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

[cerberix]

Yes, Fallout Tactics has 2 modes of combat: turn based and real time. I hope Wasteland 2 will has these modes too, but devs if you don't like that idea please do something like Icewind Dale/Baldurs combat style (it's "real time" but you can use pause for planning attacks, you know).

For me the best solution is:
- combat modes: turn, rt or "pause mode), so if everyone will be happy!

[krellen]

- combat modes: turn, rt or "pause mode), so if everyone will be happy!

I would not be happy with FOT style gameplay. Implementing the "real-time-with-pause" system, or even the "continuous turn based" one, would force game play conceits towards these systems that would deter from the feel of a genuine turn-based design.

Baldur's Gate never really felt like D&D to me because it was really real-time underneath.

[Gizmo]

Yes, Fallout Tactics has 2 modes of combat: turn based and real time. I hope Wasteland 2 will has these modes too, but devs if you don't like that idea please do something like Icewind Dale/Baldurs combat style (it's "real time" but you can use pause for planning attacks, you know).

For me the best solution is:
- combat modes: turn, rt or "pause mode), so if everyone will be happy!

It won't be realtime; (something I'm thankful about). I like Tactics, IWD, and BG, but they are unrelated games. I would hope for a closer sequel than copying them would allow.

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

Yes, Fallout Tactics has 2 modes of combat: turn based and real time. I hope Wasteland 2 will has these modes too, but devs if you don't like that idea please do something like Icewind Dale/Baldurs combat style (it's "real time" but you can use pause for planning attacks, you know).

For me the best solution is:
- combat modes: turn, rt or "pause mode), so if everyone will be happy!

It won't be realtime; (something I'm thankful about). I like Tactics, IWD, and BG, but they are unrelated games. I would hope for a closer sequel than copying them would allow.

Those games have more in common with RTS or RTT games than they do with turn-based RPGs. IMO, Wasteland itself has more in common with Civ or HOMM.

[dmazz]

I've sort of burned out on discussing the combat system. Since I've felt JA2/Silent Storm combat would make a good base but vastly sped up so combat doesn't take that long. Wrote a really long post with suggestions for making that happen.
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=1015

But what is interesting is that Brian mentioned Fallout Tactics, and it uses a real time combat system. But Brian is also very clear that the combat will be turn based. It's possible he may have been referring to it's increased tactical features (prone, crouch), but I doubt it. Mainly cause Brian also says he doesn't want to mention a few games combat systems he's thinking about, so people won't lose their heads. The group of games he would be talking about are pluasibly the pause real time combat games of Baldurs Gate and their ilk or the JA2/Silent Storm hardcore turn based combat games.

Whichever group of games he's talking about the tension of both those combat systems is represented in Fallout Tactics. But FOT was flawed in it's implementation as it couldn't choose between either system and just retained the extremes of both real time paused and turn based systems. My prediction is we'll get a new and improved Fallout tactics combat system.

In this regard my suggestion of a time slider (slow mo/fast forward) system would be a place inbetween real time pause and turn based combat. Another feature addition of Fallout tactics was A.i fire control, this saved time as one wasn't giving orders to shoot all the time. A more advanced version of this feature is likely.

And as for Frozen Synapse, (and Wasteland) that is the slowest combat system of all. Even slower than JA2/Silent Storm turn based. In Frozen Synapse the player through trial and error, creates one 'perfect' turn and then 'executes' it. A couple of reasons why it doesn't feel slow is one is dropped into a tactical combat situation with a purely attack mindset, one has less tactical decisions to make, errors in combat can quickly be reversed and the user interface control system is far more optimized than JA2/Silent Storm. Wasteland is similiar in that one has to give all ones orders in one go, then read combat happening. This only appears to be faster due to having less tactical decisions to make.

Some may not like that Fallout Tactics made the addition of timing to it's combat system. But remember timing and arcade like elements are probably the most easy to swallow speed optimzing 'hurry up' feature to add to turn based combat. Introduction of timing aspects would be preferable to making combat simpler by reducing tactical depth.

In regards to describing what combat is people need to break a games combat down into it's components to describe it properly.

Baldurs Gate - Real time with pause, optional A.i party fire and movement control.
Fallout tactics - Real time with pause (turn based combat option), optional A.i party fire control.
Fallout - turn based, non optional A.i party fire and movement control.
Jagged Alliance 2 - turn based, manual party fire and movement controls (including crouch and prone)
Silent Storm - turn based, manual party fire and movement controls (including crouch and prone)
Wasteland - Paused with fast forward, manual party fire and movement controls. (not including crouch and prone)
Frozen Synapse - Paused with fast forward, manual party fire and movement controls. (including crouch and prone)

The above is also ranked from fastest to slowest combat. Of note is JA2 combat is significantly faster than Silent Storm combat not because their combat is different, they are practically the same, but just because JA2 has a superior user interface. Personally I think a speed optimized JA2 combat is enough, and what I would prefer. But it seems Brian has something else in mind with Fallout Tactics being the best example. Notice what happens if you combine the features of Baldur's Gate, Fallout Tactics and Fallout. Basically user regulated real time (not just 'pause') and A.i optional fire and movement control. So that's probably what's going to be the combat system, probably the first one.
Wasteland 2 - turn based with slow mo & real time, optional A.i fire and movement control (including crouch and prone)
Wasteland 2 - real time with slow mo & pause, optional A.i fire and movement control (including crouch and prone)

'Turn based with slo mo & real time' is turn based combat system but with the option of entering into slow motion or fast forward/real time (depending on ones user preferences settings, like Fallout) at any moment. That way one can speed up the more predictable and dull aspects of combat and savor the more action heavy tense moments of combat, with the slow mo. And of course turn based will be default enabling one to savor ones tactical choices and not be hurried too much.

[Plasmablaster]

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.

[paultakeda]

But what is interesting is that Brian mentioned Fallout Tactics, and it uses a real time combat system.-

Actually, FO:T has three modes, the closest to WL is STB, a phased, turn-based combat mode. Also, Brian mentioned FO:T because it's what was used as a discussion starter in the forums. He didn't bring it up, we did.

[MDF_MadDogFargo]

In regards to describing what combat is people need to break a games combat down into it's components to describe it properly.

Baldurs Gate - Real time with pause, optional A.i party fire and movement control.
Fallout tactics - Real time with pause (turn based combat option), optional A.i party fire control.
Fallout - turn based, non optional A.i party fire and movement control.
Jagged Alliance 2 - turn based, manual party fire and movement controls (including crouch and prone)
Silent Storm - turn based, manual party fire and movement controls (including crouch and prone)
Wasteland - Paused with fast forward, manual party fire and movement controls. (not including crouch and prone)
Frozen Synapse - Paused with fast forward, manual party fire and movement controls. (including crouch and prone)

The above is also ranked from fastest to slowest combat. [...]

How does the overlapping character moves of Wasteland fit into your taxonomy of combat systems? I am not familiar with all the systems you mention. BG (afaik) and Fallout don't have overlapping moves. I consider Wasteland to have a simultaneous or stepwise simultaneous combat (with different speed/initiative deciding who attacks first and who "peels off a final round").

[not quote="BatCountry"]
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 both fallouts and also 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 like the latter system much more (simultaneous turns).

The main reasons is that it allows for better realism, more advanced tactics (like immediately resolved suppression) and very importantly it recreates what happens when things don't go the way you planned in a much better way (confusion in fights is very often the deciding factor). If you made a plan based on an assupmtion 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.

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

I agree. A lot of the absurdities of Fallout style combat can be resolved just by making everybody move at the same time.

I do not know if one ought to call Wasteland combat purely simultaneous or stepwise simultaneous (since some characters have higher speed than others), but whatever you want to call it, it's some kind of overlapping turns combat.

Stainless also has a very good account of overlapping/simultaneous movement:

I'm in favor of all moves playing out at once at the end of the turn.

Keep it simple stupid: KISS principle.

When I run a paper and pencil rpg, I have the player characters with the lowest intiative declare and roll first, the players with the highest initiative declare and roll last. When all rolls have been made I the storyteller describe what happens starting with the highest initiative players action first. The reason I make the highest initiative player declare moves and roll last is to give tactical advantage to his high initiative, he gets to know what the lower initiative players are attempting.

I would be very happy if something like this could translate into a Wasteland 2 setting.

[paultakeda]

I do not know if one ought to call Wasteland combat purely simultaneous or stepwise simultaneous (since some characters have higher speed than others), but whatever you want to call it, it's some kind of overlapping turns combat.

Phased turn-based combat. You give all your commands in a command phase, then the action phase begins and actions are taken by turn based on initiative rolls.

I am not sure how this would work with visualized combat. If you command a ranger to move three paces west to take cover but during the action phase a raider walks over to take cover in the exact same tile before your ranger due to initiative, what happens?

I have a feeling that for visualized combat it will end up being more similar to FO:T ITB mode.

[Gizmo]

'Phase Based' allows committed intent, but the actions still played out linearly; a side effect of this is that a PC's intended target might actually be dead by the time they (would have) attacked them.

'Turn Based' allows the player to base all following actions with respect to the preceding ones that occurred in the round; the death of an opponent does not come as a surprise when your turn comes and it's time to decide your PC's actions.

** Baldur's Gate used modified D&D turn based rules; and effectively removed anything turn based about it, but the legacy is still in there... Each character is running on their own system of 'actions per round', but all of these internal rounds are concurrent.

[paultakeda]

'Phase Based' allows committed intent, but the actions still played out linearly; a side effect of this is that a PC's intended target might actually be dead by the time they (would have) attacked them.

This is where the side effect can become more pronounced since combat is now visualized. This problem can also occur in simultaneous combat, since you could have movement collision there as well.

[sammyboy0120]

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?).

I think one of the SOCOM games for the PSP had a combat system like that.

[Prometheus]

But what is interesting is that Brian mentioned Fallout Tactics, and it uses a real time combat system.-

Actually, FO:T has three modes, the closest to WL is STB, a phased, turn-based combat mode. Also, Brian mentioned FO:T because it's what was used as a discussion starter in the forums. He didn't bring it up, we did.

Yeah, I'm thinking Fallout Tactics in simultaneous turn-based mode (move your entire squad in your turn). The Q&A was great and I'm pretty confident that combat will be fun in the game.

[Rzarkrusz Rowa]

I think it should be closer to WL and evolved from that point, not from the point of Rebelstar Raiders, Fallout or whatever other skirmish game.

[Gizmo]

I truly hope they do not take to heart the idea of variations on the combat method. I do not want it to have three options.
If they split their time across three variant methods, it is an absolute fact that one method would turn out superior to the others ~and it might not be the one that you personally prefer. It would also (very likely I think) be the case that certain fights could be gamed by switching combat modes mid game (if that were allowed).

[alanschu]

- combat modes: turn, rt or "pause mode), so if everyone will be happy!

I would not be happy with FOT style gameplay. Implementing the "real-time-with-pause" system, or even the "continuous turn based" one, would force game play conceits towards these systems that would deter from the feel of a genuine turn-based design.

I have a feeling that the combat system will be fully turn-based, even in light of Fargo making references to probably drawing in some aspects of FOT and even JA.

I wonder if they'll do something like, I think it was Earthbound, did and if you're significantly more powerful than a random encounter, the game just autoresolves for you. It'd help out with spending time fighting meaningless combats in a tactical way.

[BlackGauntlet]

"HellRazor ran towards a barrel for cover while DethAngel rushed towards the enemy in a combat frezny, criss-crossing each other's paths. HellRazor accidentally tackled DethAngel to ground and stumbled back. A barrage of bullets turned both into a mist of red..."

[dmazz]

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

Baldur's Gate does have overlapping moves as each move has a different speed setting, initiative settings and can be interrupted. It's just not obvious, as it happens behind the scenes.

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'. This is no different to a player dodging an arrow in Baldur's Gate combat.

[cerberix]

- combat modes: turn, rt or "pause mode), so if everyone will be happy!

I would not be happy with FOT style gameplay. Implementing the "real-time-with-pause" system, or even the "continuous turn based" one, would force game play conceits towards these systems that would deter from the feel of a genuine turn-based design.

Baldur's Gate never really felt like D&D to me because it was really real-time underneath.

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.

[ffordesoon]

That sounds nifty. Also, unrealistic. The fact of the matter is, three different modes of combat are an absolute goddamn nightmare to balance, and they will not be balanced effectively in twelve months. One size needs to fit all in this case.