A couple issues with off-base installations.

[Flying Steel]

First off, I want to say I like off-base installations, I think they're an interesting and flexible addition to the geoscape gameplay. They could just use a couple of tweaks, IMO.

#1

It is a good strategy to build UFO yards close to bases for defensive reasons. But unfortunately, this makes it more obnoxious trying to access you base from the geoscape, because the UI keeps asking you if you want to look at the base or the close by UFO yard or SAM site, unless your click was exactly on your home base (which from high orbit, it often isn't). The same thing applies to close by SAM sites.

So I think it would be better if the new off-base installations were on a "lower layer" than bases, so that if you clicked in the general area of both, it would open up the base, not the UFO yard, since 9 times out of 10, it's the base you want to access, not an external depot or autonomous defensive structure (both of whose interfaces are not yet implemented anyway).

#2

The other issue is with radar installations-- they're simply too inferior to base radar to really be worth buying and defending. Methinks players are much better off just building a skeleton radar base than a radar installation.

So I'd suggest giving them a serious range buff, even if you need to limit them more in other ways for balancing reasons.

[geever]

#1
It is a good strategy to build UFO yards close to bases for defensive reasons. But unfortunately, this makes it more obnoxious trying to access you base from the geoscape, because the UI keeps asking you if you want to look at the base or the close by UFO yard, unless your click was exactly on your home base (which from high orbit, it often isn't). The same thing applies to close by SAM sites.

So I think it would be better if the new off-base installations were on a "lower layer" than bases, so that if you clicked in the general area of both, it would open up the base, not the UFO yard, since 9 times out of 10, it's the base you want to access, not an external depot or autonomous defensive structure (both of whose interfaces are not yet implemented anyway).

Yes, I've tried to push them into background. Unfortunately it's not that easy...

Please open a ticket for it on our Feature Tracker.

#2 ...

The range was design deceison. Scripted though...

-geever

[Flying Steel]

Yes, I've tried to push them into background. Unfortunately it's not that easy...

Please open a ticket for it on our Feature Tracker.

Done.

The range was design deceison. Scripted though...

I know, but it seems like that design decision makes radar installations more or less pointless, you'd be better off spending your funding, defensive arrangements and build cap on another SAM site or perhaps a UFO yard.

[BTAxis]

Radar installations are supposed to be inferior to base radar, and bases SHOULD be expensive enough that the player won't want to build them just for a better radar.
Essentially, radar installations are mainly for tracking UFOs, while base radars are for detecting them.

[homunculus]

apart from radar and sam installations, there is a point of view from which the ufo yards as installations seems somewhat ridiculous.

the point is that you want to build the ufo yard not anywhere in the map, but as close to your dismantling base as possible.
so preferably, you would want them to be at the exact same coordinates in the geoscape.
it looks like an ufo yard could be an extension to a base rather than an independent installation.

[Flying Steel]

Radar installations are supposed to be inferior to base radar, and bases SHOULD be expensive enough that the player won't want to build them just for a better radar.
Essentially, radar installations are mainly for tracking UFOs, while base radars are for detecting them.

No I wouldn't want them to be better, just not so inferior that they are pointless, which they currently are.

I can't say I see the advantage in tracking a UFO with radar installation after it has been detected by, but left the range of a base, since pursuing interceptors should already be well under way and watching for it themselves and since UFOs very rarely change course anyway.

But even with that aside, the tracking range of a radar installation is itself too inferior to base radar to make sense. And I think someone said you can only build three off base installations for each base, whereas you would need at least 5 or 6 to comprehensively extend your tracking range around your base, and that's assuming you left those radar positions completely undefended by SAMs, which would tie up even more of your build limit (and since they are poor at detecting, you won't detect attackers inbound for the radar sites in time to launch interceptors, let alone intercept them).

apart from radar and sam installations, there is a point of view from which the ufo yards as installations seems somewhat ridiculous.

the point is that you want to build the ufo yard not anywhere in the map, but as close to your dismantling base as possible.
so preferably, you would want them to be at the exact same coordinates in the geoscape.
it looks like an ufo yard could be an extension to a base rather than an independent installation.

You make a very good point, I think I have to agree with you there.

Or at least, there needs to be serious advantages to keeping the yards farther away from your base, and not only have such strong reasons why it should be as close as possible (both worker efficiency and defense of the ufo yard from attack).

[homunculus]

afaik there has been a limit of 8 bases and i have not read about this limit being removed.

so, if you wanted full radar coverage of earth, someone calculated that you would need bases more or less in the locations like france, south africa, near lake baykal, west indonesia, new zealand, central america, marshall islands, and the tip of antarctica near south america (lol, i know them by heart after trying them), basically the 8 locations are like corners of a cube.
that would leave you with some small holes in the radar coverage, say, arabia uncovered, and you might want to build a radar installation there if you were a perfectionist.

[Battlescared]

On the UFO yard clicking issue, to me the biggest annoyance is the selection and OK.  If it just loaded what I clicked on instead of the extra click, it wouldn't be so annoying, more like a pop-up menu. Which if there was more of a right-click functionality to the game, that might clear up some of the issues and stream line it a bit.

On the radar, yeah, they're kind of pointless.  I set one up and eventually replaced it with a base because it rarely detected anything, but I'm still early on.  I do see some utility to them in filling in some holes once I have all my bases built.

But back on the UFO yards, there needs to be more control over them.  Maybe I haven't hit this point yet, but I don't see anyway to get rid of UFO's I store there.  Clicking on the base just asks me to destroy it, and I don't see any management windows in the nearest base.  Maybe later on it will let me chose which ones to replace with new ufo's, but not sure at this point in my game.  It seems a little odd that there wasn't a better screen since the radar and SAM sites both had management windows.

[geever]

But back on the UFO yards, there needs to be more control over them.  Maybe I haven't hit this point yet, but I don't see anyway to get rid of UFO's I store there.  Clicking on the base just asks me to destroy it, and I don't see any management windows in the nearest base.  Maybe later on it will let me chose which ones to replace with new ufo's, but not sure at this point in my game.  It seems a little odd that there wasn't a better screen since the radar and SAM sites both had management windows.

It's just not implemented, I will do it (probably for 2.4).

-geever