Fallout Tactics type combat?

[Infinitron]

To me, putting a back against a wall and type of movement (e.g. crawl, crouch walk) is something I would rather be controlled by the character's skill set. Hence my examples earlier in this thread: If a character is on a tile next to a wall/barrel/some other sort of cover tile that blocks enemy fire, that character may or may not take advantage of cover depending on a skill roll. If a character is told to move from one tile to another under fire and fails a skill roll (or lacks a skill to roll) he will run wildly and there will be a chance of getting shot, even if you wanted him to crawl prone and avoid getting shot.

The problem with this is that if the game uses a Fallout-style AP system, it'll be a bit weird if ducking or going prone have no AP cost, but aimed shots do...

[paultakeda]

In the Fallout games, and all the other tactical rpgs people mention around here, combat is the primary vehicle for storytelling and character bonding. Deep combat and tactical freedom gives birth to emergent stories.

Uh... Fallout did not have combat as the primary vehicle for storytelling and character bonding. I also wouldn't described it as a tactical RPG.

Wasteland 2 is marketed to hardcore RPG fans of Fallout, Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale right there on the kickstarter page.
Fallout is the successor Wasteland, it wasn't named as such because EA had the rights. Fallout has tactical combat at heart, and we want an improved version of that.

Fallout is not the successor to Wasteland. Fallout can be won without much combat at all. That's a tactic in the game, to win without combat. A game with tactical combat at its core would not allow you to win without combat. I want an improved, modernized version of combat, yes, but I do not want it to become the raison d'être and therefore the primary vehicle for storytelling and bonding because that is not what Wasteland (or even Fallout) was about.

Having mindless, shallow combat where you tell a cardboard cutout to target another without any thought or freedom of choice makes combat itself become a chore and a bog. We might as well be playing a mainstream console RPG where it's PRESS X TO DO SOMETHING AMAZING.

Again with playing to extremes. Those who say we don't want combat to be too complex in a game where combat is only an aspect of game play are not saying we want QTEs. This is not an either/or issue.

Increasing complexity in combat more than Wasteland 1 is already a given; it happened when the devs said combat would be visualized. The discussion is on whether this is complex enough or if other tactical elements can be introduced to combat without compromising the balance of game play.

The problem with this is that if the game uses a Fallout-style AP system, it'll be a bit weird if ducking or going prone have no AP cost, but aimed shots do...

Yep. My examples don't take into account an AP system. I'm thinking more of an SSI Gold Box system: movement points followed by an action. However, even with an AP system it may be compatible if the point of ducking/going prone introduces an AC modifier is treated differently from an accuracy modifier, or if aimed shot as an action isn't in the combat system at all.

[suz]

FO2/FO:T had a combat difficulty switch, at "novice" it turned the game into point to kill system rather than tactics.
JA2 had a difficulty slider aswell, but not as effective, and combat was tedious cause AI turns took a lot of time to calculate.
FO3/NV/Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim have near-godmode at lowest difficulty.

We could explore the extremes of an iwin button(autoresolve at low difficulty for example) for those who dislike combat, it's not like someone's going to lose a fight, there's infinite reloads.

[abyss]

Uh... Fallout did not have combat as the primary vehicle for storytelling and character bonding. I also wouldn't described it as a tactical RPG.

Says you. I remembering downloading the demo back in early 97, which was mostly just combat. I spent a week finding better ways to take out those raiders, stealing and planting items for a big fight. Seeing all the freedom and tactical options I had to kill anyone I wanted, sold me on the game. Later when I got the full game, I played a spear-chucking savage. Fighting Deathclaws before the days of everyone spoiling everything with Gamefaqs was a tactical experience, involving targetted leg shots, lots of kiting, and drugs. My character's exploits and trials in combat defined him. In Fallout 2, Sulik's craziness and Myron shooting needles and running like a pussy in combat when facing a room full of slavers, defined them. Those experiences wouldn't have been nearly as impactful if I had just selected a box and moved it on top of another.

Fallout is not the successor to Wasteland.

That's news to me. ""Interplay's inability to prise the Wasteland brand name from EA's gnarled fingers actually lead to it creating Fallout in the first place." Every interview and article I've ever seen on the history Fallout, has stated how Interplay wanted to make Wasteland but didn't have the rights, and thus came Fallout. Brian Fargo is the executive producer of Fallout, nuff said.

Fallout can be won without much combat at all.

Sure, you can win Fallout through diplomacy and lots of running if you know exactly what you're doing. You have that freedom of choice. What's your point? 3.5e offers the richest tactical experience available, yet D&D is the epitome of RPGs. Having deep combat system underneath it all, doesn't preclude players from making a diplomat, thief, gambler, or musician in D&D, why should it here?

Those who say we don't want combat to be too complex in a game where combat is only an aspect of game play are not saying we want QTEs. This is not an either/or issue.

The guy above you says "Where to stand and who to shoot is as complex as it needs to be." To me that's bogging down the game with vapid, mindless combat. It's every bit the same as the button-mashing "PRESS X TO WIN" combat of a modern console RPG, like DA2.

[paultakeda]

My character's exploits and trials in combat defined him. In Fallout 2, Sulik's craziness and Myron shooting needles and running like a pussy in combat when facing a room full of slavers, defined them. Those experiences wouldn't have been nearly as impactful if I had just selected a box and moved it on top of another.

Yes and if you created a different character that didn't fight as much but rather manipulated the characters through speech and charisma it would be those parts of the game that define him. Fallout is not solely defined by combat. Combat is a definitive part of Fallout but it is only a part.

""Interplay's inability to prise the Wasteland brand name from EA's gnarled fingers actually lead to it creating Fallout in the first place." Every interview and article I've ever seen on the history Fallout, has stated how Interplay wanted to make Wasteland but didn't have the rights, and thus came Fallout. Brian Fargo is the executive producer of Fallout, nuff said.

Then why bother making a Wasteland "2"? There apparently was one, and it was called Fallout, according to your interpretation.

Sure, you can win Fallout through diplomacy and lots of running if you know exactly what you're doing. You have that freedom of choice. What's your point? 3.5e offers the richest tactical experience available, yet D&D is the epitome of RPGs. Having deep combat system underneath it all, doesn't preclude players from making a diplomat, thief, gambler, or musician in D&D, why should it here?

My point is Fallout is not defined solely by combat. See above. I take it you believe D&D is defined solely by combat as well, based on your example, so really, nothing will convince you otherwise; that's just how you play RPGs.

[abyss]

Yes and if you created a different character that didn't fight as much but rather manipulated the characters through speech and charisma it would be those parts of the game that define him. Fallout is not solely defined by combat. Combat is a definitive part of Fallout but it is only a part.

Nobody here is even arguing that Fallout/D&D is solely defined by combat. Why would having deep combat take away from a player's ability to play a charismatic character? In-combat choices/freedom, and out of combat choices aren't mutually exclusive, they complement each other.

In the 2d Fallouts and ToEE, your out of combat decisions can affect in-combat lay of the land, change enemy awareness, cause a foe to switch sides, allow you to avoid fights, and so on. A single stealthy, or smart-talking character could tip the odds in your favor, changing how/if you fight, but without a tactical engine underneath to back it up, those choices would be meaningless. Say I want to sneak my hacker into a heavily guarded area to disable a security system, without the underlying mechanics of cover, line-of-sight, light/vision-levels, it would just be meaningless, disconnected scrolling text coming from a randomized number generator, and completely uninteresting. With tactical combat mechanics, the same task becomes an epic emergent story.

In D&D you could create a bear diplomat if you wanted, yet it has an underlying system for deep tactical combat that surpasses hex-based wargames. Line of sight, grappling, cover, damage falloff over range for archery, interrupts, flanking, light levels/stealth, anything you can think of is accounted for in detail. Yet when you say "RPG", the first thing people think of is D&D. For many players, having that deep tactical freedom available is an integral part of the narrative, defining characters through combat is often stronger than any prescripted dialogue decision or plot point. Like D&D, XCom and its ilk are endlessly replayed because of the strong emergent narrative. I'm going to lump the 2d Fallout games in that group, because before the days of Gamefaqs, Navarro speedruns, and huge internet forums, combat on hard was difficult, requiring plenty of tactics, thought and preplanning.

Then why bother making a Wasteland "2"?

This isn't only about a single game from 1988 that had an incredible setting with lots of freedom (for its time), but extremely limited combat. It's about Wasteland, and everything that has been inspired by, and spawned from it. It's about Interplay and Black Isles' legacies. It's about bringing together all the people who remember the golden age of PC gaming, a time before ridiculous nanny censorship, a time before brainless consoleshit infesting the mainstream.

[krellen]

Yes, let's bring back the golden age by resurrecting a silver age title. Brilliant.

[abyss]

Yes, let's bring back rudimentary, text-scrolling combat you can faceroll your way through. Also, only give experience to the character with the killing blow. Also I want to spend a year button-mashing ESC to heal. And 8-bit. Because Wasteland 1.

[paultakeda]

Why would having deep combat take away from a player's ability to play a charismatic character? In-combat choices/freedom, and out of combat choices aren't mutually exclusive, they complement each other.

All right, yes. But combat is not the primary, it is as important as out of combat game play. What's important is the skill system mechanic that defines combat, speech and all other facets of the game.

Then why bother making a Wasteland "2"?

This isn't only about a single game from 1988 that had an incredible setting with lots of freedom (for its time), but extremely limited combat. It's about Wasteland, and everything that has been inspired by, and spawned from it. It's about Interplay and Black Isles' legacies. It's about bringing together all the people who remember the golden age of PC gaming, a time before ridiculous nanny censorship, a time before brainless consoleshit infesting the mainstream.

Yes, but none of that means this:

Fallout is the successor Wasteland, it wasn't named as such because EA had the rights.

Fallout was named Fallout not because they couldn't name it Wasteland 2. They couldn't make Wasteland 2 so they took elements in Wasteland, particularly the idea of a post-nuclear setting, and made Fallout. They share a common vision set (I remember Fargo saying 6/10) but it is a different game, not the successor to a previous game.

[stonetoes]

Where to stand and who to shoot is as complex as it needs to be.

I'm guessing this is exaggeration, but are you really going to be happy with an RPG that has even more limited combat than Fallout? I mean in Fallout you could decide whether to use aimed shots, to use area effect weapons like grenades, to use burst fire, to lock doors, to heal using stimpacks, to use drugs, to use AP ammo or hollow-points, to use tesla armour against energy attacks. If fallout is too complex for your standards, what tactical RPG isn't?

I'm saying that if control of the character takes precedence over character skill set, it becomes an action game with you the player performing the action. Where you draw line is a subjective matter. Some believe Mass Effect is RPG-like but cannot be called an RPG because you are using a cross-hair to aim and shoot, others would call it an Action RPG and the other camp will cry out that there is no such thing.

Please, let’s not bring Mass Effect into this, we know that we’re not going to being aiming for the characters, or dodging enemy fire for them. There are plenty of tactical RPGs we can use as examples without bringing action RPGs into this.

To me, putting a back against a wall and type of movement (e.g. crawl, crouch walk) is something I would rather be controlled by the character's skill set. Hence my examples earlier in this thread: If a character is on a tile next to a wall/barrel/some other sort of cover tile that blocks enemy fire, that character may or may not take advantage of cover depending on a skill roll. If a character is told to move from one tile to another under fire and fails a skill roll (or lacks a skill to roll) he will run wildly and there will be a chance of getting shot, even if you wanted him to crawl prone and avoid getting shot.

I guess I don’t see why we can’t have both. Allow the player to give these orders, but have them modified by character skill. The player can tell any character to hide behind a barrel, but how much protected they actually get is dependent on character skill. The player can tell a character to crawl quietly, but if they fail their morale roll they lose it and start running.

If you wanted to simplify the combat so that things like taking cover and stance weren’t there at all, I could understand, but it seems like you want to implement them but take them out of the player’s hands. If we follow this too far you wouldn’t even choose where to move or who to shoot (as krellen says) but would let your trained soldiers make that choice for you. After all, is your lab-monkey with no combat skills going to prioritise his targets rather than shooting the closest enemy, going to know to flank, know to stand near walls rather than in the open, know to retreat rather than charge forward?

I think it’s important to define the difference between player skill and player judgement. Whether I aim properly, or time my run to cover, or press the duck key quickly enough isn’t going to be an issue in Wasteland, because my skill isn’t being used, the character’s is. But giving me the option to say “duck now”, or “run here instead of crawling” isn’t using my skill either, it’s using my judgement.

Let's talk tactics, but my position will always start with, "That sounds too complex for this game, convince me otherwise."

I think part of the problem I have with your position is that, just due to the way combat is being graphically represented, Wasteland 2’s combat is already closer to Fallout’s than Wasteland’s. Throw in the “team-based” and it’s closer to Fallout tactics. Building on Wasteland 1’s combat seems counter-productive.

One thing that strikes me is that your suggestions mirror Fargo’s examples of NPC behaviour pretty closely. He talks about NPCs bursting full clips of ammo, and that seems pretty close to what you’re talking about, with people not trained in combat not taking cover properly, or not going prone when they should. If they’re not soldiers or don’t have the training then yeah, the player giving them those orders could be unreasonable, because they wouldn’t do those things. I would argue, however, that the 4 core rangers in the party are all going to have basic military training, so they know when they should do these things. Giving them these orders should be valid, because it’s not going to be out of character for them. How well they actually execute them could be stat-based, but they should all have option of doing them.

So how about having NPCs using the stat-checks for actions that you are suggesting, while the 4 rangers do not? This way you could also attempt to improve the combat stats of NPCs, and see the results in game as they start to act appropriately. You could even take this further and have stat-thresholds or perks which, once attained, allow the player to give the NPC these orders directly rather than having them automated if they choose.

I will say that having rangers or NPCs take actions outside the player’s control could be very counterproductive if you’re trying to make combat less frustrating and tedious for the player. Accounting for poor AI and inscrutable NPC motives is, for me, always the most time-consuming and annoying part of combat. It can turn something which should be over incredibly quickly into an exercise in frustration when that civilian inexplicably stands directly between you and the enemies, or cowers in a doorway and refuses to move, trapping your squad in a building. Having your own characters do this too could be maddening.

[krellen]

I mean in Fallout you could decide whether to use aimed shots, to use area effect weapons like grenades, to use burst fire, to lock doors, to heal using stimpacks, to use drugs, to use AP ammo or hollow-points, to use tesla armour against energy attacks. If fallout is too complex for your standards, what tactical RPG isn't?

So in the order that you bring things up:
I don't really need aimed shots. Soldiers aim for the body.
Using grenades is part of "who to shoot".
Burst fire is part of "who to shoot".
If you're actually in a situation where locking a door in combat is relevant, using a skill is "who to shoot".
No stimpacks. Healing is "keep people from dying" only. Using a skill is "who to shoot".
Don't really see a use for drugs, especially not in combat.
Not interested in multiple ammo types. Too complex.
No armour changing in combat.

[stonetoes]

ok, so...

If fallout is too complex for your standards, what tactical RPG isn't?

[krellen]

Probably none of them. But I don't compromise. Compromising only means you don't get what you want and the other guy gets to call all the shots.

[paultakeda]

I guess I don’t see why we can’t have both. Allow the player to give these orders, but have them modified by character skill. The player can tell any character to hide behind a barrel, but how much protected they actually get is dependent on character skill. The player can tell a character to crawl quietly, but if they fail their morale roll they lose it and start running.

I'm open to more complex combat without compromising pacing or micromanagement. If this can be integrated into the combat system, great; but I'd want to see just how specific these orders can be.

If you wanted to simplify the combat so that things like taking cover and stance weren’t there at all, I could understand, but it seems like you want to implement them but take them out of the player’s hands.

This is a gray area for me. Finding the balance is something I expect will occur through trial and error in the dev cycle. But yeah, I'm always going to lean on the side of less complex.

Let's talk tactics, but my position will always start with, "That sounds too complex for this game, convince me otherwise."

I think part of the problem I have with your position is that, just due to the way combat is being graphically represented, Wasteland 2’s combat is already closer to Fallout’s than Wasteland’s. Throw in the “team-based” and it’s closer to Fallout tactics. Building on Wasteland 1’s combat seems counter-productive.

I'm actually not really concerned with building on Wasteland combat if you are talking about the command screen. I'm concerned with keeping the RPG system central to combat and where to draw the line between player action and player command. As it is graphically represented we know the visual will resemble Fallout/Fallout: Tactics and as I mentioned this introduce a lot of tactics in individual movement alone. I'm taking the position that if we evaluate movement we'll find a lot of ways to make that movement deeply integrated with the skill system, so this should be considered before going further with stance and other tactical elements. Maybe stance is too important but if so, then movement cannot go as deep as having no stance.

Striking that balance is what is important to me. Right now I just see a lot of feature add and it just looks like scope creep.

[JerryLove]

Probably none of them. But I don't compromise. Compromising only means you don't get what you want and the other guy gets to call all the shots.

So then you didn't donate to this game, which will not have all you want, and thus compromise.

I'm still not sure why you aren't just writing a mod for WL1. You seem to oppose "all these extra colors".

[abyss]

Interplay itself (with Fargo as the CEO) marketed Fallout as the spiritual successor to Wasteland. I'd posit that Fallout combat mechanics were what Fargo had originally envisioned, but was limited by funding and the technological limits of the 80s. The mindless text-scrolling combat and button-mashing in Wasteland don't hold up at all. It is literally a 10 year early prototype for a tactical rpg (like Fallout). When people talk about Wasteland, they praise it for its setting, character, writing, freedom and interactivity (you can blow up walls, use skills on anything, dig holes etc). There's absolutely no reason to maintain every shitty aspect of Wasteland 1, while ignoring all the other games Fargo's produced and inspired.

For the majority of people, the Wasteland 2 kickstarter isn't about reskinning Wasteland 1 with updated graphics, it's so much more than that. If InXile decides to force in shit combat because everything has to work exactly like Wasteland 1, they are going to hamstring the game, and probably lose a lot of the goodwill Interplay/Black Isle's built over the decades.

So far the only argument against deep, tactical combat, is that it could bog down gameplay. That's a moot point when features like autoresolve, trash-clearing abilities and equipment, and adjustable difficulties are common in tactical RPGs.
Shallow, restrictive, unchallenging combat that you can faceroll your way through is the worst gameplay bog I can think of.

[stonetoes]

Compromising only means you don't get what you want and the other guy gets to call all the shots.

Dude, come on, one person calling all the shots is the exact opposite of what a compromise is, let's not be melodramatic here.

And to elaborate on why I asked, I remember in one of his interviews Brian mentioned that when one of his devs wants to implement a feature he asks for an example of where it has been done successfuly. He wants concrete examples. I'd like to see the same here, because I'm losing track a little bit of what people actually want, since I don't have real examples to look at.

Striking that balance is what is important to me. Right now I just see a lot of feature add and it just looks like scope creep.

I worry about it too, especially when we're getting suggestions about things like magazine organisation. I guess we just draw the line in difference places.

One thing I would like to see simplified is spending extra AP to increase shot accuracy. This was something done in JA2, but I found that there were relatively few instances where you would use anything other than the maximum. This lead to pointless repeated clicking, usually 4 times on every shot, throughout the whole game. Not good. Personally I'd still support different levels of aiming, but using presets like "snap shot" and "aimed shot", which you could set as a default, rather than having to click through each time.

JABIA actually simplified this by having aim time and accuracy tied to stance. Going prone and kneeling automatically improved accuracy and cover, but also increased aim and shot time. This made it a lot faster than something like 7.62, where you had to select one of four different aim types and four different stances. Or JA2, where you were virtually always assigning maximum aiming points when lying down, because you were shooting at range, but would have to manually increase aim points for every shot anyway.

I think it's also worth noting that JA2, the granddaddy of tactical squad-based RPGs, had an auto-resolve button. It wasn't half as effective as playing the battles yourself, but you could simply rely on your characters skills alone.

[krellen]

I'm completely satisfied with Wasteland/Bard's Tale combat, stonetoes. Other than the moving-in-combat part. That sucks and should be done otherwise. (Bard's Tale had an easier time at this, because you and the enemy would both generally want to close for combat to bring melee to bear, which is less so the case in Wasteland.)

[paultakeda]

So far the only argument against deep, tactical combat, is that it could bog down gameplay. That's a moot point when features like autoresolve, trash-clearing abilities and equipment, and adjustable difficulties are common in tactical RPGs.
Shallow, restrictive, unchallenging combat that you can faceroll your way through is the worst gameplay bog I can think of.

None of the features you mention nullify the argument for bogging down gameplay for me. Combat can be interesting and simple at the same time. The elegance of chess is in its simplicity of play due to the restrictions placed by the game. The same goes for combat, especially in a game where combat is only one facet of the game. The core mechanic is the use of the skill system, in WL this is the MSPE saving throw system. I want that core system kept (as in, improved to a new, more sophisticated version 2) and emphasized, so anything that sounds like a minigame, resource management or in this topic micro control of combat is something I will always question.

I worry about it too, especially when we're getting suggestions about things like magazine organisation. I guess we just draw the line in difference places.

Sure, and I don't mind discussing those differences.

One thing I would like to see simplified is spending extra AP to increase shot accuracy.

Yeah, I'm still not seeing why an AP system fits for WL2. I wasn't that big a fan of it in Fallout, either. I still like the elegance of the Pool of Radiance system (movement then action, out-of-turn attack via guard or turning your back). There's something simple yet complex about that movement system and I think it's a nice place to look at for possible implementations of the tactics of movement.

[Drool]

Interplay itself (with Fargo as the CEO) marketed Fallout as the spiritual successor to Wasteland.

Spiritual successor. The means similar theme and similar setting. It has nothing to do with game mechanics.

And as to your early point, even the best crafted tactical combat can bog down a game. If the primary focus of the game is story, setting, and exploration, vastly detailed combat can, and will, bog it down. I don't want to spend an hour on a combat with some scrub enemy because combat's so realistic that a starting scrub can still kill a highly advanced party. That harsh shifting of gears is what bogs things down. I don't want to have to clear up my schedule so I can do a combat because you need it to be excruciatingly detailed and realistic.

Crap. Where's that designer quote about about trying to combine excessive tactical combat and an RPG leading do a game with lousy versions of both?