Ahhh the units in this game have no fear of dying. And skipped the first lesson you get as a soldier. Now i get it. Makes sense. Because the guy is unrealistic, his actions have to be that too. Real unrealism in every detail. I didn’t see the whole picture.
Only if they are a tile from the edge. Otherwise, there is almost always a body part showing.
“sincere apology” going out of control, I love this forum 
2 Likes
My point is that Phoenix Point is not a military sim. What it does is simulate real (not necessarily realistic) ballistics. Which is one of the things that differentiate it from Firaxis XCom.
I wouldn’t use terms like “ahead” or “behind” when describing the relationship between Firaxis XCom and Phoenix Point. The latter does have far more complex base mechanics when it comes to everything from detection, damage and time units. It also has some novel features like the ballistics, the willpower mechanic, the sandbox approach to classes.
1 Like
The fact they don’t “hug the wall” is valid. “High cover” in PP is just not an effective form of protection in the way “full cover” is in FIRAXCOM because the distance they stand away from the wall means it’s still easy to acquire the soldiers from any kind of an angle.
In PP you are better off standing behind half-cover so your soldier ducks down.
Oh it was actually Omenomaho who said multiple times that PP is so far ahead of other games.
I don’t know how we caught discussing.
But now I have a question for you as well, what is so complex about PP base mechanics?
Thank you! This guy actually sees the monkey!
That is not true at all.
First, they do “hug the wall” mostly. The picture above is one of the seldom exceptions because the “wall” is not plane. Put a soldier on a plain wall and you see him “hugging” and this has for sure an effect for the enemies that can target this soldier.
Second, any cover has an affect but it is true that there is no fix number for this effect. For me that is logical because of the aim system in PP. So called “full cover” gives you the most possible cover to enemies that are in front of you and this cover is very dependent on the angle the shooter has to you.
Compared to full cover in Firaxis (without second wave):
angle > 90° = -40% accuracy on aim
angle <= 90° = 0 cover
For me personally one of the simplest and stupids RNG-based-systems ever.
But this is only my personal opinion and when someone think I would not “see the monkey”, well, OK, only his personal opinion.
1 Like
@MadSkunky Give me a screenshot of a unit in PP that is seriously hiding behind cover. As cardoardMike mentioned: Half cover is actually better than full cover
No, not now because i’m downloading a big GB-package since some hours (bad internet, I know).
Put a soldier on a plain wall and another soldier that stand direct in front of him some tiles away and try to target him.
Even in the picture above you can’t disagree that any enemy in direct line on the other side of the wall has a very low chance to hit this soldier. And again, yes, this chance gets bigger dependent of the angle of the shooter.
If he would only “crouch” behind low cover almost any enemy independent of the angle has a higher chance to hit his head and for this low cover is not always better.
I like exactly that behavior.
Actually, in PP you can take full cover behind a wall (dunno whether you’re hugging it or not, cos I’ve never bothered to check).
What you do is stand 1 step back from the corner - a bit like that first photo in your ‘this is hugging the wall’ example. At that point, nothing can see you, so nothing can directly shoot at you. You are in completely full cover.
Now the advantage that PP has over the XCOMs is that the AP system allows you to step up to the corner of said wall, take a shot, then step back again, resuming full cover. [I’ll admit that stepping out into Return Fire is a bone of contention, but that’s for another post]
It’s a common misconception amongst XCOM players that PP ‘High Cover’ = XCOM ‘Full Cover’. It doesn’t and it was never intended to. I’ll concede that they shot themselves in the foot by using the same symbols, which creates the confusion, but PP’s cover system is actually pretty sophisticated once you’ve got your head out of the old XCOM mindset and start using it the way it’s intended to be used.
3 Likes
I would say no, unless the enemy will return fire, because then you don’t have to step to the side.
This is pretty accurate, IMO.
Compare how detection works in PP vs Firaxis. Or the interaction between damage per hit, burst, armor shred, armor penetration, damage over time. Or Action Points.
1 Like
… or the cover system 
1 Like
Yes the best cover in PP is completely braking line of sight - wow amazing mechanics, no other game did that ever 
So AI is able to employ this too? Too bad it can’t, so now the “feature” becomes more of an exploit as it’s clearly not given in the same capacity to opposition.
Ballistics in PP was great in early builds when there was no fog of war and shooting distances where much longer and maps where larger. In current setup it’s just a gimmick. Most of the cover can be avoided and exploited in the same turn as it’s rather easy to find an angle to shoot at the enemy.
Hitting and disabling limbs was fun too because only sniper was able to reliably target specific body parts, now you can always just dash and shotgun. Whoever keeps claiming that ballistics is somehow a game changer should demonstrate how exactly that would be a case in the current balance of the game, not in theory.
1 Like
I thought literally “base” mechanics. I thought you found it complex to build a base in PP. Lol, most unambitious stuff ive ever seen.
PP is a copy of Firaxcom mechanics and the added: Trajectory, first person aim and bodypart.
(And that is totally fine)
They totally busted the cover system nevertheless.
Its not that PP has a different point of view on cover system that xcom ppl dont understand. Its that soldiers dont take cover at ALL. Its just that its too much work for them to add animations and proper code to make units take cover.
Indie stuff, not a “design choice”. There is no alternative look on cover: you take cover or you dont. In PP they DONT. Or show me the screenshot plz
If you talk about animations, then probably you’re right, they could do more.
But as long as cover means that a piece, obstacle, wall, what ever will protect my soldier than I disagree. “Cover” in PP is more real and more accurate than in Firaxis flat 0%, 20%, 40% system.
And in some cases, the unit can be in over watch around that corner. If they detect an enemy in the cone, they will sometimes take a shot.
Sirens seem to do this all the time. Come around, mind controls and then go at least 2 tiles behind full cover.
2 Likes
Very true, and it’s the same the other way too.
TBH, I don’t see that as a problem. There’s a reason (as I keep mentioning) that we get videos of soldiers in modern combat situations holding their gun above the parapet and shooting blind - it’s cos the other side is in the PP equivalent of Overwatch or RF and they’ll get their head shot off if they don’t.
No other game that I’m aware of lets me step up to that corner, fire, then step back again. But then I’ve never played JA2, so maybe they do that there…