Talk:TFTD Strategy Guide

General Comments

Thanks to everyone for their feedback on this comments page. When I get time I will try to update the main page with all the useful info. Or, anyone else, feel free to edit the main article. Cheers, Spike 14:26, 13 January 2011 (EST)

Starting Base Location

For a base location I would say that the mid Atlantic or Pacific might be better. Remember you are covering the oceans, not the land masses. M52nickerson 12:00, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

Thanks for the help on this, I'm really not sure what the right approach is. My thinking around the Med was that you want to be as close as possible to as many Zones as you can, because it's the Zones (countries) who control your funding. The same argument as would be used in picking an Enemy Unknown starting base location. So my objective in picking a location is not so much to maximise the sea area covered, but to maximise the number of Zones protected. I did try a couple of times placing my first base in the mid Atlantic, and not much happened. But maybe that was bad luck. Spike 16:08, 28 September 2010 (EDT)

I tend to place them close to the money. First usually goes in the Caribbean somewhere, the second somewhere near Japan, the third in the Mediterranean.

At some point I usually build a dedicated manufacturing base, a smilar science base, and sometimes a storage base too.4th Cuirassier 09:53, 11 January 2011 (EST)

I've redone a bit of the Funding page regarding the average starting values. The main problem with the US is that you really need 2 bases to cover it, 1 on the NW Pacific, the other on the Caribbean/Atlantic. The best places for starting bases seem to be the Indian and the South China Sea (SE of the Philippines). Hobbes 20:51, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Scientists or Extra Base?

I've pretty much decided in favour of Scientists, but for the record, here are both sides of the argument:

The quick-start procedure outlined in the article should give you about $1.7M of spare cash, $2.1M if you use an improved starting base layout or don't care about changing the standard layout.

The main two options for this money are:

• Hire additional scientists. Probably the best strategy.
• Build an additional base during the first month (wherever the Graphs show alien activity, or wherever there is Funding to be protected)

Adding a new base early can help you increase your intercept rate, which can give a big advantage to loot and research. It can also help to avoid negative score penalties that can place you in grave difficulty.

Ultimately, scientists win the game, by developing the technologies that will first resist, and then defeat, the alien menace. The faster you can acquire these technologies, the quicker the balance of power moves in your favour, and the more likely you are to survive and succeed.

For that reason, additional scientists is probably the best option.

On balance, it's probably better to build a second base from the proceeds of mission loot, rather than your starting cash. Apart from anything else, building a base can be done more or less any time of the month without major impact, whereas hiring scientists really should be done at the start of the month.

I am getting the impression that on the harder levels, more bases - but token ones with just surveillance - may be the way to go.

A base that consists of a hyperwave decoder, living quarters, stores, and an airlock, with a garrison of rookies, would presumably be unassailable because your guys would block out all the spawning spaces. 4th Cuirassier 09:56, 11 January 2011 (EST)

What good does it your cause if you can see the usos roaming around - if they are not in interception range the extra base just eats money. Scientists on the other hand enable you to raise your ability to deal with the threat. First better weapons to improve battlefield survivability then better detection, more better weapons and MC, better armor and better subs and finally the victory sequence. After you got your science built up you might start constructing your manufacturing base(air lock + storage + (sub pen), later living quarters,then storage, storage,storage,living quarters+workshop,... ) if the cash from the missions permits during January. Later start building a MC screening base. And much later interception bases around the globe. 3-4 bases are usually enough to provide all the storage, research and manufacturing space you need to play comfortably. Using 8 bases gives you more control and ease to respond to threats. It is possible to do with just one base. Furthermore I think I read somewhere that your base attracts uso activity to some degree (at least during Jan) which somewhat counters your need to raise the coverage. If you don't run too low on cash you won't be bothered by an early month or two without much activity. Just switch to manufacturing for profit (in your manufacturing base if set up already) and research happily away. Time works in your favor since you should have enough stuff from the first two assaults to keep your research team happy for a while and you only get stronger through research. --Tauon 16:14, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Well, one rational use for remote bases is interception of subs that land on the sea bed and hang about near those bases. If you send a Barracuda to intercept a sub in the Sea of Japan which lands while the B is en route, all it can do, when it arrives, is loiter until the sub takes off again. Usually it runs out of fuel before that happens. So you send a Triton instead and you get an extra interception. 4th Cuirassier 13:27, 14 January 2011 (EST)

Listening outposts are very cheap and quite valuable in helping you coordinate your current and future operations. Of course, for these it's actually cheaper to use just an airlock and a sonar, and nothing else. Lose the base? 0 points for both sides are generated. Sell a sonic cannon or two and up goes the replacement in a month. Easily upgraded into intercept outposts which can then be expanded to other functions as necessary.

I know it's better to have some useful facility like labs or workshops - but those are functions that your first base already provides, and don't really need to be duplicated at all the other bases. Minimal facilities like the listening outpost broadens your net a bit and don't really cost a lot (money sorts itself out in time what with the deluge of sonic cannons!). And if it's in the same regional zone as one of your other bases, it adds an extra target for retaliation teams to pick from. -NKF 23:55, 11 January 2011 (EST)

If there aren't enough space on the Air-Lock/Sub Pens then the aliens will appear on other modules (cargo, etc.). That makes the whole thing even more dangerous since you won't have the advantage of the choke points. Hobbes 20:52, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Zombie's patented insta-win base defense setup by using up all the spawn nodes. Since your soldiers take precedence, they'll use up alien slots if there aren't enough X-COM slots to accommodate them. If you have enough soldiers to use up every single slot, you instantly win the mission after the first turn. You even get to keep all the weapons, which are still generated even if their owners aren't. -NKF 23:48, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Sub Interception

There is one difference in the Geoscape that really sets TFTD apart from UFO. I'm always able to happily get away with arming fleets of interceptors with Plasma beams and they were the bulk of my air defenses in UFO, but with the introduction of the otherwise utterly annoying sub 'depth' in TFTD, your Barracudas are going to be stumped frequently by enemy subs ducking down to depths that the Barracudas can't reach.

This makes Mantas and Hammerheads a nice mid-game topic to put emphasis on. Luckily, the sub construction topic is a byproduct of two of the most important technologies anyway, the Transmission Resolver and Mag Ion Armor. Probably be worth mentioning that you should keep a sample of the store item. -NKF 01:55, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

Great point, I will amend the suggestion to reflect that. In general TFTD is just much more challenging, I'm really getting in to it for that reason. Spike 09:20, 29 September 2010 (EDT)

I've never found the depth of enemy subs to be much of a problem. They almost always come up to a "shallow" depth at some point. If anything the speed of the USO's is the main reason to build a Manta or Hammerhead. I still just wait until I can build a couple of Leviathans. M52nickerson 20:21, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

It's a combination of the speed and depth that doubles the difficulty. If you do eventually catch up with the sub but it just happens to be at a deep depth, your Barracuda may just run out of fuel before the alien sub returns to shallow waters. It's not so bad if the Barracuda's home base is just nearby, but on those long cross-continent chases, it really does get frustrating. But I guess it does make the Manta useful, whereas in UFO you could easily skip the Firestorm in favour of using interceptors and Avengers. -NKF 06:14, 12 October 2010 (EDT)

Using only Barracudas seems to make it impossible to shoot down the Supply Ships since they will be out of reach due to their depth. But then you might want to wait for them to land instead of shooting them down. But if you are a bit tired of all those missions, then you'll need a Manta if you want to deal with the Supply Ships by shooting them. Hobbes 20:54, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Downing Very Small USOs

Instead of arming both Barracudas with DUPs in the beginning one might want to keep one armed with dual AJAX since a DUP hit destroys the smallest Subs. This is a real waste of easily earned early income and research material. Against anything up to Heavy Cruisers a single DUP armed Barracuda is sufficient and attacking anything larger is a gamble. Of course this messes up the picket ship strategy...--Tauon 18:13, 10 October 2010 (EDT)

Yes that's a good suggestion. It's worth considering it costs $600K/month to rent that Barracuda just to tackle Very Small USO Survey Ships though. But in the first month or two I think it's a good idea. As soon as I get a second base, I transfer the 2nd Barracuda there, and from that point on it makes sense to arm with dual DUP I think. Have you tested this with dual Ajax though? From the data tables on this website, I would expect dual Ajax automatically kills a Survey Ship (damage limit 60), since 2 Ajax = 60 to 120 total damage. If you've seen Survey Ships survive attack by dual Ajax regularly, that has some implications for how sub combat works. Anyway I'll have to try that, and also Ajax + Gas Cannon, which would be pretty much guaranteed to crash a Survey Ship rather than destroy it. Thanks! Spike 19:56, 10 October 2010 (EDT)

It worked for me in the majority of tiny uso intercepts. However I recall a case were it was destroyed. I guess one would have to go dual gas canon to be completely on the safe side. The single Ajax fires twice before one gets in gas canon range. However dual Ajax is usable against Cruisers(the craft which one will encounter most) as well and Gas Canon leaves the craft too open for return fire for my taste.--Tauon 09:53, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

So just to be clear, you routinely use dual Ajax against Very Small USOs (Survey Ships, containing one alien), and only rarely do they get destroyed? If so that's very interesting, because it suggests that the processing of whether the USO is crashed or destroyed occurs between the impact of the two torpedoes, even though appear to 'the naked eye' to be simultaneous impacts. Either that, or the damage values for Ajax or wrong, or the damage process is misunderstood. On the current understanding, it should be 50%-100% of base damage (60) per Ajax torpedo (average 75% = 45 damage). The threshold for crashing should be 50% of the Survey Ship's defence strength, 60 x 50% = 30. The threshold for being destroyed should be 100% of the Survey Ship's defence strength, 60 x 100% = 60. So even if two Ajax both did minimum damage, 2 x 60 x 50% = 60, they would always or very nearly always destroy the Survey Ship. So this is curious. On the other hand if you were using the 1 Ajax + 1 Gas Cannon combo to consistently crash Survey Ships, that's more understandable. Spike 11:40, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

Yes, I routinely use dual Ajax to deal with the Survey ships(1 alien, 1IBA,1MagNav,8AP). I do use the patch to switch the hulls in battlescape. I just run a small empirical test(new game,superhuman,prepare the Baracudas: 1 dual Ajax, 1Ajax&1GC, build large sonar) to see if I remembered right. Fast forward until I get the very small contact. Save. Intercept with Baracuda 1(dual Ajax). See what happens. Reload. Again. Out of the 10 times I went before I got bored. I downed it 10 times. 6 or 7 times with the first salvo The rest with the second. Then I repeated the cycle with Baracuda 2. I can confirm that usually one 1 Ajax hit is sufficient to down the Survey ship. Due to the inaccuracy one often needs to fire 2 or more. 2 Ajax are fired in aggressive attack mode before the GC gets to play. I managed to destroy the uso 1 time out of the 10 tries(3 Ajax and 1 GC shell fired).--Tauon 14:29, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

Well that is very strange. Thanks for doing those tests. At accuracy 70%, you would expect that 49% of dual Ajax salvoes would score 2 hits. For salvoes that hit at least once, in 70% of those salvoes there would be 2 hits. And as noted above, 2 Ajax hits should always destroy the Survey Ship. Yet your empirical data are nothing like that. You see destruction in only 10% of sorties using dual Ajax. This suggests either the listed damage for Ajax is wrong, or the listed damage capacity for Survey Ship is wrong. Or, worse, our understanding of the mechanics is wrong. Largely it's just assumed they are the same as Enemy Unknown air combat mechanics - maybe they are not. I think it's time we had a code dig to confirm what the USOPaedia says about USO stats and weapon stats. Spike 17:24, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

I couldn't find a Survey Ship I could catch but I did find a BattleShip that took 20 AJAX fired to bring it down. That matches ok to 20 x 60 x 70% = 840 damage vs 1400 x 50% = 700+ damage to crash a BattleShip. Maybe the damage capacity of the Survey Ship has been increased, to make it easier to crash it? Spike 18:12, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

Well, I run a more extensive test this morning using a different survey ship. There is some funny stuff happening.

Setup: dosversion 2.1,survey ship -escort battlescape hull swap patch, dye grenade patch; Baracuda armed with dual Ajax intercepts survey ship(very small contact, I checked it had only 1 occupant by retrieving it twice); number of intercepts:100

salvo 1	destroyed	downed	hit	missed	missed	missed	missed
salvo 2	-	-	destroyed	destroyed	downed	hit	missed
salvo 3	-	-	-	-	-	destroyed	downed
# occurences	2	70	2	2	16	1	7

If I calculate the expectation values for these events using the naive model they do not match up well. Not to mention that it should be impossible to hit the survey ship using dual Ajax without downing it. I would guess that there is some small deviation from the given Ajax damage value possible. And the game does not seem to check the second projectile if it got over the downing threshold with the first. Btw the 110 damage of the DUP seem to destroy it as expected. Since this value is close to the 100 destruction capacity I wonder if the deviation if it exists can be large enough to allow the rare downing of a survey ship with a single DUP.

---

Very interesting data. I've thought hard about how to fit this data. Superficially, the data above actually looks like only 1 Ajax missile launcher is being used. I don't think this is true. I think I can make most of the data fit, with a few slightly changed assumptions about craft combat mechanics.

1. Salvos of the same missile type share the same "to-hit" roll. Both hit or both miss. This would predict a pattern of 30% miss on Salvo 1, 9% (of total) miss on Salvo 2, 0-1% (of total) miss on Salvo 3. This is a fairly close match for your data, especially if you take the initial 26% miss on Salvo 1 as a starting point and apply the same rules. We can be very sure this is true, because if the to-hit rolls were independent, we would see one or more hits in nearer to 91% of salvos, rather than around 70% of salvos - as was observed empirically in this data.
2. As suspected, combat processing stops immediately whenever a 'crashed' or 'destroyed' condition occurs. For Ajax vs Survey Ship, this means the 2nd missile hit is irrelevant in 29/30 cases, because the USO is downed or destroyed 29/30 by the 1st missile. This is what makes this data look so similar to firing a single missile rather than dual missiles: the effect of the 2nd missile is masked in 29/30 cases.
3. It's unclear whether damage is rolled seperately for each missile hit (gaussian), or if the same roll is used (linear). Because of the 'masking' effect, it's very hard to tell. Either scenario is compatible with the results seen vs larger USOs, because you have enough hits that it averages out before the craft is downed or destroyed.

The above explains the frequency of the typical case, "Ajax crashes Survey Ship", pretty well. On 70% of salvoes there is a hit (I believe it's always two hits in fact). The first hit is processed, and the Survey Ship is downed in 28/30 cases (out of 70%, ~= 65.33%), destroyed in 1/30 cases (~= 2.33%), hit but survives in 1/30 cases (~= 2.33%). The second hit is irrelevant in 29/30 cases (96.66%), as the USO is already downed or destroyed. If the first salvo missed entirely (30%), or the USO survived (1 in 30 of the other 70%), additional salvos proceed on the same basis.

So in 1 salvo in 30 the USO is destroyed, and in 1 salvo in 30 the USO is hit but keeps running. These are the outlying cases that are harder to explain.

The masking effect explains why the damage distribution appears linear (1 x d30), rather than gaussian (2 x d30). The damage is never, or almost never, cumulative, because only 1 time in 30 does processing proceed to the 2nd missile hit.

A key question is where the algorithm's exact boundaries lie. Are the 50% and 100% thresholds, for "crashed" and "destroyed", compared using "greater than" or "greater than or equal to"? Is integer rounding used, or integer truncation, or no rounding?

There are various ways of explaining the "destroyed" frequency. The observed "destroyed" frequency matches the scenario for a single launcher. This is simply because of the "masking" effect again. So, as noted above, the "destroyed" frequency is basically what would be predicted by a linear damage distribution of 1 missile hit.

The hard thing to explain is the "hit but survived" frequency. This also acts very much as it would for a single missile launcher. The problem is, regardless of whether damage distribution is gaussian (2 independent rolls) or linear (same roll used twice), it doesn't matter: the craft should always be destroyed by the second hit, since (we believe) the cumulative total can't be less than 60.

The only explanation I can see for the "hit but survived" frequency of 1 in 30 per salvo is the following

1. there is some kind of "critical fail" rule at the low end of the range, something involving integer rounding or truncation, so that the frequency of it occuring is about 1 in (integer range of possible damage); eg 1 in 30 (or maybe 1 in 31) for a weapon with base damage = 60.
2. distribution of damage on both missile hits is linear, i.e. the same roll is used for both hits, so they both suffer the "critical fail" at the same time
3. a "critical fail" reduces the damage to consistently and significantly less than 25% of weapon base damage, most likely to zero
4. alternatively, the "critical fail" or other low-end-integer result causes processing of the second missile hit to be aborted.

I don't really like the "critical fail" supposition because it creates an extra hypothesis to explain an anomaly. But without "critical fail" and a shared damage roll for both missile hits, I can't explain why the "hit but survived" rate is linear, and so closely matches the expected rate for a single missile launcher.

A good test for the "critical fail" hypothesis would be to use a weapon with a more powerful base damage, such as a DUP (110 vs 60). If "critical fail" is correct, there should be a similarly consistent, higher than expected, "hit but survived" rate, possibly 1 in 55 rather than 1 in 30, but not varying noticeably whether you have dual DUP or single DUP.

It would also be interesting to test single AJAX, and see if the "destroyed" and "hit but survived" rates change. For single missile launcher tests you want a Cannon as your second weapon, and use Cautious mode so you hold off outside cannon range.

A large number of tests with dual DUPs (55-110 damage each, 165 salvo average) vs an Escort or Cruiser (300 damage capacity) should be able to determine if the damage function of two weapons is linear or gaussian. Basically, 2nd salvo kills will be much more common if the distribution is linear, much less common if the distribution is gaussian.

The weirdness of the Survey Ship vs Ajax situation comes almost entirely from the fact that the Ajax base damage is exactly matched to the Survey Ship damage capacity, ie. both 60. But it's precisely because it's such a special case that it's able to shine light into the hidden game mechanics. It's a bit like a stroboscope or a spectrograph. A very useful experiment. Spike 16:55, 12 October 2010 (EDT)

Secondary base

I usually make my second base the manufacturing base.

Yes I agree that it makes sense to make the 2nd base a manufacturing base.Spike 12:27, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

If memory serves me right I usually start with an Sub-Pen(low cost, takes a long time to build), a large sonar(improved detection) and a Store(space where one can store stuff away in case of an attack on the main base) like this.

Normally one would add the living quarters south of the store next to be able to garrison the base. However if I recall right there is a chance for aliens spawning in the living quarters module - which would compromise your main defence line to be. So I usually add 2-3 more stores before I put down the living quarter. I use stores because these build fastest and a good defensive layout is unfortunately slow to develop. However it will take a few month before one has pillaged and sold enough stuff to hire a large bunch of technicians. Not to mention researched the stuff to build. Setting up the 100-150 scientists in the main base needed to research stuff at reasonable pace takes priority. And even on superhuman difficulty the aliens usually don't bother my second base before I got a garrison by mid to end February. Once the living quarter finishes I add a MC lab or two to help with the screening. Transmission resolver is next in the building queue. So this is the intermediate design.

Next add one more sub-pen living quarters and workshops as money permits, on one more store and replace the outdated sonar with a MC generator to reduce the number of base defences. The following final layout is not optimized for build time - I leave this as an exercise to the reader.

This layout allows to crank out those new subs fast or make tons of money. There is enough workspace for large projects and plenty of storage for the defence displacers and supplies. Only one should be needed. In any further base I build 3 sub-pens and add 3-4 pwt defences, a bombardment shield and more storage(the zrbite keeps piling up) and more mc labs for faster screening.

Excellent designs, I'd never got past the letter E shaped configuration or the spiral sperm configuration, so these are very helpful.

Is it feasible to build a base with no hangar and "defend" it with unarmed rookies who block all the spawning spaces? 4th Cuirassier 10:03, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Rushing MC

MC is undoubtedly the most powerful tactical advance - so powerful that some consider it cheating - at least if one uses MC chains.A highly skilled MC squad usually eliminates all combat casualties if used properly and allows the safe training of any soldier, maximizes loot(less unwanted destruction) and together with drills/tasers no ammunition is needed to safely kill large numbers of enemies. An it greatly helps during terror missions, night missions(alien scouts) and against lobsterman. Once the high MC strength soldiers(80+) have been identified by the lab it usually just takes just 1-2 month with lots of intercepts to max out the the MC skill(as far as combat is concerned). This enables them to control any alien on a whim. Secondary stats are increased as well while training. So in order to win easily one would want it as early as possible. Lets see how fast it is possible. Usually you will manage to obtain a reader in January. By the start of February the alien containment should store a live terrorist. This could result in an active lab by end of February. Spend the rest of February researching other stuff. In March research the MC reader. If you have run into tasoth by then you are lucky. If not but you know where a colony is located you are also fine. Just send a bunch of rookies to grab one (bring tasers(or TSL if you got them), flares and something to deal with tentaculats) and get the hell out of it as soon as you got it. If half the rookies die its still a win. Then research the tasoth and disruptor and you are ready to roll in April. If one is lacking a live terrorist for unlocking the MC lab - a live tentaculat provided by a base will do(Fire from your dropship at all other alies until one gets close enough to rush & stun it with tasers - pickup and throw/walk it into the dropship). Theoretically there should also be a reader somewhere but I don't know which aliens usually carries it.--Tauon 16:28, 11 October 2010 (EDT)

If you rush MC in this way don't you trigger the tech tree bug by researching a live alien too early? 4th Cuirassier 10:05, 11 January 2011 (EST)

As long as you have a MC reader in storage when you finish the research of the MC lab there is no problem and one usually captures one rather early. According to the bug avoidance guide it should be fixed in the 2.1 patch. --Tauon 15:32, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Battlescape tactics discussion

Chemical flare vs Incendiary ammunition during night missions: In UFO it is really easy to get along with setting half a battlescape on fire for lighting using incendiary ammunition. This has the additional benefit of dealing fire damage to aliens. However in TftD most battles are underwater where the tiles contain hardly any combustible stuff and the lighting is off the turn after firing making this method of lighting rather cumbersome. I usually find it more practical to pack 4-6 chemical flares and reuse them by picking them up and throwing them again. If two are used in alternation one can can cover one direction pretty well.

Sniper tactics I usually support my swipe teams(consisting of a front squad(lightly armed expendable spotters) and a rear team (heavily armed shooters)) by 1-3 snipers which take care of anything which survives the shooter fire. With the advent of magnetic armor I usually set one up on top of the triton until I find a better location(large hill, top of building, tower ...).

Initial facility built

I would consider building an additional lab right away - its construction takes 26 days and you might want to raise the scientist number to 75 by begin of February if you can afford it. 100 during February as soon as you can afford them and after accommodation has been provided. This is possible if you delay the sub pen relocation (400k) until the first uso assault. This should enable you to get the crucial techs sooner.

Initial research

I'm don't think that the PDS is the best initial choice. The economic benefit is not that large. Lets have a looks at the numbers: It costs 180 scientist days to research. The 10 initial scientists reduce this by 30 before the 15 newly hired ones join them. The remaining 150 keep 25 scientists about 6 days busy. So you would expect the research to be finished around the 10th. That leaves the 10 techies with 20 days to make money. 20*10*24=4800 T hours. Since it takes 220 T hours to produce one unit about 22 get produced. These yield (45,600-34,000)*22=255,200 profit. Thats about 1 IBA or 2 Sonic weapons or 17 pulsers. It can buy 4-5 scientists. And the tactical benefit is negligible. Lets say we start the gauss sequence right away- with (50+100+60) we get an operational gauss pistol 1-3 days after the estimated completion day of the PDS. And since we can start producing it as soon as the pistol research finishes (Jan 9th) we can field gauss pistols by about Jan 15th maybe a bit earlier. That helps on the battlefield until we finish with the sonic research and have collected enough ammunition to make using the pistol practical. And it can also be manufactured for a small profit. After this we have 4 paths we could follow(I assume that we got a mission in the meantime): -continue to gauss rifle(300+150) -start sonic pistol(600+400) -start mag nav for trans resolver(450+670) -start sonic pulser(200)

Of course if one gets a uso on Jan 1st it might be tempting to switch right away. Although a gillman escort night mission(superhuman) at a that time can be challenging but beneficial(~1M extra cash).

Initial weapon purchase

I usually keep 2-4 harpoon rifles for uso close quarter assaults until I get gauss or sonic. A close quarter autoshot is usually more effective then a single GC AP shot. Which means fewer GC on the buy list. For the first 1-2 month one wants to keep one craft armed with dual Ajay thus only 1 DUP launcher needs to be purchased.

Really helpful page

Well done folks.

I played TFTD to the point of lunacy in '95 to '96 and only stopped when my PC became incompatible. I successfully played through to the end first time and somehow dodged all the bugs. Never managed to do that since. Just downloaded it from Steam and it's addictive again.

Pleased to see I arrived at the same ideas re base layout. Mine are usually shaped like a letter E or like a sperm, i.e. one pen for building subs and everything else strung out in a single spiral line. I once had an exhausting firefight on a ship followed by a terror raid. I sent the wounded to my Hawaii base to recuperate. They were then attacked, and those who'd recovered from wounds had only legacy weapons to fight with. Nonetheless the easily-defended spiral layout saved them.

I'm interested in the economic analysis. I usually churn out medikits because they require nil resources and generate nice money from right away. I hadn't noticed the PDS was that good.

I have some suggestions for the battlefield tactics section. When an alien is stunned or wounded, I usually send a guy to stand over him, who unloads and throws his weapon away. This ensures that if the alien revives he is harmless.

Well I would check the rank of the wounded, stunned alien - if it is not needed for research and I got Medikits I would wake it and shoot it for extra exp. If it is too dangerous (Lobster, tentaculat, Bio-drone) I would plant a grenade or shoot the ground with HE in order to ensure the sleeping beauty won't wake behind your lines. If research critical try to make sure it is in a region with smoke(not sure if it works, try droping a dye grenade). If there is a lot of loot on the ground there might be occasions where it is simpler/faster to move the alien instead of the loot. --Tauon 14:40, 11 January 2011 (EST)

When I get MC over an alien I always have him shoot any nearby aliens and then throw his weapon away. If I have groups under MC then I have them all stand at one end of the battlescape while my guys form a firing squad at the other. I then "execute" them with long range fire, which is a safe way to improve combat stats.

Having an alien throw its weapon away is fine but unless you are really hard pressed or the situation calls for it always let your soldiers do the shooting and killing - no wasting of valuable exp. Also when you are so good at MC that you can move the aliens at will have them throw their guns away and move them next to your soldiers to ensure a hit next turn. If you are really into exp training use weak weapons to ensure you you get more hits in before your target dies autofire with gauss pistol/dart gun on lobsters works fine. MC again if still alive and and you are done shooting for the turn. Make sure that they are dead and if not use a medikit to wake them to finish the job. Make sure that the side with the highest remaining armor points is targeted to get most out of your target.

An exception to the above are hostiles with built in long range weapons(Deep one,Bio drone,Xarquid,Triscene) which can not be fired upon without fear of reaction fire normally. Finish those from outside their sight range.

And unfortunately the AI does not seem to be able to have Aliens pick up weapons from the ground. So once they are gone they are gone for good. But unless stunned and woken up you can never sure if there is not a pulser left. --Tauon 09:37, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Thanks for details. Yes if time permits I usually disarm the buggers altogether, including guys on my own side whom I've had to stun. Those guys I leave with their grenades - I don't think I've ever seen an MC-controlled aquanaut use one.4th Cuirassier 10:10, 11 January 2011 (EST)

As long as the grenade is on the MC controlled aquanaut it will use it(Had entire reserves in my Triton killed by MC controlled guys) and pull out any other usable item which the AI can handle as well, I think it will even load any gun if suitable ammo is on the guy. If you want MC susceptible guys to contribute to the fight arm them with a Thermal Taser or later on a drill - the AI can't handle those. Or give it a MC reader or an unloaded DPL launcher(standing over the ammo enables loading and firing it on the same turn).--Tauon 14:40, 11 January 2011 (EST)

DPLs are best fired on a mortar type of trajectory as this minimises the number of turns you need to make and normally means you can plant the missile in the middle of a target group. I also use DPLs to make holes in the sides of alien bases which I then "rinse" by firing more DPL rounds through the hole.

If confronted with an alien base early in the game when your weapons are rubbish, one option is a raid rather than an assault. That is, you go in the top level and get all the guys onto the lift, then quit the game. You thus get to the next level even if the aliens aren't all dead. From there you do the same underground. In this way you can destroy the control centre without having to kill every one of 50-odd aliens (which is usually impossible with jet harpoons anyway). 4th Cuirassier 09:10, 10 January 2011 (EST)

Why would one want to do that - it does not hurt that much to keep the alien base around - the negative score is not that large and there is no time limit for dealing with it. If it is close to your base it allows you to assault the supply ships which is more then enough to tilt the balance in your favor. And it attracts more usos which you can assault and retrieve to fuel your war effort (Exp- and cash-wise). Furthermore you won't need to capture a lobster commander that early.Heck it is usually much easier to wait for a lobsterman dreadnaught and get all the lobster captives you need(1 navigator, 1 commander) from there or from a lobster assault on your base.Only if the lobsters fail to show up and you have already researched everything else I would go looking for them over there. If you are desperate for cash just clear the first level and bag everything you can grab before retreating and repeating if necessary. The only reason which could make me assault a alien base early(before I feel ready) is a grab and run mission for a certain research item or a personal rule where I have to assault and destroy a base as soon as it shows up. --Tauon 14:40, 11 January 2011 (EST)

AIUI the longer an alien base is allowed to hang around unmolested, the likelier the country or countries in the area are to secede and join the aliens.4th Cuirassier 13:32, 14 January 2011 (EST)

The reason that happens is because each base generates 5 area activity points a day. That's a total of 150 - 155 points every month, or 140-145 in February. If the alien area activity points are greater than the X-Com activity points by the end of the month, then the nearby funding groups are displeased and may withdraw funding. This often happens if the colony is ignored. If you compensate for this and keep the X-Com activity points higher, the countries stay happy. This is often accomplished by successfully capturing every month at least one of the colony supply cruisers that dock with the base. -NKF 13:58, 14 January 2011 (EST)

Aha, thank you. I was wondering how that worked. How on earth did people dig up this level of detail? 4th Cuirassier 09:19, 17 January 2011 (EST)

There's actually no need to toss weapons away if the alien has been stunned. Unlike Apocalypse where equipment stays on an unconscious alien until it is physically 'picked up' in the inventory screen, all equipment is automatically dropped to the ground the moment a unit is stunned in UFO and TFTD. Therefore as long as they were knocked down, then they will wake up unarmed. Except lobstermen, which I must say are quite dangerous to stand over or pick up! -NKF 23:26, 10 January 2011 (EST)

I usually toss them away to be sure the alien, if it wakes up, can't simply pick up its gun and rejoin the fight. I tend to assume it would do this if its gun were still there but I've never been able to test this.

Also I usually unload any unused magazines, as they're lost otherwise.

The version I'm playing seems to have the difficulty level bug fixed. I wonder if we should say something somewhere about what difference the difficulty level makes. I haven't noticed any difficulty in combat between easy and the hard level I'm now playing on. I have noticed that I detect many fewer USOs - they practically have to fly right overhead to be picked up. When I pursue them they almost always escape. They don't hang around on the seabed for very long and terror raiders don't hang around either. Countries seem much quicker to reduce funding and one defeat - such as not reaching a terror site - basically loses you the campaign. This is a subjective list based on comparing my current game to the last time I played, which must have been in about 2002 judging by my posts to Usenet.4th Cuirassier 06:04, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Names etc

I tag each aquanaut's name with which batch of recruits he was part of. All aquanauts recruited before the first mission are batch 1. It is unusual for more than 1 or 2 of these to survive to the end of the game.

The list of names that I am currently drawing on is as follows:

Adam Bomm, Adam Zappel, Al Beano, Andy Freese, Art Major, Barry Cade, Beau Tye, Ben Dover, Biff Wellington, Bill Board, Chris P. Bacon, Cliff Topp, Cory Ander, Craven Moorehead, Dan D. Lyons, Dan Druff, Dan Saul Knight, Dick Burns, Dick Hertz, Don Key, Doug Graves, Doug Hole, Doug Witherspoon, Duane Pipe, Dusty Rhodes, Earl Lee Riser, Easton West, Evan Keel, Gene Poole, Gerry Bilder, Ginger Rayell, Herb Alti, Howie Doohan, Hugh Jass, Hugh Jorgan, Ivor Nereckschun, Jack Gough, Jack Haas, Jack Hammer, Jack Knoff, Jed Dye, Jerry Atrick, Jim Shorts, Joe Kerr, Justin Case, Justin Casey-Howells, Kerry Siehn, Kent C. Strait, Lance Boyle, Lee King, Les Hassall, Lou Pole, Luke Warm, Mark de Cards, Manny Kinn, Marshall Law, Matt Tress, Mike Hunt, Mike Raffone, Mike Rotch, Nat Sass, Neil Down, Nick O’Time, Noah Lott, Oliver Suddon, Otto Graf, Owen Bigg, Owen Cash, Page Turner, Parker Carr, Pat Hiscock, Pete Moss, Phil Bowles, Phil Graves, Phil Updegrave, Pierce Deere, Piers Dorgan, Ray Gunn, Rayner Schein, Rich Feller, Rick O'Shea, Rick Shaw, Robin Banks, Rocky Rhodes, Rocky Shaw, Russell Paper, Rusty Steele, Sawyer B. Hind, Sandy Beech, Seymour Bush, Sonny Day, Stan Still, Tad Pohl, Tim Burr, Tommy Gunn, Tommy Hawk, Warren Peace, Willie Stroker, Ziggy Retpaper.

4th Cuirassier 10:15, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Why should I replace one impractical set of names with another. My recruits get their names erased and replaced by one letter coding the base, a serial number(three digits should do) followed by a string of letters coding their expertise in critical stats. When the time comes I add a number at the end showing their MC strength. Sometimes I add plus and minus signs to note good recruits and candidates for sacking/sacrifice, MC weaklings also get a note in their name. A typical name would be A 003 TbRfH 85+ or C 096 C -- or F 001 TBRFH -MC. For the coding letters a use a system similar to that in the FAQ/walkthrough.--Tauon 14:58, 11 January 2011 (EST)

Setting the difficulty level

I've added the above section at the top as I have now finally acquired a patched version of the game in which the higher difficulty levels are playable.

I think I have summarised the implications of high / low difficulty but if not please correct, anybody. 4th Cuirassier 09:47, 17 January 2011 (EST)

I think not the effectiveness of the weapons is changed but the aliens simply have more health on higher settings. That results in the observed results.

--Tauon 13:31, 17 January 2011 (EST)