I’m glad for that. There are already enough post-apocalyptic grunge scavengers in video games.
I still think it would be pretty cool if they use the original NJ designs for something else like scavengers and independent heavens, though.
I don’t remember what NJ was supposed to look at first, but Phoenix Point grunts themselves had a “grunge scavenger” feeling in the first previews shown on fig.
those soldiers on the oil rig are Vanadium Inc people, aka NJ’s predecessor. That is the big egg incident
Honestly not sure about how much was retconned.
This video is old (April 2017), older than briefings and a fair bit of lore. There’s another one where Julian plays a small encounter versus an early queen and crabmen and nowhere is it mentioned that this isn’t the main faction. I also linked the video at the exact time where they say “take control of PP soldiers” and show these pirate scrapper models.
It’s a game so I personally don’t care much but if I were to put real thought I to it then what you’re saying wouldn’t really work. A lot of Western guns are manufactured to fairly tight standards which would prevent you from cobbling them together in such a manner. Likewise a lot of them have interchangeable parts which would make them fit together in a reasonably looking manner.
Eastern Block guns for the longest time weren’t built to such tight standards which is what has given things like the AK47 it’s reputation of being able to be thrown in the mud, run over, and keep firing. These can allow for a more cobbled together look but with how they were originally built they wouldn’t really need to be cobbled together.
The real thing that could be done would be parts that have wear and tear combined with parts of different colors to signify that they didn’t originally go together.
That wasn’t phoenix point. That is the old NJ design.
Flamers rock in any setting. Just remember. In this game weapons can get destroyed. Destroy a flamethrower, you get a large Area Fireball.
only if the fuel gets set on fire after destroying the flamethrower
Depends on how they model it. Realistically you would need to destroy the fuel canister, and even then it would depend on the type of fuel. For example Tannerite is a binary explosive, and for those that don’t know a binary explosive uses two compounds that aren’t explosive on their own but are when mixed. So if they had the flamethrower fuel follow this same system then even if one tank was ruptured it wouldn’t ignite/explode as it would be missing the other required ingredient.
Probably true in the real world (no clue but I have no reason to doubt your words), but video game flamers almost always explode, much like video game shotguns have an effective range of 5 meters, fantasy longbows are dexterity based weapons, and glaring harshly is a viable way to ignite any flammable material.
Yep. The shotgun thing in particular has always bugged me. Halo:CE is one of the few games where I felt the shotgun was gotten right but they proceeded to ruin it in subsequent Halo games.
As for the bit about flamers almost always exploding, it really depends on what level of realism they’re shooting for in PP. In general they seem to be pushing more towards the realism side of things when able so I think they could reasonably decide to either not make it explode or make it so that a flamer would have an actual tank on them that has to be hit instead of just the gun. Or even have the tank be attached to the gun (as opposed to tanks on the back like the WW2 design) but it has it’s own hit box and health. That way the gun could still be destroyed without it automatically blowing up.
I know in X2 they merely use a percentage chance on killing a Purifier for them to blow up, but as seen in one of the cut scenes, this is to simulate the tank on their back getting hit and not the gun itself.
Yup, that’s an acceptable way to handle things when there is no damage localisation. The Division also had an entire faction using flamers to cleanse the infection, and most of their units had a tank and a valve visible above their shoulders. Shooting it was a constant source of mirth! What wasn’t is the fact that enemies were bullet sponges and could easily survive the explosion of a pressurized tank strapped to their back.
One thing I’d be curious on (I didn’t do a search on this so hopefully it hasn’t been asked before) is if there’s going to be that mutated flora (it’s mentioned a lot in the lore) that makes an appearance as either an enemy or some kind of environmental impediment. In games as in real life, applying pressurized fire to plants tends to be quite effective - could be something else that influences squad composition.
If you check the examples in this thread (fig-campaign-timed gifs, so somewhat outdated), you can see “both types” of flamethrowers, tank on the back or attached to the “gun”.
Not sure if separate HP/location will happen, but I can see extra modification/“research” going for more durable/“less explosive” flamethrowers anyway.
In My opinion, odds are it will be of the same hit point. WIth tanks being tied to the gun like magazine. Under which case, I still believe that there should be some aoe explosion for taking out a gun of this sort. Unless there comes some lore explaining the creation of new flammable ammo that needs a mix within the gun on shot yet inert in canister form itself… hmmm… may need to start writing in the contest.
Well I mean we haven’t really used flamethrowers since either WW2 or Vietnam, I forget. So it isn’t like the modern military industrial complex is throwing funds at this. But I see no reason why one couldn’t design a binary flammable akin to how binary explosives work.
Another thing to keep in mind is balance. If I have to be concerned about my troop blowing up and damaging/killing himself or others then he better be properly powerful to make up for that risk. Then if he is so powerful why wouldn’t I stack the unit? So for balance purposes it can still be better to not have them explode rather than trying to thread the liability/overpowered needle.
As far as your first point, you’re spot on because the type of combat today doesn’t have a place for flamethrowers. With the Pandoravirus, mist, mutations in flora and fauna, etc., I would imagine there’d be a role (and demand) for flamethrowers, and the R&D that goes with that demand. Though now of course you’re having smaller organizations (factions, havens, PP) doing that work.
With that in mind, though, it is the future. If PP could design an AI driven vehicle, they could probably design a type of flamethrower that doesn’t explode when the fuel source is hit. Something like the binary fuel source mentioned earlier, or perhaps some kind of chemical flamethrower. I’m sure Snapshot could go either way as balance demands.
going to point out, again, that ww1, ww2, korea, vietnam and modern era flamethrowers will not explode when hit.
also they are already binary. Binary explosives consist of a fuel and an oxidizer. Fuel oil mixed with ammonium nitrate being the most well known. In the case of a flamethrower, the oxidizer is the oxygen in the atmosphere, and the fuel depends on the model: gas, liquid or gel.
the gas based ones would be something like propane or butane, the liquid ones would be gasoline/petrol, and the gel ones would be jellied gasoline or napalm. The pressurization to expel any of the designs is a pressurized gas. This can be the gas fuel, or another tank of higher pressure inert gas (usually nitrogen).
This pressure forces the fuel through the piping that controls the flow and out the nozzle. It is only at the nozzle where the fuel mixes with air and travels over a pilot light as burns. The high pressure flow prevents oxygen from traveling back into the piping until the pressure equalizers, at which point it dies out because either the fuel or oxygen will run out at the nozzle, snuffing out the fire.
Finally should the fuel tank get shot and leak it will not explode, as there is no oxygen in the tank to burn the fuel. The person would just either end up in a thick cloud of gas which’d force out all the air, or get covered in gasoline or napalm.
Fire hazard yes, but no explosions.