Turn-Based Tactics Phantom Doctrine - "tactical Cold War conspiracy thriller" by Hard West devs

[ERYFKRAD]

Story sucks. But you could LARP a secret agent.

Can I be a hot chick who bangs dudes for intel?

Close enough. You can bang them up then get the Intel.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Silva]

Got this yesterday on PS4.

I must say, 4 missions in and I'm impressed. The strategic map feels much more open and interactive than X-com. I realized this when I found out an enemy operation in a city nearby and, while my first instinct was to assault it, I noticed the options to "tail target" and "infiltrate cell" (which were greyed out as I didn't have some requisite for that), which means it's possible to manage your enemies to milk intel from them, right? If so, that's super cool and totally in-line with the spy stuff.

I can see how it will get repetitive soon, though the agent upgrades that increase movement distance, provide better support and more evac options seem to speed things up.

What's the Codex consensus on this game?

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Nutria]

I can see how it will get repetitive soon

Your instincts are correct. The strategic layer gets to be just a chore with more agents to run around more cities in real time. It's basically a clicker. Somehow Covert Action from 1990 remains the best game about actual spy stuff.

What's the Codex consensus on this game?

I found it to be mildly interesting for a while but not really pushing any boundaries or bringing anything new to the genre. I guess the big selling point was supposed to be the story, but it's just like some low-brow spy novel written for retards.

 

[Silva]

Your instincts are correct. The strategic layer gets to be just a chore with more agents to run around more cities in real time. It's basically a clicker. Somehow Covert Action from 1990 remains the best game about actual spy stuff.

Thanks for the feedback. Any tips for making the mid/late game more bearable? E.g: letting some enemy operations roll even if it means taking more danger, as to avoid doing missions repeatedly, etc?

And come on, I've played Covert Action and didn't find it all that good. I remember the mini-games (specially the infiltration one) became a chore really fast. Even Sid himself acknowledged this later in some interview. Both Pirates! and Sword of Samurai strike a more pleasant balance than Covert Action in regard to mini-games IMO.

Edit: Oh and on PS4 it says "project version 1.08", but I see the latest update on PC is 1.1. Am I missing much here?

 

[Nutria]

Sid Meier is such a fucking chad that he can't even remember all the classic games that he shit out that he didn't even care about. The thing about Covert Action that somebody needs to replicate in modern times is how there is a strategic-level mystery and what you do in the minigames gives you more clues to that mystery. But at the same time, that strategic level drives what missions you're doing at the tactical level and what choices you're making within it. At least if you're actually good at the game. I'd say it's very much like Sword of the Samurai in that respect, where there's minigames very well integrated into a larger game, but Covert Action has an engine for generating an infinite number of mysteries to solve that I've never seen anywhere else.

It didn't turn out perfect compared to the game before it (Railroad Tycoon) and the game after it (Civilization) since those two began entire genres of games, but like, what can you ask for these days.

 

[Galdred]

Actually, Sid Meier didn't like the way the game turned out:

Sid Meier was reportedly dissatisfied with the final product, because he believed that the disparate elements of the game, however good they were individually, detracted from game play. As a result, he developed what he called the "Covert Action Rule": "It's better to have one good game than two great games." He described the origins of this rule in an interview with GameSpot:

The mistake I think I made in Covert Action is actually having two games in there kind of competing with each other. There was kind of an action game where you break into a building and do all sorts of picking up clues and things like that, and then there was the story which involved a plot where you had to figure out who the mastermind was and the different roles and what cities they were in, and it was a kind of an involved mystery-type plot.

I think, individually, those each could have been good games. Together, they fought with each other. You would have this mystery that you were trying to solve, then you would be facing this action sequence, and you'd do this cool action thing, and you'd get on the building, and you'd say, "What was the mystery I was trying to solve?" Covert Action integrated a story and action poorly, because the action was actually too intense. In Pirates!, you would do a sword fight or a ship battle, and a minute or two later, you were kind of back on your way. In Covert Action, you'd spend ten minutes or so of real time in a mission, and by the time you got out of [the mission], you had no idea of what was going on in the world.

So I call it the "Covert Action Rule". Don't try to do too many games in one package. And that's actually done me a lot of good. You can look at the games I've done since Civilization, and there's always opportunities to throw in more stuff. When two units get together in Civilization and have a battle, why don't we drop out to a war game and spend ten minutes or so in duking out this battle? Well, the Covert Action Rule. Focus on what the game is.

 

[JarlFrank]

Actually, Sid Meier didn't like the way the game turned out:

Sid Meier was reportedly dissatisfied with the final product, because he believed that the disparate elements of the game, however good they were individually, detracted from game play. As a result, he developed what he called the "Covert Action Rule": "It's better to have one good game than two great games." He described the origins of this rule in an interview with GameSpot:

The mistake I think I made in Covert Action is actually having two games in there kind of competing with each other. There was kind of an action game where you break into a building and do all sorts of picking up clues and things like that, and then there was the story which involved a plot where you had to figure out who the mastermind was and the different roles and what cities they were in, and it was a kind of an involved mystery-type plot.

I think, individually, those each could have been good games. Together, they fought with each other. You would have this mystery that you were trying to solve, then you would be facing this action sequence, and you'd do this cool action thing, and you'd get on the building, and you'd say, "What was the mystery I was trying to solve?" Covert Action integrated a story and action poorly, because the action was actually too intense. In Pirates!, you would do a sword fight or a ship battle, and a minute or two later, you were kind of back on your way. In Covert Action, you'd spend ten minutes or so of real time in a mission, and by the time you got out of [the mission], you had no idea of what was going on in the world.

So I call it the "Covert Action Rule". Don't try to do too many games in one package. And that's actually done me a lot of good. You can look at the games I've done since Civilization, and there's always opportunities to throw in more stuff. When two units get together in Civilization and have a battle, why don't we drop out to a war game and spend ten minutes or so in duking out this battle? Well, the Covert Action Rule. Focus on what the game is.

So that's why Civilization never developed a good combat system

 

[Galdred]

So that's why Civilization never developed a good combat system

Yes and no! As a ton of wargames would tend to demonstrate(operational art of war, decisive campaign, World in Flames, Advanced Tactics, even lighter ones like Gary Grigsby's World at War), you can have a good combat system without stacking, and without a separate battle module.
Even Civ:Call to Power managed to build a semi interesting combat system in which flanking and support kind of meant something.

TOAW

Civ: Call to Power

 

[Silva]

Actually, Sid Meier didn't like the way the game turned out:

Thanks, that's the interview I remember.

The thing about Covert Action that somebody needs to replicate in modern times is how there is a strategic-level mystery and what you do in the minigames gives you more clues to that mystery [...] Covert Action has an engine for generating an infinite number of mysteries to solve that I've never seen anywhere else

Yeah, I agree here. CA was very good at this, while Phantom clue board system looks like just a gimmick. See also Floor 13 for a good investigation-driven gameplay.

But at the same time, that strategic level drives what missions you're doing at the tactical level and what choices you're making within it. At least if you're actually good at the game.

But this is also present in Phantom Doctrine. Things you do in the strat map drives what you do in tac map and vice-versa. This is what I cited before as something that makes the strat map gameplay more open and emergent than nuXcoms. Except if you mean the main storyline I guess?

I'd say it's very much like Sword of the Samurai in that respect, where there's minigames very well integrated into a larger game.

The problem with Covert Action is the action mini-game, which can take a super long time if you miss some clues or objectives (and you must check a bazillion drawers to look for them, while trying to avoid detection). It's not that bad, but as Sid says in the interview, it takes too long, gets repetitive and detracts from the overall experience. In comparison, Sword of the Samurai most boring mini-game were the army battles but even these were much faster and dumb-simple than Covert Action "action".

 

[Silva]

By the way, what agents assigned to "analytics" do again? I thought they did the clues linking for you that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[Nutria]

you can have a good combat system without stacking

You say this and then post an image from Operational Art of War demonstrating how the combat system works and that stacking is a huge part of it.

I totally agree though that you don't need to jump into a tactical minigame to have interesting tactical choices.

 

[Galdred]

you can have a good combat system without stacking

You say this and then post an image from Operational Art of War demonstrating how the combat system works and that stacking is a huge part of it.

I totally agree though that you don't need to jump into a tactical minigame to have interesting tactical choices.

My bad, I wanted to say that you can have a good combat system with stacking (and not 1 UPT) and without combat minigame.

 

[Silva]

I'm actually liking the current point in the campaign where the story depends on you going out, finding Intel and solving the clues board. I think it's chapter 2 or 3? Does this become the default from here on?

By the way, what agents assigned to "analytics" do again? I thought they did the clues linking for you that doesn't seem to be the case.

Btw, I was actually right about this - agents on the analytics board just link the clues together for you, sparing you the work if you want. Seems dumb at first, but if the amount of files and clues keep growing, the feature could be a good idea in late game. Who knows.

Also, the logic behind the types of trainings seem to be:
- Contacts Training give you better movement and miscellaneous skills
- Weapons Drills give you pure weapon proficiencies
- Urban Ops gives the midway between the above?

Overall though, the trainings and perks seem poorly thought out, with most abilities being too circumstantial (and thus useless). In practice it ends up being really old school where stats are what really matter. They should have taken some lessons from nuXcom with it's abilities that really change the battlefield.

The more I play the more it feels like a game with great ideas, but that needed six more months of development/playtest. Or a big expansion that improves it.

 

[razvedchiki]

its 8 euros in steam, worth it?

 

[Lhynn]

its 8 euros in steam, worth it?

Get troubleshooter instead, wombat is better and it feels a lot less repetitive.

 

[razvedchiki]

can you recruit as kgb soldiers from alpha group-spetznaz-ODON etc or are they generic ivans?

 

[Jimmious]

its 8 euros in steam, worth it?

Get troubleshooter instead, wombat is better and it feels a lot less repetitive.

This seems to have been "fully" released now... Is it good?

 

[Zombra]

I like Phantom Doctrine fine, certainly worth a few bucks. I only got about 5 hours into it before I found myself distracted by other games but if it was all I had I'd be happy to keep playing it.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Modron]

after studio imploded, who is earning money of it?

The publisher currently using their name to push shovelware on steam?

 

[Dickie]

The board game Kickstarter campaign is live. It seems like every video game gets a board game these days.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/galaktusgames/phantom-doctrine-espionage-board-game

 

[Zombra]

Blech. I would be happy to see the devs make some more $ off of this but I'm sure this is 100% the publisher.

 

[baud]

Blech. I would be happy to see the devs make some more $ off of this but I'm sure this is 100% the publisher.

Didn't the devs got closed since the release?

Edit: looking around, most of the original dev team has left, even if the company still exists and is developping a "sequel": https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads...by-hard-west-devs.117897/page-21#post-6033264