Fallout Tactics type combat?

[Legatto]

I would love to see a good combination of the old-school wasteland/fallout narrative and exploration mixed with a brotherhood of steel tactics type combat system.

The ability to see a large portion of the field while manipulating an entire party around the map in a turn-based structure was always appealing to me. Fallout tactics and X-COM were always high on my lists of favorite games but they fell short in the story department. I think Wasteland 2 has the capability of bridging that gap so that there is an intuitive, turn-based, tactical combat system that keeps things fresh while still allowing exploration and discovery.

The great thing about this combat system is the fog of war. You don't always know what you are up against which adds tension and makes for some fun encounters. Anything could come at you from radioactive clowns to horrific death-by-claw.

Those other games were limited by the the technology of their times and I believe you could make something truly epic along those lines.

[joffeloff]

I enjoyed the squad tactics in Fallout Tactics. I especially miss the prone option in most modern games.

Hope WL2 includes prone, spotting and sniping. I miss it so much in Fallout New Vegas, a game where sniping would have been a perfect gameplay element.

[NeverShadow]

Yeah i agree, Fallout Tactics had a great combat system - first of all you had all the position options and second you had the turn based combat.
Personaly i used the fluent combat and only in hard fights i turned on the turn based for more control and tactical combat.

[Legatto]

Exactly, it would put more emphasis on strategy and tactics and less on run and gun. Wasteland 2 is supposed to be an RPG and RPG's are supposed to have depth. A tactical type of combat system would make each encounter both unique and a challenge. Randomly generated maps with the theme of the area you are in and random enemy locations would keep things fresh the entire game. Certain enemies could have advanced tactics while for example animals either head on attack or get scared and run away.

[paultakeda]

Fallout: Tactics is a tac combat game. That is its focus. Wasteland is first and foremost a classic CRPG. While tactics should be taken into consideration they should be done so with the CRPG's core mechanic rather than depending on the player to micromanage action. So no, Legatto, I disagree; RPGs are distinctly different from tac combat sims.

As mentioned in the latest video update tactics cannot be as deep as FO:T simply because the game doesn't revolve around combat and you don't want to spend hours slogging it out when you're just trying to cross the map.

We know combat is visualized so we know you will have individual movement. Movement alone increases battle time and introduces more tactics than the original, let alone micromanaging stance.

I'd focus on how movement on a combat tile can introduce tactics based on character skills, tile context, and direction of aggression.

[The6uest]

I didn't play FO:T so how did it compare to Baldur's Gate's combat system? I really liked that versus turn-based combat because I could choose to let my characters fight on their own or pause the game and manually select what I wanted each of my characters to do. The old school turn-based combat always felt less realistic to me and more time consuming.

[paultakeda]

The old school turn-based combat always felt less realistic to me and more time consuming.

Prepare to be disappointed with Wasteland 2 if this is an absolute statement. A lot can be done with this mechanic and you may find yourself liking a modern iteration.

[Legatto]

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. The games we a small fraction of the size that they are now. You could take the entire game of FO: T, upgrade it to modern times, and it would still only be on quality with like a $5 downloadable game. However, if instead of being used as an entire game and instead being used as a small part of a much larger experience then I believe it would do quite well. And Wasteland 2 is just the type of game that it would work well in.

[paultakeda]

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. The games we a small fraction of the size that they are now. You could take the entire game of FO: T, upgrade it to modern times, and it would still only be on quality with like a $5 downloadable game. However, if instead of being used as an entire game and instead being used as a small part of a much larger experience then I believe it would do quite well. And Wasteland 2 is just the type of game that it would work well in.

You are talking about two very different games here. FO:T is a pure combat tactics game because it is a pure combat tactics game. The RPG of the series is called Fallout. They could easily make a Fallout isometric now and combine Tactics into it but you are again just combining two games (a la Breach and Rules of Engagement, only thinking it should be one game).

MDF_MadDogFargo cited this once, on Sid Meier's thoughts on what went wrong with Covert Action:

The mistake I think I made in Covert Action is actually having two games in there kind of competing with each other. There was kind of an action game where you break into a building and do all sorts of picking up clues and things like that, and then there was the story which involved a plot where you had to figure out who the mastermind was and the different roles and what cities they were in, and it was a kind of an involved mystery-type plot.
I think, individually, those each could have been good games. Together, they fought with each other. You would have this mystery that you were trying to solve, then you would be facing this action sequence, and you'd do this cool action thing, and you'd get on the building, and you'd say, "What was the mystery I was trying to solve?" Covert Action integrated a story and action poorly, because the action was actually too intense. In Pirates!, you would do a sword fight or a ship battle, and a minute or two later, you were kind of back on your way. In Covert Action, you'd spend ten minutes or so of real time in a mission, and by the time you got out of [the mission], you had no idea of what was going on in the world.
So I call it the "Covert Action Rule". Don't try to do too many games in one package. And that's actually done me a lot of good. You can look at the games I've done since Civilization, and there's always opportunities to throw in more stuff. When two units get together in Civilization and have a battle, why don't we drop out to a war game and spend ten minutes or so in duking out this battle? Well, the Covert Action Rule. Focus on what the game is.

Follow that up with an article by one of Meier's lead game designers, Jon Shafer:

People often wonder why a bad game is bad. Sure, there are always obvious clues… it might have poor pacing. Or be extremely repetitive. Maybe it’s just not fun and you can’t quite figure out why. These might all be very real issues, but they nearly always stem from a single problem: a lack of focus somewhere in the game development process. The failure to establish clear priorities is nearly always the core reason for a game’s failure.

Wasteland 2 is going to be a modern iteration of the classic turn-based CRPG. It is not a tactical combat game; combat is only one of several major features. Focus.

[undecaf]

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.

I don't think that's true at all. I can't figure out anything "technological" that would've prevented them from adding more RPG elements there if that was their desire (or, alternatively, cut down some of the combat to make room for more RPG if the issue really was about that, which I doubt). The design was intentional.

That sounds alot like the (often heard at certain sites, and false) argument that Fallout would've been an FPS if the technology at the time would've allowed for it.

Anyways, on topic, I never cared about Tactics too much for it's too drawn out combat and lack of RPG elemets (still haven't finished it). And I wouldn't want a straight iteration of its combat, but a sensibly downscaled version of it that's mixed with the Wasteland system.

[Rzarkrusz Rowa]

FoT has skirmish combat, Wasteland has tactical combat.

[Inca]

Can you elaborate on your point, I am not sure I catch the difference.

[Rzarkrusz Rowa]

Scale.
Skirmish combat is about individuals.
Tactical combat is about groups.

In Fallout Tactics, one field represents about 1m and one sprite represents one individual. You move individuals and target individuals. That's what skirmish scale is about.

In Wasteland, one field represents about 3m or more depending on map level and one sprite represents a group. You move as a group and target enemy groups.

[Vryheid]

I like how people continue to completely misquote Brian Fargo as having said that he didn't want Fallout Tactics level complexity in the combat system in Wasteland 2. All he said was that he was aware of the game, and that he was going to be careful not to add too many confusing mechanics that it makes combat a painful experience. If Fargo sees that many fans of tactical RPGs did NOT think they were too complex, then he's more likely to lean in that direction when developing the system in Wasteland 2.

The ability to use things like prone and cover in Tactics definitely added a lot of depth to the experience and I hope something like that gets carried over in WL2.

[paultakeda]

The ability to use things like prone and cover in Tactics definitely added a lot of depth to the experience and I hope something like that gets carried over in WL2.

Only if it doesn't bog down combat and makes good use of the skill-based saving throw system that is the core mechanic of Wasteland.

Scenario 1:
A character is on a tile where an oil drum is directly between him and an enemy. Rather than this oil drum be a pure obstruction you can deepen combat by making the drum have a suitable modifier to damage should the enemy attempt to shoot through the drum.
If the character has a particular skill, say "Skirmisher", this adds a "cover" modifier to the drum as the character has a skill that makes him realize he should crouch and have the drum completely cover his body. A character without the skill would just stand behind the drum and the potential for damage is only modified by the drum's default modifier.

You take cover by moving a character to cover, the skill system then acts within the context of the tiles on the combat map to modify to-hit and damage.

Scenario 2:
Your character is on a grass tile at long range equipped with a rifle. The enemy is line-of-sight. You command single shot. If the character has a Rifle skill he may crouch or lie prone to take the shot (representing the skill). If the character has the same Skirmisher skill mentioned in (1) then when you command him to move to another grass tile and there is no other tile type that would interrupt movement, that character would lie prone and crawl to the position you indicate. A character without the Skirmisher skill would run wildly to that tile.

The point of these scenarios is to demonstrate how tactics can be tied to the skill system that is the core mechanic of the game. Movement becomes the primary way of emphasizing tactics but the micromanagement is left to the system to determine based on position and tile context. This plays to the strengths of the RPG system and keeps it balanced with the other elements of the game outside of combat.

[CookieEatingHuskarl]

Scale.
Skirmish combat is about individuals.
Tactical combat is about groups.

In Fallout Tactics, one field represents about 1m and one sprite represents one individual. You move individuals and target individuals. That's what skirmish scale is about.

In Wasteland, one field represents about 3m or more depending on map level and one sprite represents a group. You move as a group and target enemy groups.

Your 'Skirmish' sounds like my 'Tactical' and I'm thinking games like fallout actually support my view of it, while your 'Tactical' sounds more like my 'Strategic', that includes titles such as Crusader King and Hearts of Iron. That said, I'm a rubbish strategy player. Any sort of tactical game that requires small group tactics however, be it RT or TB, I can handle fine. Group combat trying to duke it out, I fail, miserably.

[Inca]

+1 to Paultakeda, I am surprised we are on the opposite sides in other threads, I very much favor this approach.

[CookieEatingHuskarl]

+1 to Paultakeda, I am surprised we are on the opposite sides in other threads, I very much favor this approach.

But you're not exactly on the JA2 side either. I'm surprised your initial suggestion from that thread quite long ago never gotten much comments. That particular system you cooked up smelled more like Wasteland 1 combat jacked up with some proper tactical commands.

Edit :

I think that the micromanagement that typical TB affords is the Achill’s heel of the system. It slows down the combat and makes for some very unrealistic choices. I have an alternative proposal:

let's say we have the TB in the sense: Our team moves, their team moves, civilians move-reanse repeat. BUT
Skip/do-away-with individual micromanaging steps, and "alter" the interrupt mechanic:
Instead of issuing very specific individual orders, such as: stand up, make aimed shot, move 20 squares away-implement following:
Make general orders (call them "standing orders" and "contingency orders") to a "unit' which can be comprised by the whole group or part of the group, or individual character.
Example:
Draw "select box" over two of your team members.
From position X (a "select box" could be used)
Issue modifiers: Maximum stealth (choose shadow, lay low, don't move a lot, choose "quietest" weapons), Maximum Cover (no reason for hiding, they know you are there, hide behind sturdiest wall, make yourself small, but keep good view of a target), Maximum Awareness (forget stealth and cover, best POV)
In formation: Line, File, Wedge, Diamond
Issue an order: "fire on a position" (again a "select box" could be used)
Issue modifiers: "Maximum precision (conserve ammo), Fire superiority (mind ammo, but lay steady fire), Maximum suppression (forget ammo, pin the suckers down)
Those orders are "standing" until certain turn, or "contingency" conditions
Example of contingency conditions:
High losses, Grenade, enfilade fire
Example of "contingency orders":
Withdraw, Seek Cover, Return Fire, Heal
What I mean is that you can skip the micromanagement, Employ real World Tactics, speed up combat, and enjoy the fruit of individual personalities of your party members.

In practice I envision portraits of the party members bracketed into "units" with health status marked by a background color "green" for fully functional, "yellow" for wounded but capable of continuing combat, "red" for incapacitated
with 5 tabs:
"Formation", "Your Position", "Enemy Position", "Fire", "Contingency"
In formation A
You advance to position X with modifier C
Maneuvering against Enemy position Y with modifier D
Using fire Z, with modifier E
In case of contingency take action W with modifier G

Party members will than use their AI for the duration of the turn to execute those orders to the best of their ability.

This one.

[Inca]

I am not exactly on JA side either as you properly observed. I do feel that there could be a benefitial "enhencement" where Soldiers are smart enough to excute some actions on their own. Also I suggested TBGA system (Turn Based Group Action) wher you could order a part of your team to execute a broad command, like "suppress" or "flank" or "clear the room" and they would know due to their traning whant to do.
I do not think I need to tell them to reload or take best cover position.

[Rzarkrusz Rowa]

Scale.
Skirmish combat is about individuals.
Tactical combat is about groups.

In Fallout Tactics, one field represents about 1m and one sprite represents one individual. You move individuals and target individuals. That's what skirmish scale is about.

In Wasteland, one field represents about 3m or more depending on map level and one sprite represents a group. You move as a group and target enemy groups.

Your 'Skirmish' sounds like my 'Tactical' and I'm thinking games like fallout actually support my view of it, while your 'Tactical' sounds more like my 'Strategic', that includes titles such as Crusader King and Hearts of Iron. That said, I'm a rubbish strategy player. Any sort of tactical game that requires small group tactics however, be it RT or TB, I can handle fine. Group combat trying to duke it out, I fail, miserably.

It's not "my" tactical. It's how wargaming scales are named.

Tactical is:
Wasteland, Steel Panthers, Close Combat, Armored Brigade, TacOps, Warhammer 40000, Warhammer Fantasy Battle, etc.

Skirmish is:
Fallout Tactics, Jagged Aliance 2, Silent Storm, Laser Squad, X-Com ground combat, Necromunda, Inquisitor, Infinity, etc.

Strategic is:
War in Russia, War in the Pacific, Command & Conquer, Empires, X-Com geoscape, etc. - generally it happens on much larger scale and economy takes a significant part (production, managing and capturing resources, building structures, etc.).

I like how people continue to completely misquote Brian Fargo as having said that he didn't want Fallout Tactics level complexity in the combat system in Wasteland 2. All he said was that he was aware of the game, and that he was going to be careful not to add too many confusing mechanics that it makes combat a painful experience. If Fargo sees that many fans of tactical RPGs did NOT think they were too complex, then he's more likely to lean in that direction when developing the system in Wasteland 2.

The ability to use things like prone and cover in Tactics definitely added a lot of depth to the experience and I hope something like that gets carried over in WL2.

Wasteland had Evasion. If the tactical combat style would be carried over to WL2, there could be additional Take Cover action that would put the character into cover dependent on cover value of a field the party is in.
Suppression system could force enemies into cover and prevent them from firing/decrease their accuracy and would allow a melee/grenade/pistol group to close in and finish the off from neighbouring field.