Combat should be closer to Fallout than WL/Bard's Tale

[RamonSterns]

Would it be bad if I suggest combat to be like FO Tactics with turnbased on?

[Balthazor]

I enjoyed the party combat of Dragon Age. I would generally put the camera in a top-down zoomed out perspective much of the time, and it reminded me of a 3D, upgraded version of Baldur's Gate, with a wider area of view.

Something like that would be fun, and graphically appealing. The mechanics would be different, given that the developers have already stated it is going to be turn-based, but I'm sure they could apply turn-based party combat using a 'modern graphics' engine like that used in Dragon Age.

I enjoyed Dragon Age as a game, but it was lacking in the vein of tactical, party-based combat.

I'm more talking about style, rather than mechanics. Tactics in Dragon Age were really limited, and the truncated list of rules you could designate for party members hampered party combat further. But it was pretty to look at, and fun to play, if a bit simplisitic.

[Quarex]

I will probably sound like a broken record in these threads, but you do not want a combat to take hours like they regularly do in games like Jagged Alliance 2. How often did combats even last more than like 30 seconds in the original Wasteland? Fallout's combats were often resolved pretty quickly, but I also remember basically wanting to cry myself to sleep when trying to engage in a fight like the one in Adytum? where basically a hundred different villagers and guards and other people are involved, and it takes five minutes to resolve a single combat turn.

[Gabriel77Dan]

Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood Of Steel
or
Fallout: A Post-Nuclear Role Playing Game

?

Cause I dunno, if I got it my way I'd have it be "somewhat" like Fallout 1/2's combat as it's what I grew up to.

[dmazz]

I dislike party control quite a bit. No game to my knowledge has ever made a decent party combat control system. Far too slow with finicky controls. (Fallout Tactics and JA2 included the latter with a high learning curve to boot) In this regard I liked the A.I settings for ally npc's which weren't under your direct control in Fallout II, granted it wasn't a perfect system due to the A.I not being too bright. Not only was this more realistic and immersive (I think npcs should have their own combat style and tactics) but also alot less cumbersome, finicky and the combat still had a reasonable pace. (multiple players you need to control slows down combat to a crawl)

Party control is also against the spirit of a RPG, which is primarily about survival role playing and not squad based combat. One more mouth to feed, provide water for and ammunition/equipment for is a liability for long term survival, not to mention it makes no sense. (here's all this free equipment which costs a fortune, I'd take a bullet for you anytime anyplace stranger, etcetera) No, I favor very small groups, with them being A.I controlled primarily with their own personality and fighting style. ( Sulik in Fallout II). Shouting orders to your party members is acceptable, orders they would follow in most occasions, but having complete control over their actions and equipment I find less immersive, as well as a chore.

I'd rather travel the wastelands with a real mule/car/tricycle to carry my extra stuff than token NPCs, I don't trust or have any emotional connection to. In almost all group combat games, NPCs are nothing more than extra hired guns one needs for combat and/or human mules to carry extra loot. Going against the very spirit of an RPG. Hiring extra guns for protection or coordinated mass attacks makes sense but it should be expensive and be a temporary arrangement.

In regards to game balance issues, fights should still be able to be fought single handedly. The right tactics like, ambushes, booby traps, sneaking, silent weapons, disguises, enemy ammo/weapon pickups, sniping and hit and run attacks over days to thin out enemy numbers is where it's at. Big parties aren't necessary for tactical combat depth. (Quite the opposite actually, more guns usually means blasting your way through as your primary tactic)

[Gizmo]

I dislike party control quite a bit. No game to my knowledge has ever made a decent party combat control system.

Temple of Elemental Evil has [IMO] the best turn based party combats mechanics ever done in a cRPG.

(I think npcs should have their own combat style and tactics)

Baldur's Gate 1 & 2.; Icewind Dale 1 & 2, and Planescape all had this built in.

Party control is also against the spirit of a RPG, which is primarily about survival role playing and not squad based combat.

I don't get that... I don't recall ever playing an RPG that was about 'survival role playing'; what exactly does that term mean? Most RPGs I've played are about social manipulation and hired (or donated) service to total strangers. The best RPGs can also be about extrapolating PC ethics, and their applied behavior and consequences.

Party based RPG combat is usually about proper teamwork and a the deliberate lack of a polymath PC with decades of varied discipline and expertise ~and social positioning crammed into a few months of solo adventuring.

** Most RPGs I've played had squad based combat.

[JeremyR]

I'd prefer if it was as close to the original as possible. It was just a lot of fun. And quick. Especially loved burning a clip

[krellen]

I dislike party control quite a bit.

You might not want to financially support this game if you feel strongly about it. It will be squad based, a full-party RPG like the original Wasteland, or Wizardry, or Bard's Tale, or Might and Magic.

[dmazz]

Quite simply being able to control in every way imaginable your party is unrealistic, (everything they wear and carry, every single thing they do in combat 100% of time) and as such reduces immersion in a RPG (role playing game). Which is what Wasteland is, an RPG set in a post apocalyptic world that is very violent. I have no issues with micromanaging the stuff you own, but doing the same to your party members (Which have their own personalities and will) is unrealistic.

I know there was an A.I element to Fallout II and Baldur's Gate but I'm thinking of a far more complex A.I, that might even be entertaining to watch. I'm not against being able to control party members in combat but it shouldn't be so precise and complete, telling a party member to a enter a building and plant booby traps should be possible for the A.I without doing everything yourself. Another example is telling two NPC's to go somewhere, ideally the A.I would automatically start implementing a 2 person cover formation, just like in real life. Very stupid or poorly trained NPC's wouldn't be able to do this or at least not perfectly so that would be a factor in combat. NP

Basic infantry small tactics like suppress and move to outflank, ambush/contact drills and seeking cover should be standard A.I behavior.

[Gizmo]

... telling a party member to a enter a building and plant booby traps should be possible for the A.I without doing everything yourself.

Do you mean that an NPC should be told (asked?) to do a task, by some 'primary' PC?

* Why would anyone want this? Who plays a party based game as only one PC? I know that when I played Icewind Dale, or Baldur's Gate, I would always make at least three, sometimes four; (and I would switch roles as I switched control over each; I would expect to be able to role play each PC in my Wasteland 2 party... with the possible exception of hired NPC's that keep their mind and motives secret).

**As a side point (not really related to the above)... Imagine that your party is the X-Men, and they enter combat against a group of hostiles... They are a team, and realistically they would not need one member barking orders to coordinate them. They would naturally respond with complimentary actions in tandem with the other members.

**Edit: Merc recruits are a different story. In Pool of Radiance, mercs were not really part of the team, and not really under player control.

At some point, [IMO] the abstracted "game" aspects must trump realism... For myself, I am not interested in behavioral errata like NPC small talk that can just be assumed to have happened. I didn't mind BG's NPC banter, and some of it was really cool, but it was a rare event, and not routine conversations between the members of the group.

[dmazz]

It will be squad based, a full-party RPG like the original Wasteland, or Wizardry, or Bard's Tale, or Might and Magic.

There will be two primary elements in the game. The role playing game elements and the turnbased like tactical combat. The RPG elements will dominate over the latter, so I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask that the combat system work to accomdate the RPG elements rather than the opposite. Jagged Alliance 2 and Silent Storm are primarily turn based tactical combat sims and secondary RPG's. A large part of this being because the combat lasted 10 times longer than any RPG elements in the game. Fallout was alot more balanced in this regards, combat took a fair amount of time, but it was primarily an RPG. The degree of A.I control of your NPC's in combat I think has alot to do with that.

[Son Ov Mars]

Fallout combat was fun, but the system was not designed for party based combat. Too often battles came down to huge mobs of NPCs insta-gibbing each other at point blank range with SMGs or assault rifles. There was basically nothing in the way of cover and advanced tactics, and weapon effectiveness was far too dependent on character skills. These flaws can be ignored when you're customizing a lone hero who can singlehandedly wipe out waves of enemies, but in a party based game there has to be some order and strategic options for how you can organize in battle.

Fallout Tactics did a much better job at combat, giving options such as crouching positions and the ability to use cover. Not only that, you could directly control companions, which was a vast improvement over the original game. However, having to repeatedly grind your way through dozens of entrenched enemies in maze-like dungeons is not very enjoyable and really doesn't belong in the Wasteland series at all. There has to be a much stronger sense of pacing and relief to keep players interested.

I'd like to see Tactics' approach with turn based isometric combat mixed with the isolated but intense battles of Wasteland. Wasteland also didn't have as much of a focus on ridiculously overpowered critical hits; I'd like that to move over as well. Other than that though, the general combat system of Fallout could be a good partial inspiration. It definitely is what a lot of fans will expect out of Wasteland 2 who didn't play the original.

I think you hit the nail on the head with that and I agree.

[blazerfrost]

I have been playing Frozen Synapse and the original XCOM lately and quite enjoyed their combat systems. One thing I have never liked about pure turn based combat is that the other party just stands there non responsively while you do your thing. XCOM dodged this with the reaction shots which added a lot of depth to the combat for me. But the plan and simultaneous execution from Frozen Synapse was probably the combat system that made me think the most about what I was going to do in my turn. But seeing how long they took to build Frozen Synapse it might be unrealistic to expect such a combat system in a year.

[Ghostwhowalks]

I wouldn't mind a Fallout: Tactics kind of play.

You have a party, they can move around individually in a turn based fashion. Grid system. Weapons would have ranges, perhaps perks to increase range, etc.

So many options.

[dmazz]

At some point, [IMO] the abstracted "game" aspects must trump realism...

Realism is one argument but simple gameplay is another. The truth is turn based combat with multiple NPCs you directly always control takes too much time. It rips you from immersion in the RPG element and instead your playing a 'turnbased combat sim' instead.

So the challenge then becomes speeding up combat without losing tactical depth. What degree of tactical depth is unknown, but many people agree Fallouts combat system is too simplistic, JA2/Silent Storm too complex. Fallout: Tactics combat system sits in the middle.

A polished Fallout: Tactics combat system with a 'time slider' (Max Payne bullet time style) that is able to slow down the passage of time to very small increments (the action for me was always too fast, especially with needing to control every single person in the squad) would be my ideal at this time. Advanced combat A.I that does alot of the basics in combat would speed up basic movement and actions significantly without losing depth. The more advanced the combat A.I the more time is freed up for combat actions to be performed, moving combat along at a faster pace.

[Quarex]

Anyone who thinks there has never been a good party combat system has probably not played that many CRPGs.

Or RPGs in general, really.

I mean, even if you think Wasteland's combat system was bad for the time (which it totally was not), the Ultima games had quick party-based combat; I still feel that Ultima VI is the best turn-based party combat system ever, though Temple of Elemental Evil's was pretty good too (albeit too slow). Speaking of too slow, any game that is based on tactical squad-based combat WILL be too slow when combat is not the focus of the game. As much as I love games like that, if you spend 99% of your time fighting and 1% of your time exploring, it is not really an RPG anymore.

I think the real exciting thing people are overlooking is that we have the opportunity to do something nobody has ever done before (to my knowledge); have all of your characters issued commands at the same time, ala Wasteland, and then see it played out in real time as both sides open fire on each other, with the kind of havoc that only "everyone gunning down a single target" can create (how else are people supposed to be turned into a fine red mist?).

[enderandrew]

I think my two favorite party based combat systems are ToEE (despite how buggy the game was and how lame the story was) and Fallout: Tactics.

[geezer]

Realism is one argument but simple gameplay is another. The truth is turn based combat with multiple NPCs you directly always control takes too much time. It rips you from immersion in the RPG element and instead your playing a 'turnbased combat sim' instead.

What did you think of the combat in ToEE? It takes time for you to give orders to your characters. How else could you fight strategically?

So the challenge then becomes speeding up combat without losing tactical depth. What degree of tactical depth is unknown, but many people agree Fallouts combat system is too simplistic, JA2/Silent Storm too complex. Fallout: Tactics combat system sits in the middle.

I haven't played Fallout:Tactics or JA2, but I do think the idea of stacking up commands for your party possibly even 2 or more rounds deep and then letting the whole thing play out like a movie is not a terrible idea. It does add to the drama and doesn't require compromising the strategic nature of turn based combat too much. Of course more than 1 round of stacking will not allow you to adapt your tactics to the enemy's choices. So of course it should be purely optional.

A polished Fallout: Tactics combat system with a 'time slider' (Max Payne bullet time style) that is able to slow down the passage of time to very small increments (the action for me was always too fast, especially with needing to control every single person in the squad) would be my ideal at this time. Advanced combat A.I that does alot of the basics in combat would speed up basic movement and actions significantly without losing depth. The more advanced the combat A.I the more time is freed up for combat actions to be performed, moving combat along at a faster pace.

To me the whole point of strategic combat is that I am the one making the decisions. Would you want to play a game of computer chess where the computer made the decisions for both sides?

And why would you need a time slider? The very nature of turn based combat is that it actually freezes time completely.

[killias2]

I'm trying to think of ways that the combat system can be made more like FO Tactics/ToEE but much quicker.

Here are some possibilities I've been considering:
1. NPC party members (as opposed to the 4 or so PC party members) should not be given "orders." Instead, you should be able to give them some sort of general strategy (be aggressive, be passive, protect yourself), but with a decent chance (depending on NPC characteristics and the interplay between your character and said character) of doing whatever the hell they want. NPC's in combat should be a major asset but also a major problem. Maybe better relations will eventually open up more combat options? At the last, better PC-NPC relations should lead to less problematic NPC actions, depending on their natural tendencies.

2. Combat should be less common than usual for an RPG, and most battles should be relatively low-key. However, -real- battles should be a bit of an affair. Nothing like JA, but somewhat more intensive/time consuming/tactical than the original FO. Basically, battles should have the potential to take more time, but they should be less common and, typically, less intensive. Getting yourself in a real "combat" situation, should be a real problem.
-My only problem here is that I'm not sure how to differentiate low-key battles from the intense battles, and I feel like "few, intense" battles is just too distant from Wasteland. If I had to say anything, I'd say that intense battles could involve tougher odds and more tactical elements. Typical battles should involve enemies able to pack a punch but without any real staying power. Tactics could be used to offset the damage, but they shouldn't be necessary. As the game goes on, Tactics should become more important overall.

I'm not dead-set on anything here. I'm just throwin' some ideas out there.

[dmazz]

The Temple of Elemental Evil I haven't played yet unfortunately.

But I've found all party systems so far made by all the popular RPG's and tactical sims to be cumbersome and fidgety. The primary complaint on my part I think stems from the repetitiveness and meaninglessness of alot of the things you need to do. In JA2/Silent Storm for example, I needed to reload everyones hand guns and tell them who and when to shoot and correctly position them exactly behind cover, kneeling, going prone etcetera. And I had to do this again and again and again throughout combat. It got boring and why should it not? It doesn't take intelligence or skill to do the super obvious again and again. It was the same with Fallout Tactics only then I had a time limit in which to move my mouse lest I get killed. So that was more frustrating than boring. And let's not forget micromanaging of stuff, very boring too, cause it was repetitive and required no brainpower.

All the above adds nothing to tactical depth in combat. It doesn't require a tactical genius to realize when being shot at, that shooting back is a good idea, neither that seeking cover to stop getting shot, nor reloading your gun after it's out of ammo and so on. Laying ambushes and suppressing to flank requires tactical thought but all the rest were basic repetitive stuff, I shouldn't be forced to do.

That's why I think Fallout Tactics for all it's frustration was a step in the right direction. It's not perfect combat system automated 'taking turns' and firing. Giving combat a tremendous speed boost.

Stacking commands and A.I scripts (if this, do this) is a step in the right direction, but doesn't speed up combat that much. For significant speed boosts we'll need half decent A.I, that can do simple things automatically like take cover, fire back and reload. Three actions you just saved time from having to perform yourself.

PS
I'm not disparaging the pleasures of lewt (loot). But attention needs to be paid to the dark side of looting, primarily micromanagement repetitiveness and looting repetitiveness. These latter aspects increases combat time because there is always time spent after combat in these activities.

To me the whole point of strategic combat is that I am the one making the decisions. Would you want to play a game of computer chess where the computer made the decisions for both sides?

Chess is not a suitable example since every chess move made is of tremendous strategic importance. In most combat tactical games alot of the things you do are boring, repetitive and so obvious you feel stupid having to do them. I think most games give the player the illusion of tactical depth by giving them things to do. Tactical depth are things like preparing an ambush, suppressing to move, misdirection to flank and so on.

And why would you need a time slider? The very nature of turn based combat is that it actually freezes time completely.

Exactly, time is frozen, combat has just been slowed down not to crawl, but to a dead stop. That takes up precious time. So a time slider simply gives the user the choice of allowing time/turns/action points to continue to move forward. So combat is sped up, in low level encounters tremendously so since there would be little if any tactical decisions to be made and so you would just let the A.I handle the combat at normal speed, you would sit back and watch. For really important/dangerous foes or tactically important decisions you can stop time too, just like turn based and Bioware's 'pause' function.

you should be able to give them some sort of general strategy (be aggressive, be passive, protect yourself), but with a decent chance (depending on NPC characteristics and the interplay between your character and said character) of doing whatever the hell they want. NPC's in combat should be a major asset but also a major problem. Maybe better relations will eventually open up more combat options? At the last, better PC-NPC relations should lead to less problematic NPC actions, depending on their natural tendencies.

That's NPC A.I. And I do agree NPC's should have a A.I personality of sorts, and it makes sense to only make highly skilled and experienced NPC's have the best A.I. (and/or more A.I settings)

Combat should be less common than usual for an RPG, and most battles should be relatively low-key.

There should be a measure of speed control in combat. Not less combat, but faster combat. Granted there would need to be a RPG story to combat balance, naturally.

Basically, battles should have the potential to take more time, but they should be less common and, typically, less intensive. Getting yourself in a real "combat" situation, should be a real problem.

My time slider function allows this exactly. Something traditional turn based combat doesn't. Fallout Tactics 'real time' and turn based modes were either too little or too much, never just right.

I'd say that intense battles could involve tougher odds and more tactical elements.

Ideally battles should be as tactically rich and intense as possible. Because that's the most enjoyable type of combat. This is easy to achieve in real life as someone with a gun getting a lucky shot into your head is always possible. In a game it requires alot of thought and time, to setup huge battle set pieces. But the best thing to do is to make a combat system that results in the most intense and tactically rich combat possible, 'intense' doesn't mean a fight lasting one hour, but actually being at risk of dying. In JA2 for example, your player being caught out in the open without cover was intense, since they were at a higher risk of getting killed in the next turn. That's because death via bullet was quicker and easier, than in fallout. Fighting inside buildings and houses should be intense 100% of the time, because the chances of getting shot just rose to 90%. And unless your wearing power armor, a bullet to the head will kill you, getting shot in the arm or legs isn't unlikely either.

I envision A.I that will run inside buildings and houses when greatly outmatched to increase their combat potential. And the player in most cases would not bother going after them. Mainly cause going in guns blazing is too dangerous. The other method of killing them would be to use explosives or shoot through walls, but both methods use up precious ammo.