Improvements to Turn based combat

[Mort2]

@Hiver, I have to agree, there is no limitation on range, only on maneuverability.

[Hiver]

@Krellen
No. But you do want to have a pistol as a secondary weapon if you run out of ammo or find yourself in situation where you cannot take even those two seconds to reload. But usable only on short range, of course.

Of course, if you have a silencer for a pistol then in situations where its a good tactical option the pistol may be preferred. Naturally precision depends mostly on the skill of the one using it... if we are talking about quality weapons and not those that are not aligned in best ways.

Its more about personal preferences and capabilities then weapons themselves. Someone would just feel better with and perform better with a pistol in certain close combat scenarios, though those skilled with assault rifles would do just as well.

Ever saw SWAT teams charging into buildings with pistols? Even in hostage situations? i think not.

@Mort
-edit- there is no limit on maneuverability either. Unless we are talking about very heavy automatic weapons such as big caliber machine guns - and we are not.

[Mort2]

Maybe your AK47 had folding stock or AK47 are special(never had the pleasure), but in general there is a limit to maneuverability in close quarter combat, this is the reason why we use short version or bullpup design ARs.

Ever saw SWAT teams charging into buildings with pistols? Even in hostage situations? i think not.

Once I seen a single man charging into buildings unarmed and in even worse situations. though, I am not sure you can call chuck just a man.


Anyway we are really off topic here.

[Hiver]

Hah, yeah... there are always exceptions arent there...
Let me just say one thing more about maneuverability... Its not like you really need to hold your assault rifle outstretched before you and smack it over walls and doorways
And they have become so light that a grown person can wield them quite fast.

Plus the burst mode is a beautiful thing in close quarters, especially if you have an AK in which case you can shoot through most walls - (thats with ordinary AK ammo too)

We may drifted a bit off topic here but i think this will serve sufficiently to show why such restrictions in the game would be bad. Id rather have ammo be scarce or other stuff. Lets get back to virtues of TB combat and weapons can have their own thread.

[Inca]

There aren't really any mysteries what is the tactical difference between guns, and their usefulness will greatly depend on the implemented game mechanics.

All rifles for the purposes of the game have essentially the same range, anything from 30-06 to .223 is sighted for 250m-300m zero (in gaming terms about 20-25 screens away). All SMGs will be sighted for 50-75m zero (again for typical isometric graphic proportions 3-4 screens away). Shotguns 30-50m (about two screens). Pistols about 10-15m (which will probably be within 1 screen)
Though legends circulate about the difference in "wounding power" again rifles generally cause very similar amount of damage with FMJ, the difference largely is in barrier/armor penetration (larger calibers being better penetrators). SMGs and pistols due to the same ammunition do not differ in penetration or damage, and lack in both compare to rifles. Shotguns (especially with No. 1 buck shot) are devastating against unarmored targets, but essentially perform similarly to pistols and SMGs when encountering armor/barriers.
Rifles of generally all .30 calibers weigh about 30% more than .22 calibers, and their ammunition is almost twice as heavy. Most SMGs weigh almost the same as .22 caliber rifles
There isn't really a difference in how quickly you can pull a trigger on any firearm, though making a follow-up shot will generally take less time with lower recoil.

Why would a person choose to carry a pistol?
It' light (if game emphasizes weight in some meaningful way), It can be concealed (if concealed weapon is important in some quests), it can be fired with one hand (if wounds, cover or climbing ladders realized in the game), it can easily be fired from vehicle or from mount, it can be effectively suppressed (if sound is implemented in the game as a tactical reality)
Why a shotgun?
It is relatively light, it is good against fast moving targets (though in TB it may not matter much), it can be effectively fired "from the hip" giving you a large field of view (again if this is implemented in the game), it is very effective against unarmored enemies in close quarters.
Why SMG?
It really depends on what SMG we are talking about, generally they are heavy, and luck in range, penetration and wounding capacity, but UZIs and MACs are generally cancelable. And if by some chance you could score a PPSh in 1980 US (a PDW of 1980s ) with it's relatively large weight, flat trajectory and good penetration you could have a lot of automatic fire at your fingertips.
Curiously there is a silencer (in 1980s) for just about any type of firearm, though pistol and submachine ones are somewhat more common.
Why a rifle?
Range, penetration, bayonet...

[Gazz]

The advantages of pistols and SMG:
- size. Sometimes used by vehicle crews. Could also be a carbine version of an AR.
- concealability
- can be silenced more easily because pistol ammunition generally achieves much lower bullet speeds
- less length mass so a little faster to align with a target in close quarters
- avoid overpenetration. More an issue for police forces in urban environments, though.

In a purely military setting, there is very little reason not to use an AR.
Any "SMG" job can also be done by carbine variants like the AKS-74U.

[Harpo]

Its more about personal preferences and capabilities then weapons themselves. Someone would just feel better with and perform better with a pistol in certain close combat scenarios, though those skilled with assault rifles would do just as well.

This is a good point. I actually role play combat most of the time. If I'm equipped with an FN FAL and enter a building, I usually draw my sidearm instead. Why? I know how cumbersome rifles can be in close combat quarters and I would definitely go for the pistol myself in those scenarios. If you have experience with weapons such as MP5, M4 carbine with retractable stock etc your character would most likely favor those instead. But M16, FN FAL or similar? If you role play combat like I do - totally impractical and ridiculous in close combat quarters without any large open spaces - if you ask me.

I'm sure there are players that favor pure numbers and stats instead, and therefore fires a rocket propelled grenade inside a 10x10' room. Not me though. This is one of the reasons that i favor pistols and close combat weapons/brawling in these kind of games. It opens up for a more diverse combat and role playing.

[sorophx]

those of you talking about tactical combat, ballistics, different types of cover (debris breaking into smaller parts or whatever) - you must be baked out of your minds to suggest something like that. same goes for people expecting combat as deep as in JA2 1.13

do you really expect InXile to implement all that stuff? from what Brian has said so far about combat I can only gather this much: it will be mostly like in Fallout, only with added stances (kneel, go prone) and use of cover. and in my opinion, it doesn't have to be any more complicated than that. cover of two types (hard and soft), various benefits achieved with better positioning (higher ground, flanking etc.), and we're good to go.

as for the biggest complaint so far (TB combat being "too slow"), only one thing can be done to avoid it - proper encounter design.

edit: to expand on my last point. fights, that your party cannot avoid (story related) should be relatively short and doable by your average team of Rangers. everything extra can be as long, big or complicated as InXile wants, as long as it's completely optional. and of course, the obligatory fighting has to be minimal

[JerryLove]

Ever saw SWAT teams charging into buildings with pistols? Even in hostage situations? i think not.

Yes


and also Yes


There is generally a mix of arms. The guy in the frond (since he's often one-handed) commonly has a pistol. It's not uncommon in any position, but most common in the first 3. Remember that the people behind the first often have on hand on the shoulder of the guy in front of them.

ARs are uncommon in room clearing both because of the space they take to deploy and because they over-penetrate.

[paultakeda]

/snip

Pretty much where I stand, though I still would like a compelling argument for stance.

[abyss]

Stance affects speed, visibility, accuracy, and cover/concealment. Those tradeoffs allow for greater tactical options and freedom to define and bond with your characters through unscripted gameplay. Sending your sharpshooter to crawl behind some sandbags to reach a nice safe ambush spot, or your thief to slowly skulk through the shadows to silently slit a target's throat from behind, is a fuckton more interesting than just targeting X with Y.

[paultakeda]

Stance affects speed, visibility, accuracy, and cover/concealment. Those tradeoffs allow for greater tactical options and freedom to define and bond with your characters through unscripted gameplay. Sending your sharpshooter to crawl behind some sandbags to reach a nice safe ambush spot, or your thief to slowly skulk through the shadows to silently slit a target's throat from behind, is a fuckton more interesting than just targeting X with Y.

Movement eliminates simply targeting X with Y. All your other examples can be implemented via movement and saving throws.

A sharpshooter can move from tile A to tile B along a path you specify. If the path is under safety of cover (sandbogs), the odds of getting hit are greatly reduced, particularly if they make their saving throws. Ambush spot reached. A thief can be pathed through shadows that lie between tile C and tile D to greatly reduce chance of detection and can perform a backstab attack. throat slit.

Movement alone introduces this ability and we know movement will be in the game.

Still no compelling argument to control the stance of the character while moving.

[abyss]

Stance tradeoffs affect movement and saving throws. For more speed, you sacrifice stealth, accuracy, the enemy's ability to detect or hit you. Speed is important for positioning, in a game with movement, timing and positioning determine who, how, when and where you fight.

That same sharpshooter has the choice to run to a safe spot, or sneak there, both with branching outcomes. He has to reach that spot in order to snipe his target in a timely manner, but if he moves too quickly he could be discovered and overwhelmed. Your thief is slowly stalking a sentry. He sees a gap between patrols, and decides to risk sprinting through it.

In D&D, the ability to sneak opens up a world of options for a character.

With one movement speed/stance, a lot of gameplay variation and player-decision is removed. Stances/movement/concealment changes are cornerstones of tactical RPGs for a reason.

[paultakeda]

Stance tradeoffs affect movement and saving throws. For more speed, you sacrifice stealth, accuracy, the enemy's ability to detect or hit you. Speed is important for positioning, in a game with movement, timing and positioning determine who, how, when and where you fight.

Ah, but you see, for me the saving throw affects stance. Movement is the command you give, stance is an aspect of movement automatically determined by character skill set against saving throws.

Speed is important for positioning, in a game with movement, timing and positioning determine who, how, when and where you fight.

That same sharpshooter has the choice to run to a safe spot, or sneak there, both with branching outcomes. He has to reach that spot in order to snipe his target in a timely manner, but if he moves too quickly he could be discovered and overwhelmed. Your thief is slowly stalking a sentry. He sees a gap between patrols, and decides to risk sprinting through it.

In D&D, the ability to sneak opens up a world of options for a character.

With one movement speed/stance, a lot of gameplay variation and player-decision is removed. Stances/movement/concealment changes are cornerstones of tactical RPGs for a reason.

Yes, and I can implement all these elements into using a movement pathing command. Combat is modified by all these variables but I am placing the burden of complexity on the skill mechanic and how the player has directed the path and action of a character.

Also, Wasteland is not a tactical RPG.

[sorophx]

I still would like a compelling argument for stance.

stances are to be used in conjunction with cover. and, as an additional effect, they could affect accuracy with certain weapons I suppose, but even that is too much for an RPG

[paultakeda]

I still would like a compelling argument for stance.

stances are to be used in conjunction with cover. and, as an additional effect, they could affect accuracy with certain weapons I suppose, but even that is too much for an RPG

I need to make that more clear: I would like a compelling argument for player control of stance versus being a skill control based on the player control of movement.

[sorophx]

@paultakeda
sorry, didn't read your other post, where you explain in detail your, ugh, stance. you mean manually controlling stance vs letting the game decide when to trigger it, correct?

on the one hand, your proposed method is better, because it helps emulate stuff like shooting from behind cover without having to rely on the game's limited interface functionality.

on the other, how would stances kicking in be conveyed to the player? as a text prompt? as a graphical representation in the UI? as actual animation? some would argue it takes away from the game and is confusing. and then, some would say the combat is too "abstract"; we're getting too close to Baldur's Gate territory, with everything happening behind the screen and the players only witnessing the outcome. I mean, even XCom had stances

now that I think about it, I would probably prefer your way of dealing with stances. but I have a feeling InXile will include manual control anyway

[abyss]

Yes, and I can implement all these elements into using a movement pathing command. Combat is modified by all these variables but I am placing the burden of complexity on the skill mechanic and how the player has directed the path and action of a character.

I don't see how you can offer the same variety of gameplay scenarios with automated, single-speed pathing. Stances affect movement rate, along with all the other factors I mentioned as tradeoffs. Single speed means no tradeoffs. If you give players separate sneak, sprint, and walk speeds, they may as well just be stances.

Ah, but you see, for me the saving throw affects stance. Movement is the command you give, stance is an aspect of movement automatically determined by character skill set against saving throws.

I would like a compelling argument for player control of stance versus being a skill control based on the player control of movement.

"To give players more control" is a compelling argument in itself. It seems like you'd prefer simpler combat, like in Wasteland 1, where combat interaction consisted of watching text scroll and hitting same key repeatedly, so I don't think anything will convince you.

Brian's states on the kickstarter that it's going to be graphical, top down, "turn based, tactical". I need to be convinced that Wasteland 1's complete numbers-based automation (which was turn-based but not tactical at all) would fit the combat better than the player-determined stance/speed changes of Fallout and XCom.

[sorophx]

I vaguely remember setting up macros to deal with some of those. still, memories aren't fresh enough. I'll start the game up this evening and take a look.

[paultakeda]

I don't see how you can offer the same variety of gameplay scenarios with automated, single-speed pathing. Stances affect movement rate, along with all the other factors I mentioned as tradeoffs. Single speed means no tradeoffs. If you give players separate sneak, sprint, and walk speeds, they may as well just be stances.

Now there you have an interesting reason for specifying stance prior to movement. Game-wise, you are saying stance would alter the number of tiles a character can move in a turn (e.g. crawling prone would reduce movement from 8 to 4, sneaking in shadows from 8 to 6).

There is certainly something there to consider.