Build V18 Geoscape Balance Discussion

[Sathra]

Basically my argument. Have it global without any additions for the vanilla game, and give the chinook limited range as a mod or game option (or as the highest difficulty!).

Having the Chinook refuel at various stops along the way would be, to me, somewhat pointless. It'd either not be able to reach sites before they time out (defeating the point of making it global in the first place i.e reaching distant terror sites), or if it could reach them even so, say if you sent them to the terror mission as soon as it appears (most likely even as it is now), that would mean the effect of the refuelling mechanic would be marginal, and only really effect outlier scenarios (multiple missions and such).

While the argument could be to having the dropships wait in various places for quick response it'd be very vulnerable and you'd be better served building a base there anyways (or adding troops and a dropship to the intercept base, as craft have tiny radar ranges unlike the OG). This is due to how if you've got a dropship waiting in the area, it'd be an alien Area of Activity and has a good chance of spawning Air Superiority missions.

Expanding has other reasons besides intercept range anyways. Manufacturing times are longer so having dedicated bases for it is a good idea. Research time could also use an extension, as its pretty short atm (since research is global, adding a bit of research capability to each base is a usable idea). Adding a strike team wouldn't be a big diversion to this (and bases grow slowly so tailoring a base to local conditions is also open).

Anyone else think we've been getting too much Alenium? I sell like 80% of it and I still don't run out since the amount you gain grows so fast with the clip conversion. I got 150 from a Landing ship and only 40 alloys. I have more Alenium than I can actually use with the cash constraints.

[thothkins]

I would expect that a number of items would be getting their alenium costs added in, both for alloys and alenium. It's currently a lot easier to play with plasmas than lasers. Obviously, if we're now getting infinite alenium based missiles then that will have an effect on the balance.

[TrashMan]

Having the Chinook refuel at various stops along the way would be, to me, somewhat pointless. It'd either not be able to reach sites before they time out (defeating the point of making it global in the first place i.e reaching distant terror sites), or if it could reach them even so, say if you sent them to the terror mission as soon as it appears (most likely even as it is now), that would mean the effect of the refuelling mechanic would be marginal, and only really effect outlier scenarios (multiple missions and such).

You mean exactly as it is now?

Is UFO loiter time is variable, then you may reach a site..or you may not. AS IT SHOULD BE.

Reaching UFO's and having quick response time SHOULD be the main reason for expansion - because that's logicly why military expands it's bases.

Yeah, in Xeno you got aditional benefits of research/manufacturing, but it really shouldn't be the primary motivator.

While the argument could be to having the dropships wait in various places for quick response it'd be very vulnerable and you'd be better served building a base there anyways (or adding troops and a dropship to the intercept base, as craft have tiny radar ranges unlike the OG). This is due to how if you've got a dropship waiting in the area, it'd be an alien Area of Activity and has a good chance of spawning Air Superiority missions.

Precisely. A tadeoff. A risk. A chance.

No binary 1/0 values.

[TrashMan]

Yup, but I would respectfully submit that there is a difference between additional optional abilities and the ability to actually play ground missions that the game is asking you to intervene in.

Not being able to do missions is really frustrating, but fortunately the range in the v18.2 beta seems sufficient enough to reach most, if not all of the map.

Well, you are not really required to play ALL ground missions to win the game, now are you?

[Sathra]

Yes, misrepresent what I wrote to support your own argument.

The missions I mentioned for the first point have set timeouts (terror and crashsites). UFO's that land by themselves do not and would be better dealt with by a local base (and local fighter cover).

For the second point, build a damn base. There's a discussion on speeding up expansion time already. If you don't want to build a base, then you don't get to cover that area with a short response time. Simple. I know you'll argue this one but its a minor point for a minor situation. It'd be better served by allowing for a second base on the other side of the planet earlier than it is now.

[TheTuninator]

Well, you are not really required to play ALL ground missions to win the game, now are you?

Nope, but when you can't reach a significant amount of early-game missions (and take a big funding hit as a result) that is really frustrating. Before Chris upped the range, local forces would often invite me to assist in raiding crash sites or terror sites that I could not reach. Watching your dropship turn around 2/3rds of the way to a terror site, followed by the message that "Country X has used a tactical nuke and are furious at the Xenonauts' refusal to intervene" is just infuriating. I didn't refuse to intervene; the game didn't let me!

I just don't see any reason for the dropship not to have global range, especially under the current funding balance where setting up a second base is quite difficult. Sure, you can say that you should have to set up a second base for full coverage, but that was never the case for the original X-COM and I think it worked quite well. A second base offers you added fighter coverage and a faster response time, which may be the difference between doing a terror mission at night or during the day and is more than enough incentive to construct one.

I'm with Sathra in that I really don't see the point of refueling; it's an unnecessary mechanic that will just add more weight and force Chris to waste time on something we don't need when other areas of the game need more work. No need to overcomplicate things!

Edited April 21, 2013 by TheTuninator

[Assoonasitis]

Well, you are not really required to play ALL ground missions to win the game, now are you?

Actually, you basically are. Money is too tight and resources too scarce to pass up even one mission that you can realistically get to.

[erutan]

re: unwanted ground missions, I'd like to be able to overdamage a UFO to the point of destroying it (excessive missiles a tier above it, etc). It'd be an easy fix.

The game economy isn't balanced yet, so I'd rather not have strategic decisions for the game decided as workarounds to the current system - the current system should be adjusted to meet strategic decisions. e.g. zomg I can't reach terror missions in time vs. hey should terror missions pop up later in the game.

Towards the end of EU94 I had around 5 bases, with 2-3 of them having soldiers, and I feel like Xenonauts would be fine with one or two as is, which I think most of us would agree needs to change. EU12 did a lot of things well on the tactical/soldier level, but the geoscape is not something I want to see overly "streamlined" in this project.

Thotkins overview @ post 145 gives a nice balanced view imho.

I'm personally of the feeling that starting the game feeling like you can't do 100% of what you want to do makes it more empowering when you can (and keep in mind this organization has been mothballed for a while). I'm fairly resigned to a "globalish" dropship range at this point - I think this can still be strategic with a few tweaks to gameplay:

* increase the cost of UFO aggression missions so there is more of an incentive to at least get an interceptor base up on the opposite side of the world

* increase air superiority missions ~3-4th month so flying huge distances without fighter escort is more of a risk

* have landed UFOs provide much more resources but make them fly off faster, so without a second dropship base you would lose a lot of them

* a general look at economy. I'm not sure how much cheaper we could make buildings (they're already equivalent to kitting out a soldier in tier2) to make it easier to expand, but having more of a cushion in the early game would be a good thing. Right now air combat for the first month or two is a foregone conclusion in Xenonauts favor, which feels kind of strange. It is however sort of necessary given that losing an aircraft or two is totally crippling. Making early air combat slightly more interesting (but still tutorialish) + having more of a funding cushion means you could choose to try and expand a little earlier, or keep the cash around to cover risk.

Edited April 22, 2013 by erutan

[Bansheedragon]

I dont know about others, but I feel the terror missions are too frequent and thin the frequency could be toned down a bit.

I'm playing a game now where I had no less than 6 terror missions back to back.

I barely had time to get my troops back to base before the next one popped up, with no time for my wounded troops to heal in the medical bay.

On the 4th mission I went in with a team consisting of 1 Sergeant and the rest was 5 Private and 1 hunter scout.

I barely managed that mission with 1 troop having 5 HP left when the last alien died.

Terror mission 5 and 6 I didnt have the troops to deal with so had to let them nuke the cities.

And I have yet to have the money to even build a second base.

[Max_Caine]

At the moment, 1 terror mission per wave is a guarantee because of the way mission generation works atm.

[TrashMan]

Actually, you basically are. Money is too tight and resources too scarce to pass up even one mission that you can realistically get to.

I would say that's just bad balance if a perfect playtrough is required.

In other news, I take back my proposal for limited range and refueling as unnecessary (altough I'd still like it).

I've seen enough people still complaining about missing terror sites because of chinnok speed, that it appears sufficient motivation for more bases already exists.

[erutan]

Terror mission generation should be toned down a bit - maybe late game have them be gauranteed unless you can shoot down the craft (as you are more likely to have the coverage to do so), but early-mid they should be more of a "oh no, wtf" vs "yeah, it's been a few days, here's another".

[TrashMan]

* a general look at economy. I'm not sure how much cheaper we could make buildings (they're already equivalent to kitting out a soldier in tier2) to make it easier to expand, but having more of a cushion in the early game would be a good thing. Right now air combat for the first month or two is a foregone conclusion in Xenonauts favor, which feels kind of strange. It is however sort of necessary given that losing an aircraft or two is totally crippling. Making early air combat slightly more interesting (but still tutorialish) + having more of a funding cushion means you could choose to try and expand a little earlier, or keep the cash around to cover risk.

Making buildings even cheaper? Nah man..they should be pricy.

Increase the base funding and the strength of early UFO's.

[Max_Caine]

In before lock.

I'll bring this up in the new balance thread, but the way alien bases constantly drain cash looks for all the world like a bug. I'm not objecting to alien bases having a malign influence on a funding bloc, just the way it's presented.

[Bansheedragon]

At the moment, 1 terror mission per wave is a guarantee because of the way mission generation works atm.

If you mean per wave of alien ships, then I can say that this happened to me with no alien ships within range of my radar at least.

Could be there was ships outside my radar range, but there is really no way for me to know that, so I assume you mean per wave of ships that I can detect?

Dont have to be a massive nerf, just tone it down a bit, 6 missions back to back is more than I could handle with just one base

[erutan]

Once corvettes appear there's a fairly steady income stream, and landing ships jack it up. Its tough trying to balance being able to expand early + having risk in air combat (jets are a big investment). Throwing more cash at the player could make it too easy to upgrade weapons and armor, though that can be restricted by materials needed (if you run out of alloys and/or elenium, you can spend your reserve cash expanding).

[crusherven]

Out of curiosity, how many aircraft do y'all keep at your main base? I've been doing 2 foxtrots/2 condors, but I was thinking maybe an extra condor would be nice.

[Sathra]

Early on, 2 Condors and a Mig. About landing ship stage its 2 Migs + a Corsair + the Condors. Then I keep adding Corsairs.

[Max_Caine]

I keep 2 charlies in addition to my interceptors. Having two strike teams means I can hoover up downed ships as well as respond to terror sites.

[thothkins]

I try for 6 if I can, to give me two intercept squads. So far this works out to 2 corsairs, 2 foxtrots and 2 Condors. What I found was that by that stage you're into plasma weapons, so you don;t quite need the same number of aircraft to tackle the earlier ships any more.

I've only ever had the one Dropship, but it would be nice to have a second strike team.

[Max_Caine]

I was able to respond to two downed corvettes, one in south africa, one just above italy. Pocketed $220,000 from the pair. A few more like that and I can afford another base!

[Moxar]

About expansionist strategy:

I was able to build a second base on october, the first. It was operationnal the 15th, with a second strike team (50% vets, 50% rookies), and a foxtrot.

October 15th:

My first base had 1 foxtrot + 2 condors + 1 charlie,

My second base had 1 foxtrot + 1 charlie.

Then I built a bought a condor and built a corsair on my second base.

December 15th:

My first base had 1 foxtrot + 2 condors + 1 charlie

My second base had 1 foxtrot + 1 condor + 1 corsair + 1 charlie

The early second base requires lots of sacrifices: I dismantled the missiles turrets and garage from the first base, recruited nobody, and build no gear at all but a foxtrot. Playing so, I just had enough money on october (+/- 1.3M). This means that it is afforable, while pretty dangerous: your troops have no jackal before the end of october, wolf battlesuits and laser weapons are a real decision (you can't have your two strike team fully equiped with both), which means you have to choose who will wear a wolf, who will wear a jackal, and who will run naked under the sun.

While extremly interesting because I could easily manage (and choose to play at day) terror missions all around the globe, and crash twice more aircraft, the financial sink due to the second base maintenance do not worth the price. The buildings cost around 1.5M, then you have to gear the squad, and pay maintenance fees. If you compare it to the money you manage to loot and the extra income from states, it appears that having a second base is still a sink of money, and makes the game deadly (because you can't well gear your boys). I thnik that strong consequences from states could make this strategy more viable, by increasing the money the grant you (and diminish the money earned from loot), or increasing the frequency of events when alien ships are not tackled. If we drop more money everytime ufos are not crashed, an expansionist strategy will be more competitive than it is now.

[Gauddlike]

Perhaps a bonus to the relations increase gained from missions if you have a base in that area?

Instead of a penalty that would make life harder for other players a bonus to somewhat offset the extra cash spent in order to better protect the planet seems fair.

[crusherven]

I like the concept, Guaddlike, but what's to stop me from placing access lifts on every continent?

[Gauddlike]

The cost and upkeep of a command centre would mean it was an investment to add one to every funding block.

That might well prove worthwhile in the medium to long term though.

However the bases that have no protection would be easy targets for enemy assaults so could be lost much more easily than a proper base.

I would also make the penalty to relations with the nation hosting the lost base quite large.

You could also tie the funding boost (and loss?) in with how many structures are present in a base.

A bigger base makes the nation feel safer, losing that base makes them doubt you more.

The penalty could be the same no matter the base size.

That would make a larger base that was lost a relatively smaller relations hit, as it is likely to be a significantly larger financial loss.

It also makes placing a small base purely for funding boosts relatively risky.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Gauddlike