Hard West - tactical turn based + wild west setting

[Saduj]

XCOM's simplified combat system also wasn't the central focus of the game. There was also the world map part of the game, which was more complex and at least as important as the combat portion.*

I know Hard West is also going to have map exploration but that looks rather streamlined too. I just don't see how the bare bones combat system is enough to focus a game around.

*yes, I know this wasn't as good as the original either and the part of the game that somewhat merged combat and base management was removed completely (base attacks)

 

[Hobo Elf]

One huge issue with XCOMs cover was that it couldn't be destroyed. X-COM had destructible terrain. You couldn't just pop moles all day behind the same cover. If your cover was blown up or shot you had to GTFO ASAP. This just added another layer to the strategy.

nuXCOM has destructible cover just not to the same extent as the original game. Just hover your grenade over and destructible elements are highlighted. 2012 aliens can and do blow up your cover, though the AI is usually not smart enough to do this reliably.

Not everything is destructible in XCOM, though. Most things aren't. You can blow up houses in X-COM. There's even tactical benefits to it such as bringing down the ceilings in rooms filled with dangerous aliens.

 

[Kacper Szymczak]

I meditated on what I read and I must humbly apologize for my initial approach.

My background of making all kinds of games taught me to take any kind of game and turn it into something universally approachable (or at least not broadly appalling). It is quite clear that in terms of TBS I am quite the noob, and I must say I find your discussion fascinating.


Still I am not willing to take the risk of pivoting Hard West into the hardcore pro waters; as you can see, the project is designed and developed rather safely, despite the somewhat outlying themes. This is a consequence of both lack of specialization in our studio (we do like hopping from genre to genre) and the condition we're in after the first project (being: kind of fucked and barely afloat). Hence, fear kicks in and we're in no rush to burn bridges such as console ports, however disgraceful that might sound.

We'll stick with the XCOM 2ap because of that, because for one I'm not yet quite sure that going hardcore equals staying afloat for the studio and people who work there, and second because I've seen huge budgets burnt at changing underlying decisions.


I wish, however, to ask you this: knowing what you know, if you would have to stick with 2ap and simplified cover system (assuming they make the game approachable, and that's what we want), how would you add depth to that?

Please help me out here, and we may still make it a project worth your while.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Still I am not willing to take the risk of pivoting Hard West into the hardcore pro waters; as you can see, the project is designed and developed rather safely...

That's understandable.

I wish, however, to ask you this: knowing what you know, if you would have to stick with 2ap and simplified cover system (assuming they make the game approachable, and that's what we want), how would you add depth to that?

I'm not sure you can as depth comes from complexity and XCOM's mechanics are frighteningly simple. Coincidentally, the new Shadowrun game featuring the same 2AP system is also too simplistic to be enjoyable or memorable.

One of the main issues is firing speed. If it takes the same time to aim and fire a quickshooter as a rifle or shotgun, then why use pistols? Both XCOM and Shadowrun had this problem: XCOM "fixed" by making it a sniper weapon and clumsy upgrades, Shadowrun by special abilities, which failed to make them a viable choice or differentiate them from other guns. Basically, all guns functioned the same way - 1AP to shoot, 1AP to reload, only some guns did more damage. A wild west-like setting where speed was everything (plus a large number of very different handguns) will only magnify this problem.

You can't solve it with 1AP to cover it all.

Now I understand that changing design in the middle is never a good idea, but I don't see going from 2AP to say 5 or 10 a radical change. It's merely a question of scale. More AP will give you more room to differentiate weapons and add some tactical depth.

 

[Cyberarmy]

Kacper Szymczak

-Special and/or aimed shots, strikes that'll cost 2AP.
-Sniping after focusing a full turn with sure hit and better damage/critical chance.
-Talents/skills that change the gameplay. Like making point-blank shots from shotguns spend no AP, fast hands who can fire 2 times for 1 AP, raising dust for some effect like smoke bombs, shooting weapons for disarm, shooting hats for fear effect, animal whispering for getting help from wild life, piling dead bodies for creating cover.
-Good and wide armory with decent choices.
-Different ammunation types.
-Good range of throwing weapons too, like snake in a bag, tomahawk, poisoned daggers, lasso, unlit dynamites.
-Different mission types like catching criminals alive, protecting coaches or robbing them which can also be applied to banks,herds and trains.
-Also different areas with different scenery.

Edit: And for the love of god, a western game needs blood.

 

[Grunker]

Still I am not willing to take the risk of pivoting Hard West into the hardcore pro waters; as you can see, the project is designed and developed rather safely, despite the somewhat outlying themes. This is a consequence of both lack of specialization in our studio (we do like hopping from genre to genre) and the condition we're in after the first project (being: kind of fucked and barely afloat). Hence, fear kicks in and we're in no rush to burn bridges such as console ports, however disgraceful that might sound.

Doesn't sound "disgraceful", just sounds like you're not making a game for us

Please help me out here, and we may still make it a project worth your while.

You might, but do you have a reason for trying? That's the question. Anyway, you have a good attitude, considering how hard it can be when everyone steps in line to fling advice at you. I wish you the best of luck, and though I doubt it, maybe I'll end up enjoying your game. Not sure what I can do to help you out though, since most if not all of my suggestions would probably shift your project into a more "hardcore" direction - which is a direction you say you don't want.

 

[felipepepe]

I meditated on what I read and I must humbly apologize for my initial approach.

My background of making all kinds of games taught me to take any kind of game and turn it into something universally approachable (or at least not broadly appalling). It is quite clear that in terms of TBS I am quite the noob, and I must say I find your discussion fascinating.

Still I am not willing to take the risk of pivoting Hard West into the hardcore pro waters; as you can see, the project is designed and developed rather safely, despite the somewhat outlying themes.

The world would be a much better place if everyone was honest and humble as you are.

Now I understand that changing design in the middle is never a good idea, but I don't see going from 2AP to say 5 or 10 a radical change. It's merely a question of scale. More AP will give you more room to differentiate weapons and add some tactical depth.

I agree. I don't know if you'll employ classes as in XCOM, but you can make a simple system with the guns. Imagine that every character starts with 5 AP, but a heavier weapon (for wild west standards) like a shotgun decreases your AP in one and cost 2 APs to fire.

But I won't lie, this will make your job as developers harder, since you'll have to balance all those. As Grunker said, you should first check if that's interesting for you.

 

[34scell]

-Shots that miss the target having the potential hit someone else in the way including your own team mates. Also not being able to shoot through your own guys (without hitting them)

-Being able to choose how many bullets you shoot with a single shoot action

-Inventory system

-Picking up items dropped by enemies/allies

 

[buzz]

I think the appropriate question is, given that you know that this isn't a genre you have a background in or know much about, why choose to make a TBS game in the first place?

Because they're great and experience by experimentation is the best way to go. But yeah, doing some research before is always better.
On the other hand though, you've seen Avellone's foray into Arcanum so maybe that's not the right way to do it .

 

[Zombra]

I'm not sure you can as depth comes from complexity

Well ... I wouldn't make that an axiom. I doubt, for example, that there's a Go player in the world who would sit still if someone said Go is a shallow game, yet the rules are extremely simple.

I'd say that depth comes from possibilities; the more ways a game can play out, and the more influence one move has on another, the deeper it is. That's a shoestring definition, and I guess we don't really need to get into "what IS gameplay depth?" here, but I think that this perspective might be helpful for Hard West.

In that light, I would advise Mr. Szymczak to look closely at level and encounter design. What does it mean to control this section of the map? What does it mean to let the enemy control another section? What does it mean to sacrifice this piece? What does it mean to take out that piece? When is it more important to neutralize a key piece than destroy a vulnerable one? XCOM's "walk forward from cover to cover on overwatch" wasn't deep because I found that there was pretty much one strategy. It was still fun (for me), but not brilliant as a board game.

Above all, beware of "dusty street with scattered barrels to duck behind as you move forward". Every turn should present decisions. Except in early tutorial levels where you need to demonstrate particular mechanics, avoid situations where there is a single clear and obvious path to victory.

Now how do you actually make that into a game? Hey, that's your problem. Good luck. Looking forward to seeing what you guys come up with.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I'm not sure you can as depth comes from complexity

Well ... I wouldn't make that an axiom. I doubt, for example, that there's a Go player in the world who would sit still if someone said Go is a shallow game, yet the rules are extremely simple.

Rules should be simple. I mean nobody would claim that X-COM rules were overly complex.

 

[Zombra]

I'm not sure you can as depth comes from complexity

Well ... I wouldn't make that an axiom. I doubt, for example, that there's a Go player in the world who would sit still if someone said Go is a shallow game, yet the rules are extremely simple.

Rules should be simple. I mean nobody would claim that X-COM rules were overly complex.

Yet X-COM also has depth, yes? So complexity != depth. Redacted. Not an argument worth having.

 

[OSK]

CD Projekt taught me to never trust a potato.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

Just got paid, and was like "Hey, I'm going to back that Western game!" Saw the thread.

Will.

Not.

Back.

Edit: Although I do appreciate your willingness to take your lumps, but frankly, I'd rather just fire up xenonauts or the new JA game being kickstarted than go for mechanics that are simplified. Do you bro - this is your game, but it's just not something that is going to make me want to play. Which is a shame, since the setting seems awesome and I feel like there's a lot of potential for a good, tactical squad game in that setting.

 

[Galdred]

Still I am not willing to take the risk of pivoting Hard West into the hardcore pro waters; as you can see, the project is designed and developed rather safely...

That's understandable.

I wish, however, to ask you this: knowing what you know, if you would have to stick with 2ap and simplified cover system (assuming they make the game approachable, and that's what we want), how would you add depth to that?

I'm not sure you can as depth comes from complexity and XCOM's mechanics are frighteningly simple. Coincidentally, the new Shadowrun game featuring the same 2AP system is also too simplistic to be enjoyable or memorable.

One of the main issues is firing speed. If it takes the same time to aim and fire a quickshooter as a rifle or shotgun, then why use pistols? Both XCOM and Shadowrun had this problem: XCOM "fixed" by making it a sniper weapon and clumsy upgrades, Shadowrun by special abilities, which failed to make them a viable choice or differentiate them from other guns. Basically, all guns functioned the same way - 1AP to shoot, 1AP to reload, only some guns did more damage. A wild west-like setting where speed was everything (plus a large number of very different handguns) will only magnify this problem.

You can't solve it with 1AP to cover it all.

Now I understand that changing design in the middle is never a good idea, but I don't see going from 2AP to say 5 or 10 a radical change. It's merely a question of scale. More AP will give you more room to differentiate weapons and add some tactical depth.

You can still make the guns differ without the APs :
If you introduce reactions (in overwatch for instance), with each weapon having a different reaction modifier (+ that would mimick gun duels better than 1 AP, as it was about reaction speed rather than raw action speed, at least according to hollywood).
Descent : Journeys in the Dark (Boardgame, 1st edition) managed to have a very deep system with the 2 actions :
Some advanced actions consumed move points + 1 action, other 2 actions (and provided move points). You had a pool of fatigue point to get extra move points (or damage bonus). It was much deeper than Space Hulk and its 4 AP system.
You can do something like that too (some perks that allow you to shoot twice for an action, other that allow to move and shoot...). This part was not too bad in New XCom (but it could still be expanded). There are a few options in between AP and a strict 2 Action system.

But on the other hand, I would really advise you to drop the QTE system, and just add a button to skip animations. There might be a lot of people who like QTE and turn based games, but if you want to combine both, I think you need to go all the way (like Gladius did on XBox), and have some mini dexterity challenges for everything, not just for a single action (because that won't be enough to draw people attracted to turn-based twitch game, but that might be enough to drive some Turn based fans away).

 

[Vault Dweller]

Kacper Szymczak

Speaking of reaction and such, are there going to be proper stats? Inventory? Limited ammo and different ammo types? Or it really is XCOM in a different setting?

 

[sser]

I wish, however, to ask you this: knowing what you know, if you would have to stick with 2ap and simplified cover system (assuming they make the game approachable, and that's what we want), how would you add depth to that?

Please help me out here, and we may still make it a project worth your while.

It would be difficult. It's like asking how to add depth to tic-tac-toe, or how to setup a diving board over a two-foot pool. The simplicity of XCOM's binary system is its very foundation -- and that simplicity can only be stretched so far. I'd look at what makes the West the West: very smoky gunfights (ever fired a blackpowder gun?), lots of confusion, many guns were difficult to reload and unreliable, many guns were one-shot use and inaccurate, most bullets did not kill even if they hit people in the heads. If I were to make a Western game I'd be looking at people taking specific injuries to specific body parts, more incapacitations than deaths. I'd look at too much gunfire leading to big smoky clouds you can hardly see through. I'd design a morale system that took loud weapons and confusion into consideration. Historically speaking, the West isn't the greatest of settings for a straightup turn-based strategy game working off a boardgame-esque foundation of 2AP. I'd ham it up. Maybe put some attack dogs in there, some indians that scalp people to spread terror, have armor-trinkets like belts of ears or necklaces of teeth, that kind of shit.

Unfortunately, I just don't know how any of it could work anyway.

When I think of a game set in the West, I'd be thinking much more like Fallout or Jagged Alliance, where you can walk around and talk to people and do quests, and when gunfights break out it's more procedural than XCOM's load into battlemap type of thing. Let's say you come across a slick gunhand. The dude always shoots you down if you fight him straight up. Forums would be complaining, but then people would be saying shit like, Did you try playing poker against him? I slipped him an extra card and when he was found out to be 'cheating' everyone else killed him for me. Or, I stabbed him in his gunhand while I poured him a drink so he started the fight with no aim. Or, I used an old-timey musket that when fired filled the room with smoke so he couldn't see. Or, I took his lady hostage... etc. etc. etc. I'm getting starry eyed just thinking about this sort of thing...

Anyway, the West was full of nastiness like assassinations, massacres, and a general lack of honor the movies of old never really wanted to tell anyone about. That kind of thing is really hard to capture in the sort of game you're making.

 

[buzz]

Actually it's the opposite, the violence and harshness of the wild west was overly exaggerated in the movies, turned into a myth. Modern age is much more violent than old west ever was.
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-non-existent-frontier-bank-robbery/

Put generally, we found the western bank-robbery scene to be a myth. Yes, a handful of robberies occurred. In the roughly 40 years, spread across these 15 states, we identified three or four definite ones; and in subsequent correspondence with academics anxious to help us “clarify the record,” perhaps two or three others were pointed out. We missed two “biggies,” both by Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (including the famous Telluride robbery in the late 1890s). Still, the record is shockingly clear: there are more bank robberies in modern-day Dayton, Ohio, in a year than there were in the entire Old West in a decade, perhaps in the entire frontier period!

The shootout at OK Corral had 3 fatal victims. Compare that to the random shootings the west gets nowadays.

 

[laclongquan]

TL DR

And whores. A West Without Whore is like a Cowboy without Balls.

Sad, but true.

 

[sser]

Actually it's the opposite, the violence and harshness of the wild west was overly exaggerated in the movies, turned into a myth. Modern age is much more violent than old west ever was.
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-non-existent-frontier-bank-robbery/

Put generally, we found the western bank-robbery scene to be a myth. Yes, a handful of robberies occurred. In the roughly 40 years, spread across these 15 states, we identified three or four definite ones; and in subsequent correspondence with academics anxious to help us “clarify the record,” perhaps two or three others were pointed out. We missed two “biggies,” both by Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (including the famous Telluride robbery in the late 1890s). Still, the record is shockingly clear: there are more bank robberies in modern-day Dayton, Ohio, in a year than there were in the entire Old West in a decade, perhaps in the entire frontier period!

The shootout at OK Corral had 3 fatal victims. Compare that to the random shootings the west gets nowadays.

I don't see what bank robberies circa now when there's more people, banks, and the means to get to banks than ever has to do with the overall level of violence in America during that era, much less bank robberies of that era (when there were less people, banks, and the means to get to them...).

The West could be gruesome as fuck with absolute capacity for the sort of barbarism that makes most Americans uncomfortable, the land being generally lawless in parts and a literal warzone at times. Some people think the notion of a violent, developing America is a myth, but I've noticed these types of thinking rarely look beyond the "famous" incidents of violence, like big gunfights or, as just mentioned, bank robberies. They're not necessarily wrong, either. Notions of anarchic mining towns or gunslingers battling at dawn are overblown. Most developing cities introduced work to look after, and a sense of togetherness required to do said work. They also had way more women and children which introduces a feminine quality that tends to depress violence. (Who takes their family to California only to brawl it up at the bar and get themselves killed?)

Elements like lawlessness, tons of land to fight over, droves of veterans from devastating wars, new immigrants, emancipated blacks, and neighboring natives can make for plenty of murder and mayhem. It just depends on where you're at. When people say the West is violent, they're really talking about places like West Texas, an extremely harsh land of ultra-violent natives, Mexicans, and the sort of fucked-in-the-head settlers that had the brass balls to enter the territory in the first place. When they argue it wasn't that bad, they're talking about places where civility was required and appropriately sought. And the thing is, places like the south or midwest were just as bad at some points in time. Places like deep Louisiana where there's nothing but pinewood and swamps, what do you think was happening out there? Peace and harmony? During wars, immigration, and the flushing of native populations? I remember reading about early 1800s-Georgia and surrounding backwater areas being crime-ridden shitholes. They just don't get glamorized or talked about much because there's no mythology there. What we see on the macro-level are definitely strong hints of outright insanity - massacres, tiny towns being burned, children murdered, scalpings, massed hangings, torture, gang violence, etc. It's not hard to extrapolate what might have been happening at a micro-level where there were no journalists or police to watch things. The closest thing I can think of today is shitholes like inner-city Detroit, south Dallas, northeast St. Louis, the decayed areas of New Orleans, etc. Places where sometimes police don't even go and the violence is so repetitive it barely makes a blip on the news. The room for violence is fairly large and many times it is filled. Plain as day. Because resources are scarce, and people are dumb. Throw in a bunch of other elements like war strife, immigrants, natives, etc., and you got a nice cocktail of nastiness.

 

[buzz]

Ehh, I thought we were talking about post civil war wild west, the typical setting. Tombstone, Deadwood, Wichita, Dodge City. Billy the Kid,Butch Cassidy, Wild Bill Hiccock Wyatt Earp, Buffalo Bill and so on.
What you're talking about is a bit different, like the texas-indian war, the mexican war and maybe the civil war itself. You're also talking more about the southern side of america, I don't think anyone portrayed Louisiana as western in movies/books/whatever, or the bigger conflicts.I think the portrayal of that period and setting is called "reconstruction era"

Ehh, you're the american so you likely know your history better than I do. From what I've read, that specific wild west setting with saloons and whores and everything was not extremely violent.

 

[felipepepe]

Since this is the wild west and not organization figthing aliens, I would expect to have named characters with personalities, instead of random soldiers. So making a personality system like Jagged Alliance would be great already. It's another way to give depth to the game, since you'll have to keep your team together, and it will make the game more than just a "XCOM re-skin".

 

[sser]

Ehh, I thought we were talking about post civil war wild west, the typical setting. Tombstone, Deadwood, Wichita, Dodge City. Billy the Kid,Butch Cassidy, Wild Bill Hiccock Wyatt Earp, Buffalo Bill and so on.
What you're talking about is a bit different, like the texas-indian war, the mexican war and maybe the civil war itself. You're also talking more about the southern side of america, I don't think anyone portrayed Louisiana as western in movies/books/whatever, or the bigger conflicts.I think the portrayal of that period and setting is called "reconstruction era"

Ehh, you're the american so you likely know your history better than I do. From what I've read, that specific wild west setting with saloons and whores and everything was not extremely violent.

I'm talking about the nature of man when there's nobody there to watch him.

The reconstruction period extended over five years, during which time Texas was a prey to lawlessness and violence almost in a degree inconceivable. The breath of the demon of homicide seemed to have passed over the land, and the efforts of the military commanders to arrest its deadly influence were at tended with little success. It is impossible to ascertain how many persons were the victims of fierce passion and malevolence during these five years, nor is it a pleasant subject to dwell upon. But that the reader may arrive at some idea of the excessive crime and the loss of life, let him listen to what General Reynolds says on the subject in a letter to the war-office, dated October 21, 1869. "The number of murders in the state during the nine months from January 1, 1869, to September 30, 1869, according to the official records, necessarily imperfect, is 384, being an average of about one and a half per day."

Given Texas's population at the time, that's a murder rate of 100+ per 100,000 people. We know that homicide investigation wasn't exactly good until the 1900s - and we also know that in a land like Texas, you could absolutely murder someone in parts and nobody would probably ever find out about it, period, and that many murders were classed as 'accidents.' And that these murders don't account for more military combat like Comanche slaughtering settlers or vice versa, or Mexican gangs terrorizing the borderlands where English speakers, much less English lawmen, could be rare. We also know that this statement was made by a military man, as the military was actually brought into Texas to quell the violence that was spiraling out of control. Which all means the actual homicide rate in Texas during this time was probably so scarily high one would be afraid to believe it.

When I lived in Colorado I used to read these old books about the state when it was being flooded with people (grandfather was an antiques-man, had bunches of stuff like this). It'd mention areas with homicide rates in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Because that's what happens when you inject an area with a big dose of desperate men from dozens of different backgrounds, many of them blacks, immigrants, or war veterans.

Places like Tombstone or Dodge City are memorable because they have characters. There's no characters in places like the above. So they never got the dime novels or the myths, and never got the cool Discovery channel episodes where old men talk about shooting weapons and how fast shooters could draw.

 

[laclongquan]

Not violent? what do you think happen when a cowboy drive the cattles literal weeks at once, and get to unwind at the town? Lots of booze and card games with players all armed~ A better recipe for violent I dont know what.

Then a group of colonizers settle near a land of Indians? violence over lands is the oldest kind of violence.

We are not even talkin about gangs of bandits prey on settlements.

Even a non-US person like me can smell the blood from those kinds of setting.

The West sounds literally like a war zone, from where we stand.

 

[Dr Tomo]

Actually it's the opposite, the violence and harshness of the wild west was overly exaggerated in the movies, turned into a myth. Modern age is much more violent than old west ever was.
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-non-existent-frontier-bank-robbery/

Put generally, we found the western bank-robbery scene to be a myth. Yes, a handful of robberies occurred. In the roughly 40 years, spread across these 15 states, we identified three or four definite ones; and in subsequent correspondence with academics anxious to help us “clarify the record,” perhaps two or three others were pointed out. We missed two “biggies,” both by Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (including the famous Telluride robbery in the late 1890s). Still, the record is shockingly clear: there are more bank robberies in modern-day Dayton, Ohio, in a year than there were in the entire Old West in a decade, perhaps in the entire frontier period!

The shootout at OK Corral had 3 fatal victims. Compare that to the random shootings the west gets nowadays.

But in the games industry does realism really matter? I mean we have a new cod game whose story is the take over of pmc's, we have WWII games of the eastern front of Russians charging in waves, and etc of other examples where reality and fiction are blurred. I think it is best that the developers actually use the spaghetti westerns as their focus, since in America that is what most people see the west as and also around the world.