Phase based combat

[Aruil]

I've been thinking about the implementation of phase based combat in CRPG's. Specifically, in top down RPG's involving both ranged and melee combat. I especially liked the system in Frozen Synapse, but i think it would not work so well with melee heavy systems like those found in fantasy games.

One thought is to separate the movement from the combat phase so you can plan engagements after you have seen all the moves. Additionally, you could add the option move to target along with the move to position.

First, i would like to ask for your thoughts on this subject and secondly if you have any resources (articles/games that you think nail phase based combat) that i might look into.

 

[J1M]

I would suspect that any phase-based combat system that truly wanted to mingle melee and ranged combat would need to eliminate the concept of the player telling every pawn exactly what to do each turn. For example, it is silly for an archer to lose their attack because an opponent moved within a melee threat range. The pawn should be smart enough to substitute its ranged attack with a dagger strike.

The concept is similar to that of a real-world general. You assign your units tasks and rules of engagement (in RPG terms, movement and stances), but you don't ride out to each battalion and pull the trigger of an infantryman's gun for him. This isn't as drastic a suggestion as it sounds. In most situations, there is an obvious or ideal action for a pawn to take (armor break vs. hamstring vs. coup de grace) which the player will infer from armor type, health, etc.

Knowing that a knight will always perform an armor break when he meets another heavily armed character during movement adds another layer of strategy, allowing someone to plan an intercept route. (Or just feint one.)

In conclusion, I think a successful phase-based combat system will have one of two properties. It will either shift the traditional emphasis of tactics from actions to movement and positioning, or it will require 'shorter' turns to alleviate the problems introduced by allowing characters to move 6+ spaces a turn and pass each other like ships in the night.

 

[laclongquan]

Words~

Words are misleading~ So I must ask what you mean by phase combat and what games had used it?

 

[Aruil]

I would suspect that any phase-based combat system that truly wanted to mingle melee and ranged combat would need eliminate the concept of the player telling every pawn exactly what to do each turn. For example, it is silly for an archer to lose their attack because an opponent moved within a melee threat range. The pawn should be smart enough to substitute its ranged attack with a dagger strike.

The concept is similar to that of a real-world general. You assign your units tasks and rules of engagement (in RPG terms, movement and stances), but you don't ride out to each battalion and pull the trigger of an infantryman's gun for him. This isn't as drastic a suggestion as it sounds. In most situations, there is an obvious or ideal action for a pawn to take (armor break vs. hamstring vs. coup de grace) which the player will infer from armor type, health, etc.

Knowing that a knight will always perform an armor break when he meets another heavily armed character during movement adds another layer of strategy, allowing someone to plan an intercept route. (Or just feint one.)

In conclusion, I think a successful phase-based combat system will have one of two properties. It will either shift the traditional emphasis of tactics from actions to movement and positioning, or it will require 'shorter' turns to alleviate the problems introduced by allowing characters to move 6+ spaces a turn and pass each other like ships in the night.

I very much like your idea of moving focus from actions to movement, but in the system i have in my mind (nothing finalized, hence the request for opinions) the form of attack is not so easily chosen since i want to provide a variety of moves for each form of combat. Maybe an interrupt when engaged in melee would be appropriate?

Another thought is that support ranged weapons (like thrown weapons) would be throwable during movement and not after/before like traditional ranged weapons (bows, guns etc.). That way, you could use a thrown weapon to immobilize/slow your opponent while trying to close the distance and engage in melee.

Words~

Words are misleading~ So I must ask what you mean by phase combat and what games had used it?

I meant combat that has separate planning and execution phases (possibly multiple of each). The closest to what i was thinking is Frozen Synapse. As far as I know, quite a few blobbers are considered phased based (Wizardry 8, Wasteland 1 etc.).

 

[J1M]

Aruil, stances would allow the player to make a change during the planning phase that informed the pawn's actions during the execution phase. A "chase-down" stance would inform the pawn to use the tools it has (slows, attacks that do more damage to injured foes, etc.) to finish an opponent that looked like it was about to run.

In essence, stances would allow you to consolidate a wide variety of actions down to fewer options for the player to pick from, but still result in a similar number of potential results. Each stance could have a pre-determined action for when a pawn runs into another, a pawn tries to disengage, a pawn is low hp, high armor, spellcasting, etc. That way, a pawn that ends up in a situation the player didn't expect does something non-optimal that is still sensible instead of losing their turn.

 

[laclongquan]

This is not really a troll but UFO Afterlight, the mars game, has something like continuous real time with pause. You can command characters to do various thing in combat and each action is registered as a separate action that happen after each other.

AAAA move 30 meter to the right, end at that rock
BBBB shoot continuously at the robot
AAA then throw grenades at the bottom
BBBB stop shooting then move to AAAA

The actions of AAA can be automatic because there's limit that helps. But BBB's command will require some fiddle from player because there's no limit, you can start 2nd action during AAA's move, or when AAA stopped, or during AAA's throwing grenades.

 

[Excidium II]

Good phase-based combat in CRPGs needs turn-based resolution. Simultaneous real-time resolution is a bit of a clusterfuck.

I hate how people often auto-assume the latter when talking about phase-based combat.

 

[Aruil]

Aruil, stances would allow the player to make a change during the planning phase that informed the pawn's actions during the execution phase. A "chase-down" stance would inform the pawn to use the tools it has (slows, attacks that do more damage to injured foes, etc.) to finish an opponent that looked like it was about to run.

In essence, stances would allow you to consolidate a wide variety of actions down to fewer options for the player to pick from, but still result in a similar number of potential results. Each stance could have a pre-determined action for when a pawn runs into another, a pawn tries to disengage, a pawn is low hp, high armor, spellcasting, etc. That way, a pawn that ends up in a situation the player didn't expect does something non-optimal that is still sensible instead of losing their turn.

Since the stance has moves for each available action/state the pawn can find itself in how can something non-optimal happen? Or do you mean that perhaps the move you chose for that state(I assumed you meant customizable stances) wasn't the right choice?

This is not really a troll but UFO Afterlight, the mars game, has something like continuous real time with pause. You can command characters to do various thing in combat and each action is registered as a separate action that happen after each other.

AAAA move 30 meter to the right, end at that rock
BBBB shoot continuously at the robot
AAA then throw grenades at the bottom
BBBB stop shooting then move to AAAA

The actions of AAA can be automatic because there's limit that helps. But BBB's command will require some fiddle from player because there's no limit, you can start 2nd action during AAA's move, or when AAA stopped, or during AAA's throwing grenades.

Thanks, I will check it out.

Good phase-based combat in CRPGs needs turn-based resolution. Simultaneous real-time resolution is a bit of a clusterfuck.

I hate how people often auto-assume the latter when talking about phase-based combat.

Could you elaborate on that a little, because I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Either a game that uses that system or an example from you would help. My initial thought was two or more phases (movement, combat and maybe ranged combat/spellcasting) that are planned phase based by play out in order according to some sequence/initiative stat.

 

[Excidium II]

Could you elaborate on that a little, because I'm not sure what you mean exactly. Either a game that uses that system or an example from you would help. My initial thought was two or more phases (movement, combat and maybe ranged combat/spellcasting) that are planned phase based by play out in order according to some sequence/initiative stat.

A round structure I like would be: decide initiative order -> everyone takes turn declaring actions *(in reverse initiative order) -> everyone takes turns resolving actions in initiative order

No different phases for movement, melee,ranged, etc. Just a separation of declarion and resolution phases. oWoD is the only system where combat is structured exactly like that I think. But AD&D 2nd edition is similar (but declaration and inititative is reversed iirc), and so are plenty of old blobbers.

*Only oWoD I know uses the reverse initiative order for declaration, I like it because it makes sense. If you want first strike you have to decide what to do without knowing what slower people might do, otherwise you delay to act after someone.

 

[Aruil]

A round structure I like would be: decide initiative order -> everyone takes turn declaring actions *(in reverse initiative order) -> everyone takes turns resolving actions in initiative order

No different phases for movement, melee,ranged, etc. Just a separation of declarion and resolution phases. oWoD is the only system where combat is structured exactly like that I think. But AD&D 2nd edition is similar (but declaration and inititative is reversed iirc), and so are plenty of old blobbers.

*Only oWoD I know uses the reverse initiative order for declaration, I like it because it makes sense. If you want first strike you have to decide what to do without knowing what slower people might do, otherwise you delay to act after someone.

I was sure I had seen this reverse initiative order declaring somewhere. Thanks for reminding me it was from oWoD. The way I understand it though, if you have higher initiative you always know what the others will declare since you will declare after them. So, the only benefit of delaying your action is if you want to see the effects of another characters actions before commiting to an action yourself. Unless you mean hidden declaration phases or I don't understand the rules correctly?

 

[Excidium II]

The way I understand it though, if you have higher initiative you always know what the others will declare since you will declare after them. So, the only benefit of delaying your action is if you want to see the effects of another characters actions before commiting to an action yourself. Unless you mean hidden declaration phases or I don't understand the rules correctly?

Yeah, that's correct, confused myself a bit.

 

[Aruil]

J1M
I want to make sure I have understood your proposed system correctly. Are you talking about hidden or shown declarations?

Because my main problem with hidden declarations and phase based system would be in two targets trying to reach each other to engage in melee and completely missing each other, or even worse a fighter trying to reach an archer and ending in completely wrong place in the room.

 

[J1M]

To answer your question above about stances, imagine there are two types of pawns, 'Knights' and 'Archers'. For simplicity, let's say that a Knight has 3 stances:
a) Hold the line - limited movement, unlimited opportunity attacks, good for guarding archers
b) Chase them down - extra movement, lower damage, hamstring attack that slows enemies
c) Press the attack - normal movement, extra damage, extra armor

Your opponent has an archer that is exposed, so you set your nearby Knight's stance to "Chase them down". As you mentioned earlier, your movement target could be the enemy Archer instead of a tile location. That way, even if the Archer tried to move away, your Knight would still be doing what your order intended.

Where your opponent could outmaneuver you, is to take their nearby Knight and have it intercept yours. Since your Knight is in a stance designed to chase down low armor or low hp targets, and theirs is in "Press the attack" stance, they will come out of the round having done more damage and having protected their Archer.

When I speak of "not losing a turn" I am referring to how your own Knight would still do a useful, but non-optimal, action when it is intercepted. (And not walk to an empty location if the enemy archer moves.)

As for declarations, I prefer the simplicity of a planning phase and a resolution phase. That naturally leans itself towards hidden declarations which are revealed when a turn is resolved.

 

[Nostaljaded]

Have a look at the duels (small scale combat) in Taikō Risshiden V 太閤立志伝5 and then extrapolate from there on phase-based feasibility.

Spoiler

 

[Stormcrowfleet]

Instead of creating a new thread, I decide to perform necromancy.

What are some good phase-based game ? RPG in preference, but it can be something else. I really liked playing Breach & Clear which was (IMO) a phase-based tactical game. I wish there was a RPG like Breach & Clear.

 

[Strange Fellow]

What are some good phase-based game ? RPG in preference, but it can be something else. I really liked playing Breach & Clear which was (IMO) a phase-based tactical game. I wish there was a RPG like Breach & Clear.

I assume you don't want blobbers, in which case Frozen Synapse might be your best bet, although I couldn't say for sure as I haven't played it yet. There are no phase-based top-down RPGs as far as I know, with the exception of the Amberstar/Ambermoon/Albion games, and unfortunately the combat there sucks. Apart from that, there's also Broken Lines, which is pretty fun, but not an RPG except in the loosest possible meaning of the term. There's a Codex review if you're interested.

I hadn't heard of Breach & Clear, but it looks interesting. Thanks!

 

[Grauken]

I don't think you see phase-based combat much outside of blobbers, as its ideally suited to them and in most other games individual turn-based resolution is just better

 

[Stormcrowfleet]

I don't mind blobbers, it's just that I already know about them. Which is my error, I should have mentionned something about them.

 

[Strange Fellow]

I don't think you see phase-based combat much outside of blobbers, as its ideally suited to them and in most other games individual turn-based resolution is just better

I don't think so, I think phase-based can fill its own niche just fine. If it's encroaching on another system I would say it's actually RTWP rather than turn-based, and actually beats it since when you can't pause whenever you want you actually have to cover your bases with regards to what the enemies might do. Phase-based games shouldn't all be turn-based, but RTWP games should all be phase-based

 

[Grauken]

I don't think you see phase-based combat much outside of blobbers, as its ideally suited to them and in most other games individual turn-based resolution is just better

I don't think so, I think phase-based can fill its own niche just fine. If it's encroaching on another system I would say it's actually RTWP rather than turn-based, and actually beats it since when you can't pause whenever you want you actually have to cover your bases with regards to what the enemies might do. Phase-based games shouldn't all be turn-based, but RTWP games should all be phase-based

I'm trying to wrap my head around what you're saying

Broadly I think phase-based doesn't work when you see and have to animate the movement of individual fighters, as it takes up a lot of time in each round and gets exhausting (see Wizardry 8). That's why phase-based is good for blobbers, each round can be done fast with just some text. The moment it's more than that, it gets cumbersome and more fine control over your groups is better

 

[Strange Fellow]

Maybe we have different definitions. What I said about RTWP I meant in the context of top-down games with a simultaneous resolution phase where everybody moves at the same time (like Frozen Synapse or Broken Lines), not the Wiz thing where everyone executes their turn one after another. Anyway, I don't see why the latter would be worse than turn-based with regards to player downtime, since all the animations will have to play for each round in any case. Wiz 8 combat is just slow because the animations are slow (or rather were, they've been mostly fixed), and because there's so much of it.

more fine control over your groups is better

The element of chaos is exactly what I like about it and what gives it the right to life alongside turn-based.

 

[laclongquan]

Instead of creating a new thread, I decide to perform necromancy.

What are some good phase-based game ?

My usual recommendation, as stated above, is UFO Afterlight as the best phasebased tactical combat game. UFO Aftershock, as the close second to that. It's not sure what devs been messing under the hood. But AL engine perform phasebased combat much more smoothly and minutely detailed than AS.

 

[The Avatar]

Interestingly enough, the pencil and paper AD&D rules(at least 2nd edition) were phase based. Each player would decide what to do, initiative is then rolled, and the actions are carried out in that order. All of the computer games based on those rules got it wrong.

 

[Stormcrowfleet]

Interestingly enough, the pencil and paper AD&D rules(at least 2nd edition) were phase based. Each player would decide what to do, initiative is then rolled, and the actions are carried out in that order. All of the computer games based on those rules got it wrong.

Yes. Even OD&D was like that since it came from Chainmail which had a Simultaneous Turn approach that was phase based (movement first, then missile, then artillery, then melee).

 

[Damned Registrations]

Instead of creating a new thread, I decide to perform necromancy.

What are some good phase-based game ? RPG in preference, but it can be something else. I really liked playing Breach & Clear which was (IMO) a phase-based tactical game. I wish there was a RPG like Breach & Clear.

I don't think you see phase-based combat much outside of blobbers, as its ideally suited to them and in most other games individual turn-based resolution is just better

Brigandine would be an exception to this rule.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxPqhE_m13s

It's not completely phase based; that would get insane with 21 units on each team all going at once (though that can happen depending on turn orders.) But battles consists of 3 parties on each side, and an entire party takes it's turn at the same time. Parties can be smaller than 7 units, especially if you're using powerful units like angels or dragons as opposed to wolves or zombies. Anyways, the imbalance you'd expect of having an entire team of ranged units focus fire one dude before he can react does happen to some extent, but not much in the early game where you control fewer and weaker units with less range and movement. Lategame you can get really silly shit like casting a huge AoE hitting the entire enemy team 4 times in a single phase, but you've got to be minmaxing fairly hard to do that.

Being guaranteed to have certain combinations of units take their turn at the same time can lead to some cool shit, but ironically the game wasn't really built around that concept; synergies between units are kinda rare, aside from a handful of buffs that only last one turn, and are therefore best use within a party.