Dynamic conflict between factions

Phoenix Point Game Feedback
1

So here is an Idea that has been touched in other posts, but hopefully not in this way.

The way factions and diplomacy work in the game is a bit static and disappointing for me.

Here is a proposal I think would improve the game:

  • The strength of a faction in a haven attack should better reflect the units that faction deploys in battle.
  • Factions in conflict attack each other’s havens when their diplomatic relations are bad enough.
  • Factions can not only destroy other faction’s havens, but can also conquer them. The player can help the attacker or the defender, changing the landscape and receiving diplomacy favor or penalty accordingly.
  • If the player has diplomatic relations with the two factions, the player can also intercede with the attacking faction and convince the attacker to abandon their attack (paying them resources), improving the relation of the player with both factions and the relation between them.
  • A faction can help defending the heaven of another faction from an attack of a common enemy (Pandorans or a third faction that they hate more). Diplomacy relationships on both factions would improve after a successful defense. The player can help with the defense (or the attack) and receive a bonus too.
  • The player can try to bribe a faction to attack a haven or defend it from an upcoming attack.
  • Factions are able to better repair their facilities and recover some strength, or ask other factions for resources to help them in the repairs in exchange for favor.
  • The player can help havens asigning soldiers as garrison (improving the strength), and donating/trading resources to help them prosper.

Of course some balance would be needed, to prevent player from being capable of keeping all havens alive or ally all factions. But I think the game would be much more interesting as a result.

What do you think?

Vote on SG Feedback page

3 Likes
2

Scaling and better AI are welcome

The AI does not understand how to win. As long as your 1 A soldiers survive, it becomes harder and harder for the AI to win. Priorities need to be adjusted.

Why not? Good idea, I would welcome it
How about temporal invasion instead of helping out? Would you like it? It’s just a suggestion. Helping and helping out is not really my thing.
Why not? I like it.
With pleasure

very good

3

Of course the AI does not need to know how to win. Battles would be simulated as they are now if the player does help in the attack or deffense (result based on strenght levels). And if the player participates, battles would also play the same as now, with AI controlled units. No change in how the AI performs in tactical battles would be needed.

This would be a geoscape level change only, mostly anyway.

Of course helping to defend a haven, or play a role in its downfall should be a choice. The idea is to make diplomacy more meaningful.

About temporal invasion… You mean take control temporaly of a haven? I think that would be hard to implement, and I dont not know exactly what would that imply. But of course many interactions, if fleshed out, could potentially expand on an aproach such as this one.

4

I am for conquering, since their war influences doom meter too much.

This kind of diplomacy would be good, since would enable player to re-arrange surrouding close heavens according to his taken preference.

This would be great, as game leaves no reasonable option but to send your AA team later when Pandorans attack became really destructive.

Also, small scale regional wars, instead of all-war would improve game dynamics.

2 Likes
5

I like the idea, a dynamic conflict in the background. Imho just to make it more connection with the PP vision - mission, I wish one of these faction are impostor, I mean in the end not everyone is good as player expected while the player try to be good with them. So it might give a bit more dynamic and intriguing story of diplomacy progress. It’s a bit out of topic but yea…just sharing my thought *sorry for my English.

3 Likes
6

Ever played chess? If the opponent doesn’t know how to win, how do you think the game will end? No, every game must have a certain logic and algorithm. Without logic, there is no goal. Very simple. Just watch the actions of the AI to judge if they are good or bad. I think it can get better.

1 Like
7

I understand what you mean, I think… Ie. Firaxis Civilization VI, where the AI is incapable of winning the game by conquest, even if left running alone indefinitely. Pretty much ruining the single player game for me (But take notice the game still works regardless, and most players do not care about this).

The thing is, we are not talking about this scenario. In the game there are currently 2 major factions (Player and the Pandoran) and 3 minor ones. And the game has 2 outcomes, either the player wins the game before the humanity index gets too low or it loses. This is done through Pandoran expansion, which is pretty much unavoidable. And adding faction wars would not change game winning conditions at all. We actually want just a system where the minor factions are programmed to make some attacks from time to time, but not enough to be able to counter Pandoran expansion… The thing is, this is actually already in the game. Factions already attack mines and havens…

So what about how this would change tactical battles? How they would play out if added more complex faction conflicts? Again, exactly the same as now. When Pandorans or factions attack a Haven or a Mine without player intervention, the game compares the strength level of each force and decides and outcome (thus coding AI capable of winning a tachtical battle is not needed), exactly what we want to happen in faction wars, so again nothing complex is required at all.

What about tactical battles where the player helps one faction to attack or defend a haven. Again, the game would play again exactly the same as now, the player being the main actor in the battle, with some AI allied units, against an enemy AI… which is again, exactly how the game works now.

I think the problem you are concerned about, would simply not exist.

I think an important think when we make proposals, is to take into account how realistic they are and the ammount of work needed. We need to take advantage on what the game does, and not get too crazy. Trying to fully simultate AI tachtical battles, or code complex AI grand strategies for minor factions would be getting too crazy. And the thing is, in this case simpler is also better, we dont want to wait for AI decissions, or battle AI simulations. The game simple strategic AI, and the game tactical game AI work quite fine. And they should work perfectly fine, with some confict between factions added on top, without any major change.

Regardless, of course AI improvements would benefit the game, but they are simply not relevant for this suggestion.

1 Like
8

Interesting idea, I can see some oportunities there. :slight_smile:

9

I wanted to add some new perspective into this request.

I have been following the Cany tool, and there is a ton of requests in this line. I think it would be useful to share some of them.

Taking a look into the numbers, it is clear to me that this is one the most if not the most requested feature for the game.

So if we want you to be heard, I think we should just upvote them all and request that they merge them all together in the Cany tool. If somebody knows how to do that.