https://www.ufopaedia.org/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=NightChime&feedformat=atomUFOpaedia - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T06:01:52ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.4https://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Item_Weight&diff=28316Item Weight2010-06-25T07:00:31Z<p>NightChime: /* Quick reference for common item sets */ redundant heavy cannon</p>
<hr />
<div>Item weights are represented in [[Strength]] units. For example, an item of 18 weight units requires a bare minimum of 18 strength points for you to carry without suffering an [[Time Units#Encumbrance|encumbrance]] penalty on your [[Time Units|TU]] refresh rate. <br />
<br />
Therefore, if you want to micromanage your items for a very weak soldier, add up the weight of all the items you want to issue the soldier, then compare the result against the soldier's strength. Add or remove items as necessary while keeping the weight vs. strength level balanced. <br />
<br />
Tip: All small items (one inventory square) are 3 weight units.<br />
<br />
Item Weights do not directly correlate to weight (e.g. in kilograms), and the relationship is not even a linear one. Think of it instead as a measure of how much the item causes Encumbrance. The Weight value should not be considered an actual physical quality such as mass. <br />
<br />
Due to a [[Known Bugs#Weightless Loaded Ammo|helpful bug]], clips or shells automatically loaded into carried weapons by the game engine for the pre-battle Equipment Setup screen are not counted for weight. This changes as soon as you unload or reload the weapon (even during the Equipment Setup screen); the full weight is counted thereafter. <br />
<br />
In the battlescape display, an item lying on the ground might represent a pile of items. In this case, it is the heaviest item displayed (usually a corpse).<br />
<br />
The following represents a complete list of item weights for X-Com UFO Defense/Enemy Unknown.<br />
<br />
<table><br />
<tr><br />
<th>Ballistic Weapons</th><th>Energy Weapons</th><th>Explosive Weapons</th><th>Corpses</th><th>Miscellaneous</th><br />
</tr><br />
<tr><br />
<td valign="top"><br />
{| {{StdDescTable}} <br />
|- {{StdDescTable_Heading}}<br />
! Name !! Weight<br />
|-<br />
|[[Pistol]] ||{{r}}5 <br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Pistol Clip ||{{r}}3 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Rifle]] ||{{r}}8 <br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Rifle Clip ||{{r}}3 <br />
|-<br />
|-<br />
|- style="border-top: 2px #808080 solid;"<br />
|[[Heavy Cannon]] ||{{r}}18 <br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HC-AP ||{{r}}6 <br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HC-HE ||{{r}}6 <br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;HC-IN ||{{r}}6 <br />
|- style="border-top: 2px #808080 solid;"<br />
|[[Auto-Cannon]] ||{{r}}19 <br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;AC-AP ||{{r}}5 <br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;AC-HE ||{{r}}5 <br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;AC-IN ||{{r}}5 <br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
<br />
<td valign="top"><br />
{| {{StdDescTable}} <br />
|- {{StdDescTable_Heading}}<br />
! Name !! Weight<br />
|-<br />
|[[Laser Pistol]] ||{{r}}7 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Laser Rifle]] ||{{r}}8 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Heavy Laser]] ||{{r}}18 <br />
|- style="border-top: 2px #808080 solid;"<br />
|[[Plasma Pistol]] ||{{r}}3 <br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Plasma Pistol Clip ||{{r}}3 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Plasma Rifle]] ||{{r}}5 <br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Plasma Rifle Clip ||{{r}}3 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Heavy Plasma]] ||{{r}}8 <br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Heavy Plasma Clip ||{{r}}3 <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
<br />
<td valign="top"><br />
{| {{StdDescTable}} <br />
|- {{StdDescTable_Heading}}<br />
! Name !! Weight<br />
|-<br />
|[[Rocket Launcher]] ||{{r}}10<br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Small Rocket ||{{r}}6 <br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Large Rocket ||{{r}}8 <br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Incendiary Rocket ||{{r}}8 <br />
|- style="border-top: 2px #808080 solid;"<br />
|[[Small Launcher]] ||{{r}}10 <br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Stun Bomb ||{{r}}3 <br />
|- style="border-top: 2px #808080 solid;"<br />
|[[Blaster Launcher]] ||{{r}}16<br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Blaster Bomb ||{{r}}3 <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
<br />
<td valign="top"><br />
{| {{StdDescTable}} <br />
|- {{StdDescTable_Heading}}<br />
! Name !! Weight<br />
|-<br />
|[[Coveralls|Jumpsuit]] ||{{r}}22 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Personal Armor]] ||{{r}}24 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Power Suit]]* ||{{r}}26 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Flying Suit]]* ||{{r}}26 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Sectoid]] ||{{r}}30 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Snakeman]] ||{{r}}40 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Ethereal]] ||{{r}}25 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Muton]] ||{{r}}40 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Floater]] ||{{r}}20 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Celatid]] ||{{r}}35 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Silacoid]] ||{{r}}40 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Chryssalid]] ||{{r}}40 <br />
|-<br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
<br />
<td valign="top"><br />
{| {{StdDescTable}} <br />
|- {{StdDescTable_Heading}}<br />
! Name !! Weight<br />
|-<br />
|[[Stun Rod]] ||{{r}}6 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Grenade]] ||{{r}}3 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Smoke Grenade]] ||{{r}}3 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Proximity Grenade]] ||{{r}}3 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Alien Grenade]] ||{{r}}3 <br />
|-<br />
|[[High Explosive]] ||{{r}}6 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Electro-flare]] ||{{r}}3 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Motion Scanner]] ||{{r}}3 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Medi-Kit]] ||{{r}}5 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Psi-Amp]] ||{{r}}10 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Mind Probe]] ||{{r}}5 <br />
|-<br />
|[[Elerium-115|Elerium]] ||{{r}}3 <br />
|}<br />
</td><br />
</tr><br />
</table><br />
<br />
<small><nowiki>*</nowiki> Technically these corpses are the same object type, and have only 1 entry in [[OBDATA.DAT]]</small><br />
<br />
== Quick reference for common item sets ==<br />
<br />
Note that for all weapons that are loaded by the game during setup, subtract the ammo weight from the "Loaded" values given below. The ammo weight only applies if you load the weapon yourself. Think of this as "Free-loading". :)<br />
<br />
{| {{StdDescTable}} <br />
|- {{StdDescTable_Heading}}<br />
! Items !! Weight<br />
|-<br />
| Loaded Rifle + 3 one-space items* ||{{r}} 20<br />
|- <br />
| Laser Rifle + 3 one-space items ||{{r}} 17<br />
|- <br />
| Loaded Heavy Cannon ||{{r}} 24<br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; w/ extra clip ||{{r}} 30<br />
|- <br />
| Loaded Auto Cannon ||{{r}} 24<br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; w/ extra clip ||{{r}} 29<br />
|- <br />
| Loaded Rocket Launcher + 3 Large Rockets ||{{r}} 42<br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; w/ all Small Rockets ||{{r}} 34<br />
|- <br />
| Loaded Heavy Plasma + 3 one-space items ||{{r}} 20<br />
|- <br />
| Loaded Blaster Launcher ||{{r}} 19<br />
|-<br />
| &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; + 5 Blaster Bombs ||{{r}} 34<br />
|- <br />
| Loaded Small Launcher + 2 one-space items ||{{r}} 19<br />
|- style="border-top: 2px #808080 solid;"<br />
| Laser Pistol ||{{r}} 7<br />
|-<br />
| Loaded Plasma Pistol ||{{r}} 6<br />
|-<br />
| Stun Rod ||{{r}} 6<br />
|-<br />
| Medi-Kit ||{{r}} 5<br />
|-<br />
| Mind Probe ||{{r}} 5<br />
|-<br />
| Psi-Amp ||{{r}} 10 <br />
|}<br />
<br />
<nowiki>* All one space items (grenades, ammo clips, motion scanner, stun bombs) have a weight of 3 in UFO Defence (but not always in TFTD).</nowiki><br />
<br />
== Uncarryable items ==<br />
<br />
The remaining items cannot be picked up, but are included for completeness sake: <br />
<br />
'''Corpses (continued)''': <br />
Reaper.................50<br />
Cyberdisc..............50<br />
Sectopod...............50<br />
Hovertank..............50<br />
Tank...................50<br />
Male Civilian..........30<br />
Female Civilian........50 <br />
<br />
Note that for the large units, each quarter is worth 50 units.<br />
<br />
'''Unused Items''': <br />
Unused slot.............1 <br />
Unused slot............22 (Same as above, but heavier)<br />
Unused slot............22 (Ditto) <br />
Unused slot.............1 (Appears to be a type of plasma clip) <br />
Unused slot.............4 (Pistol variant. Slower, less accurate, 1x1 in size)<br />
Unused slot.............4 (Unknown)<br />
<br />
Note: In TFTD, the above slots are used by the gauss clips and the drills<br />
<br />
The game has six unused item slots. Unfortunately, there's no known way to get them into any of the item transfer screens. Otherwise, they'd make six extra weapons, clips, or grenades. They can be added to the Skyranger with a ship store editor, and they'll appear in combat, but their [[OBDATA.DAT]] entries have to be tweaked so that they work.<br />
<br />
The first three unused slots are an unnamed multi-barrelled laser. Prime attracting feature: 15% TU Autofire @ 50% accuracy with 40 laser damage. It's assumed to be a multi-barrelled laser as the default battlescape image shows the autocannon, although uses the laser rifle for its inventory image.<br />
<br />
== Sorted by item weight ==<br />
<br />
Here's an alternate listing sorted by Item Weight. Does not include items that can't be picked up:<br />
<br />
Weight Item<br />
<br />
3 Alien Grenade<br />
Blaster Bomb<br />
Electro Flare<br />
Elerium<br />
Grenade<br />
Heavy Plasma Clip<br />
Motion Scanner<br />
Pistol Clip<br />
Plasma Pistol<br />
Plasma Pistol Clip<br />
Plasma Rifle Clip<br />
Proximity Grenade<br />
Rifle Clip<br />
Smoke Grenade<br />
Stun Bomb<br />
<br />
5 AC-AP<br />
AC-HE<br />
AC-IN<br />
Medi-Kit<br />
Mind Probe<br />
Pistol<br />
Plasma Rifle<br />
<br />
6 HC-AP<br />
HC-HE<br />
HC-IN<br />
High Explosive<br />
Small Rocket<br />
Stun Rod<br />
<br />
7 Laser Pistol<br />
<br />
8 Heavy Plasma<br />
Incendiary Rocket<br />
Large Rocket<br />
Laser Rifle<br />
Rifle<br />
<br />
10 Psi-Amp<br />
Rocket Launcher<br />
Small Launcher<br />
<br />
16 Blaster Launcher<br />
<br />
18 Heavy Cannon<br />
Heavy Laser<br />
<br />
19 Auto Cannon<br />
<br />
20 Floater<br />
<br />
22 Soldier in Jumpsuit<br />
<br />
24 Soldier in Personal Armor<br />
<br />
25 Ethereal<br />
<br />
26 Soldier in Power or Flying Armor<br />
<br />
30 Sectoid<br />
<br />
35 Celatid<br />
<br />
40 Chryssalid<br />
Muton<br />
Silacoid<br />
Snakeman<br />
<br />
== See Also ==<br />
<br />
*[[Item Weight (TFTD)]]<br />
<br />
[[Category: data tables]]</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Steam_Versions&diff=19262Talk:Steam Versions2009-01-28T23:25:00Z<p>NightChime: </p>
<hr />
<div>==Steam Talk==<br />
Probably we should create a new page for Steam on this wiki. Also, we could even get support from Valve now and start adding mods onto steam. This would help tremendously, but might remove the original purpose of the game. It will turn it into a easier game, with super heavy lasers (no offense Seb) and the like. This would increase X-COM's rep, but lower its individuality. Still, this is a decision for the Admins to make, certainly not us.<br />
<br />
:I agree we should have a Steam page now but I'm not sure where to put it. Is there a "distributions" or "where to get it?" section? I couldn't find one. It would be good to make all the mods available on Steam. By the way I don't agree the mods make the game easier. Generally they just remove bugs, restore game balance, and improve playability. Seb76 is very aware his Heavy Laser mod is unbalancing, that's why he has kept it in a separate "development" version of his loader.<br />
<br />
:I've been playing TFTD for a few days using the Steam version. To my surprise, TFTD Hack and XComUtil command line both work, once you find the game save files which are under "common" in the Steam install directory. They don't seem to be protected by Steam "anti-cheat", fortunately. I'm not sure if any mods that change the executable will work, however - haven't tried that yet. <br />
<br />
:It's been quite interesting to play TFTD for the first time, unmodded, bugs and all. I suggest that only bugfix-type mods should be distributed with Steam, the tools and cheats should probably stay on this site and others. Also, I think the discussions would need to be with Take Two /2K, as they are the releasers of the games - Valve's Steam is just a channel in this case. <br />
<br />
:Anyway I'm going to start contributing to the TFTD wiki items and also adding notes about any more Steam specifics. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 03:01, 2 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::Spike, I think you were looking for [[Where to Get the Games]], and I agree that listing all known mods there would be advantageous. Personally, I think there should also be an article investigating what changes, if any, were brought to the game with 2K's release. In particular, does the difficulty stay at what you chose, now? It seems to, but it's hard to know without looking under the hood. I do know that they didn't make proximity grenades remember being armed after loading a save. [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 19:41, 20 January 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
:You don't really need to look under the hood to find out what difficulty level you are at. If you have a Mind Probe or Psi-Amp, check the stats of an alien and compare that to the tables in my [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/xcom/pg/ufoalienstats#ufostats2 Alien Stats] page at StrategyCore. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:14, 20 January 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for the tip, will do. [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 17:25, 28 January 2009 (CST)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Manufacturing_Profitability&diff=19255Talk:Manufacturing Profitability2009-01-27T03:01:02Z<p>NightChime: New section: Thanks, Article</p>
<hr />
<div>Dumas, re: your point about Alien Alloys being plentiful - That section about LCs versus FBLs addresses a common early misperception. In actuality, both LCs and FBLs make the same amount of profit each ($18k), '''''but''''' you can make ~33% more LCs per month with a given number of engineers. In other words, LCs are 33% more profitable than FBLs, period.<br />
<br />
''Unless'' you want to make your FBLs one at a time, so that they don't need AAs. Then, they're just barely (2%) more profitable than LCs. (If you play with the spreadsheet, this is clear.)<br />
<br />
So it doesn't really have anything to do with AAs. LCs are a far better deal than FBLs, ''unless'' you want to hassle with making FBLs one at a time. Either way, you never needed a single AA. (And if you've got a big surplus of AAs, then just sell'em! smile)<br />
<br />
Let me know if I'm missing something - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:41, 9 November 2006 (PST)<br />
<br />
<br />
I see. So that's what the AA thing means. It's not explained very clearly. I'll fix that.--[[User:Dumas|Dumas]] 04:58, 10 November 2006 (PST)<br />
<br />
Hmm, we go straight from Workshop to Manufacturing Profitability - there really should be a Manufacturing topic around that sits between them I think, to cover all the basics and key points. Might start it myself in next few days if no-one else does.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Sfnhltb|Sfnhltb]] 18:36, 1 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
Oh and of course, another note is that the values for maintenance on Living Quarters and Workshops being fed into the equations are wrong, but you cant tell what they are going to cost unless you know what row of the base they are built on. Could make the numbers a little fuzzy (not likely to make a big difference, as the average cost is just over 17, so that would probably make these two items a little cheaper than the 22.5 currently assigned to them.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Sfnhltb|Sfnhltb]] 18:40, 1 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
Huh, good point. I only just learned about that maintenance glitch today. For the time being, I'll stick in a note that those numbers are probably slightly high. For that matter, the maintenance glitch page could probably use a few notes about how much the other costs of 1) facilities in general are (e.g. for likely base configs - average cost per building as per UFOpaedia vs. actual average cost as per bug), and 2) other costs of the game in general. IOW I suspect that maintenance costs are a small part of a serious X-COM operation, relative to country funding, loot, and manufacturing profit. Which, if true, would lead to a wrap-up statement re: the maintenance bug of something like, "as can be seen, maint. costs are only a few percent of likely revenue and expenses; all in all, this base placement bug doesn't impact much, and can easily be totally ignored, if you like". <br />
<br />
Edit: This could also go on that page dedicated to the bug. Maybe that's a better place for a longer explanation/analysis, and the Bugs page would just have that wrap-up sentence.<br />
<br />
- [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 19:15, 1 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
Yeah, thats along the same lines as I was thinking when I created the new page, try to avoid any bugs in that section from getting too large, if they have a lot of related detail it should be linked too, so that the bugs list is as concise as possible, most people are going to want to make sure they arent falling foul of any serious issue due to their play style and little more, if they want more information they can drill down to the dedicated topics related to it.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Sfnhltb|Sfnhltb]] 21:02, 1 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
[[Image:MTR-FirstBase.png|thumb|left|100px|MTR - first base]][[Image:MTR-SecondLine.png|thumb|right|100px|MTR - 2nd & 3rd base]] Works for me. It brings up an interesting question - what kinds of bases do people make? (Which would affect the average facility cost, depending on where they put facilities.) For newbies, the average cost is probably the best guess. But for vet players like us wiki folks, we probably all have our own styles. I make research at my first base in Europe, and fudge around the original Access Lift relative to base attacks. My first base has a crack squad, as do two more that look like the second inset. Then as you can see from the tiny base outlines, I have several more that are hangars up top and psi labs/LQ below, then a few more that are just LQ and hangars, for screening [[Hiring/firing#General_Information|large recruit batches]]. (Good'uns are sent to the psi bases.) Manufacturing is light in 1st, heavy in 2nd, and 3rd depends how greedy I am. They all have a Stores or two, of course. And it's prior to knowing about the Maintenance Bug, naturally. (FWIW, my game date there is August 1999.)<br />
<br />
Just some ideas about how bases might be. I'm sure the rest of you have your own styles. Heck it might be fun to make an informal area where folks show their current base layouts. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:30, 1 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
==Non integer math?==<br />
:''Those who know XCOM, know that it suffers from integer truncation in a number of places. This could've hurt profitability badly if it occurred there; for example, if an item needs 100 engineer hours but you only assign 99, it might've taken twice as long, and halved your production and profit potential. Fortunately, this is not the case with manufacturing; it does not truncate production time this way.''<br />
<br />
I would be surprised if it was storing progress as any sort of non integer value. What it likely does is treat the entire batch as one unit, creating at the end of the hour as it knocks them off - so it saves an integral number of hours of progress against the next item in the list.<br />
<br />
To explain with your example, but run a batch of 10 of them:<br />
<br />
1st hour - 99 production, not to 100, no output<br />
2nd hour - 99 stored + 99 production = 198 done, take off 100 to make one unit to leave 98 stored for next hour<br />
3rd hour - 98 + 99 = 197, make one store 97.<br />
<br />
What this essentially means is that on short projects you would want to run them in batches to minimise wastage, or with a number of engineers that divides into the unit production time with no remainder if you want to build single units at a time (whyever would you want to do that? ...)<br />
<br />
--[[User:Sfnhltb|Sfnhltb]] 13:33, 2 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
Obviously it could as easily store 10 x 100 = 1000 as the hours for the entire project to complete, and produce each time it drops by 100, whichever way (I think mine is more likely because then adding/removing units in the production screen doesnt require it to recalculate the hours left for the entire project each time, but BPROD.DAT or whatever could probably easily be tested to find which it is.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Sfnhltb|Sfnhltb]] 13:35, 2 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
Hiya Sfn; back from some time spent on things at work -<br />
<br />
What you say makes plenty of sense. I too was surprised to think they might've used floating point here; your thought didn't occur to me at that time, but a simple carry-over makes perfect sense. In support of what you say, I did not test vs. the production time of individual items; I only tested total production vs. longer amounts of time. Shouldn't take long to try 99 scientists vs. a 100 hour item. But in the long run, it doesn't matter - there's no truncation. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:46, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== A free market in armaments ==<br />
<br />
Hi I'm back... Some thoughts I would like to post but I'm not sure where to put them:<br />
<br />
I was getting VERY bored of manufacturing things just to get money and it occurred to me that there might be a wider economy in the world outside XCom with an industrial base that could do some of the grunt work for me, more efficiently. <br />
<br />
What I would like to do is just provide the Elirium and Alien Alloys to an industrial concern and let them handle all the dull logistics<br />
<br />
The effect of this is that the "market clearing" price of Elerium should be about $15K and Alloys about $25K. Rather than producing a PsiAmp for sale to convert 1 Elirium into $15K profit (net of all costs), or building an FBL in order to convert 1 AA into net $25K... just correct the market price of AA and E115 to reflect the potential profits that can be made by some other industrial organisation.<br />
<br />
Let's assume as a simplification that these external industrial organisations have better economy of scale than XCom (factories are large scale, near transport hubs and not hidden beneath volcanic islands with false sliding craters over the Interceptor pads). Assume that this improved economy of scale allows the arms companies to cover their capital costs and still make a profit on PsiAmp & FBL production despite paying what would be (for XCom) the break-even price for the required exotic materials.<br />
<br />
Interestingly even at a resale price of $25K it's still not worth manufacturing AAs for profit. <br />
<br />
In game terms what I do is, once I have the necessary technology, I just sell off the alloys/elirium and use a money editor to give myself the extra cash from the "higher" price. <br />
<br />
Possibly this could be an XComUtil mod that actually hacks the game data files to change the sale price of AA and E115 after each money-making technology is researched. <br />
<br />
If anyone is interested in this idea I could work up a full table of increases in the market value of AA and Elirium with each technology advance. For now I have just calculated the maximum values, based on having PsiAmp (E115) and FBL (AA) technology.<br />
<br />
In theory if there was a high resale value for craft, this could also push up the market price for UFO Navigation and UFO Power Source. <br />
<br />
Another indulgence that I might allow myself (using a game editor) is to assume that I can buy items (anything from Medkits to Avengers)from these external industrial concerns. I would have to pay the full price (from the manufacturing spreadsheet attached to this article), plus the same buy/sell spread used for conventional items. I guess the normal delivery times could be used - or maybe 2x normal. <br />
<br />
This would require using a base editor to simulate these purchases. Or again an XcomUtil-like 3rd party program could act as the "Arms Merchant", selling and delivering equipment. <br />
<br />
The last scenario for those like me who get bored by manufacturing logistics is: technology licencing (royalties). This means just letting some other organisation produce the Motion Sensors and Laser Cannon, under licence from XCom Holdings Inc. As there seems to be infinite and price-inelastic demand for these products it would be a great and mutually profitable partnership. :)<br />
<br />
As infinite income is a bit unbalancing, some kind of compromise is needed. Maybe, when the technology is researched, total monthly Funding is increased by the amount shown as the monthly net gain in the spreadsheet. This would be spread across all funding countries.<br />
<br />
:Interesting idea. But in all honesty, it's not like money is particularly hard to come by if you're doing halfway decently. By about June, almost every alien you wax is worth 142 grand, minimum; 20K for the corpse and a 122K for the extra Heavy Plasma, when you're already drowning in them. Then you've got spare clips, alien alloys, UFO Power Sources, UFO Navigations, grenades...even Elerium. I can, in a regular game, easily build a fleet of 30 avengers without breaking the bank so long as I have a halfway decent Laser Cannon operation going on somewhere and enough recovery missions to bring in raw materials. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:28, 24 February 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
==XComUtil Manufacturing Profitability Discussion==<br />
<br />
For some reason the [[XcomUtil]] "new laser weapons" manufacturing option only affects beam weapons. It does not make the manufacture of Fusion explosives and projectiles any harder, so the FBL economics are unaffected. Hovertank/Launchers, Blaster Bombs & Launchers, and Alien Grenades are also unaffected (but were never very profitable). The Hovertank/Plasma is redesignated (in name at least) a Hovertank/LaserCannon, in effect saying that the only Plasma weapon that can be produced is the craft Plasma Beam, and that with great difficulty. <br />
<br />
Arguably to handicap the plasma weapons so much, but not to in any way handicap the alien launched / explosive / fusion weapons, seems to create an anomaly in the progression of X-COM firepower, rather than the presumed intent of making the game harder overall. Instead the midphase of the game is harder but the endphase is pretty much the same. <br />
<br />
It appears that XComUtil prohibits the production of alien plasma small arms in a rather clumsy way, by increasing the workshop requirements to an extreme level in [[PRODUCT.DAT]]. We now know the location of the flag set to indicate if an item is manufacturable, so that could be used instead by a (hypothetical) update to XComUtil.<br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 15:15, 13 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Bored Industrialist ==<br />
<br />
<br />
AQ, agreed the lion's share of cash comes from wasting aliens. For me this is more about what to do in the dry periods when intercepts are scarce (a whole other topic there). <br />
<br />
Because I use the XcomUtil setting to make manufacturing profitability a lot harder I don't have the Laser Cannon factory option to boost my base level of funding/profit. <br />
<br />
I guess for me the real solution is how to increase my number of recovery missions since I prefer that part of the gameplay. <br />
<br />
30 Avengers though by June? That is impressive. On Superhuman? Apart from money time and parts to build them I wonder where you get the Elirium to keep them all flying. [[User:Spike|Spike]]<br />
<br />
:I didn't catch that you had used the modified laser weapons; my bad. I said nothing about the rate at which I could put 30 Avengers together. Usually it takes me about a year of game time to get the fleet well underway(I could launch Cydonia at any time, but where's the fun in THAT?! ;) ) Also, since I've only been playing for a bit over a year myself, I don't play on Superhuman often. The aliens still have this nasty tendency to kick me around like a soccer ball if I do. :( [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 05:21, 25 February 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
One good way to ensure frequent battles is to milk supply ships off alien bases. Even one alien base will keep you well supplied for the rest of the game. <br />
<br />
If you don't choose to use that strategy (some find the regularity of the supply ship unnatural - although you still have to risk life and limb in a real battle to win the loot), there should still be enough from the first couple of missions to get you off the ground if you spend your money wisely - not counting a production business. <br />
<br />
Also, Superhuman actually nets you more profit from loot sales. There'll be many more aliens in a battle, and the UFO activity tends to be a bit more aggressive. That's where the higher difficulty pays off - pun and all. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 20:50, 25 February 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
Yes good point about Superhuman - higher risk brings higher reward which is a good thing. <br />
<br />
I do need to figure out how to milk supply ships, or some other method to boost my plunder rate. I guess I need to stop indiscriminately crashing all the UFOs - learn to recognise the base-building missions and let the aliens get on with it? <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
(By the way sorry that I keep adding sections. The edit window in the mobile phone browser I am using isn't big enough to safely edit the whole page. Don't want to mess the page up!) [[User:Spike|Spike]]<br />
<br />
:Generally, base-building missions consist of 2 Battleships and a Supply Ship or two, and maybe a few others. They'll all show up at about the same time in the same area(of course, if you're using Radar, you may not detect them all...if you're using a Hyper Wave Decoder, you should already know its a base mission.) Once the base is built, Supply Ships will be dispatched randomly to service it(Supply Ships on Supply missions are always launched at 00:30.) Make sure the base is in Africa or Western Asia so you get to raid the aliens during the day.! [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 14:13, 26 February 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Thanks, Article ==<br />
<br />
I just feel like expressing the usefulness of this article. I'm currently constructing a new Workshop (on top of a couple others); I have more than enough Living Quarters to support the 50 Engineers I plan on getting. But the Workshop is scheduled to be completed about 10 days before the month's end. With some quick calculations I found that 50 Engineers working for 10 days on Laser Cannons wouldn't produce as much profit as their net salaries! So those guys will just have to wait an extra 11 or so days to get jobs, hurting the global economy (tear). [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 21:01, 26 January 2009 (CST)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Small_Launcher&diff=19238Small Launcher2009-01-21T02:11:21Z<p>NightChime: minor spelling - "its" is possessive, "it's" is "it is"</p>
<hr />
<div>A large improvement over the [[Stun Rod]], the Small Launcher and its Stun Bomb are unique in the XCOM arsenal. It is a fired weapon which can knock units unconscious if they are caught in its blast. For more on reviving units, see [[Unconscious]] and [[Medi-Kit]].<br />
<br />
The Stun Bomb uses the same projectile and explosion graphics as the [[Blaster Bomb]], which gives every commander a moment of sheer terror - Then delight, to find it was "only" a stun bomb. Stun bombs do not use waypoints, and leave no explosion damage. Thus, it is easy to distinguish between the two.<br />
<br />
Stun Bombs never cause [[Fatal Wounds]]. One less thing to worry about. However, if a Soldier already had a Fatal Wound, they will continue to lose health while unconscious, and can even DIE. So if there is any question in your mind, check unconscious soldiers a.s.a.p.!<br />
<br />
Aliens will not fire on unconscious soldiers. However, any unconscious soldiers caught in a subsequent explosion are always killed, if the blast strength was sufficient to cause ground items to disappear.<br />
<br />
While the stun bomb is a significantly safer method of capturing aliens then the [[Stun Rod]], it can only fire one shot between reloads, reducing its effectiveness over other weapons.<br />
<br />
== Stats ==<br />
[[Image:XCOM StunBomb Pattern.gif|right|frame|Stun Bomb pattern showing stun damage to units. It's an average of 90 (0-180) at ground zero and decreases by 10 per tile outward.]]<br />
<b>Small Launcher:</b><br />
<table><tr><td>[[Image:BIGOBS37.GIF|left|64 px]]</td><td><br />
*Size: 2 high x 2 wide<br />
*Weight: 10<br />
*TUs: <br />
**Snap: 40% (Accuracy 65%)<br />
**Aimed: 75% (Accuracy 110%)<br />
*[[Buying/Selling/Transferring#Manufacturable_Prices|Manufacturing]]: $78,000 for parts, 900 Engineer Hours, 1 Alien Alloy<br />
*Sell Price: $120,000</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
<b>Stun Bomb:</b><br />
<table><tr><td>[[Image:BIGOBS38.GIF|left|64 px]]</td><td><br />
*Power: 90 Stun<br />
*Ammo: 1<br />
*Size: 1 high x 1 wide<br />
*Weight: 3<br />
*[[Buying/Selling/Transferring#Manufacturable_Prices|Manufacturing]]: $7,000 for parts, 200 Engineer Hours, 1 Elerium<br />
*Sell Price: $15,200</td></tr></table><br />
<br />
The stun bomb detonates with a radius of 5 tiles, or a diameter of 11 tiles (see graphic).<br />
<br />
== Likelihood Of Being Stunned ==<br />
X-COM soldiers in Power Suits ('''PSs''') or Flying Suits ('''FSs''') are unlikely to be knocked unconscious because their armor blocks most of the stun [[Damage]]:<br />
*180 stun double damage maximum * 80% PS/FS stun resistance = 144 max stun damage after resistance,<br />
*Minus 70 (FS Under) to 60 (PS Under) Armor <br />
*Equals 74-84 stun damage ''at most<br />
*[[Soldiers]] have [[Health]] from 25 to 61<br />
Experienced soldiers (Health >34) in a Flying Suit are very unlikely to go down, and in fact will usually have no stun damage at all. 144 is the max possible, but the ''average'' hit will be 72, which will barely breach FS armor.<br />
<br />
Stun Bombs go through Under Armor at ground zero, just as explosives do. Therefore, for a direct hit this is the only number needed.<br />
<br />
* <u>Coveralls (Under Armor 2), no resist, 180 max stun damage:</u> Max stun 178, average stun 88. '''85%''' of the time, soldier with lowest Health (25) will be stunned (1-((25+2)/180)). Max excess stun points can be up to 153 (178-25), so you may need up to 39 [[Medi-Kit|stimulants]] to recover!<br />
* <u>Personal Armor (Under Armor 30), 90% stun resist, 162 max stun damage:</u> Max stun 132, average stun 51. '''76%''' of the time, soldier with lowest Health (25) will be stunned (1-((25+30)/162)). Up to 107 excess stun points possible (132-25), requiring up to 27 stimulants.<br />
* <u>Power Suit (Under Armor 60), 80% stun resist, 144 max stun damage:</u> Max stun 84, average stun 12. '''41%''' of the time, soldier with lowest Health (25) will be stunned (1-((25+60)/144)). Up to 59 excess stun points possible (84-25), requiring up to 15 stimulants.<br />
* <u>Flying Suit (Under Armor 70), 80% stun resist, 144 max stun damage:</u> Max stun 74, average stun 2. '''34%''' of the time, soldier with lowest Health (25) will be stunned (1-((25+70)/144)). Up to 49 excess stun points possible (74-25), requiring up to 13 stimulants.<br />
<br />
== Usage Notes ==<br />
===Continuous Firing===<br />
The following lists how many times a soldier can fire the gun by shot type continuously in any given round and the remaining percentage of any left over TUs that cannot be spent as a shot.<br />
<br />
* Aimed: 1 Shot, 25% Remaining TUs<br />
* Snap: 1 Shot, 60% Remaining TUs (A soldier with 80 TUs will be able to reload and refire the weapon in the same turn, provided he does '''nothing else'''!)<br />
* Auto: Not Available<br />
<br />
===Experience===<br />
Stun bomb hits count toward [[Firing Accuracy]] skill point increase. If you hit many aliens with one stun bomb, you can get many [[experience]] points with the one shot. It still counts towards experience if aliens are caught in its blast, even on the rare occasions that they do not get any stun damage (because their armor blocked it). See blast pattern (above).<br />
<br />
The Small Launcher can also provide points to [[Reactions]] skill point increase, if fired as an opportunity shot. However, you only get one experience point per shot, even if multiple aliens are caught in the blast. (Technically, you were only reacting to one particular alien.)<br />
<br />
===Large Units vs. Stun Bombs===<br />
Large units, when stunned, stay down for good and are considered dead for the purposes of the battle. There are a few rare exceptions where a portion of the large unit stays awake, but this is not a normal occurance or may only occur on certain ports of the game, such as the Amiga port of UFO. <br />
<br />
X-Com controlled tanks, for some reason, never take on stun damage from stun bombs, and are thus the only units in the game that appear to be immune to them. <br />
<br />
[[Sectopod]]s, [[Cyberdisc]]s and [[Reaper]]s on the other hand are vulnerable to stun bomb explosions, particularly on easier levels where their lower armour increases the potency of the stun bombs allowing them to be knocked out by simply standing near the fringe of the explosion. On easier levels, the stun bomb can be treated as a large terror unit buster that also leaves buildings standing afterwards. <br />
<br />
On the hardest difficulty level, [[Superhuman]], sectopods require direct hits and have a fair chance of completely shrugging off the damage. This means that you no longer have the ability to wipe out multiple sectopods with a single stun bomb. Cyberdiscs and Reapers can still be dealt with stun bombs. <br />
<br />
In short, the ease of knocking out a large unit completely varies depending on your difficulty level. <br />
<br />
Note: Cyberdiscs knocked out with a stun bomb do not always cause an explosion, but it's best to be beyond their blast radius as a precaution.<br />
<br />
===Stun Bombs Vs. Terrain and Objects===<br />
<br />
Stun Bombs do not damage the terrain at hand or destroy objects on the ground. As such, they are safe to use near [[UFO Power Source]]s, as there is no risk of damaging the precious [[Elerium-115|Elerium]].<br />
<br />
===Stun Bomb Explosions===<br />
<br />
Stun bomb explosions have the radius seen in the picture above, and follow [[Explosions|explosion]] rules such as that they are 90 average stun at center, which drops off by 10 damage per tile away from ground zero. Ok. But unlike most explosives, their [[damage]] to units is 0-200% of the rated stun damage at any given point. (Explosives usually inflict 50-150% of damage to units, at any given point.) Thus they are unique in the game in that they spread like explosives, but damage like shot weapons. For more details, see [[Explosions#Stun_Bombs]].<br />
<br />
== See Also ==<br />
*[[Stun Bomb]]<br />
*[[Alien Artefacts]]<br />
*[[Weapons]]<br />
*[[Unconscious]]<br />
*[[Medi-Kit]]<br />
*[[Stun Rod]]<br />
*[[Soldiers]]<br />
*[[Experience]]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Equipment (UFO Defense) Navbar}}<br />
[[Category:Equipment]]</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Proximity_Grenade&diff=19237Talk:Proximity Grenade2009-01-21T01:53:18Z<p>NightChime: /* Pinning an alien */ MSPA reference</p>
<hr />
<div>==Proximity Grenades Vs. Zombies==<br />
<br />
To be blunt, this is an absolutely horrid idea. One, if you have enough TUs to mine the Zombie in(75% TUs from TWO soldiers), you really should just shoot the thing, because with that many TUs you should be able to kill it and the resulting spawn.(Same for any alien, really, unless its early in the game and you've only got peashooters for weaponry). In addition, because the first Proximity Grenade will destroy the second one, what happens if you kill a Zombie with Proximity Grenades is that you spawn an enemy Chryssalid with FULL TUs...'''DURING''' the Alien turn. This can only be described as a tactical nightmare! Again, though, this tactic could work reasonably well in TFTD(barring the objection about TUs). [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 11:06, 16 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Grenade limits==<br />
The game keeps the list of armed prox. grenades in a separate array (possibly for performance reasons). The maximum number of elements in this array is 20, limiting the number of armed grenades to this very number. When you reach the limit, no particular message is shown to say so (the 'grenade activated !' message is even shown, and the quantity1 field is set to 1 too). The grenade however will never detonate. I didn't check if loading a savegame repopulate the list, but if not this is most likely the reason why the armed status is lost when loading a game. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:48, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:From a practical perspective, 20 Proximity Grenades is probably plenty. Given that X-COM can only haul 80 items to the drop site, in order to fill up the array, you'd need to have over 1/4th of your item stock be Prox. Grenades, and I somehow think most people will consider that somewhat impractical/overkill. Still, good to know for reference. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:52, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, it is only for informational purpose. I stumbled across this limitation and thought it might explain the loss of armed state bug. Also it is a limitation on _armed_ grenades so you can bring more, it won't be a problem. I don't see how you could toss that much grenades in one turn and not having any one alien blow itself up with one of it to make more room anyway ;) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:04, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Kinda the point, yeah. In order to encounter the bug, you'd need to deploy 21 armed mines and hope that none were detonated. Or, conversely, have deployed a number of mines equal to 21+detonated mines. I'll add this to Known Bugs. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:06, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
::You may want to do some tests first then, I did not do any here so for now this is 'pure' speculation ;) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:09, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Ooops, thought you'd done the tests. Oh well, I'll do tests after finals and see what I can come up with. Sorry. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:14, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Hehe, I usually 'read' through the code and deduce behaviour. I'm often too lazy to check ^^. I did test the hot grenades patch however [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:17, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::What's this "hot grenades patch"? I'm trying to collect all the available bugfixes... [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:08, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Also from the look of it, only grenades which detonate from proximity contact will free the entry. If they are destroyed with another explosion, they won't and they will pollute the array. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:25, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:The game maintains (actually, I'd say half-maintains since it is a real bug nest...) a list of references to obpos.dat entries for armed prox-mines. When you arm a prox mine, a new entry is added in the list. Each time a unit moves one square, the list is parsed and if the unit is too close to one obpos, it explodes and the entry is removed from the list (Note that no check is performed to test whether the obpos entry in question is a prox-mine or not...). So far so good. However, the developers must have implemented this at the end and not really tested it because it has the following flaws: the list is _never_ initialized at the start of a tactical mission (actually the OS sets it to 0 at process startup but that's another point) so the next mission will still have the list set from the previous mission (with the know "exploding" consequences). A second issue is that an entry is removed from the list only when detonating from proximity contact, so prox-mines destroyed by other explosions are not cleared from the list. Finally, the list is not saved nor recreated when a savegame is made/reloaded (this explains the inactive mines when you reload a game). Since the games uses the 'quantity1' offset to indicate whether a prox-mine has been armed or not, this also explains why when you save/restart/reload a mission, the prox-mine is still not activable (the quantity1 is still set to 1). I don't know if it understandable english, but it's quite late now so I'll leave it as-is... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:23, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Pinning an alien==<br />
Guys, I'm pretty sure the bit about "pinning" aliens with a grenade on either side is pointless, since you can do the same thing with one grenade in the alien's square. Am I missing something? [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:08, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree it's pointless, but I'm trying to convince others of that as well. Similarly, debate is good. Saying "No" comes off as overlording, whereas saying, "I don't think so, because..." is more friendly. Hot Grenades is a patch made by Seb76 that modifies grenades so they detonate regardless of whether they're held in the inventory of a unit. The patch-code is [[Talk:Grenade#Timers|here]], and a downloadable program is at the bottom of [[User:Bomb_Bloke|this page]]. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:44, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::I may not have been clear :) Whether "pinning" is useful or not as a tactic is a matter for debate, certainly, but I'm pretty sure it's a matter of fact that using two grenades will not have any better effect than one in this case. [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:54, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::But wouldn't that be in all cases, not just this one? As mentioned below, I think we're all pretty sure aliens ignore Proxies, so one to the side of the alien won't alter its AI to your liking. And two to the sides will also have the same effect as one on its square; if it moves, a proxy goes off. Can a "direct hit" with a proxy be achieved if the alien walks right onto the grenade? In that case, the only added bonus I could see multiple proxies getting is a higher chance of said direct hit. It may not be conclusive evidence, but if aliens saw proximity grenades, they would in all likelihood walk around them whenever possible. On the "farm" level, a proxy on the corner of a building (with ample open space around said building) will almost guaranteed detonate on any alien maneuvering around said corner, as basically whenever I plant those, it either goes off, or I don't get attacked from that area (not that I usually get attacked from there after an alien dies on it anyway). I think the main question here is... what extra effect does one go for when they try to "pin" an alien with proximity grenades ? I suspect there are none whatsoever. [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 18:30, 15 January 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
:::: To correct a mis-throw that fell one tile short? -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 23:49, 15 January 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
::::: I would see that. But I also wouldn't call that "pinning"; that's just a re-throw, even if you choose to throw it on the other side of the alien, unless you do so for whatever advantage pinning might bring. I think we just need to raise our collective [http://www.mspaintadventures.com/ Imagination] to find said advantage. [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 19:45, 20 January 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
:Of course it won't. The first Prox Grenade will destroy the second; that was noted in my first post at the top of this talk page. ;) [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:21, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Would two mines really prevent them from moving? I mean the AI's not that smart and will happily move its own unit into the triggering tiles around an armed mine. <br />
<br />
Using two mines would be wasteful as one would destroy the other. The triggered status of the armed mine apparently sticks around and gets passed onto whatever object that ends up in the slot previously occupied by the mine. In the one executable version of CE it will even carry over to the next mission (unless you exit the game). It's not so bad if it just happens to be the odd corpse that goes pop (or worse, a stunned soldier). However when dangerous objects like large rockets or high explosives just happen to inherit the armed flag, just hope that it's not you that triggers it. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:01, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:The one place where I can see "pinning" as useful is against Chryssalids or Zombies; if you don't have enough firepower to reliably take them out, you might have enough TUs to drop a prox at their feet and kill them in subsequent turn. However, ''will'' a Zombie or Chryssalid actually stand still when on top of a prox? If so, it might come in handy, especially early-game.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 20:01, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::I really doubt that the AI pays any heed to Proximity Grenades. On the rare event I use one, it doesn't even flinch at it. If the AI paid heed to them, it's entirely possible that throwing one outside the door of the UFO would lock all the aliens into the UFO since none of them would want to step on the mine. Also note that deploying a proximity grenade takes 75% max TUs, at minimum. 50% to prime, 25% to throw. You could get off 2 auto bursts with most weapons in that time, and unless your accuracy is absolutely HORRID you should be able to kill most aliens at medium range, provided you have a weapon with appropriate stopping power versus the beastie. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:05, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Eh, I should have figured, the AI indeed does not pay attention to Proximity Grenades. (Just tested it: at their feet, on two sides, makes no difference.) So all talk of "pinning aliens" is complete bunk. Oh well, it would have been fun playing "taunt the Chryssalid". :-) --[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 23:19, 2 June 2008 (PDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Proximity_Grenade&diff=19236Talk:Proximity Grenade2009-01-21T01:45:33Z<p>NightChime: /* Pinning an alien */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Proximity Grenades Vs. Zombies==<br />
<br />
To be blunt, this is an absolutely horrid idea. One, if you have enough TUs to mine the Zombie in(75% TUs from TWO soldiers), you really should just shoot the thing, because with that many TUs you should be able to kill it and the resulting spawn.(Same for any alien, really, unless its early in the game and you've only got peashooters for weaponry). In addition, because the first Proximity Grenade will destroy the second one, what happens if you kill a Zombie with Proximity Grenades is that you spawn an enemy Chryssalid with FULL TUs...'''DURING''' the Alien turn. This can only be described as a tactical nightmare! Again, though, this tactic could work reasonably well in TFTD(barring the objection about TUs). [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 11:06, 16 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Grenade limits==<br />
The game keeps the list of armed prox. grenades in a separate array (possibly for performance reasons). The maximum number of elements in this array is 20, limiting the number of armed grenades to this very number. When you reach the limit, no particular message is shown to say so (the 'grenade activated !' message is even shown, and the quantity1 field is set to 1 too). The grenade however will never detonate. I didn't check if loading a savegame repopulate the list, but if not this is most likely the reason why the armed status is lost when loading a game. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:48, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:From a practical perspective, 20 Proximity Grenades is probably plenty. Given that X-COM can only haul 80 items to the drop site, in order to fill up the array, you'd need to have over 1/4th of your item stock be Prox. Grenades, and I somehow think most people will consider that somewhat impractical/overkill. Still, good to know for reference. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:52, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, it is only for informational purpose. I stumbled across this limitation and thought it might explain the loss of armed state bug. Also it is a limitation on _armed_ grenades so you can bring more, it won't be a problem. I don't see how you could toss that much grenades in one turn and not having any one alien blow itself up with one of it to make more room anyway ;) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:04, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Kinda the point, yeah. In order to encounter the bug, you'd need to deploy 21 armed mines and hope that none were detonated. Or, conversely, have deployed a number of mines equal to 21+detonated mines. I'll add this to Known Bugs. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:06, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
::You may want to do some tests first then, I did not do any here so for now this is 'pure' speculation ;) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:09, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Ooops, thought you'd done the tests. Oh well, I'll do tests after finals and see what I can come up with. Sorry. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:14, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Hehe, I usually 'read' through the code and deduce behaviour. I'm often too lazy to check ^^. I did test the hot grenades patch however [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:17, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::What's this "hot grenades patch"? I'm trying to collect all the available bugfixes... [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:08, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Also from the look of it, only grenades which detonate from proximity contact will free the entry. If they are destroyed with another explosion, they won't and they will pollute the array. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:25, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:The game maintains (actually, I'd say half-maintains since it is a real bug nest...) a list of references to obpos.dat entries for armed prox-mines. When you arm a prox mine, a new entry is added in the list. Each time a unit moves one square, the list is parsed and if the unit is too close to one obpos, it explodes and the entry is removed from the list (Note that no check is performed to test whether the obpos entry in question is a prox-mine or not...). So far so good. However, the developers must have implemented this at the end and not really tested it because it has the following flaws: the list is _never_ initialized at the start of a tactical mission (actually the OS sets it to 0 at process startup but that's another point) so the next mission will still have the list set from the previous mission (with the know "exploding" consequences). A second issue is that an entry is removed from the list only when detonating from proximity contact, so prox-mines destroyed by other explosions are not cleared from the list. Finally, the list is not saved nor recreated when a savegame is made/reloaded (this explains the inactive mines when you reload a game). Since the games uses the 'quantity1' offset to indicate whether a prox-mine has been armed or not, this also explains why when you save/restart/reload a mission, the prox-mine is still not activable (the quantity1 is still set to 1). I don't know if it understandable english, but it's quite late now so I'll leave it as-is... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:23, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Pinning an alien==<br />
Guys, I'm pretty sure the bit about "pinning" aliens with a grenade on either side is pointless, since you can do the same thing with one grenade in the alien's square. Am I missing something? [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:08, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree it's pointless, but I'm trying to convince others of that as well. Similarly, debate is good. Saying "No" comes off as overlording, whereas saying, "I don't think so, because..." is more friendly. Hot Grenades is a patch made by Seb76 that modifies grenades so they detonate regardless of whether they're held in the inventory of a unit. The patch-code is [[Talk:Grenade#Timers|here]], and a downloadable program is at the bottom of [[User:Bomb_Bloke|this page]]. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:44, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::I may not have been clear :) Whether "pinning" is useful or not as a tactic is a matter for debate, certainly, but I'm pretty sure it's a matter of fact that using two grenades will not have any better effect than one in this case. [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:54, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::But wouldn't that be in all cases, not just this one? As mentioned below, I think we're all pretty sure aliens ignore Proxies, so one to the side of the alien won't alter its AI to your liking. And two to the sides will also have the same effect as one on its square; if it moves, a proxy goes off. Can a "direct hit" with a proxy be achieved if the alien walks right onto the grenade? In that case, the only added bonus I could see multiple proxies getting is a higher chance of said direct hit. It may not be conclusive evidence, but if aliens saw proximity grenades, they would in all likelihood walk around them whenever possible. On the "farm" level, a proxy on the corner of a building (with ample open space around said building) will almost guaranteed detonate on any alien maneuvering around said corner, as basically whenever I plant those, it either goes off, or I don't get attacked from that area (not that I usually get attacked from there after an alien dies on it anyway). I think the main question here is... what extra effect does one go for when they try to "pin" an alien with proximity grenades ? I suspect there are none whatsoever. [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 18:30, 15 January 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
:::: To correct a mis-throw that fell one tile short? -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 23:49, 15 January 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
::::: I would see that. But I also wouldn't call that "pinning"; that's just a re-throw, even if you choose to throw it on the other side of the alien, unless you do so for whatever advantage pinning might bring. [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 19:45, 20 January 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
:Of course it won't. The first Prox Grenade will destroy the second; that was noted in my first post at the top of this talk page. ;) [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:21, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Would two mines really prevent them from moving? I mean the AI's not that smart and will happily move its own unit into the triggering tiles around an armed mine. <br />
<br />
Using two mines would be wasteful as one would destroy the other. The triggered status of the armed mine apparently sticks around and gets passed onto whatever object that ends up in the slot previously occupied by the mine. In the one executable version of CE it will even carry over to the next mission (unless you exit the game). It's not so bad if it just happens to be the odd corpse that goes pop (or worse, a stunned soldier). However when dangerous objects like large rockets or high explosives just happen to inherit the armed flag, just hope that it's not you that triggers it. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:01, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:The one place where I can see "pinning" as useful is against Chryssalids or Zombies; if you don't have enough firepower to reliably take them out, you might have enough TUs to drop a prox at their feet and kill them in subsequent turn. However, ''will'' a Zombie or Chryssalid actually stand still when on top of a prox? If so, it might come in handy, especially early-game.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 20:01, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::I really doubt that the AI pays any heed to Proximity Grenades. On the rare event I use one, it doesn't even flinch at it. If the AI paid heed to them, it's entirely possible that throwing one outside the door of the UFO would lock all the aliens into the UFO since none of them would want to step on the mine. Also note that deploying a proximity grenade takes 75% max TUs, at minimum. 50% to prime, 25% to throw. You could get off 2 auto bursts with most weapons in that time, and unless your accuracy is absolutely HORRID you should be able to kill most aliens at medium range, provided you have a weapon with appropriate stopping power versus the beastie. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:05, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Eh, I should have figured, the AI indeed does not pay attention to Proximity Grenades. (Just tested it: at their feet, on two sides, makes no difference.) So all talk of "pinning aliens" is complete bunk. Oh well, it would have been fun playing "taunt the Chryssalid". :-) --[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 23:19, 2 June 2008 (PDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Steam_Versions&diff=19235Talk:Steam Versions2009-01-21T01:41:37Z<p>NightChime: /* Steam Talk */</p>
<hr />
<div>==Steam Talk==<br />
Probably we should create a new page for Steam on this wiki. Also, we could even get support from Valve now and start adding mods onto steam. This would help tremendously, but might remove the original purpose of the game. It will turn it into a easier game, with super heavy lasers (no offense Seb) and the like. This would increase X-COM's rep, but lower its individuality. Still, this is a decision for the Admins to make, certainly not us.<br />
<br />
:I agree we should have a Steam page now but I'm not sure where to put it. Is there a "distributions" or "where to get it?" section? I couldn't find one. It would be good to make all the mods available on Steam. By the way I don't agree the mods make the game easier. Generally they just remove bugs, restore game balance, and improve playability. Seb76 is very aware his Heavy Laser mod is unbalancing, that's why he has kept it in a separate "development" version of his loader.<br />
<br />
:I've been playing TFTD for a few days using the Steam version. To my surprise, TFTD Hack and XComUtil command line both work, once you find the game save files which are under "common" in the Steam install directory. They don't seem to be protected by Steam "anti-cheat", fortunately. I'm not sure if any mods that change the executable will work, however - haven't tried that yet. <br />
<br />
:It's been quite interesting to play TFTD for the first time, unmodded, bugs and all. I suggest that only bugfix-type mods should be distributed with Steam, the tools and cheats should probably stay on this site and others. Also, I think the discussions would need to be with Take Two /2K, as they are the releasers of the games - Valve's Steam is just a channel in this case. <br />
<br />
:Anyway I'm going to start contributing to the TFTD wiki items and also adding notes about any more Steam specifics. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 03:01, 2 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::Spike, I think you were looking for [[Where to Get the Games]], and I agree that listing all known mods there would be advantageous. Personally, I think there should also be an article investigating what changes, if any, were brought to the game with 2K's release. In particular, does the difficulty stay at what you chose, now? It seems to, but it's hard to know without looking under the hood. I do know that they didn't make proximity grenades remember being armed after loading a save. [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 19:41, 20 January 2009 (CST)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Steam_Versions&diff=19234Steam Versions2009-01-21T01:33:05Z<p>NightChime: /* General Notes on Steam Distribution of XCom Series Games */ minor spelling/grammar</p>
<hr />
<div>== General Notes on Steam Distribution of XCom Series Games ==<br />
<br />
Take Two's 2K division is the current owner of all the XCom series of games. <br />
<br />
2K have made the games available via Valve's Steam service, at http://store.steampowered.com . (The exact link is currently on the main page of this UFOPaedia.)<br />
<br />
The cost is $4.99 per game, or the entire collection of 5 games for $14.99. <br />
<br />
In the Steam distribution, the XCom executables and game files are found in e.g. "C:\Program Files\Steam\steamapps\common\x-com terror from the deep\TFD" and "C:\Program Files\Steam\steamapps\common\xcom ufo defense\XCOM". <br />
<br />
XCom 1 (UFO Defense / Enemy Unknown) is the DOS 1.4 version, from strategycore.com.<br />
<br />
XCom 2: Terror From The Deep (TFTD) is also a DOS version, possibly the version sometimes called "TFTD Beta". <br />
<br />
Steam provides anti-cheat functionality to prevent modification of the games distributed via Steam. However this fortunately does not seem to be fully implemented for the XCom series. The game executables are patched to force them to chain to the Steam launcher first, and the Steam launcher chains to a file configured by Steam (in '''runme.dat'''). However the target file can be changed to point to a different target, or the target file can be overwritten (e.g.by the contents of runxcom.bat). <br />
<br />
The game data files themselves can be edited using standard tools such as XCOM Hack / TFTD Hack, and the command line version of XComUtil. The data file changes are then correctly picked up by the game.<br />
<br />
== XComUtil ==<br />
<br />
=== Summary ===<br />
<br />
<br />
XCom 1 works fine. Just edit dosbox.conf autoexec, after you install using xcusetup. The only issue may be problems seeing messages or prompts from runxcom.bat if you opt to use the inter-executable actions such as xcomutil after-combat messages, or autocombat.<br />
<br />
TFTD is now pretty much as described for XCOM 1 (see below for full details).<br />
<br />
=== XCom 1 ===<br />
<br />
<br />
Copy xcomutil files into the "XCOM" subdirectory of the "xcom ufo defense" installation directory. Open a command window in the XCOM subdirectory and run XCUSETUP. It should work normally. <br />
<br />
Then edit the '''autoexec''' section of '''dosbox.conf''', replacing:<br />
<br />
call ufocd.bat<br />
<br />
with<br />
<br />
call runxcom.bat<br />
<br />
Launching XCom 1 from Steam should now provide all the normal RunXCom features. <br />
<br />
There may be issues if runxcom needs user input during the black screen between Battlescape and Geoscape. You will probably be unable to see any messages or prompts. Just hit enter. If that doesn't work, hit ctrl-C. If you want to see what the prompt was, check xcomutil.log. <br />
<br />
<br />
=== TFTD ===<br />
<br />
TFTD is now also distributed on Steam as a DOSBox version, possibly the version identified as "TFTD Beta" which apparently includes some research tree bug fixes. Again, after copying all xcomutil files to the "TFD" (''sic'') sub-directory and running XCUSETUP, edit the '''autoexec''' section of '''dosbox.conf''' and replace "call terror.bat" with "call runxcom.bat".<br />
<br />
=== See Also ===<br />
<br />
[[XcomUtil]]</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=User:NightChime&diff=19233User:NightChime2009-01-21T01:30:22Z<p>NightChime: I've got the Steam release now; I don't play the "original" release anymore</p>
<hr />
<div>Name: Ryan<br />
<br />
Gender: Male<br />
<br />
Born: June 1987<br />
<br />
:I primarily play UFO Defense through Steam's DOSBox release, even though I own a physical CD and independent DOSBox. It's just all set up nicely and everything, and I caught the $5-for-all-the-games deal, so yeah.<br />
<br />
:For a similar DOS game, which is similar to X-COM in awesomeness, I would recommend Syndicate (which I also own a physical copy of) by Bullfrog Productions Ltd.</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Proximity_Grenade&diff=19206Talk:Proximity Grenade2009-01-16T00:34:13Z<p>NightChime: Organized discussion topics</p>
<hr />
<div>==Proximity Grenades Vs. Zombies==<br />
<br />
To be blunt, this is an absolutely horrid idea. One, if you have enough TUs to mine the Zombie in(75% TUs from TWO soldiers), you really should just shoot the thing, because with that many TUs you should be able to kill it and the resulting spawn.(Same for any alien, really, unless its early in the game and you've only got peashooters for weaponry). In addition, because the first Proximity Grenade will destroy the second one, what happens if you kill a Zombie with Proximity Grenades is that you spawn an enemy Chryssalid with FULL TUs...'''DURING''' the Alien turn. This can only be described as a tactical nightmare! Again, though, this tactic could work reasonably well in TFTD(barring the objection about TUs). [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 11:06, 16 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Grenade limits==<br />
The game keeps the list of armed prox. grenades in a separate array (possibly for performance reasons). The maximum number of elements in this array is 20, limiting the number of armed grenades to this very number. When you reach the limit, no particular message is shown to say so (the 'grenade activated !' message is even shown, and the quantity1 field is set to 1 too). The grenade however will never detonate. I didn't check if loading a savegame repopulate the list, but if not this is most likely the reason why the armed status is lost when loading a game. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:48, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:From a practical perspective, 20 Proximity Grenades is probably plenty. Given that X-COM can only haul 80 items to the drop site, in order to fill up the array, you'd need to have over 1/4th of your item stock be Prox. Grenades, and I somehow think most people will consider that somewhat impractical/overkill. Still, good to know for reference. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:52, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, it is only for informational purpose. I stumbled across this limitation and thought it might explain the loss of armed state bug. Also it is a limitation on _armed_ grenades so you can bring more, it won't be a problem. I don't see how you could toss that much grenades in one turn and not having any one alien blow itself up with one of it to make more room anyway ;) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:04, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Kinda the point, yeah. In order to encounter the bug, you'd need to deploy 21 armed mines and hope that none were detonated. Or, conversely, have deployed a number of mines equal to 21+detonated mines. I'll add this to Known Bugs. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:06, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
::You may want to do some tests first then, I did not do any here so for now this is 'pure' speculation ;) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:09, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Ooops, thought you'd done the tests. Oh well, I'll do tests after finals and see what I can come up with. Sorry. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:14, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Hehe, I usually 'read' through the code and deduce behaviour. I'm often too lazy to check ^^. I did test the hot grenades patch however [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:17, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::What's this "hot grenades patch"? I'm trying to collect all the available bugfixes... [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:08, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Also from the look of it, only grenades which detonate from proximity contact will free the entry. If they are destroyed with another explosion, they won't and they will pollute the array. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:25, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:The game maintains (actually, I'd say half-maintains since it is a real bug nest...) a list of references to obpos.dat entries for armed prox-mines. When you arm a prox mine, a new entry is added in the list. Each time a unit moves one square, the list is parsed and if the unit is too close to one obpos, it explodes and the entry is removed from the list (Note that no check is performed to test whether the obpos entry in question is a prox-mine or not...). So far so good. However, the developers must have implemented this at the end and not really tested it because it has the following flaws: the list is _never_ initialized at the start of a tactical mission (actually the OS sets it to 0 at process startup but that's another point) so the next mission will still have the list set from the previous mission (with the know "exploding" consequences). A second issue is that an entry is removed from the list only when detonating from proximity contact, so prox-mines destroyed by other explosions are not cleared from the list. Finally, the list is not saved nor recreated when a savegame is made/reloaded (this explains the inactive mines when you reload a game). Since the games uses the 'quantity1' offset to indicate whether a prox-mine has been armed or not, this also explains why when you save/restart/reload a mission, the prox-mine is still not activable (the quantity1 is still set to 1). I don't know if it understandable english, but it's quite late now so I'll leave it as-is... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:23, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Pinning an alien==<br />
Guys, I'm pretty sure the bit about "pinning" aliens with a grenade on either side is pointless, since you can do the same thing with one grenade in the alien's square. Am I missing something? [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:08, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree it's pointless, but I'm trying to convince others of that as well. Similarly, debate is good. Saying "No" comes off as overlording, whereas saying, "I don't think so, because..." is more friendly. Hot Grenades is a patch made by Seb76 that modifies grenades so they detonate regardless of whether they're held in the inventory of a unit. The patch-code is [[Talk:Grenade#Timers|here]], and a downloadable program is at the bottom of [[User:Bomb_Bloke|this page]]. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:44, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::I may not have been clear :) Whether "pinning" is useful or not as a tactic is a matter for debate, certainly, but I'm pretty sure it's a matter of fact that using two grenades will not have any better effect than one in this case. [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:54, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::But wouldn't that be in all cases, not just this one? As mentioned below, I think we're all pretty sure aliens ignore Proxies, so one to the side of the alien won't alter its AI to your liking. And two to the sides will also have the same effect as one on its square; if it moves, a proxy goes off. Can a "direct hit" with a proxy be achieved if the alien walks right onto the grenade? In that case, the only added bonus I could see multiple proxies getting is a higher chance of said direct hit. It may not be conclusive evidence, but if aliens saw proximity grenades, they would in all likelihood walk around them whenever possible. On the "farm" level, a proxy on the corner of a building (with ample open space around said building) will almost guaranteed detonate on any alien maneuvering around said corner, as basically whenever I plant those, it either goes off, or I don't get attacked from that area (not that I usually get attacked from there after an alien dies on it anyway). I think the main question here is... what extra effect does one go for when they try to "pin" an alien with proximity grenades ? I suspect there are none whatsoever. [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 18:30, 15 January 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
:Of course it won't. The first Prox Grenade will destroy the second; that was noted in my first post at the top of this talk page. ;) [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:21, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Would two mines really prevent them from moving? I mean the AI's not that smart and will happily move its own unit into the triggering tiles around an armed mine. <br />
<br />
Using two mines would be wasteful as one would destroy the other. The triggered status of the armed mine apparently sticks around and gets passed onto whatever object that ends up in the slot previously occupied by the mine. In the one executable version of CE it will even carry over to the next mission (unless you exit the game). It's not so bad if it just happens to be the odd corpse that goes pop (or worse, a stunned soldier). However when dangerous objects like large rockets or high explosives just happen to inherit the armed flag, just hope that it's not you that triggers it. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:01, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:The one place where I can see "pinning" as useful is against Chryssalids or Zombies; if you don't have enough firepower to reliably take them out, you might have enough TUs to drop a prox at their feet and kill them in subsequent turn. However, ''will'' a Zombie or Chryssalid actually stand still when on top of a prox? If so, it might come in handy, especially early-game.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 20:01, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::I really doubt that the AI pays any heed to Proximity Grenades. On the rare event I use one, it doesn't even flinch at it. If the AI paid heed to them, it's entirely possible that throwing one outside the door of the UFO would lock all the aliens into the UFO since none of them would want to step on the mine. Also note that deploying a proximity grenade takes 75% max TUs, at minimum. 50% to prime, 25% to throw. You could get off 2 auto bursts with most weapons in that time, and unless your accuracy is absolutely HORRID you should be able to kill most aliens at medium range, provided you have a weapon with appropriate stopping power versus the beastie. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:05, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Eh, I should have figured, the AI indeed does not pay attention to Proximity Grenades. (Just tested it: at their feet, on two sides, makes no difference.) So all talk of "pinning aliens" is complete bunk. Oh well, it would have been fun playing "taunt the Chryssalid". :-) --[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 23:19, 2 June 2008 (PDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Proximity_Grenade&diff=19205Talk:Proximity Grenade2009-01-16T00:30:11Z<p>NightChime: making a point AND a question</p>
<hr />
<div>==Proximity Grenades Vs. Zombies==<br />
<br />
To be blunt, this is an absolutely horrid idea. One, if you have enough TUs to mine the Zombie in(75% TUs from TWO soldiers), you really should just shoot the thing, because with that many TUs you should be able to kill it and the resulting spawn.(Same for any alien, really, unless its early in the game and you've only got peashooters for weaponry). In addition, because the first Proximity Grenade will destroy the second one, what happens if you kill a Zombie with Proximity Grenades is that you spawn an enemy Chryssalid with FULL TUs...'''DURING''' the Alien turn. This can only be described as a tactical nightmare! Again, though, this tactic could work reasonably well in TFTD(barring the objection about TUs). [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 11:06, 16 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Grenade limits==<br />
The game keeps the list of armed prox. grenades in a separate array (possibly for performance reasons). The maximum number of elements in this array is 20, limiting the number of armed grenades to this very number. When you reach the limit, no particular message is shown to say so (the 'grenade activated !' message is even shown, and the quantity1 field is set to 1 too). The grenade however will never detonate. I didn't check if loading a savegame repopulate the list, but if not this is most likely the reason why the armed status is lost when loading a game. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:48, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:From a practical perspective, 20 Proximity Grenades is probably plenty. Given that X-COM can only haul 80 items to the drop site, in order to fill up the array, you'd need to have over 1/4th of your item stock be Prox. Grenades, and I somehow think most people will consider that somewhat impractical/overkill. Still, good to know for reference. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:52, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, it is only for informational purpose. I stumbled across this limitation and thought it might explain the loss of armed state bug. Also it is a limitation on _armed_ grenades so you can bring more, it won't be a problem. I don't see how you could toss that much grenades in one turn and not having any one alien blow itself up with one of it to make more room anyway ;) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:04, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Kinda the point, yeah. In order to encounter the bug, you'd need to deploy 21 armed mines and hope that none were detonated. Or, conversely, have deployed a number of mines equal to 21+detonated mines. I'll add this to Known Bugs. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:06, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
::You may want to do some tests first then, I did not do any here so for now this is 'pure' speculation ;) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:09, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Ooops, thought you'd done the tests. Oh well, I'll do tests after finals and see what I can come up with. Sorry. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:14, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Hehe, I usually 'read' through the code and deduce behaviour. I'm often too lazy to check ^^. I did test the hot grenades patch however [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:17, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::What's this "hot grenades patch"? I'm trying to collect all the available bugfixes... [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:08, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Also from the look of it, only grenades which detonate from proximity contact will free the entry. If they are destroyed with another explosion, they won't and they will pollute the array. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:25, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Guys, I'm pretty sure the bit about "pinning" aliens with a grenade on either side is pointless, since you can do the same thing with one grenade in the alien's square. Am I missing something? [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:08, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree it's pointless, but I'm trying to convince others of that as well. Similarly, debate is good. Saying "No" comes off as overlording, whereas saying, "I don't think so, because..." is more friendly. Hot Grenades is a patch made by Seb76 that modifies grenades so they detonate regardless of whether they're held in the inventory of a unit. The patch-code is [[Talk:Grenade#Timers|here]], and a downloadable program is at the bottom of [[User:Bomb_Bloke|this page]]. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:44, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::I may not have been clear :) Whether "pinning" is useful or not as a tactic is a matter for debate, certainly, but I'm pretty sure it's a matter of fact that using two grenades will not have any better effect than one in this case. [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:54, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::But wouldn't that be in all cases, not just this one? As mentioned below, I think we're all pretty sure aliens ignore Proxies, so one to the side of the alien won't alter its AI to your liking. And two to the sides will also have the same effect as one on its square; if it moves, a proxy goes off. Can a "direct hit" with a proxy be achieved if the alien walks right onto the grenade? In that case, the only added bonus I could see multiple proxies getting is a higher chance of said direct hit. It may not be conclusive evidence, but if aliens saw proximity grenades, they would in all likelihood walk around them whenever possible. On the "farm" level, a proxy on the corner of a building (with ample open space around said building) will almost guaranteed detonate on any alien maneuvering around said corner, as basically whenever I plant those, it either goes off, or I don't get attacked from that area (not that I usually get attacked from there after an alien dies on it anyway). I think the main question here is... what extra effect does one go for when they try to "pin" an alien with proximity grenades ? I suspect there are none whatsoever. [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 18:30, 15 January 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
:Of course it won't. The first Prox Grenade will destroy the second; that was noted in my first post at the top of this talk page. ;) [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:21, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Would two mines really prevent them from moving? I mean the AI's not that smart and will happily move its own unit into the triggering tiles around an armed mine. <br />
<br />
Using two mines would be wasteful as one would destroy the other. The triggered status of the armed mine apparently sticks around and gets passed onto whatever object that ends up in the slot previously occupied by the mine. In the one executable version of CE it will even carry over to the next mission (unless you exit the game). It's not so bad if it just happens to be the odd corpse that goes pop (or worse, a stunned soldier). However when dangerous objects like large rockets or high explosives just happen to inherit the armed flag, just hope that it's not you that triggers it. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:01, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:The one place where I can see "pinning" as useful is against Chryssalids or Zombies; if you don't have enough firepower to reliably take them out, you might have enough TUs to drop a prox at their feet and kill them in subsequent turn. However, ''will'' a Zombie or Chryssalid actually stand still when on top of a prox? If so, it might come in handy, especially early-game.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 20:01, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::I really doubt that the AI pays any heed to Proximity Grenades. On the rare event I use one, it doesn't even flinch at it. If the AI paid heed to them, it's entirely possible that throwing one outside the door of the UFO would lock all the aliens into the UFO since none of them would want to step on the mine. Also note that deploying a proximity grenade takes 75% max TUs, at minimum. 50% to prime, 25% to throw. You could get off 2 auto bursts with most weapons in that time, and unless your accuracy is absolutely HORRID you should be able to kill most aliens at medium range, provided you have a weapon with appropriate stopping power versus the beastie. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:05, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Eh, I should have figured, the AI indeed does not pay attention to Proximity Grenades. (Just tested it: at their feet, on two sides, makes no difference.) So all talk of "pinning aliens" is complete bunk. Oh well, it would have been fun playing "taunt the Chryssalid". :-) --[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 23:19, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:The game maintains (actually, I'd say half-maintains since it is a real bug nest...) a list of references to obpos.dat entries for armed prox-mines. When you arm a prox mine, a new entry is added in the list. Each time a unit moves one square, the list is parsed and if the unit is too close to one obpos, it explodes and the entry is removed from the list (Note that no check is performed to test whether the obpos entry in question is a prox-mine or not...). So far so good. However, the developers must have implemented this at the end and not really tested it because it has the following flaws: the list is _never_ initialized at the start of a tactical mission (actually the OS sets it to 0 at process startup but that's another point) so the next mission will still have the list set from the previous mission (with the know "exploding" consequences). A second issue is that an entry is removed from the list only when detonating from proximity contact, so prox-mines destroyed by other explosions are not cleared from the list. Finally, the list is not saved nor recreated when a savegame is made/reloaded (this explains the inactive mines when you reload a game). Since the games uses the 'quantity1' offset to indicate whether a prox-mine has been armed or not, this also explains why when you save/restart/reload a mission, the prox-mine is still not activable (the quantity1 is still set to 1). I don't know if it understandable english, but it's quite late now so I'll leave it as-is... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:23, 2 June 2008 (PDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Proximity_Grenade&diff=19204Talk:Proximity Grenade2009-01-16T00:27:14Z<p>NightChime: "room for debate" is too modest; aliens ignore the ground</p>
<hr />
<div>==Proximity Grenades Vs. Zombies==<br />
<br />
To be blunt, this is an absolutely horrid idea. One, if you have enough TUs to mine the Zombie in(75% TUs from TWO soldiers), you really should just shoot the thing, because with that many TUs you should be able to kill it and the resulting spawn.(Same for any alien, really, unless its early in the game and you've only got peashooters for weaponry). In addition, because the first Proximity Grenade will destroy the second one, what happens if you kill a Zombie with Proximity Grenades is that you spawn an enemy Chryssalid with FULL TUs...'''DURING''' the Alien turn. This can only be described as a tactical nightmare! Again, though, this tactic could work reasonably well in TFTD(barring the objection about TUs). [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 11:06, 16 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Grenade limits==<br />
The game keeps the list of armed prox. grenades in a separate array (possibly for performance reasons). The maximum number of elements in this array is 20, limiting the number of armed grenades to this very number. When you reach the limit, no particular message is shown to say so (the 'grenade activated !' message is even shown, and the quantity1 field is set to 1 too). The grenade however will never detonate. I didn't check if loading a savegame repopulate the list, but if not this is most likely the reason why the armed status is lost when loading a game. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:48, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:From a practical perspective, 20 Proximity Grenades is probably plenty. Given that X-COM can only haul 80 items to the drop site, in order to fill up the array, you'd need to have over 1/4th of your item stock be Prox. Grenades, and I somehow think most people will consider that somewhat impractical/overkill. Still, good to know for reference. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:52, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, it is only for informational purpose. I stumbled across this limitation and thought it might explain the loss of armed state bug. Also it is a limitation on _armed_ grenades so you can bring more, it won't be a problem. I don't see how you could toss that much grenades in one turn and not having any one alien blow itself up with one of it to make more room anyway ;) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:04, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Kinda the point, yeah. In order to encounter the bug, you'd need to deploy 21 armed mines and hope that none were detonated. Or, conversely, have deployed a number of mines equal to 21+detonated mines. I'll add this to Known Bugs. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:06, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
::You may want to do some tests first then, I did not do any here so for now this is 'pure' speculation ;) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:09, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Ooops, thought you'd done the tests. Oh well, I'll do tests after finals and see what I can come up with. Sorry. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:14, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Hehe, I usually 'read' through the code and deduce behaviour. I'm often too lazy to check ^^. I did test the hot grenades patch however [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:17, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::What's this "hot grenades patch"? I'm trying to collect all the available bugfixes... [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:08, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Also from the look of it, only grenades which detonate from proximity contact will free the entry. If they are destroyed with another explosion, they won't and they will pollute the array. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:25, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Guys, I'm pretty sure the bit about "pinning" aliens with a grenade on either side is pointless, since you can do the same thing with one grenade in the alien's square. Am I missing something? [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:08, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree it's pointless, but I'm trying to convince others of that as well. Similarly, debate is good. Saying "No" comes off as overlording, whereas saying, "I don't think so, because..." is more friendly. Hot Grenades is a patch made by Seb76 that modifies grenades so they detonate regardless of whether they're held in the inventory of a unit. The patch-code is [[Talk:Grenade#Timers|here]], and a downloadable program is at the bottom of [[User:Bomb_Bloke|this page]]. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:44, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::I may not have been clear :) Whether "pinning" is useful or not as a tactic is a matter for debate, certainly, but I'm pretty sure it's a matter of fact that using two grenades will not have any better effect than one in this case. [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:54, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::But wouldn't that be in all cases, not just this one? As mentioned below, I think we're all pretty sure aliens ignore Proxies, so one to the side of the alien won't alter its AI to your liking. And two to the sides will also have the same effect as one on its square; if it moves, a proxy goes off. Can a "direct hit" with a proxy be achieved if the alien walks right onto the grenade? In that case, the only added bonus I could see multiple proxies getting is a higher chance of said direct hit. It may not be conclusive evidence, but if aliens saw proximity grenades, they would in all likelihood walk around them whenever possible. On the "farm" level, a proxy on the corner of a building (with ample open space around said building) will almost guaranteed detonate on any alien maneuvering around said corner, as basically whenever I plant those, it either goes off, or I don't get attacked from that area (not that I usually get attacked from there after an alien dies on it anyway). [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 18:27, 15 January 2009 (CST)<br />
<br />
:Of course it won't. The first Prox Grenade will destroy the second; that was noted in my first post at the top of this talk page. ;) [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:21, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Would two mines really prevent them from moving? I mean the AI's not that smart and will happily move its own unit into the triggering tiles around an armed mine. <br />
<br />
Using two mines would be wasteful as one would destroy the other. The triggered status of the armed mine apparently sticks around and gets passed onto whatever object that ends up in the slot previously occupied by the mine. In the one executable version of CE it will even carry over to the next mission (unless you exit the game). It's not so bad if it just happens to be the odd corpse that goes pop (or worse, a stunned soldier). However when dangerous objects like large rockets or high explosives just happen to inherit the armed flag, just hope that it's not you that triggers it. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:01, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:The one place where I can see "pinning" as useful is against Chryssalids or Zombies; if you don't have enough firepower to reliably take them out, you might have enough TUs to drop a prox at their feet and kill them in subsequent turn. However, ''will'' a Zombie or Chryssalid actually stand still when on top of a prox? If so, it might come in handy, especially early-game.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 20:01, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::I really doubt that the AI pays any heed to Proximity Grenades. On the rare event I use one, it doesn't even flinch at it. If the AI paid heed to them, it's entirely possible that throwing one outside the door of the UFO would lock all the aliens into the UFO since none of them would want to step on the mine. Also note that deploying a proximity grenade takes 75% max TUs, at minimum. 50% to prime, 25% to throw. You could get off 2 auto bursts with most weapons in that time, and unless your accuracy is absolutely HORRID you should be able to kill most aliens at medium range, provided you have a weapon with appropriate stopping power versus the beastie. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:05, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Eh, I should have figured, the AI indeed does not pay attention to Proximity Grenades. (Just tested it: at their feet, on two sides, makes no difference.) So all talk of "pinning aliens" is complete bunk. Oh well, it would have been fun playing "taunt the Chryssalid". :-) --[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 23:19, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:The game maintains (actually, I'd say half-maintains since it is a real bug nest...) a list of references to obpos.dat entries for armed prox-mines. When you arm a prox mine, a new entry is added in the list. Each time a unit moves one square, the list is parsed and if the unit is too close to one obpos, it explodes and the entry is removed from the list (Note that no check is performed to test whether the obpos entry in question is a prox-mine or not...). So far so good. However, the developers must have implemented this at the end and not really tested it because it has the following flaws: the list is _never_ initialized at the start of a tactical mission (actually the OS sets it to 0 at process startup but that's another point) so the next mission will still have the list set from the previous mission (with the know "exploding" consequences). A second issue is that an entry is removed from the list only when detonating from proximity contact, so prox-mines destroyed by other explosions are not cleared from the list. Finally, the list is not saved nor recreated when a savegame is made/reloaded (this explains the inactive mines when you reload a game). Since the games uses the 'quantity1' offset to indicate whether a prox-mine has been armed or not, this also explains why when you save/restart/reload a mission, the prox-mine is still not activable (the quantity1 is still set to 1). I don't know if it understandable english, but it's quite late now so I'll leave it as-is... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:23, 2 June 2008 (PDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Proximity_Grenade&diff=19203Talk:Proximity Grenade2009-01-16T00:09:45Z<p>NightChime: didn't notice a discussion within, moving.</p>
<hr />
<div>==Proximity Grenades Vs. Zombies==<br />
<br />
To be blunt, this is an absolutely horrid idea. One, if you have enough TUs to mine the Zombie in(75% TUs from TWO soldiers), you really should just shoot the thing, because with that many TUs you should be able to kill it and the resulting spawn.(Same for any alien, really, unless its early in the game and you've only got peashooters for weaponry). In addition, because the first Proximity Grenade will destroy the second one, what happens if you kill a Zombie with Proximity Grenades is that you spawn an enemy Chryssalid with FULL TUs...'''DURING''' the Alien turn. This can only be described as a tactical nightmare! Again, though, this tactic could work reasonably well in TFTD(barring the objection about TUs). [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 11:06, 16 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Grenade limits==<br />
The game keeps the list of armed prox. grenades in a separate array (possibly for performance reasons). The maximum number of elements in this array is 20, limiting the number of armed grenades to this very number. When you reach the limit, no particular message is shown to say so (the 'grenade activated !' message is even shown, and the quantity1 field is set to 1 too). The grenade however will never detonate. I didn't check if loading a savegame repopulate the list, but if not this is most likely the reason why the armed status is lost when loading a game. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:48, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:From a practical perspective, 20 Proximity Grenades is probably plenty. Given that X-COM can only haul 80 items to the drop site, in order to fill up the array, you'd need to have over 1/4th of your item stock be Prox. Grenades, and I somehow think most people will consider that somewhat impractical/overkill. Still, good to know for reference. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:52, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, it is only for informational purpose. I stumbled across this limitation and thought it might explain the loss of armed state bug. Also it is a limitation on _armed_ grenades so you can bring more, it won't be a problem. I don't see how you could toss that much grenades in one turn and not having any one alien blow itself up with one of it to make more room anyway ;) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:04, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Kinda the point, yeah. In order to encounter the bug, you'd need to deploy 21 armed mines and hope that none were detonated. Or, conversely, have deployed a number of mines equal to 21+detonated mines. I'll add this to Known Bugs. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:06, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
::You may want to do some tests first then, I did not do any here so for now this is 'pure' speculation ;) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:09, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Ooops, thought you'd done the tests. Oh well, I'll do tests after finals and see what I can come up with. Sorry. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:14, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Hehe, I usually 'read' through the code and deduce behaviour. I'm often too lazy to check ^^. I did test the hot grenades patch however [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:17, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::What's this "hot grenades patch"? I'm trying to collect all the available bugfixes... [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:08, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Also from the look of it, only grenades which detonate from proximity contact will free the entry. If they are destroyed with another explosion, they won't and they will pollute the array. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:25, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Guys, I'm pretty sure the bit about "pinning" aliens with a grenade on either side is pointless, since you can do the same thing with one grenade in the alien's square. Am I missing something? [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:08, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree it's pointless, but I'm trying to convince others of that as well. Similarly, debate is good. Saying "No" comes off as overlording, whereas saying, "I don't think so, because..." is more friendly. Hot Grenades is a patch made by Seb76 that modifies grenades so they detonate regardless of whether they're held in the inventory of a unit. The patch-code is [[Talk:Grenade#Timers|here]], and a downloadable program is at the bottom of [[User:Bomb_Bloke|this page]]. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:44, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::I may not have been clear :) Whether "pinning" is useful or not as a tactic is a matter for debate, certainly, but I'm pretty sure it's a matter of fact that using two grenades will not have any better effect than one in this case. [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:54, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Of course it won't. The first Prox Grenade will destroy the second; that was noted in my first post at the top of this talk page. ;) [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:21, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Would two mines really prevent them from moving? I mean the AI's not that smart and will happily move its own unit into the triggering tiles around an armed mine. <br />
<br />
Using two mines would be wasteful as one would destroy the other. The triggered status of the armed mine apparently sticks around and gets passed onto whatever object that ends up in the slot previously occupied by the mine. In the one executable version of CE it will even carry over to the next mission (unless you exit the game). It's not so bad if it just happens to be the odd corpse that goes pop (or worse, a stunned soldier). However when dangerous objects like large rockets or high explosives just happen to inherit the armed flag, just hope that it's not you that triggers it. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:01, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:The one place where I can see "pinning" as useful is against Chryssalids or Zombies; if you don't have enough firepower to reliably take them out, you might have enough TUs to drop a prox at their feet and kill them in subsequent turn. However, ''will'' a Zombie or Chryssalid actually stand still when on top of a prox? If so, it might come in handy, especially early-game.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 20:01, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::I really doubt that the AI pays any heed to Proximity Grenades. On the rare event I use one, it doesn't even flinch at it. If the AI paid heed to them, it's entirely possible that throwing one outside the door of the UFO would lock all the aliens into the UFO since none of them would want to step on the mine. Also note that deploying a proximity grenade takes 75% max TUs, at minimum. 50% to prime, 25% to throw. You could get off 2 auto bursts with most weapons in that time, and unless your accuracy is absolutely HORRID you should be able to kill most aliens at medium range, provided you have a weapon with appropriate stopping power versus the beastie. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:05, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Eh, I should have figured, the AI indeed does not pay attention to Proximity Grenades. (Just tested it: at their feet, on two sides, makes no difference.) So all talk of "pinning aliens" is complete bunk. Oh well, it would have been fun playing "taunt the Chryssalid". :-) --[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 23:19, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:The game maintains (actually, I'd say half-maintains since it is a real bug nest...) a list of references to obpos.dat entries for armed prox-mines. When you arm a prox mine, a new entry is added in the list. Each time a unit moves one square, the list is parsed and if the unit is too close to one obpos, it explodes and the entry is removed from the list (Note that no check is performed to test whether the obpos entry in question is a prox-mine or not...). So far so good. However, the developers must have implemented this at the end and not really tested it because it has the following flaws: the list is _never_ initialized at the start of a tactical mission (actually the OS sets it to 0 at process startup but that's another point) so the next mission will still have the list set from the previous mission (with the know "exploding" consequences). A second issue is that an entry is removed from the list only when detonating from proximity contact, so prox-mines destroyed by other explosions are not cleared from the list. Finally, the list is not saved nor recreated when a savegame is made/reloaded (this explains the inactive mines when you reload a game). Since the games uses the 'quantity1' offset to indicate whether a prox-mine has been armed or not, this also explains why when you save/restart/reload a mission, the prox-mine is still not activable (the quantity1 is still set to 1). I don't know if it understandable english, but it's quite late now so I'll leave it as-is... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:23, 2 June 2008 (PDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Proximity_Grenade&diff=19201Talk:Proximity Grenade2009-01-15T21:28:49Z<p>NightChime: New section: "Cornering" an alien</p>
<hr />
<div>==Proximity Grenades Vs. Zombies==<br />
<br />
To be blunt, this is an absolutely horrid idea. One, if you have enough TUs to mine the Zombie in(75% TUs from TWO soldiers), you really should just shoot the thing, because with that many TUs you should be able to kill it and the resulting spawn.(Same for any alien, really, unless its early in the game and you've only got peashooters for weaponry). In addition, because the first Proximity Grenade will destroy the second one, what happens if you kill a Zombie with Proximity Grenades is that you spawn an enemy Chryssalid with FULL TUs...'''DURING''' the Alien turn. This can only be described as a tactical nightmare! Again, though, this tactic could work reasonably well in TFTD(barring the objection about TUs). [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 11:06, 16 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Grenade limits==<br />
The game keeps the list of armed prox. grenades in a separate array (possibly for performance reasons). The maximum number of elements in this array is 20, limiting the number of armed grenades to this very number. When you reach the limit, no particular message is shown to say so (the 'grenade activated !' message is even shown, and the quantity1 field is set to 1 too). The grenade however will never detonate. I didn't check if loading a savegame repopulate the list, but if not this is most likely the reason why the armed status is lost when loading a game. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 16:48, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:From a practical perspective, 20 Proximity Grenades is probably plenty. Given that X-COM can only haul 80 items to the drop site, in order to fill up the array, you'd need to have over 1/4th of your item stock be Prox. Grenades, and I somehow think most people will consider that somewhat impractical/overkill. Still, good to know for reference. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:52, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, it is only for informational purpose. I stumbled across this limitation and thought it might explain the loss of armed state bug. Also it is a limitation on _armed_ grenades so you can bring more, it won't be a problem. I don't see how you could toss that much grenades in one turn and not having any one alien blow itself up with one of it to make more room anyway ;) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:04, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Kinda the point, yeah. In order to encounter the bug, you'd need to deploy 21 armed mines and hope that none were detonated. Or, conversely, have deployed a number of mines equal to 21+detonated mines. I'll add this to Known Bugs. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:06, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
::You may want to do some tests first then, I did not do any here so for now this is 'pure' speculation ;) [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:09, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Ooops, thought you'd done the tests. Oh well, I'll do tests after finals and see what I can come up with. Sorry. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:14, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Hehe, I usually 'read' through the code and deduce behaviour. I'm often too lazy to check ^^. I did test the hot grenades patch however [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:17, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
:::What's this "hot grenades patch"? I'm trying to collect all the available bugfixes... [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:08, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
::Also from the look of it, only grenades which detonate from proximity contact will free the entry. If they are destroyed with another explosion, they won't and they will pollute the array. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:25, 18 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Guys, I'm pretty sure the bit about "pinning" aliens with a grenade on either side is pointless, since you can do the same thing with one grenade in the alien's square. Am I missing something? [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:08, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree it's pointless, but I'm trying to convince others of that as well. Similarly, debate is good. Saying "No" comes off as overlording, whereas saying, "I don't think so, because..." is more friendly. Hot Grenades is a patch made by Seb76 that modifies grenades so they detonate regardless of whether they're held in the inventory of a unit. The patch-code is [[Talk:Grenade#Timers|here]], and a downloadable program is at the bottom of [[User:Bomb_Bloke|this page]]. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:44, 1 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::I may not have been clear :) Whether "pinning" is useful or not as a tactic is a matter for debate, certainly, but I'm pretty sure it's a matter of fact that using two grenades will not have any better effect than one in this case. [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 16:54, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:Of course it won't. The first Prox Grenade will destroy the second; that was noted in my first post at the top of this talk page. ;) [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:21, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Would two mines really prevent them from moving? I mean the AI's not that smart and will happily move its own unit into the triggering tiles around an armed mine. <br />
<br />
Using two mines would be wasteful as one would destroy the other. The triggered status of the armed mine apparently sticks around and gets passed onto whatever object that ends up in the slot previously occupied by the mine. In the one executable version of CE it will even carry over to the next mission (unless you exit the game). It's not so bad if it just happens to be the odd corpse that goes pop (or worse, a stunned soldier). However when dangerous objects like large rockets or high explosives just happen to inherit the armed flag, just hope that it's not you that triggers it. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:01, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:The one place where I can see "pinning" as useful is against Chryssalids or Zombies; if you don't have enough firepower to reliably take them out, you might have enough TUs to drop a prox at their feet and kill them in subsequent turn. However, ''will'' a Zombie or Chryssalid actually stand still when on top of a prox? If so, it might come in handy, especially early-game.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 20:01, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::I really doubt that the AI pays any heed to Proximity Grenades. On the rare event I use one, it doesn't even flinch at it. If the AI paid heed to them, it's entirely possible that throwing one outside the door of the UFO would lock all the aliens into the UFO since none of them would want to step on the mine. Also note that deploying a proximity grenade takes 75% max TUs, at minimum. 50% to prime, 25% to throw. You could get off 2 auto bursts with most weapons in that time, and unless your accuracy is absolutely HORRID you should be able to kill most aliens at medium range, provided you have a weapon with appropriate stopping power versus the beastie. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 20:05, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:::Eh, I should have figured, the AI indeed does not pay attention to Proximity Grenades. (Just tested it: at their feet, on two sides, makes no difference.) So all talk of "pinning aliens" is complete bunk. Oh well, it would have been fun playing "taunt the Chryssalid". :-) --[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 23:19, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:The game maintains (actually, I'd say half-maintains since it is a real bug nest...) a list of references to obpos.dat entries for armed prox-mines. When you arm a prox mine, a new entry is added in the list. Each time a unit moves one square, the list is parsed and if the unit is too close to one obpos, it explodes and the entry is removed from the list (Note that no check is performed to test whether the obpos entry in question is a prox-mine or not...). So far so good. However, the developers must have implemented this at the end and not really tested it because it has the following flaws: the list is _never_ initialized at the start of a tactical mission (actually the OS sets it to 0 at process startup but that's another point) so the next mission will still have the list set from the previous mission (with the know "exploding" consequences). A second issue is that an entry is removed from the list only when detonating from proximity contact, so prox-mines destroyed by other explosions are not cleared from the list. Finally, the list is not saved nor recreated when a savegame is made/reloaded (this explains the inactive mines when you reload a game). Since the games uses the 'quantity1' offset to indicate whether a prox-mine has been armed or not, this also explains why when you save/restart/reload a mission, the prox-mine is still not activable (the quantity1 is still set to 1). I don't know if it understandable english, but it's quite late now so I'll leave it as-is... [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 17:23, 2 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== "Cornering" an alien ==<br />
<br />
I've frequently seen talk of surrounding an alien with PGs to prevent it from moving, but all you need is one at their feet; aliens don't know how to pick things up, and any horizontal movement while standing on a PG sets it off (I foolishly dropped one and tried to walk away once). If you miss, of course it could be a good idea to throw a second, but that's a bit of a given. A little side-note, one fun thing PGs could do is have a delayed arm (set just like the other grenades), so you COULD just drop it. [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 15:28, 15 January 2009 (CST)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=19183Talk:Main Page2009-01-12T09:53:37Z<p>NightChime: </p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Site TODOS == <br />
A general dump of to-dos or maybe not-do's. Add any where appropriate: <br />
<br />
* Template navigation toolbars for subsections. (Some tests have started)<br />
* Strategy by terrain notes? <br />
* Mention of bug where unit gets stuck in the corner of the map<br />
* Mention of bug where you reload a battlescape mission only to be on an invalid level and how to recover from it (use OHMap, go back down to legal level, click until you find the map again, save the game). Often happens after editting the game, strangely enough. Is it possible the game stores map camera coordinates as a file checksum or somesuch? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Discussion/talk page proposed format ==<br />
Ok folks, we all seem to have our own ways of adding comments to a discussion page. The way it stands now, it becomes really difficult to follow a discussion when it is broken apart with different formats. What I suggest is this: when you leave a comment use a horizontal line to separate your post from the one(s) above it. In this manner, everything is left justified and the comments are separated. The reason why I do not support the colon as comment separation is that as the discussion progresses you are going to be adding more and more just to get the indenting correct. It also makes it confusing. Another side effect is that once you have a lot of colons present it pushes the text off the page itself and forces a scroll to the right to view. That isn't good.<br />
<br />
I suppose if we really want to use colons as separators, we could alternate the use. If a comment is indented above yours, do nothing. If a comment is not indented, use a colon for your submission. Still, the constant zig-zagging isn't really the best idea either.<br />
<br />
My vote is therefore to stick with the horizontal line (four dashes). If the discussion veers way off course, or if you have a couple questions/comments, break it apart into different headings. And always sign your post too as that makes it easier to follow.<br />
<br />
Discuss.--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:46, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Works for me, Zombie. Another problem with indentation is that one isn't necessarily addressing only the previous comment, but it could be about the previous one, and tying together things that are 4, 6, ''and'' 12 entries back. Colons are fine for quick rejoinders, but not as a requirement. A potential alternative is to leave two blank lines, as I just did after your sig. This is a fairly clear delineator for folks scanning quickly. However, the horizontal separator is more clear, in general. So I guess I'd vote for the hor-sep for all except quick comments thrown in, which can use colons. And anything that's a new topic or big break should get a new topic, using = signs. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I've reformatted [[Talk:Exploits#Extra_Ammo_Exploit]] to demonstrate how the indentation style ''can'' work, if done consistently. I think it's somewhat better than the line-separator style for very long discussions, making the structure a little clearer. However, if it's sometimes-used and sometimes-not things get messy, as you've noticed.<br />
<br />
I'll codify the rules right here (surprisingly, they're not well-codified on Wikipedia itself, despite the fact that it's used quite consistently throughout the site):<br />
<br />
*Add an indent for each reply<br />
*Reuse your prior level of indentation if it's a back and forth:<br />
<br />
First person's comment<br />
<br />
:Second person's comment<br />
<br />
::Third person's comment<br />
<br />
:Second person again<br />
<br />
::Third person again<br />
<br />
::Third person's afterthought<br />
<br />
:Second person again<br />
<br />
::First person jumping back in<br />
<br />
:::Third person once more<br />
<br />
::First person again<br />
<br />
*If you get to 5 or 6 indents, just "reset" (start without indents for the next reply).<br />
*If you have an addendum to your own comments, use the same indent level and re-sign.<br />
*If somebody doesn't know/doesn't use the right indent level, fix it when adding your next reply so the rules become clear during the course of conversation.<br />
*Likewise, if someone adds a new comment to the top or fails to add a heading when starting a new subject, fix it when replying.<br />
<br />
The problem we've had lately is the mixing of styles, neither being used correctly. So far it seems that myself, Sf, and NKF have been using indents, you (Zombie) and Mike favoring dashes, and most newcomers failing to use either. No clear winner just yet. ;-)<br />
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 23:56, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:What if you're addressing several and various issues raised before, not just a comment on the previous statement? (And it runs on for four or six paragraphs?) - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 00:14, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::If you're consolidating a bunch of replies to several earlier points, that's a good time to reset the indent.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 01:07, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::: Works for me, Eth - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 16:47, 9 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== British vs. American spelling ==<br />
<br />
Summary: Use which ever convention you want. It does not matter as long as you do not get into petty spelling convention battles. <br />
<br />
== XCOM Box Art ==<br />
<br />
Someone (NKF? Danial?) once asked if anybody could scan XCOM's box art, so that they might e.g. put a better graphic on the main page. I just uploaded a 300 dpi scan of all four sides as [[Media:XCOM_UFO_Defense_DOS_US_Box_Art.zip]] (3.2 MB). The box is not in mint condition (see the ReadMe), but a little tweaking by somebody with skillz (Danial) could easily spruce it up. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:05, 19 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: Was it me? Hmm. Can't remember. I did think to just grab the cover for the PDF version of the X-Com Player's Handbook (US version - with the Mars/Super Avenger cover), but it's black and white. Could've sworn I've seen a copy in colour somewhere. Not that sepia version wouldn't look great though! <br />
: Oh hang on, I don't think it was for the front page graphic in particular, but we did want to get various versions of the box art for the various games. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
NKF - or anybody - can we consider replacing the current main page art, with the XCOM box art? Or a portion of it. I loved the game's intro and in-game "cartoon art", but why not use the game's best image, for our primary Main Page image? (Is there somebody with skills that can clean it up quickly? I'm happy to, but I'm no pics wizard.)<br />
<br />
[[image:XcomScExample.png|thumb|100px|One of many possible screencaps]]Related to this, I think it would be a nice touch if anyone put a bunch of selected and/or random screen captures (screencaps) onto a page, with a link just "under" (i.e., indented under the Main Page entry for) [[Info|About X-COM: UFO Defense]]...<br />
<br />
:I have a sneaking suspicion that we get a ton of lurkers (someone who is there but never speaks) who once played X-COM and came across our page by chance, and would like to relive it, if even for a few screencaps... yet as it is now, our site is becoming more of an in-depth encyclopedia, instead of a "you were once here" kind of place. All us hard core players gravitate toward the encyclopedia - but even if folks who once played it don't stay, if they say, "wow, I remember doing all that" based on a stack of screenshots, that would be good. I'm thinking of easy sections that are light on text (and no Ufopaedia info), but heavy on thumbnails and click-on screencaps (see the image to the right - I love that financier in the background) like:<br />
:*My first base - Decisions <br />
:*The Globe - Radar alert! <br />
:*First contact! Small farm in Iowa, USA <br />
:*Managing Research <br />
:*Terror in Sydney! ''(include zombies - squad wiped out - see next)''<br />
:*Headline: World Council generally supports X-COM efforts - subheadline - Australia may now be under the control of aliens ''(funding results for a month)''<br />
:*Headline: X-COM squad impacted by "Blaster bomb" - the world cries (before and after pix) <br />
:*The tricky depths of a Battleship <br />
:*Elite squad Mind Controls all aliens <br />
:*Final showdown: Cydonia <br />
:Each of the sections above might have 1-5 images. Something like that.<br />
<br />
:If no one objects, can I ask that anyone who is willing to do it, make a bunch of screencaps, using .pngs and thumbnails as shown above. Then lurkers can "remember the days" right up front. And a few more lurkers than currently breeze through, might stay.<br />
<br />
:To put this in context, CNN recently had a number of articles admiring Commodore 64s (one of them [http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/12/07/c64/index.html?iref=newssearch here]). X-COM is like that, to me... it lives past its "life expectancy" to gamers, because of how well put together it was, especially including how much it hit you in the gut.<br />
<br />
In summary, then. I have one question for us XCOM hardcore (can we change the Main Page image) and one for everybody (want to post a lot of screencaps?). I have made a stub page for the screencaps page. I'll retract it if the hardcore object or there's no response in a couple of months' time. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:44, 14 December 2007 (PST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm perfectly fine with getting the main title changed. Get a few more ayes and we'll make it so. <br />
<br />
A screencap section would be nice. I'm quite partial to creating screencap mini-comics (no, not real comics. Just sequential before/during/after images), although I never use them and they just get deleted in the end. <br />
<br />
One benefit is that some of the shots can also be recycled throughout the rest of the site to illustrate certain things. Or for an article that's no more than a solid block of text, something to break up the monotony. I'm also always for a few well placed humorous shots. <br />
<br />
-[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:02, 15 December 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:Sounds good, NKF. There could easily be a "comics" page link several ways: <br />
::1) The new Main Page entry indented under [[Info|About X-COM: UFO Defense]] could also have a link to a comics page, but on the screenshot page itself,<br />
::2) That same new entry on the Main Page could read something like "[[Screenshots]] - and [[Comics]]!" The concept of the screenshots page is to help folks relive the past. And something just as good as screenshots - or better - is screenshots with humor.<br />
::3) Or, make a link for it, all by itself, somewhere obvious on the Main Page.<br />
:I think it's a great idea! <br />
:As for the other idea - you said you're fine re: changing the main title. But it's the graphic at the top of the Main Page that I'm talking about. Just to make sure we're clear on that. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 17:21, 21 December 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Favicon ==<br />
<br />
Does the UFOpaedia have a favicon? -- [[User:NinthRank|NinthRank]] 17:51, 6 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:We did have it at one time but I think it disappeared after an upgrade to the wiki software. If you have an idea for a favicon, submit it here. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 18:21, 6 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
Okay, I don't know where that logo in the upper left came from, but after a quick GIMP edit, I came up with this: [[Media:favicon.zip]]. I'm not quite sure how The GIMP works with icons, so I also included the .png's. What do you think? -- [[User:NinthRank|NinthRank]] 18:51, 6 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:Not too shabby. Next time I talk to GazChap, I'll run it past him. Any more ideas for a favicon? I'd like to get a few (at least 3) and run it through a vote here. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:28, 6 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::[[image:FavIcon-Crude1.png|thumb|16px]][[image:FavIcon-Crude2.png|thumb|16px]]NinthRank and Z, my two cents are something like this. My pics are incredibly crude - I'm a total graphics n00b - and would need somebody like you, Ninth, to turn it into the "burnished gold and navy" (or is that black?), like you did with yours. I couldn't even get my damn background to change for me using simple MS Word art ... what do you use? (See how n00b I am?)<br />
<br />
::I think you have some great ideas there, but my favicons show as 16x16 pixels. (Is this because I use small icons? I had never heard the the word until you said it, Ninth, at which point I read the wiki entry, and it made immediate sense.) At 16<sup>2</sup>, you have to keep it incredibly simply... having the COM on a big X does that, because it doesn't "waste a repetitive 'X-' across the center", if that makes sense. Another idea is be careful with the X ... I didn't like the X in your 16x16 and 32x32 because it was "narrow" (more vertical than horizontal). I definitely like your 48x48. (I can't tell what's going on with your animated 16x16 .ico, my friend - a 16x16 pic on a 1280x1024 screen (or higher) needs to be real simple. It looks like a tiny pulsing thing, with an X sort of there, overall.) I think the X should be, if not symmetric, then, more wide than high - to me, this implies something "ominous". A true X would have to be "cut off" at the corners to be "wide and fat" at 16x16. This shows more in my second try than the first. <br />
<br />
::You can make things bigger than 16<sup>2</sup>, a real plus and you get much more flexibility, but for me, only 16x16 exists.<br />
<br />
::My two cents. I love your overall idea, and using navy (or black?) with gold trim. Thanks for signing in and helping out, NinthRank! -[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 19:40, 14 December 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Technical Commentaries==<br />
<br />
I just thought of adding a specific section concerning commentaries regarding the game, i.e., trying to explain how the weapons/diplomacy/funding/etc. would work in real life. The idea here is not to expand on the canon X-COM material but to describe/explain in a rational way. <br />
I've come with this idea after reading Spike's section (on his [[User talk:Spike]] page) explaining the economics of X-COM and starting my own section regarding the Council of Funding Nations. <br />
I think there is plenty of material available on the Data canisters that could be used/adapted to this. Also, the discussion regarding Elerium (with all those formulas) on the Talk Page is exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of. <br />
<br />
- [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 22:59, 10 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I don't see any problem with it. Go for it. We've started with a magnificent wealth of knowledge about the game itself (and a bit beyond, with the binary file diving). Theories and explanations of the X-Com world wouldn't be out of place. They'd certainly add a bit of literary colour and interest for those that wish to look beyond the game. There are lots of interesting bits and pieces scattered throughout the articles (like real world equivalents of weapon or tanks, just to name one example) that would probably fit better in a section like that than in the articles. Perhaps a an expanded data-canister like section would be in order. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:13, 11 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Game Editors ==<br />
<br />
I was going to add a link off the Main Page to the [[Game editors]] section that I wrote, under Misc. I still have a nagging feeling there is another list of them somewhere, but I can't find it. Any comments? <br />
<br />
Also, any additions to the Game editors section are welcome. <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 03:40, 15 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I don't think we've ever had a particular listing of editors. <br />
<br />
: Tell you what, I'll throw these changes in, and we'll see how this works out. <br />
<br />
:# I'll put the new game editor section onto the UFO main table (I've also renamed the page to stick to the first capital letter naming convention the other articles use). <br />
:# I removed XComutil off the main table, since it'll be under the game file section. <br />
:# Removed the UBK - it's just a tool for wiki editors and not something that would interest players of the game. <br />
<br />
: I might also add the [[Command Prompt]] to the game editor section for its notes on using MS-Edit as a binary file editor. <br />
<br />
<br />
:- [[User:NKF|NKF]] 04:46, 15 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: While I see the validity of adding XComUtil to a page regarding editors won't it make sense to keep a sublink to the page which deals on how to use it, together with MSEdit? I mean, the other editors only have links to them on that page and I think that at least XComUtil deserves main page status because of its notoriosity and complexity. What do you guys think? - [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 14:08, 15 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
a good idea to include the Command Prompt help. How about broadly dividing it into 2 sections: X-COM-specific tools and general purpose tools?<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:08, 17 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Newb questions ==<br />
<br />
Hello good sirs. Sorry for my bad non-native english. While in total noob in wiki, im relatively for long playd this great games. Great thanks for you for this great site, it really helped me with some ideas, especially with Funding Nation, even dont know how i played it before without it. Now more close to point, i realized what TFTD section here are, say, unperfect, if not somewhat wrong. As i readed somewhere not all play TFTD much, UFO1 instead, so it maybe be the point. Id edit something on it, but im totally dunno how to do it, and my language will have too many mistakes to be proudly presented to people. So id be glade to hear what you may propose for me to do. Again big thanks. Ill wait for answer.<br />
<br />
PS Or im searched too badly, or its differ in TFTD (i play only it now) from UFO1, but i cant find here about stunned persons behaviour. Cant find what they awake only if theyr stun is lower then HP's and if only they have awaken person in theyr tile during end of turn. IMHO its important thing to know off, at least for me.<br />
<br />
PPS. My friend made great tiny changes to one tiny file, what make FundingNations game way more easy and elegant then described in issue. I can upload it if you need this, tho its for TFTD im sure he can do UFO1 also if its needed. Anyway this game too easy even on FN to play it without it :).<br />
<br />
Eh PPPS. Dunno how to properly log on :(.<br />
<br />
: Do not worry about the language barrier - sometimes it's harder to understand people who speak English natively! ;) In any case, There'll be other editors who will be able to help fix the article for you if you can get the idea across. <br />
<br />
: To get started editing pages, check the Community Portal on the left sidebar. That has links to articles that can help you get started - more or less. One good way to find out how some text is formatted (or anything else you'd like to duplicate) is to edit the page and see how it's done in the source. <br />
<br />
: If in doubt, or if you're unsure about editing the article, feel free put your ideas or suggestions in the article's Discussion page. <br />
<br />
: Because TFTD and UFO share a lot of the same mechanics, there would be a lot of unnecessary duplication if we were to write up articles for it that are already available in the UFO articles. Therefore we mainly include articles that cover topics that are unique to TFTD, like the weapons, door opening, aliens, etc. General mechanics like how damage works or how experience is earned is identical to UFO's, so there's no need to duplicate them. What sections do you think need improving or what sections do we need to add? The more input the better. <br />
<br />
: Regarding consciousness, have you checked the [[Unconscious]] article? I think we might need to redo that article bit and perhaps add a few illustrations. One note about the difference between UFO and TFTD with the visual appearance of a unit recovered with a medikit needs to go in there too if it hasn't already. Oh well. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 22:54, 22 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: PS, to sign your messages in the discussion pages, put four tilde's <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> anywhere you want to insert your name and the timestamp.<br />
<br />
== same questions ==<br />
<br />
Thank you for answer. I been somwhat incorrect in my english. I didnt mean what TFTD pages are bad or what they lose reduntand UFO1 information. All they lack are only slightly wrongly described alien's dangers levels (one of most dangerous creatures cant be low treat, and least dangerous one medium) and lack of mission types what only TFTD have. Also i readed "Unconscious@ article few times, stiil cant find only how to use medkit and no word about what generally need for stunned person to rise. From that follow advices to grenade stunned chryssalids and so on. <br />
<br />
PS. Oh, yes, and whats wrong with door openings?<br />
[[User:Derrida|Derrida]] 08:59, 23 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
: A unit falls unconscious when the stun bar is equal or greater than the unit's remaining health points. If it's under that, the unit will be awake. <br />
<br />
: To wake a soldier up, you have to reduce the stun level by either waiting for the stun to wear off, 1 point per turn, or use stimulants on a medikit. Looks like the TFTD section doesn't have its own medikit page, but UFO's [[Medi-Kit]] section explains how to use it, as they are identical. Basically, if the unit is unconscious, the medic must stand on top of the unconscious unit and use stimulants (the second choice) until the unconscious soldier wakes up. When the unconscious unit wakes up, they'll appear to the north of the medic. <br />
<br />
: TFTD's stun weapons are much more powerful than in TFTD, so you often have to use a lot of stimulants to wake a person up. <br />
<br />
: TFTD's unique because it allows you to open doors by right clicking them - and it's a free action so you won't spend any TUs to do it. UFO cannot do this (except the Playstation version). <br />
<br />
: As for the threat levels of the aliens - I agree, some should be reclassified. Personally I'd move the Gill-Men and Calcinite up to medium threat - all the current medium level threats look just about right though. What are your suggestions? <br />
<br />
: Hang on, why are there so many references to vibroblades in the overview article? That can't be right. I'll have to update that later on. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 15:05, 23 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Nonono. I mean what if unit's stun damage falled below it's HP, and no one stand in tile it lying, it will never rise. Medkits not the point. No stunned aliens or soldiers will rise if no one will end turn on it, or take it to inventory/hand. I tried to say this. Maybe it been different in UFO1 (as with doors, i thought what doors always open by right click, and in UFO1 too (btw cant find about door opening anywere in wiki)), but in TFTD it means what you dont have to bother with stunned tentaculats etc to rise after stun if you do not stand on it, or try to move it in backpack/hand. Same with soldiers, you can click zillion turns, but they will never rise until someone stand on it. Without this game must be horrible with all this undying lobsters awake afer you pass them.<br />
With danger level id suggest this: Harmless: hallucinoid; deep one; Low: gillmen; aquatoid; Meduim: zombie; calcinite; bio-drone; lobsterman; xarquid; high: tasoth; triscene; What really matters: tentaculat. In line of growing dangerness. [[User:Derrida|Derrida]] 16:30, 23 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Regarding image file formats ==<br />
<br />
I'd really like to add a note somewhere obvious about using GIFs for screenshots in the wiki, rather than JPGs. For 256-color images like X-COM uses, GIFs are no larger than JPGs and generally look much better. For example, see the nasty compression artifacts on the terrain maps in the [[Terror ship|Terror Ship]] article. PNGs might work just as well, I'm not sure, but we should really avoid JPGs.<br />
<br />
Where would be the best place to mention this? I'm thinking near the top of the main page for visibility, but that might be more clutter than people want. [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 23:59, 11 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:It's been dealt with [[User_talk:Zombie#Image_Types|here]] that PNG is the preferred file format of the wiki; however, where to note this...I honestly don't know. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 00:37, 12 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: PNG's reduced to 256 or less colours can be quite the space saver for X-Com screenshots. You can go the extra step and run them through PNG compression programs and somesuch - but they're pretty good as-is. Jpgs should be reserved for images with a broader range of colours. One place the note could go is in [[Guidelines to writing articles]]. In fact, that section could do with a few extra additions in any case to expand is to that it's not just covering the composition of the language of the articles, but to cover the creation of the articles. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:04, 12 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Hosting move. ==<br />
<br />
Hi guys. It appears I'm still hosting the UFOpaedia - I did discuss moving it to StrategyCore with both Zombie and Pete a while ago and I think I gave them copies of what would be required.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I'm moving hosting servers so the UFOpaedia is going to move too. I'm aiming to carry out the transfer on Sunday September 28th at about 8pm GMT+1. Any changes made between this time and the time that the transfer completes may be lost, but hopefully not. Just thought I'd give you guys a bit of notice.<br />
<br />
I should point out that I still have no objection to hosting the UFOpaedia on my servers, it's a great project and you guys have done a bang-up job with it, it's far surpassed my original intentions :) However, if StrategyCore want to take over hosting to remove the potential "failure point" (i.e. me) then that's fine and we can give it another shot?<br />
<br />
GazChap, 25th September 2008 12:50 GMT+1<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the heads-up Gaz-Chap! Sure, StrategyCore is still willing to host the UFOpaedia. Sorry things didn't quite work out the last time we talked. Pete needs to be constantly reminded to do things as he's easily distracted. I'll try and start a fire under his bum to get the ball rolling again. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 07:14, 25 September 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Hosting has now been moved to StrategyCore. Cheers to Pete and Zombie for sorting it out. GazChap, 11:28, 1 October 2008 (GMT+1)<br />
<br />
::: There may be a slight problem with caching of the temporary holding page ("coming back soon". On some browsers I'm using (not all), the temporary page is still up and you can't see the UFOPaedia site. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:48, 1 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::The new website address is quite likely still propagating out through DNS, since we moved hosts. So that's just the nature of the internet and should be gone in a day or two. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:06, 1 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Most browsers seem to allow a full page refresh via Ctrl + F5. There's also an option re caching under the Misc section of your Preferances - I had to disable it ages ago 'cause it was always failing to show me page changes... - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 21:54, 1 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Sorry about the downtime everyone. The bandwidth limit wasn't set high enough after the recent change in hosting and basically didn't allow access. I contacted Pete and he fixed the issue. Good to catch these issues earlier rather than later. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 15:11, 15 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Proposed top level links ==<br />
<br />
I've written some pages which I'd like to be proposed be linked to the main page, unless anyone can suggest where to put them (careful now!).<br />
<br />
I'd like to link [[Fictional Equivalents]] to the main page. <br />
<br />
I'd like to link [[Wish List (TFTD)]] to the TFTD page. It would also be good to start a [[Known Bugs (TFTD)]] page, for TFTD-specific bugs. <br />
<br />
However as some tricky template work is involved, I'd rather not make these links myself for fear of screwing up the main page(s). Thoughts? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 11:20, 14 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
: Feel free to edit the templates - as long as the tables look okay when you preview them, they shouldn't break the page. The templates are standard pages but with a fancy prefix to their file name to categorize them as templates. This was needed so that any updates to them would show up on the main page right away without forcing the viewers to force-refresh the page. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 12:46, 14 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
::It should be noted that the [[TRTBAG]] more or less covers the "Known Bugs for TFTD" segment. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:08, 14 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
:Well it covers the Research Tree bugs but not any of the other TFTD-specific bugs as far as I can see. Still that's a good starting point, thanks AQ! And thanks Zombie for adding the links. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:34, 14 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
::Maybe TRTBAG should just BECOME the "Known Bugs(TFTD)" page. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:36, 14 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
:Because TRTBAG is such an excellent self contained guide, and well written, and quite long, I think it should be separate. I will link to it under the Known Bugs (TFTD) page. I suggest the main page link to TRTBAG be remained "''Research'' Bug Avoidance Guide". Probably the TFTD Alien Glitches page can be gotten rid of. It only mentions one bug, which is not a bug at all. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:16, 15 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Terminology==<br />
<br />
===X-COM/XCOM/XCom/Etc.===<br />
<br />
I remember reading about this discussion before and if something concrete comes out I think it should be added to the [[Guidelines to writing articles]].<br />
Do we have set a proper spelling to refer to the organization? IIRC the game uses X-COM/XCOM/X-Com/etc. Should we set a standard for the Wiki? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 07:52, 21 November 2008 (CST)<br />
:It's a good idea to agree on a single standard spelling for the Wiki, if only to keep links consistent and prdictable. But it's a shame if there is no clear canonical spelling though. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:28, 21 November 2008 (CST)<br />
::From what I recall there isn't a standard followed on UFO Defense, where you have X-COM/XCOM/XCom/etc. Apocalypse might be more consistent and I have no idea for the other games. I try to use X-COM and I've done some edits to follow this standard spelling but I'd like to read more opinions [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 17:43, 22 November 2008 (CST)<br />
:I've had a check through the in-game strings and most if not all of them say "Xcom", which is my least favourite spelling. :( I think X-COM has the best flavour. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:41, 22 November 2008 (CST)<br />
If any of you folks here have been following what I've been up to lately at the StrategyCore forums, you'll see I have been amassing a collection of most of the game versions in the series. Checking my [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/xcom/pg/ufogameversions UFO Game Versions] site page, you'll see that the original European release used XCom while the budget releases used X-Com. Other than that, those spellings quickly fell by the wayside as MicroProse decided on X-COM which quickly gained approval and remained the standard spelling throughout the series. (You can't really go by in-game text as those were not checked for consistency). Anyhow, I'd opt for the same route MicroProse took: <b>X-COM</b>. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:33, 22 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Capitalization guidelines/rules for the wiki===<br />
<br />
Another thing that crossed my mind are guidelines/rules tossed in to prevent overcapitalization.<br />
<br />
Specific ingame terms/names should be always capitalized:<br />
*Weapons (Boomeroid, Elerium, Entropy Launcher<br />
*Alien Races (Sectoid, Lobsterman, Skeletoid, etc.)<br />
*Organizations (MarSec, General Dynamics, Council of Funding Nations)<br />
*X-COM Crafts (Skyranger, Manta, Dimension Probe)<br />
<br />
Generic ingame terms/names (that already exist in English) should be capitalized the first time they are mentioned on a wiki entry. Some examples:<br />
*Weapons (Plasma Rifle, Torpedo Launcher, Vortex Mine, etc.)<br />
*UFO types (Large Scout, Dreadnaught, Alien Mothership, etc.)<br />
*Soldier Attributes/Agent Stats (Stamina, Psi-defense, etc.)<br />
*Base Facilities<br />
<br />
Wiki terms should be capitalized the first time they are mentioned on a wiki entry:<br />
*Tactics<br />
*Economics<br />
*Game Mechanics<br />
*Etc.<br />
<br />
A few other rules to prevent overcapitalization and make a smooth reading:<br />
*After the 1st mention, generic ingame terms are not required to be capitalized. As an example, after the first mention of a Laser Pistol, any additional mention(s) to them can simply use the term pistol(s). <br />
*When refering to similar names/terms, it is advisable to capitalize both when they are mentioned. Eg. "Auto Cannon, unlike Heavy Cannon, allows for automatic fire" "Large Scouts are more dangerous than Medium Scouts". <br />
*The same applies to wiki terms. <br />
<br />
[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 16:54, 23 November 2008 (CST)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=19181Talk:Main Page2009-01-11T21:29:38Z<p>NightChime: New section: X-COM on Steam</p>
<hr />
<div>__TOC__<br />
----<br />
<br />
== Site TODOS == <br />
A general dump of to-dos or maybe not-do's. Add any where appropriate: <br />
<br />
* Template navigation toolbars for subsections. (Some tests have started)<br />
* Strategy by terrain notes? <br />
* Mention of bug where unit gets stuck in the corner of the map<br />
* Mention of bug where you reload a battlescape mission only to be on an invalid level and how to recover from it (use OHMap, go back down to legal level, click until you find the map again, save the game). Often happens after editting the game, strangely enough. Is it possible the game stores map camera coordinates as a file checksum or somesuch? <br />
<br />
<br />
== Discussion/talk page proposed format ==<br />
Ok folks, we all seem to have our own ways of adding comments to a discussion page. The way it stands now, it becomes really difficult to follow a discussion when it is broken apart with different formats. What I suggest is this: when you leave a comment use a horizontal line to separate your post from the one(s) above it. In this manner, everything is left justified and the comments are separated. The reason why I do not support the colon as comment separation is that as the discussion progresses you are going to be adding more and more just to get the indenting correct. It also makes it confusing. Another side effect is that once you have a lot of colons present it pushes the text off the page itself and forces a scroll to the right to view. That isn't good.<br />
<br />
I suppose if we really want to use colons as separators, we could alternate the use. If a comment is indented above yours, do nothing. If a comment is not indented, use a colon for your submission. Still, the constant zig-zagging isn't really the best idea either.<br />
<br />
My vote is therefore to stick with the horizontal line (four dashes). If the discussion veers way off course, or if you have a couple questions/comments, break it apart into different headings. And always sign your post too as that makes it easier to follow.<br />
<br />
Discuss.--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:46, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
<br />
Works for me, Zombie. Another problem with indentation is that one isn't necessarily addressing only the previous comment, but it could be about the previous one, and tying together things that are 4, 6, ''and'' 12 entries back. Colons are fine for quick rejoinders, but not as a requirement. A potential alternative is to leave two blank lines, as I just did after your sig. This is a fairly clear delineator for folks scanning quickly. However, the horizontal separator is more clear, in general. So I guess I'd vote for the hor-sep for all except quick comments thrown in, which can use colons. And anything that's a new topic or big break should get a new topic, using = signs. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:10, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I've reformatted [[Talk:Exploits#Extra_Ammo_Exploit]] to demonstrate how the indentation style ''can'' work, if done consistently. I think it's somewhat better than the line-separator style for very long discussions, making the structure a little clearer. However, if it's sometimes-used and sometimes-not things get messy, as you've noticed.<br />
<br />
I'll codify the rules right here (surprisingly, they're not well-codified on Wikipedia itself, despite the fact that it's used quite consistently throughout the site):<br />
<br />
*Add an indent for each reply<br />
*Reuse your prior level of indentation if it's a back and forth:<br />
<br />
First person's comment<br />
<br />
:Second person's comment<br />
<br />
::Third person's comment<br />
<br />
:Second person again<br />
<br />
::Third person again<br />
<br />
::Third person's afterthought<br />
<br />
:Second person again<br />
<br />
::First person jumping back in<br />
<br />
:::Third person once more<br />
<br />
::First person again<br />
<br />
*If you get to 5 or 6 indents, just "reset" (start without indents for the next reply).<br />
*If you have an addendum to your own comments, use the same indent level and re-sign.<br />
*If somebody doesn't know/doesn't use the right indent level, fix it when adding your next reply so the rules become clear during the course of conversation.<br />
*Likewise, if someone adds a new comment to the top or fails to add a heading when starting a new subject, fix it when replying.<br />
<br />
The problem we've had lately is the mixing of styles, neither being used correctly. So far it seems that myself, Sf, and NKF have been using indents, you (Zombie) and Mike favoring dashes, and most newcomers failing to use either. No clear winner just yet. ;-)<br />
--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 23:56, 9 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:What if you're addressing several and various issues raised before, not just a comment on the previous statement? (And it runs on for four or six paragraphs?) - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 00:14, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::If you're consolidating a bunch of replies to several earlier points, that's a good time to reset the indent.--[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 01:07, 10 March 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::: Works for me, Eth - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 16:47, 9 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== British vs. American spelling ==<br />
<br />
Summary: Use which ever convention you want. It does not matter as long as you do not get into petty spelling convention battles. <br />
<br />
== XCOM Box Art ==<br />
<br />
Someone (NKF? Danial?) once asked if anybody could scan XCOM's box art, so that they might e.g. put a better graphic on the main page. I just uploaded a 300 dpi scan of all four sides as [[Media:XCOM_UFO_Defense_DOS_US_Box_Art.zip]] (3.2 MB). The box is not in mint condition (see the ReadMe), but a little tweaking by somebody with skillz (Danial) could easily spruce it up. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:05, 19 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: Was it me? Hmm. Can't remember. I did think to just grab the cover for the PDF version of the X-Com Player's Handbook (US version - with the Mars/Super Avenger cover), but it's black and white. Could've sworn I've seen a copy in colour somewhere. Not that sepia version wouldn't look great though! <br />
: Oh hang on, I don't think it was for the front page graphic in particular, but we did want to get various versions of the box art for the various games. - [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
NKF - or anybody - can we consider replacing the current main page art, with the XCOM box art? Or a portion of it. I loved the game's intro and in-game "cartoon art", but why not use the game's best image, for our primary Main Page image? (Is there somebody with skills that can clean it up quickly? I'm happy to, but I'm no pics wizard.)<br />
<br />
[[image:XcomScExample.png|thumb|100px|One of many possible screencaps]]Related to this, I think it would be a nice touch if anyone put a bunch of selected and/or random screen captures (screencaps) onto a page, with a link just "under" (i.e., indented under the Main Page entry for) [[Info|About X-COM: UFO Defense]]...<br />
<br />
:I have a sneaking suspicion that we get a ton of lurkers (someone who is there but never speaks) who once played X-COM and came across our page by chance, and would like to relive it, if even for a few screencaps... yet as it is now, our site is becoming more of an in-depth encyclopedia, instead of a "you were once here" kind of place. All us hard core players gravitate toward the encyclopedia - but even if folks who once played it don't stay, if they say, "wow, I remember doing all that" based on a stack of screenshots, that would be good. I'm thinking of easy sections that are light on text (and no Ufopaedia info), but heavy on thumbnails and click-on screencaps (see the image to the right - I love that financier in the background) like:<br />
:*My first base - Decisions <br />
:*The Globe - Radar alert! <br />
:*First contact! Small farm in Iowa, USA <br />
:*Managing Research <br />
:*Terror in Sydney! ''(include zombies - squad wiped out - see next)''<br />
:*Headline: World Council generally supports X-COM efforts - subheadline - Australia may now be under the control of aliens ''(funding results for a month)''<br />
:*Headline: X-COM squad impacted by "Blaster bomb" - the world cries (before and after pix) <br />
:*The tricky depths of a Battleship <br />
:*Elite squad Mind Controls all aliens <br />
:*Final showdown: Cydonia <br />
:Each of the sections above might have 1-5 images. Something like that.<br />
<br />
:If no one objects, can I ask that anyone who is willing to do it, make a bunch of screencaps, using .pngs and thumbnails as shown above. Then lurkers can "remember the days" right up front. And a few more lurkers than currently breeze through, might stay.<br />
<br />
:To put this in context, CNN recently had a number of articles admiring Commodore 64s (one of them [http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/ptech/12/07/c64/index.html?iref=newssearch here]). X-COM is like that, to me... it lives past its "life expectancy" to gamers, because of how well put together it was, especially including how much it hit you in the gut.<br />
<br />
In summary, then. I have one question for us XCOM hardcore (can we change the Main Page image) and one for everybody (want to post a lot of screencaps?). I have made a stub page for the screencaps page. I'll retract it if the hardcore object or there's no response in a couple of months' time. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 21:44, 14 December 2007 (PST)<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
I'm perfectly fine with getting the main title changed. Get a few more ayes and we'll make it so. <br />
<br />
A screencap section would be nice. I'm quite partial to creating screencap mini-comics (no, not real comics. Just sequential before/during/after images), although I never use them and they just get deleted in the end. <br />
<br />
One benefit is that some of the shots can also be recycled throughout the rest of the site to illustrate certain things. Or for an article that's no more than a solid block of text, something to break up the monotony. I'm also always for a few well placed humorous shots. <br />
<br />
-[[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:02, 15 December 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:Sounds good, NKF. There could easily be a "comics" page link several ways: <br />
::1) The new Main Page entry indented under [[Info|About X-COM: UFO Defense]] could also have a link to a comics page, but on the screenshot page itself,<br />
::2) That same new entry on the Main Page could read something like "[[Screenshots]] - and [[Comics]]!" The concept of the screenshots page is to help folks relive the past. And something just as good as screenshots - or better - is screenshots with humor.<br />
::3) Or, make a link for it, all by itself, somewhere obvious on the Main Page.<br />
:I think it's a great idea! <br />
:As for the other idea - you said you're fine re: changing the main title. But it's the graphic at the top of the Main Page that I'm talking about. Just to make sure we're clear on that. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 17:21, 21 December 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Favicon ==<br />
<br />
Does the UFOpaedia have a favicon? -- [[User:NinthRank|NinthRank]] 17:51, 6 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:We did have it at one time but I think it disappeared after an upgrade to the wiki software. If you have an idea for a favicon, submit it here. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 18:21, 6 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
Okay, I don't know where that logo in the upper left came from, but after a quick GIMP edit, I came up with this: [[Media:favicon.zip]]. I'm not quite sure how The GIMP works with icons, so I also included the .png's. What do you think? -- [[User:NinthRank|NinthRank]] 18:51, 6 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
:Not too shabby. Next time I talk to GazChap, I'll run it past him. Any more ideas for a favicon? I'd like to get a few (at least 3) and run it through a vote here. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:28, 6 November 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
::[[image:FavIcon-Crude1.png|thumb|16px]][[image:FavIcon-Crude2.png|thumb|16px]]NinthRank and Z, my two cents are something like this. My pics are incredibly crude - I'm a total graphics n00b - and would need somebody like you, Ninth, to turn it into the "burnished gold and navy" (or is that black?), like you did with yours. I couldn't even get my damn background to change for me using simple MS Word art ... what do you use? (See how n00b I am?)<br />
<br />
::I think you have some great ideas there, but my favicons show as 16x16 pixels. (Is this because I use small icons? I had never heard the the word until you said it, Ninth, at which point I read the wiki entry, and it made immediate sense.) At 16<sup>2</sup>, you have to keep it incredibly simply... having the COM on a big X does that, because it doesn't "waste a repetitive 'X-' across the center", if that makes sense. Another idea is be careful with the X ... I didn't like the X in your 16x16 and 32x32 because it was "narrow" (more vertical than horizontal). I definitely like your 48x48. (I can't tell what's going on with your animated 16x16 .ico, my friend - a 16x16 pic on a 1280x1024 screen (or higher) needs to be real simple. It looks like a tiny pulsing thing, with an X sort of there, overall.) I think the X should be, if not symmetric, then, more wide than high - to me, this implies something "ominous". A true X would have to be "cut off" at the corners to be "wide and fat" at 16x16. This shows more in my second try than the first. <br />
<br />
::You can make things bigger than 16<sup>2</sup>, a real plus and you get much more flexibility, but for me, only 16x16 exists.<br />
<br />
::My two cents. I love your overall idea, and using navy (or black?) with gold trim. Thanks for signing in and helping out, NinthRank! -[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 19:40, 14 December 2007 (PST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Technical Commentaries==<br />
<br />
I just thought of adding a specific section concerning commentaries regarding the game, i.e., trying to explain how the weapons/diplomacy/funding/etc. would work in real life. The idea here is not to expand on the canon X-COM material but to describe/explain in a rational way. <br />
I've come with this idea after reading Spike's section (on his [[User talk:Spike]] page) explaining the economics of X-COM and starting my own section regarding the Council of Funding Nations. <br />
I think there is plenty of material available on the Data canisters that could be used/adapted to this. Also, the discussion regarding Elerium (with all those formulas) on the Talk Page is exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of. <br />
<br />
- [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 22:59, 10 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I don't see any problem with it. Go for it. We've started with a magnificent wealth of knowledge about the game itself (and a bit beyond, with the binary file diving). Theories and explanations of the X-Com world wouldn't be out of place. They'd certainly add a bit of literary colour and interest for those that wish to look beyond the game. There are lots of interesting bits and pieces scattered throughout the articles (like real world equivalents of weapon or tanks, just to name one example) that would probably fit better in a section like that than in the articles. Perhaps a an expanded data-canister like section would be in order. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 01:13, 11 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Game Editors ==<br />
<br />
I was going to add a link off the Main Page to the [[Game editors]] section that I wrote, under Misc. I still have a nagging feeling there is another list of them somewhere, but I can't find it. Any comments? <br />
<br />
Also, any additions to the Game editors section are welcome. <br />
<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 03:40, 15 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: I don't think we've ever had a particular listing of editors. <br />
<br />
: Tell you what, I'll throw these changes in, and we'll see how this works out. <br />
<br />
:# I'll put the new game editor section onto the UFO main table (I've also renamed the page to stick to the first capital letter naming convention the other articles use). <br />
:# I removed XComutil off the main table, since it'll be under the game file section. <br />
:# Removed the UBK - it's just a tool for wiki editors and not something that would interest players of the game. <br />
<br />
: I might also add the [[Command Prompt]] to the game editor section for its notes on using MS-Edit as a binary file editor. <br />
<br />
<br />
:- [[User:NKF|NKF]] 04:46, 15 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: While I see the validity of adding XComUtil to a page regarding editors won't it make sense to keep a sublink to the page which deals on how to use it, together with MSEdit? I mean, the other editors only have links to them on that page and I think that at least XComUtil deserves main page status because of its notoriosity and complexity. What do you guys think? - [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 14:08, 15 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
a good idea to include the Command Prompt help. How about broadly dividing it into 2 sections: X-COM-specific tools and general purpose tools?<br />
[[User:Spike|Spike]] 07:08, 17 March 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Newb questions ==<br />
<br />
Hello good sirs. Sorry for my bad non-native english. While in total noob in wiki, im relatively for long playd this great games. Great thanks for you for this great site, it really helped me with some ideas, especially with Funding Nation, even dont know how i played it before without it. Now more close to point, i realized what TFTD section here are, say, unperfect, if not somewhat wrong. As i readed somewhere not all play TFTD much, UFO1 instead, so it maybe be the point. Id edit something on it, but im totally dunno how to do it, and my language will have too many mistakes to be proudly presented to people. So id be glade to hear what you may propose for me to do. Again big thanks. Ill wait for answer.<br />
<br />
PS Or im searched too badly, or its differ in TFTD (i play only it now) from UFO1, but i cant find here about stunned persons behaviour. Cant find what they awake only if theyr stun is lower then HP's and if only they have awaken person in theyr tile during end of turn. IMHO its important thing to know off, at least for me.<br />
<br />
PPS. My friend made great tiny changes to one tiny file, what make FundingNations game way more easy and elegant then described in issue. I can upload it if you need this, tho its for TFTD im sure he can do UFO1 also if its needed. Anyway this game too easy even on FN to play it without it :).<br />
<br />
Eh PPPS. Dunno how to properly log on :(.<br />
<br />
: Do not worry about the language barrier - sometimes it's harder to understand people who speak English natively! ;) In any case, There'll be other editors who will be able to help fix the article for you if you can get the idea across. <br />
<br />
: To get started editing pages, check the Community Portal on the left sidebar. That has links to articles that can help you get started - more or less. One good way to find out how some text is formatted (or anything else you'd like to duplicate) is to edit the page and see how it's done in the source. <br />
<br />
: If in doubt, or if you're unsure about editing the article, feel free put your ideas or suggestions in the article's Discussion page. <br />
<br />
: Because TFTD and UFO share a lot of the same mechanics, there would be a lot of unnecessary duplication if we were to write up articles for it that are already available in the UFO articles. Therefore we mainly include articles that cover topics that are unique to TFTD, like the weapons, door opening, aliens, etc. General mechanics like how damage works or how experience is earned is identical to UFO's, so there's no need to duplicate them. What sections do you think need improving or what sections do we need to add? The more input the better. <br />
<br />
: Regarding consciousness, have you checked the [[Unconscious]] article? I think we might need to redo that article bit and perhaps add a few illustrations. One note about the difference between UFO and TFTD with the visual appearance of a unit recovered with a medikit needs to go in there too if it hasn't already. Oh well. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 22:54, 22 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
: PS, to sign your messages in the discussion pages, put four tilde's <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> anywhere you want to insert your name and the timestamp.<br />
<br />
== same questions ==<br />
<br />
Thank you for answer. I been somwhat incorrect in my english. I didnt mean what TFTD pages are bad or what they lose reduntand UFO1 information. All they lack are only slightly wrongly described alien's dangers levels (one of most dangerous creatures cant be low treat, and least dangerous one medium) and lack of mission types what only TFTD have. Also i readed "Unconscious@ article few times, stiil cant find only how to use medkit and no word about what generally need for stunned person to rise. From that follow advices to grenade stunned chryssalids and so on. <br />
<br />
PS. Oh, yes, and whats wrong with door openings?<br />
[[User:Derrida|Derrida]] 08:59, 23 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
: A unit falls unconscious when the stun bar is equal or greater than the unit's remaining health points. If it's under that, the unit will be awake. <br />
<br />
: To wake a soldier up, you have to reduce the stun level by either waiting for the stun to wear off, 1 point per turn, or use stimulants on a medikit. Looks like the TFTD section doesn't have its own medikit page, but UFO's [[Medi-Kit]] section explains how to use it, as they are identical. Basically, if the unit is unconscious, the medic must stand on top of the unconscious unit and use stimulants (the second choice) until the unconscious soldier wakes up. When the unconscious unit wakes up, they'll appear to the north of the medic. <br />
<br />
: TFTD's stun weapons are much more powerful than in TFTD, so you often have to use a lot of stimulants to wake a person up. <br />
<br />
: TFTD's unique because it allows you to open doors by right clicking them - and it's a free action so you won't spend any TUs to do it. UFO cannot do this (except the Playstation version). <br />
<br />
: As for the threat levels of the aliens - I agree, some should be reclassified. Personally I'd move the Gill-Men and Calcinite up to medium threat - all the current medium level threats look just about right though. What are your suggestions? <br />
<br />
: Hang on, why are there so many references to vibroblades in the overview article? That can't be right. I'll have to update that later on. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 15:05, 23 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
Nonono. I mean what if unit's stun damage falled below it's HP, and no one stand in tile it lying, it will never rise. Medkits not the point. No stunned aliens or soldiers will rise if no one will end turn on it, or take it to inventory/hand. I tried to say this. Maybe it been different in UFO1 (as with doors, i thought what doors always open by right click, and in UFO1 too (btw cant find about door opening anywere in wiki)), but in TFTD it means what you dont have to bother with stunned tentaculats etc to rise after stun if you do not stand on it, or try to move it in backpack/hand. Same with soldiers, you can click zillion turns, but they will never rise until someone stand on it. Without this game must be horrible with all this undying lobsters awake afer you pass them.<br />
With danger level id suggest this: Harmless: hallucinoid; deep one; Low: gillmen; aquatoid; Meduim: zombie; calcinite; bio-drone; lobsterman; xarquid; high: tasoth; triscene; What really matters: tentaculat. In line of growing dangerness. [[User:Derrida|Derrida]] 16:30, 23 May 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Regarding image file formats ==<br />
<br />
I'd really like to add a note somewhere obvious about using GIFs for screenshots in the wiki, rather than JPGs. For 256-color images like X-COM uses, GIFs are no larger than JPGs and generally look much better. For example, see the nasty compression artifacts on the terrain maps in the [[Terror ship|Terror Ship]] article. PNGs might work just as well, I'm not sure, but we should really avoid JPGs.<br />
<br />
Where would be the best place to mention this? I'm thinking near the top of the main page for visibility, but that might be more clutter than people want. [[User:Phasma Felis|Phasma Felis]] 23:59, 11 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:It's been dealt with [[User_talk:Zombie#Image_Types|here]] that PNG is the preferred file format of the wiki; however, where to note this...I honestly don't know. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 00:37, 12 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:: PNG's reduced to 256 or less colours can be quite the space saver for X-Com screenshots. You can go the extra step and run them through PNG compression programs and somesuch - but they're pretty good as-is. Jpgs should be reserved for images with a broader range of colours. One place the note could go is in [[Guidelines to writing articles]]. In fact, that section could do with a few extra additions in any case to expand is to that it's not just covering the composition of the language of the articles, but to cover the creation of the articles. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 03:04, 12 June 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Hosting move. ==<br />
<br />
Hi guys. It appears I'm still hosting the UFOpaedia - I did discuss moving it to StrategyCore with both Zombie and Pete a while ago and I think I gave them copies of what would be required.<br />
<br />
Anyway, I'm moving hosting servers so the UFOpaedia is going to move too. I'm aiming to carry out the transfer on Sunday September 28th at about 8pm GMT+1. Any changes made between this time and the time that the transfer completes may be lost, but hopefully not. Just thought I'd give you guys a bit of notice.<br />
<br />
I should point out that I still have no objection to hosting the UFOpaedia on my servers, it's a great project and you guys have done a bang-up job with it, it's far surpassed my original intentions :) However, if StrategyCore want to take over hosting to remove the potential "failure point" (i.e. me) then that's fine and we can give it another shot?<br />
<br />
GazChap, 25th September 2008 12:50 GMT+1<br />
<br />
:Thanks for the heads-up Gaz-Chap! Sure, StrategyCore is still willing to host the UFOpaedia. Sorry things didn't quite work out the last time we talked. Pete needs to be constantly reminded to do things as he's easily distracted. I'll try and start a fire under his bum to get the ball rolling again. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 07:14, 25 September 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::Hosting has now been moved to StrategyCore. Cheers to Pete and Zombie for sorting it out. GazChap, 11:28, 1 October 2008 (GMT+1)<br />
<br />
::: There may be a slight problem with caching of the temporary holding page ("coming back soon". On some browsers I'm using (not all), the temporary page is still up and you can't see the UFOPaedia site. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:48, 1 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::The new website address is quite likely still propagating out through DNS, since we moved hosts. So that's just the nature of the internet and should be gone in a day or two. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 19:06, 1 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:Most browsers seem to allow a full page refresh via Ctrl + F5. There's also an option re caching under the Misc section of your Preferances - I had to disable it ages ago 'cause it was always failing to show me page changes... - [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 21:54, 1 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
Sorry about the downtime everyone. The bandwidth limit wasn't set high enough after the recent change in hosting and basically didn't allow access. I contacted Pete and he fixed the issue. Good to catch these issues earlier rather than later. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 15:11, 15 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Proposed top level links ==<br />
<br />
I've written some pages which I'd like to be proposed be linked to the main page, unless anyone can suggest where to put them (careful now!).<br />
<br />
I'd like to link [[Fictional Equivalents]] to the main page. <br />
<br />
I'd like to link [[Wish List (TFTD)]] to the TFTD page. It would also be good to start a [[Known Bugs (TFTD)]] page, for TFTD-specific bugs. <br />
<br />
However as some tricky template work is involved, I'd rather not make these links myself for fear of screwing up the main page(s). Thoughts? [[User:Spike|Spike]] 11:20, 14 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
: Feel free to edit the templates - as long as the tables look okay when you preview them, they shouldn't break the page. The templates are standard pages but with a fancy prefix to their file name to categorize them as templates. This was needed so that any updates to them would show up on the main page right away without forcing the viewers to force-refresh the page. - [[User:NKF|NKF]] 12:46, 14 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
<br />
::It should be noted that the [[TRTBAG]] more or less covers the "Known Bugs for TFTD" segment. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 16:08, 14 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
:Well it covers the Research Tree bugs but not any of the other TFTD-specific bugs as far as I can see. Still that's a good starting point, thanks AQ! And thanks Zombie for adding the links. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 17:34, 14 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
::Maybe TRTBAG should just BECOME the "Known Bugs(TFTD)" page. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 17:36, 14 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
:Because TRTBAG is such an excellent self contained guide, and well written, and quite long, I think it should be separate. I will link to it under the Known Bugs (TFTD) page. I suggest the main page link to TRTBAG be remained "''Research'' Bug Avoidance Guide". Probably the TFTD Alien Glitches page can be gotten rid of. It only mentions one bug, which is not a bug at all. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 06:16, 15 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
==Terminology==<br />
<br />
===X-COM/XCOM/XCom/Etc.===<br />
<br />
I remember reading about this discussion before and if something concrete comes out I think it should be added to the [[Guidelines to writing articles]].<br />
Do we have set a proper spelling to refer to the organization? IIRC the game uses X-COM/XCOM/X-Com/etc. Should we set a standard for the Wiki? [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 07:52, 21 November 2008 (CST)<br />
:It's a good idea to agree on a single standard spelling for the Wiki, if only to keep links consistent and prdictable. But it's a shame if there is no clear canonical spelling though. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 12:28, 21 November 2008 (CST)<br />
::From what I recall there isn't a standard followed on UFO Defense, where you have X-COM/XCOM/XCom/etc. Apocalypse might be more consistent and I have no idea for the other games. I try to use X-COM and I've done some edits to follow this standard spelling but I'd like to read more opinions [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 17:43, 22 November 2008 (CST)<br />
:I've had a check through the in-game strings and most if not all of them say "Xcom", which is my least favourite spelling. :( I think X-COM has the best flavour. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 19:41, 22 November 2008 (CST)<br />
If any of you folks here have been following what I've been up to lately at the StrategyCore forums, you'll see I have been amassing a collection of most of the game versions in the series. Checking my [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/xcom/pg/ufogameversions UFO Game Versions] site page, you'll see that the original European release used XCom while the budget releases used X-Com. Other than that, those spellings quickly fell by the wayside as MicroProse decided on X-COM which quickly gained approval and remained the standard spelling throughout the series. (You can't really go by in-game text as those were not checked for consistency). Anyhow, I'd opt for the same route MicroProse took: <b>X-COM</b>. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 20:33, 22 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
===Capitalization guidelines/rules for the wiki===<br />
<br />
Another thing that crossed my mind are guidelines/rules tossed in to prevent overcapitalization.<br />
<br />
Specific ingame terms/names should be always capitalized:<br />
*Weapons (Boomeroid, Elerium, Entropy Launcher<br />
*Alien Races (Sectoid, Lobsterman, Skeletoid, etc.)<br />
*Organizations (MarSec, General Dynamics, Council of Funding Nations)<br />
*X-COM Crafts (Skyranger, Manta, Dimension Probe)<br />
<br />
Generic ingame terms/names (that already exist in English) should be capitalized the first time they are mentioned on a wiki entry. Some examples:<br />
*Weapons (Plasma Rifle, Torpedo Launcher, Vortex Mine, etc.)<br />
*UFO types (Large Scout, Dreadnaught, Alien Mothership, etc.)<br />
*Soldier Attributes/Agent Stats (Stamina, Psi-defense, etc.)<br />
*Base Facilities<br />
<br />
Wiki terms should be capitalized the first time they are mentioned on a wiki entry:<br />
*Tactics<br />
*Economics<br />
*Game Mechanics<br />
*Etc.<br />
<br />
A few other rules to prevent overcapitalization and make a smooth reading:<br />
*After the 1st mention, generic ingame terms are not required to be capitalized. As an example, after the first mention of a Laser Pistol, any additional mention(s) to them can simply use the term pistol(s). <br />
*When refering to similar names/terms, it is advisable to capitalize both when they are mentioned. Eg. "Auto Cannon, unlike Heavy Cannon, allows for automatic fire" "Large Scouts are more dangerous than Medium Scouts". <br />
*The same applies to wiki terms. <br />
<br />
[[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 16:54, 23 November 2008 (CST)<br />
<br />
== X-COM on Steam ==<br />
<br />
This weekend, Steam is holding a special sale on X-COM, so if you've been thinking about buying their package, today would be an ideal day to do so. [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 15:29, 11 January 2009 (CST)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Flying_Suit&diff=17413Talk:Flying Suit2008-10-27T03:38:03Z<p>NightChime: New section: Stamina drain while flying</p>
<hr />
<div>Once a soldier with armour on is hit during the course of a mission, is the armour then depleted in any way? For example, if a solider in personal armour takes a laser pistol hit to the chest, is the soldier's chestplate armour rating reduced in any way?<br />
[[User:Majick|Majick]] 13:07, 29 November 2006 (PST)<br />
<br />
According to the [[damage]] article, it is. But only if the shot did damage to the soldier. You can confirm this by mind controlling some aliens after taking a few shots at them. Or maybe even letting your soldiers shoot at each other (not recommended).--[[User:Dumas|Dumas]] 15:13, 29 November 2006 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Stamina drain while flying ==<br />
<br />
Like many other objectionable aspects of X-Com, I think it's silly that flying in the suit costs stamina. "I just flew in from Chicago. Man, are my arms tired."</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Armour&diff=17412Talk:Armour2008-10-27T03:28:34Z<p>NightChime: </p>
<hr />
<div>:Todo: Armour needs its own section, to encapsulate anything and jolly well everything you need to know about armour, and its managment - with bits from the damage -vs- armour discussion<br />
<br />
Have added the basic article to hang the above extensions requested off at least. --[[User:Sfnhltb|Sfnhltb]] 10:42, 7 March 2007 (PST)<br />
------<br />
<br />
"So the only way to keep from losing armour is to keep your soldiers alive." - Well... there's another way: you can always not bring armor if you really want to keep it ;)<br />
<br />
Is it just me or this whole point is a little... well pointless. If you want to keep your soldiers alive then armor really helps. If you want to keep your armor then leave it at the base. If you want to keep your armor and your soldiers alive then... bring your armor and don't get killed. Bah! I think I'm goina shoot a blaster launcher at the wall behind my desktop :) . [[User:Hobbes|Hobbes]] 20:57, 26 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:If you think the second sentence is overkill, feel free to remove it. [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 22:28, 26 October 2008 (CDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Reaction_Fire_Weapon_Preference&diff=17411Reaction Fire Weapon Preference2008-10-27T03:26:03Z<p>NightChime: Included sentence about default active weapon</p>
<hr />
<div>If a soldier is carrying a weapon in each hand, one of these will be treated as the ''active weapon'' and will be used by the soldier for all reaction shots. If the active weapon runs out of ammunition, the soldier will switch to the other weapon, provided it contains ammunition as well. <br />
<br />
At mission start, the left-hand weapon is the active weapon by default. Otherwise, whichever weapon the soldier last fired with will be treated as the active weapon. To change which weapon is active, fire with the desired weapon, or open its fire mode menu but cancel the attack.<br />
<br />
Your soldier's sprite will be displayed with whichever weapon is currently active.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
{| align = "center" width = "80%" style ="border: solid 1px black; background: #EEE;"<br />
|-<br />
|'''Tip!''': By setting your active weapon, you will be able to tell your soldier what to fire with the next time the soldier gets an attack of opportunity. For example, if you were to have a [[Small Launcher]] in one hand an a [[Plasma Rifle]] in the other hand, and activating the small launcher will ensure that the soldier fires the small launcher first and then (since the launcher is now empty) switch over to the plasma rifle for all subsequent attacks of opportunity.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
[[Reactions]]</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Armour&diff=17408Armour2008-10-27T00:31:28Z<p>NightChime: mentioning loss of armor upon death</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Armour''' is one of the more important technological improvements you can start [[research]]ing after first contact with the aliens. Even the first technological breakthrough in this area makes your [[soldiers]] much more likely to survive a direct hit on the battlefield, and decreases the amount of time your soldiers will spend recovering from wounds. It will help you build your agents [[experience]] much faster, and make the [[Battlescape]] somewhat more forgiving of mistakes and bad luck.<br />
<br />
==Armour Types==<br />
<br />
[[Coveralls]] - Light Kevlar protection that your agents will always have at minimum on the battlefield, although its not likely to help them much against alien weaponry.<br />
<br />
[[Personal Armour]] - Incorporating [[Alien Alloys|Alien Alloy]] plates to make for a moderate level of protection.<br />
<br />
[[Power Suit]] - Heavy plates with Elerium-powered muscle assist and air-filtering system, this will make your soldiers into veritable walking tanks, although still not invulnerable.<br />
<br />
[[Flying Suit]] - Power Suit with Anti-grav harness allowing your soldiers to move more rapidly about the battlefield and negating the danger of some threats.<br />
<br />
==Quick Comparison==<br />
<br />
<table {{StdCenterTable}} class="sortable"><br />
<tr {{StdDescTable_Heading}}><th width="200">Armour</th><th width="80">Front</th><th width="80">Left</th><th width="80">Right</th><th width="80">Rear</th><th width="80">Under</th></tr><br />
<tr><td>Coveralls</td><td>12</td><td>8</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>2</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Personal Armour*</td><td>50</td><td>40</td><td>40</td><td>40</td><td>30</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Power Suit**</td><td>100</td><td>80</td><td>80</td><td>70</td><td>60</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>Flying Suit**</td><td>110</td><td>90</td><td>90</td><td>80</td><td>70</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
<nowiki>*</nowiki> Protects the wearer against all [[Incendiary]]/Fire damage, and 10% resistance to Stun damage. <br><br />
<nowiki>**</nowiki> Protects the wearer against all [[Incendiary]]/Fire damage and the [[Stun]] damage caused by [[Smoke]] inhalation, as well as 20% resistance to all other Stun damage <br><br />
<br />
==Note==<br />
<br />
Just like your soldiers, when one wearing armour dies, the armour's gone for good. So the only way to keep from losing armour is to keep your soldiers alive.<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Damage]]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Equipment (UFO Defense) Navbar}}<br />
[[Category:Armour]]</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Equipment_(EU)&diff=17407Equipment (EU)2008-10-27T00:00:23Z<p>NightChime: /* Weapons */ grammar - conjugation</p>
<hr />
<div>There are many different types of '''equipment''' available in X-COM. All human-based technologies are available for purchase from the start of the game, but items based on alien technology must first be [[research]]ed and then [[manufacture]]d.<br />
<br />
==Armour==<br />
:''Main article:'' [[Armour]]<br />
Armour is worn by your agents to protect them against enemy fire both direct and indirect. Initially your agents will all be wearing basic kevlar plates that provide some minimal level of defense, as your technology progresses your [[soldiers]] will be able to survive significant levels of damage without injury.<br />
<br />
==Weapons==<br />
:''Main article:'' [[Weapons]]<br />
Weapons are required to take on the alien threat, you initially have access to a fair range of weapons of various types, and research will give you access to both use captured alien weapons and manufacture a few of of your own.<br />
<br />
==Portable Equipment==<br />
There are a few items that do not fall under either category above, most are used for various purposes on the battlefield to gain tactical advantages.<br />
<br />
* [[Smoke Grenade]]<br />
* [[Motion Scanner]]<br />
* [[Medi-Kit]]<br />
* [[Electro-flare]]<br />
* [[Psi-Amp]]<br />
* [[Mind Probe]]<br />
* [[Elerium-115]]<br />
<br />
==See Also==<br />
*[[Item Weight]]<br />
*[[Buying/Selling/Transferring]]<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Equipment (UFO Defense) Navbar}}<br />
[[Category:Equipment (UFO Defense)]]</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=User_talk:NightChime&diff=17405User talk:NightChime2008-10-26T00:40:50Z<p>NightChime: New section: Random things about stun</p>
<hr />
<div>== Why does X-COM warrant such a use of our time on this wiki? ==<br />
<br />
Some pessimism- really. Why? It is just a game, after all, right? Is our time worth that little? Life is short! We should go outside and go for a walk, or read a book, or get laid, or sew, or something. Be productive and make something!<br />
<br />
Some optimism- Hey, it's a fun game! It's fairly popular, if just in nerd circles that I'm around. I'd have to say it's the most common game that isn't browser-based I see played on laptops, anywhere, not that I see people playing games on laptops much. Anyway, more importantly is that it's such an old game that, coupled with (here I'm not sure, I'm guessing) a lack of in-depth information, strategy guides, etc. from the very start of the game, in its hay-day, combined with the erosion of such information over time; people losing or plum not saving their instruction books or guides, or the increasing percentage of people playing the game "illegally", thus not getting an instruction book in the first place (me being somewhere between, having gotten the game from a friend on an original CD, sans book or box).<br />
<br />
In a way, providing in-depth information about a game of which I'd assume most people would otherwise (or at least without the internet) have none other than word of mouth and the software itself, is a sort of creation. It's like we're building an ever stronger foundation for the game itself to stand on; by now most of the concrete has been laid out, but there are still plenty of flaws and bubbles to be resonated out (see [http://www.tpub.com/content/construction/14043/css/14043_195.htm Concrete Vibrators] for my metaphor to maybe make more sense, I only recently learned about the technique). And with a stronger foundation, or to exit the metaphor, a greater, broader appreciation for this classic, which I suppose you could say has been successfully done with the release on Steam, will mean the game itself will remain in circulation for longer, and maybe even shine brighter through the sands of time as a classic. To mix a billion more metaphors.<br />
<br />
And so a random, ''very'' negative thought I had gets turned on its head! Smiles, et cetera, [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 02:15, 23 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
== Random things about stun ==<br />
<br />
One ability that would be fun to add to the Medi-Kit in a remake is a tranquilizer, which may not do as much stun as the Stun Rod, only be a gradual effect (like the meds hitting the bloodstream), and thus be a far less effective at knocking someone out, but would be a valuable tool in 'keeping a stunned enemy unconscious', and could maybe even help cure panic or berserk without knocking your soldier out completely (but make them more susceptible to enemy stun damage / smoke).<br />
<br />
To that effect it would also be cool if smoke inhalation affected unconscious units as well (but maybe to a lesser degree since smoke rises and they're on the ground), effectively keeping them out of commission.</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=User:NightChime&diff=17402User:NightChime2008-10-25T08:15:03Z<p>NightChime: Shut up, I just don't preview often enough, and I demand perfection.</p>
<hr />
<div>Name: Ryan<br />
<br />
Gender: Male<br />
<br />
Born: June 1987<br />
<br />
:I Play UFO Defense through DOSBox 0.72, installed from CD on loan since 2006 (so I'd guess v1.4), and as of 2008 loaded on a flash drive. Due to OCD-like tendencies, and more due to a lack of consistent play, I haven't gone half-way through a play-through on Beginner.<br />
<br />
:For a similar DOS game, which is similar to X-COM in awesomeness, I would recommend Syndicate (which I also own a physical copy of) by Bullfrog Productions Ltd.</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=User:NightChime&diff=17401User:NightChime2008-10-25T08:13:31Z<p>NightChime: Added finer specs, and I don't know why I thought I had the European release</p>
<hr />
<div>Name: Ryan<br />
<br />
Gender: Male<br />
<br />
Born: June 1987<br />
<br />
:I Play UFO Defense through DOSBox 0.72, installed from CD on loan since 2006 (so I'd guess v1.4), and as of 2008 loaded on a flash drive. Due to OCD-like tendencies, and more due to a lack of consistent play, I haven't gone half-way through a play-through on Beginner.<br />
<br />
:For a similar DOS game, which is similar to X-COM in awesomeness, I would recommend Syndicate (which he also owns a physical copy of) by Bullfrog Productions Ltd.</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Mind_Control&diff=17400Talk:Mind Control2008-10-25T07:25:21Z<p>NightChime: I was actually zombified by a Chryssalid in a blind-spot</p>
<hr />
<div>Would someone test it please:<br />
<br />
You can stop you mind controlled unit from attacking itself by orientating the mind controlled quarter to be topmost. That is, turn your unit on the spot until it does not see itself! You can move only upwards (not vertical) along the map. If you move when the alien can see itself, then it will almost alway reaction fire as itself (if it fire). Turning on the spot does not trigger reaction fire '''in your own turn'''.<br />
<br />
USE: sometimes (read: rarely) the controlled quarter will shoot at aliens in the aliens turn as you would commonly expect, but if it has turned by a quarter movement then it can then see itself and sometimes, attack itself with its own reaction shots.<br />
<br />
Note: I think this is the only time that reaction shots are triggers by turning on the spot. Its a bit vague, but my memory is like a sieve (just look at all the minor edits i do to my pages!! )<br />
<br />
If you decide to integrate it into the main article, you don't need to sign me to my words.<br />
<br />
--[[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]] 13:28, 27 April 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Given some recent events I've seen in the game, I believe that aliens that come off of Mind Control(at the beginning of the X-COM turn) are granted their full allotment of Time Units when returned to alien control. This would make aliens you mind controlled last turn EXTREMELY dangerous(they have all their TUs available to take potshots at you.) Zombie, you be willing to test this a bit? [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 18:16, 14 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I'd always thought they got their full TUs back. A quick test with a mind probe shows otherwise; they keep whatever you left them with.<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 18:46, 14 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Well, aliens which you MC'd in your turn have the same stats you left them with during your next turn (like BB mentioned). If the aliens reactions are high enough, they might pass the reaction formula and fire on your guys if they (soldiers) move in X-COM's turn. However, when the aliens turn arrives again, it's stats are all reset back to what is saved in unitref.dat. Usually (barring Fatals or massive wounds), the alien will get full TU's back for it's trun making them dangerous. So basically you have a 1 turn grace period after MC for stats to be reset. (The first aliens turn, MC'd units lose their ability to do anything other than reaction fire, and only in the next round will things return to normal). Make sense? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:02, 14 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:It's interesting to note that you retain a tiny modicum of "control" (or at least benefit) from aliens you MCed the previous turn - from their [[Night_Missions#Personal_lighting|Personal_lighting]]. But this is probably an oversight in how viewscape updating or personal lighting checks are done, nothing more. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:54, 17 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
I have the impression that when MC'd, the controlled unit has not only full TUs, but also its energy is increased (using offset 0x23 of UNITREF.DAT). It won't go over the base energy level though. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:42, 15 February 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
:That may well be true, on thought. The easiest way for the MC code to perform would be for the computer to simulate that the newly MC'd unit just started it's turn. It also avoids nasty issues of one side running its troops to exhaustion and either accidentally or even deliberately preventing the other side from effectively using the Psissie. Zombie will probably run tests as soon as he sees this. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:36, 15 February 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Creatures Mind Control and Permanent Alien Control ==<br />
<br />
In the X-Com UFO Defense version for Windows, you don´t have to use MC on all 4-squares of the creature. Just Control two squares, and the creature is yours.<br />
<br />
I also tried the Permanent Alien Control Trick (MC Alien who can be stunned, use Mini Launcher to stun him, them wake him up using Med-Kit). It didn´t work.<br />
<br />
Also, on the Permanent Alien Control trick, you can only use the Mini Launcher, since you can´t use the stun rod on friendly (MC´d) units. [[User:Unsterblich|Unsterblich]]<br />
<br />
:Actually, you only need to MC one square to control it. However, if you only control one square, the three hostile squares can and often will reaction-fire against the MC'ed square and kill the whole unit, which may not be what you wanted. In order to avoid reaction fire, all four squares need to be under Mind Control; however, every time you MC the unit, it has it's TUs set to full, allowing you to use it for more shooting. Also, add a signature to your posts by adding 4 consecutive tildes(~) to the end of the post, like I will do now. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:40, 5 September 2008 (PDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Mind_Control&diff=17399Talk:Mind Control2008-10-25T06:33:09Z<p>NightChime: OK done fixing! haha</p>
<hr />
<div>Would someone test it please:<br />
<br />
You can stop you mind controlled unit from attacking itself by orientating the mind controlled quarter to be topmost. That is, turn your unit on the spot until it does not see itself! You can move only upwards (not vertical) along the map. If you move when the alien can see itself, then it will almost alway reaction fire as itself (if it fire). Turning on the spot does not trigger reaction fire '''in your own turn'''.<br />
<br />
USE: sometimes (read: rarely) the controlled quarter will shoot at aliens in the aliens turn as you would commonly expect, but if it has turned by a quarter movement then it can then see itself and sometimes, attack itself with its own reaction shots.<br />
<br />
Note: I think this is the only time that reaction shots are triggers by turning on the spot. Its a bit vague, but my memory is like a sieve (just look at all the minor edits i do to my pages!! )<br />
<br />
If you decide to integrate it into the main article, you don't need to sign me to my words.<br />
<br />
--[[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]] 13:28, 27 April 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Given some recent events I've seen in the game, I believe that aliens that come off of Mind Control(at the beginning of the X-COM turn) are granted their full allotment of Time Units when returned to alien control. This would make aliens you mind controlled last turn EXTREMELY dangerous(they have all their TUs available to take potshots at you.) Zombie, you be willing to test this a bit? [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 18:16, 14 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I'd always thought they got their full TUs back. A quick test with a mind probe shows otherwise; they keep whatever you left them with.<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 18:46, 14 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Well, aliens which you MC'd in your turn have the same stats you left them with during your next turn (like BB mentioned). If the aliens reactions are high enough, they might pass the reaction formula and fire on your guys if they (soldiers) move in X-COM's turn. However, when the aliens turn arrives again, it's stats are all reset back to what is saved in unitref.dat. Usually (barring Fatals or massive wounds), the alien will get full TU's back for it's trun making them dangerous. So basically you have a 1 turn grace period after MC for stats to be reset. (The first aliens turn, MC'd units lose their ability to do anything other than reaction fire, and only in the next round will things return to normal). Make sense? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:02, 14 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:It's interesting to note that you retain a tiny modicum of "control" (or at least benefit) from aliens you MCed the previous turn - from their [[Night_Missions#Personal_lighting|Personal_lighting]]. But this is probably an oversight in how viewscape updating or personal lighting checks are done, nothing more. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:54, 17 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
I have the impression that when MC'd, the controlled unit has not only full TUs, but also its energy is increased (using offset 0x23 of UNITREF.DAT). It won't go over the base energy level though. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:42, 15 February 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
:That may well be true, on thought. The easiest way for the MC code to perform would be for the computer to simulate that the newly MC'd unit just started it's turn. It also avoids nasty issues of one side running its troops to exhaustion and either accidentally or even deliberately preventing the other side from effectively using the Psissie. Zombie will probably run tests as soon as he sees this. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:36, 15 February 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Creatures Mind Control and Permanent Alien Control ==<br />
<br />
In the X-Com UFO Defense version for Windows, you don´t have to use MC on all 4-squares of the creature. Just Control two squares, and the creature is yours.<br />
<br />
I also tried the Permanent Alien Control Trick (MC Alien who can be stunned, use Mini Launcher to stun him, them wake him up using Med-Kit). It didn´t work.<br />
<br />
Also, on the Permanent Alien Control trick, you can only use the Mini Launcher, since you can´t use the stun rod on friendly (MC´d) units. [[User:Unsterblich|Unsterblich]]<br />
<br />
:Actually, you only need to MC one square to control it. However, if you only control one square, the three hostile squares can and often will reaction-fire against the MC'ed square and kill the whole unit, which may not be what you wanted. In order to avoid reaction fire, all four squares need to be under Mind Control; however, every time you MC the unit, it has it's TUs set to full, allowing you to use it for more shooting. Also, add a signature to your posts by adding 4 consecutive tildes(~) to the end of the post, like I will do now. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:40, 5 September 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Graphical glitch when MC'd by an alien ==<br />
<br />
It's the first time one of my soldiers has been mind-controlled, and his sprites are out of whack. He instead looks like a horizontal line one pixel tall of various colors (I think his color scheme, a Power Suit), about shoulder height. Upon moving, I think every other frame flashed white, or at least something to that effect. I don't really feel that it's hurt my gameplay at all, but I am curious if anyone else has experienced this. I'm running UFO Defense (1.4 i'm 99% sure) in DOSBox 0.72 on Windows XP Home. [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 01:30, 25 October 2008 (CDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Mind_Control&diff=17398Talk:Mind Control2008-10-25T06:31:37Z<p>NightChime: grammar fix</p>
<hr />
<div>Would someone test it please:<br />
<br />
You can stop you mind controlled unit from attacking itself by orientating the mind controlled quarter to be topmost. That is, turn your unit on the spot until it does not see itself! You can move only upwards (not vertical) along the map. If you move when the alien can see itself, then it will almost alway reaction fire as itself (if it fire). Turning on the spot does not trigger reaction fire '''in your own turn'''.<br />
<br />
USE: sometimes (read: rarely) the controlled quarter will shoot at aliens in the aliens turn as you would commonly expect, but if it has turned by a quarter movement then it can then see itself and sometimes, attack itself with its own reaction shots.<br />
<br />
Note: I think this is the only time that reaction shots are triggers by turning on the spot. Its a bit vague, but my memory is like a sieve (just look at all the minor edits i do to my pages!! )<br />
<br />
If you decide to integrate it into the main article, you don't need to sign me to my words.<br />
<br />
--[[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]] 13:28, 27 April 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Given some recent events I've seen in the game, I believe that aliens that come off of Mind Control(at the beginning of the X-COM turn) are granted their full allotment of Time Units when returned to alien control. This would make aliens you mind controlled last turn EXTREMELY dangerous(they have all their TUs available to take potshots at you.) Zombie, you be willing to test this a bit? [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 18:16, 14 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I'd always thought they got their full TUs back. A quick test with a mind probe shows otherwise; they keep whatever you left them with.<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 18:46, 14 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Well, aliens which you MC'd in your turn have the same stats you left them with during your next turn (like BB mentioned). If the aliens reactions are high enough, they might pass the reaction formula and fire on your guys if they (soldiers) move in X-COM's turn. However, when the aliens turn arrives again, it's stats are all reset back to what is saved in unitref.dat. Usually (barring Fatals or massive wounds), the alien will get full TU's back for it's trun making them dangerous. So basically you have a 1 turn grace period after MC for stats to be reset. (The first aliens turn, MC'd units lose their ability to do anything other than reaction fire, and only in the next round will things return to normal). Make sense? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:02, 14 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:It's interesting to note that you retain a tiny modicum of "control" (or at least benefit) from aliens you MCed the previous turn - from their [[Night_Missions#Personal_lighting|Personal_lighting]]. But this is probably an oversight in how viewscape updating or personal lighting checks are done, nothing more. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:54, 17 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
I have the impression that when MC'd, the controlled unit has not only full TUs, but also its energy is increased (using offset 0x23 of UNITREF.DAT). It won't go over the base energy level though. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:42, 15 February 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
:That may well be true, on thought. The easiest way for the MC code to perform would be for the computer to simulate that the newly MC'd unit just started it's turn. It also avoids nasty issues of one side running its troops to exhaustion and either accidentally or even deliberately preventing the other side from effectively using the Psissie. Zombie will probably run tests as soon as he sees this. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:36, 15 February 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Creatures Mind Control and Permanent Alien Control ==<br />
<br />
In the X-Com UFO Defense version for Windows, you don´t have to use MC on all 4-squares of the creature. Just Control two squares, and the creature is yours.<br />
<br />
I also tried the Permanent Alien Control Trick (MC Alien who can be stunned, use Mini Launcher to stun him, them wake him up using Med-Kit). It didn´t work.<br />
<br />
Also, on the Permanent Alien Control trick, you can only use the Mini Launcher, since you can´t use the stun rod on friendly (MC´d) units. [[User:Unsterblich|Unsterblich]]<br />
<br />
:Actually, you only need to MC one square to control it. However, if you only control one square, the three hostile squares can and often will reaction-fire against the MC'ed square and kill the whole unit, which may not be what you wanted. In order to avoid reaction fire, all four squares need to be under Mind Control; however, every time you MC the unit, it has it's TUs set to full, allowing you to use it for more shooting. Also, add a signature to your posts by adding 4 consecutive tildes(~) to the end of the post, like I will do now. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:40, 5 September 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Graphical glitch when MC'd by an alien ==<br />
<br />
It's the first time one of my soldiers has been mind-controlled, and his sprites are out of whack. He instead looks like a horizontal line one pixel tall of various colors (I think his color scheme, a Power Suit). Upon moving, I think every other frame flashed white, or at least something to that effect), about shoulder height. I don't really feel that it's hurt my gameplay or anything, but I am curious if anyone else has experienced this. I'm running UFO Defense (1.4 i'm 99% sure) in DOSBox 0.72 on Windows XP Home. [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 01:30, 25 October 2008 (CDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Mind_Control&diff=17397Talk:Mind Control2008-10-25T06:30:30Z<p>NightChime: New section: Graphical glitch when MC'd by an alien</p>
<hr />
<div>Would someone test it please:<br />
<br />
You can stop you mind controlled unit from attacking itself by orientating the mind controlled quarter to be topmost. That is, turn your unit on the spot until it does not see itself! You can move only upwards (not vertical) along the map. If you move when the alien can see itself, then it will almost alway reaction fire as itself (if it fire). Turning on the spot does not trigger reaction fire '''in your own turn'''.<br />
<br />
USE: sometimes (read: rarely) the controlled quarter will shoot at aliens in the aliens turn as you would commonly expect, but if it has turned by a quarter movement then it can then see itself and sometimes, attack itself with its own reaction shots.<br />
<br />
Note: I think this is the only time that reaction shots are triggers by turning on the spot. Its a bit vague, but my memory is like a sieve (just look at all the minor edits i do to my pages!! )<br />
<br />
If you decide to integrate it into the main article, you don't need to sign me to my words.<br />
<br />
--[[User:EsTeR|EsTeR]] 13:28, 27 April 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Given some recent events I've seen in the game, I believe that aliens that come off of Mind Control(at the beginning of the X-COM turn) are granted their full allotment of Time Units when returned to alien control. This would make aliens you mind controlled last turn EXTREMELY dangerous(they have all their TUs available to take potshots at you.) Zombie, you be willing to test this a bit? [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 18:16, 14 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
I'd always thought they got their full TUs back. A quick test with a mind probe shows otherwise; they keep whatever you left them with.<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 18:46, 14 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
Well, aliens which you MC'd in your turn have the same stats you left them with during your next turn (like BB mentioned). If the aliens reactions are high enough, they might pass the reaction formula and fire on your guys if they (soldiers) move in X-COM's turn. However, when the aliens turn arrives again, it's stats are all reset back to what is saved in unitref.dat. Usually (barring Fatals or massive wounds), the alien will get full TU's back for it's trun making them dangerous. So basically you have a 1 turn grace period after MC for stats to be reset. (The first aliens turn, MC'd units lose their ability to do anything other than reaction fire, and only in the next round will things return to normal). Make sense? --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 19:02, 14 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
:It's interesting to note that you retain a tiny modicum of "control" (or at least benefit) from aliens you MCed the previous turn - from their [[Night_Missions#Personal_lighting|Personal_lighting]]. But this is probably an oversight in how viewscape updating or personal lighting checks are done, nothing more. - [[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 18:54, 17 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
I have the impression that when MC'd, the controlled unit has not only full TUs, but also its energy is increased (using offset 0x23 of UNITREF.DAT). It won't go over the base energy level though. [[User:Seb76|Seb76]] 14:42, 15 February 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
:That may well be true, on thought. The easiest way for the MC code to perform would be for the computer to simulate that the newly MC'd unit just started it's turn. It also avoids nasty issues of one side running its troops to exhaustion and either accidentally or even deliberately preventing the other side from effectively using the Psissie. Zombie will probably run tests as soon as he sees this. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:36, 15 February 2008 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Creatures Mind Control and Permanent Alien Control ==<br />
<br />
In the X-Com UFO Defense version for Windows, you don´t have to use MC on all 4-squares of the creature. Just Control two squares, and the creature is yours.<br />
<br />
I also tried the Permanent Alien Control Trick (MC Alien who can be stunned, use Mini Launcher to stun him, them wake him up using Med-Kit). It didn´t work.<br />
<br />
Also, on the Permanent Alien Control trick, you can only use the Mini Launcher, since you can´t use the stun rod on friendly (MC´d) units. [[User:Unsterblich|Unsterblich]]<br />
<br />
:Actually, you only need to MC one square to control it. However, if you only control one square, the three hostile squares can and often will reaction-fire against the MC'ed square and kill the whole unit, which may not be what you wanted. In order to avoid reaction fire, all four squares need to be under Mind Control; however, every time you MC the unit, it has it's TUs set to full, allowing you to use it for more shooting. Also, add a signature to your posts by adding 4 consecutive tildes(~) to the end of the post, like I will do now. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:40, 5 September 2008 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Graphical glitch when MC'd by an alien ==<br />
<br />
It's the first time one of my soldiers has been mind-controlled, and his sprites are out of whack. He instead looks like a horizontal line one pixel tall of various (I think his color scheme, a Power Suit). Upon moving, I think every other frame flashed white, or at least something to that effect. I don't really feel that it's hurt my gameplay or anything, but I am curious if anyone else has experienced this. I'm running UFO Defense (1.4 i'm 99% sure) in DOSBox 0.72 on Windows XP Home. [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 01:30, 25 October 2008 (CDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Rocket_Launcher&diff=17387Talk:Rocket Launcher2008-10-24T03:43:33Z<p>NightChime: added name and timestamp</p>
<hr />
<div>Wouldn't you be able to get two snap shots off in one turn if you dual-wield rocket launchers? [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 22:43, 23 October 2008 (CDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Rocket_Launcher&diff=17386Talk:Rocket Launcher2008-10-24T03:42:52Z<p>NightChime: Quick question</p>
<hr />
<div>Wouldn't you be able to get two snap shots off in one turn if you dual-wield rocket launchers?</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Weapons&diff=17376Talk:Weapons2008-10-23T09:11:50Z<p>NightChime: New section: Which weapons are two-handed?</p>
<hr />
<div>Just reading through most of the equipment entries in sequence, I must say we've gathered some very good information over the years. There's always work to be done, of course, but I thought I'd mention some to-do's that just occured to me that need looking into at some time in the near future. <br />
<br />
* Standardisation of the individual weapon subsection layouts - suggestions welcome. It's rather inconsistent at the moment. <br />
* Improvement of weapon stat display. I was thinking, perhaps a template would be handy in this respect? Perhaps two or three varieties such as for items that don't need the different firing stats. Sort of like what I did for the base display kit template, only less complex. <br />
* Some descriptions of weapons need work on - although I must admit I quite like the extremely short description for the [[High Explosive]]. Short and sweet. It conveys so much! <br />
* There are some universal notes in the various sections that could use a section on their own. Like the tips for the rocket launcher usage or the notes on the special qualities of the basic pistol and the idiosyncrasy involved in pistol armament in UFO. Lots of little interesting things like this that deserve a place of their own rather than being tucked away in all the pages. <br />
<br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
<br />
:Here's my suggestion for a standardized template, starting from the top of a page.<br />
<br />
::Blurb<br />
::Auto-generated Table of Contents<br />
::General Description<br />
::Recommendation<br />
::Weapon Statistics<br />
:::Size<br />
:::Weight<br />
:::TUs<br />
::::Auto(Auto Accuracy) (If applicable)<br />
::::Snap(Snap Accuracy)<br />
::::Aimed(Aimed Accuracy)<br />
:::Purchase/Manufacturing Cost<br />
:::Sale Price<br />
::Ammo Statistics(If applicable)<br />
:::Power<br />
:::Ammo<br />
:::Size<br />
:::Weight<br />
:::Purchase/Manufacture Cost<br />
:::Sale Price<br />
::Continuous Fire Rate<br />
::Tips And Tricks<br />
::Anything else(Grenade Relay, Pistol distribution notes, Blaster Bomb Safe Practice section, etc.)<br />
<br />
:Suggestions? Comments? Approvals? [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 11:47, 13 September 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
==Quick Overview Table==<br />
<br />
It's ugly, too ugly for the article IMO. But after all that work I want to put it *somewhere*. So here it is.<br />
''old table has been cast away''<br />
--[[User:Schnobs|Schnobs]] 13:50, 25 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Yeah, sad to say that does look a bit clunky. Perhaps Zombie would be willing to put together an HTML table saying the same thing? I can think of a few other things that should go on that list myself, such as loaded weight and size. [[User:Arrow Quivershaft|Arrow Quivershaft]] 15:45, 25 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
A quick tweak to the header and you get this:<br />
<br />
{| {{StdDescTable}}<br />
|- {{StdDescTable_Heading}}<br />
! Weapon !! Damage !! Accuracy !! TUs !! Rounds<br>per Clip <br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Pistol]] ||26 || 60/-/78 || 18/-/30 || 12<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Rifle]] || 30 || 60/35/110 || 25/35/80 || 20<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Laser Pistol]] || 46 || 40/28/68 || 20/25/55 || &infin;<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Laser Rifle]] || 60 || 65/46/100 || 25/34/50 || &infin;<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Heavy Laser ]] || 85 || 50/-/84 || 33/-/75 || &infin;<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Plasma Pistol]] || 52 || 65/50/85 || 30/30/60 || 26<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Plasma Rifle]] || 80 || 86/55/100 || 30/36/60 || 28<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Heavy Plasma ]] || 115 || 75/50/110 || 30/35/60 || 35<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Heavy Cannon]] || 56 AP<br>52 HE<br>60 In || 60/-/90 || 33/-/80 || 6<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Auto Cannon]] || 42 AP<br>44HE<br>48 In || 56/32/82 || 33/40/80 || 14<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Rocket Launcher ]] || 75 HE<br>100HE<br>90 In || 55/-/115 || 45/-/75 || 1<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Small Launcher]] || 90 Stun || 65/-/110 || 40/-/75 || 1<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Blaster Launcher]] || 200 HE || -/-/120 || -/-/80 || 1<br />
|}<br />
<br />
There's also damage tolerance (endurance?), value, damage types (laser/plasma/AP), the [[Stun Rod]], the double-handed req, and perhaps grenades.<br />
<br />
- [[User:Bomb Bloke|Bomb Bloke]] 17:00, 25 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
----<br />
A major tweak and you get the following:<br />
<br />
<table {{StdCenterTable}}><br />
<tr {{StdDescTable_Heading}}><th rowspan="2" width="110">Weapon</th><th colspan="2" width="100">Damage</th><th rowspan="2" width="50">Shot Type</th><th rowspan="2" width="50">Acc %</th><th rowspan="2" width="50">TU %</th></tr><br />
<tr {{StdDescTable_Heading}}><th>Value</th><th>Type</th></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left" rowspan="3">[[Pistol]]</td><td rowspan="3">26</td><td rowspan="3">AP</td><th align="left">Auto</th><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Snap</th><td>60</td><td>18</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Aim</th><td>78</td><td>30</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left" rowspan="3">[[Rifle]]</td><td rowspan="3">30</td><td rowspan="3">AP</td><th align="left">Auto</th><td>35</td><td>35</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Snap</th><td>60</td><td>25</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Aim</th><td>110</td><td>80</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left" rowspan="3">[[Auto Cannon]]</td><td>42</td><td>AP</td><th align="left">Auto</th><td>32</td><td>40</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>44</td><td>HE</td><th align="left">Snap</th><td>56</td><td>33</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>48</td><td>I</td><th align="left">Aim</th><td>82</td><td>80</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left" rowspan="3">[[Heavy Cannon]]</td><td>56</td><td>AP</td><th align="left">Auto</th><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>52</td><td>HE</td><th align="left">Snap</th><td>60</td><td>33</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>60</td><td>I</td><th align="left">Aim</th><td>90</td><td>80</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left" rowspan="3">[[Rocket Launcher]]</td><td>75</td><td>HE</td><th align="left">Auto</th><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>100</td><td>HE</td><th align="left">Snap</th><td>55</td><td>45</td></tr><br />
<tr><td>90</td><td>I</td><th align="left">Aim</th><td>110</td><td>75</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left" rowspan="3">[[Laser Pistol]]</td><td rowspan="3">46</td><td rowspan="3">Las</td><th align="left">Auto</th><td>28</td><td>25</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Snap</th><td>40</td><td>20</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Aim</th><td>68</td><td>55</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left" rowspan="3">[[Laser Rifle]]</td><td rowspan="3">60</td><td rowspan="3">Las</td><th align="left">Auto</th><td>46</td><td>34</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Snap</th><td>65</td><td>25</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Aim</th><td>100</td><td>50</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left" rowspan="3">[[Heavy Laser]]</td><td rowspan="3">85</td><td rowspan="3">Las</td><th align="left">Auto</th><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Snap</th><td>50</td><td>33</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Aim</th><td>84</td><td>75</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left" rowspan="3">[[Plasma Pistol]]</td rowspan="3"><td rowspan="3">52</td><td rowspan="3">Pla</td><th align="left">Auto</th><td>50</td><td>30</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Snap</th><td>65</td><td>30</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Aim</th><td>85</td><td>60</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left" rowspan="3">[[Plasma Rifle]]</td><td rowspan="3">80</td><td rowspan="3">Pla</td><th align="left">Auto</th><td>55</td><td>36</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Snap</th><td>86</td><td>30</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Aim</th><td>100</td><td>60</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left" rowspan="3">[[Heavy Plasma]]</td><td rowspan="3">115</td><td rowspan="3">Pla</td><th align="left">Auto</th><td>50</td><td>35</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Snap</th><td>75</td><td>30</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Aim</th><td>110</td><td>60</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left" rowspan="3">[[Small Launcher]]</td><td rowspan="3">90</td><td rowspan="3">Stu</td><th align="left">Auto</th><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Snap</th><td>65</td><td>40</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Aim</th><td>110</td><td>75</td></tr><br />
<tr><td align="left" rowspan="3">[[Blaster Launcher]]</td><td rowspan="3">200</td><td rowspan="3">HE</td><th align="left">Auto</th><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Snap</th><td>NA</td><td>NA</td></tr><br />
<tr><th align="left">Aim</th><td>120</td><td>80</td></tr><br />
</table><br />
I just reused a bit of the code I made for the [http://www.strategycore.co.uk/ufo/pg/amweapons/wide/1 UFO Aftermath] weapons at StrategyCore. I suggest we use the same format as that page. (Why reinvent the wheel?) Granted, this table isn't as condensed but it at least it is organized. Also, I didn't add any other stats to it. No time right now, but tomorrow maybe. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:28, 25 October 2007 (PDT)<br />
<br />
::O! M! G! -- You didn't do this by hand did you? It has indeed become much prettier. However, I don't agree with the way you arranged the auto/snap/aimed stats. Having one line per weapon and all data sorted in columns allows for easier comparison, which was the prime reason why I started a table in the first place. First glance issues are also the reason why I prefer a dash over "NA". Hmm. It just changed the header first, did it, my precious? Let uss ssssee...<br />
<br />
{| {{StdDescTable}}<br />
|- {{StdDescTable_Heading}}<br />
! Weapon !! Damage !! Acc !! ura !! cy!! TUs !! !! !! Rounds<br>per Clip <br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Pistol]] || 26 AP || 60 || -- || 78 || 18 || -- || 30 || 12<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Rifle]] || 30 AP || 60 || 35 || 110 || 25 || 35 || 80 || 20<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Laser Pistol]] || 46 Las || 40 || 28 || 68 || 20 || 25 || 55 || &infin;<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Laser Rifle]] || 60 Las || 65 || 46 || 100 || 25 || 34 || 50 || &infin;<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Heavy Laser ]] || 85 Las || 50 || -- || 84 || 33 || -- || 75 || &infin;<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Plasma Pistol]] || 52 Pla || 65 || 50 || 85 || 30 || 30 || 60 || 26<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Plasma Rifle]] || 80 Pla || 86 || 55 || 100 || 30 || 36 || 60 || 28<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Heavy Plasma ]] || 115 Pla || 75 || 50 || 110 || 30 || 35 || 60 || 35<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Heavy Cannon]] || 56 AP<br>52 HE<br>60 In || 60 || -- || 90 || 33 || -- || 80 || 6<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Auto Cannon]] || 42 AP<br>44HE<br>48 In || 56 || 32 || 82 || 33 || 40 || 80 || 14<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Rocket Launcher ]] || 75 HE<br>100HE<br>90 In || 55 || -- || 115 || 45 || -- || 75 || 1<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Small Launcher]] || 90 Stun || 65 || -- || 110 || 40 || -- || 75 || 1<br />
|- align="center"<br />
| [[Blaster Launcher]] || 200 HE || -- || -- || 120 || -- || -- || 80 || 1<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Not better than before, under "first glance comparison" aspects. Even if I could make ''rowspan'' work on headers. --[[User:Schnobs|Schnobs]]<br />
<br />
== Which weapons are two-handed? ==<br />
<br />
Frankly, I don't know exactly which weapons are two-handed, as related to the accuracy penalty. This information would best go either in each weapon page, or here on a weapon list.</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=User_talk:NightChime&diff=17374User talk:NightChime2008-10-23T07:30:48Z<p>NightChime: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Why does X-COM warrant such a use of our time on this wiki? ==<br />
<br />
Some pessimism- really. Why? It is just a game, after all, right? Is our time worth that little? Life is short! We should go outside and go for a walk, or read a book, or get laid, or sew, or something. Be productive and make something!<br />
<br />
Some optimism- Hey, it's a fun game! It's fairly popular, if just in nerd circles that I'm around. I'd have to say it's the most common game that isn't browser-based I see played on laptops, anywhere, not that I see people playing games on laptops much. Anyway, more importantly is that it's such an old game that, coupled with (here I'm not sure, I'm guessing) a lack of in-depth information, strategy guides, etc. from the very start of the game, in its hay-day, combined with the erosion of such information over time; people losing or plum not saving their instruction books or guides, or the increasing percentage of people playing the game "illegally", thus not getting an instruction book in the first place (me being somewhere between, having gotten the game from a friend on an original CD, sans book or box).<br />
<br />
In a way, providing in-depth information about a game of which I'd assume most people would otherwise (or at least without the internet) have none other than word of mouth and the software itself, is a sort of creation. It's like we're building an ever stronger foundation for the game itself to stand on; by now most of the concrete has been laid out, but there are still plenty of flaws and bubbles to be resonated out (see [http://www.tpub.com/content/construction/14043/css/14043_195.htm Concrete Vibrators] for my metaphor to maybe make more sense, I only recently learned about the technique). And with a stronger foundation, or to exit the metaphor, a greater, broader appreciation for this classic, which I suppose you could say has been successfully done with the release on Steam, will mean the game itself will remain in circulation for longer, and maybe even shine brighter through the sands of time as a classic. To mix a billion more metaphors.<br />
<br />
And so a random, ''very'' negative thought I had gets turned on its head! Smiles, et cetera, [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 02:15, 23 October 2008 (CDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=User_talk:NightChime&diff=17373User talk:NightChime2008-10-23T07:29:23Z<p>NightChime: /* Why does X-COM warrant such a use of our time on this wiki? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Why does X-COM warrant such a use of our time on this wiki? ==<br />
<br />
Some pessimism- really. Why? It is just a game, after all, right? Is our time worth that little? Life is short! We should go outside and go for a walk, or read a book, or get laid, or sew, or something. Be productive and make something!<br />
<br />
Some optimism- Hey, it's a fun game! It's fairly popular, if just in nerd circles that I'm around. I'd have to say it's the most common game that isn't browser-based I see played on laptops, anywhere, not that I see people playing games on laptops much. Anyway, more importantly is that it's such an old game that, coupled with (here I'm not sure, I'm guessing) a lack of in-depth information, strategy guides, etc. from the very start of the game, in its hay-day, combined with the erosion of such information over time; people losing or plum not saving their instruction books or guides, or the increasing percentage of people playing the game "illegally", thus not getting an instruction book in the first place (me being somewhere between, having gotten the game from a friend on an original CD, sans book or box).<br />
<br />
In a way, providing in-depth information about a game of which I'd assume most people would otherwise (or at least without the internet) have none other than word of mouth and the software itself, is a sort of creation. It's like we're building an ever stronger foundation for the game itself to stand on; by now most of the concrete has been laid out, but there are still plenty of flaws and bubbles to be resonated out (see [http://www.tpub.com/content/construction/14043/css/14043_195.htm|Concrete Vibrators] for my metaphor to maybe make more sense, I only recently learned about the technique). And with a stronger foundation, or to exit the metaphor, a greater, broader appreciation for this classic, which I suppose you could say has been successfully done with the release on Steam, will mean the game itself will remain in circulation for longer, and maybe even shine brighter through the sands of time as a classic. To mix a billion more metaphors.<br />
<br />
And so a random, ''very'' negative thought I had gets turned on its head! Smiles, et cetera, [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 02:15, 23 October 2008 (CDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=User_talk:NightChime&diff=17372User talk:NightChime2008-10-23T07:15:43Z<p>NightChime: Why does X-COM warrant such a use of our time on this wiki?</p>
<hr />
<div>== Why does X-COM warrant such a use of our time on this wiki? ==<br />
<br />
Some pessimism- really. Why? It is just a game, after all, right? Is our time worth that little?<br />
<br />
Before I get too carried away...<br />
<br />
Some optimism- Hey, it's a fun game! It's fairly popular, if just in nerd circles that I'm around. I'd have to say it's the most common game that isn't browser-based I see played on laptops, anywhere, not that I see people playing games on laptops much. Anyway, more importantly is that it's such an old game that, coupled with (here I'm not sure, I'm guessing) a lack of in-depth information, strategy guides, etc. from the very start of the game, in its hay-day, combined with the erosion of such information over time; people losing or plum not saving their instruction books or guides, or the increasing percentage of people playing the game "illegally", thus not getting an instruction book in the first place (me being somewhere between, having gotten the game from a friend on an original CD, sans book or box).<br />
<br />
And so a random, ''very'' negative thought I had gets turned on its head! Smiles, et cetera, [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 02:15, 23 October 2008 (CDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Under_The_Hood&diff=17370Talk:Under The Hood2008-10-23T05:39:56Z<p>NightChime: /* Manufacturing Time Estimates vs Actual */</p>
<hr />
<div>For saved game file discussion, NKF's analysis of LOC.DAT "20 binary rows, 50 entries" contains Geoscape tokens <br />
<br />
*Nothing = 0<br />
*UFO = 1<br />
*X-Com Craft = 2<br />
*X-Com Base = 3<br />
*Alien Base = 4 <br />
*Waypoint = 7<br />
--[[User:JellyfishGreen|JellyfishGreen]] 06:05, 23 Aug 2005 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== JFG or anybody, what's the Great Circle Route? ==<br />
<br />
enquiring minds want to know!<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
The best way to explain great circles is to first think of the old saying: "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line". For example, the shortest distance between the points (0,0) and (4,4) lies directly on the line y=x. To find distances in planer geometry it is as simple as finding a straight line which goes through those two points. But we have to remember that this is only true for Euclidean (or planer) geometry.<br />
<br />
The Earth, however, is not a plane. It is a sphere. Spherical geometry is not the same as Euclidean geometry. A point-to-point distance is simply a line segment on a Euclidean graph, but when translated into spherical coordinates it is now an arc. (Case in point: the Euclidean distance formula is rather easy, whereas the spherical distance formula requires sines, cosines and the arctangent to compute). In the same manner as extending a line segment creates a line, extending an arc creates a circle. Navigational buffs out there call this circle: "the great circle". Catch is, in order for the circle to be considered "great" it must bisect the globe into two identical hemispheres.<br />
<br />
If you ever see what the flight plan for transconinental airlines flying between London and New York is, it is an arc extending almost up to the Arctic Circle and then back down. That distance is shorter than flying on a direct line of latitude. Hope this helps. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 10:31, 5 Nov 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Thanks Z! Now I see. I gather that XCOM doesn't do it properly? And we should re-route with "waypoints" to save a little time?<br />
<br />
---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 05:41, 7 Nov 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Well, I fooled around with this a bit today and for the most part X-COM does a pretty good job of finding the shortest distance. From all the tests I ran from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere, the game always beat my time by a few minutes. Heck, I even went as far as calculating the anticipated "great circle" and following it as close as I could. Result: the game still put up better times than I did (though, not by much). I'm thinking that the problem may arise when the two points are near the equator or the poles, since those are by definition great circles. Gimme a chance to look at this closer.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:36, 7 Nov 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I'm not familiar with the great circle route myself, but you could try this experiment: <br />
<br />
Set up a base in, say, Berlin. Station a Lightning there. <br />
<br />
Now, plot to waypoint in Vancouver. See how far the Lightning gets. <br />
<br />
Refill, rearm then make another trip to Vancouver, only this time plot a course through the polar cap, using short waypoints so that the Lightning doesn't default to moving around the curve of the globe. <br />
<br />
You should, in theory, make it to Vancouver with a bit more fuel than when you set the one waypoint and let your ship do all the flying. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
== Arctic Waypoints ==<br />
<br />
It pretty much applies to manually routing your craft to the North Pole first, when going from North America to Europe/Russia/Siberia. The game's default route between any waypoints is to proceed north or south until it can follow a line of latitude, which takes longer than a pure diagonal (or great circle). Manually crossing the North Pole leaves out the latitude-following delay. Australia to Africa over the South Pole would be another application.<br />
[[User:JellyfishGreen|JellyfishGreen]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks guys. Yep, built a base in North America and Australia. Then sent a craft to different points on the globe. It just seems like points in the same hemisphere and near a pole make the games waypoint system break down. Sent a Lightning from Chicago to the center of Russia - the game did it by sending the craft up to the arctic circle, then around it till it reached its destination. Elapsed time: 4 hours. When I manually plotted waypoints directly over the North Pole, it took 2 hours. Even manually plotting a waypoint near the pole is a little dangerous - crafts tend to do some wierd stuff. [[User:Zombie|Zombie]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Ethereal Cereal - the spawn priority refers to the order in which units are generated in the battlescape. It's generally HWPs, X-Com Soldiers, Aliens, terror units etc. I forget where civilians fit into that order. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Ah, okay, thanks, it'd be nice to have an article on this, even just a 1-liner... Is there anything useful that one can make use of from knowing the spawn priority? --[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 20:21, 11 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Manufacturing Time Estimates vs Actual ==<br />
<br />
One thing which doesn't seem to be covered in this wiki is how you only get a message concerning an event once the clock's hour counter advances (save for UFO detection, which also happens 30 minutes after the hour). Why? When do other events actually happen? Well, rather than seem like a lazy douche, I did a little testing to see for myself. Specifically... these ones:<br />
<br />
'''''Formula for calculations'': Engineer Hours required / # of Engineers = "real" hours required''' (I realize this is almost stupid, but trust me, it's a necessary precedent so you know where I'm coming from, yada yada - also too lazy to write up the formula into LaTeX)<br />
<br />
*Test 1: Production of One Motion Scanner with 31 Engineers; the game "anticipates" it'll take 7 hours; it "really" takes 7:05:48.38 by outside calculation.<br />
**Starting at 21:59 it finishes at 5:00, where it would finish at 5:04 by my calculations.<br />
**Starting at 22:00 it ends at 6:00, where it would finish at 5:05 by my calculations.<br />
*Test 2: Same as Test 1 except with 25 Engineers. Computer "anticipates" it will take 8 hours, but it "really" takes 8:48<br />
**21:59 -> 6:00. Should be 6:47.<br />
**22:00 -> 7:00. Should be 6:48.<br />
*Note: I also tested starting a production at different minutes during the same hour, and they all yielded the same "anticipated" time from the computer, and the same end hour.<br />
Conclusions:<br />
*From the Production screen, with the aid of the above formula, you see that the computer always rounds ''down'' its anticipated production time.<br />
*How long it takes to manufacture is based on which hour you are in; minutes and seconds hold no influence whatsoever.<br />
*The computer's "anticipated" hours are totally correct, the Engineers just need that many ''whole'' hours for the job.<br />
So what am I getting at? Well, I can't test my conclusion yet, since I only ''have'' 31 Engineers so far in the game, but my conclusion (which is probably wrong) is that you only need 1 + half the hours required for the job # of engineers to either complete it in an hour, or else the fastest a single item can be completed is 2 hours. I think once someone can really get, or just show, me the data for this, then it ought to go into a page.<br />
<br />
The ''core'' of my conclusion, however, which my data all ''but'' proves, is that you can manipulate exactly how many (obviously one would choose the minimum number) engineers you have working on a project to get it done in the lowest integer # of hours available to you. Also that you only have to make sure that you start a project before the end of the hour, and it will get done just as fast as if you did it at the start of the hour. I'm not sure but I'd guess the same goes for transfers (where research only checks the time at midnight).<br />
<br />
Also I'm guessing this is common knowledge for some of you. But it wasn't here (not to mention the only discussion being about the great circles), and I figure it deserves a chance at being included in the article if someone can sum it up into something a little more useful.<br />
<br />
--[[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 18:56, 17 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
: I know our host of inner game mechanic boffins had a good chat on the engineering hours somewhere on the wiki at one point, but I can't think of where. Two places I might recommend having a look is the [[Manufacturing Profitability]] page and its talk page. Come to think of it, the information on how manufacturing hours ought to go in the [[Manufacturing]] page at one point or another. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 21:20, 17 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: I think discussion about how the Geoscape deals with time may be relevant here Under The Hood, or of course better yet in the Geoscape section. -[[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 23:25, 17 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
: Funnily enough I was looking at this a week ago (manufacturing time estimates vs reality) and I got the impression that the game's estimate is often one '''less''' than the actual, i.e. it often takes an hour longer than the game tells you. This hits your efficiency very badly when you manufacture small runs, with the worst case being a run of one unit. I was basically manufacturing 1, 2, 3 ,4... 9 Gauss Cannons in a cycle (then selling my profit and going back to 1 again). The impression I got was that production per hour is rounded down, with the 'extra' unit (the rounding error) being produced in the final hour of manufacturing. So let's say (hypothetical case) you are manufacturing 7 cannons and it says it will take 6 hours. One new cannon will show up in your stores each hour, and then 2 new cannon will show up at the end of the last (sixth) hour. If you manufacture one cannon, it says it will take one hour (rounding down 1.16 hrs), but actually it takes 2 hrs (rounding up 1.16 hrs). These are made up examples but you get the principle. From this I'm inferring that the games tracks "number of units produced so far" as a decimal number, but obviously only deliveres complete integers of units into your Stores (and only at the top of the hour). I did not record the estimated vs actual times scrupulously, however, so someone should test this scrupulously to be sure. The tests should be done with things that take a decent time to manufacture, otherwise your results get skewed by the bug that you can't produce more than one object of the same type at the same base in the same hour. [[User:Spike|Spike]] 09:02, 18 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
::Spike, your, how shall I say, correction, resonates soundly with me. When I was running those tests the conclusions I made were done with quick, fuzzy, mental calculations, at best (and let's not mention the worst). Anyway, what you say sounds right, although also as you say it deserves proper testing to be known. I don't know about making more items than the number of hours it takes to produce them (considering how it's said that you can't "make more than one unit an hour"), but making one unit at a time definitely seems to stifle productivity. This is especially important for me *exactly* right now in the game, since I can either make one Laser Cannon at a time, or a few Motion Scanners. Even without running the tests that "prove" this theory, it makes sense to me that the scanners may be more productive. Especially if I use a tactic probably not foreign to you, manually going to the base BEFORE production ends, selling the products, and increasing the product line's length with the increased revenue. [[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 00:39, 23 October 2008 (CDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=User:NightChime&diff=17357User:NightChime2008-10-18T04:44:33Z<p>NightChime: really minor</p>
<hr />
<div>Anti-alias: Ryan<br />
<br />
Gender: Male<br />
<br />
Birth Year: 1987<br />
<br />
:Plays Enemy Unkown through DOSBox, installed from CD on loan since 2006, and as of 2008 loaded on a flash drive. Due to OCD-like tendencies, and more due to a lack of consistent play, has not gotten past the month of March.<br />
<br />
:For a similar DOS game, which is similar to X-COM in awesomeness, he would recommend Syndicate (which he also owns a physical copy of) by Bullfrog Productions Ltd.</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=User:NightChime&diff=17356User:NightChime2008-10-18T04:37:40Z<p>NightChime: New page: Anti-alias: Ryan Gender: Male Other Useful Information: None ::Plays Enemy Unkown through DOSBox, installed from CD on loan since 2006, and as of 2008 loaded on a flash drive. Due to O...</p>
<hr />
<div>Anti-alias: Ryan<br />
<br />
Gender: Male<br />
<br />
Other Useful Information: None<br />
<br />
::Plays Enemy Unkown through DOSBox, installed from CD on loan since 2006, and as of 2008 loaded on a flash drive. Due to OCD-like tendencies, and more due to a lack of consistent play, has not gotten past the month of March.<br />
<br />
::For a similar DOS game, which is similarly awesome to X-COM, he would recommend Syndicate (which he also owns a physical copy of) by Bullfrog Productions Ltd.</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Under_The_Hood&diff=17355Talk:Under The Hood2008-10-18T04:25:56Z<p>NightChime: /* Suggestion for article ( we CAN talk about other things, right? :wink:) */</p>
<hr />
<div>For saved game file discussion, NKF's analysis of LOC.DAT "20 binary rows, 50 entries" contains Geoscape tokens <br />
<br />
*Nothing = 0<br />
*UFO = 1<br />
*X-Com Craft = 2<br />
*X-Com Base = 3<br />
*Alien Base = 4 <br />
*Waypoint = 7<br />
--[[User:JellyfishGreen|JellyfishGreen]] 06:05, 23 Aug 2005 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== JFG or anybody, what's the Great Circle Route? ==<br />
<br />
enquiring minds want to know!<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
The best way to explain great circles is to first think of the old saying: "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line". For example, the shortest distance between the points (0,0) and (4,4) lies directly on the line y=x. To find distances in planer geometry it is as simple as finding a straight line which goes through those two points. But we have to remember that this is only true for Euclidean (or planer) geometry.<br />
<br />
The Earth, however, is not a plane. It is a sphere. Spherical geometry is not the same as Euclidean geometry. A point-to-point distance is simply a line segment on a Euclidean graph, but when translated into spherical coordinates it is now an arc. (Case in point: the Euclidean distance formula is rather easy, whereas the spherical distance formula requires sines, cosines and the arctangent to compute). In the same manner as extending a line segment creates a line, extending an arc creates a circle. Navigational buffs out there call this circle: "the great circle". Catch is, in order for the circle to be considered "great" it must bisect the globe into two identical hemispheres.<br />
<br />
If you ever see what the flight plan for transconinental airlines flying between London and New York is, it is an arc extending almost up to the Arctic Circle and then back down. That distance is shorter than flying on a direct line of latitude. Hope this helps. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 10:31, 5 Nov 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Thanks Z! Now I see. I gather that XCOM doesn't do it properly? And we should re-route with "waypoints" to save a little time?<br />
<br />
---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 05:41, 7 Nov 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Well, I fooled around with this a bit today and for the most part X-COM does a pretty good job of finding the shortest distance. From all the tests I ran from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere, the game always beat my time by a few minutes. Heck, I even went as far as calculating the anticipated "great circle" and following it as close as I could. Result: the game still put up better times than I did (though, not by much). I'm thinking that the problem may arise when the two points are near the equator or the poles, since those are by definition great circles. Gimme a chance to look at this closer.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:36, 7 Nov 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I'm not familiar with the great circle route myself, but you could try this experiment: <br />
<br />
Set up a base in, say, Berlin. Station a Lightning there. <br />
<br />
Now, plot to waypoint in Vancouver. See how far the Lightning gets. <br />
<br />
Refill, rearm then make another trip to Vancouver, only this time plot a course through the polar cap, using short waypoints so that the Lightning doesn't default to moving around the curve of the globe. <br />
<br />
You should, in theory, make it to Vancouver with a bit more fuel than when you set the one waypoint and let your ship do all the flying. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
== Arctic Waypoints ==<br />
<br />
It pretty much applies to manually routing your craft to the North Pole first, when going from North America to Europe/Russia/Siberia. The game's default route between any waypoints is to proceed north or south until it can follow a line of latitude, which takes longer than a pure diagonal (or great circle). Manually crossing the North Pole leaves out the latitude-following delay. Australia to Africa over the South Pole would be another application.<br />
[[User:JellyfishGreen|JellyfishGreen]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks guys. Yep, built a base in North America and Australia. Then sent a craft to different points on the globe. It just seems like points in the same hemisphere and near a pole make the games waypoint system break down. Sent a Lightning from Chicago to the center of Russia - the game did it by sending the craft up to the arctic circle, then around it till it reached its destination. Elapsed time: 4 hours. When I manually plotted waypoints directly over the North Pole, it took 2 hours. Even manually plotting a waypoint near the pole is a little dangerous - crafts tend to do some wierd stuff. [[User:Zombie|Zombie]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Ethereal Cereal - the spawn priority refers to the order in which units are generated in the battlescape. It's generally HWPs, X-Com Soldiers, Aliens, terror units etc. I forget where civilians fit into that order. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Ah, okay, thanks, it'd be nice to have an article on this, even just a 1-liner... Is there anything useful that one can make use of from knowing the spawn priority? --[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 20:21, 11 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Suggestion for article ( we CAN talk about other things, right? :wink:) ==<br />
<br />
One thing which doesn't seem to be covered in this wiki is how you only get a message concerning an event once the clock's hour counter advances (save for UFO detection, which also happens 30 minutes after the hour). Why? When do other events actually happen? Well, rather than seem like a lazy douche, I did a little testing to see for myself. Specifically... these ones:<br />
<br />
'''''Formula for calculations'': Engineer Hours required / # of Engineers = "real" hours required''' (I realize this is almost stupid, but trust me, it's a necessary precedent so you know where I'm coming from, yada yada - also too lazy to write up the formula into LaTeX)<br />
<br />
*Test 1: Production of One Motion Scanner with 31 Engineers; the game "anticipates" it'll take 7 hours; it "really" takes 7:05:48.38 by outside calculation.<br />
**Starting at 21:59 it finishes at 5:00, where it would finish at 5:04 by my calculations.<br />
**Starting at 22:00 it ends at 6:00, where it would finish at 5:05 by my calculations.<br />
*Test 2: Same as Test 1 except with 25 Engineers. Computer "anticipates" it will take 8 hours, but it "really" takes 8:48<br />
**21:59 -> 6:00. Should be 6:47.<br />
**22:00 -> 7:00. Should be 6:48.<br />
*Note: I also tested starting a production at different minutes during the same hour, and they all yielded the same "anticipated" time from the computer, and the same end hour.<br />
Conclusions:<br />
*From the Production screen, with the aid of the above formula, you see that the computer always rounds ''down'' its anticipated production time.<br />
*How long it takes to manufacture is based on which hour you are in; minutes and seconds hold no influence whatsoever.<br />
*The computer's "anticipated" hours are totally correct, the Engineers just need that many ''whole'' hours for the job.<br />
So what am I getting at? Well, I can't test my conclusion yet, since I only ''have'' 31 Engineers so far in the game, but my conclusion (which is probably wrong) is that you only need 1 + half the hours required for the job # of engineers to either complete it in an hour, or else the fastest a single item can be completed is 2 hours. I think once someone can really get, or just show, me the data for this, then it ought to go into a page.<br />
<br />
The ''core'' of my conclusion, however, which my data all ''but'' proves, is that you can manipulate exactly how many (obviously one would choose the minimum number) engineers you have working on a project to get it done in the lowest integer # of hours available to you. Also that you only have to make sure that you start a project before the end of the hour, and it will get done just as fast as if you did it at the start of the hour. I'm not sure but I'd guess the same goes for transfers (where research only checks the time at midnight).<br />
<br />
Also I'm guessing this is common knowledge for some of you. But it wasn't here (not to mention the only discussion being about the great circles), and I figure it deserves a chance at being included in the article if someone can sum it up into something a little more useful.<br />
<br />
--[[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 18:56, 17 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
: I know our host of inner game mechanic boffins had a good chat on the engineering hours somewhere on the wiki at one point, but I can't think of where. Two places I might recommend having a look is the [[Manufacturing Profitability]] page and its talk page. Come to think of it, the information on how manufacturing hours ought to go in the [[Manufacturing]] page at one point or another. -[[User:NKF|NKF]] 21:20, 17 October 2008 (CDT)<br />
<br />
:: I think discussion about how the Geoscape deals with time may be relevant here Under The Hood, or of course better yet in the Geoscape section. -[[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 23:25, 17 October 2008 (CDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Under_The_Hood&diff=17344Talk:Under The Hood2008-10-17T23:56:11Z<p>NightChime: New section: Suggestion for article ( we CAN talk about other things, right? :wink:)</p>
<hr />
<div>For saved game file discussion, NKF's analysis of LOC.DAT "20 binary rows, 50 entries" contains Geoscape tokens <br />
<br />
*Nothing = 0<br />
*UFO = 1<br />
*X-Com Craft = 2<br />
*X-Com Base = 3<br />
*Alien Base = 4 <br />
*Waypoint = 7<br />
--[[User:JellyfishGreen|JellyfishGreen]] 06:05, 23 Aug 2005 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== JFG or anybody, what's the Great Circle Route? ==<br />
<br />
enquiring minds want to know!<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
The best way to explain great circles is to first think of the old saying: "the shortest distance between two points is a straight line". For example, the shortest distance between the points (0,0) and (4,4) lies directly on the line y=x. To find distances in planer geometry it is as simple as finding a straight line which goes through those two points. But we have to remember that this is only true for Euclidean (or planer) geometry.<br />
<br />
The Earth, however, is not a plane. It is a sphere. Spherical geometry is not the same as Euclidean geometry. A point-to-point distance is simply a line segment on a Euclidean graph, but when translated into spherical coordinates it is now an arc. (Case in point: the Euclidean distance formula is rather easy, whereas the spherical distance formula requires sines, cosines and the arctangent to compute). In the same manner as extending a line segment creates a line, extending an arc creates a circle. Navigational buffs out there call this circle: "the great circle". Catch is, in order for the circle to be considered "great" it must bisect the globe into two identical hemispheres.<br />
<br />
If you ever see what the flight plan for transconinental airlines flying between London and New York is, it is an arc extending almost up to the Arctic Circle and then back down. That distance is shorter than flying on a direct line of latitude. Hope this helps. --[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 10:31, 5 Nov 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Thanks Z! Now I see. I gather that XCOM doesn't do it properly? And we should re-route with "waypoints" to save a little time?<br />
<br />
---[[User:MikeTheRed|MikeTheRed]] 05:41, 7 Nov 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Well, I fooled around with this a bit today and for the most part X-COM does a pretty good job of finding the shortest distance. From all the tests I ran from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere, the game always beat my time by a few minutes. Heck, I even went as far as calculating the anticipated "great circle" and following it as close as I could. Result: the game still put up better times than I did (though, not by much). I'm thinking that the problem may arise when the two points are near the equator or the poles, since those are by definition great circles. Gimme a chance to look at this closer.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Zombie|Zombie]] 21:36, 7 Nov 2005 (PST)<br />
<br />
== Suggestion ==<br />
<br />
I'm not familiar with the great circle route myself, but you could try this experiment: <br />
<br />
Set up a base in, say, Berlin. Station a Lightning there. <br />
<br />
Now, plot to waypoint in Vancouver. See how far the Lightning gets. <br />
<br />
Refill, rearm then make another trip to Vancouver, only this time plot a course through the polar cap, using short waypoints so that the Lightning doesn't default to moving around the curve of the globe. <br />
<br />
You should, in theory, make it to Vancouver with a bit more fuel than when you set the one waypoint and let your ship do all the flying. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
== Arctic Waypoints ==<br />
<br />
It pretty much applies to manually routing your craft to the North Pole first, when going from North America to Europe/Russia/Siberia. The game's default route between any waypoints is to proceed north or south until it can follow a line of latitude, which takes longer than a pure diagonal (or great circle). Manually crossing the North Pole leaves out the latitude-following delay. Australia to Africa over the South Pole would be another application.<br />
[[User:JellyfishGreen|JellyfishGreen]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks guys. Yep, built a base in North America and Australia. Then sent a craft to different points on the globe. It just seems like points in the same hemisphere and near a pole make the games waypoint system break down. Sent a Lightning from Chicago to the center of Russia - the game did it by sending the craft up to the arctic circle, then around it till it reached its destination. Elapsed time: 4 hours. When I manually plotted waypoints directly over the North Pole, it took 2 hours. Even manually plotting a waypoint near the pole is a little dangerous - crafts tend to do some wierd stuff. [[User:Zombie|Zombie]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Ethereal Cereal - the spawn priority refers to the order in which units are generated in the battlescape. It's generally HWPs, X-Com Soldiers, Aliens, terror units etc. I forget where civilians fit into that order. <br />
<br />
- [[User:NKF|NKF]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
Ah, okay, thanks, it'd be nice to have an article on this, even just a 1-liner... Is there anything useful that one can make use of from knowing the spawn priority? --[[User:Ethereal Cereal|Ethereal Cereal]] 20:21, 11 May 2006 (PDT)<br />
<br />
== Suggestion for article ( we CAN talk about other things, right? :wink:) ==<br />
<br />
One thing which doesn't seem to be covered in this wiki is how you only get a message concerning an event once the clock's hour counter advances (save for UFO detection, which also happens 30 minutes after the hour). Why? When do other events actually happen? Well, rather than seem like a lazy douche, I did a little testing to see for myself. Specifically... these ones:<br />
<br />
'''''Formula for calculations'': Engineer Hours required / # of Engineers = "real" hours required''' (I realize this is almost stupid, but trust me, it's a necessary precedent so you know where I'm coming from, yada yada - also too lazy to write up the formula into LaTeX)<br />
<br />
*Test 1: Production of One Motion Scanner with 31 Engineers; the game "anticipates" it'll take 7 hours; it "really" takes 7:05:48.38 by outside calculation.<br />
**Starting at 21:59 it finishes at 5:00, where it would finish at 5:04 by my calculations.<br />
**Starting at 22:00 it ends at 6:00, where it would finish at 5:05 by my calculations.<br />
*Test 2: Same as Test 1 except with 25 Engineers. Computer "anticipates" it will take 8 hours, but it "really" takes 8:48<br />
**21:59 -> 6:00. Should be 6:47.<br />
**22:00 -> 7:00. Should be 6:48.<br />
*Note: I also tested starting a production at different minutes during the same hour, and they all yielded the same "anticipated" time from the computer, and the same end hour.<br />
Conclusions:<br />
*From the Production screen, with the aid of the above formula, you see that the computer always rounds ''down'' its anticipated production time.<br />
*How long it takes to manufacture is based on which hour you are in; minutes and seconds hold no influence whatsoever.<br />
*The computer's "anticipated" hours are totally correct, the Engineers just need that many ''whole'' hours for the job.<br />
So what am I getting at? Well, I can't test my conclusion yet, since I only ''have'' 31 Engineers so far in the game, but my conclusion (which is probably wrong) is that you only need 1 + half the hours required for the job # of engineers to either complete it in an hour, or else the fastest a single item can be completed is 2 hours. I think once someone can really get, or just show, me the data for this, then it ought to go into a page.<br />
<br />
The ''core'' of my conclusion, however, which my data all ''but'' proves, is that you can manipulate exactly how many (obviously one would choose the minimum number) engineers you have working on a project to get it done in the lowest integer # of hours available to you. Also that you only have to make sure that you start a project before the end of the hour, and it will get done just as fast as if you did it at the start of the hour. I'm not sure but I'd guess the same goes for transfers (where research only checks the time at midnight).<br />
<br />
Also I'm guessing this is common knowledge for some of you. But it wasn't here (not to mention the only discussion being about the great circles), and I figure it deserves a chance at being included in the article if someone can sum it up into something a little more useful.<br />
<br />
--[[User:NightChime|NightChime]] 18:56, 17 October 2008 (CDT)</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Manufacturing&diff=17329Manufacturing2008-10-15T23:31:27Z<p>NightChime: /* What to Produce? */</p>
<hr />
<div>A large proportion of the most important pieces of equipment and hardware you can use against the alien threat is '''manufactured''' rather than bought. As soon as you take over command of your brand new base you have a [[Workshop]] and some Engineers to man it. The one thing you lack is something to build, and to start your list of items you can produce you will need to [[research]] one of a number of technologies. In the end manufacturing can be one of your most important departments, both equipping your [[soldiers]] and making a significant [[Manufacturing Profitability|profit]]<br />
<br />
==How to Manufacture Items==<br />
To manufacture items in a selected base you will need a number of things <br />
<br />
*A completed Workshop, you start with one in your first base, but for other bases you will need to add one if you intend to produce items there<br />
*One, or preferably quite a few, engineers stationed at that base<br />
*One or more technologies researched that result in being able to produce items<br />
*Enough money and raw materials to build at least one copy of the item you are aiming to produce<br />
<br />
When you have these things select the base management screen from the [[Geoscape]] world view, select the base you want and enter the manufacturing department. Here you will be able to choose either to Start Production to begin a new production run, or if you have an existing item being produced you can click on it which will allow you to modify the orders regarding it.<br />
<br />
==New Production==<br />
When you select the New Production option you will be shown a list of any items you can build that you do not already have being built in this particular workshop. Later in the game you may need to scroll down to see some of the items using the arrow keys.<br />
<br />
Once you have selected the appropriate item to build you will be shown an information screen that shows you the requirements, costs and timescales for that particular item. Based on the number of engineers you have available you will be able to tell how long the production of each item will take by referring to the number of engineer hours per unit. <br />
<br />
The workspace required is taken out of the 50 space you have available per workspace, and each engineer assigned uses another slot, so an item that requires 8 workspace can have up to 42 engineers working on it if you only have a single workshop, as long as you have no other items in production.<br />
<br />
Also listed is the cost, both in terms of the amount of money it will take, and also any special materials that it will use up in production, some of which are very valuable in themselves. If you have the requisite money and materials to produce at least one of the item then the option to Start Production will be present, if not you will only be able to cancel the run.<br />
<br />
==Start Production==<br />
At this point you should be shown how many engineers you have available, and how much workspace. Normally you will want to assign all your engineers to the task, as long as they can all fit into the workshop, as normally it is not efficient to produce two different types of item at once. Next select the number of units to produce, remembering that every one of them will take the monetary and raw materials cost from your account and stores when the engineers get around to starting producing it. Note that you can order as many as you like at this point, it does not check you have the resources for it, but you will have to have to ensure you transfer or recover the necessary items or money before they are needed before the engineers or the production run will stop. <br />
<br />
Note that items become available to you as soon as the individual item is finished, you dont have to wait until the production run ends and then get a lot at once, they trickle through as they are completed. You only get notified when the entire run is complete though, not when each individual item is done.<br />
<br />
Also as a warning - as soon as you press Ok to start production your engineers will immediately order all the necessary parts and bring the required special materials from your stores, even if you cancel the run immediately these will all be used up - only for the first item of course, but it pays to be sure you are making the right thing before you press ok, you don't want to be caught making Heavy Plasma guns when you meant to be making Plasma Beams, for instance.<br />
<br />
==Modifying an existing Production Run==<br />
Once you have one or more manufacturing projects in progress you will see the details of it on the main manufacturing screen. It shows the number of engineers assigned, the amount produced so far, how many are left to go, the cost per unit (but not the special materials needed), and the amount of days and hours until the entire batch will be completed.<br />
<br />
If you want to change the details of a production run, simply click on it to show a screen similar to when you started production that allows you to reassign engineers, shorten or lengthen the production run, or stop production altogether. Note that if you stop production it will lose the money and materials used in the currently in progress item, so you might want to finish the last one, or just reassign all the engineers and leave the project to be continued later - note that this takes up extra workshop space, so you might not always want to do this and just take the loss.<br />
<br />
==What to Produce?==<br />
Obviously you are limited to what you have researched, so what you want to produce at any time changes rapidly as new technologies become available to you. Before you get hold of some alien technology and research it you have three main choices that you can get into production in the first week or so, [[Medi-Kit]]s can be important to stop your soldiers dying of their wounds on the battlefield, [[Motion Scanner]]s can be useful to avoid your soldiers getting wounded on the battlefield in the first place, and Laser Weapons such as the [[Laser Pistol|Pistol]] and [[Laser Rifle|Rifle]] can help you wound the enemy much more effectively, so they all must be considered.<br />
<br />
If your scientists are being very effective, or you have just hired loads of them, then you will often find a backlog of demands coming from your soldiers, pilots and base personnel for all sorts of items, and you may need to look at expanding your production facilities with more workshops and engineers, either at the same base or another. At this point you may regret it if you haven't planned ahead for this moment as a new Workshops take 32 days to build, as well as the $800k it costs, plus an extra 50 Engineers come in at $2.5 million, and these will need new [[Living Quarters]] to house them. It is a good idea to get ahead of the curve and plan for this time lag and expenditure spike as soon as your scientists start building up a large list of items you can produce.<br />
<br />
==Show me the Money==<br />
One key thing to be aware of, particularly later on in your struggle, is that there are a number of items in the production list that can be produced for a potentially significant amount of profit when sold to various shady private individuals that approach you. Once you are at this stage, you may wish to consider which items you can make most [[Manufacturing Profitability|profitably]].<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Buying/Selling/Transferring#Manufacturable Prices]], for a table of all manufacturable items in the game, their cost and sale price, and special materials, workshop space, and engineer hours required to produce them.</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Item_Weight&diff=17324Talk:Item Weight2008-10-15T21:19:50Z<p>NightChime: New section: Civ weight</p>
<hr />
<div>I would suggest adding Item Sizes to this page as well -- i.e. how tall/wide each item is.<br />
<br />
== Civ weight ==<br />
<br />
Why do Female Civilians weigh 20 more than Male? Typo? Oversight in code? Pregnant?</div>NightChimehttps://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Medi-Kit_(EU)&diff=17321Talk:Medi-Kit (EU)2008-10-15T17:40:33Z<p>NightChime: A couple questions</p>
<hr />
<div>Can soldiers only be revived when it gives you a message telling you that they're unconscious?<br />
<br />
Is there any way to cure or prevent berserk (I guess mind control), or panic, or anything like that?</div>NightChime