Drag

In terms of the game warning you of an impeding base attack, it already does. When you see the number of ships increase significant, when ships start to fly around in circles as though it was looking for something, or when ship pops into view once you've launched an interceptor to shoot down another ship, that is the game telling your that the AI is ramping up. Sure it doesn't beat you over the head and yell "WE ARE ATTACKING!!!1!!!", but it doesn't need to nor should it. Now, the first time you play, you might not know that it is leading to an attack or that you could get attacked. To solve this, simply have the game tell you during a "tutorial" on base building. Something like "In order to build a base...blah, blah, blah...but don't forget to secure your base in case of attack." Now the player knows that an attack is possible, has fair warning, and can do what he/she thinks is necessary for the base's defense. In regards to AA, X-COM had defensive buildings. Those are effectively AA batteries. In terms of "base attacks don't force choices, you just keep a few troops always around and construct bases with choke points", that is a choice. By applying funds towards maintaining a force and the equipment they'll need and building your base in a manner that favors defense, you have used time and resources that could have been used to build a new base in an uncovered area, research or construct items faster, or simply build up cash. That is short term vs long term goal. In conclusion, games should present the players with the information necessary to survive and make decisions. This I agree with. However, games should not treat players as idiots. They should not coddle players. Let players do what they want and let them learn from the game organicly and adapt. Let them fail when appropriate, so that their successes are so much sweeter. Players are not stupid; lazy perhaps, but not stupid. Don't treat them as such.

Whether base attacks are punishments or not, imo, depends on how you view the game. If you view it as a game, then you can certainly make that argument. However, in my view, games like X-Com are meant to be simulations, and base attacks are important in that sense. As previously stated, base attacks are the AIs reaction to you. In the game, the AI should seek to win, not just be an obstacle to you winning. In a multi-player strategy game, the other player doesn't simply throw stuff at you for you to fight and stop short of defeating you. The other player will actively seek victory, and if you are impeding said victory, the player will seek to remove that threat and obstacle. The AI should be doing the same. Ideally, there would be multiple levels of AI responses like unthreatened, passive defense, active defense, and offense. Additionally, base attacks are also there to force choices between short-term and long-term goals. For example, if you have only been using a small pool of soldiers, then every time you send them out, your base is more vulnerable. Perhaps you should rotate your squads more, so that would be less of an issue. Maybe there is an landing or terror mission happening, but your fleet has taken quite a beating and you are not quite prepared to withstand a base attack. Maybe you should let the attack happen and accept the consequences in hopes that your force will be more useful in the long run. These choices can arise because the player is vulnerable. Take away that vulnerability, the choices disappear, and the game suffers. If you insist on thinking of them a punishments, then think of them as punishments for you not being prepared or having contingency plans. That is not to say that X-Com couldn't have done a better job regarding base attacks. Personally, I believe that the options for defending against or avoiding a base attack were just too few. You should have options to, say, use passive/active camo, move the base, use smaller and cheaper "sub bases" to allow for defense through dispersion, etc... In terms of the soldier progression and cover systems from XCOM:EU, do not implement them like EU does. The progression system was way too restrictive. Something like a upgrade points system with multiple trees would be much better or apply abilities to weapons and not soldiers. The cover system was way too binary leading to situations where it did not make sense. If you are going to use cover, make it more complex. If a soldier is 1 square away from being 90 degrees from and enemy and flanking them, unless the enemy is really thin or there is another obstruction in the way, the enemy should not get full or any cover bonuses.

See topic for the question. Specifically, how is Xenonauts going to tackle the problem of the end game becoming way too easy, a problem every X-Com thus far has failed to adequately resolve? Thanks in advance.