Chris

Base Structures & Upgrade Slots

38 posts in this topic

I`ve think a bit about bases "problem" (even if I don`t see there any problem at all). And came for sort of compromise variant, that may make everyone pleased.

At start of game player may choose his general strategy, there will be three variants with their own benefits and weaknesses:

1. "Great base": Xenonauts have only one facility, from where all their operations take place. That base is REALLY big one and may contain everything, that Xenonauts may ever bee needed in.

Benefits: 

- no logistics. everything is in one place and all logistics will be in transporting UFOs\aliens\loot from ground combat site to your base.

- no headace with managing multiple facilities.

- easier to defend. after two-three attacks player will learn every corner of "map" and will be able to crush eventually enything alien may send there

Weaknesses:

- easier to detect. Such big facility conuming really LOTS of electricity, or producing LOTS of heat by working power generators, also lots of traffic moving at single point may be very suspicious.

- lost base= defeat.

- some sifficulties at the begining. At begining you will depend on government radar coverage, and probably on local airforces (your own interceptors are unable to ly arond world, before you get something really special).

2. Operational bases. Actually it`s something like what we had in X1, and this strategy is actually moderate at all situations, so it hasn`t some specific pros and cons.

3. "Guerilla hideout". Many small bases... very small bases, all over the world.

Benfits:

- harder to detect. you have separate reder stations, SAM sites, UFO junks, Airfields, lab complexes, workshops and so on, it is much easier to hide between "normal" facilities.

- not big problem in loosing even dozens of bases. they are very cheap, so if aliens get some of them... you may fast build new ones

Weaknesses:

- very hard logistics. you will need almost all the time transfer stuff between your small bases.

- very hard to defend. if aliens find one of your facilities, you will not have much time to react before they burn everything to ashes.

- aliens can veavily hit your logistics on route. You haven`t got big centers for R&D, engeneering, scrapping UFOs or alien detention, so from time to time some resources, UFOs, prisoners will be tranfered on really big distances cause of nearest "base" have insufficient place to work with it. And aliens may decide to attack land convoys, sunk transport dhips, or shot down planes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was never much reason to keep multiple strike squads/dropships in X1. All you needed was a skeleton force of troops in each base in case they were attacked.

Similarly, I don't feel that much is lost if you centralise the research/engineering.

Shunting supplies and people between bases was honestly busywork that didn't contribute anything meaningful to the gameplay.

As I mentioned in the other thread, I do think multiple interceptor stations were a good feature and I'd like to see them in. But besides that, I think I'd prefer this approach.

I do have a question about the space vs. cost tradeoff though, would it be possible to upgrade a single radar array to a double radar array eventually? Or would you have to scrap it and rebuild it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08.03.2017 at 0:39 PM, arlo said:

There was never much reason to keep multiple strike squads/dropships in X1. All you needed was a skeleton force of troops in each base in case they were attacked.

If in X1 wasn`t instant rearming of strike squad after mission, so dropship may be immediatly sent to the next crashsite\landed UFO etc. there will be much more reason in multiple squads =) because of timing of each dropship route. If there is limited ammo, or at least it is neccesary to return to base for rearming... unlimited ammo, equipment and "conventional" weapon is, IMHO, big mistake of X1, that ruined in general all reasons in multiple bases, multiple dropships and multiple ground teams.

On 08.03.2017 at 0:39 PM, arlo said:

Shunting supplies and people between bases was honestly busywork that didn't contribute anything meaningful to the gameplay.

It`s just feel of realism =) As I said a bit ealy- it is almost impossible to manage global covert ops (and Xenonauts IS mostly covert-ops division) from only one operation center. And there MUST be something like world-wide base network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Building your own airfield vs. stationing fighters in a friendly airbase?

Loosing that airbase or country = loosing all fighters stationed there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever the decision, "transferring" things between bases could be streamlined into the production UI; building armor without alloys would show a submenu allowing you to choose from which base the materials are imported

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Shoes said:

Whatever the decision, "transferring" things between bases could be streamlined into the production UI; building armor without alloys would show a submenu allowing you to choose from which base the materials are imported

I think there is a pretty high chance that there will be only one base, esp. if the regional radar experiment works through.  My summarisations give an overview of proposed changes.

Edited by Sheepy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My current thinking is that it's extremely unlikely the Xenonauts will have more than a single base this time around. That said, I'm certainly open to having systems that are functionally similar to having multiple bases so the gameplay effects of this change might not be that major. 

As I've mentioned in other threads, having the radars existing as buildings on the Geoscape gives the player more strategic choices and improves the balance of the game ... and if we decide to return to the X1 system of interception then having airfields on the Geoscape instead of hangars in your base would work equally well. I don't see the point of only allowing these structures to exist within a base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chris said:

My current thinking is that it's extremely unlikely the Xenonauts will have more than a single base this time around. That said, I'm certainly open to having systems that are functionally similar to having multiple bases so the gameplay effects of this change might not be that major. 

Something *like* multiple bases and itself multiple bases is not the same thing. Multiple bases could be connected with diplomatic relations with certain countries, there may be many interesting events with bases. There may be necessity in multiple bases if there will not be instant ground team rearming and not good idea with translocator (instant teleporter IMHO can`t be fitted neither in lore of xenonauts nor in time period or gameplay). And much more, all about it i`ve said earlier (couple posts above)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning the idea of slots. I don't think presenting hard choices as slots is going to work. There's always going to be the cry "why can't I use slots in division X for division Y?!", just as there were cries of "why can't I build another Skyranger?!". If you want people to make hard choices, then it would probably be better to provide a blank floorplan of the base, say "that's all the room you get, DWI" and let people figure out from the floorplan where they want to put things. You still limit what people can do, but you give the impression that the player has more choice over what they can do. 

 

This could be taken a step further and an element of a puzzle game could be added to base building by allowing room structures different shapes so they fit together like a tetris puzzle, and allowing adjacency buffs/debuffs so different types of room both benefit or not from being placed to each other (e.g. put a rec room next to a lab would probably cause a massive debuff to the lab from all the noise in the rec room). Just doing those two things - different room shapes and adjacency buffs/debuffs would work to limit the number of types of rooms the players puts in as they would have to consider the dimensions of the rooms they want, as well as what rooms they would end up against. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Max_Caine said:

This could be taken a step further and an element of a puzzle game could be added to base building by allowing room structures different shapes so they fit together like a tetris puzzle, and allowing adjacency buffs/debuffs so different types of room both benefit or not from being placed to each other (e.g. put a rec room next to a lab would probably cause a massive debuff to the lab from all the noise in the rec room). Just doing those two things - different room shapes and adjacency buffs/debuffs would work to limit the number of types of rooms the players puts in as they would have to consider the dimensions of the rooms they want, as well as what rooms they would end up against. 

Sort of reminds me of "One Piece Mansion" on Playstation 1.

But indeed giving some more visual-puzzles would a nice challenge.

---
---
---

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Chris said:

My current thinking is that it's extremely unlikely the Xenonauts will have more than a single base this time around. That said, I'm certainly open to having systems that are functionally similar to having multiple bases so the gameplay effects of this change might not be that major. 

As I've mentioned in other threads, having the radars existing as buildings on the Geoscape gives the player more strategic choices and improves the balance of the game ... and if we decide to return to the X1 system of interception then having airfields on the Geoscape instead of hangars in your base would work equally well. I don't see the point of only allowing these structures to exist within a base.

It makes more sense to have separate airfields when it comes to conventional aircraft anyway. Airstrips take a lot of space and are very visible. With VTOL, having a small hidden hangar might work. But early on? Not really.

 

It makes sense that the xenonauts have a central HQ that coordinates and directs efforts of various other bases/installations. Heck, you can even have other installations under attack and having randomly generated defense solider (other Xenonaut forces). Those could be AI controlled or the player can be given command during the mission, but he cannot take their equipment or bring them back to his base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer the idea of having a limited amount of total space to work with, versus having fixed slots.  It would give the players more freedom, but would require making the space limit low enough to be meaningful.  

Separate airfields being valuable depends on if we're teleporting in our planes or not.  If they're flying under their own power, then obviously there's some potential value in having them spread out to different locations.  If they're being teleported in, obviously they need to start out where the teleporter is located.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like the idea of the slots. I really like building up the base, and I really like build up multiple bases. It's cool to see the buildings really change if they get an upgraded version, both on the base layout view and then in a defense mission on the map.

The idea of having only one base is ok though, but then you should be able to station interceptors on air bases belonging to the other nations. You could have to build up some influence first or pay some money to station a squadron at an airbase. You could then have so me administrative tasks you could do there, but not change the actual buildings.

Additionally you could be able to deploy SAM sites, which are more or less no buildings, but a few vehicles, forming a defended position. Aliens could even start attacks against SAM sites you have to defend.

Same with radar sites..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now