Base Simplification Ideas

[radister]

I can back the idea for 6 * 6 bases. i like anything that lets us pick a play style more. after all, all players will expand. the only thing we can do is deicde when and what do they use there base for? do they cut down research in order to keep better radars or more aircraft. hostely really happy about that.

And i also like the idea that scientist are only 10 per lab, this stops someone just building living area and hiring 50 odd scientist.

From a gameplay point of view there isn't anything wrong with these changes.

Im very happy with them if you decide to make them.

[Gazz]

Meh, I might just reduce the capacity of the living quarters and the workshop / labs. I might be able to achieve something similar without sacrificing the extra level of control that comes with hiring / firing individual scientists and engineers.

It's fake control because it doesn't offer any choice.

If you need 15 scientists to research for 4 days then that's a fixed cost. Same as having 30 scientists research for 2 days.

If you attach this cost to the research projects directly, you achieve the same thing with less fiddle. And without living quarters. =)

[TrashMan]

Meh, I might just reduce the capacity of the living quarters and the workshop / labs. I might be able to achieve something similar without sacrificing the extra level of control that comes with hiring / firing individual scientists and engineers.

That could work too.

Altough getting rid of hireing/sacking scientists/workers feels OK by me. That's something that we can abstract away, as long as we can manage running/costs.

So:

- barracks (for soldiers)

- Living quarters (for other base personell, including workers and scientists)

- labs/workshops - staff for them is auto hired, abstracted.

- shutting down a lab/workshop automaticly drasticly reduces the mantainance cost, but makes those scientists unavailalbe for research (basicly the same as if you fired them).

Or, Gazzes idea is nice too, but it doesn't take into acount the number of scientists working on the project.

Unless it is, and the research costs depends on the number of scientists. Altough that seems kinda strange, since I think those people would be on your payroll anyway, regardless if they are assigned to a project or not. You could say it's research materials, but that might be abstracted under lab mantainance.

@Gazz - I say we still need living quarters. The base personel lives on that base and they NEEED space.

[raziel1981]

Base space - Personally I don't mind much if the bases are 6x6 or 7x7. Either way I'd go on an expansionist strategy.

Living space - I think that abolishing the living space that scientists and engineers take is a good idea. I don't understand why would anyone want to bother with those kind of details but that's just my opinion.

Prebought scientists/engineers with labs - I just dislike the idea and I can't really put my finger on the why. It just feels...I don't know, to easy? It just gives a very lego-like feel to the base building process.

Scientists and engineers wages - I think this should as it is. Tech-personel is a monthly issue that should be on the player's mind all the time.

Radar building - should be limited on a per base basis to avoid two bases for the entire planet. I saw that it was mentioned earlier in this thread to be 4, I'd cut it down to 3. Its unrealistic of course but I dont really mind it that much either.

Garage building capacity - sounds fine to me.

Initial equipment - I'd say start with no hunters at all since they are a very obvious bonus to the initial encounters which are already stacked in favor of the player.

Finally - suspending resources to an existing structure sounds like a great idea to me as a way to balance monthly costs vs the online abilities of an operative base.

[TrashMan]

How can abilishing living space be a good thing?

Not only does it make little sense, but living space is something oyu need and living quartersare something that needs to be adressed in base constructio nand planning. What's the point of reducing base size if you're freeing up space by removing entire buildings?

[Gazz]

What's the point of reducing base size if you're freeing up space by removing entire buildings?

The point is that building LQ is a non-choice.

If you build a lab and a workshop, do you really get to decide whether you want to build living quarters for them or not?

Features like that add no gameplay because the player doesn't get to make a decision. It's not difficult to do or expensive. It's merely a chore put on the player by the game... which is a situation that should be avoided at the design stage.

[Name]

I want the option to cram all my radars in one baseit is a all eggs in the basket thing. If teh aliens noticed this I have a feeling they would send larger amounts(or/and)better troops to attack

[Gauddlike]

We already have plenty of invisible personnel on the base who are not accounted for in the living quarters like control room staff, quartermasters, tank drivers, pilots, ground crew and so on.

I don't have a problem with research and manufacturing personnel leaving the base to whatever local facilities those others stay in when they are off duty.

The alternative of a living quarters building along the lines of the stores appeals more than the current system.

If you want to house non coms in your base then you build a single dormitory style building to house them when they need to sleep on base and they leave when they are not required.

You could even combine the two if you wanted to have it present for realism purposes but without the bother of building one.

The basic upkeep of the building would include the retainer for the techies/scientists assigned to work there while the production/research costs would account for the wages of the active personnel.

If you need to save money then don't run as much active research or manufacturing.

I also quite like the proposed radar change.

it doesn't make sense if you assume that the room you build actually contains the radar (underground as well) but if you are building the link to a remote dish then each additional room could well be increasing your coverage range.

I think of it as one radar room is linked to the dish on top of your base.

When you build a second you can spread them out a little more, the third radar room allows you to spread them in a triangle with your base sat in the overlap and so on.

Incidentally more radars should also give your base a higher chance of being detected by the aliens on a flyby.

[StellarRat]

The radar change I'll probably go ahead with. The radars would give diminishing returns and would be capped at 4 per base, but as I don't see much to be gained from increased detection chance I think the only useful reason to build more radars is to extend range. I'm not particularly bothered by the lack of realism in this case.

Chris - Active detection like radar is usually only one of many technologies available to "find" something and it's a good way to get yourself killed. You can definitely get more results from increased numbers of ESM (Electronic Surveillance Measures) equipment, antennas, and personnel. There are a multitude of ways to find something without using radar including telescopes, ground observers, listening for radio emissions, infrared, x-rays, etc... and I'm pretty sure if I remember correctly you can also detect a disruption to the ionosphere when something re-enters the atmosphere. They are all MUCH safer for the Xenonaut base as they wouldn't be advertising their facility by broadcasting radar signals at the alien ships.

So, might I suggest simply changing the name from radar to detection facilities? That way you can be both realistic and achieve what you want.

ESM: "That division of electronic warfare involving action taken to search for, intercept, identify and locate radiated electromagnetic energy for the purpose of immediate threat recognition. It provides a source of information required for immediate decisions involving electronic countermeasures, electronic countercountermeasures and other tactical actions such as avoidance, targeting and homing."

Edited February 22, 2013 by StellarRat

[StellarRat]

it doesn't make sense if you assume that the room you build actually contains the radar (underground as well) but if you are building the link to a remote dish then each additional room could well be increasing your coverage range.

I like your thinking on this, but it isn't sensible to have a radar transmitter anywhere within miles of your base. It's a dead giveaway to your bases location as soon as you turn it on. What does make sense is to assume the room is used to monitor REMOTE radar sites located far away from your base. Having more rooms means you've put up more radars around the countryside (kind of like you said.) I think this idea works, but I like mine too (see above.)

[GizmoGomez]

If more rooms in the base indicates a wider array of dishes, or other methods of detection (good point StellarRat), then increasing the number of rooms could make sense. Perhaps it could be something like, the first room builds basic radar, the second adds another method of detection (optical telescopes), third adds another (other EM wave-detecting telescopes), etc. It wouldn't need to be in game described that way, just me making it feel more real for my own sake, I suppose.

I still like the idea of cutting down on base size and number of personnel supported by the buildings. I don't see lab coats and techies living in their labs/workshops as being an issue, because it makes sense that they would have a dorm or something attached to it, or under it, or whatever. Heck, if I were hired as a scientist I'd sleep at my desk, I don't need a bed to help with the effort. Just give me a slide rule and turn me loose.

One idea I just had about the radar, perhaps having just one radar for the base should majorly decrease the chance that it'll be detected. Like, the more radars you have, the easier it is for the aliens to discover and attack it. It makes sense, active radar is spewing EM waves everywhere, and having a relatively small and low power array would make it harder to detect. Heck, perhaps it could even be a semi-passive system for one radar building, and it goes full power for more buildings. This would make it much easier to have an out of the way base that's focused on research, or whatever, and give it a better chance of not being detected. That way you won't need to defend it as much. The draw back would be that that bases detection capabilities would be severely retarded, as there would be only array. Maybe, if you have no radar at all, it's impossible to detect. I'd love that, it'd give the players more options for bases. Plus, it'd make more of a draw back besides spent room for making lots of detection buildings.

Also, is there a limit (besides common sense and funding) to how many bases we can construct? If I remember, in the OG it was 8.

And, no need to spoil anything, but there are upgraded detection buildings that you can build later game, right?

(The following is my idea of a late game detection system. I don't know if it should be marked spoiler or not, in case it (or something like it) is in game already, so I'm erring on the side of caution.)

Like that hyperwave decoder in the OG? If something like that's in the game, it could be a passive system listening for the UFO transmissions, and not need to give any detection chance at all. Kind of like how airports listen for the planes transmitting their positions instead of relying on their own arrays to find the planes. It'd make sense that the UFOs would report back to the mothership or whatever it is (I have no idea, which is pretty cool, to be honest. I don't want to know at this point), so that their locations are known at all times.

Based on that assumption, a hyperwave decoder would just listen, and interpret (decode) the transmissions (hyperwaves, whatever they are) and report the locations and information back to you. Since there'd be no outgoing waves, there'd be no detection chance increase.

Just my 2 bits.

Edited February 22, 2013 by GizmoGomez
Adding stuff

[StellarRat]

Speaking of bases, scientists, engineers, etc...if there is a base assault will some of them grab weapons to defend themselves? We have farmers and police with weapons already, it would COOL if some of the rooms in the base had armed civilians too!

[StellarRat]

It wouldn't need to be in game described that way, just me making it feel more real for my own sake, I suppose.

Why not just describe the room as a UFO Detection and Tracking facility and leave at that? Then everyone wins!

[Piloter]

Speaking purely to the decoupling of staffing from buildings, as a tech-head OG EU player I always would have fun juggling the budget to try and build out living quarters and labs and workshops so that by the time I DID have the income I could progressively staff them. A good ground assault would let me sell the spare corpses and hire some more eggheads, or maybe give that extra 20K toward a new living quarters building so I could hire into a mostly vacant laboratory. It made me feel like one of my many hats was academic director or university chair, or General Groves trying to set up the Manhattan Project.

While I understand the push toward multiple bases and increased management complexity (/especially/ after EU'12) my tactics were always to have my primary base with the shinies and defense, and just a few scattered science outposts elsewhere. A few living quarters, a few workshops or labs, lots of big radars, no interceptors, a just poor few squaddies and a couple hovertanks on lonely defense duty, a place away from the danger zone to do advanced R&D and production without the klaxons going off every five minutes.

TL;DR, I feel that if the player can have automatically fully staffed labs and workshops this removes two of the base commander's many hats, and juggling all these hats is what made the original so damn fun.

The point is that building LQ is a non-choice.

If you build a lab and a workshop, do you really get to decide whether you want to build living quarters for them or not?

Features like that add no gameplay because the player doesn't get to make a decision.

The essential decision is created by the space that the facilities take up. Say you've only got 10 slots left and the current labs are full. You can build another lab, hire ten scientists, but then you've taken up space that could otherwise be used for stores, hangars, defense, workshops...and you've got another 40 scientists that could be working there. Do you put in another LQ, sacrifice that spot you were going to build a hangar in, put off your defense purchases until next month, but be able to fully staff R&D and get some more fungible FNGs too?

As I see it, forcing you to allocate extra space for staffing requirements inherently carries extra prioritization and strategic decisions with it that can have a significant impact on playstyle and reflect individual commander preferences.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Piloter
Clarified & combined

[flashman]

I would go for barracks for soldiers, however instead just giving labs/workshops free staff, how about expanding them by 1 row-

so basic workshop = 1x3 lab =1x3- this pushes the space and forces diversification, while streamlining the mechanic.

If scientists had apocalypse style stats I would be worried about hring them.

Just don't make me go hunting for them like XCOM

Edited February 22, 2013 by flashman

[GizmoGomez]

Why not just describe the room as a UFO Detection and Tracking facility and leave at that? Then everyone wins!

I really like that idea, it makes more sense and it sounds awesome, too.

I can just imagine a guy running up to me (the hard-core xenonauts commander, not the college student studying physics) and saying, "The UDT found something!" It's got a nice ring to it.

Reminds me of Battlestar Galactica with the CIC (Combat Information Center), CAG (Commander, Air Group) and all the other lovely three letter acronyms. (I know they're real-life acronyms, too, I just like BSG a lot.)

[GizmoGomez]

... instead just giving labs/workshops free staff, how about expanding them by 1 row-

so basic workshop = 1x3 lab =1x3 ...

I disagree. If we're making the labs/workshops only provide for 20 (or whatever) people (as opposed to 50), why add space on top of that for living space? If the labs and workshops stayed 1x2, had workspace for 20 guys and gave the lab coats and techies space to live in that 1x2 as well, I'd like that. I still want the labs/workshops to come with some pre-hired lab coats/techies, to save time. If they started with 10, and could hold up to 20 (if you hired 10 more), that'd be ideal, in my opinion.

The on/off switch for workshops/labs to save on expenses should still be there, so you don't need to fire, and then pay to rehire, your personnel, because you didn't fire them. You sent them on a no-expense-paid vacation for an indefinite period of time, until you call them back and three days later (or whatever) they get back to work. So, it'd be dismissing the staff for a time. It'd take them three days to move out (after the cool down you'd stop paying maintenance), and three days to move back in and get set up for work (after which you'd be back at full production capacity). Maybe, at the start of those three days while they're moving back in you should start paying maintenance (or maybe reduced maintenance), because there're people there doing things.

[pvtbones]

Perhaps this should be looked at as an opportunity to expand the concept rather than marginalizing it?

I think what is important to me (and I think some other aswell) is retaining the "humanity" of the game. This is a game about the men and women facing off against the end of the world. and you leading them. right now the scientist and engineers are barely a human element to the game, one step above being purely numbers (+1 to the speed of research, etc.) Why not make the men and woman who serve off the front lines a little more human. Random generate them a name (and optionally a picture depending on resources), and a specialization that gives them a small bonus to certain research or construction topics(but does not negatively affect them when they are tasked to other types of research/construction).

for example:Your researching wolf armor and you have 10 scientist to choose from, you decide you going to put 5 of them on the project while you leave the other 5 open for a project that while start in the near future. you ten scientist all have bonuses to certain fields that would help them with projects that fit that field (which can be as detailed or vague as desired)you ten scientist are:Greg:Weapon systems Barbara: BiologyRobert: AircraftSarah: personal armorBarbara: UFO DetectionYuri: VodkaRyan: explosivesShawn: personal armorKate: BiologyBarbara: Physicsso of those ten you decide to task, Sarah, Shawn, Yuri, Barbara, and Robert with research Wolf Armor. Both Sarah and Shawn get a small bonus to this project so it could complete faster than if the project included no one with bonuses.

I think this would make people think about who they fire and when, if they know that all scientist and engineers could in the future give them a much needed edge that they might not be able to keep if they fire off a bunch of people in the short term, and make them feel that much more like they are the commander to has to wear that many more hats to save the world.

[Max_Caine]

pvtbones, it's a nice idea, but I don't think Chris is going to change the new UI radically to accomodate that idea. That being said, some personalisation of scientists and engineers might be fitted into a "small talk" section, p'raps?

[GizmoGomez]

Yuri - He's got a PhD in Vodka.

But anyway, I like that idea to an extent, because it's more content, but I doubt it'll even make it into the official game. I don't know if something similar could be modded in, though. Adding backgrounds to the lab coats and the techies would add some interesting aspects to the game, however.

The con is that now you are focusing on "less important" things, like getting bonuses on research and such, when the real purpose is defeating the aliens.

Personally, I'd say that it'd be most likely to have bios on the head lab coat and techie, and perhaps have reports from them on working conditions or something when it warrents it. For example, if you are building a Mig with one guy, the head technician would tell you it's taking way too long, and that you should consider hiring more techies. Same kind of thing with the researching, if you have very few guys all spread out on lots of projects, he could suggest how to maximize the projects completed in the shortest amount of time, or something.

Plus, adding a name at the end of the research reports would make me happier, as that guy's sense of humor when it comes to the "nameless department that builds things" is hysterical and deserves a name. Maybe it's just me, because I'm going into a scientific field, so I find the jokes and jabs funnier. Though maybe it's because my buddies and I all make similar jabs at engineers (who probably make jabs at us, it's all in good fun.)

[HWP]

The idea would be way different from what the game is intended to be. Xenonauts' strategic layer is essentially a spreadsheet game.

Features like scientist expertise would make it into a different game - it would only work with an even smaller team at your command. Simply adding it would be damaging feature creep. It's well seen in the breed of Gal Civ 4X games... you spend half an hour doing 200 things, which come down to 2-3 real decisions.

Basically any space 4X game that has either - planetary grid; tactical ground combat; location slots for ship equipment - only suffers for it. (There are exceptions, like Fading Suns, where planet surface is a major element).

Base construction in UFO and Xenonauts is one more thing that doesn't really matter. But in that case it's excused by the fact that you only do it a few times and justified by the fact that you'll be looking at it a lot and even defending it. If the game involved, let's say, 20 bases on the average, they would be much better simplified to spreadsheets of module type count; at 50 bases, you'd need designs or module configs that are automatically rubber-stamped around; at 500 bases, no more modules or base design, just "science, production, military".

[HWP]

[*]Bases to be reduced in size from 7x7 to 6x6

I suspect that this will mean more micromanagement, not less.

It's already a bit of a mini-game to arrange your bases in provided size, to fit all you need, keep it defensible, and minimize construction time. But, as it is, at least you don't have to be good at this mini-game. And you can play around with different layout. 6x6 makes it more Tetris-like with cramming what you need into a smaller box.

[*]Laboratories / Workshops will hold 10 scientists / engineers, hired immediately on construction.

Seconding a lot of other opinions in the thread - this just feels cheap, wrong, on some subliminal level. Space is space and people are people. Presumably they are in free employment and not serfs sold with the land, or, in this case, with base space.

Player starts with only one Hunter, or perhaps even none.

Supporting (despite my nickname). The player should be free to choose if he needs this piece of equipment or not. It shouldn't just come complementary.

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.

It loses the ability to manage staff size.

Build up in advance (maintenance is cheap), hire if money is good, fire if you can't afford them... Blowing up labs will feel silly. Adding their cost to project cost has a disadvantage in that it completely turns science and engineering projects into simply buying things.

Removing them as individual agents means that you can have more focus on the soldiers...

But is that necessarily a good thing? What made UFO a classic wasn't its focus on the soldiers. There were other TBT games, usually with much closer focus on your soldiers and no strategic layer at all.

Micro-management is bad. But not all management. Remove enough non-critical elements, automate things enough, make enough assumptions... and in the end there won't be much of a game left.

To simplify scientist and engineer management, I think a global pool for them is the best solution for this type of a game. Moving them between bases like in UFO is micromanagement. Hiring and firing them at will is just enough management.

As for this global pool taking up living quarters... Can go either way. Clearly shouldn't lead to building a "living base". I'm in favor of keeping quarters, but only taking up space in them while a project is underway. Hiring total can still be limited to total usable capacity. This way you can for instance prepare a base for both full-scale science and manufacturing, but either both at once or only one at a time.

This is reasonable realism-wise as well: they can leave the base when not needed, but have to be present while working. It's a safe bet that they aren't keeping 40-hour weeks, and the base wouldn't be all that secret with morning traffic jams on the approach road, so why even make it underground to begin with? Living space is a big deal for any closed facility: it's not just beds, it's galleys, wardrooms, restrooms, showers, support for all this... it's not interesting, I'll give you that, but it's not so trivial as to ignore altogether.

[TrashMan]

The point is that building LQ is a non-choice.

So is the barrracks.

So is the storage.

So is the command center.

If you build a lab and a workshop, do you really get to decide whether you want to build living quarters for them or not?

Features like that add no gameplay because the player doesn't get to make a decision. It's not difficult to do or expensive. It's merely a chore put on the player by the game... which is a situation that should be avoided at the design stage.

It has an impact on overall strategy. It's also called a "prerequisite"

Space managment IS part of base managment and things take space.

Soldiers take space - hence barracks.

Equipment takes space - hence storage.

Scientists and workers take space - hence living space.

Granted, scientists and workes could live and sleep outside of base - but that is not really efficient, especially if they work on an important project and they are practicly 24/7 in base.

Maybe Living quarters may not be nesesary...BUT..they increase productivity for both workers and scientists.

[Gazz]

So is the barrracks.

So is the storage.

So is the command center.

Good point and mostly correct!

Of these three only the command center has a gameplay function.

It's an intentional vulnerability. You have to protect it during a base attack.

Storage could be taken out immediately with zero loss of gameplay.

Back in the OG I used to have an entire base dedicated to nothing but storage and that mean constant micromanagement in shuffling items back and forth. There was nothing interesting about it and no challenge whatsoever.

Barracks could gain a gameplay function by aiding soldier training in some way. If there is no such thing then yes, barracks are identical to living quarters and should be taken out as well.

Game design also means removing the features that do not present the player with a decision or challenge.

To use soldiers, you need to hire and manage them, need a Skyranger and hanger to do so. Medical facilities. Maybe a garage.

The Skyranger has multiple versions, has downtime, is a gameplay feature. It is worth tracking.

How often do you manage the barracks building after building it once? If the answer is not at all then it serves no purpose. No gameplay.

If overall base space is reduced then barracks carry no opportunity cost, either.

Eliminating barracks + living quarters also solves an issue of great silliness.

What if the barracks (or LQ) get destroyed during an attack? Do all the soldiers perish after you win the battle because they no longer have a place to sleep?

Your mini tanks becoming inoperable when their maintenance / rearming / refueling facilities are destroyed makes some kind of sense but soldiers don't die that easily...

Space managment IS part of base managment and things take space.

Soldiers take space - hence barracks.

Equipment takes space - hence storage.

Scientists and workers take space - hence living space.

If this were all there is to the game, if this were Sim City, then yes.

Only it's not.

Reducing the base management to the elements that actually require a decision is long overdue and it's a great relief that Chris finally got around to tackling the issue.

From an aesthetical point of view you do have a point.

Every base should have living quarters and storage but if they are modeled at all then they should be a fixed part of the command center structure.

You build a base, it comes with these three buildings pre-built and you cannot remove them.

Only the command center "core tile" can sustain critical damage. Storage or quarters can only generate fixable damage.

(damage there may be a mess to clean up but it does not utterly destroy a base)

Edited February 23, 2013 by Gazz

[TrashMan]

Good point and mostly correct!

Of these three only the command center has a gameplay function.

It's an intentional vulnerability. You have to protect it during a base attack.

Storage could be taken out immediately with zero loss of gameplay.

Back in the OG I used to have an entire base dedicated to nothing but storage and that mean constant micromanagement in shuffling items back and forth. There was nothing interesting about it and no challenge whatsoever.

Barracks could gain a gameplay function by aiding soldier training in some way. If there is no such thing then yes, barracks are identical to living quarters and should be taken out as well.

Ball*ocks

Everything has a gameplay function.

Storages store a specific amount. You need them to store allenium and everything you produce. Depending on capacity, you may need more than 1 in production bases.

Barracks have a function - they hold your troops. That is where they train and sleep.

You could easily give over the function of a command center to any other structure and loose nothing - you'd still have vulnerability. Destroy barracks = game over insted of destroying the command center.

The reality that ANY structure can have ANY fucntion you want from a balance/gameplay standpoint. Storage IS a function.

Game design also means removing the features that do not present the player with a decision or challenge.

To use soldiers, you need to hire and manage them, need a Skyranger and hanger to do so. Medical facilities. Maybe a garage.

You don't technicly need any of those structures buildable to do that. Everything can be abstraced away just as easily as living space.

Also, what decision does the medical facility present the player with?

How often do you manage the barracks building after building it once? If the answer is not at all then it serves no purpose. No gameplay.

You don't manage the building, you manage the PEOPLE in it. Unless you are claiming that hangars serve no purpose either. Or garages.

Heck, exactly what do I manage in the command Center? Or the radar?

Eliminating barracks + living quarters also solves an issue of great silliness.

What if the barracks (or LQ) get destroyed during an attack? Do all the soldiers perish after you win the battle because they no longer have a place to sleep?

You call that solving an issue? I call that ignoring it and pretending it doesn't exist.

Reducing the base management to the elements that actually require a decision is long overdue and it's a great relief that Chris finally got around to tackling the issue.

And the number of barracks and living quarters does require a decision.

If you have one living quarters in the base with 20 spaces, then you can only afford to have 20 people working on a project (scientist OR workers).

As someon else said, it could be hard limit on research done at the base - not on the actual personel. So if you have a total of 20 living space, only 20 scientists/technicians can work on the projects at the base at once (I'm not talking about hireing here).

So you can have 20 people researching wolf armor...or 20 people making laser rifles..or 10 on one and 10 on another. It gives you a limit without having to mess with hireing/sacking.

Different bases have different prequisites.

In a production base I may want more living quarters. Thus having to sacrifice more space.

You build a base, it comes with these three buildings pre-built and you cannot remove them.

Then why not let it come with ALL necessary buildings pre-built? You are going to need soldiers to defend that base - barracks. Aircraft for intercept - hangars.

I just can't agree with you there.

While removing living quarters MIGHT be a good idea, it certanly wouldnt' be for reasons you stated. Because they suck.

Edited February 23, 2013 by TrashMan