Geoscape ideas and mechanics


#21

Actually on the geoscape… (this might be the right thread for it)

On my last play through I couldn’t reach Australia. The Havens went from Asia down into Malaysia but from the most Southern one I could not see any more in the Philippines. I installed a radar but was still no go. On the current campaign the havens roll all the way across the Philippines to Australia.

I have also had a game where the havens in Africa could not see any havens below the north west coast.

Might be worth checking to make sure all land masses are accessible, or even adding some sort of ‘add fuel’ point, ‘scout mission’ to reach all map areas.


#22

had the same issue


#23

Imagine you have 3 manticores and you just have build a radar station near mist zone and you discover 4 or more alien bases… you will have a lot of lines on the map. :slight_smile:

could it be this way, but definitely should be there.

now imagine that except aliens there is also war between factions, and some of them ask for your help. You need a list showing it all, not just pop-up text. Because there can be quite a lot of it and you would need to decide where you will send all your dropships - probably you can’t make it to every mission out there. Of course they could dissapear from the list when mission is not available anymore


#24

I’m not sure if it was announced. But I would like to see Manticore (or any other dropship) cargo hold size dependant on the amount of soldiers you take. And that would impact how many resources you could get from the mission - particularly scavenge mission. So if for example Manticore have 8 spaces and it could have something like 200 units of weight/space taken then each soldier would take 20 space for up to 160 for all 8 soldiers, and remaining 40 space would be for anything else you want to have except your soldiers. Taking weapons and equipment in dropship cargo hold also would decrease that space. So you would have to decide if you want to have full squad and only 40 space left, or you take only 6 or less soldiers an have 80 or more space for weapons or materials/food/tech resources. So taking less soldiers would give you higher mission loot yielded but there would be also greater difficulty in case of many enemies and risk of injury for your soldiers. It would give you another strategic element to decide. Do you want less risk for your soldiers and spend less on medical facilities also having more healthy soldiers available at any given time or do you want higher “monthly” resource profit to advance with tech and expanse more quickly, risking you will have more rosters filled with “healing” label.

And it would also work well with those “multiple visit - scavenging sites”. In first case (drop ship full of soldiers) you would need 4 or more missions to empty such site, and in second case (scarce squad) you could empty such site with one or two flights.

Above change in scavenge missions would be great, because current outcome of leaving the scavenging site is not quite reasonable for me. You run away and place is overrun with mutants… and everything there is destroyed? Really? Everything? They eat and smash every single piece of material there? I could understand that some crates and equipment become lost, but I would not suspect aliens to be such great “cleaners”.


#25

If I remember correctly they removed Australia as starting point in the build because it was bugged and you were locked into this continent.


#26

In BB 3.0 yes, but I think they added it in BB 3.1. But we don’t talk about starting point there. We talk about reaching Australia when we start elsewhere. :slight_smile:


#27

As far as I remember, game is to be balanced this way: either powerful small team (Fxcom ver), or, as a viable variant, not powerful, but large (Classic Xcom). And this idea actually means that powerful small team will be the only option always.


#28

I’m not sure I see how 4 soldiers can be more powerful than 8. You still will get missions from events so you won’t have time to train only small team.


#29

You can get the idea if you play FXcoms -)


#30

But there you had no option to send more than, I suppose 4 or 6 soldiers, and you had one transport flying around whole globe without any problems, and soldiers were healing quite fast, and you had mostly max 2 missions on geoscape at the same time. In Phoenix Point it will be quite differently.


#31

In Fxcom you usually build up an A-Team of supersoldiers, and use them all the time. WoTC add-on tried to fix that, but it didn’t succeed. However, there is a second, less popular and less efficient, but more interesting (for some) way to play - make A-Team, B-Team and even sometimes C-Team and rotate them with every following mission. But yes, you can’t take more than 6 soldiers with you on a mission.

However, in PP you can take up to 16 soldiers. If they are all A-Team superheroes (like in FXcom), this will just ruin the balance, making hardest missions on hardest difficulty walking in the park. So, as far as I remember from what Julian said - you may go that way (build a supersoldiers team), but it is unlikely you can succeed training too many of them. They will be few in number, and probably very expensive to equip and train. However, there will be another option to take a lot of weak (or “normal”) solders on every mission. Like it was in classic Xcoms. Even if you have 3 transports, you still can send 3 x 16 soldiers at once on different missions, simultaneously. Or, if you prefer FXcom way to play, send some 4-5 powerful “heroes” on each of these missions, again, simultaneously.

In the first case you ll have a pool of ~50 soldiers. In the second, of ~15 powerful soldiers. But if you limit cargo capacity by the number of soldiers taken, 15 powerful soldiers pool is the only way to go, it will be too efficient to ignore.


#32

If the final game is anything like the build with regard to travel time, the “A” team won’t be able to get there in time always (with respect to time sensitive events like attacks on havens). By the end of when I stopped playing I had about 7 full teams. I pretty much assigned a manticore per continent, with extras in Asia because it’s big and I couldn’t get to Antarctica and Australia.

Based on the play so far, I would definitely be in favor of training up an “assault squad” for use when things aren’t time sensitive and I can pick and choose who is going in. But sometimes you just have to use whoever is close enough to intervene in time.


#33

The idea is that you keep small amount of strong soldiers - anywhere, on all bases. Many small “A-Teams” if you like. And, if you do so, you don’t need to use 16 ppl size team, no matter where you are and where you go.


#34

Maybe. We will see if balance will allow for such A-Teams for most of the time. If pandoravirus can adapt to such tactic then it may use some crowd control units which you won’t stop with just 6 soldiers, no matter how good they would be.


#35

The problem (in FXcom) with A-Team tactics is that once you have a squadwipe, this (in most cases) means game over for you. This is a loss you can’t recover from. However, in PP 16-ppl squadwipe situation what you lose is your equipment. Cannonfodder doesn’t really matter here (at least rookies were cheap in old xcoms). If you can restore the equipment without any particular trouble, this will be a good “classic” option to play. Ofc, this is all still a theory. We’ll see what system devs will implement.


#36

PP will be a bit of balancing act in this regard. We totally want to avoid the small super squads of XCOM, at the same time, we don’t want massive teams of cannon fodder like X-Com either.

Unlike X-Com, PP is set post-apocalypse meaning there isn’t a never ending queue of new recruits lining up eager to eat hot plasma.

While there will be up to 16 soldiers in PP - that isn’t going to be true in most missions.