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

[Gizmo]

So, you will change in options turb based combat and... enjoy the game! Someone will play tb, other rt and other "pause mode". That's the best solution for me. Play as you want.

That's a terrible solution. Turn based design is not just a delay between actions. Baldur's Gate was not suddenly Turn based if you enabled auto-pause and it stopped every few seconds.

[dmazz]

It's true,they really only have time to polish and balance one form of combat. They seem to have their eye set on turn based combat. My suggestion of a slow mo and fast forward to turn based combat isn't really a combat mechanic, more of a visual option easily accessed to slow or speed up what your are seeing, so it should be easily implemented.

[Rzarkrusz Rowa]

Don't be confused by Wasteland's 'he peeled off a round as he died'. All that means is the player who was killed was in the process of firing his weapon at you and their death was not instant, instead it took them a certain period of time to 'die'.

Even if you pump a whole magazine of AK-97 into them, he'll "still peel off a round as he die". IIRC it was explicitly mentioned somewhere that it's supposed to emulate simultaneousness of action.

[Varrok]

Personally, I think Fallout's (or FT's) is great and would really fit W2

[Lanatir]

Personally, I think Fallout's (or FT's) is great and would really fit W2

funny thing with personal oppinions is that everyone got one. As for me, i think especially FT's does NOT fit W2 cause its way too deep and tactical.
And it looks like Brian doesnt want it too tactical either, hence his saying:

'And we don’t want the tactics SO deep that you feel disconnected from the world by being in long battles all the time. The last thing we want is someone groaning every time combat pops...'

http://www.vg247.com/2012/04/11/in-exil ... wQ.twitter

[dmazz]

By emulate do you mean lie? Cause that's what it sounds like. By definition Wasteland (and any other stat and die roll based game) cannot portray simultaneous combat which taken for it's full meaning implies absolute real time. Instead there are various causes of death and each type of death takes a different amount of time. Those that die quickly can't complete their action and get a shot off, while those that die slowly can get a shot off. This is a more realistic feature but that doesn't mean simultaneous actions are taking place. Simultaneous actions are impossible in a game that is based on stats and dice rolls, or if they were possible it would render stats and dice rolls irrelevant. (a feature which although random, makes sense if the feeling of realism is the aim, in real life random stuff happens)

Fallout tactics combat isn't that deep. It's got crouch and prone, and A.i fire control. (which is more of a helpful user interface feature, not a game mechanic). It's deeper than Fallout, Baldurs Gate and Wasteland, equally deep as Frozen Synapse, but not as deep as JA2/Silent Storm. The main problem with FOT is not it's tactical depth but it's slowness, largely due to it's bad user interface and control system.

[Rzarkrusz Rowa]

The main problem with Fallout Tactics is that it doesn't have terrain destruction which was a prominent part of skirmish wargames at least since Laser Squad.
In Fallout Tactics you often have to go through some kind of corrugated alluminium labirynth with indestructible doors requiring specific keys.
In a reasonable skirmish wargame like Laser Squad, X-Com or JA2 you often go through walls and through fences, not through doors as doors are obvious ambush points and walls often offer a closer route anyway.
Not to mention lack of basic stuff like smoke grenades.

[scout]

I agree with the op, closer to fallout and if you watch the latest update it seems the most likely. Ofcourse some core things will be the same and other things will be vastly different because of new technology. The essence will be wasteland.

[dmazz]

Yep destructible terrain and environments. This feature though is more of a technical hurdle than something to argue about. I'm pretty sure everyone likes destructible terrain and environments. But it's a hassle to implement in a game. Hopefully Wasteland 2 has it.

[eightbits]

I want to see combat handled pretty much the same way as WL2. A better interface would be nice. Fallout's combat interface was OK, but I'd like to see the same basic WL2 combat action here.

And, if it's not too much, it'd be nice to have a classic wasteland style of combat. I rather enjoyed reading the someone exploded like a blood sausage a lot more than I liked seeing someone explode like a blood sausage. Granted, it was pretty cool too, but I'd rather read the detailed gore. My imagination is so much better than any computer graphics that have ever been rendered that I'd love to have that be the focus more than the graphics.

[Rootwalla]

I think that it's better to have only one character like in Fallout and you have an option to add additional characters... it's much better when you can concentrate on just one character than on four... Will there be an option to create and play with only one character? Because I don't want to play with a party... it's stupid if you must play with a party.

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

Simultaneous turns is a just a fancy way of saying really fast real time. It's a reversed form of Baldur's Gate combat. Instead of real time as the default position like in Baldurs Gate, your default position is paused. Also their combat does not have more depth than JA2/Silent Storm, less in my view.

I'm not so sure about that. This is way I see Wasteland combat playing out: You set up the actions in the combat phase and then the actions play out at the time that the computer rolls the dice. It isn't very fast real time. The actions aren't points along a real-time axis because there is no action (or axis) except for those points. So, in other words real-time I take to be like a movie where you are stepping through the frames of predictable motion. There is no state of motion or smooth curve in Wasteland encounters; just the jumps from one calculated instant to the other. The moments reported by the computer are the instantaneous changes of motion, not points in time. The state of the action is a derivative of the encounter integral. It's SMASH-CUT - SMASH-CUT - SMASH-CUT. Not one movie, but a bunch of instant excerpts or snapshots.

Don't be confused by Wasteland's 'he peeled off a round as he died'. All that means is the player who was killed was in the process of firing his weapon at you and their death was not instant, instead it took them a certain period of time to 'die'.

Even if you pump a whole magazine of AK-97 into them, he'll "still peel off a round as he die". IIRC it was explicitly mentioned somewhere that it's supposed to emulate simultaneousness of action.

By emulate do you mean lie? Cause that's what it sounds like. By definition Wasteland (and any other stat and die roll based game) cannot portray simultaneous combat which taken for it's full meaning implies absolute real time. Instead there are various causes of death and each type of death takes a different amount of time. Those that die quickly can't complete their action and get a shot off, while those that die slowly can get a shot off. This is a more realistic feature but that doesn't mean simultaneous actions are taking place. Simultaneous actions are impossible in a game that is based on stats and dice rolls, or if they were possible it would render stats and dice rolls irrelevant. (a feature which although random, makes sense if the feeling of realism is the aim, in real life random stuff happens)

I always thought it went like this: The characters get one action each turn, move, attack, evade, or hire. Some characters begin their action later and finish their action later because they are slower; and some actions themselves like unjam, Medic or Doctor use, are lower priority. If you kill an enemy before they begin to fire then they don't get a shot off. But if you kill an enemy at the same time as they fire, they get a shot off. If a slower character aims and fires at your last position, you might not be there when the bullets arrive because you moved while they were aiming.

Due to the sequential nature of the computer's algorithm and our own consciousness, nothing "simultaneous" can be presented all at once. The easiest way to see simultaneity is to picture it in your mind. 'This thing and that thing.' A picture or a movie can only show you a bit of it. Words can say what happened but you have to imagine part of it. So although you are right that the game can't truly portray simultaneity, I don't think that's because of a stat roll game can't envision it. Indeed the most simple combat, like in a Civ combat, represents simultaneous defense and offense. Wasteland does its best to make things look like they are all happening at relatively the same time (in other words, 'emulating' it).

One turn in the game is supposed to represent the same amount of time for all the characters. But some characters are faster and some are slower. So if you were a very slow character watching a very fast character, they might seem to move too fast for you to see, like a time-lapse streak of light photograph. But relative speeds actually means some characters have more time and more observation ability than slower characters, as in Stainless's PnP example. By taking the combat in one phase at a time and simultaneous combat, each character's 'clock' as it were, gets reset each turn as well.

That type of combat is also the slowest available, highly unlikely they will choose it for Wasteland 2.

Please explain. Why is simultaneous combat the slowest available? I would think it's the fastest. It plays out instantaneously in Wasteland. I do not think you can get any faster than instantaneous.

[dmazz]

Yes I know it's not real time. When I say 'real time' I mean Baldur's Gate real time combat (As it is known). Everything looks real time but the numbers are still being crunched behind the scenes.

Baldur's Gate combat reversed explains everything about Wasteland combat. It's not a mystery, simultaneous combat too. In baldur's gate you can dodge an arrow, in wasteland you can fire on someone who's already dead. Same thing.

Wasteland (and Frozen Synapse) are the slowest combat available due to duplication of actions and movement. In a turn based and real time combat system, when the player performs an action or movement they only do it once, and see the results at the same time. In Wasteland and Frozen Synapse, one performs a movement and action once, then sees it again after they end their turn. Sure it's in real time and somewhat sped up but it's still a duplication, which slows down combat. (keeping in mind Wasteland is text based combat, visual combat takes more time) Although it depends on how optimized for speed each combat system is, user interface, control system, A.i player character help, stuff like that.

[krellen]

Actually, if your target died before your turn in Wasteland, you just skipped your turn.

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

Simultaneous turns is a just a fancy way of saying really fast real time. It's a reversed form of Baldur's Gate combat. Instead of real time as the default position like in Baldurs Gate, your default position is paused. Also their combat does not have more depth than JA2/Silent Storm, less in my view.

I'm not so sure about that. This is way I see Wasteland combat playing out: You set up the actions in the combat phase and then the actions play out at the time that the computer rolls the dice. It isn't very fast real time. [...]

By emulate do you mean lie? Cause that's what it sounds like. By definition Wasteland (and any other stat and die roll based game) cannot portray simultaneous combat which taken for it's full meaning implies absolute real time.
[...]

[...]
If you kill an enemy before they begin to fire then they don't get a shot off. But if you kill an enemy at the same time as they fire, they get a shot off. If a slower character aims and fires at your last position, you might not be there when the bullets arrive because you moved while they were aiming.
[...]
So although you are right that the game can't truly portray simultaneity, I don't think that's because of a stat roll game can't envision it. Indeed the most simple combat, like in a Civ combat, represents simultaneous defense and offense. Wasteland does its best to make things look like they are all happening at relatively the same time (in other words, 'emulating' it).
[...]

Yes I know it's not real time. When I say 'real time' I mean Baldur's Gate real time combat (As it is known). Everything looks real time but the numbers are still being crunched behind the scenes.

Baldur's Gate combat reversed explains everything about Wasteland combat. It's not a mystery, simultaneous combat too. In baldur's gate you can dodge an arrow, in wasteland you can fire on someone who's already dead. Same thing.

I'm not sure that I completely understand your comparison between Wasteland and Baldur's Gate "reversed." Can you please elaborate?

I haven't played Baldur's Gate (always wanted to, never had time) but I'm imagining (correct me if I'm wrong) something like Ultima 7 (for example) or an RTS game. Actually Freedom Force/Vs the Third Reich has a slow down/pause option with real-time commands and you can treat the paused game like a command phase. I'm imagining something like that.

What's different about WL is that there is no in-time milieu. The RT game has to calculate what the next moment in time will look like so that it can update the player every frame of the game whether anything happens or not. But Wasteland updates the player when the action happens. "Time" (in combat) is, as it were, inexistent, not frozen. Nothing happens in the acton phase without your input, your direction; and nothing is waiting to happen between action phases (your opponents act in the same frame of reference).

I think this could work in a game with isometric view, etc. that Brian Fargo has described. To wit: Your party encounters an enemy. You choose your commands (for the whole phase) and the actions play out one change in the action at a time whether that's one hit, or miss, or two hits at once, whatever the dice roll is. You watch the characters fire their ranged weapons, or rush the enemy in HtH, or evade, or whatever. Every change in the action is presented graphically, but not necessarily every moment of time. Speed is the reference, not time; time is that thing that is relative to faster or slower characters (nobody has an external clock). Some actions like very fast running, rapidfire or multiple melee attacks, might be pictured as a blur.

That type of combat is also the slowest available, highly unlikely they will choose it for Wasteland 2.

Please explain. Why is simultaneous combat the slowest available? I would think it's the fastest. It plays out instantaneously in Wasteland. I do not think you can get any faster than instantaneous.

Wasteland (and Frozen Synapse) are the slowest combat available due to duplication of actions and movement. In a turn based and real time combat system, when the player performs an action or movement they only do it once, and see the results at the same time. In Wasteland and Frozen Synapse, one performs a movement and action once, then sees it again after they end their turn. Sure it's in real time and somewhat sped up but it's still a duplication, which slows down combat. (keeping in mind Wasteland is text based combat, visual combat takes more time) Although it depends on how optimized for speed each combat system is, user interface, control system, A.i player character help, stuff like that.

Ah, but the TB/RT system doesn't show you commmand and movement at the same time. There's always a command/movement separation. IMO, the difference (to that) from phase-based simultaneous combat is the number of commands you issue and the number of pieces you order at once, and the consequent number of moves you see. In simultaneous combat, you get to see more actions played out, faster; IMO the moves don't exactly duplicate the commands, because your plans might be interrupted or thwarted. It's the difference between playing football one player at a time or playing via football strategies. Your characters huddle together and decide what to do, then they all act accordingly. Even in this frame of reference, they can act individually, depending on contingency situations like injuries; faster characters can re-aim their attacks at slower characters.

Actually, if your target died before your turn in Wasteland, you just skipped your turn.

That's always a potential result in this knd of combat; I remember early NES RPGs (and maybe Wizardry too?) had a problem with wasted moves. Most later games let your characters contribute something (attack a different enemy, etc.), if their target is missing.

[Keaton]

I think the crux of the Wasteland system is simultaneous turns. You don't just step your pieces one at a time through Wasteland battles. You give them orders and then everybody acts at the same time. It's very different from Fallout. It happens quicker but you don't have fewer things to do.

I like this approach very much. I've played games like Combat Mission or Laser Squad Nemesis where you issue commands/directions to your units while the game is paused, your opponent does the same and when both sides are ready the commands get executed by each participant to the best of his ability simultaneously to one-another. I this system (simultaneous turns) much more than the fallout one.

The main reasons are:

1. It allows for better game realism. In the real world combatants act simultaneously, they don't wait each other to take their turns.

2. It allows for more advanced tactics (like immediately resolved suppression).

3. It recreates the ever-present combat confusion in a much better way (confusion in fights is very often the deciding factor). If you made a plan based on an assupmtion or hope of yours but during the turn things didn't go as planned the consequences may be more severe than in fallout-style combat and I like that. It makes you approach combat in a more realistic way.

4. It allows you to see the action unfold in a more dramatic way, where bullets fly from all directions simultaneously. (OK this could be added to #1 but that was about the "mechanic" aspect of reality whereas here I mention the "drama" aspect of it).

So, I'm all for a simultaneous turns system.

This. Phase based or simultaneous turn based combat would be great. It would be fast enough and the advantages you describe are even more important.
Phase based is TB of course, dunno what dmazz means when he writes: "Simultaneous turns is a just a fancy way of saying really fast real time". That's simply wrong, very very wrong. But MDF_MadDogFargo already addressed that.

Wasteland (and Frozen Synapse) are the slowest combat available due to duplication of actions and movement.

There is no need to duplicate anything. In every combat type you have to give orders anyway and they don't need to show the results immediately on click. Just wait for the player to finish his input and click on "end turn" and then resolve it.
Or give the player basic feedback on his turn like line of sight and aiming at enemies he chooses to attack but don't let the PCs execute the important actions (shooting, blowing up things, opening/closing doors) before the end of the turn.
The new XCOM:EU Remake seems to work like this.

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

So, I'm all for a simultaneous turns system.

This. Phase based ot simultaneous turn based combat would be great. It would be fast enough and the advantages you describe are even more important.
Phase based is TB of course, dunno what dmazz means when he writes: "Simultaneous turns is a just a fancy way of saying really fast real time". That's simply wrong, very very wrong.

Wasteland (and Frozen Synapse) are the slowest combat available due to duplication of actions and movement./quote]
There is no need to duplicate anything. In every combat type you have to give orders anyway and they don't need to show the results immediately on click. Just wait for the player to finish his input and click on "end turn" and then resolve it.

I think he is picking up on the fact that even though we understand the turns are simultaneous, the computer presents the combat sequentially. In a BG, RT type combat you watch the actions all at once because they are positioned in time together. But in WL for example, the turns are presented one action at a time, shoot and miss, shoot and hit, throw punch and strike target, etc. It's in our minds that we take all those things and arrange them into one seamless whole. The actions are calculated and presented sequentially but they happen simultaneously. That's where the genius of the WL format comes out and why it doesn't need gazilliions of animations to put everything together.

[Keaton]

But even if the actions would happen simultaneously that wouldn't make it RT.
The game mechanic is what counts and that would still be
1. player input for each PC either with a limited amount of actions or with action points
2. turn resolved by the computer with everything playing out simultaneously
3. next player turn
and so on.
It would be perfect TB and much better than any sequential TB system could ever be (well, except chess and poker maybe) because your party could really operate simultaneously giving fire protection or entering and securing a room in a sweep like some elite task force. And speaking of securing rooms, sequential TB systems like JA2 and the original XCOMs always felt very very wrong in that aspect.
...
I'm confused. Don't really get what he tries to say anyway.

[undecaf]

The way I would like the combat to work out in its basics is...

The combat opens up like in Fallout. You queu up actions for each character based on their AP
(almost like in Fallout but -- you'd queu up every action before executing it, with the option to queu and act them up individually; you'd queu up every character, with the option to queu and execute them individually if needed; queuing up would enhance the combat speed while lessening your control and submitting you to the whims of dices -- will the character be interrupted, will he shoot a dead foe, etc -- while doing all these things up individually would prolong the combat act)
You'd have indivual control of every party member, but you could also queu their acts up (shoot here, then walk there, then shoot again) and execute them all at once.

Also there'd be a "quick combat" option that would solve the outcome with a single load of your partys stats against the enemy (like in HoMM).

In a nutshell... combining the both combatstyles - Wasteland and Fallout - and building on that.

[ffordesoon]

*looks at all the combat talk, eyes roll back in head*

I am so confused right now. You have no idea.