multiple bases? four-man team?

[Benets]

Like i said other post:

This game do not need to do major changes from the original. It almost only need to improve graphs, original X-com was near perfection. The game should be almost exactly the older one, I do not like the idea of life, like ufo: aftershock, aftermath, afterlight, you can heal a lot in battle and it's not that realistic. Original XCOM almost all shots was a kill, the shot need to hit some body part like lag to not kill with 1 single shot, or later with armor, but a good shot still a kill, this was amazing, realistic and make you go like a real elite squad, with caution.

And it should have multiple bases and you choose the location. This the things that lacks in ufo:after(things) plus its getting bored with people thinking sci-fi with biotecnology only, the weapons and ships with biotec only, i dunno it's not that cool. But UFO still a very good game. I like the liberty in xcom 1, you put where you want as much as you want (to the max number of base). Creating liberty to do bigger groups more bases, you improve the diversity of possible strategies. As remind have more soldiers do not mean only benefits, you have bad things too. Sometimes in the older one, i use 4 soldiers, if i think it would be better, or if i didn't want to risk much in that type of mission, or if i want to use some missions to train lower ranks soldiers. I called training day. So it's a pitty you can have only 1 base. And please, take of quimical flare and put night googles.

Hope new xcom be like older one.

[Inkidu]

Like i said other post:

This game do not need to do major changes from the original. It almost only need to improve graphs, original X-com was near perfection. The game should be almost exactly the older one, I do not like the idea of life, like ufo: aftershock, aftermath, afterlight, you can heal a lot in battle and it's not that realistic. Original XCOM almost all shots was a kill, the shot need to hit some body part like lag to not kill with 1 single shot, or later with armor, but a good shot still a kill, this was amazing, realistic and make you go like a real elite squad, with caution.

And it should have multiple bases and you choose the location. This the things that lacks in ufo:after(things) plus its getting bored with people thinking sci-fi with biotecnology only, the weapons and ships with biotec only, i dunno it's not that cool. But UFO still a very good game. I like the liberty in xcom 1, you put where you want as much as you want (to the max number of base). Creating liberty to do bigger groups more bases, you improve the diversity of possible strategies. As remind have more soldiers do not mean only benefits, you have bad things too. Sometimes in the older one, i use 4 soldiers, if i think it would be better, or if i didn't want to risk much in that type of mission, or if i want to use some missions to train lower ranks soldiers. I called training day. So it's a pitty you can have only 1 base. And please, take of quimical flare and put night googles.

Hope new xcom be like older one.

Yeah, I often thought the graphs in the original lacked a lot of polish. I mean line graphs? Who uses line graphs anymore? I would have liked a good-old pie chart, heck maybe a bar chart... Oh, no no wait. Something daring a scatter plot! Maybe a leaf and stem plot if you want to get... adventurous.

[BCD917]

I can see this argument. I'll agree I enjoyed that too - bringing in reserves, reinforcing when I realize ALL the aliens must be facing off against the one squad of 4 I sent that direction. But at the same time some of those turns got long and boring - especially when reinforcing took multiple turns or the mission turned into a bug hunt for the last, panicked sectoid.

The downside is that those reserves also reduce some of the tension of the fight. So did the battle-line of rookie scouts with the vets "covering". It was fun seeing - no question! But so you lose a few guys? Not that big of a deal. With a 4-6 man team, EVERY soldier is going to matter. It wasn't too often you'd see a total squad wipeout (though it did happen) - I think here that could be a real risk (or a lone survivor making a break for the Ranger.)

See I will have to disagree with the first paragraph above. I would not normally separate a small force as I would want to have one foot on the ground when advancing and as such this would limit me with a small 6 man squad to just leap frog about. No Flanking, Pincer or any other tactics, requiring more than a half dozen men. I did this with the UFO series and after a while, this to me, got boring. When I had the reserves it meant I could quickly bring up the extra troops (they were never idle I always had my reserves one tactical bound behind my front line troops) to deal with any complications. This is how a military force works. This game has no military value whatsoever. I never really had any trouble finding the "last sectoid" as I cleared all rooms as I moved ahead. With the number of troops available in this game I foresee myself leap frogging up and down the field many times, just like UFO:Ax, looking for those last alien troops.

As for tension, I guess that is true, but in the end it is also about what you find enjoyable.

[Luthorian]

It's interesting that everyone in favour of tiny recon teams are those that played the game with human life expendable.

[LeftyRighty]

Hope new xcom be like older one.

I think you might be disappointed with the direction Firaxis is going in... they're building a new game based on the old concept, not building a new game based on the old game.

If you are looking for something more faithful to the old game you might be interested in Xenonauts (http://www.xenonauts.com/) they're doing a "remake" rather than a "reimagining".

[TheFinn]

It's interesting that everyone in favour of tiny recon teams are those that played the game with human life expendable.

Soldiers are assets. Assets occasionally get expended. I did my best not to get them killed in the original, but it happened. The only soldiers I didn't worry about were the ones with 10 and 20 Bravery who I knew would be more of a liability than help later in the game. I'd always hire replacements for them but if the replacement hadn't arrived and I had to use them, then yes, they got the dirty jobs of walking point and being the first one through a door.

I don't favour the small squad size. I DO favour increased tactical choices and the small squad size allows the AI to (hopefully) cope with those increased tactical choices.

[BCD917]

Soldiers are assets. Assets occasionally get expended. I did my best not to get them killed in the original, but it happened. The only soldiers I didn't worry about were the ones with 10 and 20 Bravery who I knew would be more of a liability than help later in the game. I'd always hire replacements for them but if the replacement hadn't arrived and I had to use them, then yes, they got the dirty jobs of walking point and being the first one through a door.

I don't favour the small squad size. I DO favour increased tactical choices and the small squad size allows the AI to (hopefully) cope with those increased tactical choices.

I keep hearing about increased tactics of smaller squads. I may agree that one needs to be more tactical with a smaller squad, but this is not the same as more tactics. I for one would use the same individual tactics regardless of the number of troops available. Therefore less troops = less group tactics for me, not more. IMO, if you were less tactical with more troops in the original, then you weren't tactical at all.

If someone has the playbook of "Tactics for a 6-man squad", I would love to see it. Probably has two entries though. Leap frog and advanced leap frog.

[TheFinn]

I keep hearing about increased tactics of smaller squads. I may agree that one needs to be more tactical with a smaller squad, but this is not the same as more tactics. I for one would use the same individual tactics regardless of the number of troops available. Therefore less troops = less group tactics for me, not more. IMO, if you were less tactical with more troops in the original, then you weren't tactical at all.

If someone has the playbook of "Tactics for a 6-man squad", I would love to see it. Probably has two entries though. Leap frog and advanced leap frog.

Perhaps teamwork would be a better word for me to use - or even 'comboing'.. however it's spun.

I like the fact that two or more soldiers can work together to accomplish a task - like the suppression fire/grenade combo. Or using a sensor grenade with the sniper's Squad Sight ability.

The original was more limited due to the move/shoot/throw limitation on actions.

[RotGtIE]

Is there some kind of trend lately in bringing down the scale of strategy games? Dawn of War got the scale-down treatment, too. I always liked big fights. Anything down to half a dozen or fewer combatants was something I always considered to be in the realm of classic console RPGs and D&D campaigns.

[TheFinn]

Is there some kind of trend lately in bringing down the scale of strategy games? Dawn of War got the scale-down treatment, too. I always liked big fights. Anything down to half a dozen or fewer combatants was something I always considered to be in the realm of classic console RPGs and D&D campaigns.

I'm not a big RTS fan the best of times, but I do like Orks and enjoyed DoW - it's the only RTS I've done more than just demo or by trying at a friend's house. It was very typically RTS in that your units didn't have activatable abilities (for the most part).

DoW2 took a different approach and tried to add an RPG aspect.. some continuity between missions. Your units ALL had multiple activatable abilities - it was too much for my level of twitch.

But both of those are RTS. It's not that common for turn based strategy to have a lot of units. For TBS with a lot of units you're normally looking at a 'chit/hex' type wargame (similar to old Avalon Hill type wargames) or something that's abstracted with very simple mechanics (Risk for example).

I can't think of too many other TBS games with say 10+ units that are good (I'll be the first to say, that doesn't mean there aren't a bunch, I may not know them).

One I can think of is Blood Bowl - which is an AMAZING game to play against another experienced human being. Against the computer it's brutally easy - the AI just isn't up to the various strategies a human being can devise in that game. The AI could probably be greatly improved easily but it still wouldn't be enough to challenge a human. Improving it to the point that it could challenge a human just wouldn't be feasible from a creation/time standpoint.

Blood Bowl is a symmetrical game though - both sides use the exact same rules and can use the exact same strategies. So the AI has to be able to think just as strongly as a human to offer a challenge.

XCOM is assymetrical - the aliens can be stronger or have better/different equipment (and perks) than the humans can ever get. Combine that with a strong AI and you have the potential for a really good challenge.

[Inkidu]

I for one would use the same individual tactics regardless of the number of troops available.

I consider this a really big monkey wrench in the concept of tactics personally. Historically this is the kind of thinking that only ends up getting people killed. I also find your tactical assessment of what four to six people can do (especially when you consider their new baseline abilities) very narrow-minded.

Leap frog or and advanced leapfrog speaks more to your way of thinking than it does to the developers.

There's the pincer
The hammer and anvil
The turtle
The guardian angle
The ten meter sweep and scan (what I imagine would be about two hexes if it had a grid)
The bait and trap

These are just some of the basic tactics available to any any number of troops (minimum two obviously)

Now add in different armor and abilities and these tactics change very dramatically. Spend some time, think on what you know about the game and the tactics come to you.

[carldivine]

i guess the CANNON FODDER strategy wont be effective this time around. oh well, back to the drawing board...

[Branes51]

I, too, was a bit disappointed in the 6 cap, until I realized that the only reason we ever needed 10-14 troops is because they were so weak we'd lose half of them in any one terror mission, or for alien base or battleship assaults. I know that I only used a five man squad for anything less than a harvest ship. The rest were cannon fodder. That isn't the case with the new game. These are crack commandos with special abilities. I'm a former Marine Sgt so I know a little about fire teams and how they work. This setup is pretty accurate. The suppression fire system is the best thing any turn based combat game has come up with. It makes movement in the open far less suicidal than the original game. I would, however, still like to see smoke and maybe phosphorus grenades which are similar to the light things in X-Com. (can't remember the exact name of them right now.) And I like my HE packs. Without smoke, egress from the Skyranger is still too much in the open and open to sniper attacks right off the bat. That may not be programmed into the alien's behaviors but realistically, it would be as in the original X-Com. I also wouldn't mind an additional machine gunner with an M60 or similar heavy machine gun.
The jury is still out on the new movement system. It speeds up the game, but detracts from the individual decisions the player had to make for each soldier in every move. I realize that to today's players that kind of micromanagement is unfamiliar, but it is one of the strengths of the original game and the change seems too extreme. Despite all the other good aspects of the game, it is not a remake of the original X-Com, it is a redesign. I would have preferred to see a hybrid system as in Apocalypse. Part real-time, part TU-based. One system I really liked was in Laser Squad. You chose the movements of your soldiers for the turn, and then gave the command to execute them once you were satisfied with your moves. That way, you knew, before moving, how many TU's each man would have left. One new game, Xenomorph, has done the same thing, only in that game instead of selecting moves for all the soldiers and then executing the orders, you select the moves for each soldier and the number of TU's left is shown, once you get him where you want him, you execute the move. That way you know exactly how many units are left. And you can still use the auto TU save feature. That game, so far, actually seems more like a remake of the original X-Com than this one. I think you're limited to 8 commandos in that game. And they don't have any special abilities as in the new game.
Like all the different games based on the X-Com theme, this game is going to have to be taken on its own merits, not graded as a true X-Com remake and not compared to the original. It appears we are never going to see a real X-Com update with modern graphics, although Xenomorph may be the closest thing to it.

[carldivine]

still like to see smoke and maybe phosphorus grenades which are similar to the light things in X-Com.

smoke is in. it has even a nifty drug enhancement effect(unlockable ability) dont know about the phosporous though

egress from the Skyranger is still too much in the open and open to sniper attacks right off the bat.

troopers starts on the ground this time around, not inside the transport.

I also wouldn't mind an additional machine gunner with an M60 or similar heavy machine gun.

there is the heavy weapons soldier class, and hes armed with a SAW.

[TheFinn]

@Branes51
I'm not sure about the glowsticks but an article (or video?) mentioned sensor drones - basically grenades you throw and they extend the LOS of your squad.

Personally I'm glad they left it entirely turn-based. I don't like RTS.. I'm just not reactive enough for them, even the pause/go stuff just doesn't have much appeal to me. I think the move/action system will be good. The tactical game will definitely have a much different flavour than the original but as they've said, it's more a re-imaging than a remake. I've said in other threads to me it's like Battlestar Galactica. I was a huge fan of the old one but I love the new one too.

There IS a remake of XCOM coming out also - Xenonauts. I haven't looked at it in depth yet, but from what I understand, it's pretty much the original updated - the only big change I'm aware of is the removal of blaster bombs and psychic powers because they were too unbalanced.

[timewatch]

@Branes51

There IS a remake of XCOM coming out also - Xenonauts. I haven't looked at it in depth yet, but from what I understand, it's pretty much the original updated - the only big change I'm aware of is the removal of blaster bombs and psychic powers because they were too unbalanced.

About Xenonauts, if only that game has the updated graphics of this game, that game would rock more. I'm not going to lie, its the updated graphics that got me hook. They coulda gone real-time or go into a 3rd person squad base. If they are going to reduce the size so small, I really wished they had made a 3rd person squad game instead (like mass effect, or the upcoming spec-op).

One thing to consider, how many people would think this game is hot if the graphic is as bad as xenonauts? I'm quite curious..who would think this would have the superior gameplay?

[TheFinn]

About Xenonauts, if only that game has the updated graphics of this game, that game would rock more. I'm not going to lie, its the updated graphics that got me hook. They coulda gone real-time or go into a 3rd person squad base. If they are going to reduce the size so small, I really wished they had made a 3rd person squad game instead (like mass effect, or the upcoming spec-op).

One thing to consider, how many people would think this game is hot if the graphic is as bad as xenonauts? I'm quite curious..who would think this would have the superior gameplay?

I have to play it to be certain, but what I've seen right now makes me think I might enjoy the move/action style more than the TUs.

As for the small squad.. if it has me sweating and swearing at times because of good alien tactics and a tough AI I'll accept the small squad as the necessary trade-off.

[nu_clear_day]

...
One thing to consider, how many people would think this game is hot if the graphic is as bad as xenonauts? I'm quite curious..who would think this would have the superior gameplay?

My honest answer? Too early to tell. If we're basing just on gameplay alone, and not a flashy presentation... I honestly don't know which one I'd be more excited for.

Xenonauts seems to have the "modern update of the traditional game" angle pretty well covered. I've been waiting some time for someone to really be able to do it, and it looks like those guys might actually be able to pull it off.

But at the same time... I've played a lot of X-Com over the years. Insofar as Xenonauts looks to be keeping pretty much the same game mechanics, and polished up a lot of things, and expanding on the original formula: I'm very excited about that stuff. Their focus is on being very faithful as a spiritual successor to the original X-Com.

Enemy Unknown, on the other hand, looks to be being made by a group of guys who are taking things another way. They have their own ideas on what they'd like to do with this sort of game, and they're not afraid to try and make that happen. I mean, who hasn't thought about what they'd do differently if they had the money and resources to do a new X-Com game?

But I haven't played that game yet. The only way to tell is to see it in action. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, though.

And most importantly - it's not like this was ever an either/or proposition. It's actually good for Xenonauts that Enemy Unknown is mixing things up. This way they're not in direct competition (ie, why buy the game that was made with less of a budget and "lesser" graphics if they're the exact same game?)

Me? I'll be buying both games. And I'm excited for both of them. I'll have Xenonauts for when I want to scratch that itch, and I'll have Enemy Unknown for when I want to see how that goes down. Frankly, there's few enough really good turn-based games out there that I'll happily support both...

[timewatch]

Me? I'll be buying both games. And I'm excited for both of them. I'll have Xenonauts for when I want to scratch that itch, and I'll have Enemy Unknown for when I want to see how that goes down. Frankly, there's few enough really good turn-based games out there that I'll happily support both...

Its a trick question! My answer is secret option #3: Ufo2Extraterristrials. Its the other game I would consider after xcom:eu.

[LeftyRighty]

One thing to consider, how many people would think this game is hot if the graphic is as bad as xenonauts? I'm quite curious..who would think this would have the superior gameplay?

Graphics are nice and all, but I'm quite looking forward to the new tactical approach, and seeing what the alien AI can do. I'm playing through the original at the moment, and it does remind me how fiddly the original was in hindsight. They're putting some nice visuals on the face of it, but there appears to be quite a bit of streamlining in most areas of the game.

I've not looked into xenonauts too much, but if they can deliver a decent remake of the original and take out some of the annoyances and fiddly interface, that game might even replace the original when I want some retro gameplay. But xcom:Eu is going for different.

[Borson]

Keep in mind, a great dealing of the geoscape is still under development. The demo thus far centers on combat and the base.

Air Interception is in, but little info is on that thus far. I have seen screen shots of interceptors in different countries, so outpost or such for coverage is in, as well as radar coverage from above via manufactured satellites. Someone above also mentioned only 1 skyranger. I have heard Nothing along that lines, and would be sad if that's true. The Demo/Tutorial is limited and I wouldn't be surprised if the second mission (first after placing base) shows you how to use the skyranger (as well as demonstrating panic rating) after manually choosing the mission.

I'm also wondering if you can build ground support facilities on the geoscape (such as Surface to Air Missile sites.)

Point being, the Demo only shows a small part of the game and there is much to the game to still look forward to. We have seen so little of the geoscape thus far.

- Have fun

Edit: I'm also expecting a full and extensive Ufopedia. Don't think there's been any mention of it yet though.

[LeftyRighty]

...
Air Interception is in, but little info is on that thus far. I have seen screen shots of interceptors in different countries, so outpost or such for coverage is in, as well as radar coverage from above via manufactured satellites.

this has been confirmed by the devs, think they said "interception bases" get two interceptor slots

Someone above also mentioned only 1 skyranger. I have heard Nothing along that lines, and would be sad if that's true.

They said there is only one base with troops and R&D facilities... not sure if they've ever explicitly said only 1 skyranger, or if there is an assumption that the hq has to have 2 interceptors and 1 skyranger... ... good point.

The Demo/Tutorial is limited and I wouldn't be surprised if the second mission (first after placing base) shows you how to use the skyranger (as well as demonstrating panic rating) after manually choosing the mission.

A few of the articles mention that mission as part of the tutorial, a few give the impression it's the game proper... given that they all describe the exact same mission, I suspect it's the former and it's part of the scripted tutorial.

Keep in mind, a great dealing of the geoscape is still under development. The demo thus far centers on combat and the base.
...
Point being, the Demo only shows a small part of the game and there is much to the game to still look forward to. We have seen so little of the geoscape thus far.

Amen brother!

[BCD917]

I consider this a really big monkey wrench in the concept of tactics personally. Historically this is the kind of thinking that only ends up getting people killed. I also find your tactical assessment of what four to six people can do (especially when you consider their new baseline abilities) very narrow-minded.

Leap frog or and advanced leapfrog speaks more to your way of thinking than it does to the developers.

There's the pincer
The hammer and anvil
The turtle
The guardian angle
The ten meter sweep and scan (what I imagine would be about two hexes if it had a grid)
The bait and trap

These are just some of the basic tactics available to any any number of troops (minimum two obviously)

Now add in different armor and abilities and these tactics change very dramatically. Spend some time, think on what you know about the game and the tactics come to you.

For Personal Tactics I would generally mean things like noise and light discipline, camouflage, etc. When people say they need to be more tactical, this is what I have to think they mean. If they mean something else, IMO they do not understand tactics.

I was was being facetious with the advanced leap frog.

That said, Pincer (which is flanking from two sides) and flanking would be extremely limited, as generally the expectation is the flanking unit would leave sight of the defender to attack from another position. This in general would require them to leave sight of the fire team suppressing the defenders in the first place. Therefore the flankers would no longer have one foot on the ground and therefore no longer be tactical. Pretty much the same for the Hammer and Anvil although technically this tactic would more apply if you placed your troops on two sides of the map. If you are going to actually move one Fire Team from one side of the map to the other side to attack from the rear you are just doing another form of a flank and it is really meant for large forces. Actually all these tactics are. I mean are you really trying to tell me that pincer can be performed by 2 People?

Don't know what guardian angle is, must be some sci-fi made-up tactic from another game. Ten-meter sweep and scan? Sounds like caterpillar to me, which is just a safe version of leapfrog and of limited use in a TBS game.

The turtle & bait and trap are defensive tactics and when you are the aggressor they really shouldn't apply, but I guess in a game where the AI will fall for it, it can be used, so I'll give you those, but then you are waiting for the enemy and will likely need to switch to leap frog for those last few alien troops. People who complain about maps getting boring and taking to long, probably wouldn't be fans of these. And I thought the goal from Firaxis was to eliminate boredom from maps.

[Inkidu]

For Personal Tactics I would generally mean things like noise and light discipline, camouflage, etc. When people say they need to be more tactical, this is what I have to think they mean. If they mean something else, IMO they do not understand tactics.

I was was being facetious with the advanced leap frog.


That said, Pincer (which is flanking from two sides) and flanking would be extremely limited, as generally the expectation is the flanking unit would leave sight of the defender to attack from another position. This in general would require them to leave sight of the fire team suppressing the defenders in the first place. Therefore the flankers would no longer have one foot on the ground and therefore no longer be tactical. Pretty much the same for the Hammer and Anvil although technically this tactic would more apply if you placed your troops on two sides of the map. If you are going to actually move one Fire Team from one side of the map to the other side to attack from the rear you are just doing another form of a flank and it is really meant for large forces. Actually all these tactics are. I mean are you really trying to tell me that pincer can be performed by 2 People?

Don't know what guardian angle is, must be some sci-fi made-up tactic from another game. Ten-meter sweep and scan? Sounds like caterpillar to me, which is just a safe version of leapfrog and of limited use in a TBS game.

The turtle & bait and trap are defensive tactics and when you are the aggressor they really shouldn't apply, but I guess in a game where the AI will fall for it, it can be used, so I'll give you those, but then you are waiting for the enemy and will likely need to switch to leap frog for those last few alien troops. People who complain about maps getting boring and taking to long, probably wouldn't be fans of these. And I thought the goal from Firaxis was to eliminate boredom from maps.

Guardian Angel is a generic term fro a sniper watching over men on the ground it's used in a host of real life, sci-fi, and regular fiction. Like I said pretty generic.

Anyway, you talk about a pincer movement like I have to take my guys halfway across the map. What if a muton runs down a parking lot aisle with cars either side of him. All you'd have to do is send one person down each side and establish a cross fire. Boom dead muton.

[BCD917]

Guardian Angel is a generic term fro a sniper watching over men on the ground it's used in a host of real life, sci-fi, and regular fiction. Like I said pretty generic.

Anyway, you talk about a pincer movement like I have to take my guys halfway across the map. What if a muton runs down a parking lot aisle with cars either side of him. All you'd have to do is send one person down each side and establish a cross fire. Boom dead muton.

Ah a sniper reference, well I will admit that I have never had the privilege of dealing with snipers. Still wouldn't that really be another term for overwatch. Plus a sniper team would be an att to a regular assault force, so in the end you would have a 4-man assault squad and a 2-man sniper team. Still seems pretty limited to me.

In general terms I would say that for flanking and pincer movements you need to remove yourself from enemy fire to effectively reposition yourself and you do not want the enemy to know where you will pop up. In the case of a muton who may not have a ranged weapon, this may be the case, but in theory if you remain in sight of the enemy are you not in essence leap frogging forward while your foot on the ground maintains fire on the enemy. After all you do not leap frog troops one in front of the other, they would be spread out, which would mean if they leap frog far enough they could end up on the enemies flank. And it would be under the observation of the enemy and they could try and counter it (move to better cover/retreat... no one wants to be flanked). The best pincers/flanks should include an element of surprise, otherwise the enemy could try an reposition themselves to make the flanking maneuver ineffective.

Now perhaps this would work based on the limitations of the AI, but would that not be a fault of the AI not the efficiency of an improperly used tactic.

[Benets]

Its a trick question! My answer is secret option #3: Ufo2Extraterristrials. Its the other game I would consider after xcom:eu.

Man i hate ufo: extraterrestrials. Kinda weird and it isn't the graphs, really quiclky you get bored cos have few maps, it's not a random generator. It's always the same map, this do not stimulate. X-COM had random maps with same elements, but it was random, like the farms, had the barn house, the house, the apple trees, other plantations. But it was always random position and random numbers, sometimes you had 2 houses, sometimes 1, sometimes you didn't have barn. Amazing, this is why i get tired always when i play ufo aftermath.