project-navigation
Personal tools

Author Topic: New feature proposal : Base building  (Read 4359 times)

Offline Malick

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
New feature proposal : Base building
« on: August 14, 2008, 03:39:02 pm »
Hi all,

Here are some ideas regarding base building.

1 - Being able to have buildings on the surface (for those that need an entry/exit) and others below ground. As stated elsewhere, this would free a lot of place and would add a little more depth to base building. Hangars, radars, SAM sites and UFO hangars need to be on the surface.

The others can be built on or below the surface, of course with an increased cost for underground facilities. This way, you can have a surface base, with vulnerable buildings or an underground one, taking longer to build, costing much more, but a lot safer. This would apply to installations (radar, SAM and UFO storage), all on the surface.

2 - Having building upgrades. For example, an upgrade to the workshop can increase its productivity. Or new computers for science labs. Improved guidance system for SAM, better computer chips for radar, robotic machinery for hangars...

Instead of building a completely new site or building, the player can chose to improve existing one first. Reduced costs, but it's only temporary solution.

3 - Having different construction costs according to their location. A new base in North America would cost much more than in central Africa. Of course, the Alien activity is (or at least, should be) higher in areas where human population is concentrated.

Having a base in a country should increase their satisfaction, also.

I believe all these ideas would give the player more options and diversify the way the game can be played. What do you think ?

Malick

Offline BTAxis

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *******
  • Posts: 2607
    • View Profile

Offline TrashMan

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
    • View Profile
Re: New feature proposal : Base building
« Reply #2 on: August 14, 2008, 03:58:08 pm »
Oh yeah..I have to agree here that SAM's suck big time.

I waste 3 tiles to set up 3 SAM sites and they can't shoot down a single UFO.

Description sez 4 lanchers per site...each one launchers only 1 rocket and a SNAILS pace. A single stileto with a SINGLE AA missile launcher fires off 20 missiles in the time the SAM fires off 1.

Offline BTAxis

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *******
  • Posts: 2607
    • View Profile
Re: New feature proposal : Base building
« Reply #3 on: August 14, 2008, 04:50:13 pm »
Well, SAMs aren't supposed to be a substitute for interceptors.

Offline ghosta

  • Squad Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 133
    • View Profile
Re: New feature proposal : Base building
« Reply #4 on: August 14, 2008, 06:04:48 pm »
I guess the use of SAM-sites is more plausible if a HUD for interception missions are implemented.
SAM-sites with long range rockets and interceptors with "close" range weapons.
However it is a balancing issue how strong these weapons should be. I would not like to see the hole world paved with SAMs...
I also would recommend that the bigger UFOs strike back with their long range weapons and damaging the SAMs and/or a certain chance for the aliens (~10%/shot) to spot the origin of the missiles. Then another UFO is spawned somewhere on the map to bomb the site.

Maybe other external buildings can be implemented, like radar turrents or rearming pads. All of them with a certain chance to be detected by a UFO flying nearby.

Just some thoughts about that stuff.

Offline TrashMan

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
    • View Profile
Re: New feature proposal : Base building
« Reply #5 on: August 14, 2008, 06:55:57 pm »
Well, SAMs aren't supposed to be a substitute for interceptors.

I know - but one would expect SOME effectivenes. They already have terrible range so interceptors are a must.
But it seems to me there is NO reason in the world why ANYONE would build SAMs - being as they currently are.

You spends a lot of $ and room on them and they manage to get 1, maybe 2 missiles off before the alien craft is upon you. They are just utterly, utterly terrible.

Offline BTAxis

  • Administrator
  • PHALANX Commander
  • *******
  • Posts: 2607
    • View Profile
Re: New feature proposal : Base building
« Reply #6 on: August 14, 2008, 07:12:59 pm »
So rate of fire is the problem? What about damage?

Offline Mayhem

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
    • View Profile
Re: New feature proposal : Base building
« Reply #7 on: August 14, 2008, 08:13:57 pm »
Without being able to tell how much damage is being done, or how much the target can take, thats kind of hard to judge.

***

But I agree - I'm running a 2.3 game at the moment and habitually put two MLs in each base, but the don't appear to fire 2 missiles, and they don't fire very frequently.  The launchers depicted are twin multi-launchers that out to be putting out a hail of fire - 1 silo should be able to pump out 30 missiles in quick succession.

***

That said, the descriptive text does say that kills with sams are very unlikely, and rely on quantity rather than quantity.  So they should be blasting out the aforementioned 30 missiles but still only scoring the occasional hit.

Hopefully improved silo weapons will soon start appearing on the tech tree.

Sophisanmus

  • Guest
Re: New feature proposal : Base building
« Reply #8 on: August 14, 2008, 08:54:13 pm »
My simple thoughts:  SAMs are notably stronger than air-to-air missiles, considerably longer-range, considerably higher rate of fire, but considerably lower chance to hit.  Launch off enough, though, and you'll bring down most early-game UFOs.  The flip side is that such a high-volume launch draws attention; a line of missiles rather nicely points back to where they came from.  Soon you'll have heavy alien combat craft patrolling the areas, and God forbid you take the bait an launch at them when they're close enough to backtrace it for certain.

That's what Interceptors are for.  It's harder to backtrace a fighter craft that's had a good deal of room to change course before coming within the UFO's sensor range proper, especially if the interceptor had to do a bit of tailing before closing.

Ideally, in my mind anyways, the interceptors would distract the alien craft, and once the UFO is fixated on engaging or fleeing from the aircraft, a good, hearty long-range launch could do well to soften or bring down the UFO.

I think the alternative function of the SAM sites, once a base has been discovered, would be for resisting landing attempts.  Here, obviously, weapon accuracy would also have to take into consideration the size of the target, and the range of the engagement.  Firing off a site almost point-blank into a UFO heavy battleship (or equivalent), the player would expect to land a lot, if not most, of the shots.  Whether those hits are effective against the pride of the alien invasion force... that's another matter.


...an afterthought: it might be nice, if it isn't too much trouble, to be able to select the number of missiles fired when ordering a launch.  It might be more efficient that way, resource-wise, as instead of tracking each individual missile to the target, you'd track it as a single batch, and only worry about the individual hit-miss and damage once the batch reaches the target.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2008, 09:01:05 pm by Sophisanmus »

Offline Malick

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: New feature proposal : Base building
« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2008, 11:30:09 am »
Sorry guys, but I was NOT talking about SAM's effectiveness.

About building improvements, I was thinking of something similar to the way aircraft can be equipped with ECM or fire control computers.

Ideas ? Comments ?

Malick

Offline TrashMan

  • Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
    • View Profile
Re: New feature proposal : Base building
« Reply #10 on: August 18, 2008, 03:21:42 pm »
Well, a SAM IS a part of the the base that does need serious fixing.

About building improvements...dunno.I guess they could be automatic..