Print

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

[TopHat]

On the plus side, the assumption that two AAA hits would be enough to render a Talon non-effective was correct. Mission two would have probably succeeded too if we hadn't had the misfortune to be dropped on when entering the atmosphere - on the plus side, they probably got no tokens from that. Of note is that the Talon from mission 1 was driven off as well, though it caused enough damage to the medium scout to leave us with no support. If we'd increased the ground strength of that force, we might have managed to pull a phyrric victory there.

In my opinion air survivability is the biggest problem at the moment, so armour improvements would be a good bet. Alternatively, a combat unit like the (lesser) Muton could shore up the ground further.

[NUKE9.13]

Hokay, so.
Mission 1 failed due to defeat on the ground, thanks to Skyrangers providing aerial support, their (upgraded?) railguns, and our poor equipment. XCOM has gotten a partially intact Medium Scout out of the deal. That's not exactly great news. We can expect them to roll out some impressive new tech with that bounty. An escort would've helped here, since then we probably wouldn't've lost our mortar, but it was mainly a lack of ground strength that did us in.
Mission 2 failed due to bad luck, in that we were caught whilst entering the atmosphere. Stealth tech could still help us- not making missions impossible to detect, but delaying detection by one 'notch' (ie instead of getting caught during entry we get caught in flight, instead of getting caught in flight we get caught whilst landing, etc).
Mission 3 succeeded as hoped. Expect XCOM to upgrade their Talons in response.

Hmm. I think we want a ground design. Our aerial weakness can be compensated for by using less landers and more fighters.

[Kashyyk]

The obvious design is Muton's and we've got two DNA tokens to ensure it doesn't go south again. We could also produce a psionic unit, which will hopefully change the combat dynamic again.

Or we could go for a plasma carbine revision. That should obsolete the plasma pistol and catch us up in the ground war for no additional points cost.

[sprinkled chariot]

Dont their infantry railguns smash holes through buildings? How mutons are going not to die from this ? And our plasma rifles are still at disadvantage due to getting long range sniped.
Also our missiles being failure( hooray to roll of 1 )
might really want to get dem revision

[Shadowclaw777]

Dont their infantry railguns smash holes through buildings? How mutons are going not to die from this ? And our plasma rifles are still at disadvantage due to getting long range sniped.
Also our missiles being failure( hooray to roll of 1 )
might really want to get dem revision

Alien alloys are more powerful than any form of human metal or man-made ceramics, and they can survive a ridiculous amount of force, including those from railguns. Make power armor out of this...

Plasma rifle at least in the lore, with a few blasts can destroy modern battletanks with ease, that’s why soldiers often aren’t in those tanks, realizing the loss of mobility isn’t really that advantageous gain of armor when they can easily be shot down. Plasma rifles have the necessary power, they just don’t have an ACOG scope so they lack a little bit of long range potential.

[VoidSlayer]

We don't need power armor, the Mutons can have alien alloy cybernetic plating and genetically engineered muscles to move them.

[NUKE9.13]

Muton: Taking what we learnt from the Lesser Muton debacle, and combining it with a choice selection of high-quality Earth DNA, we have managed to create Mutons capable of operating in Earth's biosphere. We could try to do something 'original', but why bother when we have something so suited to the task at hand already?
Mutons are big, beefy warriors. Everything about them is designed for combat. Redundant organs, a high pain threshold, and their integrated combat armour gives them unparalleled endurance, whilst their strength and innate combat skills make them a deadly threat. Their weaknesses are a low intellect for non-combat matters, virtually no capacity for the gift whatsoever, and an inability to blend in- on infiltration missions, they should definitely stick with the lander.
(Recommend spending 2 DNA tokens to reduce difficulty)

Muton:
  -Spending 2 DNA tokens: (1) NUKE9.13

[Kashyyk]

Muton:
  -Spending 2 DNA tokens: (2) NUKE9.13, Kashyyk

[/quote]

[10ebbor10]

(Recommend spending 2 DNA tokens to reduce difficulty)

Tokens have to be assigned to specific features. I may not have been entirely consistent with this, but I hope to ensure that it's consistent in the future.

Basically, a token ensures an automatic success on a specific subfeature. Removing it and it's difficult from the rest of the design.

[Shadowclaw777]

One DNA credit goes to superhuman burliness/durability/brute force of the mutons and another of the DNA tokens goes to combat tactics imprinting

My thoughts.

Muton:
  -Spending 2 DNA tokens: (3) NUKE9.13, Kashyyk, SC

[/quote]

[NUKE9.13]

Oh. Okay then. Hmm. So, the list of features, as I see it, is:
+Earth-capable biology
+Superhuman endurance
+Superhuman strength
+Innate tactical knowledge
-Mental weakness

ebbor: Can we spend a DNA token on the first thing there? That is, can we guarantee something that works (poorly) even if we roll a 2? (I figure if we can guarantee the first two- a working damage soaker-, we can revise the other features in afterwards)
Does adding weaknesses make designs easier at all? As in, is 'aiming' for mental weakness a good idea, or should I leave that out and let a poor roll add it back in?

[TopHat]

Muton:
  -Spending 2 DNA tokens: (4) NUKE9.13, Kashyyk, SC, TopHat

I'll back the Muton and NUKE's proposed token use (Earth-capable biology; endurance). Having thought it over I agree that improving ground forces is more important this turn - with luck a final fix to the AAA should balance out any fighter improvements the humans make and we should be back to parity on both fronts.

There are a couple of things I noted re-reading the turn:

The telltale sound of the enemy railgun, but far faster than expected

(emphasis mine) - It would appear that their railgun rate of fire has indeed been upgraded. Which begs the question:
@Ebbor: Did the turn's air combats see any siginificant increase in enemy railgun fire rate?
If not then the improvement probably either costs extra EP and/or only affects ground weapons; in the latter case an air equivalent may well be their revision for this turn.

Also of note is that they deployed an estimated 8 VP worth of craft, up from 6 last turn. That's +1 from the month end and an unaccounted +1 - probably either an event, a hoarded token, or a design / new base.

[10ebbor10]

@Ebbor: Did the turn's air combats see any siginificant increase in enemy railgun fire rate?

Not that you noticed.

Can we spend a DNA token on the first thing there

Kinda. Bit of a weak choice, but you can.

Does adding weaknesses make designs easier at all? As in, is 'aiming' for mental weakness a good idea, or should I leave that out and let a poor roll add it back in?

It can help if the weakness makes sense.

[Shadowclaw777]

Even the GM is making a not recommendation to that genetically choice! Replace it with combat tactics imprinting, Nuke, would make them much more effective at their jobs and desired goals we want them to have.

[TopHat]

Which is a little counterintuitive since biosphere adaptation seems like the trait Earth DNA would be of the most help with. Whereas tactics imprinting...
Ah, well. If it works, I guess.