Simultaneous Turn Based Combat

[Mandemon]

Hi, this is something that came in to my mind while thinking combat for Wasteland 2. Now, I like Fallout combat style, although I would prefer if I could control entire party since waiting for entire Maribosa base to move before I can do something is boring.

However, in Wasteland combat was essentially pressing "attack" button. This would be rather out of place on modern RPG.

So I propose system used in Laser Squad Nemesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Squad_Nemesis

In a nutshell, each turn is actually X seconds long real time even, let's say 10 seconds like in LSN. Player gives orders to his party, like A starts shooting at the house while at the same time B throws in grenade and C & D move to other side of the house. Player could also give certain "reaction" commands, such as retreat when encountering new enemies, continue order or start shooting.

Then player presses "End turn" and the game runs the evens in real time. Maybe there were ambushers on the roof who shot B before he could throw the grenade, but after he primed it. So A dies too. C&D might encounter another group of people coming from the house. Depending player order, C&D either run away, try to move to their destination or try to kill these new people.

It would be interesting blend of original "give orders, see them play out" and Fallout style combat with AP.

[BubbaBrown]

It is interesting. Don't know if it exactly fits the Wasteland 2 style, but definitely some combat optimization could come from it. Might be a little difficult in comparison to a classic cycling of initiative system when it comes to development. A lot of synchronization issues.

I prefer the cycling of initiative, but like the use of interrupts to simulate concurrency. (Silent Storm style) The one big benefit to Cycling Initiative between individual characters is that it allows the player to feel that certain characters are more capable of reacting to events better than others. This is why characters with high sequence scores in Fallout are great when you arm them with burst fire weapons, since they can get the jump on people before they have a chance to react. If you were allowed to save action points to perform interrupts (proactive and reactive) under defined conditions, then you get a nice balance between the two methods.

But for AI optimization, it might be nice to have the AI do a little planning ahead of time so it can quickly perform what it is going to do. If the the enemy AI character isn't capable of interacting with the player or the situation for that AI character hasn't changed, most if that stuff can be quickly done in the background with pausing combat for it. (And it hides the actually number of entities the player is going to fight until it is appropriate to known.) And there's some UI tweaks that could be done to indicate what has happened rather than animating every little bit.

Also, while you are giving orders and watching it play out, most of the simulation in the background is similar to cycling of initiative systems. It's just a difference between batching and chaining orders on the UI side.

[jawdirk]

The mechanics of http://www.frozensynapse.com/ are amazing. I wouldn't say they are a good fit for a post-apocalyptic RPG, but they are truly inspired, and worth emulating. Something like that with a bit more grit, randomness, and detail would be awesome.

[Inca]

I played “Alpha -ant terror” with simultaneous turns (you give orders, press a button and then for 20 seconds computer calculates all moves, finally you get to watch what was happening) it is near damn unplayable, you have to redo your turns so many times in order not to lose your squad, it was just silly.

[Mandemon]

If you keep reloading because you made bad choices you are clearly not playing in right mindset. What is the point of combat if you reload after each "bad" turn? I mean, what's the point?

I mean, in the situation I gave you would simply reload earlier save and instead have C & D start looking for roof ambushers instead of original plan.

True, this system might take longer but I fail to see how waiting everyone to have their turn is anyway faster, except computer can calculate everything on the fly, so to speak. In this case, computer could calculate it's own paths while waiting for player entry, then take those and recheck it's own paths.

[paultakeda]

However, in Wasteland combat was essentially pressing "attack" button. This would be rather out of place on modern RPG.

I'm sure there will be enhancements to combat that make it a little more tactical (not too much, this is not a tactical combat sim). What you are describing you want is essentially the WL combat system in a modern form, only you want some sort of interrupt in the middle of the turn to give "reaction commands".

I'm on the fence with reaction commands.

[undecaf]

I don't like simultaneous turns. I find that kind of stuff boring and messy. So my vote for this kind of stuff is a "no".

[Keaton]

Phase based combat balances on a thin line between TB and RT and you have to make sure some requirements are met to avoid getting some kind of RTwP in disguise.
To get that out of the way I don't hate RTwP, in fact I would love Baldurs Gates deep tactical combat if it wouldn't require that much meta gaming (for example pre fight buffs fitting the next enemy) since you don't get enough feedback about your opponents weaknesses and optimal combat strategy.
But Brian Fargo wants TB combat and good RT party combat is very difficult to achieve anyway because of pathfinding issues and the various advanced autopause triggers you would have to implement (the engine must be able to distinguish between important and unimportant events for example).
Real time combat IS NOT less sophisticated or tactical than TB as many people keep saying, thats just ridiculous. But it's very difficult to get it right. The advantange would be that it doesn't drag out as long as TB combat and therefore trash mobs are less annoying. But since I'm a very patient guy I don't have a problem with that.
Phase based combat or how the OP called it "simultaneous TB combat" would be kind of a compromise to mitigate that issue.
But we want TB combat and for phase based combat to be TB they have to make sure that every action your party members and the mobs can take starts at the beginning of the respective phase and ends with it or lasts for a multiple of one phase.
The moment it starts to get asynchronous or the reaction time of the player comes into play it is no longer TB but RTwP with a useless forced autopause in regular intervals. Same for cooldown timers, that would be RT too.

[Inca]

If you keep reloading because you made bad choices you are clearly not playing in right mindset. What is the point of combat if you reload after each "bad" turn? I mean, what's the point?

I mean, in the situation I gave you would simply reload earlier save and instead have C & D start looking for roof ambushers instead of original plan.

True, this system might take longer but I fail to see how waiting everyone to have their turn is anyway faster, except computer can calculate everything on the fly, so to speak. In this case, computer could calculate it's own paths while waiting for player entry, then take those and recheck it's own paths.

I am not "knocking" your idea on theoretical grounds, I am relaying my experience with a particular game. It is possible that with some tweaks "Alpha's" Simultaneous Turn Based Combat could have been much more accessable. For example they had a sytem of command points, each reload had a command point cost associated with it. Since the same command points were used to get more troops and equipment, it was their way of discouraging the reloads. Unfortunatly the game had a very steep learning curve, so in the first two three missions you could loose most of your troops and and have no opportunity to replenish your loses in personell and equipment.

[Mandemon]

Real time combat IS NOT less sophisticated or tactical than TB as many people keep saying, thats just ridiculous. But it's very difficult to get it right. The advantange would be that it doesn't drag out as long as TB combat and therefore trash mobs are less annoying. But since I'm a very patient guy I don't have a problem with that.
Phase based combat or how the OP called it "simultaneous TB combat" would be kind of a compromise to mitigate that issue.

Indeed. RT combat main weakness is in the computing power it needs and how much micromanagement it would require from player to be on level of TB combat. In RT everything needs to be calculated "on the fly" where as in TB calculations can be done on background.

But we want TB combat and for phase based combat to be TB they have to make sure that every action your party members and the mobs can take starts at the beginning of the respective phase and ends with it or lasts for a multiple of one phase.
The moment it starts to get asynchronous or the reaction time of the player comes into play it is no longer TB but RTwP with a useless forced autopause in regular intervals. Same for cooldown timers, that would be RT too.

I wish to remind that what I propose is not RTwP, but TB with RT turns. Once you click that "submit turn"(or whatever), you have no control over your characters. They will play out said 10 second clip and act based on commands you gave them. Main weakness I see with my proposal is that larger the group of combatants (player party and enemies) is and longer the game goes, more computing power is needed unless some heavy optimization is done.

[Keaton]

Sry, but I just changed my mind.
I watched a promotion video for a XCOM Enemy Unknown remake in development by Firaxis (hooooray btw! ) that had extremely sexy nonsimultaneous turn based combat. XCOM combat is generally great, you can't go wrong if you implement that, would be a nobrainer imo. The remake obviously cuts out time units (a.k.a. AP) but maybe they just don't show them to the player and they are still under the hood somehow (like walk over there costs x time units but the game just shows you the percentage left or sth).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YQiyokRNIY

I want that! And I want 3D!

[GnarlinBrando]

This! (Also quite like Frozen Synapse) Is a great idea in my opinion. It keeps the game tactical but speeds it up considerably. I think it is ideal for a party based game as your formation becomes even more essential strategically.

All the stuff the new XCOM is doing looks great too though. Their interviews on RPS have been great. And I certainly would not mind a game like that. I really like how when you designate someone that you are covering, when they move out of cover on their turn they get shot at on their turn. I think that is a really cool concept.

[Poisontoast]

I like both types of games. However I really want Wasteland 2 to be classic turn based like the first because they don't make these types games anymore. I am also a firm believer that when bitComposer threw out turn based combat for Jagged Alliance: Back in Action it ruined the game for me and they lost a sale. I played Jagged Alliance because it is turn based, same as I play Frozen Synapse because it is synchronous turns, same reason I play Baldur's Gate because of its pausable real time combat.

I believe Wasteland 2 should be turn based and if another type of combat system is made for Wasteland 2 because of the flow of donations it should be a setting in the options like in Fallout Tactics.

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

Real time combat IS NOT less sophisticated or tactical than TB as many people keep saying, thats just ridiculous. But it's very difficult to get it right. The advantange would be that it doesn't drag out as long as TB combat and therefore trash mobs are less annoying. But since I'm a very patient guy I don't have a problem with that.
Phase based combat or how the OP called it "simultaneous TB combat" would be kind of a compromise to mitigate that issue.

Indeed. RT combat main weakness is in the computing power it needs and how much micromanagement it would require from player to be on level of TB combat. In RT everything needs to be calculated "on the fly" where as in TB calculations can be done on background.

There is something elementary we may be neglecting in the real-time versus the turn-based comparison and that is TIME.

Wasteland's combat is unique in comparison to later takes on tactical combat because it borrows more from its PnP forebears than it does from previous computer game conventions (as later games do). In MSPE rules, the dice roll represents not a moment of time but a change in motion.

There is no time per se in Wasteland combat. We are not used to this because we are used to watching motion pictures that give us the illusion of fluid motion. Wasteland combat doesn't give us fluid motion or contiguous time intervals. Time is relative to the speed of the character. Actions are not moments of a movie but smash-cuts that jump from one instant to the next instant. The instants are not connected by intervals of time. There is nothing in between the instants of action.

If you could watch the Wasteland action play out visually you would see jump-cuts from one instant to the next reported (calculated) instant, with some (implied) motion missing in between. You wouldn't need a movie-like presentation to portray that type of action, you could see it as a series of snapshots or excerpts that can have different POVs.

But we want TB combat and for phase based combat to be TB they have to make sure that every action your party members and the mobs can take starts at the beginning of the respective phase and ends with it or lasts for a multiple of one phase.
The moment it starts to get asynchronous or the reaction time of the player comes into play it is no longer TB but RTwP with a useless forced autopause in regular intervals. Same for cooldown timers, that would be RT too.

I wish to remind that what I propose is not RTwP, but TB with RT turns. Once you click that "submit turn"(or whatever), you have no control over your characters. They will play out said 10 second clip and act based on commands you gave them. Main weakness I see with my proposal is that larger the group of combatants (player party and enemies) is and longer the game goes, more computing power is needed unless some heavy optimization is done.

IMO part of the difficulty of simulating simultaneous actions is due to the degree of specificity we require from our graphics engines. Because the modern combat simulation has grown up during the day of real-time combat that (in-time idiom) is how we are used to conceptualizing the problem and formulating the solution. We think in terms of a movie, with smooth motion. But that kind of linear progression is not necessary to portray turn based simultaneous actions, as evidenced by Wasteland itself.

Wasteland is a very simple combat simulator, but not inferior, 'simple' as in minimal, elegant. It's a 817k game and it artfully balances itself between combat that is too deep and combat that is too shallow. It does this by using words instead of relying on pictures. Sometimes pictures are worth 1000 words and sometimes words are worth 1000 pictures, IMO. This is one of those times, because Wasteland's words describe combat accurately as it happens and it doesn't need to show you a photorealistic movie of combat.

The movie paradigm fails us because it is too graphically intensive, requiring exponential computational power for increased detail of the picture. Wasteland 2 doesn't need that. We don't need to see a movie of combat. We can get it the way Wasteland gives it to us, SMASH-CUT - SMASH-CUT - SMASH-CUT. You see the instantaneous actions and the game doesn't need to animate in between because there is nothing in between.

Everything Wasteland tells you, is what happens. The real-time movie approach just gives you (besides that) more trivial details and animates the same things over and over again instead of just giving you the unique moments. That's one of the things (besides the prevalence of words and paucity of pictures) that makes Wasteland more like a book in my mind than a movie.

I've used this analogy before to describe Wasteland encounters: The encounters - the action phase - is an integral equation because it represents the sum of the actions during the interval of the combat turn; and every instant of action along that interval - every moment that we see in the game world - is a derivative of the encounter equation. But those "moments" are not simply points in time. Time is an abstraction in the Wasteland universe. What we see or read in encounters isn't moments of time but changes in motion. Because of this literal extra dimension of encounters, I contend that Wasteland is in this respect a three dimensional game.

Wasteland 2 would be doing a disservice to Wasteland if it adopted an arbitrary new method of calculating combat results. Wasteland's paradigm is already a good balance between too much tactics and not enough. It lacks the graphical details of FOT and JA2 that Brian Fargo has praised; but that is not inherent in the system. It could show us pictures, very detailed pictures, even animations, with the same method of calculation.

[Mandemon]

Combat is going to be closer to Fallout Tactics and Jagged Alliance, so why not animations? If we are going to be shown visual combat, instead of text-only description, why would they skip all the points?

What I have proposed is the same as with the Wasteland. All actions are carried out in at the same time. This is no different from phased combat of Wasteland, no? Only difference is, you don't press button and X amount of time has passed you get to read results. You are shown how those results came to be.

It also allows more tactics into combat, since it's no longer "press attack button", but you can give more complex order if you wish like the one I described earlier. Or you can just rush and shoot.

[Lucius]

I'd like to see a system where one side moves all of their guys. The opponent then moves all his people to position. This could be inter-mingled based on some kind of initiative score or attribute like speed. Once all movement is complete, you would then select targets (or actions such as reload, evade). Once all actions are queued, you would press end turn and the firing phase would play out with both sides attacking simultaneously. I'm not sure what game to compare this system to, but it seems to be a phase based system which would be somewhat true to the original.

[Mandemon]

I'd like to see a system where one side moves all of their guys. The opponent then moves all his people to position. This could be inter-mingled based on some kind of initiative score or attribute like speed. Once all movement is complete, you would then select targets (or actions such as reload, evade). Once all actions are queued, you would press end turn and the firing phase would play out with both sides attacking simultaneously. I'm not sure what game to compare this system to, but it seems to be a phase based system which would be somewhat true to the original.

I dunno why but I suddenly tough Battle Isle games. It basically run like this: while on side moved his troops, other one gave attack orders.

When both had done their things and confirmed their turns had ended, the attack turn would play and then the game would move the troops.

Then turns would change, the one who previously moved now issued attack orders and other way around. And this would go on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFc1kTU9tqg

[Lirpakkaa]

I'd like to see a system where one side moves all of their guys. The opponent then moves all his people to position. This could be inter-mingled based on some kind of initiative score or attribute like speed. Once all movement is complete, you would then select targets (or actions such as reload, evade). Once all actions are queued, you would press end turn and the firing phase would play out with both sides attacking simultaneously. I'm not sure what game to compare this system to, but it seems to be a phase based system which would be somewhat true to the original.

Tabletop games like Warhammer, often have a system like this. And it seems like a pretty good system, straightforward to take modifiers on accuracy based on movement (both of the shooters' and the targets movement), and you avoid having an Action Point system where shooting and running are somehow directly mutually exclusive. Also no need for separate interrupt system, if everyone moves at the same time, then shoots in an order defined by some sort of initiative meter (you could get faster shots off when you'd wait on movement, for example).

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

Combat is going to be closer to Fallout Tactics and Jagged Alliance, so why not animations? If we are going to be shown visual combat, instead of text-only description, why would they skip all the points?

My previous description was ambigious. IMO, the actions don't need to be pictured like a single movie. It can be a movie that cuts between the actions. It isn't missing anything in between. The actions define the time frame, and time passes (disjointedly) in the context of the action.

I believe this approach allows the game to spontaneously change POVs and allows the player to switch between isometric or overhead view. It has the advantage of not burdening the graphics engine with continuous motion during encounters. In between encounters with simultaneous actions, the game can play out like a smooth movie with discrete time, if that is preferred.

IMO, different speeds of characters implies some faster characters/enemies might look relatively like a blur to slower characters. The difference in time dilation (speed, initiative) between characters can be resolved visually by depicting battle actions in the format of a comic book. The format could show still images that are like time-lapses or it can animate at different speeds; for example when a HtH fighter with high Brawling makes four or more attacks in combat it might appear in the picture like a blur of fists (picture); or show trails like HtH battles in the matrix (animations). The game can have a mix of pics and motion excerpts.

The trouble with presenting a fluid movie graphcially with all these simultaneous actions at different speeds is focus. Relative motion depends on your perspective and your time frame. If you want to make a movie out of it, that involves deciding what the player's time frame is and adjusting the animation likewise, with all the graphical difficulties that entails. But that is a false construct, if the actions are individually decided by dice rolls anyway. You can animate/picture the action faster if you use jump-cuts.

What I have proposed is the same as with the Wasteland. All actions are carried out in at the same time. This is no different from phased combat of Wasteland, no? Only difference is, you don't press button and X amount of time has passed you get to read results. You are shown how those results came to be.

I agree, but my point is that in Wasteland, the results you read are put together as the computer rolls the dice; that prose is, in the game universe, the actions. The rest of the work, animating the actions, is done by you. Exactly how did these two fire at the same time/leave one of you with opportunity to fire? That's your imagination working.

A graphical version of the Wasteland combat would be able to show those details without joining every action into a single movie. The attacks, etc. are simultaneous; we know they are simultaneous; but the computer calculates sequentially. Some individual actions can be illustrated sequentially and some combination of actions can be shown together and some actions (lower priority ones) happen separately at the end of turn. It can be a mix, since that is how it is calculated in Wasteland.

For the battles, I'm envisioning something like a chess game or a HOMM game or a Warhammer game. The POV can be free but it doesn't have to be; the combat can play out all in a single screen and every time the computer rolls the dice it shows the action and advances your pieces. I haven't given up on the idea of some game pieces representing more than one character, or even a team of characters.

It also allows more tactics into combat, since it's no longer "press attack button", but you can give more complex order if you wish like the one I described earlier. Or you can just rush and shoot.

I like having the option of rushing through battle, especially ones that my characters have experience with, if similar battles happen often. But I don't mean to reduce the tactical options. A phase-based, command phase plus simultaneous actions phase combat can have more options than Wasteland, and with more tactical, and strategic options too (hide, tackle, surround, siege).

I'd like to see a system where one side moves all of their guys. The opponent then moves all his people to position. This could be inter-mingled based on some kind of initiative score or attribute like speed. Once all movement is complete, you would then select targets (or actions such as reload, evade). Once all actions are queued, you would press end turn and the firing phase would play out with both sides attacking simultaneously. I'm not sure what game to compare this system to, but it seems to be a phase based system which would be somewhat true to the original.

It sounds a little bit like Heroes of Might and Magic or King's Bounty. Those Russian games know how to mix a strategic chess-like combat with an overhead-view game. Actually, Magestic Chess even uses the same kind of world of Heroes of Might and Magic, with literal chess games for battles.

What I don't like about HOMM is the division between "heroes" and "troops." In my concept of a WL2 phase-based simultaneous combat, the "pieces" (PCs/NPCs) are each characters or teams of them, with individual skills, attributes, and abilities. I don't like the troops versus heros division in general, whether it's Civ games of Warcraft games; every "troop" should be a hero.

Tabletop games like Warhammer, often have a system like this. And it seems like a pretty good system, straightforward to take modifiers on accuracy based on movement (both of the shooters' and the targets movement), and you avoid having an Action Point system where shooting and running are somehow directly mutually exclusive. Also no need for separate interrupt system, if everyone moves at the same time, then shoots in an order defined by some sort of initiative meter (you could get faster shots off when you'd wait on movement, for example).

I like this approach too.

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

Sorry guys, didn't mean to kill the atmosphere! Please go on, discuss simultaneous turn based combat. How should it happen? Do you get a command phase and an action phase? Is the action phase interruptible? Do you watch the action phase play out in real time like one big movie like a Fallout style combat but with overlapping turns? Or do you watch the actions individually, with (optionally) POV changes and occasional close-ups? Or some combination of the above? How should faster/slower movement be presented in the pictures/movies?