Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Did I miss a memo again?

The 2X2 is just to large for the scale of the base. A full 1/3 of your base is tied up in hanger at the start. Even adding one hanger will use just a bit under half the total space (16 of 36) After you build the aircraft in it, what do you do? This tendency to make base buildings 2X2 should go hand in hand with an extended floor plan (7X7, 8X8). Between the hanger up-size and the sensor tech building that is a 2X2, after building one of each you'll have to start ripping things out to add another level of either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Do you have played the Original X-Com-Series [X-Com: Enemy Unknown / Terror from the Deep / X-COM: Apocalypse] or played the since 2007 UFO-ET-Series [UFO 2 ET came out this Month on 15th].

Then you know what Base-Planing is realy. If you have there 4 or 5 Hangars [2x2 = 4 Hexes], then you have to check realy for other buildings, esp. the Upgrades where are 1 Size Bigger then the Originals [2x1 to 1x1].

The 2x1 Hangars here are nice for 1 Plane against the 2x2 Size for 1 Plane in the announced Titels. But Maybe it´s doable to make an 2x2 Hangar for 2 Planes for Xenonauts 2, which were a new Milestone for that Games and not integrated for UFO 2 ET yet, which have many milestones for that Gerne already.

Only in X-Com: Interceptor you get 3 Fighters in 1 Hangar, but that was an Strategy-Flight-Sim with X-Com-Storyline. There you dont see the internal Hangar-Size, but in all other Titels you see the Hangar either from Above or from the Side [X-Com: Enemy Unknown / Terror from the Deep / Apocalypse / UFO-ET-Series / Xenonauts-Series / new XCOM-Series], where 1 Plane for 1 Hangar is possible.

Edited by Alienkiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the floor plain so small, for all that should and can be built, within in its confines, if these building are on the surface there should be on limits, and if it is underground, well you could dig it out to build more.

I feel that this limitation has more to do with programing restriction than just adding more tiles to the base layout!

It would be nice to have more room for expansion, as the game evolves, but we will have to let the programmers short that out.

Thank You 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I'm leaning towards having bigger hangars. A couple of months ago when we were talking about v18 bases, I was heavily against the idea of 2x2 hangars because the base was too small to fit most of the buildings that a player would have on an average playthrough. However, my opinion has changed slightly. These decisions will cause the player to make meaningful sacrifices in their base layout and make the game more interesting (for example: you can have more hangars, but you might have to sacrifice living quarters or other important buildings in order to build them). This keeps the pressure going on the entire game, which is an idea I really enjoy. This also requires you to change you base layout every so often, which directly attacks the Xen 1 issue of building everything in the base from the start. Perhaps a project to increase base size would be nice, but I don't think it would be needed if this is done well. 

I'm a big fan of the direction the devs are going. I love the implementation of stress, 3 simultaneous raids (that you can do more than 1 of), and I mostly enjoy the idea of the UOO-1. Each of these ideas try to force the player to make strategic sacrifices and make more varied choices and they keep the pressure on the whole game (that is my main issue with Xen 1 that these systems are addressing, the geoscape gets way too easy once you have significant coverage of the planet). 

Speaking of the UOO-1, I really do not understand why so many people are against it (mostly on the steam forums for some reason). I've read the entirety of Shade's steam thread and I do not understand most of the arguments posted there. Most of their arguments are attacking the fact that the UOO-1 is a "timer" even though it does not lengthen or shorten a playthrough that a player would take to complete the game, except if the player is doing poorly and suffocating against the monthly attacks of the laser, which meant it fulfilling its purpose of killing a run that a player was doing really bad on. There is also a whole lot of people saying that the laser defeats the purpose of this war being clandestine, which does not make sense to me because all of the stuff I've seen about the storyline doesn't infer or imply anything being clandestine at all (you can see the alien ships with a telescope for crying out loud). I think the idea can be improved a little bit (like maybe throwing a dangerous mission at you if you are close to losing, but it you win you get a small reprieve that allows you to dig yourself back up out and save your run), but I don't think this is remotely a terrible idea (unlike people in the Steam forum).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was also against the idea of 2x2 aircraft, because we need a lot of hangars to build basic fighters. But now we can buy basic fighters, so 2x2 hangars is not big problem. In this case, Xenonauts have become closer to the original UFO.

It would be cool if the developers added the ability to create squadrons before the fight. In this case, players will not need a lot of fighters at each base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a memorable game is one where the player has to make tough, meaningful choices and sacrifices.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the logic behind the 2x2 hangars is that the air combat is eventually either going to allow only a single interceptor, or if we keep the air combat at 3 planes then each Hangar will be able to hold a full squadron of 3 aircraft of the same type (the air combat is currently balanced so that you should only need one aircraft per battle, so you shouldn't need to fill your base with Hangars at the moment).

The net result is that Hangars should probably end up filling roughly the same amount of space as they did in the original Xenonauts. Dropships need a full 2x2 hangar to themselves, but a squadron of interceptors actually requires less space than before because in X1 that needed three 2x1 hangars.

However, the intention is that you shouldn't have enough space to do everything you want in a single base any more. You'll need to move some functions to a secondary base by the mid / late game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Exactly Chris.

In new XCOM you don´t have the space in the Ant-Base / Avenger too to do everything.

The same in the cool made UFO ET / UFO 2 ET. Part 2 will get upgraded with an DLC, because there is not all implemented, but Part 1 was in Building-Limitation in the Main-Base very cool too as an Refit for the good old X-Com-Series.

Esp. the Hangars and monthly Fix-Costs from Hangars and Planes / Helis have to be thought there too [with all the other Buildings]. There you have 1 Fighter / Heli and / or Transport per Hangar.

The same here. I suggest, if we make an Hangar with an Squadron, the Costs are like now for a fighter x3 to have an ballance.

Or like I say, lesser is more and if an UFO don´t shoot down, then it wil be so. The interessting thing in UFO ET / UFO 2 ET is, that if you shoot down to much UFOs they get more agressive and bring in heavyer Variants you can´t win against.

Or with so many losses / damages that you have to let them allone and the Planet helples, because you can´t make an R & D to win against them with existing Fighters / Helis.

Edited by Alienkiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chris said:

the air combat is eventually either going to allow only a single interceptor, or if we keep the air combat at 3 planes then each Hangar will be able to hold a full squadron of 3 aircraft of the same type

Or you can create a feature for simultaneously attack the selected UFO by fighters from different bases, taking into account THIS topic. The proposed feature will greatly expand your ability to balance air battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not possible to increase the size of the base, with a couple of extra floor tiles, so as to make room for these new buildings?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? There is no Reason for that. The best Limitation for Buildups bring the new XCOM-Series. Either that or that. If you wanna build up anything else you have to scrap an Building and then build up an new one or Storyline-Important one.

 

The Difference and to make it easyer im UFO ET-Series / Xenonaut-Series is, that you can build up secondary Bases. In X-Com / UFO: AI and the UFO-ET-Series you had about the same size of Base-Buildup like in Xenonauts 1 and 2.

Use the Brain and think before you build up something. If Goldwhak make an Limitiation in Buildup for Secondary Bases (which is a very cool Feature in the UFO-ET-Series) then it get much more interessting.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It all depends on  your out look, do you make a model, to fit the box, or do you make a box to fit the model, one is about price, and the other quality!

These games are about using our brains, but we will always be constrained by the limitation of the games design, that's not in itself a problem, we just need to know.

If there is a issue with programming constrains, we can live with it, but we need an honest answer.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2021 at 5:08 PM, MrAlex said:

2x2 hangars is not big problem. In this case, Xenonauts have become closer to the original UFO.

As I said, this is normal. This is exactly what it was in the original UFO. The difference is that we could attack UFO by fighters from different bases there. Therefore, there was no need to build more than two hangars on each base. Only this feature is missing now in the game compared to the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play atm the new UFO 2 ET. There your Hangars get limitet too, esp. for the other Buildings. But there 3 or 4 Hangars are fully normal, if you upgrade your Fighters / Helis and refit them with new Models.

An other good Feature is there, that all Secondary-Bases (like in the Predecessor UFO 1 ET) get limited to small / medium Defense Bases [Radar, Hangars, Defenses and Workshops for Fighter / Helicopter-Parts (atm. Weapons, Shields, Armor and the produceable Fighters / Helis to buildup).

With that Limits the Devs have brought in an very nice Feature. Ships (atm an Aircraft Carrier as mobile Base).

An other Reason why this is limited is the Founding. You have a Maximum funding and you can very fast to be in the red. 

Here we can use all Bases atm for R & D, Defense, Fighters etc., which means that you have maximum 3 Basis if you build it up fully. Is it this worth?

I personaly like to have 1 Main-Base and some smaller Bases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2021 at 11:41 AM, Alienkiller said:

I play atm the new UFO 2 ET. There your Hangars get limitet too

Is it possible to attack the UFO by fighters stationed at different bases together as a squadron there?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You can send differnt Fighters (the first one Buyable, the others Buildable after Research) and buildable Airwolfs (Helicopters) to attack UFOs.

The difference to all other Games of that Gerne is, that UFO 1 ET and UFO 2 ET uses an Realtime-Fight-System on the Globe. For the Airforce it was already in UFO 1 ET and for Bases that cool System get in since UFO 2 ET.

Yes they work together in the Realtime-Fight-System after the Fighters / Helis come in Shooting-Range to the Enemy. It´s more the old X-COM Stile totaly modernised in the Realtime-Geoscapse-Air-Fighting-System. Not directly as Squadron, because there you need an Atomic-Fuel-System and the UFO have to give you time, what you don´t have.

Short said: You send Fighters / Helis from differnt Bases and make the Boiler Tactic, what the Germans did with the other Armys in WW2. Then the UFO have to evade to an Landmark (if you get Lucky) or to the Sea-Side (if you are unlucky).

And much more which get totaly modernised to UFO 1 ET as well as old X-Com. But from the Hangar-Usagae all Games have no Difference. 1 Fighter / Heli / Transport etc. per Hangar.

 

On the other Side I like the System from Xenonauts / Xenonauts 2 too. It´s similar to the Realtime-Geoscape-Airfights like in UFO ET-Series in an seperate Part, which is more oversightable, esp. when many UFOs show up at once. And you can put 3 Planes there in a Squadron for the Fight.

If the Base-Defense can be implemented in the same Fighting-System it will be very interessting.

Edited by Alienkiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/28/2021 at 3:20 AM, Chris said:

So the logic behind the 2x2 hangars is that the air combat is eventually either going to allow only a single interceptor, or if we keep the air combat at 3 planes then each Hangar will be able to hold a full squadron of 3 aircraft of the same type (the air combat is currently balanced so that you should only need one aircraft per battle, so you shouldn't need to fill your base with Hangars at the moment).

The net result is that Hangars should probably end up filling roughly the same amount of space as they did in the original Xenonauts. Dropships need a full 2x2 hangar to themselves, but a squadron of interceptors actually requires less space than before because in X1 that needed three 2x1 hangars.

However, the intention is that you shouldn't have enough space to do everything you want in a single base any more. You'll need to move some functions to a secondary base by the mid / late game.

 

I appreciate this explanation, Chris, even if I disagree with some of it.

The idea of putting a three-plane flight into a single hanger makes sense, and I suppose having to deal with the serious waste of space until that happens is just pain I have to live with. If I could put three planes in them now, so I don't have to waste the extra space and get nothing for it, would solve the issue I have with that. That way I would only need a single 2X2 at the start for the fighters instead of eating an extra four squares. (The each plane in a group of 3 can be launched individually, yes?)

Why should a dropship take more space than a fighter? A rotary wing aircraft isn't really much wider than the wingspan of a fighter/interceptor. They don't really use any more space for maintenance crews and equipment than a regular aircraft either. But admittedly that is a bit of a nit-pick.

Your last point, however, leads me to feel as if you are forcing me to expand to more than two additional bases long before mid-game. The primary base should be able to perform all functions at least until you secure the income needed to support the expansions that must eventually be completed. You need at least four hangers to have two interceptors (unless the three-aircraft capacity is usable now), the dropship and a construction hanger (to build the interceptors for the additional bases you need to build early to effectively challenge the early overwhelming panic caused in your (supposedly) supportive human governments. Add in the "advanced" detection system and you use 20 squares leaving 16 to provide for all needs in the primary base.

Unless the squadron fits in the 2x2 hanger now, you are forced into specializing before you may have the resources to make it efficient. Forcing a game play style is never a good thing in strategy games in my opinion.

@Alienkiller

I have been playing strategy and tactical games since the 1960s. Beside board games and miniatures, once computers showed up; Civilization (original DOS version onward), the original X-Com series, and X1. A quarter of my screen is devoted to shortcuts for strategy & tactics games. (Admittedly, it is a fairly small screen. :rolleyes:)

Edited by Challenge
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@ Zolobolo:

The Hangars are like they are from beginning on. Maybe it will change, maybe not. That´s we are discussing here and the Devs Decide at the end what is the best. Normaly they do internal tests from the suggestions and decide what is better. If one thing is hard to decide and the Devs aren´t sure, they ask the Community in an Question-Threat, like it was done in one Point already.

@ Challange:

Cool to meet one with the same wisdom.

We both are not amused that the 1 Base-System isn´t there anymore. The Community have been asked from the Devs and the Democracy have decided that the more Base System (like in UFO-ET-Row, old X-Com-Row) have to be used again. This Theame have been eaten already.

I like the old X-Com-Stile and new UFO-ET-Stile with 1 Hangar, 1 Fighter / Helicopter / Transport (unarmed / later armed). The same you have in new XCOM too with the Difference, that you don´t build up them.

The nice Feature you get in the UFO-ET-Row that the Energy-Center and the first Hangar is in the build up Price for Secondary-Bases included. Maybe we can use such a Feature for the Secondary-Bases too or an other suggested concept in the Base-Buildup-Threat.

 

 

 

Edited by Alienkiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry it took awhile to get back to this...

I'm not against multiple bases, but I do prefer one main base with other, smaller, specialized bases for interceptors and ground troops scattered about. One game I've played had sensor towers you could put up to expand the grid without going broke. The main issue is economic. Building and operating even a small base with a combat group is expensive. Not just the construction costs, but the maintenance cost is a drain as well. I haven't seen any increase in funding from any region I stopped an lien operation. That is something that may be changed later, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Challange, there I´m with you.

Like I explained many times I did tests without Cheating in that.

The best solution is to have 1 Main-Base, 1 or 2 specialised smaller Workshop / Sience-Bases and 2 Reserve-Places if they needed. The refited Outposts are playing a big Part too [like more Radar- / Scanner-Ability, as Intermediate Stores, Hangars for secured UFOs [small, medium and similar], which can be upgraded too in some Parts.

But we will see what comes out with more Refits, Reworks, Integrations etc., esp. with the Bases. The first things we see already show that the Team is on a very good way for bringing in such needed Features.

 

Edited by Alienkiller

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×