Eliminate Blocked Spaces for Bases

[homunculus]

i do not know where the idea of having less space for top level came from, but i think it's a good one.
this way you cannot build a zillion turrets in one base.
or maybe you can, depending on how much space hangars take up on top level.
if hangars just have the 1x1 exit on top level and the larger space is on second level, then you will probably not be able to build an unbalanced number of turrets in one base by omitting a hangar (like the marshall islands ufo dump).

and, how many levels are planned? 2 or 3 or more?
is the access lift going to be in the same location in every level?

[...]A connection to a lower facility would probably be hard to do, since you don't know what facility is underneath. That means ALL second level facilities will need a connection point, and that means you're limiting what can be on each tile. I don't think it's worth it.[...]

i wonder what that means. does the last sentence mean it does not matter?

could it mean that the location of access lift on lower level does not depend on location of access lift on the upper level?

as for tactics, i think a good one is to build the base so that there would be a bottleneck with a wide space on your side.

also, about building costs, maybe there could be such thing like separate digging and building.
this way, when you decide to relocate a building, it would make a difference if you need to dig or not.
actually, for the sake of realism, relocation of something like a lab could be considerably cheaper than building a new one.

i guess a lot depends on where the micromanagement should stop.
for example, there could be such thing like building inventory that could be stored in storage (like devices for lab) but that could be difficult to generalize.

[Borsti67]

I'd prefer a system where is only ONE fixed element (the entrance) and from there on every neighbor field (in all dimensions) must be made available at first (costs much money and time, and gets more expensive (in both terms) the farther you go from the entrance). Then I can take care about what shall be placed in this space.
The cheapest and fastest way to build would be the current base design, but you could have a wide-spread surface-only base as wall as a nested 3dimensional spider web...

okok, I'll stop dreaming right now.

[H-Hour]

Ok, attached are a couple of images demonstrating a somewhat radical proposal to spread out the transitions. It basically entails placing more than an entrance as the first item on the top level. The entrance would be placed, and it would be linked by corridors which run on the outside edge of the 3x4 space, to transitions at two corners. These transitions would take up 1 tile on the bottom level, but would effectively take none on the top level since they are on the outside of the 3x4 space.

Also, I've changed the entrance so it only takes 1 tile on the bottom level. By my count, this allows for 32 tiles without any blocked spaces. It would spread out the transitions, and thus the threats, to the edges, forcing the player to defend multiple points. If they wanted to employ the snaked defense here, they would have to close off these transitions and give up basically the whole second level.

Questions remaining:

1. Would it look odd to have transitions down to the bottom level even if the player hasn't built anything off of them? Perhaps these transitions could be linked by exterior corridors as well.

2. Should aliens spawn in the corner transitions? Or be forced to move towards them? If the latter, would the player still be able to move up to the second floor and block them off before they reached the transitions?

[BTAxis]

Hmm, I don't really think that would work for me. It boils down to introducing a weakness base design on purpose so the aliens get to appear in more locations. Plus, as I said, tactical combat shouldn't be the only factor in deciding where to place things.

[BTAxis]

or maybe you can, depending on how much space hangars take up on top level.
if hangars just have the 1x1 exit on top level and the larger space is on second level, then you will probably not be able to build an unbalanced number of turrets in one base by omitting a hangar (like the marshall islands ufo dump).

Well, turrets would be 1x1 while hangars would be 1x1, 1x2 or 2x2. However, turrets also need a slot on the second level, so building them isn't only a matter of replacing a hangar. You have to sacrifice space on the second level as well. At this point I think this makes a good tradeoff, though we'll have to see how it works out. Maybe stronger turrets should be 1x2 or something.

and, how many levels are planned? 2 or 3 or more?
is the access lift going to be in the same location in every level?
i wonder what that means. does the last sentence mean it does not matter?

Either 2 or 3. more cannot be supported in tactical combat (2 tactical levels per base level, and the surface is also a base level).
The Entrance facility will be in the same location on every base level.
What I meant by my earlier comment is that I don't want to map connection points to a higher tile on every single second level base tile.

[H-Hour]

It boils down to introducing a weakness base design on purpose

Hmm, I kind of thought that was the point. Certainly that's what is behind the whole premise of PHALANX, rather than deploying heavy armor and unmanned platforms against alien invasions. Isn't it the point in any map design, which shouldn't spawn the player in locations with a clear tactical domination of the battlefield.

Plus, as I said, tactical combat shouldn't be the only factor in deciding where to place things.

I understand if you don't want tactical combat to be the only factor in base design. But if you don't overcome the ability of players to bottle aliens up, regardless of any other incentives you provide, it will become the only factor. And that requires you to build tactical weakness into the base design.

Regarding other considerations in base design: I could see, for instance, some productivity gains by building workshops adjacent to each other, if it could be made so that adjacent workshops became one large workshop. Perhaps supporting only rectangular warehouses and a 2x2 maximum would simplify the various map configurations needed.

[BTAxis]

Hmm, I kind of thought that was the point. Certainly that's what is behind the whole premise of PHALANX, rather than deploying heavy armor and unmanned platforms against alien invasions. Isn't it the point in any map design, which shouldn't spawn the player in locations with a clear tactical domination of the battlefield.

The difference is that this isn't just any map. This is the PHALANX base, something the player (or rather the player's own side) controls. Building a weakness into it will raise questions, such as "why is the base design so stupid". On other maps you don't have this, because PHALANX doesn't choose its battles. It only responds to the aliens.

I understand if you don't want tactical combat to be the only factor in base design. But if you don't overcome the ability of players to bottle aliens up, regardless of any other incentives you provide, it will become the only factor. And that requires you to build tactical weakness into the base design.

I should mention at this point that I mean for the aliens to spawn inside the Entrance and base defences, including the lower level. This means that the only way to bottle up the aliens is to 1) leave five of the six tiles around the entrance on the second level unused and 2) build no base defences. I think that is a sufficiently painful tradeoff. No artificial weaknesses are needed in my opinion.

Regarding other considerations in base design: I could see, for instance, some productivity gains by building workshops adjacent to each other, if it could be made so that adjacent workshops became one large workshop. Perhaps supporting only rectangular warehouses and a 2x2 maximum would simplify the various map configurations needed.

Building stuff adjacent to other facilities for a performance bonus is an interesting angle. Perhaps this can be expanded to a system where a facility gets a bonus if it is adjacent to another facility, not necessarily of the same type. I think it's worth exploring.

[Hertzila]

I should mention at this point that I mean for the aliens to spawn inside the Entrance and base defences, including the lower level. This means that the only way to bottle up the aliens is to 1) leave five of the six tiles around the entrance on the second level unused and 2) build no base defences. I think that is a sufficiently painful tradeoff. No artificial weaknesses are needed in my opinion.

Inside base defences? You mean inside buildings like missile launcher? How would they get inside those?
Also, shouldn't they then also spawn inside hangars, since those have surface access too right?

[BTAxis]

Of course, but hangars wouldn't connect to the second level.

[Hertzila]

Ah ok.

Building stuff adjacent to other facilities for a performance bonus is an interesting angle. Perhaps this can be expanded to a system where a facility gets a bonus if it is adjacent to another facility, not necessarily of the same type. I think it's worth exploring.

Would this be like "lab+lab=small general research bonus, lab+workshop=alien artifact manufacture and research bonus, workshop+hangar=repair speed bonus + maintenance cost and installation time removed by a fraction" kind of thing? Seems like an interesting idea, I think you'd just need to list all the bonus possibilities in the UFOpedia (a list of relevant pairs in the end of each facilitys entry).

[H-Hour]

I should mention at this point that I mean for the aliens to spawn inside the Entrance and base defences, including the lower level. This means that the only way to bottle up the aliens is to 1) leave five of the six tiles around the entrance on the second level unused and 2) build no base defences. I think that is a sufficiently painful tradeoff. No artificial weaknesses are needed in my opinion.

Hmm, yeah you're probably right. If we assume most bases will have at least one defensive tile, they'll have to block out almost a quarter of the bottom level to implement the bottling, which would only be possible for smaller bases.

[Captain Skill]

I love the idea of facility proximities resulting in small bonuses; this is an organic, reasonable method that encourages players not to construct their bases in a snaking pattern. Hertzilla's ideas are a good start.

Second, having hangers, base defenses/AA facilities and the access lift all serve as entry points is another good idea that definitely helps countermand bottling.

[homunculus]

so, in order to have a nice base layout you would need to reload until you get access lift

1) in the corner of the base map.
you could sacrifice a few tiles, and connect the access lift to the rest of your base by sam batteries.
so, you would end up aliens attacking through 1 tile that you can shoot from 2 or 3 neighboring tiles.

2) near the corner of the base map.
you could fill the space between the access lift and the base corner with sam batteries and sacrifice a few tiles and have a connecting tile to the rest of the base
so, you would end up with aliens attacking through 1 tile that you can shoot at from 3 neighboring tiles.

and it would be nice to have the blocked tile at the location that you are not going to use anyway.

now, if the access lift is at the same location in every level (which makes sense) then you will have the same tactical advantage on every level of the base.
so, you made a new base. the access lift was in the center. sssstupid! reload maybe?

Of course, but hangars wouldn't connect to the second level.

so, in order to launch a craft, the pilot and in some cases soldiers would first need to go to the surface and then go down to the hangar from the surface?
what about reloading weapons and refueling and repairing?
wouldn't there be a lot of activity on the surface?

about the sam and hangars:
if the possible number of sam batteries depends so heavily on number of hangars in the base, how are you intending to balance the strength the sam batteries?
the player could have too many sam if he omitted hangars, while otherwise the few sam with hangar might be too weak?
wouldn't it be easier to balance if the player could have a more or less average number of sam, that could only somewhat be increased by omitting a hangar?

and there would be another question: if we have sam, will there be base bombardment from geoscape without aliens attempting to enter the base?
if that is so, there could be a balancing option to make all kind of bombardment damage, both from the ufo and the sam, weak enough compared to the strength of buildings and the ufo.
then, the purpose of the sam would be to force the ufo to land and deploy ground troops rather than stay shooting at the base from the sky.

i wonder in which direction the devs are thinking.

[geever]

Number of sams/base is limited already to 4 (per type). It can be set lower if it's still much...

-geever

[BTAxis]

so, in order to have a nice base layout you would need to reload until you get access lift

1) in the corner of the base map.
you could sacrifice a few tiles, and connect the access lift to the rest of your base by sam batteries.
so, you would end up aliens attacking through 1 tile that you can shoot from 2 or 3 neighboring tiles.

2) near the corner of the base map.
you could fill the space between the access lift and the base corner with sam batteries and sacrifice a few tiles and have a connecting tile to the rest of the base
so, you would end up with aliens attacking through 1 tile that you can shoot at from 3 neighboring tiles.

You'd be reloading ad infinitum, because the Entrance is always in the same place, which is in the center of the grid.