Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Fallout Tactics (in 2020)

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
The key part of its name is Tactic, not Fallout. FFS.

Fucking hell. I think Interplay should have left the Fallout part out and just carry on with everything else. That would save the whines.

The biggest problem is that it's a tactical game that would hit the rpg gamer hard in the ball. Because tactic is hard, yeah. SO the storyfag and questfag keep whining and whining.
Tactics requires brains. Dramaqueenery requires only feels.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
Oh yeah I was almost brought to tears the first time I beat the first mutant mission (Saint Louis I think?) by clearing out the whole map and being loaded with a fuckton of loot only to get stuck because the game refused to tick off the objectives as completed (I think it was because I didnt visit the site with slaughtered BoS squad before I started to attack the mutants and only came to them after the map was cleared which somehow fucked the whole thing up). Took me a while to recover from that and even nowadays I approach this mission with a bit of anxiety.
You need to take a look at this, then. You might appreciate it.
 

Zboj Lamignat

Arcane
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
5,523
The entire issue is that FT is bad as a tactical game. You cannot claim that F1-2 have poor combat (a very common opinion here, although I think it was fine for the kind of experience that original Fallout provided) and then pretend it's good for a squad based tactical game.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
The entire issue is that FT is bad as a tactical game. You cannot claim that F1-2 have poor combat (a very common opinion here, although I think it was fine for the kind of experience that original Fallout provided) and then pretend it's good for a squad based tactical game.
The poor combat in FO2 is centred on two things:
1. Aimed shots are far too overpowered due to the way crits worked in FO2. This is not the case in FOT.
2. You can't control your companions, which generally results in much hilarity and frustration. This does not exist in FOT.

So, yes we can most definitely claim that FO2 has bad combat while FOT doesn't.
 

ValeVelKal

Arcane
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
1,605
The entire issue is that FT is bad as a tactical game. You cannot claim that F1-2 have poor combat (a very common opinion here, although I think it was fine for the kind of experience that original Fallout provided) and then pretend it's good for a squad based tactical game.
The poor combat in FO2 is centred on two things:
1. Aimed shots are far too overpowered due to the way crits worked in FO2. This is not the case in FOT.
2. You can't control your companions, which generally results in much hilarity and frustration. This does not exist in FOT.

So, yes we can most definitely claim that FO2 has bad combat while FOT doesn't.
In addition, in FOT you can take cover, crawl to a good position, while in FO cover is (almost) not a thing. I remember you can hide behind someone else, but that's all.
 

Zboj Lamignat

Arcane
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
5,523
The entire issue is that FT is bad as a tactical game. You cannot claim that F1-2 have poor combat (a very common opinion here, although I think it was fine for the kind of experience that original Fallout provided) and then pretend it's good for a squad based tactical game.
The poor combat in FO2 is centred on two things:
1. Aimed shots are far too overpowered due to the way crits worked in FO2. This is not the case in FOT.
2. You can't control your companions, which generally results in much hilarity and frustration. This does not exist in FOT.

So, yes we can most definitely claim that FO2 has bad combat while FOT doesn't.
And here I thought it's about being overly simplistic and highly arbitrary, which does not work for proper tactical games at all. Having deadly crits would actually help it somewhat.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
The entire issue is that FT is bad as a tactical game. You cannot claim that F1-2 have poor combat (a very common opinion here, although I think it was fine for the kind of experience that original Fallout provided) and then pretend it's good for a squad based tactical game.
The poor combat in FO2 is centred on two things:
1. Aimed shots are far too overpowered due to the way crits worked in FO2. This is not the case in FOT.
2. You can't control your companions, which generally results in much hilarity and frustration. This does not exist in FOT.

So, yes we can most definitely claim that FO2 has bad combat while FOT doesn't.
And here I thought it's about being overly simplistic and highly arbitrary, which does not work for proper tactical games at all. Having deadly crits would actually help it somewhat.
Since when does increasing arbitrary RNG-based lethality ever good for any kind of game that requires brains, be it tactical or strategy?

"Oh look! The RMG ruled against you and your carefully built impregnable fortress is reduced to dust! Rocks fall, everyone dies!"
 

ValeVelKal

Arcane
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
1,605
The biggest problem is that it's a tactical game that would hit the rpg gamer hard in the ball. Because tactic is hard, yeah. SO the storyfag and questfag keep whining and whining.
I would kill for a proper post-apo TB tactical RPG. FT sucks as tactics game, though, and being very tedious doesn't help at all
Chaos Gate, not fully post apo- but good enough I would say :).
 

Zboj Lamignat

Arcane
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
5,523
Being able to die in general is good in games and pretty important in tactical games, yes. Getting back to my initial post in this thread - being able to withstand point black shotgun blast or hand grenade exploding right in your face without issue is extremely silly, but passable in a single character crpg which isn't really focused on combat. Fallout combat needed much more than just ability to go prone and crouch to be fit for a good tactical game. Even nuXCOM, total decline, has things like an actual morale or not allowing soldiers to carry 10 weapons and two school kitchens worth of consumables.
 

ValeVelKal

Arcane
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
1,605
"Oh look! The RMG ruled against you and your carefully built impregnable fortress is reduced to dust! Rocks fall, everyone dies!"
That's sometimes quite typical X-com experience.
Which can be worked around.
Yeah but it cuts both directions.
Lose someone in X-COM => Oh well, it is a set back, I need to recruit a new dude.
Lose someone in Fallout1/2 => Reload
 

Zboj Lamignat

Arcane
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
5,523
"Oh look! The RMG ruled against you and your carefully built impregnable fortress is reduced to dust! Rocks fall, everyone dies!"
That's sometimes quite typical X-com experience.
Which can be worked around.
Yeah but it cuts both directions.
Lose someone in X-COM => Oh well, it is a set back, I need to recruit a new dude.
Lose someone in Fallout1/2 => Reload
Forcing a reload upon squadmate death is by definition pretty decline, but there are still tactical games that have this and proper inventory management, nice level of combat lethality, morale for soldiers etc. Like I said, even nuXCOM from nuFiraxis does these things better than FT. FT is a tactical game where you can literally turn on rt and left click everything to death more often than not.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
Being able to die in general is good in games and pretty important in tactical games, yes. Getting back to my initial post in this thread - being able to withstand point black shotgun blast or hand grenade exploding right in your face without issue is extremely silly, but passable in a single character crpg which isn't really focused on combat. Fallout combat needed much more than just ability to go prone and crouch to be fit for a good tactical game. Even nuXCOM, total decline, has things like an actual morale or not allowing soldiers to carry 10 weapons and two school kitchens worth of consumables.
You haven't actually played the game, or you won't be saying units can't die in FOT.
 

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,294
"Oh look! The RMG ruled against you and your carefully built impregnable fortress is reduced to dust! Rocks fall, everyone dies!"
That's sometimes quite typical X-com experience.
Which can be worked around.
Yeah but it cuts both directions.
Lose someone in X-COM => Oh well, it is a set back, I need to recruit a new dude.
Lose someone in Fallout1/2 => Reload
Forcing a reload upon squadmate death is by definition pretty decline, but there are still tactical games that have this and proper inventory management, nice level of combat lethality, morale for soldiers etc. Like I said, even nuXCOM from nuFiraxis does these things better than FT. FT is a tactical game where you can literally turn on rt and left click everything to death more often than not.
OK. I see that you are just one of those leftard cunt types who will demand that everyone else agree with you that the Sun rises in the West because you feel that it should. You are not worth replying to other than to say that you have no idea about the game at all.
 

Dayyālu

Arcane
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Messages
4,466
Location
Shaper Crypt
The entire issue is that FT is bad as a tactical game.

Very, very few missions in FT permit "tactical gameplay", the best you get is infiltration missions. I distinctly remember the most "tactical"-friendly area being the Reaver house in Junction city, because you have enough space to get in position before you start firing and the enemies bumrush you. There's no denying it, the rush AI in Tactics cuts a lot of possibilities: the enemies will simply zerg rush you ignoring everything else.

It's fine in some situations and it makes for adequate infiltration missions (Rock Falls, Quincy, Newton) but it diminishes the possibilities of the game. There's very little "tactics" in FT, but again, this ain't 7,62.

Like I said, even nuXCOM from nuFiraxis does these things better than FT.

Lulz, "pod spawn" nuXCOM, "you can't lose team mates" nuXCOM, "you play our way or you don't play" nuXCOM

At least Tactics lets me fuck around, nuXCOM is essentially on rails, and Tactics has fixed missions. The main problem of FT is poor enemy AI, as I said: everything else is fine. You get enough high-level recruits to even accept losses (and varied recruits even!) and equipment is varied enough if limited in utility. nuXCOM is simply repetitive and grindy.
 

Zboj Lamignat

Arcane
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
5,523
I heavily dislike nuXCOM, just pointing out that, as shitty as it is, it actually does have staple things one should expect from a tactical game, even if clumsily implemented - squaddie injuries is something that actually matters, they can panic yada yada I'm kinda getting bored of the need to repeat same basic stuff a couple of times. FT has none of that. It's literally take characters created with SPECIAL system and shoot stuff, only you can do it in rt to make it even easier and quicker.
 

ValeVelKal

Arcane
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
1,605
"Oh look! The RMG ruled against you and your carefully built impregnable fortress is reduced to dust! Rocks fall, everyone dies!"
That's sometimes quite typical X-com experience.
Which can be worked around.
Yeah but it cuts both directions.
Lose someone in X-COM => Oh well, it is a set back, I need to recruit a new dude.
Lose someone in Fallout1/2 => Reload
Forcing a reload upon squadmate death is by definition pretty decline, but there are still tactical games that have this and proper inventory management, nice level of combat lethality, morale for soldiers etc. Like I said, even nuXCOM from nuFiraxis does these things better than FT. FT is a tactical game where you can literally turn on rt and left click everything to death more often than not.

Well, game systems and balancing should be seen as a whole.

For instance, in old XCOM, you have an infinite pool of soldiers, so yes you can perfectly have extremely high lethality with one shoot one dead. Actually, when I ironmaned Xenonauts, I lost literally 50 guys or more, while I see Let's Play where the player loses 3 guys in total. Nonetheless, I won the campaign.

On the other hand JA2, you have a limited pool of soldiers, so lethality is very low, even a tank shell in close proximity is not an instant death. The game is subtle so you can headshoot your opponents... but you can also use helmets that avoid YOUR guys from being instakilled by an headshoot.
Put XCOM lethality in JA2, the game is a failure as you would have to savescum through the game. Put JA2 lethality in the old XCOM, and the game is a bore.

Chaos Gate is in between, most weapons have low lethality but sometimes you ll see your opponents with instakill weapons, and you can still carry on playing because while the pool of soldiers is limited, it is quite large AND the soldiers are pretty much all similar (unlike JA2 where you have only so many guys that are actually competent on the frontline).

Which brings us back to FOT. In terms of available soldiers, FOT is quite similar to JA2 : you have a limited pool of soldiers, and while this pool is large you have specialization issues. In addition, the difference between low level and high level character is greater than in XCOM or JA2 but experience in the game is limited (you maybe be able to grind random events on the wrold map ? Not sure), so low level characters that stayed low level are not really eligible when you progress in the game.

Given you have a limited "reserve", you really don't want a guy to die because thrash_mob_raider_14 got lucky and hit you in the eyes with his rusty pistol. Hence, having equipment protecting you from critical is a GOOD move. You can still very much die in FOT, and getting a rocket in the face (or close enough) or getting machine-gunned at short range will most definitely kill you immediately until you have power armors, so for more than one half of the game. It is fairly equivalent to the "Chaos Gate" balancing where you have some significant resilience against standard weapons but can get killed instantly against rarer weapons (and even then, those weapons are way more common in the hands of the super-mutants than they are in the hands of Chaos).

This is this "protection from critical" that allows Fallout Tactics to be reasonably ironmanable - which I did - despite the limited pool of recruits. You will lose people, but you will not lose THAT many people that you cannot progress.

In FO1/FO2, keeping critical attacks strong allows to player the satisfaction of winning battles he should not have, and since the game is fairly "reload heavy" anyway because as a first time player you easily get involved in combat you cannot win, the drawbacks (=death by RNG) are not that massive.
 
Last edited:

Zboj Lamignat

Arcane
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
5,523
That's some nice rationalization and I know you can die in FT. The real question is - how many times do you actually die and do you even feel your soldiers are in any kind of danger most of the time? How many of the games you mention, tactical games, allow you to facetank damage all day, because right after your guy is done getting shot at with high caliber ammo you can just instantly patch him up to full hp with 65747 healing items in your inventory and he won't mind one bit and status effects can be done away with quickly as well. Put X from game Z into game Y and it won't work is a weird argument and it sounds dangerously like a variant of the tired "but it's shit by design!!" trope. The point is that these games actually present interesting tactical scenarios and challenges. Incubation is strictly build around the idea of having a small core squad with losses being pretty much unacceptable and yet even the lowest of the low enemies will shred you if you aren't careful. It also has morale, proper inventory management/item economy...

yada yada I'm kinda getting bored of the need to repeat same basic stuff a couple of times
 

ValeVelKal

Arcane
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
1,605
That's some nice rationalization and I know you can die in FT. The real question is - how many times do you actually die and do you even feel your soldiers are in any kind of danger most of the time? How many of the games you mention, tactical games, allow you to facetank damage all day, because right after your guy is done getting shot at with high caliber ammo you can just instantly patch him up to full hp with 65747 healing items in your inventory and he won't mind one bit and status effects can be done away with quickly as well. Put X from game Z into game Y and it won't work is a weird argument and it sounds dangerously like a variant of the tired "but it's shit by design!!" trope. The point is that these games actually present interesting tactical scenarios and challenges. Incubation is strictly build around the idea of having a small core squad with losses being pretty much unacceptable and yet even the lowest of the low enemies will shred you if you aren't careful. It also has morale, proper inventory management/item economy...

Funny you would mention Incubation, which is often considered as incredibly puzzly, including for the reasons you mention.

I am sorry if you see Game Design 101 as "rationalization", but yes, it is not because X works in game Y that it will work in game Z.

Healing in Fallout takes AP, so if you want to do it in combat you need to either disengage or sacrifice AP. I am not going to defend the "only 2 AP for stimpack" of Fallout, that's a design mistake and has been there since Fallout 1, but not enough to thrash the whole game, especially if you play it RT (where typically your character would have between 0 and the minimum HP to shoot between combat, so you won't be able to fully heal that quickly).

Until mid-game, you don't have unlimited resources either. The game takes a turn for the worse by end game when you start having Power Armors.


There are plenty of other tactical games where, once out of combat, you can heal your guys fully and not have in your team a limping dude : Chaos Gate (in theory you have limited space but well, let's just say it is not a constraint), Silent Storm provided your guy is not unconscious iirc, the sadly unknown-but-great I am not a Monster, or even RT games like Syrian Warfare where Russian elite soldier can shrug off an HE shell a few meters from them and then heal fully if they are given some time out of combat (Syrians without body armor would be dead though).
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom