Talk:Enemy Unknown (1994) Extended

General Discussion

This is very useful, putting all these things together in one place with clear instructions. This could become the new "standard" version of the game. But I think it's only fair to explain that a lot of the choices you have made for the UFOExtender.ini file are personal choices - you should advise user to review your .ini file (and helpful explanatory comments) and see if they agree.

Spike 05:11, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

UFO Extender Templates

I think your comments to the .ini file are very helpful. Here are some alternative opinions on some of the options:

• Range Based Accuracy
• [MC] Line of Fire Check

- These are to make the game harder, which can be a good thing as experienced players consider the game too easy for XCom.

• Retaliate Against Ground Assault

- Yes it does change the game dynamic but not by much. It makes the game harder for X-Com which is a good thing, makes the aliens behave smarter and more logically.

• No Blaster Bomb Drift

- Drift actually only affects aliens so again it's an option that rebalances the game in favour of the aliens and makes it more challenging.

- Maybe you could group the above options together as they all make the game more challenging, i.e. balance the game more in favour of the aliens, and explain that to the player - if you want to make the game more evenly balanced, select these options.

• Tactical Scroll
• Video Pitch
• Music Change Freeze

- You were not experiencing these issues, but others do experience it, so this is an important thing to make clear to users. They should check themselves.

• Elerium-fuelled Craft Bug

- While it may well be unintended, this removes a significant limitation on X-Com and therefore unbalances the game in X-Com's favour.

• Funky Fire

- This is definitely a bug/exploit, but the bug fix also includes some changes to the way incendiary weapons work. I think Seb's approach is correct, as he makes fire behave logically but still do roughly the same damage as non-exploit non-fixed usage. But it might be worth flagging up to the player as this is a difficult judgement call.

• Crafts Always Ready

- I disagree, though this seems realistic, it gives advantages to XCom. In particular it removes the imperative to maintain multiple craft, which is a major resource drain early in the game and in fact throughout the game. You can also argue that the un-modded game is very realistic as this is how real-world air forces operate. It is totally against procedure to re-launch aircraft without a full logistics refit. Anyway, the point is, this is a significant advantage to XCom. Maybe this option should be "balanced" by creating a risk that the aircraft just falls out of the sky - with a warning before launch "this aircraft has not been properly maintained".

• Keep Base Navigation Modules

- Potentially unbalancing? I really don't think so. Succeeding in an Alien Base assault is much, much harder than a UFO Recovery mission or Ground Assault mission that is normally used to recover Navigation Modules. This option was included by Seb at my request to facilitate a "No Interception" scenario where shooting down UFOs is impossible. It's not unbalancing, it just gives alternative ways to play the game.

• Base Building Stacking "too complex for benefit"

- Very much a personal opinion! Enabling it does no harm, as no one is obliged to use the feature if they find it too complex. For others, it is useful for simplifying construction management, especially when managing lots of bases. You make your growth plan once, "stack" the builds, and then you can forget about it until those facilities are complete.

• Stun Fest "overpowered"

- I don't agree it's overpowered. Beating up aliens is hard work. The melee weapon values are all moderate - less effective than a Stun Rod in every case, so how can that unbalancing? To me, this just adds to the game "flavour", adds realism, and is clearly part of the designers' original intent.

• Assign All Personnel

- This is a real time saver

• Hacks

Most of them are deliberate cheats and not meant for normal play so you're right to say they are hugely unbalancing.

However Recover All Clips is a kind of bug fix. Though it does give advantage to XCom it also eliminates the irritating need to manage ammo logistics. With human ammo this is not unbalancing. With scarce alien ammo, it could be, fair enough. No Score Game Over is a way of continuing "hopeless" games. Both of these have precedents in XComUtil, which a lot of players use.

• Initial Base

Again there is precedent for this in XComUtil which either gives an improved layout base (like this one) or by default a base with Large Radar and Alien Containment already completed - a big step forward. I don't think the sensible base layout is too unbalancing and it saves the tedious task of reorganising the starter base. It also gives new players a better hint about how they should design a base layout.

Lastly, but not least, as Seb76 did so much of the work on UFOExtender, maybe you should give him a credit on the page? And add his UFOExtender page to the See Also?

Cheers, Spike 05:11, 17 August 2009 (EDT)

Spike, thanks. Yes, the choices I made were personal ones informed mostly by my (poor) memories of 15 years ago just to get the ball rolling. This is exactly the discussion I want to have because I think it would be good to come up with a consensus config for a standard version of X-COM for people who just want to get right into the game. I will review your points in detail, rethink the ini config., and make it more clear that seb's UFO Extender is the centerpiece. By the way, this talk page is a hard place to have a discussion - are strategycore forums better? Xeucom 01:57, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

Hey, great to have you back after 15 years! Sure let's figure out a consensus. Actually I was thinking we might be able to make a few different .ini templates based on some themes, eg:

• Bug fixes only
• Convenience features
• "What the designers intended"
• Making the game harder
• Alternate scenarios

...etc. At the moment I'm trying to recover my account on StrategyCore (I want to post to Zombie's thread on offsets/modding). So when I get my account back I'm happy to talk there. Cheers! Spike 14:12, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

Do you remember what your account name is or what email you used to register? If so, I can set you up in a hurry. Just send me an email. --Zombie 20:10, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

A menu of configs is a good idea. I'd still say we should sweep up a balanced Bug Fixes, Conveneince Features, and Designers Intent into a consensus standard config and establish that as our base line. This is all meant to lure people in/back with a quick and easy setup, get them some play time, then let them explore all the neat options UFO Extender allows. The base line also gives us a standard testing config that we can focus on making bug free (or documenting workarounds). --Xeucom 01:30, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

Ok that sounds like a plan!

Spike 05:25, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

Actually, using a rewritten Initial Base (with a real base) with the stock starting inventory will give you serious cashflow management problems. "Retaliate Against Ground Assault" fixes the cashflow problem, and I'm unclear whether it makes the game easier or harder for X-COM. (I generally have an easier time the first three months on Superhuman than on Beginner, as the extra cashflow from the increased Retalation Acts more than compensates for equally dumb AI with more accurate ranged attacks.) -- Zaimoni 04:42, 22 August 2009 (CDT)

Small Scout Map

Does the Combo Pack include Zombie's Small Scout Map fix? If not, maybe that should be included too. Spike 14:37, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

I don't have anything in the kit for the Small Scout because nothing is wrong with it. LOL I do, however, have a Small Scout Mod (found here) which reintroduces the old Small Scout lefover from the development days. --Zombie 20:10, 20 August 2009 (EDT)

I didn't include the Small Scout patch because it seemed too little gain for the additional step of installing it since people are installing it by manual steps. There is already a very small scout in the game (the one you can grav lift into one square with hole in top) The ideal would be if someone could cook up a little exe that downloaded all the mods and installed them (or we got permission from the authors to bake it into one download) so it was one download and double click. Then it would make sense to add in some more one-trick mods. --Xeucom 01:30, 22 August 2009 (EDT)

Standard Config Discussions

This section is for discussing what should go in the standard UFO Extender config that is recommended as the downloadable ini file. The concept of the standard config is a config that fixes bugs, introduces convenience features, and retains or improves game balance while keeping the original feel. It is intended for the new or returning player who can put up with a moderate level of difficulty, but is not an elite player (Spike, I will add more sections as I have time to address all the points you raised - these are the ones I had time to research and think about with your feedback).

Game Version

There could be a problem in that the publicly available version of the game is the DOS version released by Steam. The Windows CE version is arguably no longer in the public domain, since Steam now has made its version available. At this time, only one site I can find is still offering downloads of the Windows CE edition. It could be considered the Windows CE edition is no longer "abandonware", and this seems to be the view that the operators of download sites are taking. Therefore, if looking for a reference edition, maybe we should look to modding the Steam, DOS, edition. The problem is that Seb76's loader only works on the Windows CE edition.

I think we should go ahead and define the features of a "standard edition" anyway, but the problem of what version to use will still need to be solved. Basically either the fan community (us!) extends Seb's loader to also apply to the Steam DOS version, or we need to use another tool to patch the DOS version. In theory, XcomUtil could be used to patch the DOS version to introduce all of Seb's additional patches. It is arcane to use but it could be done. The key first step would be to establish a list of patches for the DOS version that are equivalent to Seb's patches to the Windows version.

Both the Steam and GamersGate (according to forums on the latter) downloads include the Windows version. Specifically, they have a "UFO Defense.exe". I have tested the described mod set with Steam. Steam launches the DosBox DOS version by default through the steam interface, but once you create the shortcut as described, you never use it again. Does that alleviate this concern? Xeucom 09:30 August 23, 2009.

You are right! I tested it and, to my surprise, it works. I guess the Steam version must be the Windows CE version, even though it launches it via DosBox. Cool, so there is no problem there - quite the contrary, if all these mods work on the Steam distribution that's excellent. And maybe we can persuade Steam to distribute the "standard extended" version some day. Perhaps not, as we are sort of bypassing their security. Normally when you try to start the executable it should chain back to all the Steam software. In this case, I think we get by that because Seb's loader treats the executable as sort of a data file, loading it rather than directly executing it from the O/S, and also the loader controls the entry points itself (guessing?). Anyway, I suspect Steam don't really care too much about software protection on the old XCom games. Spike 06:49, 24 August 2009 (EDT)

Categories

Group all fixes into categories:

Bug Fixes

General Bug Fixes

All undisputed bugs should be fixed here.

Compatibility Problems

Audio/Video bugs and other things that some experience, some do not, depending on their platform. Should be optional and to be set up by the end user.

Closed Exploits

We might want to make it optional to close exploits and make that separate from bug fixes. The difference being that bug fixes help the player or are neutral, whereas closing an Exploit by definition makes it relatively harder for the player. Personally I don't like to encourage the use of exploits, but it's an option.

Convenience Features

These are logistic or interface enhancements that have a neutral impact on game balance. They should be included by default (unless there is controversy over a particular fix).

Designer Intent

It's sometimes hard to agree designer's intent, but where we agree we should include these. However if they affect game balance we should think long and hard. Possibly add a subsection:

Alternate Scenarios

Features to permit different ways of playing the game, but not necessarily making it harder.

Making The Game Harder

Features to increase the level of challenge. Actually this may often overlap with the previous category of Alternate Scenarios. The distinction would be that these features always make the game harder, whereas the previous category are to help the player when the player voluntarily plays in an alternative way (which, probably, is a way of playing that makes the game more challenging)

Specific Feature Discussions

Range Based Accuracy

Spike - This makes the game harder, which can be a good thing as experienced players consider the game too easy for XCom.

Xeucom - If you accept that the role of the standard config as being for the standard player, increasing difficulty for the experienced player would not by itself merit inclusion in the standard config. Things we add to the config to make things more challenging for the elite players might belong in a special 'superhuman plus' config file. Also, the official strategy guide and information on this site suggests that range is already factored into weapon accuracy and fairly balanced. In play, the anecdotal feel is that range does matter.

Range does matter though only in so far as misses are less likely to accidentally hit at longer ranges. This fix actually reduces the chance of a purposeful hit at longer ranges and increasing the distance penalty for snap fire and even more so auto fire. It could perhaps be better explained! Spike 04:47, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

Mind Control Requires Line Of Sight for X-COM Squad

Spike - This makes the game harder, which can be a good thing as experienced players consider the game too easy for XCom.

Xeucom - See standard config intent and superhuman plus alternative config concept above on difficulty argument. It doesn't seem like physical objects should block mind control in the fictional sense. Also, aliens are able to use it without line of sight (except for seeing the first X-COM soldier). I may be a bit confused here, though: Does the alien squad have to have line of sight on at least one X-COM soldier to be able to use mind control in turns after the aliens first spot an X-COM Soldier? Also, does enabling this make the X-COM soldier who is wielding the psi-amp have to have line of sight on the alien that soldier is going to target?

Yes the alien squad needs LoS on at least one soldier at some point in the turn. But the same restriction already applies to XCom. I agree this can be put in the superhuman plus category. Not sure of the details of how it works. Spike 04:47, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

Retaliate Against Ground Assault

Spike - Yes it does change the game dynamic but not by much. It makes the game harder for X-Com which is a good thing, makes the aliens behave smarter and more logically.

Xeucom - I agree with you. Aliens behaving smarter and more logically improves the gameplay experience even if it slightly increases difficulty. I think anything that improves the AI reasoning belongs in the standard config as long as the AI is adhering to fog of war principles. I will enable this in the next standard config ini.

Blaster Bomb Drift

Spike - Drift actually only affects aliens so again it's an option that rebalances the game in favour of the aliens and makes it more challenging.

Xeucom - Are you sure that drift only affects aliens? If so, is the blaster bomb overpowered without the drift? As far as I can tell, a direct or close hit from a blaster bomb is guaranteed death for a X-COM soldier, no matter the experience or suit. Would it be better to introduce blaster bomb drift to X-COM firings instead of removing it from the aliens? This seems like one of those random parts of the AI that makes them a little more unpredictable and therefore believable to me. I was reading a story on one of the missions-gone-wrong threads in the forums and an errant blaster bomb firing by the aliens really helped create a funny story.

Agreed let's confirm that drift only affects aliens. Maybe this could go in Making The Game Harder. Blaster Bombs are terribly lethal so the alien drift is often a lifesaver. Spike 04:47, 23 August 2009 (EDT)

Stun Fest

Spike - I don't agree it's overpowered. Beating up aliens is hard work. The melee weapon values are all moderate - less effective than a Stun Rod in every case, so how can that unbalancing? To me, this just adds to the game "flavour", adds realism, and is clearly part of the designers' original intent.

Xeucom - Do you know that the original game manual has a screenshot with a 'Hit' option for a rifle? Therefore, I agree with you on intent of developers and that there should be a 'pistol whip' stun option for all/most weapons (or empty hand). However, the table at seb's page suggests that the weapon values are not less than the stun rod in every case. It seems out of whack (no pun intended) for the missile launcher to do more stun damage than the stun rod, or even more stun damage than a rifle. It would be so bulky it would be harder to beat an alien with that than a pistol or rifle. So my vote is yes for (non-ranged) stun damage for non stun rod weapons, but I think we need to figure out the right balance for stun damage before adding it to the standard config.

There are definitely some wacky hand to hand damage levels in the executable, normally unused, but I thought that Seb had overridden those values to more sensible levels. I'd better check. :) 04:47, Spike 04:49, 23 August 2009 (EDT)