https://www.ufopaedia.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=NKF&feedformat=atomUFOpaedia - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T10:13:59ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.4https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Known_Bugs&diff=101394Talk:Known Bugs2021-06-08T05:17:00Z<p>NKF: /* Direct incendiary hit causing no reaction fire? */</p>
<hr />
<div>= Classification etc =<br />
<br />
== Bugs vs Exploits ==<br />
<br />
Could someone comment please on the distinction between a bug and an exploit, and where to put each one? I would guess that a bug is something that undesirable and an exploit "might be" desirable, if you want to cheat. But what about exploits that happen by accident, or bugs that need to be forced to happen? <br />
<br />
I was going to add the Research Rollover bug to the Exploits sections, but they seem to all be under construction. What's the agreed approach?<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 04:16, 15 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
* i think that an exploit is somthing you can trigger and gain an advantage from. a bug may or may not have a known trigger, and does not give an advantage if it does.<br />
: All exploits are bugs, either in implementation or design. When using a bug to gain advantages that bug is used as an exploit (you are exploiting the bug). [[User:FrederikHertzum|FrederikHertzum]] 13:39, 10 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: IMHO, Laser Pistols Gifts to train reactions is an exploit, but it does not involve any bugs. It merely exploits the fact that laser pistols will not penetrate the front armor of Flying Suits. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 16:31, 10 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: I guess the point is to differentiate if it's a bug that's being exploited to your advantage, or it it's something confined within the game mechanics that you are exploiting to your advantage (even if using it as intended). -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 02:31, 11 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::: Another definition: An exploit is <br />
::::: a) a move allowed by game interface <br />
::::: b) that sidesteps another part of the game mechanics<br />
::::: c) and creates inadequate advantage for the moving player in the process.<br />
::::: An exploit is not a bug, but it can be connected with a bug, if the latter allows a move mentioned in a). Most obvious exploits render whole parts of game mechanics obsolete (see b) above), because they are always more advantageous. In games that feature equal terms for AI and the player, an exploit can be discerned simply by the fact that AI does not use it (sadly this is not true in X-COM). Clear exploit in X-COM: Transfer soldiers = no monthly payment. Suspect exploits: grenade layout. Most probably not an exploit: Sniping (although the inequality with AI is suspect). Clearly not an exploit: dropping weapons to prevent Psi mass murder (this one is made exploitable by the AI unable to pick up weapons, but is not an exploit per se).--[[User:Kyrub|kyrub]] 05:30, 11 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
The dropping weapons sort of turns into an exploit if you do the "everyone suspect of being a psi weakling drops their weapons at the end of the turn. They all pick up their weapons again if unpsied in the next turn." The grenade layout or grenade hot potato is probably not what the game designers had in mind, but I shudder at the thought of someone who only played X-com then joined the army pulling the pin out of his grenade and then dropping it into his haversack or slinging it on his belt. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 07:43, 11 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Yeah, I think we agreed somewhere that shoving live grenades in your pockets and not having them go off is madness. The relay however is not sensible but certainly possible if only a very short one (if with a live grenade), or to toss a grenade forward and prime it at the second to last person. Or more reasonably, something like a stick of dynamite with an extra long fuse. Even that's very dangerous. <br />
<br />
: By the way, what does everyone here think of using the mind probe to check if it's safe to attack an alien while standing in full view of it, or if you're right up next to it? I've been using it a lot lately (in lieu of the psi amp), so you could say I've been exploiting the mind probe to my advantage to help me with my decision making. But is that counted as a cheat since I'm picking my moments to attack up close when the enemy cannot return fire? -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:30, 12 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: When identifying a mechanic as an "unfair exploit" (as opposed to just a "tactic"), perhaps a simpler checklist is this (though Kyrub's is spot-on):<br />
<br />
:: a) Is this something the developers should've expected players to do?<br />
:: b) Is this something the developers could've easily prevented?<br />
<br />
:: If the answer to both is "yes", then it seems fair game to me. For eg, sniping at aliens: The game KNOWS whether the soldier can see the target (you get a flashing indicator if so), and so it would've been trivial to prevent it. Is it something the regular gamer will try? Certainly; therefore it can be considered expected behaviour. Ditto for using the Mind Probe to make attacks without fear of reaction fire; those things aren't cheap, they sell for a bunch, so it stands to reason that they'd have tactical value!<br />
<br />
:: Things like the transfer bug are clear exploits. The devs would've implemented that system so that, if you order personal near the end of the month, you don't end up paying for them twice before they ever arrive - but in the process, they forgot that "purchase" transfers are treated in the same way as "between-base" transfers. To fix one scenario without breaking the other, they'd've needed to code in some extra stuff so the game could tell the difference - they probably just figured the regular gamer would never notice, assuming they ever realised the problem existed.<br />
<br />
:: The "dropping weapons" thing is a little trickier to work out - yes, the devs should've seen it coming, but would it've been easy to fix? Aliens could've been twigged to either ignore un-armed soldiers... but those soldiers could re-equip next turn. Aliens could also've been twigged to attack randomly... but that would make their psi powers far LESS effective! I suppose the fix, if any, would've been unarmed melee attacks, but the implementation they went with seems to be the next best thing IMO.<br />
<br />
:: In regards to the "grenades in inventory" thing, it's probably common knowledge by now, but they DO go off in the alpha of the game. Presumably someone made a conscious decision to change that, though it could still just be an accidental bug. - <span style="font-size:xx-small">&nbsp;[[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 09:02, 12 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Sniping at aliens is a very bizarre case, since almost all players will fall prey to the aliens sniping at you long before they snipe the aliens. The behaviour of the aliens to step within sight radius, take one step back, then fire without fear of retaliation *looks* and *feels* like clear exploitation of the rules, but the computer can't be a cheater, can it? So we humans carry that one step further. Mind you, I think X-com would be in trouble if the aliens could snipe you from across the map once they know your positions... especially since the aliens have cheating "if I spot 1 human, I spot ALL of them" abilities. Especially on maps where the aliens get Blaster Bombs...<br />
<br />
An interesting note about sniping and LOS: When I first played Xcom, my first mission was in the jungle. Because of all those plants, when my first soldiers spotted an alien, after he shot at him, I tried to make my 2nd soldier open fire and was informed "NO Line of Fire". I could only get my 2nd soldier to fire by positioning him in such a way that I got the flashing number. Henceforth, I assumed that you could ONLY fire at the aliens when the flashing number was there. LOL. LOF. LOS.<br />
<br />
Transfer bug wise, I thought that the devs merely programmed the game to count how many staff were currently in the base, then deduct that from Xcom coffers? As far as ordering personnel near month end goes, you end up paying salary for them if you order them more than 48 hours from month end, right? "realistically", they should make staff draw salaries based on when they were hired, but this would be too much effort.<br />
<br />
"dropping weapons" would have been easy enough to fix... just teach alien AI how to pick up weapons. Like they did in Apocalypse.<br />
<br />
As far as grenade relays go, if you ever join the army, and you toss a live grenade at your squadmate, you're gonna be court martialled! lol. Xcom grenades are weird cause they presumably come with a computer console where you program them or something that takes a lot of TU, if I already have a grenade in my hand I don't think it takes long to prime it compared to throwing it...<br />
<br />
Pretty clear exploit/bug is tossing grenades through the ceiling? That breaks all laws of realism/logic/whatever, and I'm sure the devs didn't plan for THAT to happen! [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 18:18, 12 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Turns out the "spot one, spot all" thing was wrong all these years. However, units can be "spotted" by sniping an alien, hitting it, but failing to outright kill it; this may have contributed to the misconception.<br />
<br />
: The game considers the base to have the correct amount of personal as soon as you initiate a transfer - if a base has room for ten people, you can't send two groups of ten, as soon as the first is in transit the game will correctly recognise that the destination is now filled up and won't allow you to send any more. Likewise, if you hire soldiers, they'll count towards the allowance of more promotions in your ranks before they ever arrive at a base. That is to say, the payment system deals with personal counts in a different way to every other system in the game, making it look like it's intentional (if badly exploitable) behaviour. In terms of transit times, those seem to vary, I know a purchase of scientists takes 72 hours to arrive.<br />
<br />
: Er, yes, getting aliens to pick up weapons would've indeed fixed the dropping thing. Shoulda thought of that...<br />
<br />
: The grenade thing is indeed unrealistic however you look at it. Certainly throwing the things through ceilings is a bug, and its use is a large exploit. - <span style="font-size:xx-small">&nbsp;[[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 20:02, 12 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Then how do the aliens "spot" the psi weakling to target him for psi attacks? Doesn't the game ALWAYS start blasting the juiciest target, regardless of LOS? Or is it just coincidence? [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 22:22, 12 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: They really have to "[[UNITPOS.DAT#8|spot]]" the target before they can blast them (however, it appears that later in a campaign this rule gets broken). If they've only spotted a psi-''resistant'' trooper, they typically won't bother to make attacks at all. There's a lot of relevant information in [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/Can-alien-attempt-Mind-control-Pani-t8115.html this thread]. - <span style="font-size:xx-small">&nbsp;[[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 23:28, 12 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Your talking about your post on http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/Can-alien-attempt-Mind-control-Pani-t8115.html&pid=96123&mode=threaded#entry96123 ? Well, I'd just like to point out a massive flaw in your testing logic. You forgot that aliens will launch psi attacks based on chance of success, and chance of success varies based on distance from aliens. In other words, it could easily be that the aliens only attempted psi when your soldier was within sight of them because your soldier was now NEAR to them and therefore they had a strong chance of success.<br />
<br />
: Also, as you have noted, it appears that your rule gets broken. In fact, it is not uncommon at all for the Ethereal Commander who is boxed up in the Command Center to launch psi attacks on victims who are separated from him by several layers of walls, as long as their proximity to him is near enough. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 21:19, 13 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Those are valid points. I've hence built a somewhat more robust testing scenario, which you may wish to [[:Image:Alien Psi Demonstration 1.rar|try for yourself]].<br />
<br />
:: The save game consists of cloned Ethereal soldiers (all cranked up to 100 psi strength/skill), and many clones of a single trooper (most of whom have the same psi values). The Ethereals are all cooped up in a sealed room in the SW of the map, with a single trooper who has 140 psi strength/skill.<br />
<br />
:: Directly outside the building is another trooper who only has 1 strength/skill. In the NE of the map, in another sealed room, is a soldier with 40 strength/skill. Before placing him there, I had him shoot one of the Ethereals just once, resetting index 8 of his UnitPos record to 0. Only he and the trooper inside the room with the Ethereals have hence been "exposed" to the aliens, but the "best chance of success" is obviously the psi-weakling directly outside the building.<br />
<br />
:: If you load the map and end turn, the aliens will first attempt to take control of the dude on the other side of the map, then get to work on the guy in the room with them. Once they've taken these two, they'll completely ignore all other units.<br />
<br />
:: In short, aliens can't use psi attacks on a unit UNLESS their UnitPos[8] index is set to less then that of the alien's intelligence stat. - <span style="font-size:xx-small">&nbsp;[[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 05:41, 14 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::: Good one. That test definitely proves a lot, rather conclusively. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 06:53, 14 May 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Bugs vs Limits ==<br />
<br />
''(Discussion continued from [[Talk:Known Bugs#Soldier Recruiting Bugs Tested|Soldier Recruiting Bugs Tested]])''<br />
<br />
The "Soldier Recruiting Limit" is <b>not</b> a bug, it is a limitation of the game. Therefore, this should be removed from the page. If we want it somewhere else (like a new page such as [[Game Limitations]]), that would be appropriate. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 01:42, 9 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
::Not sure that's necessarily the best idea, Zombie, since many of the entries on the Known Bugs article(as well as some entries on the Exploits pages) are limitations of the game engine. On just a brief glance through, the following caught my eye as engine limitations: Manufacturing limit, Storage limit, Purchase limit, 80-item limit, Proximity Grenade limit, Large units not waking up from stun, Interception last shot bug, Alien UFL radar blitz-through bug(Passing through the detection range of a radar before the detection check comes up), Free manufacturing, free wages, UFO Redux, point-scoring with Ctrl-C, permanent MC of chryssalids, Zombie-MC resurrection of agents, alien inventory exploits, anything involved with bad collision detection, extinguishing fire with a Smoke Grenade, and even your personal favorite, denying the aliens access to their own spawn points. So in conclusion, maybe it should just be left as it is; conversely, all of these entries could be kept where they are and also on a Game Limitations page, or we could leave the headers there and link them over to the appropriate topics on Game Limitations. What do you think? [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 10:21, 9 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
: I agree with AQ (great list of examples by the way - and the Smoke/Fire limit would be another). Many, if not most, of the bugs are "Limitations" but they are logically inconsistent and not what a player would expect to happen: they are imposed by (at best) memory limitations or (at worst) design/programming oversights. I think the easiest thing to do would be to change the title of the page to Known Bugs and Limitations, or put an explanatory note at the beginning of the section to explain that "Bugs" is taken to included "Limitations". [[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:16, 9 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
By the strictest sense of meaning, a "bug" is a mistake or error on the programmers part. Limitations imposed <i>by design</i> or memory are not the same creature as the people involved were consciously aware of the decision. I suppose that to the normal player, any type of behavior which is unexpected/unwanted is automatically dumped in the bug category because to them there is no difference. To those of us who study the game files however, the two are unequivalent. Programming oversights, yes, those are bugs.<br />
<br />
Some of those limitations AQ mentions are (to me at least) bugs: free manufacturing, free wages, permanent MC of Cryssies (or actually any alien for that matter), Zombie resurrections and collision detection. Large aliens not waking up from stun is again, a bug. The programmers obviously had some issues when dealing with large units in general and never quite got it right. They made some progress in TFTD by trying to fix mind controlling each section of a large unit, but royally screwed it up by selecting the next 3 entries in UNITPOS.DAT no matter what they pointed to.<br />
<br />
Perhaps it's just my background in logic which makes me want to push for a separate category for limitations. Then again, as long as everything is listed somewhere I'm happy. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 22:06, 9 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
: Actually, taking a look through the page as a whole there are various other Limits described, and the distinction between Bugs and Limits is made quite rigorously throughout - not just in the Soldier Limits and Bugs section, where the Soldier Recruiting Limit is referred to as a Limit whereas other bugs (such as paying salaries for soldiers you can't recruit) are referred to as Bugs. So we maybe just need to rename the pages "Bugs and Limits" and add an explanatory note on the distinction. From a user point of view, rather than a programmer point of view, a bug is an unexpected (inconsistent or illogical) behaviour, so for that reason I think it makes sense to keep them on the same page but try to ensure they are all correctly classified as Bug or Limit.<br />
<br />
: By the way, it could be hard to absolutely distinguish Bugs from Limits as I suspect there are going to be some grey areas where you would have to second-guess the intentions and decisions of the coders to know for sure if something was a designed-in Limit, or just an oversight (Bug). [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:50, 10 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
::If we distinguish in this manner, I suggest the definition of "Limit" should be, "Something imposed by the game files or engine as a limitation, most likely in context to the capabilites of the then-current personal computer." More succinctly, anything that was done to allow the game to run acceptably on what was then a PC. This would include both the Soldier and 80-Item limits, the spawn limit(40 units per side), Smoke/Fire limit, and some of the others listed. (The Purchase limit was probably more of a convienence for the programmers than anything, but it is clearly an intended feature.) [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 13:11, 10 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
: I would add to this that sometimes a Limit may be imposed as a game design / gameplay decision, rather than in order to conserve a constrained resource in the platform (=PC). Also, I would suggest that ''intended'' Limits are Limits, but ''unintended'' consequences of Limits are Bugs. Obviously, making this distinction involves some guesswork. But I would guess that while the limit on total smoke/fire hexes was an intended Limit (to conserve PC resources), the ability to put out fires with smoke grenades and disperse smoke with IC rounds is probably an unintended consequence of the Limit, and so should probably be considered a Bug. Similarly, Base Defence spawn points are probably an intended limit, but the ability to flood spawn points is an unintended consequence of this, and thus a Bug (and an Exploit). (Spawn points should have been shared out 50/50, not humans-first). [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:07, 11 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
::The limit on Soldier and Interception craft were probably more of a limit imposed because they capped the file and figured that X-COM wouldn't ever need more than 40 interception craft or 250 soldiers. (And I've never needed that many, case in point.)<br />
<br />
::As for spawns, its actually difficult to take advantage of it in any reasonably established base. X-COM can spawn up to 40 soldiers in a base defense mission(tanks count as 4 soldiers), as a limit of LOC.DAT. Aliens have the same limit. So in order to take advantage of the bug, the base needs 40 or less spawns total. The Access Lift has 8 spawn points, General Stores(weapon-handling) has 11, Living Quarters has 8 more. This is 27 Spawns just getting soldiers in a base and armed. (Although the General Stores can be cut out if you perform the bug properly). Large Radar and HWD have 6 spawns(Small Radar has 2), and Hangar has 15. So overall, the "Spawn prevention" can be hard to take advantage of with all but the smallest bases. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 14:48, 11 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
Just to clarify, X-COM interception craft are not capped at 40 ships. LOC.DAT has a cap of 50 "things" on the geoscape screen at a time. This is shared between X-COM bases, X-COM ships, alien bases, seen or unseen UFO's, terror sites, crash sites, landing sites and waypoints. In a perfect game world with little alien activity and normally constructed bases, the max number of X-COM craft possible is 44: 5 bases with 8 hangars each plus one base with 4 hangars (or any combination thereof). If you illegally modify your base layout with an editor to get rid of the access lift, the max can be increased to 45 ships (9 hangars in 5 bases). Once clogged, all alien activity will cease.<br />
<br />
The base defense limit of 40 units exists because of UNITPOS.DAT which has a cap of 80 entries total (tanks occupy 4 entries in this file). Auto-win missions in a base defense mission by clogging all the spawn points with X-COM units isn't as tough as it sounds, especially if your base is small or doesn't contain hangars. The main thing is getting your full quota of 40 units to spawn (meaning you should try not to have any tanks as they count as 4 units but only occupy one spawn point). This limits the base size to something like 5-6 modules depending on what you build. Still, even having more than 6 modules isn't bad as it forces aliens to spawn intermingled between your troops. With 40 armed guys staring in every direction, you can get positions of all the aliens in the first round and possibly even kill them all (depends on weapons and alien race of course). --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:12, 11 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
: I would say that Limits are the CAUSE of bugs... also, I feel that fire/smoke limit can be called a bug, because a player normally has no way to tell this, other than observation. Whereas the game DIRECTLY and CLEARLY informs you whenever you hit the 80 item or 250 soldier limits, which is more fair. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 15:22, 23 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Also IMHO it is not true that, say, 250-soldiers limit is a real game bug. In fact, it is not, it is just a rule of the game, or its limitation. And it is unimportant what its reason is (such or another way to store game data).<br />
<br />
A bug is, by definition, an unexpected and involuntary result of programmers' work. However, we can only guess what the programmers wanted to attain, so this definition is both unpractical and impossible to be applied. It would be better to assume that a bug is a feature which has negative influence in the game. To clarify: the (un)famous 250-soldiers limitation does not harm in practice, as the number is really enough to play the game. But the even-more-unfamous 80-item limitation does harm and it has negative consequences - it is enough to recall the disappearing of bodies during some missions.<br />
<br />
OK, there is no objective criteria to judge whether a feature of the game is a bug or just a limitation. But sometimes subjective criteria have to be enough. Otherwise, we would have to consider the 8-bases limit a bug. Does it make any sense? And if no, what is the difference between the 8-bases limit and the 250-soldiers limit? I feel neither is a bug. Because neither leads to further negative consequences.<br />
<br />
And further, IMHO the buggy nature of some game features is quite obvious. If you cannot send more than 100 "parcels" of items at the same time, it is still not the bug. But if you must pay for an item you are trying to send but you cannot do it - it is a bug, perhaps everybody will agree. And similarly: the 255-scientists limitation is not a bug. But the strange behaviour of the game when you bought the 256th scientist is a bug. It would be just a limitation if the game did not allow to buy another scientist. But it allows while it cannot serve the 256th scientist properly, and that is why it is a bug.<br />
<br />
So, I vote for removing the 250-soldiers limit from the bug list. If I am wrong in it, please add to the list also:<br />
# 8-bases limit,<br />
# maps with limited terrain (why should they be limited?),<br />
# base area and base facilities limit (why wouldn't we be able to have 10 hangars in a base?),<br />
# etc.<br />
<br />
In yet other words, in my opinion it is not enough to show that the game does not allow to have more certain items or to do more certain actions. In order to count this among bugs, we should show that it really harms during playing the game, or just bears negative consequences.<br />
<br />
[[User:Sherlock|Sherlock]] 03:52, 27 December 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
= Specific Bug Discussions =<br />
<br />
== Misc Technical Bug ? ==<br />
<br />
''(The context of this discussion seems to have been lost)''<br />
<br />
This is a technical bug that doesn't happen to everyone and one this article wasn't really meant to chronical - but we won't turn away helping a fellow player if it can't be helped. It's just that there are so many random crash points in this game that it would take far too long to find them all or come up with solutions for them. <br />
<br />
Certainly, the transfer crash can happen to some players, but it's not one that can be reproduced easily. It's just like the random crash that some players get when they research a floater medic. It crashes the game for some of us, but others don't seem to notice it at all. <br />
<br />
It really depends on your hardware and OS setup, whether or not your copy of the game is damaged or your savegame is damaged, etc. <br />
<br />
Does it happen in all games or just this one savegame? <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]] <br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
== "Invisible Muton" bug ==<br />
<br />
Upon shooting repeatedly a Muton, it sometimes plays its "death" animation without sound (as if falling unconscious) and it is no longer displayed in the screen, while remaining visible to my soldiers (I can center the screen and the cursor appears yellow over them). Under this state, they cannot be targeted by Stun Rods. They may play their death animation anytime they get shot, until they truly die, when they emit their characteristic sound and leave a corpse (along with any items carried).<br />
<br />
I'm quite fond of laser weapons, maybe this happens more often with those.<br />
<br />
Also, though I remember experiencing this quite often fighting Mutons, it may happen to any other high health race.--[[User:Trotsky|Trotsky]] 02:59, 2 July 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
Never seen that one myself. Another "unpatched game" thing maybe?<br />
<br />
There's a (very rare) bug that allows your soldiers to live if they become stunned by an explosion that happens to kill them. Sometimes the game will register their death, and THEN register that they've been stunned. In every case I've seen this happen, however, the unit will have such a low amount of health that a single fatal wound will render it dead (again) on the next turn. I have a vague memory that other players may have been able to get a medkit to the scene on time...<br />
<br />
I dunno if that's related to your issue at all (I doubt it, but... meh). I'd advise using a Mind Probe on the alien the next time it happens so you can check the aliens stun/health levels.<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I'm pretty sure I've seen this with Mutons. Possibly Chrysallids as well, another high health, high armor creature. They were still readily killed by shooting the place they are. Good thought on the MP, BB<br />
<br />
---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 08:51, 2 July 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I've been known to have a dying muton(in fire) to spin around and then switch to the female civilian death animation. With the scream and everything. Even got a civilian death registered at the end of the mission. And this didn't just happen once, but on another separate occasion.<br />
<br />
Hmm. shape-shifting reptilians in the game! LOL! Happens alot [[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]]<br />
<br />
<br />
Unusually enough, I once had a sectopod die and then drop a tank corpse. I was using the Lightning at the time for my troop carrier, so you can imagine my surprise. <br />
<br />
Then there was one occasion where a floater dropped a snakeman corpse. Let's not even get into the sort of things the aliens like to stuff themselves with. <br />
<br />
Your invisible alien bug is quite common, although there appears to be many causes for it. I think one involves a full object table when it comes to invisible aliens in bases. But it can also happen in ordinary missions as well. I'm guessing the game may have tried to do something in the wrong order, and sprite information for the unit may have been lost or corrupted along the way. <br />
<br />
Having had an experience where all the chryssalids become invisible in one base defence mission was quite a shocker. I fixed this by saving the game, quitting and then restarting the game. If you ever get an invisible alien again, try this and see if it helps. If it doesn't, well, just keep a careful watch on your map and any alerts that pop up as you play. <br />
<br />
There's a similar but less severe bug where a dead alien will still leave its centre-on-unit alert button, but this goes away shortly after you move or turn. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
That last bug happens when exploding Cyberdiscs kill nearby Sectoids, doesn't it?--[[User:Trotsky|Trotsky]] 23:56, 2 July 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
This is a pretty easy one. I guess this bug occured on UFO recovery on a battleship, an alien base assault or a base defense mission? As soon as there are too many items on the map, the game saves some item slots for the equipment to be displayed (since it is more valuable and more important to research). This would also make stun weapons lethal if the stunned aliens would vanish. therefore the game has a failsafe if an alien is stunned (or badly wounded and becoming uncontious). The downed alien's stun level is set exactly on its left health points therefore resurrecting it instantly. This cycle is broken when the alien is finally killed. This means if you want to stun an alien in such a situation you have to destroy some items first.<br />
<br />
- by tequilachef (April 4th 2007)<br />
<br />
== Vanishing snakemen ==<br />
<br />
I've known snakemen to become invisible when standing on a hay bale. On the first occassion I had a poor tank getting shot while spending numerous turns looking for it. On the second occasion I had an alien under Psi-control, left it on the hay bale, and couldn't find it next turn. - Egor<br />
<br />
---<br />
<br />
This is not limited to snakemen. Hay bale block visibility quite much when a unit is standing on it. Two possible solutions:<br />
- Destroy the hay before entering<br />
- Shoot at the hay. If it is destroyed any unit on it will become visible (as long as no other bales are blocking the line of sight). You might also hit the enemy directly.<br />
<br />
I Dnt know if the aliens are affected by this diminished sight, too. My guess would be no.<br />
<br />
- By tequilachef (April 4th, 2007)<br />
<br />
== Blaster Bomb Bug ==<br />
<br />
I'm currently playing through X-com UFO Defense, I have the collectors edition version. I'm in the process of trying to catch a live alien commander and the blaster bomb bug is making this very difficult. If i remember correctly a commander is always in the command center of the the alien bases. The problem is anytime i get close there is always a dude with a blaster launcher up there that tries to kill my troops. When they try to fire it down at me the bug kicks in and they blow up the whole command room and all the aliens in it because they can't figure out how to get the blaster bomb down the grav lift thing in there. This is making it very dificult to actually catch a live commander. Anyone have any ideas for tactics or anything to breach that room without the aliens trying to fire a blaster launcher up there? - eL Hector<br />
<br />
: I can suggest two possible solutions. The first is to wait outside the command room for the alien to move closer to you. If it comes out of the room or if you know it has moved down the lift, you then burst in and stand right next to it to stop it from firing the blaster. This is risky because there could very well be a heavy plasma toting alien in there. The other is to use a small launcher and launch it up at the ceiling near where you think the alien with the blaster is standing. -[[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
== Disappearing Ammunition ==<br />
<br />
I have observed that problem with X-COM 1.2, modded with XCOMUTIL. My stun bombs and heavy rocket missiles, along with clips for the auto cannon went missing.<br />
[[User:Vagabond|Vagabond]]<br />
<br />
------<br />
<br />
Just run a test using my 1.4 DOS version with XComUtil but my stun bombs didn't disappear: 30 + 1 back in the base they came from, same number after I went tactical and I dusted-off immediately. Are you running XComUtil with Runxcom.bat or did you simply run Xcusetup?<br />
<br />
[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 22:12, 22 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:Is it a case of hitting the 80-item limit?--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 12:28, 23 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
------<br />
With runxcomw.bat, as everytime. Apologies, I retested and it seems like I was mistakened, but I could have sworn that I lost them dang stunbombs. Had to manufacture some. I will test some more, using four heavy weapons and seeing whether their ammunition disappears at all. Thanks. [[User:Vagabond|Vagabond]]<br />
<br />
==MC at end = MIA?==<br />
<br />
I am sure I have seen this again recently, where I won a mission with no casualties (I thought), but the last thing I killed was a Commander that had been chain MC'ing a psi-attack-magnet trooper, and that trooper was listed as MIA at the end (presumably because he was on the enemy side at the end of combat). Is this a bug, or is there another way to get MIA's on a completed mission that I might have missed?<br />
<br />
Since then I have been waiting for the leaders to panic at the end before killing them (or waiting for a rare resist), so I can safely exit, but am I being overcautious?<br />
<br />
--[[User:Sfnhltb|Sfnhltb]] 13:45, 27 February 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
If the trooper was mind controlled on the turn you killed the last alien it will be listed as MIA. No bug there :) <br />
<br />
[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 18:16, 1 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
Huh, why would that happen - your soldier should recover the very next round, why would he go MIA?<br />
<br />
--[[User:Sfnhltb|Sfnhltb]] 18:20, 1 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
Doesn't make sense to me as well but that's how the game works. <br />
<br />
[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 15:05, 2 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
It seems that regaining control of units under enemy mind control works different for alien and human players. My guess: aliens under human MC are reverted to alien control AFTER THE ALIEN AND BEFORE THE HUMAN TURN while human units under alien control are reverted RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE HUMAN TURN. This explains three different phenomenons:<br />
<br />
- The discussed MIA "bug" (he unit would be returned in the next human turn, but since it never starts it is lost. The mission is still won since no unit with a "genuine alien" marking is left)<br />
<br />
- The fact that a mission is lost when the last human falls under MC while it is not won when this happens to the last standing alien (the aliens get their unit back before their turn starts and therefore have a unit left to pass the "anyone alive?" check, the humans would have no unit left to start a turn with. They WOULD have as soon as the turn starts, but no unit left before turn means bust)<br />
<br />
- The fact that aliens still can see all an MCed human saw at the end of the human turn that follows the MC while this is not vice versa (The MCed human can give information to the alien side before reverted while an MCed alien is reverted too early). The result is that aliens can control a human indefinitely without having any alien seeing him until the MC is disrupted for one turn.<br />
<br />
All confused? Then I did a good job! No seriously, this must be the explanation, I couldn't think of any other way.<br />
<br />
- By tequilachef (April 4th, 2007)<br />
<br />
: You're absolutely correct on the first two points. It's a sequence issue - you never get round to recovering the unit before the new turn starts, so you end without any units whatsoever. Makes senses too since the aliens would continue to continue to mind control that same unit over and over indefinitely. <br />
<br />
: The third point however: The aliens don't need to know the location of the last MC'd unit. They know the location of all your troops whether they've seen them or not from the very start. They appear to give you a few turns of grace where they won't attack you outright (unless, from my observation, all your soldiers are incredibly weak). This is evident because all of the aliens will eventually make their way towards the nearest soldier even though their movement pattern may seem semi-random. Also, they know where you are because they can initiate psionic attacks without having seen any of your troops. They generally go after the weakest troops first. <br />
<br />
: Just to add a semi-related point, but from the alien's perspective. If an MC'd alien unit is in the exits when you abort the mission, this alien is not recovered and in fact simply vanishes. Any equipment it was carrying is recovered, unknown artefacts or otherwise. You could possibly think of this as their version of MIA. However, the aliens differ ever so slightly in that if it's the last alien standing and under temporary mind control by the player, the mission doesn't end straight away. But I guess this is only because the player has everything under control, whereas in the other scenario, the Ai is in control. <br />
<br />
: -[[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
My observations show that, at least in some versions of the game (tested with clean DOS 1.4 version, under DOSBox), the game crashes at the end of the human turn if all alien units which are still alive, are Mind-Controlled. If it was confirmed, it would be another not-listed-yet (serious) bug.<br />
<br />
[[User:Sherlock|Sherlock]] 17:52, 26 December 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Crash Site in the atlantic ocean ==<br />
<br />
That's right, my game generated a crash site on water. Here are the details:<br />
<br />
- Crash Site a bit southeast of the USA (which was infiltrated a few days before by sectoids, resulting base had already been taken out), but certainly not on land.<br />
<br />
- UFO: battleship, floater, alien harvest<br />
<br />
- Geoscape: 8 X-Com Bases, 1 (known) Alien base, 2 other crash sites, 1 other (known) flying UFO (though almost worldwide decoder coverage), 3 X-Com Crafts out, 1 waypoint<br />
<br />
- Date: January 2000<br />
<br />
- Most Interesting: The Craft that downed the ship was a recently finished Firestorm (first human-alien hybrid craft I had built, I know this is lame for that date. Limited myself on 25 Scientists to improve the challenge) equipped with twin plasma. I had it built and equipped in Antarctica and then transferred to Europe. This base had no Elerium, a fact that enabled me to use the infinite fuel exploit which was in effect when downing the UFO. My craft was only slightly damaged when doing so. The battleship was the first target assigned to the craft, it came directly from my base. <br />
<br />
- When shot down, the UFO was not targetted by any other craft.<br />
<br />
- I had not lost or sold a single craft to that point.<br />
<br />
- When sending a squad to the crash site the game didn't crash but generated a farm land ground combat terrain.<br />
<br />
- I was not able to reproduce the bug from the savegame dated 2 hours before downing the UFO<br />
<br />
Well guys, any intelligent guesses? I still have the savegames (before and after downing)! If you want to have a look, write here.<br />
<br />
- By tequilachef (April 5th 2007)<br />
----<br />
: Well I'm sure you know about crash sites that are near land can sometimes actually be on water, so I'm going to assume that this site is well far away from any land mass. Could it be a weird entry in GEODATA\WORLD.DAT that has a land mass out in the ocean? Also are you sure the game didn't crash? Sometimes when it does it will load the previous mission (and usually 90% are at farm terrain). Are you sure it generated a new map and not load the last one?<br />
:No real guesses but maybe some starting points to look at. I've probably stated some obvious situations you know about and have accounted for, but it never hurts to double check :D<br />
- [[User:Pi Masta|Pi Masta]] 14:23, 5 April 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Inconsistencies in MCing Cyberdiscs and Sectopods ==<br />
<br />
I experienced, that when MCing one quadrant of a large terror unit any action it does only affects this quadrant (especially use of time units). That means, when TUs are up for one part, MC another one and continue firing. This however does not work out when moving the unit while it is not under complete control. The TUs used up by the resulting reaction fire from the rest of the unit is also deducted from the TUs "your" part has left (making it impossible for the controlled parts to return fire). This however only happens under reaction fire, not if "your" part fires on it's own. I don't know if this comes up when uncontrolled parts shoot by themselves in the alien turn, since this is hard to find out.<br />
<br />
: That's because large units literally are made up of four separate units. They only share the same set of general stats (in unitref.dat). Unfortunately the 'under mind control flag' is unique to the four units, not the shared stats! So you in effect have multiple units under different control sharing the same stats. So if you move and it results in a reaction from the unit, it will spend the TUs you're using. <br />
: Successful mind control automatically fills up the unit's TUs, so each mind controlled sector gets to move or attack again until there are no more sectors to mind control. Useful way of turning reapers into long range scouts! <br />
: In TFTD, they attempted to fix this bug, but in fact made it much-much worse! The only way to mind control the unit properly is to control the upper left quadrant. Only! Any other quadrant will result in a partial (clockwise) control, and you may gain control of units other than that unit, or may even get into situations where you gain permanent 'partial control' of a large unit you haven't even sited. Wackiness all around! <br />
<br />
:- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
== Facility Dismantle Bug ==<br />
<br />
Boba: I've never experienced this bug myself in all my games in the Collectors Edition. It may very well vary from computer to computer. <br />
<br />
-[[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
:I, however, have experienced it. I lost an entire month's worth of playtime because I couldn't solve it. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]]<br />
<br />
::Anyone, any ideas on why it might vary from PC to PC? -[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]]<br />
<br />
:::I'd check other factors before blaming a given system. Assuming no mods are being used the most obvious is the order in which you initiated the construction of the modules. Then we've got which one was due to be completed first, and I'm sure there's a few other things to test out. Usually, a player won't cancel in-progress modules on a regular basis, so you wouldn't expect this bug to turn up often. - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 01:53, 9 June 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Easy way to reproduce: build 2 General Stores. Now delete the "second one" (see offset 16-39 in [[BASE.DAT]] for the order). Wait for the first one to complete. It'll crash immediately after the "end of construction" dialog. A fix is available [[User:Seb76#Bug_Fixes | here]]. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 15:52, 22 July 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Manufacturing Limit Bug ==<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Mike, no you did not get it correct. It is the raw number of hours needed to complete the project, not the projected hours. I discussed this on the X-Com Forums a few months back at the following link: http://www.xcomufo.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=242027760&st=0&#entry164411<br />
<br />
I did tests at the time in regard to the accuracy of the data given there, but I've lost the results. I'll quickly redo the tests in the next hour or so. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:00, 8 June 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Tests complete. The breakpoints for every item were exactly where I predicted, regardless of number of engineers assigned. (I ran up a huge queue of items at my dedicated factory base on an old game, and then assigned whatever engineers would fit onto one project at a time, canceling projects as data was confirmed. This is only semi-random, but it serves our purposes.) I did run into a single issue, though. It appears that despite having 5 empty hangars at a (different!) base, the workshop there could not queue up more than 3 of any one craft at a time, thus making this bug impossible to replicate with the Firestorm or Lightning, as you must be producing more than three for the bug to occur. However, it still works with the Avenger. Later, I shall see about constructing a dedicated Hangar base with 7 hangars in order to attempt to replicate the bug. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:33, 8 June 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Sounds great, Arrow. Why not post a simple example that shows how the problem works. As in, "with 1 Eng and 2 Avengers you might think X, but no, it's Y". And please delete my example. And it's a fine pleasure to meet you! Cool - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]]<br />
<br />
:::When you say the usual resources are used by the "lost" resources, that includes cash, right? It sounds like if you're willing to foot the extra bill [[Buying/Selling/Transferring#Manufacturable_Prices|money/component-wise]], this could be used to build Avengers slightly faster then normal.<br />
<br />
::: The usual time is 34000 hours. Double that and subtract 65535 and you're left with a paltry 2465 hours. Even a single workshop squad of 10 engineers will pull that off in a little over ten days. - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 01:53, 9 June 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::Sadly, this exploit doesn't work, because the high bit is stored SOMEWHERE. I lack a hex reader and have no code reading skills to speak of, so I'm a bit limited here. If you set up a Workshop as you described, the game would take all the time for 2 Avengers, all the resources for the same, but in the end only produce 1 Avenger. Meanwhile, I'll run more tests on the resources thing. I could swear it consumes the resources, but I'll double check.<br />
<br />
:::::There is no need to store the high bits if the actual completion condition (assuming adequate money) is "number made is number ordered", which wouldn't reference the hours remaining at all. - [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 01:49, 9 Oct 2007 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::::Tests done; I was unable to replicate the 'disappearing item' trick,(Which I didn't test for last night) even with Avengers! It appears I was wrong; this still counts as a bug, though, because the wraparound is a problem.<br />
<br />
::::Ironic that so much of this discussion centers around Avengers, because that's where I discovered this in the first place! [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 06:48, 9 June 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I'm revisiting XCOM and was working on [[Manufacturing Profitability]]... Arrow, can you (or anyone else) say a little bit more on the Known Bugs page about this [[Known_Bugs#Manufacturing_Limit_Bug]]? It's not clear to me exactly what the bug does, except that it understates hours. Is that all?... does it still take the (non-buggy) amount of time, still use all the same resources, still make the same number, etc.? It sounds like it could be a drastic bug - or is it only a very superficial one, a display bug for the hours? It sounds like you're leaning toward this latter.<br />
<br />
Also on a semi-related note... I could swear I saw much more detailed info on the [[Known_Bugs#Facility_Maintenance_Costs]] issue... IIRC, the incorrect amount that's charged for maintenance, depends on exactly where a facility is in the base. IOW, different "rows" of the base cost different amounts. Could somebody provide a link there, and/or flesh the bug out better?<br />
<br />
Thanks! - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 11:22, 8 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I've actually seen the bug work both ways, but I've only been able to actually replicate the more superficial version of the bug. So the bug report up is about a superficial bug that drastically understates production time. If you wish to make this clearer, you have my blessings. As well, that 'different charging based on location' is dealt with here: http://ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Base_Facilities ; however, the table has been broken with the Wikiupgrade, and I lack sufficient knowledge of HTML table code to fix it. But it should be of use to you. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 11:26, 8 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Cool, I fixed [[Talk:Base Facilities]] but also re-organized and expanded [[Base Facilities]] so that it includes that bug in detail, as per Talk... this is an important issue that should be up front. I see that there's a separate [[Maintenance costs]] page, but I can't see having something so important (the maintenance bug explanation) all on its own page (which makes for a rather short page) rather than together with all the rest of the base facility info. If others agree (or don't care), I'll move anything remaining on Maintenance Costs to the Base Facilities page, then delete Maintenance Costs and re-route links. And if somebody does care, then please move my new section to Maintenance Costs, and move all the links, etc. Oh also I put in more words on your Manufacturing Limit Bug - how does it look? - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 16:37, 8 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Looks pretty good, although it'll wrap fully; if you ask for 120000 hours, it won't be displaying 'almost no' time. The way I discovered it was when building two Avengers; I ordered two, paid for two, waited for two...and got one. But as said, haven't managed to repeat it, so until I do, we'll leave it like that. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 18:00, 8 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::I just revised and put in your specific example, because it's certainly possible some of us die-hard players will order up more than 1 Avenger at a time - and it's guaranteed it'd be a pain if 1 of them disappeared, laugh. I wasn't sure how concrete you were on that example but now I hear you say, you are sure it happened at least once. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:33, 8 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I have a question concerning the manufacturing "bug" which eats a craft in production due to wrap-over of the byte. Arrow (or whoever did the test), did you have a large quantity of craft already built at your bases? If so, I think this bug has more to deal with clogging up [[CRAFT.DAT]]. See, that file has a limit of 50 entries. Each craft takes up one record and each base you have built also consumes one spot. 8 bases allows 42 craft to be housed, while 6 bases allow 44. If you try to buy or manufacture craft once the file is full, nothing shows up in the game even if you have hangar space available. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:00, 8 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Huh, I never knew that. I don't see it listed on the Bugs page... I'll stick it in there. I've never approached that number, but some folks might. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 19:07, 8 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I was able to continue building other Avengers after that project, and they appeared correctly, so I do not believe that is the issue. In any event, I have a very bad case of 'archivism' and probably still have the save game and the CRAFT.DAT file around on my system; in fact, I think I was playing it a few days ago. I can see if I can find it and upload it; it created a 'hole' in the Avenger fleet numbers, where Avenger's x and x+2 were built, but x+1 was not. I'll look for it tonight and tomorrow and upload it to the wiki if I find it. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:10, 8 October 2007 (PDT) EDIT: I found the file; I have 28 Avengers and 1 Skyranger in my employ. All Avenger numbers EXCEPT #2(Avenger-2) are accounted for, and I have not sacked or lost any Avengers. So this is where the hole and 'eaten' Avenger is. If anyone wants the CRAFT.DAT file from this game, I'd be happy to forward it. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 21:20, 8 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Sure, send it my way and I'll take a look at it. (Might as well send me the whole saved game as I may want to look at the other files too). I have tried to recreate this bug by manufacturing 1, 2 and 3 Avengers at a clip but all of them always show up. Don't know what else I could do to get this problem to crop up. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:32, 8 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:File emailed. On the side, I've tried the same thing, and never been able to repeat the bug. It's been months since the first discovery, so I can't recall whether it was the first or the second Avenger that didn't appear. So maybe it was just a fluke. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 21:57, 8 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Unconscious Enemy in Equipment Screen ==<br />
<br />
The following happened to me repeatedly over the last few days.<br />
<br />
In the last tactical Mission a live alien has been captured. When now beginning an UFO crash recovery mission this type of alien (same race and rank) appears in the equipment screen before the mission starts, meaning I can give it to any of my soldiers.<br />
If I do so I can store the alien in the skyranger for the duration of the mission and, if it gains consciousness, kill or stun it at the end of it. A pile of equipment without a corpse will be in the UFO, indicating that the stunned alien is not some kind of duplicate but instead has been taken from the aliens of this mission. This is supported by the fact that in those missions the maximum number of crew members has not been surpassed.<br />
If I do not do so the Alien will be placed in the crashed UFO. Whether it is unconscious or not I do not know, but the fact that it is completely disarmed when encountered in the battle suggests that it is.<br />
<br />
So far it seems the following is necessary for the bug to occur:<br />
# An alien has to be captured alive in the last tactical combat<br />
# It has to be of the same race and rank as one of the aliens in the new tactical combat<br />
<br />
So far this only worked...:<br />
# If the new tactical combat was an UFO crash recovery of a medium scout.<br />
# For floaters and mutons<br />
# For soldiers and navigators<br />
# If the alien in the last mission was stunned by normal weapon fire (although I do not think this is important) and not picked up (again, not likely to be important) or destroyed (which would mean it has to be actually captured)<br />
<br />
It seems NOT to depend on the following:<br />
# The type of the last mission (were, so far: Ground assault battleship, crash recovery large scout, base defense)<br />
# Which squad or vessel was involved capturing the alien<br />
# Where it is locked up<br />
# If it has been transferred since capture or not<br />
<br />
Would be interesting to know:<br />
# What happens if the alien in the inventory screen is the only survivor<br />
# If the alien in the invenory screen is one of the aliens randomly killed in the crash or not (it is likely to be one of the killed aliens, so far the equipment piles were always within the UFO)<br />
# If this is not limited on crashed medium scouts: Does this work with terror units? What about large ones?<br />
<br />
Maybe this is related to the proximity grenade bug (transfer of item properties to next tactical combat).<br />
<br />
Additionally, in one of those mission a part of the terrain was not generated correctly. It was in farm terrain (The house on the right square, or north east square, in [[Image:Terrain-cult.gif|this pic]]). The outer wall right to the right window of the southern wall (1st Floor) was missing. Directly outside of the hole was a floor tile. I could walk a soldier through the wall, but he fell right through the tile. Dunno if this has to do with the stunned alien bug.<br />
<br />
Version is collectors edition (the one from abandonia.com).<br />
<br />
----------------<br />
<br />
When a mission starts, the GeoScape engine generates the unit and object tables (in MissDat's [[OBPOSREF.DAT]], [[UNIPOS.DAT]], and [[UNIREF.DAT]]) before "shutting down". The Tactical engine then generates the maps, places the aliens on it, and blows up the UFO (if need be). Whether or not map generation and the subsequent events happen before you equip your soldiers I don't yet know.<br />
<br />
The test would be to check the aforementioned files to see if they contain an unconcious alien, and/or the body.<br />
<br />
Note that you can't see the bodies of large units on the ground (they count as four seperate objects covering four seperate tiles, so allowing the user to pick one up would essentially let you rip them apart).<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 06:35, 5 August 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----------------<br />
<br />
I honestly have no idea of how all those files work. But I still have a savegame in battlescape that is in one of those missions. So if anyone wants to have a look at those files...<br />
<br />
I forgot to mention: I reloaded a geoscape savegame shortly before the battle to recreate the bug, but it seems that reloading in geoscape before the buggy battle eliminates the bug. I guess his should narrow down the possible reasons...<br />
<br />
--------<br />
<br />
Next time it happens, backup the aforementioned files before you start another mission. I'm afraid a savegame wouldn't be of much help.<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 00:54, 7 August 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Soldiers moved to outside of combat screen ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've got a DOS version of UFO:EU, and I've encountered a bug in the tactical combat. Sometimes (rarely) a X-COM soldier changes its location on the map on player's turn start and is placed on outside of the map, one tile north from the (north) border of the field. AFAIR the unit is then selectable (you get the flashing highlight when cursor is above), but is stuck outside of the field. Has anybody encountered this bug? It seems to happen randomly, but more frequently during the terror missions and on early turns (so maybe it's caused by high number of player/alien/civilian units?). --[[User:Maquina|Maquina]] 08:16, 3 September 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I've never encountered this bug in CE of UFO. Presuming AFAIR means "As Far As I Recall," what exactly was the soldier doing? Any equipment data, location, or stat info might help us pin it down. Were afflicted soldiers always carrying a specific equipment set or weapon? Where were they on the map before they got moved? Did they get bumped a few spaces, or teleported halfway across the Battlescape? Does it happen more often on a specific difficulty?(Your theory would suggest this would happen most commonly on Superhuman) Against a certain type of alien? Best of all, if you can recreate the situation in a game, save the game and then you could upload the save file to the forums or this wiki, and the rest of us could take a look for ourselves and the code divers could root around for the cause. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:03, 3 September 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: I've had this happen to me several times in UFO and TFTD. I don't know if it's specific to the Dos version or if it can happen in the CE as well. Sometimes the soldier ends up beyond the boundary of the map right at the start of the mission, at other times it happens after you load a game. This game is glitchy, which is the source for so many of its bugs, so your soldier's coordinates are probably getting corrupted to the point where they are -1 on either the X or Y axis of the maps's normal boundaries. For me it's commonly along the top edge of the map. I don't ever recall it happening mid-mission, only at the start or after a load. I cannot faithfully say whether it happened with or without XComutil, but that could be one of the possibly many causes for this. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
:: I don't play UFO often, so I rely on just several campaigns played. This happens rarely (I've encountered this bug twice in my last campaign with ~80 missions played), but if you haven't seen this happen then it probably doesn't show up in the CE edition. In my experience the soldier is moved always beyond the north/top map border. I think (but I'm not sure) that this affects the first soldier from the team more commonly than others (or maybe even exclusevily?). The equipment/armor carried is probably not relevant, since the units moved this way don't have any special stuff, and this bug shows up on different stages of the gameplay (ie. sometimes when you have ordinary rifles, sometimes when all your units got heavy plasmas and power suits). --[[User:Maquina|Maquina]] 04:12, 4 September 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
'''MY ramblings have been moved to my discussion page''' [[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]]<br />
<br />
==Great Circle Route==<br />
<br />
Should we have the Great Circle Route bug noted on this page at all? [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:33, 6 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: what is the great circle route? [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 07:56, 31 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Pick two points on a globe, then hold a thread or string taut at those two points. That practically minimizes the length of the thread/string on the globe. You're now looking at a great circle arc (or route), the shortest distance between two points on a globe. -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 11:15 March 2009 (CDT)<br />
<br />
: Just as a line is the shortest distance between 2 points on a flat plane, a great circle is the shortest distance between 2 points on the surface of a sphere. The bug, by the way, is that aircraft in the game ''don't'' follow this shortest, "great circle" route. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:38, 31 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: What a grand sounding name, for something so simple, lol. ... I thought you were talking about when you tell your soldiers to go from point A to point B, and for some reason they figure that Zone A and Zone B are really far apart, despite actually being side by side. (I shot a hole through a wall, clicked to walk to the other side, and my idiot soldier walked one big circle... to use the door! And got ambushed and killed by an alien. ... dum dum DUMB DUMB.)<br />
:: Even the more modern games have problems with their pathfinding algorythms. Admittedly, games like Baldur's Gate had to do it in realtime.<br />
:: On a semi-related note, I remember this guy called E-man, he was chasing a guided laser beam that was going to kill his girl, around the world, but he couldn't outrun it since he couldn't break the speed of light, only equal it by changing into a Laser himself. So... inspiration! He turned into a very powerful laser, and made a shortcut THROUGH THE EARTH... the straight line beats the great circle route, lol.<br />
:: Thanks for the reply guys [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 15:56, 31 March 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Added to article. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:41, 3 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Bug not listed: Missing soldiers during base defense==<br />
<br />
I encountered an interesting bug concerning base defense missions:<br />
My base got attacked while about 30 soldiers and 10 HWPs were present. The usual equipment assignment screen was skipped and the mission started instantly with only the HWPs spawned at the map. Not even a single soldier bothered to show up... *sigh*<br />
Although this turned out to be in my favor (you should have seen the puzzled Ethereals trying to panic my tanks) I´d like to avoid this bug if possible. I was able to reproduce this bug several times and with different bases. <br />
Can anyone explain this bug and/or tell me how to avoid it?<br />
<br />
Game version: Collectors edition. - [[User:NewJoker|NewJoker]]<br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
Well, ideally, we need to know what your base's construction was to be sure of this, but I think the most likely circumstance is that the HWPs took up all the spawn points. HWPs have maximum priority for spawning(followed by Soldiers, and then Aliens), so if you have enough of them garrisoning a base, it's entirely possible that soldiers and aliens won't spawn. However, this doesn't explain why the soldiers didn't start stealing the Alien spawn points...in any event, you might want to take the save game file, zip it up, and get ready to email it. I'm sure [[User:Zombie|Zombie]] would be quite interested. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:28, 13 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
It's not the spawn points, it's a [[UNITPOS.DAT]] limitation. A maximum of forty records (out of the total of eighty) are allocated for your units, and tanks (which take up four records each) get first pick. Having ten tanks means there's no room left for anything else.<br />
<br />
Ditch one HWP and you should see four units take it's place. - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 16:42, 13 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
I´ll try with a decreasing number of tanks and report the results. As I wrote above having only HWPs isn´t too bad dependent on what enemy is attacking. [[User:NewJoker|NewJoker]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
This should be mentioned in the [[ExploitsE#Base Defence Mission Spawning Issues]] section. The Bugs/Exploits really need to be sorted and consolidated. - [[User:NinthRank|NinthRank]] 16:57, 13 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
-----<br />
<br />
The limitation to 40 records seems to be the case; each tank I dumped got replaced by four soldiers. <br />
So this can be used to effectively manage unit combination. Thanks for the quick replies! [[User:NewJoker|NewJoker]]<br />
<br />
==Bug not listed: Ufo Gold (Windows Vers. abandonia.com) crashing when plasma defense is finished==<br />
<br />
I recordnized this bug a few times now. (with hacked AND unhacked game)<br />
If i place a plasma defense in 7 bases at the same Time and they are finished at the same Time, the game crashes sometimes.<br />
In hacked game, it seems to crash even more when Alien containment is finished, plasma defense, shield defense...etc.<br />
couldnt find it here...greetz<br />
<br />
: I somehow doubt the sourcing is the issue. [You may want to fund the next XCOM series game with a Take2 re-release of UFO :)] More generally: the game only reports the construction of a given type of facility <b>once</b>, no matter how many bases it completes at simultaneously. I've only tested this <i>in vivo</i> with three-of-a-kind at once across six bases, however. It does seem reasonable that some sort of counter of undisplayed completions would "overflow" (attaining crash). -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 10:05, Feb. 28 2008 CST<br />
<br />
::I've encountered this bug myself with General Stores, actually, not just Plasma Defense(which I never build). EDIT: Some quick tests seem to show that there's a chance the game will crash any time two base facilities are done at the same time, regardless of whether they're in the same base or not or if they're the same facility.(although it seems to happen MUCH more in the event they're in different bases.) [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 10:13, 28 February 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Soldier Recruiting Bugs Tested ==<br />
<br />
Just to note that I have positively tested and replicated the bugs listed under the new(ish) section [[Known Bugs#Soldier Recruiting Bugs|Soldier Recruiting Bugs]]. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 18:08, 19 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Floater Medic Bug==<br />
<br />
I have not thus far encountered the Floater Medic Bug; in fact, Floater Medics are often used to fill up my Rogue Gallery with interrogations. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 06:50, 24 April 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Strange, it would always occur in my version. I don't remember where I got it from, but I<br />
know it was a download from the internet. Using the XCom Hack v2.5, I viewed the alien in<br />
the Alien Containment edit. I now have Type (race):____, and a Rank: Soldier for the <br />
Floater Medic. It might just be corruption, but I do not have the resources to look into<br />
it. [[User:Muton commander|Muton commander]] 19:24, 12 May 2008 (Pacific Time Zone)<br />
<br />
I've never encountered it either. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 07:47, 23 July 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I think this only happens in the CE version. A disassembly of the code reveals that the stack to hold the matrix for what topics have not yet been researched is too short. It seems that those who ported the code from DOS doubled the local variable sizes blindly. There is already a problem that there are two-few bytes necessary for the entire alien organism section of the UFOpaedia, but double the expected size of the registers and it fills up quite easily unless a lot of autopsies and interrorgations have already been done. The only other situations that are handled by the same routine are the navigator revealing mission data or engineers revealing ship data, but there isn't enough topics in either section to overflow the stack variables. - [[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] 08:27, 22 June 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Strength Overflow==<br />
<br />
During one of my games with TFTD I noticed a really annoying thing happen during battles.<br />
As my troops rose up the 'stat.' ladder they got better and better (as you'd expect), until they hit about 50 strentgh and completely lost the ability to throw anything.<br />
Even trying to throw something tiny like a grenade or flare into the adjacent tile resulted in the 'Out of Range' message being displayed.<br />
<br />
Anyone come across this before?<br />
This was in TFTD CE.<br />
[[User:Tifi|Tifi]] 07:55, 27 April 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:This is fairly well documented. The pathfinding algorithm for throwing objects will balk if anything is in the way of the throw and refuse to allow you to throw. What's happening is that your soldiers have become so strong that their throws are intercepting the 'ceiling' of the Battlescape(the top of L3), and as such the game thinks that the throw is blocked(because in order for the throw to complete, the object would have to be tossed up to the nonexistant L4). There's two ways around this:<br />
<br />
:The Normal Way: Try shorter throws, throwing from lower heights, or throwing while kneeling. Beyond that, possibly get some new troops.<br />
<br />
:The Sneaky Way: Manually edit the Strength scores of your soldiers in [[SOLDIER.DAT]] so that they're back to a usable strength level. If you set "Initial Strength" (offset 46 decimal or 2E hex) to 0 and "Strength Improvement" (offset 57 decimal or 39 hex) to a value of 50, you can permanently lock the soldiers at 50 strength. (You can lock them higher than that if you so choose, but not lower.<br />
<br />
:Other than this, there's no workarounds I can think of offhand. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 08:10, 27 April 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: There's normally no problem with the max level of 70 in open settings. However TFTD has a lot of low ceilings such as in the shipping lane missions and colonies, and the lower ceilings impairs your throwing quite a bit. In addition to shorter throws/kneeling, try moving out from under any overhangs if there is one just above you. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 12:33, 27 April 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Bug not listed: Sticking your head through the ceiling ==<br />
This is something I just discovered: When you step on a small object inside of a building your soldier sticks his/her head through the ceiling and can see what's upstairs. You can even see the soldiers head coming out of the floor and that soldiers can shoot aliens upstairs. When I did this the alien I saw/shot was facing the other way, but I guess you could get shot if the alien was facing you. [[User:RedNifre|RedNifre]] 17:34, 11 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:That's not listed under "Bugs" because it's covered under "Exploits", right here: [[Exploiting_Collison_Detection#See_Through_A_Ceiling]] [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 18:26, 11 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: I don't know if it was ever covered anywhere, but there's this neat trick that might sound similar to the walk-through-'wall object'-wall trick except that it involves your unit climbing slopes. They'll appear as though they've gone up a level, but are actually not on that level. They only visually appear to be there, but are really still on the bottom level. <br />
<br />
:: It happens a lot when walking up the desert or forest slopes. I think the trick involves standing on ground level, and then ordering the unit to 'move' into the hill rather than setting the waypoint while on level 1. The soldier will move up the slope and perhaps stop on the slope or even reach the top of the slope, but will still appear when you're only viewing the ground map layer. The soldier is really still on the ground level, but will have elevation offset. <br />
<br />
:: One really interesting way of using this trick is in the mountain region. If you can find a cliff face and a low hill nearby, you can literally have your soldier scale the cliff by standing the soldier on the hill, and then walking towards the cliff. It's ridiculous, but your soldier never quite reaches the top of the cliff tiles, so ends up walking up a slope. <br />
<br />
:: On a side note, standing at the top of the ramp of the Skyranger is the same as standing on ground level - you're only offset a bit. This means that smoke on level 1 and the sides of the Skyranger will not provide protection when you're at the top of the ramp. <br />
<br />
:: On another related note in relation: In TFTD (doesn't happen a lot in UFO), you might find it difficult to toss grenades onto underwater slopes. To remedy this, raise the level up by one. It might look like you're tossing at air(and you are), but it'll get the grenade where you want it. Odd, but true. I must remember to put this in the grenade explanation section. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 23:11, 11 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Base Defence bug that causes a crash? ==<br />
<br />
Does anyone know about a bug in a base defence mission that causes the game to crash? The game keeps crashing on the 4th or 5th alien turn.<br />
<br />
:I've encountered that myself, but it should be noted that overall, X-COM is not the most stable game and is prone to crashing often at anytime. The differences between the hardware it was designed for and the hardware we're running it on cannot be helping matters at all; it's really a small miracle it even runs without an emulator in the first place(I've got games from 1999 that will bluescreen my machine instantly). As such, I'm not sure it's worth noting as a bug, since it's a 'game feature'(albeit a detrimental one). In any case, what're you doing letting the aliens attack you anyways? ;) [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 21:33, 18 July 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:It sounds like an alien is in one of the outlying locations and attempting to destroy the top floor item. Possibly a radar or defense station. - [[User:Morgan525|Tycho]]<br />
<br />
== Sources for a DOS4GW transplant ==<br />
<br />
I was specifically thinking of the LucasArts Dark Forces demo, but I half-recall the actual source I used when testing that ~1999 was Id's DOOM. -- [[User:Zaimoni|Zaimoni]] 16:03, 7 August 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Phantom Carried Casualty ==<br />
<br />
You are carrying an unconscious soldier in one hand, and the soldier dies of his/her wounds. The dead soldier remains visible on the "left hand / right hand object" battlescape display, but is no longer visible in the inventory display. The problem can be fixed by moving another object into the same hand. <br />
<br />
I've seen this bug with UFO Extender by [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] - possibly might be something to do with his manipulation of the inventory screen, rather than a general bug. I believe I've also seen this with other objects that were being carried in the hands, disappearing from the Inventory screen, but I'm not sure. I don't think it's an item limit bug, as XcomUtil shows 40 item slots free. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 08:58, 21 September 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I think it has to do with the KO units KIA mod. Its doesn't take into account units held so when it tries to detemine where to place the corpse, there is no location. The routine doesn't undo the item-carried-sprite-ID byte for the holder. -[[User:Morgan525|Tycho]]<br />
<br />
== Civilians As Enemies to MC'd Aliens ==<br />
<br />
I ran across this issue a few times and just wondered if you guys experienced this. I MC'd a part of a Reaper (I always do the lower left for large aliens) on a Terror Site, then moved it a few squares. It suddenly stopped dead in it's tracks and then the alien spotted indicator increased by 1. When I clicked on the indicator to see where the enemy unit was, it brought me to L2 of the large apartment complex. However, nothing was there. When I sent a Flying-Suited soldier up there to peek in the window (eeek! A peeping tom!) he saw a female civilian standing there. This type of problem has happened numerous times to me so it's not a once-off thing. Maybe it's a LOS issue? Or maybe an alien indicator problem? Or a combination of the two? Don't know, but I'm curious if you guys have seen it. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 23:40, 19 December 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
:There are a lot of major issues with MC'ing 4 square aliens. One of them being that you could accidentally MC an alien far off in the corner of the map, IIRC? Anyhow, maybe you should have tried MC'ing all 4 squares of the reaper and see if that changed things. -[[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]]<br />
<br />
The long-range MC of other aliens when Mind-Controlling large aliens is only present in Terror From The Deep, due to a workaround to try and resolve the earlier bugs(and exploits) associated with controlling one square of a large unit at the time. In TFTD, successfully MC'ing part of a Large unit will also grant you control of the next three units in UNITPOS.DAT, in order. If you didn't MC the upper left portion of the large unit(the first UNITPOS entry for any large unit), you can potentially wind up in control of other aliens. So this doesn't apply to UFO. As for Zombie's issue, never seen it. And finally...Jasonred, on Talk pages, please indent your statement with colons so it differentiates from other people's comments, and sign your posts with 4 ~'s, like I will now do. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 10:42, 19 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Elerium Base Bug==<br />
<br />
Jasonred: This bug has long since been known about. Elerium units on the Battlescape can be picked up by shooting away the power source; this one item counts as 50 units, and as such ANY elerium item spawned on any Battlescape counts as 50 Elerium. This issue with your own Elerium spawning as collectable loot in a Base Defense mission only occurs in older DOS versions, and is at the whim of the 80 item limit. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 21:55, 18 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
:Base defense does not seem to follow the 80 item limit in that DOS version. There are a lot of bugs that have long been known about. However this one was not included in the ufopedia for some reason.<br />
:Also, the main thing about this bug is that it does not potentially double your elerium stores. It potentially multiplies them 50 times.<br />
:... First time this happened to me, I was pretty flabbergasted. Here I was being conservative with my limited Elerium, refraining from blowing up UFOs when possible, when I perform a base defense and gain 3000 Elerium from it. Holy spit. -[[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]]<br />
<br />
Alright, my error. Thanks for clarifying. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 10:42, 19 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
==HWP Fusion Bomb and SWS PWT Displacer Ammo Manufacturing Cost Bug==<br />
<br />
At a cost of $15000, 400 Tech hours, 5 Zrbite, and 8 Aqua Plastics, this is the exact same cost as the HWP Fusion Bomb from X-COM EU, converted over to the equivalent TFTD resources. As such, it shouldn't be counted as a bug, since it is clearly what Mythos intended. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 09:55, 15 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
:Hmm, in that case maybe it should be treated as a generic game engine issue and not a TFTD specific issue - but I still think it's a design error. Can you think of any logical reason why the SWS/HWP version of the ammo should be more expensive (in cost and in materials) than both the craft ammo and the (more powerful) personal ammo? It makes no logical sense. Hence I think it's a design error. Nothing can be inferred from the fact it's unchanged from XCOM-EU, that doesn't imply any deliberate decision. It could just be the replication of an original error in XCOM-EU. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 11:17, 15 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
:: I can think of a logical reason to justify this: X-Com doesn't understand the technology as well as the aliens do (which is obvious, given the length of time each side has known the tech). Handheld Blaster/Blaster Bombs are just a copy of the alien design and therefor relatively cheap and efficient, but that can't be mounted on a turret. So X-Com has to make a new design, and they obviously didn't do that good a job as the aliens would have done. This explains Tank/Plasma being weaker than Heavy Plasma too. (Why is FBL Craft ammo cheaper than the tank ammo though? Maybe X-Com gave up on/simplified the guidance system and made it just a "dumb" cannon shell/torpedo instead which doesn't have multiple waypoints? Or maybe they just did a better job there?). [[User:Cesium|Cesium]] 04:07, 25 November 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Whilst we discuss it, I'll park my original text in here:<br />
<br />
* ''Displacer/PWT ammo cost bug - at over $100,000 total cost per round, the ammunition for this SWS weapon is far more expensive to manufacture (both in money and rare materials) than the equivalent ammo for the Aquanaut-carried Disruptor Pulse Launcher, or the craft-based Pulse Wave Torpedo, despite being less powerful than either. This would seem to be a design mistake.''<br />
<br />
See Also [[Talk:Displacer/PWT]]<br />
<br />
:: I don't like the higher cost either, but I think it's a tradeoff of expense and quality for the convenience of portability. Sort of like an MP3 player to the gramophone... or maybe that's not a good comparison. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 13:43, 15 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
A better comparison might be a desktop computer to a laptop. As a general rule, laptops are more expensive, but a similarly priced desktop gives you more power. Desktops are cheaper and offer power, laptops are more expensive and offer portability(though the gap is rapidly narrowing). [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 13:49, 15 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
:I think those are good analogies. But they don't apply in this case. To continue your analogies: We are paying mainframe prices for a clunky desktop that has only laptop processing power, and we're buying a mainframe for desktop prices. The vehicle version ("desktop") - is ''less'' portable and ''less'' powerful than the personal version (DPL = "laptop"), ''less'' capable than the craft version ("mainframe") - and costs ''more'' than either of the others in total cash and in materials. In particular, it makes no sense that the small missiles on the SWS use up ''more'' of both Zrbite and Aqua Plastics than the Craft version. Do we really think it's logical that a tactical battlefield round, less powerful than its man-carried equivalent, takes more explosive and structural material to produce than both the more powerful man-carried version and also more than the air-to-air round that has 60km range and can take down a major alien combat craft? There is a clearly perverse bang-per-buck here, on every measure. My sincere belief is that this was an original mistake in the XCOM-EU engine that got copied into TFTD as well. The craft round should have the higher base price, but the material requirements that are currently assigned to the SWS/HWP round. It's debatable whether the SWS/HWP rounds should be more expensive than the man-carried rounds. But what I don't think is debatable is that is not logical for the SWS/HWP rounds to be more expensive than the craft rounds. It's clearly a mistake. Even in game balance terms, the only thing the HWP/SWS rounds have going for them is conserving "80-Item Limit" space, which I severely doubt was ever a game design consideration since it's just an awkward programming compromise. Any advantage inherent in the HWP/SWS is already reflected in the very high platform cost - there is no need to inflate the ammo costs as well. The bottom line is that a round for a (mini-)tank does not cost more, does not use more materials, than the same type of round for a long range anti-aircraft weapon that has much greater damage capacity and penetrating capacity. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:35, 15 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
I'm going to add this to the bug list now. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:06, 25 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
:Still don't think this is a bug though. Just because it's more expensive to manufacture than the hand-held or craft-mounted ammo, it doesn't mean the stats are wrong. Perhaps the programmers wanted to balance the tactical portion of the game a little more by making the ammo cost more for tanks. It doesn't have to be logical to be intended. Now if you had proof which said that the ammo was supposed to cost less but the stats were wrong, then yes, I'd agree. So if you boil it all down it comes to a disparate logic issue, not a bug.--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:31, 25 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
::I have to side with Zombie here. While the ammo may be disproportionately expensive, by the definition used on the rest of the page for bug, it doesn't fit. All the other bugs are errors in program logic or function or routines that are unintentional problems with the game, most of which are not warned of ahead of time. The ammo for the tank costs exactly what is listed and operates entirely as intended, whereas the rest of the bugs are not intended game features. Even if the numbers were entered wrong, that would be a data entry error, not a program bug. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 00:28, 26 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
:If it was a data entry error, I'd consider that a type of bug... assuming we had proof of the goof so to speak. LOL. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 00:49, 26 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
:: It feels too specific an entry to be a data entry error. <br />
<br />
:: I'm reminded of the high explosive. I know, I know - it's not an exact parallel to the FBL issue. A High Explosive is practically two grenades. Double weight, double bulk. Slightly above two times the damage. However, it costs five times the price of a standard grenade. Even though you're paying more for not-as-much, I don't think that could be considered a bug. A rip off, yes, but not a bug. <br />
<br />
:: Here's a thought: Think about the immediate benefits each of the two controversial ammo types give back to you. Aircraft ammo = activity points. Tank ammo = loot. Yes, I know that aircraft ammo also generate crash sites, but you still have the ground combat to contend with. <br />
<br />
:: One other thought: With careful management of your ammo, you'll probably never spend any elerium on the handheld version's ammo. Could it be the handheld that's really at issue here rather than the others? In the end I feel that it doesn't really matter. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:38, 26 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
: I'm with Zombie that a data entry error is a bug (we have other examples), but also agree some proof is probably needed. And I agree with NKF that in the scheme of things, it doesn't really matter much. I don't think the HE pack is a good comparison (though the HE pack should be heavier) as it's reasonable to pay disprortionately more to get additional power at the same tech level. The fusion weapons are a case of paying more to actually get ''less'' power. I am not bothered by the handheld vs vehicle balance, not least because the game generally makes handheld weapons better than their vehicle equivalents, so I can accept that as an across-the-board design decision. <br />
<br />
: I can also see a game balance argument ''if'' we believe that Fusion Tank ammo is more of an overall game-winning weapon than craft Fusion Bombs. But I'm not sure I agree with that statement. And even if it's true, and there's a game balance argument (in which case it would apply equally to handheld Fusion launchers), it's still illogical. The less powerful, battlefield warhead should not cost massively more in exotic materials than the much more powerful air to air warhead that brings down Battleships. I agree though that just because it's illogical does not prove it's a bug (i.e. unintended). [[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:48, 26 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
Ok we more or less seem to be in agreement that this isn't a bug, but it is very confusing/illogical. Maybe we can shift the "bug" text from the article page and roll that into the [[Hovertank/Launcher]] and [[Displacer /P. W. T.]] pages now. Feel free to combine any text from the discussion above if necessary. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 09:22, 26 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
: Unless we can ''prove'' it's a data entry error (unlikely), how about calling it an "Anomaly" instead of a bug? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 10:59, 26 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
Looks like plain old game imbalance to me.<br />
The way I see it, Hovertank Plasma and Launcher were meant to be stronger. Much much stronger. Let's look at Tank Cannon, Launcher and Laser. The logic is that it's a tank mounted weapon, so the tank can carry a much larger and more powerful version of the same weapon, right?<br />
It's pretty stupid that a Hovertank Plasma is weaker than the Heavy Plasma... you could just mount a Heavy Plasma on a Hovertank and get them exactly equal. In fact, I suspect that the hovertanks were ALSO meant to have more powerful weapons than the man-portable versions.<br />
Unfortunatly, the game designers then realised that this made the hovertanks far too powerful. So... the programmers nerfed the power of the hovertank weapons. BUT they forgot to lower the ammo costs. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 11:20, 26 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
: Well you are opening up a much larger issue there. The Fusion weapons are an anomaly, an inconsistency. But handheld weapons are more powerful than equivalent vehicle weapons across the board, consistently. So that looks like a deliberate design decision, not a mistake. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:33, 26 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
:: There are two exceptions to the rule: Tank/Cannon: 60AP vs. Heavy Cannon 56AP. Tank/Laser: 110 Laser vs. Heavy Laser: 85 Laser. The hovertank\plasma only differs by a measly 5 (an extra 0 - 10 damage, which means a lot vs. UFO inner hull armour). I guess the trend here was to moderate the area effect tank strengths. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 23:22, 26 February 2009 (CST) <br />
<br />
I'd have to agree with you there Spike. This wasn't a mistake, however odd it may seem. It was a deliberate attempt to try and balance the game. Below is a table I created ages ago for my (now defunct) strategy guide detailing the HWP's and what handheld weapon corresponds to it. When you stick them side-by-side, it really becomes apparent that the programmers were trying to base the HWP weapons off the handheld weapons somewhat. The only thing that doesn't follow a nice and distinct scheme is the damage. That's what is the clincher. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:26, 26 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br><br />
<table {{StdCenterTable}} class="sortable"><br />
<tr {{StdDescTable_Heading}}><th align="left" width="150">Tank Type</th><th width="70">DAM</th><th width="80">Snap</th><th width="90">Aimed</th><th width="90">Aimed</th><th width="80">Snap</th><th width="70">DAM</th><th align="right" width="140">Handheld</th></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Tank/Cannon</th><td>60</td><td>60%</td><td>90%</td><td>90%</td><td>60%</td><td>56<sup>1</sup></td><th align="right">Heavy Cannon</th></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Rocket Launcher</th><td>85</td><td>55%</td><td>115%</td><td>115%</td><td>55%</td><td>87.5<sup>2</sup></td><th align="right">Rocket Launcher</th></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Laser Cannon</th><td>110</td><td>50%</td><td>85%</td><td>84%</td><td>50%</td><td>85</td><th align="right">Heavy Laser</th></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Hovertank/Plasma</th><td>110</td><td>85%</td><td>100%</td><td>100%</td><td>86%</td><td>80</td><th align="right">Plasma Rifle</th></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Hovertank/Launch</th><td>140</td><td>--%</td><td>120%</td><td>120%</td><td>--%</td><td>200</td><th align="right">Blaster Launcher</th></tr> <br />
</table><br />
<sup>1</sup>AP rounds.<br><br />
<sup>2</sup>Average between the Small and Large Rocket.<br />
<br />
<br />
: Hold up! Tank rounds do 60AP. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 23:22, 26 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
So what's wrong? The table says 60 for the Tank/Cannon and 56 for HC-AP. Those are correct, no? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 23:41, 26 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
: Sorry, didn't realise it was two tables side by side (or rather mirrored). Eyes only noticed the left side of the table. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 23:53, 26 February 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
:: If the Hovertank Launcher did 200 damage, or worse if the Hovertank Launcher did EVEN MORE damage than the Blaster Launcher... that would make them easily the most deadly things on the map. As it is, the hovertank launcher is already pretty overpowered, even with 140 power.<br />
<br />
I might be six years late here, but I think there could be an explanation for this in RL physics &mdash; indeed, in RL nuclear weapons programs. Incoming wall of text.<br />
<br />
There are two sorts of nuclear reactions that produce energy: fission of large nuclei, and fusion of small nuclei. Fission can occur under normal temperatures and pressures, but involves a neutron chain reaction. As such, fission devices have to have a certain mass of fissionable material (the ''critical mass'') so that the neutrons stay in the material and cause more fission rather than escaping; this means that such devices cannot be scaled down below about suitcase or large backpack size (not all of this is actually nuclear material; rather, most of it is conventional explosives used to rapidly assemble the supercritical mass from subcritical masses). They also produce large quantities of radioactive fallout, which is problematic. Fusion, on the other hand, requires extreme temperatures and pressures, but does not necessarily require a neutron chain reaction. This means that they can theoretically be scaled down to much smaller sizes... except that the only available compact source (ie, not building-sized) of those extreme temperatures and pressures is the detonation of a fission bomb. Thus, all known fusion weapons currently in existence involve a relatively-small fission stage that detonates a much more powerful fusion stage.<br />
<br />
The "Holy Grail" of nuclear weapons research is what's called a [[wikipedia:Pure fusion weapon|pure-fusion weapon]]. Because it has no fission stage, a pure-fusion weapon would release little fallout (note here that fallout is material that emits radiation long '''after''' the detonation; a pure-fusion weapon would emit copious amounts of deadly neutron radiation when actually used, but that would dissipate within seconds) and could be scaled down to grenade-launcher size (though it would obviously be far more powerful than a conventional grenade). They would be far easier to produce, as well; producing weapons-grade uranium and plutonium requires large and powerful isotopic separation equipment and/or a full-sized nuclear reactor, whereas deuterium can be extracted from water with trivial ease and lithium and tritium are relatively simple to obtain and make respectively. The main issue is that while the pressures required to confine the fusion material during the reaction are achievable with chemical explosives, the temperatures necessary for fusion are emphatically not. You need a stronger initiator; some material with a higher energy density even than plutonium. In RL the only initiator strong enough is antimatter &mdash; hard to produce and contain, to say the least &mdash; but the aliens in X-Com have a source that's stored far more easily... Elerium.<br />
<br />
I posit that the "fusion" line of weapons in X-Com are exactly what they're named: tactical fusion bombs, made possible by an Elerium detonator. (A more controlled reaction on those lines &mdash; a fusion reactor with Elerium-spiked fuel &mdash; in UFO Power Sources would also explain the discrepancy between the calculations based on fuel efficiency and the lack of city-killer blasts when a Power Source's Elerium cooks off.)<br />
<br />
Given the assumption that "fusion" weapons are indeed fusion weapons, with Elerium serving only as a detonator, the oddly high Elerium cost of the Hovertank/Launcher's ammunition is finally explainable. The HWP Fusion Bombs are, literally, smaller than Blaster Bombs and craft Fusion Balls (presumably because of size constraints in the launching mechanism in tanks). Having less explosives to compress the fuel means you need an even higher temperature to compensate &mdash; thus, more Elerium detonator &mdash; but because the actual power of the bomb is mostly from fusion and not Elerium decomposition, the yield is still lower.<br />
<br />
I intend to remove this from the list of Known Bugs on this basis if nobody can find a hole in my logic. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 02:03, 17 April 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I'll have to disagree. Your argument while interesting, is just supposition and an attempt to give validation by taking ideas (that the developers probably never considered) to justify a flaw, very much in the same manner as those who try to explain why UFOs do not respond in interceptions. In truth, like many of the other bugs listed here, they are the result of issues caused by the time constraints the Gallops where under. Much of the production/buying/selling aspects of the game have game balance issues and don't make sense when cross referenced to other similar elements in the game and/or their overall effect to either combat or the strategy layer, especially in regards to the game's economics. [[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] ([[User talk:Morgan525|talk]]) 05:06, 17 April 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Why would they match up in terminology with the actual use to which any military would put Elerium by accident? Because, no shit, if a military got their hands on a substance with Elerium's properties this is literally exactly what they'd do (at least as far as explosives go). I can cite a paper talking about the superiority of antimatter-fusion weapons to pure antimatter weapons if you want; the title is "Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects". [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 05:21, 17 April 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:quote all the sources you like, it still doesn't explain the waste in the manufacture process. With elerium being such a "scarce" resource, there is no logic in producing something that require more elerium and delivers less of a battlefield effect. It would be more logical and efficient to have had the platform fire regular blaster bombs, since they only require 3 elerium not 5.[[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] ([[User talk:Morgan525|talk]])<br />
::IMHO, any logic argument can be presented to why those HWP Elerium Bombs should cost less/more or be more efficient. That is not the point here. A bug is when a game feature is working improperly or/and is causing technical issues, either due to limitations, insufficient testing, whatever. Design choices are a completely different matter: the Heavy Laser is a nearly useless weapon due to its stats but no one ever considers it to be bugged due to its stats. It was a choice, that was slightly changed on TFTD with the Heavy Gauss. To consider the stats of the HWP Fusion a bug then you'd have to label a lot of choices as bugs when they are simply design choices. You may not agree with them but that doesn't make them bugs in the generally accepted definition of the term. And quoting Arrow Quivershaft on the top comment of this discussion: "At a cost of $15000, 400 Tech hours, 5 Zrbite, and 8 Aqua Plastics, this is the exact same cost as the HWP Fusion Bomb from X-COM EU, converted over to the equivalent TFTD resources. As such, it shouldn't be counted as a bug, since it is clearly what Mythos intended"[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 19:35, 25 April 2015 (EDT)<br />
::Also, the consensus until now expressed by several people that previously discussed this is that this is not a bug. The main supporter of the bug argument seems to be Spike at the beginning but during the discussion but halfway the discussion he says: "I agree though that just because it's illogical does not prove it's a bug (i.e. unintended)" [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 20:54, 25 April 2015 (EDT)<br />
You don't get to claim benefit of the doubt here, Tycho. All game features are assumed to not be bugs unless there is compelling evidence presented otherwise. You claim this is a bug based on the suppositional logic that more powerful weapons should cost more and almost nothing else. The price wasn't altered (and neither was the power) in TFTD, so there's no evidence of mistake there (as an aside, the Displacer/Sonic having its power listed as 130 when it's 110 in the game engine clearly ''is'' a bug). The only bit you might be able to interpret that way would be the description of the Hovertank/Launcher's weapon as causing "immense devastation" compared to the description of the Blaster Bomb as "highly powerful" (the potential implication being that the HWP Fusion Bomb is stronger), but that's iffy at best since there's hardly a graded table of adjectives in use and on those very same pages in the UFOpaedia it lists the damage of each weapon as what it actually is.<br />
<br />
The claim that it's a bug is based entirely on theorising about yields. I've given alternate theorising that would explain the yields (and I already explained that the semi-automatic nature of the Hovertank/Launcher and physical space for its high ammo could justify the need for a smaller round), which undercuts that claim. We can't know who's right, but the assumption should always be that the designers knew what they were doing; to assume until proven otherwise that they had no clue is extreme hubris and contempt. Moreover, you are in a minority of one or perhaps of two against a majority of several. Your claim to representing consensus is blatantly false.<br />
<br />
Now, I'm going to wait a couple more days to see if anyone comes forward with anything substantive, as I waited a week after my reply to your original non-refutatory dismissal, and then reinstate the removal if nobody puts forward a cogent objection. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 22:57, 25 April 2015 (EDT)<br />
:Now that I think of it, though, an "oddities" page where we talk about this, the shitty Heavy Laser/Heavy Gauss, the No More Soldiers limit, and other not-bug things might be in order. It would help to make this page about actual bugs and not about weirdness that is nevertheless clearly as intended. Thoughts? [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 23:04, 25 April 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:At the time, I didn't continue the argument as my point was that removing something based on one person's belief, no matter how cleverly thought out, wasn't good enough to warrant removing from the list. (I would have pointed out all the different theories on UFO interception AI, but I see that has already been removed.) I hadn't read all the discussions because I assumed that no consensus had been reached, similar to the Interception AI discussion. Mushroom, could have just pointed out that this issue was already settled years ago but no one bothered to removed it from the list, instead of resurrecting a "dead" discussion as though it had not been settled and just stated that the developers intended to discourage the use of this HWP by making the cost of its ammo high. I still don't agree that the HWP ammo is more efficient and thus justification for its production cost, especially since the developers would have never needed this level of justification or would have had the time to devote to so small an aspect of the game. <br />
<br />
:I definitely agree that this page needs to be updated. Another reason I argued so strongly is because so many topics on this page do not fall into the category of bug as has been defined. I thought this page was also devoted to listing all the illogical aspects of the game due to the lack of enforcement on the definition. [[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] ([[User talk:Morgan525|talk]])<br />
<br />
::If I only had a dime for each time someone proposes to change something on this wiki, everyone agrees, and then nobody ends up taking action... :) It's always better to take initiative and edit things. I agree also with an update to this page, and separating bugs from limitations. But definitely no more 'this should have been done this way' arguments to present design decisions as 'bugs' [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 17:43, 26 April 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Okay. I'm planning to rip out the following and stick them on a separate page:<br />
<br />
:Great Circle "bug" (this isn't really a "bug" so much as unoptimised code)<br />
:Side-on Intercept "bug" (ditto, but given UFOs' tendency to alter course suddenly it's not even particularly unoptimised)<br />
:Head-on Intercept "bug" (come on, this is just bitching)<br />
:Instant Getaway "bug" (more an anomaly than a bug)<br />
:80-item limit (intentional and the rationale is obvious to boot)<br />
:Purchase limit (working as intended)<br />
:Soldier recruiting limit (being charged for attempting to buy more is a bug, but the limit itself isn't)<br />
:Soldier battlescape limit (there's a consequence of this which is a bug, the CtD with 10+ tanks, but not the limit itself)<br />
:Manufacturing Completion Time Display "bug" (you can look at it and see what time it finishes, and it goes down at the right rate; it may seem a little unintuitive but it isn't "wrong")<br />
:Manufacturing Rate Interruption Loss "bug" (more bitching)<br />
:Manufacturing Rate limit (working as intended; the attempt to get around it in TFTD is bugged, but the EU behaviour isn't)<br />
:HWP Fusion Bomb Ammo Cost "bug" (we're in agreement here it seems)<br />
<br />
:There's plenty that need a tidyup on top of that but as far as the page split itself goes, are we agreed? Also, I'm thinking of calling the page "Anomalies and Game Limits", opinions? [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 01:58, 3 May 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== DOS4GW - What the heck is it? ==<br />
<br />
It's been ages since I had to remember this stuff, so those who remember clearer than I do, forgive me if my descriptions aren't accurate. Hopefully the general idea will come across. <br />
<br />
Back in ye olde days of computere gamynge - and where there were more E's to go around, memory handling was a tricky beast to handle. Computer memory is divided into several different categories. Conventional, extended and I think expanded. I might be jumbling the terminologies for the last two a bit. Doesn't matter - memory was just cut up into small segments. The two most common memory types to PCs at the time were pretty small but were readily available. The third one - the most expandable (aka the chip with its massive 4 Megs of RAM you just spent your whole month's allowance on!), wasn't as easy to get at. <br />
<br />
To get access to the higher memory that was available to the computer, special memory handlers had to be used. Drivers like HIMEM, emm386, etc were used. <br />
<br />
DOS4GW is one such handler that lets the game access the computer's available expanded memory. Lots of games that came out at the time use this. Doom, Duke Nukem 3d, Syndicate, Ultima Underworld, X-Com UFO/TFTD, etc. LOTS of games. Any time you ran a game from the dos console and you saw the Dos4GW message flash by briefly it would be assisted by it (well, it stayed on the screen for ages back when processors were slower!). <br />
<br />
It took the hassle out of memory handling and let the game access the available memory on the computer as one big flat block of memory to play with. <br />
<br />
So what was meant in the article was to simply replace the dos4gw.exe with a more up-to-date version from another game. I think the way to tell its version was just in the message that it displayed. You can just run the dos4gw.exe file in a console window. It'll give an error, but the message it shows will indicate its version. UFO 1.4 uses Dos4gw 1.95, for example. <br />
<br />
-[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:22, 6 March 2009 (CST)<br />
:DOS4GW also switched the processor from 16bit to 32bit mode. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 13:58, 6 March 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Clipping ==<br />
I have a new bug. Its harmless. I have a savegame (EU CE - modified game) which has a sectoid within another sectoid. In the alien turn, one secturd walked off the roof and dropped down <s>onto</s> into another. (I guess there DNA is indentical afterall, so they 'become one' with the world). If you want the savegame (superhuman edited using UFOloader, UFO Mod v1, xcomed, Khor Chin WeapEdit v0.1) drop me a request on the my page somewhere. [[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]] 01:40, 18 September 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Not something many would encounter, but definitely something that can happen. Units can occupy the same physical space, but the game cannot display them all. It'll only draw one of them. Actually saw this effect happen back in the early days of XComutil when it gained the ability to manually add new aliens into a battlescape. It did this by slotting them into the same spaces occupied by existing aliens. Then the fun would happen when you saw a couple of Mutons suddenly walk out of a sectoid. Not sure how the game determines who gets hurt when struck by a bullet. May very well depend on the order they are stored in the unitpos.dat file. <br />
<br />
: There are a couple of ways you can replicate this in-game, but I can only provide theories on how you could do it. Such as shooting the ceiling above you and letting the unit drop through, or moving a tank off a ledge and getting its non-primary segments land directly on top of another unit. By the way, the rear end of tanks get stuck in walls if you attempt to move north or east off any ledges. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 02:18, 18 September 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Ok, so as long as others know about this, then all is good. I had never seen it and was doing alot of head scratching until I shot the alien.<br />
<br />
== Berserk HWP crashes the game ==<br />
In the article page it mentions that aliens which go berserk with their integrated weapons will crash the game. This is only true for Mind Controlled aliens (or units under X-COM control) - alien controlled units which go berserk do not crash the game. I tested an MC'd Celatid just now and it doesn't crash the game either, though it doesn't immediately go berserk - it waits another turn for some odd reason. Someone want to check this to verify my results? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:31, 27 December 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
==HWP Morale Loss==<br />
<br />
HWPs have 110 Bravery, which [[Morale#Effect_of_Bravery|normally prevents morale loss]], but I wonder if they can still lose morale due to loss of units with a morale-loss modifier. It'd depend on how the math is done. If, for, example, the -20 to morale for a dead unit is static, then multiplied by any [[Morale#Officers|morale loss modifier]], then reduced by 2 for every ten point of bravery, any officer death without another officer on the field will necessarily reduce HWP Morale. <br />
<br />
It all depends on how the equation plays out and when modifiers are added. For sake of this post, I propose the following as the morale-loss equation: 20*(rank death modifier)-((Bravery-10)/5)*(1.00-Leadership bonus)=Morale Lost. (Rather than using 22 as a base, I'm going to assume Bravery is internally decremented by 10 for this equation as 0 Bravery is impossible without editing and it makes the math easier for the purpose of the example.)<br />
<br />
It makes sense to me that rather than having 110 bravery hard-coded as an exception to "No morale lost", it simply works the same way in the normal equation, but is high enough that it negates most morale loss events, as even if an officer is killed, another officer is usually left on the field to help negate the penalty. That said, if a large portion of the team is wiped out at once, any surviving officers may not be able to negate it all, allowing tanks to start having noticeable morale loss.<br />
<br />
So with the death multipliers, we can determine that every XCOM officer killed has a set death value. Rookies and Squaddies are -20, Sergeants are -24, Captains are -26, Colonels -30, and Commanders -35.<br />
<br />
For example, under this theory, if a Sergeant is killed with no other ranked units on the field, a Squaddie with 50 Bravery would lose 16 Morale. (20*1.2-(50-10)/5*1.00=16). A HWP would, at the same time, lose 4 morale. The Sergeant's death is worth -24 Morale, and without another officer on the field to ameliorate the loss, the Tank's bravery only can 'absorb' 20 points of the morale lost. If it was instead the Commander lost, with no other officers on the field, the HWP would lose instead 15 points of morale, given that a Commander's death (20*1.75) is worth a whopping 35 points of morale loss if no other officers are present.<br />
<br />
And if you have, say, four colonels and the Commander on rear/psi duty, and some alien flings a grenade or a blaster bomb into the back of the Skyranger and blows all three of them up and they were the only officers, the HWP has now lost 55 morale, which gives it a 10% chance of panicking/berserking on the next turn!<br />
<br />
In the end this'll probably need to be tested for accuracy, but those are my thoughts right now.<br />
<br />
Also, for the record, most units that berserk go to 255 TUs while still using the original TU-expenditure calculations; it's part of what makes berserk units so dangerous. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:34, 11 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:Tested it under vanilla CE. Took a squad out containing just about every rank there is (commander + colonel + captions + sergeants), plus a tank. Blew up and killed all soldiers with a single blaster bomb shell, leaving just the tank, which lost no morale (sorry).<br />
<br />
:I also brought a group of rookies along with a single commander + tank, and killed just the ranked unit. Tank lost no morale. A rookie with 60 bravery lost 17 (which matches the loss predicted by the formula currently on the morale page), whereas under your formula he should've lost 25.<br />
<br />
:Still, you're on the right track. I've long had my own theory as to why tanks have been known to lose morale. Take a look at [[UNITREF.DAT#42|UNITREF.DAT[42]]] - this is the offset that stores a unit's rank. Notice something? The value gets higher as the X-COM unit's rank gets higher. Works in ''reverse'' for aliens, for whatever reason. I sorta figure it's so killing a mind controlled alien commander doesn't mess with your morale too badly, but there's a big problem with that theory and you can probably tell what it is...<br />
<br />
:If the highest this figure gets for an X-COM unit is 5 (commander rank), then a killing a mind controlled alien ''terrorist'' with a rank value of ''7'' should net an even higher morale loss penalty. And indeed it does - I took a rookie and a tank to a terror mission, mind controlled and killed a terrorist, and the tank lost 10 morale. Guess it would've lost six if I'd taken a commander instead of a rookie, but that's still something.<br />
<br />
:Note that the formula on the morale page does ''not'' account for this - it states that at bravery 110 the alien's death loss multiplier would always be applied to a base morale loss of 0, but that's obviously wrong. You're spot on in saying that the base morale loss figures are not totally dependant on bravery, and the "death loss" penalty is applied first. Would probably require a few more trials to determine what that penalty ''is'' for alien soldiers and terrorists though. <br />
<br />
:Just for kicks, I edited a plasma tank to have 0 morale. It panicked in the normal way (either sitting still or charging off to the SE). When it berserked, the game crashed as soon as I dismissed the status message. - <span style="font-size:xx-small">&nbsp;[[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 18:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: Thought I'd give it a spin. I sent a laser tank in with a squad and had it start shooting at team members. Each time it killed an ally, it would lose morale. Once it was under 50 morale, I waited until it panicked. Since I was playing the dos version, the game didn't crash but I suspect a memory leak of some sort may have occurred that would normally shut down the CE version. What would happen in CE if a soldier were to be edited and granted a tank turret, and then made to panic? Would the game crash? I'm just wondering if it's related to the weapon as opposed to the fact the tank is a treated as a large unit. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 00:43, 13 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
::: Ah, friendly fire! Thought I'd tested for that, but obviously not...<br />
<br />
::: Oddly enough, now that I try it, I see that the twenty point hit for killing a unit on the same side can be adjusted by the leadership bonus of the victim. Eg, kill a lone commander and his 35% penalty reduction takes the extra morale lost from 20 down to 13 (which is exactly how much a tank will lose, given that it otherwise wouldn't lose any at all).<br />
<br />
::: Of course, this completely messes up my theory about alien soldier/terrorist ranks overriding the 110 bravery score. It doesn't. My tank "only" lost 10 morale because the alien's rank acted as a 50% leadership bonus... Though I suppose that's still interesting to know, because it suggests that keeping a simple alien soldier under mind control is more effective then risking your own commander in the field.<br />
<br />
::: I took an otherwise unarmed rookie and assigned him a tank cannon + ammo. He could manually fire this weapon in much the same way a tank can. Forcing him to berserk crashed CE, under DOS he just spun around. - <span style="font-size:xx-small">&nbsp;[[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 21:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== 80-items limit on CE edition ==<br />
<br />
I have the feeling that the 80-items limit does not apply to the CE edition and is instead a 110-items limit (at least during base defence). Can anyone confirm? [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:24, 24 February 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I believe this limit was increased for TFTD. Maybe it was also increased for the CE edition of UFO, and only ever applied to the DOS edition of UFO?? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:03, 11 March 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Paying for Dirt in TFTD ==<br />
<br />
I have the steam version of TFTD and am unable to replicate this bug. Testing with the starting base, I dismantled a few modules, added up my income and expenses, and it reconciled with my cash at the beginning of the next month. I even tried again, dismantling every module except the access lift, and once again saw no income discrepancy. Am I missing something, or is it possible this bug was actually fixed in TFTD? --[[User:Jewcifer|Jewcifer]] 12:18, 16 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:'twas probably fixed. It would indeed be helpful to add a small note to bugs on this page which are EU-specific but not obviously so (like this one). - <span style="font-size:xx-small">&nbsp;[[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 17:14, 16 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::Every now and then I get the urge to test some of the more important bugs myself in my steam version of TFTD. Perhaps I will make a more complete effort and record the results somewhere on the wiki. --[[User:Jewcifer|Jewcifer]] 12:08, 21 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Paying for dirt: Source of bug discovered! ==<br />
<br />
Well, I never have read this anywhere (which kind of strikes me as odd, thinking of how obvious this one seemed to me... And i have NO programming background whatsoever), so I'll post it here, hoping that there are still some active members willing to try and verify my findings. If so, please comment here, because then I will inform bladefirelight to include this in any upcoming xcomutil release. If it had been discovered before, well then I just wasted some time here. Comment below, I will delete this entry.<br />
<br />
As the main bug page mentions, when dismantling a facility still under construction the premium will only be paid once it would have been finished. This suggests some connection between paying the premium and building time. Looking into the infos here: [[BASE.DAT]], I quickly discovered what the problem was: When a facility is dismantled, the Bytes related to the location of base facilities are updated correctly. HOWEVER the game omits to update build time to FF (which is "will never finish", an entry only found on unused squares). If the facility is finished when it is dismantled (or destroyed during combat), then the 00 in the build time byte will stand. If it was under construction, the value indicating the remainig build time will continue to tick down towards 00 as if the facility was still there.<br />
<br />
Now at the end of the month the following seems to happen: The game checks for ANY 00 entry in the build time bytes, and if there are 00 entries, it will look up in the location bytes the type of structure to determine the amount of maintenance for that 00-construction-time-square. When it finds "dirt", then it will charge the 80 grand (my guess would be that those are somewhere hard-coded).<br />
<br />
This explains all phenomena related to this bug, like a dismantled hangar costing 320.000 grand or the premium only popping up after the build time of a dismantled facility that was under construction has expired.<br />
<br />
Now the fix is pretty easy: Open the BASE.DAT in a hex-editor and change the bytes in question to FF!<br />
<br />
== Minimized Interceptor Bug (Ufo CE) ==<br />
<br />
Maybe this bug is not just related to saving, because I had a similar problem last night. The game didn't crash, but it kept restarting the same Battlescape mission.<br />
One Avenger (A-3) was pacing a Battleship, while another Avenger (A-1) was sent to pick up the pieces of a Terror Ship that had been shot down by an Interceptor. Despite having no weapons (oversight on my part), A-3 wanted to attack the Battleship, but I minimized the screen, hoping it would land.<br />
While the screen was minimized, A-1 landed at the Crash Site from the Terror Ship and started this mission. Right after finishing it, I got the message that A-3 was ready to land next to the Battleship. Happy that I'd get the loot, I started the mission.<br />
After cleaning it out, I got the usual Loot and Promotion screens and went back to the Geoscape. A few seconds later, I was back in the equipment screen and the Battleship Mission started again. I played it once more, because - hey - additional loot, right? Err... no. At the end, I got the correct Loot screen for this attempt and the very same promotion I had gotten in the first attempt (A Rookie from another base promoted to Sergeant).<br />
Got back to Geoscape and a few seconds later back to the Equipment screen. I aborted this mission (same Battleship again), got back to Geoscape and - you guessed it - back to the Equipment screen. After aborting this mission as well and getting back to Geoscape, I used the few seconds I had to go to 'Options' and 'Abort Game'. Maybe I could have made A-3 disengage from the Battleship since I think I saw them both on the Geoscape, a yellow diamond and a red plus, but it was pretty late by that time.<br />
--[[User:Matzebrei|Matzebrei]] 15:06, 15 May 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
This is a known bug. There is a work around. You should patrol the ship with troops and not land... Finish shooting down the other airborne ships first. Then when the ships doing the shooting are returning to base, change patrolling ship with troops to advance to downed ship in order to commence ground combat mission.<br />
--[[User:JGF|JGF]] ([[User talk:JGF|talk]]) 07:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Activity Overflow Bug ==<br />
<br />
This is a potentially campaign-ending bug. This was seen in the Steam distribution, DOS version (on Windows 2003 Server EE). Not sure if UFO Extender was being used - probably it was. End of Jan 1999 turn shows an extreme negative/underflow Monthly Rating score, which in turn is caused by extreme overflow of UFO Activity levels. Note that that funding "score" - the increased funding by countries - was very positive at the same time!:<br />
<br />
<br />
[[File:dissatisfied customers.png]]<br />
<br />
<br />
UFO Activity, by Areas and by Countries, is literally off the chart. Clearly some kind of integer overflow: <br />
<br />
[[File:ufo-areas.png]]<br />
[[File:ufo-countries.png]]<br />
<br />
X-Com activity is also off the chart:<br />
<br />
[[File:xcom-areas.png]]<br />
[[File:xcom-countries.png]]<br />
<br />
<br />
In addition to the likely outcome that I will lose the game in Feb 1999, it means I can't use the graphs to detect UFO activity outside of my radar coverage. <br />
<br />
I have only seen this bug once, and (probably very unusually) I am running under Windows 2003 Server EE (!!). My hunch would be that's the cause, Windows 2003 Server is not the best games platform. :)<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:22, 3 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Further information:<br />
<br />
I don't necessarily lose the game in Feb or March 1999. The Monthly Ratings from Feb onward are just based on the current month, not historical score to-date. However it still greatly increases the risk of suffering from the [[Known_Bugs#Losing_My_Favourite_Game|Losing My Favourite Game]] bug - which also greatly complicates doing too many controlled experiments on this Activity Overflow bug, because a few restores of the saved game quickly leads to X-Com Project termination (and humanity's doom).<br />
<br />
Possibly the Activity Overflow bug is caused by an initial value of the score (or an array of score values) not being correctly zeroed at the start of the game. See this graph, which shows a negative score in May 1998, prior to the start of the game in Jan 1999.<br />
<br />
[[File:Prehistoric_negative_score.png]]<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 08:48, 3 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I encountered the same Activity Overflow Bug in Windows 7 using Steam version, Windows option with UFOExtender latest version.<br />
<br />
[[User:Humbe|humbe]] 2012.10.04 09:05 UTC<br />
<br />
I encountered the same bug at end of january with latest xcomutil patched CE version (with only bug fixes patched) with ufo extender newest version running (close to default options). Got many saves from that first month. Even if loading very early save where I had done no missions yet, and just did stuff in base, graphs still show negative for various periods in 1998. Sounds more like corruption than something actually overflowing to me.<br />
<br />
[[User:Archlight|Archlight]] 18:34, 24 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Bad Paths Bug ==<br />
<br />
I suggest to add bad paths on UFOs maps to the article, as another bug in the game.<br />
<br />
[[User:Sherlock|Sherlock]] 09:25, 26 December 2012 (EST)<br />
:That sounds reasonable to me. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 10:03, 26 December 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
==Expenditure Graph==<br />
The economy graph for "Expenditure" neglects funds spent on new facilities. I noticed this in my current (DOS) game when I built eight Psi-Labs at the start of April and it didn't increase. I know it counts everything on the Purchase screen; I'm not yet sure whether it counts manufacturing costs.<br />
<br />
Is this enough of a bug to be mentioned? Can anyone confirm whether or not it occurs in CE, and whether it counts manufacturing costs? [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 02:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
==Workshop Crowding==<br />
It seems there is a bug whereby you can allocate more projects/engineers than available workshop space. This can be triggered by setting up two concurrent manufacturing jobs, setting one of them to have 0 engineers working on it, then set the other to have as many engineers as you can assign to it, filling the workshop space. Then go to the other job with 0 engineers, and it will show a negative workshop space available, now if you assign at least one engineer to this project, you can assign the rest of your engineers however you please.<br />
<br />
This is my first edit. I find it hard to believe I'd be the first to find this bug after so many years, can someone please confirm a reproduction and that it isn't documented somewhere I've missed? I am running the DOS version of UFO, but I'm also running XComUtil, not sure if that has an impact, or what patch level I'm on. - [[User:Uncertainty|Uncertainty]] 11:00, 20 Dec 2016 (AEDT) Update: Cannot reproduce on the CE version, still unsure of the patch level of the DOS version I'm running and don't know how to accurately determine that. - [[User:Uncertainty|Uncertainty]] 22:00, 29 Dec 2016 (AEDT)<br />
<br />
: An easy way to check is whether you can research Magnetic Navigation after collecting one from an alien sub, or if you have to research a Lobsterman Navigator beforehand. If you can research it right away then you have v2, which is what the CE version is mostly based on. If you can't research it and must get the navigator, then it's the unpatched copy of the game. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 22:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Update 2: Thanks NKF, I'm not running TFTD, but I figured out that I was running v1.2 of XCOM1. I cannot reproduce the bug on v1.4 so the bug only applies to v1.2 and has been patched in newer versions. - [[User:Uncertainty|Uncertainty]] 16:45, 31 Dec 2016 (AEDT)<br />
<br />
=Cleanup needed=<br />
Hmm this whole Talk page needs a cleanup. A lot of the Not Listed bugs, should be listed, or are listed. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 10:03, 26 December 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
:So, before it will be made, yet three more observations.<br />
<br />
:1. There is no possibility to give back (to stop hiring) a plane without craft weapon.<br />
<br />
:2. Alien Reproduction is unavailable in a normal game without hacking/save editing. This is probably connected to further errors on maps. A bug/error/programmers' oversight of the some kind is present in TFTD where it is impossible to obtain Examination Room. It is so because many tiles on maps are wrongly assigned to game's objects. Namely, [[Examination Room (TFTD)]] is treated as Alien Implanter - but there is plenty of errors of this type, on various maps (perhaps also in UFO: EU).<br />
<br />
:3. Among soldiers in UFO:EU, there are Russians. Some non-Slavs may not know that Slavic (also Russian) family names have different masculine and feminine forms. For example, Petrov, Belov, Likhachev, Gorokhov, Chukarin, Andianov, Voronin, Maleev are all masculine names; women must be called Petrova, Belova, Likhacheva, Gorokhova, Chukarina, Andianova, Voronina, Maleeva respectively (however, a rule that the feminine form is always made by adding -a is wrong, e.g. Tolstoy - Tolstaya). The soldier's name Mikhail Gorokhova (which is possible in UFO: EU) is just ridiculous (for everyone who has even little knowledge about Russian things). Tatyana Petrov is also an impossible combination. X-Com creators probably assumed that family names are the same for men and women in all languages, and, as a result, they made only mechanisms for storing masculine and feminine forms of first names, not family names. But taking reality under consideration, this is a bug.<br />
<br />
: [[User:Sherlock|Sherlock]] 16:22, 26 December 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Common bugs vs. UFO EU specific bugs ==<br />
<br />
I believethere is one more thing that needs to be cleaned. Namely, both EU and TFTD share the same game engine, so some bugs are common for them both. However, there exists a page with a list of TFTD bugs, and it is clear (or: should be clear) which of the bugs are specific for TFTD. I think the same should be done with EU specific bugs: to hold them apart from bugs common for both games. Some bugs exist in both games but manifest themselves differently (like problems with mind-controlling of big aliens) - they are not true common bugs.<br />
<br />
Or even more: one could expect a clear information by each bug, in which game and in which version of the game the bug occurs. And whether a patch exists or not. Sometimes such information is given now, and sometimes it is not. And if one does not know exactly which versions are affected by the bug, it should also be mentioned clearly.<br />
<br />
[[User:Sherlock|Sherlock]] 04:13, 27 December 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Rename page title to indicate which game this refers to? ==<br />
<br />
I was looking for a list of bugs related to XCOM Apocalypse, and it took me a while to realize this was about a totally different game. There are 4 games (not counting the 2 opensource projecrs) here on UFOP - maybe that could be reflected in the article aswell? <br />
[[User:Panzerlol|Panzerlol]] 20:35, 31 March 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==New "bugs" submitted directly to main page with no apparent explanation==<br />
<br />
WakkaDakka, have you actually managed to replicate this "missing time units" bug, or was it just a one-off freak occurrence? I'm not sure it merits main-page space until we have some idea how to replicate it.<br />
<br />
N21, how were you seeing the future to begin with? It's only a bug if it occurs in the normal course of play.<br />
<br />
[[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 03:36, 28 May 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Enemy Unknown 1994: Save game bug mid mission. ==<br />
<br />
Effect : Loading saved game mid mission just displays a black screen with the cursor at the top left, whilst the music continues to play in the background.<br />
I don't believe the game has crashed out to DOS, having tried both CLS and DIR to no avail. Your can no longer interact with the game, making you force quit the app.<br />
<br />
[[File:Screen_shot_2016-11-07_at_19.39.31.png|thumb|left]]<br clear="all"><br />
<br />
I'm using Boxer 1.40 on a Mac - which in turn is built off Dosbox 0.74.<br />
I remember seeing this bug years ago on Windows XP too, so I don't think it is platform specific.<br />
I'm currently running it with some of the XCOMUtil patches too - but have had the issue crop up without any of the patches.<br />
<br />
Playing on Superhuman level, I use a Skyranger with 14 soldiers equipped with Laser Rifles.<br />
<br />
Cause : Hard to be specific. But here are the facts.<br />
I have my suspicions it may be do to with fog of war rendering issues.<br />
I've had it occur frequently when going to the NW edge of a map.<br />
<br />
Corruption of the save, seems to coincide with crossing a threshold of a number of actions on a number of soldiers within a turn. After the threshold is crossed each attempt to save on subsequent turns mid mission are all corrupted, leading to the possibility of filling all 10 game slots with trashed saves, forcing a restart of the game from turn 1!<br />
As long as you don't cross the threshold before saving, and there is one remaining action that would corrupt the game on a given turn, progressing to the next turn seems to reset the count on the number of actions, so you can perform multiple actions instead of one the next turn.<br />
<br />
Here is a sample save game where the game only needs one specific movement to corrupt a game when you save after the move.<br />
<br />
[[File:GAME_10.zip]]<br />
I've uploaded two images to show the move for S Bradley <br />
[[File:Screen_shot_2016-11-11_at_13.50.13.png|thumb|left]]<br clear="all"><br />
and the destination square to move him too. When you complete that move and save the game it corrupts.<br />
[[File:Screen_shot_2016-11-11_at_13.50.17.png|thumb|left]]<br clear="all"><br />
<br />
Incidentally there were two downed UFO's at this time, with a second Skyranger en-route to UFO 42. This mission was for UFO 43 with another Skyranger.<br />
<br />
The problem frequently occurs.<br />
Ive had it occur recently on the following types of mission:<br />
Terror, Alien Base, Supply ship, Large Scout, predominantly with Sectoids and Cyberdiscs, but also with Mutons and Floaters.<br />
The only thing all these missions have had in common was lots of units on both sides. For example 13 Floaters on a Scout mission, 9 Cyberdiscs on a Terror mission etc.<br />
<br />
--<br />
<br />
Other quirky things I've seen relating to Stunned units:<br />
<br />
1) You can't stun a unit, forcing you to shoot it to complete the mission.<br />
The target being stunned drops to the ground in a heap, but the game says you can still see it and can re-stun unit....<br />
<br />
2) Celatids. You stun it, then it wakes up and moves away. The unit no longer renders correctly. It's like a sheet of garbled colored/transparent dots.<br />
<br />
3) A stunned unit, other than a Celatid wakes up, and is invisible but you get the '1' in red square for visible enemy. You can stun unit and get the animation for it falling to the ground again.<br />
<br />
--<br />
<br />
Teleported unit off screen (notice the yellow arrow over the unit, which alas is invisible at the split second I took screenshot - OS/X rendering crap-shoot).<br />
[[File:Screen_shot_2016-11-12_at_14.18.07.png|thumb|left]]<br clear="all"><br />
The unit was teleported from the top of the stairs in an entirely different building, rendering the unit unusable for the mission. I ended up reloading it and doing over.... - [[User:JGF|JGF]]<br />
<br />
<br />
:Stop spamming [[Special:RecentChanges|the changelog]], please - if you're working on a page and want to see the results of your edits midway through, use the Preview button. Don't hit Save until you are ''done''.<br />
<br />
:I can't replicate any issues with your provided save. Bradley doesn't have enough TUs to "complete" the requested move, but asking him to make the attempt anyway, then saving / reloading, works fine for me under 1.4 as well as CE. For what it's worth, as far as I'm aware the game in no way keeps track of the number of actions you've performed during a given turn; at least, I haven't been able to find any such counter embedded in the save files.<br />
<br />
:I do suggest you leave your units with more time units - when ending turn, any agents who ''might'' spot an alien during the enemy's turn should ideally have some cover, a kneeling stance, and enough action points to defend themselves with a reaction shot. Using your full TU allocation on movement is somewhat suicidal, and even when you can get away with it, it tends to leave agents without enough energy to move when they really need to.<br />
<br />
:Your invisible units may be related to [[Known_Bugs#Invisible_Chryssalids|this bug]] - presumably you can trigger similar behaviour by knocking out all instances of a given alien species within a map, saving / reloading, and then waiting for one of the aliens to awake. I was able to replicate it with an Ethereal, for example.<br />
<br />
:Difficult to comment on your garbled Celatid without seeing it first-hand. Ditto for your un-stunnable target. I'd quite like to inspect them with my save editor, though, and ditto for the teleported unit. - <span style="font-size:xx-small">&nbsp;[[User:Bomb_Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] ([[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke|Talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Bomb_Bloke|Contribs]])</span> 05:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Thanks for scaling the images nice to see the wiki syntax. <br />
It's odd to here you say he didn't have enough Time Units left, because for me the move is allowed.<br />
Where did you get your 1.4 patch? <br />
I applied 1.4 too and am wondering if I got a bad version.<br />
Also did you get your original XCOM off GOG or some place like that?<br />
I have the original CD. I think it's the US version as I used to live there.<br />
<br />
== Time Units reset to 0 when soldier reaches 255 TUs ==<br />
<br />
I have been playing an old version of UFO: Enemy Unknown, where there is no limit on TUs for soldiers. At certain point, two of my best soldiers reached the limit of 255 TUs, which rendered them useless at now they have 0 TUs.<br />
I tried to reduce their TUs by editing Soldier.DAT, but it did not help. If I check soldiers from the base menu, I can see that the value has been changed, but in the battle their stats are still the same and thus they have 0 TUs and cannot be moved with.<br />
<br />
Do any of you know, how to fix this bug? Where is the limiter located, can I change it so that is will be as in the new versions? In any case, I believe this bug should be mentioned on the page. It is mentioned here though: http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php/Time_Units --[[User:Achernar|Achernar]] ([[User talk:Achernar|talk]]) 21:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Feel free to add the issue - the page is a hodge podge of whatever issues folks have at the time or as they come across them. <br />
<br />
: While I'm no expert on the file structure of the executable for the first release of the game, I suspect you'll find the cause for the byte roll-over feature is that there were no stat limiters to begin with. Best way to cope with it is to either retire anyone approaching supersoldier status to base defence duty, buy more soldiers and spread the experience out more evenly, or update to 1.4 and find a sound patch to restore the original sound samples. <br />
<br />
: For your broken soldier: I'm, assuming you edited the soldier.dat file. If you saved the game while in the battlescape, the game creates a temporary copy of the soldier stats and keeps them in unitref.dat. This is to keep track of in-battle status changes, experience, etc. You'll need to edit the current TU levels in this file as well. Or beat the mission with the soldiers that can move and you'll see your edits reflected in the next battle. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 05:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Fire rate bug & German version footsteps ==<br />
<br />
These don't seem to be documented for some reason: (DOS Version)<br />
<br />
<br />
The fire rate always resets to 3 if an alien or an alien mind controlled unit throws a grenade.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
If German is chosen as language to play, the footsteps of all soldiers, regardless of the terrain they walk on, will sound as if they are walking on a metal surface like the inside of the Skyranger, UFO or the base. [[User:Bard|Bard]] ([[User talk:Bard|talk]]) 05:38, 8 April 2019 (CEST)<br />
<br />
== Direct incendiary hit causing no reaction fire? ==<br />
<br />
On the Incendiary page, it is reported that a direct hit will not cause an alien to spin around and return fire. I have tested this in OpenXcom and find that the aliens do, in fact, return fire. If this can be confirmed in original X-Com, it would be good to add to known bugs.<br />
<br />
: It's safe to say everything you find on this wiki relating to the classic game pages were gleaned from the original games. OpenXcom, being an independently developed fan project, will have its own list of fixes and changes chronicled in its own documentation. In fact I would not be surprised that good deal of the more technical information on this wiki has been contributed by those that had some input into the OpenXcom project. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 05:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Stun_Rod&diff=101026Talk:Stun Rod2021-06-01T05:56:13Z<p>NKF: </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 />
::The Stun (and TFTD's drill attacks) are a separate attack subroutine from the normal firing modes that are affected by this, so whether or not its attributes are set to be a 2-handed or 1-handed item never come into effect. It's only listed as 2-handed because that's what's in the game data. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 05:55, 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>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:High_Explosive&diff=100859Talk:High Explosive2021-05-27T05:57:49Z<p>NKF: /* Blowing Through Exterior UFO in european version */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Blowing Through Interior Walls ==<br />
<br />
How good are (unmodified) High Explosives for blowing through interior walls of alien ships? I see the damage is 110, and that would seem to be enough, compared to other weapons that can blast through interior walls... I'm just wondering if it's a widely used tactic early in the game, prior to better explosives becoming available.<br />
<br />
[[User:Eric|Eric]] 17:37, 27 July 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
High Explosives aren't any good for that. 110 normal damage, sure, but against terrain explosives do half damage. 55 isn't even close. I think the Hovertank's Fusion Bomb is enough to poke through inner walls though. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 08:59, 28 July 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
HE (object damage 55) can only take out Navigation consoles (damage 50) -- so in effect, there is only one UFO inner wall that it can destroy: the center-western tile of an [[Abductor]]'s bridge. HWP Fusion can destroy those, flashing walls, and the green computer panel-walls found in a number of places. See [[Destroying_Terrain#UFO_structures]].<br />
<br />
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 10:01, 29 July 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== HE Pack - realistic equivalents, tactics, suggested changes ==<br />
<br />
I use XcomUtil to play with, which I generally like, as it usually either makes things harder, or at least more realistic, or both (the notable exception being the high performance air superiority fighters that have spare luggage space for 6 heavily armed commandos or a small tank). However I'm getting unhappy with the excessive effectiveness of XcomUtil's version of High Explosive and the tactical difference this makes. <br />
<br />
It does seem logical that human explosives could perforate an alien hull. After all, every crashed UFO can be (and probably has been) brought down with conventional explosive warheads as found in a cannon shell, or a Stingray or Avalanche missile warhead (realistic 1999 equivalents - Vulcan, Sidewinder/Sparrow, Phoenix). It's feasible that something similar to the <u>warheads</u> of these aircraft weapons could be man-carried and used in the field with some degree of success. <br />
<br />
Also, XcomUtil writer Scott Jones had a good point that you shouldn't put an item in a game if it is useless, it spoils the game and reduces the number of options. So it was good to rehabilitate the HE pack and raise its HE damage power to 200 so that it can be effectively used to breach UFO walls. However after playing this tactically for a day or so I have some fairly random observations:<br />
<br />
1. Maybe reduce the HE power a bit, so that the probability of breaching the hull is lower. It seems to work nearly every time. One in two or one in three might be better, to put some risk and uncertainty into the operation. Not sure what that would mean for the HE power. 170 or so? Also that would mean Blaster Bomb rounds are still supreme, which they ought to be. <br />
<br />
2. A tactic I've been using is to rip a hole next to the UFO door and then drive into the UFO with a tank. It makes prisoner captures much easier as the aliens focus their fire on the tank. Your guys then swarm in with stun rods - especially if multiple breaches allow you to enter on flanks as well. One tank-sized hole and another personnel-sized hole at 90 degrees to it make short work of any resistance. I found it impossible to make 2 simulaneous adjacent breaches, maybe one charge destroys the other before it detonates properly (not unrealistic). So the tanks have to use the front door - they just widen it a bit. But still this is all getting a bit too easy. Part of the problem is that I'm using XcomUtil tanks and I think Scott Jones has made them a bit <b>too</b> tough. He gives them the same hull strength as the hovertanks have (but hovertanks are Alien Alloy-based). HWPs should be light armoured recon vehicles with fire support, not proper main battle tanks vs the aliens. <br />
<br />
3. The really dumb and unrealistic usage of HE packs is <u>throwing</u> them to the impact point. Since the pack only weighs twice the weight of a grenade, you can throw it half as far - a strong soldier can easily throw it further than its blast radius. So there is even the need for judging the timer delay to ensure a safe getaway, with the tactical uncertainty that brings. For game balance, and for realism, you should have to place it carefully against the door. It certainly should only work when in direct contact with the wall (I think that is the case actually). As far as 'realistic' equivalents go, a serious demolition pack is not twice the weight of a grenade and can't be thrown. The Realistic Equivalents section lists a 20lb C4 satchel charge. Something only twice as big as a grenade, say a kilo or so, would just be a 'large HE grenade' for blowing up huts and hovels, nothing that would touch alien hulls. I'm thinking something 20lbs or bigger with a shaped charge warhead that must be set in place. At the very least something like 2-3 TOW anti-tank missile warheads lashed together. No way could you throw that, and if you did throw it two or three squares, if it still exploded at all, it definitely would not breach anything - it would just make a big messy bang. Proper placement is essential (and a skill). The radius HE effect of the HE pack should be seen as an unavoidable side effect of an even more powerful directional shaped charge, purposely designed for armour-breaching. <br />
<br />
Anyway I would vote for increasing the weight of the HE charge way up, to maybe 12-18. If we could re-engineer the game I would say that throwing the HE pack automatically disarms it. The pack must be armed and <u>placed</u> directly on the breach area. For now I will just play that as a house rule I guess. <br />
<br />
In summary - reduce the HE power a bit, increase the weight a lot, pass them around but don't throw them onto the detonation point, and by the way make the XcomUtil tanks a bit less strong. That's some more work for me to do on the game files then!<br />
<br />
Or conversely, keep the same weight and ability to throw, but reduce the HE power down to something like a small rocket warhead, 75 or so. So that in effect it the realistic equivalent becomes a 'heavy grenade'. <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:27, 24 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:In regards to your issues... <br />
<br />
:1: Explosives always do half their damage rating listed in the UFOpaedia to terrain objects at Ground Zero. If an explosive is set any lower than 200 damage, the chance of breaching a UFO hull immediately drops to 0%.<br />
<br />
:2: Explosives in UFO Defense do destroy each other, yes(TFTD makes explosives invlunerable). Also, yes the main tanks are too tough, but in the early stages of the game, I always found four soldiers better than one tank.<br />
<br />
:3: We have no way of determining that 6 weight units are twice as much as 3 weight units; I'd in fact argue against this being true, since a standard human being certainly weighs a LOT more than 7 grenades!(A dead soldier in a Jumpsuit weighs 22 weight units, which is a bit more than 7 grenades. Adding personal armor adds 2 weight units to 24, 8 grenades, and a Power of Flying Suit increases it to 26, a bit less than 9 grenades.) A better way of measuring weight might be encumbrance, or the balance. Grenades and explosives tend to be balanced, whereas humans and larger weapons tend to be heavier in some areas than in others.<br />
<br />
:Other than that, increasing the weight of the HE pack is a trivial edit which can be done with any Hex Editing program. Open [[OBDATA.DAT]] in such and change the 'weight' field to the desired number. (It's the 43rd offset for the item.) If you can't do it yourself, drop me a line in email(there's a link on my talk page) with the changes you want to the normal XComUtil stats, and I'll do it for you and send you the file. Just remember how much a human weighs for comparison! [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:16, 24 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
A few thoughts of my own. I myself am quite happy the way it is. It doesn't need to be stronger or weaker. It doesn't have to be able to breach UFO walls - that's what makes BBs so special (and what makes spending the elerium worth it - assuming situations where you have to to construct the BBs). As is, the HE packs are still a good bang for the amount of resources you spend on them. But that's just how I see it. <br />
<br />
The only reason the HE pack is twice as heavy other grenades is because the other grenades are of weight 3 while the HE pack is weight 6. Effectively doubling its weight and halving the throwing distance. But how much weight it is in realistic terms - now that's where you can argue to you heart's content. The game measures item weight in strength units, not in kg's or pounds. <br />
<br />
It's reasonably heavy as it is. A brand new soldier's not going to be lobbing the thing about with ease unless getting one of the higher end starting strength levels. Even then it's not going to be a very far toss. <br />
<br />
I also don't think it looks as big as the inventory image depicts it to be. Again, compare the size of bodies. I'm imagining something the size of a small box with a coke tin on its side myself. <br />
<br />
There is also a serious flaw with setting charges: messed up experience attribution. Until the object is thrown, the game automatically assumes that unit 0 (if I'm not mistaken, unitpos.dat index numbering) owns the item - i.e. the guy on the equipment pile, or the first HWP on the ship. <br />
<br />
So you'll have to either throw the explosive at the ground and pick it up several turns before you set the charge, or throw it at the spot. Alternately, exploit the bug in a short grenade relay before setting the charge to give the experience (if any) to the second to last person in the chain. . <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]] 22:06, 24 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Well that gives me plenty to think about. Good point about real weight not being linear with in-game Weight, which does sound more like an 'encumbrance value'. Unfortunately throwing distance <b>is</b> linear with Weight. <br />
<br />
Also it's fair to say that regular HE packs can be quite useful as they are, which takes away another argument for changing them. Shame that the results of the explosion can't be random. Oh well. <br />
<br />
Thanks for the tip on OBDATA.dat, I will try that. <br />
For the improved (damage=200) HE packs; I will probably take the weight up to about 16, so they are hard to throw and similar to a heavy weapon. Given their 100% effectiveness in breaching a UFO hull, I think that's balanced. <br />
<br />
Or maybe I'll just go back to plain vanilla HE packs and quit worrying. :)<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 10:29, 25 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I always love to toss HE Packs in through the holes in the roofs of Medium and Large Scouts that I've shot down. I don't even need to go inside; they're all killed that way. Even easier if you have Flying Suits available. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 10:39, 25 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Blowing Through Exterior UFO in european version ==<br />
<br />
Anyone know truth to the rumor I've seen that in the original, UFO: Enemy Unknown, that the High-explosive pack could punch hole through the external UFO walls? maybe it wasn't that the pack had higher damage value, but that the exterior walls were just weak enough.<br />
<br />
That could be an interesting mod. I am interested to use High-Ex but think it seems pretty broken/OP in the XcomUtil mod<br />
<br />
[[User:Mugwump|Mugwump]] 16:41, 24 July 2021 (PST)<br />
<br />
: I don't have a copy to verify, but I suspect it may have correlated with the mountain map bug that resulted in weakened exterior walls. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 05:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Sidebar&diff=98538MediaWiki:Sidebar2020-11-17T20:29:41Z<p>NKF: Added other projects to sidebar</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 />
** 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>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=98420Talk:Main Page2020-11-11T04:11:01Z<p>NKF: /* 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 />
===Possible Compromise===<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<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)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:UFO_Incursions_(Apocalypse)&diff=95201Talk:UFO Incursions (Apocalypse)2020-08-04T10:22:54Z<p>NKF: /* Confusing Page Structure */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Inaccuracy?==<br />
I've just seen a fleet which is 665444. This doesn't appear anywhere on this page. It performs infiltration and seems to be the favoured alien fleet during week 4 if the aliens have all their ships (i.e. many of types 1-6). My guess is a typo in infiltration fleet 12. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 14:44, 18 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Naming==<br />
<br />
Air Raid? I'm going to test this with "Apocalypse Missions 100%" (Apoc'd) at the start with 5 craft of each available. What they do I think is just bomb a building to flatten it. I don't think a base assault is an air-raid since that falls under Infiltration.... it just so happens that the infiltration is a "your ownership building" chosen at random. [[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]] ([[User talk:EsTeR|talk]])<br />
<br />
:[[User:Darkpast]] suggested that name over "bombing" when we discussed it on another talk page. "Air raid" means bombing IRL. Also, base defences can occur either randomly from an infiltration mission, or from what's (incorrectly) been referred to as a "micronoid rain mission" - it's actually a scanning beam and once they've found your base every subsequent instance of this mission will drop aliens into it. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 08:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I just tested the above and the alien ships behave exactly like I'd expected. They flatten any building at random since I made sure to have every AI corp at neutral with aliens. Ahh, I just worked out that Air Raid has a slightly different meaning to what we though it was. The joys of language barriers and a global community. Thanks for the explanation. [[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]] ([[User talk:EsTeR|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Confusing Page Structure ==<br />
This page isn't really thought out properly. Micronoid Rain what is it and how its changed or why is it changed since everyone knows about the blue rain and that what it was always called. Where is it ufopedia with explaination on changes of the rain? Base Assault or Raiding (or should it be called base invasion?) Is that a bombing (explosions and leveling) or landing raid (like landing an overwhelming force)?<br />
<br />
Apoclaypse? hmm, yeah they send all at once but what do you call cityscape destruction bombing? An air RAID? but isn't raid a battlescape fight and not a bombing run?<br />
<br />
Gets confusing with BASE bombing/assault or air raid... yeah they land a force but it isn't a force! ...its a bombing run (they shouldn't be labeled similar). Gives me headache.<br />
<br />
:A good part of the confusion is because the Apocalypse section of the wiki is currently undergoing spring cleaning. See the discussion here for more info: [[Talk:Alien_Infiltration_(Apocalypse)]] <br />
:Also, the term "Micronoid Rain" was thought up by the community. It's not used in-game or even in the game files, and it's actually wrong - the UFOs are not dropping Micronoids, but searching for X-COM bases. [[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 12:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Micronoid Rain" is like TFTD's "USO", which wasn't in the game but coined by the players for convenience. It has become part of the gaming vocabulary by virtue of long term use. I believe it does need to be acknowledged at the very least. Mainly to explain why it is incorrect now and to put it into context. <br />
<br />
::With so little information about what was happening under the hood in the past, you can imagine the thought process of how the term may have come into existence by players discussing shared experiences and correlating a series of coinciding events together. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 05:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::Alright, fine. I'll give full descriptions of each mission here and we can discuss names.<br />
<br />
:::1) UFOs drop aliens into random buildings with the grey tube. If it happened to be your base, base attack mission. Otherwise, there are now aliens in the city causing alien infiltration. Starts at Week 1, and is the only mission for weeks 1-3.<br />
<br />
:::2) UFOs attack buildings (belonging to someone the aliens don't like) with vehicle weapons. Starts at Week 4.<br />
<br />
:::3) UFOs scan random structures with a blue "rain"-like scanning beam. If a structure contains an X-COM base, every following mission of this type diverts a UFO to drop aliens into that base (base attack mission). Only effect on other structures is that sometimes the structure owner will get mad and scramble craft to attack the UFO. Starts at Week 5.<br />
<br />
:::4) Mothership (it's always a Mothership) drops an Overspawn into the city. Allegedly starts at Week 7, but there won't be any Motherships to do it until Week 8.<br />
<br />
:::Go nuts. Suggest better names. I put in what Darkpast and I thought up for #2 and #3 and I wasn't too happy with them either, so if someone has a better idea I'm all ears. #2 and #3 were previously titled "Attack" and "Subversion" respectively, but those names are not acceptable; all missions except #1 are forms of attack, so #2 needs to be more specific, and #3 doesn't subvert anything so calling it "Subversion" (or "Micronoid Rain") is blatantly wrong.<br />
<br />
:::I'm planning on overhauling the Cityscape Fighting page to describe these missions, incidentally. I just haven't gotten around to it. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 02:10, 1 August 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::: I hope i can help things moving along. This is my suggestion:<br />
:::: I can't think of a title right now maybe "Mission Types and Actions" or something. It can't be alien specific becuase it mentions corps as well.<br />
:::: 1 This is obviously called Infiltration Mission and is thus titled within each corps page ingame pedia. Infiltration is suited because it is the most common thing in (the manual) what the aliens are doing. Infiltration of micronoid slime via a cloud-tube mechanism action when hovering briefly over a building (should place a GIF of the animation here). If the building happens to have an X-com facility (notice I didn't mention '''base''' here) when the aliens perform their infiltration action then it immediately become a Base Defense mission.<br />
:::: 2 Base Defense Mission. An xcom facility has come under attack from hostile forces. An X-com base has been invaded and must be defended with your troops (could be a pic here of the defense screen with the griffon tank). The hostiles could be aliens or a corporation hostile to X-Com. When aliens attack, you'll will see the cloudlike tube over your base from any alien craft. When corprotions attack, you have no warning and have no way to prevent it. Be prepared to defend all your bases with security (pic here of a security turret room and hotlink) and armed troops. Techniqcal personel cannot defend a base even with turrets. You must have stationed troops. When X-Com raids another corportion then X-com is the agressor and the target is performing a Base Defense Mission. (hotlink stun raid - my baby)"<br />
:::: 3 Bombing Mission. A blurb within the new descriptions should include something like "... this mission style is basically cityscape destruction to shoot and bomb the external building to cause it to collaspe, and for economic damage (could be a pic here of a bombber shooting a disruptor missile which is at mid collaped at a building but '''not''' an xcom base). If a X-Com building happens to be the target, then it is possible that the base within could be destroyed (pic of lose screen here possibly). A Bombing Mission can be preformed by any alien craft, not just the Bomber (hot link here to bomber, no pic necesaary). If a corporation is sufficently hostile to another then a "Illigal Flyer detected" will commence to bomb the chosen external building. (hot link to corpoation relations here)" I don't think having another subtitle for Illegal Flyer would be needed since it strictly is a bobming mission abeit suicidal.<br />
:::: 4 Micronoid Rain (obviously because that is what it looks like but not what is it). This blurb should be noted as first thing after the subtitle. "Micronoid Rain is a blue "rain" which falls from an alien craft when hovering over a building (animated pic here). Once commonly believed to be an attempt by Aliens to directly control the target corporation by immediate and total Infiltration (that is, an immediatel 100% infiltraion level) regardless of actual infiltration. The real purpose of the rain is to scan the building for an X-com base. If an x-com facilty (not callig it base here) is located then the aliens will, in the near future, perform an Infiltration Mission ie: a Base Defense mission will be coming soon!<br />
:::: 5 Overspawn Drop. Aliens will drop this large creature from a Mothership yadda no complaints here!<br />
<br />
:::: I don't like calling a Base Defense Mission a 'Base Raid' or calling a Bombing Mission an 'Air Raid' because there is an actual mission performed which of course is "Raid Corporation". Confusing can result.<br />
<br />
:::: THIS IS A spilling meatsteak brain diareahhhhha. I don't have the capability to insert images and I'll probably arse it up anyways. I'm small fry compared to you all here and someone who doesn't have to deal with the unwashed Whu-Flu masses running around like sneezy headless (blue?) chickens will do a better job than me. [[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]] ([[User talk:EsTeR|talk]])<br />
<br />
:::The plan is to have separate pages for X-Com mission types, corp actions and alien actions, the first for obvious reasons and the latter two because they have separate generation mechanisms. The first is already up at [[Tactical Combat Missions (Apocalypse)]].<br />
<br />
:::Base Defence (or as the manual calls it, Base Attack) is not a separate alien action; it's a possible consequence of two separate alien acts (each of which have their own characteristic UFO composition and mission likelihood) as well as a possible corporate action. Using my earlier numbering, the result of a #3 finding your base isn't a new mission; rather, any further #3 missions will include one UFO dropping aliens into your base. You can also get a Base Attack from a #1, but from the aliens' point of view that's a completely-different thing (and it will frequently involve different UFOs as well).<br />
<br />
:::I am absolutely opposed to calling #3 Micronoid Rain. It doesn't look like Micronoids; it was only called that because people thought it mind-controlled organisations and that would imply dropping Micronoids. It doesn't control organisations, therefore calling it Micronoid Rain is confusing and wrong. We can mention the "Micronoid Rain" myth in a footnote, but it cannot be the name of the mission. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 06:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Then what is the mission to be called which just about everyone who went to any forum over the years to discuss what that blue rain is? The cat is out of the bag and you cannot undo thousands of forum posts which novice players will look to when having questions - eventually micronoid rain will pop up. Micronoid Rain is what it is known to be called. Its completely wrong but everyone uses it hence, that immediate blurb about what it actually is. Kevlar is a known name. Aramid is its actual name. How many people have actually heard of Aramid? Micronoid Rain is its known name.... [[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]] ([[User talk:EsTeR|talk]])<br />
<br />
: It's certainly what it has been known by. I've called it by that. However I do think a more fitting term would be better if one can be decided on. By the way I've only really caught the whole Micronoid Rain thing on the tail end. Was the test on the blue beam done to see if there was an immediate alliance flip, or was some time allowed after that to observe the behaviour of the affected company? [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 10:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:UFO_Incursions_(Apocalypse)&diff=94894Talk:UFO Incursions (Apocalypse)2020-07-31T05:53:49Z<p>NKF: /* Confusing Page Structure */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Inaccuracy?==<br />
I've just seen a fleet which is 665444. This doesn't appear anywhere on this page. It performs infiltration and seems to be the favoured alien fleet during week 4 if the aliens have all their ships (i.e. many of types 1-6). My guess is a typo in infiltration fleet 12. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 14:44, 18 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
==Naming==<br />
<br />
Air Raid? I'm going to test this with "Apocalypse Missions 100%" (Apoc'd) at the start with 5 craft of each available. What they do I think is just bomb a building to flatten it. I don't think a base assault is an air-raid since that falls under Infiltration.... it just so happens that the infiltration is a "your ownership building" chosen at random. [[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]] ([[User talk:EsTeR|talk]])<br />
<br />
:[[User:Darkpast]] suggested that name over "bombing" when we discussed it on another talk page. "Air raid" means bombing IRL. Also, base defences can occur either randomly from an infiltration mission, or from what's (incorrectly) been referred to as a "micronoid rain mission" - it's actually a scanning beam and once they've found your base every subsequent instance of this mission will drop aliens into it. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 08:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I just tested the above and the alien ships behave exactly like I'd expected. They flatten any building at random since I made sure to have every AI corp at neutral with aliens. Ahh, I just worked out that Air Raid has a slightly different meaning to what we though it was. The joys of language barriers and a global community. Thanks for the explanation. [[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]] ([[User talk:EsTeR|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Confusing Page Structure ==<br />
This page isn't really thought out properly. Micronoid Rain what is it and how its changed or why is it changed since everyone knows about the blue rain and that what it was always called. Where is it ufopedia with explaination on changes of the rain? Base Assault or Raiding (or should it be called base invasion?) Is that a bombing (explosions and leveling) or landing raid (like landing an overwhelming force)?<br />
<br />
Apoclaypse? hmm, yeah they send all at once but what do you call cityscape destruction bombing? An air RAID? but isn't raid a battlescape fight and not a bombing run?<br />
<br />
Gets confusing with BASE bombing/assault or air raid... yeah they land a force but it isn't a force! ...its a bombing run (they shouldn't be labeled similar). Gives me headache.<br />
<br />
:A good part of the confusion is because the Apocalypse section of the wiki is currently undergoing spring cleaning. See the discussion here for more info: [[Talk:Alien_Infiltration_(Apocalypse)]] <br />
:Also, the term "Micronoid Rain" was thought up by the community. It's not used in-game or even in the game files, and it's actually wrong - the UFOs are not dropping Micronoids, but searching for X-COM bases. [[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 12:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: "Micronoid Rain" is like TFTD's "USO", which wasn't in the game but coined by the players for convenience. It has become part of the gaming vocabulary by virtue of long term use. I believe it does need to be acknowledged at the very least. Mainly to explain why it is incorrect now and to put it into context. <br />
<br />
::With so little information about what was happening under the hood in the past, you can imagine the thought process of how the term may have come into existence by players discussing shared experiences and correlating a series of coinciding events together. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 05:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Anthropod_(Apocalypse)&diff=94410Anthropod (Apocalypse)2020-07-28T04:47:42Z<p>NKF: /* Tactical Notes */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Ref Open | title = Anthropod}}[[Image:Anthropod_(Alive).jpg|right]]<br />
The Anthropod is capable of performing all the actions of an equivalent human soldier and can use weapons and equipment. It can feed voraciously, but strangely it does not seem to live very long in our environment, with a life span of only five days. There seems to be no further stage of development beyond this form.<br />
{{Ref Close | source = X-COM Apocalypse Ufopedia}}<br />
<br />
{{Ref Open | title = Anthropod Autopsy}}[[Image:Anthropod_Autopsy.jpg|right]]<br />
This creature was built for warfare, immensely strong and aggressive. Underneath the thick outer skin a significant digestive system is revealed. There is a well protected brain structure that seems to match human size in terms of its neuron count. The well formed brain is vulnerable to Psionic influence although it is not capable of Psionic attacks. This indicates an important weakness of this species. The tissues recovered from this specimen will contribute to our biological warfare research.<br />
{{Ref Close | source = X-COM Apocalypse Ufopedia}}<br />
<br />
{{Infobox open}}<br />
{{Apocalypse Statbox Module<br />
| name = Anthropod<br />
| time_units = 56-64<br />
| health = 60-69<br />
| stamina = 30-34.5<br />
| reactions = 22-25<br />
| strength = 35<br />
| bravery = 80<br />
| psi_energy = 0<br />
| psi_attack = 0<br />
| psi_defense = 40-49<br />
| accuracy = 0-16<br />
}}<br />
{{Apocalypse Statbox Module/Hidden<br />
| armor_head = 5-8<br />
| armor_torso = 6-9 <br />
| armor_arms = 6-9<br />
| armor_legs = 5-8<br />
| score = 10<br />
| size_X = 32<br />
| size_Y = 5<br />
}}<br />
{{Apocalypse Statbox Module/Unique Stats<br />
| damage_modifier_group = Anthropod<br />
| inventory = yes<br />
| innate_weapon = none<br />
| unique_attributes = none<br />
}}<br />
{{Infobox close}}<br />
<br />
<br />
The Anthropod is the basic footsoldier of the alien forces, and the first of only two species of aliens that can use tools. It resembles a vein-covered blue-skinned humanoid with no neck and thick elephant-like limbs with pincers for manipulating objects. <br />
<br />
Anthropods are, along with the [[Brainsucker_(Apocalypse)|Brainsuckers]], the first aliens that will normally be encountered by X-COM. One or more of them are hiding in one of Mega-Primus's buildings at the beginning of the game; an alert will be raised when they are discovered, prompting X-COM to perform its first building investigation.<br />
<br />
Encountered in all manned UFOs and all alien buildings except the [[Dimension Gate Generator]], usually in large quantities, Anthropods will also be deployed as part of all alien [[Alien_Infiltration_(Apocalypse)|infiltration forces]]. If unchecked, they will spread through the buildings of Mega-Primus and work towards turning the organizations that own them to the alien cause.<br />
<br />
Anthropods are one of the possible aliens that can emerge from a [[Chrysalis_(Apocalypse)|Chrysalis]] if it survives long enough. As the in-game Ufopedia notes, they will not develop into any further form, and all infiltrators will eventually die off.<br />
<br />
Anthropods make growling noises, which can alert X-COM agents to their presence even if they are not yet visible.<br />
<br />
==Tactical Notes==<br />
<br />
Anthropods are the alien equivalent to X-COM's soldiers. Except for their higher Bravery and Health, their stats are on par with or lower than that of human troops. Their mediocre Speed and Stamina limit their mobility, while their Accuracy ranges from poor to abysmal, depending on difficulty level. Their Health advantage is effectively negated by their low armor ratings. Contrary to the in-game Ufopaedia's claim, their Strength is also rather low. Anthropods are slightly more difficult to affect with [[Mind Bender]] psionic attacks than most humans, though still quite vulnerable.<br />
<br />
Thanks to their ability to use weapons and tools, Anthropods quickly progress from being minor nuisances to dangerous threats as alien field equipment technology evolves. At the beginning of the game, Anthropods will only be equipped with Brainsucker Launchers and cannot directly damage X-COM troops, but as the war progresses and the aliens begin to take X-COM more seriously they will be equipped with [[Disruptor_Gun|disruptor]] [[Devastator_Cannon|weapons]], grenades and eventually [[Dimension_Missile_Launcher|Dimension Missile Launchers]]. Their modest defensive capabilities will be greatly improved once they gain access to [[Personal_Disruptor_Shield|shields]] and [[Personal_Cloaking_Field|cloaking devices]]. The latter will also allow them to attack X-COM agents from outside the agents' visual range.<br />
<br />
Anthropods are intelligent enough to use basic tactics. For example, they can kneel or go prone to increase the accuracy of their shots, retreat when clearly outmatched, and use [[Megapol Smoke Grenade|smoke grenades]] to conceal their advance or cancel out harmful gas or fire. If disarmed, they will pick up and use almost any weapon they find lying on the ground. However, when using high explosives, they possess absolutely no sense of self-preservation and will use them to attack nearby targets, regardless of the danger to their own selves or any nearby allies or explosive terrain objects.<br />
<br />
One danger involving mid-to-late game Anthropods comes from the sheer number of explosives they carry. As the aliens are cut down, the combat zone will quickly become littered with dropped [[Vortex Mine|Vortex Mines]] and [[Boomeroid|Boomeroids]], which can easily set off a chain explosion powerful enough to seriously damage or kill even the best-protected X-COM Agents.<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[Aliens (Apocalypse)|Aliens]]<br />
* [[Alien Life Forms (Apocalypse)|Alien Life Forms]]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Unit Navbar (Apocalypse)}}<br />
[[Category: Apocalypse]]<br />
[[Category: Aliens (Apocalypse)]]<br />
[[Category: Research (Apocalypse)]]</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Psimorph_(Apocalypse)&diff=91772Talk:Psimorph (Apocalypse)2020-07-10T05:29:26Z<p>NKF: Belated timestamp</p>
<hr />
<div>I have to say I find it distasteful when articles seem to suggest using what's clearly an exploit - in this case the Mind Shield trick - as if it were a legitimate tactic. I'd suggest removing that sentence (the exploit is already explained on the Mind Shield's page), or at least clearly marking it as an exploit, preferably in a separate section. [[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 12:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:You will probably find lots of these all over the place. Feel free to change them as required. Many of them are remnants of info dumps just to fill the page or because there wasn't anywhere to put this information. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 05:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Psimorph_(Apocalypse)&diff=91763Talk:Psimorph (Apocalypse)2020-07-10T00:18:26Z<p>NKF: </p>
<hr />
<div>I have to say I find it distasteful when articles seem to suggest using what's clearly an exploit - in this case the Mind Shield trick - as if it were a legitimate tactic. I'd suggest removing that sentence (the exploit is already explained on the Mind Shield's page), or at least clearly marking it as an exploit, preferably in a separate section. [[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 12:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:You will probably find lots of these all over the place. Feel free to change them as required. Many of them are remnants of info dumps just to fill the page or because there wasn't anywhere to put this information. Also I cannot find the tilde key on this Android keypad to timestamp this reply. Will correct later. - NKF</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Known_Bugs_(Apocalypse)&diff=91689Known Bugs (Apocalypse)2020-07-07T05:58:53Z<p>NKF: /* Tactical section bugs */ Fun with ammo consolidation</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cityscape bugs ==<br />
<br />
=== Firing Infatuated Agents ===<br />
This happens if you have more than twenty combat agents (or biochemists, or engineers, or quantum physicists) assigned to single base. Only the first twenty specialists are visible in the hire/fire interface. The others cannot be fired from the agent interface.<br />
<br />
Firing specialist (agent, biochemist, engineer or physicist) #1 fires agent #21 (and engineer #21 if present, and quantum physicist #21 if present) as well.<br />
Firing specialist #2 fires agent #22 (and engineer #22 if present, and quantum physicist #22 if present) as well.<br />
<br />
And so on.<br />
<br />
To fire >#20 specialists one needs to "transfer" some <#20 specialists to other base.<br />
Then it's still only possible to fire only first 20 specialists, but those which were further down the line are now visible.<br />
This can be done without unpausing - so it's possible to transfer those specialists back once proper guys/gals have been fired.<br />
<br />
=== Rendor Plasma Shot Undercount ===<br />
Per [[User:NKF|NKF]]'s research ( http://www.xcomufo.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=242028127 ), the Rendor Plasma gun (an air vehicle weapon) actually has all 140 of the shots it used when loading up. The game divides this by two, reporting 70 shots.<br />
<br />
=== Is that base yours ? ===<br />
When aliens get to your base by spreading through the tubes, the game treats your base as if it was a building owned by the government.<br />
Hence, the alien activity will start growing on the government, if aliens are spotted you will have an alarm, and if you start a mission, you will combat in a standard warehouse or slum scenario, rather than in your base.<br />
<br />
* Possibly not a bug since it appears that X-COM bases are located underground, i.e. in the basement levels of said buildings.<br />
<br />
=== Battleship ''ex nihilo'' ===<br />
One of the Infiltration fleets (#17 on the UFO Incursions page) consists of one Battleship that inserts aliens, one Escort Ship, and one Battleship that bombs a building. This is the only UFO fleet in the game that has the same UFO type performing two different missions, and as such it runs afoul of a bug in the spawn routine. See, when checking whether there are enough UFOs for a fleet, the game checks for the presence of each UFO group ''separately'', and the two Battleships are in different groups. As such, the game checks for whether there is 1 Battleship, 1 Escort Ship and 1 Battleship, ''not'' whether there is 1 Escort Ship and 2 Battleships, and may erroneously spawn this fleet (with both Battleships) even if there is only one Battleship in the Alien Dimension.<br />
<br />
=== Time Lapse ===<br />
If too many vehicles are on the Cityscape at the same time, you cannot choose the "Ultra Fast" time control option. This usually happens on the biggest Mega-Prime map on Superhuman where, due to the way some roads are connected in a criss-cross pattern with eachother, sometimes vehicles get stuck moving in circles eternally or if in one of those criss-cross sections of the map one exit was destroyed during UFO fights the vehicles will be unable to pathfind another way out, as they seem to try and always go for the shortest path, even if that one is destroyed, and will never try to go for an alternate longer path, regardless if one is available or not. To solve this issue, you have to use an X-Com Craft to either directly destroy some of the vehicles or use the Manual Craft Control ('''M''' to activate, '''LMB''' to shoot) to destroy the road/bridge the vehicles are on (no reputation loss).<br />
<br />
===65535 Widget Bug===<br />
You may sometimes find a store item with an unusually high count of 65535 or close to that amount. This bug occurs when the item count somehow goes into a negative value. Because item counters are instanced as unsigned integers, the negative will wrap back around to the highest value that it can hold. In this case, 65535. <br />
<br />
One such example of how this could occur is when shifting an unresearched alien artefact that is instanced in both the air and ground transfer screens. If the item sliders are not locked and can be moved independently, you may be able to send more items than you physically own and put the store count into the negative. <br />
<br />
Note that the user interface will properly report the negative count before you commit the item transfer. <br />
<br />
With 65535 instances of any single item, this bug can easily be used as a money exploit. <br />
<br />
===Storage alchemy===<br />
When you sell off all of an alien artifact and it disappears from the sell screen, the game doesn't always re-point your stores correctly. One known possibility is all your Elerium-115 (potentially several hundred) being transmuted into GLM Air Defenses when Cloaking Fields are sold off.<br />
<br />
=== Crazy transportation ===<br />
If you hire new men and the road to access your base is broken, your men will pick a car but will not be able to reach the base and will keep turning around and around. But as soon as you set the "ultratime" on he will get to the base regardless the road was repaired or not.<br />
<br />
=== X-COM Recyclotorium - Superhuman ===<br />
<br />
On the Superhuman map X-COM is assigned the ownership to the [[Recyclotorium_(Apocalypse)|Recyclotorium]] Two building.<br />
<br />
This is most likely an oversight by the maps creator. Recyclotoriums usually are only owned by [[Evonet]], while X-COM can only obtain ownership to base facilities.<br />
<br />
This bug decreases the difficulty on Superhuman immensly, as during [[Cityscape_Fighting_(Apocalypse)#Retaliation|Alien Retaliation]] attacks all the UFO's will most of the time target the Recyclotorium building instead of the X-COM base, completely averting any threat to the player as there is no fear of your base collapsing and possibly killing all your personell. Along with there being almost no missions at that building, as the UFO's rarely tend to directly drop Aliens into X-COM owned buildings.<br />
<br />
This can be fixed with the modding programme '''Apoc'd''' by assigning the ownership of the Recyclotorium Two building back to Evonet:<br />
<br />
<gallery widths="200px"><br />
Image:Evorecyclo.png|<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
=== No music bug ===<br />
<br />
Whenever you save a game or sometimes when you end a battlescape mission, the music seems to stop playing. However, all that happens is that the music volume gets set down to 1 during the post battle screen or when you save the game, and fails to set itself back to its previous value. (you can still hear the music if you listen closely)<br />
<br />
There are 4 ways of solving this:<br />
<br />
1. Enter the options screen and simply uncheck and check the master volume slider.<br />
:(this will cause the current music track to get skipped or start from the beginning)<br />
<br />
2. Move the master volume slider a bit to the left/right and then back to your desired position.<br />
:(this will prevent the track from being skipped / starting from the beginning)<br />
<br />
3. Wait until the next music track plays, the volume will be correct with the next track playing.<br />
:(you might have to sit through 2-3 mins of silence)<br />
<br />
4. Playing with the original CD reduces but not fully removes this bug. During the CD access to play the next track the volume usually gets set back to its proper value.<br />
<br />
=== UFO Incursion - Battle Music ===<br />
<br />
Usually you only get an eerie/slightly more worrisome music track playing (Uneasy Calm / The Infestation) during UFO incursions and rarely the battle music (Kill them ALL / Chase) will play.<br />
<br />
This is most likely intended design, as the more hype battle music will only play during Apocalypse missions and only if enough UFOs are present. Around 5-6 UFOs minimum are required for the game to play the more threatening sounding tracks. It'll also continue playing as long as enough downed UFOs are still present on the map. Once you recover the wracks and the number of present UFOs on the Cityscape falls below the 5-6 threshold, the music will change back to Uneasy Calm/The Infestation and then back to normal, once all UFOs are recovered/expired.<br />
<br />
Due to this, the more hype battle music can and will play regardless of the UFO incursion mission, as long as enough UFOs appear. Though it is most likely meant to only play during the Apocalypse mission.<br />
<br />
===Vehicle Repair Bay Placement in Starting Base===<br />
<br />
The starting base may have a bizarrely placed [[Vehicle_Repair_Bay_(Apocalypse)|Vehicle Repair Bay]]. In the case shown below, it also takes up the two "empty" squares to the lower-left of the Access Lift.<br />
<br />
<gallery widths="200px"><br />
Image:Apocalypse_base_bug.png|<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
== Tactical section bugs ==<br />
<br />
=== Poor pathway finding ===<br />
The pathway finding algorithm will choose very poor paths when you move your men in the turn based version of the game.<br />
The path chosen will be OK only if you your men can reach their destination following a straight path and there are no obstacles around. Otherwise it will pick very crazy routes. The behaviour of the algorithm is particularly crazy when you are using flying units and more complicate routes can be chosen. <br />
Also, the path that your men follows when you move appears to be different from the one selected to predict the TUs left after the move, so that this prediction is often incorrect.<br />
<br />
=== Agents travelling in time ===<br />
When you start a mission in turn based mode, the clock will advance by a few seconds after each turn.<br />
But after that you have completed the mission it will get back to the time before mission started. The odd part is that the ship carrying the agents is ready to take off.<br />
<br />
=== No night missions! ===<br />
Missions will always happen in the light, even if it is night and the mission takes place outside of any building.<br />
<br />
=== Quarreling with Transtellar is dangerous! ===<br />
If you happen to upset Transtellar your men will not be able to move using transtellar cars. <br />
If you hire some men they will try to get to your base through the tubes, but they often will not be able to get to your base and remain stuck in another building. <br />
At this point if you then succeed into getting a better relationship with Transtellar, your men will not immediately get to your base, and some of them might remain stuck into their positions even running the ultratime.<br />
One way to unlock the agents is to transfer them temporarily to another base, another is to order the agent to any nearby building and then send a vehicle to pick them up.<br />
<br />
=== Visual glitches ===<br />
There are some glitches when you move your men flying very high, especially if tall structures are around.<br />
You will see "shadows" to appear and move here and there, and, after movement is completed, they will not be cleared until you force a complete redraw of the screen.<br />
<br />
=== Resistance bug ===<br />
In the turn-based mode when you are flying with the marsec armour at high speed (running) the stamina is unaffected, so that you can run as long as you like and each move has a reduced TUs cost. But if you run out of stamina everything works as if you were walking: the TUs cost of your movements is increased.<br />
<br />
=== Spying capabilities ===<br />
In turn based mode if you spot one or more aliens and you end your turn, the first steps of the alien that moves first (among the ones that you have spotted) are always visible, regardless that the alien is outside of the visual range of any of your men.<br />
<br />
=== Big aliens visibility bug ===<br />
Big aliens (Megaspawn, psymorphs) might not be visible to your men if part of their body is hidden behind structures. Even if the alien is sitting in front of you and half of its body is in sight.<br />
<br />
=== Items limit in tactical combat ===<br />
There seems to be a limit of items in tactical combat (roughly 500). If one takes a full contingent - 36 agents - to a combat, if there's too much equipment in their inventory some agents may not spawn and/or aliens (Anthropods and Skeletoids) may spawn without equipment. This *may* be a good exploit for dangerless tactical missions, but it will *not* give any points/credits for equipment that is missing - since it's not present.<br />
<br />
=== Ammunition consolidation bug===<br />
<br />
In the agent equipment screen during tactical combat, ammunition can be combined by picking up an ammunition clip and then dropping it onto the same type of clip held in the inventory. <br />
<br />
This is not necessarily a bug and likely intended to allow the player to consolidate partial clips such as those used in multi-munition weapons. <br />
<br />
What is most likely unintended is that no bounds checking is performed to ensure that the target clip is only refilled to its maximum capacity. Instead the ammunition count for both clips are combined onto the target clip. The held clip on the other hand will be left with a count of 0. <br />
<br />
This process can be repeated several times to consolidate multiple clips into a single large clip that only takes up the space of one. <br />
<br />
This is a storage space exploit only. The game will still calculate the correct weight of the gestalt ammo clip and weigh down the agent appropriately. A Marsec Heavy Launcher Rocket with a count of 10 for example will still weigh as much as 10 rockets. <br />
<br />
Brainsucker Pods left with a count of 0 will not hatch. <br />
<br />
<br />
=== Android Resistances ===<br />
By default, [[Agents_(Apocalypse)#Androids|Androids]] are assigned the Human resistance values. Meaning, they will just as quickly fall unconscious to stun damage as Humans and Hybrids, causing Androids to take 100% Stun Gas and 100% Stun (Stun Grapple, Psionics) damage instead of 0% Stun Gas and 20% Stun damage as well as taking 100% Incendiary damage ('''IN''' Ammunition, Diablo Incendiary Grenade) instead of only 60%. <br />
<br />
Note that this '''cannot''' be fixed by using modding programs such as "'''Apoc'd'''", which can be found here: http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/apocd/, and assigning Androids to the Android Damage Modifier. The reason for this is that Androids are assigned the "X-COM Agents" role, as every soldier is (Humans as well as Hybrids). The "X-COM Agents" role however is assigned the "Human" Damage Modifier Group, which take priority over each individual damage modifier class and therefore overrides the "Android" modifier with the "Human" modifier again. S.E.L.F. units (building security) are treated as humans and will not be affected by this change, either.<br />
<br />
<gallery widths="200px"><br />
Image:Apocd android.png|<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
=== Inventory Soft Lock ===<br />
<br />
If you manage to open the inventory screen just as your soldier is dying, the game will softlock itself.<br />
<br />
This can happen in Turn Based mode, if you approach a Popper who starts its reaction turn while your soldier is still walking towards it and you click the inventory button just at that very moment.<br />
<br />
When the soldier dies just as the inventory screen is up the entire interface will be corrupted. If you hit the bottom right button, it'll return to the battlescape screen and everything will look normal again, however the game will still act as if you were in the inventory screen.<br />
<br />
You will be unable to move your soldiers, shoot, turn, etc. and pressing any of the buttons, even the end turn button, will result in nothing happening.<br />
<br />
There is no known work-around. If this happens you will have to restart the game.<br />
<br />
== Design flaws ==<br />
<br />
=== Cannot choose men in base defense missions ===<br />
When an enemy corporation attacks one of your bases you will be immediately engaged into a base defense mission.<br />
The tactical screen limits to 35 the number of people that you can use in a mission.<br />
If there are more than 35 people in the base, only 35 will be active in the mission and you are not given any choice which man to use.<br />
You might find yourself fighting with injured agents or with poor agents that you were training.<br />
<br />
=== Cannot rotate the view ===<br />
Shorter aliens (Brainsuckers, eggs, multiworms, hyperworms) might be covered by taller structures, making them hard to see or tell apart.<br />
Being able to rotate the view would fix this.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Learning AI Bugs ==<br />
<br />
The Learning AI is a fragile but amazingly cool feature of X-COM Apocalypse. Unfortunately it tends to easily break or not work at all with certain distributions of the game.<br />
<br />
=== Why it doesn't work with digital distributions (Steam/GoG/own (il)legal Copy) ===<br />
<br />
The Learning AI is dependent on the physical location of the Learning AI files on an original physical CD, as the CD is segmented into several physical sections visible with the eye. Digital distributions such as the Steam or GoG version use .iso/.bin .cue files that are directly mounted in DOSBox, hence making the important files all available on a single track without that physical separation which then prevents the Learning AI from functioning. The Learning AI files (EXPERIEN.DAT, BRAIN.DAT, WEAPEXP.DAT) will still update and adjust themselves according to your tactics (this counts for all distributions/localizations), however the Learning AI will fail to activate and make use of it. The same counts for mounting the file on a virtual drive and using that with DOSBox.<br />
<br />
Burning the .iso/.bin .cue files onto a CD will also not make it work, as the tracks will not be in the exact same location / read order the AI requires them to be in. This also means that certain official CD distributions of X-COM Apocalypse, such as certain localizations/versions/re-releases, also have the issue of the tracks being in an order that completely breaks the Learning AI.<br />
<br />
Additionally, only direct CD clones of the original CD with identical burn marks on the backside of the CD will have a working Learning AI. Self created .iso files (from a CD with working AI) or other burning methods other than a 1:1 clone will again result in a broken Learning AI.<br />
<br />
=== Confirmed functioning Learning AI ===<br />
<br />
Currently only 2 UK versions are confirmed to have a working Learning AI, these 2 versions carry following serial numbers:<br />
<br />
UK Original Release: '''MP191 207 D01R'''<br />
<br />
UK Powerplus Release: '''PP191 207D01R'''<br />
<br />
Fortunately, those serial numbers appear quite often on second hand sales, as they were the main version distributed in Europe in countries without their own localization, and will always work through DOSBox, as long as you own a CD/DVD Drive and have it mounted in DOSBox. The serial numbers are clearly visible in big letters on the CD itself.<br />
<br />
Additionally, the 1.03 North American version is said to also have a fully working Learning AI, unfortunately there are no more details like a serial number or actual confirmation of a working Learning AI about this version, as that version is relatively hard to find.<br />
<br />
=== What breaks the AI ===<br />
<br />
1. '''Stun raids'''<br />
<br />
They will scramble the data created in the WEAPEXP.DAT file.<br />
<br />
2. '''Savegame loading / editing'''<br />
<br />
Breaks the Learning AI by jumping values. Editing savegames, or starting a new savegame then returning to an old save will break the decision matrix, too.<br />
<br />
Therefore, stay with one savegame and do no reloading. This also counts for when you advance in the game (had battles) but end it without saving, close the game and start it again and reload the latest savegame.<br />
<br />
3. '''Any general game exploit / unintended game mechanic'''<br />
<br />
In short: Play straight. No cheating, no cheesing, no reloading savegames, if you want to enjoy and experience the exciting Learning AI.<br />
<br />
4. '''Virtual Drives / .iso / .bin .cue'''<br />
<br />
In general, anything that is not a physical CD will prevent the Learning AI from working.<br />
<br />
Currently there isn't enough testing done to detail what does and doesn't work. However, the Steam and GoG implementation of .iso / .bin .cue, directly mounted into DOSBox, will prevent the Learning AI from working.<br />
<br />
5. '''Certain localizations / releases'''<br />
<br />
Though no extensive information is available, it is assumed that the German/French/Italian/Russian/etc. localizations do not have a working AI due to the way the CD's data was written on them.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Following releases are confirmed to have a '''NOT''' working AI, due to not being 1:1 clones, causing the Learning AI files to be on different tracks than in the original release:<br />
<br />
'''UK Hasbro Interactive Release 1.00: 51747.331.DL (Disc 2)'''<br />
<br />
'''US/NA 1.00 Release (Multiworm CD Cover) (No serial number available)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
6. '''Installing the game from any other source other than the original CD through a physical CD/DVD Drive'''<br />
<br />
Yes, the AI is that fragile.<br />
[[Category: Apocalypse]]<br />
<br />
=== Please Insert CD Bug ===<br />
<br />
The "Please Insert CD Bug" that many players suffer from on modern distributions (Steam/GoG), whenever they start a battlescape mission, is tightly tied to all this mess. It too is dependent on a physical CD and will not occur on official distributions as long as they are played with the original CD on a physical CD/DVD drive.<br />
<br />
The main reason for that happening with the Steam/GoG version is because both those versions use the minimal installation setting on top of having the image file directly mounted via DOSBox, as well as the data from the mounted image files being read too fast.<br />
<br />
<br />
The "Please Insert CD Bug" cannot be completely mitigated, however you can cut down the frequency at which this happens:<br />
<br />
<br />
Simply copy the "'''XCOM3'''" folder from the "CD/.iso/.bin .cue" onto your PC.<br />
<br />
(whereever you have designated C:\ to be for DOSBox i.e. C:\Games\DOSBox\Games\"HERE")<br />
<br />
Then rename the folder to "'''XCOMA'''" and then do a '''fresh install (200 MB optimal installation)''' on top of the folder.<br />
<br />
That way, even with a virtual drive / image file, the error message won't occur as often anymore. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''However, keep in mind that you should still save before starting ANY battlescape mission, i.e. UFO Recoveries, Investigations and Raids.'''<br />
As this mitigation will only lower the frequency of that bug but not completely remove it, you do not want to lose an hour or two of progress.<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, directly mounting image files into DOSBox is not a good idea, as the integrated mounting system for image files is horrible and can lead to errors during gameplay.<br />
<br />
Instead just mount the image file with Windows and then mount the assigned CD Drive as cdrom in DOSBox, as example:<br />
<br />
'''mount d f:\ -t cdrom -usecd NUMBER'''<br />
<br />
"F:\" being the drive Windows 10 assignes the mounted image file.<br />
<br />
<br />
(to find out what number to put into "NUMBER", type "mount -cd" into DOSBox and then enter the number that is shown left from the drive. I.e. '''0. E:\ 1. F:\''', in this case it should be "-usecd 1".<br />
DOSBox has to be started AFTER you have mounted the image file with Windows for it to show its drive letter.)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Funky installation / UFO2P.exe TAC2P.exe and UFO2P4.exe TAC2P4.exe ==<br />
<br />
When installing Apocalypse the installed '''UFO2P.exe''' and '''TAC2P.exe''' files inside the '''UFOEXE''' and '''TACEXE''' folders are not the actual '''UFO2P.exe''' and '''TAC2P.exe''' files. Instead, the installation takes the UFO2P4.exe TAC2P4.exe files and renames them to UFO2P.exe and TAC2P.exe to be used instead.<br />
<br />
The UFO2P.exe and TAC2P.exe files were designed for 486 computers with less performance and processing power while the UFO2P4.exe and TAC2P4.exe were designed for the newer Pentium processors.<br />
<br />
The direct differences between these files are not known to me, however mixing them up can cause weird errors to happen in the game. (one example is the current GoG Galaxy installation where this exactly happens)<br />
<br />
<br />
All modding programmes (like Apoc'd) as well as most game mechanics and formulas discovered are taken from the renamed UFO2P4.exe and TAC2P4.exe files. Therefore using Apoc'd on the original UFO2P.exe and TAC2P.exe files will cause errors and weird bugs.<br />
<br />
<br />
To prevent any weird installation behaviours it is recommended to simply copy the '''XCOM3''' folder from the '''CD''' over to your games directory, rename the folder to '''XCOMA''' and then doing a fresh full installation on top of that. Optionally, also copy the "'''music'''" file from the CD over to where the '''XCOMA''' folder is located (not inside of it).</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Known_Bugs_(Apocalypse)&diff=91666Known Bugs (Apocalypse)2020-07-06T07:54:43Z<p>NKF: The 65535 widget bug</p>
<hr />
<div>== Cityscape bugs ==<br />
<br />
=== Firing Infatuated Agents ===<br />
This happens if you have more than twenty combat agents (or biochemists, or engineers, or quantum physicists) assigned to single base. Only the first twenty specialists are visible in the hire/fire interface. The others cannot be fired from the agent interface.<br />
<br />
Firing specialist (agent, biochemist, engineer or physicist) #1 fires agent #21 (and engineer #21 if present, and quantum physicist #21 if present) as well.<br />
Firing specialist #2 fires agent #22 (and engineer #22 if present, and quantum physicist #22 if present) as well.<br />
<br />
And so on.<br />
<br />
To fire >#20 specialists one needs to "transfer" some <#20 specialists to other base.<br />
Then it's still only possible to fire only first 20 specialists, but those which were further down the line are now visible.<br />
This can be done without unpausing - so it's possible to transfer those specialists back once proper guys/gals have been fired.<br />
<br />
=== Rendor Plasma Shot Undercount ===<br />
Per [[User:NKF|NKF]]'s research ( http://www.xcomufo.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=242028127 ), the Rendor Plasma gun (an air vehicle weapon) actually has all 140 of the shots it used when loading up. The game divides this by two, reporting 70 shots.<br />
<br />
=== Is that base yours ? ===<br />
When aliens get to your base by spreading through the tubes, the game treats your base as if it was a building owned by the government.<br />
Hence, the alien activity will start growing on the government, if aliens are spotted you will have an alarm, and if you start a mission, you will combat in a standard warehouse or slum scenario, rather than in your base.<br />
<br />
* Possibly not a bug since it appears that X-COM bases are located underground, i.e. in the basement levels of said buildings.<br />
<br />
=== Battleship ''ex nihilo'' ===<br />
One of the Infiltration fleets (#17 on the UFO Incursions page) consists of one Battleship that inserts aliens, one Escort Ship, and one Battleship that bombs a building. This is the only UFO fleet in the game that has the same UFO type performing two different missions, and as such it runs afoul of a bug in the spawn routine. See, when checking whether there are enough UFOs for a fleet, the game checks for the presence of each UFO group ''separately'', and the two Battleships are in different groups. As such, the game checks for whether there is 1 Battleship, 1 Escort Ship and 1 Battleship, ''not'' whether there is 1 Escort Ship and 2 Battleships, and may erroneously spawn this fleet (with both Battleships) even if there is only one Battleship in the Alien Dimension.<br />
<br />
=== Time Lapse ===<br />
If too many vehicles are on the Cityscape at the same time, you cannot choose the "Ultra Fast" time control option. This usually happens on the biggest Mega-Prime map on Superhuman where, due to the way some roads are connected in a criss-cross pattern with eachother, sometimes vehicles get stuck moving in circles eternally or if in one of those criss-cross sections of the map one exit was destroyed during UFO fights the vehicles will be unable to pathfind another way out, as they seem to try and always go for the shortest path, even if that one is destroyed, and will never try to go for an alternate longer path, regardless if one is available or not. To solve this issue, you have to use an X-Com Craft to either directly destroy some of the vehicles or use the Manual Craft Control ('''M''' to activate, '''LMB''' to shoot) to destroy the road/bridge the vehicles are on (no reputation loss).<br />
<br />
===65535 Widget Bug===<br />
You may sometimes find a store item with an unusually high count of 65535 or close to that amount. This bug occurs when the item count somehow goes into a negative value. Because item counters are instanced as unsigned integers, the negative will wrap back around to the highest value that it can hold. In this case, 65535. <br />
<br />
One such example of how this could occur is when shifting an unresearched alien artefact that is instanced in both the air and ground transfer screens. If the item sliders are not locked and can be moved independently, you may be able to send more items than you physically own and put the store count into the negative. <br />
<br />
Note that the user interface will properly report the negative count before you commit the item transfer. <br />
<br />
With 65535 instances of any single item, this bug can easily be used as a money exploit. <br />
<br />
===Storage alchemy===<br />
When you sell off all of an alien artifact and it disappears from the sell screen, the game doesn't always re-point your stores correctly. One known possibility is all your Elerium-115 (potentially several hundred) being transmuted into GLM Air Defenses when Cloaking Fields are sold off.<br />
<br />
=== Crazy transportation ===<br />
If you hire new men and the road to access your base is broken, your men will pick a car but will not be able to reach the base and will keep turning around and around. But as soon as you set the "ultratime" on he will get to the base regardless the road was repaired or not.<br />
<br />
=== X-COM Recyclotorium - Superhuman ===<br />
<br />
On the Superhuman map X-COM is assigned the ownership to the [[Recyclotorium_(Apocalypse)|Recyclotorium]] Two building.<br />
<br />
This is most likely an oversight by the maps creator. Recyclotoriums usually are only owned by [[Evonet]], while X-COM can only obtain ownership to base facilities.<br />
<br />
This bug decreases the difficulty on Superhuman immensly, as during [[Cityscape_Fighting_(Apocalypse)#Retaliation|Alien Retaliation]] attacks all the UFO's will most of the time target the Recyclotorium building instead of the X-COM base, completely averting any threat to the player as there is no fear of your base collapsing and possibly killing all your personell. Along with there being almost no missions at that building, as the UFO's rarely tend to directly drop Aliens into X-COM owned buildings.<br />
<br />
This can be fixed with the modding programme '''Apoc'd''' by assigning the ownership of the Recyclotorium Two building back to Evonet:<br />
<br />
<gallery widths="200px"><br />
Image:Evorecyclo.png|<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
=== No music bug ===<br />
<br />
Whenever you save a game or sometimes when you end a battlescape mission, the music seems to stop playing. However, all that happens is that the music volume gets set down to 1 during the post battle screen or when you save the game, and fails to set itself back to its previous value. (you can still hear the music if you listen closely)<br />
<br />
There are 4 ways of solving this:<br />
<br />
1. Enter the options screen and simply uncheck and check the master volume slider.<br />
:(this will cause the current music track to get skipped or start from the beginning)<br />
<br />
2. Move the master volume slider a bit to the left/right and then back to your desired position.<br />
:(this will prevent the track from being skipped / starting from the beginning)<br />
<br />
3. Wait until the next music track plays, the volume will be correct with the next track playing.<br />
:(you might have to sit through 2-3 mins of silence)<br />
<br />
4. Playing with the original CD reduces but not fully removes this bug. During the CD access to play the next track the volume usually gets set back to its proper value.<br />
<br />
=== UFO Incursion - Battle Music ===<br />
<br />
Usually you only get an eerie/slightly more worrisome music track playing (Uneasy Calm / The Infestation) during UFO incursions and rarely the battle music (Kill them ALL / Chase) will play.<br />
<br />
This is most likely intended design, as the more hype battle music will only play during Apocalypse missions and only if enough UFOs are present. Around 5-6 UFOs minimum are required for the game to play the more threatening sounding tracks. It'll also continue playing as long as enough downed UFOs are still present on the map. Once you recover the wracks and the number of present UFOs on the Cityscape falls below the 5-6 threshold, the music will change back to Uneasy Calm/The Infestation and then back to normal, once all UFOs are recovered/expired.<br />
<br />
Due to this, the more hype battle music can and will play regardless of the UFO incursion mission, as long as enough UFOs appear. Though it is most likely meant to only play during the Apocalypse mission.<br />
<br />
===Vehicle Repair Bay Placement in Starting Base===<br />
<br />
The starting base may have a bizarrely placed [[Vehicle_Repair_Bay_(Apocalypse)|Vehicle Repair Bay]]. In the case shown below, it also takes up the two "empty" squares to the lower-left of the Access Lift.<br />
<br />
<gallery widths="200px"><br />
Image:Apocalypse_base_bug.png|<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
== Tactical section bugs ==<br />
<br />
=== Poor pathway finding ===<br />
The pathway finding algorithm will choose very poor paths when you move your men in the turn based version of the game.<br />
The path chosen will be OK only if you your men can reach their destination following a straight path and there are no obstacles around. Otherwise it will pick very crazy routes. The behaviour of the algorithm is particularly crazy when you are using flying units and more complicate routes can be chosen. <br />
Also, the path that your men follows when you move appears to be different from the one selected to predict the TUs left after the move, so that this prediction is often incorrect.<br />
<br />
=== Agents travelling in time ===<br />
When you start a mission in turn based mode, the clock will advance by a few seconds after each turn.<br />
But after that you have completed the mission it will get back to the time before mission started. The odd part is that the ship carrying the agents is ready to take off.<br />
<br />
=== No night missions! ===<br />
Missions will always happen in the light, even if it is night and the mission takes place outside of any building.<br />
<br />
=== Quarreling with Transtellar is dangerous! ===<br />
If you happen to upset Transtellar your men will not be able to move using transtellar cars. <br />
If you hire some men they will try to get to your base through the tubes, but they often will not be able to get to your base and remain stuck in another building. <br />
At this point if you then succeed into getting a better relationship with Transtellar, your men will not immediately get to your base, and some of them might remain stuck into their positions even running the ultratime.<br />
One way to unlock the agents is to transfer them temporarily to another base, another is to order the agent to any nearby building and then send a vehicle to pick them up.<br />
<br />
=== Visual glitches ===<br />
There are some glitches when you move your men flying very high, especially if tall structures are around.<br />
You will see "shadows" to appear and move here and there, and, after movement is completed, they will not be cleared until you force a complete redraw of the screen.<br />
<br />
=== Resistance bug ===<br />
In the turn-based mode when you are flying with the marsec armour at high speed (running) the stamina is unaffected, so that you can run as long as you like and each move has a reduced TUs cost. But if you run out of stamina everything works as if you were walking: the TUs cost of your movements is increased.<br />
<br />
=== Spying capabilities ===<br />
In turn based mode if you spot one or more aliens and you end your turn, the first steps of the alien that moves first (among the ones that you have spotted) are always visible, regardless that the alien is outside of the visual range of any of your men.<br />
<br />
=== Big aliens visibility bug ===<br />
Big aliens (Megaspawn, psymorphs) might not be visible to your men if part of their body is hidden behind structures. Even if the alien is sitting in front of you and half of its body is in sight.<br />
<br />
=== Items limit in tactical combat ===<br />
There seems to be a limit of items in tactical combat (roughly 500). If one takes a full contingent - 36 agents - to a combat, if there's too much equipment in their inventory some agents may not spawn and/or aliens (Anthropods and Skeletoids) may spawn without equipment. This *may* be a good exploit for dangerless tactical missions, but it will *not* give any points/credits for equipment that is missing - since it's not present.<br />
<br />
=== Android Resistances ===<br />
By default, [[Agents_(Apocalypse)#Androids|Androids]] are assigned the Human resistance values. Meaning, they will just as quickly fall unconscious to stun damage as Humans and Hybrids, causing Androids to take 100% Stun Gas and 100% Stun (Stun Grapple, Psionics) damage instead of 0% Stun Gas and 20% Stun damage as well as taking 100% Incendiary damage ('''IN''' Ammunition, Diablo Incendiary Grenade) instead of only 60%. <br />
<br />
Note that this '''cannot''' be fixed by using modding programs such as "'''Apoc'd'''", which can be found here: http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/apocd/, and assigning Androids to the Android Damage Modifier. The reason for this is that Androids are assigned the "X-COM Agents" role, as every soldier is (Humans as well as Hybrids). The "X-COM Agents" role however is assigned the "Human" Damage Modifier Group, which take priority over each individual damage modifier class and therefore overrides the "Android" modifier with the "Human" modifier again. S.E.L.F. units (building security) are treated as humans and will not be affected by this change, either.<br />
<br />
<gallery widths="200px"><br />
Image:Apocd android.png|<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
=== Human Tech Level 5 - Plasma Pod ===<br />
As the ingame weeks pass by, the (not Alien) Organisations [[Alien_Tech_Levels_(Apocalypse)|Tech Level]] gets increased by 1 for each passing week up to level 12, granting them different weapon upgrades.<br />
On Tech Level 5 it is possible for a Megapol Plasma Gun to spawn, however with 0 clips. This is most likely not intended and the result of a programming oversight.<br />
<br />
A total of 3 Megapol Plasma Gun sets can spawn at Tech Level 5. 2 sets each with 2 Megapol Plasma Pods and one set with 0 Megapol Plasma Pods.<br />
<br />
A possible fix is to use the modding programme "'''Apoc'd'''" to modify the weapon set and adjust the clip amount from 0 to 2, to be in line with the other clip amounts.<br />
<br />
<gallery widths="200px"><br />
Image:Plasmafix.png|<br />
</gallery><br />
<br />
=== Inventory Soft Lock ===<br />
<br />
If you manage to open the inventory screen just as your soldier is dying, the game will softlock itself.<br />
<br />
This can happen in Turn Based mode, if you approach a Popper who starts its reaction turn while your soldier is still walking towards it and you click the inventory button just at that very moment.<br />
<br />
When the soldier dies just as the inventory screen is up the entire interface will be corrupted. If you hit the bottom right button, it'll return to the battlescape screen and everything will look normal again, however the game will still act as if you were in the inventory screen.<br />
<br />
You will be unable to move your soldiers, shoot, turn, etc. and pressing any of the buttons, even the end turn button, will result in nothing happening.<br />
<br />
There is no known work-around. If this happens you will have to restart the game.<br />
<br />
== Design flaws ==<br />
<br />
=== Cannot choose men in base defense missions ===<br />
When an enemy corporation attacks one of your bases you will be immediately engaged into a base defense mission.<br />
The tactical screen limits to 35 the number of people that you can use in a mission.<br />
If there are more than 35 people in the base, only 35 will be active in the mission and you are not given any choice which man to use.<br />
You might find yourself fighting with injured agents or with poor agents that you were training.<br />
<br />
=== Cannot rotate the view ===<br />
Shorter aliens (Brainsuckers, eggs, multiworms, hyperworms) might be covered by taller structures, making them hard to see or tell apart.<br />
Being able to rotate the view would fix this.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Learning AI Bugs ==<br />
<br />
The Learning AI is a fragile but amazingly cool feature of X-COM Apocalypse. Unfortunately it tends to easily break or not work at all with certain distributions of the game.<br />
<br />
=== Why it doesn't work with digital distributions (Steam/GoG/own (il)legal Copy) ===<br />
<br />
The Learning AI is dependent on the physical location of the Learning AI files on an original physical CD, as the CD is segmented into several physical sections visible with the eye. Digital distributions such as the Steam or GoG version use .iso/.bin .cue files that are directly mounted in DOSBox, hence making the important files all available on a single track without that physical separation which then prevents the Learning AI from functioning. The Learning AI files (EXPERIEN.DAT, BRAIN.DAT, WEAPEXP.DAT) will still update and adjust themselves according to your tactics (this counts for all distributions/localizations), however the Learning AI will fail to activate and make use of it. The same counts for mounting the file on a virtual drive and using that with DOSBox.<br />
<br />
Burning the .iso/.bin .cue files onto a CD will also not make it work, as the tracks will not be in the exact same location / read order the AI requires them to be in. This also means that certain official CD distributions of X-COM Apocalypse, such as certain localizations/versions/re-releases, also have the issue of the tracks being in an order that completely breaks the Learning AI.<br />
<br />
Additionally, only direct CD clones of the original CD with identical burn marks on the backside of the CD will have a working Learning AI. Self created .iso files (from a CD with working AI) or other burning methods other than a 1:1 clone will again result in a broken Learning AI.<br />
<br />
=== Confirmed functioning Learning AI ===<br />
<br />
Currently only 2 UK versions are confirmed to have a working Learning AI, these 2 versions carry following serial numbers:<br />
<br />
UK Original Release: '''MP191 207 D01R'''<br />
<br />
UK Powerplus Release: '''PP191 207D01R'''<br />
<br />
Fortunately, those serial numbers appear quite often on second hand sales, as they were the main version distributed in Europe in countries without their own localization, and will always work through DOSBox, as long as you own a CD/DVD Drive and have it mounted in DOSBox. The serial numbers are clearly visible in big letters on the CD itself.<br />
<br />
Additionally, the 1.03 North American version is said to also have a fully working Learning AI, unfortunately there are no more details like a serial number or actual confirmation of a working Learning AI about this version, as that version is relatively hard to find.<br />
<br />
=== What breaks the AI ===<br />
<br />
1. '''Stun raids'''<br />
<br />
They will scramble the data created in the WEAPEXP.DAT file.<br />
<br />
2. '''Savegame loading / editing'''<br />
<br />
Breaks the Learning AI by jumping values. Editing savegames, or starting a new savegame then returning to an old save will break the decision matrix, too.<br />
<br />
Therefore, stay with one savegame and do no reloading. This also counts for when you advance in the game (had battles) but end it without saving, close the game and start it again and reload the latest savegame.<br />
<br />
3. '''Any general game exploit / unintended game mechanic'''<br />
<br />
In short: Play straight. No cheating, no cheesing, no reloading savegames, if you want to enjoy and experience the exciting Learning AI.<br />
<br />
4. '''Virtual Drives / .iso / .bin .cue'''<br />
<br />
In general, anything that is not a physical CD will prevent the Learning AI from working.<br />
<br />
Currently there isn't enough testing done to detail what does and doesn't work. However, the Steam and GoG implementation of .iso / .bin .cue, directly mounted into DOSBox, will prevent the Learning AI from working.<br />
<br />
5. '''Certain localizations / releases'''<br />
<br />
Though no extensive information is available, it is assumed that the German/French/Italian/Russian/etc. localizations do not have a working AI due to the way the CD's data was written on them.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Following releases are confirmed to have a '''NOT''' working AI, due to not being 1:1 clones, causing the Learning AI files to be on different tracks than in the original release:<br />
<br />
'''UK Hasbro Interactive Release 1.00: 51747.331.DL (Disc 2)'''<br />
<br />
'''US/NA 1.00 Release (Multiworm CD Cover) (No serial number available)'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
6. '''Installing the game from any other source other than the original CD through a physical CD/DVD Drive'''<br />
<br />
Yes, the AI is that fragile.<br />
[[Category: Apocalypse]]<br />
<br />
=== Please Insert CD Bug ===<br />
<br />
The "Please Insert CD Bug" that many players suffer from on modern distributions (Steam/GoG), whenever they start a battlescape mission, is tightly tied to all this mess. It too is dependent on a physical CD and will not occur on official distributions as long as they are played with the original CD on a physical CD/DVD drive.<br />
<br />
The main reason for that happening with the Steam/GoG version is because both those versions use the minimal installation setting on top of having the image file directly mounted via DOSBox, as well as the data from the mounted image files being read too fast.<br />
<br />
<br />
The "Please Insert CD Bug" cannot be completely mitigated, however you can cut down the frequency at which this happens:<br />
<br />
<br />
Simply copy the "'''XCOM3'''" folder from the "CD/.iso/.bin .cue" onto your PC.<br />
<br />
(whereever you have designated C:\ to be for DOSBox i.e. C:\Games\DOSBox\Games\"HERE")<br />
<br />
Then rename the folder to "'''XCOMA'''" and then do a '''fresh install (200 MB optimal installation)''' on top of the folder.<br />
<br />
That way, even with a virtual drive / image file, the error message won't occur as often anymore. <br />
<br />
<br />
'''However, keep in mind that you should still save before starting ANY battlescape mission, i.e. UFO Recoveries, Investigations and Raids.'''<br />
As this mitigation will only lower the frequency of that bug but not completely remove it, you do not want to lose an hour or two of progress.<br />
<br />
<br />
Also, directly mounting image files into DOSBox is not a good idea, as the integrated mounting system for image files is horrible and can lead to errors during gameplay.<br />
<br />
Instead just mount the image file with Windows and then mount the assigned CD Drive as cdrom in DOSBox, as example:<br />
<br />
'''mount d f:\ -t cdrom -usecd NUMBER'''<br />
<br />
"F:\" being the drive Windows 10 assignes the mounted image file.<br />
<br />
<br />
(to find out what number to put into "NUMBER", type "mount -cd" into DOSBox and then enter the number that is shown left from the drive. I.e. '''0. E:\ 1. F:\''', in this case it should be "-usecd 1".<br />
DOSBox has to be started AFTER you have mounted the image file with Windows for it to show its drive letter.)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Funky installation / UFO2P.exe TAC2P.exe and UFO2P4.exe TAC2P4.exe ==<br />
<br />
When installing Apocalypse the installed '''UFO2P.exe''' and '''TAC2P.exe''' files inside the '''UFOEXE''' and '''TACEXE''' folders are not the actual '''UFO2P.exe''' and '''TAC2P.exe''' files. Instead, the installation takes the UFO2P4.exe TAC2P4.exe files and renames them to UFO2P.exe and TAC2P.exe to be used instead.<br />
<br />
The UFO2P.exe and TAC2P.exe files were designed for 486 computers with less performance and processing power while the UFO2P4.exe and TAC2P4.exe were designed for the newer Pentium processors.<br />
<br />
The direct differences between these files are not known to me, however mixing them up can cause weird errors to happen in the game. (one example is the current GoG Galaxy installation where this exactly happens)<br />
<br />
<br />
All modding programmes (like Apoc'd) as well as most game mechanics and formulas discovered are taken from the renamed UFO2P4.exe and TAC2P4.exe files. Therefore using Apoc'd on the original UFO2P.exe and TAC2P.exe files will cause errors and weird bugs.<br />
<br />
<br />
To prevent any weird installation behaviours it is recommended to simply copy the '''XCOM3''' folder from the '''CD''' over to your games directory, rename the folder to '''XCOMA''' and then doing a fresh full installation on top of that. Optionally, also copy the "'''music'''" file from the CD over to where the '''XCOMA''' folder is located (not inside of it).</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Known_Bugs_(Apocalypse)&diff=91665Talk:Known Bugs (Apocalypse)2020-07-06T07:18:14Z<p>NKF: /* Whining */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Big aliens issue ==<br />
I have noticed that Megaspawns and Psymorphs, despite their enormous size, are not that easily spotted by XCOM agents whenever they are behind structures that are partially covering their body.<br />
Therefore I have the suspect that such aliens become visible only if a specific "square" of their body is in the visual range of the agents.<br />
Can someone confirm this ? <br />
:I've had a Megaspawn hide right in front of my agents because his top half wasn't visible, even though his feet should have been in plain sight 2 squares ahead of them, so yes, this is definitely a thing. [[User:Binkyuk|Binkyuk]] ([[User talk:Binkyuk|talk]]) 07:34, 23 June 2015 (EDT)<br />
Thank you. I have started writing two lines on this topic. Hmmm... it would be interesting to investigate which is the rule to establish the visibility of the aliens and why it fails so badly with Megaspawns and Psymorphs.<br />
<br />
== About Agents on more vehicles ==<br />
If you start a mission and your agents are not all of them assigned to the same vehicle (e.g. they are spanned into two or more ships), the equipment and the alien corpses are lost, regardless that the vehicles are provided with cargo holders and alien containment. <br />
Can someone confirm this ?<br />
<br />
== Learning AI bug ==<br />
<br />
So, the Learning AI doesn't work on the Steam/GoG version. This is due to it requiring a physical CD to read off rather than a mounted .iso file.<br />
<br />
This also means, that if you mount the .iso with Windows or any other virtual drive, it'll still behave the same and the Learning AI will not function, even though the Learning AI files will keep updating.<br />
<br />
Can anyone confirm if burning the included .iso file from the digital distributions of the game onto a CD and using that to play will allow the Learning AI to function again?<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
At [[Game_versions_and_builds_(Apocalypse)]] it's also mentioned that only the UK release (I guess V1.0?) and the V1.03 US Versions actually support the Learning AI.<br />
<br />
Is there more information available on that? Which Versions do and do not support, other localizations of the game (German, Italian, French, etc.) ?<br />
<br />
I just wonder if that statement is just there, because only those 2 particular versions were tested or because it really is only those 2 supporting the Learning AI.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Other than that, I'd suggest adding the Learning AI bug / Please Insert CD bug to this list.<br />
<br />
The creater of OpenApoc explains the error like this:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
"The problem is DOSBox emulating a CD-ROM which has the data on one track, but multiple parts of the disc. This is also the reason why users may occasionally get the 'please insert CD' prompt whilst playing Apoc under DOSBox with an ISO image.<br />
<br />
This is the only way to get the game to read the data from the tracks in their original physical location on the disc.<br />
<br />
The moment you use a virtual CD or an ISO image it breaks the three learning AI files... They update, but have no effect on decision making<br />
<br />
The files are... BRAIN.DAT, EXPERIEN.DAT and WEAPEXP.DAT<br />
<br />
It's the loss of where the physical data sectors are stored on the disc that breaks the AI it appears<br />
<br />
So no matter what you do, unless you have a physical disc it'll never work with emulation<br />
<br />
The game will play, the base AI will work... But it will never vary tactical decisions according to how the player does things..."<br />
<br />
(quoted from a YouTube comment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mo5wYHqtQQo )<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
So, to get the Learning AI working on DOSBox, you need an actual physical CD for the game to read off of, while at the same time this also prevents the "Please insert CD" bug that occasionally occurs.<br />
<br />
<br />
However, I don't know if you need the original CD or if it also is enough to burn the .iso file from the digital distributions (Steam/GoG) onto a CD and just use that then. [[User:Bard|Bard]] ([[User talk:Bard|talk]]) 07:30, 18 November 2019 (CET)<br />
<br />
== New Bug Found ==<br />
<br />
Details on my page [[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]] ([[User talk:EsTeR|talk]])<br />
<br />
== Whining ==<br />
<br />
Some of the entries on this page are not software bugs but just people complaining about game features people think are annoying or weird. This applies to: "UFO Incursion Battle Music", "No night missions", "Item Limit", "Human Tech Level 5", "Cannot Choose Men in Base Defence".<br />
<br />
None of these is a software bug; the game is doing what it's told (even Tech Level 5 is correctly deploying what it's told to i.e. one Plasma Gun and zero Plasma Pods - that's just a weird thing to tell it to do). The Item Limit ''definitely'' isn't something the developers were unaware of; the game refusing to deploy all soldiers is an ''intended'' behaviour, to prevent X-COM's items from being consigned to oblivion due to being in excess of the limit. There would be no point in having noncombat personnel around in the Battlescape if you could pick your units - nobody would ever pick them, because they're useless. A lack of night missions isn't a bug, it's just a lack of a feature. And there's no reason to think the action music is unintended behaviour either. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 06:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: Complaining is probably one of the easiest things to do. I think all the non-bug issues can be shifted here to the comments page or a sub-page and have them culled from the main article. I am slightly surprised the 65535 widget bug, probably one of the older known bugs, hasn't had a mention. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 07:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Population_(Apocalypse)&diff=91424Population (Apocalypse)2020-07-02T05:08:59Z<p>NKF: They have sticky fingers too</p>
<hr />
<div>The population of [[Mega-Primus]] is very varied. Here is an overview of the different characters that X-COM may find and interact with in the [[Buildings (Apocalypse)|buildings]] and streets of the city.<br />
<br />
With the exception of civilians, you will encounter other humans only in the following situations:<br />
<br />
*If you investigate a building ''with aliens in it'' that is controlled by a hostile organisation<br />
*If you raid any building (whether or not the owners are hostile)<br />
*If another organisation raids or storms an X-COM base (hostile organisations will occasionally do this; the chance is tripled if the organisation is Megapol, a gang, or infiltrated).<br />
<br />
Megapol will use Police. The gangs will use Gangsters. The Cult of Sirius will use Cultists. Everyone else uses Building Security in their own buildings and Corporate Hoods when attacking yours. While there are slight differences between these units, the similarities are much greater; in general, you can expect the following of human opponents:<br />
<br />
*Stats are randomised, like your own soldiers', and each individual has a name.<br />
*A bit tougher than [[Anthropod]]s and [[Skeletoid]]s, particularly against weak weapons like the [[Lawpistol]] and [[M4000 Machine Gun]]. The [[Toxigun]] is much less effective, for obvious reasons.<br />
*Very prone to panicking; human enemies have 40-80 Bravery, while humanoid aliens have 70-80 and the rest are immune to morale entirely.<br />
*Most of their weapons are low-powered and will bounce off [[Megapol Armor]], but a few will have [[Marsec Heavy Launcher]]s (and, later on, [[Devastator Cannon]]s) which are far more lethal. They're generally comparable shots to Skeletoids or even slightly better. Grenades are another danger.<br />
*Very susceptible to the [[Mind Bender]] (usually more so than Anthropods), but do not spawn with Mind Benders of their own.<br />
*Intelligent enough to pick up a weapon on the ground nearby if disarmed or out of ammo.<br />
**Guards will also pick up loose and valuable goods such as armor parts, [[Elerium (Apocalypse) | elerium]] pods and [[Psiclone]]s and flee the battle with them. Whether by coincidence or design, this acts as minor but effective foil to an X-Com raid by reducing the amount of goods that can be recovered. If conditions allow, tool using aliens may also exhibit this behaviour. <br />
<br />
==Police==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Megapol_officers.png|right]]<br />
[[Megapol]] police officers are responsible for enforcing law and order on the city. Since they are also well armed they would be of a great help during [[Battlescape Overview (Apocalypse)|Battlescape]], but unfortunately they will not aid X-COM Agents during investigations.<br />
<br />
Megapol officers are fairly well-armed (starting Tech Level 3), and have marginally better Reactions and armor than average (though they do not wear [[Megapol Armor]]). However, they are also more vulnerable to Psionic attacks. Police will be encountered in large groups of 12-20.<br />
<br />
==Cultists==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Cultists.png|right]]<br />
<br />
Cult of Sirius members are moderately armed (starting Tech Level 2). Their Accuracy and armour are somewhat poorer than average - the Cult is a civilian organisation - but their Psi-defense is better than other humans' (typically on par with Anthropods). Cultists fight in groups of 7-12.<br />
<br />
==Gangsters==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Gangsters.png|right]]<br />
<br />
Gangsters are very well-armed (starting Tech Level 4). Their Accuracy and Psi-defense are a little poorer than average, but their Reactions are better. Gang members fight in groups of 8-20; Osiron groups are the largest, Psyke groups are the smallest.<br />
<br />
==Building Security==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Security_guards.png|right]]<br />
Security guards' armament and numbers depend on which organization employs them (starting Tech Level can be as low as 1 or as high as 4, and there can be anywhere between 5 and 17 of them). In particular, the [[Government]], [[Marsec]], [[Solmine]], [[Cyberweb]], [[S.E.L.F.]] and the [[Mutant Alliance]] use better-equipped and larger groups of guards.<br />
<br />
Security guards' Accuracy is a little poorer than average.<br />
<br />
==Corporate Hood==<br />
<br />
Corporate hoods vary in numbers and equipment depending on who employs them in the same fashion as building security. They have a bit better Accuracy than average, though.<br />
<br />
==Civilian==<br />
[[Image:Civilians - lower class (Apocalypse).png|right]]<br />
<br />
Civilians will be found on some building investigations (typically those of more populated buildings, like schools, offices and apartments). They won't take cover; they will run as if in panic without a direction. <br />
<br />
Unlike in previous games, civilian deaths do not cause problems for X-COM, and aliens do not actively attack them.<br />
<br />
The appearance of civilians will be different depending on in which building they appear; they can be lower, middle, or upper class.<br />
<br />
==X-COM Technical Personnel==<br />
<br />
During [[Base Defense (Apocalypse)|base defense]] missions any X-COM Scientists and Engineers assigned to the base will be vulnerable to hostile agression. X-COM personnel can be directed to move to any location but they will be unable to use any weapons or armour. They are also slower than X-com Agents, which makes them quite vulnerable.<br />
<br />
Survival of X-COM personnel is one of the highest priorities for X-COM Agents while repelling raids. Because technical staff can be assigned to armed personnel before the base raids begin, it is recommended that some armed agents accompany them and escort them to a place of safety in the base. <br />
<br />
==Sectoid==<br />
<br />
Only present in the Alien Dimension, X-COM's old enemies have become an alien delicacy, and some are being held captive in their [[Food Chamber]]. Rescuing them will give a huge boost to X-COM's relations with the [[Mutant Alliance]]. For all intents and purposes, the Sectoids in this game are treated exactly like civilians, and display similar behaviour. This also means the Aliens will not deliberately target them during the mission.<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
<br />
* [[Organizations]]<br />
* [[Relations (Apocalypse)|Relations]]<br />
* [[Strategies for Troops (Apocalypse)|Strategies for Troops]]<br />
* [[Alien_Tech_Levels_(Apocalypse)|Alien Tech Levels]] (for information on equipment loadouts of human opponents)<br />
<br />
[[Category: Apocalypse]]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Unit Navbar (Apocalypse)}}</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Dual-wield&diff=91188Dual-wield2020-06-21T10:04:05Z<p>NKF: /* Apocalypse (turn-based) */</p>
<hr />
<div>In the original X-COM trilogy, it is possible for soldiers to wield a weapon in each hand at the same time. This is called dual-wielding.<br />
<br />
==UFO & TFTD==<br />
<br />
In UFO: Enemy Unknown and X-Com: Terror from the Deep, there is no firepower benefit from dual-wielding, as firing weapons uses the same amount of TU regardless of whether a soldier is wielding two weapons or only one (i.e. you cannot fire both weapons "at the same time"). There is a direct penalty, as two-handed weapons will suffer a 20% accuracy penalty (*0.8 accuracy) if the opposing hand is not free. As such, it is generally suboptimal to dual-wield most weapons.<br />
<br />
However, as most items can only be used when in hand, and moving objects around in the inventory costs TU, it can be useful to keep two items in hand for the sake of versatility. Usually this consists of a soldier "dual-wielding" a pistol with a flare, grenade or medikit, but wielding two weapons can occasionally be worthwhile if they are sufficiently different (e.g. [[Laser Pistol]] + [[Blaster Launcher]] in UFO, or [[Sonic Pistol]] + [[Vibroblade]] in TFTD).<br />
<br />
==Apocalypse (turn-based)==<br />
<br />
In the turn-based mode of X-Com: Apocalypse, there is no TU cost for moving items around in the inventory, but there is an accuracy penalty for dual-wielding most weapons and both weapons cannot be fired simultaneously. As such, it is strictly better to put away or drop whatever is in a soldier's off-hand before firing a weapon and then pick it up afterwards. The only possible exception is if a soldier is using a [[Personal Cloaking Field]], as holding it in hand may prevent reaction fire (even then, reaction fire is uncommon in Apocalypse). <br />
<br />
When dual-wielding in turn-based mode, shooting a target or tile repeatedly with Shift+LMB will cause the agent to alternate between the two weapons. However the firing costs are no different than firing each weapon manually.<br />
<br />
==Apocalypse (real-time)==<br />
<br />
In stark contrast, dual-wielding is exceptionally effective in the real-time mode of Apocalypse, as both weapons can be fired simultaneously. This is obviously a straight firepower boost for pistols (as well as homing missiles, which will always hit regardless of calculated accuracy). Two-handed weapons (those with dimensions more than 2×2) suffer a 40% accuracy penalty (x1.4 inaccuracy) when dual-wielded, but this is a very good deal compared to switching fire modes (switching from Aimed to Snap, or from Snap to Auto, incurs a 100% accuracy penalty (x2 inaccuracy) for the same doubled fire rate). Of course, you do have to pay for the extra gun.<br />
<br />
Note that dual-wielding the [[M4000 Machine Gun]] and [[Toxigun]] in Auto mode will not achieve a full doubling of firepower, as this will cap out the game's fire rate limit. It is therefore usually better to use another firing mode when dual-wielding these weapons.</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Griffon_AFV_(Apocalypse)&diff=91020Griffon AFV (Apocalypse)2020-06-11T05:30:35Z<p>NKF: An exercise in comma reduction resulted in minor rewrite</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Ref Open | title = [[Image:Apoc_griffon_icon.png|left|50 px|]] Griffon AFV}}<br />
[[Image:Apoc_griffon_pedia.png|Griffon UFOPedia picture|right|100 px]]<br />
The meanest [[Marsec]] manufactured land based vehicle is an extremely heavily armored all-terrain vehicle with a choice of three different turret mountings. Projectile and Plasma Cannons can be fitted, or a missile launching unit for targeting airborne vehicles.<br />
{{Ref Close | source = X-COM Apocalypse Ufopedia}} <br />
<br />
<br />
The Griffon AFV is the toughest road vehicle X-COM can purchase. By default it is issued with the [[Rumble Cannon (Apocalypse)|Rumble Cannon]], one of the most powerful conventional weapons X-COM can purchase. The cannon can be swapped with a long range [[Ground Launched Missile Air Defense (Apocalypse)|ground launched missile launcher]] or an even longer range [[Plasma Turret Cannon (Apocalypse)|plasma cannon]]. Smaller weapon pods can be used if desired. The tank has an optional [[Medium Weapons Control (Apocalypse)|Medium Weapons Control]] slot to boost its aim on stationary targets and has room to fit the [[Metro Multipower Plus (Apocalypse)|biggest grav-road engine]] on the market. <br />
<br />
Contrary to the official entry, the Griffon is not an all-terrain vehicle but a grav-road bound vehicle. The large tracks are decorative. This is the Griffon's biggest flaw. Despite having hull points comparable to the Annihilator{{Verify}} along with much thicker armour plating, it will instantly cease to exist the moment the grav-road beneath it is destroyed. This severely limits its usefulness as a close combat vehicle. <br />
<br />
On the other hand, the Griffon can be a very effective long range attacker. Griffon AFVs placed strategically around the city can provide heavy ground to air fire support for your aircraft. To help draw fire away from them they are best deployed once the air skirmish has begun. <br />
<br />
==Statistics==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Apoc_griffon_large.png|right|100 px]]<br />
<br />
<table {{StdCenterTable}}><br />
<tr {{StdDescTable_Heading}}><th align="left">Statistics</th><br />
<th>Value</th></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Armor</td><td>192</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Weight</td><td>1800</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Constitution</td><td>700</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Engine</td><td>[[Metro Multipower Plus (Apocalypse)|Metro Multipower Plus]]</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Engine Size</td><td>4x4</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Top Speed</td><td>3-7</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Acceleration</td><td>1</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Weapons</td><td>[[Rumble Cannon (Apocalypse)|Rumble Cannon]]</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Weapons Size</td><td>4x4</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Equipment Size</td><td>1x2</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Cost</td><td>$16000</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Manufacturer</td><td>[[Marsec]]</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Passengers</td><td>4</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Score points</td><td>50</td></tr><br />
</table><br /><br />
<br />
*Top Speed depends on the engine installed.<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[Marsec]]<br />
<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
<br />
{{Vehicles (Apocalypse) Navbar}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Mega-Primus Craft (Apocalypse)]]</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Police_Hovercar_(Apocalypse)&diff=90966Talk:Police Hovercar (Apocalypse)2020-06-03T05:04:56Z<p>NKF: </p>
<hr />
<div>The article claims Police Hovercars are "always on active patrol" - but are do they actually patrol at all? I believe they scramble if an illegal flier appears, or if someone directly attacks a Megapol building, but otherwise stay put. Also, maybe I'm taking it too literally, but they don't seem to be Phoenix Hovercars used by the police, either - they have substantially less staying power. [[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 22:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: It looks like some artistic license taken with the prose. I think it would be better to say that poor relations will cause any police hovercars responding to incidents to also attack X-Com craft. They are indeed about half a Phoenix Hovercar at best. Their main value comes from (usually) being the first responders to engage with incoming threats. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 05:04, 3 June 2020 (UTC)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Population_(Apocalypse)&diff=90841Talk:Population (Apocalypse)2020-05-22T05:05:34Z<p>NKF: /* Odd guard uniforms */</p>
<hr />
<div>OK, I've finally got around to testing this, and it seems there's some wrong info here. However, lets begin with info that's available on the Web:<br />
<br />
There's a walkthrough here which gives stats for the various human opponents:<br />
http://www.ag.ru/games/x-com-apocalypse/cheats/7462<br />
<br />
However, testing has revealed that they do not match the stats given in-game. I've tested by probing 12 different human enemies of each type, on normal difficulty, and got the following results:<br />
<br />
'''Megapol'''<br />
<br />
Health: 43-54<br />
Accuracy: 31-46<br />
Reactions: 10-48<br />
Speed: 64-80<br />
Stamina: 43-62<br />
Bravery: 40-80<br />
Strength: 32-50<br />
Psy Energy: 5-18<br />
Psy Attack: 6-18<br />
Psy Defence: 20-35<br />
<br />
'''Cultist'''<br />
<br />
Health: 46-57<br />
Accuracy: 30-45<br />
Reactions: 10-43<br />
Speed: 64-80<br />
Stamina: 48-64<br />
Bravery: 40-70<br />
Strength: 31-44<br />
Psy Energy: 5-20<br />
Psy Attack: 22-44<br />
Psy Defence: 31-65<br />
<br />
'''Ganger'''<br />
<br />
Health: 43-54<br />
Accuracy: 29-45<br />
Reactions: 24-50<br />
Speed: 64-80<br />
Stamina: 44-64<br />
Bravery: 40-80<br />
Strength: 33-50<br />
Psy Energy: 7-19<br />
Psy Attack: 5-19<br />
Psy Defence: 20-49<br />
<br />
'''Security Guard'''<br />
<br />
Health: 43-54<br />
Accuracy: 34-43<br />
Reactions: 11-42<br />
Speed: 64-80<br />
Stamina: 44-63<br />
Bravery: 40-80<br />
Strength: 30-50<br />
Psy Energy: 6-19<br />
Psy Attack: 6-17<br />
Psy Defence: 25-49<br />
<br />
Finally, during the first week, there seem to be no great differences in equipment between the various human enemies. Gang members and Cultists seem to have slightly worse equipment, but this could have been just a coincidence in my tests.<br />
<br />
All this shows that most stats are pretty much the same for all types of human opponents, though there are a few exceptions:<br />
1. Gang members have, on average, higher reactions than the others.<br />
2. Cultists might have slightly lower Bravery and Strength.<br />
3. Cultists have significantly stronger Psy Attack than the others, but never use Mind Benders, so it's irrelevant.<br />
4. Megapol are vulnerable to Psychic attacks, Security Guards and Gang members less so, while Cultists are the most resistant.<br />
<br />
The above also seems to indicate that Security Guards are, in fact, no weaker than other human enemies. Some carry around Heavy Launchers from the beginning of the game, meaning they aren't to be trifled with. Furthermore, I have never seen Cultists armed with Mini-Launchers during Week One.<br />
<br />
p.s. anyone know what organization(s) have the different-uniformed security guards? I seem to recall it was only one. Anyway, it would be good to check if they have different stats.<br />
--[[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 17:32, 8 June 2014 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I haven't played Apocalypse in ages, but this tool may be of help to figuring out the stats: [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/apocd/ Apoc'd] - I can read and edit the exe files of the game that deal with the Strategic and Tactical view that store game settings such as unit stats, organization relations, etc. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] ([[User talk:Hobbes|talk]]) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Thanks, will update the info...when I get the time and do more testing...<br />
Seems the walkthrough got the stats through the same tool, but for some reason in the game itself it's different. Most notably, the Accuracy stat is much lower for pretty much everyone.<br />
<br />
For now I'll record this:<br />
* I've checked, the different-uniformed guards have the same stats.<br />
* My points 1., 3. and 4. about the stats were correct, point 2. wasn't.<br />
* Equipment indeed varies between organizations, in that they each have a "tech level", which advances at the rate of +1 per week. Some start at a higher level than others, though:<br />
** Marsec, Solmine, Psyke, Diablo, Osiron: 4<br />
** Government, Megapol, Cyberweb, S.E.L.F., Mutant Alliance: 3<br />
** Cult of Sirius, Superdynamics, General Metro, Transtellar, Sensovision, Nanotech: 2<br />
** Lifetree, Nutrivend, Evonet, Sanctuary Clinic, Energen, Synthemesh, Gravball League, Extropians, Technocrats: 1<br />
* The average number (actual number is up to +/- 25%) of guards in the building also varies from one organization to the other:<br />
** Megapol, Osiron: 16<br />
** Government, Marsec: 14<br />
** Diablo: 13<br />
** Solmine: 12<br />
** Cyberweb: 11<br />
** Cult of Sirius, Nanotech, Psyke, S.E.L.F., Mutant Alliance: 10<br />
** Superdynamics, Lifetree: 9<br />
** General Metro, Transtellar: 8<br />
** Sensovision, Nutrivend, Evonet, Sanctuary Clinic, Energen, Synthemesh, Gravball League, Extropians, Technocrats: 7<br />
--[[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 17:32, 8 June 2014 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Best treat the stats you get from the game as the base line stats. The game may do some modification to throw a bit of randomness in or adjust them according to difficulty level. On the different jumpsuits, the different jumpsuit colours will be organization based. I don't recall ever seeing guards belonging to the same company with different coloured jumpsuits in the building at the same time. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 02:28, 9 June 2014 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Bingo, I figured out the Firing Accuracy discrepancy! Thing is, the game files stores Accuracy values as follows: (100 minus the actual in-game skill). In other words, a guy with Accuracy 80 in the game files has accuracy 20 in-game. In addition, Stamina is twice higher in the game files than in the game.<br />
--[[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 10:54, 9 June 2014 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Odd guard uniforms ==<br />
<br />
I'm almost certain one organization's guards used some rather funky pink or purple uniforms with helmets, but I can't seem to recreate this in my new game. Anyone remember which organisation it was?<br />
[[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 19:05, 20 May 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:None of the Security Guard-using organisations have any colour besides that dark green (at least, when raided). You might be thinking of Cultists, who have pink/purple/green uniforms with helmets. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 08:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: I believe the guards with the pink/purple outfits are associated with some of the high tech or biomedical firms. If you don't see them during a building raid, you may have better luck from an X-Com base attack. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 05:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Hawk_Air_Warrior_(Apocalypse)&diff=90410Talk:Hawk Air Warrior (Apocalypse)2020-04-17T02:10:53Z<p>NKF: /* Inspiration? */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>== Inspiration? ==<br />
<br />
I have just had a "why have I never noticed this?" moment. <br />
<br />
One thing the recent self-isolation period has granted me was an opportunity to watch more daytime TV. I caught an episode of the recent CG reboot of Thunderbirds and something immediately struck me. I then referred to my copy of the DVD box set of the original Thunderbirds series. Then I came to this page and the top-down view of the Hawk helped me come to this conclusion: <br />
<br />
The Hawk Air Warrior is Thunderbird 1.<br />
<br />
Or more correctly I should say the Hawk Air Warrior is heavily inspired by Thunderbird 1. The main difference is that Thunderbird 1 has swing wings while the Hawk Air Warrior has fixed reversed wings and is missing some fins on the middle jet engine on the rear ring section. <br />
<br />
While I cannot confirm it, I do feel that it is likely because many of Gerry Anderson's Supermarionation and live action sci-fi series have lent inspiration to the original X-Com series. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 02:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Power_Sword&diff=90392Power Sword2020-03-26T20:45:53Z<p>NKF: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Ref Open}}<br />
A close combat weapon that uses an [[Elerium]] Plasma Generator to enhance the blade. It is a very powerful device, but can only be used against adjacent targets.<br />
{{Ref Close|Source: X-COM Apocalypse Ufopaedia}}<br />
<br />
The Power Sword is a short ranged weapon that has high destructive potential and is very portable. It is unfortunately tempered by having an effective targeting range of only 1 tile, restricting it to close combat. Despite this, it is a very powerful weapon and is often used as a portable digging tool. <br />
<br />
One of the sword's distinguishing features is that its recharging battery, similar to the ones on the Stun Grapple, Disrupter Gun and Devastator Cannon. This means that its ammunition is effectively unlimited, however its operational time is limited by the number of charges it can maintain at any given time. <br />
<br />
The Power Sword features a relatively slim design, taking up a vertical 1&times;4 inventory slot. This shape is very convenient as it allows Agents to pack a Power Sword while storing one or two Personal Disrupter Shields in the backpack. <br />
<br />
The Power Sword is embargoed for sale on the market for two weeks from the start of the campaign and only appear for sale in very limited supplies. Agents with sticky fingers can find the swords prior to their public release by visiting the Marsec Arms Factory, which can be found on every city map. <br />
<br />
The Power Sword deals 5 more damage than the Devastator Cannon, while having a 100% damage modifier on all enemies with the exception of Micronoids (50%) and Personal Shields (50%, also same for Devastator Cannon), this makes it one of the few purchasable weapons that are viable throughout the game (mainly in Turn Based mode) with the downside being melee range only. It is especially useful when dealing with Poppers, as the Plasma Damage will not cause it to explode on death. Though fully outclassed by the Toxiguns ability to bypass shields as well as the Type C damage, it makes for a great weapon to use in the early weeks and in runs where the player decides to use only certain types of weapons to increase the games difficulty. (i.e. purchasable weapons only / PS only run, etc.)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Weapon Stats == <br />
* Weight: 4<br />
* Size: 1x4<br />
* Power: 75<br />
* Damage Type: Plasma<br />
* Range: 2m<br />
* Fire Rate: 1.03 r/s<br />
<br />
== Tips == <br />
<br />
* The sword's projectile has a longer range than its targeting range. When used on the same level the projectile travels towards the floor, limiting the range to 1 tile along the same elevation. If aimed diagonally, the projectile can be thrown much further, though the accuracy of the attack will be dubious. <br />
<br />
== See Also ==<br />
<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
{{Equipment (Apocalypse) Navbar}}<br />
<br />
[[Category: Apocalypse]]<br />
[[Category: Agents Equipment (Apocalypse)]]<br />
<br />
<br />
== Old Article == <br />
<br />
The Power Sword is a curious weapon on the streets of [[Mega Primus]]. It does even more damage per shot than the [[Devastator Cannon]], and fires considerably faster. It also does not require ammunition, recharging as the Devastator Cannon does. As its name suggests, however, it is a melee weapon like the stun grapple, making it difficult to use effectively despite these advantages. Curiouser is its highly limited supply; including those in X-COM's stores, there are typically less than a half dozen on the market at any time.<br />
<br />
The Power Sword's lack of range makes it unsuitable for typical combat and generally left unused by the player. However, due to its speed and power, the sword may be useful in a few situations:<br />
<br />
*'''Ambush:''' If the mission's environment allows it, it may be possible to draw computer opponents into extremely narrow chokepoints where a skilled X-COM [[Agents (Apocalypse)|agent]], with appropriate reaction scores, can hide around the corner and shielded by enemy fire but attack opponents where they come about to engage him or her. Because of limitations in the computer's AI, they may go through several or even several dozen opponents before they get the idea to toss a grenade. However, because the range of the weapon forces such specific placement, this is usually only useful when guarding a narrow door or other 1x1 passageway.<br />
*'''Teleport:''' Late in the game, a seasoned X-Com commander may achieve a high enough score to prompt aliens employ [[Teleporter|teleporters]] in their equipment. When X-COM inevitably captures and reverse engineers this technology, it brings the quirky Power Sword into play; an agent can teleport directly behind a troublesome alien and reduce their opponent to so much burnt flesh. A skilled agent can fell a [[Megaspawn (Apocalypse)|Megaspawn]] by themselves with nothing but a teleporter and a Power Sword.<br />
*'''Destruction:''' Perhaps the weapon's most causally useful feature, the Power Sword's damage and lack of ammo makes it extremely effective at putting holes (and thus, makeshift doors) in walls, carve out a structure's supports or even dig tunnels through several tiles of solid rock. This trick can make even the labrynthine [[Alien Dimension (Apocalypse)|alien buildings]] navigatable with little effort, and may be useful for setting up an Ambush (see above).<br />
<br />
The Power Sword is a slim, 1x5 item that fits neatly beside two [[Personal Shield|Personal Shields]] in an agent's backpack. This makes it convenient and nonobtrusive to carry as a backup tool, though the "limited-edition" nature of their supply may make this impossible for all but your favourite agents.</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Power_Sword&diff=90391Talk:Power Sword2020-03-26T20:30:09Z<p>NKF: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Useful against Poppers?==<br />
<br />
I noticed a recent addition to this page noting that the Power Sword can kill Poppers without them exploding. However, to my understanding the Power Sword's lack of range will generally prevent it from being used on a Popper (in real-time mode or during the alien turn in turn-based mode) before the Popper detonates. The only exception would be if you got the drop on one in turn-based mode, and in that scenario you can simply move soldiers out of the blast radius. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 12:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)<br />
: Back when I was playing the game heavily, I used to often build a small team of androids armed with dual swords. They were surprisingly effective and they had their occasional success against Poppers. <br />
: I would consider the swords feasible but not necessarily reliable. It depends on how quickly the attack can be executed before the popper decides to detonate. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 20:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Weapon_Analysis&diff=90233Weapon Analysis2020-01-24T07:48:35Z<p>NKF: Reworked the opening blurb and disclaimer</p>
<hr />
<div>__NOTOC__<br />
<br />
This section is a collection hub for various articles that discuss the merits of the many weapons in the X-COM series. Weapons can range anywhere from hand-held firearms to aircraft weapons. <br />
<br />
Contents of the respective articles are subject to change. Readers wanting to share alternate views or propose new topics are welcome to join the discussion on the talk pages. <br />
<br />
=Disclaimer =<br />
<br />
Though Ufopaedia.org attempts to be factual in its core articles (with some artistic license taken for non-essential descriptions), '''the arguments presented here are strictly the opinion of the respective contributor(s)'''. Readers are encouraged to form their own opinion based on the information presented. <br />
<br />
<br />
__TOC__<br />
<br />
=Weapon Debates=<br />
<br />
==UFO==<br />
:•[[Best Starting Weapons (EU)]]<br />
:•[[Skipping Laser Weapons]]<br />
:•[[Skipping Plasma Weapons]] <br />
:•[[Heavy Cannon vs Auto Cannon]]<br />
:•Rifle Comparisons <br />
::•[[Rifle vs Pistol]]<br />
::•[[Rifle vs Laser Pistol]]<br />
:•[[Laser Pistol vs All Predecessors]]<br />
:•Laser Rifle comparisons <br />
::•[[Laser Rifle vs All Predecessors]]<br />
::•[[Laser Rifle vs Laser Pistol]]<br />
::•[[Laser Rifle vs Heavy Plasma]]<br />
:•Heavy Laser Comparisons <br />
::•[[Heavy Laser vs Heavy Plasma]]<br />
::•[[Heavy Laser vs Heavy Cannon]] <br />
<br />
==TFTD==<br />
<br />
''See also: [[Weapon Effectiveness (TFTD)]]''<br />
<br />
:•[[Best Starting Weapons (TFTD)]]<br />
:•[[Skipping Gauss Weapons]]<br />
:•[[Skipping Sonic Weapons]] <br />
:•[[Sonic Cannon vs Displacer/Sonic]]<br />
<br />
:•Gas Cannon comparisons <br />
::•[[Gas Cannon vs Torpedo Launcher]] <br />
::•[[Gas Cannon vs Heavy Gauss ]] <br />
<br />
:•Sonic Pistol comparisons <br />
::•[[Sonic Pistol vs Heavy Gauss]]<br />
::•[[Sonic Pistol vs. Gauss Rifle]]<br />
::•[[Sonic Pistol vs. Gauss Pistol]]<br />
::•[[Sonic Pistol vs Sonic Blasta Rifle]]<br />
::•[[Sonic Pistol vs Sonic Cannon]]<br />
<br />
==Apocalypse==<br />
:*[[Toxigun vs Devastator Cannon]]<br />
<br />
==General Discussions==<br />
:•[[Recommended Weapon Research Order]]<br />
:•[[Weapons by Role]]<br />
:•[[Weapons by Role (TFTD)]]<br />
:•[[HE vs single target weapons]]<br />
:•[[Tanks vs Troops]]<br />
<br />
==Cross Game Discussions==<br />
:•[[Stun Rod vs Thermal Tazer]]<br />
:•[[High Explosive vs Magna-Pack Explosive]]<br />
:•[[Pistol vs Dart Gun]]<br />
:•[[Rifle vs Jet Harpoon]]<br />
:•[[Heavy Cannon vs Gas Cannon]]<br />
:•[[Auto Cannon vs Hydro-Jet Cannon]]<br />
:•[[Rocket Launcher vs Torpedo Launcher]]<br />
:•[[Laser Pistol vs Gauss Pistol]]<br />
:•[[Laser Rifle vs Gauss Rifle]]<br />
:•[[Heavy Laser vs Heavy Gauss]]<br />
:•[[Plasma Pistol vs Sonic Pistol]]<br />
:•[[Plasma Rifle vs Sonic Blasta Rifle]]<br />
:•[[Heavy Plasma vs Sonic Cannon]]<br />
:•[[Small Launcher vs Thermal Shok Launcher]]<br />
:•[[Blaster Launcher vs Disruptor Pulse Launcher]]<br />
<br />
=Quantitative Analysis=<br />
<br />
Accuracy<br />
<br />
*[[User_talk:Bomb_Bloke#Firing_Accuracy]]<br />
*[[Firing Accuracy Testing]]<br />
<br />
Firepower<br />
<br />
*[[Firepower Tables]]<br />
*[[Image:Firepower.xls]]<br />
*Avg TUs per Kill Rankings, vs Targets (using [[User:Spike#Tactical_Firepower_Model|this kill model]])<br />
**[[Talk:Sectoid#Weapon_Rankings_Vs_Sectoids|Sectoid]]<br />
**[[Talk:Floater#Weapon_Rankings_Vs._Floaters|Floater]]<br />
**[[Talk:Cyberdisc#Weapon_Rankings_Vs._Cyberdiscs|Cyberdisc]]<br />
**[[Talk:Reaper#Weapon_Rankings_Vs._Reapers|Reaper]]<br />
**[[Talk:Muton#Weapon_Rankings_Vs._Mutons|Muton]]<br />
**[[Talk:Celatid#Weapon_Rankings_Vs._Celatids|Celatid]]<br />
**[[Talk:Silacoid#Weapon_Rankings_Vs_Silacoids|Silacoid]]<br />
**[[Talk:Snakeman#Weapon_Rankings_Vs._Snakemen|Snakeman]]<br />
**[[Talk:Chryssalid#Weapon_Rankings_Vs._Chryssalids|Chryssalid]]<br />
**[[Talk:Zombie#Weapon_Rankings_Vs._Zombies|Zombie]]<br />
**[[Talk:Ethereal#Weapon_Rankings_Vs._Ethereals|Ethereal]]<br />
**[[Talk:Sectopod#Weapon_Rankings_Vs._Sectopods|Sectopod]]<br />
*[[Tank_Firepower|Kill Rankings for Tanks]]<br />
<br />
=Other Discussions=<br />
<br />
*[[Accuracy vs TU Efficiency]]<br />
*[[Talk:Launcher Weapons]]<br />
*[[Aimed, Snap, or Auto?]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:Weapons]]<br />
[[Category:Weapons (TFTD)]]<br />
[[Category:Enemy Unknown/UFO Defense]]</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Heavy_Gauss&diff=90212Heavy Gauss2020-01-16T07:26:29Z<p>NKF: Rewrite - and removed a paragraph that wasn't necessary.</p>
<hr />
<div>==General Information==<br />
{{Ref Open | title = Heavy Gauss}}<br />
The heavy Gauss is cumbersome, but extremely effective. It operates with 3 particle accelerators and is virtually unstoppable. The anti-proton stream is confined inside a Gallium Arsenide shell that implodes on impact releasing the anti-matter.<br />
{{Ref Close | source = Terror From The Deep Ufopaedia}} <br />
<br />
<br />
{{Infobox open}}<br />
{{Infobox module/weapon<br />
| weapon = Heavy Gauss<br />
| height = 3<br />
| width = 2<br />
| weight = 18<br />
| grip = Two-Handed<br />
| damagethreshold = 20<br />
| weaponimage = [[Image:Heavy_gauss.gif]]<br />
| acc_auto = -<br />
| acc_snap = 50<br />
| acc_aim = 90<br />
| fcost_auto = -<br />
| fcost_snap = 40<br />
| fcost_aim = 80<br />
| saleprice = 61000<br />
| research =<br />
| acquisition ={{Manufacturing|32000|700|4| -}}<br />
}}<br />
{{Infobox module/ammo<br />
| weapon = Heavy Gauss<br />
| ammo = Heavy Gauss Clip<br />
| weight = 4<br />
| height = 1<br />
| width = 1<br />
| damagethreshold = 70<br />
| ammoimage = [[Image:Heavy_gauss_clip.gif]]<br />
| damage = 75 Gauss Beam<br />
| capacity = 10<br />
| saleprice = 3220<br />
| research =<br />
| acquisition ={{Manufacturing|4000|70|4| -}}<br />
}}<br />
{{Infobox close}}<br />
<br />
<br />
The Heavy Gauss, or Heavy Gauss Cannon, is a slow but powerful weapon that deals Gauss damage. It is the Gauss technology near equivalent of a [[Gas Cannon]] armed with GC-AP rounds. <br />
<br />
The Heavy Gauss closely matches the Gas Cannon in performance, although snapshots are less accurate and aimed shots are slower. In return, it has greater stopping power and a slightly larger ammunition supply. Weapon weight is slightly increased while clip weight is decreased. <br />
<br />
As with all Gauss weapons, the Heavy Gauss and its ammunition can be easily mass produced as they do not require any exotic materials for construction. <br />
<br />
Research for the Heavy Gauss is required to access the highly profitable craft [[Gauss Cannon]]. <br />
<br />
'''Note:''' Gauss weapons must be manufactured <br />
<br />
This weapon appears in ''[[TFTD|Terror from the Deep]]''. For the ''[[X-COM|UFO: Enemy Unknown]]'' equivalent, refer to the [[Heavy Laser]].<br />
<br />
{| {{StdCenterTable}} align = "center" <br />
|-<br />
|colspan = "2" {{StdDescTable_Heading}}|'''Key Features'''<br />
|- <br />
|colspan = "2" align="left" valign = "top"| <br />
* Gauss Damage <br />
|-<br />
|{{StdDescTable_Heading}} width = "50%" |'''Pros''' <br />
|{{StdDescTable_Heading}} width = "50%" |'''Cons'''<br />
|-<br />
| align = "left" valign = "top"|<br />
* Moderate Accuracy<br />
* Moderate Power<br />
| align = "left" valign = "top"|<br />
* Heavy<br />
* Bulky<br />
* Slow<br />
* Low Ammo <br />
* Manufactured<br />
|}<br />
<br />
== Notes == <br />
<br />
* Prerequisite for the [[Gauss Cannon]] submarine weapon and the [[Coelacanth/Gauss]]. <br />
<br />
==Recommendations==<br />
<br />
Prior to the Sonic weapons, the Heavy Gauss makes a good early-game replacement for the Gas Cannon's armour piercing role. This leaves the Gas Cannon free to work with high explosive or phosphor rounds. <br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[Weapons (TFTD)|Weapons]]<br />
* [[Gauss Pistol]]<br />
* [[Gauss Rifle]]<br />
* [[Heavy Laser vs Heavy Gauss]]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Equipment (TFTD) Navbar}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Equipment (TFTD)]][[Category:Research (TFTD)]]<br />
[[Category:TFTD]]</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Heavy_Gauss&diff=90211Talk:Heavy Gauss2020-01-16T07:06:50Z<p>NKF: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Re: "Cannon not canon"==<br />
<br />
"Heavy Gauss Cannon" is a canon term; it's the name of the research topic that unlocks this gun. Not sure if we should re-add it. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 08:17, 14 January 2020 (CET)<br />
<br />
: It is used in-game so it can't hurt to mention it. A redirect page can be set up easily if anyone wants to use the full term as a link [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 08:06, 16 January 2020 (CET)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=UIGLOB.DAT&diff=90199UIGLOB.DAT2020-01-13T06:55:01Z<p>NKF: Wiki table-ed!</p>
<hr />
<div>This short file contains the following information, all stored in 16-bit integer (two byte) numeric fields.<br />
<br />
{| {{StdDescTable}}<br />
|- <br />
! {{StdDescTable_Heading}}| Offset<br/>dec (hex) <br />
! {{StdDescTable_Heading}}| Meaning<br />
|-<br />
| 0 (0x00)<br />
| Next spotted UFO number<br />
|- <br />
| 2 (0x02)<br />
| Next Terror mission number<br />
|-<br />
| 4 (0x04)<br />
| Next built Alien Base number <br />
|-<br />
| 6 (0x06)<br />
| Number of minimized interceptor windows (but see Discussion)<br />
|-<br />
| 8 (0x08)<br />
| Months elapsed <sup>1</sup><br />
|-<br />
| 10 (0x0A)<br />
| Next Waypoint number<br />
|-<br />
| 12 (0x0C)<br />
| Next Skyranger number<br />
|-<br />
| 14 (0x0E)<br />
| Next Lightning number<br />
|-<br />
| 16 (0x10)<br />
| Next Avenger number<br />
|-<br />
| 18 (0x12)<br />
| Next Interceptor number<br />
|-<br />
| 20 (0x14)<br />
| Next Firestorm number<br />
|-<br />
| 22 (0x16)<br />
| Current Game Year (1999, (0x07CF) for a lot of the time)<br />
|-<br />
| 24+ (0x18)<br />
| Monthly score related values, Jan to Dec (See below)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Scoring|Score]] earned by completing research projects in January increase the value at Offset 24 (0x18) as you complete them, then at the end of the month this value is increased by 400 as a survival bonus. Later months are then stored in the later offsets.<br />
<br />
<sup>1</sup> '''Month elapsed''' count the number of months that have passed since the start of the game. This is used to control the alien race/activity stages as well as the early/mid/late weapon set selection. <br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
[[Saved Game Files]]<br />
[[Category:Game Files]]<br />
[[Category:Enemy Unknown/UFO Defense]]</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=UIGLOB.DAT&diff=90198UIGLOB.DAT2020-01-13T06:40:03Z<p>NKF: 'next ground assault' changed to 'months elapsed'.</p>
<hr />
<div>This short file contains the following information, all stored in 16-bit integer (two byte) numeric fields.<br />
<br />
<table {{StdDescTable}}><br />
<tr><br />
<th {{StdDescTable_Heading}}>'''Offset<br/>dec (hex)'''</th><th {{StdDescTable_Heading}}>'''Meaning'''</th><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><td> 0 (0x00)</td><td>Next spotted UFO number</td></tr><br />
<tr><td> 2 (0x02)</td><td>Next Terror mission number</td></tr><br />
<tr><td> 4 (0x04)</td><td>Next built Alien Base number </td></tr><br />
<tr><td> 6 (0x06)</td><td>Number of minimized interceptor windows (but see Discussion) </td></tr><br />
<tr><td> 8 (0x08)</td><td>Months elapsed <sup>1</sup></td></tr><br />
<tr><td>10 (0x0A)</td><td>Next Waypoint number</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>12 (0x0C)</td><td>Next Skyranger number</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>14 (0x0E)</td><td>Next Lightning number</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>16 (0x10)</td><td>Next Avenger number</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>18 (0x12)</td><td>Next Interceptor number</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>20 (0x14)</td><td>Next Firestorm number</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>22 (0x16)</td><td>Current Game Year (1999, (0x07CF) for a lot of the time)</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>24+ (0x18)</td><td>Monthly score related values, Jan to Dec (See below)</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
[[Scoring|Score]] earned by completing research projects in January increase the value at Offset 24 (0x18) as you complete them, then at the end of the month this value is increased by 400 as a survival bonus. Later months are then stored in the later offsets, increasing by two each time.<br />
<br />
<sup>1</sup> '''Month elapsed''' count the number of months that have passed since the start of the game. This is used to control the alien race/activity stages as well as the early/mid/late weapon set selection. <br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
[[Saved Game Files]]<br />
[[Category:Game Files]]<br />
[[Category:Enemy Unknown/UFO Defense]]</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Sonic_Pistol_vs_Sonic_Blasta_Rifle&diff=90092Talk:Sonic Pistol vs Sonic Blasta Rifle2019-12-28T07:31:34Z<p>NKF: /* Should I edit this? */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Should I edit this?==<br />
This page was originally written by Covenant, and I think he's made some mistakes. I'd like to rewrite the page, but I'm wondering whether that's appropriate given that Weapon Analysis pages are to a fair degree opinion.<br />
<br />
Ordinarily, I'd ask Covenant, but I suspect that's not going to work since he hasn't edited in ten years. So I'm asking the community in general. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 07:57, 28 December 2019 (CET)<br />
<br />
: Go for it. These sections are meant to present an opinions, but I wouldn't count them as personal projects. Any disagreements can always be debated here in the talk pages. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 08:31, 28 December 2019 (CET)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=90026Talk:Main Page2019-12-17T06:32:19Z<p>NKF: /* 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)<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>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Alien_Submarines&diff=89695Talk:Alien Submarines2019-08-31T07:35:00Z<p>NKF: /* Impossible crews */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Survey Ship and Escort==<br />
<br />
From what I can tell, everything in the game, the UFOpaedia entries, the Transmission Resolver data, everything indicates that the one with the two IBAs and the two interior rooms IS the Survey Ship. That USO is more easily shot down/destroyed, comes with only one alien, and the UFOpaedia entry for the Survey Ship matches its design (the two windows being separated over a wider flat portion). The Escort is the one with only one IBA and no internal rooms. These aren't so easily destroyed, come with 4+ aliens and have the windows close together and sloping sides, like in the Escort UFOpaedia entry.<br />
<br />
I intend to fix this in the wiki entries unless someone objects. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 06:19, 20 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I object! :) This is believed to be a [[Known Bugs (TFTD)|bug]], the Escort and Survey Ship have been swapped around in the game. [[XcomUtil]] fixes this. The UFOPaedia entries are correct. Maybe make a note of the bug on both wiki pages? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 11:21, 20 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: The UFOpaedia entry for Escort matches the picture seen in the interception window when intercepting an "Escort", which matches the smaller design (adjacent portholes, which is listed on here under Survey Ship). The UFOpaedia entry for Survey Ship matches the picture seen in the interception window when intercepting a "Survey Ship", which matches the larger design (separated portholes, which is listed on here under Escort). It's a huge stretch to call it a bug when absolutely everything agrees. The fact of the matter is, a "Survey Ship" within the (unmodified) game for all intents and purposes is the design with the separated portholes and the interior rooms. The entries in this wiki should reflect that. Xcomutil is a separate issue, and while that should be noted on the pages, and the oddity of the situation (Survey Ship bigger than Escort) should also be noted, it hardly makes sense to confuse people coming to the wiki for the first time based on us thinking that a particular feature of the game is unintended. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 04:13, 21 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:The interception screen pics might also be swapped. Inteck (from StrategyCore) caught one issue where the Fleet Supply Cruiser and the Battleship pics were swapped in the interception screen. But it should be noted that both interception screens have 2 portals while the real Escort ship map design doesn't even have a single one. Then again, the real Survey Ship's pic is indeed smaller than the real Escort.<br />
<br />
::<i> Actually, you're wrong. The larger ship, which you term the "real" Escort, has 2 portals on the battlescape. They're on either side of the door. This pattern matches the UFOpaedia entry and interception pic for Survey Ship, both of which have two separated portals. The smaller ship, which you term the "real" Survey Ship, has 2 portals right next to each other, which matches the UFOpaedia entry and interception pic of the Escort.<br />
<br />
::I actually noticed the Fleet Supply Cruiser/Battleship issue myself. THAT should be noted as a swapping, because the interception and UFOpaedia pic do not match the Battlescape (which is obviously right, because it matches the UFOpaedia text). However, in this case, every in-game source agrees.</i> [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 05:10, 22 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
In my defense, the portals on the larger ship don't look <b>anything</b> like the portals on the smaller ship.--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 11:34, 22 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
You're right there. It's because of the different angle. I wasn't faulting you for it. :) [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 04:55, 23 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:All information points to the fact that the two ship designs were accidentally swapped when they were added to the game. The real survey ship only has 3 spawn points whereas the Escort has 6, not to mention that the real survey ship doesn't have any internal doors while the Escort has 2. Is this intended? I highly doubt it. The designers/programmers had to whack this game out in a short amount of time and a lot of mistakes were made. They were trying to base the USOs off the UFOs from the first game but messed it up. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 09:04, 21 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::<i> This is possible. However, the fact that they're swapped everywhere you can possibly look in the (unmodified) game means that we really should discuss the larger, 3-room vessel as the Survey Ship and the smaller, 1-room vessel as the Escort, with probably a note on both pages saying that this is anomalous and could be unintended. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 05:10, 22 August 2009 (EDT)</i><br />
<br />
:One theory which I came up with a while back is that the map programmers confused the two ships because they look so similar (well, small). It's not that big of a stretch to assume that the person who was responsible for designing the ship layout was not the same person who implemented them in-game, who confused and swapped the two maps, but correctly based the map in the Battlescape against the interception pic in the Geoscape/USOPedia.<br />
<br />
:However, just because somethings technically "agree" in-game, there are other glaring inconsistencies which don't agree. The spawn points is one of them and the sheer complexity of the real Escort craft forces a person to really sit down and think about it for a while. Also, look at what happens in the Geoscape: the smaller ship has the correct size class (very small) and the correct sonar blob (which is based off of the class I'd imagine), same goes for the larger ship. In fact, all the stats you would associate with each craft are correct in every respect (weapons, weapon range, speed, etc). But when you go on a mission, the map (and more importantly the size) doesn't reflect the stats in the Geoscape. That's the deciding factor.<br />
<br />
:I agree that it should be made more apparent on the two craft pages that there are major discrepancies, but wouldn't go so far as to swap the two articles here just to match some observances in-game. When you boil this all down, it is nothing more than an unfortunate mixup with the maps. It's pretty obvious to me, but I guess to those who do not study the game files or the executable, it's easier to accept the craft are that way intentionally. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 11:34, 22 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::You have a point. But on the other hand...<br />
<br />
::No matter how unintentional it is, the map which comes up when you attack a Survey Ship has the bigger hull. Therefore, it is terribly misleading to put the smaller hull's floor plans in our page about the Survey Ship and the bigger hull's floor plans in our page on Escort. Same for the UFOpaedia/interception pic. Noting that it's screwed up is one thing, but listing things which are not true in-game in a wiki dedicated to it is extremely dodgy. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 04:55, 23 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I also have a fix for this up in StrategyCore's [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/index.php?dlid=620 files section]. It includes a route fix as well. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:16, 20 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Terminology==<br />
In-game, these are always referred to as "Alien Submarines" or "Alien Subs", not ever as USOs. We should correct this. Also, the in-game reference is called the UFOpedia, not the USOpaedia. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 00:54, 15 September 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:As I recall, the reason such nomenculture is used is that "USO" is very similar to "UFO", and a fair bit faster and easier to type out than "Alien subs". And while you are correct that the game lists it as a UFOpaedia, remember that TFTD is basically a commercial total-conversion mod of EU. USOpaedia is used to allow a reader to quickly establish that this article or portion thereof refers to TFTD, and '''NOT''' EU.<br />
<br />
:It also adjusts to established reading habits; an EU player who starts on TFTD will be easily able to read the TFTD pages without any difficulty due to the use of terms. You'd be surprised how much trouble some people have reinterpreting the same sentence written in a different way. So by using a clear and consistent set of terms, we can avoid those issues...even if it is very slightly inaccurate. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 01:30, 15 September 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: It's not official, but many adopted it simply as a spin off "UFO" for convenience. I believe there are also some terminologies we use a lot in UFO that don't necessarily appear in-game. <br />
<br />
:: I don't mind either way as long as there is no confusion amongst the readers - the actual sub names are more probably important terminology to keep intact. Actually, that's reminded me of something. Microprose released a set of short stories as teasers for TFTD's release. Not sure if they will have any insight into any of this, but I think they need to be mentioned (or even added) to the Wiki at some stage. <br />
<br />
:: To be pedantic, I thought I'd point out that TFTD Americanizes the Ufopaedia into Ufopedia. Most seem to prefer the ae. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:58, 15 September 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
- I can replace every single instance myself, and would be happy to, so the length is not an issue.<br />
<br />
- I had noted that TFTD Americanised the spelling, that is why is it listed as such in my paragraph above.<br />
<br />
- The term USO itself is confusing. It confused me. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 02:47, 15 September 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
: Well volunteered M9M! I am surprised to discover that USO is not a canonical term. I don't think we should be inventing terms that don't appear in the game. Also, the term USO doesn't occur outside the game (apart from on this website). That is more likely to be confusing to any new people. And they are the ones we should worry about - anyone already reading the site knows what USO means but is not going to be confused by a more specific term like Alien Submarines. It looks like USO is a short-hand and I don't think we should be lazy. My vote is to replace both USO and USOPaedia/USOPedia throughout, as being non-canonical, unhelpful, and confusing to new readers. As an extra question, is SWP canonical or not? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 13:52, 15 September 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: Just had a quick glance at where USO is used, like the navbar, and I don't see it causing any confusion - so go for it. A note on what it means for those who encounter it may be helpful though as it has been in use for so long that many long time players have adopted it even if it's not a canon term. SWP isn't in the game, but SWS is. That's actually encountered in the game text. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 15:40, 15 September 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
However, within this wiki SWS is used wrongly a lot of times. It's the equivalent to HWP, not to Tank. Coelacanth is the equivalent to Tank. Hence SWS/Displacer is tautological. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 22:08, 15 September 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
So shall I go ahead? [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 11:11, 19 September 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:With over two years of lack of response, I decided to just go ahead and do it. The term USO has been excised from this wiki, replaced with Alien Sub. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 01:31, 5 February 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Alien Sub section TO-DO's ==<br />
<br />
The sub pages are rich in information about the subs, but we're missing the crew equipment loadouts. <br />
<br />
We've got the crews, just not the various possible equipment combinations. An executable dig might reveal this information - just have to recall where this is stored. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 06:44, 25 February 2011 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Crashed/Destroyed Columns ==<br />
These columns were very confusing to me at first, as I thought (due to their position and titles) that they were some measure of the amount of damage you had to inflict to either down or kill the sub. I did not figure it out until I went to [[UFOs]] and saw the different column names. I think the column names should be changed here, or have a clarifying comment below the table. --[[User:Jewcifer|Jewcifer]] 15:40, 16 March 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Impossible crews ==<br />
<br />
While editing the crew rank breakdowns for the various alien submarines, something occurred to me:<br />
<br />
Lobster Men [[Alien_Appearance_Ratios_(TFTD)|don't perform]] Alien Resource Raid missions, and Mixed Crew don't perform any missions other than Alien Surface Attacks and Floating Base Attack. This means that a Lobster-Man-crewed Hunter is impossible, and ditto for Mixed-crew Heavy Cruisers, Hunters, and Fleet Supply Cruisers, unless you hack the game.<br />
<br />
Should this be noted on the pages? Should we remove those races' tables from the pages entirely? Not really sure what to do, so I figured I'd ask. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 10:43, 30 August 2019 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I would recommend leaving them in. One suggestion is to grey out the unused values and make a note explaining that while the values are present in the game, they are not used. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 09:34, 31 August 2019 (CEST)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Micronoid_Aggregate_(Apocalypse)&diff=87850Talk:Micronoid Aggregate (Apocalypse)2018-09-11T05:42:33Z<p>NKF: /* Needing to damage them before stun */</p>
<hr />
<div>Do the pools of blood from dead aliens mean, that a huge micronoid is hiding somewhere in the city, composed of thousands small micronoids escaped from the pools before the cleanerbots arrived? Waiting to burst out when it is strong enough or when X-Com have advanced enough?<br />
:--[[User:Karpatius|Karp]] 04:28, 26 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Technically speaking?<br />
<br />
Yes.<br />
<br />
Yes, they do.<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 21:05, 26 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Then again, they probably don't live for very long outside of a host or in an ideal environment that is suited to them (first alien building or inside the Bomber UFO). -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 22:23, 26 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Don't listen to him, the Micronoid already have him under their control! That's just what they WANT you to think!!<br />
<br />
Run! Run, while you still can!!!<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 02:09, 27 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
NFK, check the biochemistry section; micronoids aren't as inept at Earth environment survival unlike other aliens. They just need a host, like an unsuspecting civilian or someone from the cleaner crew to negate poor conditions.<br />
<br />
And Bomb: you are being observed... not watched, but observed...<br />
:--[[User:Karpatius|Karp]] 02:29, 27 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
It's a good thing mega primus has robot cleaners.--[[User:(name here)|(name here)]] 08:56, 27 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I said "someone" as in a technician or something.<br />
:--[[User:Karpatius|Karp]] 09:23, 27 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
Most of the muckier and more tedious jobs get given to bots or androids. Cleaners, technicians, mobile footstools, etc. But I suppose there's always one of those hapless rent-a-cops wandering around the building that everyone employs. <br />
<br />
How would each individual or very small groups of micronoid cell organisms fare in earth's atmosphere though? They might survive well enough if they're able to band together into their puddle form if they're outside a host. Or do they die (via sympathetic reaction or some such) when their host dies? <br />
<br />
When the aliens do their micronoid rain attack on a building, I'm guessing they're air-dropping micronoids onto the building. There would be lots of micronoids that end up splashing onto potential hosts who haven't got umbrellas or their handy dandy nuclear rain deflectors. Then there'd be enough to meld into a lots of puddles, and with their incredible psi powers when combined end up taking over the occupants of the building. It's hard to think of their plans being foiled by an excellent drainage and gutter system or even disinfectant. <br />
<br />
And by the way we - yes - we are merely inebriated. We are not suspicious. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]] 22:51, 27 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Kinda guessed. <br />
<br />
Good. It's just a game. Remember... just a game.<br />
:-[[User:Karpatius|Karp]] 22:35, 28 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Micronoid Aggregate = Pod People? ==<br />
<br />
The Micronoid Aggregate, which is the true antagonist of the X-COM series, was possibly based on the Pod People from the 1956 Film, Invasion of the Body Snatchers.<br />
They are both Extraterrestrial Parasites that depend on the assimilation of other species and the consumption of their resources for their own survival. --[[User:Arima|Arima]] 04:21, 10 April 2010 (EDT)<br />
:Nice possibility. Add it to [[Cultural Influences on X-COM]] page, where other possible influences are listed. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:40, 10 April 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Needing to damage them before stun ==<br />
<br />
The article says you need to damage them before capture. This has not been my experience; I have stunned undamaged Micronoids with a Stun Grapple before. It takes a few hits, but they go down eventually (not for very long, but you can get around that by standing on them).<br />
<br />
Will remove the note about damaging them from this page and the Capturing Live Aliens page unless someone objects. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 05:06, 11 September 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: No objections here. The Stun Grapple does a base of 90 stun, and according to the stats page the Micronoids have a base of 80 hitpoints. Even with difficulty adjustment on stats that should be enough to knock out a Micronoid at full health. The damage would be more for convenience than a necessity. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 07:42, 11 September 2018 (CEST)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Biochemistry&diff=87640Talk:Biochemistry2018-08-27T07:43:22Z<p>NKF: /* Re: second small lab */</p>
<hr />
<div>it seems to me that the values under "cost" are WAY off. First off, I am making the assumption that by cost we mean "skill hours" and not financial cost. Some of them could be simply mistakes, such as the multiworm being listed as 90k and 15k, which is (according to Apoc'd) 9k and 15k; yet others are so different that it cannot have been a simple typo. Is there something I am missing? [[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 23:30, 18 November 2009 (EST)<br />
: Looking at it the Hyperworm, Multiworm Egg and the Multiworm seem to have all typos. The original poster that added the skill hours was Blaimjos but he doesn't mentioned his source. Either he got it from one of the forums or from the Official Strategy Guide. Can you check with Apoc'd all of the values that don't match? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 05:57, 19 November 2009 (EST)<br />
:: Yeah, I noticed those ones seem to be typos. I have only been around this wiki for at most a year, and only on Apoc wiki for a couple months. I didn't want to be presumptuous in making major edits, but I have fixed a few things here and there. Anyway, I am going to edit all of them to match Apoc'd now, and you can review my changes and undo anything you know to be wrong... but I am pretty certain Apoc'd is correct.[[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 14:00, 19 November 2009 (EST)<br />
::: Modesty is a virtue but don't let it restrain you from doing edits if the information is incorrect or outdated. No one here holds the truth... perhaps someone will come in a year and tell us that Apoc'd values are all wrong :) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 14:42, 19 November 2009 (EST)<br />
:::: BLASPHEMY!!! :-) [[User:J'ordos|J&#39;ordos]] 07:02, 20 November 2009 (EST)<br />
::::: Thus speaks the god J'ordos... we will all feel his wrath and anger now! ;) [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 11:32, 20 November 2009 (EST)<br />
::Sorry I'm not a regular contributor. My interest is usually tied to when I'm playing the game. My reference source was my now yellowing strategy guide. I've found some mistakes over 12+ years but didn't know about Apoc'd and figured more was better than less. I'll try to include my reference in the future. Thanks for seeing enough value to correct rather than revert!![[User:Blaimjos|Blaimjos]] 20:59, 6 December 2009 (EST)<br />
::: No need to feel bad. There is so much conflicting information coming from different sources, and as it turns out just because its official doesnt make it correct. In any case, I wouldn't have corrected something that wasn't there to begin with, so your help is appreciated. ;-) [[User:Talon81|Talon81]] 18:21, 7 December 2009 (EST)<br />
:::: Yup, what Talon says about the official not being correct already happens with the UFO Defense Official Strategy Guide where some of the info contained there didn't match what people found when looking around in the code of the game. It is nice to have someone with the Apocalypse OSG since most of the info will be correct but that's why it is good to have different sources in order to confirm it. [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:51, 7 December 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
Playing through again after all these years after buying on Steam. Noticed that I can research The Alien Genetic Structure, even though I've only researched live Multiworm Egg, Live & Autopsy Multiworm, and BS launcher. It's also researchable in Standard labs, not just Advanced. --[[User:KayDat|KayDat]] 10:58, 2 March 2010 (EST)<br />
: I am seeing the same on steam - I researched brainsucker launcher, Hyperworm autopsy, multiworm and multiworm autopsy, and poof there it is. I think it may just be a requirement of "4 alien biochem" or "3 live alien or autopsy projects" that triggers it, instead of the specific ones we've been told here. --[[User:Alloutwar|Alloutwar]] ([[User talk:Alloutwar|talk]]) 13:43, 9 January 2016 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Re: second small lab ==<br />
<br />
I don't think a second small lab is particularly useful. These are the topics you need to research in order to get Toxin B: Multiworm, Multiworm Autopsy, Hyperworm, Hyperworm Autopsy, Chrysalis, Chrysalis Autopsy, Advanced Biochemistry Lab, The Alien Genetic Structure, The Alien Life Cycle, Biological Warfare, Toxin Type B. Advanced Biochemistry Lab requires any of the live or autopsied aliens, Biological Warfare requires a built Advanced Biochemistry Lab, and Toxin Type B requires Biological Warfare, making those inherently sequential (and thus a second lab wouldn't help), and the 8-day wait for the large lab to build is roughly 80,000 skill hours, while everything else outside that sequence totals only 99,000-108,000 (depending on which alien you researched to unlock the large lab). At most, a second lab's going to save you a little over a day in getting Toxin B - and the headstart on Toxin C is irrelevant, because your lab will run out of projects before Megaspawn and Psimorphs show up. I plan to remove this advice, unless someone objects (a second small QP lab, on the other hand, is a pretty good idea, as you're absolutely swamped with projects once Transporters show up, and relatively few require an advanced lab). [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 16:01, 26 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I'm with you here. There's no need to rush biochemistry. I suppose a second lab would be useful were you to artificially advance alien tech through excessive early raids. Having Anthropods suddenly deploying with shields would make access to the toxigun desirable. This is not a typical playthrough experience. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 09:42, 27 August 2018 (CEST)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Disruptor_Multi-Bomb_Launcher_(Apocalypse)&diff=87639Talk:Disruptor Multi-Bomb Launcher (Apocalypse)2018-08-27T06:45:52Z<p>NKF: </p>
<hr />
<div>==No more effective than a standard Disruptor missile?==<br />
I know the damage is only listed as 98, but I've seen it do over 200 damage in one shot. I believe the 98 is for the main missile, and the submunitions add up to substantially more than that; Wong's FAQ, though not always accurate, says they do 65 each. Has anyone else observed this? [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 04:47, 27 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: 98 is definitely the main missile. I'm thinking here the reasoning is that with a larger UFO, assuming a standard interception with the AI moving your ships right up next to the UFO, the missiles would not have enough time to split before they strike. In that case only the main missile damage is done. There may be an optimum range that is required for you to get the best out of this launcher. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 08:45, 27 August 2018 (CEST)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Alien_Overview_(Apocalypse)&diff=87610Talk:Alien Overview (Apocalypse)2018-08-21T06:59:08Z<p>NKF: /* Should we sort this page differently? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Brainsucker Attacks ==<br />
Doesn't the Brainsucker stick it's proboscis down the victims throat, as the official entry says instead of the neck?<br />
<br />
--[[User:Karpatius|Karp]] 05:32, 22 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: It's hard to say exactly what they do. The problem with getting infected through the mouth is that the helmets aren't exposed around the mouth - although with the X-Com Disrupter helmet, we can always assume it can break through the glass. The neck on the other hand seems more likely because it's basically resting along the seam between the helmet and the torso and is much less protected. Perhaps all it needs to do is rip enough of the protection off to get the proboscis close enough to the nasal and mouth passages. At close proximity, the micronoids can then be sprayed into the host. I'm just making this up as I'm reminded of the micronoid rain, which is air dropped onto a building. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 12:40, 22 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Looking at the in-game pictures, I can see the brainsucker either ripping the face-plate open or getting through the under-chin layer, which isn't actually plated. Also a prime place for infected agents to lift the pistol to while their friends try to help, not yet knowing that it's too late. I just didn't notice any way for the proboscis to penetrate bone or anything, unlike with Chryssalids.<br />
::Could the micronoid slip through cracks in the plating and the lower layer ( fabric, synthetic materials or whatnot holding the plates in place ) of the armor? No need to rip the armor open.<br />
::--[[User:Karpatius|Karp]] 22:53, 24 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Ooze through, eh? Could work, could work. Reaching down and slipping under the less protected under-chin of the helmet actually makes more sense. At least it sounds much better and much more plausible than biting through armour and bone, etc, so let's go with that. With the exception of the Marsec suit, I don't think any of the suits are meant to be air tight either, so there wouldn't be much stopping it. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 23:58, 24 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
I also think that the brainsucker hangs "upside down" on the victims face, as the proboscis doesn't then have to bend as much and many times compared to being the "right side up" and would slip far easier and deeper into the mouth.<br />
:--[[User:Karpatius|Karp]] 00:19, 25 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Micronoids are psionic, and they're inside the Brainsucker, and it's in direct contact with the victim. All it has to do is compel you to take off the mask. EZPZ. -Bobucles, 8/31/2013<br />
<br />
== Human enemies? ==<br />
<br />
I'd like to add human enemies to this section, but the problem is the page is called ''Alien'' Overview. Should I make a new page, or perhaps add some text to the introductory paragraph to explain the list also includes the humans you face?<br />
--[[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] 15:40, 30 August 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Might as well add them. Technically not alien, but they are potential enemies. There wouldn't be much value creating a whole new page just for them, but they could use a new section in this article. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 23:33, 31 August 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Should we sort this page differently? ==<br />
<br />
I feel like priority is more useful to an overview of aliens in Apocalypse than overall threat. Yes, a Multiworm is more dangerous than a Brainsucker (in real-time mode), but in just about every case where you can see both you should shoot the Brainsucker first because the Brainsucker is a glass cannon and the Multiworm is a damage sponge. (This is less relevant to UFO/TFTD because you rarely encounter large numbers of different alien types at once.)<br />
<br />
Moreover, simply classifying Anthropods and Skeletoids as "High Threat" isn't all that precise. If they're only toting Brainsucker Launchers or Disruptor Guns, they're not particularly dangerous. On the other hand, a shielded, cloaked Skeletoid wielding a missile launcher is probably the most terrifying thing in the game (exactly which missile launcher depends on your own loadout).<br />
<br />
My guess at the priority goes something like this:<br />
<br />
'''Low Priority:''' Multiworm Egg, Chrysalis (can't move and don't need to be subdued), Spitter, Multiworm (high health compared to their damage output)<br />
<br />
'''High Priority:''' Brainsucker, Popper, Hyperworm (low-health units that pack a punch), Megaspawn (missile launcher)<br />
<br />
'''Variable Priority:''' Anthropod, Skeletoid, Human (variable loadout; Devastator Cannons and the various missile launchers are far more dangerous than anything else), Psimorph, Micronoid (because their only attack is psi, their danger level depends entirely on what you're fighting them with)<br />
<br />
Thoughts? [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 10:58, 20 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I must confess that over the years I have become less and less comfortable with ranking the aliens in the overview pages. I have wondered if we should phase this out entirely and leave the pages as simple digests of each alien to sum up what they are and what they do that makes them dangerous. The reader should be able to make their own judgement based off the descriptions. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 11:55, 20 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Order of appearance, then? That's Brainsucker/Anthropod (initial random aliens), Egg/Multiworm/Hyperworm/Spitter (Scout Ship drop), Popper/Chrysalis (Transporter/Fast Attack Ship in week 2), Skeletoid (Assault Ship in week 3), Micronoid Aggregate (Bomber in week 5), Megaspawn (Battleship/Escort in week 7), Psimorph (Mothership in week 8), Queenspawn. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 16:38, 20 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: General order of appearance sounds good to me. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 08:59, 21 August 2018 (CEST)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:NKF%27s_X-COM_Apocalypse:_Starter%27s_Guide&diff=87605Talk:NKF's X-COM Apocalypse: Starter's Guide2018-08-20T10:27:45Z<p>NKF: /* Re: "beginner mistake" */</p>
<hr />
<div>Actually, those androids make uber scouts and anti-psi units. If you want your other agents to gain exp, just send them in around 10 squares behind the android...<br />
Also, make ABSOLUTELY sure to get armor for all your agents, since it makes a HUGE difference in this game.<br />
Later in the game, heavy enemy armor means that the rapid fire low damage weapons will bounce right off the large ships. You need low ROF, high damage per hit weapons at this point. (but the shields are not affected by armor)<br />
<br />
In turn based mode, the machinegun on autofire at point blank range is simply IMBA.<br />
<br />
: Oh I lurves them androids. Forget about the fact that they cannot max their stats: They're ammo sponges (no training, hence no need to keep them at 100% health), ignore psi, brainsuckers are blind to them and are great all-rounders that I would gladly throw into the thick of things, even if they're only armed with a power sword. They're survivors, and if they can let my humans and hybrids last longer and fight better, I'm all for it. Definitely going to have to mention them when I get round to the start-thinking-of-improving-your-ground-troops section. <br />
<br />
: Since you start with Megapol Armor, the mid-weight armor, you're actually pretty well off. It's when you get new parts, now that's when things get interesting - and yet, there aren't very many wrong answers. Well, except for running around with nothing on! -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 04:06, 6 March 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
== Re: "beginner mistake" ==<br />
<br />
You mentioned on this page that unloading soldiers into a building prior to investigation risks them being stranded if it's an Alien Dimension building when the transport auto-launches.<br />
<br />
However, this is not true. The transport does NOT auto-launch from Alien Dimension buildings when you complete a mission, and as such you can simply load the soldiers back in before you do launch (the building can no longer be selected directly, but when selecting the vehicle you can still access "vehicle location/passengers"). I have confirmed this myself.<br />
<br />
I suppose that if you launched the vehicle and ''then'' did the mission, the agents would indeed be lost forever, but simply unloading them into the building doesn't risk that catastrophe. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 16:42, 17 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: As per the preamble, much of this was just an idea dump with minimal to no in-game testing or reference. You are right, the game doesn't auto launch after completing an Alien Dimension building as the falling debris would damage the ship. I guess the thing that would catch you out is forgetting to recover the troops before launching. That would certainly strand them. <br />
<br />
: I don't know what led me to unloading my troops in the first place (I would have been far from a newbie to the game by then), but after that experience and later reading that other players had done the same, I felt it was something worth noting. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 12:27, 20 August 2018 (CEST)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Alien_Overview_(Apocalypse)&diff=87604Talk:Alien Overview (Apocalypse)2018-08-20T09:55:45Z<p>NKF: /* Should we sort this page differently? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Brainsucker Attacks ==<br />
Doesn't the Brainsucker stick it's proboscis down the victims throat, as the official entry says instead of the neck?<br />
<br />
--[[User:Karpatius|Karp]] 05:32, 22 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: It's hard to say exactly what they do. The problem with getting infected through the mouth is that the helmets aren't exposed around the mouth - although with the X-Com Disrupter helmet, we can always assume it can break through the glass. The neck on the other hand seems more likely because it's basically resting along the seam between the helmet and the torso and is much less protected. Perhaps all it needs to do is rip enough of the protection off to get the proboscis close enough to the nasal and mouth passages. At close proximity, the micronoids can then be sprayed into the host. I'm just making this up as I'm reminded of the micronoid rain, which is air dropped onto a building. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 12:40, 22 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Looking at the in-game pictures, I can see the brainsucker either ripping the face-plate open or getting through the under-chin layer, which isn't actually plated. Also a prime place for infected agents to lift the pistol to while their friends try to help, not yet knowing that it's too late. I just didn't notice any way for the proboscis to penetrate bone or anything, unlike with Chryssalids.<br />
::Could the micronoid slip through cracks in the plating and the lower layer ( fabric, synthetic materials or whatnot holding the plates in place ) of the armor? No need to rip the armor open.<br />
::--[[User:Karpatius|Karp]] 22:53, 24 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Ooze through, eh? Could work, could work. Reaching down and slipping under the less protected under-chin of the helmet actually makes more sense. At least it sounds much better and much more plausible than biting through armour and bone, etc, so let's go with that. With the exception of the Marsec suit, I don't think any of the suits are meant to be air tight either, so there wouldn't be much stopping it. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 23:58, 24 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
I also think that the brainsucker hangs "upside down" on the victims face, as the proboscis doesn't then have to bend as much and many times compared to being the "right side up" and would slip far easier and deeper into the mouth.<br />
:--[[User:Karpatius|Karp]] 00:19, 25 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Micronoids are psionic, and they're inside the Brainsucker, and it's in direct contact with the victim. All it has to do is compel you to take off the mask. EZPZ. -Bobucles, 8/31/2013<br />
<br />
== Human enemies? ==<br />
<br />
I'd like to add human enemies to this section, but the problem is the page is called ''Alien'' Overview. Should I make a new page, or perhaps add some text to the introductory paragraph to explain the list also includes the humans you face?<br />
--[[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] 15:40, 30 August 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Might as well add them. Technically not alien, but they are potential enemies. There wouldn't be much value creating a whole new page just for them, but they could use a new section in this article. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 23:33, 31 August 2013 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Should we sort this page differently? ==<br />
<br />
I feel like priority is more useful to an overview of aliens in Apocalypse than overall threat. Yes, a Multiworm is more dangerous than a Brainsucker (in real-time mode), but in just about every case where you can see both you should shoot the Brainsucker first because the Brainsucker is a glass cannon and the Multiworm is a damage sponge. (This is less relevant to UFO/TFTD because you rarely encounter large numbers of different alien types at once.)<br />
<br />
Moreover, simply classifying Anthropods and Skeletoids as "High Threat" isn't all that precise. If they're only toting Brainsucker Launchers or Disruptor Guns, they're not particularly dangerous. On the other hand, a shielded, cloaked Skeletoid wielding a missile launcher is probably the most terrifying thing in the game (exactly which missile launcher depends on your own loadout).<br />
<br />
My guess at the priority goes something like this:<br />
<br />
'''Low Priority:''' Multiworm Egg, Chrysalis (can't move and don't need to be subdued), Spitter, Multiworm (high health compared to their damage output)<br />
<br />
'''High Priority:''' Brainsucker, Popper, Hyperworm (low-health units that pack a punch), Megaspawn (missile launcher)<br />
<br />
'''Variable Priority:''' Anthropod, Skeletoid, Human (variable loadout; Devastator Cannons and the various missile launchers are far more dangerous than anything else), Psimorph, Micronoid (because their only attack is psi, their danger level depends entirely on what you're fighting them with)<br />
<br />
Thoughts? [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 10:58, 20 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: I must confess that over the years I have become less and less comfortable with ranking the aliens in the overview pages. I have wondered if we should phase this out entirely and leave the pages as simple digests of each alien to sum up what they are and what they do that makes them dangerous. The reader should be able to make their own judgement based off the descriptions. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 11:55, 20 August 2018 (CEST)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Personal_Disruptor_Shield&diff=87537Talk:Personal Disruptor Shield2018-08-17T05:27:55Z<p>NKF: /* 50% damage from all other sources? */</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]]<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>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Boomeroid&diff=87530Talk:Boomeroid2018-08-15T06:52:56Z<p>NKF: /* "Step up" */</p>
<hr />
<div>I, personally, do not think that the boomeroid is a poor weapon; it softens up aliens around the corner, can sometimes find that last "hiding" alien and thrown between the closing doors of a UFO... well, that's just mean. Out-of-LOS fatal wounds are also possible.<br />
Of course, civilians attract boomeroids easily...<br />
--[[User:Karpatius|Karp]] 00:42, 18 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
: The last few paragraphs that mention that can be removed as they appear to be more opinion than factual (and is rather contrary to the rest of the explanation). <br />
<br />
: Except for the blast-on-impact bit (which I think I added). I use that a lot, on account of the boomeroids that often litter the battlefield - anything can be solved with enough explosives. The only thing that's really against them is their size and their inability to destroy the reinforcement spawn pads. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 00:58, 18 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Or with a few inc. grenades. Fire also solves everything, albeit slower.<br />
::Will remove the opinion, as it serves no purpose outside the discussion page.<br />
::--[[User:Karpatius|Karp]] 02:10, 18 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for the advice.<br />
:::--[[User:Karpatius|Karp]] 05:31, 18 August 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== "Step up" ==<br />
<br />
I'm looking at the in-game UFOpaedia, and the Boomeroid only has power 70 to the Marsec Proximity Mine's 75. This is, IMO, the biggest argument against actually using the Boomeroid, since it costs over twice as much as said mine. Which UFOpaedia is wrong here? [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 15:16, 14 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Because the Apocalypse pages have not had the same level of attention or curation as the first two games, I would says 'step up' is the opinion of the author that wrote that line. <br />
<br />
: I like the Marsec Mine myself as it powerful, portable and affordable. It's the hopping feature and sheer abundance (late game) of the Boomeroids that sets it apart. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 08:52, 15 August 2018 (CEST)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Valkyrie_Interceptor_(Apocalypse)&diff=87527Talk:Valkyrie Interceptor (Apocalypse)2018-08-12T04:53:07Z<p>NKF: /* Reasons to use the Valkyrie? */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Reasons to use the Valkyrie?==<br />
If there's any reason to use this, at all, I don't know what it is. The chassis costs go about 1 : 2.2 : 18.3 : 22.5 for Hoverbike/Hovercar/Valkyrie/Hawk after taking into account engine upgrades and the weapons they start with, but the Valkyrie isn't even as good as two Hovercars (let alone 5+) while the Hawk is at least 50% better (more once you have Medium Disruptor Beams) for that 22% more cost. The Valkyrie is, of course, available in week 1, when you can't get the Hawk... but the main reason you need a big aircraft (troop transport) is irrelevant week 1 because there are no manned UFOs; a Hovercar can recover the Probes and Scout Ships just as easily, and for building raids you can use multiple craft or even a Wolfhound. So between all of that it just seems to have zero niche. Am I missing something? [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 14:06, 11 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Not really, it's a fair enough assessment. I myself would not normally recommend buying Valkyries as they aren't particularly good investments as you have observed. Other ships can do the same functions better or at a lower cost. <br />
<br />
: That said, the main reason to use the Valkyrie is that the first one is free. Even with its lesser engine. Ignoring the cost, the Valkyrie is fairly well rounded for a starter vehicle and makes for a serviceable transport until you have something better. At the very least it is another pair of guns you can put to use that first week if needed. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 06:52, 12 August 2018 (CEST)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Hawk_Air_Warrior_(Apocalypse)&diff=87526Hawk Air Warrior (Apocalypse)2018-08-12T02:11:18Z<p>NKF: Correction</p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Apoc_hawk_pedia.png|Hawk Air Warrior UFOPedia picture|right|100 px]]<br />
<br />
== General Information == <br />
[[Image:Apoc_hawk_icon.png|left|50 px|]]<br />
'''''Official Entry:''''' "The Hawk is essentially a heavy weapons platform capable of carrying a significant payload. It is the most powerful vehicle manufactured by [[Marsec]] and should be the first line of defense against any invasion force, wherever it comes from."<br />
<br />
== [[Cityscape (Apocalypse)|Cityscape]] Information ==<br />
The Hawk Air Warrior is primarily a heavier version of the [[Valkyrie]]. It serves an identical role to its predecessor, with extra passenger space, endurance, and firepower. It has two long weapon hardpoints and a 2x3 main gun hardpoint. This makes it the only conventional craft that can fit turret systems and alien weapons like the [[Medium Disruptor Beam (Apocalypse)|Medium Disruptor Beam]]. Additionally, it has four standard module slots and space for 10 agents, so can fit an impressive 6 more agents than the Valkyrie, letting 18 agents assault a UFO site with a standard cargo+bio module. This makes it the most roomy conventional craft for performing UFO assaults. While the Hawk's absolute price is high, there's little reason to keep your Valkyrie once you have one so you can trade in to take a lot of the cost off.<br />
<br />
Both the [[Valkyrie]] and the Hawk Air Warrior can function as bomber craft as well. By outfitting them with the extremely long range [[Retribution_Missile_Launcher_(Apocalypse)|Retribution missile Launcher]] and hovering at maximum altitude, you can strike enemy buildings with pinpoint accuracy from a very long distance. This is useful if your sole purpose is to bankrupt a specific organization by destroying their buildings, as it's possible to fire the missiles from an extremely long distance, then turn back and dock at base before they can send out craft to intercept you.<br />
<br />
In combat the Hawk is basically a giant flying whale. It is a massive target with a horrendous turn rate, moderate firepower, and an insane price tag. It's best kept away from trouble, only begrudgingly used as a heavy weapons support ship for small squadrons of [[Hoverbike (Apocalypse)|Hoverbikes]] or [[Phoenix Hovercar (Apocalypse)|Hovercars]]. Expect it to be your only Medium Disruptor Beam for most of the mid game, and to be very careful it does not get destroyed as more than a week's income is needed to replace it. <br />
<br />
The Hawk is obsolete once you can manufacture X-COM hybrid craft, with the [[Bio-Trans]] having better carrying capacity and the [[Explorer]] having equal firepower. Both at considerably lower prices.<br />
<br />
==Statistics==<br />
<br />
[[Image:Apoc_hawk_large.png|right|100 px]]<br />
<br />
<table {{StdCenterTable}}><br />
<tr {{StdDescTable_Heading}}><th align="left">Statistics</th><br />
<th>Value</th></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Armor</td><td>46</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Weight</td><td>5000</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Constitution</td><td>460</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Engine</td><td>[[SD Elite (Apocalypse)|SD Elite]]</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Engine Size</td><td>4x4</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Top Speed</td><td>15 (using [[SD Special (Apocalypse)|SD Special]])</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Acceleration</td><td>5 (using [[SD Special (Apocalypse)|SD Special]])</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Weapons</td><td>1 [[Rendor Plasma Gun (Apocalypse)|Rendor Plasma Gun]] 1 [[Janitor Missile Array (Apocalypse)|Janitor Missile Array]] 1 [[Prophet Missile Array (Apocalypse)|Prophet Missile Array]]</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Weapons Slotsize</td><td>1x4 2x3 1x4</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Equipment Size</td><td>4x4</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Cost</td><td>$100000</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Passengers</td><td>10</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left">Score points</td><td>250</td></tr><br />
</table><br /><br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
* [[Marsec]]<br />
<br />
<br clear="all"><br />
<br />
{{Vehicles (Apocalypse) Navbar}}<br />
<br />
[[Category:Mega-Primus Craft (Apocalypse)]]</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Annihilator&diff=87522Talk:Annihilator2018-08-10T20:34:53Z<p>NKF: /* Exaggeration? */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Exaggeration?==<br />
"A single ship can easily lay the entire UFO fleet to waste," says the article.<br />
<br />
I haven't gotten that far yet, but this rings a little false to me. Stunlocks weight balance very strongly toward numbers, and the aliens have those in the form of the Stasis Bomb Launcher. I can see a couple of ways to get around that (Cloaking Field and/or Plasma Defence Arrays to prevent Stasis Bomb hits, or staying out of range and bombarding with the Heavy Disruptor Beam), but those don't sound like "easily" to me, and I'm not sure they'd suffice to solo the Alien Dimension at full strength. Can someone confirm or deny this claim? [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 13:10, 9 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
* The article is referring to the overworld around Mega-Primus itself. While they can't solo the aliens on their turf, they are more than capable of handling most ufo fleets on their own with proper usage. Mega-Primus itself is pretty helpless once you get to the tier since I don't think their anti-vehicle scales much at all (the bigger issue will be the fallout in relations after you total everything and end up having to use your own transportation to get anywhere since the taxis and subways won't take you). The big thing to keep in mind is that with a 8x8 for equipment, large shield, the 4x4 weapon slot up frontand two weapon slots with 3 x 4 space, you got a lot of room to carry weapons. With a recharging beam, and 5 minute rearm on anything with ammo (Unless it got fan-patched, you can detach and reattach weapons to instantly restock them), along with a lot of potential shielding, it is pretty self-sufficient for a ufo invasion since it has more than enough shields, health, and firepower to tank and take down everything. [[User:Saladofstones|Saladofstones]] ([[User talk:Saladofstones|talk]]) 19:05, 9 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: It is not a complete exaggeration. A single Annihilator can indeed destroy the entire alien dimension fleet in one visit. <br />
<br />
:: What I find works for me is to wait along the map edge and watch the UFOs on the top-down view until one becames isolated. Then pounce on it. However, in order to maintain a safe distance and not get overwhelmed, I do not intercept the UFO as usual. Instead I use the Annihilator as a mobile turret and move it into a stationary position in the flight path or perpendicular to the flight path of the UFO. Then I either let the ship AI take control of the guns (attitude set to aggressive) or switch to manual control and shift-click at the target. This should rip through the UFO's shields and deal plenty of hull damage before it gets close enough to engage. A Heavy Disrupter helps a lot here. <br />
<br />
:: For gear, a simple tank setup with full shields and the best Disrupter beams you can muster will do just fine. In the event your ship is locked by a Stassis bomb you can manually operate your weapons by switching to manual control. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 10:48, 10 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:::Manual control overrides stasis? Should that be considered a bug (manual control is, after all, barely mentioned in the manual)? [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 12:06, 10 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I cannot say if it is just another casualty of the game being rushed out or if it is intentional. However manual control only regains control of the weapons. Your ship is still unable to move. I suppose you could justify it by saying the ship's computer systems are frozen, but the pilot can still manually operate the weapons. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 22:34, 10 August 2018 (CEST)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Annihilator&diff=87512Talk:Annihilator2018-08-10T08:49:57Z<p>NKF: /* Exaggeration? */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Exaggeration?==<br />
"A single ship can easily lay the entire UFO fleet to waste," says the article.<br />
<br />
I haven't gotten that far yet, but this rings a little false to me. Stunlocks weight balance very strongly toward numbers, and the aliens have those in the form of the Stasis Bomb Launcher. I can see a couple of ways to get around that (Cloaking Field and/or Plasma Defence Arrays to prevent Stasis Bomb hits, or staying out of range and bombarding with the Heavy Disruptor Beam), but those don't sound like "easily" to me, and I'm not sure they'd suffice to solo the Alien Dimension at full strength. Can someone confirm or deny this claim? [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 13:10, 9 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
* The article is referring to the overworld around Mega-Primus itself. While they can't solo the aliens on their turf, they are more than capable of handling most ufo fleets on their own with proper usage. Mega-Primus itself is pretty helpless once you get to the tier since I don't think their anti-vehicle scales much at all (the bigger issue will be the fallout in relations after you total everything and end up having to use your own transportation to get anywhere since the taxis and subways won't take you). The big thing to keep in mind is that with a 8x8 for equipment, large shield, the 4x4 weapon slot up frontand two weapon slots with 3 x 4 space, you got a lot of room to carry weapons. With a recharging beam, and 5 minute rearm on anything with ammo (Unless it got fan-patched, you can detach and reattach weapons to instantly restock them), along with a lot of potential shielding, it is pretty self-sufficient for a ufo invasion since it has more than enough shields, health, and firepower to tank and take down everything. [[User:Saladofstones|Saladofstones]] ([[User talk:Saladofstones|talk]]) 19:05, 9 August 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
:: It is not a complete exaggeration. A single Annihilator can indeed destroy the entire alien dimension fleet in one visit. <br />
<br />
:: What I find works for me is to wait along the map edge and watch the UFOs on the top-down view until one becames isolated. Then pounce on it. However, in order to maintain a safe distance and not get overwhelmed, I do not intercept the UFO as usual. Instead I use the Annihilator as a mobile turret and move it into a stationary position in the flight path or perpendicular to the flight path of the UFO. Then I either let the ship AI take control of the guns (attitude set to aggressive) or switch to manual control and shift-click at the target. This should rip through the UFO's shields and deal plenty of hull damage before it gets close enough to engage. A Heavy Disrupter helps a lot here. <br />
<br />
:: For gear, a simple tank setup with full shields and the best Disrupter beams you can muster will do just fine. In the event your ship is locked by a Stassis bomb you can manually operate your weapons by switching to manual control. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 10:48, 10 August 2018 (CEST)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Known_Bugs&diff=87494Known Bugs2018-08-06T06:39:45Z<p>NKF: /* Hangar Split in Half */ Added example</p>
<hr />
<div><br />
<br />
<br />
== Base Construction Bugs ==<br />
<br />
=== Base Disjoint Bug ===<br />
Base facilities built along the right or bottom edges of the base building area may end up being cut off from each other by dirt walls, a bug in the routine meant to keep soldiers from accidentally exiting the map edges during [[Base Defence]] missions. The dirt walls can be knocked down by Blaster Bombs or excessive amount of heavy plasma fire during combat but are otherwise unbreakable. <br />
<br />
[[image:bdb.gif|center|Base Disjoint Bug]]<br />
<br />
The walls marked in white are removed if there is an adjacent module. All green modules are not affected while the yellow modules are. The red module will be sealed off completely if anything smaller than a hangar is placed here at any given time. <br />
<br />
[[XcomUtil]] works around this problem by stripping out the walls entirely in all the base modules.<br />
<br />
The bug can be profitable if the hangars and the lift are accessible only through in these areas - you can gather and supply all your soldiers heavily without aliens interfering, then knock a hole in the wall and cover the area with explosives and blaster launcher fire.<br />
<br />
===Displayed Base Maintenance Costs===<br />
Although X-COM charges the right monthly fees for base modules, the maintenance fee displayed ''in the base info screen'' is always wrong. The displayed number is actually based on the placement within the base grid, '''not''' the price displayed in the in-game UFOpaedia. However, at the end of the month, the right fee is deducted. For more information, see [[Base_Facilities#Displayed_Base_Maintenance_Cost_Bug]]. The Geo finance Graph shows a correct maintenance summary ([[LIGLOB.DAT]], updated once a month). Also see the next section.<br />
<br />
===Paying For Dirt===<br />
If you take down any facility in any base that you own and leave bare dirt, then you will continue to pay maintenance on it. But not at the old rate of whatever the facility cost per month, filling the hole back with dirt means it needs special attention at all times by specialists. In fact for every square of dirt you have that used to be a facility you will pay 80k per month. Thats 320k per hangar you take down. There are only two known ways to stop paying this premium - if you completely dismantle the base you stop paying any money for it, or if you build over all the spaces that you have vacated. In fact as soon as you start building the new facility you stop paying the premium, as well as not having to pay the cost of the new facility until it is complete.<br />
<br />
It is also possible to stop the 80k per month charge by hex editing the base.dat file in the save game. If you change the byte that indicates the number of days until the destroyed module from 00 to ff, you no longer pay for the dirt.<br />
<br />
If you start a facility and change your mind before it is complete, after the time when it would have completed you will start paying this 80k premium on that land as well.<br />
<br />
Note that this also applies to facilities that have been destroyed due to battle damage in [[Base Defence]] missions. If you have lost a facility in a base defence mission and you cannot afford to replace the original facility, consider building something cheap here to keep down this bug.<br />
<br />
===Base Facility Dismantle-Construction Crash===<br />
In the Collectors Edition version, dismantling a facility while its construction is in progress can cause a crash when a second facility on another base square completes its construction. To work around this, dismantle a facility only after its construction is complete. If you have already dismantled such a facility, build something like a general stores on the same square to avoid the crash. It is not known if this crash happens intermittently or always, or if it happens on most versions of the game or just the Collectors Edition.<br />
<br />
===Radar Stacking===<br />
Despite the "Short Range" and "Long Range" detection bars displayed on each base's Information screen, only one radar of each type will be used at each base. Building additional radars of the same type will have no effect. One short and one long are useful until the [[Hyper-wave Decoder|Hyper-Wave Decoder]] makes both of them obsolete.<br />
<br />
===Phantom Radar===<br />
When you dismantle detection equipment such as a radar or hyperwave detector, the related detection ability of the base does not decrease until a new facility of some kind is built in that base. Until a new facility is completes building at that base, the base continues to use this "phantom radar".<br />
<br />
This bug allows you to "upgrade in place", for example building a new Hyper-Wave Decoder over the top of an existing Large Radar, and retaining the detection capability of the Large Radar until the Hyper-Wave Decoder completes building. (Unless something else completes building first).<br />
<br />
===Hangar Split in Half===<br />
In the DOS version of UFO, it's possible to place the top-left section of a hangar in the rightmost column or bottommost row of the base map, hanging it off the edge of the map. In the case of a hangar placed in the rightmost column, the "right" half of the hangar will appear on the leftmost column, shifted one row down. This is due to the game storing the base map as a 1-dimensional string of values. The hangar will still function normally, but unless both halves of the hangar are connected to the rest of the base it could make a Base Defence mission unwinnable.<br />
<br />
{{UBK|=<br />
|dirt|dirt|hangar1|hangar2|dirt|dirt|=<br />
|dirt|dirt|hangar3|hangar4|dirt|dirt|=<br />
|dirt|dirt|lift|stores|dirt|dirt|=<br />
|dirt|dirt|quarters|large_radar|workshop|hangar1|=<br />
|hangar2|dirt|quarters|lab|dirt|hangar3|=<br />
|hangar4|dirt|dirt|dirt|dirt|dirt|=}}<br />
<br />
In the case of a hangar hanging off the bottommost row, the "hanging" segments will overflow into other parts of memory. There is an exploit related to this.<br />
<br />
This bug doesn't affect Collector's Edition or TFTD, as you will receive a "cannot build here" warning if you attempt to place a hangar in an invalid position.<br />
<br />
===Fixes for Base Construction Bugs===<br />
<br />
As mentioned above, [[XcomUtil]] prevents the Base Disjoint bug (crudely). The [[User:Spike#Base_Fixer|BaseFixer]] utility corrects the Paying for Dirt, Phantom Radar, and Radar Stacking bugs. BaseFixer can be used manually on saved game files, or automatically via XcomUtil's hook mechanism.<br />
<br />
All these issues are also fixed by [[UFOextender]].<br />
<br />
==Geoscape Bugs==<br />
<br />
===First Radar Detection Data bug===<br />
When a UFO is detected by a radar, you get certain data on it depending on the type of radar that detected it. If the UFO later enters the range of another radar while staying in the range of the first, you will continue to get the initial data given, even if the new radar is more powerful than the first! So if you detect a craft with a [[Small Radar System]], then the UFO moves into the range of a [[Hyper-wave Decoder]], clicking on the UFO will only give you the data as if the Small Radar detected it, so long as it remains in the Small Radar range! In effect, the data you get about a UFO is determined when you first detect it, and not changed after that until you lose detection on the craft with the radar that first detected it.<br />
<br />
This bug most commonly shows up when a UFO is first detected by a patrolling aircraft and then remains in the range of the aircraft while also entering the range of a Hyper-Wave Decoder.<br />
<br />
=== Minimized Interceptor Bug ===<br />
One fairly consistent cause of crashes is saving the geoscape game during a UFO standoff, with a [[UFO Interception]] window minimized to an icon. The next mission after that point will likely dump you to the green text screen, and perhaps an earlier battlescape mission instead of the proper one. What it seems to do is zoom back out of the combat too far when the fight is over, eventually causing the crash once it has gone a couple of steps further than it normally allows you.<br />
<br />
'''Solution:''' Open up [[UIGLOB.DAT]] in a hex editor. Change hex offset 0x06 to 00. This will reset the number of minimized interceptor windows to zero. Your interceptor unit can be selected to either return to base or continue on to complete its ground assault mission. ''NOTE: Make sure to back up your save game before editing it.''<br />
<br />
''-- I was able to recover from this state by quickly sending in another interceptor ([[Firestorm]]) to take over, which allowed my first interceptor ([[Avenger]]) to break off and go home without crashing the game again. After the shootdown I overwrote the buggy savegame. --[[User:JellyfishGreen|JellyfishGreen]] 03:11, 22 Aug 2005 (PDT)''<br />
<br />
''This happened to me also. I fixed it by replacing "[[UIGLOB.DAT]]" in the save folder with the same file from another saved game (from the same campaign a month earlier) [[User:bylund|bylund]] 00:15, January 12, 2007 (GMT+01)''<br />
<br />
=== Interceptions: Last Shot Always Misses ===<br />
When using Cautious attack when [[UFO Interception|intercepting a UFO]], your craft will stay at the maximum range of your longest-range weapon. When using Standard attack, your craft will stay at the maximum range of your shortest-range weapon. (Usually players use two weapons of the same type, so Cautious and Standard attack will behave the same in this regard.)<br />
<br />
As soon as the craft fires its last shot (expending all its ammo), it will drop back to "Standoff" range (70km). This will make it appear that the UFO has backed away while the last missile(s) are in-flight, causing them to miss. <br />
<br />
In order to hit a UFO with your last salvo of missiles (Stingrays, Avalanches, or Fusion Balls), you must switch to "Aggressive" attack before the last salvo reaches the UFO. This will cause your craft to close in with the UFO, allowing the missiles to be in range when they reach the UFO. However, Aggressive attacks will also bring you within range of the UFO's weapons, so you should hit the "Disengage" button as soon as the last salvo hits.<br />
<br />
===Elerium-fueled Craft Bug===<br />
A [[Skyranger]] or [[Interceptor]], once dispatched, will return to base when its fuel supply has dropped to a level that it will only have just enough fuel to return to base. Craft fueled by Elerium-115, however, will always report the "Low Fuel" message as soon at the fuel supply is 50% depleted, no matter where they are on the globe. This significantly shortens the already minute time that a [[Firestorm]], [[Lightning]], or [[Avenger]] can be dispatched to patrol.<br />
<br />
===Medic Research Bug===<br />
<br />
The array holding live alien and autopsy data to randomly provide when an alien Medic is researched is four bytes too short. What this means in practice is that if you interrogate an alien Medic before you have at least two of these topics unlocked, the game will crash. To avoid this bug, do not research any alien Medics until you have performed either: a) two alien autopsies, b) an alien autopsy and an alien interrogation, or c) two alien interrogations of different species.<br />
<br />
===Never-ending Retaliation Bug===<br />
Some times the aliens will send a [[battleship]] on a [[Alien_Retaliation|retaliation mission]] to the "wrong" base. F.ex: the [[Hyper-wave_Decoder|hyper-wave decoder]] may report its destination as South East Asia, but the ship will actually fly to your base in North America and attack it.<br />
<br />
Even if the battleship succeeds in getting past the base defences and its crew is subsequently defeated, the aliens won't "forget" the base's location as they normally do and instead keep sending another battleship every week or so. If your base is constructed with [[Base_Layout_Strategy|defendability]] in mind and crewed by experienced operatives this will net you heaps and heaps of alien weapons, corpses and prisoners very quickly. The downsides are, of course, playing the same base defence mission over and over again and having to maintain a garrison there at all times.<br />
<br />
More research is needed to find out what causes this bug, but it ''could'' have something to do with [[Mind_Shield|mind shields]] being finished between the scouting and assault parts of the aliens' retaliation mission.<br />
<br />
=== Early Base Defence bug ===<br />
<br />
XBASE.DAT has 12 entries for each valid mission zone. However, the initialization routine for a new game only resets the first 8 entries. If some of these entries have leftover data from a previous game, this may spawn an alien [[Battleship]] attacking the location specified, usually your first base. This results in an unprovoked [[Base Defence]] mission, within the first two weeks of the new game! (Normally, the aliens don't try to attack your bases unless you intercept UFOs, and they have to [[Alien Retaliation|search for a base]] before a Battleship can be deployed to assault it.)<br />
<br />
=== Cash Rollover Bug ===<br />
<br />
When your cash balance goes over $2,147,483,647, it will rollover and become $-2,147,483,647. Which means your game is done for, unless you use an editor. Fortunately, by the time you accumulate this much cash, you have usually completed all necessary research to win the game.<br />
<br />
''When the game was written, the largest unit that a programmer had available was 32-bits. The programmers did not make this unsigned so the largest amount that could be stored is 2 ^ 31 - 1, which is 2147483647. Incrementing this causes it to overflow to a negative number due to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two's_complement Two's complement arithmetic]''<br />
<br />
== Battlescape Bugs ==<br />
<br />
=== Load bug after successful mission ===<br />
After you finish a game you have saved and load the same game file again - the alien side goes first! I think it may be caused when you succesfully complete the mission and you get a notification like that the alien has died beacuse of no alien containment. The game still thinks that it is the aliens' turn. So when I load the mission again- the aliens move first. If you load the same saved game again it will be OK. [[User:ElfKaa|ElfKaa]]<br />
<br />
===Time Units Missing===<br />
Very rarely when you end your first turn and all your units are inside the Skyranger in the next turn they all only have 4 time units remaining.<br />
<br />
=== Faulty Large Units ===<br />
If you move a tank off a northward facing ledge, the rest of the tank will sink into a wall (if there is one), and cause the tank to get stuck. This won't happen if the tank moves off a south facing ledge as the primary quarter will fall after the rest of the tank. Aliens can also get stuck this way.<br />
<br />
Another, potentially annoying bug occurs when a large unit's graphics become messed up. During a base defence mission, a rocket tank may end up looking like 4 silacoids bunched together.<br />
<br />
===Unconscious Units are items===<br />
This is actually an intentional programming choice... but it leads to several consequences which are bugs.<br />
<br />
Firstly, any unconscious unit can be killed instantly by even a weak explosion, like being nearby an exploding AC-HE shell... even a Muton with 125 Health or an X-com agent in Flying Armor whose high armor ratings normally make him immune to AC-HE damage.<br />
Secondly, no experience is gained for killing enemies in this manner.<br />
<br />
You can prevent an unconscious unit's death from an explosion by picking it up... if a blaster bomb strikes the carrier and kills him, the unconscious unit will safely fall to the floor, unharmed.<br />
<br />
Unlike a conscious unit (not wearing x-com armor), an unconscious unit can laze about in the middle of a fire without taking damage, since a UNIT standing in fire takes damage, but an unconscious unit is an item, which all ignore fire.<br />
<br />
Forcing an MCed alien to pick up an unconscious X-com agent and carry him in its right hand can cause weird things to occur when you release the mind control. I think the game might crash when the alien tries to shove the agent into its magic pocket.<br />
<br />
If a non-flying unconscious unit wakes up while being carried by a flying unit, it will gain some sort of temporary hover ability. (I once placed an unconscious Chryssalid in my flying agent's backpack. A few turns later, some growls and screams were heard from overhead.)<br />
<br />
Save space! Each conscious unit takes up 1 tile (4 tiles for large units). An unconscious unit does not use up the tile... this might conceivably be useful if you wanted to abort a mission, but several panicked units were preventing other agents from boarding the skyranger... <br />
X-com agents refuse to ride piggyback or be picked up while conscious. So, if you want a non-flying unit to reach an 2nd floor place with no stairs or elevator, you will have to knock him out, then either throw him up, or have a flying unit pick him up and drop him... and presumably administer stimulant.<br />
<br />
This also leads to the INVISIBLE UNIT glitch. Frequently happens during Base Defence missions, since the item table is usually maxed out. Basically, the item table is so full that killed units do not leave corpses. However, this also means that unconscious units do not turn into the Unconscious Unit item. The KOed unit will disappear from sight, but will still be visible as a red number and as a blue/yellow dot on overhead map. Since the unit is still a unit and not an item, you will be able to shoot it with projectile weapons and kill it. ALSO, this method enables you to raise any unit's stun bar all the way to 255, since you can still increase the stun meter, despite them already being unconscious. If you this bug occurs and interferes with your goal (capturing enemy Commander), the way to go is to destroy some of your items with explosion.<br />
<br />
===Funky Fire===<br />
If a unit (alien or friendly) is on fire or standing in flames, an [[Incendiary]] explosion ''anywhere else on the map'' will do a small amount of damage to it, even if you just shoot an IC round at a random patch of ground. <br />
<br />
Similarly, if a unit (friendly units only) is standing in smoke when an incendiary explodes, it will take stun damage. This makes the combination of incendiary munitions and smoke quite hazardous until such time as all troops are armored.<br />
<br />
<s>There is a [[Talk:Incendiary#Incendiary_Bug|working hypothesis]] for</s> The cause of this bug is that each and every Incendiary explosion triggers the "Smoke and Fire" routine: applying fire damage, applying stun damage from smoke, calculating fire and smoke spreading, and "catch on fire" checks for units in fire. <br />
<br />
Note that X-Com units wearing any kind of armor are immune to fire damage and IC-induced stun damage. Xcom HWPs are immune to stun, but take 40% damage from Incendiaries and WILL get killed quite efficiently by funky fire.<br />
<br />
===Tanks have full ammo during Base Defence===<br />
HWPs in Enemy Unknown/UFO Defense and SWS in Terror From the Deep will always have full ammunition during a Base Defence mission even if there is not enough ammunition in storage to have them fully armed. <br />
<br />
This occurs because tanks are always initialised with full ammunition when they are spawned in the battlescape. However, the game does not make the necessary adjustments to their ammunition supplies and leaves them fully armed. Any ammunition that was in storage will be consumed normally. <br />
<br />
After the battle, any left over ammunition will be recovered and added to stores. If a base is regularly attacked, this can be [[ExploitsA#Free_Ammo_for_Tanks|exploited]] to create large amounts of ammo for free by sending away all of the ammunition to another base after each battle (particularly for Hovertanks/Launcher and Displacers/P.W.T., since their ammunition must otherwise be manufactured from alien materials).<br />
<br />
Note that this bug will arm a [[Coelacanth/Gauss]] in Terror From the Deep, but you will not recover any ammunition from it due to its own specific arming bug.<br />
<br />
=== Collectors Edition Blaster Bomb Bug ===<br />
<br />
Also known as Vertical Waypoint Blaster Bomb Bug. <br />
<br />
In the Collectors Edition of UFO, the [[Blaster Launcher]] has a bug that prevents it from going up or down on the same tile. Or in other words, you cannot change the elevation of the missile vertically on the same tile. <br />
<br />
Instead of flying down (or up) to the next waypoint, it will instead fly directly to the south at the pivot waypoint. Relative to the screen, this would be the lower left side of the screen. <br />
<br />
This does not happen if you plot the waypoints at an angle. Or, if the blaster bomb flies right off the map, it will reappear at the proper waypoint as long as there are additional waypoints placed after the vertical move. The bug makes it impossible to fire Blaster Bombs up or down elevator shafts. Aliens are also affected by this bug. <br />
<br />
The Blaster Bomb bug in turn permits the [[Tactical Exploits#Milking Alien Bases|Elevator Shielding - Base Milking Exploit]], which provides unlimited risk-free experience and ultra-low-risk booty, so fixing it is a Good Thing. Base Milking in general is a legitimate tactic, but doing Base Milking risk-free via the Elevator Shielding is just an exploit.<br />
<br />
This bug also applies to the [[Disruptor Pulse Launcher]] in TFTD.<br />
<br />
===Blaster Launcher Dud Shells Bug===<br />
<br />
Shots which have only one waypoint, or explode before reaching their first waypoint, leave the Blaster Launcher showing 0 rounds, but still containing a dud shell which must be unloaded before the launcher can be reloaded. On earlier versions of the game (pre-Win CE) this also happens with reaction fire, and with 1-waypoint shots that fly off the map. <br />
<br />
=== The trouble with Mines in General === <br />
<br />
Proximity mines are strangely implemented in UFO and TFTD. While they behave as you would expect them to half of the time, the mines do not behave like conventional weapons. <br />
<br />
First, experience attribution is awarded to the person that sets off the mine. <br />
<br />
Secondly, the armed states for [[Proximity Grenade]]s in both UFO and TFTD are NOT stored in save games. If a proximity grenade is primed, then the game is saved and reloaded, the grenade will not only not go off as it should, but the "Prime Grenade" action will still be absent, so it's impossible to re-arm it.<br />
<br />
=== Grenade Timer Behaviour === <br />
<br />
A primed explosive (Grenade, High Explosive, Alien Grenade) will not explode if it's still in your inventory (hand, belt etc) when the timer runs out. It will only detonate when it's on the ground. If your soldier falls unconscious or gets killed, the primed explosive will be counted as being on the ground. Then it will blow up, likely taking out your gear and body. This 'feature' allows for the hot potato or [[Grenade Relay]] strategy which is fairly unique to X-COM where a live grenade well past its use-by date can be passed from squad member to squad member. <br />
<br />
For a more a detailed explanation on detonation conditions, see [[Understanding Grenades]].<br />
<br />
=== Mountain Map ===<br />
Due to a bug in the way this tileset was created, when you shoot the ground, it doesn't burn up - it turns into a tree stump.<br />
<br />
Because the stump is on object, as opposed to actual ground, any objects that were in the tile already (for example, UFO hulls or the landing gear of your craft) get replaced by these stumps, making it seem as if they were destroyed.<br />
<br />
Tree stumps don't take much damage, so they often get burnt up immediately if an explosive goes off, leaving nothing but burnt ground behind. It is easier to view the effects of this bug by shooting the ground instead.<br />
<br />
For more details, see [[Explosions#Mile-High_Madness|Mountain Madness]].<br />
<br />
=== What just exploded? ===<br />
In some versions of the game, a bug allows an armed proximity mine to transfer its properties to some other item in the next mission, which then may explode unexpectedly. (If the item is left on the floor of the XCOM craft, it will explode as you walk past it.) This problem can be rectified by reloading the game -- as a precaution, save before you move your first soldier.<br />
<br />
=== Door jam ===<br />
If a door is open when a game is saved on the Battlescape and that game is subsequently restored, the door will remain open for the remainder of that mission.<br />
<br />
<br />
=== MIA Bugs ===<br />
<br />
The routine which checks whether units are "Missing in Action" or not has several bugs in it. Specifically:<br />
<br />
* Soldiers that have been [[Psionics|mind-controlled]] and not yet returned to X-Com control (whether by mind-control on the final turn, or because they were stunned while mind-controlled and haven't woken up yet) will be listed as MIA and permanently lost.<br />
<br />
* If you abort a mission while aliens are under X-COM mind-control, you will be penalised for any mind-controlled aliens outside the exit area as though they were MIA (-20 points each). In PlayStation versions of the game, this does not occur as all mind-controlled aliens at mission end are considered captured.<br />
<br />
* The only action which resets the location of unconscious soldiers, for the purposes of the MIA algorithm, is '''dropping'''. As such, soldiers carried or thrown back into the dropship and not subsequently dropped inside will be listed as MIA and permanently lost, while soldiers stunned or dropped inside the dropship and carried or thrown outside will be recovered safely.<br />
<br />
===20 Proximity Grenade Limit===<br />
<br />
The array used to denote armed [[Proximity Grenade]]s is limited to 20 entries, meaning you are limited to 20 active mines at a time. The 21st and subsequent Proximity grenades can be primed like normal and will give appropriate messages, but they will not detonate even when the normal trigger conditions are met. Note that Proximity Mines that have detonated or otherwise been destroyed are removed from the array, freeing up positions; the limit is 20 ACTIVE Proximity Grenades at one time. In normal gameplay, this is probably not a restriction, in light of the [[Known_Bugs#80-Item_Limit|80 Item Limit]], since you'd need to have more than 1/4th of the cargo space in the dropship filled with Proximity Grenades.<br />
<br />
===Base Defence Elerium bug===<br />
<br />
On DOS versions of UFO Defense, Elerium pods may spawn as items from the base stockpile during a Base Defence bug. Each pod represents 50 units of Elerium and will be normally collected after the mission, same as any other item such as Heavy Lasers or Blaster Bombs. HOWEVER. The program will potentially generate 1 elerium POD for every 1 UNIT of elerium in your inventory. Thus, if you had only 10 lasers and 50 Elerium listed in your Sell screen, you would see 10 lasers and 50 Elerium Crystals in your Soldier Equip Screen, which would translate to 50 Elerium pods and 10 lasers scattered around your base. This equals 2500 Elerium, BTW. You basically have the potential to multiply your elerium stocks by 50.<br />
<br />
===Berserk HWP crashes the game===<br />
<br />
Admittedly, this is unlikely to arise under normal play. But, anyhow, your HWPs can only lose morale by killing friendly units. Not much for each unit killed, either. Anyhow, a berserk HWP will crash the game. (except for the Hovertank/Launcher, which does not fire when it goes berserk.)<br />
Likewise, if you MC a cyberdisc or Sectopod and have it kills lots of aliens, it'll go berserk and crash the game. The error happens because of an oversight from the developers: the built-in weapons of HWP are handled differently from handed weapons, no OBDATA.DAT entries exist for them. The berserk code will try to access the nonexistent entry, resulting in a crash. The Celatid has yet to be tested.<br />
<br />
''The part about HWPs only losing morale by blue-on-blue isn't true: I had a rocket tank go berserk on me in a terror mission when a floater blew up my whole force with a single grenade in the first alien turn. The game crashed alright; I have the CE version with UFOextender.--[[User:Amitakartok|amitakartok]] 08:24, 11 January 2012 (EST)''<br />
:''Unless my memory is playing tricks on me, I clearly remember an very bizarre incident like yours but where the rocket HWP panicked (all other X-COM units had just been killed) but the game didn't crash (I play the DOS version) and the tank shot all its rockets randomly until it ran out of ammo. I remember that its TU numbers being while firing showed 255 TUs or some other impossible value (I hadn't done any manual edits). I don't remember if it crashed at the end but it did fire!'' [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 10:47, 11 January 2012 (EST)<br />
::''And this reminds me of yet another panicked HWP incident but involving a Cannon HWP. I was expecting it to waste all its ammo (based on my previous experience) but it only fired a few shots and the TU level didn't went up crazy.'' [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 10:47, 11 January 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
===Limited Unit Slots - Battlescape Crash===<br />
<br />
This tends to arise during Base Defence Missions. The game is was designed to be limited to 40 soldiers/hovertanks and XXXX aliens for a total of XXXX . Having a full complement of soldiers during a Superhuman difficulty base defence will max out these limits. Thus when either side starts playing around with mind control too much, something goes wrong causing the entire game to crash.<br />
It might also be something to do with maximum items on the battlescape.<br />
In any case, the workaround seems to be killing aliens and destroying items on the battlescape... doesn't always work, but it seems to help.<br />
You might want to make several in-battle saves for these situations, even if you normally play Ironman mode.<br />
<br />
===Left arm fatal wound instead of torso (energy penalty)===<br />
<br />
According to UFO Defence [http://cdn.steampowered.com/Manuals/7760/x-com%20ufo%20defense%20manual.pdf manual], torso fatal wounds affect energy replenish rate, which is logical. But in the game fatal wounds of the '''left arm''' affect energy replenish rate, '''not the torso'''. Which is an obvious coding bug (though not a fatal one).<br />
<br />
===Invisible Chryssalids===<br />
<br />
After reloading a saved game with a mission where zombies are present, the resulting Chryssalids might be invisible. This only happens when zombies are present but all Chryssalids are either dead or KO. This issues occurs because the load-game routine only loads graphics files for active units. When the chryssalids' files are loaded, the game also loads the files for zombies but this is not true in reverse. [[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] ([[User talk:Morgan525|talk]])<br />
<br />
===Displayed Firing Accuracy penalties from Health loss===<br />
<br />
When one clicks on a wounded unit and examines its stat display, the unit's Firing Accuracy is shown to be lowered from its original value to (Original value * remaining health / total health). This is inaccurate; the actual effect is a much milder (Original value * (0.75 + 0.25 * remaining health / total health)). The displayed percentage accuracies when selecting a shot type are, however, correct.<br />
<br />
== Character Inventory Bugs ==<br />
<br />
=== Alien Inventory Stacking Bug ===<br />
<br />
'''WARNING:''' When examining an Alien's inventory (via an Exploit), you will see that sometimes the alien will stack multiple items of equipment on the same slot - its right leg. It's not always obvious that there are multiple objects in the slot until you 'pick up' the first object and can see other objects still in the slot. <br />
Before you remove an item from the Alien's right leg, make sure you have enough time units to place it somewhere else. If you run out of time units, you will likely have to force a quit and cannot save your game. It '''may''' be possible to move the item to the left leg slot for 0 TUs, '''if''' the item will fit in that slot. If not, you will have to terminate the game. (Press ALT-TAB to get to any other window, then CTRL-ALT-DEL to bring up Task Manager, and then terminate the process that corresponds to the game).<br />
<br />
=== Item-stacking Bug ===<br />
It is possible to put more than one item in a given spot. When an item is stacked with a [[Stun Rod]], this can make it possible for X-COM soldiers to perform "melee" attacks. See [[Item Stacking Bug]] for more details.<br />
<br />
===Carrying Unconscious Units===<br />
If one of your soldiers is carrying an unconscious unit in their hands and the unit either wakes up from stun or dies, they will be removed from the Inventory display, but will still appear to be in the carrying soldier's hands in the Battlescape. Clicking on the phantom body in the Battlescape will crash the game!<br />
This error can be easily cleared by switching to the Inventory screen and moving another item into the hand that used to be carrying the body. Even swapping the gun to the other hand will do. Refer to : [[Unconscious#Bug|Unconscious]].<br />
<br />
===Disappearing Ammo===<br />
Partially-used clips in alien or X-COM weapons disappear at the end of a mission. This dictates that you should try to use clips that are not full. However, in DOS versions of the game, you can unload used clips to recover them as full clips with the tradeoff of all loaded clips (used or otherwise) will count as spent and disappear (this shouldn't seem to be a problem, until you start using blasters and will find that you're running out of ammo fast). You can also use [[XcomUtil]] to recover partially used clips. [[UFOextender]] will count up all the individual rounds of ammo present and repackage them into full clips at the end of a mission, so only the leftover ammo that cannot make a full clip is discarded. Even when used clips are discarded, you will still get credit ([[Scoring|score]]) at the end of missions for recovering them. <br />
<br />
When aborting a mission, any full clips loaded in any alien weapons brought back to the transport/access lift will not be recovered unless the clips are unloaded first. This includes [[Blaster Bomb]]s and [[Stun Bomb]]s.<br />
<br />
=== Ammo Weight Bugs ===<br />
<br />
In general, the game engine handles the weight allocation of ammo/clips '''loaded into weapons''' very badly. There was a good design to handle ammo weight, but it was not properly implemented. As a result there is a set of bugs relating to ammo/clip weight and encumbrance that share overlapping causes and effects.<br />
<br />
==== Equip Phase Ammo Load Error ====<br />
<br />
The game routine for placing ammo into weapons at the beginning of the equip phase does not correctly set all object and unit values. It should set the ammo as loaded into the weapon, the weapon as being held by the soldier, and the map position of the weapon and the ammo as the same as the soldier. Looks like it does not do one or more of these things. Whatever values the game doesn't set, do get set if you manually load or reload the weapon, either during the equip phase, or during the game. <br />
<br />
Specifically, the game's auto-equip functions at the beginning of the equip phase fail to set offset 0x04 of the [[OBPOS.DAT]] record to point to the soldier who owns the ammo. These functions leave the value = 0xff, which implies "on the ground". They also leave the ammo location as being the equipment pile, rather than the location of the soldier. The other values are set correctly. Manually loading ammo into a weapon, during the equip phase or during combat, correctly sets all values. The ownership points to the soldier and the location to the soldier's location. <br />
<br />
This bug is the cause of [[Known_Bugs#Weightless_Loaded_Ammo|Weightless Loaded Ammo]]. Probably the only other impact of this bug is that XComUtil can't detect the fact that the ammo is loaded into the weapon, for the purpose of AutoCombat. It might have other subtle effects on any utilities that deal with equipping soldiers. <br />
<br />
====Weightless Loaded Ammo====<br />
<br />
Ammo that is automatically pre-loaded into a weapon at the start of the Equip Phase of a mission does not initially count towards any soldier's carried weight (Encumbrance). If the weapon is subsequently unloaded during the Equip Phase or later in the mission, the soldier's encumbrance will ''increase''. This will probably only be noticed if the unloaded clip was not discarded (e.g. because it was not fully empty). This is due to a bug in the game's original weight calculation routine that was uncovered (but not caused) by Seb76's inventory screen improvements.<br />
<br />
The Weightless Loaded Ammo bug slightly advantages X-Com. It leads to a set of relatively minor exploits. Using this bug, you can get weak soldiers to carry heavy weapons with (usually) a single clip and no TU penalty. For weapons that use multiple ammo types (which auto-equip with AP by preference), by manipulating the overall supply of ammo of different types you can to some extent persuade the auto equip algorithm to load your preferred ammo type for these weaker soldiers.<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 22:51, 6 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==== Displaced Ammo Weight ====<br />
<br />
'''Guidance: Apart from weapons pre-loaded by the game, be sure to unload any weapons before dropping them. Drop, pick up and transfer ammo only when it is not loaded into a weapon.'''<br />
<br />
Dropped ammo clips that are still loaded into dropped weapons are not un-assigned from the unit carrying them. The weight of the ammo / clips continues to count against the unit's [[Time Units#Encumbrance|Encumbrance]] as 'displaced weight' that can't be removed by ordinary means. This is an original game bug that only becomes apparent when using mods that display the unit's current encumbrance. The effect continues until the ammo is unloaded (either by the original holder picking up the weapon again and unloading it, or someone else picking it up and unloading it). Once the ammo is unloaded, its weight is applied to the actual current holder, only, and is released from the original holder. <br />
<br />
This bug also applies during the Equip Phase, if one soldier loads a weapon, drops it, and another soldier picks it up. <br />
<br />
In some senses this bug is the opposite of the Weightless Ammo Bug, and each bug has probably tended to obscure the effects of the other. For example, clips affected by the Weightless Ammo Bug (clips automatically loaded by the game) are not so obviously affected by this bug, since their displaced weight is 'carried' by the Equipment Pile rather than any specific Soldier. (In another sense, this is the same bug, with the weight displaced to the Equipment Pile rather than to another soldier.)<br />
<br />
See [[User_talk:Seb76#Inventory_screen_ammo_weight_bug|this discussion]] for more information on this bug.<br />
<br />
==== Ammo Weight Exploits ====<br />
<br />
As noted above, Weightless Ammo is, in itself, a minor exploit, since it provides some extra penalty-free carrying capacity in combat. <br />
<br />
On the face of it, the Displaced Weight Bug is not an exploit, since for every decrease in weight on one soldier there is a corresponding increase in weight on another soldier. However the Displaced Weight bug could potentially be exploited by having one soldier first load and then drop a lot of weapons, and then move away from the resulting pile to allow others to pick up. This would create a reserve of weapons where all the ammo weight was being 'carried' by this "weight sink" soldier, freeing up encumbrance for other soldiers. For example, all recon and front line soldiers required to be mobile could get reduced weight, at the expense of a single soldier having extremely reduced mobility/TUs. However, as the game's auto equip routines already load all initial weapons with weightless ammo, this would only be useful after combat had been progressing for some time, for reloads rather than initial loads, and it would require the squad to regroup around this "sink", or ferry weapons to/from the "sink". It might be most useful with Rocket Launchers (high weight, high ammo weight, one round before reload).<br />
<br />
== Storage and Transfer Bugs ==<br />
<br />
===Sticky Craft Transfer Fee glitch===<br />
As pointed out by [[User:Zombie|Zombie]] and [[User:Danial|Danial]], transferring any craft causes '''''all subsequent transfers to have that cost added to it''''', for as long as the craft is in transit. Additional craft in transit will add additional fees. (This has also been called the Exponential Transfer Fee bug, although it's actually additive, not exponential.)<br />
<br />
Example (all numbers are only approximations):<br />
<u>Cost of pistol transfer (&harr; = to or from)</U><br />
EU &harr; USA 80<br />
EU &harr; Asia 100<br />
USA &harr; Asia 120<br />
<br />
<u>Cost of craft transfer</U><br />
EU &harr; USA 1600 ''Notice how transfer fees always work as relative percents,<br />
EU &harr; Asia 2000 ''probably on a distance-based formula<br />
USA &harr; Asia 2400<br />
<br />
<u>Cost to transfer '''pistol''', after transferring craft from EU to Asia for $2000</U><br />
EU &harr; USA 1680 (80+1600)<br />
EU &harr; Asia 2100 (100+2000)<br />
USA &harr; Asia 2520 (120+2400)<br />
<br />
The cost of the craft transfer "sticks" to '''all''' subsequent transfers, until the craft arrives - although it acts on a proportionate basis, which is probably distance related.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, this cost is '''additive'''. That is to say, if you transferred a second craft from EU to Asia while the first was still in transit, it would cost $4000 ($2000 plus $2000 - it too suffers from the glitch!), it would then cost e.g. $4100 to transfer a pistol from EU to Asia. Having even more craft in transit would add even more fees.<br />
<br />
This only appears to happen with aircraft, although it does happen for them all. So try to transfer aircraft individually, and not transfer anything else while you do - assuming you aren't awash in money. (The bug will cost you in the low thousands of dollars per craft being transferred.)<br />
<br />
A related problem is that, if you are in the Transfer screen, start to transfer a craft, and then cancel because you remembered you wanted to send something else first - if you then try to Transfer something on that same screen, ''it will still get the sticky craft fee added''. Try it and see. You have to back up out to the main Base screen and hit Transfer again, to get rid of the sticky fee from a canceled craft transfer.<br />
<br />
===Fuel dump on transfer===<br />
Transferring a craft with 100% fuel will dump it somewhere along the way. <br />
When it arrives at its destination, its fuel gauge will read empty (ie: 0% FUEL), but it will be listed as ready. If you launch your craft for a mission (any mission will do) its fuel gauge will still read empty. <br />
<br><br />
This can be [[ExploitsA#Infinite_Fuel|exploited]], but it is very annoying if you want to quickly turn around a troop transport for another mission. <br />
<br><br />
You can force a refuel by sending out the craft and immediately recalling it back to base.<br />
:The zero fuel on arrival is not really a bug. The designers intended for this to happen. The actual bug is that the planes's state is not changed from "ready" to "refueling" when it arrives.-[[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] ([[User talk:Morgan525|talk]]) 07:15, 28 May 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Transfer Limit cash eater===<br />
Only 100 items can be in transit at a time. (Here, a transfer of e.g. 200 Elerium counts as one "item". Also, all soldiers are counted individually.) If you go over the limit, you will get a warning that there is no more transport capacity. If you STILL try to transport something after getting the warning, the item will stay where it is, but the transportation cost still gets deducted. Bad if you're shuffling expensive aircraft. The extra cost isn't that bad. Recovering just one alien weapon will likely cover the money you will lose to this bug over the course of a game.<br />
<br />
{| {{stdTable}} width = "80%" align = "center" <br />
|- {{stdTable Heading}}<br />
| Tip<br />
|-<br />
| To Clarify what constitutes an item in the transfer screen, think of them as batches of X amount. For example, if you transfer 200 alien alloys now, and then decide to transfer another 50 alloys later, this will count as two items in transit. Now, when you look at your transfers, you'll now have two items. Two batches of alien alloys, one with 200 units and the other with 50 units.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Transfer crash ===<br />
If you transfer something to another base the game crashes right after acknowledging the transfer price.<br />
<br />
Solution: Start UFO, select English language, finish your transfer, save game, restart with your normal language settings (http://www.xcomufo.com/x1faq.html)<br />
<br />
===Storage Limit===<br />
You can not store more than 9,999 of any one item in the general stores at a specific base at one time. However, this will likely only happen with [[Alien Alloys]] or [[Elerium-115]]. <br />
Still, consider yourself warned. If you're coming close to the limit, consider transferring the extra to other bases or even selling it, as any extra collected beyond the limit will 'disappear' and be wasted.<br />
<br />
===Exceeding Storage Limits===<br />
<br />
The storage capacity of a base is normally limited by the capacity of the General Stores. However this can be exceeded in a number of ways:<br />
<br />
* By exploiting some of the Base Storage Anomalies (see below)<br />
* By storing surplus equipment in transport aircraft (up to the 80 item limit). Note that if both the aircraft and the base are full, you can no longer move equipment between the aircraft and base (in either direction). <br />
* Anything manufactured at the base will be stored there regardless of the base's General Stores capacity. <br />
* Anything captured on a mission by an aircraft operating from the base will be stored at the base, regardless of the base's General Stores capacity. <br />
<br />
These could perhaps be considered minor exploits.<br />
<br />
===Base Storage Anomalies===<br />
<br />
There are some quirks in how the game calculates, and displays, base storage capacity used and available. These quirks are not all consistent with each other, which leads to some strange behaviour. A typical example would be moving a set of items out of Stores, immediately trying to put the exact same set of items back into Stores, and this failing due to "insufficient space". A more detailed discussion is in [[Talk:Base Stores#Base Stores Anomalies]].<br />
<br />
===Exceeding Storage Limits when Transferring Craft===<br />
<br />
Usually you can't transfer crafts to bases without capacity for them as you'll get an error when you press the Up arrow. However, if you press the Down arrow when the craft quantity is already at 0, the game will still think you're removing crafts from the destination base and "add capacity", so you can then press the Up arrow again to transfer the crafts without error. This doesn't work with other transferable items.<br />
<br />
Once you've broken the limit once, you don't need to do this trick anymore as the error won't show up again (the game probably doesn't check for negative capacity). You can also exceed storage and personnel capacity this way, as Transport Crafts will carry their contents over. For example, if you press the Down arrow on a Skyranger with 14 soldiers, the game will "add capacity" for 1 craft and 14 personnel on the destination base.<br />
<br />
You can also orphan crafts this way by removing a base with crafts but no hangars, which can cause all sorts of weird behavior.<br />
<br />
== Soldier Limits and Recruiting Bugs ==<br />
<br />
=== Soldier Recruiting Bugs ===<br />
<br />
Also there are 3 bugs related to recruiting soldiers: <br />
<br />
* You still get charged for Soldiers you try to purchase above the No More Soldiers limit.<br />
* The error message that appears when you hire too many soldiers must be dismissed (click OK) once for each soldier over the limit, i.e. up to 255 times. <br />
* You get also charged for Soldiers you try to purchase above the Transfer Limit (100 at a time).<br />
<br />
== Manufacturing and Research Bugs ==<br />
<br />
=== Zero Unit Manufacturing Exploit ===<br />
<br />
If you start a manufacturing project with zero items to build, close the screen, and then go back to assign staff and a non-zero build amount later, the first item is built for free. If you only build one item at a time, you can build them all for free. Obviously, this is cheating. It's also a bit tedious. It might be excusable if you're really short of money.<br />
<br />
=== Research Rollover ===<br />
<br />
At midnight, research projects are checked for completion in the order shown on your Projects screen (which is the same order as for picking new Projects, for [[RESEARCH.DAT]], etc.). But X-COM does not track the effort of individual scientists, so when a project ends, its scientists can be re-assigned before the game checks the next project.<br />
<br />
The upshot is that you can re-use scientists from completed projects as long as you put them on projects (existing or new) that are [[RESEARCH.DAT|farther down the list]] than the one that just finished. And if you assign more scientists than projects need, you can finish multiple projects immediately! <br />
<br />
To best use this exploit:<br />
*If projects (new or existing) have equal priority to you, start new scientists at the top of your list (the [[RESEARCH.DAT|lowest-numbered]] project) and work them "down" from there. This minimizes the number of times that scientists wind up at the end of the project list (where you can't exploit them).<br />
*It works especially well later in the game if you have a full complement of scientists (practical limit of 250 at a base) and apply them to the many "fluff" alien, corpse, and alien-room projects that [[Research_Technical_Details#Research_Time|average less than 250 research days]]. You might finish a lot at once.<br />
*If using it, you don't have to worry about "wasted" research effort due to allocating too many scientists to a project on its last day. Unless you're at the end of the project list, wasted scientists can be re-used, too - sometimes many times.<br />
<br />
=== Overcrowded Engineers And Scientists ===<br />
In the Dos version (probably the others as well) if you hire more than 255 engineers in a single base, the number of engineers in the base will read a negative number once the 257th engineer arrives. Any Engineers engaged in projects will continue to work on them, but if you cancel the project you will lose engineers until you have lost 255 of them. <br />
This bug also affects scientists. It may be exploitable to pay a negative salary at the end of the month.<br />
<br />
If you hire exactly 256 scientists or engineers, the total rolls over to zero. You pay zero salaries, and the resulting free Manufacturing / Research is limited only by the capacity of your Factories / Laboratories. Also works in TFTD.<br />
<br><br />
NOTE: you need to make sure that not all of their projects finish at the same time.<br />
Otherwise, you would be stuck with 0 'available' workers/scientists, i.e. unable to assign them to a new project.<br />
<br />
===Manufacturing Limit Bug===<br />
The number of hours remaining on a [[Manufacturing_Profitability#Profit_tables|manufacturing project]] is stored in a two-byte integer. If you build enough items that the total number of Engineer Hours required for construction is above 65535 hours, it will wrap around to 0 hours and display from there. Typically this drastically understates the amount of time that will be spent working on the items, but strictly speaking, it only subtracts 65k hours (so a huge project like 120k hours would still show ~55k hours' worth of Engineer time needed).<br />
<br />
This bug is not dependent on the number of engineers assigned to the project; it is a function of the number of engineer hours needed. You will most likely run into it when trying to build 2 Avengers at the same time or when queuing up large orders of items in bulk, such as armor or Laser Cannons. As a practical example, the number of Avengers needed to trigger the bug is 2. The number of Laser Cannons is 219. Toggle back and forth between 218 and 219 laser cannons at the beginning of a project to see the effects.<br />
<br />
It is known with certainty that this exists as a display issue - the screen will say you need less time than you should when you go over 65536 Engineer hours. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] is also sure he's seen it eat an Avenger... he ordered two but only got one, even though it took the time, and cost the money, for two. He's tried to replicate this and hasn't been able to, however. So it clearly is at least a superficial display issue, and may be more than that ... possibly dependent on even something else. In any event, keep an eye on projects with more than 65k Engineer hours (and report back here!)... or just avoid going that high.<br />
<br />
== UFOPaedia Errors ==<br />
<br />
=== Craft Weapon hit probabilities ===<br />
<br />
There is a bug in the in-game UFOPaedia. It mistakenly reads the damage value field when reporting the hit chance for a craft weapon. Hence:<br />
<br />
* Cannon shows 10% not 25%<br />
* Avalanche shows 100% not 80%<br />
* Laser Cannon shows 70% not 35%<br />
* Plasma Beam shows 140% not 50%<br />
* Fusion Ball shows 230% (!!!) not 100%<br />
<br />
Possibly the reason this bug was missed during testing is that the first weapon in the data files, Stingray, actually does have Damage equal to its hit probability.<br />
<br />
In the CE version, this is the problem piece of code:<br />
.text 45B2CC: 0F BF 4E 06 <br />
<br />
Change the 06 to 04. The offset may not be correct for everyone but it should be close. I don't know the offset in the DOS version.<br />
[[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] 06:27, 1 April 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=== Craft Weapon reload rates ===<br />
<br />
From empirical research it looks like the reload rates of craft weapons are not stated correctly in the UFOPaedia. For example, the rates of fire of the Laser Cannon and Plasma Cannon are actually the same as each other, and they are both about six times slower than the regular Cannon (so about 12s) - whereas the UFOPaedia entry gives the reload times (inverse of the rate of fire) as being:<br />
<br />
Cannon 2s<br />
Laser Cannon 4s<br />
Plasma Beam 6s<br />
<br />
Similarly the UFOPaedia shows the Fusion Ball as having 3/5 the rate of fire of a Stingray missile, with the Fusion Ball being slower than an Avalanche missile; but empirically the Fusion Ball and Stingray have the same rate of fire, and so the Fusion Ball is faster than the Avalanche. See the discussion in [[Craft_Combat_Mechanics#Observed_Rates_of_Fire|Craft Combat Mechanics - Observed Rates of Fire]] for more details, but keep in mind recent code digs have clarified the picture from this initial rough approximation. It seems reasonable to assume the actual reload rates are coming from a different part of the executable, different to the locations used populate these values that are displayed in the UFOPaedia. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 23:25, 6 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
===Alien Containment size===<br />
<br />
The UFOpaedia in-game claims that each [[Alien Containment]] module can hold 10 live aliens. This is not in fact the case; the true limit is 50 aliens in containment among all bases, regardless of how many Alien Containment modules exist (though live aliens can only be stored at bases with Alien Containment). As such, building more Alien Containment modules, or shuffling aliens around between bases, will '''not''' free up space; the only way to free up space is to research some of the captured aliens (which removes them from containment).<br />
<br />
===Radar detection chances===<br />
<br />
The UFOpaedia in-game claims that both Small Radar and Large Radar facilities have a 5% chance of detecting UFOs every 10 minutes. In fact, this is not the case; Small Radar has a 10% chance of detecting UFOs per 30 minutes (less than advertised), while Large Radar has a 20% chance of detecting UFOs per 30 minutes (more than advertised). Note also the [[Known_Bugs#Radar_Stacking|Radar Stacking]] bug.<br />
<br />
== Other Bugs ==<br />
<br />
=== Difficulty Bug ===<br />
The DOS version has a problem where no matter what difficulty level you choose, it will revert to "Beginner" level after the first mission. This is caused by one incorrectly set bit in all DOS versions of the game (1.0 through to 1.4). The Collectors Edition Windows port (also commonly known as UFO Gold or CE) does not have this problem. To check your [[Difficulty Levels|Difficulty Level]]:<br />
*Look at offset 60 in [[IGLOB.DAT]]. (If this file is only 60 bytes long, you've got the bug!) <br />
*Look at [[Alien Stats|statistics for aliens]] in your game with a [[Mind Probe]] or [[Psi-Amp]]<br />
<br />
To fix the Difficulty Bug, you can install [[XcomUtil]] and it will repair this bug. Alternately for those familiar with hex editing, you can fix this bug by referring to the appropriate section on the [[GEOSCAPE.EXE#XCOM: UFO Defense DOS Versions, difficulty setting bug | GEOSCAPE.EXE]] article and manually setting the incorrect byte to its proper value. <br />
<br />
:[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/X-COM This TVTropes page] has been known to state that due to the bug, players asked the developers to increase game difficulty. The rumour goes that a new bug was supposedly introduced as a result, where TFTD's difficulty would reset to Superhuman instead of Beginner. The facts of the matter are that, while the overall difficulty of the game ''was'' increased, TFTD does manage to correctly keep track of which specific mode you're supposed to be playing in.<br />
<br />
=== Chrysallid / Tentaculat Difficulty Bug ===<br />
<br />
Stats of Chrysallids or Tentaculats that emerge from Zombies during combat have stats that ignore the difficulty level.<br />
<br />
=== Big Text Bug ===<br />
There are a few bugs in XCOM, especially early versions, that can build up and make the game unstable enough that it crashes and prints out a screen full of green 40-column text, essentially debug or memory dump information useless to you.<br />
<br />
You can also forced a crash by pressing CTRL-C at the start of a new game (DOS only). If you don't have any missions automatically saved within the [[Game_Files#Missdat_Files|MISSDAT]] folder, you will get this big text to appear. Typically it is green for Enemy Unknown, and blue for Terror From The Deep. Other colours have been observed such as pink, purple, brown and yellow.<br />
<br />
In the dos version, the text that you see is simply a memory dump in mode-13h (the 320x200x256 colour screen resolution) and the text colour is based off the changes to the palette that the game made. The batch file coordinating the two main programs [[Geoscape]] and [[Battlescape]] often succeeds in soldiering on after a crash. In the Windows version of the game, the game simply crashes back to the desktop, unless you're using the [[XcomUtil]] split executable variant (which uses a batchfile).<br />
<br />
Some things which will tend to cause this problem:<br />
* Overzealous use of Psi<br />
<br />
At least some of the instability crashes can be fixed by replacing the DOS/4GW dos extender with a later version from another DOS game. <br />
<br />
[http://syndicate.lubie.org/synd/html/synd_patches.php One of these], for example. Link to Syndicate fansite, instructions included.<br />
<br />
=== Losing My Favourite Game ===<br />
<br />
There is a check whether the "Has X-com received a financial warning?" flag has been raised. If no, a warning is issued and the flag is raised. If yes, then the game ends, and the flag is lowered. HOWEVER, this flag is erronously not connected to any particular savegame, it is global across all savegames. This allows strange results when saving and loading games.<br />
<br />
=== Celatid aim bug ===<br />
<br />
The Celatid typically misses. User Tycho has identified this is due to a bug that causes the Celatid to aim at the ground, rather than the middle of the target. The bug is being fixed in UFO Extender. The same bug may apply to the same grenade-like weapon routine used in TFTD.<br />
:The Celatid attack uses the routine for throwing items and it defaults to using the maximum "depth" of a layer. This is usually fine since all other thrown objects that do damage cause explosions so the z-axis is important only for determining the landing point.-[[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] ([[User talk:Morgan525|talk]]) 07:24, 28 May 2015 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=== "Seeing the future" Graph Bug ===<br />
<br />
Noticed this in EU CE version, but probably it happens in every other, probably in TFTD too. If, for any case, you have graphs data for months you did not play yet, you will see numbers like 10240, 163780 etc. next to the vertical axis, and graphs will be totally garbled.<br />
This can be fixed by hex-editing [[ALIEN.DAT]], [[XCOM.DAT]] and [[UIGLOB.DAT]] -- just fill the 'future' with zeros.<br />
<br />
=== [[Game Files|Resource File]] Bugs ===<br />
<br />
There are several issues with both UFO and TFTD's resource files. These are far too numerous to list unfortunately. The [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/combo-x-com-game-folder-patch/ Game Folder Combo Patch] for UFO and [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/tftd-uso-routes-fix/ USO Routes Fix] and [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/files/tftd-interception-screen-fix/ Interception Screen Fix] for TFTD resolve these issues. [[User:Sherlock|Sherlock]] also has some additional fixes available.<br />
<br />
=== Saving and Loading Oddities ===<br />
<br />
It is possible to load an empty save game slot. Doing so will place the player at the beginning stages of the X-COM campaign however their base will be nowhere to be found on the globe. Sending an air craft out of the base will reveal it to be in the just off the coast of Africa. This is due to the game normally asking you to pick your first base location, however loading an empty save slot bypasses the routine causing the base to simply be placed on the globe's first "graph point" which happens to be off the coast of Africa. Actually attempting to play the bugged campaign will end in failure as, although things can be purchased, sold, researched, ect. like usual, your base does not exist as far an the game's engine is concerned. Any aircraft sent from the base cannot return to it, forcing the game into a stand still once you finish a battlescape mission. This bug does not affect [[TFTD]] as selecting an empty save simply dumps you back to the previous screen, regardless of whether that's the current game or the main menu.<br />
<br />
Similarly, if you create a new base then select it in the bases menu and then immediately reload to a previous save prior to building it and open the bases menu again you will be greeted with a base screen full of [[Access Lift|Access Lifts]]. If you look at the base selection bar at the top you will notice the slot the the new base once occupied will be currently selected, though oddly empty. This is caused by the game not actively resetting the "selected base" variable unless the geoscape is restarted (either by quitting or entering a battlescape mission). Access Lifts fill the empty base due to the game not being designed to display a completely empty base grid and because they are the "default" base module type, being the first one that's always built upon creating a new base. Unlike the previous, this bug is a harmless visual anomaly. Simply selecting one of the filled base slots returns everything to normal.<br />
<br />
==Utility bugs==<br />
<br />
These are not bugs in X-Com itself, but in utilities often used with it. They are included for completeness.<br />
<br />
* [[Small window bug]]<br />
<br />
=== XComUtil Inventory Stacking Bug ===<br />
<br />
A problem similar to the Alien Inventory Stacking Bug can also occur for X-COM Soldiers, when using XComUtil. The algorithm used to assign weapons in XComUtil MUST assign all weapons to troops, so if there are more weapons than soldiers, excess weapons are stacked onto the leg slot of the first soldier in the dropship. This was a deliberate choice by Scott Jones to make this encumbrance obvious to the player. This can be readily corrected in the "equip soldiers" screen before a mission. Else, see "Alien Inventory Bug", above.<br />
<br />
== See Also ==<br />
<br />
=== [[Known Bugs (TFTD)]] ===<br />
For bugs that '''only''' affect X-COM: Terror From The Deep.<br />
<br />
[[Category: Oddities and bugs]]<br />
[[Category:Enemy Unknown/UFO Defense]]</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Known_Bugs_(TFTD)&diff=87465Talk:Known Bugs (TFTD)2018-07-30T12:52:58Z<p>NKF: /* Stunned soldiers going MIA at mission end */</p>
<hr />
<div>==More Unconscious Bugs==<br />
<br />
OK maybe TFTD is just plain buggy. This may be related to the Mind Controlled units MIA bug. What I saw was:<br />
<br />
* All human units are killed or stunned, but the game does not end, a Coelecanth keeps working (this is a bug right?). I ran the Coelecanth for at least 4 more turns, with all Aquanauts either dead or stunned.<br />
* If I saved and restored this game with the Coelecanth, on the first restored turn I had no units. I could not use the Units menu, the Next Unit button, or the Centre on Unit button. Nothing. After letting the aliens move for one turn, I could see my Coelecanth again. <br />
* If I aborted this mission with the Coelecanth in the ship, as expected it says "Submarine Lost" and the stunned crew - who had been placed aboard the Triton - do not make it back to base. <br />
* However, one of the stunned crew members does make it back to base. The stunned crew were all psi weak but some were stunned whilst under alien mind control, others were not - they were just panicked. I'm not sure if the crew member who teleported back to base was mind controlled or just (morale) panicked. But I would guess he was panicked, since most of them were mind controlled. <br />
* When this crew member gets back to base he is shown as being assigned to craft called "Weapon-1" (since the craft he was assigned to no longer exists). Since this craft doesn't exist, there is no way to unassign him from it. Even if I had a new Triton I doubt I would be able to assign him to it. Shame he wasn't injured!<br />
* Like in a similar incident I saw before, the affected Aquanaut was the first in the list and also the most senior rank. So that ''might'' be a factor. <br />
* In this underwater mission I saw that the Hallucinoid's melee attack definitely works, and is lethal against unarmoured Aquanauts. The melee attack is ineffective against a Coelecanth (with XComUtil improved tank armour I think). I saw no evidence of its ranged attack working, ever, despite many opportunities. It may be possible that (like the HJ Cannon on land), the Hallucinoid's ranged attack might be able to reaction-fire underwater. I didn't do enough to test this, I might try that later. <br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:08, 8 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I got this situation:<br />
Was on a ship attack mission (passenger ship). On the 2nd level, at the lift (big room with crates), one of my soldiers got MC'd while still standing on the lift. He shot a thermal shok bomb and became unconscious (while MC'd). He remained unconscious until I eliminated all aliens, waiting patiently on the lift. Now, the game didn't notify me about a dead or MIA agent, but he disappeared from my aquanauts list. Dunno what was the cause of this misbehaviour.<br />
[[User:mingos|mingos]]<br />
<br />
: I imagine it's the bug Zombie reported [[Exploiting_Mind_Control#Zombie.27s_Permanent_Control_of_Aliens_via_Stunning|here]] in reverse - your dude turned into an alien. He didn't count as MC'd (so no MIA message), and he didn't count as dead (so no DIA message either). That bug - and the others on the same page - really should be documented on the "master lists"... - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 02:45, 4 December 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
So... If I applied stimulant on him, he'd be hostile for one turn and then magically return to my team, I assume. Damn, all this stunned/revived/MC'd/un-MC'd and the mixtures thereof are really weird. Multiple bugs at play... [[User:mingos|mingos]]]<br />
<br />
:Seb76's loader fixes all the mind control / unconscious bugs. These bugs have many different manifestations. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 14:05, 8 December 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Gill-men reported as Snakemen ==<br />
<br />
I get these interesting bugs playing TFTD. A Gill-man corpse is described as a Snakeman corpse. And I get messages saying "Snakeman soldier has panicked", "Snakeman soldier has gone Berserk", when the Gillmen have morale failures. Now the game I'm running using XComUtil, and these Gill-men were created by using XComUtil REPlace command, changing them from Aquatoids and Tasoths. So this may be a fluke. Has anyone else ever noticed this? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:27, 8 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:It's due to XcomUtil. There isn't a string containing "Snakeman" (or any variant thereof) in ENGLISH.DAT, ENGLISH2.DAT or even the executable. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:45, 8 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
==Survey Ship v. Escort==<br />
The Survey Ship and Escort are not interchanged on the battlescape. The sub that comes up matches the UFOpaedia entry and the picture that pops up during interception. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 04:31, 21 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: Not sure what you mean exactly. I would expect that during Interception it would look like an Escort, but when you shoot it down you see a small 1 room craft (Survey Ship) on the Battlescape map but the expected large crew and loadout from an Escort. And vice versa. Is this not what you see? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:17, 21 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
No. When you shoot an Escort down the picture (although not the size of the blob) matches the design of what you term a Survey Ship, the 1 room craft. When you shoot down a Survey Ship the picture (though again, not the size of the blob) matches the larger, 3 room craft. Which is also confirmed by the UFOpaedia entries. The UFOpaedia entry for the Survey Ship looks like the larger craft and the UFOpaedia entry for the Escort looks like the smaller craft.<br />
<br />
So the sub seen on the battlescape matches the sub picture seen during interception and the sub picture in the UFOpaedia. There's no switching in the Battlescape relative to the stuff seen in the interception window and UFOpaedia. It may be that the Survey Ship was intended to be the one-room craft (and indeed, this seems logical) but if that's the case, it's switched in all three. I checked and double-checked this. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 05:03, 22 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Ok this is interesting, you may have uncovered a general misunderstanding. It's been suggested before that maybe it's just the ''names'' that are switched. <br />
<br />
I know you have double checked that you have never run XcomUtil or a map pack? Definitely a virgin install? <br />
<br />
Do you still see a large crew on a small craft and a 1 man crew on the larger craft? <br />
<br />
That the sonar blob size is wrong does suggest maybe a problem in the .exe rather than the map files.<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 05:47, 22 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't even know how to use Xcomutil and have never downloaded it, so I can guarantee it's not been run on my Collector's Edition version.<br />
<br />
: I see multiple aliens on the 1-room craft and 1 alien on the 3-room craft.<br />
<br />
:I don't think the names are switched, since IIRC the Survey Ship still appears first and the Escort second in a mission. Besides, it'd have to be names ''and crew'' switched to make sense.<br />
<br />
:The sonar blob size isn't wrong, it coincides with the reported size of the craft. Escorts are reported as Small while Survey Ships are reported as Very Small. The problem, however, is that that reported size doesn't agree with the actual size of the ships, although it does agree with their loadouts. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 05:57, 22 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:::Ok you have been very thorough on this. Let me try to summarise. The battlescape map, UFOpaedia picture and Interception window picture all agree in showing the Survey Ship as the larger of the two. The reported detection size, crew loadouts, spawn points, order of appearance, combat power, & sonar blob size all agree in showing the Escort as the larger. (We haven't looked at Mission types, a further clue.)<br />
<br />
::: I think the most likely explanation is your earlier suggestion that all 3 "pictures" (map, intercept, UFOPaedia) were switched. Probably the last 2 are configured in the same place in the exe. As Zombie said, a miscommunication between different parts of the development team. Good investigative work! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:57, 22 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
::::You two have convinced me that it is probably unintentional. I don't think it should be listed under bugs though, as it always happens and doesn't actually screw up the game or anything. It's a very odd state of affairs and one that should be listed on the pages for the ships though. I still think the Survey Ship and Escort pages should reflect what actually happens in-game, ie that we should have the bigger floor plans under Survey Ship and the smaller ones under Escort, along with listing the UFOpaedia pics as they're actually noted in-game. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 05:00, 23 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
Magic9mushroom, your investigation has improved the understanding of this issue. It should definitely be flagged up on the wiki pages of both craft. And the other picture-swapping case, the supply ship, should also be flagged on the relevant wiki pages. I think both should be considered Bugs, as they are illogical / inconsistent and don't behave as a player would reasonably expect. It's not necessary that an issue is unpredictable, nor that it damage game play, to be called a bug. Most listed bugs are always repeatable, and quite a few arguably aid gameplay. So I think we should list these as bugs, add your additional findings, and update the craft wiki pages. I'm not sure if we should swap the pictures and descriptions on the wiki pages back to the unmodified state or not. I'm thinking it over. You're right that it's confusing to players who use the unmodified game. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:57, 23 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
: I'll put my support for the motion that Wiki should present this information as per what players will find in an unmodified game. So if they see pictures of an apple in the Ufopaedia but find an Orange in the Battlescape instead, while the Ufopaedia Orange entry comes up with a Battlescape Apple, then let it be so, but also note that the objects have been unintentionally swapped either in one place or the other. There are plenty more inconsistencies in TFTD anyhow. -[[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
<br />
So then, if there are no further objections, I plan to do the following:<br />
<br />
- Swap the listed UFOpaedia pics for the Escort and Survey Ship to match the ones found in the in-game UFOpaedia.<br />
<br />
- Swap the listed floorplans to agree with what is actually found on the Battlescape<br />
<br />
- Add a note to both articles that there's likely some sort of mixup.<br />
<br />
Any objections? [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 19:47, 25 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Generally agreed but you could consider putting both images on each page, listing the unmodified one first, and saying "it looks like THIS but should probably look like THIS". [[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:45, 26 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I'll link each page to the other of course, so that seems a bit redundant. It's been over a day by my count so I'll do the switch. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 07:54, 26 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
...and done! [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 08:32, 26 August 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== disappearing corpses ==<br />
I thought this one is quite well known but could not find it on the list(Remove this if I missed it somehow).<br />
This annoying bug is regularly encountered in settings with large maps containing lots of aliens (ship lane terror missions, XCOM base assault, Alien base assault, Artefact sites). Since the item table gets too full at some point and alien corpses and I think stunned aliens as well are items they are simply disappearing when any more killed/stunned. Too bad if this happens to be your hard earned lobsterman commander...<br />
The easiest way to reproduce it is to take leviathan load of aquanauts including a squad of strong MC troopers, bring a taser, drills and a medikit and assault an Alien base. At sea level use MC chains to put every alien under molecular control and and march them to your transport. ASAP stun one aquatoid soldier,revive it with the medikit and wall it in. Then cull the rest of the Alien garrison and stuff your pockets and backpacks with DPLs and ammo, Sonic pulsers, corpses and other weapons and ammo(unload ammo from weapons) until you can carry no more. Once you are done finish the off the last aquatoid and proceed to the second stage. There drop the stuff and play hunt the last alien(in order to get all the loot from the base) and soon you will encounter the bug.--[[User:Tauon|Tauon]] 15:13, 11 October 2010 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Multi-part map ammo loss ==<br />
<br />
I believe this is XComutil related. It was intended to solve the problem of not recovering any loot on the first part of the mission. <br />
<br />
It's actually worse than that. Plain vanilla TFTD loses everything on the first map that is not being carried by aquanauts. Including everything in the Triton floor area. So if you had a few spare Gas Cannons on standby at the sub for example, but left them when you proceeded to the second part, you'll lose them for good. <br />
<br />
Partly to avoid this bug, and to allow you to collect any loot in the first map, XComutil returns this stuff back to base. Although, it seems that XComutil sometimes gets carried and removes all your carried ammo as well. <br />
<br />
This is just a guess, but it might be related to ammo that the game placed in inventory at the start of the mission. If you haven't moved them or unloaded/reloaded the weapons, XComutil may be seeing them as not being owned by anyone. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 04:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Thanks NKF I will investigate further. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Well this just gets weirder. In one test, I left everything as loaded by the equip phase. In that case, when I get to stage 2, every clip that was originally loaded, is in the equipment pile. I can live with that. Everything that was left in the stage 1 equipment pile is gone - I can live with that, too. Not clear if the stage 1 equipment pile has been teleported back to my base-of-origin. It's hard to tell, because automatic re-equip of guns and ammo after the mission is instant (hence the "Not enough equipment to fully re-equip troops" message). <br />
<br />
:In the 2nd test, instead I manually reloaded every item. Every ammo unit that I had manually loaded into a gun during stage 1, was gone at the stage 2 equip phase. Even all the ammo that Aquanauts had been carrying as spares, was gone. The only ammo I had was one gauss pistol clip which I suspect I forgot to manually reload - so it was only there because of the behaviour observed in the preceding test (previous paragraph). And, the ammo had definitely not teleported back to base, because after I aborted the mission (at the stage 2 start area), my ammo stores back at base were depleted by pretty much the same amount as the missing ammo. So I think something's going badly wrong here. <br />
<br />
:(Tests were done using XcomUtil 9.60, not XcomUtil 9.7 Beta.) [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I tried installing XcomUtil 9.7 Beta, to test that version, but had some issues with my Steam TFTD installation. I'll try again tomorrow. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 21:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:: Perhaps the older version of XComutil was just too eager with sending the loose items back home? Either way, don't forget to do a test in the plain vanilla copy of the game if you get a chance. My tests were based on a vanilla copy of the v2.0 dos version in Dosbox. Of course, your mileage certainly may vary. <br />
<br />
::: OK I checked plain vanilla - full reinstall of Steam version (Dosbox, though reported by XcomUtil 9.7 as TFTDWin 1.0 version). Plain vanilla install, using the savegame from the XCU9.6 game, and a Turn 1 state (so XCU9.6 may have messed with things during the equip phase). The results are as expected - all carried equipment and loaded ammunition, including ammo counts, are preserved between stage 1 and stage 2. Equipment pile or other dropped items from stage 1 are not carried over to stage 2. Alien kills, corpses and artefacts from stage 1 are credited upon abort from stage 2. All civilians from both stages die upon abort. Mission was a cargo ship mission. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::: I also checked XCU 9.7 Build 422, clean install on a clean install of TFTD (Steam). Good news, the bug is fixed. I can't reproduce any of the bad behaviour - no missing ammo, no missing equipment. Cool! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::One thing that has come from this is that I'm never going to leave any excess items in the Triton on two-parters ever again. Well, unless it's every-day easy-to-get stuff like the Sonic Cannons. Just have to be mindful of the spare tazers and chem. flares. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 07:11, 2 November 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: And just a minor update note for this discussion since I noted it in the article on the two-parters: The losing-everything in the first part bug is a TFTD v1.0 issue. Not a problem for 2.0 or CE. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 23:18, 26 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:; Actually, 2.0 only resolves this issue in the case that you KILL everything in part 1. If you placed your guys in the exit zone and hit abort, you might still lose stuff. You definitely don't get the loot in this case. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 14:34, 27 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Land missions reaction fire bug ==<br />
<br />
This is an expansion of a bug known as [http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Known_Bugs_%28TFTD%29#X-COM_Equipment_Glitches "X-COM underwater-only weapons fire on land missions"]. The bug may actually be more serious than that and it may extend to all present units. <br />
<br />
The game tries to check for land availability of a weapon in hand, but it wrongly tests the first OBPOS.dat item instead. If the first item stored in OBPOS is not allowed on land, no reaction fire is possible, during the whole mission, both for X-Com and for Alien side! If, however, the first item is allowed, all reaction fire is always possible, for both normal and underwater-only weapons.<br />
Note: This has not been tested in game. I don't know how the first OBPOS.dat is selected. Maybe this effect occures very rarely, or never. The code leaves the possibility open. --[[User:Kyrub|kyrub]] 07:19, 26 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Very interesting research. Also very scary! [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:34, 26 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:: They probably failed to point to the right index. Either hardcoding a 0 in as the obpos index (or offset if using memory pointers). That actually makes me wonder if this is what influences the aliens' reluctance to react against the cannon or aquajet Coelacanths? If it is then my theory that Coelacanths are (nearly) immune to reaction fire may stem from this. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 23:18, 26 April 2011 (EDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Deep One "shooting" is suspect ==<br />
The Deep One seems to miss most of the time, and it hits VERY rarely. This is strange, since his internal (turret) accuracy is not bad at all (75% for Snap shot, 110% for aimed shot, but the latter is less used due to the closer distance of engagement). Deep one has FA = 50 which on normal difficulty gives: 50*75% = 37,5% for a snapshot. This does not seem to match the reality.<br />
What could go wrong? The "shot" seems to follow the grenade trajectory. Grenades, however, are always targeted at the ground. As it seems, there is no adjustment for the Deep One targetting in the code. My guess is, the Deep One shoots on the ground under the soldier and it hits him only by accident. Same should be true for Celatid in UFO. Can anybody confirm the experience? --[[User:Kyrub|kyrub]] 19:23, 23 February 2012 (EST)<br />
<br />
: I wonder if it's like the Launch command for the Blaster/Disrupter Torpedo launcher, it may use its own routine that bypasses the normal snap attack? -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 13:59, 24 February 2012 (EST)<br />
::I know that the shot Deep Ones fire when mind-controlled is NOT the shot they fire normally, so there certainly is some special code for their attack. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] 00:52, 25 February 2012 (EST)<br />
::The Celatid in Enemy Unknown had a special routine to make its shots have an arc and a limited range. This routine is based on the unit number. Since the Deep One replaced the Celatid in that spot, the Deep One wound up with the same form of attack. Whether or not this was intentional...?[[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] 23:21, 17 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
::: I just looked at a TFTD Extender game save file from a game I was playing, using XcomUtil DIS, and I noticed the Deep Ones carrying Gauss Rifles. I like it! Is that part of your fix for the hold over Celatid acid spit grenade attack, Tycho? Or just some weird XcomUtil bug? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 04:24, 18 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
::I put that into the unit generation routine when I eliminated the spit attack. It puts them closer to the image in the UFOpaedia. I had to use the gauss rifle since you can't access the image for the gun they are carrying in the article. However, they aren't actually carrying anything: I just set the hand image of the unit to the gauss rifle. It makes them look pretty bad@$$ in the battlescape.[[User:Morgan525|Tycho]]<br />
<br />
== Female/Male voices ==<br />
<br />
It seems nobody else has ever noticed that in TFD all of your aquanauts use a male sounding "scream" when they die as opposed to EU where men/women had different voices.<br />
<br />
<br />
: Not really a bug, there's only the one scream clip and it's shared between them. Not sure why they did that considering it worked very well in UFO. [[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:40, 6 August 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== Reverting Gauss Craft Ammo Exploit, Exploit Section and Link ==<br />
<br />
Hi Tycho / Morgan. I don't know if you intended to roll back my edits, but if so, we should probably discuss first, not least because they represent a fair amount of research time on my part, so if they are going to be moved off this page, I'd like them at least to be moved somewhere - even if it's back to my own page. I am going to revert the Gauss Craft Ammo stuff, but I've left alone your changes to the TFTD Extender section since it's only fair that that is 'yours', and a lot of your other changes. Also quite happy to discuss changes. We should keep in mind maintaining a ''neutral point of view'', as a primary goal of this wiki. That would also apply to the 'questionable logic' section (regardless of how it's capitalised). There's also a healthy historical debate on what's a bug / feature / exploit, so we should all try to respect the diversity of opinion on this too. Cheers, [[User:Spike|Spike]] 08:30, 16 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
:Was the section deleted? I don't recall _intentionally_ deleting any part of anyone discussions. If I did, it was an accident and I'm sorry for the confusion. [[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] 03:16, 17 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
:: Ah no worries! I thought it may well have been accidental - easily done if there are two edits in progress at the same time. The wiki engine is not great at detecting edit conflicts. I hope my 'restored' version still reflects your edits ok? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:30, 17 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
:::To my recollection, the only change I made to the page was just to add a notation next to the issues that the Extender fixes. [[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] 23:22, 17 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
I highly suspect you hit the rollback button by mistake. It's a one-click action and doesn't ask for confirmation and it gets actioned right away. Hmm, that's actually rather dangerous! -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:57, 18 September 2012 (EDT)<br />
<br />
== And what about Research Tree Bugs? ==<br />
<br />
There is an article on [[TRTBAG|how to avoid TFTD Research Tree Bugs]] in order to recover everything possible and to finish the game. However, the [[Research_(TFTD)|research tree]] has also bugs of a different kind. They do not harm in the mentioned sense (i.e. despite of them you may finish the game and learn about (almost) everything) but they make some parts of the game quite illogical. Where is the right place just for numbering them?<br />
<br />
So, here is the list:<br />
<br />
1. Only 4 new objects can be allowed to produce after finishing a research topic. If you already finished with Gauss Cannon, Sonic Oscillator and P.W.T. Cannon before, and now you have finished with New Fighter Flying Sub, you should get 5 new items to produce: Manta, Coelacanth/Gauss, Displacer/Sonic, Displacer/P.W.T., and P.W.Torpedo. However, because of this buggy limitation you can get only 4 of them, while the 5th one will appear only after finishing another research. The result: you have all that you need, and you still cannot start production, only because a stupid limitation (and incorrect construction of the research tree, see below). A bug or not?<br />
<br />
2. Finishing of examination of a live alien does not lead to further examination of its body. This is a bug of the same type as bad physics of the game (and the lack of a difference between behaviour of various objects on the land and under the sea). What do our scientists do with dead bodies after the examination of live aliens? Eat them or what? The same bug is present in UFO EU. Hopefully it has been corrected in Apocalypse by X-COM series programmers - so, this is a real bug, worth to be noticed in the article.<br />
<br />
3. And another logical inconsistency of the game. We will get information on some products of the alien technology only when we examine aliens' bodies. Presence of the products in our stores is not required. So, our scientists can make 1:1 copies of alien objects not even having seen them! So, we may get Aqua Plastics - but it will not help us with know anything about this product of the alien technology. But if we examine a corpse of a Deep One, somehow we will guess the exact structure of Alien Plastics, and then we will be able to duplicate this product even without comparing it with genuine Alien Plastics! Where is any sense in it? Do Deep Ones have written records inside their bodies how to make Aqua Plasics? It would be a bit more logical a situation if we could get information from live aliens. Or if the dead body of a Deep One were needed together with Aqua Plastics. But it is not so in the game.<br />
<br />
4. Exactly the same logical inconsistency can be observed towards melee weapons. We can find a Vibroblade by an alien corpse, but it is all the same for us if we found it or not. But if we get a Calcinite Corpse, we will get a kind of enlightenment somehow! Not even having looked at the device itself, we will guess all details of its complex construction just looking at the corpse! The bug is not in the fact that we need the corpse but rather in the fact that we do not need the device which we examine.<br />
<br />
5. One more example of miraculous illumination in our scientists' minds is Thermic Lance which they "invent" looking at the corpse of a Gill Man.<br />
<br />
6. Yet more mysterious example of our scientists' genius is guessing all details of Heavy Thermic Lance without any help, and - naturally - without examining the device itself. Simply they guess its construction, and then - what a surprise! - it appears that the aliens have been able to invent exactly the same device!<br />
<br />
7. A similar bug: you do not need to know anything about Zrbite in order to finish with Ion Armor. This is extremely strange as Zrbite is needed to produce Ion Armor. You must examine a live Deep One instead of Zrbite.<br />
<br />
8. In order to produce (very buggy besides) Coelacanth/Gauss, you need to have examined New Fighter Flying Sub first. What is it for? Coelacanth cannot fly - or rather float, or move vertically. This is an obvious misconception in the game, one of the things which make it illogical. Why having examined all Gauss weapon is not enough to construct this tank? But it is just another type of Coelacanth. We know two other types from the beginning. All we needed to construct it was its weapon. The requirement of New Fighter Flying Sub is really stupid, and this is an obvious bug in the game. Moreover, this makes the tank totally useless. But when we finish with Manta, we will also be able to construct much better, "flying" tanks, Displacers. In this very moment Coelacanth (of each type) is outdated technology. And which is more, another proof that the requirement of having finished Manta examination in order to invent Coelacanth/Gauss is just a bug of the game (or: an involuntary result of programming the game) is the above-mentioned 4-product limit. If we remove the requirement of Manta being a prerequisite of Coelacanth/Gauss, we would never have an occasion to experience results of the limit.<br />
<br />
9. Bombardment Shield is another element of the game which is completely useless. It is so because in order to start working on it, we have to have the Latest Flying Sub already examined. And this is the source of the problems. Namely, inventing of Bombardment Shield lasts rather long, and during this time we can build Leviathan. All we should know on T'leth, we learnt even before starting inventing the Latest Flying Sub (from Lobsterman Commander). And in order to build a Bombardment Shield, we would have to wait more than a month. What for? wouldn't it better just fly to T'leth and finish with the aliens? Just compare research trees of [http://grzegorj.orangespace.pl/xc/obrazki/tree1.png UFO:EU] and [http://grzegorj.orangespace.pl/xc/obrazki/tree2.png TFTD]. Grav Shield in UFO:EU is ready to be examined just after New Fighter Transporter (Lightning). And if it was similarly in TFTD (Bombardment Shield just after Hammerhead), everything would be OK. But it is not so, and this is why Bombardment Shield is more a curio than a real weapon.<br />
<br />
10. In addition to this list: The extreme unconcern of the game programmers has resulted in PLENTY of errors on TFTD maps. Among others, objects that look like Examination Room (in Ufopedia), are recognized by the game engine as Alien Implanter or even something more bizarre (because of wrong data in *.MCD files). As a result, without patching the game or some hacker tricks we will never get Examination Room on a mission. And we will not be able to examine it.<br />
<br />
[[User:Sherlock|Sherlock]] 11:51, 5 January 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Disappearing Triscenes ==<br />
<br />
Sometimes Triscenes are generated in UNITREF.DAT but they are invisible in the tactical game (in the mission). For some reason, they are not counted as present. This way you can go through a whole campaign, not having seen this creature even once. An example is in the attached save games: [[File:Nstm.zip]]. See inside the archive for explanations. It is probably a game bug, not noticed so far.<br />
<br />
[[User:Sherlock|Sherlock]] 20:31, 30 January 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Burning trail ==<br />
<br />
"The Bio-Drone leaves a burning trail (holdover from the Silacoid in UFO?)"<br />
<br />
Is this really a bug? The Bio-Drone is probably the most powerful alien in the game. I mean, the thing can fly, has heavy armour, incredibly high accuracy, powerful attacks, you can't see which way it's facing (difficult to sneak up on), and explodes when destroyed. It was also supposed to have a powerful melee attack, but it got bugged. So perhaps the burning trail was deliberately implemented as a sort of weakness (makes it obvious when one is around).<br />
--[[User:Darkpast|Darkpast]] ([[User talk:Darkpast|talk]]) 15:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
: I didn't think it was ever a bug. To me it's one of its defining characteristics, being that of such a powerful enemy that it leaves destruction in its wake. Sure the Cyberdisc has the blue hover sparkle effects under it as well, but I can only speculate that the effect of the Bio Drone's sparkles are a bit more violent. What could be considered a bug is the fact that the burning effect doesn't persist while under mind control. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 06:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I agree that there's no real evidence that it's a bug (or that the Deep One's attack looking like a Celatid's is a bug, how on Earth did someone list that as a bug?). On the topic of stuff changing under mind control, the Deep One's attack changes to a direct-fire weapon that looks like Sonic when mind-controlled. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 09:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Stunned soldiers going MIA at mission end ==<br />
<br />
I just had a Ship Rescue Mission (urgh) and upon finishing it, two of my soldiers went MIA. I think their guns also went MIA, because I found myself down a couple of Gauss Rifles afterward. They were stunned in the second half (below decks) and were still stunned at mission end.<br />
<br />
Not sure what's going on; might do a test at some point. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 09:40, 28 July 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
Moreover, I tried to rescue a stunned aquanaut in an other's backpack, both staying (obviously) in the exit area when pressing the launch button, but still, the backpacked aquanaut were MIA afterwards. ----[[User:Loga|Loga]] ([[User talk:Loga|talk]]) 23:36, 29 July 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: You might find the same thing will happen if you try to escape from the second level of a colony mission with unconscious aquanauts. It is possible the routine that handles the linking of the game between the Geoscape and Battlescape is not able to completely handle the two parters properly. There was the previous issue in TFTD v1.0 with the non-recovery of equipment in the first part of a 2-part mission. That caused loss of gear from the Triton. This was fixed in V2. However unconscious aquanaut recovery still seems problematic. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 14:52, 30 July 2018 (CEST)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Personal_Armour&diff=87464Talk:Personal Armour2018-07-30T12:51:56Z<p>NKF: /* Should we advocate the use of this stuff? */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Damage modifier notation incorrect==<br />
There is a bug in the soldier spawn routine which incorrectly assigns the Power Suit damage modifer category to units with Personal Armor. <br />
The programmers should have made the program check if the armor type read from the SOLDIER.DAT file was less than or equal to the value of 1 (personal armor). Instead, they check if the value is less than 1, which not being true for 1, allows the damage modifier category of the Power Armor to be assigned to the unit. -[[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] 13:42, 17 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
: That explains the fire immunity it always conferred. I assume this is the same for TFTD's Plastic Aqua Armor as well? -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 04:57, 18 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
Yes. That section of the spawn routine in TFTD is exactly the same code.-[[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] 21:35, 18 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Should we advocate the use of this stuff? ==<br />
<br />
While, from a tactical standpoint, Personal Armour is of some use, from a strategic standpoint it's dubious at best. A suit of Personal Armour more than doubles the cost of a Rookie (in materials cost alone, never mind the engineering time), but doesn't even halve their chances of dying in one hit. So unless you're in serious danger of having a mission go south, you're better off simply forgoing Personal Armour and accepting the casualty rates.<br />
<br />
Psi-screened soldiers, of course, are far more expensive to replace, so armour's absolutely worthwhile on those, but by then Personal Armour is obsolete. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 15:32, 24 July 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Amusingly, while not my own opinion, I usually notice that it's the Power Suit that is most often considered for the chop when the value of the different suits are discussed. <br />
<br />
: You can could think of it as the same discussion around skipping mid level gear like lasers, tanks, medi-kits and most of the advanced ships. You can ignore them if you really want to. But perhaps depending on the circumstance you find yourself in, a cheap (relatively) and more accessible alternative may just be what you need to help get you by until matters improve. I certainly wouldn't discourage its use, though perhaps a refresh of the description in this article is well overdue. <br />
<br />
: That has me thinking. It might be useful to build some comparison tables to show how effective the different suits stand up to the different plasma weapons. Just pulling some numbers out of the air here, say a Heavy Plasma can damage the front plates of each suit 5%, 21%, 42% and 47% of the time respectively. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 11:49, 25 July 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
I'm not saying Personal Armour's skippable in favour of better armour, I'm saying it's literally not worth building even when the alternative is no armour whatsoever. And the reason for this is well-illustrated in that table you asked for.<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! !!Plasma Pistol!!Plasma Rifle!!Heavy Plasma<br />
|-<br />
!Nothing<br />
|87.6%||91.9%||94.4%<br />
|-<br />
!Personal Armour<br />
|51.4%||68.3%||77.9%<br />
|-<br />
!Power Suit<br />
|3.8%||37.3%||56.3%<br />
|-<br />
!Flying Suit<br />
|0%||31.1%||51.9%<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Armour just doesn't put that big a dent in your chances to be killed, because of the super-wide damage ranges in UFO. And armour adds an additional cost to each death, because the armour's destroyed along with the soldier and the armour costs significantly more than the soldier (taking into account only cash/alloy/elerium costs, a Personal Armour suit costs $48,000, a Power Suit $99,500 and a Flying Suit $170,500). When you multiply those chances to penetrate (or the related chances to kill) by the cost of a death, you'll find that you're spending more to give troops Personal Armour (and then have them die anyway) than you would be to simply send the rookies out naked. Power and Flying Suits can be worthwhile against the lighter plasma weapons, but not the Heavy Plasma Gun.<br />
<br />
There are really three good reasons to use armour:<br />
*Armour effectively lets you send more force to a mission, because there's a limit on how many soldiers you can send. So if you're in danger of a mission going south (Sectoid terror sites without psi-screening, alien bases, Cydonia), armour is worthwhile.<br />
*Flying Suits give you tactical options that you don't have ''at all'' without them (in particular, the ability to snipe from level 3, and the ability to stay off the ground and thus neuter Chryssalids). If you value those options, the Flying Suit's worthwhile.<br />
*A soldier with a known high Psionic Strength effectively costs many times what a generic disposable rookie does, because you have to take into account all the soldiers that fail and the cost of keeping the cohort through two month rollovers. For instance, if you're screening for 81+ Psi-Strength, each passing soldier will effectively cost $404,000 (101/20 * (40,000 + 20,000 + 20,000)). This makes armour absolutely a cost-saver, and the stronger the better.<br />
<br />
The only one of these reasons that would really apply to Personal Armour would be a Sectoid Terror Site, and even then it's dubious; Cyberdiscs' plasma cannons are even stronger than Heavy Plasma.<br />
<br />
For comparison, here's the much, much armour-friendlier table for the front plates of TFTD's armours:<br />
<br />
{| class="wikitable"<br />
! !!Sonic Pistol!!Sonic-Blasta Rifle!!Sonic Cannon<br />
|-<br />
!Nothing<br />
|100%||100%||100%<br />
|-<br />
!Plastic Aqua Armour<br />
|65.4%||78.1%||97.7%<br />
|-<br />
!Ion Armour<br />
|0%||0%||36.6%<br />
|-<br />
!Magnetic Ion Armour<br />
|0%||0%||28.2%<br />
|}<br />
<br />
[[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 16:11, 25 July 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
<br />
: I agree that if a player is experiencing a high soldier loss rate then Personal Armour (or any armour for that matter) could become very expensive to replace. Especially in the early game, where it would be like buying a new tank every few missions. In this instance it would be be more cost effective to go without and endeavour to be more careful. <br />
<br />
: For a less fraught scenario, personal armour would just be another risky investment for the early game. If it pays off and a soldier gets to limp away then that was money well spent. If not, to use the modern aphorism, "That's UFO: Enemy Unknown, child!". Sorry, I am deliberately getting that wrong.<br />
<br />
: Come the mid and late game, money and materials should become less of a problem thanks to the philanthropic invaders. Until you can phase them out entirely, there should be no real disadvantage to equipping all of your reserve troops with Personal Armour. It is not going to be as huge an impact on your resources by then. <br />
<br />
:The Personal Armour numbers do look low, but that's not too surprising for what is effectively a half-strength Power Suit. Nevertheless I do feel the numbers are reasonably generous compared to the coveralls. It may only block a heavy plasma to the chest about 1/5 of the time, but the 50 damage reduction is a sizeable chunk off any penetrating damage received. Depending on health that could very well decide whether or not it is a fatal blow. Coveralls leave far too much to the RNG. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 14:50, 30 July 2018 (CEST)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Personal_Armour&diff=87335Talk:Personal Armour2018-07-25T09:49:40Z<p>NKF: /* Should we advocate the use of this stuff? */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Damage modifier notation incorrect==<br />
There is a bug in the soldier spawn routine which incorrectly assigns the Power Suit damage modifer category to units with Personal Armor. <br />
The programmers should have made the program check if the armor type read from the SOLDIER.DAT file was less than or equal to the value of 1 (personal armor). Instead, they check if the value is less than 1, which not being true for 1, allows the damage modifier category of the Power Armor to be assigned to the unit. -[[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] 13:42, 17 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
: That explains the fire immunity it always conferred. I assume this is the same for TFTD's Plastic Aqua Armor as well? -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 04:57, 18 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
Yes. That section of the spawn routine in TFTD is exactly the same code.-[[User:Morgan525|Tycho]] 21:35, 18 February 2013 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Should we advocate the use of this stuff? ==<br />
<br />
While, from a tactical standpoint, Personal Armour is of some use, from a strategic standpoint it's dubious at best. A suit of Personal Armour more than doubles the cost of a Rookie (in materials cost alone, never mind the engineering time), but doesn't even halve their chances of dying in one hit. So unless you're in serious danger of having a mission go south, you're better off simply forgoing Personal Armour and accepting the casualty rates.<br />
<br />
Psi-screened soldiers, of course, are far more expensive to replace, so armour's absolutely worthwhile on those, but by then Personal Armour is obsolete. [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 15:32, 24 July 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: Amusingly, while not my own opinion, I usually notice that it's the Power Suit that is most often considered for the chop when the value of the different suits are discussed. <br />
<br />
: You can could think of it as the same discussion around skipping mid level gear like lasers, tanks, medi-kits and most of the advanced ships. You can ignore them if you really want to. But perhaps depending on the circumstance you find yourself in, a cheap (relatively) and more accessible alternative may just be what you need to help get you by until matters improve. I certainly wouldn't discourage its use, though perhaps a refresh of the description in this article is well overdue. <br />
<br />
: That has me thinking. It might be useful to build some comparison tables to show how effective the different suits stand up to the different plasma weapons. Just pulling some numbers out of the air here, say a Heavy Plasma can damage the front plates of each suit 5%, 21%, 42% and 47% of the time respectively. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 11:49, 25 July 2018 (CEST)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Firestorm&diff=87297Talk:Firestorm2018-07-21T07:06:33Z<p>NKF: /* Firestorm vs. Battleship */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Firestorm vs. Battleship==<br />
I just did 25 tests of a lone Firestorm with dual Plasma Beams assaulting a Superhuman Battleship. In 20 of those tests (80%), the Firestorm was actually successful in this mission, and I suspect it'd be near-guaranteed on Beginner since a Battleship fires 50% faster on Superhuman (16-32 vs. 24-48).<br />
<br />
So I think it's better than we currently give it credit for. The main issue with the Firestorm is that the Avenger is better in almost every way - it's got more fuel (and thus more range), more speed (and thus better fuel economy, as well as the ability to intercept base-attack Battleships), the ability to carry troops, ''and'' no chance of being destroyed duelling a Battleship - and by the time you unlock the Firestorm, you're closing in rapidly on the Avenger (with three labs, it'll usually be under two weeks). Speaking of that issue, it should be mentioned somewhere in this article.<br />
<br />
Any objections? [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 06:49, 21 July 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: None from me. Even Interceptors can manage a Battleship with enough numbers or a good dose of luck. A ship with five times the hitpoints and the speed to catch up with the Battleship should fare even better. The [[Craft Comparison Table]] page does mention the Firestorm is a cost effective alternative to the Avenger. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 09:06, 21 July 2018 (CEST)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Craft_Armaments&diff=87246Talk:Craft Armaments2018-07-16T05:24:59Z<p>NKF: /* Should we use the actual values rather than scaling to Cannon? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Mechanics Discussion ==<br />
<br />
see also [[Air Combat Mechanics]]<br />
<br />
I'm guessing from looking at the weapon accuracys and their ranges that craft weapon fire probably is calculated similarly to Battlescape combat, i.e. you can hit or not based on the accuracy, then comes in the size and range which might get you an incidental hit anyway. Otherwise the cannon would be even more pointless than it already is with a 10% accuracy - but close up this probably translates to something half reasonable. Equally the Stingray and Avalanche might turn out to have similar hit rates when at their respective maximum ranges are factored in. Of course the Plasma Beam owns everything else in almost every category so its fairly moot. --[[User:Sfnhltb|Sfnhltb]] 09:49, 7 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:The rate of fire of the Cannon might disguise its rate of misses, but your observation about Stingrays vs. Avalanches is intriguing.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 14:36, 7 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::Well another thing that might possible - people think that the rate of fire increases as you close in, although the reload rate is given as a fixed number. Is it possible its just hits happen more often as you close in, so the combat completes faster but everything is actually firing at the same speed? (someone might have tested in depth with a stopwatch or something to know the answer, cant really comment solidly either way myself, but it seems a possibility at least) --[[User:Sfnhltb|Sfnhltb]] 15:17, 7 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::: Try this. Get some Avengers and use either laser cannons or stingrays. Find some trouble and save the game. Launch the attack and set the two ships to their respective extreme aggression settings. Notice which one of the two gets fired on the most often or which one uses up its ammo before the other. It might take a few tries. You should be able to see a clear difference between the two ships, but a slow-down utility or - with an emulator - slowing down the emulation may help. My guess is that the exchange of attacks between the UFO and interceptor are actually happening at the same rate. However the time compression differs from ship to ship depending on how close they are to the UFO. -[[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
:::: According to the data at the following thread, (http://www.strategycore.co.uk/forums/index.php?showtopic=535 ) the accuracies listed here and in the UFOpaedia are incorrect. It seems likely that he's correct, as the accuracy rating for each weapon is identical to the damage rating of each weapon. If someone could read the code of the game and find the actual accuracy to confirm/deny this, it'd be appreciated. Also, I read somewhere; (possibly here, although I can't relocate the data) that the ranges given for the Craft Armaments were too low by a factor of 8. This matches what I have seen in game(the plasma beam cautious attack range is 416, for example, and 52*8 is 416) with all 6 craft weapons. Shouldn't this be listed? -27 May, 2007, Arrow Quivershaft,<br />
<br />
::::: I did some tests earlier today, and measuring based on the range number displayed in the Interception window, the weapons have maximum ranges as follows- Avalanche: 480 Stingray: 240 Cannon: 80 Fusion Ball: 520 Plasma Beam: 416 Laser Cannon: 280<br />
:::::The default standoff range is 560 units of range. This allows us to put into perspective the ranges given on the alien craft, which are in the same units of measurement: Small Scout: 0 Medium Scout: 120 Large Scout: 272 Harvester: 176 Abductor: 160 Terror Ship: 336 Supply Ship: 288 Battleship: 520<br />
:::::This may not change anything, but I find it more useful to compare in the actual units the game displays to you, rather than the Kilometers of range it doesn't give you. -27 May, 2007, Arrow Quivershaft<br />
<br />
::::::So it seems that you've found that 1 game km = 8 distance units. Makes sense. What's caught my interst are those unknowns in Zombie's weapon tables. <br />
<br />
::::::By the way, for your convenience if you don't already use it: Enter three tildes (<nowiki>~~~</nowiki>) to insert your handle. It also turns it into a wikilink to your personal talk page. Enter four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) to do the same and append the current timestamp. Saves having to type it out each time! I'll end this with an example of entering four tildes: [[User:NKF|NKF]] 00:02, 29 May 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::It seems to hold that 8 distance units = 1 km, except for the laser cannon, which is an enigma in regards to range, since it should instead be 168 instead of 280; in other words, it should be outclassed by the Stingray in regards to range. 280 / 8 = 35. Of course, given that they totally screwed up the accuracy ratings, positing that they mistyped the Laser Cannon range isn't a huge leap.<br />
<br />
:::::::Interestingly enough, actually, it appears that the accuracy and range of the Laser Cannon are the same number, based on this data. Perhaps that's where the error comes from; I will edit this into the Laser Cannon entry.[[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 00:49, 29 May 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Probably AQ was using an XComUtil patched version of the game, which has the Laser Cannon range increased to 35(km). [[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:19, 2 July 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=== Weapon Damage Ranges ===<br />
<br />
I was just scratching my head thinking about compiling a min/max-rounds-to-hit table to scuttle a Battleship, and suddenly remembered that like the Battlescape, weapon damage for air-to-air combat is variable. <br />
<br />
Thought there would be mention of it on this page, but can't spot it. On further research it's on the firepower table sub-page. I'd like to work it into this page but before that I'd like to clarify if the range is meant to be 50% to 100% or 50% to 150%? I had a feeling it was the latter - like the alien weapons, but I'd better confirm it just to be sure. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 04:56, 1 April 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
:Preliminary tests seem to indicate it is 50% to 100% ... I armed an Avenger with 1 Fusion Ball Launcher, and waited for an Abductor to spawn, then saved and Intercepted. Initial results seem to indicate that FBL will never do enough in 1 hit to crash an Abductor... which means that it's max damage is less than 250. ... 150% damage = 345 damage in 1 hit... that would be impressive...<br />
: I also discovered some funky results... seems like Xcom is one of those games that "stores the next random number in memory". Or so my results from using 1 FBL on a Medium Scout would show. [[User:Jasonred|Jasonred]] 14:29, 1 April 2009 (EDT)<br />
<br />
=== Revised Fire Rates ===<br />
<br />
I propose to put a note on the article that the fire rates shown (from UFOPaedia) are probably wrong. I might even change them to the observed actual values. I could add an extra column with the actual values, but that might be confusing. <br />
<br />
[[Talk:UFO_Interception#Observed_Rates_of_Fire|Actual observed rates of fire]]:<br />
<br />
<br />
Weapon: Fire Interval in Game Seconds<br />
Aggressive/Standard/Cautious <br />
Cannon 2 / 2 / 2<br />
Laser Cannon 12 / 12 / 12<br />
Plasma Cannon 12 / 12 / 12<br />
Stingray 16 / 24 / 32<br />
Avalanche 24 / 36 / 48<br />
Fusion Ball 16 / 24 / 32<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:30, 9 February 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
:OK I'm going to take the plunge and change the main page. It's a wiki after all. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 16:45, 11 February 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Fusion Balls better than Plasma Beams? ==<br />
<br />
In favour of the much maligned FBL, based on revised firing rates (see above) and other data, a Plasma Beam armed aircraft must endure 6x the exposure to enemy fire before it inflicts more damage than a Fusion Ball armed aircraft. <br />
<br />
Take the case of a single attacking aircraft. A Plasma Beam-armed aircraft requires 26gs to close range from 65km to 52km, plus an average 108gs to fire 7 times (6 x 12 x 1.5), at which point it exceeds the average damage of a (fully expended) Fusion Ball Launcher. Total 134gs. During this time a Battleship (firing on average every 36gs) will get an average of about 5 shots off (1 + 134/36).<br />
<br />
The Fusion Ball Launcher aircraft is fully expended in an average of 24gs in Aggressive mode. The Battleship will on average only get one shot off, its first shot. The FBL aircraft is disengaging before the Plasma Beam aircraft has even come into firing range. With 3 or 4 aircraft firing, the Battleship is crashing and burning before it gets a second shot. (All of this assumes Beginner difficulty level)<br />
<br />
Arguably this means that using FBL armed aircraft is a much more sustainable strategy against Battleships, since the XCom fleet will suffer 5x - 6x less damage per sortie. It requires being able to put at least 3 aircraft (12 FB) and preferably 4 aircraft (16 FB) into the air. But then it's always best to use 4 aircraft when engaging Battleships, so as to minimise XCom fleet damage and losses. <br />
<br />
The much higher ammo costs of the FBL should be considered against the cost of replacing aircraft, and even more importantly, lost interception coverage during aircraft repair time.<br />
<br />
Of course this will be moot to Commanders who prefer to let Battleships land and engage them on the ground. :)<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:05, 9 February 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
: If only because it has a greater range than the plasma beam, the Battleship is definitely one of the few worthy FBL candidates, as you want it shot down fast. The others are the small and medium scout - only because it's overkill and easily vapourizes them. <br />
<br />
: The FBL has always had the edge over the amount of potential damage it can deal in a short amount of time, but it's the overall convenience offered by the more frugal Plasma Beam that puts it in better favour, even if you do have to expose the ship to more damage vs. a Battleship. <br />
<br />
: The limited ammunition of the FBL and the chance that each shot will miss makes it a much more expensive gamble than the plasma beam. But that's why the plasma beam/FBL combo is always a good one. It also helps mitigate the interceptor last-shot-fired idiosyncrasy where they pull out of range the moment the last round is fired, dropping the missile out of its working range. <br />
<br />
: One other thing to consider is that the importance of the loss of air time for damaged interceptors will change depending on the number and distribution of interceptor aircraft you have in your employ. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 00:06, 11 February 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
:: You still have an economic cost when aircraft are lost or damaged. Either you pay ahead of time by buying and maintaining an aircraft fleet with excess capacity, more than you need, or you pay after the event by replacing aircraft, and by coverage gaps, leading to missed opportunities and avoidable enemy successes. Either way, losing aircraft costs you.<br />
:: 'Chance of missing...'? But don't FBL's have 100% hit probability? And (even without using Seb76's fix for last-shot-miss) you can avoid missing the last shot by staying in Aggressive when fighting a Battleship. You might as well, since there is no standoff advantage to be lost. <br />
:: The economics are also interesting. Taking a Battleship down with FBLs has a direct cost of $640,000 in ammunition (1600 damage to down, vs $400/(dmg point), see [[Battleship|here]] and [[Aircraft_Firepower_Table|here]]). Of course with 'frugal' Plasma Beams, each UFO splash costs nothing (once the aircraft and weapon are paid for). $640K is a very large amount to spend on splashing a UFO, but it's only the same amount as replacing a single lost Interceptor and much less than the cost of losing any advanced aircraft, or even losing ''use'' of a damaged advance aircraft for part of a month. How many Commanders would throw away an Interceptor in order to bring down a Battleship, without much of a second thought? If FBLs could avoid that, using them pays for itself in cash terms.<br />
:: My thinking about this was prompted by [[Talk:XcomUtil#XComUtil_bugs_to_fix|discussion]] of XComUtil Craft Armaments economics. With 'new laser weapons', producing Plasma Beams becomes extremely expensive, and FBLs might actually be a cheaper or easier alternative at earlier stages of the game. Which is all interesting, because it's good to create reasons to use something other than the old formula of Plasma Beams all round. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:00, 11 February 2010 (EST)<br />
::: You're not taking into account the opportunity cost: The workshops which make the FBL ammo would have produced laser cannons or something profitable/useful instead if FBL weren't there. Or a commander could do with less engineers and thus expenses without FBLs. Also, wouldn't using Aggressive mode to avoid last-shot bug up the damage to XCom craft? Lastly, I think X-COM inventory management is a bit of a problem for FBLs, especially with the "unarmed craft doesn't rearm when ammo is transferred to base" issue in X-COM1. [[User:Cesium|Cesium]] 01:00, 12 February 2010 (EST)<br />
::::: Ah, the opportunity costs! Good question. I'm very interested in those, but have still not really done a proper quantitative analysis across the board. With opportunity costs we need to be very careful to define the scenarios and what we are trying to measure. So to be clear, we're comparing FBL strategy vs Plasma Beam strategy against Battleships, and the argument is that, if there are any benefits from the FBL strategy in terms of reduced aircraft losses/outages, or avoiding overcapacity in the aircraft fleet (including hangars), then those benefits are outweighed by the opportunity costs of manufacturing the FBL ammo, vs alternative uses for the same manufacturing capacity. And we look at 2 cases - normal UFO, and XComUtil with the 'new laser weapons' option making Plasma Beams more expensive.<br />
::::: As a baseline first let's look in more detail at the direct cost situation. The total cost (including labour, materials and opportunity cost of Elerium & Alloys) for a Plasma Beam is about $320,250. For an FBL it's about $256,410. This gives a difference of $63,840. This is not even enough money to load the FBL with one Fusion Ball. So clearly we want to compare the cost of the ammo with the benefit of reduced aircraft damage and losses. As per above, downing a Battleship with FBL costs you $640K in direct ammo costs. Right there that's enough to build 2 Plasma Beams, which you can then run for free - a convincing argument. Let's factor in the opportunity cost. (I'm going to use [[Buying/Selling/Transferring_(TFTD)#Manufacturable_Prices|my data for TFTD]] and hope it's the same for UFO-EU equivalents)<br />
::::: The base cost of Engineers/Technicians works out to $36/hr, all in. Profitability per hr for Laser/Gauss Cannon is $97, so the opportunity cost of '''not''' producing Laser/Gauss Cannon is $61 per Engineer-hr. The $640K of FBL ammo to down the Battleship (9.2 rounds average) takes 3710 Engineer-hrs to make, so that's an additional opportunity cost of $226,300 - a whacking total of $886K to bring down each Battleship, including direct costs and opportunity costs of the FBL ammo.<br />
::::: Let's take a look at the stronger case, when we are using 'new laser weapons'. The XCU Plasma Beam is more expensive in total manufacturing costs, at around $698,250. The XCU FBL is the same cost (the observation that sparked this discussion in the XComUtil page). So each FBL is $441840 cheaper than a PB. This means you can manufacture an FBL and more than 3 full reloads for the same price as a PB. So the opportunity cost argument doesn't cut in until you have killed about 3-4 Battleships. Or rather, until that point, it cuts the other way - you have the opportunity cost of manufacturing PBs. And the opportunity cost is less, because the most profitable manufactured item is no longer the Laser/Gauss Cannon at $97/hr but the FBL itself at $81.5/hr, so your opportunity cost of manufacture is down to $45.5 per Engineer-hr, only $168K of opportunity cost for enough FBL ammo to bring down a Battleship ($808K total). Now, when you factor in the opportunity costs of building the PB, at a massive 5000 hrs, that adds $227,500 to the bill for each Plasma Beam. Or to put it another way, in terms of Engineer hours, you can build an FBL and nearly 4 full reloads of ammo, for the same effort (and opportunity cost) as a PB. <br />
::::: Having looked at the debit (cost) side, we now need to look at the credit (benefit) side. <br />
::::: As noted above, a flight of 3 or 4 FBL-armed aircraft should be able to bring down a Battleship in 24gs (2 volleys each) while enduring only 1 or maybe 2 shots total from the Battleship. With only moderate luck 4 craft could bring the Battleship down on the first volley (8 FBs vs an expected 9 FBs to splash the UFO). Conversely a flight of 4 PB-armed aircraft needs to get 2 volleys off each (18gs), after closing range (26gs), for a total of 44gs fire exposure to the Battleship, receiving slightly more than 2 total hits on average. So actually, with a 4-aircraft flight, there is not much difference in the damage received, only about 1 hit on average. My initial calculations were only for 1 aircraft in the intercepting flight, which is not that realistic!<br />
::::: So what is the cost of a hit? A single Battleship hit will wipe out an Interceptor, and in fact in a sense you get off lightly, since the damage will 'overkill' the Interceptor. That's an immediate loss of $600K to replace the Interceptor, plus the weapons on board. For PBs this would be another $640K for a total $1.24M. For XCU PBs the total loss is $2M. For FBLs, ignoring the ammo since you are going to fire that anyway, the total loss is around $1.1M. Against advanced aircraft, the 148 strength UFO weapon will inflict an average of 111 damage, which means 111 hrs of downtime per shot. How much is that 4.5 days of downtime worth? Let's say you had a "pool" Interceptor that you could ferry in, and a spare hangar somewhere to hold this reserve Interceptor. 4.5/30 of a month's rental and hanger fees is around $100K, not much. But what if it's an advanced aircraft you need to replace it with? It's hard to figure a per-month cost for manufactured aircraft as it depends on their service life. But the more advanced the aircraft is, the more expensive it is to have 111 hrs downtime. As a worst case, let's take the full manufacturing cost as a monthly "rental". On this basis, downtime from a Battleship hit costs $250K for a Firestorm, $317K for a Lightning, $525K for an Avenger. But even these worst case costs for the 'extra' Battleship hit that is mitigated by the FBLs, are significantly lower than the direct and opportunity costs of the FBL ammo to kill the Battleship, at $886K.<br />
::::: In conclusion then, the FBL argument probably only holds if you are flying Interceptors against the Battleship. In that case, I believe the cost argument holds and you should use FBLs rather than PBs. As a short-medium term strategy (for 3-4 Battleship engagements), it also makes sense on economic grounds when using the XCU 'new laser weapons' option, due to PBs being much more expensive than FBLs, and because the FBL technology path is the "golden goose". [[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:32, 12 February 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: Well, I'm not sure the cost for downtime can be calculated that way. Dividing advanced crafts downtime by a month seems arbitrary (why not a week or a year?). You could divide it by the time it takes to manufacture another one, but I think this isn't the right way to calculate downtime costs since repairs cost nothing - what we care about is lost UFO coverage. That's probably unquantifiable - but I suspect the odds run against FBLs in a normal game.<br />
<br />
::::::: Amortisation time for any capital item in XCOM is arbitrary but 1 month seemed a reasonable worse-case scenario. For the useful life of advanced aircraft to be only a month, UFOs would need to be much more dangerous than they are (an interesting idea). And since the economics didn't favour the FBL strategy for manufactured aircraft even in that worst case, I concluded that it only works for Interceptors, pretty much regardless of whether you are using the XCU increased Plasma Beam costs or not. Obviously FBLs are relatively much more advantageous for Interceptors, if the Plasma Beam costs are increased.<br />
::::::: You are quite right that the biggest opportunity cost of all is missed UFO intercepts. Missed intercepts cost a commander massive amounts of cash, technology, victory points, and strategic and political disadvantage. (The lost cash and technology, typically in the $millions, can be quantified from the tables in this wiki showing the average total haul from each UFO mission type, but that's only part of it.) I sort of take this for granted, and it should be the driver of all strategies. "Out of the question", as NKF says below. Since I take this for granted, I assume you never allow coverage gaps, so I calculate the opportunity cost of aircraft loss/damage as the cost of preventing the coverage gap - by operating additional aircraft to ensure there is no coverage gap. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:16, 14 February 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
:::::: I think though that NKF's idea for mixed Plasma/FBL crafts is better than a pure FBL solution in practice - since such a ship is much more useful against non-battleships while keeping a bit more punch vs a battleship. Can you run the numbers for that? [[User:Cesium|Cesium]] 21:23, 12 February 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::::: It is a pretty good idea since for encountering anything less than a Battleship you only need one plasma beam since you have stand off advantage, you can take your time killing the UFO. So 2 Plasma Beams is a waste, and as you say, the FBL gives extra punch in a Battleship fight to help kill it more quickly. Basically what I've discovered from running the numbers on the FBL is that the advantage dwindles as your intercept flight gets bigger, and for a 4-flight intercept the advantage is negligible unless you are using lowly Interceptors. Conversely, this means that using the FBL strategy might give you the option of maintaining a lower density of aircraft per geographic area. 3 FBL aircraft (2 volleys of 6 FBs) gives a good confidence of killing a Battleship. With your proposed buff to FBLs, even a flight of 2 dual-FBL aircraft would have a reasonable chance to kill a Battleship. Unless they were Interceptors. A variant on this is to have 2 aircraft roles, anti-Battleship vs all other intercepts. For "all other" you just need a weak aircraft (Interceptor etc) with a single Plasma Beam. Very cheap. For anti-Battleship role you either have dual FBLs or the FBL/PB combo. Or the traditional dual PBs. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:16, 14 February 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::Thinking about it, by the time you can access the FBLs, your money and elerium problems really should be on the decline (starting with the Heavy Plasma overstock). Before long the costs of production and lost engineering time really is a non-issue. You mainly have to remember to keep building the ammo and that's that. <br />
<br />
::::I might be mixing it up with the last shot missing problem. Nevertheless, isn't there a small amount of randomness to the missile's to-hit each time it is fired? If it's a guaranteed hit every time, then that does give it quite an edge.<br />
<br />
::::: To be honest I am not sure we know. My working assumption is that there are no modifiers to the stated hit probability, so 100% really is 100%. From other tests I have done, it does look like the UFOs never miss. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:16, 14 February 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::As for the aircraft - losing aircraft is definitely an unwanted outcome, thus that is out of the question. However, regarding employing more ships to cover downtime of damaged aircraft, I didn't really mean to employ more aircraft than is reasonably necessary. Just to have enough, such as one interceptor, at reasonably spaced out bases. Each base's effective combat range should have enough of an overlap that their interceptors can jump in to fill in while the damaged battleship-destroyer is being fixed. Also, using damage-minimizing strategies (multi-ships and LOTS of FBLs), you shouldn't have to worry about taking on so much damage that you can't afford some rest between battleships. <br />
<br />
::::One other thought: There's also the amount of UFOs each weapon can tackle in a single flight to consider. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 02:02, 12 February 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
::::: This is a strong argument in favour of PBs for the "anything except Battleships" role as discussed above. You can keep a PB-armed aircraft in the air a long time - Interceptors work particularly well due to their Patrol fuel efficiency - without incurring the hefty time-overhead of the re-arm / re-fuel cycle. FBL don't do too well on this score, so again they are really only appropriate for hard targets like the Battleship. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:16, 14 February 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
I looked again at the numbers for Superhuman, given that the numbers above are all based on Beginner and quite a lot of people, maybe most, play on Superhuman these days. On Superhuman the Battleship rate of fire is faster, 16gs nominal instead of 24gs nominal, so that means 16-32gs per shot, average 24gs, instead of 24-48gs per shot, average 36gs.<br />
<br />
With the faster rate of fire, things get hotter for our flight of 4 PB-armed craft during their 2 volleys - average 44gs exposure (min 38gs, max 50gs) to the Battleship (26gs run-in to target under fire, plus average 18gs / min 12gs / max 24gs to fire). On Beginner the Battleship would get 1-3 shots, typically 2, with a only a slim chance of 1 or 3 shots. The Superhuman Battleship will get 2-4 shots, typically 3, average of 2.83, again with the high and low values unlikely. <br />
<br />
In fact in any case, Beginner or Superhuman, the Plasma Beam attack is nearly 50% likely to need '''3''' volleys, since the average damage of 16 PB attacks is only 1680. This is especially true if the craft are Interceptors, as 1 will very likely be dead before the 2nd volley is fired, making the need for 3 volleys a better than even chance.<br />
<br />
The exposure time for 3 volleys is 62gs, min 50gs, max 74gs, including run-in time. In this time the Beginner Battleship will fire 2 - 4 times, with 3 typical and 2 or 4 very unlikely. The Superhuman Battleship will get 2 - 5 shots, with the average being about 3.6. <br />
<br />
So what are the implications of this 3-volley, Superhuman scenario? If we look at Interceptors, losing 3 or even 4 aircraft out of a 4-aircraft flight is a disaster, a Pyrrhic victory at best. 4 PB-armed Interceptors would cost $5M to replace. Or, with advanced aircraft, you are looking at between 2 and 4 aircraft out of action for an average of 111 hrs each. The average total hours of advanced aircraft downtime is close to 400 aircraft-hours. There is even the possibility of losing a Firestorm (2 strong or 3 average hits to the same aircraft), or even a Lightning (3 strong or 4 average hits to the same aircraft - admittedly unlikely). <br />
<br />
If we remember that in the 4 FBL scenario, only one aircraft is hit, once, the use of FBLs to take down Battleships seems highly advisable when playing on Superhuman, even with advanced aircraft. <br />
<br />
Yes I will get around to analyzing the FBL plus Plasma Beam combination. Due to the severe limitations on re-arming in response to a threat, this is probably a more practical routine loadout. However quite often it is possible to have advanced warning of Battleship attacks by watching UFO mission patterns. In that scenario, moving at least some aircraft over to dual FBLs would be possible and advisable. <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:22, 14 February 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
Well I set up a scenario and ran some tests and I am 10 for 10 taking out a Superhuman Battleship with 4 FBL-armed Interceptors and taking NO losses (though typically 1-2 aircraft damaged). Important caveat though - you have to be mighty fast with the mouse to get all those Interceptors onto Aggressive at the same time. I discounted the tests when I mis-clicked or was just plain slow on the buttons. A single misclick was usually enough to get all my Interceptors killed. Yes I know that's cheating and it invalidates the test. :) But I am convinced that FBLs is the way to go for Interceptors at least, and maybe for Avengers. However badly the Interceptors got hit, it would've been much worse if they were only packing Plasma Beams. One really interesting phenomenon I ''think'' I saw (it's hard to tell when things happen so fast) was Interceptors breaking off after expending their ammunition. This was very helpful because the first to engage tend to be the most damaged, so if they break off first they are more likely to survive. They thus split the UFOs fire in a way that is least efficient for the UFO. Probably I should retest this in an emulator (eg DosBox) with maximum slowdown, so I can see what's happening better, and to eliminate the randomness about clicking the mouse fast and accuractely enough. <br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 20:28, 15 February 2010 (EST)<br />
<br />
== Should we use the actual values rather than scaling to Cannon? ==<br />
<br />
Currently, the "reload time" values are scaled to the Cannon being an assumed 2 game seconds. However, this creates problems when comparing to TFTD (as the actual reload times for TFTD are identical, but they're scaled to "3 game seconds" for the Gas Cannon). Moreover, the UFO firing intervals are listed straight from the executable. I'd like to change the craft weapon reload times to their actual values, to facilitate these kind of comparisons (and there's not a huge amount of justification for scaling to the Cannon). [[User:Magic9mushroom|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom|talk]]) 13:41, 15 July 2018 (CEST)<br />
<br />
: When in doubt, go with the in-game data. We didn't have the sort of information we have access to now, so my guess is that they were as good as any a point of reference to measure the other weapons by at the time. [[User:NKF|NKF]] ([[User talk:NKF|talk]]) 07:24, 16 July 2018 (CEST)</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Template:Equipment_(TFTD)_Navbar&diff=87065Template:Equipment (TFTD) Navbar2018-06-28T11:39:18Z<p>NKF: Added item destruction table to navbar</p>
<hr />
<div>{| {{stdTable}} width="75%" border="1" cellpadding="3"<br />
|- {{stdTable Sub_Heading}}<br />
| colspan="2" | {{TFTD Icon}} '''[[TFTD_Table|Terror From The Deep]]''': [[Equipment (TFTD)]]<br />
|-<br />
| '''[[Equipment (TFTD)#Armor|Armor]]'''<br />
| [[Diving Suit]] • [[Plastic Aqua Armor]] • [[Ion Armor]] • [[Magnetic Ion Armor]]<br />
|-<br />
| '''[[Weapons (TFTD)|Weapons]]'''<br />
| [[Dart Gun]] • [[Jet Harpoon]] • [[Gas Cannon]] • [[Hydro-Jet Cannon]] • [[Torpedo Launcher]] • [[Thermal Tazer]]<br><br />
[[Magna-Blast Grenade]] • [[Particle Disturbance Grenade]] • [[Magna-Pack Explosive]]<br><br />
[[Gauss Pistol]] • [[Gauss Rifle]] • [[Heavy Gauss]]<br><br />
[[Sonic Pistol]] • [[Sonic-Blasta Rifle]] • [[Sonic Cannon]] • [[Sonic Pulser]] • [[Thermal Shok Launcher]] • [[Disruptor Pulse Launcher]]<br><br />
[[Vibro Blade]]• [[Thermic Lance]] • [[Heavy Thermic Lance]]<br />
|-<br />
| '''[[Equipment (TFTD)#Portable_Equipment|Portable Equipment]]'''<br />
| [[Dye Grenade]] • [[Particle Disturbance Sensor]] • [[Medi-Kit (TFTD)|Medi-Kit]] • [[Chemical-flare]] • [[M.C. Disruptor]] • [[M.C. Reader]] • [[Zrbite]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Submersible Weapons Systems|SWS]]<br />
| [[Coelacanth/G. Cannon]] • [[Coelacanth/Aqua Jet]] • [[Coelacanth/Gauss]] • [[Displacer /Sonic|Displacer/Sonic]] • [[Displacer /P. W. T.|Displacer/PWT]]<br />
|-<br />
| '''Data'''<br />
| [[Weapons Summaries (TFTD)|Weapon Summaries]] • [[Item Destruction Table (TFTD) | TFTD Item destruction table]] • SWS/Terror Unit [[Innate Weapons (TFTD) | Innate Weapons]]<br />
|}</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Differences_to_X-COM_(OpenXcom)&diff=85637Differences to X-COM (OpenXcom)2018-03-16T22:48:52Z<p>NKF: /* Battlescape */ Listed a few more new features</p>
<hr />
<div>OpenXcom is modelled after the original [[X-COM]] and enhances the game experience dramatically. Many features were inspired by [[UFO Extender]] and [[XcomUtil]] while others are original.<br />
<br />
== General ==<br />
* None of [[Known Bugs|these bugs or limits]] except:<br />
** Grenade Timer Behaviour: Can be configured to emulate it, and in fact is set as such by default.<br />
* Cross-platform.<br />
* Mouse wheel support.<br />
* Caret for text editing.<br />
* No CPU-based speed (animations play at a constant speed regardless of the computer).<br />
* Mouse input works like modern systems.<br />
* Human-readable savegame format.<br />
* Quicksave/Quickload feature.<br />
* Autosaves and Ironman mode.<br />
* No savegame limit.<br />
* Painless customizability with modular rulesets in human-readable format.<br />
* Full Unicode support.<br />
* Localized in many more languages.<br />
* Take screenshots in-game.<br />
* Standalone "Skirmish" style custom Battlescape mission generator.<br />
* Customizable keyboard shortcuts.<br />
* Native support for in-game music in many different file formats (including OGG, MP3, etc.)<br />
* Customizable display and audio options.<br />
* A built-in and extendable selection of optional display filters.<br />
* Various gameplay options, including [[XcomUtil]] and [[UFO Extender]] features.<br />
* Corrected erroneous text and descriptions.<br />
* Various UI and quality-of-life enhancements like sliders, scrollbars, etc.<br />
* Melee stat shown in the unit stat page.<br />
<br />
== Geoscape ==<br />
* Since there's no 80 item limit, items in crafts count towards your [[Base Stores]] to prevent exploiting infinite storage. This also lets you freely move items between bases and crafts without storage issues.<br />
* Each radar facility contributes to the detection check, so having multiple [[Small Radar System]]s and/or [[Large Radar System]]s ''does'' improve your chances. The [[Hyperwave Decoder]] still makes all other facilities obsolete though since it has a 100% detection chance.<br />
* The aircraft phase order when returning to base is: [[Repairs|Repairing]], [[Rearming]], [[Refueling]].<br />
* Purchase/Recruit screens have a column for current storage.<br />
* Aircraft weapons may be unequipped.<br />
* Aircraft weapons may be temporary disabled in the interception window (by click).<br />
* You should hire personal and rent ships at the beginning of a month rather than at the end, because in OpenXcom you pay a salary for those who are in transit, and this includes the ones that you just hired.<br />
* Can cancel out of selecting armor for soldiers.<br />
* Can apply previously selected armor to other solder by right clicking.<br />
* Selling aircraft automatically unequips all their contents.<br />
* No gap in Australasia zone.<br />
* Soldiers can be reordered in aircraft.<br />
* Soldiers can be pre-equipped.<br />
* Soldier equipment is saved for each soldier and restored as possible before mission.<br />
* Aircraft can be renamed.<br />
* Globe can show radar coverage and flight paths.<br />
* Potential radar coverage will be displayed when placing a new base.<br />
* Aircraft will use proper great circle calculations when travelling so they'll always take the shortest path along the globe.<br />
* Aircraft have better fuel calculation so they will always travel the maximum their fuel supply will allow.<br />
* Night/Day line is dithered slightly.<br />
* UFOPaedia articles regarding Aircraft weapons have flavour text (unused strings that existed in the original were implemented).<br />
* Manufactured items can be automatically sold directly, bypassing the stores.<br />
* Can set manufacture to produce infinite items.<br />
* Can jump to a craft from the Intercept screen.<br />
* Can jump to a base from a "X complete" message.<br />
<br />
== Battlescape ==<br />
* Objects, fire and smoke keeps animating while walking or scrolling the screen.<br />
* Pathfinding is a different algorithm: it will always find a solution, if there is one, no matter how difficult.<br />
* AI/behaviour of aliens is different. - Impossible to 100% exactly mimic original AI.<br />
* Waypoint-based projectiles have no upward limit on the number of waypoints they may use.<br />
* The inventories of mind controlled, non-terrorist aliens may be accessed.<br />
* Can use special abilities of mind-controlled aliens.<br />
* The limit on units has been removed, allowing 23 or more soldiers to assault alien bases.<br />
* Unit spawning function has been improved - no more large units stuck in walls.<br />
* Units holding two single-handed weapons will have the fact represented on their sprite.<br />
* Soldier sprites will have their hair and skin recolored to represent their race.<br />
* Can cancel out enemy's mind-control with your own.<br />
* "Not enough equipment" screen shows items missing.<br />
* At the end of the mission, ammo from clips is totalled, so you only lose enough clips to match the total ammo used (as opposed to losing any used clip).<br />
* Grenades can be armed during the equipment phase before the mission starts<br />
* Soldier equipment loadouts are automatically saved.<br />
* Soldier equipment can be copy/pasted in pre-battle equipment screen.<br />
* Multiple instances of the same items on the ground now stack and armed grenades are clearly marked <br />
* Soldier rank and stats accessible from inventory.<br />
* Can load game from Battlescape.<br />
* Right-click opens doors.<br />
* Right-click will cancel a unit's movement, and will cause projectiles to "skip" their flight paths, instantly hitting their target.<br />
* Possibility to use "force fire" when no line of sight is available. (CTRL + Left Mouse Button for firing)<br />
* Tooltips on Battlescape buttons.<br />
* Melee weapons can be used for reaction fire (Stun rods, Chryssalids, Zombies, Reapers, etc).<br />
* Arcing weapons (Celatid spit and TFTD's Deep One) now reaction fire <br />
* The AI will now fire Blaster Launchers at close range. <br />
* 'New target' interruptions when spotting an alien while moving now happen on a per unit basis. Originally an interrupt will only occur the first time an alien is spotted during the turn.<br />
<br />
== Optional features ==<br />
While the above differences are hardcoded, there are also various new "non-vanilla" features you can choose to enable, such as gameplay features and keyboard shortcuts. See the [[Options (OpenXcom)|Options]] section for more information.<br />
<br />
[[Category:OpenXcom]]</div>NKFhttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Info&diff=85617Info2018-03-15T06:45:27Z<p>NKF: For the trivia buffs - added two promo texts relating to the game's NA release</p>
<hr />
<div>'''In other languages: [[정보|한국어]].'''<br />
<br />
'''X-COM''' is a series of computer games, started by MicroProse in 1994. The first instalment, released as ''UFO: Enemy Unknown'' in Europe and as ''X-COM: UFO Defense''<sup>1</sup> in North America was written by a team led by Julian Gollop. After the success of ''X-COM: UFO Defense'', The Gollop brothers went straight to work on [[Info (Apocalypse)|X-COM: Apocalypse]], which would end up being the third in the series when released in 1997. <br />
<br />
MicroProse quickly had an internal team create the sequel ''[[Info (TFTD)|X-COM: Terror From the Deep]]'' in under a year as a quick cash in (hence the amount of uncanny similarities between the first two games). These first two games also show strong similarities to games such as ''Rebelstar'' and ''Laser Squad'' for the ZX Spectrum, including names of organisations such as 'Marsec'. The fourth title, ''[[Info (Interceptor)|X-COM: Interceptor]]'' was an action-based space combat/strategy game, while the fifth (''[[Info (Enforcer)|X-COM: Enforcer]]'') was simply a third person shooter.<br />
<br />
All titles were developed for the PC, and some ported to the Sony PlayStation and Amiga. The first three titles were originally developed to run under DOS, though the first two have subsequently been ported to run under Microsoft Windows using DirectX. ''X-COM: UFO Defense'' was the best selling computer game of 1995 and is considered a true classic, and despite its age, still has a large following.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
*<sup>1</sup>: According to an early promotional text file put out by Microprose for the North American release, the game was advertised as X-COM: Terran Defense Force. For a full transcript, see [[#Promotional Texts|below]]: <br />
<br />
=Series Standards=<br />
<br />
The premise for the series is fairly simple and straightforward, with variations among them: armies of hostile aliens have begun invading the Earth, killing and enslaving the human race. The style and theme of the game closely mirror those of the classic BBC television series ''UFO''.<br />
<br />
In each game of the series, the player is put in command of "X-COM": the Extraterrestrial Combat Unit. By defending countries from enemy invasion, the force gains monetary support. Any nation may quit, if X-COM's service is deemed unsatisfactory or the nation's government has been infiltrated by the invaders. Through research of recovered alien artefacts, X-COM is able to develop better and more powerful weapons, armor and vehicles to combat the alien menace and eventually uncover their true nature.<br />
<br />
The game takes place within two main views: the Geoscape and the Battlescape, a dichotomy that's the hallmark of the entire series. The Geoscape is where the player waits for enemy alien activity and makes strategic decisions.<br />
<br />
While in the Geoscape, the player can view the X-COM bases (located in various locations on Earth), make changes to them, equip X-COM craft, order supplies and personnel, direct research efforts, schedule manufacturing of advanced equipment and sell alien artifacts to raise capital. The Geoscape is continuous and not turn-based.<br />
<br />
Gameplay switches to the isometric combat view of the Battlescape whenever X-COM personnel come in contact with alien units. This can result from investigating downed enemy crafts, combatting alien terrorist activities or attacking alien bases discovered during play. Aliens may also be encountered if they manage to attack and infiltrate one of the X-COM bases. <br />
<br />
In the Battlescape view, X-COM combatants are pitted against the alien enemies. In addition to personnel, the player may have vehicles such as heavy weapons platforms outfitted with powerful weapons ranging from rockets to plasma beams. The Battlescape mode is turn-based and each combatant has a number of "time units" which can be expended each turn. When all alien forces have been neutralized, the mission is scored based on number of X-COM units killed, civilians saved, aliens killed or captured and the number of alien artefacts obtained.<br />
<br />
The X-COM series is known for its difficulty. Third party programs have been developed to modify the game files to make playing the game less frustrating, and to increase replay value. Those third-party programs can also make the game more difficult for highly skilled players. Some of the most popular being [[XcomUtil]], [[UFO Extender]] and [[OpenXcom]]. <br />
<br />
=Ports=<br />
*Amiga500<br />
*Amiga1200<br />
*Amiga CD32<br />
*DOS 1.2, 1.4 (Zipped Box Art for the U.S. DOS version is [[Media:XCOM_UFO_Defense_DOS_US_Box_Art.zip|here]])<br />
*Windows CE<br />
*Playstation (both PAL and NTSC formats)<br />
<br />
=System Requirements=<br />
==Minimum==<br />
*386 processor<br />
*4MB RAM<br />
*Hard drive (10MB free, game alone)<br />
*MS-DOS 5.0 or higher<br />
*VGA Graphics<br />
<br />
==Recommended==<br />
*486 or better<br />
*8MB RAM<br />
*Hard drive (15MB free, game + manual)<br />
*SVGA Graphics<br />
<br />
==Sound Cards Supported==<br />
*PC Internal speaker<br />
*AdLib compatible cards<br />
*Sound Blaster compatible cards<br />
*Roland LAPC-1<br />
<br />
=Working In Windows=<br />
<br />
*The Collectors Edition of XCOM works in all versions of Windows natively.<br />
<br />
*The DOS version can be finicky in WinXP, as modern processors run the game so fast that the slowest speed in Geoscape is about the speed of "5min", not to mention that projectiles are so fast that following them with eye to determine where it come from is impossible. While it's probably possible to subdue it manually, many people use [http://dosbox.sourceforge.net DOSBox] as a WinXP DOS emulator, with a high degree of success. It does have some minor inconveniences, but they're a lot less than figuring everything out manually! A tutorial for DOSBox can also be found [http://vogons.zetafleet.com/viewtopic.php?t=2502 here].<br />
<br />
*''How do you check your game version? I know there are a bunch.''<br />
=DOS X-COM in WinXP=<br />
<br />
== DOSBox settings ==<br />
<br />
As of August 2012, these settings work fine for the latest [http://www.dosbox.com/ DOSBox] (0.74) in WinXP, for DOS X-COM v. 1.4. This is on a 2 Ghz quadcore Intel CPU with wide-screen display (the display is not warped) and RealTek HD audio built into the motherboard.<br />
<br />
Although one can make a separate DOSBox file just for running X-COM, I ([[User:MikeTheRed|MTR]]) just edited the DOSBox configuration file to run X-COM.<br />
<br />
As the documentation states (section 13), the configuration file is automatically created the first time you run DOSBox as: "Start/WinLogo Menu"->"All Programs"->DOSBox-0.74->Options. This is a shortcut to the file C:\Documents and Settings\[Your Name]\Local Settings\Application Data\DOSBox\dosbox-0.74.conf (If you copy an old dosbox.conf file into the new DOSBox directory, it will be ignored!)<br />
<br />
Here are the only things I changed. I didn't experiment with anything; I just got to something that worked:<br />
[sdl]<br />
fullscreen=true<br />
output=ddraw<br />
[render]<br />
aspect=true<br />
[cpu]<br />
cycles=12000<br />
[mixer]<br />
rate=49716<br />
[sblaster]<br />
oplmenu=compat<br />
oplrate=49716<br />
[autoexec]<br />
mount c D:\Games<br />
c:<br />
cd \X-COM<br />
Go.bat <br />
That last part causes it to be in my X-COM directory (D:\Games\X-COM) when it runs X-COM's GO.BAT. Note that I have the mixer rate matching the opl (synthesizer) rate. Also:<br />
*Run X-COM's sound SETUP.EXE (should be in your X-COM 1.4 directory) and have it match the DOSBox [sblaster] settings: Board= Soundblaster 16, Base=220, IRQ=7, DMA=1, any channels (8 is fine), music board = AdLib/SoundBlaster FM.<br />
*I found it a little tricky to get DOSBox to shut down when exiting X-COM. Editing the last line of X-COM's GO.BAT to say "exit" seems to do the trick.<br />
<br />
== Starting DOSBox with RegEdit ==<br />
<br />
I ([[User:Amitakartok|amitakartok]]) found a very convenient way to run the game with DosBox: using regedit, I added registry entry<br />
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\*\shell\Run with DosBox\command (the part after *\ doesn't exist at first on XP, you have to add it yourself)<br />
and changed the (Default) key's value to<br />
"C:\Program Files\DOSBox-0.73\dosbox.exe" "%1" //optionally, you can append -exit to the end so that DB closes when X-COM closes<br />
The result is a new command in the right-click context menu that causes DosBox to start up and load the exe/bat I gave out the command on! Only problem with this approach is that DosBox absolutely refuses to load the configuration file and starts X-COM with<br />
cycles=max<br />
which is WAY too much. I find the optimal value to be 20% (I got a 2.8 GHz single-core CPU overclocked to 3 GHz).<br />
<br />
=Screenshots=<br />
<br />
Taking screencaps (screen captures):<br />
*For the CE version, use F12. It will make a .TGA file in your game directory.<br />
*For DOS 1.4, it's more complex. I ([[User:MikeTheRed|MTR]]) use DosBox (see above). Once I could simply hit PrintScreen when in fullscreen XCOM, then switch out and paste to a graphics app. At some point in time that stopped working (makes for a garbage screencap), so instead I now switch out (Alt-Tab, not Ctrl-Enter), take a PrintScreen (of everything on the WinXP desktop), paste this to a graphics app, and crop the graphic to the XCOM window. (And x2 it, if wanted.) DosBox does have the ability to take a screenshot of the shell by pressing CTRL-F5. The resulting image is in PNG format and is saved in the "capture" folder of the DosBox directory.<br />
<br />
=The Makers=<br />
<br />
Published in 1994 by [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microprose Microprose] (bought by Atari), developed by Mythos Games, chief designers brothers Nick and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Gollop Julian Gollop]. <br />
<br />
Mythos preceded X-COM with Laser Squad and have recently produced [http://www.lasersquadnemesis.com/ Laser Squad Nemesis].<br />
<br />
Created by:<br />
*Microprose (1994)<br />
<br />
Owned by:<br />
*Atari (2004-2007)<br />
*Take-Two Interactive (2007-present)<br />
<br />
=Credits=<br />
<br />
==Primary Credits (DOS, Windows)==<br />
<br />
===Game Design and Programming===<br />
Mythos Games Limited<br><br />
Julian Gollop<br><br />
Nick Gollop<br />
<br />
===Graphics and Animation===<br />
Julian Gollop<br><br />
John Reitze<br><br />
Martin Smillie<br />
<br />
===Music===<br />
John Broomhall<br />
<br />
===Sound Effects===<br />
Andrew Parton<br />
<br />
===Quality Assurance===<br />
Peter Woods<br><br />
Andrew Luckett<br><br />
Richard Bakewell<br><br />
Darren Kirby<br><br />
Philip McDonnell<br><br />
Jason Sampson<br />
<br />
===Manual Author===<br />
Kristian Ramsay-Jones<br />
<br />
===Managing Editor===<br />
Alkis Alkiviades<br />
<br />
===Packaging and Manual Design===<br />
John Emory<br><br />
Joe Morel<br><br />
Cesar Novoa<br><br />
Sarah Warburton<br />
<br />
===Producer===<br />
Tim Roberts<br />
<br />
===Publishers===<br />
Paul Hibbard-Teall<br><br />
Peter Moreland<br />
<br />
==Additional Credits (Amiga)==<br />
<br />
<b><u>UFO 500 Conversion by Climax Productions</u></b><br />
<br />
===Programming===<br />
Steve Legg<br />
<br />
===Artwork===<br />
Mike Baxter<br />
<br />
===Music===<br />
Matt Simmonds<br />
<br />
===Producer===<br />
Jason Lihou<br />
<br />
<b><u>For MicroProse</u></b><br />
<br />
===Programming/Tech Advice===<br />
Scott Johnston<br><br />
Bob Koon<br />
<br />
===Producer===<br />
Tim Roberts<br />
<br />
===Documentation===<br />
Nick Stokes<br />
<br />
<b><u>UFO A1200 Conversion</u></b><br />
<br />
===Programming===<br />
Scott Johnston<br><br />
Bob Koon<br />
<br />
===Documentation===<br />
Alkis Alkiviades<br />
<br />
<b><u>Amiga CD32 Conversion</u></b><br />
<br />
===Programming===<br />
Scott Johnston<br><br />
Bob Koon<br />
<br />
===Additional Programming===<br />
Tim Cannell<br><br />
Paul Dunning<br><br />
Adrian Scotney<br><br />
Nick Thompson<br />
<br />
==Additional Credits (Playstation)==<br />
<br />
===Producer===<br />
Stuart Whyte<br />
<br />
===Quality Assurance===<br />
Darren Kirby<br><br />
Craig Lear<br><br />
Daniel Luton<br><br />
Justin Manning<br><br />
Philip McDonnell<br><br />
Jason Sampson<br><br />
Klaus Starke<br><br />
Donald Witcombe<br />
<br />
===Programming Conversion===<br />
Graeme Ashton<br><br />
Bob Koon<br />
<br />
===Additional Programming===<br />
Tim Cannell<br><br />
Paul Dunning<br><br />
Nick Thompson<br />
<br />
===Playstation Design Implementation===<br />
Andrew Williams<br />
<br />
===Additional Artwork===<br />
Drew Northcott<br><br />
Martin Severn<br />
<br />
===Original Game Music Composition===<br />
John Broomhall<br />
<br />
===Original SFX Design===<br />
Andrew Parton<br />
<br />
===Playstation Music Conversion & Additional Music Composition===<br />
Allister Brimble<br />
<br />
===Audio Post Production===<br />
Matt Vowles<br />
<br />
===Audio Producer===<br />
John Broomhall<br />
<br />
===Publisher===<br />
Rob Davies<br />
<br />
===Packaging Design===<br />
Sarah Warburton<br />
<br />
===Manual Design & Layout===<br />
Sarah Kerr<br />
<br />
===Managing Editor===<br />
Alkis Alkiviades<br />
<br />
===Manual Writer & Editor===<br />
Rick Haslam<br />
<br />
===Brand Manager===<br />
Adrian Turner<br />
<br />
===Thanks To===<br />
Sheila Boutin<br><br />
Valentina Britten<br><br />
Marc Curtis<br><br />
Gareth Davies<br><br />
Steve Hickman<br><br />
Laurie Sinnett<br><br />
Scott K. Tsumura<br><br />
<br><br />
----<br />
<br />
Some of the material in this article was adapted from Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-COM X-COM] page.<br />
<br />
=Promotional Texts=<br />
<br />
These two texts were promotions for the game that resided on the now defunct Microprose FTP server. They have been included here for historical purposes: <br />
<br />
<pre><br />
STRATEGY RELEASE, X-COM UFO DEFENSE <br />
<br />
DEBUTS AT THE CONSUMER ELECTRONIC SHOW<br />
<br />
CONSUMER ELECTRONICS SHOW, Chicago, June 23, 1994-MicroProse<br />
Software, a division of Spectrum HoloByte, Inc. (NASDAQ:<br />
SBYT), will debut its recent release, X-Com UFO Defense.<br />
<br />
"This is an addictive strategy game that pits you against<br />
aliens terrorizing the Earth," said Carl Knoch, product<br />
manager. "You must command groups of scientists, engineers<br />
and soldiers as well as develop a strategy to ensure human<br />
survival."<br />
<br />
As commander of X-COM, which is a covert organization formed<br />
by the world's governments to investigate and defeat the<br />
alien invasion, you:<br />
<br />
o Intercept UFOs as they sweep across the Earth<br />
o Track all alien activity on the Geoscope rotating globe<br />
display<br />
o Plan a strategy for research and manufacture of<br />
captured technologies<br />
o Take charge of tactical operations in the 3-D isometric<br />
Battlescope display<br />
o Investigate UFO crash sites and alien bases<br />
o Monitor the political situation<br />
<br />
"To really see the aliens come to life, turn off the lights<br />
because the bold colors and graphics show up even more,"<br />
said Knoch.<br />
<br />
Category: Strategy<br />
Era: Future<br />
Format: MS-DOS 5.0 or higher and Windows<br />
Minimum Requirements: IBM PC 386, 486 and most<br />
compatibles, 4MB RAM, VGA graphics and<br />
mouse<br />
Supports: Ad Lib, Covox, Roland and Sound<br />
Blaster sound systems<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
MicroProse Presents<br />
<br />
X-COM: Terran Defense Force<br />
<br />
Shipping the week of May 30, 1994.<br />
<br />
MicroProse is planning to release X-COM: Terran Defense Force in<br />
the United States. X-COM: Terran Defense Force is a futuristic<br />
game of strategy and tactical combat in which the player<br />
defends the Earth from alien invasion.<br />
<br />
The game involves the player at two different levels:<br />
In-depth strategy as the player controls the operation<br />
of bases that he builds all over the World to cope with<br />
the alien threat and tense "seek and destroy" tactical<br />
play.<br />
<br />
<br />
Storyline:<br />
<br />
It is the year 1999. Sightings of alien craft have<br />
increased dramatically throughout the World. All attempts<br />
at peaceful communications have been met with hostility.<br />
Reports arrive daily of kidnappings, murder, terrorism,<br />
and killings of cattle and domestic animals.<br />
<br />
The nations of the world have decided that they must join<br />
forces to combat the alien threat. To this end, a special<br />
defense force named XComm is set up with collective funding<br />
from all countries.<br />
<br />
You are the commander of XComm.<br />
<br />
Game Features:<br />
<br />
- In-depth strategy involving scientific research, weapons<br />
production, resource allocation, and expansion through base<br />
construction.<br />
<br />
- Tense tactical gameplay with "Aliens" search-and-destroy<br />
feel.<br />
<br />
- Non-linear gameplay for extended play.<br />
<br />
- Popular "Manga" look and feel to graphics.<br />
<br />
- Numerous mission types: Intercept, Seek-and-destroy,<br />
Base defense, etc.<br />
<br />
- Differing terrain according to mission location:<br />
Snowscapes for Arctic locations, Cornfields for the<br />
midwest, Cityscapes, etc.<br />
<br />
<br />
X-COM: Terran Defense Force, from MicroProse, is expected to<br />
release for IBM-PCs and compatibles in June.<br />
<br />
Copyright 1994 by MicroProse Software, SH, Inc.<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
<br />
=See Also=<br />
* [http://www.edge-online.com/features/making-x-com-enemy-unknown/ The Making of Enemy Unknown] - An interview with Julian Gollop, one of the game creators on Edge Magazine. <br />
* [[Background]] -- a timeline of events in the X-COM story line and other connections to the "real world"<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Games Navbar}}<br />
[[Category:Enemy Unknown/UFO Defense]]</div>NKF