EEVIAC
Erudite
The more I read this thread the more I wonder whether we're just arguing over semantics. By "tactics" and "depth" do you mean more combat options like ToEE and environmental interactivity like S2? Or do you mean detailed cover and morale rules, differences in chance-to-hit from elevation or running/standing shots? If its the latter, I'm definately opposed. Detail through combat realism for its own sake is bullshit. Games don't need to be realistic to maintain suspension of disbelief. If its the former, that's a different story.
In both Fallout and ToEE the options you have are extensions of character choice, skills you've tagged, feats chosen. In S2 its less about character and more about positioning, using the environment to gain advantages. If we're talking about innovating, there's no reason why a new system couldn't combine both of those aspects. (Maybe that's what you've been suggesting all along.)
More importantly, you haven't sacrificed controll, quick resolutions, or the inherent tension that comes from turn-based systems. The problem with all simultaneous systems (whether you want to call KOTOR or BG phase based or RT + P) is the way in which they present combat scenes to the player through images. How many times has your scout dropped into a skirmish and helped mop a map with a few lucky shots in S2? In a turn based system I can watch each team mate do their thing - the carefull two-turn snipe, the heavy machine gun spray, the impossible "get fucked" head shot from the consistently useless medic. Each of those moments has anticipation and drama completely lost in a simultaneous system. The same drama exists whether its a single character game or party based. The differences aren't just drastic, they're critical.
By the by, I'm not trying to hold up Fallout as a paragon of turn based excellence. Just trying to provide an alternate point of view.
In both Fallout and ToEE the options you have are extensions of character choice, skills you've tagged, feats chosen. In S2 its less about character and more about positioning, using the environment to gain advantages. If we're talking about innovating, there's no reason why a new system couldn't combine both of those aspects. (Maybe that's what you've been suggesting all along.)
More importantly, you haven't sacrificed controll, quick resolutions, or the inherent tension that comes from turn-based systems. The problem with all simultaneous systems (whether you want to call KOTOR or BG phase based or RT + P) is the way in which they present combat scenes to the player through images. How many times has your scout dropped into a skirmish and helped mop a map with a few lucky shots in S2? In a turn based system I can watch each team mate do their thing - the carefull two-turn snipe, the heavy machine gun spray, the impossible "get fucked" head shot from the consistently useless medic. Each of those moments has anticipation and drama completely lost in a simultaneous system. The same drama exists whether its a single character game or party based. The differences aren't just drastic, they're critical.
By the by, I'm not trying to hold up Fallout as a paragon of turn based excellence. Just trying to provide an alternate point of view.