Phase Based Combat Design

[soggie]

I mean phase based as in there's a planning phase and there's an execution phase. There are no "turns" in the game, and every extended movement costs real time (e.g. 1 second, 3 seconds) to perform. For example:

Move 1 tile = 2 seconds
Move 1 diagonal tile = 3 seconds
Run 1 tile = 1 second
Run 1 diagonal tile = 1.5 seconds
Crawl 1 tile = 3 seconds
Crawl 1 diagonal tile = 4.5 seconds
Turn = 0.5 seconds
Change stance = 2 seconds
Reload = 4-6 seconds depending on gun
Shoot = 3 seconds depending on gun and skill

Now, let's begin with the most basic concept: Commitment.

Commitment is factored in when you start chaining commands. For example, you direct your PC to walk 4 tiles, turn 1 facing, kneel down and the shoot the enemy.

Walk 4 tiles = 8 seconds
Turn = 0.5 second
Change stance = 2 seconds
Snap Shot = 3 seconds

Thus the total committed time is 13.5 seconds. This means, for 13.5 seconds you are unable to do anything else but follow the commands to the letter.

Next up, interception. Let's assume that you get shot at when you change stance (remember, when you're moving, the whole world is moving with you). A stat-check roll is performed to check if the character "fumbles" under stressful conditions. If he fumbles, the rest of his actions are cancelled and control returns to the player.

So why is commitment important? Chaining a long command is risky but the reward for it should be significant enough to entice players to attempt it. This is where special morale conditions come into play.

I plan to implement a "adrenaline" meter where chaining commands fills it up while getting intercepted empties it. The higher the meter is, the faster a character performs actions, and the higher bonuses he gets in all his rolls, and when the meter is full the character gets to execute a feat (cue bullet time sequence...)

So what do you think? Would this be fun? Note the emphasis on "fun" rather than "simulation" or "realistic".

 

[soggie]

This would also make small infantry tactics easier to implement when expanded to include a whole party.

To expand it to fill an entire party, every party member gets their own commitment meter and adrenaline meter. You can set different commitments for different party members, and when a particular member's commitment completes (or is intercepted), control will switch to that party member. If there are more than one party member free at that moment, the system will allow the player to switch between uncommitted members.

Now, to simulate a leap frog maneuver, the player selects solider A and sets him to leave cover and set up a field of suppressing fire for 3 seconds. He then selects soldier B and sets him to wait for 2 seconds (to allow A to set up) before dashing out of his cover to reach the next waist-high ME-style wall.

Once the action begins, A scrambles out of cover and sets up a suppression cone, and starts firing. So happens that an enemy pops out of his cover. A's shots at the enemy score no hits but successfully causes a fumble, cancelling out the enemy's actions. The computer AI deems that challenging a surpressed fire zone is too risky, and thus decides to stay put until A reloads or finishes his supressed fire action. At this moment, B dashes out of cover and successfully reaches his destination. Both soldiers gains adrenaline points over the successful actions.

Now, let's say A is not there to suppress the enemy. B would have dashed out of cover and right across the enemy's line of sight. Since the computer AI had the enemy pop out and engage any targets of opportunities (AttackMove-like command similar to the one in Starcraft), the enemy would have open fired on B, forcing a fumble check.

 

[Kosmonaut]

Sounds pretty cool. But why adrenaline? It seems that you are trying to shoehorn it into an abstract concept. Why don't you embrace the abstraction and just name it different?

Also, don't tie your system to seconds, make it a different unit than real seconds, and then just make it equivalent to a determinate factor of time (1 unit = 500 milliseconds or something). That way you can tweak it changing the factor without much trouble.

 

[soggie]

Sounds pretty cool. But why adrenaline? It seems that you are trying to shoehorn it into an abstract concept. Why don't you embrace the abstraction and just name it different?

Also, don't tie your system to seconds, make it a different unit than real seconds, and then just make it equivalent to a determinate factor of time (1 unit = 500 milliseconds or something). That way you can tweak it changing the factor without much trouble.

Adrenaline because I don't have a better name for it. IN THE ZONE meter maybe?

As for using "seconds" as a metric unit, it was for illustration purposes. I plan to call them time units in the game, but before I actually implement it (since many factors can add/minus the TU cost for actions) I will keep referring it to seconds for simplicity's sake (and for the sake of mutual understanding between team members).

 

[Unradscorpion]

And if the shot lands? Auto-death?

What if I'm walking through a hallway and an enemy ambushes me, he shoots at me but I do not fumble and instead continue walking down the hall until he shoots me?

 

[soggie]

And if the shot lands? Auto-death?

What if I'm walking through a hallway and an enemy ambushes me, he shoots at me but I do not fumble and instead continue walking down the hall until he shoots me?

1. If shot lands, apply damage to HP. Roll the fumble check too with a higher penalty.

2. Put it this way. When you plan a 10 tile walk, you're planning a commitment to reach the destination regardless of inteference. It might be because you believe you're safe from intercepts along that path, or you believe you have high enough stats to succeed in resisting all the fumbles and chances of getting shot at.

If you are walking through dangerous territory, it will pay to commit less (and gain less adrenaline points) in exchange for finer control over the pace of combat.

Think of long commitments as cavalry charges and short commitments as infantry movements. Bigger risk, bigger rewards.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

I would think a way of handling that might be interrupts. You're walking down the path and then someone pops out and shoots you... you're not going to continue walking down the path. Maybe apply a penalty to AP when interrupted (or whatever you're using), but allow them to change their actions after that.

 

[soggie]

I would think a way of handling that might be interrupts. You're walking down the path and then someone pops out and shoots you... you're not going to continue walking down the path. Maybe apply a penalty to AP when interrupted (or whatever you're using), but allow them to change their actions after that.

I'll quote my first post:

Next up, interception. Let's assume that you get shot at when you change stance (remember, when you're moving, the whole world is moving with you). A stat-check roll is performed to check if the character "fumbles" under stressful conditions. If he fumbles, the rest of his actions are cancelled and control returns to the player.

Interception = interrupts. If the player fails a fumble check, his "long charge to safety" is cancelled and control switches to that character. His adrenaline meter drops a notch too.

 

[Castanova]

It sounds like you'd want your character to fumble. I'm not sure this adrenaline mechanic is the right way to approach things. For some reason you're trying to promote players making long chains of moves in advance but I'm not quite sure what for. In a phase-based combat game, it's not about tactical certainties but rather playing the percentages and taking calculated risks. In your system, I don't think I'd ever have my adrenaline meter fill up at all because I'd be more interested in actually winning the fight.

 

[Lord Rocket]

Sounds infuriating, to be honest. The basic idea of a 'phase based' (I think the word you are looking for is 'tic', not 'phase', by the way) combat system is good, and criminally underused, but the commitment system is robbing the player of control and that's never fun.

 

[soggie]

@Castanova

The idea of commitment is to introduce a strategic element for players to trade risk for better gains (higher adrenaline = less time taken to perform actions).

@Lord Rocket

When you say "rob control from the player", I believe what you refer to is the long commitment without the capability to break the commitment prematurely. The only way to break the commitment is through hostile action.

So would this be rectified if players can break commitment manually (with the same effect as hostile interrupts, e.g. less adrenaline gained)?

Or should I make it so that hostile interrupts incur adrenaline loss, while manually breaking the commitment would only result in less adrenaline gains?

 

[Castanova]

The idea of commitment is to introduce a strategic element for players to trade risk for better gains (higher adrenaline = less time taken to perform actions).

But my point is that risk/reward is an inherent aspect of a phase-based system. By its nature, you are required to make moves without definite knowledge of enemy positioning and without definite knowledge of the probability that your moves will finish successfully. There's really no need to force the issue with this adrenaline feature.

Indeed, the presence of this adrenaline feature is just begging to be exploited - I can set up a front line that I'm reasonably sure will hold and then I simply command my strongest unit to run back and forth across the safe area until his adrenaline is full. Then I charge him in, ready to whip A.I. ass.

 

[soggie]

The idea of commitment is to introduce a strategic element for players to trade risk for better gains (higher adrenaline = less time taken to perform actions).

But my point is that risk/reward is an inherent aspect of a phase-based system. By its nature, you are required to make moves without definite knowledge of enemy positioning and without definite knowledge of the probability that your moves will finish successfully. There's really no need to force the issue with this adrenaline feature.

Indeed, the presence of this adrenaline feature is just begging to be exploited - I can set up a front line that I'm reasonably sure will hold and then I simply command my strongest unit to run back and forth across the safe area until his adrenaline is full. Then I charge him in, ready to whip A.I. ass.

Good point. Alright, I guess I'll just go ahead with a vanilla tic-based phase-based system.

Again, thanks guys for the insight!

 

[Lord Rocket]

Yep, manual interruptions are definitely the way to go, although that does render the whole commitment thing a bit redundant. Although you're probably going to drop these features I'm going to pretend you aren't for this post, because I think you just need to refine your ideas about their implementation a little.

Commitment. You get the reward at the end of your chained actions, the more actions, the more reward. Manual interruption gets you shit. 'Fumble' gets you, say, 25% of what you'd normally have gotten if you'd chained together however many actions you'd completed before you were interrupted.

As for the adrenaline gauge, I like it (it's an interesting idea especially if you want the combat to have a 'theme' - these sorts of mechanics are used in P&P RPGs regularly to encourage people to play in a certain way. Non, or rather not necessarily, combat example right off the top of my head, FATE uses it's 'fate point economy' to prod players into both playing and creating flawed characters) but limit when it builds up. Probably the easiest way to do this is to only let it fill up when the action chain includes a skill check or a class feature - like fighters fighting or magic users casting spells etc., to trot out the fantasy standbys - rather than just by committing to any old load of crap. You might also use it to encourage certain play styles (that 'theme' thing I mentioned). If you wanted to have combat that felt more 'actiony' while keeping the proper fucking RPG aspect, for example, you could reward aggressive actions - attacking and moving towards the enemy, say - with adrenaline. I think a 'Mythic Norse' RPG would work well with a system like that since they were pretty into reckless bravery. Also, the gauge runs out if it's not being filled, more quickly if you're doing nothing at all.

Yup.

 

[soggie]

Yep, manual interruptions are definitely the way to go, although that does render the whole commitment thing a bit redundant. Although you're probably going to drop these features I'm going to pretend you aren't for this post, because I think you just need to refine your ideas about their implementation a little.

Commitment. You get the reward at the end of your chained actions, the more actions, the more reward. Manual interruption gets you shit. 'Fumble' gets you, say, 25% of what you'd normally have gotten if you'd chained together however many actions you'd completed before you were interrupted.

As for the adrenaline gauge, I like it (it's an interesting idea especially if you want the combat to have a 'theme' - these sorts of mechanics are used in P&P RPGs regularly to encourage people to play in a certain way. Non, or rather not necessarily, combat example right off the top of my head, FATE uses it's 'fate point economy' to prod players into both playing and creating flawed characters) but limit when it builds up. Probably the easiest way to do this is to only let it fill up when the action chain includes a skill check or a class feature - like fighters fighting or magic users casting spells etc., to trot out the fantasy standbys - rather than just by committing to any old load of crap. You might also use it to encourage certain play styles (that 'theme' thing I mentioned). If you wanted to have combat that felt more 'actiony' while keeping the proper fucking RPG aspect, for example, you could reward aggressive actions - attacking and moving towards the enemy, say - with adrenaline. I think a 'Mythic Norse' RPG would work well with a system like that since they were pretty into reckless bravery. Also, the gauge runs out if it's not being filled, more quickly if you're doing nothing at all.

Yup.

I'm not really sure about this Rocket. I like the idea of an increasing "adrenaline" meter (which I plan to rename it morale meter) upon successful aggressive rolls (less increments on successful defensive rolls), and decrease it upon successful fumbles and taking damage. But still, it does render the idea of commitment redundant when you can manually break your chained actions.

The original concept of commitment comes from modelling melee combat: say, boxing. In boxing, you often have a set of combos that you'll dish out once you get an opening, and its very rare to see boxers break their own combinations without losing their pace. A commitment means you set your mind towards accomplishing a set of actions, and you don't make room for interruptions. That is why when it is interrupted successfully, you often lose initiative or get thrown off-balance (both mentally and physically), hence the fumble mechanism.

However, in its vanilla form it is easily exploitable, like what Castanova said. So the most optimum alternative is to add in manual interrupts and a different adrenaline meter mechanism, explained in my first paragraph. Thing is, by doing so it reduces the element of risk in performing long commitments for a large boost in adrenaline (which can potentially change the tide of the game) to a relatively safe maneuver where you have a safety fallback (manual interrupt).

I am also concerned on how it would work in a party situation, where you simultaneously control 1-5 characters on screen. Too many mechanisms can over-complicate the system in a way that is detrimental to gameplay enjoyment, and I'm worried that this might be one of them.

So that's why I won't be implementing the morale/adrenaline meter until I'm done with the combat system. Besides, adding it in wouldn't be that hard at all - just an extra check and that's all.

 

[Lord Rocket]

Yeah fair enough man, the main thrust of my post was really that those sorts of mechanisms can flavour combat in interesting ways and it would be a shame to lose that just because of the potential for abuse inherent in your original design.

One more idea - maybe only certain actions could be committed to as well? For example, removing movement from the list of chainable actions, or just making it incidental (eg, attack, move over to that guy, attack again, and only the two attacks count towards boosting your meter), would eliminate the situation Castanova described at a stroke.

So that's why I won't be implementing the morale/adrenaline meter until I'm done with the combat system.

I suspect I'm misunderstanding you here, but if not - it really isn't wise to treat ideas like this one as an afterthought. At best it will feel tacked on, at worst it could break your whole combat system.

 

[Castanova]

Yeah, didn't meant to be a Negative Nancy. I think the idea of this "Morale Meter" has merit in terms of differentiating your game, I was just a bit dubious about the proposed implementation.

 

[soggie]

@Lord Rocket, Castanova

The combat system that I planned out is quite complex. It has two sub-systems: ranged combat and melee combat. In ranged combat, you pull the trigger and shoot somebody else, but there are special techniques (e.g. "feats") that you can use (e.g. Double Tap, where if the first shot lands successfully the next shot is taken automatically at the same dice pool but at 50% less AP cost), not to mention passive ones too (e.g. Grenade Rejection: on a successful reaction check, a character equipped with a shotgun will shoot down a grenade in mid air, detonating it harmlessly before it can reach the character). On the melee front, you not only can perform strikes with your fists and arms (with special techniques like hooks, jabs, palm strikes, etc), you can also grapple (takedowns, submissions, joint locks) and perform intercepts (counters, reversals, disarms, etc) too.

On top of that, you have different maneuver commands: full charge (faster movement that is more resistant to enemy reaction rolls); cautious move (will automatically engage any targets of opportunity along the way - default); and normal move, which I haven't wrapped my mind around yet.

I think for the morale meter to work, it has to integrate itself tightly into the combat system as a whole. Right now though, what I know is that it is but a value in the character stats. It goes up if a character succeeds on a combat roll, where aggressive rolls (e.g. attacks and reaction fires) have the largest gain. Chained successes will trigger multipliers which further increases the rate of the meter filling up, while c-c-c-c-combo breaks (failed rolls) will reset the multipliers. Getting hit will decrease the moral meter.

Sounds like a good enough design? Next question: what should I do with the morale meter? Extra dice added to the dice pool? Faster actions (less ticks taken per action)?

That's why I mentioned that until I code the combat system, I won't know how can I utilize the morale meter.

Any ideas?

 

[denizsi]

Morale meter reminds me of Close Combat.

Commitment is factored in when you start chaining commands. For example, you direct your PC to walk 4 tiles, turn 1 facing, kneel down and the shoot the enemy.

Since this is phase based, why should the target just stand there and wait to get shot? It was probably just a poor example, but it's an example nonetheless. Pick yours more carefully.

I plan to implement a "adrenaline" meter where chaining commands fills it up while getting intercepted empties it. The higher the meter is, the faster a character performs actions, and the higher bonuses he gets in all his rolls, and when the meter is full the character gets to execute a feat (cue bullet time sequence...)

So what do you think? Would this be fun? Note the emphasis on "fun" rather than "simulation" or "realistic".

Adrenaline mechanic does sound like it could be fun with some adjustments but it sounds nothing like "adrenaline". It's kind of like "Blunt Weapons". It begs for another name.

The only way to break the commitment is through hostile action.

So would this be rectified if players can break commitment manually (with the same effect as hostile interrupts, e.g. less adrenaline gained)?

Or should I make it so that hostile interrupts incur adrenaline loss, while manually breaking the commitment would only result in less adrenaline gains?

Commitment is a nice idea, you'll remember I also have it in place in my medieval combat model in a more immediate and smaller scale, but it really is redundant in the big picture, so it should perhaps be like a power attack; characters put extra effort or faith into their actions which cost something extra while providing something extra. A character providing suppression fire while the other commits to move from one cover to another and being temporarily encumbered (eg. various penalties) for a 3-7 seconds thereafter might be a good example in some conditions, for instance. It shouldn't be the norm and there should be conditions to break it without a hostile encounter, eg. if a character spots something suspicious as a result of a perception check etc.

Perhaps you could do multiple commitment chains, eg. you commit a short series (2-4 seconds tops?) of actions into one chain, and more into a second or third chain. You get an interrupt between every chain as to whether you want to go on or do something else, but the short chains themselves wouldn't be manually interruptible except for automatically performed actions depending on the conditions eg: while charging at someone or something, your character spots enemies aiming at him so he will automatically do something in line with his last action (in this case, rolling, jumping, sliding somewhere as he can't suddenly stop and turn somewhere else due to momentum).

You could get cumulative bonuses on multiple uniterrupted chains.

 

[soggie]

Hmm... food for thought.

 

[soggie]

Penned down the mechanics in my blog post:

Tic-based Combat