Fallout Tactics type combat?

[paultakeda]

..and that balance is adjustable difficulty level. If you only want "stand here, shoot that" combat, change it to easy. If you enjoy stealth assassination, setting traps and ambushes, taking advantage of terrain through line-of-sight and cover, finding a good spot for your sniper and changing his stance for that perfect eye-shot, blowing up doors and tossing grenades inside to clear a room, crippling the legs of a tough melee opponent so you can wear him down with your shooters, or kicking a drug-fueled boss in the groin so he's knocked out just long enough to plant timed dynamite in his trousers, choose normal or hard.

It's not an either/or proposition. I don't want to stand and shoot. I also do not want to have too complex a command set. That's the point of streamlining.

[stonetoes]

Melee needs as much love as ranged combat! Gameplay is so much more interesting when you have a variety of viable characters in the group, each with their own unique roles and playstyle. I want my brute to wade in, smashing kneecaps and knocking people over, my insane Jet-pumped klepto wife to leap in and stab out their eyes with a shiv once they're down, and my lonewolf marskman to cripple/thin out the herd from afar.

I agree with you, I mostly said that due to watching my brother play Fallout 2 when he was staying in my spare room recently. He was playing a melee character and found it significantly harder than playing ranged, which is my recollection too. I don't think there's anything wrong with melee being more difficult than ranged in a setting with firearms, but I do want the option to make the attempt!

[CookieEatingHuskarl]

IMO fallout 2's melee and HtH is perfectly playable. For me it was too easy, but it just happens that there are more ways to gimp a melee character than there are ways to gimp a shooter character.

[Woolfe]

IMO fallout 2's melee and HtH is perfectly playable. For me it was too easy, but it just happens that there are more ways to gimp a melee character than there are ways to gimp a shooter character.

I vaguely recall in one of the FO's a mate of mine building a HTH only character. He would ninja down to that base that gave you power armour early on. So he would have this really fast moving super accurate HtH fighter that could punch you in the eyes, and because he was strong and had power armour the other guys head would explode.

So even without the Power Armour exploit element, I always thought that was very cool that a HtH fighter could still play a winning game in FO.

[CookieEatingHuskarl]

That's why that is my rule of thumb to distinguish whether the game I'm playing is a tactical combat game or a CRPG. If you can consistently punch an assault rifle toting baddie to death, it's still safely a CRPG.

Try going pure melee in JA2 (admittedly, there are people who finished the game with nothing but a butter knife in Bear's Pit, scary people.) and you'll see why you'll die horribly.

[Woolfe]

Yes I believe he was greatly assisted by the power armour from the damage taking point of view, but even without it, in most situations you could get close to the bad guys pretty quickly if you were fast enough. The view was set too close and the range of the guns too short.

[Arbitrary]

That's why that is my rule of thumb to distinguish whether the game I'm playing is a tactical combat game or a CRPG. If you can consistently punch an assault rifle toting baddie to death, it's still safely a CRPG.

Try going pure melee in JA2 (admittedly, there are people who finished the game with nothing but a butter knife in Bear's Pit, scary people.) and you'll see why you'll die horribly.

No, that rule doesn't tell you if the game is tactical combat game or rpg. It tells you if the game is more geared towards "realism" or "balance". Because let's face it - charging an assault rifle with a melee weapon would only end one way in reality.

It's not very difficult to make melee more viable choice - better (and less realistic) armor, easy and quick way to heal (to make risky tactics less punishing), less available firearms and ammunition. But it will not make a game more rpg because there is no reason a game with deadly firearms can't be an rpg.

[darknight670]

I'd be OK with a Fallout Tactics combat style but let's be honest : Jagged Alliance 2 ( and the 1.13 Fan patch ) have an infinitely better combat system.

That's why that is my rule of thumb to distinguish whether the game I'm playing is a tactical combat game or a CRPG. If you can consistently punch an assault rifle toting baddie to death, it's still safely a CRPG.

Try going pure melee in JA2 (admittedly, there are people who finished the game with nothing but a butter knife in Bear's Pit, scary people.) and you'll see why you'll die horribly.

No, that rule doesn't tell you if the game is tactical combat game or rpg. It tells you if the game is more geared towards "realism" or "balance". Because let's face it - charging an assault rifle with a melee weapon would only end one way in reality.

It's not very difficult to make melee more viable choice - better (and less realistic) armor, easy and quick way to heal (to make risky tactics less punishing), less available firearms and ammunition. But it will not make a game more rpg because there is no reason a game with deadly firearms can't be an rpg.

This is not completely true. Sure charging during 100m with a sword equals death but even today when you are very close to the ennemy charging with your bayonet on the rifle is more effective for well trained soldiers ( French charged serbs during the Kosovo war, British charged Irakis during the Second Gulf War , and it end well )

[Drool]

For varying definitions of "better". I'll certainly grant you "more complicated", "more time-intensive", and even "more realistic", but I don't personally consider any of those to be better in a game where combat isn't the primary focus. I would prefer Wasteland's combat to be quick and simple.

[darknight670]

For varying definitions of "better". I'll certainly grant you "more complicated", "more time-intensive", and even "more realistic", but I don't personally consider any of those to be better in a game where combat isn't the primary focus. I would prefer Wasteland's combat to be quick and simple.

I agree but FO:T combats were really slow and and not very fun.

I think Wasteland 2 should do semi-realtime like JA:BiA or the UFO serie. Should take JA2 system as base ( the JA2 invotory was sooo good : actual holsters ftw ) and use some of FO:T simplification.

[Arbitrary]

That's why that is my rule of thumb to distinguish whether the game I'm playing is a tactical combat game or a CRPG. If you can consistently punch an assault rifle toting baddie to death, it's still safely a CRPG.

Try going pure melee in JA2 (admittedly, there are people who finished the game with nothing but a butter knife in Bear's Pit, scary people.) and you'll see why you'll die horribly.

No, that rule doesn't tell you if the game is tactical combat game or rpg. It tells you if the game is more geared towards "realism" or "balance". Because let's face it - charging an assault rifle with a melee weapon would only end one way in reality.

It's not very difficult to make melee more viable choice - better (and less realistic) armor, easy and quick way to heal (to make risky tactics less punishing), less available firearms and ammunition. But it will not make a game more rpg because there is no reason a game with deadly firearms can't be an rpg.

This is not completely true. Sure charging during 100m with a sword equals death but even today when you are very close to the ennemy charging with your bayonet on the rifle is more effective for well trained soldiers ( French charged serbs during the Kosovo war, British charged Irakis during the Second Gulf War , and it end well )

The key word here is "consistently". Yes, melee can be effective if you can surprise the enemy but otherwise you do not bring a knife to a gun fight. Even if the starting distance between combatants is 10 m, the guy with an assault rifle would have enough time to obliterate his opponent before he got in range. And even at closer ranges I wouldn't bet my money (let alone my life) on a knife or a sword against an assault rifle.

JA2 is on the "realistic" side here - yes, if you can sneak up or somehow surprise your enemy melee was useful for taking them out silently and quickly, but otherwise you would end up dead or seriously wounded with no way of healing yourself. FO:T on the other hand takes a more "balanced" approach where melee is more viable by making armor much more effective and making healing in combat easy. Both approaches have their good sides (although I personally prefer realism over balance).

[Da_BoS]

Fallout Tactics, good call was thinking about that myself, the option to slow down or speed up t/b combat was something I was gonna suggest from that game especially if your operating a squad, but its the option to provide players with true (and slow) t/b combat or the option to speed it up to almost r/t combat would be good.

[paultakeda]

Fallout Tactics, good call was thinking about that myself, the option to slow down or speed up t/b combat was something I was gonna suggest from that game especially if your operating a squad, but its the option to provide players with true (and slow) t/b combat or the option to speed it up to almost r/t combat would be good.

Wasteland is turn-based. The speed dial is in how fast you give out your commands, it will not have FO:T's "CTB" gameplay.

[Punky]

I remember being able to do some really silly things in FOT like jogging past a turret in real time and it only got to take two shots at my team, but if I tried to do that while things were turn based, I would get slaughtered. Avoid stuff like that, and it would be cool.

[sorophx]

A more apt analogy would be adding fallout tactics' combat system to Fallout 2.

hmmm. but FO Tactics already has FO 2's combat system. putting FOT's combat system into FO2 would be like...


ahem, yeah.

it's good that you mention the word "system", because that's the only good thing about FO combat. there was little tactics involved in FO/FO2, since all you had to do was shoot all your enemies in the eyes while standing and taking bullets or cuts from them, popping Stimpacs from time to time. but the actual system (SPECIAL combined with combat perks) gives players so many possibilities, it's so flexible, that you have to admire the designers for coming up with it.

FO Tactics' combat is but a minor improvement over the original games. thanks to stances, that aggressiveness toggle thingy, and an actual party under player's control. I don't remember if they managed to replicate the originals' combat system without completely borking it, though. what amazes me is people praising the worst thing Tactics did: allowing to go from fully turn-based to real-time. regenerating AP was the crappiest thing I've ever seen in a game.

anyway, why am I even posting this? Fallout Tactics combat is nothing without SPECIAL and all its integral parts (turn-based combat being one of them). take that out, and it's just a bland post-apocalyptic squad-based RTS. I'm more than sure that W2 will not be using SPECIAL. so no point really in even talking about Fallout Tactics.

there are many other games that do turn-based combat better, without even needing to take a whole system like SPECIAL into account. I understand, that not everyone here has that in mind when bringing up Fallout Tactics. but, man, even the original X-Com had better combat

[Woolfe]

Fallout Tactics, good call was thinking about that myself, the option to slow down or speed up t/b combat was something I was gonna suggest from that game especially if your operating a squad, but its the option to provide players with true (and slow) t/b combat or the option to speed it up to almost r/t combat would be good.

Wasteland is turn-based. The speed dial is in how fast you give out your commands, it will not have FO:T's "CTB" gameplay.

Indeed.

You know all that clicking you are doing... thats actually in Real-time.

Seriously tho take your real-time and leave. I am so over real-time. So sick of everything having to be fast paced. Ra Ra Ra

[Enclave]

Firstly: I am a huge fan of Fallout Tactics (and Fallout 1&2), as well as other Squad-based tactical shooters (Silent Storm and XCOM directly to mind).

Secondly: Some of my favorite games are combines-genre. X-COM mixing its strategic world-defense game with its tactical "capture the alien game", X3 mixing its economic simulator in space with its space combat sim (with both strategic and tactical modes). X tried an RPG but kinda failed there IMO.

My early posts were in favor of "as detailed as you can get in without making the combat itself tedious", and in complete opposition to "what WL1 did". Now my position is more moderated (and seems in line with the designer's intent).

The *problem* with FOT combat in WL2 is not that the combat is bad. Some may not like FOT combat, others do. The *problem* is that it slows down the narrative. When someone tells you to fetch some widget, and there's 2 scripted and 5 random encounters on the way taking 1-6 hours a piece to complete... you forget about the widget.

The thing is: it's the sum not the parts. MassEffect has a cover mechanic and all sorts of FOT-type details: but the implementation of game results in both fast encounters and story-telling that can occur *through* the combat. The focus on RPG remains intact there. A literal re-creation of FOT might not.

So nevermind how WL1 did it, or what's "real CRPG(tm)". The real issue is keeping the narrative moving. I think Fallout 2 struck a good balance there. I think that we could incorporate *more* tactical options in without slowing down the narrative through improved interfaces. (see the new XCOM coming out and how they have improved the combat pacing without lessening the depth).

So there's my opinion.
Depth = always good.
Complexity = good while it's adding depth and bad as it's removing immediacy
Pacing = The real issue.

This is where I sit on the issue 100%.

The Fallout 1 and 2 style of combat I suspect is ideal with some UI tweaks. For instance, instead of having to press a button to switch items instead incorporate the scroll wheel that's on 99.9999% of mice today. Allow us to switch between more than just both hands without having to jump into the inventory. After all, makes sense that you could have a sheath for your machete and a holster for your gun. You could switch between those far faster than if you had to open up your inventory. Also the grenade you keep in your vest pocket also shouldn't cost extra ap (just using ap as an example, not suggesting we use S.P.E.C.I.A.L.) to dig out and throw.

Also bare in mind that Fallout did in fact have the ability to take cover, though it could use work. If you used some decent positioning you could actually lower your chance to be hit (though also equally lowering your own chance to hit). This could use some tweaking but I don't want to see anything like you have in Jagged Alliance or Fallout Tactics. Those just seem to be going overboard and would slow things down too much.

Another thing that would have significantly increased combat speed in Fallout was a superior inventory management UI. Scrolling through your items took time in Fallout and if you ever had to switch equipment mid-battle well that could really be a significant chunk of time you spent, especially when you start getting a large inventory.

[stonetoes]

For varying definitions of "better". I'll certainly grant you "more complicated", "more time-intensive", and even "more realistic", but I don't personally consider any of those to be better in a game where combat isn't the primary focus. I would prefer Wasteland's combat to be quick and simple.

"More choices" is the key point for me.

A more apt analogy would be adding fallout tactics' combat system to Fallout 2.

hmmm. but FO Tactics already has FO 2's combat system. putting FOT's combat system into FO2 would be like...

Depends what definition of "system" you're using, but I'm pretty much using it as a shorthand for the features tactics had which F1&2 didn't, namely stances, running and overwatch. I believe you could also set default aimed shot locations, so you didn't have to say "aim for the head" on every damn shot.

[Fuzi0n]

Fallout:Tactics was an awesome game and I really liked the combat system.

But it wasn't really an RPG and it was very linear too. But a mix of Baldurs Gate / FO:T would make a great combat system.

[Enclave]

Fallout:Tactics was an awesome game and I really liked the combat system.

But it wasn't really an RPG and it was very linear too. But a mix of Baldurs Gate / FO:T would make a great combat system.

Not only that but Fallout Tactics usage of a hybrid real time/turn based combat really didn't work well. Go one way or the other, don't go for a hybrid between the two. That said, I believe Brian Fargo has said this is going to be a turn based game so I suppose it's a moot point. We're not getting Fallout Tactics or Baldur's Gate combat.

Really hoping for a modified Fallout 2 style obviously.