When you say your "base setup", do you only know the moves, with no real basis for why each move is played? I see this all the time with Jobava players, Veresov players, Barry Attack players, and London players. Those at the GM level of course understand these openings, but pee-ons do not. They close their eyes, play 1.d4, 2.Nc3, and 3.Bf4, with no rhyme or reason except to hope for Nb5 tricks.
What is the point of 2.Nc3? Is it to play 3.Bf4? No! White wants to control the center. The whole point, if given the opportunity, is to play e4! The Jobava, like the Classical or Stonewall Dutch, is actually a last resort. You only play it when Black has prevented e4, just like the Classical and Stonewall Dutch should only be played when 4...b6 and 5...Bb7 is prevented by an early Fianchetto by White. In the Jobava, Veresov, or Barry Attack, the only way to prevent e4 is to play both d5 and Nf6 in either order. So 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5 or 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Nc3 (INTENDING 4.e4) d5 and only now should White play 3.Bg5 to attack the Knight to try and get in e4 (3...Nbd7 is best here) or 3.Bf4/4.Bf4 based on the weakening of the diagonal created by ...d5.
I have had multiple amateur opponents play 1.d4 e6 2.Nc3?! (What for? The whole point is to play e4 anyway, if you are not going to play 2.c4 or 2.Nf3, you might as well play 2.e4 right away, and after 2...Bb4, 3.Bf4? Is just as useless. 3.e4 again is White's only route to an advantage. If you are unwilling to play a French, Caro-Kann, and Pirc as White, openings like the Jobava and Veresov are useless. Players that should be playing those openings are those that enjoy King Pawn openings Where Black allows you to play both pawns, and avoids 1.e4 e5 and 1.e4 c5, playing a QP opening against those players. For the record, 1.d4 e6 2.Nc3 Bb4 3.Bf4, Black should play 3...Nf6, and after say, 4.Qd3 and 5.a3, Black can take on c3, and if Qxc3, White must look out for ...Nd5, especially if he has already played e3, leading to a wrecked pawn structure after ...Nd5 and ...Nxf4 exf4.
I myself play the Trompowsky against 1...Nf6, the Staunton Gambit against 1...f5, the Neo-London (1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c3 and now 3...c5 4.dxc5 e6 5.Be3 or or 3...Bf5 4.Qb3! or 3...g6 4.Bg5 Bg7 5.Nbd2, which is now a Torre Attack by transposition, or 3...e6 and now 4.Bf4, playing a normal London where the main goal is to make the light-squared Bishop on c8 bad for the whole game) and then 1...e6 I play 2.e4, 1...g6 I play 2.e4, 1...d6 I play 2.e4 Nf6 3.f3 heading into a Saemisch Kings Indian or Old Indian, and 1...c6 2.c4 with an exchang3 Slav after 2...d5 3.cxd5 cxd5. So you see, there is no "base setup" because one understands the openings they are playing, not just making moves because they were told to play those moves no matter what. Don't just believe something like "If White plays 1.e4 and you play 1...e6 and White plays 2.d4 and you play 2...d5 and White plays 3.Nc3, just play 3...Bb4 because I said so! I hate repertoire books that only explain the opponent's various options and just tells you what to play. If they are going to give the winawer as their line, they need to explain the reasoning behind Black's moves. So mand of them just tell you "play this" with no explanation and only explain White's moves.
So back to your original question. Do you just parrot moves when you refef to your "base position", or you explain it in words, move by move, to someone who has never played the opening before? Like if it is the French Defense, could you explain to a Latvian Gambit player the strategic ideas and reasoning for the moves and plans for Black in either the Winawer or Classical/Steinitz depending on if you play 3...Bb4 or 3...Nf6? If you cannot explain your "base position" in words, your base position is useless. You must fully understand the reasoning behind the main moves to understand what to do when the opposing side plays an inferior move.
Case in point, I had the following over the board between 5 and 10 years ago:
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Ne2?!. Normal here is 5.Nf3 Nc6, attacking d4. But what about 5.Ne2? WHY is this move not played or recommended in books for White? It still covers d4. It allows f4 to bolster the center. White can fianchetto the Bishop. Why not 5.Ne2? In the Advance French, which White plays a lot of pawn moves early and lags in piece development, f4 is very dangerous for White. Black has a raging attack on the queenside. White surely does not want to castle there. If f4 is played and he castles kingside, there are tactics on e5 based on the pin of the pawn, and tactics on d4 where White may make the last capture, but it is with his Queen and ...Bc5 pins the queen to the king. So f4 is typically very bad. The LSB if it goes to g2 just bites on granite on d5. So with no f4 and no good development for White, we no longer attack d4, but rather, e5! So an early ...f6 is in the cards here. See how you have to understand and not just memorize the main lines in order to pick out the problems with other moves.
Hope this helps.
Hi there, beyond computer move memorization I have a general plan in each opening, but, depending on what villain does, I need to go away from it at times. It is easy to know to change plans when he has a clear attack, but, when it comes to more subtle positional differences I struggle. Are there any principals to follow which will help me know when to not use my "base setup"