rival factions occupy havens rather than raze them to the ground
E
Edward Deakin
Even for new Jericho, burning homes to the ground seems like an extreme move. Especially after the game details THREE major world wars and a near global extinction event. Does more destruction seem like a vaguely feasible solution in this devastated setting?
The only factions that should destroy the havens are the pure and the forsaken, factions which have progressively lost all semblance of humanity.
Pace treaties should also be possible when when faction has clearly lost against another.
Toni Staničić
Agreed. NJ attacking Synderion makes little sense. Sure, Synderion are utter fools, but they do contribute. The mist repeller tech alone is a huge boon (and it's strange NJ doesn't want it or that we cannot trade it).
José Miguel Arráiz Roberti
Totally agree. Shelters should not be destroyed but always reoccupied.
K22 N34_Dingowarrior
1+
Oz Dillon
Now this would be a great Feature, IMHO&E. To balance it, the capturing forces would have to send Repair Crews, Security, Cooks, etc, from other forts. Along with Phoenix helping where they can, and getting Faction Credit for doing so.
L
Lucas Cassalho
Posted this on the forum after reading this canny.
Vit Barta
Merged in a post:
Faction attacks on Havens do not destroy them
Вадим Ахметханов
I propose to review the results of the faction attack on shelters.
In this form, it looks illogical. when one faction flies in a vehicle with a capacity of 5 to 8 fighters and completely destroys a city with a population of ten thousand people. (even the Nazis would envy such effectiveness in destroying people).
I propose to consider 2 options:
1) in case of victory, the city passes under the control of the winning side.
2) the city receives damage to important buildings and temporarily cannot provide soldiers for employment and resources for trade.
I believe that only a pandoran attack can destroy a city.
this change may cause the player more interest in the global war and "attachment" to a certain fraction.
translated using google translate the text may contain errors. Thanks for your attention.
R
Riovir
To put a spin on it, factions at war could even go:
"Hey Phoenix Point, either you help us to occupy that haven, or we raze it to the ground. You have 2 days..."
It would present PP with the following dilemma:
- help and convert both the haven and even a percentage of the population, but losing favor and not getting a lot of rewards (people whose life is saved then to be more grateful)
- defend the haven as before to get rewards (but struggle remains)
- leave them, but there is a population loss, and no rewards
Overall if you help a particular faction, they would spread, and less lives would be lost over infighting. (But you earn less resources, and will fall out of favor.)
M
Michael Makovi
I really like this.
I think it would also improve the storyline a lot. For me, it was really difficult to believe that amidst an apocalyptic conquest by crabmen, that these factions would be starting World War 4.
Sure, Jericho doesn't like Synedrion. I get that. They have different visions for the world. But it's hard for me to believe that they'd start a war over it, when they're already in the middle of desperately trying to fight off Pandorans. Heck, speaking personally, I as a libertarian don't like socialism, but if the Pandorans were really attacking, I'd tell them, "Look, we'll finish this later. Let's recapture earth and we'll debate capitalism vs socialism later." But waging a war to kill all the humans I merely have ideological disagreements with sounds like a great way to ensure a Pandoran victory.
But if they take over the haven they attack, it makes more sense. When Jericho attacks Synedrion, for example, they're not trying to maximize casualties or physical damage. They just want to expand their influence. Their goals and strategies are at odds with Synedrion's, so they want to take over Synedrion's manpower and equipment and use it for their own ends.
So I think this would improve the story as well.
One question is, what happens to unique faction equipment? E.g., mist repellers. It seems to me that this should depend on the faction. E.g., if Jericho conquers a Synedrion haven, the mist repeller should remain in place, since the mist repellers are not incompatible with Jericho's goals. But if Anu conquers a Synedrion haven, they should destroy the mist repeller.
If anyone conquers a Jericho base, they should keep the satellite uplink, since I can't see why either Synedrion or Anu would oppose satellites.
Finally, if someone conquers Anu, I'm not sure what to do with the temples. Jericho would certainly destroy the temple. But Synedrion, I'm not sure. On the one hand, they don't support Anu's religion, but on the other hand, they believe in religious freedom. So maybe Synedrion would maintain the temple while downgrading its level in some way? Maybe temples in possession of Synedrion have half the effect that temples in Anu's possession do?
Ryan R
Michael Makovi: I may be completely opposed to you politically, but I do agree with nearly everything you've said here other than thinking Anu would probably destroy the Satellites.
Look at that, we can get along.
Vit Barta
The translation is pretty good... and the idea as well :). I just edited your title (It used to be city defense).
T
Terodactilus
sounds really interesting, specially point 1)
Load More
→