Talk:Base Facilities (EU)

I am not certain about this, because it's been a while... I believe Alien Containment also falls in the group of structures that are useless beyond one per base. You can have as many live aliens as you like, as long as you don't have more than ten different types in each base. (Type: Each alien species+their job description.)

You can have more than 10+ live sectoid soldiers in one base, and it would only take up one space in the containment-area.But if you then capture (as examples) a gillman soldier, or sectoid engineer, either of these would take up an extra spot in the containment.

Building more containment in the same base does not increase the ten-type limit. Can anyone else check?

---

Something else to check, I may look into it further at some point but I really want to finish the month I am playing at some point soon, is that maintenance is messed up, you pay vastly different maintenance on some of the facilities compared to what it says you should, and you dont even pay the same amount for second copies of the same type (and the third and so on seem to vary sometimes). To save me repeating it here, i started mentioning on Talk:UFO_Interception (which is getting somewhat offtopic...)

--Sfnhltb 17:09, 28 February 2007 (PST)

One early thing I think I have established is that it is not what number of facility that varies the cost for the same type of facility, but where it is located. A Hangar in the bottom right/left corners costs 10k, in the top middle it costs 4k.

Lift in starter position (3,3, in x,y format - this is like in initial base) = 30k. Top left corner (1,1) 4k, top right (6,1) 4k, bottom right (6,6) 15k, bottom left (1,6) 15k, (4,4) 35k.

To try to detect a pattern I filled a base with 35 Large Radars (very useful!) + 1 lift, and the cost came to 624k, which is 30k for the lift (in the position I put it), and the pattern was like this:

	C1	C2	C3	C4	C5	C6
R1	4	4	4	4	4	4
R2	10	10	10	10	10	10
R3	30	30	Lift	30	30	30
R4	35	35	35	35	35	35
R5	10	10	10	10	10	10
R6	15	15	15	15	15	15

Which leads to the obvious conclusion - the programmers messed up, and when the routine that works out maintance checks through all the facilities you have on a site, instead of passing in the code that says what type of facility it is, (00 being lift (in BASE.DAT) for 4k, 05 being actually the large radar for 15k, for example), it passes in the row number of the facility (0 based array/variable clearly). So anything built on the top row costs 4k maintaince (pretends its a lift), second row 10k (like the living quarters), etc exactly as show above - regardless of the type of facility. Hangars are slightly different in that you pay for one of the top left or top right corners (probably the top left) and the rest dont get paid for.

Convenience supplement from BASE.DAT. Also notice that the in-game UFOpedia also lists them in this order; the BASE.DAT order:

Record  Facility           Maintenance
  00    Access Lift            4k
  01    Living Quarters       10k
  02    Laboratory            30k
  03    Workshop              35k
  04    Small Radar System    10k
  05    Large Radar System    15k

I might switch my base to have the hangars at the bottom, so the lift goes on 35 square, and the rest of the base on the top 3 rows, consider a full base 3 hangars, then a lift (in whatever place left to right you prefer), then 18 various stuff.

If you do it hangars on the bottom they cost 3*10, the lift 35, and the rest is 30*6 + 10*6 + 4*6, for a total of 329, i.e. the below base is 329k per month (replace all the Psi with whatever you like, its irrelevant)

Do it hangars on top for 3*4+ 1*30+ 6*35+10*6+15*6 which is a total of 412, so the follow is 83k more expensive, despite having precisely the same elements:

--Sfnhltb 18:50, 28 February 2007 (PST)

Added the details of this bug in several key places, not going to bother go through every type of facility to add a note that the stat on maintenance cost on all of them is irrelevant to the game.

--Sfnhltb 19:21, 28 February 2007 (PST)

Removed these comments from main page as it is answered already:

• What happens to equipment, vehicles and staff when facilities are destroyed - Help
  • From what I think I've read else where in here, none of the equipment, staff etc are lost due to the loss of facilities... found it - here: Base Facilities -Phoenix 03 April 2006 12:15 (BST)

--Sfnhltb 19:37, 28 February 2007 (PST)

Very interesting discovery, Sf. Thankfully it's not a very impactful bug, as facility maintenance is cheap anyway -- maybe that's why it went undiscovered so long.--Ethereal Cereal 21:44, 28 February 2007 (PST)

Well, at a certain point in the game it might be useful to known - if you are building 5-6 listening post/interceptor bases using the following pattern:

The bases maintenance would be 20k each, or 100-120k/month for all of them. If you happened to build them all with this pattern:

This variant would be 175k each, or 875-1050k/month for the lot.

Towards 1 million a month at the expansion stage of the game could have a fair impact on your progress, it wont cripple you, but it will slow you down some.

Of course thats pretty much as extreme as it can get on the unevenness - because you are filling either all the cheapest squares, or all the most expensive, and it would be rare for anyone to happen to build like that.

--Sfnhltb 23:54, 28 February 2007 (PST)

---

Amazing to think nobody noticed this for going on 12 years. Good work! - MikeTheRed 19:28, 1 March 2007 (PST)

Heh, submitting bug reports for a game that hasn't been updated in 12 years. We're total loonies. ;-)--Ethereal Cereal 21:55, 1 March 2007 (PST)

Hiya Eth, ltnt. I hope all's been well with ya? I see both of you saw how little impact this had, before I did. Still it's cool to know there are secrets right there, if only we saw them. Ok, tiny ones. And we're nerds, laugh. - MikeTheRed 22:01, 1 March 2007 (PST)

Yep, I've been well. I stopped editing the paedia for a while because it contained nearly all the info I wanted (if in a somewhat jumbled fashion). Plus of course I stopped playing the game too. Lately I've been thinking about starting a new game and limiting myself to one psi-amp per squad, and not exploiting manufacturing for cash. Both detract from the real fun: killing aliens the hard way.

The economics of the game became evident to me very early on. Maintenance costs are a pittance, bug or no (except for salaries, oy!); UFO recovery is a bloody mint; and after a few months, you have so many UFOs to loot, you'll have more cash than things to spend it on.--Ethereal Cereal 22:21, 1 March 2007 (PST)

To think all this time I carefully debated building facilities based on maintenance early in the game (especially HWDs and labs). I suppose this also explains the 'completed' dirt modules problem. The code just cares if a facility is completed and what row it's on, not the type. Now I'm going to assume that the Monthly Costs screen shows what 'should' be the costs. Just seems funny they could get that right, but not the actual amount of money to deduct from the player.

Somewhat related, are craft rental costs correctly subtracted?

--Pi Masta 14:28, 2 March 2007 (PST)

Ok, bit of egg on face here, it seems I messed up. The problem is I thought I had run into a bug. I was wrong, I had simultaneously ran into two bugs and combined them together and created a phantom third bug that does not exist.

Thats right, all that I explained above is not a bug. Well it is - but it only effects the listed base maintenance costs on the Monthly costs page. So wait, was this all about that one screen being wrong? No, you see I did actually roll over a month to check, and the numbers all matched up. I didnt bother trying another case of rolling over the month because everything else checked out i.e. when I removed each facility and went to monthly costs it matched up, and so when the monthly costs and my other costs matched up in the first case, and I had already done loads of checking to see that the scoring of the rows all matched up, I wrote it all up here. By pure chance the differential between my eight bases costs according to UFOpedia and the way the base maintenance is calculated in Monthly costs was 320k.

Lets also note that in that saved game I had remodelled the starter base by moving over the two hangars to the top row. I had rebuilt over 3 of these squares, and in the month leading up to when I did the test I had started an extra Psi Lab also over one of them, although it would not complete until a week into the following month.

That coincidentally left 4 squares of ex-Hangar space. 4 * 80k happens to also be 320k. Doh!

Well I think I have fixed up most of the pages affected anyway, and instead of 1 known bug, now we have two...I think some people have mentioned the dirt payments issue, but no one had quantized it or nailed it down - and I certainly didnt see it suggested it does this for any square you remove a facility from, just ones that were in production and cancelled.

Note that moving the Hangars over costs you 640k a month until you recover all 8 squares of it with new facilities. Thats a pretty hefty price to pay early in the game. I think hex editting FF over all the build times under the dirt would probably fix the issue for a given instance, but havent checked it out yet. Will do so next.

--Sfnhltb 18:47, 2 March 2007 (PST)

Now it's an impactful bug. ;-) Man, 640k/mo (720k if you dismantle the initial quarters too) is quite harsh early on. I don't see much of any way around it if you want to "harden" the initial base. Although you can delay paying it until March, given you're almost into February by the time you build the new hangars.--Ethereal Cereal 21:26, 2 March 2007 (PST)

I hate to say 'I told ya so', but... well I did in Talk:UFO Interception ;-)

"No what's happening is that there are completed 'empty' modules. When you dismantle a facility it doesn't set the days to build to 255 like it should, and instead just puts the dirt tile there. Apparently these completed dirt modules take monthly maintenance (but isn't shown in the monthly costs IIRC)...."

Oh well, we all make mistakes, good thing is you're willing to admit them. You're right that no one nailed down the price though. Maybe we should remove all of this from the talk page as it's no longer relevant? (I'd do it myself, but I don't want to seem like I'm angry or malicious)

Keep up the great hacking :D --Pi Masta 10:31, 3 March 2007 (PST)

Yep, great hacking. All's well that ends well. It's a display bug - that nobody cares about - except for squares that previously held something. Looks like you've made pointers so everybody should know about it. Like Pi says, thanks for the great hacking! And all this talk can be DEL'd - MikeTheRed 18:57, 9 March 2007 (PST)

---

Nice table Arrow, thanks. -MikeTheRed 21:08, 21 June 2007 (PDT)

Thanks for the compliment, it's not a problem. I meant to say this last time, it's nice to meet you too. Arrow Quivershaft 21:10, 21 June 2007 (PDT)

---

If you use the following layout, the base maintenance costs should be 239k/month (6*4+3*10+1*35+6*10+6*15).

As long as you keep your living quarters and general stores in the lower part of the base, there should be no base defence issues.

AFAIK the alien's only mission during a base assault is to eliminate all your troops, therefore the only facilities that need to have a chokepoint to the base access points are living quarters and general stores (if all the other facilities are away from the fighting, so much the better, it avoids accidental facility destruction). I've never seen the aliens intentionally attempt to vandalise any of my facilities during an assault, so there's no reason to deny them to the alien assault other than roleplay.

--Lobosolitario 02:32, 10 July 2008 (PDT)