Yes, and soldier stay without weapon. And you need to waste some time on that research. In my opinion it’s ineffective losing of resources and time. And for me much better craft standard weapon and hire soldier just for food.
I want maximum challenge. And if you think I won’t use save/load on rookie when my soldier killed then you are wrong 
Yes, without doubt - considerably easier. It’s a fair game for the less experienced player unless you keep reloading/restarting etc.
1 Like
What would it take to convince you not to do this? I don’t mean me, or somebody else on the forum, I mean what has to happen in the game for you to say “ok, I lost this guy, so be it,” or “the mission is not going well, I will evacuate”?
1 Like
This argument never made any sense. I like heavies and I would like to use the abilities a heavy offers. It’s part of the game. It’s not up to the players to voluntarily “balance” what Snapshot can’t balance by not playing.
If we go by this, I would not be able to chose any ability. All of them are potential game changers. That’s the point, and also what I am criticizing. Some are more bonkers than others of course, but overall the game centers too much on abilities.
3 Likes
And it will be even more fair in the future update. So perfekt Timing to make a Balance Pass. Hopefully the nerfs will make other abilities more relevant and this is only for better.
So guys, stay cool 
1 Like
-
When I recruit a unit without researched weapons, I manufacture a replacement. While I await the replacement, there is usually enough ammo to use the non-researched weapon. When down on ammo, I switch to the recently built one. Then I reverse engineer.
-
Saving & reloading because a unit dies is not that costly. As long as one accepts to take non-lethal casualties.
1 Like
- Soldiers don’t have levels, SP, abilities. Like in old good XCOM. Especially in Apocalypse, when soldiers at base training in facility while main team flying on missions. Then loosing one or two from 20+ soldiers in the beginning is not so painful. But even in Terror from the Deep, when blaster rocket hit my squad with many casualties I reload. Cause the later game, the more valuable each soldier.
- I hate current bullets spread. I can’t predict anything untill I firing at target in neighbour tile. So in difficult combat when every bullet count I will use save and load. If here was normal spread with at least 70% of bullets in central circle with higher chance to hut near center, then it will be less saves and loads
I think @Magor just wants to win on highest difficulty. It’s that simple 
Are you actually suggesting that the targeting system with Phoenix Point isn’t predictable or reliable? If that is the case, I would suggest that you perhaps don’t understand how it work? Or would you prefer to increase the accuracy of all weapons, including the opponents?
Yes, I’d like to increase accuracy. With adding range of fire, so noone can fire from one edge to another with laser pistol and hit.
As I read on this forum, there are 50% to hit inner circle. With lowering chance to hit in both direction to center and to outer circle.
Yes, I want to win. Someone play to loose?
It’s fun to loose in Rim World after few hours, but loose game after few days of playing just cause your main soldier or two dies is not fun for me.
Sure I understand that, because a game is a game. But the targeting system is for me revolutionary and provides a far better response that other systems that have seen implemented in the past.
There are some exceptional circumstances where it can miss when one believe that it shouldn’t, but these missed shots are always explainable. There are more things going on in the game than is actually obvious (The units are always moving). Try lining up a shot at a target several times. You may notice that the target is not the same in profile. The target moves within moments quite subtly.
It’s definitely 100% within the outer circle with the exception of small holes and the highlighted focus of aim. It does take some time to fully understand and appreciate the exceptions and intricacies.
There are some design elements included that haven’t been explain in the user manual. I’ve slowly become aware of them from many hours of play and reading comments from @UnstableVoltage. So to be fair I understand your perspective, but still believe that the targeting system is exemplary.
No one wants to lose, but sometimes losing makes you appreciate winning even better. For me personally Hard is Good! So when I win, it’s worth it!
We all want to win, but for each individual the way you do it matters.
You want a perfect score (or it seems like you do) and you’re willing to S&R until you get one - which as @VOLAND has pointed out, actually makes your chances of getting a perfect score in this game go down, because the game thinks you’re a genius, when (no slight intended) you aren’t.
I like to succeed against all odds. So I take my casualties as they come - because for me, the challenge and joy of a game like this is to find ways to survive the impossible. For you, losing half your squad in a clusterf!*k is a disaster - for me it’s an opportunity to shine, as I figure out how to put my team back together and come back from the brink.
Voland likes to maximise efficiency. I’m sure you already have, but if you haven’t, you really should read his comprehensive guide to the game. And, in my opinion, rather than telling him he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, I’d listen to the friendly advice he’s giving you, because he’s put a LOT of hours into understanding how this game works. But he wants to get through Legendary by the quickest and most efficient route possible - which is the complete antithesis of how I like to play a game like this. I’d rather take my time, exploring the world and taking every opportunity to do side missions, which is why I’ve gone back down to Veteran - not because Legend is too difficult, but because it’s too fast!.
I suppose what I’m really trying to say is of course no-one plays to lose a game like this; but it’s not the winning that counts for many of us - it’s how you win. We could all breeze through this on autopilot by spamming Terminator Builds, but where’s the fun in that?
So we all have our different ways of enjoying - and playing - this game. None of them are wrong: some of them are more efficient than others. Voland and I play with rigid self-limitations on the number of times we can use a Skill each turn, because we like the challenge that gives us; you save & restart every time you lose a man; and Ementrude plays in an entirely different way. And the beauty of the system is it lets us all take our many routes to victory using completely different strategies, builds and tactics.
Now all they need to do is get the balance right, and the game would be damn near perfect 
1 Like
Just get sure, that The Game offers compromizes or second Wave optional, so it is fun for every player type.
I want win without loosing my soldiers. For me fun is uderstand mechanics, find out the best tactics and combinations. And win with maximum challenge game can offer.
If soldiers not dies, but goes “offline” for few days and then back with 1 HP (without any stat reduction or permanent debuff), so I need to heal them for more few days, than I will play without save and load. I can pay for my mistakes, but death is too much.
It’s stolen from the new XCOMs.
In the early days of Enemy Unknown, some players were complaining (like they are here) that the game was too easy; that the random seed generator never changed if you save scummed (so when you saved & restarted, you got exactly the same predictable RNG); that Rookies always came with the same boring stats etc etc.
Firaxis’ way of dealing with this was genius in my opinion. They instituted the Second Wave. Once you’d played the game once, and understood how it worked, when you started up a new game it gave you a menu of what it called ‘Second Wave Options’. These let you decide how hard or easy to make particular aspects of the game, including switching the random number seed when save scumming and giving Rookies random stats.
So players who didn’t like certain things could switch them off, and players who did could keep them on.
IMO, PP would greatly benefit from such a system. Then people like me could set Skill Uses per Turn to 1 or 2; RF to ‘Allies fire back’; Recruits to ‘come naked’; Length of game to Long rather than ‘Frustratingly Short’; RB to ‘Machine-guns only’ and a whole range of other options.
Meanwhile, Louis the OP could set RB to ‘All Weapons’ and decide how many times he’s allowed to Rally and re-use it each turn.
And everboy’s happy 
3 Likes
Merits and demerits of levels, SPs and abilities aside, Phoenix Point has them and we can assume will continue to have them.
In the beginning, a squad wipe out in Phoenix Point is admittedly game over, but losing one or two soldiers in the first missions is perfectly OK -
it happens to me all the time. In my current playthrough out of the original 4 only 1 survived 30 days.
The key word here is ‘painful’. It’s not that it makes the game impossible to win, you just don’t like the feeling.
But the game is built around the idea that you will lose soldiers.
This would not do at all:
It’s like a WWII movie without any fatalities. Imagine a depiction of the Battle of Stalingrad where all the Red Army characters “walk it off” or “go offline” for a few days…
The challenge is precisely to cope with losing soldiers. You don’t control who lives and who dies, but you have different ways of replacing fatalities.
And the degree of the challenge depends on the difference in quality between the replacement and the original, which in turn largely depends on the difficulty level.
To want maximum challenge in Phoenix Point is to want to make do with a rookie where you used to have a master lvl7.
1 Like
I agree, and that’s why an ‘Iron-man’ mode would be so great!
1 Like
Intresting. Fighting crabs with machine guns is OK for you. Bullet from sniper rifle in the head, which don’t kill is OK. But soldier that doesn’t die but goes to coma is “not realistic”.
I control. If you don’t care - it’s your choice. In squad-sized game I always didn’t let my soldiers die.
I call it masochism. I’m not intresting in it.
…for those, who want it 
1 Like