Fallout Tactics type combat?

[JerryLove]

and that's why you and I will never agree on anything in this thread. so let's just agree to disagree?

If you like: though it seems reasonably easy to define our meanings.

BTW: No, I did not say that "squatting" was sufficient to cover my intended example of tactical.

I said that taking out a sentry silently, setting up a kill-zone with snipers, mining that killzone, and then raising an alarm to draw opponents into that killzone (my preferred method of taking out the mentioned deathclaws) was a tactic.

[Vryheid]

Man I was just playing through Fallout Tactics the other day, and I got reminded of the number one most irritating thing about that battle system- there's no way to switch between turn based and real time movement out of combat. To enter turn based mode you either had to get shot or manually target an enemy. It basically meant that unless you outrange an enemy, they were ALWAYS going to hit you first. Which in a game like Tactics, can quickly lead to your whole team getting annihilated.

I hope we don't have insanity like that in WL2.

[cyrilverba]

Man I was just playing through Fallout Tactics the other day, and I got reminded of the number one most irritating thing about that battle system- there's no way to switch between turn based and real time movement out of combat. To enter turn based mode you either had to get shot or manually target an enemy. It basically meant that unless you outrange an enemy, they were ALWAYS going to hit you first. Which in a game like Tactics, can quickly lead to your whole team getting annihilated.

I hope we don't have insanity like that in WL2.

tried pressing enter (or was it spacebar?)?

edit: it was enter.

edit 2: actually, tried setting perception above 1? tried using stealth? tried using ambushes? setting traps? luring enemies to your minigun-man? or you just skipped all the tutorials (and your basic common sense..), ran directly to the enemy in a game that has 'tactics' in its name, got killed and went back to complaining about faulty game mechanics on the forums?

[Fargham]

FO:T was a great game.
F01&2 were great games.
JA2 is a great game.
XCom:UFO Defense was a great game.

Wasteland clearly was a great game or we wouldn't be here talking about WL2.

That said, anyone who says they didn't spend 90% of their time in WL1 fighting is either insanely clever, or just insane. Fighting was the meat of that game, but the interactions between characters was the spice. You need both for a great game, and poor spices can really screw things over, but in the end, the meat is what sustains people.

When I hear Brian Fargo talking about 'fighting bogging down the game' to me, I think logically to Wasteland 1. Running across the desert and getting attacked by random encounters when I had power armor. Sitting through combat trying to get within melee range, or running away from guys taking 10 rounds. Having to give orders to 7 characters when there is only one mob to fight and that one character can more than adequately deal with the mob. These are examples I think of when 'fighting bogging down the game' comes to mind. Any of the game systems - text based - 2d isometric 'tactics' based - can both fall prey to this. Its not the game engine that causes this - but the failure of the developer to bring you 'mouth sized' portions. The worst violations of this were all from Wasteland 1, so I don't see why people have such anger at anything Fallout or Fallout Tactics does.

Now to my thoughts on the game. I think if all combat becomes in WL2 is skill checks and 'positioning' then I have a sad feeling that ALL combats are going to become 9 rounds of 'moving into position' and 1 round of resolution. And now ALL combats are 'bogging down the game'. I'm looking squarely at the mechanics that 'paultakeda' has envisioned. I like a good game of chess now and then, but if every single combat becomes chess, then you've essentially made combat as a whole boring and fluff. If all my planning has to come in before combat (do i have the right skills) - and then everything in combat is just about positioning - sorry, this is a terrible idea for a combat system. You are no longer playing a role - the role is playing YOU. All you have to define you now are your skills, and they determine what you do - thats not role playing at all, that sounds a lot more like hardcoded scripting.

I am not saying that a system like Fallout Tactics is the best way to go - but I DO think it is the best place to start. Tear down what made it bad. 2 hour gunfights. Set battles where there's one guy hiding in a far corner of the map you can't find. Giant maps when a very small one will do just fine. Lack of being able to sneak up on enemies or setup ambushes.

I do think that skills should play a major part - but I also feel like the 'players' action on the field - his tactics - in battle - were at the heart of the Wasteland 1 experience, and should be part of the Wasteland 2 experience.

Do I close on my enemies because all i have is pistol skills, or do I pull out my rifle and try to see if that is sufficient? Do I risk kneeling down for a better shot at the expense of being less mobile if a rad scorpion rushes me? Do I save my bullets for a good shot, or just go full auto?

In short - combat has to be fun to play for this game to be fun. The setting, the previous game, a majority of the conflict all boils down to combat. You can go play the original if you think otherwise, but you will sadly be disappointed.

[paultakeda]

That said, anyone who says they didn't spend 90% of their time in WL1 fighting is either insanely clever, or just insane. Fighting was the meat of that game, but the interactions between characters was the spice. You need both for a great game, and poor spices can really screw things over, but in the end, the meat is what sustains people.

Take note that Fargo has repeatedly stated WL2 will have more narrative elements, so expect that 90% to drop down to 70 or even lower.

[Inca]

I think if all combat becomes in WL2 is skill checks and 'positioning' then I have a sad feeling that ALL combats are going to become 9 rounds of 'moving into position' and 1 round of resolution.

I don't think that this is what is going to happen. I give dev's alot of credit, they were always innovators, their games were always "firsts" and spurred whole new direction.

I think that combat can be much more fun if behavior of AI and your team is more realistic, if there is cover and elevation, if grenades and smoke grenades are realized well, If opponets can be suppressed, paniked etc. If fighetrs loose some of their abilities after being shot or stunned or burned, rather than stand in the same spot and return fire like nothing happened.

[Drool]

The worst violations of this were all from Wasteland 1, so I don't see why people have such anger at anything Fallout or Fallout Tactics does.

Never fought the Regulators? That battle takes forever. At least Wasteland had macros to speed up battles.

[nicktg]

I have to agree with Fargham here. Combat has traditionally been an integral part of many rpgs including the original Wasteland. You are playing the role of a desert ranger after all and combat is what these guys train for. Now, it would be nice if there is a choice to resolve quests without fighting. In fact I wouldn`t mind if it`s possible to finish the game with very little violence should someone want to play like a pacifist. That would be great. But imo, in a game with elaborate quests and dialog that require careful consideration from the player combat should also receive some love and offer plenty of tactical options, if only for the sake of consistency.

As for the actual system itself, I think we could take hints from the usual suspects: FO, JA and Silent Storm. Perhaps a system like JA`s might be a bit too complex for the purposes of the game, Silent Storm offers most of the features in a more streamlined package. I think the sweet spot for Wasteland would be somewhere between FOT and Silent Storm, if we go the action point route.

A system similar to Frozen Synapse`s would also be viable imo. It could provide a feel closer to the original since the actions in each turn play out simultaneously while still offering plenty of tactical options.

Finally, I`ll mention the system in Heroes of Might and Magic even though it wouldn`t be my first choice. Still, a system with movement plus one action per turn (instead of an action point system) and tile based cover could be a good compromise that would hopefully satisfy those who wish for quicker combat resolution.

[cyrilverba]

i wonder if the game will be as combat centric as Fargham describes. haven's seen Fargo's opinion on the matter anywhere (besides saying that it would have lots of story); will there be non-lethal options? sneaky options? lethal and sneaky?

[meganothing]

i wonder if the game will be as combat centric as Fargham describes. haven's seen Fargo's opinion on the matter anywhere (besides saying that it would have lots of story); will there be non-lethal options? sneaky options? lethal and sneaky?

He is right that WL1 was essentially 90% combat. Most NPCs had no talk options, the interface, RAM and the dialog system was limited in many ways. But since then there was a lot of progress.

Designers nowadays have comfortable dialog tools (this is one important thing that Obsidian will provide). Makes those alternative talk solutions much easier to integrate.

So I believe WL2 can and will provide different solutions (especially through talking) for different players. Where else will you stuff all that dialog. If all the text they want to put in were only for talking with a quest giver about the price or monologues that give you background info on history or your bowie knife they wouldn't have bothered to mention it. Heck, Avallone probably wouldn't have wanted to work on it if that was all the text had to do.

It still means that if you want to fight then WL2 can be 90% combat. And even if you don"t want to fight that much you still want combat to be fun.

[Gizmo]

The reason that FO: T was a pure combat tactics game is because the technology at the time didn't allow it to be anything more.

This is bogus (it is). There is no reason they could not have made it just like Fallout 2, but with their improved combat system ~(aside from that they were making a tactical combat game and not an RPG). Technology has nothing to do with it. Both Fallout and Baldur's Gate preceded FOTactics and they were both more than a tactical game.

Man I was just playing through Fallout Tactics the other day, and I got reminded of the number one most irritating thing about that battle system- there's no way to switch between turn based and real time movement out of combat. To enter turn based mode you either had to get shot or manually target an enemy. It basically meant that unless you outrange an enemy, they were ALWAYS going to hit you first. Which in a game like Tactics, can quickly lead to your whole team getting annihilated.

I hope we don't have insanity like that in WL2.

I'm going to guess that that was deliberate; if so, the reason seems most likely that it was done to prevent the player from starting combat behind cover, emerging one hex and firing, then ending behind cover again, or (perhaps even more likely) to prevent them from starting TB combat and passing guards completely during their turn... perhaps even ending out of sight, and not even alerting the guards.

(Just guesses.)

[Cedv]

Long post, would just like to throw my lot in to support Fallout Tactics style of combat implemented in Wasteland 2!

[4Aces]

The Dev team will most likely configure a system that allows for customization of the tactical experience. Logically this would stem from the auto-action system, where characters would take actions like automated cover when A) in combat and B) near cover. This system could be overridden either by on-screen or via a series of Toggles in the Combat Options Menu (just like the options for pausing the timescale in the original XCOM games).

The difference between a Tactical Game and a RPG is that in the Tactical variants you are forced into combat, whereas in RPGs you can *choose* to go into combat. Some think that because they have the choice this makes RPGs into Tactical games, but that is not the choice. Choice is the key, and the Devs know that.

It is easy to program all the basic actions into the AI and then if the player is unhappy with the results of the Automated Actions, they can override. They would also not be able to complain about the extra time, and more accurately, they would feel it is justified since they are the ones that initiated the change.

Also the comment about RP during combat is accurate - having the ability to choose to use called shots can drastically improve the RP ability. Hitting their weapons to make them flee or knocking them out adds a lot of depth to combat. Each character can be preset to make called shots automatically, aiming for a particular area, so it would not slow combat down.

So you should all expect the type of game you want. This will not be pure Wasteland 1, and it will probably be a carefully considered mix of many styles across all genres, but translated to work with this game on this engine. There are very few pure game anymore. They are all Type X with elements of Y, and Z. Wasteland 2 will be the same as it gives the best experience.

You can mix types of games as long as you are balanced and have well defined goals. Sid apparently cannot manage that, so he keeps it simple. Imagine Skyrim following his logic. It would be some kind of MMO.

EDIT - Nearly forgot about the reaction fire
Reaction fire should be included, providing the units are in a guard stance. This could be another automatic movement type (or lack thereof), so that if the unit did not move too far (possibly at all) in the previous turn, then they would automatically be considered "At Guard" and ready to react. An enemy that steps out from around cover (or pops-up from behind it) would be subject to fire first, then the enemy could attack.