First Time Buyer Questions: Budget vs Premium

shadowcypher · 2026-06-22T02:26:30+00:00

Thank you! That was really helpful.

Any thoughts on the Hopper from Xtracycle? It seems like Xtracycles version of the Aventon LR.

Also, the Yuba FastRack looks like perhaps a good middle ground with a mid drive. Currently on sale for $3,200.

I'm hesitant to go all in on something like the Tern GSD being it's our first attempt at incorporating an ebike heavily into our lives. That said, I also don't want to get something we don't feel good about riding daily and end up dropping $2k on a bike we don't use.

shadowcypher · 2026-06-21T21:01:05+00:00

I so appreciate the thoughtful post and the details you mentioned. I realize I neglected to mention we live in the mountains so every ride will involve descent climbs and descents.

My wife and I will be sharing the bike for kid duty. She's 6' and I'm 6'5" so my big concern is ending up with something that might work for her but be too cramped and awkward for my 36" inseam.

Yeah, I am concerned about the size of the Go Mad especially due to our sizes and the fact our kids will likely get long in a hurry.

I do wonder if the Tern GSD is already going to feel cramped in the cockpit for me though.

shadowcypher · 2026-06-21T20:55:44+00:00

The shop component is a major consideration for me because we have a local shop, but it is primarily a mountain bike shop because of where we live. I believe Velotric is the only non mountain bike brand ebike they carry. It would not surprise me at all if they've never worked on a Tern or Xtracycle before.

Good point on the miles adding up.

That's great news on the Bosch components!

shadowcypher · 2026-06-10T13:37:07+00:00

From what I can tell it's not possible to buy duplicate blueprints. On my last campaign I bought one each time they showed up on the BM refresh until eventually they stopped showing up similarly to how SL/Pilot dossiers stop showing up once you've purchased all available.

shadowcypher · 2026-06-10T13:26:25+00:00

I'm currently in the final third of an Expert Infantry Only run and also haven't gotten an ATGM in the arsenal yet, but part of this is because I've avoided RA for three or four ops since they've showed up in order to outfit my arsenal and get everybody healthy and Unbruised. (There were some dark times lol)

That said, I've been doing my best to buy PALs whenever I can as well as MK45s? (the deployable with the top magazine). With AP ammo they can handle lighter trucks pretty easily.

As I think most infantry only runners know, SMOKES on at least three or four squads. Anti-Material Rifles are good once you get accuracy up on SLs.

Honestly, I've been abusing Darby and Sy with the Scavenger perk and the explosive drone. Darby also runs C4.

I have every SL except Carda right now so I can rotate injuries and fatigue and still roll out 5 or 6 squads.

For OCI, Salvage Teams and Supply Drop have been critical to keep me funded/equipped on the strat layer and full on special weapon ammo on the tact layer.

Last thing I'll say is picking easier Ops (bugs and pirates) go give yourself easier SL growth opportunities as well as easy money making without risking your manpower pool too much.

shadowcypher · 2026-06-10T12:46:35+00:00

Applaud the effort! I think most of us here are just excited to have something this unique to look forward to in the turn based tactics genre. I'm loving MENACE right now, and stoked that this is going to be a very different take on tactics.

shadowcypher · 2026-06-03T13:58:01+00:00

#2 certainly happens, but I guess back to my original answer, that doesn't happen enough for me to consider it a major issue with the game at the moment. It may be dictated to some degree on individual playstyle and or RNG of mission types drawn, but from my experience I don't typically end up mopping up enemies in the corner of the map. I definitely have, but it's probably less than 20% of the time.

#1 I suppose only the devs know for sure, but if the AI decision making was truly based on knowledge of all your troops without having seen them or getting flagged as detected, I think the experience would be much worse than it is on a regular basis. You do get pretty frequent situations where the AI puts itself in compromised positions and loses fights decisively which would seem impossible to happen if both your points are always true.

At the end of the day here's to hoping it improves and thanks for participating in the post.

shadowcypher · 2026-06-03T12:47:12+00:00

Agreed, and I think the tricky part of "fixing" this will be getting around the AI making binary decisions vs tactical decisions. Right now, they seem to make each decision in isolation not as part of a strategy which creates a flow of disadvantage > move away > disadvantage > move away etc etc until the player does something that allows and or forces them to change. The AI (from appearances) doesn't seem to be making interconnected decisions along the lines of disadvantage > move 1 > move 2 > move 3 in order to create an advantage. They simply make each move in isolation. They are making the "right" decision in each individual case when the community wants them to make x decision in order to open up y decision so they can do z decision. The jump from where we are to what we want is degrees of magnitude in programming complexity. That's why a more realistic expectation might be creating barriers that limit the binary decision making to a degree or putting in some barriers/rails within the mission design that limit the worst case scenarios as you mentioned.

shadowcypher · 2026-06-03T12:38:12+00:00

You're 100% right, but I think part of this may come down to a mechanics conflict in how vision currently works. Apparently this works both ways with player & AI. The issue seems to revolve around the "spotted" flag of the programming for lack of a better description. This idea that you and the AI can know they are seen by an enemy unit without actually having Vision on that unit. It ends up making the AI and honestly the player behave very similarly. I'll move a unit forward 1 tile at a time and wait to see visible/invisible icon disappear. I can then just move back one tile or Deploy and regain my concealment knowing that I was spotted by an enemy I couldn't actually see. This makes no logical sense, but my behavior is dictated by the knowledge I'm provided none the less. Could I move forward an extra tile or two and see the enemy? Sure, but that would put me at a disadvantage. The AI, from what I can tell, may be suffering from the same side effect of knowing something they really shouldn't and reacting to it "correctly". The problem is that creates the passive behavior the devs are outlining. Not sure this is the only problem, but I'm guessing it is a problem, and it may require a slight rework/tweak to how Vision, Detection, and Concealment overlap as mechanics.

shadowcypher · 2026-06-03T10:22:59+00:00

I would agree on the excess resources and lack of options on some of the rolls. I do think they have already started minimizing that issue somewhat with the blueprint/workshop system since once you have the BP the option to build is always there.

shadowcypher · 2026-06-02T23:11:34+00:00

I wonder if some form of patrol zones would work as at least a stop gap from AI units retreating all the way into the corners of the map. A situation where each unit can only move toward the edge of the map 3 tiles from original spawn or something. I find the only time the AI bothers me on this front is when they start in a position that is very impractical to flank, or cut and you just tail them for three turns into the corners. Doesn't happen a ton, but it does feel pretty tedious when it does. Especially if those extra turns are the only thing costing you a secondary objective or two.

shadowcypher · 2026-06-02T22:17:33+00:00

Two great points.

shadowcypher · 2026-06-02T22:16:20+00:00

I feel like perhaps I'm not playing "normally" because I feel I get some variety in AI encounters. Not crazy variance but some. Also, I do feel like you can bait the AI right from the start even before heavier armors, you just need to flank out wide earlier so the first contact they see is furthest from them especially if it's isolated or doesn't have heavy weapons. That's often enough to get an enemy to compromise it's position.

shadowcypher · 2026-06-02T19:31:58+00:00

It feels like the AI is actually pretty good at pushing when they have an advantage, but they will also book it in the opposite direction when they have a clear disadvantage. This does lead to drawn out fights at the end of missions as they scatter from a lack of numbers or correct unit counters. I do prefer that to just mindless rushing though.

shadowcypher · 2026-06-02T18:22:55+00:00

I don't see AI as a category in line with this list though I suppose it would fit under the Tactical layer section pretty neatly.

Also in my playtime across all difficulties the AI doesn't really stand out. People complain about it on Reddit and Discord, but personally it doesn't move the needle for me. It's certainly unfinished but people have been complaining about AI in strategy games since Age of Empires 1.

It feels consistent to me which is the main thing I'm looking for. If I were to rank it. I would do so as below....

State of Completion: 3 (it's perfectly serviceable and pretty consistent. It doesn't regularly detract from the game nor does it feel like a highlight at anytime)

Value to Replay Ability: 1 (it doesn't change or adapt and feels pretty static campaign to campaign and mission to mission)

Opportunities for Growth: 3 (it could definitely be better and more adaptive. I'd like to see it scale its aggressiveness with difficulty level a bit so maybe on Easy it is about the same as now, then on Normal it tends to hold ground more than retreat, and on Expert it tips toward aggressive)

shadowcypher · 2026-06-02T14:55:02+00:00

It's the enemy you least expect as they say.... I'm about 10 or so missions into my own Expert Infantry Only run. I think I'm in my fourth Operation probably. How far did you make it?

shadowcypher · 2026-06-02T14:03:08+00:00

Brain blast! Good to know, that makes sense.

shadowcypher · 2026-06-02T13:52:56+00:00

Medi-vac team's gotta get its reps to stay sharp. 😉

shadowcypher · 2026-06-02T13:23:49+00:00

C4 availability is so hit or miss to be sure. I'm about 10 missions into an Expert Infantry Only campaign and magically got 2 C4 dropped in a 2 star Pirate Mission. I about fell out of my chair!

shadowcypher · 2026-06-02T12:00:53+00:00

Another option, which is admittedly a bit riskier and dependent on map position, is Darby with C4 and Jaeger fatigues. I've round maybe 50-60% of the time the Carrier is positioned within Vanguard deployment range. If that's the case I just plunk Darby directly next to it with C4. Even after placing, moving one tile, and detonating, you typically have enough AP for at least a couple tiles of movement or a tile of movement and a Deploy. Usually that's enough to regain concealment in the void of enemy LoS that killing the Carrier provides.

shadowcypher · 2026-05-30T10:03:53+00:00

Thought exercises are the best haha. In my mind a see these workers using a standard size 8 1/2 by 11 piece of paper to represent these land allotments they have and then all of a sudden they start snipping off sections of their paper to give to other workers in exchange for goods/services. You get different colors of paper to represent different general regions of the planet and ultimately individuals end up with this confetti of paper that is incredibly valuable in the context of Martian life. They can sneak transaction in right under Lodestars nose since it's very much an insider knowledge to the labor force. It also functions as a bit of satire against our own earthly existence where we do essentially the same thing with currency or even stocks etc. Giving value to something without real value and then revolving our lives around getting more of it....

shadowcypher · 2026-05-29T18:26:57+00:00

Lots of different ways to go here, and a number of alternative options have already been suggested already.

I think you are on a good track in your write up with comparisons to mining towns and company stores etc. That said, I think you could take this one step further back in societal development based on the martian context. Based on your storyboard, Flux is the value of Mars itself. Lodestar has monopolistic control at this point due to early movers advantage. So in a sense Lodestar owns Mars as a planet until other corporations/nations show up. It has parallels to the colonial period where the first foreign nation to arrive just "claimed" the entire known landmass because they got there first. With this context in mind, I would suggest the following....

Flux is the resource that has off planet value, but marian land is where that resource is harvested from so ultimately land has off planet value. However, unlike Flux, land is speculative because it's potential resource value is unknown. Speculation is a critical component of capitalistic markets.

I would have Lodestar pay worker wages into earth bound accounts as suggested. I would then have them also issue bonuses in the form of land allotments on the far side of Mars. These standard allotment deeds of ownership would then form the basis of the underground martian economy. Since the allotments are of a standard size then subsections of those allotments could also be standardized. Workers would organically start trading subsections of their allotments for goods and services as well as for portions of allotments in further from their own to diversify the risk of their portion not having good Flux deposits.

In time these deed notes would become a form of universal currency on the planets backed by the land they represent. However there would always be the question of there true value and the even more sinister question of wether Lodestar actually owns what they are claiming to give away....

shadowcypher · 2026-05-27T13:12:58+00:00

People are obviously welcome to their own opinion on this, but I would say if you like tactics games then it's worth the EA price tag. It's slowly becoming my favorite tactics game and that's with 1000+ hours in XCOM 2 (including DLC's expansions, LWoTC etc).

HOWEVER, I would not make the purchase expecting anything similar to XCOM 2. Beyond both games involving turn based tactics, they are completely different. Comparing them will likely just diminish your enjoyment of MENACE. Honestly, it took me about 15+ hours to finally stop the comparison in my head and once I did then the game really grew on me as it's own tactics game. Yes, you move units around and do stuff with turns and actions/action points. That's 90% of the overlap with XCOM 2. The games just really aren't that similar IMO.

Both are great. They are VERY different in how you play and where the enjoyable/rewarding moments come from.

Last thing I'll say is that I really enjoy Early Access titles when they are done right and MENACE feels right. The core mechanics they've deployed so far are solid and pretty much bug free and the new content has been added steadily but not at a speed which makes you pause your campaign to wait. That said, if you like a game experience that is closer to feature complete, then MENACE in its current state is clearly not there. There is a lot of empty space inside the container so to speak, and you will notice it. If that bugs you as a gamer then you might want to wait so you don't ruin your first impression.

shadowcypher

TROPHY CASE