/XCOM: UFO Defense ====<br />
<br />
'''March 28th, 2013'''<br />
<br />
:*Julian Gollop gave a talk at Games Developers Conference 2013 on the development of the original UFO: Enemy Unknown/XCOM: UFO Defense. An interesting look into the philosophies and source material that went into the making of the game, and also how it nearly failed. <br />
<br />
:: See the video at: http://www.gamespot.com/events/gdc-2013/video.html?sid=6406150<br />
'''March 1st, 2013'''<br />
:*'''Elite Edition for the Mac announced.''' Firaxis have announced that Feral Games are porting XCOM: Enemy Unknown to the OS X and will be released in an Elite Edition. This edition will include the [[Elite Soldier Pack DLC (EU2012)|Elite Soldier Pack]], [[Slingshot DLC (EU2012)|Slingshot]] and [[Second Wave (EU2012)|Second Wave]] DLCs and should be released this spring. <br />
<br />
'''January 8th, 2013'''<br />
:*'''[[Second Wave (EU2012)|Second Wave]] options now available on XCOM: Enemy Unknown.''' The latest patch released today by Firaxis now activates the Second Wave options and makes it available for the game. Despite it being already included but inactive (and playable through mods) the developers had stated that they didn't had time to complete Second Wave before XCOM: Enemy Unknown but it was on their intentions to finish it. It now includes the following [[Info_(EU2012)#Advanced Options|options]] as part of Advanced Gameplay: ''Damage Roulette, New Economy, Not Created Equally, Hidden Potential, Red Fog, Absolutely Critical, The Greater Good, Marathon, Results Driven, High Stakes, Diminishing Returns, More Than Human, Total Loss, War Wariness, E-115'' and ''Alternate Sources''. The [[Patches_(EU2012)#2013-01-08|patch]] also introduces fixes to the teleport bug and adds a new XCOM Hero. <br />
<br />
'''December 4, 2012'''<br />
:* 2K Games has released the first of two DLC packs for all platforms, named ''Slingshot''. The pack features several additional new helmets, 1 new armor decoration and 3 linked Council missions and a special playable soldier named ''Zhang''.<br />
<br />
'''October 23, 2012'''<br />
:* 2K Games has [http://www.2kgames.com/blog/add-on-content-packs-for-xcom-enemy-unknown-coming-soon announced] the first of two DLC packs for all platforms. The first, named ''Slingshot'', will feature 3 new linked Council missions that will focus on a playable character named ''Zhang''.<br />
<br />
'''October 9, 2012'''<br />
:* Eighteen years after the original release of ''UFO: Enemy Unknown'' (or ''XCOM: UFO Defense''), 2K Games has released today in North America ''XCOM: Enemy Unknown'', its remake of the original game, which will be followed by the international release next Friday. XCOM is back!<br />
<br />
''' September 24, 2012 '''<br />
:* Demo is released on '''[http://store.steampowered.com/app/200510/ Steam]'''. It features a tutorial mission, a standard mission and a limited interaction with the Base and Geoscape layer. <br />
<br />
''' August 10, 2012 '''<br />
:* Multiplayer deathmatch revealed for XCOM: Enemy Unknown (2012), mix your own squad of soldiers & aliens and battle online vs other players. <br />
<br />
''' January 5, 2012 '''<br />
:*Publisher 2K Games announces that Firaxis (makers of Civilization) is developing a re-imagining of the original XCOM: Enemy Unknown for release this fall (2012).<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==== <span style ="color:#49BCB5;">New XCOM FPS Game by 2k Marin</span> ====<br />
:* XCOM FPS has been delayed multiple times, release is late 2013 or 2014 at the earliest.<br />
:* The game will focus on elite U.S. government operatives attempting to prevent a nightmarish invasion of the United States (while dropping the dash in X-COM). See:<br />
:* The [http://www.xcom.com official XCOM] site (only a couple of trailers here)<br />
:* Some criticism of its change in focus ([http://www.destructoid.com/2k-marin-s-22-minute-demonstration-of-xcom-209954.phtml 1], [http://www.destructoid.com/2k-xcom-changed-because-strategy-games-aren-t-modern-205991.phtml 2]), although 2k Marin may be rethinking this<br />
:* [http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?76-XCOM-General-Discussion 2k's XCOM forum], including passionate posts by X-Commies<br />
:* Once slated for March 2012 release, it has now slipped to a later date ([http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/xcom_2k_marin/news/xcom_release_date_slips_avoids_mass_effect_3.html 1], [http://www.gamespot.com/news/6344515.html?tag=nl.e579 2]).<br />
<br />
----<br />
==== <span style ="color:#49BCB5;">X-COM Packages </span> ====<br />
Now available for less than $15<br />
:*At [http://www.gamersgate.com/index.php?page=product&what=view&sku=DDB-XCOM&via=newly_added&aff=sc GamersGate], [http://store.steampowered.com/sub/964/ Steam] and [http://www.direct2drive.com/2/7614/product/Buy-X-Com-Complete-Bundle-Download Direct2Drive]. (Includes '''UFO''', '''TFTD''', '''Apoc''', '''Int''', and '''Enf''').<br />
<br />
For "reviews", see [[GEOSCAPE.EXE#X-COM_Complete_Packages|this]]. <br />
<br />
<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">'''OFFICIAL'''</span> - [http://kotaku.com/5516654/x+com-is-back NEW X-COM GAME FROM THE DEVELOPERS OF BIOSHOCK 2]<br><br />
Yes, this will come as a shock to all, but 2K Australia and 2K Marin is busily working on a first-person shooter based on the X-COM franchise. More info will presumably become available on the 2010 E3.<br />
<br />
For more information/rumors check 2K's [http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=76 X-COM forum].<br />
</div></div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XCOM_News&diff=98849XCOM News2020-12-08T16:55:07Z<p>Hobbes: Undo revision 98848 by Hobbes (talk)</p>
<hr />
<div>This is the Ufopaedia.org news page where relevant news and site messages will appear. When this page is transcluded into other pages, only the new news items should appear there. Everything else will only display on this page. <br />
<br />
== News ==<br />
<div style="padding-left:10px;"><br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">Phoenix Point One Year Edition released!</span>====<br />
[[File:Phoenix Point Geoscape.png|240px|thumb|Phoenix Point Geoscape]]<br />
''' December 8th, 2020'''<br />
:*[https://phoenixpoint.info/ Phoenix Point], the successor to the XCom series made by its original creator, Julian Gollop, has just released its one year edition on Steam and other gaming platforms. The player takes control of Phoenix Point, a top secret organization created to deal with extraordinary threats, as it fights the Pandora virus, an alien lifeform that wishes to remake Earth at its own image, while dealing with human factions that also have their own agenda for the future of the planet, in a game heavily influenced by the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu_Mythos Cthulu Mythos]. The game follows the classic 4X (Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate) for its Geoscape layer, with a turn-based combat system situated halfway between the [[XCOM|original game]] and Firaxis' [[Enemy Unknown (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]]. Phoenix Point even has its own [http://wiki.phoenixpoint.com/Phoenix_Point_Wiki wiki] and it seems influenced by the UFOPaedia!<br />
</div></div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XCOM_News&diff=98848XCOM News2020-12-08T16:53:25Z<p>Hobbes: Reverted edits by Hobbes (talk) to last revision by Binkyuk</p>
<hr />
<div>This is the Ufopaedia.org news page where relevant news and site messages will appear. When this page is transcluded into other pages, only the new news items should appear there. Everything else will only display on this page. <br />
<br />
== News ==<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
<div style="padding-left:10px;"><br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM: Chimera Squad announced!</span>====<br />
''' April 14th, 2020'''<br />
:*Firaxis has [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/1250061590092828678 announced] an upcoming spinoff to the XCOM franchise, "[[Chimera Squad]]", to be released in April 24th. The events of the game take place 5 years after XCOM 2 and are centered upon the titular multi-species law enforcement unit keeping the peace among the humans and aliens living together in the metropolis known as City 31, as a seeming spiritual successor to X-COM: Apocalypse. The released [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39fhpegVBQQ gameplay trailer] reveals that in addition to playable alien squad members, consisting of the Sectoid Verge, the Viper Torque and the Muton Axiom, the game also introduces a Breaching mechanic for setting up an opening surprise attack at the beginning of combat, a Timeline system where the combatants on both sides individually take turns after each other in a fixed, faction-alternating order rather than the entire team acting as once like in previous games, as well as disposable androids to take the place of injured agents on the team roster.<br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM 2: War Of The Chosen DLC announced!</span>====<br />
[[File:War of the Chosen.png|240px|thumb|Reaper Resistance faction]]<br />
''' June 12th, 2017'''<br />
:* Firaxis has [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/874313674835415040 announced] "War Of the Chosen" the next XCOM 2 DLC to be released in August 29th. The DLC will introduce several new enemies, including the Chosen, an elite alien team consisting of the Assassin, the Hunter and the Warlock tasked with recapturing the XCOM commander, along with ADVENT's new Purifier and Priest units. As for XCOM, there will be 3 new classes, Reaper, Skirmisher and Templar representing Resistance factions that you'll need to recruit to your cause. And finally, the Lost will be introduced, which consist of mutated humans who dwell in the ruins of Earth's cities that were destroyed in the initial invasion. <br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM 2: The Real War Begins teaser</span>====<br />
''' June 11th, 2017'''<br />
:* [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/872815512656412672 XCOM]'s Twitter account has just posted a poster teaser for XCOM 2: The Real War Begins, the expected expansion to Firaxis' latest release in the XCOM series. Details of the new expansion will be [http://www.pcgamer.com/2k-and-firaxis-to-present-at-the-pc-gaming-show-at-e3/ revealed] next Monday, June 12th at the E3 convention.<br />
''' January 20th, 2017'''<br />
:* [http://www.pavonisinteractive.com Pavonis Interactive], formerly Long War Studios, has released a new version of its famous [[Long_War|Long War]] mod for XCOM 2. Long War 2 adds several new classes, equipment, research, aliens, missions and more, while increasing the duration of the game. Long War 2 can be downloaded through the Steam Workshop [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=844674609 page].<br />
''' November 11th, 2016'''<br />
:* '''U.S. advanced research organization [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-s-navcube-could-support-an-x-ray-communications-demonstration-in-space-a-nasa-first accidentally reveals XCOM device'''.] Researchers admit they, quote, "need more support to complete the XCOM package". [[Council_of_Funding_Nations]] advises NASA to use cover story in hopes of keeping invasion secret. :)<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
''' June 11th, 2016'''<br />
:* Steam have a one third off weekend special on XCOM 2 this weekend. <br />
<br clear="all"><br />
[[File:XCOM2_Sectopod.png|240px|thumb|XCOM 2 Arrives]]<br />
''' February 4th, 2016'''<br />
:* It is now possible to start the preload of XCOM 2 through Steam (~24.6 Gb download). Firaxis has already [http://steamcommunity.com/games/268500/announcements/detail/843665914362353836 announced] the release schedule for the different regions and has made available the ingame characters of the Development team for use in XCOM 2's Character Pool. Several reviews have been already released on the major gaming sites - some spoilers might be included on those, read at your own risk. Good luck commanders. <br />
<br clear="all"><br />
[[File:XCOM 2 Retaliation.png|240px|thumb|XCOM 2 - Join Us Or Become Them]]<br />
''' December 12th, 2015'''<br />
:* The Official [[XCOM2|XCOM 2]] "Retaliation" trailer has been released. You can check the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0qHZG1-rEg here] and for more ingame action, you can check Beaglerush's XCOM 2 gameplay videos: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9vG-N0ILB0 War Hand], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT_0gsOmsQE Blacksite] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X1Tfx_TM38&feature=youtu.be Legendary War Hand]. XCOM 2 will be released on February 5th, 2016. <br />
[[File:XCOM 2 Soldier Customization.png|240px|thumb|Soldier Customization]]<br />
''' September 10th, 2015'''<br />
:* [[XCOM2]] has been made available for pre-order on Steam in addition to XCOM: Enemy Unknown being free to play for all users until 10am PT on Sunday, September 13 with a 75% discount for anyone who purchases the game during the same period. This discount also applies to all downloadable content. Like the Elite Soldier Pack that came with pre-orders of Enemy Unknown, XCOM2 pre-orders come with the Resistance Warrior Pack which has more soldier customization options.[http://xcom.com/news/xcom-enemy-unknown-is-free-to-play-on-steam-this-weekend]<br />
<br />
'''August 7th, 2015'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released new [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj42i7f1nj0&feature=youtu.be footage] of the upcoming [[XCOM2]] game, with a focus on the Avenger, the mobile base used by XCOM to fight the ADVENT forces. Highlights include a tour through the base facilities and XCOM's Chief Engineer and Scientist, as well as a display of the soldier customization and the strategic layer.<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
<br />
====OpenTFTD Beta Released====<br />
[[File:OpenTFTD1.png|240px|thumb|OpenTFTD]]<br />
'''August 4th, 2015'''<br />
:* The developers of [[OpenXcom]] have released the first Nightly (a.k.a. beta version) of [http://openxcom.org/ OpenTFTD], an open source reimplementation of [[TFTD|XCOM: Terror From The Deep]]. OpenTFTD comes included with the engine of regular OpenXcom and requires a copy of the original TFTD game to play.<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
====XCOM 2 Gameplay Video Released====<br />
'''June 16th, 2015'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released the first [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzAKyj-KK-E&t=2m22s video] of XCOM 2 gameplay during the E3 2015 conference. The footage features a tactical mission where XCOM troops have to blow up an Advent target and it shows several enemies, including the Advent units of Soldier, Captain, Turret and MEC, as well as the Viper and the evolved Muton Berserker. The video also shows the new concealment/ambush mechanic, as well as a Gremlin hacking a turret and the Skyranger retrieval. It is also possible to see Officer [[Bradford (EU2012)|Bradford]] ordering XCOM troops into action and a glimpse of the world under the alien occupation.<br />
<br />
====XCOM2 confirmed!==== <br />
'''June 1st, 2015'''<br />
:* 2K and Firaxis have confirmed today on the XCOM official website [[http://xcom.com/]] the upcoming sequel to XCOM: Enemy Unknown. [[XCOM2]] takes place 20 years after the events of the remake, where the aliens have taken over Earth and the remains of XCOM are waging a guerrilla war against the extraterrestrials. The game will feature new soldier classes, the return of the [[Snakemen]] along with other new aliens, procedure generated (random) maps, and will be exclusive to the PC with specific features for mod development. More features will be revealed soon on IGN [http://ca.ign.com/articles/2015/06/01/xcom-2-announced-ign-first].<br />
'''May 29th, 2015'''<br />
:* Two clues at the Advent website have a series of letters that when combined produce "VIGILO CONFIDO", or the motto of Enemy Unknown 2012. It seems that a new XCOM game is under development and more details should be announced later. <br />
'''May 27th, 2015'''<br />
:* 2K has released yesterday a link to a site that presents an alternate reality company called [http://www.adventfuture.org/ Advent Administration]. Its contents have triggered speculation on the 2K official forums and Xcom subreddit that it is related to a new upcoming XCOM announcement. The site contains a rotating globe, pictures depicting a XCOM: Apocalypse style city, one of which seems to contain artwork already present on XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and a downloadable .pdf file uses a font called 'XCOM-Regular'. The site also appears to be under some sort of hacking by an unknown party, with its contents being replaced by phrases such as 'we are still watching'. While all of this is merely circumstantial evidence, 2K is expected to announce a major title on the next E3 Conference in 3 weeks so keep tuned for further details. <br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Archived News == <br />
<br />
'''October 21st, 2014'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released video footage of the two panels dedicated to XCOM: Enemy Unknown during the company's 2014 community convention, which took place last month. The panels were called ''Designing the Soldiers in XCOM'', which was presented by Game Designer Ananda Gupta, and ''The Artwork of XCOM'', by Art Director Greg Foertsch. The Firaxicon videos are available at Firaxis's Youtube [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-lTq9LJCHpRP88U3dngU2P6GhJ8KqEjP channel]. <br />
'''October 16th, 2014'''<br />
:* Steam announced that XCOM: Enemy Unknown can be played for free this weekend, starting today and until next Sunday. For more details check Steam's [http://store.steampowered.com/news/14681/ announcement]. <br />
<br />
'''August 5th, 2014'''<br />
:* Fantasy Flight Games announced that they'll be publishing ''XCOM: The Board Game'' on the last quarter of 2014. The tabletop board game is based on [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] and can be played from 1-4 players, which take the individual roles of XCOM Commander, Chief Scientist, Central Officer and Squad Leader, with the help of an app companion to determine the moves of the alien forces. For more details check the publisher's [http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4972 page], and yes, the game comes included with plastic figures representing all soldier classes, as well as the Interceptors and UFOs. Cost is presented as $59.95 for this game and it will be available for preview at the publisher's booth on Gen Con Indy 2014. <br />
'''June 13th, 2014'''<br />
:* [[OpenXcom]] has just completed its release 1.0 version, available for free at [http://openxcom.org/ openxcom.org]. If you're looking to spice up the original [[X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown]] game, then check out this revamped open source clone version, developed by [[User:SupSuper|SupSuper]] and a bunch of X-COM enthusiasts. For more details about OpenXcom, see this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL2x-Sz9Oa8 presentation]. <br />
'''May 29th, 2014'''<br />
:*Feral Interactive has [http://www.feralinteractive.com/en/news/424/ announced] that they will release XCOM: Enemy Unknown as their first game for Linux this summer, using the Ubuntu 14.04 version and through SteamPlay. <br />
'''May 17th, 2014'''<br />
:*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsHppXrgP0I YCOM: Enemy Unlikely] - Another remake of the XCOM series, YCOM: Enemy Unlikely is a demake of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, with a bit of hilarity added. The video contains a link on its description to download and play the game. <br />
'''April 29th, 2014'''<br />
:*[http://xcomrl.blogspot.pt/ X@COM] - playable alpha demo. X@COM, or XCOM Rogue-like, is a current fan project that aims to replicate the original UFO: Enemy Unknown using only ASCII characters. They're aiming to finish the project by 2015 and they have a current playable alpha version that can be downloaded for playing. <br />
'''March 9th, 2014'''<br />
:*[http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/03/x-coms-design-document-had-just-12-pages/ Kokatu] magazine has published an article about the creation of the original [[X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown]] which includes a [http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1017808/Classic-Game-Postmortem-X-COM link] to last year's video presentation made by its creator, Julian Gollop, about the original game's design process.<br />
'''March 4th, 2014'''<br />
:*XCOM: Complete Edition released for PC and Mac. Includes all of the DLCs released so far, including the Elite Soldier Pack, Slingshot and Enemy Within. <br />
'''February 7th, 2014'''<br />
:*[[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] has won the Best Strategy/Simulation Game of the Year 2013 DICE awards. For a list of winners see [http://www.interactive.org/news/17th_annual_dice_awards_winners.asp].<br />
'''February 4th, 2014'''<br />
:*2K Games is preparing the release a complete edition of [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] on March 4th, according to [http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/02/03/xcom-and-civilization-v-complete-editions-coming-soon.aspx Gameinformer]. No further details have been released yet about the edition but it's likely that it should include all of the DLCs released so far, such as [[Elite Soldier Pack DLC (EU2012)|Elite Soldier Pack]], [[Slingshot DLC (EU2012)|Slingshot]] and the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|Enemy Within]] expansion.<br />
<br />
==== [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] and [[Hangar 6: R&D DLC (Bureau)|Hangar 6: R&D]] have been released! ====<br />
====XCOM: Enemy Within released====<br />
'''November 15th 2013'''<br />
:*And now it is the rest of the world's turn as Enemy Within receives its international release today. So get on and enjoy the all new features!<br />
'''November 12th 2013'''<br />
:*XCOM Enemy Within is released in America with new features like the new human faction – EXALT, Base Defence and all new maps and council Missions. Enjoy the game and see you on the farm with the crashed UFO.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within Reviews! ====<br />
'''November 11th 2013'''<br />
:*Several reviews of [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] have been published today. To read/see them, check [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/10729-XCOM-Enemy-Within-Review Escapist Magazine] ("''All of the fun new toys, however, do work a bit against the game's biggest flaw - after a certain point of advancement, the challenge and satisfaction of snuffing aliens dissipates quickly.''"), [http://www.shacknews.com/article/81977/xcom-enemy-within-video-review Shacknews] ("''Firaxis once again manages to balance XCOM's disparate elements, resulting in a challenging and satisfying experience.''"), [http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/11/11/xcom-enemy-within-review IGN] ("''Enemy Within is an amazing expansion to a brilliant tactical game.''") and [http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/xcomenemyunknowntheenemywithin/reviews.html Strategy Informer] ("''I could go on about the virtues of Enemy Within, about how good it was to play through the whole campaign again, but ultimately it’ll come down to two factors: The fact that the ending hasn’t changed a bit, and the fact that, ultimately, you’re still playing the same game.''", and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mb_RXgIStw Revision3] ("''EW gets a 4 out of 5.''").<br />
<br />
====The Bureau Expansion====<br />
'''November 8th 2013'''<br />
:*[[The Bureau: XCOM Declassified|The Bureau: XCOM Declassified]] gained it first DLC Pack today in the form of [[Hangar 6: R&D DLC (Bureau)|Hangar 6: R&D]] in which the player takes control of DaSilva in an attempt to get to the bottom of a mysterious new infection.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM Base Defense confirmed on EW====<br />
'''October 23th, 2013'''<br />
:*The newest preview videos released ([http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/previews/10679-XCOM-Enemy-Within-Preview-Whole-New-Game here] and [http://www.gamespot.com/videos/base-defense-returns-in-xcom-enemy-within/2300-6415682/ here]) have confirmed the addition of a Base Defense mission to [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]], a feature of the original game long called for by players. Check for more details on the Enemy Within page.<br />
<br />
==== EXALT revealed!====<br />
'''October 9th, 2013'''<br />
:*A new faction has been revealed for [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]], the upcoming [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] expansion. XCOM's new enemies are called EXALT and they're a secret paramilitary human group that is conspiring to use the alien technology and chaos of the invasion to achieve world domination. More details available at the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|Enemy Within]] page.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within details announced!====<br />
'''August 21st, 2013'''<br />
:*Producer 2K revealed details about '''XCOM: Enemy Within''', the upcoming expansion to [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]]. The main features are the addition of the Meld, a substance that allows you to create a new class (Mech Troopers), with new weapons and abilities or to genetically enhance your soldiers (Gene Mods), along with other features. The release date is November 12th (US) and 15th (rest of the world) and check the full details on the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] page.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within will be revealed on August 21st====<br />
'''August 3rd, 2013'''<br />
:*Producer 2K has confirmed that it will reveal during Gamescom 2013 a new DLC for XCOM: Enemy Unknown called [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]].<br />
<br />
<br />
==== The Bureau: XCOM Declassified will be released next month====<br />
'''July 18th, 2013'''<br />
:*The upcoming XCOM squad based shooter will be available for sale on stores on August 20th in the US and on the 23rd to the rest of the world. From the available previews/footage it seems the game has been redesigned as a prequel to ''XCOM: Enemy Unknown'', featuring Sectoids, Mutons and even Silacoids.<br />
<br />
==== The Bureau: XCOM Declassified coming soon====<br />
'''May 5th, 2013'''<br />
:*Marin's 2K XCOM squad based shooter should be released soon as '''The Bureau: XCOM Declassified'''. The game was announced three years ago and has been redesigned.<br />
<br />
==== Clash of the Titans: X-COM meets XCOM ==== <br />
'''April 2nd, 2013'''<br />
:*Julian Gollop and Jake Solomon have met for the first time during Game Developers Conference 2013 to be interviewed regarding the original game and the 2012 remake. Check the video of the encounter here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8zZsecTRfM].<br />
<br />
==== GDC 2013: Julian Gollop's Postmortem on UFO: Enemy Unknown/XCOM: UFO Defense ====<br />
<br />
'''March 28th, 2013'''<br />
<br />
:*Julian Gollop gave a talk at Games Developers Conference 2013 on the development of the original UFO: Enemy Unknown/XCOM: UFO Defense. An interesting look into the philosophies and source material that went into the making of the game, and also how it nearly failed. <br />
<br />
:: See the video at: http://www.gamespot.com/events/gdc-2013/video.html?sid=6406150<br />
'''March 1st, 2013'''<br />
:*'''Elite Edition for the Mac announced.''' Firaxis have announced that Feral Games are porting XCOM: Enemy Unknown to the OS X and will be released in an Elite Edition. This edition will include the [[Elite Soldier Pack DLC (EU2012)|Elite Soldier Pack]], [[Slingshot DLC (EU2012)|Slingshot]] and [[Second Wave (EU2012)|Second Wave]] DLCs and should be released this spring. <br />
<br />
'''January 8th, 2013'''<br />
:*'''[[Second Wave (EU2012)|Second Wave]] options now available on XCOM: Enemy Unknown.''' The latest patch released today by Firaxis now activates the Second Wave options and makes it available for the game. Despite it being already included but inactive (and playable through mods) the developers had stated that they didn't had time to complete Second Wave before XCOM: Enemy Unknown but it was on their intentions to finish it. It now includes the following [[Info_(EU2012)#Advanced Options|options]] as part of Advanced Gameplay: ''Damage Roulette, New Economy, Not Created Equally, Hidden Potential, Red Fog, Absolutely Critical, The Greater Good, Marathon, Results Driven, High Stakes, Diminishing Returns, More Than Human, Total Loss, War Wariness, E-115'' and ''Alternate Sources''. The [[Patches_(EU2012)#2013-01-08|patch]] also introduces fixes to the teleport bug and adds a new XCOM Hero. <br />
<br />
'''December 4, 2012'''<br />
:* 2K Games has released the first of two DLC packs for all platforms, named ''Slingshot''. The pack features several additional new helmets, 1 new armor decoration and 3 linked Council missions and a special playable soldier named ''Zhang''.<br />
<br />
'''October 23, 2012'''<br />
:* 2K Games has [http://www.2kgames.com/blog/add-on-content-packs-for-xcom-enemy-unknown-coming-soon announced] the first of two DLC packs for all platforms. The first, named ''Slingshot'', will feature 3 new linked Council missions that will focus on a playable character named ''Zhang''.<br />
<br />
'''October 9, 2012'''<br />
:* Eighteen years after the original release of ''UFO: Enemy Unknown'' (or ''XCOM: UFO Defense''), 2K Games has released today in North America ''XCOM: Enemy Unknown'', its remake of the original game, which will be followed by the international release next Friday. XCOM is back!<br />
<br />
''' September 24, 2012 '''<br />
:* Demo is released on '''[http://store.steampowered.com/app/200510/ Steam]'''. It features a tutorial mission, a standard mission and a limited interaction with the Base and Geoscape layer. <br />
<br />
''' August 10, 2012 '''<br />
:* Multiplayer deathmatch revealed for XCOM: Enemy Unknown (2012), mix your own squad of soldiers & aliens and battle online vs other players. <br />
<br />
''' January 5, 2012 '''<br />
:*Publisher 2K Games announces that Firaxis (makers of Civilization) is developing a re-imagining of the original XCOM: Enemy Unknown for release this fall (2012).<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==== <span style ="color:#49BCB5;">New XCOM FPS Game by 2k Marin</span> ====<br />
:* XCOM FPS has been delayed multiple times, release is late 2013 or 2014 at the earliest.<br />
:* The game will focus on elite U.S. government operatives attempting to prevent a nightmarish invasion of the United States (while dropping the dash in X-COM). See:<br />
:* The [http://www.xcom.com official XCOM] site (only a couple of trailers here)<br />
:* Some criticism of its change in focus ([http://www.destructoid.com/2k-marin-s-22-minute-demonstration-of-xcom-209954.phtml 1], [http://www.destructoid.com/2k-xcom-changed-because-strategy-games-aren-t-modern-205991.phtml 2]), although 2k Marin may be rethinking this<br />
:* [http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?76-XCOM-General-Discussion 2k's XCOM forum], including passionate posts by X-Commies<br />
:* Once slated for March 2012 release, it has now slipped to a later date ([http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/xcom_2k_marin/news/xcom_release_date_slips_avoids_mass_effect_3.html 1], [http://www.gamespot.com/news/6344515.html?tag=nl.e579 2]).<br />
<br />
----<br />
==== <span style ="color:#49BCB5;">X-COM Packages </span> ====<br />
Now available for less than $15<br />
:*At [http://www.gamersgate.com/index.php?page=product&what=view&sku=DDB-XCOM&via=newly_added&aff=sc GamersGate], [http://store.steampowered.com/sub/964/ Steam] and [http://www.direct2drive.com/2/7614/product/Buy-X-Com-Complete-Bundle-Download Direct2Drive]. (Includes '''UFO''', '''TFTD''', '''Apoc''', '''Int''', and '''Enf''').<br />
<br />
For "reviews", see [[GEOSCAPE.EXE#X-COM_Complete_Packages|this]]. <br />
<br />
<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">'''OFFICIAL'''</span> - [http://kotaku.com/5516654/x+com-is-back NEW X-COM GAME FROM THE DEVELOPERS OF BIOSHOCK 2]<br><br />
Yes, this will come as a shock to all, but 2K Australia and 2K Marin is busily working on a first-person shooter based on the X-COM franchise. More info will presumably become available on the 2010 E3.<br />
<br />
For more information/rumors check 2K's [http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=76 X-COM forum].<br />
</div></div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XCOM_News&diff=98847XCOM News2020-12-08T16:51:14Z<p>Hobbes: Replaced content with "This is the Ufopaedia.org news page where relevant news and site messages will appear. When this page is transcluded into other pages, only the new news items should appea..."</p>
<hr />
<div>This is the Ufopaedia.org news page where relevant news and site messages will appear. When this page is transcluded into other pages, only the new news items should appear there. Everything else will only display on this page. <br />
<br />
== News ==<br />
<div style="padding-left:10px;"><br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">Phoenix Point One Year Edition released!</span>====<br />
[[File:Phoenix Point Geoscape.png|240px|thumb|Phoenix Point Geoscape]]<br />
''' December 8th, 2020'''<br />
:*[https://phoenixpoint.info/ Phoenix Point], the successor to the XCom series made by its original creator, Julian Gollop, has just released its one year edition on Steam and other gaming platforms. The player takes control of Phoenix Point, a top secret organization created to deal with extraordinary threats, as it fights the Pandora virus, an alien lifeform that wishes to remake Earth at its own image, while dealing with human factions that also have their own agenda for the future of the planet, in a game heavily influenced by the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu_Mythos Cthulu Mythos]. The game follows the classic 4X (Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate) for its Geoscape layer, with a turn-based combat system situated halfway between the [[XCOM|original game]] and Firaxis' [[Enemy Unknown (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]]. Phoenix Point even has its own [http://wiki.phoenixpoint.com/Phoenix_Point_Wiki wiki] and it seems influenced by the UFOPaedia!<br />
</div></div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XCOM_News&diff=98846XCOM News2020-12-08T16:50:36Z<p>Hobbes: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is the Ufopaedia.org news page where relevant news and site messages will appear. When this page is transcluded into other pages, only the new news items should appear there. Everything else will only display on this page. <br />
<br />
== News ==<br />
<div style="padding-left:10px;"><br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">Phoenix Point One Year Edition released!</span>====<br />
[[File:Phoenix Point Geoscape.png|240px|thumb|Phoenix Point Geoscape]]<br />
''' December 8th, 2020'''<br />
:*[https://phoenixpoint.info/ Phoenix Point], the successor to the XCom series made by its original creator, Julian Gollop, has just released its one year edition on Steam and other gaming platforms. The player takes control of Phoenix Point, a top secret organization created to deal with extraordinary threats, as it fights the Pandora virus, an alien lifeform that wishes to remake Earth at its own image, while dealing with human factions that also have their own agenda for the future of the planet, in a game heavily influenced by the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu_Mythos Cthulu Mythos]. The game follows the classic 4X (Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate) for its Geoscape layer, with a turn-based combat system situated halfway between the [[XCOM|original game]] and Firaxis' [[Enemy Unknown (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]]. Phoenix Point even has its own [http://wiki.phoenixpoint.com/Phoenix_Point_Wiki wiki] and it seems influenced by the UFOPaedia!<br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM: Chimera Squad announced!</span>====<br />
''' April 14th, 2020'''<br />
:*Firaxis has [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/1250061590092828678 announced] an upcoming spinoff to the XCOM franchise, "[[Chimera Squad]]", to be released in April 24th. The events of the game take place 5 years after XCOM 2 and are centered upon the titular multi-species law enforcement unit keeping the peace among the humans and aliens living together in the metropolis known as City 31, as a seeming spiritual successor to X-COM: Apocalypse. The released [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39fhpegVBQQ gameplay trailer] reveals that in addition to playable alien squad members, consisting of the Sectoid Verge, the Viper Torque and the Muton Axiom, the game also introduces a Breaching mechanic for setting up an opening surprise attack at the beginning of combat, a Timeline system where the combatants on both sides individually take turns after each other in a fixed, faction-alternating order rather than the entire team acting as once like in previous games, as well as disposable androids to take the place of injured agents on the team roster.<br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM 2: War Of The Chosen DLC announced!</span>====<br />
[[File:War of the Chosen.png|240px|thumb|Reaper Resistance faction]]<br />
''' June 12th, 2017'''<br />
:* Firaxis has [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/874313674835415040 announced] "War Of the Chosen" the next XCOM 2 DLC to be released in August 29th. The DLC will introduce several new enemies, including the Chosen, an elite alien team consisting of the Assassin, the Hunter and the Warlock tasked with recapturing the XCOM commander, along with ADVENT's new Purifier and Priest units. As for XCOM, there will be 3 new classes, Reaper, Skirmisher and Templar representing Resistance factions that you'll need to recruit to your cause. And finally, the Lost will be introduced, which consist of mutated humans who dwell in the ruins of Earth's cities that were destroyed in the initial invasion. <br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM 2: The Real War Begins teaser</span>====<br />
''' June 11th, 2017'''<br />
:* [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/872815512656412672 XCOM]'s Twitter account has just posted a poster teaser for XCOM 2: The Real War Begins, the expected expansion to Firaxis' latest release in the XCOM series. Details of the new expansion will be [http://www.pcgamer.com/2k-and-firaxis-to-present-at-the-pc-gaming-show-at-e3/ revealed] next Monday, June 12th at the E3 convention.<br />
''' January 20th, 2017'''<br />
:* [http://www.pavonisinteractive.com Pavonis Interactive], formerly Long War Studios, has released a new version of its famous [[Long_War|Long War]] mod for XCOM 2. Long War 2 adds several new classes, equipment, research, aliens, missions and more, while increasing the duration of the game. Long War 2 can be downloaded through the Steam Workshop [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=844674609 page].<br />
''' November 11th, 2016'''<br />
:* '''U.S. advanced research organization [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-s-navcube-could-support-an-x-ray-communications-demonstration-in-space-a-nasa-first accidentally reveals XCOM device'''.] Researchers admit they, quote, "need more support to complete the XCOM package". [[Council_of_Funding_Nations]] advises NASA to use cover story in hopes of keeping invasion secret. :)<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
''' June 11th, 2016'''<br />
:* Steam have a one third off weekend special on XCOM 2 this weekend. <br />
<br clear="all"><br />
[[File:XCOM2_Sectopod.png|240px|thumb|XCOM 2 Arrives]]<br />
''' February 4th, 2016'''<br />
:* It is now possible to start the preload of XCOM 2 through Steam (~24.6 Gb download). Firaxis has already [http://steamcommunity.com/games/268500/announcements/detail/843665914362353836 announced] the release schedule for the different regions and has made available the ingame characters of the Development team for use in XCOM 2's Character Pool. Several reviews have been already released on the major gaming sites - some spoilers might be included on those, read at your own risk. Good luck commanders. <br />
<br clear="all"><br />
[[File:XCOM 2 Retaliation.png|240px|thumb|XCOM 2 - Join Us Or Become Them]]<br />
''' December 12th, 2015'''<br />
:* The Official [[XCOM2|XCOM 2]] "Retaliation" trailer has been released. You can check the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0qHZG1-rEg here] and for more ingame action, you can check Beaglerush's XCOM 2 gameplay videos: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9vG-N0ILB0 War Hand], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT_0gsOmsQE Blacksite] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X1Tfx_TM38&feature=youtu.be Legendary War Hand]. XCOM 2 will be released on February 5th, 2016. <br />
[[File:XCOM 2 Soldier Customization.png|240px|thumb|Soldier Customization]]<br />
''' September 10th, 2015'''<br />
:* [[XCOM2]] has been made available for pre-order on Steam in addition to XCOM: Enemy Unknown being free to play for all users until 10am PT on Sunday, September 13 with a 75% discount for anyone who purchases the game during the same period. This discount also applies to all downloadable content. Like the Elite Soldier Pack that came with pre-orders of Enemy Unknown, XCOM2 pre-orders come with the Resistance Warrior Pack which has more soldier customization options.[http://xcom.com/news/xcom-enemy-unknown-is-free-to-play-on-steam-this-weekend]<br />
<br />
'''August 7th, 2015'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released new [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj42i7f1nj0&feature=youtu.be footage] of the upcoming [[XCOM2]] game, with a focus on the Avenger, the mobile base used by XCOM to fight the ADVENT forces. Highlights include a tour through the base facilities and XCOM's Chief Engineer and Scientist, as well as a display of the soldier customization and the strategic layer.<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
<br />
====OpenTFTD Beta Released====<br />
[[File:OpenTFTD1.png|240px|thumb|OpenTFTD]]<br />
'''August 4th, 2015'''<br />
:* The developers of [[OpenXcom]] have released the first Nightly (a.k.a. beta version) of [http://openxcom.org/ OpenTFTD], an open source reimplementation of [[TFTD|XCOM: Terror From The Deep]]. OpenTFTD comes included with the engine of regular OpenXcom and requires a copy of the original TFTD game to play.<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
====XCOM 2 Gameplay Video Released====<br />
'''June 16th, 2015'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released the first [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzAKyj-KK-E&t=2m22s video] of XCOM 2 gameplay during the E3 2015 conference. The footage features a tactical mission where XCOM troops have to blow up an Advent target and it shows several enemies, including the Advent units of Soldier, Captain, Turret and MEC, as well as the Viper and the evolved Muton Berserker. The video also shows the new concealment/ambush mechanic, as well as a Gremlin hacking a turret and the Skyranger retrieval. It is also possible to see Officer [[Bradford (EU2012)|Bradford]] ordering XCOM troops into action and a glimpse of the world under the alien occupation.<br />
<br />
====XCOM2 confirmed!==== <br />
'''June 1st, 2015'''<br />
:* 2K and Firaxis have confirmed today on the XCOM official website [[http://xcom.com/]] the upcoming sequel to XCOM: Enemy Unknown. [[XCOM2]] takes place 20 years after the events of the remake, where the aliens have taken over Earth and the remains of XCOM are waging a guerrilla war against the extraterrestrials. The game will feature new soldier classes, the return of the [[Snakemen]] along with other new aliens, procedure generated (random) maps, and will be exclusive to the PC with specific features for mod development. More features will be revealed soon on IGN [http://ca.ign.com/articles/2015/06/01/xcom-2-announced-ign-first].<br />
'''May 29th, 2015'''<br />
:* Two clues at the Advent website have a series of letters that when combined produce "VIGILO CONFIDO", or the motto of Enemy Unknown 2012. It seems that a new XCOM game is under development and more details should be announced later. <br />
'''May 27th, 2015'''<br />
:* 2K has released yesterday a link to a site that presents an alternate reality company called [http://www.adventfuture.org/ Advent Administration]. Its contents have triggered speculation on the 2K official forums and Xcom subreddit that it is related to a new upcoming XCOM announcement. The site contains a rotating globe, pictures depicting a XCOM: Apocalypse style city, one of which seems to contain artwork already present on XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and a downloadable .pdf file uses a font called 'XCOM-Regular'. The site also appears to be under some sort of hacking by an unknown party, with its contents being replaced by phrases such as 'we are still watching'. While all of this is merely circumstantial evidence, 2K is expected to announce a major title on the next E3 Conference in 3 weeks so keep tuned for further details. <br />
<br />
== Archived News == <br />
<br />
'''October 21st, 2014'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released video footage of the two panels dedicated to XCOM: Enemy Unknown during the company's 2014 community convention, which took place last month. The panels were called ''Designing the Soldiers in XCOM'', which was presented by Game Designer Ananda Gupta, and ''The Artwork of XCOM'', by Art Director Greg Foertsch. The Firaxicon videos are available at Firaxis's Youtube [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-lTq9LJCHpRP88U3dngU2P6GhJ8KqEjP channel]. <br />
'''October 16th, 2014'''<br />
:* Steam announced that XCOM: Enemy Unknown can be played for free this weekend, starting today and until next Sunday. For more details check Steam's [http://store.steampowered.com/news/14681/ announcement]. <br />
<br />
'''August 5th, 2014'''<br />
:* Fantasy Flight Games announced that they'll be publishing ''XCOM: The Board Game'' on the last quarter of 2014. The tabletop board game is based on [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] and can be played from 1-4 players, which take the individual roles of XCOM Commander, Chief Scientist, Central Officer and Squad Leader, with the help of an app companion to determine the moves of the alien forces. For more details check the publisher's [http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4972 page], and yes, the game comes included with plastic figures representing all soldier classes, as well as the Interceptors and UFOs. Cost is presented as $59.95 for this game and it will be available for preview at the publisher's booth on Gen Con Indy 2014. <br />
'''June 13th, 2014'''<br />
:* [[OpenXcom]] has just completed its release 1.0 version, available for free at [http://openxcom.org/ openxcom.org]. If you're looking to spice up the original [[X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown]] game, then check out this revamped open source clone version, developed by [[User:SupSuper|SupSuper]] and a bunch of X-COM enthusiasts. For more details about OpenXcom, see this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL2x-Sz9Oa8 presentation]. <br />
'''May 29th, 2014'''<br />
:*Feral Interactive has [http://www.feralinteractive.com/en/news/424/ announced] that they will release XCOM: Enemy Unknown as their first game for Linux this summer, using the Ubuntu 14.04 version and through SteamPlay. <br />
'''May 17th, 2014'''<br />
:*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsHppXrgP0I YCOM: Enemy Unlikely] - Another remake of the XCOM series, YCOM: Enemy Unlikely is a demake of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, with a bit of hilarity added. The video contains a link on its description to download and play the game. <br />
'''April 29th, 2014'''<br />
:*[http://xcomrl.blogspot.pt/ X@COM] - playable alpha demo. X@COM, or XCOM Rogue-like, is a current fan project that aims to replicate the original UFO: Enemy Unknown using only ASCII characters. They're aiming to finish the project by 2015 and they have a current playable alpha version that can be downloaded for playing. <br />
'''March 9th, 2014'''<br />
:*[http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/03/x-coms-design-document-had-just-12-pages/ Kokatu] magazine has published an article about the creation of the original [[X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown]] which includes a [http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1017808/Classic-Game-Postmortem-X-COM link] to last year's video presentation made by its creator, Julian Gollop, about the original game's design process.<br />
'''March 4th, 2014'''<br />
:*XCOM: Complete Edition released for PC and Mac. Includes all of the DLCs released so far, including the Elite Soldier Pack, Slingshot and Enemy Within. <br />
'''February 7th, 2014'''<br />
:*[[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] has won the Best Strategy/Simulation Game of the Year 2013 DICE awards. For a list of winners see [http://www.interactive.org/news/17th_annual_dice_awards_winners.asp].<br />
'''February 4th, 2014'''<br />
:*2K Games is preparing the release a complete edition of [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] on March 4th, according to [http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/02/03/xcom-and-civilization-v-complete-editions-coming-soon.aspx Gameinformer]. No further details have been released yet about the edition but it's likely that it should include all of the DLCs released so far, such as [[Elite Soldier Pack DLC (EU2012)|Elite Soldier Pack]], [[Slingshot DLC (EU2012)|Slingshot]] and the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|Enemy Within]] expansion.<br />
<br />
==== [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] and [[Hangar 6: R&D DLC (Bureau)|Hangar 6: R&D]] have been released! ====<br />
====XCOM: Enemy Within released====<br />
'''November 15th 2013'''<br />
:*And now it is the rest of the world's turn as Enemy Within receives its international release today. So get on and enjoy the all new features!<br />
'''November 12th 2013'''<br />
:*XCOM Enemy Within is released in America with new features like the new human faction – EXALT, Base Defence and all new maps and council Missions. Enjoy the game and see you on the farm with the crashed UFO.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within Reviews! ====<br />
'''November 11th 2013'''<br />
:*Several reviews of [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] have been published today. To read/see them, check [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/10729-XCOM-Enemy-Within-Review Escapist Magazine] ("''All of the fun new toys, however, do work a bit against the game's biggest flaw - after a certain point of advancement, the challenge and satisfaction of snuffing aliens dissipates quickly.''"), [http://www.shacknews.com/article/81977/xcom-enemy-within-video-review Shacknews] ("''Firaxis once again manages to balance XCOM's disparate elements, resulting in a challenging and satisfying experience.''"), [http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/11/11/xcom-enemy-within-review IGN] ("''Enemy Within is an amazing expansion to a brilliant tactical game.''") and [http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/xcomenemyunknowntheenemywithin/reviews.html Strategy Informer] ("''I could go on about the virtues of Enemy Within, about how good it was to play through the whole campaign again, but ultimately it’ll come down to two factors: The fact that the ending hasn’t changed a bit, and the fact that, ultimately, you’re still playing the same game.''", and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mb_RXgIStw Revision3] ("''EW gets a 4 out of 5.''").<br />
<br />
====The Bureau Expansion====<br />
'''November 8th 2013'''<br />
:*[[The Bureau: XCOM Declassified|The Bureau: XCOM Declassified]] gained it first DLC Pack today in the form of [[Hangar 6: R&D DLC (Bureau)|Hangar 6: R&D]] in which the player takes control of DaSilva in an attempt to get to the bottom of a mysterious new infection.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM Base Defense confirmed on EW====<br />
'''October 23th, 2013'''<br />
:*The newest preview videos released ([http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/previews/10679-XCOM-Enemy-Within-Preview-Whole-New-Game here] and [http://www.gamespot.com/videos/base-defense-returns-in-xcom-enemy-within/2300-6415682/ here]) have confirmed the addition of a Base Defense mission to [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]], a feature of the original game long called for by players. Check for more details on the Enemy Within page.<br />
<br />
==== EXALT revealed!====<br />
'''October 9th, 2013'''<br />
:*A new faction has been revealed for [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]], the upcoming [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] expansion. XCOM's new enemies are called EXALT and they're a secret paramilitary human group that is conspiring to use the alien technology and chaos of the invasion to achieve world domination. More details available at the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|Enemy Within]] page.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within details announced!====<br />
'''August 21st, 2013'''<br />
:*Producer 2K revealed details about '''XCOM: Enemy Within''', the upcoming expansion to [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]]. The main features are the addition of the Meld, a substance that allows you to create a new class (Mech Troopers), with new weapons and abilities or to genetically enhance your soldiers (Gene Mods), along with other features. The release date is November 12th (US) and 15th (rest of the world) and check the full details on the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] page.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within will be revealed on August 21st====<br />
'''August 3rd, 2013'''<br />
:*Producer 2K has confirmed that it will reveal during Gamescom 2013 a new DLC for XCOM: Enemy Unknown called [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]].<br />
<br />
<br />
==== The Bureau: XCOM Declassified will be released next month====<br />
'''July 18th, 2013'''<br />
:*The upcoming XCOM squad based shooter will be available for sale on stores on August 20th in the US and on the 23rd to the rest of the world. From the available previews/footage it seems the game has been redesigned as a prequel to ''XCOM: Enemy Unknown'', featuring Sectoids, Mutons and even Silacoids.<br />
<br />
==== The Bureau: XCOM Declassified coming soon====<br />
'''May 5th, 2013'''<br />
:*Marin's 2K XCOM squad based shooter should be released soon as '''The Bureau: XCOM Declassified'''. The game was announced three years ago and has been redesigned.<br />
<br />
==== Clash of the Titans: X-COM meets XCOM ==== <br />
'''April 2nd, 2013'''<br />
:*Julian Gollop and Jake Solomon have met for the first time during Game Developers Conference 2013 to be interviewed regarding the original game and the 2012 remake. Check the video of the encounter here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8zZsecTRfM].<br />
<br />
==== GDC 2013: Julian Gollop's Postmortem on UFO: Enemy Unknown/XCOM: UFO Defense ====<br />
<br />
'''March 28th, 2013'''<br />
<br />
:*Julian Gollop gave a talk at Games Developers Conference 2013 on the development of the original UFO: Enemy Unknown/XCOM: UFO Defense. An interesting look into the philosophies and source material that went into the making of the game, and also how it nearly failed. <br />
<br />
:: See the video at: http://www.gamespot.com/events/gdc-2013/video.html?sid=6406150<br />
'''March 1st, 2013'''<br />
:*'''Elite Edition for the Mac announced.''' Firaxis have announced that Feral Games are porting XCOM: Enemy Unknown to the OS X and will be released in an Elite Edition. This edition will include the [[Elite Soldier Pack DLC (EU2012)|Elite Soldier Pack]], [[Slingshot DLC (EU2012)|Slingshot]] and [[Second Wave (EU2012)|Second Wave]] DLCs and should be released this spring. <br />
<br />
'''January 8th, 2013'''<br />
:*'''[[Second Wave (EU2012)|Second Wave]] options now available on XCOM: Enemy Unknown.''' The latest patch released today by Firaxis now activates the Second Wave options and makes it available for the game. Despite it being already included but inactive (and playable through mods) the developers had stated that they didn't had time to complete Second Wave before XCOM: Enemy Unknown but it was on their intentions to finish it. It now includes the following [[Info_(EU2012)#Advanced Options|options]] as part of Advanced Gameplay: ''Damage Roulette, New Economy, Not Created Equally, Hidden Potential, Red Fog, Absolutely Critical, The Greater Good, Marathon, Results Driven, High Stakes, Diminishing Returns, More Than Human, Total Loss, War Wariness, E-115'' and ''Alternate Sources''. The [[Patches_(EU2012)#2013-01-08|patch]] also introduces fixes to the teleport bug and adds a new XCOM Hero. <br />
<br />
'''December 4, 2012'''<br />
:* 2K Games has released the first of two DLC packs for all platforms, named ''Slingshot''. The pack features several additional new helmets, 1 new armor decoration and 3 linked Council missions and a special playable soldier named ''Zhang''.<br />
<br />
'''October 23, 2012'''<br />
:* 2K Games has [http://www.2kgames.com/blog/add-on-content-packs-for-xcom-enemy-unknown-coming-soon announced] the first of two DLC packs for all platforms. The first, named ''Slingshot'', will feature 3 new linked Council missions that will focus on a playable character named ''Zhang''.<br />
<br />
'''October 9, 2012'''<br />
:* Eighteen years after the original release of ''UFO: Enemy Unknown'' (or ''XCOM: UFO Defense''), 2K Games has released today in North America ''XCOM: Enemy Unknown'', its remake of the original game, which will be followed by the international release next Friday. XCOM is back!<br />
<br />
''' September 24, 2012 '''<br />
:* Demo is released on '''[http://store.steampowered.com/app/200510/ Steam]'''. It features a tutorial mission, a standard mission and a limited interaction with the Base and Geoscape layer. <br />
<br />
''' August 10, 2012 '''<br />
:* Multiplayer deathmatch revealed for XCOM: Enemy Unknown (2012), mix your own squad of soldiers & aliens and battle online vs other players. <br />
<br />
''' January 5, 2012 '''<br />
:*Publisher 2K Games announces that Firaxis (makers of Civilization) is developing a re-imagining of the original XCOM: Enemy Unknown for release this fall (2012).<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==== <span style ="color:#49BCB5;">New XCOM FPS Game by 2k Marin</span> ====<br />
:* XCOM FPS has been delayed multiple times, release is late 2013 or 2014 at the earliest.<br />
:* The game will focus on elite U.S. government operatives attempting to prevent a nightmarish invasion of the United States (while dropping the dash in X-COM). See:<br />
:* The [http://www.xcom.com official XCOM] site (only a couple of trailers here)<br />
:* Some criticism of its change in focus ([http://www.destructoid.com/2k-marin-s-22-minute-demonstration-of-xcom-209954.phtml 1], [http://www.destructoid.com/2k-xcom-changed-because-strategy-games-aren-t-modern-205991.phtml 2]), although 2k Marin may be rethinking this<br />
:* [http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?76-XCOM-General-Discussion 2k's XCOM forum], including passionate posts by X-Commies<br />
:* Once slated for March 2012 release, it has now slipped to a later date ([http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/xcom_2k_marin/news/xcom_release_date_slips_avoids_mass_effect_3.html 1], [http://www.gamespot.com/news/6344515.html?tag=nl.e579 2]).<br />
<br />
----<br />
==== <span style ="color:#49BCB5;">X-COM Packages </span> ====<br />
Now available for less than $15<br />
:*At [http://www.gamersgate.com/index.php?page=product&what=view&sku=DDB-XCOM&via=newly_added&aff=sc GamersGate], [http://store.steampowered.com/sub/964/ Steam] and [http://www.direct2drive.com/2/7614/product/Buy-X-Com-Complete-Bundle-Download Direct2Drive]. (Includes '''UFO''', '''TFTD''', '''Apoc''', '''Int''', and '''Enf''').<br />
<br />
For "reviews", see [[GEOSCAPE.EXE#X-COM_Complete_Packages|this]]. <br />
<br />
<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">'''OFFICIAL'''</span> - [http://kotaku.com/5516654/x+com-is-back NEW X-COM GAME FROM THE DEVELOPERS OF BIOSHOCK 2]<br><br />
Yes, this will come as a shock to all, but 2K Australia and 2K Marin is busily working on a first-person shooter based on the X-COM franchise. More info will presumably become available on the 2010 E3.<br />
<br />
For more information/rumors check 2K's [http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=76 X-COM forum].<br />
</div></div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XCOM_News&diff=98845XCOM News2020-12-08T16:49:45Z<p>Hobbes: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is the Ufopaedia.org news page where relevant news and site messages will appear. When this page is transcluded into other pages, only the new news items should appear there. Everything else will only display on this page. <br />
<br />
== News ==<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
<div style="padding-left:10px;"><br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">Phoenix Point One Year Edition released!</span>====<br />
[[File:Phoenix Point Geoscape.png|240px|thumb|Phoenix Point Geoscape]]<br />
''' December 8th, 2020'''<br />
:*[https://phoenixpoint.info/ Phoenix Point], the successor to the XCom series made by its original creator, Julian Gollop, has just released its one year edition on Steam and other gaming platforms. The player takes control of Phoenix Point, a top secret organization created to deal with extraordinary threats, as it fights the Pandora virus, an alien lifeform that wishes to remake Earth at its own image, while dealing with human factions that also have their own agenda for the future of the planet, in a game heavily influenced by the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu_Mythos Cthulu Mythos]. The game follows the classic 4X (Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate) for its Geoscape layer, with a turn-based combat system situated halfway between the [[XCOM|original game]] and Firaxis' [[Enemy Unknown (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]]. Phoenix Point even has its own [http://wiki.phoenixpoint.com/Phoenix_Point_Wiki wiki] and it seems influenced by the UFOPaedia!<br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM: Chimera Squad announced!</span>====<br />
''' April 14th, 2020'''<br />
:*Firaxis has [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/1250061590092828678 announced] an upcoming spinoff to the XCOM franchise, "[[Chimera Squad]]", to be released in April 24th. The events of the game take place 5 years after XCOM 2 and are centered upon the titular multi-species law enforcement unit keeping the peace among the humans and aliens living together in the metropolis known as City 31, as a seeming spiritual successor to X-COM: Apocalypse. The released [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39fhpegVBQQ gameplay trailer] reveals that in addition to playable alien squad members, consisting of the Sectoid Verge, the Viper Torque and the Muton Axiom, the game also introduces a Breaching mechanic for setting up an opening surprise attack at the beginning of combat, a Timeline system where the combatants on both sides individually take turns after each other in a fixed, faction-alternating order rather than the entire team acting as once like in previous games, as well as disposable androids to take the place of injured agents on the team roster.<br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM 2: War Of The Chosen DLC announced!</span>====<br />
[[File:War of the Chosen.png|240px|thumb|Reaper Resistance faction]]<br />
''' June 12th, 2017'''<br />
:* Firaxis has [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/874313674835415040 announced] "War Of the Chosen" the next XCOM 2 DLC to be released in August 29th. The DLC will introduce several new enemies, including the Chosen, an elite alien team consisting of the Assassin, the Hunter and the Warlock tasked with recapturing the XCOM commander, along with ADVENT's new Purifier and Priest units. As for XCOM, there will be 3 new classes, Reaper, Skirmisher and Templar representing Resistance factions that you'll need to recruit to your cause. And finally, the Lost will be introduced, which consist of mutated humans who dwell in the ruins of Earth's cities that were destroyed in the initial invasion. <br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM 2: The Real War Begins teaser</span>====<br />
''' June 11th, 2017'''<br />
:* [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/872815512656412672 XCOM]'s Twitter account has just posted a poster teaser for XCOM 2: The Real War Begins, the expected expansion to Firaxis' latest release in the XCOM series. Details of the new expansion will be [http://www.pcgamer.com/2k-and-firaxis-to-present-at-the-pc-gaming-show-at-e3/ revealed] next Monday, June 12th at the E3 convention.<br />
''' January 20th, 2017'''<br />
:* [http://www.pavonisinteractive.com Pavonis Interactive], formerly Long War Studios, has released a new version of its famous [[Long_War|Long War]] mod for XCOM 2. Long War 2 adds several new classes, equipment, research, aliens, missions and more, while increasing the duration of the game. Long War 2 can be downloaded through the Steam Workshop [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=844674609 page].<br />
''' November 11th, 2016'''<br />
:* '''U.S. advanced research organization [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-s-navcube-could-support-an-x-ray-communications-demonstration-in-space-a-nasa-first accidentally reveals XCOM device'''.] Researchers admit they, quote, "need more support to complete the XCOM package". [[Council_of_Funding_Nations]] advises NASA to use cover story in hopes of keeping invasion secret. :)<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
''' June 11th, 2016'''<br />
:* Steam have a one third off weekend special on XCOM 2 this weekend. <br />
<br clear="all"><br />
[[File:XCOM2_Sectopod.png|240px|thumb|XCOM 2 Arrives]]<br />
''' February 4th, 2016'''<br />
:* It is now possible to start the preload of XCOM 2 through Steam (~24.6 Gb download). Firaxis has already [http://steamcommunity.com/games/268500/announcements/detail/843665914362353836 announced] the release schedule for the different regions and has made available the ingame characters of the Development team for use in XCOM 2's Character Pool. Several reviews have been already released on the major gaming sites - some spoilers might be included on those, read at your own risk. Good luck commanders. <br />
<br clear="all"><br />
[[File:XCOM 2 Retaliation.png|240px|thumb|XCOM 2 - Join Us Or Become Them]]<br />
''' December 12th, 2015'''<br />
:* The Official [[XCOM2|XCOM 2]] "Retaliation" trailer has been released. You can check the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0qHZG1-rEg here] and for more ingame action, you can check Beaglerush's XCOM 2 gameplay videos: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9vG-N0ILB0 War Hand], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT_0gsOmsQE Blacksite] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X1Tfx_TM38&feature=youtu.be Legendary War Hand]. XCOM 2 will be released on February 5th, 2016. <br />
[[File:XCOM 2 Soldier Customization.png|240px|thumb|Soldier Customization]]<br />
''' September 10th, 2015'''<br />
:* [[XCOM2]] has been made available for pre-order on Steam in addition to XCOM: Enemy Unknown being free to play for all users until 10am PT on Sunday, September 13 with a 75% discount for anyone who purchases the game during the same period. This discount also applies to all downloadable content. Like the Elite Soldier Pack that came with pre-orders of Enemy Unknown, XCOM2 pre-orders come with the Resistance Warrior Pack which has more soldier customization options.[http://xcom.com/news/xcom-enemy-unknown-is-free-to-play-on-steam-this-weekend]<br />
<br />
'''August 7th, 2015'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released new [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj42i7f1nj0&feature=youtu.be footage] of the upcoming [[XCOM2]] game, with a focus on the Avenger, the mobile base used by XCOM to fight the ADVENT forces. Highlights include a tour through the base facilities and XCOM's Chief Engineer and Scientist, as well as a display of the soldier customization and the strategic layer.<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
<br />
====OpenTFTD Beta Released====<br />
[[File:OpenTFTD1.png|240px|thumb|OpenTFTD]]<br />
'''August 4th, 2015'''<br />
:* The developers of [[OpenXcom]] have released the first Nightly (a.k.a. beta version) of [http://openxcom.org/ OpenTFTD], an open source reimplementation of [[TFTD|XCOM: Terror From The Deep]]. OpenTFTD comes included with the engine of regular OpenXcom and requires a copy of the original TFTD game to play.<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
====XCOM 2 Gameplay Video Released====<br />
'''June 16th, 2015'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released the first [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzAKyj-KK-E&t=2m22s video] of XCOM 2 gameplay during the E3 2015 conference. The footage features a tactical mission where XCOM troops have to blow up an Advent target and it shows several enemies, including the Advent units of Soldier, Captain, Turret and MEC, as well as the Viper and the evolved Muton Berserker. The video also shows the new concealment/ambush mechanic, as well as a Gremlin hacking a turret and the Skyranger retrieval. It is also possible to see Officer [[Bradford (EU2012)|Bradford]] ordering XCOM troops into action and a glimpse of the world under the alien occupation.<br />
<br />
====XCOM2 confirmed!==== <br />
'''June 1st, 2015'''<br />
:* 2K and Firaxis have confirmed today on the XCOM official website [[http://xcom.com/]] the upcoming sequel to XCOM: Enemy Unknown. [[XCOM2]] takes place 20 years after the events of the remake, where the aliens have taken over Earth and the remains of XCOM are waging a guerrilla war against the extraterrestrials. The game will feature new soldier classes, the return of the [[Snakemen]] along with other new aliens, procedure generated (random) maps, and will be exclusive to the PC with specific features for mod development. More features will be revealed soon on IGN [http://ca.ign.com/articles/2015/06/01/xcom-2-announced-ign-first].<br />
'''May 29th, 2015'''<br />
:* Two clues at the Advent website have a series of letters that when combined produce "VIGILO CONFIDO", or the motto of Enemy Unknown 2012. It seems that a new XCOM game is under development and more details should be announced later. <br />
'''May 27th, 2015'''<br />
:* 2K has released yesterday a link to a site that presents an alternate reality company called [http://www.adventfuture.org/ Advent Administration]. Its contents have triggered speculation on the 2K official forums and Xcom subreddit that it is related to a new upcoming XCOM announcement. The site contains a rotating globe, pictures depicting a XCOM: Apocalypse style city, one of which seems to contain artwork already present on XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and a downloadable .pdf file uses a font called 'XCOM-Regular'. The site also appears to be under some sort of hacking by an unknown party, with its contents being replaced by phrases such as 'we are still watching'. While all of this is merely circumstantial evidence, 2K is expected to announce a major title on the next E3 Conference in 3 weeks so keep tuned for further details. <br />
<br />
== Archived News == <br />
<br />
'''October 21st, 2014'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released video footage of the two panels dedicated to XCOM: Enemy Unknown during the company's 2014 community convention, which took place last month. The panels were called ''Designing the Soldiers in XCOM'', which was presented by Game Designer Ananda Gupta, and ''The Artwork of XCOM'', by Art Director Greg Foertsch. The Firaxicon videos are available at Firaxis's Youtube [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-lTq9LJCHpRP88U3dngU2P6GhJ8KqEjP channel]. <br />
'''October 16th, 2014'''<br />
:* Steam announced that XCOM: Enemy Unknown can be played for free this weekend, starting today and until next Sunday. For more details check Steam's [http://store.steampowered.com/news/14681/ announcement]. <br />
<br />
'''August 5th, 2014'''<br />
:* Fantasy Flight Games announced that they'll be publishing ''XCOM: The Board Game'' on the last quarter of 2014. The tabletop board game is based on [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] and can be played from 1-4 players, which take the individual roles of XCOM Commander, Chief Scientist, Central Officer and Squad Leader, with the help of an app companion to determine the moves of the alien forces. For more details check the publisher's [http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4972 page], and yes, the game comes included with plastic figures representing all soldier classes, as well as the Interceptors and UFOs. Cost is presented as $59.95 for this game and it will be available for preview at the publisher's booth on Gen Con Indy 2014. <br />
'''June 13th, 2014'''<br />
:* [[OpenXcom]] has just completed its release 1.0 version, available for free at [http://openxcom.org/ openxcom.org]. If you're looking to spice up the original [[X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown]] game, then check out this revamped open source clone version, developed by [[User:SupSuper|SupSuper]] and a bunch of X-COM enthusiasts. For more details about OpenXcom, see this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL2x-Sz9Oa8 presentation]. <br />
'''May 29th, 2014'''<br />
:*Feral Interactive has [http://www.feralinteractive.com/en/news/424/ announced] that they will release XCOM: Enemy Unknown as their first game for Linux this summer, using the Ubuntu 14.04 version and through SteamPlay. <br />
'''May 17th, 2014'''<br />
:*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsHppXrgP0I YCOM: Enemy Unlikely] - Another remake of the XCOM series, YCOM: Enemy Unlikely is a demake of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, with a bit of hilarity added. The video contains a link on its description to download and play the game. <br />
'''April 29th, 2014'''<br />
:*[http://xcomrl.blogspot.pt/ X@COM] - playable alpha demo. X@COM, or XCOM Rogue-like, is a current fan project that aims to replicate the original UFO: Enemy Unknown using only ASCII characters. They're aiming to finish the project by 2015 and they have a current playable alpha version that can be downloaded for playing. <br />
'''March 9th, 2014'''<br />
:*[http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/03/x-coms-design-document-had-just-12-pages/ Kokatu] magazine has published an article about the creation of the original [[X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown]] which includes a [http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1017808/Classic-Game-Postmortem-X-COM link] to last year's video presentation made by its creator, Julian Gollop, about the original game's design process.<br />
'''March 4th, 2014'''<br />
:*XCOM: Complete Edition released for PC and Mac. Includes all of the DLCs released so far, including the Elite Soldier Pack, Slingshot and Enemy Within. <br />
'''February 7th, 2014'''<br />
:*[[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] has won the Best Strategy/Simulation Game of the Year 2013 DICE awards. For a list of winners see [http://www.interactive.org/news/17th_annual_dice_awards_winners.asp].<br />
'''February 4th, 2014'''<br />
:*2K Games is preparing the release a complete edition of [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] on March 4th, according to [http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/02/03/xcom-and-civilization-v-complete-editions-coming-soon.aspx Gameinformer]. No further details have been released yet about the edition but it's likely that it should include all of the DLCs released so far, such as [[Elite Soldier Pack DLC (EU2012)|Elite Soldier Pack]], [[Slingshot DLC (EU2012)|Slingshot]] and the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|Enemy Within]] expansion.<br />
<br />
==== [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] and [[Hangar 6: R&D DLC (Bureau)|Hangar 6: R&D]] have been released! ====<br />
====XCOM: Enemy Within released====<br />
'''November 15th 2013'''<br />
:*And now it is the rest of the world's turn as Enemy Within receives its international release today. So get on and enjoy the all new features!<br />
'''November 12th 2013'''<br />
:*XCOM Enemy Within is released in America with new features like the new human faction – EXALT, Base Defence and all new maps and council Missions. Enjoy the game and see you on the farm with the crashed UFO.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within Reviews! ====<br />
'''November 11th 2013'''<br />
:*Several reviews of [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] have been published today. To read/see them, check [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/10729-XCOM-Enemy-Within-Review Escapist Magazine] ("''All of the fun new toys, however, do work a bit against the game's biggest flaw - after a certain point of advancement, the challenge and satisfaction of snuffing aliens dissipates quickly.''"), [http://www.shacknews.com/article/81977/xcom-enemy-within-video-review Shacknews] ("''Firaxis once again manages to balance XCOM's disparate elements, resulting in a challenging and satisfying experience.''"), [http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/11/11/xcom-enemy-within-review IGN] ("''Enemy Within is an amazing expansion to a brilliant tactical game.''") and [http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/xcomenemyunknowntheenemywithin/reviews.html Strategy Informer] ("''I could go on about the virtues of Enemy Within, about how good it was to play through the whole campaign again, but ultimately it’ll come down to two factors: The fact that the ending hasn’t changed a bit, and the fact that, ultimately, you’re still playing the same game.''", and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mb_RXgIStw Revision3] ("''EW gets a 4 out of 5.''").<br />
<br />
====The Bureau Expansion====<br />
'''November 8th 2013'''<br />
:*[[The Bureau: XCOM Declassified|The Bureau: XCOM Declassified]] gained it first DLC Pack today in the form of [[Hangar 6: R&D DLC (Bureau)|Hangar 6: R&D]] in which the player takes control of DaSilva in an attempt to get to the bottom of a mysterious new infection.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM Base Defense confirmed on EW====<br />
'''October 23th, 2013'''<br />
:*The newest preview videos released ([http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/previews/10679-XCOM-Enemy-Within-Preview-Whole-New-Game here] and [http://www.gamespot.com/videos/base-defense-returns-in-xcom-enemy-within/2300-6415682/ here]) have confirmed the addition of a Base Defense mission to [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]], a feature of the original game long called for by players. Check for more details on the Enemy Within page.<br />
<br />
==== EXALT revealed!====<br />
'''October 9th, 2013'''<br />
:*A new faction has been revealed for [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]], the upcoming [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] expansion. XCOM's new enemies are called EXALT and they're a secret paramilitary human group that is conspiring to use the alien technology and chaos of the invasion to achieve world domination. More details available at the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|Enemy Within]] page.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within details announced!====<br />
'''August 21st, 2013'''<br />
:*Producer 2K revealed details about '''XCOM: Enemy Within''', the upcoming expansion to [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]]. The main features are the addition of the Meld, a substance that allows you to create a new class (Mech Troopers), with new weapons and abilities or to genetically enhance your soldiers (Gene Mods), along with other features. The release date is November 12th (US) and 15th (rest of the world) and check the full details on the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] page.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within will be revealed on August 21st====<br />
'''August 3rd, 2013'''<br />
:*Producer 2K has confirmed that it will reveal during Gamescom 2013 a new DLC for XCOM: Enemy Unknown called [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]].<br />
<br />
<br />
==== The Bureau: XCOM Declassified will be released next month====<br />
'''July 18th, 2013'''<br />
:*The upcoming XCOM squad based shooter will be available for sale on stores on August 20th in the US and on the 23rd to the rest of the world. From the available previews/footage it seems the game has been redesigned as a prequel to ''XCOM: Enemy Unknown'', featuring Sectoids, Mutons and even Silacoids.<br />
<br />
==== The Bureau: XCOM Declassified coming soon====<br />
'''May 5th, 2013'''<br />
:*Marin's 2K XCOM squad based shooter should be released soon as '''The Bureau: XCOM Declassified'''. The game was announced three years ago and has been redesigned.<br />
<br />
==== Clash of the Titans: X-COM meets XCOM ==== <br />
'''April 2nd, 2013'''<br />
:*Julian Gollop and Jake Solomon have met for the first time during Game Developers Conference 2013 to be interviewed regarding the original game and the 2012 remake. Check the video of the encounter here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8zZsecTRfM].<br />
<br />
==== GDC 2013: Julian Gollop's Postmortem on UFO: Enemy Unknown/XCOM: UFO Defense ====<br />
<br />
'''March 28th, 2013'''<br />
<br />
:*Julian Gollop gave a talk at Games Developers Conference 2013 on the development of the original UFO: Enemy Unknown/XCOM: UFO Defense. An interesting look into the philosophies and source material that went into the making of the game, and also how it nearly failed. <br />
<br />
:: See the video at: http://www.gamespot.com/events/gdc-2013/video.html?sid=6406150<br />
'''March 1st, 2013'''<br />
:*'''Elite Edition for the Mac announced.''' Firaxis have announced that Feral Games are porting XCOM: Enemy Unknown to the OS X and will be released in an Elite Edition. This edition will include the [[Elite Soldier Pack DLC (EU2012)|Elite Soldier Pack]], [[Slingshot DLC (EU2012)|Slingshot]] and [[Second Wave (EU2012)|Second Wave]] DLCs and should be released this spring. <br />
<br />
'''January 8th, 2013'''<br />
:*'''[[Second Wave (EU2012)|Second Wave]] options now available on XCOM: Enemy Unknown.''' The latest patch released today by Firaxis now activates the Second Wave options and makes it available for the game. Despite it being already included but inactive (and playable through mods) the developers had stated that they didn't had time to complete Second Wave before XCOM: Enemy Unknown but it was on their intentions to finish it. It now includes the following [[Info_(EU2012)#Advanced Options|options]] as part of Advanced Gameplay: ''Damage Roulette, New Economy, Not Created Equally, Hidden Potential, Red Fog, Absolutely Critical, The Greater Good, Marathon, Results Driven, High Stakes, Diminishing Returns, More Than Human, Total Loss, War Wariness, E-115'' and ''Alternate Sources''. The [[Patches_(EU2012)#2013-01-08|patch]] also introduces fixes to the teleport bug and adds a new XCOM Hero. <br />
<br />
'''December 4, 2012'''<br />
:* 2K Games has released the first of two DLC packs for all platforms, named ''Slingshot''. The pack features several additional new helmets, 1 new armor decoration and 3 linked Council missions and a special playable soldier named ''Zhang''.<br />
<br />
'''October 23, 2012'''<br />
:* 2K Games has [http://www.2kgames.com/blog/add-on-content-packs-for-xcom-enemy-unknown-coming-soon announced] the first of two DLC packs for all platforms. The first, named ''Slingshot'', will feature 3 new linked Council missions that will focus on a playable character named ''Zhang''.<br />
<br />
'''October 9, 2012'''<br />
:* Eighteen years after the original release of ''UFO: Enemy Unknown'' (or ''XCOM: UFO Defense''), 2K Games has released today in North America ''XCOM: Enemy Unknown'', its remake of the original game, which will be followed by the international release next Friday. XCOM is back!<br />
<br />
''' September 24, 2012 '''<br />
:* Demo is released on '''[http://store.steampowered.com/app/200510/ Steam]'''. It features a tutorial mission, a standard mission and a limited interaction with the Base and Geoscape layer. <br />
<br />
''' August 10, 2012 '''<br />
:* Multiplayer deathmatch revealed for XCOM: Enemy Unknown (2012), mix your own squad of soldiers & aliens and battle online vs other players. <br />
<br />
''' January 5, 2012 '''<br />
:*Publisher 2K Games announces that Firaxis (makers of Civilization) is developing a re-imagining of the original XCOM: Enemy Unknown for release this fall (2012).<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==== <span style ="color:#49BCB5;">New XCOM FPS Game by 2k Marin</span> ====<br />
:* XCOM FPS has been delayed multiple times, release is late 2013 or 2014 at the earliest.<br />
:* The game will focus on elite U.S. government operatives attempting to prevent a nightmarish invasion of the United States (while dropping the dash in X-COM). See:<br />
:* The [http://www.xcom.com official XCOM] site (only a couple of trailers here)<br />
:* Some criticism of its change in focus ([http://www.destructoid.com/2k-marin-s-22-minute-demonstration-of-xcom-209954.phtml 1], [http://www.destructoid.com/2k-xcom-changed-because-strategy-games-aren-t-modern-205991.phtml 2]), although 2k Marin may be rethinking this<br />
:* [http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?76-XCOM-General-Discussion 2k's XCOM forum], including passionate posts by X-Commies<br />
:* Once slated for March 2012 release, it has now slipped to a later date ([http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/xcom_2k_marin/news/xcom_release_date_slips_avoids_mass_effect_3.html 1], [http://www.gamespot.com/news/6344515.html?tag=nl.e579 2]).<br />
<br />
----<br />
==== <span style ="color:#49BCB5;">X-COM Packages </span> ====<br />
Now available for less than $15<br />
:*At [http://www.gamersgate.com/index.php?page=product&what=view&sku=DDB-XCOM&via=newly_added&aff=sc GamersGate], [http://store.steampowered.com/sub/964/ Steam] and [http://www.direct2drive.com/2/7614/product/Buy-X-Com-Complete-Bundle-Download Direct2Drive]. (Includes '''UFO''', '''TFTD''', '''Apoc''', '''Int''', and '''Enf''').<br />
<br />
For "reviews", see [[GEOSCAPE.EXE#X-COM_Complete_Packages|this]]. <br />
<br />
<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">'''OFFICIAL'''</span> - [http://kotaku.com/5516654/x+com-is-back NEW X-COM GAME FROM THE DEVELOPERS OF BIOSHOCK 2]<br><br />
Yes, this will come as a shock to all, but 2K Australia and 2K Marin is busily working on a first-person shooter based on the X-COM franchise. More info will presumably become available on the 2010 E3.<br />
<br />
For more information/rumors check 2K's [http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=76 X-COM forum].<br />
</div></div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XCOM_News&diff=98844XCOM News2020-12-08T16:47:01Z<p>Hobbes: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is the Ufopaedia.org news page where relevant news and site messages will appear. When this page is transcluded into other pages, only the new news items should appear there. Everything else will only display on this page. <br />
<br />
== News ==<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
<div style="padding-left:10px;"><br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">Phoenix Point One Year Edition released!</span>====<br />
[[File:Phoenix Point Geoscape.png|240px|thumb|Phoenix Point Geoscape]]<br />
''' December 8th, 2020'''<br />
:*[https://phoenixpoint.info/ Phoenix Point], the successor to the XCom series made by its original creator, Julian Gollop, has just released its one year edition on Steam and other gaming platforms. The player takes control of Phoenix Point, a top secret organization created to deal with extraordinary threats, as it fights the Pandora virus, an alien lifeform that wishes to remake Earth at its own image, while dealing with human factions that also have their own agenda for the future of the planet, in a game heavily influenced by the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu_Mythos Cthulu Mythos]. The game follows the classic 4X (Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate) for its Geoscape layer, with a turn-based combat system situated halfway between the [[XCOM|original game]] and Firaxis' [[Enemy Unknown (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]]. Phoenix Point even has its own [http://wiki.phoenixpoint.com/Phoenix_Point_Wiki wiki] and it seems influenced by the UFOPaedia!<br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM: Chimera Squad announced!</span>====<br />
''' April 14th, 2020'''<br />
:*Firaxis has [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/1250061590092828678 announced] an upcoming spinoff to the XCOM franchise, "[[Chimera Squad]]", to be released in April 24th. The events of the game take place 5 years after XCOM 2 and are centered upon the titular multi-species law enforcement unit keeping the peace among the humans and aliens living together in the metropolis known as City 31, as a seeming spiritual successor to X-COM: Apocalypse. The released [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39fhpegVBQQ gameplay trailer] reveals that in addition to playable alien squad members, consisting of the Sectoid Verge, the Viper Torque and the Muton Axiom, the game also introduces a Breaching mechanic for setting up an opening surprise attack at the beginning of combat, a Timeline system where the combatants on both sides individually take turns after each other in a fixed, faction-alternating order rather than the entire team acting as once like in previous games, as well as disposable androids to take the place of injured agents on the team roster.<br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM 2: War Of The Chosen DLC announced!</span>====<br />
[[File:War of the Chosen.png|240px|thumb|Reaper Resistance faction]]<br />
''' June 12th, 2017'''<br />
:* Firaxis has [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/874313674835415040 announced] "War Of the Chosen" the next XCOM 2 DLC to be released in August 29th. The DLC will introduce several new enemies, including the Chosen, an elite alien team consisting of the Assassin, the Hunter and the Warlock tasked with recapturing the XCOM commander, along with ADVENT's new Purifier and Priest units. As for XCOM, there will be 3 new classes, Reaper, Skirmisher and Templar representing Resistance factions that you'll need to recruit to your cause. And finally, the Lost will be introduced, which consist of mutated humans who dwell in the ruins of Earth's cities that were destroyed in the initial invasion. <br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM 2: The Real War Begins teaser</span>====<br />
''' June 11th, 2017'''<br />
:* [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/872815512656412672 XCOM]'s Twitter account has just posted a poster teaser for XCOM 2: The Real War Begins, the expected expansion to Firaxis' latest release in the XCOM series. Details of the new expansion will be [http://www.pcgamer.com/2k-and-firaxis-to-present-at-the-pc-gaming-show-at-e3/ revealed] next Monday, June 12th at the E3 convention.<br />
''' January 20th, 2017'''<br />
:* [http://www.pavonisinteractive.com Pavonis Interactive], formerly Long War Studios, has released a new version of its famous [[Long_War|Long War]] mod for XCOM 2. Long War 2 adds several new classes, equipment, research, aliens, missions and more, while increasing the duration of the game. Long War 2 can be downloaded through the Steam Workshop [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=844674609 page].<br />
''' November 11th, 2016'''<br />
:* '''U.S. advanced research organization [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-s-navcube-could-support-an-x-ray-communications-demonstration-in-space-a-nasa-first accidentally reveals XCOM device'''.] Researchers admit they, quote, "need more support to complete the XCOM package". [[Council_of_Funding_Nations]] advises NASA to use cover story in hopes of keeping invasion secret. :)<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
''' June 11th, 2016'''<br />
:* Steam have a one third off weekend special on XCOM 2 this weekend. <br />
<br clear="all"><br />
[[File:XCOM2_Sectopod.png|240px|thumb|XCOM 2 Arrives]]<br />
''' February 4th, 2016'''<br />
:* It is now possible to start the preload of XCOM 2 through Steam (~24.6 Gb download). Firaxis has already [http://steamcommunity.com/games/268500/announcements/detail/843665914362353836 announced] the release schedule for the different regions and has made available the ingame characters of the Development team for use in XCOM 2's Character Pool. Several reviews have been already released on the major gaming sites - some spoilers might be included on those, read at your own risk. Good luck commanders. <br />
<br clear="all"><br />
[[File:XCOM 2 Retaliation.png|240px|thumb|XCOM 2 - Join Us Or Become Them]]<br />
''' December 12th, 2015'''<br />
:* The Official [[XCOM2|XCOM 2]] "Retaliation" trailer has been released. You can check the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0qHZG1-rEg here] and for more ingame action, you can check Beaglerush's XCOM 2 gameplay videos: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9vG-N0ILB0 War Hand], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT_0gsOmsQE Blacksite] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X1Tfx_TM38&feature=youtu.be Legendary War Hand]. XCOM 2 will be released on February 5th, 2016. <br />
[[File:XCOM 2 Soldier Customization.png|240px|thumb|Soldier Customization]]<br />
''' September 10th, 2015'''<br />
:* [[XCOM2]] has been made available for pre-order on Steam in addition to XCOM: Enemy Unknown being free to play for all users until 10am PT on Sunday, September 13 with a 75% discount for anyone who purchases the game during the same period. This discount also applies to all downloadable content. Like the Elite Soldier Pack that came with pre-orders of Enemy Unknown, XCOM2 pre-orders come with the Resistance Warrior Pack which has more soldier customization options.[http://xcom.com/news/xcom-enemy-unknown-is-free-to-play-on-steam-this-weekend]<br />
<br />
'''August 7th, 2015'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released new [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj42i7f1nj0&feature=youtu.be footage] of the upcoming [[XCOM2]] game, with a focus on the Avenger, the mobile base used by XCOM to fight the ADVENT forces. Highlights include a tour through the base facilities and XCOM's Chief Engineer and Scientist, as well as a display of the soldier customization and the strategic layer.<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
<br />
====OpenTFTD Beta Released====<br />
[[File:OpenTFTD1.png|240px|thumb|OpenTFTD]]<br />
'''August 4th, 2015'''<br />
:* The developers of [[OpenXcom]] have released the first Nightly (a.k.a. beta version) of [http://openxcom.org/ OpenTFTD], an open source reimplementation of [[TFTD|XCOM: Terror From The Deep]]. OpenTFTD comes included with the engine of regular OpenXcom and requires a copy of the original TFTD game to play.<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
====XCOM 2 Gameplay Video Released====<br />
'''June 16th, 2015'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released the first [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzAKyj-KK-E&t=2m22s video] of XCOM 2 gameplay during the E3 2015 conference. The footage features a tactical mission where XCOM troops have to blow up an Advent target and it shows several enemies, including the Advent units of Soldier, Captain, Turret and MEC, as well as the Viper and the evolved Muton Berserker. The video also shows the new concealment/ambush mechanic, as well as a Gremlin hacking a turret and the Skyranger retrieval. It is also possible to see Officer [[Bradford (EU2012)|Bradford]] ordering XCOM troops into action and a glimpse of the world under the alien occupation.<br />
<br />
====XCOM2 confirmed!==== <br />
'''June 1st, 2015'''<br />
:* 2K and Firaxis have confirmed today on the XCOM official website [[http://xcom.com/]] the upcoming sequel to XCOM: Enemy Unknown. [[XCOM2]] takes place 20 years after the events of the remake, where the aliens have taken over Earth and the remains of XCOM are waging a guerrilla war against the extraterrestrials. The game will feature new soldier classes, the return of the [[Snakemen]] along with other new aliens, procedure generated (random) maps, and will be exclusive to the PC with specific features for mod development. More features will be revealed soon on IGN [http://ca.ign.com/articles/2015/06/01/xcom-2-announced-ign-first].<br />
'''May 29th, 2015'''<br />
:* Two clues at the Advent website have a series of letters that when combined produce "VIGILO CONFIDO", or the motto of Enemy Unknown 2012. It seems that a new XCOM game is under development and more details should be announced later. <br />
'''May 27th, 2015'''<br />
:* 2K has released yesterday a link to a site that presents an alternate reality company called [http://www.adventfuture.org/ Advent Administration]. Its contents have triggered speculation on the 2K official forums and Xcom subreddit that it is related to a new upcoming XCOM announcement. The site contains a rotating globe, pictures depicting a XCOM: Apocalypse style city, one of which seems to contain artwork already present on XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and a downloadable .pdf file uses a font called 'XCOM-Regular'. The site also appears to be under some sort of hacking by an unknown party, with its contents being replaced by phrases such as 'we are still watching'. While all of this is merely circumstantial evidence, 2K is expected to announce a major title on the next E3 Conference in 3 weeks so keep tuned for further details. <br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Archived News == <br />
<br />
'''October 21st, 2014'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released video footage of the two panels dedicated to XCOM: Enemy Unknown during the company's 2014 community convention, which took place last month. The panels were called ''Designing the Soldiers in XCOM'', which was presented by Game Designer Ananda Gupta, and ''The Artwork of XCOM'', by Art Director Greg Foertsch. The Firaxicon videos are available at Firaxis's Youtube [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-lTq9LJCHpRP88U3dngU2P6GhJ8KqEjP channel]. <br />
'''October 16th, 2014'''<br />
:* Steam announced that XCOM: Enemy Unknown can be played for free this weekend, starting today and until next Sunday. For more details check Steam's [http://store.steampowered.com/news/14681/ announcement]. <br />
<br />
'''August 5th, 2014'''<br />
:* Fantasy Flight Games announced that they'll be publishing ''XCOM: The Board Game'' on the last quarter of 2014. The tabletop board game is based on [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] and can be played from 1-4 players, which take the individual roles of XCOM Commander, Chief Scientist, Central Officer and Squad Leader, with the help of an app companion to determine the moves of the alien forces. For more details check the publisher's [http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4972 page], and yes, the game comes included with plastic figures representing all soldier classes, as well as the Interceptors and UFOs. Cost is presented as $59.95 for this game and it will be available for preview at the publisher's booth on Gen Con Indy 2014. <br />
'''June 13th, 2014'''<br />
:* [[OpenXcom]] has just completed its release 1.0 version, available for free at [http://openxcom.org/ openxcom.org]. If you're looking to spice up the original [[X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown]] game, then check out this revamped open source clone version, developed by [[User:SupSuper|SupSuper]] and a bunch of X-COM enthusiasts. For more details about OpenXcom, see this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL2x-Sz9Oa8 presentation]. <br />
'''May 29th, 2014'''<br />
:*Feral Interactive has [http://www.feralinteractive.com/en/news/424/ announced] that they will release XCOM: Enemy Unknown as their first game for Linux this summer, using the Ubuntu 14.04 version and through SteamPlay. <br />
'''May 17th, 2014'''<br />
:*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsHppXrgP0I YCOM: Enemy Unlikely] - Another remake of the XCOM series, YCOM: Enemy Unlikely is a demake of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, with a bit of hilarity added. The video contains a link on its description to download and play the game. <br />
'''April 29th, 2014'''<br />
:*[http://xcomrl.blogspot.pt/ X@COM] - playable alpha demo. X@COM, or XCOM Rogue-like, is a current fan project that aims to replicate the original UFO: Enemy Unknown using only ASCII characters. They're aiming to finish the project by 2015 and they have a current playable alpha version that can be downloaded for playing. <br />
'''March 9th, 2014'''<br />
:*[http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/03/x-coms-design-document-had-just-12-pages/ Kokatu] magazine has published an article about the creation of the original [[X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown]] which includes a [http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1017808/Classic-Game-Postmortem-X-COM link] to last year's video presentation made by its creator, Julian Gollop, about the original game's design process.<br />
'''March 4th, 2014'''<br />
:*XCOM: Complete Edition released for PC and Mac. Includes all of the DLCs released so far, including the Elite Soldier Pack, Slingshot and Enemy Within. <br />
'''February 7th, 2014'''<br />
:*[[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] has won the Best Strategy/Simulation Game of the Year 2013 DICE awards. For a list of winners see [http://www.interactive.org/news/17th_annual_dice_awards_winners.asp].<br />
'''February 4th, 2014'''<br />
:*2K Games is preparing the release a complete edition of [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] on March 4th, according to [http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/02/03/xcom-and-civilization-v-complete-editions-coming-soon.aspx Gameinformer]. No further details have been released yet about the edition but it's likely that it should include all of the DLCs released so far, such as [[Elite Soldier Pack DLC (EU2012)|Elite Soldier Pack]], [[Slingshot DLC (EU2012)|Slingshot]] and the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|Enemy Within]] expansion.<br />
<br />
==== [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] and [[Hangar 6: R&D DLC (Bureau)|Hangar 6: R&D]] have been released! ====<br />
====XCOM: Enemy Within released====<br />
'''November 15th 2013'''<br />
:*And now it is the rest of the world's turn as Enemy Within receives its international release today. So get on and enjoy the all new features!<br />
'''November 12th 2013'''<br />
:*XCOM Enemy Within is released in America with new features like the new human faction – EXALT, Base Defence and all new maps and council Missions. Enjoy the game and see you on the farm with the crashed UFO.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within Reviews! ====<br />
'''November 11th 2013'''<br />
:*Several reviews of [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] have been published today. To read/see them, check [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/10729-XCOM-Enemy-Within-Review Escapist Magazine] ("''All of the fun new toys, however, do work a bit against the game's biggest flaw - after a certain point of advancement, the challenge and satisfaction of snuffing aliens dissipates quickly.''"), [http://www.shacknews.com/article/81977/xcom-enemy-within-video-review Shacknews] ("''Firaxis once again manages to balance XCOM's disparate elements, resulting in a challenging and satisfying experience.''"), [http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/11/11/xcom-enemy-within-review IGN] ("''Enemy Within is an amazing expansion to a brilliant tactical game.''") and [http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/xcomenemyunknowntheenemywithin/reviews.html Strategy Informer] ("''I could go on about the virtues of Enemy Within, about how good it was to play through the whole campaign again, but ultimately it’ll come down to two factors: The fact that the ending hasn’t changed a bit, and the fact that, ultimately, you’re still playing the same game.''", and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mb_RXgIStw Revision3] ("''EW gets a 4 out of 5.''").<br />
<br />
====The Bureau Expansion====<br />
'''November 8th 2013'''<br />
:*[[The Bureau: XCOM Declassified|The Bureau: XCOM Declassified]] gained it first DLC Pack today in the form of [[Hangar 6: R&D DLC (Bureau)|Hangar 6: R&D]] in which the player takes control of DaSilva in an attempt to get to the bottom of a mysterious new infection.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM Base Defense confirmed on EW====<br />
'''October 23th, 2013'''<br />
:*The newest preview videos released ([http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/previews/10679-XCOM-Enemy-Within-Preview-Whole-New-Game here] and [http://www.gamespot.com/videos/base-defense-returns-in-xcom-enemy-within/2300-6415682/ here]) have confirmed the addition of a Base Defense mission to [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]], a feature of the original game long called for by players. Check for more details on the Enemy Within page.<br />
<br />
==== EXALT revealed!====<br />
'''October 9th, 2013'''<br />
:*A new faction has been revealed for [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]], the upcoming [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] expansion. XCOM's new enemies are called EXALT and they're a secret paramilitary human group that is conspiring to use the alien technology and chaos of the invasion to achieve world domination. More details available at the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|Enemy Within]] page.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within details announced!====<br />
'''August 21st, 2013'''<br />
:*Producer 2K revealed details about '''XCOM: Enemy Within''', the upcoming expansion to [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]]. The main features are the addition of the Meld, a substance that allows you to create a new class (Mech Troopers), with new weapons and abilities or to genetically enhance your soldiers (Gene Mods), along with other features. The release date is November 12th (US) and 15th (rest of the world) and check the full details on the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] page.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within will be revealed on August 21st====<br />
'''August 3rd, 2013'''<br />
:*Producer 2K has confirmed that it will reveal during Gamescom 2013 a new DLC for XCOM: Enemy Unknown called [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]].<br />
<br />
<br />
==== The Bureau: XCOM Declassified will be released next month====<br />
'''July 18th, 2013'''<br />
:*The upcoming XCOM squad based shooter will be available for sale on stores on August 20th in the US and on the 23rd to the rest of the world. From the available previews/footage it seems the game has been redesigned as a prequel to ''XCOM: Enemy Unknown'', featuring Sectoids, Mutons and even Silacoids.<br />
<br />
==== The Bureau: XCOM Declassified coming soon====<br />
'''May 5th, 2013'''<br />
:*Marin's 2K XCOM squad based shooter should be released soon as '''The Bureau: XCOM Declassified'''. The game was announced three years ago and has been redesigned.<br />
<br />
==== Clash of the Titans: X-COM meets XCOM ==== <br />
'''April 2nd, 2013'''<br />
:*Julian Gollop and Jake Solomon have met for the first time during Game Developers Conference 2013 to be interviewed regarding the original game and the 2012 remake. Check the video of the encounter here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8zZsecTRfM].<br />
<br />
==== GDC 2013: Julian Gollop's Postmortem on UFO: Enemy Unknown/XCOM: UFO Defense ====<br />
<br />
'''March 28th, 2013'''<br />
<br />
:*Julian Gollop gave a talk at Games Developers Conference 2013 on the development of the original UFO: Enemy Unknown/XCOM: UFO Defense. An interesting look into the philosophies and source material that went into the making of the game, and also how it nearly failed. <br />
<br />
:: See the video at: http://www.gamespot.com/events/gdc-2013/video.html?sid=6406150<br />
'''March 1st, 2013'''<br />
:*'''Elite Edition for the Mac announced.''' Firaxis have announced that Feral Games are porting XCOM: Enemy Unknown to the OS X and will be released in an Elite Edition. This edition will include the [[Elite Soldier Pack DLC (EU2012)|Elite Soldier Pack]], [[Slingshot DLC (EU2012)|Slingshot]] and [[Second Wave (EU2012)|Second Wave]] DLCs and should be released this spring. <br />
<br />
'''January 8th, 2013'''<br />
:*'''[[Second Wave (EU2012)|Second Wave]] options now available on XCOM: Enemy Unknown.''' The latest patch released today by Firaxis now activates the Second Wave options and makes it available for the game. Despite it being already included but inactive (and playable through mods) the developers had stated that they didn't had time to complete Second Wave before XCOM: Enemy Unknown but it was on their intentions to finish it. It now includes the following [[Info_(EU2012)#Advanced Options|options]] as part of Advanced Gameplay: ''Damage Roulette, New Economy, Not Created Equally, Hidden Potential, Red Fog, Absolutely Critical, The Greater Good, Marathon, Results Driven, High Stakes, Diminishing Returns, More Than Human, Total Loss, War Wariness, E-115'' and ''Alternate Sources''. The [[Patches_(EU2012)#2013-01-08|patch]] also introduces fixes to the teleport bug and adds a new XCOM Hero. <br />
<br />
'''December 4, 2012'''<br />
:* 2K Games has released the first of two DLC packs for all platforms, named ''Slingshot''. The pack features several additional new helmets, 1 new armor decoration and 3 linked Council missions and a special playable soldier named ''Zhang''.<br />
<br />
'''October 23, 2012'''<br />
:* 2K Games has [http://www.2kgames.com/blog/add-on-content-packs-for-xcom-enemy-unknown-coming-soon announced] the first of two DLC packs for all platforms. The first, named ''Slingshot'', will feature 3 new linked Council missions that will focus on a playable character named ''Zhang''.<br />
<br />
'''October 9, 2012'''<br />
:* Eighteen years after the original release of ''UFO: Enemy Unknown'' (or ''XCOM: UFO Defense''), 2K Games has released today in North America ''XCOM: Enemy Unknown'', its remake of the original game, which will be followed by the international release next Friday. XCOM is back!<br />
<br />
''' September 24, 2012 '''<br />
:* Demo is released on '''[http://store.steampowered.com/app/200510/ Steam]'''. It features a tutorial mission, a standard mission and a limited interaction with the Base and Geoscape layer. <br />
<br />
''' August 10, 2012 '''<br />
:* Multiplayer deathmatch revealed for XCOM: Enemy Unknown (2012), mix your own squad of soldiers & aliens and battle online vs other players. <br />
<br />
''' January 5, 2012 '''<br />
:*Publisher 2K Games announces that Firaxis (makers of Civilization) is developing a re-imagining of the original XCOM: Enemy Unknown for release this fall (2012).<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==== <span style ="color:#49BCB5;">New XCOM FPS Game by 2k Marin</span> ====<br />
:* XCOM FPS has been delayed multiple times, release is late 2013 or 2014 at the earliest.<br />
:* The game will focus on elite U.S. government operatives attempting to prevent a nightmarish invasion of the United States (while dropping the dash in X-COM). See:<br />
:* The [http://www.xcom.com official XCOM] site (only a couple of trailers here)<br />
:* Some criticism of its change in focus ([http://www.destructoid.com/2k-marin-s-22-minute-demonstration-of-xcom-209954.phtml 1], [http://www.destructoid.com/2k-xcom-changed-because-strategy-games-aren-t-modern-205991.phtml 2]), although 2k Marin may be rethinking this<br />
:* [http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?76-XCOM-General-Discussion 2k's XCOM forum], including passionate posts by X-Commies<br />
:* Once slated for March 2012 release, it has now slipped to a later date ([http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/xcom_2k_marin/news/xcom_release_date_slips_avoids_mass_effect_3.html 1], [http://www.gamespot.com/news/6344515.html?tag=nl.e579 2]).<br />
<br />
----<br />
==== <span style ="color:#49BCB5;">X-COM Packages </span> ====<br />
Now available for less than $15<br />
:*At [http://www.gamersgate.com/index.php?page=product&what=view&sku=DDB-XCOM&via=newly_added&aff=sc GamersGate], [http://store.steampowered.com/sub/964/ Steam] and [http://www.direct2drive.com/2/7614/product/Buy-X-Com-Complete-Bundle-Download Direct2Drive]. (Includes '''UFO''', '''TFTD''', '''Apoc''', '''Int''', and '''Enf''').<br />
<br />
For "reviews", see [[GEOSCAPE.EXE#X-COM_Complete_Packages|this]]. <br />
<br />
<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">'''OFFICIAL'''</span> - [http://kotaku.com/5516654/x+com-is-back NEW X-COM GAME FROM THE DEVELOPERS OF BIOSHOCK 2]<br><br />
Yes, this will come as a shock to all, but 2K Australia and 2K Marin is busily working on a first-person shooter based on the X-COM franchise. More info will presumably become available on the 2010 E3.<br />
<br />
For more information/rumors check 2K's [http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=76 X-COM forum].<br />
</div></div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&diff=98843MediaWiki:Sidebar2020-12-08T16:44:16Z<p>Hobbes: Added Spiritual Successors category for Phoenix Point</p>
<hr />
<div>* Navigation<br />
** mainpage|mainpage<br />
** portal-url|portal<br />
** recentchanges-url|recentchanges<br />
** helppage|help<br />
* Games<br />
** X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown<br />
** TFTD|Terror From The Deep<br />
** Apocalypse|Apocalypse<br />
** Enemy Unknown (EU2012)|Enemy Unknown<br />
** The Bureau: XCOM Declassified|The Bureau<br />
** XCOM2|XCOM 2<br />
** Chimera Squad|Chimera Squad<br />
* Spiritual Successors<br />
** http://wiki.phoenixpoint.com/Phoenix_Point_Wiki |Phoenix Point <br />
<br />
* Featured Projects<br />
** UFO2000|UFO2000<br />
** OpenXcom|OpenXcom<br />
** OpenApoc|OpenApoc<br />
** UFO:AI|UFO:AI<br />
** Long War|Long War<br />
** Long_War_2|Long War 2<br />
** Other Projects|Other Projects<br />
<br />
*Forums<br />
**http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/forum/96-ufopaediaorg/ |Ufopaedia forum<br />
**http://forums.2kgames.com/forumdisplay.php?75-XCOM |2K's XCOM forums<br />
**http://www.reddit.com/r/Xcom/ |Reddit X-COM<br />
**Forums | Other Forums<br />
*Languages<br />
**Pagina Principal|Español (Spanish)<br />
**Главная страница|Русский (Russian)<br />
**Page Principale|Français (French)<br />
**메인_페이지|한국어 (Korean)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=XCOM_News&diff=98842XCOM News2020-12-08T16:41:37Z<p>Hobbes: Phoenix Point news</p>
<hr />
<div>This is the Ufopaedia.org news page where relevant news and site messages will appear. When this page is transcluded into other pages, only the new news items should appear there. Everything else will only display on this page. <br />
<br />
== News ==<br />
<onlyinclude><br />
<div style="padding-left:10px;"><br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">Phoenix Point One Year Edition released!</span>====<br />
[[File:Phoenix Point Geoscape.png|240px|thumb|Phoenix Point Geoscape]]<br />
''' December 8th, 2020'''<br />
:*[https://phoenixpoint.info/ Phoenix Point], the successor to the XCom series made by its original creator, Julian Gollop, has just released its one year edition on Steam and other gaming platforms. The player takes control of Phoenix Point, a top secret organization created to deal with extraordinary threats, as it fights the Pandora virus, an alien lifeform that wishes to remake Earth at its own image, while dealing with human factions that also have their own agenda for the future of the planet, in a game heavily influenced by the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu_Mythos Cthulu Mythos]. The game follows the classic 4X (Explore, Expand, Exploit, Exterminate) for its Geoscape layer, with a turn-based combat system situated halfway between the [[XCOM|original game]] and Firaxis' [[Enemy Unknown (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]]. Phoenix Point even has its own [http://wiki.phoenixpoint.com/Phoenix_Point_Wiki wiki] and it seems very influenced by the UFOPaedia!<br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM: Chimera Squad announced!</span>====<br />
''' April 14th, 2020'''<br />
:*Firaxis has [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/1250061590092828678 announced] an upcoming spinoff to the XCOM franchise, "[[Chimera Squad]]", to be released in April 24th. The events of the game take place 5 years after XCOM 2 and are centered upon the titular multi-species law enforcement unit keeping the peace among the humans and aliens living together in the metropolis known as City 31, as a seeming spiritual successor to X-COM: Apocalypse. The released [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39fhpegVBQQ gameplay trailer] reveals that in addition to playable alien squad members, consisting of the Sectoid Verge, the Viper Torque and the Muton Axiom, the game also introduces a Breaching mechanic for setting up an opening surprise attack at the beginning of combat, a Timeline system where the combatants on both sides individually take turns after each other in a fixed, faction-alternating order rather than the entire team acting as once like in previous games, as well as disposable androids to take the place of injured agents on the team roster.<br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM 2: War Of The Chosen DLC announced!</span>====<br />
[[File:War of the Chosen.png|240px|thumb|Reaper Resistance faction]]<br />
''' June 12th, 2017'''<br />
:* Firaxis has [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/874313674835415040 announced] "War Of the Chosen" the next XCOM 2 DLC to be released in August 29th. The DLC will introduce several new enemies, including the Chosen, an elite alien team consisting of the Assassin, the Hunter and the Warlock tasked with recapturing the XCOM commander, along with ADVENT's new Purifier and Priest units. As for XCOM, there will be 3 new classes, Reaper, Skirmisher and Templar representing Resistance factions that you'll need to recruit to your cause. And finally, the Lost will be introduced, which consist of mutated humans who dwell in the ruins of Earth's cities that were destroyed in the initial invasion. <br />
<br />
====<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">XCOM 2: The Real War Begins teaser</span>====<br />
''' June 11th, 2017'''<br />
:* [https://twitter.com/XCOM/status/872815512656412672 XCOM]'s Twitter account has just posted a poster teaser for XCOM 2: The Real War Begins, the expected expansion to Firaxis' latest release in the XCOM series. Details of the new expansion will be [http://www.pcgamer.com/2k-and-firaxis-to-present-at-the-pc-gaming-show-at-e3/ revealed] next Monday, June 12th at the E3 convention.<br />
''' January 20th, 2017'''<br />
:* [http://www.pavonisinteractive.com Pavonis Interactive], formerly Long War Studios, has released a new version of its famous [[Long_War|Long War]] mod for XCOM 2. Long War 2 adds several new classes, equipment, research, aliens, missions and more, while increasing the duration of the game. Long War 2 can be downloaded through the Steam Workshop [https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=844674609 page].<br />
''' November 11th, 2016'''<br />
:* '''U.S. advanced research organization [https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/nasa-s-navcube-could-support-an-x-ray-communications-demonstration-in-space-a-nasa-first accidentally reveals XCOM device'''.] Researchers admit they, quote, "need more support to complete the XCOM package". [[Council_of_Funding_Nations]] advises NASA to use cover story in hopes of keeping invasion secret. :)<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
''' June 11th, 2016'''<br />
:* Steam have a one third off weekend special on XCOM 2 this weekend. <br />
<br clear="all"><br />
[[File:XCOM2_Sectopod.png|240px|thumb|XCOM 2 Arrives]]<br />
''' February 4th, 2016'''<br />
:* It is now possible to start the preload of XCOM 2 through Steam (~24.6 Gb download). Firaxis has already [http://steamcommunity.com/games/268500/announcements/detail/843665914362353836 announced] the release schedule for the different regions and has made available the ingame characters of the Development team for use in XCOM 2's Character Pool. Several reviews have been already released on the major gaming sites - some spoilers might be included on those, read at your own risk. Good luck commanders. <br />
<br clear="all"><br />
[[File:XCOM 2 Retaliation.png|240px|thumb|XCOM 2 - Join Us Or Become Them]]<br />
''' December 12th, 2015'''<br />
:* The Official [[XCOM2|XCOM 2]] "Retaliation" trailer has been released. You can check the video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0qHZG1-rEg here] and for more ingame action, you can check Beaglerush's XCOM 2 gameplay videos: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9vG-N0ILB0 War Hand], [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT_0gsOmsQE Blacksite] and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X1Tfx_TM38&feature=youtu.be Legendary War Hand]. XCOM 2 will be released on February 5th, 2016. <br />
[[File:XCOM 2 Soldier Customization.png|240px|thumb|Soldier Customization]]<br />
''' September 10th, 2015'''<br />
:* [[XCOM2]] has been made available for pre-order on Steam in addition to XCOM: Enemy Unknown being free to play for all users until 10am PT on Sunday, September 13 with a 75% discount for anyone who purchases the game during the same period. This discount also applies to all downloadable content. Like the Elite Soldier Pack that came with pre-orders of Enemy Unknown, XCOM2 pre-orders come with the Resistance Warrior Pack which has more soldier customization options.[http://xcom.com/news/xcom-enemy-unknown-is-free-to-play-on-steam-this-weekend]<br />
<br />
'''August 7th, 2015'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released new [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj42i7f1nj0&feature=youtu.be footage] of the upcoming [[XCOM2]] game, with a focus on the Avenger, the mobile base used by XCOM to fight the ADVENT forces. Highlights include a tour through the base facilities and XCOM's Chief Engineer and Scientist, as well as a display of the soldier customization and the strategic layer.<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
<br />
====OpenTFTD Beta Released====<br />
[[File:OpenTFTD1.png|240px|thumb|OpenTFTD]]<br />
'''August 4th, 2015'''<br />
:* The developers of [[OpenXcom]] have released the first Nightly (a.k.a. beta version) of [http://openxcom.org/ OpenTFTD], an open source reimplementation of [[TFTD|XCOM: Terror From The Deep]]. OpenTFTD comes included with the engine of regular OpenXcom and requires a copy of the original TFTD game to play.<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
====XCOM 2 Gameplay Video Released====<br />
'''June 16th, 2015'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released the first [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzAKyj-KK-E&t=2m22s video] of XCOM 2 gameplay during the E3 2015 conference. The footage features a tactical mission where XCOM troops have to blow up an Advent target and it shows several enemies, including the Advent units of Soldier, Captain, Turret and MEC, as well as the Viper and the evolved Muton Berserker. The video also shows the new concealment/ambush mechanic, as well as a Gremlin hacking a turret and the Skyranger retrieval. It is also possible to see Officer [[Bradford (EU2012)|Bradford]] ordering XCOM troops into action and a glimpse of the world under the alien occupation.<br />
<br />
====XCOM2 confirmed!==== <br />
'''June 1st, 2015'''<br />
:* 2K and Firaxis have confirmed today on the XCOM official website [[http://xcom.com/]] the upcoming sequel to XCOM: Enemy Unknown. [[XCOM2]] takes place 20 years after the events of the remake, where the aliens have taken over Earth and the remains of XCOM are waging a guerrilla war against the extraterrestrials. The game will feature new soldier classes, the return of the [[Snakemen]] along with other new aliens, procedure generated (random) maps, and will be exclusive to the PC with specific features for mod development. More features will be revealed soon on IGN [http://ca.ign.com/articles/2015/06/01/xcom-2-announced-ign-first].<br />
'''May 29th, 2015'''<br />
:* Two clues at the Advent website have a series of letters that when combined produce "VIGILO CONFIDO", or the motto of Enemy Unknown 2012. It seems that a new XCOM game is under development and more details should be announced later. <br />
'''May 27th, 2015'''<br />
:* 2K has released yesterday a link to a site that presents an alternate reality company called [http://www.adventfuture.org/ Advent Administration]. Its contents have triggered speculation on the 2K official forums and Xcom subreddit that it is related to a new upcoming XCOM announcement. The site contains a rotating globe, pictures depicting a XCOM: Apocalypse style city, one of which seems to contain artwork already present on XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and a downloadable .pdf file uses a font called 'XCOM-Regular'. The site also appears to be under some sort of hacking by an unknown party, with its contents being replaced by phrases such as 'we are still watching'. While all of this is merely circumstantial evidence, 2K is expected to announce a major title on the next E3 Conference in 3 weeks so keep tuned for further details. <br />
<br />
</onlyinclude><br />
<br />
== Archived News == <br />
<br />
'''October 21st, 2014'''<br />
:* Firaxis has released video footage of the two panels dedicated to XCOM: Enemy Unknown during the company's 2014 community convention, which took place last month. The panels were called ''Designing the Soldiers in XCOM'', which was presented by Game Designer Ananda Gupta, and ''The Artwork of XCOM'', by Art Director Greg Foertsch. The Firaxicon videos are available at Firaxis's Youtube [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-lTq9LJCHpRP88U3dngU2P6GhJ8KqEjP channel]. <br />
'''October 16th, 2014'''<br />
:* Steam announced that XCOM: Enemy Unknown can be played for free this weekend, starting today and until next Sunday. For more details check Steam's [http://store.steampowered.com/news/14681/ announcement]. <br />
<br />
'''August 5th, 2014'''<br />
:* Fantasy Flight Games announced that they'll be publishing ''XCOM: The Board Game'' on the last quarter of 2014. The tabletop board game is based on [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] and can be played from 1-4 players, which take the individual roles of XCOM Commander, Chief Scientist, Central Officer and Squad Leader, with the help of an app companion to determine the moves of the alien forces. For more details check the publisher's [http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4972 page], and yes, the game comes included with plastic figures representing all soldier classes, as well as the Interceptors and UFOs. Cost is presented as $59.95 for this game and it will be available for preview at the publisher's booth on Gen Con Indy 2014. <br />
'''June 13th, 2014'''<br />
:* [[OpenXcom]] has just completed its release 1.0 version, available for free at [http://openxcom.org/ openxcom.org]. If you're looking to spice up the original [[X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown]] game, then check out this revamped open source clone version, developed by [[User:SupSuper|SupSuper]] and a bunch of X-COM enthusiasts. For more details about OpenXcom, see this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GL2x-Sz9Oa8 presentation]. <br />
'''May 29th, 2014'''<br />
:*Feral Interactive has [http://www.feralinteractive.com/en/news/424/ announced] that they will release XCOM: Enemy Unknown as their first game for Linux this summer, using the Ubuntu 14.04 version and through SteamPlay. <br />
'''May 17th, 2014'''<br />
:*[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsHppXrgP0I YCOM: Enemy Unlikely] - Another remake of the XCOM series, YCOM: Enemy Unlikely is a demake of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, with a bit of hilarity added. The video contains a link on its description to download and play the game. <br />
'''April 29th, 2014'''<br />
:*[http://xcomrl.blogspot.pt/ X@COM] - playable alpha demo. X@COM, or XCOM Rogue-like, is a current fan project that aims to replicate the original UFO: Enemy Unknown using only ASCII characters. They're aiming to finish the project by 2015 and they have a current playable alpha version that can be downloaded for playing. <br />
'''March 9th, 2014'''<br />
:*[http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/03/x-coms-design-document-had-just-12-pages/ Kokatu] magazine has published an article about the creation of the original [[X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown]] which includes a [http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1017808/Classic-Game-Postmortem-X-COM link] to last year's video presentation made by its creator, Julian Gollop, about the original game's design process.<br />
'''March 4th, 2014'''<br />
:*XCOM: Complete Edition released for PC and Mac. Includes all of the DLCs released so far, including the Elite Soldier Pack, Slingshot and Enemy Within. <br />
'''February 7th, 2014'''<br />
:*[[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] has won the Best Strategy/Simulation Game of the Year 2013 DICE awards. For a list of winners see [http://www.interactive.org/news/17th_annual_dice_awards_winners.asp].<br />
'''February 4th, 2014'''<br />
:*2K Games is preparing the release a complete edition of [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] on March 4th, according to [http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/02/03/xcom-and-civilization-v-complete-editions-coming-soon.aspx Gameinformer]. No further details have been released yet about the edition but it's likely that it should include all of the DLCs released so far, such as [[Elite Soldier Pack DLC (EU2012)|Elite Soldier Pack]], [[Slingshot DLC (EU2012)|Slingshot]] and the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|Enemy Within]] expansion.<br />
<br />
==== [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] and [[Hangar 6: R&D DLC (Bureau)|Hangar 6: R&D]] have been released! ====<br />
====XCOM: Enemy Within released====<br />
'''November 15th 2013'''<br />
:*And now it is the rest of the world's turn as Enemy Within receives its international release today. So get on and enjoy the all new features!<br />
'''November 12th 2013'''<br />
:*XCOM Enemy Within is released in America with new features like the new human faction – EXALT, Base Defence and all new maps and council Missions. Enjoy the game and see you on the farm with the crashed UFO.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within Reviews! ====<br />
'''November 11th 2013'''<br />
:*Several reviews of [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] have been published today. To read/see them, check [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/10729-XCOM-Enemy-Within-Review Escapist Magazine] ("''All of the fun new toys, however, do work a bit against the game's biggest flaw - after a certain point of advancement, the challenge and satisfaction of snuffing aliens dissipates quickly.''"), [http://www.shacknews.com/article/81977/xcom-enemy-within-video-review Shacknews] ("''Firaxis once again manages to balance XCOM's disparate elements, resulting in a challenging and satisfying experience.''"), [http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/11/11/xcom-enemy-within-review IGN] ("''Enemy Within is an amazing expansion to a brilliant tactical game.''") and [http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/xcomenemyunknowntheenemywithin/reviews.html Strategy Informer] ("''I could go on about the virtues of Enemy Within, about how good it was to play through the whole campaign again, but ultimately it’ll come down to two factors: The fact that the ending hasn’t changed a bit, and the fact that, ultimately, you’re still playing the same game.''", and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mb_RXgIStw Revision3] ("''EW gets a 4 out of 5.''").<br />
<br />
====The Bureau Expansion====<br />
'''November 8th 2013'''<br />
:*[[The Bureau: XCOM Declassified|The Bureau: XCOM Declassified]] gained it first DLC Pack today in the form of [[Hangar 6: R&D DLC (Bureau)|Hangar 6: R&D]] in which the player takes control of DaSilva in an attempt to get to the bottom of a mysterious new infection.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM Base Defense confirmed on EW====<br />
'''October 23th, 2013'''<br />
:*The newest preview videos released ([http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/reviews/previews/10679-XCOM-Enemy-Within-Preview-Whole-New-Game here] and [http://www.gamespot.com/videos/base-defense-returns-in-xcom-enemy-within/2300-6415682/ here]) have confirmed the addition of a Base Defense mission to [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]], a feature of the original game long called for by players. Check for more details on the Enemy Within page.<br />
<br />
==== EXALT revealed!====<br />
'''October 9th, 2013'''<br />
:*A new faction has been revealed for [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]], the upcoming [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]] expansion. XCOM's new enemies are called EXALT and they're a secret paramilitary human group that is conspiring to use the alien technology and chaos of the invasion to achieve world domination. More details available at the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|Enemy Within]] page.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within details announced!====<br />
'''August 21st, 2013'''<br />
:*Producer 2K revealed details about '''XCOM: Enemy Within''', the upcoming expansion to [[Enemy Unknown (2012)|XCOM: Enemy Unknown]]. The main features are the addition of the Meld, a substance that allows you to create a new class (Mech Troopers), with new weapons and abilities or to genetically enhance your soldiers (Gene Mods), along with other features. The release date is November 12th (US) and 15th (rest of the world) and check the full details on the [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]] page.<br />
<br />
==== XCOM: Enemy Within will be revealed on August 21st====<br />
'''August 3rd, 2013'''<br />
:*Producer 2K has confirmed that it will reveal during Gamescom 2013 a new DLC for XCOM: Enemy Unknown called [[XCOM: Enemy Within DLC (EU2012)|XCOM: Enemy Within]].<br />
<br />
<br />
==== The Bureau: XCOM Declassified will be released next month====<br />
'''July 18th, 2013'''<br />
:*The upcoming XCOM squad based shooter will be available for sale on stores on August 20th in the US and on the 23rd to the rest of the world. From the available previews/footage it seems the game has been redesigned as a prequel to ''XCOM: Enemy Unknown'', featuring Sectoids, Mutons and even Silacoids.<br />
<br />
==== The Bureau: XCOM Declassified coming soon====<br />
'''May 5th, 2013'''<br />
:*Marin's 2K XCOM squad based shooter should be released soon as '''The Bureau: XCOM Declassified'''. The game was announced three years ago and has been redesigned.<br />
<br />
==== Clash of the Titans: X-COM meets XCOM ==== <br />
'''April 2nd, 2013'''<br />
:*Julian Gollop and Jake Solomon have met for the first time during Game Developers Conference 2013 to be interviewed regarding the original game and the 2012 remake. Check the video of the encounter here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8zZsecTRfM].<br />
<br />
==== GDC 2013: Julian Gollop's Postmortem on UFO: Enemy Unknown/XCOM: UFO Defense ====<br />
<br />
'''March 28th, 2013'''<br />
<br />
:*Julian Gollop gave a talk at Games Developers Conference 2013 on the development of the original UFO: Enemy Unknown/XCOM: UFO Defense. An interesting look into the philosophies and source material that went into the making of the game, and also how it nearly failed. <br />
<br />
:: See the video at: http://www.gamespot.com/events/gdc-2013/video.html?sid=6406150<br />
'''March 1st, 2013'''<br />
:*'''Elite Edition for the Mac announced.''' Firaxis have announced that Feral Games are porting XCOM: Enemy Unknown to the OS X and will be released in an Elite Edition. This edition will include the [[Elite Soldier Pack DLC (EU2012)|Elite Soldier Pack]], [[Slingshot DLC (EU2012)|Slingshot]] and [[Second Wave (EU2012)|Second Wave]] DLCs and should be released this spring. <br />
<br />
'''January 8th, 2013'''<br />
:*'''[[Second Wave (EU2012)|Second Wave]] options now available on XCOM: Enemy Unknown.''' The latest patch released today by Firaxis now activates the Second Wave options and makes it available for the game. Despite it being already included but inactive (and playable through mods) the developers had stated that they didn't had time to complete Second Wave before XCOM: Enemy Unknown but it was on their intentions to finish it. It now includes the following [[Info_(EU2012)#Advanced Options|options]] as part of Advanced Gameplay: ''Damage Roulette, New Economy, Not Created Equally, Hidden Potential, Red Fog, Absolutely Critical, The Greater Good, Marathon, Results Driven, High Stakes, Diminishing Returns, More Than Human, Total Loss, War Wariness, E-115'' and ''Alternate Sources''. The [[Patches_(EU2012)#2013-01-08|patch]] also introduces fixes to the teleport bug and adds a new XCOM Hero. <br />
<br />
'''December 4, 2012'''<br />
:* 2K Games has released the first of two DLC packs for all platforms, named ''Slingshot''. The pack features several additional new helmets, 1 new armor decoration and 3 linked Council missions and a special playable soldier named ''Zhang''.<br />
<br />
'''October 23, 2012'''<br />
:* 2K Games has [http://www.2kgames.com/blog/add-on-content-packs-for-xcom-enemy-unknown-coming-soon announced] the first of two DLC packs for all platforms. The first, named ''Slingshot'', will feature 3 new linked Council missions that will focus on a playable character named ''Zhang''.<br />
<br />
'''October 9, 2012'''<br />
:* Eighteen years after the original release of ''UFO: Enemy Unknown'' (or ''XCOM: UFO Defense''), 2K Games has released today in North America ''XCOM: Enemy Unknown'', its remake of the original game, which will be followed by the international release next Friday. XCOM is back!<br />
<br />
''' September 24, 2012 '''<br />
:* Demo is released on '''[http://store.steampowered.com/app/200510/ Steam]'''. It features a tutorial mission, a standard mission and a limited interaction with the Base and Geoscape layer. <br />
<br />
''' August 10, 2012 '''<br />
:* Multiplayer deathmatch revealed for XCOM: Enemy Unknown (2012), mix your own squad of soldiers & aliens and battle online vs other players. <br />
<br />
''' January 5, 2012 '''<br />
:*Publisher 2K Games announces that Firaxis (makers of Civilization) is developing a re-imagining of the original XCOM: Enemy Unknown for release this fall (2012).<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
==== <span style ="color:#49BCB5;">New XCOM FPS Game by 2k Marin</span> ====<br />
:* XCOM FPS has been delayed multiple times, release is late 2013 or 2014 at the earliest.<br />
:* The game will focus on elite U.S. government operatives attempting to prevent a nightmarish invasion of the United States (while dropping the dash in X-COM). See:<br />
:* The [http://www.xcom.com official XCOM] site (only a couple of trailers here)<br />
:* Some criticism of its change in focus ([http://www.destructoid.com/2k-marin-s-22-minute-demonstration-of-xcom-209954.phtml 1], [http://www.destructoid.com/2k-xcom-changed-because-strategy-games-aren-t-modern-205991.phtml 2]), although 2k Marin may be rethinking this<br />
:* [http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?76-XCOM-General-Discussion 2k's XCOM forum], including passionate posts by X-Commies<br />
:* Once slated for March 2012 release, it has now slipped to a later date ([http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/xcom_2k_marin/news/xcom_release_date_slips_avoids_mass_effect_3.html 1], [http://www.gamespot.com/news/6344515.html?tag=nl.e579 2]).<br />
<br />
----<br />
==== <span style ="color:#49BCB5;">X-COM Packages </span> ====<br />
Now available for less than $15<br />
:*At [http://www.gamersgate.com/index.php?page=product&what=view&sku=DDB-XCOM&via=newly_added&aff=sc GamersGate], [http://store.steampowered.com/sub/964/ Steam] and [http://www.direct2drive.com/2/7614/product/Buy-X-Com-Complete-Bundle-Download Direct2Drive]. (Includes '''UFO''', '''TFTD''', '''Apoc''', '''Int''', and '''Enf''').<br />
<br />
For "reviews", see [[GEOSCAPE.EXE#X-COM_Complete_Packages|this]]. <br />
<br />
<span style ="color:#49BCB5;">'''OFFICIAL'''</span> - [http://kotaku.com/5516654/x+com-is-back NEW X-COM GAME FROM THE DEVELOPERS OF BIOSHOCK 2]<br><br />
Yes, this will come as a shock to all, but 2K Australia and 2K Marin is busily working on a first-person shooter based on the X-COM franchise. More info will presumably become available on the 2010 E3.<br />
<br />
For more information/rumors check 2K's [http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=76 X-COM forum].<br />
</div></div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=File:Phoenix_Point_Geoscape.png&diff=98841File:Phoenix Point Geoscape.png2020-12-08T16:39:41Z<p>Hobbes: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=97408Talk:Main Page2020-09-27T20:28:26Z<p>Hobbes: Featured Projects on Sidebar</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Welcome To All Rookies'''<br />
<br />
This is the place to talk/ask about general issues concerning the wiki and hopefully someone will answer/reply to them. <br />
<br />
Specific game questions should be asked on the game's individual talk pages. <br />
<br />
For new users, in order to reduce spam you'll need to register to be able to edit pages.<br />
<br />
To start a new topic simply press the '''edit''' button above. Then place your <nowiki>==Topic Name==</nowiki> like it is written here.<br />
* To add a line you can either type <nowiki>----</nowiki> or use the buttons that appear on the edit screen. <br />
* If replying to an existing topic use colons '''<nowiki>:</nowiki>''' before your answer<br />
* Don't forget to sign your posts in the talk pages by typing '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''' at the end. <br />
* Finally when creating/editing wiki articles have a look at the [[Guidelines to writing articles|guidelines]] page. <br />
<br />
That's it. Happy editing!<br />
----<br />
<br />
Old articles have been moved to [[Talk:Main Page/Archive]] for later perusal. <br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
==Featured Projects on Sidebar==<br />
I was requested on Discord by user [[Ucross]] to add to the Featured Projects section of the sidebar the mod that he is working on called Long War Rebalance, which is a mod of Long War, and thus a mod of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and I refused the request for the same reasons I already presented below regarding the Piratez mod for OpenXCom.<br />
It's arguable for the same reason that Long War shouldn't on that list for the same reason, it being a mod, but since Firaxis gave the official recognition to both Long Wars, and even gave support to Long War 2, that's the difference I see between Long War and all the other mods made for all XCom games, and thus worthy of recognition as significant contributions by and for the community. The same reason behind UFO2000, OpenXCom, OpenApoc and UFO:AI, they are all entire new XCom games built by teams of fans, and the first three are playable, and you can create mods for them. OpenXCom and OpenApoc are in active development. <br />
As for personal projects to be present on that section, I can think of a ton of projects related to XCom that would deserve to be there, and that would make that list endless an unpractical. And at the end, the objective of this wiki is to inform about the games. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 20:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Server Move==<br />
In the near future we're going to move to a new server (hosted by NineX) because of the constant site outages and other technical/security issues that have been affecting the wiki since the last year. NineX currently hosts the OpenXCom forums and site, so I feel that it will be a good move since the OpenXCom community has been the most active in keeping the old XCom games alive. <br />
<br />
However we're still not sure if we're gonna be able to keep the old domain (www.ufopaedia.org) or if it will be necessary to move to a new one, and ask everybody to update their links. We're trying to keep the old domain, but right now the choice is to be between keeping things as they currently are, or get the technical/security issues fixed and get back the wiki properly working, even if that means losing the domain and the traffic.<br />
<br />
I personally prefer the 2nd option since we need a wiki that is 100% available for both consulting and editing information, like it did in the past. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 14:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
==Temporary Domain==<br />
We completed the server move thanks to NineX, who also upgraded the wiki's software. The process required that we moved temporarily to a new domain, ufopaedia.info, but we'll return to our old domain, ufopaedia.org, as soon as the process is complete. Thanks for your patience :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 21:40, 28 January 2018 (CET)<br />
<br />
Migration finished. ufopaedia.info is redirecting to ufopaedia.org.<br />
Mediawiki software have been upgraded to latest version , and whole site audited. [[User:NineX|NineX]] ([[User talk:NineX|talk]]), 13:27, 31 January 2018 (CET)<br />
<br />
==Piratez in featured projects?==<br />
It seems out of place that piratez has it's own table on the UFOpedia, and uses (Piratez) to distinguish its own pages, but is not listed on the featured projects. Going to add it if nobody objects. The rationale for adding Long War in this talk pages history (Huge makeover of the original version) pretty much goes doubly so for piratez. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 21:57, 5 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:Only admins can edit Featured Projects. And I object to it. <br />
:I proposed to add Long War because it was the only major mod available to EU/EW, and even got recognition and compliments made by Firaxis (with Jake Solomon joking that he was the guy that designed LW's beta), which was then extended to hiring the LW team to make official XCOM 2 mods for the game's release. So LW is really something special that deserved to get its own recognition. <br />
:Piratez is just one of several total conversions available for OpenXCom, and the intent is not to list all mod projects on Featured Projects, Because then X-Files, Hardmode or Area 51 would also qualify, being also expansions on their own right, although without Piratez's popularity. <br />
:Not to mention that there are other current XCom games like XCOM 2 that have also their own mods. So, if Piratez is added, what happens if someone else from another XCOM game, or current projects being developed like OpenApoc, decides to ask for his major mod to be added?<br />
:The primary intent of this wiki is the XCOM games, and Featured Projects is a way to recognize the hard work and dedication of a few fan projects, OpenXCom being one of them - and if you add Piratez then you're basically saying that Piratez is at the same level as OpenXCom, when Piratez wouldn't exist if there wasn't OpenXCom to begin with. <br />
:Finally, pages with their own suffix (Whatever) don't necessarily translate into Featured Projects, check the existing Interceptor and the Enforcer pages, it's more of a matter of internal page categorization. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:23, 5 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::: Ah okay, but I'm not really convinced, this feels like a matter of scale. I'm not trying to get it added as a featured project because I'm a fan, it just doesn't seem right to not have it there regardless of those reasons. If you look at something like UFO:AI or OpenApoc, on the main featured bar, they're almost completed unupdated and tiny. If the idea is that Piratez should have it's place on this wiki, and not on it's own wiki, then it really should have a place on the main page. If it's not, why is it even on here with hundreds and hundreds of pages? I type in just about any search for x-com related things and see a bunch of piratez pages in the autocomplete. If X-Files, Hardmode, Area 51 had hundreds of pages on the wiki, I'd recommend adding them as well, though they don't. Anyways, just my thoughts, I won't push this anymore. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 01:53, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:::Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan explains the argument more. It The piratez main page is a huge presence on the wiki, and is essentially unaccessable on the wiki. Which is just not what wikis are about. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 01:59, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:::: There are a lot of interesting points in your reply, that I'll try to answer separately to those, since some I have already considered myself.<br />
:::: UFO2000 and UFO:AI are dead projects, UFO2000 had its glory days more than 10 years ago (I was heavily involved with it) and it is playable (although hardly anyone plays it) and UFO:AI was never finished, so there's really an argument there whether both should still be on Featured Projects. OpenApoc on the other hand is actively being developed right now, they have their own Discord channel and it might take a while, but the general feeling is that one day it will reach 1.0 status, like OpenXCom did.<br />
:::: Piratez section on its wiki grew up by itself out of the OpenXCom until now, Dioxine or anyone ever asked permission, that I recall, but since we got the space and it is XCom related, no one objected, and the community is pretty supportive of each other's projects. <br />
:::: If by Auto-Complete you mean Google's search bar then the reason why you get so much Piratez results associated with XCom is because it uses your past search history and page views. I don't get any Piratez results when I search for XCom things because I don't play Piratez (and I don't play LW or LW2 also, but I suggested that they should be added because of their importance).<br />
:::: And this brings me to another important point, which is that Piratez includes content that some people don't really think belongs in an XCom game, namely it being about space pirates, slaves and mutants against aliens, and with the nudity involved. I know it takes place in an alternate universe where XCom lost the war, but if Firaxis announced that XCOM 3 followed Piratez setting, there would be a huge fan backlash because XCom has almost always been about an international, semi-clandestine organization of humans fighting aliens, and never required nudity to be atractive. Piratez setting and aesthetics appeal to a lot of people but to a lot of others it doesn't, even inside the OpenXCom community. <br />
:::: And for instance, I'm the lead developer of Area 51 that was mentioned before, and while it expands the base UFO: Defense game like EW or LW did, if not more, I do not think it should be on Featured Projects because of all the reasons I mentioned before. As a developer I'd love it to be more publicized, but here I need to think first as a wiki administrator, and like I said before, this is an XCOM wiki since it was created 15 years ago, not an OpenXCom one. If this was a wiki dedicated to OXC, then Piratez, Area 51, Tech-Comm (another total conversion I'm working based on the Terminator universe), Warhammer 40k, Dune, and all other major projects, XCom based or not, would belong here, but it isn't.<br />
:::: Finally, we're not talking here about a single orphan article. Orphan articles mean that they can only be accessed by searching the wiki since there aren't any links to them anywhere. Piratez can be accessed through here https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Mods_(OpenXcom). The issue really is that you think Piratez should be more advertised on the wiki by adding it to Featured Projects, but as I said before, it is questionable whether it deserves to get that sort of attention on an XCOM wiki. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 05:37, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::::: Heh, well in any case, looks like someone else added it to featured projects about a year ago: it's just on the featured projects at the very bottom of the page, along with all the other featured projects but with piratez squeezed in haha. Somewhat tangential but a bit on topic: Maybe the front page should just have a section at the top listing all the relevant games on the wiki? I remember like a decade ago when it was just the 1994 version/TFT and Apoc and the main page was very organized and clear, but it's really not now what with the tables of nearly every game on the wiki on the main page and some random lists in random places. Case in point: Piratez is already considered a featured mod by someone and neither of us noticed until this point, nor did I know even enforcer or these other spinoffs existed that you mentioned earlier existed or were on the wiki at all. In any case, glad to have talked this out. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 11:21, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::::: Bluh, one last point, I promise. I think maybe your having made/worked on a huge mod might be influencing your decision: you make it sound like it'd be a bad thing if all OpenXcom mods were featured and I don't think this would even be bad at all. E.g. a lot of games wikis list basically all the relevant large mods for the game in a very visible place. Example: https://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page has a link to a list of pretty much every major mod visible up front without needing to scroll down. To me it just seemed odd specifically for piratez here since it also had a huge space on the wiki, but I don't see an issue with Area 51, Warhammer 40k, etc having a visible place.<br />
<br />
== XCOM 2 section problems ==<br />
<br />
Hi guys,<br />
<br />
I've noticed that there's loads of problems in the XCOM 2 sections - misspellings, orphan pages, a lack of organisation, and so on. Even the term "MEC" was spelt wrong in a page title. I've been tackling a few of these issues, but I'm just thinking that this isn't worth having because Fandom have their own wiki at [https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/XCOM_Wiki] and they've got nearly everything down already.<br />
<br />
What are we trying to do here - dedicate this wiki to the old X-COM and a few mods (ahem, Long War), or adding in Firaxis's new XCOM grouping?<br />
<br />
Just a question in editorial direction.<br />
<br />
--[[User:SpeedofDeath118|SpeedofDeath118]] ([[User talk:SpeedofDeath118|talk]]) 17:08, 16 December 2019 (CET)<br />
:I think the question is more, what are you interested in doing? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:11, 16 December 2019 (CET)<br />
<br />
::The Wiki was set up long before the reboot series, so you could say the classics were its original focus. However it would have been remiss to not accommodate the new games as they appeared. However the wiki thrives or declines entirely on the input of the people that make use of it. If the interest and willingness is there, the sections will grow. If not (looks at the early spinoff titles), then perhaps not so much. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 07:31, 17 December 2019 (CET)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&diff=97384MediaWiki:Sidebar2020-09-27T19:55:14Z<p>Hobbes: Added Chimera Squad</p>
<hr />
<div>* Navigation<br />
** mainpage|mainpage<br />
** portal-url|portal<br />
** recentchanges-url|recentchanges<br />
** helppage|help<br />
* Games<br />
** X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown<br />
** TFTD|Terror From The Deep<br />
** Apocalypse|Apocalypse<br />
** Enemy Unknown (EU2012)|Enemy Unknown<br />
** The Bureau: XCOM Declassified|The Bureau<br />
** XCOM2|XCOM 2<br />
** Chimera Squad|Chimera Squad<br />
* Featured Projects<br />
** UFO2000|UFO2000<br />
** OpenXcom|OpenXcom<br />
** OpenApoc|OpenApoc<br />
** UFO:AI|UFO:AI<br />
** Long War|Long War<br />
** Long_War_2|Long War 2<br />
*Forums<br />
**http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/forum/96-ufopaediaorg/ |Ufopaedia forum<br />
**http://forums.2kgames.com/forumdisplay.php?75-XCOM |2K's XCOM forums<br />
**http://www.reddit.com/r/Xcom/ |Reddit X-COM<br />
**Forums | Other Forums<br />
*Languages<br />
**Pagina Principal|Español (Spanish)<br />
**Главная страница|Русский (Russian)<br />
**Page Principale|Français (French)<br />
**메인_페이지|한국어 (Korean)</div>Hobbeshttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=90021Talk:Main Page2019-12-16T22:11:05Z<p>Hobbes: /* XCOM 2 section problems */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Welcome To All Rookies'''<br />
<br />
This is the place to talk/ask about general issues concerning the wiki and hopefully someone will answer/reply to them. <br />
<br />
Specific game questions should be asked on the game's individual talk pages. <br />
<br />
For new users, in order to reduce spam you'll need to register to be able to edit pages.<br />
<br />
To start a new topic simply press the '''edit''' button above. Then place your <nowiki>==Topic Name==</nowiki> like it is written here.<br />
* To add a line you can either type <nowiki>----</nowiki> or use the buttons that appear on the edit screen. <br />
* If replying to an existing topic use colons '''<nowiki>:</nowiki>''' before your answer<br />
* Don't forget to sign your posts in the talk pages by typing '''<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>''' at the end. <br />
* Finally when creating/editing wiki articles have a look at the [[Guidelines to writing articles|guidelines]] page. <br />
<br />
That's it. Happy editing!<br />
----<br />
<br />
Old articles have been moved to [[Talk:Main Page/Archive]] for later perusal. <br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
==Server Move==<br />
In the near future we're going to move to a new server (hosted by NineX) because of the constant site outages and other technical/security issues that have been affecting the wiki since the last year. NineX currently hosts the OpenXCom forums and site, so I feel that it will be a good move since the OpenXCom community has been the most active in keeping the old XCom games alive. <br />
<br />
However we're still not sure if we're gonna be able to keep the old domain (www.ufopaedia.org) or if it will be necessary to move to a new one, and ask everybody to update their links. We're trying to keep the old domain, but right now the choice is to be between keeping things as they currently are, or get the technical/security issues fixed and get back the wiki properly working, even if that means losing the domain and the traffic.<br />
<br />
I personally prefer the 2nd option since we need a wiki that is 100% available for both consulting and editing information, like it did in the past. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 14:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)<br />
==Temporary Domain==<br />
We completed the server move thanks to NineX, who also upgraded the wiki's software. The process required that we moved temporarily to a new domain, ufopaedia.info, but we'll return to our old domain, ufopaedia.org, as soon as the process is complete. Thanks for your patience :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 21:40, 28 January 2018 (CET)<br />
<br />
Migration finished. ufopaedia.info is redirecting to ufopaedia.org.<br />
Mediawiki software have been upgraded to latest version , and whole site audited. [[User:NineX|NineX]] ([[User talk:NineX|talk]]), 13:27, 31 January 2018 (CET)<br />
<br />
==Piratez in featured projects?==<br />
It seems out of place that piratez has it's own table on the UFOpedia, and uses (Piratez) to distinguish its own pages, but is not listed on the featured projects. Going to add it if nobody objects. The rationale for adding Long War in this talk pages history (Huge makeover of the original version) pretty much goes doubly so for piratez. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 21:57, 5 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:Only admins can edit Featured Projects. And I object to it. <br />
:I proposed to add Long War because it was the only major mod available to EU/EW, and even got recognition and compliments made by Firaxis (with Jake Solomon joking that he was the guy that designed LW's beta), which was then extended to hiring the LW team to make official XCOM 2 mods for the game's release. So LW is really something special that deserved to get its own recognition. <br />
:Piratez is just one of several total conversions available for OpenXCom, and the intent is not to list all mod projects on Featured Projects, Because then X-Files, Hardmode or Area 51 would also qualify, being also expansions on their own right, although without Piratez's popularity. <br />
:Not to mention that there are other current XCom games like XCOM 2 that have also their own mods. So, if Piratez is added, what happens if someone else from another XCOM game, or current projects being developed like OpenApoc, decides to ask for his major mod to be added?<br />
:The primary intent of this wiki is the XCOM games, and Featured Projects is a way to recognize the hard work and dedication of a few fan projects, OpenXCom being one of them - and if you add Piratez then you're basically saying that Piratez is at the same level as OpenXCom, when Piratez wouldn't exist if there wasn't OpenXCom to begin with. <br />
:Finally, pages with their own suffix (Whatever) don't necessarily translate into Featured Projects, check the existing Interceptor and the Enforcer pages, it's more of a matter of internal page categorization. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:23, 5 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::: Ah okay, but I'm not really convinced, this feels like a matter of scale. I'm not trying to get it added as a featured project because I'm a fan, it just doesn't seem right to not have it there regardless of those reasons. If you look at something like UFO:AI or OpenApoc, on the main featured bar, they're almost completed unupdated and tiny. If the idea is that Piratez should have it's place on this wiki, and not on it's own wiki, then it really should have a place on the main page. If it's not, why is it even on here with hundreds and hundreds of pages? I type in just about any search for x-com related things and see a bunch of piratez pages in the autocomplete. If X-Files, Hardmode, Area 51 had hundreds of pages on the wiki, I'd recommend adding them as well, though they don't. Anyways, just my thoughts, I won't push this anymore. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 01:53, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:::Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan explains the argument more. It The piratez main page is a huge presence on the wiki, and is essentially unaccessable on the wiki. Which is just not what wikis are about. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 01:59, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
:::: There are a lot of interesting points in your reply, that I'll try to answer separately to those, since some I have already considered myself.<br />
:::: UFO2000 and UFO:AI are dead projects, UFO2000 had its glory days more than 10 years ago (I was heavily involved with it) and it is playable (although hardly anyone plays it) and UFO:AI was never finished, so there's really an argument there whether both should still be on Featured Projects. OpenApoc on the other hand is actively being developed right now, they have their own Discord channel and it might take a while, but the general feeling is that one day it will reach 1.0 status, like OpenXCom did.<br />
:::: Piratez section on its wiki grew up by itself out of the OpenXCom until now, Dioxine or anyone ever asked permission, that I recall, but since we got the space and it is XCom related, no one objected, and the community is pretty supportive of each other's projects. <br />
:::: If by Auto-Complete you mean Google's search bar then the reason why you get so much Piratez results associated with XCom is because it uses your past search history and page views. I don't get any Piratez results when I search for XCom things because I don't play Piratez (and I don't play LW or LW2 also, but I suggested that they should be added because of their importance).<br />
:::: And this brings me to another important point, which is that Piratez includes content that some people don't really think belongs in an XCom game, namely it being about space pirates, slaves and mutants against aliens, and with the nudity involved. I know it takes place in an alternate universe where XCom lost the war, but if Firaxis announced that XCOM 3 followed Piratez setting, there would be a huge fan backlash because XCom has almost always been about an international, semi-clandestine organization of humans fighting aliens, and never required nudity to be atractive. Piratez setting and aesthetics appeal to a lot of people but to a lot of others it doesn't, even inside the OpenXCom community. <br />
:::: And for instance, I'm the lead developer of Area 51 that was mentioned before, and while it expands the base UFO: Defense game like EW or LW did, if not more, I do not think it should be on Featured Projects because of all the reasons I mentioned before. As a developer I'd love it to be more publicized, but here I need to think first as a wiki administrator, and like I said before, this is an XCOM wiki since it was created 15 years ago, not an OpenXCom one. If this was a wiki dedicated to OXC, then Piratez, Area 51, Tech-Comm (another total conversion I'm working based on the Terminator universe), Warhammer 40k, Dune, and all other major projects, XCom based or not, would belong here, but it isn't.<br />
:::: Finally, we're not talking here about a single orphan article. Orphan articles mean that they can only be accessed by searching the wiki since there aren't any links to them anywhere. Piratez can be accessed through here https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Mods_(OpenXcom). The issue really is that you think Piratez should be more advertised on the wiki by adding it to Featured Projects, but as I said before, it is questionable whether it deserves to get that sort of attention on an XCOM wiki. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 05:37, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::::: Heh, well in any case, looks like someone else added it to featured projects about a year ago: it's just on the featured projects at the very bottom of the page, along with all the other featured projects but with piratez squeezed in haha. Somewhat tangential but a bit on topic: Maybe the front page should just have a section at the top listing all the relevant games on the wiki? I remember like a decade ago when it was just the 1994 version/TFT and Apoc and the main page was very organized and clear, but it's really not now what with the tables of nearly every game on the wiki on the main page and some random lists in random places. Case in point: Piratez is already considered a featured mod by someone and neither of us noticed until this point, nor did I know even enforcer or these other spinoffs existed that you mentioned earlier existed or were on the wiki at all. In any case, glad to have talked this out. [[User:Greep|Greep]] ([[User talk:Greep|talk]]) 11:21, 6 May 2019 (CEST)<br />
::::: Bluh, one last point, I promise. I think maybe your having made/worked on a huge mod might be influencing your decision: you make it sound like it'd be a bad thing if all OpenXcom mods were featured and I don't think this would even be bad at all. E.g. a lot of games wikis list basically all the relevant large mods for the game in a very visible place. Example: https://rimworldwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page has a link to a list of pretty much every major mod visible up front without needing to scroll down. To me it just seemed odd specifically for piratez here since it also had a huge space on the wiki, but I don't see an issue with Area 51, Warhammer 40k, etc having a visible place.<br />
<br />
== XCOM 2 section problems ==<br />
<br />
Hi guys,<br />
<br />
I've noticed that there's loads of problems in the XCOM 2 sections - misspellings, orphan pages, a lack of organisation, and so on. Even the term "MEC" was spelt wrong in a page title. I've been tackling a few of these issues, but I'm just thinking that this isn't worth having because Fandom have their own wiki at [https://xcom.fandom.com/wiki/XCOM_Wiki] and they've got nearly everything down already.<br />
<br />
What are we trying to do here - dedicate this wiki to the old X-COM and a few mods (ahem, Long War), or adding in Firaxis's new XCOM grouping?<br />
<br />
Just a question in editorial direction.<br />
<br />
--[[User:SpeedofDeath118|SpeedofDeath118]] ([[User talk:SpeedofDeath118|talk]]) 17:08, 16 December 2019 (CET)<br />
:I think the question is more, what are you interested in doing? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 23:11, 16 December 2019 (CET)</div>Hobbes