Base-building: Layout of first base

[HaJo]

The layout of the first base is far from ideal
when thinking about defending against a base-attack.

Can someone comment about this,  e.g.
if this vulnerable layout is intentional ?

My suggestion for base-layout (using only the
buildings currently in the first base) looks like:

__  _0_  _1_  _2_  _3_ _4_
0: xxx xxx xxx Han-gar
1: xxx xxx xxx xxx Stor
2: xxx xxx xxx xxx Acc
3: xxx xxx xxx xxx Qua
4: xxx xxx Lab Pow Cmd

But that storage between hangar and access-lift
should better be replaced with an cheap interceptor...

[Bandobras]

I remember hearing someone say on the fourm that the buildings are or will be movable. I like that idea. Not very realistic (costs a lost), but no micromanagment needed...

[HaJo]

Changing the layout of the first base only requires some changes
to basemanagement.ufo, and I already did so.

The questions are:
* is it advisable, with regard to game-balance ?
* what is a sensible layout for the first base ?

[Mattn]

the currently layout is a random layout i've done at that time i've written the ufo file. if you don't like it - patch it. i noone complains... the patch will be commited.

[HaJo]

About that 'interceptor"-building (for anti-air-missiles):
the price is low, so I would like to include one in the first base.

But we also have an aircraft named "interceptor", which might lead
to confusion (e.g. interceptor-building as hangar for interceptor-plane?).

I suggest renaming one or the other.

[Mattn]

the interceptor building is the interceptor hangar.

[HaJo]

the interceptor building is the interceptor hangar.

That does not match the description for the building:
"Interceptor missiles are a basic anti-air defense..."

Also, the price for a small hangar (1 square) should be
about half of the big hangar (2 squares).

But then we would need another building for defense
against ufos outside, and maybe a building
"security station" for defense inside the base.

[HaJo]

in basemanagement.ufo some buildings have entries like
"depends  building_powerplant", but all the info-screens
say "Depends: nothing".

Does the entry on "depends" list a requirement for building
a base-component, or a requirement for operating it ?

[Bandobras]

I would not be surprised if nobody can tell you that. This is a huge project and we lack developers, especially coders and scripters. If you come to some conclusion by studying the script files, please let us know.

Perhas "Depends" relates to technology dependencies and not base-building-order dependencies?

[HaJo]

It is a design-issue.

That means, if coding is not yet finished, it can/should be discussed.
But I'm not sure if it is better to discuss it here or in the design-forum...

[HaJo]

I submitted my alternative base-layout to sf.net: [ 1533557 ] Layout of first base, see
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1533557&group_id=157793&atid=805245

[Bandobras]

Is it the one that is in SVN trunk for some days now?

[HaJo]

Is it the one that is in SVN trunk for some days now?

The layout looks like

Code: [Select]

-- _0_ _1_ _2_ _3_ _4_
 0: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
 1: xxx xxx xxx Han-gar
 2: xxx xxx x-x x-x Entr
 3: xxx xxx xxx x-x Stor
 4: xxx Lab Pow Cmd Qrt

You remarked on issue 1533557 :

Date: 2006-08-03 01:05
Sender: bandobraz
Logged In: YES
user_id=1557623

Done in r2317. Looks much nicer, now.

So you should know...

[Bandobras]

Yes, it's the one. So, we're done.