«

[blue123]

Hmm. CWE doesn't work for some reason.

[Sharp]

try dragging a save game folder to CWE first, that usually works.

[Griswold]

Hi everyone . . . :bye: . . . I love UFO... it was hard for me at the begining, I didn't understand anything... (total n00b at strategies).. Hehe, it is a very nice game...

[laiocfar]

Griswold this is the best part, where u still got many tips for the game in darkness. The best tip for strategy, take cover and make cross fire (that means place your squad before start shooting).

is there any way to open a door without walking through it? I'd like to throw a grenade through a door without being in the same room and get shot, for once

Originally posted by guest G@Jan 27 2006, 01:25 PM
is there any way to open a door without walking through it? I'd like to throw a grenade through a door without being in the same room and get shot, for once

Nope. You can destroy the door by shooting at it or with explosives, though. They fixed this problem in x-com 2.

[laiocfar]

Nothing to do in X-com Ufo but as happy say in TFTD or x-com 2 u can double right click to open a door.

by the way, i just replled an ethereals base attack, i took me 18 lives of the 19 defenders and 2 tanks. The key was the small base size making more likely to ambush and the fact of capture a blaster launcher. I also found that best way to kill sectopods its whit short range laser fire. I could belive it with roockies, only having 20 laser rifles and 20 medikits and archived a win. Some months ago, the same base was destroyed by ethereals killing a trained squad of 20 veterans and best equipment and weapons.

[blue123]

If you use Xcomutil, you can change stats of the tanks. If you do choose to change the stats, your tanks will be near invincible! (Works very well on laser tanks) So in a base defence I always send a few tanks into the hangars to sort everything out. But in missions I use them for scouting becuase my soldiers need the experience...

[rlbell]

Originally posted by blue123@Jan 28 2006, 11:16 AM
If you use Xcomutil, you can change stats of the tanks. If you do choose to change the stats, your tanks will be near invincible! (Works very well on laser tanks) So in a base defence I always send a few tanks into the hangars to sort everything out. But in missions I use them for scouting becuase my soldiers need the experience...

And people call me a cheat!

I have a saved game where four interceptors are about to bounce a battleship. When I get around to it, I will play out the interception repeatedly to get a feel for which weapons produce the best results (with the CWE editor, I can edit what weapons the interceptors are carrying). I look forward to finding out how fusion balls blast battleships.

Interceptors have truly awesome range. The interception is over Australia. One of the interceptors is based in Australia, but the other three flew from Siberia (north and west of the Kamchatka Peninsula), North America, and South America. What really baffles me is why I did not send the interceptors from Hawaii.

Hawaian bases are only good for not losing contact with UFO's flying over the Pacific. A listening post is about all that you will ever need there.

[rlbell]

Oh how memory fails...

It turned out that the inerception was actually over South America, with interceptors coming from South America, Africa, North America, and Europe (which is still impressive, but explains why the Hawaian interceptors were not called in).

What I really forgot was that you cannot shoot down a battleship with avalanches, at all, if you do not select the aggressive attack. For that matter, even with fusion balls, cautious attacks fail. Interceptors making cautious attacks switch to shadow, after taking any damage (shadow: stay nearby, but out of the UFO's weapon range [the box that shows the craft facing the UFO, but not attacking]).

Cautious attacks do less damage than normal, or aggressive attacks. Aggressive attacks do the most damage, but leave the interceptor more vulnerable to return fire. The type of attack made also affects the hit probability. So it is possible, even likely, that aggressively attacking with avalanches is more accurate and more destructive than cautiously attacking with plasma beams.

I have to redo the avalanche test. For plasma beams, 20% of attacks had no losses, 40% had one loss, 30% had two losses, and 10% had three losses. For Fusion balls, 70% had no losses, 20% had one loss, and 10% had two losses.