Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

There, fixed.

[Happerry]

First thought is to throw one Raven at that lone medium because I'd bet it's another small one faking us out like last turn, and then two Ravens at the two mediums now running away. We'll have to depend on the new TAV and plenty of air support fire to make up for only having a single skyranger if we end up doing that though.

[Strongpoint]

Having inter agency team usable in Brazil or Australia would be so nice in this situation... Why the hell enemy ignores USA and Europe?

Plan massacre
Intercept Brazil
3 ravens (6VP)
-3x Phoenix pods (1EP)
Combined arms Australia
Skyranger (free)
Phoenix pod (1EP)
1 NOTSOFTER (1UP)
1 XH-2 (1EP)
1 TAV2 (1EP)

Alternative is to go for a usual 2+3 setup and ignore Australia.

[Chiefwaffles]

Yeah we have no hope of intercepting and taking the big UFO in a ground engagement. So we're best off just going all-in on interception and hoping for the best.
They definitely have a medium lander now, as that's the only thing that explains being able to carry that many aliens with only a fighter escort. So it's probably not as dangerous as its size would indicate, but is still most likely substantially more dangerous than an alien craft.
But I'm hopeful for our Ravens. Using just Rockslide missiles they very easily down small landers and we have them equipped with Phoenix pods and will be going 3-2.

Being able to successfully down the alien craft over Australia with a Skyranger would be iffy but it's clearly more alien trickery (a lone medium craft by itself in Australia when they have a fighter-escorted medium lander elsewhere?) and historically we've always had really good advantages when dealing with a UFO while entering the atmosphere.
Though I'm probably wrong about this, Ebbor, do the Rockslide-upgraded sensor systems help at all with their trickery stuff? Where does it help? (I imagined we'd get at least some counteracting of their trickery & better description of already-detected UFOs).


But yeah. I'll vote for Plan Massacre. It's iffy, but it's a good shot.

Plan Massacre (1): Chiefwaffles

[Happerry]

Plan Massacre (2): Chiefwaffles, Happerry

[Strongpoint]

Plan Massacre (3): Chiefwaffles, Happerry, Strongpoint

Looks like there are nothing to discuss during this turn.

What we should design next turn? I see such options.

a) New unit type. Close quarters combat or dedicated snipers are options that come to mind
b) New fighter
c) Body armor that integrates TAV in some way (i find current TAV barely usable unless we have nothing else to spend EP on)
d) New base in South or North America. Very hard is a risk i am hesitant to take but benefits are huge.
e) Land combat drone armed with Phoenix

For revision I am thinking about
a) Fixing TAV
b) Upgrading Inter Agency Teams to make them cheaper and available in more regions. Look at this turn, if we had a way to use Inter Agency Teams in Brazil, the plan would be very different.
c) Revising Ravens
d) Revising Skyranger into anti-large UFO\ground attack craft by replacing cargo space with components for a large railgun, guided bombs and, maybe, turrets.

[Chiefwaffles]

Next turn is tricky.
I'm thinking design alloy armor w/ TAV integration, then revise the Raven or Skyranger to allow us to reliably engage in ground combat with at least the "main" UFO party they send out. Maybe some kind of stealth upgrade for the Skyranger? Or alloy armoring for Ravens to allow them to be more tanky in combat? (Keyword here is more, though - Ravens won't really ever be "tanky" in their own right). Because I still personally want to wait until we find an antigrav drive to design a new fighter. Though I don't know why we aren't getting them from the smaller UFOs we capture.
I believe in XCOM:EU the prerequisites for the Avenger fighter was UFO Power Source & UFO Navigation, which we both have/had. But apparently according to Ebbor the antigrav propulsion is its own thing in this.


But body armor I definitely want to do next turn. I just realized this with your post, but yeah, it'd be a great opportunity to fix the TAV. And it of course massively increases the effectiveness of our soldiers. Plus simple alloy armoring can easily be revised onto anything else once we make some proper armor with it.

[Happerry]

Next turn I'm voting for a new base because we really need more points and an alien containment system, even beyond the risk of an incoming base strike from the aliens after we fired off our base defenses and revealed ourselves.

[Strongpoint]

If we go armor, I can't see how we'll be able to supply all our troops with both XH-2 and armor should we send 3 unit worth of soldiers. It is unlikely that such armor will cost less than 2EP.

________
I very much prefer to wait for some relevant bonus and\or calm turn before going for the base, getting nothing from a design can be a game over.

_____
I am having some second thought about the massacre plan. Sending Skyranger to Brazil may work in case if we shoot down the medium UFO and will need to finish the survivors. On other hand, I hate giving free missions to them.

[Chiefwaffles]

I don’t really think armor would cost 2 EP. Considering handheld railguns cost 1 EP and they use both alloys and elerium, I’m not worried at all.
Plus it’d lead to a huge increase in effectiveness on ground.


I just think trying to win ground combat in Brazil is impossible.
We have to shoot it down first since they’re already picking up, and they’re fielding a fighter and a medium lander.

It could concievably work if we crossed our fingers, hope Rockslides are still just that good, and give the Skyrangers all Phoenixes. But then we’d still be gambling on sending our units to their massive operation even if they have casualties.
I’m pretty uncertain about ground combat like this until we get more infantry improvements or at least getting rid of their stupid battlefield omniscience.


Sure, going for Brazil in ground combat has more reward, but substantially increased risk. I’d rather get a few nice tokens - maybe even a grav token - and a good chance at downing their main mission than a chance at some more substantial tokens, guaranteed successes for them, and a good chance for them to still succeed in heir main mission.

Oh also Strongpoint can you make the second mission in Massacre Combined Arms? No real reason not to and Phoenix Skyrangers are good at air support.

[Strongpoint]

I don’t really think armor would cost 2 EP. Considering handheld railguns cost 1 EP and they use both alloys and elerium, I’m not worried at all.
Plus it’d lead to a huge increase in effectiveness on ground.

You didn't think that TAV will cost anything... Considering that TAVs cost 1, TAVs + armors they are integrated into should cost more than 1

Also, I still think that we don't need "huge increase of effectiveness" on the ground. We are noticeably ahead in the ground combat since introduction of XH-2, sure they can change status quo by designing something for ground forces but everything we design for our airforce helps us in the air because of air support.

[Madman198237]

Also, I still think that we don't need "huge increase of effectiveness" on the ground. We are noticeably ahead in the ground combat since introduction of XH-2, sure they can change status quo by designing something for ground forces but everything we design for our airforce helps us in the air because of air support.

This statement is blatantly, horribly, terribly, unreasonably false. The enemy is reading our minds and setting up improbable ambushes with said information. We can't fight battles on the ground right now.

[Strongpoint]

Also, I still think that we don't need "huge increase of effectiveness" on the ground. We are noticeably ahead in the ground combat since introduction of XH-2, sure they can change status quo by designing something for ground forces but everything we design for our airforce helps us in the air because of air support.

This statement is blatantly, horribly, terribly, unreasonably false. The enemy is reading our minds and setting up improbable ambushes with said information. We can't fight battles on the ground right now.

We lost only one battle when we failed to provide sufficient numbers. I have no doubts that this ambush (aka narrative) wouldn't work if we had at least two NOTSOFTERs there.

[Cnidaros]

Plan Massacre (4): Chiefwaffles, Happerry, Strongpoint, Cnidaros

I concur that this is the only reasonable plan; going for ground combat in Brazil will be a loss with just one squad, and 2 Ravens aren't likely to fare well against a medium UFO and fighter (if that really is a medium UFO!).

The TAV2 is just disappointing. Not so much on battlefield usability, but rather due to its cost. We can only equip one squad with it, assuming everyone has XH-2s and we want Phoenix gunpods somewhere for air support.

I agree with strongpoint that TAV-armour is just silly at this point, we will not have enough points to equip them and expecting it to cost 1 point is a joke.

I don't thinking improving IACTs is viable, unless we get to removing "can't use X-COM gear" restriction as well, they won't be useful in combat. They would only find use in situations such as this turn where we have more UP than transport capability, but going for more VP would solve these situations. Although it is annoying that the aliens are avoiding North America and Europe.

Next turn I'm voting for a new base because we really need more points and an alien containment system, even beyond the risk of an incoming base strike from the aliens after we fired off our base defenses and revealed ourselves.

Going with this. We desperately need more VP and EP instead of designing stuff that costs even more points we don't have. It's going to be a difficult roll, but we need to do it unless we want to do another main base upgrade. I would also be down for cheapening Ravens for a revision, or revising a stunning weapon.

[Strongpoint]

I agree with strongpoint that TAV-armour is just silly at this point, we will not have enough points to equip them and expecting it to cost 1 point is a joke.

Those are not my words. I consider TAV-armor to be quite viable route to take. We'll need to build our forces in a different way and think hard about the revision, but armor can work well, it widens our tactical options and it gives useful experience for future armoring up of anything.

I don't thinking improving IACTs is viable, unless we get to removing "can't use X-COM gear" restriction as well, they won't be useful in combat. They would only find use in situations such as this turn where we have more UP than transport capability, but going for more VP would solve these situations.

IACT can be quite viable should we reduce their cost in U, get token like effect for a free IACT per turn, get passive reaction\detection to Exalt\infiltrators activities. I consider IACT to be a huge asset that we are ignoring for no good reason.

Also, going for more VP won't magically solve prevent situations like the current one, we'll always have a choice of fighters over transports. IACT can give us tactical flexibility. Something we lack.

Going with this. We desperately need more VP and EP instead of designing stuff that costs even more points we don't have.

We'll have tight budget and need to choose what to produce in any case. When I read you or Happery it looks like you are expecting something like +2VP, +2EP, +2UP from the new base. My expectation is like total +4 in stats for a very good roll, less on average. Else, even at very hard, base design action would be very unbalanced comparing to other designs.