UFO:Alien Invasion
Technical support => Feature Requests => Topic started by: Captain Skill on March 10, 2010, 04:49:06 pm
-
Why do they exist? They don't do anything for the game, and the existence of indestructible pockets of rock in a place you have surveyed and determined to be the 'ideal' location for a base in a given geographic area doesn't make much sense at all, besides the obvious reloading abuse that can be done. Eliminate.
-
Hmm... I agree they are irritating, and although I recall that the first base is supposed to be more important or superior than others, perhaps that could be achieved in a different way. There's already plans to re-vamp base levels in the future, maybe when we get there the first base could simply have something extra, such as additional space or something else special?
-
Agree on the illogicity of the rock blocks in subsequent bases.
Perhaps some changes could be implemented in steps?
Interim suggestion: free up some first base space for the player. If you want the first base to be special and you don't want to use different size formats between the first base and the subsequent bases then give the first base some immediately operational extras such as a supply dump/warehouse for a storage area, external SAM batteries, and a UFO yard. These would be represented by icons adjacent to the first base and would be subject to the same game effects as their normal game counterparts.
(What do you mean "What warehouses?" Of course you have warehouses... you just haven't noticed them yet...)
But that's a stopgap. My best suggestion is a major change: let the player buy as big of a base as they like, up to as big as the game allows... but at a price scaled to the size of. the excavations the player wants.
And there are two catches to the pricing. The first catch is that any expansion of an existing base costs double price (or more) because of the difficulties in modifying the base without disrupting current operations.
The second catch is that space for the first base is 1/2 off *but only for the initial excavations*
A substantive change but it should give the desired results.
-
IIRC devs have said that they don't intent to just straight up increase base size, limitations from the graphics engine if memory serves. And with the current size I don't think there would be that much point in making different size available as we are already running out of space. The max size would be the only option.
-
What if we had some special, advanced buildings that come with the first base that can't be re-built or reproduced? That would make the first base superior without having to increase any potential space.
-
and i thought the random unusable blocks were there so that each base would not look exactly the same.
-
What if we had some special, advanced buildings that come with the first base that can't be re-built or reproduced? That would make the first base superior without having to increase any potential space.
The cheapest thing would naturally be to just place a special Command Center there. Call it a "Main Command Center", "Main Headquarters" or "Atlantic Operations Command" where basically YOU reside and command the whole thing. And if that falls, it's game over.
Other possibility is to place stuff there that is a bit more effective, possibly exactly because there is the special CC in place. Bigger radar area, best relations to the nation it resides (even making it immune to complete XVI infection, so it will never quit funding), faster production or research, more effective base defences... And while I'm not sure how exactly battle morale is kept up in real life, I think it would raise the general spirit when you could actually talk to your boss at lunch when needed.
-
The cheapest thing would naturally be to just place a special Command Center there. Call it a "Main Command Center", "Main Headquarters" or "Atlantic Operations Command" where basically YOU reside and command the whole thing. And if that falls, it's game over.
I was pondering the same thing... a specialized base the loss of which would end Phalanx and therefore the game.
To make it worthwhile I was thinking of an notional command complex that would bundle a set of standard buildings: command, power, quarters, storage etc... but would be separated from the main base by heavy blast doors and a short tunnel... and thus would be not be rendered with the main base. Instead there would be just one building containing an armored door that's presumed to lead to the command complex.
(This assumes that the 3d rendering of the base is what's defining the upper size limit of bases)
This means that the aliens must fight their way through the base until they reach the building that houses the entrance to the command complex and force their way through the blast doors and tunnel before they can be assumed to have stormed the final complex and won the game.
The player would have to defend the building that defines the entrance of the complex but would have the benefits of a set of buildings that are readily available and yet only take up one block of space in the main base.
Workable?
It'd be nice to have the complex as an actual fightable map... but...
-
and i thought the random unusable blocks were there so that each base would not look exactly the same.
That's basically it, yeah. I think making each base's building area exactly the same will lead to players laying them out exactly the same every time. That would largely defeat the whole base building aspect of the game. I think the key lies in changing the building area from one base to the next, with the initial base having the best building area. Once we move to the larger bases (http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/Proposals/Larger_Bases) model, we could forego the unbuildable tiles in favor of different sized area levels, which will influence how many of each type of building you can place (since some buildings can only be built on one level and others have to be built on multiple levels simultaneously).
The idea bout a special CC that boosts the initial base doesn't really appeal to me.
-
While I understand you want to increase variability in base layouts, why is that such an important thing? The base building aspect remains important (after all, if you want extra space for research/manufacturing, or new interception platforms for faster responses, you need new bases), and while a readily identifiable singular strategy may be ideal (isolate and group entry points, organize base in snaking pattern a single module wide), I honestly don't see homogeneity in layouts being worse for the game than the imposition of random building areas. Besides, the layouts for randomized areas will be built in accordance with the snaking setup anyways. If you really want to encourage base variability, do it with organic pros and cons that make sense for different kinds of layouts, so that the snake paradigm is not clearly supreme; the lack of such tradeoffs and their resultant interesting choices is what's truly at the root of layout homogeneity.
-
How would you go about that, then? Keeping in mind the future base model as well as the concept of 2x2 base tiles.
-
I think overcoming the snaked-distribution model would be a good thing, and should be compensated with control over soldier placement, such as having them spawn only in living quarters or something. This way the player has a few more variables to play with when designing the base defense. Just as a preliminary proposal on this, I'd suggest the following for discussion:
Taking into account the 2-level base system, perhaps it could be done so that aliens only penetrate the top level (of course) and certain top-level structures other than the entrance have links between the levels (hangars?). If it's a 3x4 grid up top, the player must then contend with more than one entrance to his lower level, where the living quarters, etc. are.
These entrances to the lower level should be more centrally located, since the top level is a smaller grid and should perhaps be always centrally located above the bottom level. If the player had multiple transitions centrally located, they would then have some different viable strategies for base layout, depending on fighting style, such as:
1. Concentrate living quarters to one side, to allow soldiers to organize and assault en masse as the aliens come down.
2. Spread living quarters around the perimeter to flank the aliens.
3. Place living quarters as close as possible to transition points to bottle the alien up in the top level.
4. Concentrate transition buildings to one side, but leave one transition building on the other side. Concentrate living quarters next to lone transition to quickly battle their way up to the top level and confront aliens before they reach level 2.
Other factors which could effect the base layout decisions would involve the spawning of scientists and engineers -- where they appear, what the effect of letting them die is, etc.
This would, of course, require additions and modifications to the existing base maps, so it would be a long-term proposal.
-
According to the plan so far, the only penetrating top-level structures would be the Entrance and the weapon facilities. The aliens would be able to start anywhere in these facilities.
First, let's look at mission-critical buildings. The aliens will have several objectives:
- Free other aliens in Containment (if any)
- Destroy the power plant (and with it the rest of the base)
- Destroy PHALANX craft (on the top level)
- Destroy the Command Center
It follows that a player would be encouraged to place these critical facilities as far away from the entry points as possible. What we need, therefore, is a stimulus that will encourage the player not to do this. For the Command Center this is relatively easy, since we can simply make the PHALANX soldiers spawn there. The farther away the command center is, the longer it will take to respond. With the power plant, it gets tricky. A system that disallows facilities to be built farther than X tiles from the power plant comes to mind. In the case of Alien Containment, I have no ideas at the moment.
Now, base defence missions only happen every so often, so they can't be fully responsible for the layout decision-making process. We need some other influence, a reason why a player would choose NOT to build a facility in a particular place. Perhaps cost-modifying properties per tile? Or maybe minor performance bonuses? And of course, there's always your basic blocked tile (which I don't consider a bad thing myself).
-
That's interesting about the targets of an alien attack. Is the AI (or will the AI be) capable of seeking out and attacking specific entities/areas?
It definitely throws another element into the mix, especially if they're taking out aircraft before they even come down to the second level. But I still think the main issue when trying to prevent the snake-layout is in where the aliens come from, not where they're going. Bottling the aliens up will always be the most successful strategy as long as it can be done.
If there were some way to enforce a wider distribution of transition points, I think this would be really useful. If I can bunch up my entrance and weapons facilities into a few adjacent tiles, then I can still construct a snake layout while risking only the aircraft. I liked the idea of hangars having transitions because they'll be 2x2, so if you've got a base with two hangars you'll have transition points at least not directly next to each other. I can't think of any other way to spread out the transitions at the moment.
I also like the idea of soldiers spawning at multiple locations, rather than just the command center, so that some flanking could be done. But other players may dislike having their soldiers split up. Of course, those players could place all soldier-spawning buildings in one location.
I don't know how I would feel about cost or performance bonuses based on location of the mission-critical buildings you mentioned. I can't find a plausible reason that wouldn't feel like a gimmick, but if one could be found it would be good to find some incentives. I guess my mind is thinking more about the 3D space of the base, and its tactical implications, rather than a kind of hex-based attributes-with-values sort of base.
-
The AI currently isn't capable of a whole lot, but to make the base assault concept work it's going to have to be. At the least, the AI should be able to pursue a goal over multiple turns. It doesn't have to be too terribly smart, though, superior numbers will compensate.
As for hangars, keep in mind that only the dropship hangars will be 2x2. Interceptor hangars will be 2x1 and UAV hangars 1x1. 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.
You're right about the bonuses, I think. I'm not too fond of that idea myself. However I maintain that unless there is some impetus for the player to choose from a number of possible layouts, the base building process will end up being a routine chore more than a proper game element.
-
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.
-
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. ;D
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Of course, but hangars wouldn't connect to the second level.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Number of sams/base is limited already to 4 (per type). It can be set lower if it's still much...
-geever
-
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.
-
I disagree with having blocked spaces in a base. My second base has the entrance in the bottom right corner with a blocked space above it and on the left side. How do my personnel get into the base proper? Must be a secret tunnel... With even today's (let alone future) construction technology, including dynamite and various types of earthmover equipment, humans can pretty much build wherever they want. Therefore, to make the original base more significant than subsequent bases, why not provide bonuses (or penalize subsequent bases) to research/production due to experience?
Additionally, it could be a requirement for soldiers to train at the main base to rise above the rank of Corporal. To this end another main base building could be available - a training classroom of a 1 block size. All tactical and physical training would take place presumably on the surface so it only needs to be a small classroom. After a Corporal serves/trains for a month at the training center the promotion block is removed and he can transfer to another base and continue promotions normally. During the training period, perhaps a weapon specialization could be selected and it would increase upon "graduation"?
Another thought would be a hospital buildable at the main base, but only clinics at all other bases with corresponding bonuses/penalties to healing rates. Soldiers injured below a certain point must be transferred to the main hospital as their injuries would be beyond the scope of the clinic.
Production and research of various alien technologies could be limited to the main base, or personnel training periods required before they could then transfer to another base and continue their work, maybe 6 months experience for scientists and 3 months for workers?
This weekend I finally annoyed the aliens enough to have them finally attack my main base, which I had accepted the pre-built one when I started. My thoughts on countering the snake base design would be to simply have objects or corners for aliens to duck behind as they make their assault. During a base attack they could use a somewhat higher number of grenade attacks, maybe? As well as a higher number of attackers....
-
Please note that the blocked spaces are basically there to force players redesign their bases and not just build the same layout again and again. Making the main base a bit better than the others is just a secondary reason.
Re-read the second page.
-
My second base has the entrance in the bottom right corner with a blocked space above it and on the left side.
That's a not implemented feature. I'll do it later (2.4+), also strict building next to existing buildings.
-geever
-
I read the second page and I understand the intent, but if a player wants to design identical bases they are merely showing economic wisdom. It is cheaper and faster, not to mention smarter, to duplicate a design that works. Personally speaking, no two of my bases are ever alike because of the budgetary, research, production, and defense requirements existing at the onset of construction.
Of course, an obvious drawback of "cookie-cutter" base designs could (and in my opinion should) generate a distinct combat advantage to the aliens after their first assault due to their familiarity with the base layout. Even if they don't survive their assault, one must assume they have maintained contact with their superiors up to the point of their demise.
I am simply trying to follow the dictates of logic and common sense. In my particular case, with my current second base, it is not quite logical for arriving personnel to check in with the sentry on the gate then go back outside and hike across the surface to where there is another entrance.
@geever - No rush, just trying to help with ideas. Actually, I sort of like my blocked entrance - it justifies my opinion of governmental thinking....
-
[...]My second base has the entrance in the bottom right corner with a blocked space above it and on the left side.[...]
so you have the best base defense possible.
that is, when hangars no longer provide entrance to the base, or you build the base so that hangars are also not connected.
if there is no connection between the entrances and the soldier spawn locations then you can choose the auto combat option and the result will be victory without losses.
at least it used to be like that in the version that i played till base attacks.
maybe they have changed it by now, but i doubt that.
i hate those tactical maps that have lots of open land, and i have always quit the game when i got such mission, and therefore, in my last games, i have not had base attacks.
enjoy it while you can, "evil" geever is going to change it in 2.4+.
-
Auto combat does not take the map into account. Never has.
-
Auto combat does not take the map into account. Never has.
lol, this is how myths might have been born.
(as far as i remember, only case when i used auto combat was base defense where i could not reach aliens because base was not connected. that's why i got the impression.)
-
Wouldn't base layout varry depending on what you need?
I have manufacturing bases, interception bases , research bases - usually one dominating aspect. Depending on needs.
Of course, but hangars wouldn't connect to the second level.
So why exactly do missiles connect to the second level?
IMHO, good planing should offer substantial benefit to the player. F**** artificia llimitations.
-
According to the plan so far, the only penetrating top-level structures would be the Entrance and the weapon facilities. The aliens would be able to start anywhere in these facilities.
First, let's look at mission-critical buildings. The aliens will have several objectives:
- Free other aliens in Containment (if any)
- Destroy the power plant (and with it the rest of the base)
- Destroy PHALANX craft (on the top level)
- Destroy the Command Center
It follows that a player would be encouraged to place these critical facilities as far away from the entry points as possible. What we need, therefore, is a stimulus that will encourage the player not to do this. For the Command Center this is relatively easy, since we can simply make the PHALANX soldiers spawn there. The farther away the command center is, the longer it will take to respond. With the power plant, it gets tricky. A system that disallows facilities to be built farther than X tiles from the power plant comes to mind. In the case of Alien Containment, I have no ideas at the moment.
Now, base defence missions only happen every so often, so they can't be fully responsible for the layout decision-making process. We need some other influence, a reason why a player would choose NOT to build a facility in a particular place. Perhaps cost-modifying properties per tile? Or maybe minor performance bonuses? And of course, there's always your basic blocked tile (which I don't consider a bad thing myself).
putting the access lift in the center through all levels, and making aliens spawn in all levels of the access lift (and sam facilities) looked like it would solve all problems with bottling.
in case hangars are not connected to the rest of the base underground, then the statement that a bottling oriented player would need to sacrifice a lot of space around the access lift does not seem to be completely true.
what about building hangars in the "sacrificed" space, and thus have an access lift that has blocked space at most sides?
so, you could build 3 small hangars, and have access lift that is reachable from only one side.
or build hangars from access lift to the edge of the base, and again the access lift would be a bottleneck while the other part of the base might contain buildings like sam facilities.
with the current base size, one large hangar and two small hangars would do the trick.
now i wonder if it could be possible to build hangars around the access lift so that the access lift would be completely blocked?
and i am somewhat confused here, if the only connection point between levels is the access lift then, unless you can capture the access lift from the aliens, your soldiers will be stuck on the level where they spawn.
also, if one of the alien's objectives is to destroy phalanx craft, how is a player meant to defend the hangars?
-
Just a short re-cap - there are 2 main concenrnes
1) Without some restrictions, players will always be the same base layout
2) With good base design it is possible to bottleneck the alien advance, making the base defense too easy.
Now, the first point is bogus, since different bases have different buildings, and therefore, can't have an exact layout. No two bases I own are exactly the same. Altough I technicly could make a generic base with 1 of each, but that is just inefficient.
The second "problem" is an interesting one. On one hand, you want the player to be challenged, on the other, you want to reward smart playing. so a smart enough player will have it easy? So? Power gamers have always done so in all games. Be careful not to go overboard.
Now, having all of your team spawn at the CC is no-no. It's just stupid. Have it randomized, so that soldiers spawn either in the barracks/armory/crew quarters or in the CC (a minimum of 2 will ALWAYS spawn in the CC).
Or maybe it should depends also on when is the UFO detected?
Makes sense that if it's detected before it reaches the base, that the soldiers will already be prepared and in positions. So the positioning/spawning on soldiers can depend on that.
Get caught by surprise and your soldiers will be randomly put all over the place. Detect it early, and your soldiers will be ready near the entrances.
So...any building that has above surface structures can be used as a entry point...more or less.
Now, IMHO hangars should be more like missile silos - no doors on them except the big sliding one. But the aliens can blow a entry hole.
The second issue is the number of entrances. Bases usually have 1 or 2, and that is. Which mean that if there are any extra entrances, they shouldn't be "natural" (built by man", but rather alien-made (by blowing holes in walls). With a few randomized holes you can create quite a hectic situation.