🚀 go-pugleaf

Cosmo wrote...

I'd like to take the opportunity; I often have what I consider to be good
ideas, but never seem to get around to putting them out...

Bases & building...


>I have always dropped my first site in the middle of the Atlantic, right
>between Europe and NorthAm; mainly because that puts your initial "service
>area" in range of the higher-paying customers.  In other words, it seems
>more cost effective to me.  Like yourself, I'm also hung on naming
>conventions: my first base usually gets named ATLANTIC DEEP, the others
>named similarly (YELLOW DEEP in the Yellow Sea off of China, for example).


I understand the logic, but ultimately, this seems likely to be flawed,
based on what I have read.  We share similar philosophies though, it seems.

    Europe, Asia, Africa and Russia all fall under one huge area.
Therefore, wouldn't it be more logical to set up a base which can protect
the majority of funding nations?  Also, as the Med. Sea is the most
expensive area to set up a base - $1m!, it was mentioned this would be an
ideal site to set up base initially, since it cuts costs, for one month at
least, as well as allowing a protection zone for a large number of funding
nations.  I have moved 'Midway React' to the Med in my new game, to figure
how this balances out - still to early to make any worthwhile comments on
though.

    As the US is so big, you would need at least a couple of bases - East
and West coasts to be effective, not to mention both North America and
South - Mexico, Brazil etc.  I would imagine this would be a case of placing
your second and third bases in these areas - Gulf of Mexico and probably
somewhere near Hawai [I didn't spell that correctly, sorry!]

    Anyway, it seems likely we have both been 'stuck' in a set pattern which
could ultimately hamper progress, even though we have failed to recognise
it.  I've decided to move my initial base to the Med, based on the start up
costs and the number of funding nations, which I _hope_ will offer a better
return in the long run.

>Another consideration: later in the game when money is reasonably
available,
>I build "mini-bases" that consist of only sonar facilities, and possibly a
>sub pen with a dedicated interceptor.  I call these DETFAC's (DETection
>FACility); since I usually stick one at the North Pole, that base gets
named
>ARCTIC DETFAC.  These bases provide one and only one primary purpose:
expand
>your search ability.  They seldom get improved upon (qv) and if they get
>whacked by an Alien attack, I don't sweat it.


    I've never been one on setting up these 'listening posts', but after
reading various posts and the USG, I am beginning to see the obvious
benefits.  My bases have been a) Primary HQ b) Research facility c)
Manufacturing facility d) Secondary strike bases.

I've been playing with only one major Naut base, which has led to missed
oportunities with terror sites.  My conclusions will now lead to two, at
least Naut bases for 'hot spots' which occur at the beginning [usually] of
the month. I. E. terror sites usually spring up after the monthly report
from the funding council.

For the new game I'm playing, I'm going to be moving R&D and manufacturing
to the poles, with the hope that this will keep them out of harms way, while
my other bases deal with the alien incursion.  Whether this will work
remains to be seen...

>>    As we all know, the first base design is a mess.

>Agreed on both counts.  For Base 1, I usually just focus on adding the
stuff
>to get going in style: one or two extra labs, extra living quarters,
>storage, WA Sonar, Alien containment:  pretty much in that order.


>I also whack the technicians as useless, but I go that route one step
>further: my very FIRST hiring and firing decision is with the aquanauts.  I
>inspect my team, and IMMEDIATELY "fire" anyone with a Bravery of 20 or
less.
>I don't worry much about the other stuff at this point in the game, but I
>won't put up with one of my aquanauts panicking and running the first time
>he/she sees a frightened Sectoid fifty yards away.


I understand your point, but the way I play it, those Nauts are going to be
cannon fodder, unfortunately, so it means I either play it safe [reload the
mission every time a naut is killed], or send out the scouts and pray that I
can outwit the aliens during these early missions, which is highly likely
[depending on the difficulty setting, naturally!]

>REORGANIZING THE BASE LAYOUT: I've studied the XCOM strategies and I know
>the difference an effective base layout makes, particularly with respect to
>coming under a base attack.  But frankly, I personally can't justify the
>costs (time, money, and loss of use) just to reorganize.  Hence, I
recommend
>saving the "perfect base layout" theory for future bases; leave the
original
>one alone, and consider altering it after you're better established, when
>your other bases can take up the workload of the first one when it goes
>offline for remodeling.


Yeah, I have to agree, I am sceptical about major reorganisation of this
initial base.  From what I remember from previous games, the aliens _don't_
appear all over the base, irrespective of what has been said about this.
They still seem to congregate in the airlock and sub pens.  Even so, I tend
to build bases now with a stores attatched to the airlock, as this means
additional equipment is alway nearby, should things go awry.  Therefore, new
bases are built with an airlock in the middle, sub pen one side and stores
the other, branching off as needed from there.  Depending on base
requirements means this can be changed - as in either R&D, or manufacturing
bases, which will not have a sub pen and will be built with the task at
hand.

>ARMING: with the initial weapons, I agree with you wholeheartedly about the
>cannons.  Throw em away.  Whoever would chase down an Alien Sub with cannon
>is just trying to piss the alien off until it surrenders from exhaustion.
>My attack subs use weapon mixes: one DUP, one Ajax.  That way the Cuda has
>both range and volume of firepower.  If you manage to not bring an alien
sub
>down with one sortie with this loadout, it needed two sorties anyway.


In the past, I have kept one sub with only cannons.  This was, in retrospect
a poor decision.  It has limited usage, due to the weapons and the 'Cuda
could be better employed as an offensive craft.  Ultimately, its down to us,
but I don't use this strategy any more, its not effective IMHO.

>A NOTE ON `NAUTS: I prefer to house 12 Nauts at my base.  This keeps 8 on a
>RTG status (ReadyToGo) for the usual mission, and leaves 4 in reserve.  I
>use the reserve troops as replacement for injured Nauts.  If at all
>possible, NEVER send an injured Naut out to fight.  If I'm responding to a
>major event (terror mission, base attack, raid on an intact alien sub) I
>send EVERY fit and able aquanaut; hopefully I can muster ten, if not the
>full compliment of 12.
>
>Of course, if YOUR base is under attack, EVERY TROOPER WHO CAN CARRY A GUN
>(injured or not) throws in to defend.
>
>As the game progresses, I increase my troop number to 16, mainly for
>training purposes (qv).


I also go with 12 nauts, irrespective of the mission.  If there are nauts
who have low bravery during early missions, they are less likely to come
under MC attack, due to the way the game monitors your own progress.  They
are less likely to come under MC attacks, which give you the advantage, even
though they are pretty useless in all fairness.  It takes a couple of
missions to figure out who's of any worth initially.  I don't sack anyone
during the first month, if ever.  Those who are runts get a basic kit -
PDG's, Bang Stick and Medi Kit.  The reason being - If they come under MC
control, they don't start lobbing damned grenades into my squad. [the MC
control only appears to work with projectile weapons and alien technology:
it doesn't seem to like to play with PDG's, which ultimately means, if and
when I get control back over my trooper, they maybe freaked out, but I also
have the chance I can use them for at least some of the mission].  Hiring
and firing only adds to the cost of start up, which during the early months
is pretty critical.

>>Equipment issues...


I had not considered the AP ammo to be of any use - your comments give me a
new way of thinking about this - thanks!!!!

I also use the Phosphor rounds for night work, if needed.  Plus they keep
Gillmen and Aquanoids pretty upset when they are on fire [ with the added
bonus of lighting the surrounding area ;-) ]


>THERMAL TAZERS:  I don't make great use of them at the beginning of the
>game; you've got more important things to worry about.  At best, I'll arm
>the two ReconNauts with them, in case they get lucky and blunder on an
>opportunity to ZAP an alien; when the time comes that I need to study a
>particular live alien, I'll make the effort to "corner" one, and send the
>ReconNauts in after it.  Only in the later stage of the game do I use
TAZERs
>regularly: when I develop my Aquanaut Training Program (qv).


    I can't recommend the Bang Stick enough!  I _never_ used to bother with
them, but since I reinstalled and started playing again, I have been more
experimental with my games.  I recommend you try sticking with the Tazer, as
it does not require ammo, costs nothing [bar initial purchase] and is a one
handed weapon - every trooper gets one of these toys as they are so useful.


>
>SQUAD ORGANIZATION

The naming issue is roughly what I have also done - a logical and useful
point!

PDG's - Don't under estimate the usefulness of them!  Terror sites are
especially fraught with unexpected surprises which can eliminate your squad
when you least expect it.  For instance, if you spot something moving during
the alien movement phase, but have no area effect weapons to take out the
rough area it was spotted in, at least you have PDG's to use as back up and
restricting the alien's movement [which is a moot point, as they always
appear to move where ever they want, no matter if a PDG has landed next to
them :-)]  I don't go anywhere without them.  They could mean the difference
between life and death, especially with those nauts who are coming under MC
attack!


>>Research...


I've never really seen a use for the Sensor - I spend my turns moving my
units around, so they always show up as huge blobs on the screen.  The way I
see it, that trooper could be using his TU's moving and scouting.  However,
I am considering whether they will be useful on terror sites...  I have yet
to come up with an argument to swing the balance in favour of the sensor
though.

Gauss tech is, imho, a waste of time.  You have to research it, then
manufacture the ammo.  Considering the damage compared the the Terran HVY
weapons, it just doesn't seem worth the effort.  I could use my techs to
produce Medi Kits which I can use and also sell, plus if I use medi kits,
they get replenished after every mission - a never ending fountain of
healing, compared to the limited capacity of Gauss technology.  I can buy
ammo which has more stopping power for the HydroJet and Gas Cannon - the
HydroJet has auto fire _and_ area effect, so it is more useful to me,squad
and XCOM in the long run.


>My own research method is less organized...

Each to their own, but be aware of the following;

Each species of alien has various ranks - technicians, squad leaders,
medics, navigators and commanders.  However, only Lobstermen, Gillmen,
Aquanoids and Tasoths will have all of the above.  In fact, its only the
Lobstermen which count in any real significance above all else.  Tasoths are
useful due to the MC tech, but I believe you can gain this tech by capturing
a live terrorist.  I can't rightly recall if this is true though, so correct
me if I am wrong.
    Therefore, it makes sense to capture live aliens and keep them for
interrogation.  I am now employing a tactic in which I actively kill any
unconscious soldiers of any race, due to a bug in the game which limits the
amount of live aliens you can keep, no matter how many containment pods you
build.  Even then, I am now monitoring how many of each rank I will keep of
each alien type, to cut down the chances of screwing up potential research
opportunities.
    As for corpses, once researched, ditch the lot of them, they serve no
useful purpose other than gaining a small sum on the open market.

>>Tech & building priorities...

>No poignant agreements or disagreements, except to say that I seldom build
>stuff solely to sell it.


Still, I would recommend building the Craft Gas Cannon as a means for
additional funds, if your research has met with a dead end for the time
being.  Those technicians can pay for themselves by building the CGC until
another research opportunity presents itself.  Heck, that additional cash
can't hurt :-)

>>Squad deployment...

>Ahh, tactics.  I LOVE discussing tactics...

>The following applies to "normal" deployments (shot down subs, etc).
>
>Remember my 8-man squads mentioned above?  The exit the Triton as follows,
>when possible.  First, I use the buddy system.  A two man team will usually
>save you if you run into any nasty surprises.  First pair out the door
(when
>possible) is a ReconNaut and a regular, headed for the right edge of the
>area at a dead run.  Second pair is the same, headed for the LEFT edge.
>IMPORTANT: the other four don't leave the sub yet; wait for the next turn.
>On the NEXT turn, the teams that left continue to their edges.  Meanwhile,
>back in the sub, pair up your remaining Nauts in Heavy/Regular teams (one
>each), then deploy them closer to the center of the map but still on either
>side.


Hmm... I have opted for a high reaction gunner and scout mix for now.  The
door opens and the first two nauts do a left and right scan.  Next, I send
out one square,the naut with the highest reaction rate.  If they can see
anything from this vantage point, they can do so on the spot, again looking
up and down from their position.  Next turn, provided they have not
attracted any fire/grenades, I send out a scout to the nearest available
cover, which _appears_ to offer the best protection.  This is repeated with
the next two operatives - high rate reaction and a scout.  The gunners
maintain position either side of the door, while the scouts head for
opposite directions, if viable.  This situation is maintained until I have a
decent view of the local area.  The nearest cover is located and secured
with my scouts, then my gunners move to that position.  Next I move my
'secondary/support' gunners into position around the entrance to the Triton.
Depending on any spot hidden movement during the early turns, I move my
troops to cover, while the scouts move ever outwards.  In the meantime, I
have up to two grenadiers lurking two squares away from the sub entrance,
just in case of spotting an alien which cannot be dealt with by direct fire,
or if my operatives miss during their turn.  If this is the case, the
grenadiers prime and lob the grenades in the area or as near to the hostile
as possible.  This appears to act as a deterent if not incurring any forseen
damage to the hostile.
    Even so, this plan has met with incidents when every attempt at taking
out hostiles has met with poor performance from my nauts and ended with
fatalities... Each mission is unique, but basic and common sense should be
applied during deployment - just remember a cluster of nauts means one
grenade...

>Secondly, if your squad comes under Molecular Control Attack, SCRAMBLE.

See my reply regarding a standard basic kit for nauts, especially those who
have been prone to MC attacks - PDG's are useful in this situation.  I now
sack any naut who comes under frequent MC attack, until I can establish
their stats with the MC lab.  Those who are weak go, irrespective of rank.


>
>>    Terror missions can be really painful during the early stages of the
>>game, especially if you are still using terran weapons.  These two part
>>missions can see you without ammo, and in a worse case scenario, having to
>>abandon the mission, due to no offensive capabilities.  Hence the Thermal
>>Tazer being standard issue.  It may mean you get some casualties, but
could
>>mean the difference between completing the mission or risk continued alien
>
>You go, boyo.  I usually avoid terror missions like the plague until I've
>developed alien weapon research as a minimum.  Then, when I'm on Stage 1 of
>a terror mission, I go out of my way to scrounge weaponry from dead aliens
>before proceeding to Stage 2.

>A NOTE ON TRAINING:


>In short, TRAFAC Nauts are expendable.  If they survive, you end up with
>better qualified replacements than simply hiring em brand new.  Of
>interesting note, I also station a HIGHLY qualified naut at each TRAFAC to
>act as a Training Officer.  I do this for the morale benefit; a veteran
naut
>on-the-scene with the rookies will help keep them from fleeing in fear the
>first time one gets a potshot fired at it.


    I like this idea and have used a similar but less focussed approach - I
am going to use this in my current game - Thanks for the idea!!!
>
>My other special facility is a MOLFAC

I understand your point, but does it not mean any _good_ nauts are out of
action for a month while in training?  Don't you miss the good nauts while
they are out of the picture???

End of response - further comments follow:

Excellent post, thanks a lot.  It's taught me to rethink my approach and I
am going to implement some of the ideas you mentioned.  Please keep adding
to the thread Cosmo, I've really enjoyed reading how you approach the game.

Thanks

Detonate