zzooman

The fundamental question is what strategies do the mechanics make viable. As you state, the Mod1 mechanics force players to prioritise coverage as early as possible (or risk panic getting out of control). As fast coverage is the only real viable strategy, selecting it isn't really a decision. The Mod2 ideas reduce the burden of coverage, which is positive. But doesn't go far enough. Fundamentally, it is enjoyable for the player's decisions to be the main driver of success and those decisions are only legitimate if more than one strategy could be successful. Obviously, this is very difficult to do. A concept that may be interesting to play with is the elasticity between panic and funding. You have tried two passive options. 1. Increased panic decreases funding; 2. Increased panic does not change funding. There is a third active option. The player is given the power to decide the level of funding they request from each region at the end of each month and this affects the level of panic. The logic would be that if less funding is given to the Xenonauts then more is spent on local forces who help reduce panic. The player would then have a monthly choice between panic and funding. This would make choosing to have no coverage in some regions completely viable.