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.

How many games have ripped off nuXCOM by now?

80s Stallone

Arcane
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
796
Location
The Bunker
Talking about the combat system.

- Troubleshooter
[...]
 

Van-d-all

Erudite
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
1,557
Location
Standin' pretty. In this dust that was a city.
2AP + cover:
Shadowruns (Returns, Waifufall & Honk Honk)
Phantom Doctrine
Hard West
Mutant Year Zero
Troubleshooter

2AP:
Massive Chalice
Druidstone
Chroma Squad

Various:
Gears Tactics (3AP + cover)
Fort Triumph (3AP + cover)
Phoenix Point (4AP + cover)
Invisible Inc (<10AP + cover)
Vigilantes (<10AP + cover) Not really. My mistake.
Warhammer Mechanicus (<10AP)
 
Last edited:

Suicidal

Arcane
Joined
Apr 29, 2007
Messages
2,208
Why do you guys think XCOM invented having 2 AP? That system was in most weeb tactical games and in some western ones since forever.

Some examples: Final Fantasy Tactics, Front Mission, Fire Emblem. In all of these games your units can move once and then attack once. If you attack without moving, it still ends your turn. This is exactly like XCOM's 2 AP system, is it not?
 

Taka-Haradin puolipeikko

Filthy Kalinite
Patron
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Messages
19,109
Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Bubbles In Memoria
Shock Tactics
Halfway
Pathway
Depth of Extinction
Galaxy Squad
Steamworld Heist (levels are sidescrolling 2d)
Skyshine's Bedlam
Battletech
Fort Triumph

Various:
Gears Tactics (3AP + cover)
Fort Triumph (3AP + cover)
Phoenix Point (4AP + cover)
Invisible Inc (<10AP + cover)
Vigilantes (<10AP + cover)
Warhammer Mechanicus (<10AP)

If smallish number of APs + cover fit the criteria, wouldn't both Wasteland 2 and Colony Ship RPG be nuXCOM ripp-offs too?

edit.
Renowned Explorers has some similarities to nuXCOM.
 
Last edited:

udm

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 14, 2008
Messages
2,752
Make the Codex Great Again!
Why do you guys think XCOM invented having 2 AP? That system was in most weeb tactical games and in some western ones since forever.

Some examples: Final Fantasy Tactics, Front Mission, Fire Emblem. In all of these games your units can move once and then attack once. If you attack without moving, it still ends your turn. This is exactly like XCOM's 2 AP system, is it not?

I might be remembering wrongly, but isn't GURPS 4e using a two-action system too?

But even with that in mind, XCOM's implementation wasn't very well thought out. Later titles like Vigilantes did this better, where you can spend multiple movement points across one AP without consuming that AP all at once. I really don't like the abstraction where moving two squares is interpreted as taking as much "time" as five squares.
 

Van-d-all

Erudite
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
1,557
Location
Standin' pretty. In this dust that was a city.
Why do you guys think XCOM invented having 2 AP? That system was in most weeb tactical games and in some western ones since forever.

Some examples: Final Fantasy Tactics, Front Mission, Fire Emblem. In all of these games your units can move once and then attack once. If you attack without moving, it still ends your turn. This is exactly like XCOM's 2 AP system, is it not?
Obvious bullshit. All the three games you mentioned simply have separate movement and attack phases, concept present since the very birth of PC strategy gaming in Battleship Bismarck. Minuscule 2-10 AP system however translates roughly to the possibility of exchanging "move + shoot" to "N x move".

But it's not just the 2AP, it's a whole set of concepts atavistic to the genre (western tactical TB).

While the phase systems remain relevant in strategy games where units present comparable equipment like ships, divisions or giant robots because attack equates "engagement" with abstracted (irrelevant) time, and is thus a mainstay in hex based titles, it bastardizes the concept of tactical gaming where split seconds actually matter, because setting up and firing a LSW is nowhere near firing a handgun. Sure, some games apply the "no move to fire" rule, but there's more to CQB weapons than the ability to use them with shield like it's a game of COD. As opposed to strategy games concentrated on large scale operations, the brunt of tactical gameplay lies in optimal usage of singular unit. That's why a granular AP cost for different actions is the fine line between a tactical game and popamole garbage. Obviously to mask this deficiency nuXcom trash reintroduced class equipment restriction (merrily cloned over in consecutive games) since equipment choice isn't really an issue when you don't get a choice (just upgrades).

IMO the most borderline titles are actually the mecha games like Battletech or Front Mission, because they mix the "comparable armament" concepts of large scale strategy games with small unit numbers of tactical games into a still reasonably consistent whole despite phase mechanics.

And then, there are the jRPGs... I think, it's just that in a very conservatively Japanese way, mechanics in some of them simply never really evolved from the phase system? Or maybe fantasy classes are on par with comparable units given the classic RPG might vs. magic trope? Comparing jRPGs with other games is always a mess. Apples and oranges I guess.


If smallish number of APs + cover fit the criteria, wouldn't both Wasteland 2 and Colony Ship RPG be nuXCOM ripp-offs too?
Given the above, W2, CS even Battle Brothers remain tactically sound despite their minuscule AP pools, simply because their devs were conscious enough to realize said varied AP cost is of the essence in the genre. It's the Vigilantes that shouldn't have been listed there, so I fixed that.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
8,816
Location
Italy
not enough.
they're probably almost all going to suck, knowing the source, but as with the infinite number of monkeys typing, the more we have the higher the chance to get something decent.
 

ArchAngel

Arcane
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
19,883
Phoenix Point is not like nuxcom. You have free movement , not just rigid 4 ap. And cover works like old xcom cover
 

Van-d-all

Erudite
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
1,557
Location
Standin' pretty. In this dust that was a city.
Didn't Xenonauts 2 want to rip it off at first until backlash happened?
I think it would have been on base building side of the game.
Initial idea was that there was supposed to be only single base in X2, but that might've been changed.
Yup, early concept had a single base with cross-section view:
x2_singelbase.jpg.2676c07256eaf36ccf7175bcbe7df830.jpg

But it's been reverted to classic XCom, since Update #24, because of the backer poll:

poll_results.PNG.9423ce68d5595ea8fa4b3f67b8160045.PNG
 

sser

Arcane
Developer
Joined
Mar 10, 2011
Messages
1,866,661
Xenonauts 2's 3D approach didn't seem popular, either. Also seemed short-lived.
 

turkishronin

Arcane
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
1,730
Location
where the best is like the worst
Why do you guys think XCOM invented having 2 AP? That system was in most weeb tactical games and in some western ones since forever.

Some examples: Final Fantasy Tactics, Front Mission, Fire Emblem. In all of these games your units can move once and then attack once. If you attack without moving, it still ends your turn. This is exactly like XCOM's 2 AP system, is it not?

They didn't have GUNS
 

J1M

Arcane
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,616
Why do you guys think XCOM invented having 2 AP? That system was in most weeb tactical games and in some western ones since forever.

Some examples: Final Fantasy Tactics, Front Mission, Fire Emblem. In all of these games your units can move once and then attack once. If you attack without moving, it still ends your turn. This is exactly like XCOM's 2 AP system, is it not?
Obvious bullshit. All the three games you mentioned simply have separate movement and attack phases, concept present since the very birth of PC strategy gaming in Battleship Bismarck. Minuscule 2-10 AP system however translates roughly to the possibility of exchanging "move + shoot" to "N x move".

But it's not just the 2AP, it's a whole set of concepts atavistic to the genre (western tactical TB).

While the phase systems remain relevant in strategy games where units present comparable equipment like ships, divisions or giant robots because attack equates "engagement" with abstracted (irrelevant) time, and is thus a mainstay in hex based titles, it bastardizes the concept of tactical gaming where split seconds actually matter, because setting up and firing a LSW is nowhere near firing a handgun. Sure, some games apply the "no move to fire" rule, but there's more to CQB weapons than the ability to use them with shield like it's a game of COD. As opposed to strategy games concentrated on large scale operations, the brunt of tactical gameplay lies in optimal usage of singular unit. That's why a granular AP cost for different actions is the fine line between a tactical game and popamole garbage. Obviously to mask this deficiency nuXcom trash reintroduced class equipment restriction (merrily cloned over in consecutive games) since equipment choice isn't really an issue when you don't get a choice (just upgrades).

IMO the most borderline titles are actually the mecha games like Battletech or Front Mission, because they mix the "comparable armament" concepts of large scale strategy games with small unit numbers of tactical games into a still reasonably consistent whole despite phase mechanics.

And then, there are the jRPGs... I think, it's just that in a very conservatively Japanese way, mechanics in some of them simply never really evolved from the phase system? Or maybe fantasy classes are on par with comparable units given the classic RPG might vs. magic trope? Comparing jRPGs with other games is always a mess. Apples and oranges I guess.


If smallish number of APs + cover fit the criteria, wouldn't both Wasteland 2 and Colony Ship RPG be nuXCOM ripp-offs too?
Given the above, W2, CS even Battle Brothers remain tactically sound despite their minuscule AP pools, simply because their devs were conscious enough to realize said varied AP cost is of the essence in the genre. It's the Vigilantes that shouldn't have been listed there, so I fixed that.
D&D has had the concept of a move and an attack action (which could be downgraded and used as a move action) for a very long time.
 

urmom

Learned
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
308
D&D has had the concept of a move and an attack action (which could be downgraded and used as a move action) for a very long time.
I recall this too. Unfortunately, DnD uses the term "action points" in a totally different context. So it's hard to do a search on the topic.

[ed]

https://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm

A move action can occur before or after an attack action. You can only perform one attack action per round. You can skip the attack action and perform two move actions instead.
 
Last edited:

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