Vehicle slot for aircrafts

Phoenix Point Game Feedback
21

Well there’s 0 reason to do a lot of things in the game at the moment. But if you really don’t trust the viability of vehicles, try the Eject-strategy. 3-4 in the back with shotguns at least for an intro to it. Drive around, eject, 1 shot kill, re-enter vehicle. Do that up to 4 times to begin with. Who needs skills? Who needs armor? As you add in skills and special equipment, the strategy only grows stronger.

Does it compare to Infiltrators or Boom blast spam? Not really no, but it is cheaper and easier to begin with and works until the end of the game. Using the Scarab and this strategy can save you a lot of time and resources without exploiting the game and you can definitely reach the end by early February.

So to counter. As is, there’s 0 reason for me to not take them!

22

The fact that your soldiers grow with experience over time while a vehicle doesent is a pretty big counter point to them I feel.

Big health pool and armor also isent all that great when you factor in the fact that theyre far more easily hit by attacks. So you can add ‘cant use cover’ to the list I suppose. Early game that is indeed not a point as nothing you meet in the early game can pose a threat to you.

Early game enemies are also incredibly easy to kill though so I doubly dont see the point behind the vehicles. The firepower they bring is overkill against un-armoured Arthrons and Tritons who often dont even have a ranged attack either. The early game has great missions to get a pool of rookies some easy SP’s and XP in the field and bringing a vehicle actively prevents you from giving that to 3 rookies.

To each their own though. If it works for you, then thats great. I just see it as beeing counter-productive.

23
  1. All that extra XP isn’t necessary and is a bit overkill. Anyone and everyone can say “IT’s your choice” but it’s like… hm… any other RPG game where you can level your characters to 99. Does it make it easier? Yeah. Is it necessary? No. Take FF7 for example and someone writes “If you level your characters up to lvl99, sephiroth will have something like 30,000 more hp.” And that’s true about this game too. Take all your extra time to level up your soldiers, and the enemies will also be getting stronger with you. It’s relative and if anything a waste of time (on the tactical level at least).
  2. Vehicles can take cover, there’s buildings and large walls. Better yet, Vehicles are MOBILE cover for your more fragile units. Within the first two months they can tank attacks from nearly everything other than an MG and repeated Sniper/Hand Cannon shots. If that’s what you’re up against, you use cover as needed until those units are dead, and then it’s back to running everyone down without concern. Rarely do I see a vehicle go below half HP in any mission, and often I take them onto missions with half HP. They really are tanky, but no you can’t be absolutely careless. They absorb grenades far better than your soldiers do, that’s for sure… and it’s a bit funny watching enemy units waste their turns to throw grenades at it.
  3. Everything at every stage of the game is easy to kill IMO, but on average I find the vehicle makes missions twice as fast unless I’m using those aforementioned overpowered combos.

Take away the overpowered combos and the value of vehicles go up even more-so. Add in a technician of any kind, and even more still. Pair it with a few godly soldiers and you’ve got a squad that can do anything in the game quite easily. If it’s already that easy, then why waste the resources/time on more soldiers? That’s all I’m saying. More soldiers (relative to time taken to beat the game) is more counter-productive than just using a vehicle. I’ve done nearly 30 campaigns, and this is my opinion after trying so many different things. I will never not take a vehicle unless there’s some significant nerf to them perhaps (and I’d hope alongside that nerf, supersoldiers would also be nerfed). I’ve tried the all-soldiers approach a few times, and I find that it just absolutely sucks in comparison. Everything is more of a struggle (time consuming struggle that is, if I’m careful it’s okay… but vehicles afford recklessness and save time)

So. The way I see it is like this: If YOU want to waste your time leveling up soldiers individually by packing them onto aircraft, that’s fine. Go ahead, no one’s stopping you. But don’t act like vehicles aren’t useful, or the fact that they don’t have a slot is somehow rendering them pointless. It’s a tactical choice which applies in a few select situations at best. [All soldiers] is pretty much only useful for a Lair realistically, and that’s just because vehicles can’t drive around on the terrain properly. Other than that, I’ve done every other mission with a vehicle and it’s always made them faster (unless my group of soldiers were geared out completely… but that equals DOING MORE MISSIONS to get those resources which makes the game take longer, which I see as pointless) What I currently like about the system that exists is IF I want to take many soldiers to a mission (currently only Lairs) I need to call in two aircraft to make that happen or designate an aircraft for clearing lairs and don’t use a vehicle/mutog with that craft specifically.

Take that away and then what? Everything becomes more of the same, again. Same combos on every aircraft. Same possibilities. No need for multiple craft anymore. Even less of a use for the dreadful blimp. How is that better? I don’t see it.

2 Likes
24

XP are divided by the amount of Soldiers that are in the mission. By bringing only 3 soldiers and one vehicle these 3 soldiers get double amount of XP as when you bring 6 soldiers and for that they level faster. SP are nice of course, levelleling soldiers faster is also nice. The game has plenty of missions so that I never had a problem to get the additional SP for my soldiers, but I have them faster up to the top levels.

And you completely disregard the fact that a vehicle cost roughly the same as one full equipped soldier (even cheaper when you count any equipment you need for one soldier plus ammo) but has much more combat strength than a single soldier (except some of the OP builds). If they would reduce the slot cost for vehicles they would be pretty much overpowered in my opinion, currently it is a valid choice between more firepower of 3 expensive soldiers or one cheaper vehicle, a global strategical choice between lesser but stronger teams or more but somewhat weaker teams and I think this way it is quite balanced.

I’ve never said that 3 soldiers are not more powerful, but I said that it cost much more resources and time to get the same amount of teams as when you use vehicles.

2 Likes
25

@Rainer: not sure what your point is about XP? I dont follow.

Vehicles cant take cover. By your logic a building itself could take cover by beeing behind another building -_- fact that you can hide it doesent mean it can take cover, its 2 different concepts. But yeah, you can hide it or hide soldiers behind it. And my point was that Pandorans (or whoever you are fighting) will have no problems with hitting it. A heavy can have more armor and can hide behind cover. So while the healthpool is alot bigger they are also more easily hit.

I wont go over every point you make but I think you completly miss my point and/or misunderstand me. Il explain my point after replying to Madskunky.

@MadSkunky: oh dident know the game distributes the XP over soldiers only. Thats pretty neat. That said, you would still have rookies missing out on SP overall though. Or rather I mean: you only get 30 SP’s in that mission rather then 60.

As for me disregarding cost. No, im not. And il explain why.

My point isent that vehicles have no merit (because they have plenty)… My point is that im not bothering to take them because of this simple fact: THEY TAKE UP THREE SLOTS IN PLANE. Period. Thats why I dont use them. Im not overlooking their cost, because I have already decided not to use them before costs becomes a factor. I know theyre cheaper then 3 fully kitted out soldiers. I dont care. Im not using them.

I dont take them because I value those extra soldiers ALOT more then a single vehicle. I have to choose. And a vehicle doesent grow over time. It cant gain new gear, learn new skills, get a 2nd class. None of that.

I value versatility a very great deal and while lvl 1 rookies with no experience in the field indeed arent very versatile, over a long period of time every soldier can be very versatile. And honestly like you guys said yourself: early game a vehicle is overkill. So id much rather use those missions to get early rookies much needed XP and SP.

4 units are alot less versatile then 6. And while carpet bombing Pandorans with a Scarab is very fun a Heavy can grow to do that as well. An Armadillo has a weaker gun then a soldier with a Deceptor and while both a Heavy and an Armadillo can be mobile in their own ways, I just see no point in taking a vehicle over 3 soldiers. Because I have to choose which one to take, and vehicles dont grow over time.

Again: I am NOT saying they have no merit or no advantages. Just that for me specificly I just dont take them because I prefer 6 soldiers over 3 soldiers and a vehicle.

And this topic was about a potential update/feature to give us acces to take a vehicle alongside a squad. In which case I would at least consider them.

1 Like
26

Only exception is Apsida. If not having a developed engineer class, its heal and paralyze abilities coupled with mobility can save the day. I wish just squads could be larger, like 7 plus Aspida etc. (brought by 2 aircrafts)

1 Like
27

Huh? That’s EXACTLY what cover means in this game. I don’t understand your logic. This isn’t Firaxis Xcom.

They do have problems hitting it though, unless you leave it out in the open (which is a worst case scenario). Ever play a Battlefield game? Tell me the difference between moving your tank behind/around buildings while taking shots at the enemy VS. sitting out in the wide open. Or I can tell you, as the first strategy tends to keep it alive a little longer. The only time that thing shouldn’t be in cover of its own is when it’s trying to provide cover for someone who was caught out in a bad position.

You can use it to draw the attention of Fury-2 rockets and Pandoran grenade launchers, which is my second favorite use. 6 Fury-2’s on a Scarab is way better than 6 Fury-2’s on anything else. That’s the Anu 75% mission, which otherwise has you very carefully moving into the building and hoping for the best vs. the Snipers and Heavies unless you’re not tackling it on the 2nd week of the game.

The vehicles are good man. Perfect for Legendary… maybe not so great on other difficulties, but I wouldn’t know. If they’d go and reduce soldier strength a little bit more, then vehicles would be even better and a bit more necessary. Vehicles also need a nerf too. As it is, the game’s just too easy… but with a few minor tweaks to skills/stats and the Eject-strategy, things could be brought more in line with what I’d expect from “Legendary” difficulty (Which right now just seems like Easy Mode)

Would you though? I mean it’s not difficult to bring multiple craft, one with a vehicle and one without to a site. IT’s SUPER easy and pretty cheap. IT’s already possible, but your sole argument revolves around “I don’t like vehicles compared to soldiers” so I really doubt this change would make a difference, based on your arguments alone.

4 Likes
28

Wrong calcuation, I get 60 SP with two teams on two missions, both with a vehicle. Fun fact, I get double amount of XP for my soldiers because I can do two missions instead of only one.
Maybe that explains why I think that vehicles are very powerful if used consequently to spread out multiple teams. Two teams with 6 soldiers per aircraft cost much much more than two teams with 3 soldiers plus a Scarab and so are much earlier ready, I can go to more missions earlier, I get more resoureces by exploring more …

That is my point the whole time and no, you don’t have to use them if you don’t like them. You can do what you want and that is the best thing about this game, a lot of possibilities and all are valid and lead to the goal of destroying the Pandora virus.

I think we have enough argued about this, you don’t like and use them, I like them and use them a lot.

Edit, PS:

There is no ‘taking cover’ concept in PP, it’s only about breaking line of fire and of course a vehicle can do that even when it is bigger.

This is not Firaxis XCOMs, as @Rainer already mentioned.

In the wiki is a nice article about cover in PP, you should read it:
Combat - wiki.phoenixpoint.com (with some screenshots from me :wink: )

2 Likes
29

Since the Apsida is smaller, perhaps it should only use 2 slots.

1 Like
30

Sure, and paralysis damage halved

1 Like
31

@MadSkunky and @Rainer when im talking about taking cover im talking the tradditional sense of taking cover. Ducking down, making yourself small, using terrain to shield yourself to prevent taking hits. I havent mentioned Firaxis XCOM once so why do you guys think im talking about that?

In PP your soldiers can take cover. But a vehicle cant make itself smaller or tuck itself into a small cavity.

You can use line of sight to keep it domewhat shielded or out of harms way, but thats something else entirely from taking cover.

And @MadSkunky if you get 60SP’s from 2 missions then compare that 2 missions for 2 planes as well. Because thats still half of the 120 SP’s that 2 teams of 6 would earn as well :joy:

But again:im not debating here if theyre good, bad or whatnot. Just stated why I dont use them. Which comes down to preference.you guys use them and love and thats fine. Vehicle clamps would allow you to take both a squad and a vehicle though. (depending on implentation ofcourse) wouldnt that be even better?

32

I have to clarify that I, of course, also not switch out existing soldiers for vehicles. When I have a full squad, then I use them as they are and don’t put a vehicle in and 3 soldiers out of business. But it is all about getting multiple teams as fast as possible ready to explore and do missions.

Again, my usual start:

  • Fill the first manticore with 6 soldiers.
  • Fill the build queue with 2 Scarabs and a second Manticore (if I found a vehicle scavenging, then lesser Scarabs).
  • Build a fab to speed up building process.
  • When the second Manticore is ready I split my team into 2 teams with 3 soldiers and 1 Sacarab each, of course not earlier.

→ After roughly two weeks I have 2 teams ready to go to explore and do missions and none of the soldiers will miss any SP. They working parallel and so every single soldier gains more XP as when they all would be in one team.

After that I do the same to get the the third team ready and so on …

How long do you need to get 2 Manticores with 12 soldiers up and running?
I think when you have this ready, I would have my third team up.

2 teams with 12 soldiers vs 3 teams with 9 soldiers and 3 vehicles. I have better levelled soldiers, yours have maybe more SP, but I doubt it, you just have 3 soldiers more, but still only 2 full aircraft for roughly the same cost and time.

2 Likes
33

Ah understand what you mean.

Again, if that works for you thats awesome :grin: I stick to full fleshy squads so I get a feel for the squad and dont later have to form 2 teams together.

In a sense, im lazy and dont like adding more steps :joy: that said before i have more manticores i will have teams sharing the plane by swapping teams when their stamina gets low. But generally dont like swapping members out ubless I really have to.

All comes doen to preference!

1 Like
34

And you say to me that I would “waste” SP, filling up stamina takes about as long as the flight to a medium-distance POI. Now your replacement soldiers are sitting in the base and get nothing, neither XP nor SP, mine are permanently on duty and only later do a few sit in bases with training centers for leveling. :wink:

1 Like
35

I don’t know about that. With the various other mechanics in this game, this one just adds to the experience (slightly). It’s far too easy to get aircraft by stealing, and it’s easy to field multiple teams around the globe to do whatever they please. Defend all of humanity, by attacking it first. Makes no sense, and I’d say “Fix that” first.

But… even if you DON’T steal aircraft, the game’s balanced in such a way that it doesn’t even matter if you protect all of humanity. It doesn’t matter if you do much of anything really, as long as your research is being progressed properly. Base defenses are the easiest things to do, so it’s not like you even really need to do anything else if you have an adequate squad to defend your bases. Then just ride out the game until your research is done. “Fix that” second, maybe - as right now, only things really necessary to do are the Story missions (they provide adequate resources along with scouting, if you’re not overspending), everything else is pretty much an optional “side mission”.

The big deterrent to just not caring and fast-forwarding research is the CONSTANT base defenses in the later half… they become insanely boring… even if you don’t want to do them, your only other option is to do CONSTANT lairs/citadels. Find the tricks to make those easy too, and it’s just repeat repeat repeat. They wonder why people get bored in the second half? Lots of reasons… adding up to tedium.

Make adequate changes to the things really bogging this game down and I’d be happy to revisit something like this. But changing this right now would just make things worse in my opinion. - Still however, I’d prefer improved complexity over functional simplicity.

Edit: Oh and for the record, when I say this game has cover, and vehicles can use cover, I’m using one of its many definitions and not some specific concept that you’ll find in SOME tactics games. (specifically: physical shelter or protection sought by people in danger.) Hiding a vehicle behind a wall that adequately blocks enemy line of sight, counts as cover. Just because someone crouches behind a pile of rubble, doesn’t mean that’s the only thing that can be considered cover… and in fact is a very poor example of cover. A large wall, not standing at the corner, is a better example of cover… and vehicles can do that too as they’re not larger than a single storey, (which a lot of cover is also a single storey high).

36

I was talking about when I only have 1 plane. Once I get 2 both squads are on there. When they get tired I generally have the start or a whole new squad ready if im lucky enough to get rescue soldier missions early on. I have my planes active as much as possible as well.

@Rainer you are mixing 2 things up. To take cover and to ‘cover up’ which are 2 different things. To take cover is the modern military concept: To take cover definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary basicly you dive in a ditch or use a building to prevent yourself from beeing hit.

To cover something up is to move something infront (or over) of another thing to hide or partially conceal it: cover up | meaning of cover up in Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English | LDOCE although I will say that page shows like 4 different definitions and I think you can use it in even more ways.

But thats what im trying to say here :joy: you cant take cover with a vehicle, but you can ‘cover it up’ by hiding it behind a building.

Havent tried stealing or raiding from factions yet, want to do a ‘good’ playthrough first but from what I read on the forums its completly broken in its current format. I would agree that seeing the geoscape in its current form beeing fixed is more important then adding more features. First fix what we have and then add more things to it.

2 Likes
38

just lol - maybe ill be back to put more effort into this later, but this is absurd now

were talking about the same thing. vehicles can take cover, use cover, be within cover, period. walls provide cover for vehicles. so do rocks. no more semantics, how about? really thinking you’re trying to troll people here.

39

Funny, I got the idea that youre trolling me as well…

Lets just agree to disagree on it and move on. We are talking in circles.

40

Well, in PP soldiers crouch in low cover and that’s it, they also don’t ‘take cover’ in this game. Again, just look in the wiki, the link I already posted above.
In short: A soldier behind high cover only stands behind an obstacle, nothing more, the same as when you drive a vehicle behind a wider obstacle. A soldier has not more protection behind such cover as a vehicle (except a lower profile in low cover).

Edit:
Please both calm down a bit, I think there are a lot of misunderstandings here that are not worth getting so upset about.

1 Like