Improvements to Turn based combat

[Hiver]

What should it be, in this new era?

What is realistic to expect and what other advanced features you would like to see?
Only strictly combat related. There is another thread for making it faster or whatever.

For me, the bare minimum and starting point would be on the level of Fallout tactics.
Going prone, crouching and taking some reasonable cover included, of course.

TOEE combat was one of the best ever done but adapted to a very different setting.

Ive seen other mention the ability to save some action points for another turn or use those for defense or other abilities, for example. Would be great if InExile can pull it off but guys at Iron Tower tried to incorporate it into Age of Decadence combat and had to give up eventually because it was difficult to balance.

One thing i always wanted to see is separate movement and "shooting" action points, allowing for better and more diverse movement of my forces.

Would it be possible to include some sort of opportunity attacks and interrupt attacks?

make your suggestions. discuss.

[oldmanpaco]

One thing I would like is a chance to peak around corners. In combat no one just walks blindly around the corner unless they know it's not dangerous or are running for their lives. This would give people the opportunity to avoid people camping out with overwatch (or whatever it will be called) on. Basically you would peek around the corner and have a few seconds of clear of FOW then it would return.

Speaking of overwatch here is something I like:

1) Player is crouching with overwatch on.
2) NPC comes around corner (without peaking).
3) There is a check to see who wins initiative. If the NPC wins he can make one action before the PC automatically fires. He could go back behind the wall, drop prone, or fire.

Speaking of NPCs here is something else. Battles should have clear aggressors and defenders. If a group of NPCs are guarding a warehouse or bunker entrance they should not go charging out looking for the PCs. They would wait for the PCs to come to them. Too often it is easy to draw out enemies and kill them.

[Hiver]

All good suggestions.

As for peaking around the corners im really hoping that there will be a military scout build, so having or becoming one of those would play well for things like that, and so much more.

[Postapo]

I like the idea of crouching and crawling, but cover-based combat demands complex enviroments and is very easy to screw up, so we might not see it anyway.

You're thinking about ToEE's D&D based AP system? As long as some weapons in Wasteland require movement AP to shoot (machineguns, sledgehammers and so forth) I could see that work just fine.

I'm opposed to automatic attacks of opportunity, never liked that solution. Your character's doing all his best to land as many hits as possible, then suddenly he manages to hit a passer by twice and suffers no AP loss - feels very wooden and detatched.

What is realistic to expect and what other advanced features you would like to see?
Only strictly combat related. There is another thread for making it faster or whatever.

D'ohohoho, I hope you're not referring to this one:

http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=216

I assure you that it's very much about combat and it proposes (IMO) a great alternative for attacks of opportunity. If you'd just read it first... Now I regret making it so long, if nobody's willing to read and discuss it.

1) Player is crouching with overwatch on.
2) NPC comes around corner (without peaking).
3) There is a check to see who wins initiative. If the NPC wins he can make one action before the PC automatically fires. He could go back behind the wall, drop prone, or fire.

Sounds like a narrowed down prepared action from D&D. I'd be for it, as long as you're not required to enter it just to react to the enemy in time, instead you could use it to get an edge for your "Initiative" check/extra turn. In a strictly turn-based combat I don't see the point giving npcs an automatic advantage of first reaction over the player.

[Gazz]

Probably the best stab at a squad-level TB combat game I have ever seen is with Firaxis' XCOM: Enemy Unknown.

The rules are structured like for a boardgame - with the computer managing all those annoying counters and tables.
Boardgames are designed for tactical flexibility with managable effort.

As a result they eliminated computer game crutches like time units / action points and focus on distinct actions.
You tell your soldier's what to do but don't have to micromange them every step of the way.

There's a huge potential for interaction between all those perks / skills but the whole system is a lot more "personal" than generic time units.

Basing everything on stats results in everyone being more or less superman at the end of the game because once everyone has huge accuracy, speed, and health, you are hard-pressed to keep the game challenging.
(See JA2. While a good game, the character development is... meh.)

With distinct skills (probably with multiple skill trees), characters necessarily develop into different directions if the "top skills" greatly aid each other - but are mutually exclusive based on how many points you need to acquire them.

This could even be enforced more strictly to allow some leeway with level caps.
Say, selecting any top tier skill blanks out the the highest two layers of all other trees.
Selecting any 2nd-highest skill blanks out the one top layer of every other tree.
There would be a clear distinction between generalists and specialists...
(Off topic, I know. Bad habit. =)

[Shaewaros]

Personally I don't feel it necessary for Wasteland 2 to have multiple movement modes, other than running/walking. This is an RPG after all, not a squad based tactical combat game. I wouldn't mind Jagged Alliance 2 style combat, but I believe that making something that complicated would ultimately take up too much resources and development time.

[oldmanpaco]

I'm opposed to automatic attacks of opportunity, never liked that solution. Your character's doing all his best to land as many hits as possible, then suddenly he manages to hit a passer by twice and suffers no AP loss - feels very wooden and detatched.

Overwatch requires you to reserve AP. If you use them all during your turn you get no opportunity attacks.

[Hiver]

I like the idea of crouching and crawling, but cover-based combat demands complex enviroments and is very easy to screw up, so we might not see it anyway.

If Fallout tactics could do it then its doable. Its not really cover based combat, you can still be hit behind the cover only the enemy has a bit lower chance to do so.
If you go into full cover then enemy cant shoot at you at all, but so you cant shoot at them either.
It simple and it works.

The basics of it is that it makes you capable of taking some cover instead of not being able to do it at all, which is silly.

I'm opposed to automatic attacks of opportunity, never liked that solution. Your character's doing all his best to land as many hits as possible, then suddenly he manages to hit a passer by twice and suffers no AP loss - feels very wooden and detatched.

I think youre just seeing it in a wrong way. It eliminates that feeling of people just standing there idly, going through idle animations (which you mention as a big problem in your thread).
this makes everyone, enemies included able to perform some action - while they wait for their turn.
It ultimately increases the tactics necessary because you have to take that in account too.

Same thing worked fine in TOEE which made combat much more engaged and faster.

What is realistic to expect and what other advanced features you would like to see?
Only strictly combat related. There is another thread for making it faster or whatever.

D'ohohoho, I hope you're not referring to this one:

http://wasteland.inxile-entertainment.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=216

I assure you that it's very much about combat and it proposes (IMO) a great alternative for attacks of opportunity. If you'd just read it first... Now I regret making it so long, if nobody's willing to read and discuss it.

Ive read it and no it isnt the thread im referring too. I was talking about the thread where some people want to have real time option too which im against. It boils down to designing two systems instead of one.
And we need one but good system.

Probably the best stab at a squad-level TB combat game I have ever seen is with Firaxis' XCOM: Enemy Unknown.
/
There's a huge potential for interaction between all those perks / skills but the whole system is a lot more "personal" than generic time units.

I know, it looks alright but hard to say how it actually plays before someone gets a chance for hand on.
So unless we know that InExile is aiming for something like that i think it would be better to concentrate on a system that uses Action points (same thing as time units basically) as measures of each turn for individual unit.

Basing everything on stats results in everyone being more or less superman at the end of the game because once everyone has huge accuracy, speed, and health, you are hard-pressed to keep the game challenging.
(See JA2. While a good game, the character development is... meh.)

Well, it all depends on how you design it... im not sure how basing things on something else than stats would work.
The player does have his input, its just that you have to take into account what is each of your mean able to perform.

With distinct skills (probably with multiple skill trees), characters necessarily develop into different directions if the "top skills" greatly aid each other - but are mutually exclusive based on how many points you need to acquire them.

This could even be enforced more strictly to allow some leeway with level caps.
Say, selecting any top tier skill blanks out the the highest two layers of all other trees.
Selecting any 2nd-highest skill blanks out the one top layer of every other tree.
There would be a clear distinction between generalists and specialists...
(Off topic, I know. Bad habit. =)

I dont see any problem with addition of something like this.

[Hiver]

Personally I don't feel it necessary for Wasteland 2 to have multiple movement modes, other than running/walking. This is an RPG after all, not a squad based tactical combat game. I wouldn't mind Jagged Alliance 2 style combat, but I believe that making something that complicated would ultimately take up too much resources and development time.

If youre referring to one of my suggestions, i know. Its just a "idealistic version of a new turn based system".
If we could have that excellent. If not - its not a problem.

But i do want to see a very, very good combat system because we will be spending a lot of time fighting in this game. It is one of the basic pillars of gameplay here.

[_Quinn]

The major problem with more-complicated tactical systems is that they (almost inevitably) become slow, and anything you spend a lot of time doing in game is an important part of the game. One of the nice things about Wasteland is that while the Wasteland is a dangerous place, the goal of the game was almost entirely exploration/discovery -- what's going on and how do we stop it? The fast combats had two important effects:

(1) deemphasized combat, thereby emphasizing the other aspects of the game
(2) made it possible to fight a lot of bad guys.

Doing a D&D-style tactical combat for every encounter would take way too long for what we want to be a well-balanced cRPG. On the other hand, in X-COM the whole point of the game is the tactical combat system. By way of comparison, I think you can beat X-COM and kill fewer enemies than you do by the time you've cleared the warren under the Ag Center.

That being said, it would be nice to be able to do something other than stand in grenade formation and shoot a whole lot, and I like the idea of making the ability to split the party useful in combat. My suggestion: give everyone a move and a shoot (-equivalent) action per combat round. Imagining the typical Wasteland battle terrain: even something as simple as just moving one square in a given direction would work. (And be fast.) You automatically gain the appropriate cover effects for stepping into covering terrain. Make 'Dive' a movement command, and you pick a direction; you go prone where you are or in an adjacent square, and next turn your move option is "stand up." (If you dive behind cover, maybe you can't shoot out, and have to use indirect-fire weapons?) Make 'Peek' a movement command so you can look around corners.

To make tactics more important, cover should be directional. This opens up a whole range of possibilities, like trying to use different skills to get enter the building from a different direction so you don't have to shoot through cover. Alternatively, blowing the front door down with an RPG and having two guys machine-gun through the door should make it much easier to slip the other two in from the roof. Explicit facing (the mooks are all watching the door) makes stealth easier to understand (and becomes very natural if you have line-of-sight considerations), and should also make the mooks in question more vulnerable -- not just without cover, but shot in the back. Naturally, some combat robots would have no blind-spots, although they might, like modern tanks, would have lighter armor on the sides and back.

I'm not sure how much more (if at all) complicated you can make a tactical system; this may even have become too complicated for quick fighting; but you want to retain a modest amount of depth for situations where you don't want to just walk in, guns blazing.

[Hiver]

I wouldnt agree with the idea that complexity of combat system causes it to be "slow".
It causes it to be more engaging and interesting.

Which removes the "oh its so slow" effect some people have on it own.
Having automatic resolve option available and slider for speed of animations will deal with any arising "slowness" that may became apparent. Which is the subject of another thread, btw.

I do agree that there should be more things to do then just fighting.
But by everything i see about the game and old Wasteland says there is a lot of fighting.
Seeing how turn based combat was one of the main things that was promoted for kickstarter funding....

Other things to do would be a better subject for another thread.

This one is attempting to see what can be done so that we have good, interesting and engaging turn based combat. Not to make it the only thing.

That being said, it would be nice to be able to do something other than stand in grenade formation and shoot a whole lot, and I like the idea of making the ability to split the party useful in combat. My suggestion: give everyone a move and a shoot (-equivalent) action per combat round. Imagining the typical Wasteland battle terrain: even something as simple as just moving one square in a given direction would work. (And be fast.) You automatically gain the appropriate cover effects for stepping into covering terrain. Make 'Dive' a movement command, and you pick a direction; you go prone where you are or in an adjacent square, and next turn your move option is "stand up." (If you dive behind cover, maybe you can't shoot out, and have to use indirect-fire weapons?) Make 'Peek' a movement command so you can look around corners.

Agreed. I would especially love to have commands for complex moves like "run to that wall and jump in cover behind it" sort of stuff, with taking a quick shot while running or not and being shot at during it by enemies.
The environment must be used in combat for tactical purposes.

Having anything else would seem ridiculous.

To make tactics more important, cover should be directional. This opens up a whole range of possibilities, like trying to use different skills to get enter the building from a different direction so you don't have to shoot through cover. Alternatively, blowing the front door down with an RPG and having two guys machine-gun through the door should make it much easier to slip the other two in from the roof. Explicit facing (the mooks are all watching the door) makes stealth easier to understand (and becomes very natural if you have line-of-sight considerations), and should also make the mooks in question more vulnerable -- not just without cover, but shot in the back. Naturally, some combat robots would have no blind-spots, although they might, like modern tanks, would have lighter armor on the sides and back.

Most definitely.

The usual basic flanking, taking a high ground or a good vantage point for snipers, having a military scout build for stealthing, scouting and surprise attacks and so on.

[Postapo]

If Fallout tactics could do it then its doable. Its not really cover based combat, you can still be hit behind the cover only the enemy has a bit lower chance to do so.
If you go into full cover then enemy cant shoot at you at all, but so you cant shoot at them either.
It simple and it works.

The basics of it is that it makes you capable of taking some cover instead of not being able to do it at all, which is silly.

If the combat revolves around cover, then it's a cover-based combat. What I remember from Fallout Tactics was that standing in plain sight would get you ripped to shreds. "Full cover" (i.e. a wall) works like that in every game since Packman. It'd be like that in a crouchless game as well.

The difference between FT and the future Wasteland might be the nature of the enviroment. FT was mostly flat, with limited surfaces you could scale and preplanned scenarios. Wasteland will most likely have lots of accessible buildings and an already guaranteed open, up to date interactive game world, which multiplies the variables to an n'th root. As I mentioned, I'm all for it, but I can easily see it being dropped if the budget is too tight.

I think youre just seeing it in a wrong way. It eliminates that feeling of people just standing there idly, going through idle animations (which you mention as a big problem in your thread).
this makes everyone, enemies included able to perform some action - while they wait for their turn.
It ultimately increases the tactics necessary because you have to take that in account too.

Same thing worked fine in TOEE which made combat much more engaged and faster.

They'd still be standing around idly, they'd just snap out of it more often. The main beef that I have with AoOs is that they take the controll away from the player. This is an especially frustrating prospect, when you have a vision of absolute controll streamlined into functional combat via what i described in the other thread. AoOs aren't that much of a factor strategically, they simply mean you must cover your ass at all times and avoid passing by melee combatants.

The thing with TOEE, is that it was pure D&D, where ammo matters little more, than hair color (at least as long as you remember to buy enough quivers from the bottomless local supply). Not so much in Wastelands or Fallouts - you'd easily waste your best ammo on crapshoots just because some guy stuck his pinky from outside the cover. AoOs only made the combat faster in the sense, that there was more clobbering, hence more hp loss. but as far as raunds go, if anything it slowed it down.

[paultakeda]

Personally I don't feel it necessary for Wasteland 2 to have multiple movement modes, other than running/walking. This is an RPG after all, not a squad based tactical combat game. I wouldn't mind Jagged Alliance 2 style combat, but I believe that making something that complicated would ultimately take up too much resources and development time.

Ditto. Lying prone, peaking around corners, etc. definitely is far too much a tactical combat game focus for a game with what I hope to be a large map with an extensively branched story line with cause and effect.

Some versatility is fine (such as being able to split the squad up to perform actions separately like in WL1). Making it so more movement points are spent over certain types of terrain, fine. Going with that, you could just have a focused aiming option that simulates someone lying prone or stabilizing their weapon by spending movement to get better accuracy, not actually specifying to go prone (and then having to get up).

[Quarex]

I just want to be sure to add here, as in every thread about this, that you need to be sure that every combat does not take hours to resolve. That would be the antithesis of a fun RPG, and become more like a tactical squad combat simulator. If that sounds like a dream come true to you, then are you sure you want a sequel to Wasteland, and not Fallout: Tactics or Jagged Alliance 2 instead?

[Hiver]

If Fallout tactics could do it then its doable. Its not really cover based combat, you can still be hit behind the cover only the enemy has a bit lower chance to do so.
If you go into full cover then enemy cant shoot at you at all, but so you cant shoot at them either.
It simple and it works.

The basics of it is that it makes you capable of taking some cover instead of not being able to do it at all, which is silly.

If the combat revolves around cover, then it's a cover-based combat. What I remember from Fallout Tactics was that standing in plain sight would get you ripped to shreds. "Full cover" (i.e. a wall) works like that in every game since Packman. It'd be like that in a crouchless game as well.

Not really no. Its only cover based if you intentionally design it as such.
There is a level where you use cover naturally - as anyone with sane mind would and when it gets over that it becomes "cover based" or rather specifically concentrated on that feature.
It is mostly distinguished by insane and fake numbers of different "cover" places and locations that permiate every aspect of design.
And by being able to stay completely (more or less) invulnerable while behind cover.

The difference between FT and the future Wasteland might be the nature of the enviroment. FT was mostly flat, with limited surfaces you could scale and preplanned scenarios. Wasteland will most likely have lots of accessible buildings and an already guaranteed open, up to date interactive game world, which multiplies the variables to an n'th root. As I mentioned, I'm all for it, but I can easily see it being dropped if the budget is too tight.

Mhhmmm... riiight.

They'd still be standing around idly, they'd just snap out of it more often.

Mhhmm... because animations that happen during the combat must show the "idleness" and "snapping out of it".
Sure.

The main beef that I have with AoOs is that they take the controll away from the player.

They take control away? Is that a joke?

This is an especially frustrating prospect, when you have a vision of absolute control streamlined into functional combat via what i described in the other thread. AoOs aren't that much of a factor strategically, they simply mean you must cover your ass at all times and avoid passing by melee combatants.

For you, definitely.
Which has nothing to do with how things actually play out or ammount of control player has over his troops.

The thing with TOEE, is that it was pure D&D, where ammo matters little more, than hair color (at least as long as you remember to buy enough quivers from the bottomless local supply). Not so much in Wastelands or Fallouts - you'd easily waste your best ammo on crapshoots just because some guy stuck his pinky from outside the cover. AoOs only made the combat faster in the sense, that there was more clobbering, hence more hp loss. but as far as raunds go, if anything it slowed it down.

only if it was designed intentionally so that your characters shoot when an enemy sticks his pinky around the corner. Clobbering eh? And it slowed things down too!?

I just want to be sure to add here, as in every thread about this, that you need to be sure that every combat does not take hours to resolve. That would be the antithesis of a fun RPG, and become more like a tactical squad combat simulator. If that sounds like a dream come true to you, then are you sure you want a sequel to Wasteland, and not Fallout: Tactics or Jagged Alliance 2 instead?

Definitely not. In the sense of taking hours.
The only thing i like in FT was how it upgraded old Fallout combat system, very appropriately by building on it.
I use to hate that game for a long, long time because i wanted a true real sequel not just a shooter.

I definitely want to see Wasteland2 be a true Wasteland game. A full RPG, more like Age of decadence, for example , not a combat simulator like Fallout Tactics or JA looked like.
I only think that having a good turn based combat doesnt mean it should be simple to the point of it being bad.

And i do think that making it better in these ways will make it feel and play in more engaging and interesting ways.

[Oesophagus]

The only thing i like in FT was how it upgraded old Fallout combat system, very appropriately by building on it.
I use to hate that game for a long, long time because i wanted a true real sequel not just a shooter.

same here, but I quickly got over the fact that it was not an RPG, and in fact it's quite fun. The TB system it had wasn't bad and I think that if the worry is that combat in W2 may be too prolonged, then the FT system worked pretty well in that regard.
It was not too fiddly with the interface, crouching and going prone was simple and you didn't have to take into account a lot of variables when planning what to do.
You had the overwatch mode, and that did not activate every time the enemy stuck out a finger out of cover, but was based on the % chance to hit them. So if it was below say 60%, your characters would ignore them.

I also think W2 hould have something like an initiative system, because squad turns are wayyyy to unbalanced. Basically who starts first gets a huge edge.

[Hiver]

Exactly. And i keep thinking... if that was done so long ago, why we couldnt have at least something as good? We have that whole system to study and build upon as much as it built on the old Fallouts first steps.

Interface of course can be even more changed and made easy to use. Its not that im advocating using this exact model.
But it is one of the good examples.

You had the overwatch mode, and that did not activate every time the enemy stuck out a finger out of cover, but was based on the % chance to hit them. So if it was below say 60%, your characters would ignore them.

Of course. I didnt bother to look for details but i had a strong feeling its not set to react on pinky fingers poking out behind corners.

I also think W2 hould have something like an initiative system, because squad turns are wayyyy to unbalanced. Basically who starts first gets a huge edge.

Yeah, i never used that or that "real time" option in tactics either, keeping it where its best. No reason to have those options at all and many why its better not to.

[Oesophagus]

Interface of course can be even more changed and made easy to use. Its not that im advocating using this exact model.
But it is one of the good examples.

I wouldn't want the devs to just copy the system of FT. But come on, there's only so much variety you can have in a party TB game. You look at JA2, FT, UFO, they all have a lot in common, even though their systems were very different.
It's still a matter of whether it'll be grid/hex or vector based, because that changes a lot in how action points work.

Yeah, i never used that or that "real time" option in tactics either, keeping it where its best. No reason to have those options at all and many why its better not to.

The RT mode was only useful in one particularly annoying mission, because if any of your squad members was anywhere near another one that was being shot at, it practically guaranteed instant death (effin burst bug).

[Hiver]

Interface of course can be even more changed and made easy to use. Its not that im advocating using this exact model.
But it is one of the good examples.

I wouldn't want the devs to just copy the system of FT. But come on, there's only so much variety you can have in a party TB game. You look at JA2, FT, UFO, they all have a lot in common, even though their systems were very different.
It's still a matter of whether it'll be grid/hex or vector based, because that changes a lot in how action points work.

Well, i think some variety can be added in different ways that are not maybe that evident at first thought.
Thinking a bit outside the box, as it were. pun intended.
But it largely depends on what engine will InXile chooses and whether architecture and nature features will play a role bigger than just being a background.

Also another layer can be achieved through adding abilities to all creatures, of course, by creature type.
Nothing wild, just adding some normal natural stuff like adding crouching and prone positions was an upgrade from Fallout style.

The RT mode was only useful in one particularly annoying mission, because if any of your squad members was anywhere near another one that was being shot at, it practically guaranteed instant death (effin burst bug).

Hm, never got there i think. I reached the robots generally speaking but didnt play much further. But we dont really need RT mode or the bugs.

[Cole]

Please have the turn based combat system similar to Fallout 1 / 2.

Have an option to dramatically increase the speed of the computer's turn.

There was a mod for Fallout 2 called "Timeslip" that you would let you adjust movement and combat speed.

I would hate having to wait so long in an area where there were many enemies.