TB Systems of combat

[dojoteef]

Well since the Codex is known for favoring TB combat most of the times, what are people's preferences for TB systems? Do you like Action Point based systems more or those based on fixed time intervals? Do you like having tiles that you have to navigate or simply being able to move freely? How about determining who goes first in combat; is agility/dexterity the best way of choosing who goes first or base it on a random roll?

Oh and do people like dice rolling or not? It might make sense for a PnP game, but since computers can do calculations very easily is there a more intuitive method of adding variablity to success (or should there even be variablity to success)?

Anyway, those are enough questions for now... I might ask more later. :D

 

[Spazmo]

I prefer action points over D&D telling you you get one move action and one standard action or one full attack or one complex action and any number of free actions and aaargh. It's all a whole lot clearer if you just have a given number of action points and a given AP cost for any action.

Second, I like hexes/grid squares/whatever better as well. If you tell the player his spear lets him threaten an area of ten feet around him, well, that's kind of abstract. But if that ten feet translates into two squares--well, that's better. Also, having a clear one action point = 1 square of movement relation makes it easier for the player to gauge things as well.

As for rolls... well, whenever an RPG says roll, it just means a random variable. There's no question that a CRPG should have far more modifiers on a roll than PnP games (for example, Fallout kept track of the light level in each hex and modified your accuracy accordingly; such calculations would be really tedious in PnP), but a random element is always necessary.

For the specific point of initiative, I like having both. Various modifiers can make you quicker and give you a better reaction speed, but there's always a chance for a freak occurrence in which the ultra-speedy character stumbles on a rock or something.

 

[Human Shield]

Bonuses in TB for me: Skip hidden actions, X-COM has this with a screen coming up saying "hidden actions". Merge some turns; ToEE did this, it is a player option to play non-conflicting (ToEE mite have had a problem with this) turns at the same time. Progress bar for enemy turns, JA2 had this. Animation speed adjust bars, Fallout had this. Have a button to instantly skip to your turn (have a log or playback function if needed).

 

[dojoteef]

Second, I like hexes/grid squares/whatever better as well. If you tell the player his spear lets him threaten an area of ten feet around him, well, that's kind of abstract. But if that ten feet translates into two squares--well, that's better. Also, having a clear one action point = 1 square of movement relation makes it easier for the player to gauge things as well.

I just want to clear up your stance on this. Are you adverse to having a line drawn on the map showing how far you can move and a bar showing how much time is being taken up for each move similar to the way TOEE did it?

 

[Spazmo]

Well, if you have action points and a fixed 1 square per AP movement rate, you don't really need it. Then again, ToEE did a good job of letting you know how far you could move without leaving yourself unable to do anything. Actually, now that I think about it, movement is probably one of those things that a computer can handle better than PnP. Hexes and squares are abstractions used by tabletop D&D to represent movement, but when a computer can easily calculate the actual movement distance and just substract that from your character's 20 ft./rnd movement rate, that works better. The problem, though, is fitting this into APs. D&D just gives you a given amount you can move in a round and that's that (though you can, of course, run or take five foot steps). APs let you choose how much you want to move. So let's say you have a rate of 1 AP = 5 ft. of movement. Can you let players move 2.5 feet? 7.5 feet? Dividing APs into halves is a bit iffy, so you have two solutions. You can give players a large amount of APs per round and devalue the AP itself (like JA2 or Silent Storm) so that 1 AP won't take you very far at all. I don't much like having tons of APs. Having just a handful of action points like Fallout makes it easier to think of what fits into a turn and what doesn't. The other solution is to just only allow players to move by squares or hexes and make players pay a suitable amount per square or hex.

Besides that, it's a lot easier to set up a lot of rules by looking at squares instead of just position. An easy example is attacks of opportunity. In D&D, they occur (though not exclusively) when you leave a threatened square. Well, if you've got no squares... Granted, it's easy to just say that they're caused as soon as a character moves five feet inside of the space a creature threatens, but I think it's a lot easier for the player to think of these things in terms of squares.

So I figure squares vs. not squares depends on what kind of system you're using. For the kind of action point TB I prefer, I think squares really works best.

Oh, and it's late and I'm sort of forming my opinion as I go along.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Well, I could quote Spazmo's first post in this thread and leave it at that. That's also what I love in TB games. Although, I am not prejudiced to variations. But, that is definitely what I would prefer to see in TB combat.

 

[EEVIAC]

You can give players a large amount of APs per round and devalue the AP itself (like JA2 or Silent Storm) so that 1 AP won't take you very far at all. I don't much like having tons of APs. Having just a handful of action points like Fallout makes it easier to think of what fits into a turn and what doesn't.

Agreed, but if you're going to have limitted AP's, why not just use actions like D&D? The problem with AP's is that anything that affects AP's affects everything in combat. A person with more points can attack more/run further/buff AC.

 

[Sarvis]

You can give players a large amount of APs per round and devalue the AP itself (like JA2 or Silent Storm) so that 1 AP won't take you very far at all. I don't much like having tons of APs. Having just a handful of action points like Fallout makes it easier to think of what fits into a turn and what doesn't.

Agreed, but if you're going to have limitted AP's, why not just use actions like D&D? The problem with AP's is that anything that affects AP's affects everything in combat. A person with more points can attack more/run further/buff AC.

Why is that a problem?

 

[EEVIAC]

Because you're making agility (or speed or dexterity or whatever stat you use to determine AP's) more usefull than any other stat. The perks in Fallout allowed you to customize AP use a little better (cheaper attacks or extra AP's for movement,) but if you had 10 in agility there wasn't much point.

 

[Sarvis]

Because you're making agility (or speed or dexterity or whatever stat you use to determine AP's) more usefull than any other stat. The perks in Fallout allowed you to customize AP use a little better (cheaper attacks or extra AP's for movement,) but if you had 10 in agility there wasn't much point.

Most systems end up making strength an all important stat. Elevating the importance of agility sounds like a pretty good idea to me... heh. You have to make sure that the AP bonus isn't too much, or too little, obviously... but there is nothing inherently wrong with giving agile people more moves.

 

[dojoteef]

EEVIAC: How about if you made action points relative to different types of actions. Let's say you are a mage type character and those characters require an intelligence factor for their mage spells. If you make it so that the higher their intelligence the fewer action points it is required to cast spells, won't that offset some of the focus on strictly having high agility for determining action points? The same could be done for different character types. That way any action a character is good at requires fewer action points to complete (the character is more efficient at performing those tasks), while those tasks they aren't so good at require more action points.

I think that sort of system can be taken very far. For example, say for each level of agility (and for the sake of completeness, imagine you can only get 10 levels of agility), you get one action point. The thing is, any actions that require agility cost fewer action points the higher your agility is, thus allowing a person to move farther based on two factors relating to high agility.

Or maybe if you have a more open system like Morrowinds (though without the skill/attribute progression based on repetative use), you could have the player pick one or two attributes that the action points are more useful for and get the advantage for those attributes.

I think action points are a good thing, it's just that an action point system has to be designed with care to be balanced just like all other aspects of the game.

 

[EEVIAC]

If you make it so that the higher their intelligence the fewer action points it is required to cast spells, won't that offset some of the focus on strictly having high agility for determining action points?

Agility would still be the stat to have - if you have a large enough pool to start with you can negate the costs and penalties. Like I said earlier, the problem with AP's is that they're generic, they're the currency of all actions, and they're determined by one stat. In an action system armour might impede movement - you still have the same movement, you just can't do as much with it. Applying the same penalty to an AP system, if you reduce AP's, you reduce a character's ability to attack as well (and if the character only has eight AP's and can make two attacks in a round, that one or two point penalty means a lot.)

You could have a fixed pool of AP's, but then you may as well use an action system.

 

[dojoteef]

Like I said earlier, the problem with AP's is that they're generic, they're the currency of all actions, and they're determined by one stat.

I don't think you are understanding what I said. The way I propose AP's be used makes them affected by multiple stats, not just one. True agility/speed/whatever determines the number of them that you have, but your other attributes determine how effective they are. Here's an analogy (and for the sake of simplicity you only have two attributes in the system and not enough points to fill both attributes to the maximum): Let's say each action point is a stone and the other attribute (say charisma) determines the size of the stone. Also the pool of APs you have for any skill is determined by the total weight of the stones. So let's say you buy the maximum number of stones you won't have as many points to put into charisma, so your stones will be smaller. If you buy the maximum size stones (put as many points as possible into charisma) then you can buy fewer stones, but they are larger. If you've set the system up properly then the combined weight of the stones both ways will be equal, but if you are a character that relies on charisma you're better off with the second system since your stones hurt more when they hit (since they weigh more thus have more mass).

Let's say you are a mage and you spent a considerable amount of points on agility to raise the number of APs you have, but you were left with putting fewer points in intelligence than you had in agility; you would have just made a dumb move considering if you would have reversed where you put your points, you would still be able to cast the same number of spells, but those spells would be more effective/have a higher chance of success/whatever since you would have a higher intelligence.

Heck you might even be able to take the system a step further and remove the link between APs and agility and make the APs just another stat that you can increase. If you think about it for more than two seconds you'll realize that the method I mentioned is determined by more than one stat which negates your argument. If there is something else wrong with the system I proposed, please tell me, but if you base it on the "only one stat matters" I'm just going to disregard your post because it's obvious that you can't find a good reason and your just repeating a tired mantra.

P.S. Sorry for the silly analogy, I'm not very good at that sort of thing.

 

[Spazmo]

(since they weigh more thus have more mass).

Other way around in physical terms, actually.

I like your idea, though. Agility gives you more APs, but increasing the stat relevant to what you want to do with your APs lets you get more out of an AP. This also lets you make interesting character choices. Do you want to make more attacks that aren't as powerful (giving you a better chance of doing some damage) or do you want to consolidate your attacks more to get a better payoff, while running the risk of not doing anything at all due to one or two fumbled rolls?

The only problem, of course, lies in a character whose class/build/what have you depends on agility to begin with, because then he's getting the best of both worlds with just one stat.

 

[dojoteef]

The only problem, of course, lies in a character whose class/build/what have you depends on agility to begin with, because then he's getting the best of both worlds with just one stat.

Well as I said, to offset that, you might make APs a seperate stat that isn't raised by agility, though I'm not certain how well that works. Can you think of any problems in doing it that way?

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

My solution would be to make APs an average of Agility and Intelligence. Sure with a high agility you can move fast, but are you intelligent enough to use those moves wisely? Now, to counterbalance any complaints from those people who want to play a low intelligence PC, but still have a fair amount of APs, you can always let the player spend points for extra AP. Just make them expensive. This way, a character takes the hit in intelligence just to see how it plays will get all these bonus points to spend elsewhere. If they place them all in APs, they may find themselves with an average amount of APs or higher, depending on their Agility.

Now, how this would also work is, the highest amount of APs the character can have would be +50% of their BASE average rounded up. For example, a character of 5 Agl and 5 Int would have 5 APs to start and can only achieve 8 APs maximum, no matter how many point they had to spend. If the system allowed perks, then perhaps there might be one to negate that rule, but it would be a high level perk.

So now you're thinking a highly intelligent and agile character would kick ass. Well, let's look at that. 10 Int and 10 Agl yields 10 APs with a max of 15. Okay, great, they have alot of moves. The way around this would be to have ANY combat related feats not be dependent on Int or Agl alone, nor on both of them together. Magic could be Int and Con based. There's no law that says it's based on Int only. Perhaps magic in the game is of such a nature that wielders need a high constitution to handle the powers which flow through their body when casting spells.

But it's late, and I am tired. Sorry if this doesn't make sense. If not, I will try to further clarify once I have gotten some rest.

 

[EEVIAC]

I don't think you are understanding what I said. The way I propose AP's be used makes them affected by multiple stats, not just one. True agility/speed/whatever determines the number of them that you have, but your other attributes determine how effective they are.

I understand, I just don't see the point. If your going to have stats and skills directly affect what a player can do in a turn, why use AP pools at all? Is there any advantage to the extra level of abstraction? Does it provide more choice, tactics, characterization or customization over a Standard/Full Action system?

Heck you might even be able to take the system a step further and remove the link between APs and agility and make the APs just another stat that you can increase. If you think about it for more than two seconds you'll realize that the method I mentioned is determined by more than one stat which negates your argument.

So having a seperate single killer-stat that dictates AP's is different from having a single killer-stat that dictates AP's, how? If I have to think for more than two seconds to come to those sorts of conclusions, I don't want to!

 

[callehe]

The only problem, of course, lies in a character whose class/build/what have you depends on agility to begin with, because then he's getting the best of both worlds with just one stat.

One solution to this problem could be to limit the effect of agility on stats. If skills and abilities are made more independent of agility it could make the agility-attribute more balanced.

On another point, I think the AP system (as in Fallout) could be greatly improved simply by making AP's transferrable between turns. This would allow a more effective and realistic distribution of actions. For example, if you have 3 APs and it takes 4 APs to shoot with your rifle, you can initiate your action in one turn, and finish it the next; taking 3 points off of current turn and 1 point off of the next turn. This kind of transferrability would make the system more balanced in instances were the weight of 1 AP can make the difference between 2 attacks or 1 attack in a turn.

 

[Elwro]

On another point, I think the AP system (as in Fallout) could be greatly improved simply by making AP's transferrable between turns.

A problem could arise: the best strategy would be to enter combat when you see your enemy 200 metres from you, wait 10 turns, and then make 15 melee attacks with accumulated APs when the enemy gets closer.
Of course it'd be easy to correct such things with adding some limitations.

 

[callehe]

A problem could arise: the best strategy would be to enter combat when you see your enemy 200 metres from you, wait 10 turns, and then make 15 melee attacks with accumulated APs when the enemy gets closer.
Of course it'd be easy to correct such things with adding some limitations.

Yes the problem could be corrected by restricting the transfer to between two adjacent turns only, or you can have a limited pool of APs accumulated (additional points are wasted).

 

[Balor]

Well, I guess I'll be ridiculed, but I prefer real-time with auto-pause. And auto-pause meaning not when some time has passed, or something, but when you are out of queued actions, or something of interest happens - like if you are being shot at, new enemy sighted, etc. Real-time is more realistic then TB, hands down, and auto-pause, if you are allowed to configure it, gives great control over the action - pretty much like in TB - even more so, I'd say (remember interrupts? In Smart Pause system, there is no need for such crude hacks). That's the system E5 utilizes (and, like I heard, to a point, Ufo:Aftermath, but I've not seen it, and anyway, E5 had this system long before U:A game out).
Btw, about agility being the ultimate stat. Well, when it comes to firearms, it is most certainly not. After all, no matter how fast you may push the trigger, the gun mechanics will not fire faster then it physically can - that even more true when we talk about full-auto. Of course, when you attack hand2hand - that is true... to a point. After all, your joints do have friction inside them, after all, which gets higher the faster you move - limiting you maximum speed.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Real-time is more realistic then TB, hands down

Totally disagree. The only way RT can be more realistic than TB is if the player has all the training and battle knowledge and experience of the character he is playing. RT has it's place and I don't hate it. I just prefer TB and think it allows for alot more realism than RT anyday.

 

[Sarvis]

Real-time is more realistic then TB, hands down

Totally disagree. The only way RT can be more realistic than TB is if the player has all the training and battle knowledge and experience of the character he is playing.

Even then you have control issues, timing issues and complexity issues. Not to mention one mind making decisions for 6 people at the same time! AT least with turn based it's only one mind making a choice for each character when it's their turn instead of trying to concentrate on everyone at once!

You lose control over any of your characters because there's just no way to create a good interface that controls several characters at once in real time too.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I don't see what's so realistic about having several characters hack away at each other as the player watches their health drop and attends to the game only to use a healing potion.

The abstraction that turn-based games have allows gameplay of much greater depth than any real time game would offer. Turn based games allow the player to use a variety of skills, items and tactical maneuvers that would otherwise be too cumbersome to do in any sort of real-time environment. Pause and play games like Baldur's Gate 2, KOTOR and Hearts of Iron 2 allow a degree of complexity with action queues, but are far too frantic in comparison to turn-based games for most players to firmly grasp.

 

[dojoteef]

Well, I guess I'll be ridiculed

Wow, you guesed correctly! Though it's not for prefering RT vs. TB. It's for two reasons, first if you don't like TB don't respond to the thread saying you like RT w/pause instead because you aren't contributing to the discussion, you're just throwing it off topic with your remarks. Second is for statements like these:

After all, no matter how fast you may push the trigger, the gun mechanics will not fire faster then it physically can - that even more true when we talk about full-auto. Of course, when you attack hand2hand - that is true... to a point. After all, your joints do have friction inside them, after all, which gets higher the faster you move - limiting you maximum speed.

What the hell kind of crack are you smoking? I can't even begin to understand where that came from.



Anyway, if you have something useful to add please do, otherwise don't post. I thought that should go without saying, but I should have known better.