zolobolo

Has the hangar size been changed then from 2x1 ro 2x2 I was looking forwrad to this update: cant play the beta but have played X1 a lot and one issue I had there is that there was simply never an issue with space in the base evne thouhg we had way more interceptors then in the original UFO (of course we also had 2x2 hangars there) So was looking forward to this to make base building more of a consideration + there should now be plenty of space to display nice big models of the planes (unless there will be 3 interceptros per hangar as mentioned above in which case the models will get smaller :))

I am with you: I never remember nor care about the names or faces of the various grunts Played the Firaxis remakes yes, but they were far from the feeling of the original, more like playing with super-hero action figures 8 soldiers are acceptable in the very first missions for recon but generally I enjoy missions with a minimum of 12 soldiers so can actually have 3 fireteams to conduct some base manuevers with. Like to have combat line being able ot execute pincer maneuver and loosing soldeirs left and right while doing so to underline the superiority of the enemy forces both physically mentally and technologically Dont enjoy reversing this mechanic where a couple of superhuman soldiers take down hordes of enemies with inferior weapons, less tension in it for me My concern is not evne to how much the squad size alligns to reality: having a small or a large squad count in the game fundamentally changes the theme and balance: are we fighting a superior force with everything we got or are we murdering them in strowes with a handfull of larger then life heros withouth loosing a single soldier? The original game I would argue was the former and no-one seems to be trying to recapture that concept.

Yes it is more easy to alter 3D models once they are done if you want to have them look consistent but an experienced artist can manipulate 2d images evne faster and cheaper I am warry of 3D base elements as Phoenix Point has don that and they have proven jsut how boring and monotone that can get without proper care taken to bring it alive In case of 2D images its more self-explanatory to make things clear and colors pop (though sadly not trivila for some)

Propose extra ammo to cost money each time they are assigned to a soldier This is to prevent soldiers from being stacked out with extra ammo till their carry capactiy allows and thereby preventing ammo shortage in-battle We have had a long discussion in X1 if ammo should be produced or not and the prevailing argument was to cut down on micro MGMT as it did nt serve an important gameplay loop and is annoying when player forgets to bring some along to a mission This proposal is to keep the current concept of instant ammo tht can be equipped instantly (no procurement action, wait time and storage consdieration) BUT also apply a smal fee every time a single magaine is assigned manually (relaod of weapons after missions is free to keep the systme streamlined) As mentioned above, the idea would be to keep players from filling up all the available pockets with extra ammo every time - it could still be done but since it would have some palpable cost attached to it most players would start consdiering if an extra magazine is really needed Lore wise the explanation could be: this is not procurement price but price of logistics and admin for extra issue magazines. In case of advanced weapon ammo it can be argued as a procuerement/production price as well the process just being hidden from the player/commander)

Late game armors would probably not need it as I imagine tehy would be all a sort of power-armor where the lore can say they can jsut hoist the equipment on the armor itself The backpack would only be used if its not a power armor (so late game) and if nothing is on the back already - so for base jumpsuit or if onyl some west or light plate armor is used It would be purely a visual gimmick of course bu would go a long way of giving the troops mass and presence on the map (plus they all have the backpack icon on them but no actual pack :)) I thought about this as I saw the hoister on the back of the soldiers on the Steam page image - never knew what I was missing from them as they have normal human proportions (unlike XCOM) but that jumped my memory of soldiers carrying backpack

I agree and also dont like the simplifications introduced by XCOM. Its fine for those games as they are much more of an action then a strategy game Alienkiller is also right in that PP does not copy exactly the XCOM formula: soldiers can do as many actiosn as teh TU allows for, its just that the UI gives hitns on how much a soldeir can move for example before they will not have enough TU to shoot The above UI is not about TU as far as I can tell it doesnt show that system. I was referring on how: 1. Item MGMT was solved (with the rotating menu) which sould basically replace the inventory MGMT view. Just imagine a dynamic rotating menu which can show 1-8 items with two numbers next to them indicating the amount of item type and hte ammo within that item. If you want to switch to medkit you either clikc on that icon and it "dials" into the hand or press a dial forward or backward button untill it is selected. The venefit would be that you can swap to any item that is found anywhere on the soldier in the main tactical UI with a single click an you can read out the exact inventory of any soldeir by simply selecting them. It also looks cool as all h*ll Also note the cocnept is using iconography instead of text to convey weapon details such as damage dealt hand special effects such as piercing or shred... this is something only the best boargames are doing (e.g.: Eclipse Second Dawn) 2. The Soldier profile is large enough to recognise is cener alligned and the colors are altered to give it a paint-like look at have it match the tactical map colors an bakgrounds better then what I have seen in any such game. The final PP menu shows tini-tiny portraits of over-saturated figures in front of a distractingly colrofull background which is not needed at all and is wildly unfitting for the UI colro scheme and the backrdop altogether. They also look much less detailed then in the above video... We got none of the above two awesome concepts in final PP though I am verry happy that X2 contains the centered soldier porfile image with no background - dont know if they took the idea from the above video but its a solid concept This is coming from someone who doesnt care who my soldiers names and profile are - never did. I have played the original UFO for two decades before I started renaming some soldiers and even then I was just using: "Commander" "Squadron Leader A" "Sniper" "Commando" that is it. I enjoy these types of games if I can send in a bunch of dudes in generic soldier attire and loose a bunch of them in bloody battle and dont have to sonsider them as persistent resource. That being said, with this centering of the profiles on tactical UI and if they are given decent faces and combat attire (no anarchies of children stuff though that is not a danger here) I might learn a name or two yet...

Has anyone seen these uniforms already in the curretn state of the game?: ss_d6648352fd4002f9fe34e2371254242bbb5be44e.jpg (1920×1080) (steamstatic.com) The unit models imply a bulletproof west but the profile picture does not show any torso protection I would love to see these wests in action as they fit a commando force like this perfectly in the early game The other uniform seen here looks like some kind of hazard suite and looks awesome. I would imgaine this would be something that protects against smoke and chemical effects more then against slugs and bullets + the tank on their back is just a very cool detail. Maybe its a flamethrower tank and the suite protects against fire and smoke effects? Hope these will make it into the game and are not just concepts The base blue jumpsuit is also looking way better then in X1 but if I can make a recommendation: put a backpack on their back (visible always unless power armor or there is another item already on their back such as the above tank) This way it makes sense they are carrying so many stuff AND would make them look like actual soldiers did/do carrying their stuff around

A game (Dorfromatik) is just coming out on Steam that has only tile placement and that is the entire game loop - it seems to work as it has a unique timless art style and a simple mechanic that lend itself to variation It was mentioend above that rooms should be connected to each other: while it is not realistic for this reelase, I could imagine a v3 iteration of the base MGMT conspet to have doors in various sides of each building type that would force the player to consider how to deisgn the base. Conrete: buildings could not simply attach to any other building but would need to consider rotation and join-points. Such a system does of course necessitate a hexagonal tile layout (it also works with rectengualr tiles but the amount of varions there are much more limited) Again, this is pure fantasy on my side - the current concept definitively does not look like somethign that could utilize join-ponts nor should it need one the planned features are already godo enough if they make it into the final

I see your point - better integration between the rooms themselves would be swell but this part of the game will like not get that much attention as it woul reuire re-evaluation of the objects every time a new building is made which for sure didnt exist before = code change I am ok with the solution as is jsut wish for some details and clear color differentiation via the props for ease of reasing what kind of room is where Upgrade from level 1 to the top should be possible and I am fairly sure that is what the are workign towards - the isuse with the base rada being of smaller size then the advanced versions will likely be rectified and eithe hte base rada made 2x2 or the advanced radars reduced to 1x1 Agree that finalising hte art does not make sense at this stage lest someoen wants to waste money Just looking at what is already here art wise and especially the mechanics it seems like a very solid basis. If the planned mechancis (energy usage, space constraint, upgrades and adjecancy bonuses) are properly implemented and balacned and the art is a bit more refined I will be perfectly happy (is way more then X1 or PP had) As for the individual point: Energy usage: a base generator should onyl be abel to power 3-4 buildings max (so that furhter gerneators need to be build quickly and make it more difficult to place buldings in a way that maximises adjecancy bonus (in square formation) Space Constraint: Hangars need to be 2x2 - this is the most commonly used building type that will alos likely be built in ever base, it can then have enough space to show the planes in their full glory and it makes sense for them to take up the most space. Once this is so Radars dont even need to take up 2x2 - hangars might be enough if there are enough of other building options which will seem to be the case Upgrades: All buildings serving the same function should be upgrade-able from base to top tier - this also necessitates the same size across the budiling type. Cost of upgrade needs to be signifficanly lower then that of new construction (basic stuff) Adjecancy Bonus: All buildings except hangars already seem to provide adjecancy bonus (maybe even reactors though its not clear from the screen). There should also be 1-2 dedicated buildings that provide extra amount of adjecancy bonus to break up the bracket pattern the above shold naturally lead to. e.g: AI Computer Center: Provides the same amount of research as a lab but +2 bonus when lab or workshop is next to it. These would then naturally be ideal between clusters of workshops and labs but sicne they dont give bonus to each otehr there is no dange of spamming them (this can also be mitiagted by very high energy usage). The introduction of such node buildings is needed to frelsh out the system, introduce higher adjecancy bonuses then the base value for mid and late game and to create new interestign scnearios where the historically grown lab and manufacturing complexes now would be beneficial to be joined together via such nodes

This was just sleek - they even took out some of the colors from the characters to make them belnd better with the UI color scheme and the background:

Just ran across this old interview on PP: Looking at the tactical UI e.g.: at mar 3:07 I feel so bad that PP had this brilliant UI system and then went wtih somethign that is worse in every possible way The final PP UI is jsut a mess with totall unnecesseraly colorful backgrounds for the soldier profile bacgrounds, tiny images, souless buttons and throwing out that sleek item swap menu is just baffling: it seems like a gneious idea to get rid of the item MGMT menu which is not relegated into yet another window to be maanged Their original concept looks very similar to what I have seen of Xenonauts 2 tactical UI so far - and I am very happy about it For whatever reason they didnt pull through and its their loss:

Do you mean they would need a fresh paint or different models? PP is a good example of more effort and higher pixel count does not translate to a more satisfactory result I am happy with whatever is done (can be even drawn by hand for all I care) as long as: 1. Quality for that display method (drawing, 2D image, 3D model) is decent (it can be a drawing but I wouldn't be able to draw nicely enough for most people to accept it :)) 2. Building types need to be clearly distinguishable I found the looks of X1 acceptable as far as base went: lots of redundancy visually as mentioned above and didn't like the white plane image So far it seems like they are going for an iterative improvement to the same method (whatever it is) I like the radar dish and white plane image much better in the new version and the bit higher wall elevation seems to be working well so far Hangars are very empty but I guess they will place some items laying around eventually - I dont mind if the white guiding lines are gone as they didnt lead anywhere anyhow so needed to get used to them in X1 Those two buildings on the upper right corner dont know what these are (maybe laboratory training center?) - these need some clear color coding and props to clearly identify its purpose

Its a design choice if you want to have other limitating factors to be considered for this mini-game or only money I found base building to be more simple in both Xenonauts and very very simple (almost none existent) in PP even though the latter clearly tried to introduce space limitation The drawback of relying only on money for limitation is that the entire mechanic needs to only be balanced against that one resource

Thanks for the details - good overview So in the latest version the Inference Radar (tier 2; 2x2) should have an option to be upgraded to Tier 3 radar with also 2x2 basis: Quantum Array The reason why upgrade chain breaks between Basic Radar and Inference Radar is the difference in their size 1x1 -> 2x2 Ok so there are a number of options available: A. Increase size of Basic Radar from 1x1 to 2x2 AND allow it to be directly upgraded to Inference Radar: thus the base radar will go all he way up till 3rd tier Radar without having to pay full price and needing additional free space just to get the latest version (if we already have a radar or tier 1 or 2) B. Shrink down size of Inference and Quantum Radar AND allow upgrade to them - same benefits as above but no challenge space wise especially if Hangars remain 1x2 C. Same as B BUT also make radar scanning range shorter AND give adjacency bonus to radars as well. This way the player needs to build several radars to get the most out of them. Since they are 1x1 they are easy to place and they can all be upgraded as well. Adjacency bonus ensure it matters whee they are placed but in this case: it is even more strongly recommended to have 2x2 hangars as before as these would be the only 2x2 buildings to prevent jack of all trades bases

Sorry dont understand Do we need to build two radars to increase detection range/chance or are there two types of radars and both of them need to be built? I can imagine the latter being the case if the second type of "radar" is a decoding center which shows data on detected points of interests In both cases the solution is simple: A. If both types of radar fulfill the same purpose, they should be upgradeable from one another B.: If there are two types of radars then the added functionality should be measured against space constraints - this is exactly what I would be aiming at. If player wants a base with both functions, then that base will not be able to be also a hub for tactical missions + research + production powerhouse AND house 3 interceptors - something needs to be offloaded into another base (or outpost) I would imagine that budget is tight as the base concept as started of differently at the beginning and also with a different view angle so I would imagine all those assets created are lost I proposed the above as it a low effort improvement with prompt and clear returns: the effort is placing around some assets for a couple of copies of 2-3 rooms and the coding part is likely higher: depending on how building images are referenced it can be difficult or simple)

Question on visual: Would it be possible to create 2-3 variants of most building where only a couple of decoration objects are placed differently and sequentially place them to break up visual redundancy? Concrete: Two banks of Beds are rotated or are shifted next or further apart from each other. A version deployed the first time, B version for the second, C for the third and then A again for the fourth when built.... Hangar and Living quarters specifically would be perfect candidates as they have many objects within them and are frequnetly built on most bases

But if we can upgrade the starting radar then there is no issue correct? Unless we have to pay full price for the upgrade: if upgrade costs less then building a new advanced radar, then the original radar is not wasted but leads to a discount The question is if all radars are contained in a continuous upgrade line - so that none of them cause wasted money/space

Here is an overview from my last Phoenix Point man base at endgame: There are many many aspects we can talk about here but for now there are two important points from me: 1. The colors used are the same everywhere (orange and grey) which (for me at least) makes everything look alike - the icons and building names are absolutely needed as the images do not help at all but they bring up another issues: we have the same information conveyed 3 times. Good design only needs one way to communicate 2. Note that they have reduced the number of tiles available AND they have introduced blocked tiles. This means that it was clearly intended to limit the player via available space but it also clearly didnt work as we dont really have enough things to build and the player can easily find around 15 bases on top of that Now I dont know if Xenonauts 2 also wants to limit space - I would recommend they do otherwise money is the only limiting factor (reactors are also just money limit if no space issue) and if that is a goal we need many buildings and at least a couple of large ones to make us think about placement In the above you just smack in stuff you need (you dont need much) anywhere it doesnt matter: everything is a single tile only and there is plenty of space even though they clearly attempted the opposite Also note how a single generator is more then enough to power anything the player can reasonably throw at it: 30 power is supplied for 14 (20-blocked tiles-3 extra space needed for hangar) where buildings consume 1-3 power each

Indeed upgradeable buildings would resolve the advanced radar placement issue correct? I didnt even think on building upgrades before but they would also be a great way to spice up this portion of the game a bit. It will not make placement more interesting but selecting which building to upgrade and when and having a visually and output-wise slowly changing base that gets better over time is a good idea to keep it fresh

A valid argument could be that the amount of space was and is not meant to function as a limitation - its just a technical necessity to have borders to the build canvas In such a case the idea would be that money and energy (also money indirectly if there is no space shortage) is the only limiting factor and adjecancy is there to spice things up Adjecancy is the carrot and money is the whip If this is the concept then it truly doesnt make sense to have 2x2 tiles - their purpose would only be to break up adjecancy bonus for which this format is not ideal This is due to the ideal format for this adjecancy bonus also being the square formation (+4 bonus for 4 buildings of a type with no losses) and squares fit in with other squares perfectly So if that is the concept (space should not be a limiting faction at all) I have two alternate suggestions: 1. Make Hangars L shaped. This would make them break up adjecancy bonuses much better. They would also take up +50% more space but is not a factor really as seen in the above examples it would still enable 5 hangars and all the key buildings (bearly but is possible). The additional segment could serve as a storage location for the weapons for the plane visually 2. Bring back Command Centers from X1 instead of elevator and have alien invasions attack this as it was there. The idea woudl be for Command Centers to provide adjecany bonus to all types of buildings next to them (excluding hangar) BUT if they need to be defended by garrison buildings to ensure they are protected during invasion. Thus the first building would be something that needs protection all aroudn it but also provides bonus to everything around it - decision It would alos make sense for the command cneter to provide a bit of starting energy for other buildings to be built as it would have its own generator lore wise

BTW: Can we get some reflector ligths on the side of hangars like in the original? Was very neat and could even be randomised per hangar to give each base a unique look

Here is a typcial starting base I created in the beginning of X1: Note we had a single starting tile 2x2 and hangars were 1x2: I could build up the entire base in one month and ic could handle almost anything up till the end of the game: 1. It has 4 Fighters for engaging multiple light ufos or heacvy and then rotating 2. Transports to engage multiple missions 3. Vehicle hangar so tanks can also be sesd for both offense AND defense 4. extended Radar RAnge (I usually built a third radar as well once more advanced interceptrors are available) 5. All the resaearch AND production space needed for till mid-game 6. Missile batteries though not realy needed due to the amount of defense and medbax for good measure (that one was usefull) This was such an effective setup that secondary and tertiary bases were only needed to shoot down UFOs + more labs later If Hangars and even radars would have taken up 2x2 - it would have been a whole deifferent question though. Additional baes would have suddenly been imperitive to have and the distance from each other also very impotant as none of them can be a jack of all trades I think that these aspects all need to work together to make this part interesting: 1. Cost of new bases very high 2. Upkeep cost of each building notable 3. Overall space limited due to the amount of building options and a frequently used portion of them being 2x2 - this is why I would be happy to have hangar also for vehicles to increase the things needed to push out that benefit and especially in large numbers 4. Energy consumption: more buildings = more generators that also take up space - researching more advanced reactors are suddenly an important priority 5. Adjecancy bonus rewards putting the same building into the same base BUT due to all of the above it is risky as that base will be too one-sided to do other thigns effectively I would have loved staffing as well in this list but its fine - I am happy that reactors and adjecancy is in and hope for 2x2 hangar Note: base defenses were not realyl needed in X1 - hope they rank up the attack frequency and strenght here agaisnt all bases not just main base so that these buildings also become important and need to considered everywhre as a usefull improvement (but taking up both energy and precious space)

To put it simply: if the player needs 5 hangars, 2 Radars, 4 labs, 4 living quarters, 2 reactors, 2 storage room + lift to crush the early to mid -game that should not be possible due to overall avaialble space and/or size and shape of rooms The above would require overall 41 units of space but the layout only allows for 6x6=36 - so even if built optimally something needs to be sacrificied (1 hangar and 1 Living Quarter, or 1 Radar and 1 Hangar if missions are more important etc...) In this case it would be a design cohice that prevents the player from choosing the obvious path and thus encoruage consideration and prioratization beyond what we can afford

My argemt is that in the above there are still 7 slot open for buildings and it seems to be already endgame - if we swap a few buildings around there is space for radar and hangar even (not 5 but 4 would fit) - if we dont hit the limit even at late game and even if constructing many 2x2 buildings there is no limitation to speak of Even if something wouldnt fit at all due to outright lack of space (which is not the case above just positioning), it is fine as long as the limitation only kicks in at around mid-game We should have a bunch of buildings and some of them large and we shouldnt be able to build up each base to contain everything. Lets imagine an optimal scenario (like the above mentioned 5 hangars in the starting base) and the idea is to only be able to achieve this by sacrificing other important things - this is how decision then matter right from the start not because it limits the player in the early game but because the player will run out of usefull space (cannnot palce 2x2 anymore) at around mid-game if they are not carefull I would welcome outposts as another means of expanding the decision tree for building bases but they would probably necessitate a lot of new rules and mechanics - lie what happens if these get invaded - though again here a garrison building might be an elegant solution as well

That is exacty what I would propse yes: to get into trouble with the obviosu optimal scneario We woud need to decide on one of the les optimal scnearios (financially, time or combat wise) A. Build 5 hangars to have 3 interceptors AND 2 tarnsports in main base - Huge combat advantage AND least money to maintain BUT much less space for everything else B: Build only 3-4 Hangars AND have space for all other essential buildings - Strong early game main base AND still cheap BUT need to sacrifice 1 Interceptor slot or a secodnary transport C: Build a second base nearby or offload research, production to a far-away base - Huge combat advantage AND plenty of sapce for everything BUT much more money to maintain AND secondary bases are less protected Its a balancing question We could also take C and build a bunch of hangars in secondary base right from the start but oh no - we are getting into the same decision cycle again This is the idea and I would even welcome for furhter mid to late-game buildings to also take up 2x2 space for the same reason (besides radar and Hangar) In X1 I just expanded into 5 Hangars in the main base right from the start - no consideration needed as they will be very usefull and there was no shortage of space - this made early game not the interesting base building wise and lead to all my base buildings being the same across the games