Leaderboard

My issue with this, particularly in the case of XCOM, was that every playthrough would start the same. Rush satellites. And yeah, there was something interesting about figuring out how to get a few more $$$ additional funding to squeeze out another array a month early, but it doesn't feel like a novel problem you're solving. In X1, the issue was that there was a obvious strategy to get sufficient radar coverage with three bases - that was the optimal choice. And if there is an obvious optimal choice, you don't ever pick the other choices, so the whole thing stops loses all strategy around trade-offs. I'm not saying a strategy game with an expansion phase is bad. Just that I'd appreciate it if there were multiple routes to expansion. Eg, instead of building a whole new base with radar and hangars, you hire those facilities from the local territory. This is cheaper, helps to keep the panic down in the region, but the spoils go to the host so you don't earn a profit. There is a meaningful choice there because both options are viable. Similarly, your idea about starting with a base on each continent could work. As that is the optimal choice, it may as well be the default setup. The problem is that that would remove the expansion phase of the game, so you'd need something in its place, e.g. you expand effective air coverage either by building loads of hangars, or by rushing the R&D for better aircraft (or a combination of the two). That would give some element of trade-off. But, this is getting off topic. The original question was about specialised bases. With that, there could be a lot of meaningful choice around base building. Even if you were going with the optimal three-base configuration, you'd still have freedom to choose what those bases would specialise in. However, crucially, those specialisations would need to be critically different to effects of just constructing lots buildings in a regular non-specialised base.