Vault Dweller said:
How did this discussion start? I made a bold claim that TB is more tactical than all RT varieties combined
I cast my net into the sea...
Vault Dweller said:
RT combat is “combat simplified”. It fits perfectly into the “even a 10 year old should be able to beat the game easily” mentality championed by publishers.
Sounds more like you saying RT is a childrens toy. Breaking it down we have these points made about RT:
1) It's simple.
2) The reason for implenting RT combat is because it is inherently "easier" to beat a game with RT combat.
3) Silly RPG'er -- RT ist for ze kids!
4) I stick it to the man at every opportunity, because I am the CHE-GAMEDEV owait need to suck a dick brb. :flipflop:
I don't see how these points can't / haven't been countered / called.
On another note, I'm replaying X-com, and playing the Faces of War / Men of War coop campaign in between. I have to say I'm undecided about which has a more tactical approach towards combat.
- X-Com is certainly an unforgiving game, in that the slightest miscalculation can lead to a total wipeout from enemies that are not, as one would call them, noteworthy. For that reason, you cannot simply run'n'gun your way to glory expecting success (although I admit actually having done so on numerous occasions, suffering some casualties but eventually winning the game) and, more often than not, a strategy has to be employed to guarantee victory.
The same easily applies to FOW/MOW, due to the versitility of an infantry unit, in destroying tanks, setting up ambushes, mining chokepoints etc. The AI opponent does not stand idly by, and I've been surprised by their cunning more times than I could count. Simply rolling a badass tank out into a combat zone is always met with disaster, and a fortified position can fall within seconds of a minor breach in defenses. At the same time, a suicide run can be met with success in the same capacity as it would in X-Com, although obviously I'd chance against it. Without research and planning, you'll meet with failure 99/100 times.
- In FOW/MOW, the game demands that you rely on all tiers of equipment, from basic infantry to manned defenses, artillery and armor. If playing on Realistic, that is with FOV, your artillery is worthless without scouts, your armor gets bombed within seconds of reinforcing, your infantry is toast without the backing of stationary guns/artillery/armor and your stationary defenses obviously can't set up without the backing of the other units.
Concerning infantry, riflemen cannot hold the line against an equal force of men, without the surpressive capabilities of smg/hmg squads. SMG's are no good alone, unless the enemy is within grenade range, and you'll likely get blown away or shot away from afar if that is the case. HMG's have terrible accuracy with decent range and will be sniped from afar before they get their shot in.
Obviously, the player has the choice of putting emphasis on what they consider works the best with their mindset and strategies (I'm a sector control sort of guy, so I put primary focus on stationary defenses, and eliminate enemy forces by slowly moving that sector around the battlefield) but in the end, you're still forced to use all the tools in your toolbox in order to get somewhere.
The same applies in X-com up to a point. There are situations where the effective solution would be the use of a specific tool, such as thrown items or sensory equipment and non combat equipment. There are also obviously situations where one type of weapon is prefferable to another. All the same, I've never felt dire need of balance in the outfitting of my combat troupé. I usually do assign the characters different combat roles, but I think I would have fared just as well giving each of them a 'basic' equipment set and working from that. In a sense, equipment becomes nonessential, and specific units dito.
- I can really take my time with a turn in X-Com. Once the combat starts, I usually do take my time and give every possible outcome some thought, reasoning with myself what risks are worth taking and what sort of strategy I'm to employ next. I take in as much of the map as I can, and estimate potential enemy positions. I need hardly say that I'm fond of planning my moves, and that it's as big a part of the game as the actual game itself, if not bigger, eventhough it goes beyond the game enviroment. I also don't need an itchy trigger finger, or fast reflexes, to make a good call on the battlefield.
FOW/MOW does not provide me with the luxury to take my time when deciding what to do next, and often I'm forced to make bad decisions and sacrifices in order to continue playing at all. It also comes down to alot of micromanagment, once I'm in battle, and units die while I'm fiddling with their inventory, or taking a manual shot or simply because I've been preoccupied with another part of the combat zone and the AI of my units was insufficient to ensure their survival. I personally hate micromanagment, most because it's unrealistic for a commander to handle every aspect of a combat unit's behavour, but generally because it's annoying and can screw up potentially successful strategical moves.
On the other hand, there are plenty of opportunities where I'm given a good amount of time to manage my units and plan my moves. Being that there is an element of stealth in the game, I can send out recon units to survey the battlefield, while I gear up an assault detachment or work on defenses, and get the battledata I need to make an intelligent decision, without any real need for urgency. As a last resort, you can also pause the game and gather what data you can from the battlefield in its current state.
As mentioned previously, I'm playing through the game in coop with a friend, and sometimes a mission can go on for 3-4 hours. Alot of that is planning, probing, withdrawing from failed assaults and reorganizing. Stripped down, we're talking an hour- 40 minutes of pure combat, tops.
It would be an impossible venture to convert FOW/MOW to a TB enviroment, without simplifying (you heard me) numerous aspects of the game and cutting the scale down a notch, which would make the combat less impressive.
-Controlling each unit separately, we would have turns lasting several hours, meaning that they would have to be grouped in squads to make the game playable, and so dito for the enemy.
-What would happen to stealthy scouts? A specific stealth unit? But then, what about all equipment being interchangable?
-What happens to vehicle speeds in TB? A system that adjusts AP to trajectory? Complicated venture that results in a counter-intuative control scheme?
-A billion turns to get across the map? Probably not worth it. What then, smaller maps? Smaller battles, smaller everything. Might as well toss the long range guns out. What's the point of a barrage from 200M away?
I can present more examples if need be, but I probably won't, so you can safely assault these points specifically, probing them for holes, without being called on it.
Now, what does a proponent of "TB > Everything else" say to that? What do you say, VD? Should games such as FOW/MOW simply not exist to entertain? Is it a "kid's game"? Is it tactically/strategically inferior to a TB game, because it's RT, and as such a tactical/strategical game of this magnitude is simply impossible? Is my comparison unfair, because of the differences of dates in these games (afterall, they are nigh 20 years apart) or genré adherence (not combat simulation, either one?) or some other futile excuse?
I like both games equally, and I like both systems of combat (leaning towards TB due to the quality of products specifically associated with TB) but I also understand that they are different vehicles that serve different, specific purposes. The fact that proponents are pushing RT onto platforms where RT has no business being, does not mean it is, in its pure form, a shitty replacement for TB without any real application. That is a misconception guided by discontent at the current trend in gaming, much like the opposite stance of "RT IS TUH BEST" is a moron's inability to imagine anything else than what is given to him, manifested in words. Both camps would do well to realize that, in case they'd like to stop making complete asses of themselves.
