KickStarter Phoenix Point - the new game from X-COM creator Julian Gollop

[ArchAngel]

As i got this game on humblebundle i am debating starting a playthrough to see what its about. Recent user ratings seem to be rising.

Is the TFTV mod good for a first playthrough?

Should be if you keep the difficulty on Veteran and do not go above. It makes some things harder, some things easier than vanilla. But it fixes some abuses that people playing vanilla first might learn to rely on and then it might make TFTV seem harder to them.
But if you go into it first, you will never know about those things so you will just learn how to play properly.

Just note that TFTV is still being worked on and while updates should not break saves (but 1.0 version will) they do change some mechanics (like last bigger update changed how acid works and how counters to acid work).

What are the changes to Acid?

Base damage is nerfed a bit (by 10 for acid attack that did 30 damage and maybe even 20) but nanotech no longer reduces all special damage by 10 but it is now a consumable that removes all negative effects including acid.
Acid now does half damage to body parts once it has eaten through armor. There are Acid Vests now to equip on your dudes but you cannot equip them on Cybernetic body part (or any other vest). Technician AoE armor ability no longer prevents acid damage (this was #1 way to stop acid until now and it made it almost pointless once it ate through armor but if you didn't have Technician acid was super deadly).

Goal was to make acid harder to stop but make it less deadly vs our soldiers. It was big problem in end game and game didn't really have good tools for handling it. You were forced into Nanotech plus using Techs in all teams.

 

[Trithne]

Everything having one specific counter you had to have, and if you didn't have it then it would rip you a new one was a pretty consistent issue in Vanilla PP. The number tuning was also wack, pretty much every status effect was "cure it within a turn or you're fucked".

I really should look into forking TFTV and seeing if some of the changes I've thought of are viable to implement.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

That's not an issue with the aiming mechanic though. That's more of an issue of how character models interact with cover that runs contrary to how most modern tactical games use cover. If you think about it, PP's treatment of cover is closer to X-COM; the best way to not get shot is not to be seen. It is still nonetheless frustrating to see a triton sniper score a head shot against a trained soldier who should really have an animation to actually use high cover instead of just standing there.
There is an animation with low cover, at least; character models will crouch behind it, so ironically low cover actually is a little less annoying and probably more effective to use than high cover.

The aiming mechanic itself is fine and adds a fair bit of tactical flexibility to the game.

The reason it's related is because most games (including Xcom) determine cover using tiles, if your character is on the right tile, you're in cover, regardless of their animation. Because Phoenix Point decided to implement their "aim at enemies" mechanic, they had to instead use a system whereby cover is based purely on how visible you are. In a tileset based game, this is horrendous. Even in a "free movement" game like Warhammer 40k, this is horrendous.

So yes, this IS the aim mechanics fault. It has affected the rest of their game design, and it looks like it did so in a really bad way.

 

[ArchAngel]

That's not an issue with the aiming mechanic though. That's more of an issue of how character models interact with cover that runs contrary to how most modern tactical games use cover. If you think about it, PP's treatment of cover is closer to X-COM; the best way to not get shot is not to be seen. It is still nonetheless frustrating to see a triton sniper score a head shot against a trained soldier who should really have an animation to actually use high cover instead of just standing there.
There is an animation with low cover, at least; character models will crouch behind it, so ironically low cover actually is a little less annoying and probably more effective to use than high cover.

The aiming mechanic itself is fine and adds a fair bit of tactical flexibility to the game.

The reason it's related is because most games (including Xcom) determine cover using tiles, if your character is on the right tile, you're in cover, regardless of their animation. Because Phoenix Point decided to implement their "aim at enemies" mechanic, they had to instead use a system whereby cover is based purely on how visible you are. In a tileset based game, this is horrendous. Even in a "free movement" game like Warhammer 40k, this is horrendous.

So yes, this IS the aim mechanics fault. It has affected the rest of their game design, and it looks like it did so in a really bad way.

It is also the best mechanic it has and what has made it stand out from its worse competition like new Xcom games.

 

[Jaedar]

they had to instead use a system whereby cover is based purely on how visible you are. In a tileset based game, this is horrendous.

I disagree. Chance to hit being based on actual visibility is much better than "standing in this tile magically grants -30% hit chance".

It can be a bit annoying that you can't control your characters stance or their facing, but it's still really nice.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

That's not an issue with the aiming mechanic though. That's more of an issue of how character models interact with cover that runs contrary to how most modern tactical games use cover. If you think about it, PP's treatment of cover is closer to X-COM; the best way to not get shot is not to be seen. It is still nonetheless frustrating to see a triton sniper score a head shot against a trained soldier who should really have an animation to actually use high cover instead of just standing there.
There is an animation with low cover, at least; character models will crouch behind it, so ironically low cover actually is a little less annoying and probably more effective to use than high cover.

The aiming mechanic itself is fine and adds a fair bit of tactical flexibility to the game.

The reason it's related is because most games (including Xcom) determine cover using tiles, if your character is on the right tile, you're in cover, regardless of their animation. Because Phoenix Point decided to implement their "aim at enemies" mechanic, they had to instead use a system whereby cover is based purely on how visible you are. In a tileset based game, this is horrendous. Even in a "free movement" game like Warhammer 40k, this is horrendous.

So yes, this IS the aim mechanics fault. It has affected the rest of their game design, and it looks like it did so in a really bad way.

Which still has more to do with poorly implemented animations to cover this eventuality than an inherent fault with the aiming mechanic itself.
If the soldiers had proper animations where they actually used high cover, or even just an actual crouch, prone or change facing button (hell, even Phoenix Point's "cousin", UFO Afterblank does that, and that doesn't even have a cover system) then there wouldn't be that much of an issue.

 

[Raghar]

they had to instead use a system whereby cover is based purely on how visible you are. In a tileset based game, this is horrendous.

I disagree. Chance to hit being based on actual visibility is much better than "standing in this tile magically grants -30% hit chance".

It can be a bit annoying that you can't control your characters stance or their facing, but it's still really nice.

The problem is game developers needs to create animations to allow soldiers to use cover. Then suddenly -30 percent penalty to a hit chance changes to 0.4 percent hit chance.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

That's not an issue with the aiming mechanic though. That's more of an issue of how character models interact with cover that runs contrary to how most modern tactical games use cover. If you think about it, PP's treatment of cover is closer to X-COM; the best way to not get shot is not to be seen. It is still nonetheless frustrating to see a triton sniper score a head shot against a trained soldier who should really have an animation to actually use high cover instead of just standing there.
There is an animation with low cover, at least; character models will crouch behind it, so ironically low cover actually is a little less annoying and probably more effective to use than high cover.

The aiming mechanic itself is fine and adds a fair bit of tactical flexibility to the game.

The reason it's related is because most games (including Xcom) determine cover using tiles, if your character is on the right tile, you're in cover, regardless of their animation. Because Phoenix Point decided to implement their "aim at enemies" mechanic, they had to instead use a system whereby cover is based purely on how visible you are. In a tileset based game, this is horrendous. Even in a "free movement" game like Warhammer 40k, this is horrendous.

So yes, this IS the aim mechanics fault. It has affected the rest of their game design, and it looks like it did so in a really bad way.

Which still has more to do with poorly implemented animations to cover this eventuality than an inherent fault with the aiming mechanic itself.
If the soldiers had proper animations where they actually used high cover, or even just an actual crouch, prone or change facing button (hell, even Phoenix Point's "cousin", UFO Afterblank does that, and that doesn't even have a cover system) then there wouldn't be that much of an issue.

If standing behind high cover would completely make your character hide, then the only times you'd be able to shoot them anyway with free aim would be "cheap shots", making the aim mechanic pointless and frustrating for everyone involved.

You can't have it both ways. You can't complain that people won't go into cover but then propose a system where they DO actually cover themselves and then cover works properly, undermining the aim mechanic.

If a character can completely cover themselves visually, and I can free aim but I can't hit them (your version of Phoenix Point), or a character can't completely cover themselves visually, but is in a "cover square" and so I magically can't hit them (XCOM), what's the actual difference?

The aim mechanic seems like a frustrating gimmick at best. You still haven't given a good reason why it should exist, but plenty of reasons why it causes problems and makes everything worse.

So far this game sounds vastly inferior to nuXCOM in every way. Which is surprising given how far XCOM has fallen.

If you want a good alien hunting game, just play UFO: Enemy Unknown. Stop wasting time with all the modern shit. That game didn't even have a proper cover/flanking system and it worked fine.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

That's not an issue with the aiming mechanic though. That's more of an issue of how character models interact with cover that runs contrary to how most modern tactical games use cover. If you think about it, PP's treatment of cover is closer to X-COM; the best way to not get shot is not to be seen. It is still nonetheless frustrating to see a triton sniper score a head shot against a trained soldier who should really have an animation to actually use high cover instead of just standing there.
There is an animation with low cover, at least; character models will crouch behind it, so ironically low cover actually is a little less annoying and probably more effective to use than high cover.

The aiming mechanic itself is fine and adds a fair bit of tactical flexibility to the game.

The reason it's related is because most games (including Xcom) determine cover using tiles, if your character is on the right tile, you're in cover, regardless of their animation. Because Phoenix Point decided to implement their "aim at enemies" mechanic, they had to instead use a system whereby cover is based purely on how visible you are. In a tileset based game, this is horrendous. Even in a "free movement" game like Warhammer 40k, this is horrendous.

So yes, this IS the aim mechanics fault. It has affected the rest of their game design, and it looks like it did so in a really bad way.

Which still has more to do with poorly implemented animations to cover this eventuality than an inherent fault with the aiming mechanic itself.
If the soldiers had proper animations where they actually used high cover, or even just an actual crouch, prone or change facing button (hell, even Phoenix Point's "cousin", UFO Afterblank does that, and that doesn't even have a cover system) then there wouldn't be that much of an issue.

If standing behind high cover would completely make your character hide, then the only times you'd be able to shoot them anyway with free aim would be "cheap shots", making the aim mechanic pointless and frustrating for everyone involved.

You can't have it both ways. You can't complain that people won't go into cover but then propose a system where they DO actually cover themselves and then cover works properly, undermining the aim mechanic.

If a character can completely cover themselves visually, and I can free aim but I can't hit them (your version of Phoenix Point), or a character can't completely cover themselves visually, but is in a "cover square" and so I magically can't hit them (XCOM), what's the actual difference?

The aim mechanic seems like a frustrating gimmick at best. You still haven't given a good reason why it should exist, but plenty of reasons why it causes problems and makes everything worse.

So far this game sounds vastly inferior to nuXCOM in every way. Which is surprising given how far XCOM has fallen.

If you want a good alien hunting game, just play UFO: Enemy Unknown. Stop wasting time with all the modern shit. That game didn't even have a proper cover/flanking system and it worked fine.

Lot of these problems could be solved with stance system, like the one that Project Haven has.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

Lot of these problems could be solved with stance system, like the one that Project Haven has.

You mean like UFO: Enemy Unknown's stance system?

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Lot of these problems could be solved with stance system, like the one that Project Haven has.

You mean like UFO: Enemy Unknown's stance system?

What Project Haven offers is more granular with possibility to lean for example.

 

[SomeGuyWithAnOpinion]

What Project Haven offers is more granular with possibility to lean for example.

Sounds based

 

[Jaedar]

The aim mechanic seems like a frustrating gimmick at best. You still haven't given a good reason why it should exist, but plenty of reasons why it causes problems and makes everything worse.

First of all, the aim mechanic enables proper bullet physics and projectile scattering in a way that respects all obstacles between you and your opponent (instead of picking worst obstruction as in xenonauts, and just the one right in front of you as in firaxcom) in a way that is not only fair but also intuitive since you are seeing the environment from the correct perspective (unlike original xcom, which I think had mostly correct scatter and bullet physics). This is great simulationism and for a game that is trying to lean on the legacy of x-com it is sufficient reason for inclusion.

Building on top of that, each enemy has multiple hit zones, with different armor values, hp and effect when crippled. This adds tactical depth as for each enemy you have to look at them, look at the situation and make a plan for how to kill them in the best way. At the start "apply gun to body part of your choice" is sufficient, but against the highly evolved enemies you better bring a plan or your bullets will just plink uselessly against their armor. This is what elevates the aiming from "worthy inclusion" to "best part of the game" and I would argue even further to "imagine the egg on your face if you make a 3d xcomlike in the future and don't plagiarise this part".

The "aim mechanic" is the one and only part PP actually nails, if you don't like it then I would honestly recommend you refund the game and play something else.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

The aim mechanic seems like a frustrating gimmick at best. You still haven't given a good reason why it should exist, but plenty of reasons why it causes problems and makes everything worse.

I have literally only given one downside and as I explained, that's more due to the game missing stance options.

The aim mechanic provides actual ballistics rather than just a roll of a die. If you are right infront of an enemy, you will hit it. None of that point blank missing shit in FiraXcom where your soldier just jerks his gun over to the side when its literally clipping into the alien.

It provides a lot of tactical options.
Remember that PP also has hidden enemy stealth mechanics, so if you know approximately where the enemy is you can go free aim and try to hit a hidden enemy.
If you end up fighting an enemy that has really high armour, you can go for the gun instead and disarm him.
Many Pandorans have special abilties linked to their body parts. Destroying said body party disables that ability and makes fighting them so much easier.

Perhaps you should try using the aim mechanic first before writing it off.

If standing behind high cover would completely make your character hide, then the only times you'd be able to shoot them anyway with free aim would be "cheap shots", making the aim mechanic pointless and frustrating for everyone involved.

Or you could, I dunno, move and flank the enemy. Because you know, this a tactics game.
Explosives also remove cover, you can destroy cover with weapons using free aim (like in x-com) and some weapons just outright pierce cover (which again, uses Free Aim.)

This isn't like FiraXcom where you can't actually flank because of that silly pod system. You can actually move in this game and soldier movement will be interrupted if they see an enemy.
You know, like in x-com.

 

[Galdred]

What is the recommended research path in TftV?
I am not sure going at it randomly is really sound.
Should I focus on allied research (I have good relations with Jericho, and got gauss gun, Jericho armor, and Jericho flyer), cybernetics, or some alien research/autopsy early on?

The aim mechanic seems like a frustrating gimmick at best. You still haven't given a good reason why it should exist, but plenty of reasons why it causes problems and makes everything worse.

First of all, the aim mechanic enables proper bullet physics and projectile scattering in a way that respects all obstacles between you and your opponent (instead of picking worst obstruction as in xenonauts, and just the one right in front of you as in firaxcom) in a way that is not only fair but also intuitive since you are seeing the environment from the correct perspective (unlike original xcom, which I think had mostly correct scatter and bullet physics). This is great simulationism and for a game that is trying to lean on the legacy of x-com it is sufficient reason for inclusion.

Building on top of that, each enemy has multiple hit zones, with different armor values, hp and effect when crippled. This adds tactical depth as for each enemy you have to look at them, look at the situation and make a plan for how to kill them in the best way. At the start "apply gun to body part of your choice" is sufficient, but against the highly evolved enemies you better bring a plan or your bullets will just plink uselessly against their armor. This is what elevates the aiming from "worthy inclusion" to "best part of the game" and I would argue even further to "imagine the egg on your face if you make a 3d xcomlike in the future and don't plagiarise this part".

The "aim mechanic" is the one and only part PP actually nails, if you don't like it then I would honestly recommend you refund the game and play something else.

I'm still not convinced that a mere tree branch should intercept the gauss bullet between me and my target. Sometimes, it is a bit frustrating that going a few centimeters higher for the shooter would remove 90% of the obstruction. Maybe it would have worked better with limited repositioning within the tile.

Anyway, for me, what makes the game better than its competitors is that it doesn't rely on pods. All battles feel like real battles with enemy forces attacking from several directions at once, instead of a sequence of mini firefights.

 

[ArchAngel]

What is the recommended research path in TftV?
I am not sure going at it randomly is really sound.
Should I focus on allied research (I have good relations with Jericho, and got gauss gun, Jericho armor, and Jericho flyer), cybernetics, or some alien research/autopsy early on?

The aim mechanic seems like a frustrating gimmick at best. You still haven't given a good reason why it should exist, but plenty of reasons why it causes problems and makes everything worse.

First of all, the aim mechanic enables proper bullet physics and projectile scattering in a way that respects all obstacles between you and your opponent (instead of picking worst obstruction as in xenonauts, and just the one right in front of you as in firaxcom) in a way that is not only fair but also intuitive since you are seeing the environment from the correct perspective (unlike original xcom, which I think had mostly correct scatter and bullet physics). This is great simulationism and for a game that is trying to lean on the legacy of x-com it is sufficient reason for inclusion.

Building on top of that, each enemy has multiple hit zones, with different armor values, hp and effect when crippled. This adds tactical depth as for each enemy you have to look at them, look at the situation and make a plan for how to kill them in the best way. At the start "apply gun to body part of your choice" is sufficient, but against the highly evolved enemies you better bring a plan or your bullets will just plink uselessly against their armor. This is what elevates the aiming from "worthy inclusion" to "best part of the game" and I would argue even further to "imagine the egg on your face if you make a 3d xcomlike in the future and don't plagiarise this part".

The "aim mechanic" is the one and only part PP actually nails, if you don't like it then I would honestly recommend you refund the game and play something else.

I'm still not convinced that a mere tree branch should intercept the gauss bullet between me and my target. Sometimes, it is a bit frustrating that going a few centimeters higher for the shooter would remove 90% of the obstruction. Maybe it would have worked better with limited repositioning within the tile.

Anyway, for me, what makes the game better than its competitors is that it doesn't rely on pods. All battles feel like real battles with enemy forces attacking from several directions at once, instead of a sequence of mini firefights.

Unfortunately not everything is destructible and things that could be destroyable by less explosive weapons (non walls) are exactly those non destructable parts of the map.

As for your research question, I always research Grenade launchers ASAP as they make early combat much easier. After that it is about what you want to have in your team. If you got lots of money you can get a soldiers from friendly Haven, take their weapons and reverse engineer the weapon and then whole class tech. Do that with Technicians if you are not doing well diplomatically with NJ.

 

[Galdred]

Unfortunately not everything is destructible and things that could be destroyable by less explosive weapons (non walls) are exactly those non destructable parts of the map.

That's a big shame. It worked better in OG X-COM and NuXCOM (except for the lack of free targetting)

As for your research question, I always research Grenade launchers ASAP as they make early combat much easier. After that it is about what you want to have in your team. If you got lots of money you can get a soldiers from friendly Haven, take their weapons and reverse engineer the weapon and then whole class tech. Do that with Technicians if you are not doing well diplomatically with NJ.

NJ are my BFF, and the other two are borderline hostile. I didn't know I could reverse engineer class tech, thank you!

When should I start the legacy of the ancients missions? Are they doable with just base classes and grenade launchers/low tech gauss weapons?

 

[ArchAngel]

Unfortunately not everything is destructible and things that could be destroyable by less explosive weapons (non walls) are exactly those non destructable parts of the map.

That's a big shame. It worked better in OG X-COM and NuXCOM (except for the lack of free targetting)

As for your research question, I always research Grenade launchers ASAP as they make early combat much easier. After that it is about what you want to have in your team. If you got lots of money you can get a soldiers from friendly Haven, take their weapons and reverse engineer the weapon and then whole class tech. Do that with Technicians if you are not doing well diplomatically with NJ.

NJ are my BFF, and the other two are borderline hostile. I didn't know I could reverse engineer class tech, thank you!

When should I start the legacy of the ancients missions? Are they doable with just base classes and grenade launchers/low tech gauss weapons?

I have yet to try latest version Ancients mission, they are supposedly harder now. Be sure to bring 8 guys into the mission.

 

[Galdred]

Is an APC ever worth its 3 slots in these situations?

 

[ArchAngel]

Is an APC ever worth its 3 slots in these situations?

It very worth it for certain missions. I use it when exploring because new Ambush missions are nasty and you REALLY want a vehicle for those. 2nd is any kind of resource gathering missions. 3rd is story missions for Egg or Delirium.
They can also be useful for some other story missions. They are not that useful for pandoran bases missions or tough Haven Defense ones (High or more difficulty). Also later enemy power overtakes vehicle upgrades so always better to use 3 high level, well equipped soldiers instead.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

They are decent for Citadels. Not so much for Lairs because they can't move through them for some silly reason and in nests it really depends.
Flame armadillo is pretty fun as you can block off choke points with fire. Scarab missile launchers are useless because it keeps hitting the cave roof.

 

[Galdred]

I find the game more unforgiving than even the nu XCOMs, in that losing a soldier is catastrophic in terms of resources early on (and in terms of XP), to the point that I gave up on playing ironman (I suppose I could lower difficulty instead).

Having several squads flying around is a pausing/micromanagement nightmare, but I like you being more proactive than in nuXCOM.

I was about to tech shotguns, but then looted an Anu shotgun during a mission(overrun). Should I just reverse engineer their shotgun?
It looks like I need to focus on researching farms, as I can barely cover the cost of ammunitions, now.

I haven't dual classed any of my guys yet, waiting for advanced classes, but the only one I can research is technician. Which classes/roles should I dual class into this one? Heavies?

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Yes, always reverse engineer when you can. It speeds up your research.

Dual classing basic classes is fine. Sniper Assaults are pretty good.

 

[Trithne]

I haven't dual classed any of my guys yet, waiting for advanced classes, but the only one I can research is technician. Which classes/roles should I dual class into this one? Heavies?

Honestly, some of the strongest and most useful combinations are just dual-classing the base 3 together.

 

[ArchAngel]

I find the game more unforgiving than even the nu XCOMs, in that losing a soldier is catastrophic in terms of resources early on (and in terms of XP), to the point that I gave up on playing ironman (I suppose I could lower difficulty instead).

Having several squads flying around is a pausing/micromanagement nightmare, but I like you being more proactive than in nuXCOM.

I was about to tech shotguns, but then looted an Anu shotgun during a mission(overrun). Should I just reverse engineer their shotgun?
It looks like I need to focus on researching farms, as I can barely cover the cost of ammunitions, now.

I haven't dual classed any of my guys yet, waiting for advanced classes, but the only one I can research is technician. Which classes/roles should I dual class into this one? Heavies?

Losing soldiers super early (first 7 days) can slow you down but you can start making Scarab from the start (as soon as you can afford one) and I suggest you make one. It is certainly worth 3 soldier slots it takes this early in the game (if you make it to March I would suggest you stop using it unless you are desperate). Also all XP it gets from killing enemies go to other members of its squad so they level up fast.

Be sure to have in options turned OFF that game does not auto-unpause (or maybe you need to turn ON autopause) when managing multiple aircraft, it makes it much better.

Reverse Engineering is often useful if you know what you are doing. In this case, Anu Shotgun does more damage vs lower armor enemies but has a bit lower range (you are to use it at point blank vs weak armored body parts for maximum effect), but PP shotgun has better range and better damage vs armor. So the answer is that you should RE when it is useful, and you can learn that only by playing the game.

Dual classing is very costly and you should not do it before having access to lvl 7 skills of your first class + decent investment into its strenght and willpoints as well (so you do not die to one shots and are not easily panicked or mind controlled). Dual classing is another of the things that should be learned by playing and experimenting. If you do not have a plan on what you want to achieve you can easily spend points and get not much for it.
And TFTV makes it even more so because your 2nd row of skills have 2 skills that are specific for your 1st class and your 2nd class will only unlock its 1st row of skills. And 2nd row has some powerful skills like Boom Blast , double overwatch shot and such.