Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'bases'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


    • Monthly Development Updates
    • Xenonauts-2 Releases & Patch Notes
    • Xenonauts-2 General Discussion
    • Xenonauts-2 Bug Reports
    • Xenonauts General Discussion
    • Xenonauts: Community Edition
    • Xenonauts Mods / Maps / Translations
    • Xenonauts Bug Reports / Troubleshooting


  • Complete Mods
  • Xenonauts: Community Edition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



About Me





  1. Please someone help! I cant figure out how to manage a base that isn’t the original base you place in the beginning of the game. Every time I click on it I just get three hangars that are empty and 3 radar slots I can’t fill since I “Don’t have sufficient radar capacity”
  2. I need to be able to rename my starting base. I tried to type in "Cairo." It came out "Cair." I must've hit return too early. I can't find out how to rename it. I eventually made a new game, but afterwards I thought about it. I could've named all my soldiers "Bair," and seen how effective they would have been at staring the enemies down. It occurs to me that the ability to rename your bases might be in the game but cleverly hidden. It took me a while to find it in the old game as well. If this is so, good job, it's hidden. Perhaps too well.
  3. During my playtesting, one of the things I've been thinking about is the use of the player's base. For a long time in development, the Xenonauts have been very well resourced - they start with enough cash to last several months, enough lab and workshop space to significantly expand their operations without needing new structures, plus a spare tank and three fighter jets. I think it was originally set up this way for realism's sake, but it's not much fun to play through. Now balancing has started, it's become about giving the player choices to make. In V17.6 you don't need to expand to hire more scientists or soldiers, but even if you did, you could easily afford to do both. This isn't interesting - there's no different playstyles or experimentation there. The conclusions I've come to is that we made everything on too large a scale, and now we need to downsize it. There's also needless complexity in some of the systems that doesn't actually add anything - we've just done it because that's how X-Com did it. This is currently what I'm thinking: Bases to be reduced in size from 7x7 to 6x6 Living Quarters to be abolished, replaced with Barracks that can hold 8 soldiers each. Laboratories / Workshops will hold 10 scientists / engineers, hired immediately on construction. Scientists and Engineers no longer have any monthly wages and do not fill living space. Radar buildings will now expand the radar range of a base, rather than improving detection chance. The starting base has 2 radars, so bases with only one radar have a smaller detection range. Garage buildings reduced to two vehicle capacity instead of 1. Player starts with only one Hunter, or perhaps even none. What's the point of this? The idea would be to reduce the scale of everything, so the player is making important decisions immediately. Want more scientists? You need a new lab. Or would you rather spend the money on building that MIG you've just researched? Or maybe you'd like a bit more radar coverage? You get the idea. Removing the scientists and engineers as a separate entity from the Workshop / Labs will simplify the base management, but I actually don't think it'll lose anything along the way. I was wedded to the idea of having individual control over scientists / engineers because X-Com did it, but the more I think about the more it's just more micromanagement. It's not like they can level up or change like the soldiers can, so why not just make it simple? Removing them as individual agents means that you can have more focus on the soldiers, and have a specific Barracks building that houses them (though they are hired / fired manually as before). The benefit I see of this is mostly that with a cap on the number of soldiers you can have (unless you build a second Barracks), you'll really appreciate each soldier. And if one ends up injured, you actually have to choose whether to nurse him back to health or to fire him and replace him with a weaker soldier who can be used immediately. The other large change is reducing the size of the base. This means you're just not going to have enough space for a base with a dropship, three interceptor bays, two labs, two workshops, two barracks and multiple radars. You'll have to specialise your bases - which should stop the single-base syndrome that frequently afflicted X-Com. Oh, and the radars - I think this would be another good change. Currently there's no real reason to build multiple radars, but in this system you'd get the choice between building a second base or expanding the reach of your first one. I think these changes would keep things fast and easy to understand on the Geoscape, but it won't make the game any less deep. If people have thoughts on it, feel free to post them - but if you're going to object to the plans, please give a more compelling reason than "X-Com did it that way"! EDIT - for clarity, these ideas have been put on hold until we've tried balancing the existing system more tightly in beta...except the radar changes, which will probably be implemented.
  4. Hi, One thing that I think would be cool in the base layout screen would be the option to lay a corridor piece. It should serve no obvious purpose other than to form a corridor. I'm no dev, but I can't really see this being a difficult thing to implement. In Game Benefits: Allows you more options to design a defensible base IE choke points etc Bases can be more customisable/unique to the player In Game balancing factors: Monetary cost to dig out tunnel Less space to build rooms which have an obvious use Cheers Jimmi
  5. Ìn my current playthrough, which is like my fourth or fifth attempt at mastering Xenonauts, I started experimenting with different approaches to base design. Instead of building an interceptor and chinook-base in month two, I built a base purely for manufacturing equipment, staffed with as many Engineers as I could afford (as well as Workshops and Living Quarters. I'm in December now and it's actually working pretty good. I managed to get a full squads worth of laser weapons and Wolf armor much faster than I have previously been able to (not that it did me any good, Veteran difficulty is throwing all but impossible terror missions at me with alarming frequency.) I placed my first base in Israel like I always do, and stuck the second on Cuba just for fun. Have any of you guys done things differently to mix things up? (This might have been a common tactic in the orginal XCOM games, I don't actually know since I never played them growing up)
  6. Nino

    Base Names?

    What do you all call your bases? My first one is called Zero.
  7. I've found that what works best for me is to go with two bases, one as a "real" base, the other as just an interceptor base, built in the second month, with nothing else going on really. I keep 5-6 planes in each and I usually have only one foxtrot in each base until it is replaced with Marauder. I'm able to shoot down most of the UFOs this way. Doing this is the only way I've been able to ever get far enough to research everything AND unlock the final mission before the UFO waves and country unhappiness gets out of hand. Are people making it work with just one base? Are you guys doing well enough to sustain three bases? I haven't had much luck with any other strategy.
  8. In the original X-COM game, the bases were located underground, since the first thing you had to build was the access lift. As such, the only way for aliens to assault your base was through the access lift or the hangars. But in Xenonauts, the aliens seem to be able to just attack from wherever, firing breaching pods into the side of your base or something. This raise the question, though, of why they even bother to send in troops in the first place? If they have a giant ship, why don't they just glass the base from the sky?
  9. I've been reading through the forums and manual and have a few unanswered questions I'd like to know more about. Global Relations - I've noticed that I can have bad/poor relations and still get more funding from regions, and some regions with good relations reduce my funding, how do these tie together and are there effective ways to keep areas happy aside from shooting down UFOs and doing missions? Does shooting down UFOs over water get credit from the nearest nation? Base Building - I've heard the more bases I build the tougher the enemy gets. Should I just build one base at a time to be highly effective, or multiple smaller bases in an attempt to cover more regions? Air-Cover - Planes seem to be using up most of my budget. How do people go about getting a decent airforce at a good value? I usually seem to buy 3 Condors and 3 Foxtrots per base and still end up having difficulty up against enemies such as a Corvette with Fighter escorts. Vehicles - So far I have only unlocked the Hunter. I don't use it much as I want my troops to be getting experience, should I still keep a few on standby incase, or at least have the garage for future vehicles? I think that's all for now, all help or links to relevant info would be appreciated
  10. Bases and role profiles can't be renamed. I don't know if this will be added in the the future but it should be. And make a confirmation popup appear when we press the "Change Default Loadout".
  11. I was thinking about how I used to build my bases in TFTD and how I build them here. One thing really jumps out at me. To me it is the lack of space, please allow me to elaborate. One of my basic base building strategies in other games of this ilk is to keep the possible access points to my base chokeholded as much as possible. In TFTD I made it a habit of keeping my hangers connected to the rest of my base by the single access point that the base started with. Yeah I wasted a bit of building space but when the inevitable base assault did happen that paid off by a much easier defensible position. The opportunity cost being the wasted line of space between my hangers and the rest of my base. Now in this game for my first couple play throughs I tried to do the same thing and quickly realized it really wasn't possible. So my next Idea was to specialize my bases, airbase here, research base there, manufacturing in another. But I found quickly the economy doesn't support such grand ideas. I think the problem I have ran into can be tied to two very specific things. 1: The cost of the command center starting a base. 500k is hugely expensive for just the core of a base without any functional rooms. or 2: The size of the rooms in the base. Almost all the rooms are 1x2 squares in size. Very few are 1x1. To me I am of the opinion that this is a bit of a overburden for trying to make either functional bases or economic choices. Especially with the manufacturing of late game items taking so many techs and the requisite living space and manufacturing rooms to make any of the ships at a reasonable speed. My suggestion would be either lower the cost of the command center (aka the core of the new base) to allow us to specialize a bit more. Or reduce the size of such rooms as the living quarters, research and manufacturing to give us more real estate for our initial investment.
  12. I never had to do it before and I never noticed if it was possible or not, but today I misspelled a name to my base and couldn't find an option to change it.
  13. Ok after playing the game for a bit I have come up with a few ideas for adjustments to the game for the sake of game balance, an interest in a slight shift towards realism, and better a more satisfying game experience. For ease of reading I have divided these up into sections with a bullet points style. <**Geo-scape Changes**> -Additional Options besides putting down a new base- there are basically two different options I would like to discuss 1) Incremental base development: this idea is simply a modified version of the current base deployment system and can be accomplished one of two ways. This can be done by allowing the creation of outpost which has a single or partial function of a base which can then be upgraded in one or two steps into a full on base. A couple of examples for this; *Listening station*(listens to local com traffic searching for alien sightings and displays an icon showing last known position and heading) *Coordination Station* (all the functions of a listening station but also tries to coordinate with local forces to minimize alien impact. Basically increases chance of local forces downing a UFO in their area of influence and also provides very minor stabilizing effect to relations with nations in its effective range) *Observation Station* (provides radar function and the coordination station effects as well) when Upgraded into a full on base the base will come with a prebuilt Radar array. 2) Awareness supplementation: this is different ways to supplement your radar ranges of existing bases *Deployable Radar units (smaller cheap radar stations which can be deployed/built on the map to supplement radar from bases) *Observation stations (see Above) *Mobile radar support (think AWACS which was already in existence during the games timeline) <**Base Components**> Here are some recommended changes/additions to current Base structures *Hanger & Runway* Convert the current hanger into a “runway” and add a 1x1 Hanger structure. The hanger functions similar to the garage only it stores aircraft the runways instead dictate the number of aircraft which can be launched immediately. Here is an example; say you have enough hangers for 7 aircraft and only 3 runways. When you detect a UFO and select intercept the list comes up showing all of your aircraft. Those aircraft you have assigned to your various runways show a “ready” in the status while those not assigned to the runways show “Delay 30M” so when you select one of these delayed status aircraft for launch they will wait the allotted time on the games time progression before launching on their mission. Or you could simply make it so only those craft that are assigned to the runways can be launched. The whole point is to have the ability to build a reserve of aircraft so when you say want to build a mid-late game aircraft you do not have to scrap one of your existing fighters to make room to build it. Likewise if you lose an aircraft if you have either saved your older aircraft or built spares you can immediately place a reserve craft into service while waiting for a replacement to be built *Modular Work Space* Similar in many ways to Lab and workshops except its more expensive and the 15 space that it makes available can be used for either research or workshop projects so for example you have one of these facilities instead of a Lab and workshop and you have 10 researchers and 10 techs if you assign all 10 researchers to a project then if you tried to start a workshop project you would only have room for 5 of your techs on that project. If that is not workable in the current configuration of the game than simply have the Modular Work Space building adds 7 researcher and 7 workshop space. <**Weapons and Equipment**> *Weapon Refinement* this is simply an escalating refinement of older technology such as weapons etc. with either better replacements or reducing manufacturing costs/materials Most of this can be accomplished through mods I am currently working on. *Trauma Kits/Save Downed team members/civilians/local forces* for details see the Medkit thread *Enhanced Night Fighting tools for ground Combat* see Nightvision thread for details <**Map Editor Redesign**> This tool needs some work, additional assets, and either a friendly guide or tutorial. The biggest issue being that there seems to be no easy way to build and define multi-floor maps. Someone had talked about the lack of true urban maps so I had this great idea of building one. One where the landing zone was the roof of a multi-floor building and the UFO would be crashed into one of the upper floors of another building. This of course seems to be impossible either that or I need someone who understands it better than I to give me a tutorial. Speak discuss tell me your opinions on all this?
  14. Do you guys build a 3rd base? I seem to lose Indochina around Dec/Jan with my main base in North Africa and 2nd base in Central America. The upkeep costs for a 3rd base seems really hard to manage.
  15. Well for starters, high everybody, really dig the game so far. But I ran into an issue - I tried to add a hangar to my starter base, and also set up a second one and both times, the game didn't let me put buildings where I wanted them at times (I had enough funds for it btw). Certain tiles just didn't accept a hangar or a lab or whatever - is this a known issue or am I doing something wrong?
  16. How long does it take to build a new base? I placed a second base and can see the icon and access the base screen but I can't build anything in it yet after 2 months of build time. Does it always take this long?
  17. I often feel creative when naming the bases, but I feel held back by not being able to use an apostrophe in the name. The ' key, would it be possible to allow it in base names or vehicle names?
  18. Title says it all. Also, what do you usually put in the bases after they've been built? Personally, I like Europe for my first base. I had a base in Warsaw, called "Warsaw", in UFO:EU. In my most recent game in Xenonauts, I chose Sevastpol', in the Crimean peninsula in the Ukraine as my base. I always name my bases after cities or towns in the area that I place them. In this game, I've not really progressed much at all into the game yet, so I basically have just my starting base and another hanger. What about you guys?
  19. Personal favorites: To min-max the land area covered by radar: North America: Detroit S. America: Lima, Peru Africa: Cairo S. Asia and Australasia: Hengchung, Taiwan (Southernmost tip of the island) I typically start with Cairo and Taiwan for the sake of covering as many lucrative funding areas as possible, followed --- if I get that far --- by Detroit, to cover the whole continent of North America. These four bases cover pretty much what needs to be covered. This assumes that places within regions matter no more than any other places. Any better ideas?
  20. I was watching again when I realised just how much of an idiot I was when I was placing my inital base. I had been working along my old X-Com lines, putting the base in europe as that was smack dab where I had always put it. But watching the video again I realised that a) the territories are completely different and b) exactly why was I covering so much sea? I get exactly nothing for shooting down a ufo over the sea. So I had a re-think. Perhaps the first inital base is best placed in or close to where alpacapatrol places his - on the "bridge" of land linking the middle east territory to the africa territory. That then covers middle east, europe and a big wedge of soviet, indochina and both africa territories. Having a further thought, I think the second base must go to the americas, with three other territories that otherwise go uncovered. The question is, is it better to put the second base in central america, so it sort-of covers the other two territories and is a good central position if a terror site happens, or is it better to cover either north or south america, and work towards another base (fairly quickly) to give better overall coverage?
  21. I've been thinking lately about the base streamlining as seen in UFO: Extraterrestrials and the new X-COM:EU remake and why that is. In both games we have just one "main base" with radar and interceptor coverage being delegated to either satellites or functionally limited air bases, etc. I've found that this is simply because radar and interceptor coverage are the only ones that matter in terms of location. When it comes to research or production it makes no difference whether your base is located in Australia, Russia or one of the polar ice caps. When it comes to research/production and even your "army infrastructure" (barracks, med centers, etc.) the bases might as well all be packed together in one spot which is precisely what the above mentioned two games recognized and implemented by having just one base. Even though I don't like the idea of having just one base I can't help but agree with the assessment that, in the old X-Com model, there is insufficient incentive to spread you bases across the world. Of course you are forced to do so to gain radar coverage etc. but it feels a bit contrived that the interception/detection functionality would drag everything else along with it. Of course there is the increased logistical and defensive challenge of handling multiple bases but that too feels artificially imposed. One could say that one base is stupid because if it's attacked and lost you lose everything or how it's hard for dropships to reach across the globe but this is all modifiable "fluff" and balance. I am talking about the basic gameplay mechanics and the dynamics of base placement. Either way, I'm not arguing for one base play but rather additional incentives to place one's bases in a certain area and closer relationships between bases and different funding regions. I'm interested in what some of the ideas are in this regard. I don't expect anything to come from it as it'd make for a pretty big "request" and I'm content with the established gameplay but I still thought I'd see if the discussion would go anywhere. Here are some ideas/examples. 1. Information Control Center - Whenever Xenonauts gain relations within the native funding region, they gain +X% relations in addition to the base amount. Whenever relations go down, they do so by X% less. The job of the ICC is to emphasize the Xenonauts' successes and downplay the organization's failures thus helping to maintain a favorable political climate within the host nations. The world's governments may not fully realize the dire implications of extraterrestrial threat but we do. 2. Unified Detection Grid - Higher presence of allied npc forces (where appropriate) during missions conducted within the host region. Missions expire more slowly. By coupling our advanced detection systems with the conventional radar grid of the host region we can create an early warning system what will increase the readiness and response time of local national forces. 3. National Liaison Agency - If relations with host region are X or above (should be high) a certain bonus is provided (depending on region). The NLA establishes cooperation between the Xenonaut organization and national governments. Sharing of information (on a need to know basis) with friendly nations may provide us with additional government backing and support. Possible bonuses: North America - Capitalist Ventures - Additional funding that is a percentage of the total funding gained at the end of the "fiscal month". Europe - CERN Participation - faster research rate (CERN, Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, was founded in 1954). Northern Africa a) Cheap Labor - Buildings are cheaper and/or constructed faster. b) Black Market - Unneeded alien corpses and equipment can be sold at a higher price. <- This is if you want to get a bit grim. South Africa - Diamond Mines - Additional funding (set amount not dependent on any other factors) Soviet Union - Heavy Industry - All vehicles are cheaper by X% (to manufacture or buy). Indochina - Mass Production - All arms and equipment are cheaper by X% (to manufacture or buy). This should be China really, I don't know why China isn't represented. Central America - Asymmetric Warfare - The Xenonaut base in this region will never be attacked unless it's the last one remaining. Great spot for research/production facility spam. Middle East - Oil Reserves a) Longer flight time and faster refueling for all aircraft even though the later ones use Alenium and not oil. b) Bonus relations with all other funding regions (use your imagination ) South America - Militant Governments - Lower recruitment costs and/or salaries for Xenonaut military personnel. Australiasia - Survival Expertise - Better chances of surviving critical injuries and drop ship crashes. Small reaction bonus to all new recruits. Of course, you should never be able to get all or even most of the bonuses but would need to focus on a few target regions and try to maintain high relations. Some would have good synergies and allow for certain strategies. For example. South Africa + Middle East + North America, better relations with everyone = higher overall funding + % bonus funding + diamond funding = more $$$. South America + Australasia + Indochina = larger cheaper well equipped army with better survivability and effectiveness. Europe + USSR + Central America = Spam research and vehicle production in the CA hidden base with EU and USSR bonuses. Rush to wanted technologies, save up on soldiers by using more vehicles. And of course there is the obvious synergy between ICC and NLA. Ok folks, you get the idea. This sort of thing could even open up different strategies and "paths of progression" but like with all things it's easier said than done. Would be nice to see some simpler ideas. Think of it as a purely academic discussion if nothing else.
  22. .. would be very helpful. The standard naming looks to similar. It happens very often to me tah t i send out my squads from he wrong base (especially when multiple UFO' are sighted.
  23. Since I recently started checking out Xenonauts, I am still running my starting base solely (NORAD... placed in the general vicinity of Cheyenne Mountain). I XCOM:EU, I usually started out with a base at Scapa Flow and then built the next two near NORAD and Vladivostok. I try to balance... I dunno, I guess a Nerd RP thing coupled with trying to cover as much area as possible, starting with the most lucrative of the nations. After I had 3 bases with tactical teams set up, I would start on the LP/OP bases to cover Southwest Asia (Usually based in Israel or Yemen, then South America (I set up an LP/OP near the Falklands, and sometime later a full on base in Brazil), LP/OP on Diego Garcia and then a full on base at Port Moresby. Was wondering how you all did your bases...
  24. 1. How much does it cost? It really should show somewhere when the button is selected. 2. Why limit bases to 9? Why not 10? etc etc 3. Why is the command center (main building in the base) automatically placed? I would prefer to place it to my preference to optimize defending my base from alien invasion.
  25. I noticed in another thread it was mentioned that in the beginning of the game there may be friendly geoscape forces to act as a speed bump for scout UFOs early game. I got to thinking and figured if you put an existing base down per funding nation and then allowed the player to buy them at a preset point in the game, it could be an interesting wrinkle. It would need to be well though out and balanced, but it could be a good way for a player who has downed a few scout UFOs and sold the materials from them an avenue to increase their power a premade base at a time and not be hindered by the huge building times by using the few millions they have built up from salvaging. There would definitely need to be a 1 per time period cap so you couldn't swallow the entire map. It also seems like a good way to be able to cover twice as much space without having to wait a month. I usually start with my base being able to cover all of russia, and then buying a premade base in n. america would greatly expand my ability to defend funding nations. As long as the cost was equivalent to the benefit, I think this could be pretty neat Any thoughts?
  • Create New...