Base spread and the reasons for.

[Jean-Luc]

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.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Jean-Luc

[Sathra]

Nice ideas. My main annoyance with the single-base model was the single drop-ship. While it could be argued that you usually only need 1, there are times when you really, really want a second one. Swarms for instance.

All the bonuses would only really activate at high-ish relations yes? If so, sounds good. Especially at higher difficulty levels.

[Jean-Luc]

All the bonuses would only really activate at high-ish relations yes? If so, sounds good. Especially at higher difficulty levels.

Yeah. I avoided using any numbers since it's mostly pointless but if max relations is 100 the boni should probably activate around 75. Since there are 10 funding regions one playing on easy difficulty should probably be able to acquire (and maintain) up to 5 bonuses and up to 3 on higher difficulties (on average). So you basically need to start thinking about this on day 1 and focus on "servicing" the regions that are concurrent with your long term plan.

[BuzuBuzu]

All really cool ideas. They would add a bit more depth into where you place your bases and the order that you place your bases, as well as encouraging the building of specialized bases.

I also agree wholeheartedly with you on your first point. As much as the single-base model is a dramatic departure from the original X-COM, it may actually be for the better. Most of my many bases in X-COM where just a hangar with a Firestorm, stores, and a highperwave decoder. The only reasons why I built extended bases were to accommodate a huge R&D enterprise, or when aliens discovered my main base and base defense missions got tedious and boring.

That's not meant to knock multiple bases in Xenonauts though. I think with fuel levels playing an integral role in Air Combat, a well thought-out base spread is essential. Also, with research being collaborative, many bases with just one lab are a veritable option to one huge research base (I'm quite fond of the latter though).

[Zach]

I think it sounds really interesting.

I really like your #1 and #2 suggestions, but #3 is turning the game into too much of a COD kinda game with perks and all.... I don't like that.

[Gazz]

#3 is definitely a good thing because it adds a strategic consideration to base placement instead of it being just a geometric one to best "paint" the RADAR map.

Since the bonus only applies to local units, any soldier bonuses are not so good because your "good" soldiers may not be able to cover the entire world. (due to dropship range and flight times, if nothing else)
XCOMEU solved this with having one base and a number of "satellites" serving specific geographic areas.
Depending on where you deployed how many satellites, you'd get geographic bonus abilities/perks - as well as RADAR coverage.
IMO a genuinely good idea because it both adds another strategic element (the bonuses) while eliminating the fiddly building and maintainance of all those sprawling secondary bases that had never been that important to begin with.


The main issue with a one-base approach in Xenonauts (as in one important base) would be aircraft fuel.
That's not insurmountable, though.
For instance, there could be a small geographic range around each base, where airborne craft get air-refueled.
Also, traveling directly to another base happens at double speed and uses no / less fuel.
Ideally, the route-finding should automatically bunny-hop over the outlying supply/detection bases but it's not critical.
That way the base placement is still very important for multiple reasons but there is less reason to fully develop multiple bases.
Keeps the micromanagement in check.
This could be emphasized by giving base 1 a lot more building squares than the others.



Oh, and here's another ability bonus:

Orbital surveillance - There is a small chance to detect UFOs outside of your bases' RADAR range.
Could be using the world event pings. No tracking - only detection.

[Jean-Luc]

Since the bonus only applies to local units, any soldier bonuses are not so good because your "good" soldiers may not be able to cover the entire world. (due to dropship range and flight times, if nothing else)

If you're talking about the Australia thing the idea was for it to be a global bonus applied to all recruits. I guess it'd be rationalized as a special training course provided by the region. It's a bit awkward but I had a hard time thinking of an Australiasian bonus. Sorry Oz.

Orbital surveillance - There is a small chance to detect UFOs outside of your bases' RADAR range.

Could be using the world event pings. No tracking - only detection.

I actually wanted to propose this but I assumed aliens would destroy all satellites so I dropped it. XCOM:EU doesn't seem to be bothered by such considerations though.

Just so it's clear once more. I'm not arguing for one base play but simply saying that I realize why UFO:ET and XCOM:EU took that route which is due to a recognizable "gap" in this part of X-Com gameplay. They discarded what they saw as poorly justified micro. The core idea is as Gazz put it.

#3 is definitely a good thing because it adds a strategic consideration to base placement instead of it being just a geometric one to best "paint" the RADAR map.

If you have bases in the North/South Americas there's no need for one in Central since you have sufficient radar coverage in the area. But if you could have that hidden base in CA you might suddenly have a reason to place one there, it wouldn't even need it's own radar.

Edited April 8, 2012 by Jean-Luc

[Gauddlike]

Extra bases are only superfluous if you can build everything you need at a single site.

If the available space is enough to have everything there then it makes sense to do so.

I usually ran 2-3 teams from different bases.

I also had a research/manufacture base and a training centre.

This was not because of limited space, just because of personal preference.

If you couldn't fit the best radar, sufficient research and manufacturing capability AND all the hangars, barracks, and garages you will need into one facility then there is already a second and equally important reason to have other bases rather than radar coverage alone.

[thothkins]

I’d like to also see the base impacted by the type & frequency of alien mission likely in that funding nation, in addition to providing some basic changes.

So, nipping back to EU UFOPedia:-

Alien Research – Usually happens in larger Military/ Industrial areas, so high for the USA and low for Australasia.

Alien Harvest – Usually happens in livestock areas, so high in Soviet Union/ Australasia and low for Central America.

Alien Abduction – usually occurs in cities or built up areas apparently, so high for Europe and USA and low for Australasia/ Soviet Union.

Alien Infiltration – Geopolitical in nature so High for Europe and Middle East, but low for Central America.

Alien Base – Aliens feel safer in remote locations, so High for South America and Australasia but low for Europe.

Alien Terror – Either occur in areas they don’t attract attention to their own base or in the larger funding nations to destabilise them.

Alien Retaliation – Aliens would find it harder to attack bases tucked away in South America or under a major city.

Any of the above funding nations used as examples could alter depending on your viewpoint/ balance considerations.

But they would be good to have in addition to a number of the other variables, some mentioned above. These I’d like to see literally come with the territory, rather than being bonuses as such.:-

Facility Construction time

Mission Window Duration

Soldier Cost

Scientist Cost

Technician Cost

Aircraft/ Vehicle cost

Weapons cost

Equipment Cost

Research times

Workshop times

Alien scoring (Propaganda)- reduces effects of alien activities on that nation’s funding.

Espionage (Infiltration prevention) – your tireless little spies oust alien doppelgangers and rogue MIBs, keeping countries free for their own manipulations later.

Other thoughts:-

Tech Specialty – that nation either is the only one to be able to provide that equipment or research. With collaborative research, this could push players to have labs in more than one base.

Spheres of influence – Each of the funding nations has ties to the others that will impact the funding of others should they come under attack, or for that matter be really pleased with your organisation. If either USA or Soviet Union sign a pact, you’re in real trouble.

Black Market – All that stuff you sell is directed to one of the finding nations. They will use this to bolster their own defences and goals, and lessen their ties to your organisation. This will reduce player’s willingness to sell off everything they get.

Anyway, my Chinook couldn’t make one of the crash sites, and I had to let the aliens have their wicked way with the livestock. So, I can see a need for a second Chinook.

[jamoecw]

well if aircraft ranges are kept as is, i would simply have an infrastructure rating for each region. as ufos demolish infrastructure, they are less able to fund you. therefore early game would benefit greatly from multiple bases so as to protect infrastructure, in WW2 during the battle for britain, britain was hard pressed to defend itself due to the loss of airfields, afterwards germany was hard pressed to produce equipment due to loss of factories in eastern europe. if a region loses infrastructure due to ufo raids there is a great deal of incentive to place a base there so as to stop the loss. if they rebuild until they return back to normal across a few months, then placing a base in a destroyed region would still help, and should they reach full infrastructure they would provide a bonus if you have a base in the region as they are grateful for the protection. if each region had its own infrastructure level then it would provide variation in that some regions are harder to be financially hurt from ufo raids. during the time frame of the game china had just switched over to a market based economy, and had very little infrastructure to speak of, much like the rest of the region, meaning that the region would almost always produce a bonus so long as you have a base in the region. NA and europe would be more high risk/reward having higher infrastructure levels, NA is broad and expansive compared to europe, resulting in more ufos crashes over land, which means more income/loss from missions. asian ussr would have moderate infrastructure and a broad land region, allowing that region to match europe's income levels, though would also require more success to do so, and would not be to harsh should the player do poorly. if south africa had almost no infrastructure and little money every month, then almost all money from it would come from base bonus and missions in the region, which would functionally be similar to the black market/blood diamond stuff.

[Gorlom]

Wow big block of text. jamecw your posts get significantly easier to read if you paragraph your text and even if you capitalize the first letter in every sentance.

Personally I don't like the idea that your funding would be affected in such a way. The game would essentially force you to rush expanding to other countries rather then going at it in your own pace, or be poorly paced for the people that does rush.

It would also most likely need some kind of "loud" hint or clear indication that one should expand early or suffer economic setbacks. I had a similar issue with the suggestion that the game tells you(outside xenopedia) that you need an additional hangar for the new MiG. It becomes a chore the game tells you how to do rather then something to figure out and experiment by yourself.

It's a step away from what imo made x-com great, not an improved feature.

[Gauddlike]

I agree that those sorts of features should need a balance to make other play styles just as viable.

It sounds as if you would be much better off financially by spending cash to expand rather than being more cautious with your cash and building up your main base.

If bases became such important structures I would like to see more alien strikes against them.

Maybe even bombing runs as well as the traditional ground assault.

Increasing their importance to your organisation should also increase their importance as targets.

The more bases you have the more alien ships from each wave would be set to hunt for them.

[Moonshine Fox]

I've thought this too, and I think I've mentioned it a few times. Heck, most people even played the original XCom this way. 1 "main" base, where everything was focused, and then "satellite" bases with a RADAR, stores and a hangar or two.

[dsjolie]

I don't really know/remember how missions are impacted by your response time as of now but making this more important seems like the most obvious and logical way to motivate a spread of meaningful bases.

Maybe the simplest of all would be to give a (more?) significant bonus to relations for a quick response to an alien event? This would make it valuable to reduce the flight time to an event and thus to have nearby bases.

I'm skeptical about suggestion #3 since these bonuses might easily become a bit too attractive and thus "force" game decisions. This might be avoided if it's really well balanced but that can be very hard to achieve indeed.

I kinda like #2 and I don't really have any feelings about #1.

[thothkins]

The thing about having only 1 main base is that it's really tough if it loses a base defence. If you have a second option, then it's not impossible to turn it round.

I'd mainly have 1 main base for psionic training, 1 back up base for those who didn't make the psi grade, 1 research, 1 manufacturing and the reast as radar stations. I'd have a few troops stationed at each radar base, in case of attack.

The more difficult the level though, then the more I'd have to be focused on making the most of a single base.

[Chris]

As I see it, the easiest way to encourage base spread is to make it progressively more expensive to build more structures at a base. Maybe claim it's harder to dig into the rock or something. But that encourages the player to build that extra hangar in a new base, rather than the old one etc.

I always used to do the single-main-base approach myself though.

[Gorlom]

I don't really know/remember how missions are impacted by your response time as of now but making this more important seems like the most obvious and logical way to motivate a spread of meaningful bases.

Maybe the simplest of all would be to give a (more?) significant bonus to relations for a quick response to an alien event? This would make it valuable to reduce the flight time to an event and thus to have nearby bases.

AFAIK there is no difference how long you take to reach a crash site nor do I want any such effect. It would be hell balanceing and for me it brings nothing to the game, it only takes away tactical aspects from it and forces rushes.

This suggestion is too early to take into consideration, especially since I believe Chris is planning to have most UFOs come in waves. Promoting/rewarding rushing in that case plainly seems like a bad idea to me.

[thothkins]

Oddly, I always wanted to get to a crash site as quickly as possible, anticipating a game mechanic that wasn't actually there.

'Aliens terrorise Cairo': If you get there in a couple of hours then you get to rescue all of the 8 civilians. If you hang around for half a day, then half of them are already dead by the time you get there, costing you points.

[jamoecw]

In the original xcom having enough bases to have full radar coverage of the world was a pretty helpful thing to do, though early on it was quite expensive on your resources as you were pretty much dependent on government funding.

Later on each of these bases could be a cash cow with large workshops churning out alien inspired tech.

The fact that things happen around the world, and if you are not there you can't prevent such events make it either necessary to fly patrols, or have a base nearby.

Usually by end game i was wishing i could expand my main base considerably, even though early game i was pushing for full globe radar coverage with bases.

The main reasons for wanting a bigger base is:

- more defense systems

- more scientists

- more soldiers

- more hangars for troop transports

The more troops and hangar space issue is mainly for ease of management, which a good ui can accomplish.

The bigger science team issue is already handled in this game as they collaborate between bases.

The only other issue is increasing the defenses, which could be handled with the defenses having a visible radius allowing nearby bases to help defend one another.

[XenoMask]

I agree with OP, there is no real reason to create multiple bases beyond for having more radar cover.

I mean, I sometimes create multiple bases because its cool, but I'll soon realize that I never use the other bases, its too expensive and it takes too long before those bases are usable because of building times.

UFO: Aftermath solves the problem by not allowing you to create bases, but just choose whether you want military/research/forgot what third base type was whenever you choose an area and UFO: Alien Invasion solves it by giving you ability to build radars/SAM sites/UFO yards more you build bases so you don't even need that much bases for radar coverages.

But yeah, XCOM: Enemy Unknown's solution to base problem is pretty much same as XCOM Apocalypse's solution to less complained problem about game world. I mean, in XCOM Apocalypse since you are playing in a city, you see alien crafts bombing city, beaming down aliens, etc and so it feels more personal.(that and different areas feel better because they are different kinds of buildings/places like schools, hospitals, sewers, etc while in first two XCOM only difference between areas you have mission at is whether they have jungles, cities, desert etc, but what country missions take place in didn't matter at all really as missions are randomly generated from few terrain types. Thats something UFO: Alien Invasion does little better because it does have more variables at what kind of places missions can take place in)

But yeah, I agree that bases should get some sort of bonus depending on area/country/terrain they are located in, even if its aesthetically/fluff text wise only.

[Hellstormer]

One base works and a LOT of people play the original Xcom with one "main" base and the others are just radar coverage and interceptors. Occasionally you'll find people who ran two "mains" on opposite sides of the globe to ensure faster response times to crash sites, landings and alien bases.

I'm fine with either either system honestly but I would like to see an incentive to build more bases - and having things cost more the more you build at one location is a very arbitrary and artificial method to do that. If anything it should be CHEAPER the more you build at one location because you'd have already moved in the skilled labor and machinery needed to accomplish the additions the first time you added on. Just for a counter example

[XenoMask]

Agreed on that forcing players to build multiple bases with resource limitations is too artificial way to make people use multiple bases. Bonuses might work better if bonuses are good enough.

Even if bonuses won't give people good reason to put bases at different points, it would be nice to have some reason to actually put base other locations than high population centers and place with most radar cover on land, like base on Antarctica. I mean seriously, I put base there in XCOM because I liked idea of cool secret base, but on practical side there was no use for it besides for intercepting few passing by ufos.

[VJim]

IMO the incentive to create more bases should come from the risk of loosing everything if your only base is attacked.

Maybe not necessary in the first stages of the invasion or in easy difficulty but a real hasard in the later stages.

Other than that, building a base in a country should give a bonus to this country relation and make the detection of ground alien activity (missions and bases) easier.

[Gauddlike]

The incentives to build extra bases are already there for me.

Funding and mission salvage is your only income.

If you have a single base and miss a lot of missions then you are going to lose funding and not get as much mission salvage.

You could probably still play that way but it would probably be harder than spreading out a little.

Alien fighters will also have missions to shoot down your interceptors and transports.

If you rely on long range intercepts too much you may find yourself struggling to actually make it to your target without getting hit.

Even if you win that could still leave you low on munitions when you arrive at your original target.

There are many game mechanics that can be used to make multiple bases desirable (but not essential) rather than rewarding one style of play or penalising another.

One basic thing that springs to mind is:

Winning a base defence mission won't completely wipe all knowledge of your base from the aliens minds.

If they know roughly which area you are in and come back trying to relocate you then having a single base could be very hazardous.

If active missions, like launching craft, give nearby enemies a greater chance to spot you then you may be better off sitting a wave out with a base that is being scanned for.

If you have multiple bases then that allows you to keep doing your job while protecting your base.

If not then you can try and shoot down all alien craft that have detected your missions before they escape to space with the sensor records, or you can sit tight and wait for them to move to another area.

[Gorlom]

Winning a base defence mission won't completely wipe all knowledge of your base from the aliens minds.

If they know roughly which area you are in and come back trying to relocate you then having a single base could be very hazardous.

If active missions, like launching craft, give nearby enemies a greater chance to spot you then you may be better off sitting a wave out with a base that is being scanned for.

If you have multiple bases then that allows you to keep doing your job while protecting your base.

If not then you can try and shoot down all alien craft that have detected your missions before they escape to space with the sensor records, or you can sit tight and wait for them to move to another area.

For some reason this paragraph instantly made me consider the idea of an ability to make a base go into lockdown that would make the aliens awareness of the base degrade/deterioate over time.

Doesnt sound like anything worth adding though =P