Talk:Incendiary

For now, we'll just say the smoke + incendiary stun effects only work on X-Com owned units until some tests can be run to confirm this. It's unusual that only X-Com units are affected, but the game has been known to surprise you even after you think you've worked something out.

- NKF

---

Given how aliens love to hang around in a smoke-filled crashed UFO, IC rounds would be insanely powerful if they did actually work against aliens in smoke. I'm glad they don't seem to, as I'd be very tempted to cheat with it. They do work against aliens standing in fire, though, which is still quite cheaty...--Ethereal Cereal 21:35, 5 May 2006 (PDT)

---

I just edited the Incendiary page a bunch, because Brunpal's Talk:Experience questions about Incendiary sparked my interest... I never did test IN vs. experience. It's a very good question if it turns out to cause Firing experience. But while reviewing this page, I had a number of questions, for anyone interested. Also, I only tried to clarify things, and don't know Incendiary well, so fix anything you know I got wrong:

1. Did I get it right re: the set [ 0, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] for chance of initially catching fire? I over-wrote "linear" because it seemed odd when XCOM usually goes, e.g., 0-10. (Who tested this? - A little help here please. Just making sure.)
2. Why flame a zombie unless it's near death (and how can you know if it is)? It's been a long time since I used fire - if you don't have flying armor, why mess around with a zombie by burning it, why not Heavy Plasma it.
3. Any research/data on tile flammability versus duration of burning is appreciated. Probably it should go on the Terrain page byte, but be clearly referenced here. It's just a curiousity, but an interesting one.
4. The last line of the page says "The damage values listed in the UFOpaedia do not determine how powerful an incendiary round deals damage; it only determines how wide an area will be blanketed with flames." Does anyone know IN strength vs radius, then? Should be easy to test and post.
5. NKF, Zombie, or anyone else... would you mind seeing if Incendiary causes the Experience counter to increase? Brunpal is right that it's important to Experience... I found Stun Bombs to count for experience across their whole range, even if no stun damage occurred... if you have 11+ Mutons in a firing squad situation, passing around an Auto-Cannon with Incendiary may be better than standard pistols, depending on the range of the blast. I could test it, but it's been a long time since I've delved into the files; maybe one of you have them more close to hand. MikeTheRed

---

Offhand, the only way I could think of to check the remaining HP on a Zombie would be by using a Mind Probe. Given the relative uselessness of a Mind Probe after Psionics are developed, as well as the time needed to use the Probe once, this seems a rather impractical course of action, unless your Rear Commander has nothing better to do. I agree, Heavy Plasma on Auto is better. Arrow Quivershaft 20:33, 1 August 2008 (PDT)

---

1. Yeah, the set is correct. When a unit is shot with an incendiary round, the game does a calculation to determine if the unit catches fire. If it doesn't catch fire, the unit takes no damage (the 0 in the set). If the unit does catch fire, it will take between 5-10 damage points. Stupid discontinuous range, but that's what happens. As you may guess, I did the Incendiary trials over at the StrategyCore forums in the Damage Modifier topic - see this post for the particulars.
2. Why flame a Zombie? Simple. A Zombie which is killed by an Incendiary round doesn't turn into a Chryssalid. Zombies are easily outrun, so you can just keep picking at them from a short distance with Auto-Cannon Incendiary rounds and then running away. Fairly effective, even when your troops do not yet have armor to protect them. And when you do not have the luxury of the Heavy Plasma early in the game, Incendiary is a good way to avoid an overabundance of Chryssalids who are not so easy to kill. As for checking the Zombie's stats, you can only rely on the Mind Probe or Psi. Neither are available early either (the Mind Probe is usually low on the research tree for most people even though you can collect enough, and Psi is difficult to use as a soldier needs to be quite proficient to use MC.
3. I have been meaning to do some tests in flammability vs terrain but only recently started fooling with MCD values. It'll be next on my list.
4. Here, I uploaded a very recent spreadsheet containing both I and Smoke when damage values are hacked. See this file which contains both.
5. I think I fooled around with Incendiary recently in conjunction with promotions. Soldiers who shot aliens with "I" didn't get promoted. Logically, that would mean the experience counter didn't increment. UNITREF.DAT would need to be checked to verify though. Addendum: indeed, as BB mentioned in the experience page (and a quick glance at the UNITREF.DAT experience counters by myself to triple-check my aging brain), Incendiary rounds do not increase any of the experience counters.

Hope this clears up some of the issues/concerns here. --Zombie 21:16, 1 August 2008 (PDT)

---

"The damage values listed in the UFOpaedia do not determine how powerful an incendiary round deals damage; it only determines how wide an area will be blanketed with flames. Fire is unlike other damage; it works at initial blast and then over time, as described above." and "Initial "impact" damage from incendiary ammunition is either for no points (unit does not catch fire), or between 5-10 points (unit catches fire)."

This should be stressed on ALL the various relevant pages. It's important. 6.4 dmg vs 90 dmg is a significant difference!--Brunpal 09:31, 2 August 2008 (PDT)

---

It looks like Incendiary is gaining some clarity (at least for me), thanks for starting it Brunpal...

• The "6.4" was only for the initial IN round impact (set [ 0, 5-10 ]); it can then burn for 4 more rounds (set [5-10]). Perhaps a short way to state this complicated damage type is "Minimum 0 (unit does not catch on fire) OR unit catches on fire 1-5 turns, 5-10 damage/turn, 5-50 damage in total (average 21.5)". Does that look right, Zombie? I'm not sure where you got 90 from Brunpal...

90 is the listed damage from an IN rocket.--Brunpal 21:39, 5 August 2008 (PDT)

• However, the numbers I just stated do not count possible additional damage from nearby terrain being on fire (as opposed to yourself). Maybe those should be included somehow. (And clearly, fire is much more dangerous outdoors than inside UFOs, where terrain does not burn.) But since terrain fire can last a variable number of turns, I guess you can't have a maximum damage. Average terrain damage from fire would be 6.5/terrain (1-12), but also, it can keep the unit itself burning more than 5 turns... hard to model.
• Good point about flaming zombies, Zombie. I guess you ought to know, eh? :)
• The spreadsheet looks great. Perhaps one of us can pull out the area patterns for non-hacked IN weapons and put them on the relevant pages. When it's done, the spreadsheet itself would be an asset to Incendiary (or maybe Damage, if it's listing all types of damage). As has been stated, it's the size (area) of the blast that actually directly relates to incendiary weapon "strength"... the diameters you found are probably what should be in parentheses next to weapon strength, although damage can appear as well.
• Ok, no experience from Incendiary blasts. It might've been real interesting if there were, but it didn't occur to me to test. (Or maybe I tested it briefly so long ago that I forgot.) I would've guessed that they did, because the stun bomb and explosives do. Oh well.
• P.S. Brunpal, we may not have touched pages in a year, but most/all of us have "Watch this page" turned on, so we get immediate notification of any pages we've edited or Watched. :)

-MikeTheRed 09:17, 5 August 2008 (PDT)

---

• Sounds correct MTR. I think Brunpal was just comparing the "damage" (actually strength) of the Incendiary Rocket (90) to the average damage due to the "impact" of the blast (6.4).
• Well, it isn't nearby terrain on fire which you have to worry about, it's the tile directly underneath a units feet which causes the most concern. If that tile is on fire and the unit doesn't move, it will take 1-12 damage points. While true that terrain on fire can last a variable number of turns, there is a definite upper-limit to how much damage a unit can possibly take. Fires don't last forever, and the combustibles eventually are consumed leaving either scorched earth or a damaged tile. Those damaged/destroyed tiles usually cannot be started on fire again by the spread of flames. They can only be set ablaze with incendiary ammo, and even then for only 1-3 turns (normal for dead tiles). So it's certainly possible to find a max damage. And for the most part, the things that burn the longest are usually objects, not tiles. And most objects you can't stand on anyway. But I totally agree that it's hard to model how fire functions due to the two forces at work: "impact" damage and damage due to standing in fire.

P.S. Some of us are actually around here and don't need to be coaxed back into existence by an email when a watched page is changed either. Just because it's quiet, it doesn't mean nobody's home. :) --Zombie 20:34, 5 August 2008 (PDT)

---

While understanding the whole formula for fire and fire damage happens is useful, it was not thinking to go that broad. I was just interested in what occurs from the moment a solider takes his shot, to the time that solider gets his TU back. ie damage from incendiary rounds vs fire damage. --Brunpal 21:39, 5 August 2008 (PDT)

Incendiary vs Large Units

We're discussing this in Talk:Sectopod#Incendiary vs Sectopod, and a question came up. When an IN round impacts one segment of a large unit, presumably that segment gets the "Incendiary impact" function, i.e. 6/7 chance of catching on fire for 5-10 damage plus 1-5 turns of being on fire. Does the same "impact" function also apply to the 3 adjacent squares (6/7 chance), or is it just the "standing in fire" chance? If you had multiple regular-sized units standing in the area of effect of an IN round, they would each get "impact" effects (right?). So it seems logical that all 4 segments of a large unit, inside the area of effect, are also exposed to "impact" effects. But I wanted to check. Spike 06:34, 9 March 2009 (CDT)

Incendiary in TFTD

I read somewhere there are reduced effects underwater (or enhanced effects on land) for TFTD Phosphor rounds. I couldn't find an exact statement of the quantitative difference - does anyone know this? Spike 14:53, 9 March 2009 (CDT)

The effects of Incendiary weapons underwater (or Phosphor, as TFTD refers to it) is halved over the UFO equivalent. Incendiary weapons are doubly effective on the surface(Terror Missions) vs underwater, but of the three weapons that can fire Incendiary, two of them(Torpedo Launcher and Hydro-Jet Cannon) can only be reaction fired on land. The Gas Cannon can be fired in eiither location. Arrow Quivershaft 15:08, 9 March 2009 (CDT)

It's clear that the effect underwater is half the effect on land. But does the base level (in USOPaedia / OBDATA) refer to land use or underwater use? Spike 15:13, 9 March 2009 (CDT)

As I recall, the base level is on land. The numbers for Phosphor ammo are close to the UFO Incendiary damage numbers, but I know it spreads less underwater. Arrow Quivershaft 15:15, 9 March 2009 (CDT)

Look at the (puny) area effect pattern sizes underwater, that sounds about right. Can anyone confirm this? Spike 15:40, 9 March 2009 (CDT)

There is actually no difference between the pattern for the Gas Cannon's P rounds underwater as on land. Both have a r=3, d=7 pattern. (CE version at least). Maybe the pattern is smaller the deeper you go? --Zombie 16:45, 9 March 2009 (CDT)

• 

  Flame pattern from Gas Cannon Phosphorous rounds underwater.

• 

  Flame pattern from Gas Cannon Phosphorous rounds on land.

OK now I'm really confused then! (I realise I was getting confused with the Dye grenade's small footprint vs Smoke grenades). If the blast pattern is the same size, that implies the weapon power is unchanged. So in what sense is Phosphorus "half as powerful" underwater? Does it burn half as long? Is the impact and fire damage halved? Spike 16:49, 9 March 2009 (CDT)

I really doubt the damage to units would be affected if the power of the round was modified. The power of the round only determines the size of the pattern produced, not the damage inflicted to units. I'll have to check the burn times and spread rate but my thought is that the two are identical in the version I'm using. Like I said, the pattern may get smaller the deeper you go underwater. The pic above was for a shallow site. It'll take a while for me to find a deeper site to check it out, otherwise some editing of the game files may be necessary to force the scenario.

I just checked the Dye Grenade underwater and on land. Both produce the same r=1, d=3 pattern. So yeah, they are really pitiful when compared to the Smoke Grenade.

Don't really go for the use of "impact" damage with Incendiary/Phosphorous rounds. There is no real impact since the damage range is discontinuous. The unit either catches fire from the splash of fire (in which case it does 5-10 damage points), or the unit doesn't catch fire and the unit remains unharmed. If there were such a thing as impact damage, the range would be continuous like normal weapons, in this theoretical case it would be [0-10] inclusive (ie the set [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. --Zombie 17:36, 9 March 2009 (CDT)

Anyway, the half thing came up because AQ was comparing TFTD to UFO, not comparing the effects in TFTD from underwater and on land. However, further comparisons reveal that a hacked HC-I round of 60 produces the same pattern as a GC-P/60 round. Perhaps this whole dilemma can be traced to the Dye Grenade? --Zombie 18:28, 9 March 2009 (CDT)

That's entirely possible the Dye Grenade is the source. However, several of the pages for the TFTD weapons state that Phosphor is far weaker in water, so I didn't check. My mistake. Arrow Quivershaft 19:35, 9 March 2009 (CDT)

Thanks for the feedback everyone. So this could just be a recycled rumour? I guess the general assumption is that the game engines are identical, so we would want evidence that TFTD is different. Looks like Zombie has proved that the area effect is equal (at least at shallow depths). That leaves only the fire damage or fire duration. Testing that would require repeated observations to check if fire damage is less than 6/hit, less than 6/turn, and burning for no more than 2-3 turns. Spike 20:14, 9 March 2009 (CDT)

As with any wiki where contributions can come from anywhere, there are bound to be problems with validity of the statements made. So unless those statements are backed up by real-life test data instead of memory or hearsay, take them with a grain of salt. The other point is to avoid spreading disinformation at all costs (I have been guilty of this as well, but try to at least quantify them). So there you go. I'm still trying to get a deeper underwater mission to check the size of the pattern produced there. Checking the spread of flames or damage inflicted to units shouldn't take too long though. I'll see if I can't get that done tonight yet. --Zombie 20:23, 9 March 2009 (CDT)

Ok, I ran some trials with an unmodified GC-P round on the normal seabed floor against soldiers having 100 health and 0 all-around armor. For the guy standing at GZ, I saw ending health values of 99, 94, 93, 92, 90, and 89 (n=50). So that comes out to 1, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 points of damage respectively. I didn't think 11 damage was possible. Here's where things differ though. All the other guys who were clustered around GZ always received only one point of damage, never more, never less. In EU, the guys around GZ took damage equal to the guy at GZ. Odd. So then it occurred to me that perhaps I should check the MCD values of the seabed (TFTD) and the desert (EU) landscapes. Both are basically identical in terms of armor. But the seafloor has a "time to burn" value of 0 while the desert has a value of 1. So maybe our understanding of normal fire isn't totally complete. I'm going to go back to EU and retest the desert landscape with varying MCD burn time flags to see how that affects damage. ;) --Zombie 23:00, 9 March 2009 (CDT)

The whole Phosphor being half effective under water is related to the burn time and spread, if I remember correctly. The settings in the MCD files may be the culprit. The actual damage dealt or initial spread may not necessarily be affected.

Hey, I just had a wacky idea. XComutil. Use its feature where you can set the depth of a mission. Launch a mission on a island terror site map (again, use XComutil's map picker to get to this faster). Lots of grass to burn there. Set fire to it and count how many turns before the fires die out. Redo the test, but this time set the depth to a deeper level. Try the whole process out again.

Next repeat this with one of ye-olde seabed maps. They look really weird without the blue palette shift when played on land, what with the landscape being gray.

It's possible that the half-effectiveness relates to the fuel that the fire has to burn more than anything else. Further confirmation on how long the flames stick to a target when on land or underwater may be helpful. -NKF 01:28, 10 March 2009 (CDT)

I've been burned one too many times using editors or utilities to mess with saved games. Half the time they introduce some unknown "feature" which isn't documented. Thanks, but no thanks. I only test with an unmodified game, except for the changes I make myself to keep control of the situation. Anyway, I tested a patch of fire on the seabed to see how long it remained lit (which has a "time to burn" value of 0). It only stayed lit the current round the shell detonated. After that the fire went out. So this agrees with what is expected. Will continue to work on this as I get time. --Zombie 01:51, 10 March 2009 (CDT)

Well, I suppose my recommendation doesn't necessarily need XComutil. It would've certainly made it easier. But yes, it does introduce a few things that work behind the scenes that we might not know too much about. However, if I remember correctly, one of the battlescape savegame files should hold the depth level of the current map you are playing on. All you'll need to do is tweak that to change the depth of the map.

One other thing, the different effect HE has on the same tiles underwater and when on land (ala the Triton) may also be one of the other culprits behind the belief that phosphor is less effective on land. Being able to blow up the Triton on land, but have it appear virtually indestructable when underwater does that. -NKF 01:59, 10 March 2009 (CDT)

---

re Zombie's underwater tests, there is normally (i.e. on land in EU) a difference between the IC damage on the target of the direct hit, vs lower damage to others in the area of effect (hmm contrary to my IC kill modelling assumptions: uh oh I may've spoken to soon). But only seeing 1 damage on the others in the AoE does seem low. We need to figure out why. Did any of the other targets catch fire? Does that ever happen underwater? Do tiles ever burn past the turn when the IC round is fired? Any of these factors would reduce total fire damage/effectiveness by more than half. Actually, doesn't it say the 1-12 damage for "in fire" is not random, but dependent on terrain type? That could be the answer.

The Incendiary article actually mentions 4 modes of fire damage, only 3 of which are quantified:

1. "impact",
2. "being in fire"
3. "being on fire"

The 4th mode is "damage from burning terrain. Only a tantalising mention is given, no quantitative details. This could be the source of the discrepancy. In fact it might be a component of "being in fire" that's not fully understood. I think Zombie is right to review the assumptions on this one - nice work! Spike 04:05, 10 March 2009 (CDT)

As I recall, "damage from burning terrain" is synonymous with "Standing on a tile that's currently on fire." Thus "Being in fire." But that's me and I'm tired this evening, so I could be wrong. Arrow Quivershaft 05:30, 10 March 2009 (CDT)