Funding seems to be way off

[John Smith]

Funding seems to be way off; I bought xenonuats today, thinking it would be great fun. And it was, I enjoyed the tactics and strategies immensely, especially the new weapons, the shotguns and machine guns, it was fantastic, and a markable improvement, IMO, over X-com, at least the old version. A lot of the changes I would have made were in there, from the newer weapons to the updated graphics and geoscape.

However, funding was off, pretty much completely. I started off the first month in September, doing pretty well; i'd probably say I shot down and engaged in a ground mission virtually all the UFO's, except a few that ended up in the ocean. Despite this, I took negatives to my income. I have no idea why.

The second go around, I'm telling myself, okay, *maybe* I need more coverage, so I built a new base and basically had zero money. Even shooting down and taking down as many as possible, I got negative funding. Negative, on month two. 3 continents dropped out by the third month.

Now, it's not like I wasn't doing anything; I was shooting them down like crazy. I must have gone on dozens of ground missions and meticulously plotted out each one. I didn't and on that game still haven't lost a single soldier in combat.

And yet the frustrating part of it was watching my funding go down and having no way to counter act it, at all.

It was just hopeless.

And the really annoying part was I was on easy. Yeah, easy. And yet by the third month, I was taking negative income.

Tell me, how am I supposed to get coverage over the whole planet when I need money in the first place? I need money to get bases to get coverage to not lose money which I can't do since I'm already basically out of money before I can get the bases. It's ludicrous, it sapped away all the fun for me. And I don't see why or what I did wrong; is there some magic button I'm not pressing?

Furthermore, why is funding going down in places I have no radar coverage in? How can I possibly be expected to fight UFO's over there?

It just seems a might silly. There's really no way to play the game like that. Apparently I'm not the only one who's had this problem, so I'm thinking it might be a new game update? It's absolutely ridiculous. Unless this is the way the game was intended to be played...? And if so, why?

Edited June 7, 2014 by John Smith

[kabill]

Furthermore, why is funding going down in places I have no radar coverage in? How can I possibly be expected to fight UFO's over there

Because the funding blocks *want* you to provide coverage, and aren't going to keep giving you money if you don't.

Out of wonder, do you know what version you were playing? There was a bug in the game recently that was causing less funding damage to happen, which has now been fixed. But it's quite possible the current game balance isn't well-designed to cope with it since it wasn't working previously, hence leading to fairly dire situations like you describe.

[John Smith]

I'm not sure exactly if it was a bug, what version I was playing, but it was awful. All my characters, all that time invested into that game and it's dead. What's the point?

If I have to provide as much coverage early on, then how do I set up my bases; doesn't that mean that there is an opportune way to set up bases, and if so, why not just start off that way if that's the only way to really play the game and there's no styles available? Start off with 3 bases or something?

Where do I put these 3 bases; I'm really only into the ground combat tactics part of it so I don't really care much about the funding thing. Which is more or less the game's strongpoint.

Does my radar just have to cover a "continent" or does the actual circle range indicate where my coverage is?

[legit1337]

The most recent changes have upped difficulty somewhat. Despite the intention of "smoothing" the difficulty curve.

I play on veteran difficulty. I've seen totals as high as -487,000$ out of a total funding of a little over 3 mil for the FIRST month. That is taking into account shooting down and clearing FIVE UFOs.

Basically as it stands now, if you don't get coverage on a region by the end of month 2, you have lost it.

Funding hits need to be toned down to 11,000-16,000 per event for scouts, as it stands now I have seen it go as high as 20,000. Airliner shot down events should not exceed 20,000.

Edited June 7, 2014 by legit1337

[kabill]

The radar circle is literally the area which is covered, so you can try and cover most of a single continent, or partially cover several, or whatever.

I'd say there's some consensus on having a base around Greece/Northern Egypt as your starting base, as this offers you good coverage over Europe, the Middle East and Northern Africa, as well as some of the USSR if that's useful to know. Getting coverage up quickly is generally a good plan; in previous versions I've found a new base in October and then also in November is good enough to avoid losing continents. However, I've not really played any un-modded games of the release build, so I'm unsure how well this would work for you.

[dpelectric]

Totally agree, funding is way too tight right now, especially for new players on easy/normal settings. Just PM'ed you

[llunak]

It just seems a might silly. There's really no way to play the game like that. Apparently I'm not the only one who's had this problem, so I'm thinking it might be a new game update? It's absolutely ridiculous. Unless this is the way the game was intended to be played...? And if so, why?

It is intentional, the game is supposed to feel like fighting a desperate fight. Probably not to this level though. And it actually is doable, I'm usually on a stable funding after 2 months, and in one game I even had small positive funding change already in the first month when I was a bit lucky with the RNG. But it indeed requires a geoscape skill that new players are definitely not going to have.

When the funding system was changed to the current one I suggested that easy and normal levels should have modifiers for first few months that'd reduce the impact of negative events, as I think that'd smoothen the start to something new players would cope with better.

[dpelectric]

When the funding system was changed to the current one I suggested that easy and normal levels should have modifiers for first few months that'd reduce the impact of negative events, as I think that'd smoothen the start to something new players would cope with better.

Yes, this.

[Chris]

Read the updated Quickstart Guide, it explains the basic Geoscape strategy now.

If you don't have the regions go down within a couple of months, though, it's easy enough to get three bases up and never actually lose a nation.

Perhaps a funding modifier for Normal and Easy could indeed be a good idea.

[Feynman]

I picked up Xenonauts the other day when I heard it was ready to be officially launched. I've been playing the game for a few days now and I'm closing in on month four. I was able to scrape through the first couple months but things were VERY tight, and the only reason I was able to identify the need to rapidly secure more stable funding and execute a plan is thanks to many many years of X-Com experience. I still lost a couple countries, but my funding and coverage is stable now and I'm no longer at risk of losing the political game unless things go horribly horribly wrong.

That said, a new player without prior X-Com experience is very likely to not have a good grasp of when to expand nor where to put their crucial first base, and currently funding is so tight that there is very little room for error. I'm inclined to agree that funding needs to be more lenient on Normal and Easy difficulties, because as it stands right now a lot of new players are going to get really frustrated.

[Irishguy117]

I picked up Xenonauts the other day when I heard it was ready to be officially launched. I've been playing the game for a few days now and I'm closing in on month four. I was able to scrape through the first couple months but things were VERY tight, and the only reason I was able to identify the need to rapidly secure more stable funding and execute a plan is thanks to many many years of X-Com experience. I still lost a couple countries, but my funding and coverage is stable now and I'm no longer at risk of losing the political game unless things go horribly horribly wrong.

That said, a new player without prior X-Com experience is very likely to not have a good grasp of when to expand nor where to put their crucial first base, and currently funding is so tight that there is very little room for error. I'm inclined to agree that funding needs to be more lenient on Normal and Easy difficulties, because as it stands right now a lot of new players are going to get really frustrated.

I'm curious, which difficult were you playing on?

[Feynman]

I'm playing on Normal because I'm too much of a sissy to jump into the higher difficulties before having a good grasp of the different alien types and tactical options.

I placed my first base in my traditional X-Com starting location (around the Alps), and the first month went okay, but I wasn't aware of just how quickly funding was going to drop, so I spent too much money on scientists, engineers, equipment and enhancing my first base. once the first month report hit, I realized "oh shit, I'm doomed if I don't get global coverage going ASAP." I was able to start construction of base #2 (allowing me to cover Indochina and most of Russia) shortly after the second month, and I fired almost all of my scientists and most of my engineers to help lower upkeep costs for the next month. I lost Australia and South America fairly quickly (the aliens REALLY hammered them but I couldn't justify spending the cost to cover those isolated regions since I was too busy pinching pennies at the time), and by the time I started building base 3 I elected to focus on Central/North America instead).

Between the unexpectedly sharp drop in funding after just one month and not yet having a good grasp of how quickly to build/research, I very nearly screwed myself over. Month 2 was really, really tight, and I only barely managed to get that second base up and running. Once it was up, I got more breathing room and was able to get the situation back under control, but it was a close call.

[Solver]

EDIT: Nevermind.

Edited June 7, 2014 by Solver

[John Smith]

Thanks for all the input!

I put one in the middle east since I've been reading about that, but, I don't sure how I'm supposed to even get coverage that early since without 3 bases I'm going to be losing out?

I'd rather not play another 8 hours and realize my 3 base positions were wrong, does anyone have an ideal location?

Also now that radars are 250k, and radars are more or less essential for coverage, the price of bases haven't really gone down; in fact, it's only 50,000 dollars cheaper now. xP

[kabill]

Also now that radars are 250k, and radars are more or less essential for coverage, the price of bases haven't really gone down; in fact, it's only 50,000 dollars cheaper now. xP

No, they're $500,000 less, half what they used to be. So it's actually quite a big reduction!

[John Smith]

Herm, I was thinking that maybe if you lose several consecutive waves of UFO's in a row then funding should drop?

Losing 1 battle doesn't seem like enough to lose morale, or do that kind of damage.

It's too variable to have to win every single battle or you funding drops to 0 immediately.

And that's with downing multiple UFO's that whole month.

Maybe it should be like, if you consistently lose several times in a row, or that you have to take down a certain percentage of the UFO's, instead of all of them?

Idk.

[John Smith]

Well, the base itself costs 500,000 less.

But an old 1 million dollar base with three radars cost 1.3 million (1 million +100k x 3). A new base with 3 radars cost 1.25 million (250k per radar, x 3, = 750k, compared ot the base cost of 500,000, meaning it's 1.25 million). You can argue that you don't need radars, but seeing that the only point of more bases is more coverage in new areas, bases without radars are more or less useless.

EDIT: Herp a derp troubles quoting. xP

[John Smith]

No, they're $500,000 less, half what they used to be. So it's actually quite a big reduction!

Well, the base itself costs 500,000 less.

But an old 1 million dollar base with three radars cost 1.3 million (1 million +100k x 3). A new base with 3 radars cost 1.25 million (250k per radar, x 3, = 750k, compared ot the base cost of 500,000, meaning it's 1.25 million). You can argue that you don't need radars, but seeing that the only point of more bases is more coverage in new areas, bases without radars are more or less useless.

Meaning it still more or less ends up costing the same. The starting base gets 1 free radar, so it's slightly cheaper.

[kabill]

Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant in the first instance.

Nevertheless, it's not the total cost that is important so much as the timing of those costs. Getting a new base with a single radar is significantly less expensive now, and that's all you need in the short term. In the long term, they're close, but in terms of early expansion (which is quite important) the difference is quite big.

[KevinHann]

I don't understand the massive criticism the current balance is getting. I've never played the original games, nor any similar. Still I was able to do well enough after my first month on Insane ended up in just a minor drop in funding (most of it coming from Australia which I might end up losing).

I keep thinking if the start isn't tough the game will become incredibly easy as time goes on as you will inevitably improve your funding more and more as you expand and cover more ground. Also taking a hit in a month or even two doesn't mean it will keep going this way. My understanding is once you get three bases up and running, your worries on the political side of the game are pretty much over, unless you deliberately sabotage yourself. Even after factoring in the learning curve.

I'm worried the game might suffer a decrease in overall difficulty to appease the casual player at the expense of offering a genuine political challenge to the hardcore fans just because people feel the start is too punishing - when this start does not define the entire length of the game and instead of trying to avoid any financial loss you could just look to minimize it over the first couple of months until you manage to turn the tide.

If it is that dire, perhaps a funding modifier based on difficulty is the right direction.

[dpelectric]

I'm worried the game might suffer a decrease in overall difficulty to appease the casual player at the expense of offering a genuine political challenge to the hardcore fans just because people feel the start is too punishing

Yes, exactly, which is why Ilunak and others are advocating a modifier just for easy and normal difficulties. I very much agree, and not only in the realm of funding; across the board, I think there should be a big jump from easy/normal to veteran/insane so, as you say, both newbies and hardcore fans are appealed to

[John Smith]

Well, maybe just a beginning grace period?

You need funding to build bases; you only get more funding by having more bases, or more coverage. In order to get more bases, you'd need the first few months to give you quite a bit of money, so you can build more. You get almost no money from missions, at least not as much as the original x-com, so you are reliant on funding from the nations almost entirely. However, because you need to build bases to get started having coverage in order to get more money, and you aren't just given enough to build 3 bases to begin with, it's kind of a catch 22.

You can't get funding to get more bases unless you have more funding, which requires new bases. Because the game's alien interactions are largely randomized, unless you get lucky and your first couple of months had the predominant activity in the base area in starting you chose, you are going to lose funding and literally have nothing you can do about it, thus setting up a cycle that basically ensures you will lose without any real merit by the player.

It's less about how hard it is and more so about being doomed to start with.

Now, this may just be me, or other people who've been experiencing wild funding changes, but it seems to be a problem when you're already losing money by the end of the 2nd month and all you've created is one new base, forgoing practically everything else.

I like the difficulty of the game, and I'm only on easy and normal thus far. But the whole funding thing seems kind of out of whack. You can do amazing on ground missions and it means nothing. Maybe that should count more? Idk.

Edited June 7, 2014 by John Smith

[Max_Caine]

A disclaimer: as many will know, I've been playing and modding this game for almost 3 years now and I play on veteran, non-ironman.

I can't say that I've experienced this catch-22. At the end of month 1 I have negatives from every funding bloc that I haven't covered with my starting base. However, I still have all the funding blocs. Funding starts at $3 million, typically I've lost a million of that, have more than enough to cover base expenses and have more than enough to build a new base. In month 2 I will loose a funding bloc. I've never not lost 1 funding bloc since version 1.0 in month 2. However, the new base I've built repairs the relations damage done to blocs previously uncovered. Funding steadily increases in those funding blocs and decreases in uncovered funding blocs. I will get another million at the end of the month because each UFO I shoot down is worth about $24,000 in funding. In month 3, I may or may not loose a funding bloc. It depends. Australia always gets the short end of the stick, so they tend to be the one that might or might not go. In month 3 I have my third base and it's pretty much plain sailing from there. Funding tends to be maxed out in the blocs by my starting base's region, and I get +$1 million every month.

Edited June 7, 2014 by Max_Caine

[KevinHann]

If I have to be perfectly honest my main complaint is that once you get decent coverage there is no way but upwards financially which kind of limits the challenge. The hard start is the only thing working in the opposite direction as it is and easing it would completely remove any sense of tension from the game, excluding ground combat. Which on its own is not enough for me personally.

[ViewThePhenom]

I agree with easing funding for easy mode, probably not normal. Also, a more detailed explanation of how funding works and emphasis on the fact that losing one or two nations does not cost you the game, and is to be expected.