UFO:Alien Invasion
Technical support => Feature Requests => Topic started by: Alberto on October 12, 2012, 06:20:10 am
-
Let's ask ourselves something, shall we? What does the Groom Lake Facility, Pearl Harbor, and just about every other military base in existence have in common? Take your time. I'll wait.
You give up? Well... How about the fact that the soldiers are paid to guard those facilities, instead of sitting around all day? I can see why some of these nations get so pissed!!! I mean... Wouldn't you be upset if you found out that the military installations that your tax dollars funded were overrun because some idiot left the back door open?
"Elite Soldiers" my ass.
We need to implement security measures, such as CCTV monitoring. I also recommend stationing guards in and around the base to minimize the risk of security breaches.
I'll leave the rest up to you.
-
Security cameras are being implemented (if not already ready), guards: your soldiers.
-geever
-
Security cameras are being implemented (if not already ready), guards: your soldiers.
-geever
1.) Cool.
2.) They need to do a better job!!!
-
2.) They need to do a better job!!!
You're controlling them, do a better job! ;)
-geever
-
You're controlling them, do a better job! ;)
-geever
Can you imagine what a military commercial in the future would be like?
Tough Sounding Voice: Are YOU looking for the challenge of a lifetime?
Tough Sounding Voice: Become a LEAN, MEAN, KILLING MACHINE...
Tough Sounding Voice: Using skills honed from countless hours of playing Super Legend Of Warcraft DX!!!
Tough Sounding Voice: The OFFICIAL hologame of the Soviet American Military Regime!!!
Soldier: Before I joined the SAMR...
Soldier: I never put my mind to good use...
Soldier: And they laughed at me for playing hologames in my mom's basement...
Soldier: But...
*enemy explodes in the background*
Soldier: Who's laughing now?
Really Fast Voice That You Can't Understand: These results are not typical. Please be informed that you will probably die. Any attempts to perform any of the things in this commercial will probably lead to funny Internet videos of you copping a squat and as sick and demented as the Internet community is, there are already enough videos like that circulating around. We don't need any more. In fact, I was surfing the Internet just a day ago and I found an old clip called "Two Girls, One C-"-*TRANSMISSION ENDS*-
-
Can you imagine what a military commercial in the future would be like?
Tough Sounding Voice: Are YOU looking for the challenge of a lifetime?
Tough Sounding Voice: Become a LEAN, MEAN, KILLING MACHINE...
Actually can, like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I8RdUCBwjE) (classic) :)
-geever
-
Actually can, like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I8RdUCBwjE) (classic) :)
-geever
Haha this was also the first thing which came up in my mind :D
-
Now all we need is Klendathu Drop in the soundtrack.
-
Actually can, like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I8RdUCBwjE) (classic) :)
-geever
Classic.
-
Security cameras are being implemented
You mean hidden cameras... Or a stern message "Radar room compromised", with the whole building being highlighted in red or some effect, and no Aliens precise visualization (same as what have been suggested for see-through-walls thermal googles).
I rather have 8 soldiers defending the base against the usual mid-game crew, than a whole platoon trying to oppose some flies-like fast agile, scorpions-like armored, octopuses-cyborgs, with LOS mental attacks and a hive mind to coordinate them.
Think that it could be far worse.
-
How about that every building in a base has to be built on a 'tunnel' building first. That is just an empty corridor (4-way, of course) dug out of the rock? Then you'd have a fort type building, (security zone or fortified hall) you could build which is where your soldiers would have top priority in spawning and would include, whatever, autoguns and excellent cover.
Corridors could be dug out in 2-3 days for 10000/square so you could map out your new base and build on top of the tunnels.
Think of the entrance to NORAD. It's not a ramp and then people's bedrooms. It's just a long assed tunnel carved through the rock until far down. A long assed tunnel is great for base defense, so maybe some folks would carve out their base and leave the gap between their hangars and main entrance a corridor and have a security area at the end of it?
Anyways, it costs so much and takes alot of time to get a well designed base up and running in UFOAI, my idea might make it more simple and add a bit more strategy in base-laying. Most folks will probably not leave a vacant tunnel unused just to have a clear line of fire incase of invasion, but the more paranoid will.
It sets aside using living quarters and storage rooms as buffers for defense, bases get invaded, why not have a dedicated structure used to deal with it?
-
true, the phalanx bases are pathetic, but aliens who are trying to invade are even more pathetic.
if the aliens are supposed to have any chance at all, i guess they should create a breach somewhere with bombardment from the ufo (some broken terrain and building models needed), and then use some nice things like poison gas and smoke (and ir-goggles to see through the smoke except for the shevaar who see infrared anyway and should therefore not be affected by smoke), and grenades with some shockwave.
but then players will probably ask for gas masks for the soldiers, and corridors with armored mechanical machine guns that aren't affected by such cheap tricks at all, and from the top of my incompetent civilian head, i don't seem to have a good idea how the aliens could ever invade such base.
i wonder how effective even an ordinary CH4 gas cylinder (open), tossed into a room and thereafter ignited, would be at clearing out a room in the current phalanx base?
-
Well if the bases had more destructability and the aliens had more heavy weapons that could be interesting.
You could also have the alien ship bombard the base before attack. They don't want to destroy it, they are trying to take it intact like we do to theirs but they could rattle the windows a bit before hand. This would be like the pre-damage for crashed aliens and possibly some base pre-damage too.
If the UFO took heavy fire coming in it should do less, so there is some incentive to fire at UFOs and risk interceptors when you probably can't really bring it down in time.
Also simply having the base invasion options regarding the power plant, aircraft and containment should make the results a lot more interesting and give the aliens more partial victories for their efforts.
-
... they should create a breach somewhere with bombardment from the ufo ...
Sometimes there will be no UFO.
-
Explosives.
-
I thought this was about base improvements outside of combat. I have
two three suggestions for that:
- Make it possible to upgrade buildings like radar to a more advanced version without taking down the old one first. I already had my base fully built, so I had to take down my radar, then wait 7 days for the advanced radar to built. Predictably, the funding nations weren't happy about my week long holiday from UFO hunting.
- What the heck is up with those rocky squares when you build a new base? I strenuously object to their presence, and to their randomness. If they were there because the terrain I picked is unsuitable, I could kind of understand, but it appears to be utterly random. If they absolutely have to be there, put in a 'building' that lets me spend some time and money to get rid of them and get a buildable square.
- On that same note, if I shell 100000c for a shiny new base somewhere, I really think I should be allowed to place the entrance myself. (Was the random placement done to prevent players making carbon copies of the same base over and over again?)
-
I'd prefer to design the first base, with the buildings available at the start in a list so you can put them how you want with no time or economic penalty. Plus an option to abort a base defense - with a twist. If you abort with soldiers still alive, you can choose to send another squad in on a rescue mission - and if successful you recover your staff, your base remains intact - and you get whatever craft the aliens arrived in.... (which wouldn't be a scout or harvester would it eh... a battleship would be more apt!!)
And one other thing I notice: When your base is attacked it gives you three options (blow up something, hold in container - whatever that means - or fight to the death. But only one of them ever seems to work. What do the other 2 do?
-
plus when a building is under construction, scaffolding on the base screen and scaffolding on the battle scape would be cool. I could design one but room would look more like the picasso room where soldiers brush up on their prestige and interlect, perhaps it could aid mind skill passing through, however, I may try.
-
plus when a building is under construction, scaffolding on the base screen and scaffolding on the battle scape would be cool. I could design one but room would look more like the picasso room where soldiers brush up on their prestige and interlect, perhaps it could aid mind skill passing through, however, I may try.
Already in the game.
-
ooo, I think I have a space in my diary for alien attack and storage building next Friday.....
-
...
And one other thing I notice: When your base is attacked it gives you three options (blow up something, hold in container - whatever that means - or fight to the death. But only one of them ever seems to work. What do the other 2 do?
This is not implemented yet.
-
I'd prefer to design the first base, with the buildings available at the start in a list so you can put them how you want with no time or economic penalty.
I second this. The OpenXCom project has implemented this; unless it's a design choice, I don't see why we shouldn't have this option, too. There could be an option in the Gameplay Options called 'custom design first base' or something, which those people who prefer to design their own first base could toggle.
-
I second this. The OpenXCom project has implemented this; unless it's a design choice, I don't see why we shouldn't have this option, too. There could be an option in the Gameplay Options called 'custom design first base' or something, which those people who prefer to design their own first base could toggle.
short: It IS a design choice.
I was ignoring this thread because it didn't have anything to consider, but now as I see, I should clean up these things before you start voting or so.
We had such an option up to maybe 2.2. Buildings were not free but could be instantly built. We removed this options for several reasons:
1. Storyline: You get the control of PHALANX and the (already existing) base, NOT you are building it. And even if you were the founder of PHALANX you would need time to build up a base. If it takes 10 days to build a facility during the game how could you build it in 0 seconds on start. And as a military officer you cannot demand a specific base layout, facilities or equipment. You get what you get.
In fact the ability to choose the base location anywhere on the globe already harms this point which I don't like either. I'm thinking about a feature which offers you 2 random locations per nation to select your 1ST base. It would be more realistic. (Some of you will probably hate it.)
2. Gameplay: The "free build" option we have allowed to build anything you could afford instantly and money was not a limit at this stage. So not just 1 Interceptor Hangar, 1 Laboratory, and so, which are in the default layout. This could give the player an unfair advance in the campaign compared to those are using the default layout. (At that time UFOs were stored in base, one could set up UFO stores instantly too). So it was considered as a CHEAT.
To add a bit more variability to the game, I plan creating a few more initial base layouts with about the same building sets (maybe 1 or 2 more/less) and select one randomly for 1st base.
-geever
-
You are aware that if people aren't satisfied with their random layout or base location, they're just going to restart / reload until they get a satisfactory outcome, right?
For base layouts, it may actually be a good idea and a worthwhile tradeoff - if the base has less buildings than usual, that means you have more money left over, which may be useful, even if you have to deal with build times. It's a trade-off worth considering.
What about those unbuildable squares? What is the reasoning for those?
Also, will the ability to sell / decommission a base be added eventually?
-
You are aware that if people aren't satisfied with their random layout or base location, they're just going to restart / reload until they get a satisfactory outcome, right?
It is their time, they can waste it. I don't think it worth the tries. How many nations we have, 8? That's 16 possible position for the first base. And I would only restrict location of the first base. Other bases will need to be built up from nothing anyway. And if random location doesn't work we can set up a fixed list for possible first-base locations (which is reasonable either: Nations want you to cover most of their area, they can say "We give you one of these bases only").
What about those unbuildable squares? What is the reasoning for those?
Hard rocks cannot/shouldn't dig out.
Also, will the ability to sell / decommission a base be added eventually?
Sell: no. Destroy: yes (https://sourceforge.net/p/ufoai/feature-requests/349/).
-geever
-
It is their time, they can waste it. I don't think it worth the tries. How many nations we have, 8? That's 16 possible position for the first base. And I would only restrict location of the first base. Other bases will need to be built up from nothing anyway. And if random location doesn't work we can set up a fixed list for possible first-base locations (which is reasonable either: Nations want you to cover most of their area, they can say "We give you one of these bases only").
As long as you're aware of it. It makes sense from a storytelling perspective, but you also have to consider that PHALANX is the only game in town. That's a not-insignificant source of political leverage, I think. It could be justified either way. Personally, I rather reload a bunch of times than let my new base be crippled with unbuildable squares and things like that, but that's just me.
Hard rocks cannot/shouldn't dig out.
I was hoping for a little more detail here - that doesn't even make sense grammatically, let alone in another way. Why were those squares put in in the first place? If PHALANX can choose a base location anywhere in the world, don't you think they could pick a site without unstable or too-difficult-to-work-with geology?
-
(...) If PHALANX can choose a base location anywhere in the world, don't you think they could pick a site without unstable or too-difficult-to-work-with geology?
About this point on that you have focused, I see one possibility. The secret base that Phalanx had built as his first one was not so much expected to be extended, but to be 1/ well hidden and 2/ well protected. Built into the rock like that, and having partly some rocks used for roof, this first base has at least satisfied those 2 criteriums. - Is it to say that having some rocks in the base should imply a defensive bonus to balance (e.g. lower detectability) ?
-
if bases are at predefined location it takes away the one and only interesting challenge in the game (imho), which is optimizing the radar coverage.
if you are a perfectionist you can avoid the unfavorable bad tile layouts by reloading.
x-com:apoc had an interesting solution in that you had a preview of the base layout before you bought it.
-
if bases are at predefined location it takes away the one and only interesting challenge in the game (imho), which is optimizing the radar coverage.
It isn't about losing the possibility of choosing the starting base position. But this base could suffer the presence of rocks wherever you go.
x-com:apoc had an interesting solution in that you had a preview of the base layout before you bought it.
But applied here , if there is no bonus in having rocks in the base, nobody would never choose such a case.
-
if bases are at predefined location it takes away the one and only interesting challenge in the game (imho), which is optimizing the radar coverage.
Read again.
-geever
-
I have modded the base Management .pk3 file to set the base as I want from initial startup, I had played the original base defence battle many times and was interested in having a different setup, mostly to allow variety but also to allow some of the advantages of the different buildings to be recognized in the mostly frequently attacked base.
I would be keen on a price multiplier on the structure costs depending on ground status. E.G. blue rock 1/2 price building, red rocks 1x price buildings, green rocks 2x price buildings, brown rocks 3x price buildings. Of course, to make this more logical the different areas of the world would have to have various setup costs according to location, e.g urban base very expensive and hard rocks, mountain base very cheap but hard rocks, silt base on flood plan - very expensive but no rocks. A hovering tooltip on the geoscape would give you a heads up of what to expect.
These variables may also be of advantage to further projects also. Terror from the deep....
-
Of course, to make this more logical the different areas of the world would have to have various setup costs according to location, e.g urban base very expensive....
=> overcomplicated.
-geever
-
In fact the ability to choose the base location anywhere on the globe already harms this point which I don't like either. I'm thinking about a feature which offers you 2 random locations per nation to select your 1ST base. It would be more realistic. (Some of you will probably hate it.)
How many nations we have, 8? That's 16 possible position for the first base. And I would only restrict location of the first base. Other bases will need to be built up from nothing anyway. And if random location doesn't work we can set up a fixed list for possible first-base locations (which is reasonable either: Nations want you to cover most of their area, they can say "We give you one of these bases only").
Read again.
-geever
sorry, so it is just the first base.
i guess you have probably noticed this post (http://ufoai.org/forum/index.php/topic,5974.msg58055.html#msg58055).
the placement is somewhat high precision thing there, because some of the bases are at small islands.
also, there are islands like the marshall, and the ones west of panama where a base could be built, and there is a chance for further radar coverage optimization, using those locations.
those fixed island locations can be a pain already, luckily some of them fit the scheme.
so the point somewhat remains, but to a considerably lesser extent.
-
What if there were those several ways to build the base intoducing some simple questions :
- Does the nation where I want to build agree with that ?
- As a related question, could an unpleased nation decide to stop further bases implementations on his territory?
- Do I want to wait for an invitation from a given nation (maybe for a reducted cost)?
- Do I want to put immediatly my base on the geosphere (as today, if you can pay the price as already implemented)?
- Or do I want to prospect the ground before, implying a delay and/or an additional cost, in order to know if there will be a low or strong probability of rocks (I don't even say that we should turn this probability to 0)?
All of this is questions that could in my opinion be introduced as simple additional tests in the current system by adding some checks of the game state.
For instance at this moment when the player click the "build a new base" order, and try to push it on the map, there is already some checks:
- Is the monney needed existing ?
- Doesn't the player try to build in the oceans?
For the nations there would be "only" to add the other checks :
- Check the state of happiness at the position at which the player tries to build, and accept or reject the demand.
For the prospection, it is a little more complicated but could also work with the same system tweaked around. For instance, when you prospect, the cpu generates the base but doesn't validate. After a given time it announces to the player that it could be more or less rocky there (in fact the computer would already know exactly how will be the base). If the player accepts, the base is generated :
- Player : Choose "Build with Prospect"
- CPU : takes the monney for prospect, and generate a base but don't build it - defines a event dates on when to give feedback to the player.
- Player : accept ---> the base is built if the monney exists
- Player : reject ---> no problem, the base is never built.
Would all of that be in the style, some correct maneer to improve some of the aspects that have been discussed - like the rocks affair ?
ps : I join a scheme where shown this addition as a new interaction in the context of the already existing ones.
-
Krillians idea rocks, and like he states it is probably only a stones throw from what is available presently, the proposition may not be set in granite, but it is better than wiping the slate. I agree with above, others such as my own above, have been like mixing chalk with... well metamorphic rocks.
-
Thank you. I translated your sentence, that's humorous when we know how much all of this has turned into an affair of rocks ;)
Anyway, that was not a true definite proposal. I wanted more to question about the fact to know if it would be or not one the way to look at things. This comes from the fact that a file from the code has been displayed where the interactions were more likely a question of tests.
-
I have been playing similar games to this 1 for millions of years (slight exageration possibly) but I think sometimes intensive mind-numbing coding must seep through into intensive mind numbing gameplay, but extra dimensions are always pleasant in my experience.
-
What if here and there nation offers you a base, not just free first base.
And those rocks... maybe building on those rock would be more expensice end would take more time.
Would it be possible to upgrade command centre for more/better instalations? Like hangars or marine base for searching ufos lost on sea?