Doshniel

Hi, I want an option to pay less for a new base so I can actually have a few bases and not just one or two. At least three bases shouldn't be a problem, mostly because this game isn't a 1 base game and shouldn't be a 1 base game. Less soldiers, less bases and less ships makes for a more boring game in my opinion. If you want 1 jetfighter, 1 base and 1 soldier sure, you should play that game and that option could then exist. I want like four bases, a hundred troops or more and lot's of radar coverage. I want things to build and things to consider. I don't want stuff you can never buy and never have in a game, because those things won't be used. 750 000 for a base feels very expensive. Now I know this isn't for everyone, so that's why we could make it optional. Upkeep could also be lower. If it's an option I'm sure a lot of people will like high upkeep and they should have it. I don't like it though. There's also a balance between coverage of the globe and healthy research and I don't want that balance to completly destroyed, but I don't think this option will do that. I also don't expect new bases to cost that much later in the game, because I do realise that while testing things out a lot of bases can actually be a problem for the testing. However once this game get's stable enough and actually works, a lower prize for an in game base expansion and more bases might be a good thing to test out.

Something that makes new bases cost a lot less. Many bases is something I want in this game, because having few reminds me of other Ufo games. I want lot's of soldiers and lot's of bases and I want to build more of them without it costing too much. They should still cost, but right now 750 000 or whatever it costs, is way to high.

Komandos: seems to me that you are confusing the "history" of the game with the "imagery" of the game. For example: UFO2 had a more thoughtful and diverse game mechanics. I did play Ufo2 and I agree that game mechanics were different and that the underwater bit did disturb sort of the way you played. In this case the imagery is indeed related to the story. However the story might need the imagery to actually work and in those cases maybe they are related and not seperate entities. Plot can kill strategy, but only if the storyelement is strong enough. Otherwise they only divert you from the strategy for a small while. I don't want to much story in a game, there's a balance, however I feel like they haven't really destroyed that balance in the game. That said I feel like some things in the game might be overbalanced and too costly making many strategies worse then they ought to be. This makes for fewer decisions, but isn't necessarily story related, it might instead be balance-related.

I like the story in Xenonauts. I like there to be a specific goal for things I do and I like there to be characters telling that story. It explains why I do certain things in the game and why certain things in the game is important. I've played a lot of games with no story. Dominions hasn't a story, not really, but it does have something going on. There's nothing wrong with dominions, but I don't want Xenonauts and most of games to be like that. Story can really help a tactics and strategy game, when you want people to feel for the game. This is partly a horror game and there's no horror in it, without feelings or a story that produces those feelings. I don't have feelings when I play chess. I do have feelings when I play Dominions, but in dominions your character has a lot of story in it. Many of the things you do is story related. Dominions can acutally have more story rather than less, because it's hard to define what you are doing sometimes. Many boardgames created around a story have a lot of storyelements to them. I've played a lot of Cthulhuu games which had stories, like Arkham horror. The game isn't the same without that story. Not everyone will like a story and stories are hard to make, but not everyone will like graphics either. Some people turn off graphic when they play games. Does this mean that most games would be better without graphics? Personally I wouldn't like games like Prince of Persia without graphics or the witcher series or whatever. But I knew a lot of Quake gamers back in the day that took away all graphics, I also know some people don't play the new Dwarf fortress because they don't like graphics. Whenever a game wants me to have a certain feeling about it and not just be mechanics, then I prefer a story. I can make up a good story myself and in most games I do, but I'm not against having one in them. In total warhammer, I often come up with my own story, because I don't really like the story in that game, but the main story isn't my story. This doesn't mean that I'm bothered by the main story, I just choose to ignore it. I've played this game for 135 in game days and I have so far liked it and especially the story.

Hi, sorry to interrupt the conversation, if that's what I'm doing, but in the original game the corpses could be carried to your ship, even if you lost the scenario. In fact in a retreat you carried everything your characters carried with you. This might still be the case, I haven't retreated much in this game. There also used to be a way to use medic packs on corpses. In Ufo2 you could even get a higher chance of having a character survive by using the medic pack on a corpse of a former comrade. Also all those weapons are counted. Which is something I really like. The aliens only have weapons that you can bring back to your base and try to research, they don't have weapons that disappear after an attack, which many other games have and this annoys me to no end in those games. Having a mechanic around the corpses shouldn't be overdone though. I mean you could take samples from corpses for example and that could be fun for a mission or two and it could also turn into a lot of work for not enough fun I suppose. I know some players want to take away bloat and fluff, but I'm not sure how to define those things in a good way. Sometimes bloat and fluff is fun, like in the first dungeon keeper. In that case it would actually be a good thing.