Three Moves Ahead Episode 485: Phoenix Point

[Rob Zacny]

Three Moves Ahead 485:

Phoenix Point
Jon and Rob welcome back Paul Dean to discuss Julian Gollop's and Snapshot Games' Phoenix Point, which tries to blend some of the old-school systemic realism of the original X-COM games with the ease of play of newer tactics games. It's all going well until the gang realize the AI plays like a zombie... and this isn't a zombie game.

Phoenix Point

 

• Listen on the Episode Page
• Listen on Soundcloud
• Listen in iTunes

[derbius]

Did you mention that Phoenix Point is in MS' Game Pass for PC? You were sufficiently critical that I wouldn't have bought it retail but sufficiently positive that I am looking forward to trying it out...

[ilitarist]

Interesting discussion about brainless AI in the end. I think my most memorable strategy gaming moments where all about dumb enemies, hordes of them. Clever singleplayer missions like in StarCraft 2 campaign often feel like a puzzle where you spend half a minute on figuring it out and then 20 minutes on doing mechanical actions being bored. Games like XCOM try to keep you on the edge with every fight being against a cunning opponent, a single mistake can cost you everything. But plenty of tactical/strategic games have dumb AI in their core even if it's not appropriate thematically. Like Fire Emblem, for most of the time you have static enemies that attack you when you get close, and the trick is to overcome enemy numbers. Come to think of it, even early wargames gravitated towards scenarios like Germany attacking USSR - you're playing as a smaller better-equipped army against a passive numerous forces. So I'd be fine with Pandarens being dumb.

[Khan Khomrad]

On 23/12/2019 at 6:36 AM, ilitarist said:

Interesting discussion about brainless AI in the end. I think my most memorable strategy gaming moments where all about dumb enemies, hordes of them. Clever singleplayer missions like in StarCraft 2 campaign often feel like a puzzle where you spend half a minute on figuring it out and then 20 minutes on doing mechanical actions being bored. Games like XCOM try to keep you on the edge with every fight being against a cunning opponent, a single mistake can cost you everything. But plenty of tactical/strategic games have dumb AI in their core even if it's not appropriate thematically. Like Fire Emblem, for most of the time you have static enemies that attack you when you get close, and the trick is to overcome enemy numbers. Come to think of it, even early wargames gravitated towards scenarios like Germany attacking USSR - you're playing as a smaller better-equipped army against a passive numerous forces. So I'd be fine with Pandarens being dumb.

 

Agreed. I like facing off against competent AI players in general, but I dislike having to face AI's that are too good in singleplayer RTS missions. As an example, Age of Empires II on any difficulty higher than easy has it's AI micro their ranged units which can be a pain to face off against in the campaigns because they usually have the numerical advantage and can afford to micro each and every single ranged unit. In practice this means that you will either rush or turtle with castles and then slowly pushing. It just becomes a huge war of attrition.

 

I think Battle Brothers nailed how to make a good dumb AI. Each different faction and enemy type has a set of behaviors that they will always follow. They are all predictable -- from the lowly Zombie to the mighty Knight Errant-- and by learning how to counter their tactics you can face off against bigger numbers and still have a tense but fair battle.

[Tdoggs]

I enjoyed this game.  It still has major bugs two months after release.  I could not play the NJ mission.  The you and NJ troops fight the pandies but the turn locks between the NJ and pandies turn.  I still put about 100 hours into it and am on the last board mode final mission.  
 

it seems to have some strategic systems that planet fall missed.  I was able to bounce back after a couple of major set backs.  

[unimural]

I've decided to wait on the expansions to see if the game matures a bit. Thematically I do like the game, but I can't help but feel the execution is too clumsy. My biggest issues are on the tactical side, but I also feel like the geoscape side isn't very cohesive either. 

 

The maps are too small compared to the massive movement potential the units have. This, combined with the single minded AI quickly removes all tension from the encounters. Perhaps this will improve later in the game, but I rarely felt like I had to react or adjust to the enemy.

 

Mechanically, the manual aim mode is always the superior option. However the manual aim is slow, finicky and it's affected by the idle animations of the enemies. This means to get the best shot you have to wait for the right moment to activate the manual aim. Free aiming is a fun idea, but in practice I think this system is almost terrible. Also my soldiers would constantly shoot their own cover when in overwatch. And the UI is just a bit too weird and buggy. The weird pink-white bar is hard to read, but since you're pushed into manual aiming all the time it's not very meaningful anyways.

 

On the strategic side, while I kind of feel the Firaxis XCOMs value significance of decisions perhaps a bit too much, here thus far I've rarely felt decisions having any impact, which really sapped my enthusiasm for the game on the strategic side.

 

Despite all of this I still kind of like the game, or want to like it. I think the Gorky 17 comparison by Rob was very apt.