How to bring the colonies out into the open again?

[Lightzy]

It's totally fine and good to mountain-base. It's preferrable to all other alternatives, with good reason, and should stay that way.
Because it's only possible on mountainous maps..

So... Unless you directly AIM for mountainbasing, cheat your way to it by manually selecting mountainous start in order to mountainbase, it's not gonna happen very often at all. And so the OP question doesn't make much sense to me.
Then again, it IS a post from 2014, about what is essentially A WHOLE DIFFERENT GAME, so... no worries.

Just random your maps.

[Varnhagen]

So... Unless you directly AIM for mountainbasing, cheat your way to it by manually selecting mountainous start

Thats's a pretty weird notion right there. To call using a game mechanic cheating is a weak argument at best.

Then again, it IS a post from 2014, about what is essentially A WHOLE DIFFERENT GAME, so... no worries.

The problem is, that it isn't a whole different game. It is exactly the same game, with some added mechanics. But most of these mechanics directly favour mountain-bases or at least don't hamper them as much as open colonies.

We've seen the addition of new events to which the only adequate response is: build a mountain-base.
Manhunters, toxic fallout, sieges, volcanic winter.
Only one event has been added that penalizes mountain bases and that can be partially averted (cool your base below -17 or scatter stuff around).
The trader nerf has made it pretty much irrelevant to exploit an outside bases benefits, growing cashcrops. During the time between traders you'll be visited by at least half a dozen raids to which the only response as an open colony would be to cut your wealth in order to restrict them in size. A killbox-mountain doesn't have that problem.

The core-problem has been identified in 2014 and nothing has changed since then. The game still favours mountain bases and it is by design. Due to poor design, players are restricted to a single way to win the game, thus the purpose of having a sandbpx is defeated.

Historically, building mountain dwellings or generally speaking mining, has had severe drawbacks. There are plenty of reasons why early human kind settled outside of caves once their numbers grew instead of expanding their caverns.

But the game doesn't implement any systems that would model the restraints and makes it too easy to mine in general. If mining required more time or a resource investment, progression for this game would be:

1. Build a makeshift camp during early game (outside)
2. Slowly grow into the mountain during mid-game.
3. Complete your kill-box in endgame.

As it stands right now, the game is heavily biased in favour of mountain bases which limits the vanilla gameplay.

[erdrik]

So... Unless you directly AIM for mountainbasing, cheat your way to it by manually selecting mountainous start

Thats's a pretty weird notion right there. To call using a game mechanic cheating is a weak argument at best.

^ This.
Random start is not the default/standard/only way to play.
If it was you wouldn't have the option to pick your start at all.

Picking your start is not cheating. It is an allowed playstyle choice.
And further, choosing to play on a mountain map does not mean you want to build a mountain base. It should be fully possible to build an open colony and just use the mountains as a source for mining.

[Kagemusha12]

...

We've seen the addition of new events to which the only adequate response is: build a mountain-base.
Manhunters, toxic fallout, sieges, volcanic winter.
....

Actually I have to disagree ...
a mountain base isn't necessary to combat these events.
Having your base in one or multiple buildings actually is enough.
(if in multiple buiildings, then ideally  connected via roofed walkways, to not be affected even a little bit by toxic fallout while moving between the buildings .. also, ideally with double walls in order to be better insulated against heat/cold)

The only real advantages of mountain bases are, that the parts directly under the mountain are protected from mortar fire. And that, by digging out rooms, you also have a chance for getting ores and stones (whereas a base in free terrain has to cover distances (to the next hill/mountain) in order to dig for steel (and digging for steel and building rooms are separate tasks)

[Darth Fool]

We've seen the addition of new events to which the only adequate response is: build a mountain-base.
Manhunters, toxic fallout, sieges, volcanic winter.

Of the above, Only Sieges require mountain bases.  All the others just require interior passageways. 

Personally, I would like to see the roof mechanic updated to make the decision more interesting.  For example, imagine if you had options for roofs, like, glass, which would allow for green houses, or solar panel roofs for power, turf roof for insulation, or reinforced concrete which would allow you to build bunkers.  Imagine if different wall/column material had different distances over which they could support, so roofs supported by wood or stone columns might only allow a 5x5 room, but plasteel would allow 12x12.  Then imagine that different roof materials might give penalties or bonuses.  So, a wood roof might give a +1 bonus to room size, whereas a concrete roof might be -3.  Imagine that your mine roofs with overhead mountain would need more support then empty air.  So, mountain bases would inherently need more columns to support the roofs.

[Varnhagen]

Actually I have to disagree ...
a mountain base isn't necessary to combat these events.
Having your base in one or multiple buildings actually is enough.
(if in multiple buiildings, then ideally  connected via roofed walkways, to not be affected even a little bit by toxic fallout while moving between the buildings .. also, ideally with double walls in order to be better insulated against heat/cold)

Building an antfarm (single-house base) or a fortress (multi-house, constructed pathways) isn't exactly that much distinct from building a mountainbase. The only difference is the lack of an overhead mountain, but functionally and gameplay-wise it is pretty much the same.

Let's go through the scenarios and the response for an open colony and a mountain-base.

Manhunter

• Mountain base: Forbid your single entrance door. Wait for traders to arrive. Pick up the loot. Effect: Free loot.
• Antfarm: Forbid your multiple or single entrance doors. Wait for traders to arrive. Pick up the loot. Effect: Free loot.
• Fortress: Forbid your single entrance door. Wait for traders to arrive. Pick up the loot. Effect: Free loot.
• Open multi-house Colony: Bunk all your pawns in the dining room. Get mood debuffs. Wait for pawns to break or manhunters to tire. Beat your colonists senseless or sally forth against the sleeping manhunters. Effect: Injuries. Debuffs. Possibly game loss.

Toxic Fallout

• Mountain base: Don't care. Effect: Don't care.
• Antfarm: Zone all pawns indoors that don't necessarily have to go out. Manage the outdoor times of the others. Effect: Don't care too much.
• Fortress: Zone all pawns indoors that don't necessarily have to go out. Manage the outdoor times of the others. Effect: Don't care too much.
• Open multi-house Colony: Rebuild your base into an antfarm or fortress. Micromanage all pawns' exposure times. Sow like crazy. Effect: Lose a lot of development time and most of your harvest.

Volcanic Winter

• Mountain base: Don't care. Base is climatized anyway. If not: Climatize your base. Effect: Lose a little development time.
• Antfarm: Don't care. Antfarm is climatized anyway. If not: Climatize your antfarm. Effect: Lose a little development time.
• Fortress: Don't care. Fortress is climatized anyway. If not: Climatize your fortress. Effect: Lose a little development time.
• Open multi-house Colony: Rebuild your base into an antfarm or fortress for ease of climatizing it. Alternatively have your pawns wear those parkas that were destined to be exported. Effect: Lose a lot of development time or part of your exports.

Siege

• Mountain base: Don't care. Forbid your single entrance. We don't want pawns wandering around. Effect: none.
• Antfarm: Care very much. Everything important is grouped together. So even a miss is a hit. Sally forth and build a mountain-base on the next map. Effect: Engage in a combat style you are unfamiliar with, exploit the AI or savescum. Learn for the future.
• Fortress: Care somewhat. There's a chance that some shells hit something important. Sally forth and build a mountain-base on the next map. Effect: Engage in a combat style you are unfamiliar with, exploit the AI or savescum. Learn for the future.
• Open multi-house Colony: Don't care too much. As long as my pawns aren't lumped together all should be well until morning light. Sally forth at your convenience, engage in a combat style you are familiar with, exploit the AI or savescum.

Since the game is more of a tower defense game, and less of a "colony simulator", all viable strategies point towards dwarfing. That's a pretty severe design flaw. Above mentioned events aren't balanced in any way and don't change anything for the viability of mountain-bases while having negative consequences for the settlement style actual humans have preferred for the last 10.000 years of known human history.

Additionally, this single-minded endgame invalidates most scenarios. Early game might differ, but once a player is established there are only three ways to reach the endgame: Dwarf on a mountain map, build an antfarm or fortress on open maps - all three of those strategies are functionally equivalent, thus limiting further the already limited scope of the vanilla experience that Tynan is actually developing.

[Kegereneku]

The arguments are quite exaggerated but Varnhagen have a point. Those events do urge you to bunker, which is sad when we know how much Tynan worked to eradicate killbox.
You can survive in a Village-type colony but the game will make you feel you are doing it wrong all the times.

If I were to suggest potential solution...
- "Manhunter" pack wouldn't rush to your base, they just wander around in much smaller pack, eating wildlife. Since they WANDER AWAY you can't just bait them into attacking your killbox, however you are encouraged to arms traps all around/inside your settlement.

- FALLOUT would also get inside rooms except those with costly electrical air-purifier (with a % efficiency so you can't build room indefinitely large), meaning that even a mountain-base would need a Safe-Room. The challenge change from "stay inside" to "invest in gas mask or one costly air-purifier"

- Volcanic Winter would make mountain-base colder, so it's an economic problem. Fortress and village would need less energy to heat up again.

- Siege... don't change actually. I would only make the AI much much harder to bait.

[Reviire]

Honestly, I'd say a pretty big buff to being outside, and a decent nerf to mountain bases would be to change the way mortars work. Don't make them indirect fire, make them direct fire. The projectiles should hit walls, pawns etc. Do quite a bit of damage to walls that it contacts.

What this will do, is both make outside bases stronger, because they can actually defend against a siege, but it will also make mountain bases weaker, because now they are vulnerable. A big enough siege with enough ammo would grind away your mountain.

Otherwise, all other events are fine imo. I don't mind dealing with volcanic winter, toxic fallout etc, my bases are usually Dwarf Fortress style anyway, outside or inside.

[b0rsuk]

I played far more open bases (separate houses) than any other base design. It's true that you mostly get the downsides and no upsides.

One thing you forgot it's drop pods. Open bases are very resistant to them because in worst case you're getting one house damaged, and if they drop on top of a colonist you order him to flee leaving door open or closed, your choice. If open your furniture won't get damaged. But again mountain base doesn't take any damage from that.

It's not true that volcanic winter is so nasty - in wooded biomes you can just cut trees and keep warm with campfires.

Toxic fallout is no longer so devastating for crops, especially devilstrand, because of the Roof Build Zone. You can build a couple of pillars and build roof around them. Walls are no longer necessary.

Fire - open base is very resistant, as long as you use stone. Mountain base, with no roof removal - not so much. You really want a firepopper in your hydroponics.

I also think "rebuilding the base as a fortress" is exaggerated. All you need is a single perimeter wall, and you can make it out of wood until you have more resources.

===============

Dirt - open bases are VERY DIRTY. Dirt is dragged everywhere, but mountain bases are super clean by default. Does it make sense  ?

Mountain bases recently got hit with a stick, but carrots for open bases are still missing. You can farm a lot of devilstrand, if it's warm enough. You can farm corn. That's it. Drop pods decay far too slowly to make a difference. What we need are events which reward open bases (especially in the middle of map) more than a mountain base in the corner. Here are some ideas:
- race for loot. Drop pods with weapons, medicine, simple prosthetics, bionics, helmets, armor vests, personal shields... but with a catch. A hostile faction was listening to radio transmissions or saw flames in the sky, they arrive to investigate. THEY SERVE AS A TIME LIMIT, if you don't get to the drop zone first they will get the loot instead.
- hungry predators attacking wounded people from escape pods. A mountain base would have less chance of saving a potentially good colonist.
- trees, mushrooms or other plants emiting mood improving spores. If you build your base near them, you get a benefit. If you build a termite mound base, they probably won't reproduce because of no free soil.
- passing traders. Traders which don't stop in your colony but you can trade with them if you're fast and not turtling too much.

[Blastoderm]

As long as there's a chance to randomly lose everything you struggled to build and created to the unbeatable horde nothing will force me to abandon mountain bases. Just because I value my time.
That's if I am simply playing for fun, not doing any challenges a-la DF "evil biome embarks" or "no-metal fortress"

[Reviire]

As long as there's a chance to randomly lose everything you struggled to build and created to the unbeatable horde nothing will force me to abandon mountain bases. Just because I value my time.
That's if I am simply playing for fun, not doing any challenges a-la DF "evil biome embarks" or "no-metal fortress"

Difference between this and DF though, is that in DF, above ground fortresses are completely viable. Just why would you when you're playing dorf fort?

[Lightzy]

So... Unless you directly AIM for mountainbasing, cheat your way to it by manually selecting mountainous start

Thats's a pretty weird notion right there. To call using a game mechanic cheating is a weak argument at best.

^ This.
Random start is not the default/standard/only way to play.
If it was you wouldn't have the option to pick your start at all.

Picking your start is not cheating. It is an allowed playstyle choice.
And further, choosing to play on a mountain map does not mean you want to build a mountain base. It should be fully possible to build an open colony and just use the mountains as a source for mining.

I'll help you figure it out.

If someone takes mountainous start with the intention of making a mountain base, then obviously that's cheesing one's way to the mountainbase.
he made sure he'll get a mountainbase (probably with an all-year growing period to go with it), even though he didn't have to.

If he does this, then there is no logic in also complaining that the mountainbase is too good and that it must be nerfed.
Nobody's forcing you but your own desire to "cheat" by creating the best conditions you can think of for yourself.

Myself, instead of cheesing it, play random.
So there's something for everybody. Those who want an easy game and those who want a harder game and those who want random.


Also, infestations weren't around back in 2014 I think.

[b0rsuk]

One thing that would help is less farmable soil in mountains. Countries like Greece aren't farming powerhouses, because rock can't support crops very well.

In Rimworld farmable soil starts pretty much right outside the mountain. It doesn't feel like you're sacrificing something by landing in mountains. You still have plenty of soil, because farming in Rimworld -still- doesn't use all that much soil. Even in the desert it doesn't feel like you're pressured to build hydroponics to get more soil.

Areas close to mountains should have less soil and that soil should be mostly gravel.

[Reviire]

One thing that would help is less farmable soil in mountains. Countries like Greece aren't farming powerhouses, because rock can't support crops very well.

In Rimworld farmable soil starts pretty much right outside the mountain. It doesn't feel like you're sacrificing something by landing in mountains. You still have plenty of soil, because farming in Rimworld -still- doesn't use all that much soil. Even in the desert it doesn't feel like you're pressured to build hydroponics to get more soil.

Areas close to mountains should have less soil and that soil should be mostly gravel.

That would be nice, but the issue is that building outside is a stupid idea, mainly because mortars are stupid, see what I suggested earlier

[erdrik]

...
I'll help you figure it out.

I didn't ask you to help figure anything out.
Because there is nothing to figure out.

Picking your start position is not cheating.
It is an allowed game play option.
It is a scenario.

If someone takes mountainous start with the intention of making a mountain base, then obviously that's cheesing one's way to the mountainbase.
he made sure he'll get a mountainbase (probably with an all-year growing period to go with it), even though he didn't have to.

If he does this, then there is no logic in also complaining that the mountain base is too good and that it must be nerfed.
Nobody's forcing you but your own desire to "cheat" by creating the best conditions you can think of for yourself.

Literally none of this makes any sense.

"he made sure he'll get a mountainbase" ?!?
Of course he did. That was the intent!
Thats not cheating. That is playing a scenario.
If the intent of the playthrough is to make a mountain base and you pick a random start, all you are doing is backing down from your intent.
The hell is the point of intending to build a mountain base then randomizing the start so that you could get no mountains?! If you don't get mountains then you either may as well start over until you roll mountains, or give up your intent.

Random Start is for playing the challenge of not knowing your start.

Myself, instead of cheesing it, play random.
So there's something for everybody. Those who want an easy game and those who want a harder game and those who want random.

Ah! Now I see.
You just want an excuse to say you are better than anyone who doesn't do things your way.