Diplomacy and base management overhaul proposal

Also posted on Canny: https://phoenixpoint.canny.io/feedback/p/diplomacy-and-base-management-overhaul-proposal

There is a general consensus that diplomacy in PP is currently lacking, and the devs themselves are unhappy with how it turned out and want to do something about it (see the last Q&A).

At the same time, there are many complaints about how uninteresting base management is, and how additional bases hardly add anything to the gameplay.

My proposal is to address both issues by reworking diplomacy, using foundations and mechanics already in the game, and without adding (hardly any) micromanagement.

So regarding diplomacy, I suggest that:

  1. PP have the option to declare a haven to be under its protection and from then on get a % of the resources generated there, the kind of resources depending on the districts - including raw, classless recruits that can be trained by PP into any of the classes it has researched - and the % depending on PP’s reputation with the haven’s leader.

If the haven gets attacked, whether by Panda or another faction, and PP doesn’t respond, the Haven doesn’t get immediately destroyed - rather one of its districts gets damaged and PP suffers a big reputation loss with the Haven’s leader and a smaller reputation loss with the leaders of nearby Havens. Repeated attacks will get a haven destroyed, causing a massive damage to PP reputation.

In addition to resources, depending on the reputation level reached with the haven’s leader, the Haven can provide equipment (allowing to get their factions technology through reverse engineering), or trained recruits (replacing the current recruiting system).

  1. PP’s reputation with leaders of the various havens be largely independent of the diplomacy rating with the factions. In fact, havens should attempt to break away from their factions and become independent (a special tactical mission to accomplish the coup becoming available to the player), if the leader of a haven and the faction to which it belongs have very different opinions about PP. For example, the leader hates PP because it has raided it in the past, but the faction is allied to PP. Or viceversa, PP has protected the haven time and again, but the faction is at war with PP.

  2. A higher diplomacy rating with the faction will mean that the havens of the faction will also send resources to PP, as in the case of the protection agreements, but a much smaller %. This is basically the faction ordering the havens to pay a tithe to PP to encourage the alignment of their interests. Also, and as is now, higher diplomacy rating will allow to share research, but it should be reviewed to be a bit more restrictive.

  3. Becoming allies with one faction will automatically lower the diplomacy rating with the other two factions to neutral, but repelling attacks from a faction on a haven will not lower the rating with it. The end missions for each faction should be available regardless of diplomatic status with the faction. So you can be at war with Synedrion, but still get their ending.

The purpose of this system is to give the player a greater agency in shaping PP’s role and making it more distinct during the whole game, not just at the end: is PP only concerned about fighting the Panda at any cost? Or is it also protecting humanity from itself, trying to keep a balance between the factions until some choice has to be made? Or does it wholeheartedly embrace the ideals of one of the factions?

At the same time it would make use of elements already present in the game (districts, havens leaders), address the complaints about recruiting, provide a less tedious and more logical way of acquiring resources than trading them for food, etc.

This changes to diplomacy mechanics would be connected to PP base management in the following manner:

  1. There would be a new building: an aerial cargo dock and warehouse facility to receive resources from havens within a certain range. It’s a special building because it is built above the ground. More on that in 2).

  2. All PP bases would have the option to be sealed, which will make all their facilities under the ground invulnerable to attack but inoperative until reopened (requiring a team to be sent there). The facilities above the ground will be destroyed if the base is attacked and there are no soldiers to defend it.

  3. The PP bases that serve as receiving hubs of resources from havens will get visual cues re what is happening there, i.e. so you can see the drones with the stuff flying in and out, some civilians sorting out the cargo, etc. and possibly some special building options to enhance their roles. This could also tie into some managerial perk for PP soldiers, as suggested in this ticket https://phoenixpoint.canny.io/feedback/p/base-personnel-perks-for-soldiers.

For example, a PP operative with the “diplomat” perk would increase the reputation with the havens leaders over time, a “logistics expert” - the amount of resources received, a “teacher” would train raw recruits faster into classes, a “scientist” would give a boost to lab output in a “hub” base, and an “engineer” to factory output, just as possible examples.

These are the basics - I think it’s easy to see how the system can be made much more complex and have a larger, or smaller degree of abstraction VS micromanagement.

In any case, even at the most abstract level with these changes PP bases will have much more character: some bases will become hubs, that are critical for obtaining resources from the havens. They will require protection. However, not every base can be protected, so the player will have to make a choice which bases to make into hubs, based on the havens around it, what they produce and the faction to which they belong.


I’m not sure if that wouldn’t be too easy for the players to exploit it. Protect like 12 havens around your 2 or 3 bases and have constant supply of resources. Without any trading (except making presence there). Either income would need to be really low or number of attacks on those havens would need to increase, to push player to the limits (so not all havens would be always defended). I’m not sure I would like any of those cases. Same goes with providing equipment based on Haven attitude. You make one haven like you and then you got all their available tech? Way too easy. Things like that must be based on faction attitude, or costly trade. But way of obtaining items from faction through diplomacy and trade is good idea. Overall nice try to use in-game elements and making strategic part more entertaining.

I see a problem here. There would have to be less number of Haven’s, increased number of attacks per months or aliens will have to launch many more attacks to obliterate humanity. That would make game more like long war. I would restrict it to other factions attacks. Panda attack should always obliterate haven when not responded and not defended by local forces.

I like that point. Would increase variety of things happening on strategic level.

Also interesting idea, but I though of that more in terms of hidden/revealed PP base (I won’t bother you with that). From the way bases look and the way aircrafts work I would assume there is always this external dock. And warehouse you have underground. :slightly_smiling_face:

Interesting idea from lore perspective, but I’m still not convinced if it would be good move to allow player to prevent attacks on his bases. Lack of production from that base is not enough punishment for the player for using so powerful strategic ability. But your idea of sending drop-ship to bases to re-enable them is greatly in line with my approach to strategic things. I would just sent there base workers instead of soldiers (yes that my stupid idea increasing personnel management extends to this and even more). :slight_smile:

I don’t like the idea of strategic perks given to tactical personnel. But I suppose it is closer to realisation than my ideas hidden in my nightmarish micro-managing Excel. :slightly_smiling_face:

And I must admit that your way of wrapping things may be appealing for most of the players. You achieve here goal to create some strategic choices and change lifeless globe to become something more alive, at least in terms of local resistances and trading routes. And you do that while not putting too much micromanagement to the bored players.


First of all, thanks for reading and commenting. They are all good points.

I think it’s mostly about balancing total number of havens (there are too many now, it is impossible to keep track of them), income and range of the dock & warehouse facility. The income per haven should be low, so you need to have clusters of them to make it worthwhile. But rather than making the player fight for the resources by increasing the attacks, it’s about investing in the infrastructure/diplomatic relationship to generate income, and protecting that infrastructure/relationship because it is valuable.

And now that I think of it, repelling attacks from a faction should damage diplomacy rating with that faction, so that the player would have to choose between protecting the Anu havens that supply him and damage his relationship with NJ, lose the income, or try to turn the Anu havens neutral… Of course risking a war with Anu in the process.

I’m not sure it is a problem - right now you can basically get it from the random crates. But it can also be arranged in tiers, so you can only get stuff from previous faction research, not the most recent one.

You are probably right. Perhaps whether the heaven is destroyed, or a district damaged should depend on strength of the attack.

I can make an educated guess, and the idea with an external building is kind of the same, because one of the reasons for having an outside dock/warehouse is because you don’t want to give access to your “secret” base underground. Also, I think that though PP bases have storage facilities and vehicle bays, these are not meant to support the kind of intensive logistics required here.

Thank you :relaxed:

In any case, this is a basic blueprint and I imagine much would change during implementation, not to mention testing. However, I think it is safe to assume that the devs intended the havens to supply PP, and for districts and the haven leaders to play a role in it.


As Yokes mantioned couple problems pop up, but overall I do like it.

What I though about regarding this topic, that would tackle also issue of PP bases on a strategic level and expanding intentionally, is an ability to establish new Base at Haven of faction your very friendly with (pay the price of course).

Instead of finding bases in a random places that sometimes make absolutely no sense we could expand where is no PP coverage. I would go even further and remove random bases at all (or limit it to very rare random encounter).

1 Like

I want to protect the Phoenix Haven (former Independent) on the Earth’s surface as in BB1.


The mist in the chasm, the haze in the air highlighting the spotlight beams, the corruption creeping across the dead ground, that sense of eternal twilight. Man I loved that map.


This is great.

For balancing it works pretty well without too much trouble as well.
the benefit of finding bases randomly is that you have to do much less stuff to make them fully operational, vs building all of the crap at a new base.
the new haven bases would also have an increased risk in that the locals could try to kick you out (first diplomatically, then physically) if you made them mad.
but you still get the benefit of not being at the mercy of the Rng/more strategic placement of bases on the map and the facilities inside them.

it would play really well into the individual haven trading/tithing/protection mechs that the Op describes as well.
make the shipping radius really low, but allow base placement basically anywhere you have good relations to take advantage of optimal areas.

So yes, this makes a ton of sense and definitely should happen.

1 Like

IMO, PP operatives should be able to rest at friendly havens, and get medical treatment in at least some of them. What doesn’t make any sense for me atm is that sometimes you have to fly all the way back to another continent to get a good night’s sleep (not only because you might not have a base nearby, but because it might not have the necessary facilities).


I certainly think that both Diplomacy and base management could be deeper, but I wouldn’t want to find myself in a situation where I’m having to manage multiple independent havens (9 PP bases is more than enough).


I just want to add that I totally support using the term “Panda” for the Pandorians. Never say no to Panda.

1 Like

Heh! :smiley: Reminds me of a certain office linebacker.

:-1: I’m against.

I just throw in my ideas on diplomacy and base management. No intention to steal topic. Just my little rant for whoever cares to read.

I dont know all the lore behind the game. But generally you are always earths last defense/hope.
But you play like medieval pirates outside the law and view, able to buy from any community on the globe and then backstab however you feel like. Arrrrr!!!

Having bases inside havens makes more sense. You are in long mutual beneficial relationships.
They supply food and manpower. You supply the military training, logistics. intelligence, security.
And you get more support determined on your activity in the area much like old xcom.

You shouldnt be able to get food or produce anything yourself except spoils of war.
It should feel mutual beneficial, now its just trading a bit. stocking up your pirate ship.

So if an haven is attacked, and civilians die, so will the number of engineers, scientists, farmers, politicians (for stability and growth) that help you and you have to make sure that your areas prosper. Maybe train some militia JA2 style, or have to keep some forces on the ground in every area. You cant defend the world with 1 squad, you will always be too late. (That squad should be for recon and offense)

If you want to defend too many havens, your forces might spread to thin and some get overrun. Or opposite, you defended too few havens and now they grow big and out of balance and start putting their ideology on opposing havens and cause turmoil/war. I think people are not warring on ideology if they have a common enemy and worry about survival, but maybe if they feel too secured again they get cocky/greedy.

I don’t know, im just ranting. but the core of my rant is that it the game should make you are part of the world, and leave a footprint on it. Not just by hopping nodes and get an occasional multiple choice. But in a more organic way, with more interaction.