Castanova
Prophet
Assume you're designing a squad-based turn-based tactics game... think Final Fantasy Tactics or JA2 or something. Also assume that you're using some form of Attacks of Opportunity for melee. What is your design decision and rationale for implementing AoOs for ranged weapons?
I think this is a tougher question than melee because any decision you make presents potential problems:
1) Anybody at all is eligible to trigger ranged AoO simply by moving into the ranged attacker's range.
This seems like the idealistic solution but I see issues here. First of all, with multiple ranged attackers on the map, any movement is likely to trigger an onslaught of instant attacks. While perhaps "realistic" this doesn't seem particularly fun unless your goal for your combat design is for everything to revolve around ranged combat sight lines. Second, ranged combat frequently requires ammunition (which you may not want to spend freely) and set-up time (reloading/drawing a bow/etc.) which, again, you may not want to waste on any random enemy walking through your sights.
2) Anybody at all is eligible to trigger ranged AoO simply by moving into the ranged attacker's range, however whoever controls the ranged attacker can choose whether to trigger it.
Seems like it has the benefits of #1 while solving its problems... but it introduces new problems. Mainly, every turn takes an eternity to resolve as you are required to repeatedly deal with AoO prompts when you're not the one taking a turn, and the one taking the turn is required to wait for the enemy to answer to these prompts.
3) The bow-user can be marked as eligible/non-eligible for AoO attacks.
This is a sort of middle-ground between #1 and #2. You don't get assaulted with repetitive prompts and you also don't have ranged attackers necessarily wasting ammo/time. However, it introduces a ton of micromanagement that the player must always remember to take care of before ending their turn lest they suffer irritation.
4) No ranged AoO at all.
Well, that's one way to solve these problems. But then the combat system is internally inconsistent what with melee AoO still available.
5) ????? Any other ideas?
I think this is a tougher question than melee because any decision you make presents potential problems:
1) Anybody at all is eligible to trigger ranged AoO simply by moving into the ranged attacker's range.
This seems like the idealistic solution but I see issues here. First of all, with multiple ranged attackers on the map, any movement is likely to trigger an onslaught of instant attacks. While perhaps "realistic" this doesn't seem particularly fun unless your goal for your combat design is for everything to revolve around ranged combat sight lines. Second, ranged combat frequently requires ammunition (which you may not want to spend freely) and set-up time (reloading/drawing a bow/etc.) which, again, you may not want to waste on any random enemy walking through your sights.
2) Anybody at all is eligible to trigger ranged AoO simply by moving into the ranged attacker's range, however whoever controls the ranged attacker can choose whether to trigger it.
Seems like it has the benefits of #1 while solving its problems... but it introduces new problems. Mainly, every turn takes an eternity to resolve as you are required to repeatedly deal with AoO prompts when you're not the one taking a turn, and the one taking the turn is required to wait for the enemy to answer to these prompts.
3) The bow-user can be marked as eligible/non-eligible for AoO attacks.
This is a sort of middle-ground between #1 and #2. You don't get assaulted with repetitive prompts and you also don't have ranged attackers necessarily wasting ammo/time. However, it introduces a ton of micromanagement that the player must always remember to take care of before ending their turn lest they suffer irritation.
4) No ranged AoO at all.
Well, that's one way to solve these problems. But then the combat system is internally inconsistent what with melee AoO still available.
5) ????? Any other ideas?