From UFOpaedia
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

It does seem like the Avenger is the ultimate craft. The only thing it doesn't seem to be best at is loiter time -- the Skyranger can patrol an area for much longer looking for an enemy base or watching an area that doesn't have radar coverage. In addition to being faster, tougher, heavily armed, and transporting more soliders, the Avneger also seems to have better fuel-efficiency -- being faster, it can intercept a UFO in less time and thus burn less Elerium-115. Being faster, it can transport a squad to a crash site using less Elerium-115 than a Lightning.

Is there any reason NOT to replace all my Firestorms with Avengers? Should I have nothing but Avengers for air-superiority and transport, and only keep a couple Skyrangers around for specialized tasks?

Eric 22:56, 6 January 2007 (PST)

Well, I suppose there's the long downtime the Avengers tend to have if you like to go on frequent agressive attacks on Battleships. And if you don't recover the amount of elerium you use for fuel in the missions, you'll end up with lots of pretty and expensive Hangar ornaments.
Otherwise, if you've got the elerium stocks to support them, there's no reason not to convert your attackers to Avengers. If you've got a supply ship farm nearby, maintaining an Avenger fleet is certainly viable.
I'd actually replace the Firestorms with Interceptors and keep a few emergency Avengers on standby - but that's only how I'd approach it if I were faced with that scenario. -NKF

Right. So the Avenger is the ultimate UFO-tech craft, but as you say, Interceptors still have their uses.

But, what really surprised me was that the Avenger isn't more of an Elerium-115 hog than the Firestorm or Lightning. If you're intercepting something, the Avenger will spend less time in the air = less fuel used. If I were to mod the game, that's something I would change... those twin nacelles with their respective power sources would consume twice the Elerium-115 per hour of the smaller single-engined craft like the Firestorm/Lighting.

Eric 06:58, 9 January 2007 (PST)

Yeah, I have to say its always been one of the weak spots of the game for me, you shouldnt really have one weapon system that makes everything else almost entirely redundant. The firestorm should have been the fastest, and elerium efficient, but a bit weak for taking on anything too tough, and of course no crew space as now (or maybe at most have a 2 man crew, so you could have used them on small/tiny mop ups), the Lightning should have been the same basically - just a jack of all trades in between the other two Hybrids extremes in each area, so it can fill in whatever is needed in an area, and the avenger should have still been big, tough, heavy, but slower that the other two and more fuel hungry due to its size, so you would really prefer only to send it out when needed.

Making the old human tech either superfluous, or having a very much niche role is fine of course, fits in with the games theme/scenario. Developing technologies that are almost entirely redundant 6 or 7 days later in some cases is just silly.

--Sfnhltb 15:33, 1 March 2007 (PST)

Damage repair rate exactly equal?

Comparing with the Firestorm article, it says there the repair rate is 4.8% per day (not 5% as it says here). This suggests that the repair rate of Firestorm and Avenger is not "approximately" equal but exactly equal - 24 points per day (1 point per hour?). Should we change the main article? Also, I tested damage on an Interceptor (100 points) and it repairs at 1%/hour, so also = 1 pt/hr, 24pts/day. Sounds like all aircraft repair at 1pt/hr? Spike 09:16, 5 April 2008 (PDT)

I must've missed the "Approximately" when I corrected the article(It used to claim that the Firestorm repaired at 5% per day, which is close enough to the actual 4.8% to it have been an honest error). It was finally determined in late October last year that, indeed, all craft repair at 1 HP/hour. Talk:Repairs is the relevant discussion. Feel free to remove that word at your leisure. Arrow Quivershaft 17:22, 5 April 2008 (PDT)
You are correct concerning the 1 point per hour: the engine decreases the damage level (CRAFT.DAT, offset 0xA) by one hourly for all xcom ships in 'repairing' state (offset 0x2A set to 2). I can provide you with an 'instant ship repair' patch if you don't believe me ;-) Seb76 07:17, 6 April 2008 (PDT)
Changes made; thanks guys. Spike 10:49, 6 April 2008 (PDT)

When engaging a battleship, it is more or less imperative to send in 4 Avengers at once, in order to bring it down quicker (so it get's off fewer shots), and also to hopefully share out the damage which will shorten the repair time. 600 damage distributed to 4 craft, which are EACH repaired at 1 HP per hour will complete in 4 times faster than the time of 600 HP on 1 craft. -Jasonred 23:24, 18 March 2009(PDT)

Just thought I'd move this bit for a moment. I don't think we've confirmed whether the UFOs do indeed split attacks amongst the individual ships, since return fire rates vary depending on the individual ships' range to the UFO. One at aggressive rang would be under attack more frequently than one in cautious range.
Myself, I find one or two Avengers is enough as you can rely more on Interceptors for non-battleship encounters, which would offer it plenty of time to rest between sorties, however I won't dispute that multiple Avengers will take down the battleship faster, resulting in less attacks on the ships, thus less damage overall.
Now, two Avengers is the absolute minimum if you MUST take down a battleship with cannons. Though I don't think that deserves any mention - as these are words of a madman. Mad I say! -NKF 06:46, 18 March 2009 (EDT)
I've come to the *temporary* conclusion that it does NOT split it's attacks... which is not THAT bad, as there are ways around this problem.
If UFOs DID split their attacks, it would make sending in multiple ships 16 times as good, not 4 times. Let me give an example scenario, using round numbers to make things easier

A) 1 UFO with 1000 HP, shoots for 10 damage. 1 Xcraft, 2000 HP, shoots for 10 damage, same rate of fire as UFO. Xcraft shoots 100 times, UFO shoots 100 times, Xcraft takes 1000 damage.

B) 1 UFO, 4 Xcraft. UFO gets to shoot at all Xcraft at same time. Xcraft shoot 25 times each, UFO shoots 25 times at each Xcraft. Each Xcraft takes 250 damage, total 1000.

C) 1 UFO, 4 Xcraft. UFO splits it's shots. Xcraft shoot 25 times each, UFO shoots 25 times total. Each Xcraft takes 62.5 damage average, 250 total.

As we can see, if Battleships really did split their shots, Avengers should end up taking 1/16th as much damage as they normally do... which I'm pretty sure they don't.

I think that the coding merely says "If using Aggresive Attack, make UFO fire with X frequency on this engaging craft"... nothing about having to split shots among targets.

I'm going to test this once I have 4 avengers... basically, my test will be to send out UNARMED avengers. Then I will time how long it takes a *Medium Scout* (the lower damage will give smoother average times than the battleship) to destroy 1 avenger, repeat a few times, take the average, then compare this vs 4 avengers. My money is on non-splitting. - Jasonred 01:48, 19 March 2009 (PDT)

My guess is that each interception window is independent - whatever happens in each one will behave like a separate interception. The only common thing shared between the intercept panels would be the hitpoints and the movement of the UFO should it choose to flee (from a slower ship). So when one ship is at Aggressive range (1km), it'll fight it out at its own pace and not influence the battle of combat for another ship that's fighting at 55km range. Basically the battleship will be firing at equal intervals at each X-COM ship as if it were in one-on-one combat with each one, but receiving more damage in return due to the large number of ships attacking it at the same time. Best theory I have anyway. Would be nice if we could pause the game and activate all set all the attack modes at the same time to allow simultaneous approaches to get a more accurate test. As it is, we have to account for the short gap of time as you move the cursor between the intercept panels! -NKF 02:30, 19 March 2009 (EDT)

You can reduce the affect of that gap of time by arming the avengers with weaker weapons... as the total combat time increases, that little gap of time becomes less significant. Anyhow, good way of putting it... each window is independant, only affecting the total hitpoints. Jasonred 03:40, 19 March 2009 (EDT)


Yup, I confirmed it... the battleship does NOT shoot at all your craft at the same time, it actually has to divide the shots out among your ships. In other words, your REALLY SHOULD build multiple Avengers to fight Battleships... assuming you want to fight battleships at all, of course. FYI, my test consisted of sending 3 unarmed avengers to fight a battleship... spotted a battleship and saved. Then send them in to intercept, aggresive attack 1 by 1... yup, battleship doing nice steady rapid damage. Now multiple intercept, some quick clicking skills and... ah.. battleship is concentrating on first avenger. With the occasional potshot on 2 and 3. Then it kills ship 2 with the occasional shot on 3. Then kills 3 as normal.

"be nice if we could pause the game and activate all set all the attack modes at the same time to allow simultaneous approaches to get a more accurate test. As it is, we have to account for the short gap of time as you move the cursor between the intercept panels!" - we were wrong, NKF. I also thought that the fact that your first ship takes a much bigger beating than your other ships was because we were not clicking fast enough... it turns out that it wasn't our fault, that battleship just concentrates most of it's fire on 1 ship at a time.

So, overall, I would say... MUCH better to go in with 4 ships at once, rather than soloing that battleship.

HOWEVER... this also presents the viable strategy of, as someone long ago suggested, trying to kill a battleship with 1 skyranger and 3 interceptors... just have to send the skyranger in first... hey, even if it crashes, that's only $500k and a few days before you get a new one, right? Alternatively, 1 Avenger leading the attack, + 3 Interceptors... just cross your fingers that the potshots don't down those interceptors. Jasonred 18:41, 20 March 2009 (EDT)

On an earlier note: I think the whole Avenger vs. Firestorm at 60% issue has just been clouded and just made the original message more confusing than it was. I don't think it was implied that the 60% meant equal loss of hitpoints - far from it. The Avenger, thanks to its greater hitpoints, makes players more careless to the point that they let the Avenger take more damage (since it can). They may then break off the attack once damage hits the half way mark (or any arbitrary "stop-now-before-its-too-late!" mark of your choosing). If I can get some free time in the next day or two, I'll take a shot at revising it - hopefully without losing the message. -NKF 02:54, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
"The Avenger's high hit points frequently trick inexperienced commanders into making an Avenger solo a Battleship" ... I think that reflects it. ... anyhow, a lot of people are confused about the avengers... I keep reading stuff about hybrid craft being "complex" and thus being slower to repair. The avenger is infamous for being grounded for over a month... it's a huge misconception that this is due to some disadvantage of the avenger over other aircraft. A previous article went along the lines of "the greatest strength is also it's greatest weakness" sort of stuff. Jasonred 07:35, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
You're probably thinking of soldier hitpoints with that comment. Isn't it also true that that the Avenger is put at a disadvantage by this? See, on the one hand, the advantage is that you survive better because you can withstand the attacks more thanks to having more hitpoints. No other aircraft can boast this. That's one of the traits that make the Avenger stand out amongst them. But on the other hand, because the Avenger can withstand more damage, you end up paying dearly for it with longer downtime if you let it get badly damaged. Ship and soldiers basically trade off better survivability for a longer recuperation time, so there's two sides to it. HWPs on the other hand are a counter-example where high hitpoints are nothing but an advantage, since they have no downtime. -NKF 14:08, 22 March 2009 (EDT)
Nope. Absolutely no disadvantage to have higher HP than lower HP. I challenge you to present me any possible scenario where it is better to have lower HP.

When an airplane receives X damage, there are only 2 possibilities. Either it will be in repairs for X hours. OR it will be destroyed. Same for high Health soldiers... Any troop that receives Y an amount of damage will either survive, and need Y +/- random integer number of days to recover, OR he will die outright. Having high health simply has the effect that, instead of dying, you get put into repairs/ recovery. Compare 2 soldiers. One has 50 health, the other has 100 health. Both soldiers receive 30 damage. Behold... both soldiers spend around 30 days in recovery. Later, both soldiers receive 80 damage. One spends 80 days in recovery, the other is DEAD. There is NO TRADE OFF AT ALL. It is always better to have higher max health. Jasonred 17:44, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

I never said high health was a disadvantage (or that low hitpoints was better). It's the disadvantage of high health that I'm referring to. As health loss is correlated with rest time, it's definitely a trade-off: you soak up more damage - you jolly well rest more. Those with high hit points just have more to lose. Surviving the attack with high/low hitpoints is another topic of discussion entirely.
Since the Avenger has lots of health to lose, is it not put at a disadvantage with its long downtime if the player willingly lets it get badly damaged? It's careless on the part of the player, but is often caused as a direct result of the Avenger being able to sustain more damage than any other aircraft. With the other aircraft, you can't afford to soak up too much damage so players will have them break off from combat sooner to minimize their losses.
The 1% health scalar between the various ships are definitely different, but most players will probably not be thinking in terms of actual hitpoints and actual damage dealt, but instead will judge based off the percentage indicator when they should start backing off. The percentage is visible - exact hitpoints and damage values are not. That was why the example of 60% damage between the Avenger and Firestorm was used. It wasn't implying the actual health loss was 1:1. It's just a different way of interpreting the data. -NKF 02:10, 23 March 2009 (EDT)
So... what you are saying is... RECEIVING damage is a bad thing? ... um... ok. Maybe I couldn't see the forest for the trees or something. ... Actually, I thought it was obvious? ...
Ah... yes, from this light, the HWPs really have a huge advantage... other than a loss in accuracy, there are NO ILL EFFECTS from receiving damage... as long as they don't actually get destroyed, you are golden!
Your "aircraft breaking off" scenario doesn't really happen to me much... I only engage battleships in midair IF I HAVE TO... like for a critical base defence which I might fail, or for a desperate attempt to stop an infiltration. ... For those situations, failure is not an option, so I always I engage either with at least an Avenger or multiple aircraft.
During my noob days, I did commit the stupid mistake of using a single Avenger to shoot down BOTH battleships during the Infiltration mission, 1 after another... that was bad, landed my Avenger in repairs for so freaking long... the next time, I used 5 avengers, 4 on battleship A, the badly damaged avenger heads back, and the 4 others whack Battleship B.
I never said high health was a disadvantage (or that low hitpoints was better). It's the disadvantage of high health that I'm referring to. --> Maybe I'm stupid or something, but it seems to me that these are almost the same thing. Anyhow, yes, I am also saying there is no real disadvantage OF high health. The only disadvantage is that newbie commanders get tricked by a false sense of security. By that argument, Power Armor has a disadvantage compared to Coveralls --> commanders tend to get a little more cocky once they have the whole squad in power armor, compared to no armor at all.

Jasonred 06:57, 23 March 2009 (EDT)

Proposal: split air strategies into a new page

As of the recent discussions, I think we've since gone way past the whole intent of the Avenger page, which is to describe the Avenger and what it can do. Instead we've derailed and gone right into what I would classify as general interception strategies. All arguments for the various methods are perfectly valid, but I dare say they deserve a brand new section of their own (with a shiny new spiffy link on the main UFO menu). Any in favour of that?

Come to think of it, the structure of all of the aircraft pages deserve a bit of a re-think. The "How to Use It" section in particular is a bit all over the place, and should probably be split into several sections. Hopefully in smaller bite sized chunks. -NKF 02:54, 22 March 2009 (EDT)

I'm mostly in agreement. I also think the "use four Avengers always!!!1!" argument is bogus for a number of reasons, and we shouldn't be endorsing it (the strategy has benefits, yes, but it also has problems and in any case is not remotely "imperative"). Magic9mushroom (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2018 (CEST)

A peculiarity on the battlescape

It may or may not be specific to OpenXcom, but at least in this version, soldiers at the front of the Avenger (i.e., those farthest from the door) can look out through the craft's windshield if they just turn around. This doesn't seem to happen with the Skyranger. Medinoc (talk) 18:07, 31 May 2015 (EDT)

Yeah, the Avenger's walls aren't as tightly joined as the Skyranger's. If you care to try, you can actually get your soldiers to walk through the NW diagonal wall of the Avenger. See here. Magic9mushroom (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2015 (EDT)